Wodan
Deity
I'm not sure about that. For example, didn't the 30 years war kill a ton of people? Shoot, I'll go look. 4 million.Mr.Domino said:
Wodan
This game discriminates against Atheists!
- Thread starter Ermak-
- Start date
Wodan
GIO888
King
If you're an atheist, you beeline for free religion, as far as I can see. If you're a Gaian or Pagan and want to "stay true" to that, you're penalized if you stay "Pagan" as a civic, more as the game progresses.
Devil's advocating, and all that.
Devil's advocating, and all that.
Diamond621 said:Atheists have nothing to prove - this is the fundamental flaw of this common religious argument above. I have a book sitting next to my bed that was written by pink elephants who lived on Pluto 4,000 years ago. Can you scientifically prove the book's origins to be untrue, given the lack of imaging technology advanced enough to study the physical surface of Pluto? Nope! Therefore, by the consistent application of your argument, we are forced to conclude that the book next to my bed is genuine. In order to support your own reasoning method, nearly all religiously minded people apply scientific principles ad-hoc, through selective observation of embracing science when it supports them and ignoring science when it does not. This is simply not valid reasoning.
In any argument over substance vs. lack of substance, the burden of proof ALWAYS rests on the affirmative position. Just because you cannot prove the origins of the book next to my bed to be false, that does not inherently make them true. Atheists have absolutely nothing to 'prove' to reinforce their position. Given that the 'religious' viewpoint is more commonly rooted in mythology and tradition than in scientific fact, atheists and most rational people typically eschew it. Can we PROVE that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe, or PROVE that evolution is the true means of the emergence of human life on Earth? No - however they are simply the best explanations for these events that science has currently come up with, and so we accept them as true in the absence of a better explanation. Can you come up with a better suggestion for these events that is rooted in logic and reasonable thought instead of rooted in 'faith' and superstition? No? Well that's a damn shame. We go with what we have until we find something better - it is the way of the world.
As AvianAvenger said u missed the point, wether you like it or not, u have to "Believe" there is no God, to believe that you need faith. Also talking about evolution and the big bang being the "best esplanation" you know that by the laws of science the big bang is NOT possible. (i have to cut this show gotta go to work).
Diamond621
Chieftain
GIDS888 said:
I'm not sure I agree with you there, because free religion indirectly includes Paganism. I basically see free religion as "Paganism Plus Bonuses" to an extent.
Diamond621
Chieftain
Chose said:
There is no need for the element of faith in the instance of atheism, because fundamentally it bases understanding and 'belief' upon proof, measurable and testable hypotheses and results one can see, touch, and measure. I was taught in elementary school that 2 + 2 = 4. Do I need to have faith in order to believe that to be true? No, because it is a fact.
I do not need to have faith that God doesn't exist because no rational evidence exists that convinces any reasonably-minded person of any alternative. If there were a radical mathematical sect out there that 'blasphemously' taught schoolchildren that 2 + 2 = 5, despite all evidence that it equals 4, then yes, that would be a viewpoint that would require a great deal of faith to support and embrace. This is the equivelant of religion in the modern era of human development - a point of view contradicted by all rational authority that still maintains its insistence on the literal truth of its teachings.
Science has fundamentally and systematically destroyed the credibility and accuracy of every religious text in the world's history (the bedrock for most matters of faith, as it were). If I can prove to you that the Bible is not the divine, infallible, literal and inspired word of the Lord Thy God (which I easily can on multiple occurences), then I have cut the head off of your religion (in this case the popular example of Christianity), and your 'body' will soon die without the guidance of the neural center of the brain. When there is no backing that is not found in your own scripture to support your conclusion, then that is a view that requires faith to embrace. Mine is not.
