[W:1303]***To Believe or Not To Believe

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Which means it is unreasonable to believe it to be true.

Why? Circular reasoning is not always fallacious, you know...

Because logic is a thing.

A thing which you either deny or are at least slightly ignorant of...

So, sad to say, it is illogical to believe Christian nonsense,

No, it is not.

especially when they defend slavery as moral and just.

Bigotry and contextomy.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

... I can only say that God is the inference to the best explanation of the universe, life, and consciousness. God is the necessary and sufficient condition for any experience of the world that resembles mine.

Which would of course beg the question... what is God?

Because of long misuse, there are now two meanings of "to beg the question": the original meaning of circularity and the bastardized meaning of invite. If you mean the former, I disagree; if you mean the latter, I agree.

*whoosh*

Didn't quite catch the meaning of your reply, sorry.

Here's the context, OM.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Is "regulation" of behavior equivalent to "approval" of behavior? Is the allowing of marijuana to be legalized the same thing as approval of recreational marijuana usage? Is allowing gay marriage to be legalized the same thing as approval of homosexual relationships?


No, I don't.


Slavery was different in that historic context... It wasn't like we think of it today... It was more about working for someone to pay back debts...


The Bible speaks against abortion. It claims that human life is very sacred.


Nowhere does it say that women ought to be treated as subservient. With God, there is no "slave" and "freeman", no "man" and "woman"... for they are all one in Christ Jesus... Wives should submit to their husbands, as their husband is the "head of household", but wives definitely weren't created to be treated as subordinates to their husbands. They were created as helpers, as "partners", as "compliments"...


You have little understanding of the accusations which you bring forth...

If slavery is immoral, and god is the source of all morality, what was preventing god from stating that rather than making no comment on its morality at all except as to how to own slaves?

 

[OlNate]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You have consistently generalized negative things about atheists. Stop being flippant only about atheists and make some flippant remarks about theists.

lol...I do that too. My resting state is flippant. If you weren't so triggered, you'd see that. But some folks tend to lose perspective as soon as they step into this sub forum.

But, since you made a rather serious assertion, maybe you'd like to back up that statement. Please link to where I have "consistently generalized atheists negatively", without specifying the type of atheist I'm talking about. If I was sloppy, I'll own it, because that's certainly not how I feel. But I think you've got your work cut out for you. I have many atheist friends who don't go out of their way to ridicule me about my faith and beliefs. Probably because I generally don't seek out that kind of asshole as a friend.

The only generalization that I will make is that every demographic has it's own share of angels and assholes. :shrug: Beyond that, it's all just noise and nonsense.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Why? Circular reasoning is not always fallacious, you know...


A thing which you either deny or are at least slightly ignorant of...


No, it is not.


Bigotry and contextomy.

Circular reasoning is always fallacious. Philisophy says so. Don't deny Philosophy.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

No it doesn't. It could mean that they no longer wish to share something that means a lot to them with you, because of your approach to the subject. The problem that atheists and theists have, when debating religion, is that it means the world to one, and nothing to the other. Smart people realize this, and set boundaries. If your respect level drops below a certain level, the conversation is over.

My suggestion to you, if you actually want to talk to theists about their faith, is show respect. Not for their religion, I wouldn't dare go that far, but for the person to whom religion is important. Demand the same in return, to be sure... But if you aren't willing to extend some respect for the person telling you something they care deeply about, and know out of the gates you think is hooey, that's on you if they dismiss you, and I honestly don't know where you figure you get off stating otherwise. The only thing I think that proves about someone in that scenario is that they have a low tolerance for assholes. :shrug:

Exactly! My post history will show that I can be very in-depth, conversational, nice, respectful, etc. towards people who are willing to engage in polite discussion and who don't commit logical fallacies in every other argument that they present to me [even if I happen to disagree with them.. I've been having good conversations with one particular poster right now who I disagree with]... But when people are rude, asshole-ish, commit fallacies constantly, etc, then I get short and to the point (which, in text form, comes across as asshole-ish) and I just lose patience for any real attempt at deeper conversation.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Exactly! My post history will show that I can be very in-depth, conversational, nice, respectful, etc. towards people who are willing to engage in polite discussion and who don't commit logical fallacies in every other argument that they present to me [even if I happen to disagree with them.. I've been having good conversations with one particular poster right now who I disagree with]... But when people are rude, asshole-ish, commit fallacies constantly, etc, then I get short and to the point (which, in text form, comes across as asshole-ish) and I just lose patience for any real attempt at deeper conversation.