Benjamin Franklin, an early American statesman, thinker and non-Christian, once rightly pointed out that to "see with the eye of faith, one must close the eye of reason," or words to that effect. A viewpoint contradicted by science, facts, logic and reason is the only viewpoint that requires 'faith' to believe in. Atheism is supported, rather than weakened, by appeals to rationality - it requires no 'faith' to embrace, only a brain capable of knowing that 2 + 2 = 4
As for the Big Bang, the underlying physical principles behind it render it entirely possible. Plausible or a particularly 'strong' theory by scientific standards? Certainly not, but as Sherlock Holmes pointed out, "once you remove the impossible, that which remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." While the quote does not translate precisely into this discussion, you can take "once you remove the the impossible" to mean "once you remove all points of view not in any way based upon rational thought (read as: Scripture)", and "must be the truth" to mean "must be the truth we accept for the time being until a better one is uncovered". A sloppy transciption, but effective in this scenario nonetheless.
I do so enjoy arguing with religious folk. Their arguments are usually so easy to tear down that it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Have your beliefs, people, but please, follow three simple rules.
1) Keep them to yourself.
2) Keep them out of civilized adult discussion in the twenty-first century.
3) If you must talk about them, try to at least SOUND intelligent and convincing.
I am a student at the University of Minnesota double-majoring in sociology and theology. You will have to do better than this
.Chose said:
I completely disagree. I actually think my atheism is characterized by a complete lack of faith in everything. I don't believe in a god. I don't even believe that the universe needs to have a beginning and an end. It is entirely possible that it has always existed and always will. Mostly I don't believe anything, I am just open minded about what we will learn in the future. But I do think the idea that some mythical, magical god created everything is a bit too convenient.
Oh, and you show your ignorance of science by discussing the "laws" of science. Scientists don't even refer to them as laws. And scientists working on the big bang theory already know that their current theories break down as you approach a singular point of origin. That's why they are working on revising those theories. The theories which you call "laws" explain most of the rest of the known universe, but can't capture the big bang yet. This is the way science works. You fit your theory to account for all the known observations, then modify your theory as new information is available. Its called the scientific method and you can actually research it in every Civ game.
Diamond621
Chieftain
AvianAvenger said:
Brett is on the right track here to refuting this laughably weak argument. This frequent and drastic misunderstanding of the word 'theory' by fundamentalists represents quite well their very profound disconnect with the world of normal human thought, science and rationality.
Scientific individuals use the word 'theory' to mean 'explanation'.
Humanity has developed 'Cell Theory', which explains the fundamental workings of cells. Are there any reputable scientists who claim that cells do not exist?
Humanity has developed "Atomic Theory", which describes the behavior, function and structure of atoms. Are there any reputable scientists who claim that atoms do not exist?
Humanity has developed "Gravitational Theory," which explains the concept of gravity. Are there any reputable scientists who claim that gravity does not exist?
The Theory of Evolution, just like the theories above, is not a scientific concept that is in question by those who label it a 'theory'. Is is an explanation for how the concept of cumulative natural selection operates, and describes its principles, methods, means and conclusions. It is the culmination of the work of THOUSANDS of scientists over one hundred and fifty years of history. The fact that Darwin's name is so frequently attached to the concept is a testament to the fact that Darwin's initial observations and theories have been proven mostly correct, and have required very little change over the 150 years since The Origin of Species.
The debate among the scientific community that is on the forefront of this type of study is not WHETHER Evolution caused us to come into being, but HOW it played its course. The evidence for evolution, if the narrow minds of fundamentalists will hear it, is just as strong as for the examples above.
kcbrett5 said:
Intelligent fallling anyone?
Chose said:
Yes, it has. No, you don't.
If you had read the whole thread you'd know that this has been broached several times already but I'll repeat it using different words:
the BASELINE is emptyness. nothingness. Imagine if you will an empty cup or, if you will, a tabula rasa. This is atheism. It is an absence of something, not a presence of something. the religious person then pours belief into that empty cup. the cup now represents the PRESENCE of belief as there is a big pool of belief in it.
now pour that cup out again - back to atheism. I understand that for believers, the idea of there being NOTHING in that cup is not only counter intuitive but somewhat scary, but that doesn't mean you can arbitrarily change the definition of an empty cup. (and for those who will now argue that the cup is full of air and that makes atheists full of hot air, put a lid on it will you
)on tolerance:
like it or not folks, TOLERANCE is not a good thing. it is not something to be striven (word?) for. The inherent implication of tolerance is this:
"I think you are DEAD wrong. I couldn't disagree more. however, in the interest of not killing each other, I guess I'll pretend I don't hate your guts for the time being."