This post is fallacious.

 

[OlNate]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Exactly! My post history will show that I can be very in-depth, conversational, nice, respectful, etc. towards people who are willing to engage in polite discussion and who don't commit logical fallacies in every other argument that they present to me [even if I happen to disagree with them.. I've been having good conversations with one particular poster right now who I disagree with]... But when people are rude, asshole-ish, commit fallacies constantly, etc, then I get short and to the point (which, in text form, comes across as asshole-ish) and I just lose patience for any real attempt at deeper conversation.

You need to learn flippancy...or the words "good bye"... Unless it's entertaining to get into brawls, then by all means fill your boots...but you lose your claim to the high road in that conversation if you do. Which isn't the end of the world either...again, fun is fun.

But I think self awareness is important in these situations, as you never want to use your faith in vain in order to win an anonymous internet forum debate...hehe... I once saw someone getting their ass handed to them by an atheist (which, let's be honest, we always will eventually, because debate has got far more to do with logic than faith, while religion is the opposite), and they actually said "Ya, well, you can be as smug as you want, as you burn in Hell for all eternity!!!!". All I could think of was dang, that's gonna lead to an awkward conversation on judgement day. :lol:

Anyway, just my two cents. I love and hate this sub forum...hehe... It can be a lot of fun, or be pretty toxic...or both. hehe... Maybe I'm weird.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

The basic scientific method (and there are different models) is

Whoaaaaaa.... wait up... then which model is the correct one?

Either ask a question and then make observations or from observations formulate a question.

I think here you are trying to come up with a theory [explanatory argument]??

Form a hypothesis: a possible answer to the question

Not answer, but a possible falsification of the theory from above.

Test the hypothesis by making predictions (often through experiments)

Not by making predictions, but by attempting to find conflicting evidence.

Successful predictions support, but do not prove the hypothesis.

True (knowing that you mean theory instead of hypothesis), which is why supporting evidence isn't used in science. It doesn't further legitimize, bless, sanctify, nor make holy any theory of science. All science concerns itself with is conflicting evidence. -- Here, you are blending science and religion. You would be able to, under this "method" of science, "hypothesize" that Christianity is both supported AND rejected by science... which is a paradox... which is irrational...

Failed predictions prove at least the part of the hypothesis tested to be wrong.

Science doesn't "predict"... It attempts to falsify theories [explanatory arguments].

If there is strong support for the hypothesis and it has not failed testing, a theory can be formed, subject to continuous testing.

Define "strong support"... Right now it is a buzzword... You already had the theory from the start; here, you were trying to falsify your theory, and if it didn't get falsified, then it became a theory of science (and remained one so long as it continued surviving null hypothesis testing)

Or, if there is a clear pattern/relationship that is always true, it is often termed a Law (theories do not become laws).

Not how laws are formed. Laws DO come from theories. A law is simply a formalized theory. That formalization is usually by way of mathematics. Essentially, a law makes a theory into a closed functional system, giving it the power of proof.

I’m not sure where you got your odd idea of science.

From educating myself on what science actually is, instead of mindlessly regurgitating what I was taught in school...


Science starts with a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. That theory MUST be falsifiable. One then forms a null hypothesis for that theory. A null hypothesis best answers the question "how can I falsify this theory"? The null hypothesis must be specific, accessible, etc... If the theory survives this null hypothesis testing, then it becomes a theory of science (and remains one so long as it continues to survive testing). If, at any point, it fails a single null hypothesis test, then it is no longer a theory of science. That theory is now completely destroyed. If a theory of science becomes formalized (usually by way of mathematics), then that theory becomes a law.


That's how science actually works. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less... no "predictions", no "consensus", no "elite bloc of scientists", no "supporting evidence", no "proof", etc. etc...

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You need to learn flippancy...or the words "good bye"...

It depends on how I feel at any given time. Sometimes I just ignore, sometimes I engage.