This is the ONLY definition of tolerance that matters because tolerating something implies that, if you had your druthers, you wouldn't tolerate it. Otherwise, you'd be ACCEPTING it, not tolerating it.
the ideal to strive for, IMHO, is understanding and agreement. But of course, that's not always going to happen which is why tolerance exists. it is the shady middle ground between "yes, I totally agree" and "you're wrong so you now must die". My point here is this : if you have a strongly held religious belief, unfortunately, the most you can hope for in terms of other religions (or absence of religions) is tolerance. and as long as tolerance is what it is, a backhanded compliment that implies wrongheadedness, it will always be that way.
embrace it
Diamond621
Chieftain
Lateralis said:
Well put, Lateralis. Our thoughts complement each other well.
yes, I was busy typing while you were it seems.
why is the concept of scientific theory so hard for people to grasp I wonder?
And I'll just add a quick quote from bill maher:
"don't be so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance." he was referring to the idea that the world will allow all sort of things (women can't vote or show more that centimeter of flesh) if you wrap them up in "religion". hey man, it's their "religion" so you can disagree but you gotta respect it.
no.
no you don't.
why is the concept of scientific theory so hard for people to grasp I wonder?
And I'll just add a quick quote from bill maher:
"don't be so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance." he was referring to the idea that the world will allow all sort of things (women can't vote or show more that centimeter of flesh) if you wrap them up in "religion". hey man, it's their "religion" so you can disagree but you gotta respect it.
no.
no you don't.
Diamond621
Chieftain
Big fan of Real Time. Hear hear 
AfterShafter
Deity
Diamond621 said:
Diamond, there's a very simple argument I heard someone make as to why they didn't subscribe to the idea of solipsism which fits quite nicely here. The argument is, in short form, that this fellow didn't believe in solipsism because the only proof that could be offered was to disprove it, so why have faith in solipsism if it could only be disproven? I'll try and give a longer form as it pertains to a religious case here.
Atheism postulates that there is no divine being - it is saying that, out of all things that exist, there is nothing that fits a religious definition of a god. This is making a statement which, to conclusively verify it, one must have examined all things enough to verify that nothing in all of existence fits the bill of a divine being Until one has examined all things, one cannot *conclusively* verify that there is no divine being. Talk about what reason suggests, and what a reasonable person would do, all you want - until all things are examined, you're operating from a position which is, at its base, an unsure one. If you commit to the statement that there is surely no god, you take it, at base, on faith.
Now, I don't know about you, but examining every thing in the universe in any conclusive sense seems an impossibility to me, based on human limitations - so, this position of sureness that there is no god figure is unreachable. This means that we can't ever eliminate the possibility that something we haven't examined yet fits the description of a divine being. Thus there are only two states of sureness as to the existence of god that can even be attained - that we find a god and then are sure a god exists, should we find a divine being, or that we are not sure – a state of unsureness.
Now, when confronted with the options of admitting to being ultimately undecided, having faith in the possibility that there is a god figure and we may one day find it, or having faith in the position that there isn't one which we can't ever conclude with sureness... What does rationality suggest there? Atheism seems the only *completely* irrational one because, the moment you prove anything on this matter conclusively, it will be that a god exists, since we've established that we can't prove that a god doesn't. If you bet on atheism, you're betting your lottery ticket is a loser when you *know* you're never going to find out what the winning numbers are. However much probability stacks in favour of it being a loser, if you can't even possibly know, at its base saying "This IS a loser" is a piece of irrational faith.
On a slightly different note, it seems like you have a great deal of faith in reason, and you cite examples of "Am I not supposed to believe that 2 + 2 = 4? It's a fact!" and all that. Well, the great atheist Friedrich Nietzsche has a clever little line of reasoning in The Will to Power's section of biology and the drive to knowledge which always made me chuckle. We look at organs like the eyes or the ears and, if we examine them, we see they are made interact with the outside world in a way to reveal information to us. If we're good evolutionary theorists, of course, we recognize that there was some variation of a process of natural selection leading up to this by which the organ developed the detection abilities that were necessary to its survival in order to reach this point. As such, the eye never developed the ability to detect many things which were inconsequential to the survival of the organism, and there are many things which the ear simply can't hear - this is the way evolution works. Nietzsche even suggests that an organ which is too accurate and revealing may be harmful - if too much information is coming in, too many things which aren't necessary for survival, it will confuse the organism and, for the purpose of survival, make it less effective. Therefore, reason suggests that the pictures painted by each organ is ultimately incomplete, almost by design (attributing design to the universe is a big Nietzschean no-no, but, much easier to speak that way).
Let us then look at our reason. Where does this come from? As I'm sure you're willing to admit, it's no gift from a god (oh wait, I guess we can't be *sure* of that - but indulge me in this little diversion of faith for a moment). In fact, reason suggests that it is a mechanism of the mind, our brain. Reason also suggests that our brain developed in the same way that our eyes and our ears did - and therefore its tool of reason also developed in a similar manner. Think then on the limitation of the eyes and the ears - that there is some information they don't detect, indeed, maybe even information they were made not to detect because such information would be counterproductive to human survival. The picture they paint is incomplete, and though the eye is ignorant of the eye's lack of ability, it’s lack is definitely a fact of the eye. If the eye can be lacking in this way, doesn’t reason suggest that reason, which developed by the same process as the eye, would be subject to the same rules of development – and that reason could also be similarly lacking? Aren’t we then using what could be a flawed tool to examine itself – and yet we’re willing to say that its findings are sure things? Do we trust a microscope which we cannot test other than by examining it with itself? Couldn’t this lead to a flaw in the lens rendering us unable to see a flaw in the lens – leaving us ignorant of the inaccuracy of the instrument, with no way to ever become aware? \
Can't you see how this circularity in trying to verify the accuracy of the instrument applies to your reason, and then complicates any stock you place in the findings of said reason? Our faith in reason stems from our reason analysing our reason and finding it to be a sound instrument. This being the case, when you consider what old Nietzsche considered, it’s only reasonable to admit that reason may in fact be quite unreasonable and misleading – and we have no way to find out. The achievements of human knowledge - scientific included - have been built on a foundation of "Well, we know we can't ever *really* get to the bottom of this, but in the interest of not getting caught in a skeptical web, let's choose what seems like a likely starting point and just going with it." It's unfortunate that some people forget this caveat that lies at the very basis of all human knowledge has built.
I could get into Nietzschean arguments about the world as becoming rather than being, and how even the artifices of mathematics, geometry, and logic are tools aimed at the preservation of the species rather than truth, or even the ever popular Cartesian evil genius argument, but I don’t see any need to get into more sceptical arguments here. What is clear to any reasonable person is that we take reason’s findings on a faith, and if we proceed along that faith, intellectual integrity demands that we not parade our reasonable findings as conclusive truth in any absolute sense – instead, we must do as Nietzsche suggests:
“Let us introduce the refinement and rigor of mathematics into all sciences as far as this is at all possible, not in the faith that this will lead us to know things but in order to determine our human relation to things. Mathematics is merely the means for general and ultimate knowledge of man.”
Now, all this being said, when I realized some of these things myself, I started feeling a bit disingenuous every time I tried to tell a religious person that I knew the truth and they didn’t, and that my reason had led me to this truth. Their arguments may be based on a faith with less evidence than my position (I certainly am not religious!) but I recognize that my position is a contingent one, and the reason I place at its basis is a tool which can't be be tested for accuracy in any truly revealing way, if one heeds its own requirements.