Unless it's entertaining to get into brawls, then by all means fill your boots...but you lose your claim to the high road in that conversation if you do. Which isn't the end of the world either...again, fun is fun.

True true.

But I think self awareness is important in these situations, as you never want to use your faith in vain in order to win an anonymous internet forum debate...hehe... I once saw someone getting their ass handed to them by an atheist (which, let's be honest, we always will eventually, because debate has got far more to do with logic than faith, while religion is the opposite), and they actually said "Ya, well, you can be as smug as you want, as you burn in Hell for all eternity!!!!". All I could think of was dang, that's gonna lead to an awkward conversation on judgement day. :lol:

:lamo Yeahhhh, that's not exactly something to be smug about... As a believer, it's a thought that saddens me, rather than a thought that I smugly throw at people's faces.

Anyway, just my two cents. I love and hate this sub forum...hehe... It can be a lot of fun, or be pretty toxic...or both. hehe... Maybe I'm weird.

Yes, you're weird.

But no, I overall just enjoy it for what it is. If I don't enjoy something, I ignore it and move on.

I don't even really try to argue for Christianity anymore, unless that's the specific topic or if someone asks me to (and is legit about wanting to discuss)... Now, I typically just try to educate people about what religion actually is and how it works, and lately I've been having fun with "atheism is a lack of belief in god(s)" atheists.

It's all good fun, and I have learned quite a bit from these discussions (usually not "in the moment", but after a bit of time and reflection on the information which was exchanged).

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Whoaaaaaa.... wait up... then which model is the correct one?


I think here you are trying to come up with a theory [explanatory argument]??


Not answer, but a possible falsification of the theory from above.


Not by making predictions, but by attempting to find conflicting evidence.


True (knowing that you mean theory instead of hypothesis), which is why supporting evidence isn't used in science. It doesn't further legitimize, bless, sanctify, nor make holy any theory of science. All science concerns itself with is conflicting evidence. -- Here, you are blending science and religion. You would be able to, under this "method" of science, "hypothesize" that Christianity is both supported AND rejected by science... which is a paradox... which is irrational...


Science doesn't "predict"... It attempts to falsify theories [explanatory arguments].


Define "strong support"... Right now it is a buzzword... You already had the theory from the start; here, you were trying to falsify your theory, and if it didn't get falsified, then it became a theory of science (and remained one so long as it continued surviving null hypothesis testing)


Not how laws are formed. Laws DO come from theories. A law is simply a formalized theory. That formalization is usually by way of mathematics. Essentially, a law makes a theory into a closed functional system, giving it the power of proof.


From educating myself on what science actually is, instead of mindlessly regurgitating what I was taught in school...


Science starts with a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. That theory MUST be falsifiable. One then forms a null hypothesis for that theory. A null hypothesis best answers the question "how can I falsify this theory"? The null hypothesis must be specific, accessible, etc... If the theory survives this null hypothesis testing, then it becomes a theory of science (and remains one so long as it continues to survive testing). If, at any point, it fails a single null hypothesis test, then it is no longer a theory of science. That theory is now completely destroyed. If a theory of science becomes formalized (usually by way of mathematics), then that theory becomes a law.


That's how science actually works. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less... no "predictions", no "consensus", no "elite bloc of scientists", no "supporting evidence", no "proof", etc. etc...

How did you educate youself? Merely by thinking? I hope you didn't refer at all to outside sources, like you education. You know, the education that introduced you to science. If you reject your education, why do you call anything science? You should more precisely refer to all your ideas as gfmism. You need to create your own personal vocabulary. You can't use words like science because you did not create the word.

 

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Are you done with your petulant name calling and insinuation?

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Circular reasoning is always fallacious. Philisophy says so. Don't deny Philosophy.

No it is not...

Not Philosophy, Logic...

You are denying Logic.

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Here's the context, OM.

Yeah, I got all that - up until your last response.

**whoosh**


OM

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

If slavery is immoral, and god is the source of all morality, what was preventing god from stating that rather than making no comment on its morality at all except as to how to own slaves?

The God of the Bible was only as moral as the epoch in which he/it was conceptualized?



OM

 

[zyzygy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

The God of the Bible was only as moral as the epoch in which he/it was conceptualized?