Now, this all being said, don’t’ be so smug when going after religious faith – makes you look silly as your parade your own articles of faith as if they were conclusive facts. In fact, it makes you look like a petulant little kid saying “I TOLD YA SO!” when he finally found some supposed proof that Superman could beat up Batman. I mean, sure, we all know the deck is stacked in Superman’s favour, but we don’t *really* know what the outcome would be, and we are making claims about our rationality, it would be better to rationally admit that then rub Superman’s super powers in a Batman fan’s face.
Diamond621
Chieftain
AfterShafter said:
Your post is for the most part correct, however this paragraph in particular reveals to me reveals an inherent flaw in the argument you push - which is essentially a very long and drawn-out appeal to the tune that: "people believe in God because there is no reason not to - the potential consequences of non-belief outweigh the potential benefits of remaining neutral." Essentially you are saying religious people RIGHTFULLY believe a person has everything to gain by subscribing to a religion, and nothing to lose. If I MIGHT win the lottery, then what's the point in not buying a ticket?
The implicit add-on to your statement of "Until one has examined all things, one cannot *conclusively* verify that there is no divine being" is simply "...so we should be open to the possibility that one exists until it is 'proven' otherwise." This is not valid reasoning, because it is simply inverted and distorted logic. It can be applied to ANY situation, no matter how absurd. To use a popular example, I cannot conclusively verify that there are no microscopic pink elephants living on Pluto. Therefore, should I be open to the possibility that they exist? No. No I shouldn't, because it is not something which is realistic to a sensible individual. Your argument about 'using a flawed instrument to examine a flawed instrument' strikes me as a bit shaky because it breaks down due to sheer impossibility at more than 1 or 2 levels of separation. We have machines that can verify the integrity of other machines. Machines manufacture a vast majority of microscrope lenses, I imagine. And if the 'correcting' machines are suspected to be broken or in error, then other machines exist to check the accuracy of THOSE machines. Given the statistically low failure rate of things such as properly maintained microscope lenses (unless of course the computer that extrapolated the failure rate was also flawed, in which case we'll get started on correcting that with a machine...that may or may not be flawed. We'll get right to work correcting THAT machine with another machine...etc.). After one or two 'leaps of faith' (for lack of a better term) the odds of this become for statistical purposes zero. This is why humans design machines to correct and proofread other machines. Redundancy creates consistency and security.
By 'defaulting' to this type of argument (belief for lack of a reason not to) it loses credibility in my and hopefully your mind, because as I mentioned before, the burden of proof in a question of substance vs lack of substance (popularly, "does God exist?") always rests with the affirmative position. There should be no stake placed in the affirmative position until it can be verified. I no more have to prove that God doesn't exist than I have to prove that there are no pink elephants living on Pluto. In this example you describe, the flaw in the religious reasoning is presumptuously assuming that this 'lottery' even exists in the first place - that we have any reasonable inclination to believe in a god. We are no more likely to find 'a god' in the future than we are to find, say, a tall man carrying around a bag of germs as the fundamental cause of cancer. Shall I embrace the tall man with bag of germs explanation for cancer, on the same grounds of reasoning that I should accept the possibility of God?
And the wonderful part about the argument is that it is incompatible with a singular idea of religion to begin with. I have studied the Koran, and it claims eternal reward for those who give their life in service of Allah. We should all become Muslims, then, because the consequences (or in this case the rewards, more appropriately) are better than atheism's position of nothing at all. I have also studied the Bible, which claims eternal reward for those who follow the teachings and life of Jesus Christ. But wait...didn't the Koran already tell me something similar? Which is 'correct'? Here is where the argument begins to break down, because to acknowledge the possibility of a god for one particular way of thinking immediately precludes the possibility of another god for another means of thinking. You tell me that I should acknowledge the possibility of the truth of a god - but which god? Zeus? Allah? Jehovah? Batman?
Christians never stop to consider that they are in as much danger of going to, say, the Hindu version of Hell for their heretical beliefs, than I am to go to the Christian one for mine. The argument is also flawed in its very premise that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by converting to a religion, never mind the unanswerable question I have posed to you of which one. In this case the person who wins this alleged 'lottery' receives something good. While this is the case for any modern state or national lottery system, the very principle of a lottery doesn't necessarily include it. What if the winner of this lottery, which is advertised as being played for money, is instead 'rewarded' by being decapitated? The effect of religion on an individual is always assumed to be positive by the religiously-minded. Like it or not, the life on Earth is the ONLY life we are positive that we will experience. If you sacrifice your time, energy, mind, and in the example of Islam your life, then you have lost 'everything', which you supposedly set out to gain in the first place.
It's called Pascal's Wager, and it is a common argument for religious 'tolerance' and staying on the fence about God. It was delved into heavily by Nietzsche and other philosophers, but ultimately it relies on flawed logic to convey its points (namely, the two fallacies of circular reasoning (using its conclusion as a hidden premise), and ad ignorantiam (claiming the truth of an argument because it cannot be proved false) ) - making the conclusions it reaches meaningless.
hey, I'm religious and I get that atheism is, philosophically speaking, the baseline or null hypothesis. But humans aren't inherently rational beings, which is why we have an underlying tendency towards religion. I still dispute the claim that religion has killed more people (in which case total number of killed in a war matters, regardless of total population) or even started more wars (unless we define religion as "any strongly held view or ideology", in which case the term is meaningless) than all other causes combined. Religion is sometimes a factor to a greater or lesser degree in wars. That's it.
And Diamond, I disagree with your claim that religious beliefs should be kept private and not made part of discussions "in the 21st Century". After all, here we are in the 21st Century and most people in the world are religious. I don't think religion is going anywhere anytime soon.
I do, however, agree that Pascal's Wager is not a good enough reason to believe. It does, however, tell me that I shouldn't be too worried about being wrong about God - if there is no afterlife, I am no worse off than any atheist.
And Diamond, I disagree with your claim that religious beliefs should be kept private and not made part of discussions "in the 21st Century". After all, here we are in the 21st Century and most people in the world are religious. I don't think religion is going anywhere anytime soon.
I do, however, agree that Pascal's Wager is not a good enough reason to believe. It does, however, tell me that I shouldn't be too worried about being wrong about God - if there is no afterlife, I am no worse off than any atheist.
Ugh. I wish before these types of discussions would get started, the participants would agree that the following 2 statement are NOT the same:
1) "I believe there is no god."
2) "I have no belief in a god."
Then agree on what label they will use for people who would state #1, and what label will be used for people who would state #2.
I, personally, would be a #2 person. I tend to call myself ambivalent about religion/god. I do NOT call myself an atheist, because I use that word to describe the #1 type person.
Often, people will use the word atheist to describe both types of people, and then go on to make statements/arguments that really only apply to the type #1 people. Which tends to get really confusing to us type #2 people. Because we end up having to disagree with what some of the self proclaimed 'atheists' are saying, and agreeing with what the 'believers in some God' are saying in reply.
1) "I believe there is no god."
2) "I have no belief in a god."
Then agree on what label they will use for people who would state #1, and what label will be used for people who would state #2.
I, personally, would be a #2 person. I tend to call myself ambivalent about religion/god. I do NOT call myself an atheist, because I use that word to describe the #1 type person.
Often, people will use the word atheist to describe both types of people, and then go on to make statements/arguments that really only apply to the type #1 people. Which tends to get really confusing to us type #2 people. Because we end up having to disagree with what some of the self proclaimed 'atheists' are saying, and agreeing with what the 'believers in some God' are saying in reply.
AfterShafter
Deity
This is an edit because you came back in and added after. At least you dealt with some of my claims SOMEWHERE in there rather than just going off putting words in my mouth.