OM

Good point.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Yeah, I got all that - up until your last response....

My last response picked up on your point about "begging the question."

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Good point.

Slavery, "final battles" fought with swords on horseback, God as a bearded king on a throne of a kingdom above an unreachable firmament, "sinners" whose names are "blotted out" from a book. You'd think that if the God of the Bible was omnipotent and omniscient, he wouldn't have to rely on all this Bronze Aged technology.


OM

 

[nota bene]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I'm sorry, do my questions offend you? Instead of focusing on my delivery, deal with the content. Hence why I demanded your answers before. Disliking the delivery system doesn't mean the payload isn't on point. Typical diversion tactic, akin to claiming racism to get out of arguing an inconvenient point.

Well, I came to a screeching halt at "demanded." Being on point isn't going to matter much if your tone has turned somebody off. Delivery does matter, however much you'd like to rationalize that objecting to someone's tone is somehow a diversion.

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

My last response picked up on your point about "begging the question."

Yeah, I understand you were replying to me, by virtue of there were words in your reply. I just didn't understand what they all meant when placed together. I'm not saying that to sound d***ish; I honestly haven't the slightest clue of what message your were attempting to convey.


OM

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Yeah, I understand you were replying to me, by virtue of there were words in your reply. I just didn't understand what they all meant when placed together. I'm not saying that to sound d***ish; I honestly haven't the slightest clue of what message your were attempting to convey.

I said God is an inference to the best explanation etc.
You said this "begs the question" what IS God.
I said there are two meanings of "begs the question," and on one meaning I agree with you, on the other meaning I don't agree with you.
"Begs the question" used to mean circular reasoning, but nowadays also means "invites the question."

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I said God is an inference to the best explanation etc.
You said this begs the question what IS God.
I said there are two meanings of "begs the question." and on one meaning I agree with you, on the other meaning I don't agree with you.
"Begs the question used to mean circular reasoning, but nowadays also means "invites the question."

Thank you.


OM

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I can assure you that for myself and the atheists I know it has nothing to do with bad faith and everything to do with not wanting to make claims that we can't back up. For me it's very simple. I can't defend the position that there is no god, therefor I don't claim it. I would think someone as astute as yourself on these issues would agree wholeheartedly with me that if I can't defend a position I shouldn't hold it correct?

If a person said "I lack belief" and then denied that "I don't believe" then he'd be incorrect by definition. Can you quote someone here that has said he lacks belief in god but backs down form saying "I don't believe in god"?

I think you are stepping around the issue a great deal. What you really are upset about, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that atheists won't come out and say "I believe there is no god" rather than "I don't believe in a god". Do I have that right? And id so, why do you think atheists should make a claim like "I believe there is no god" if that's not what they believe?

Thanks for your response.

Edit: I put "good" faith instead of "bad" faith on accident. Apologies.

Reply coming first thing in the morning.
Much obliged for your good-faith conversation.
Peace.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

To believe, or not to believe, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The fools and frauds of delusional godlessness,
Or to take manure fork to a pile of horse flops,
And by tossing clean out the barn:
--William Shakespeare, The Cockalorum of Chester, Act 2, Scene 1


In this lesser-known tragedy Shakespeare creates one of his great comic figures, the Cestrian Duke Dimmesdale whose unrequited love for a vulgar tavern wench proves his undoing. The titular cockalorum, the Duke, like many of Shakespeare's most memorable characters, is singularly devoid of self-awareness, the very soul of conceited foolishness, and his delusional pursuit of the slatternly Athea while his dukedom falls to shambles stands with Shakespeare's finest creations. Some scholars read in the story of the Duke's fall a cautionary tale about the dangers of a facile atheism.

Good point.

This post is fallacious.

No he is quoting a well known English author.

Using litterary quotes to make you seem more clever and educated is a double edged sword.

But it's a false authority fallacy! :roll:

Reviews were mixed in Elizabethan times as well. But the theme is perennial.
Auditions for the DP production are ongoing.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Theists might; atheists shouldn't. Or rather, if atheists accept a generic god, then they are not atheists.

If a theist accepts a generic God, does he not reject his/her more explicit God? If the details conflict, there is no resolution - they contradict.