First off, it’s perfectly valid reasoning – it’s SUPPOSED to be applied to any situation. That’s the point. That’s why religion is such a longshot and why my positions supports agnosticism rather than religion, which you can’t seem to get through your head. This is simply a sceptical argument that yes, you can’t disprove it, so however much a longshot it is, it still is the vaguest possibility. The inverse is, since atheism is disproving it, and that’s even less likely to ABSOLUTELY establish, that position is even less tenable at base.
As for the other very distant point, which you wadded together here for some odd reason, about the examinability of our reason. Yes, we have machines, one of which can check the other, but adding in another machine expands the analogy beyond it actually reflecting the situation in question. Human beings interpret the world through senses and examine that data with the faculty of reason. Exactly what second machine is in place to examine reason to make sure it’s giving us the whole story? None.
That being the case, and seeing that as Nietzsche astutely observed, reason develops by the same processes that created the eyes and the ears, it would be bad reasoning to assume that reason is infallible and all revealing – much like the eyes, it may have areas which it does not properly “detect” or deal with for one reason or another. As such, when we try and use our reason to examine our reason, we’re using the same tool that is in question to verify that the tool is working properly. To say that I can reasonable see that reason is sound is a circular argument, and I do hope they teach you theology boys what's wrong with that. Now if you can suggest some other magic faculty we have for examining reason, I'd love to hear about it.
Yes, redundancy creates consistency and security – and that’s exactly the point. There is no redundant system checking over the accuracy of reason other than reason itself – therefore, the microscope is forced to examine itself for errors, which creates a circular problem.
Diamond621 said:The implicit add-on to your statement of "Until one has examined all things, one cannot *conclusively* verify that there is no divine being" is simply "...so we should be open to the possibility that one exists until it is 'proven' otherwise." This is not valid reasoning, because it is simply inverted and distorted logic. It can be applied to ANY situation, no matter how absurd. To use a popular example, I cannot conclusively verify that there are no microscopic pink elephants living on Pluto. Therefore, should I be open to the possibility that they exist? No. No I shouldn't, because it is not valid reasoning
First off, it’s perfectly valid reasoning – it’s SUPPOSED to be applied to any situation. That’s the point. That’s why religion is such a longshot and why my positions supports agnosticism rather than religion, which you can’t seem to get through your head. This is simply a sceptical argument that yes, you can’t disprove it, so however much a longshot it is, it still is the vaguest possibility. The inverse is, since atheism is disproving it, and that’s even less likely to ABSOLUTELY establish, that position is even less tenable at base.
As for the other very distant point, which you wadded together here for some odd reason, about the examinability of our reason. Yes, we have machines, one of which can check the other, but adding in another machine expands the analogy beyond it actually reflecting the situation in question. Human beings interpret the world through senses and examine that data with the faculty of reason. Exactly what second machine is in place to examine reason to make sure it’s giving us the whole story? None.
That being the case, and seeing that as Nietzsche astutely observed, reason develops by the same processes that created the eyes and the ears, it would be bad reasoning to assume that reason is infallible and all revealing – much like the eyes, it may have areas which it does not properly “detect” or deal with for one reason or another. As such, when we try and use our reason to examine our reason, we’re using the same tool that is in question to verify that the tool is working properly. To say that I can reasonable see that reason is sound is a circular argument, and I do hope they teach you theology boys what's wrong with that. Now if you can suggest some other magic faculty we have for examining reason, I'd love to hear about it.
Yes, redundancy creates consistency and security – and that’s exactly the point. There is no redundant system checking over the accuracy of reason other than reason itself – therefore, the microscope is forced to examine itself for errors, which creates a circular problem.
AfterShafter
Deity
This comes before my prior post. For some reason, it didn't go up.
Well that's an interesting strategy of picking on the analogy and ignoring the case presented. So, I give three options. One, believe in the option which is unprovable (atheism - I'm assuming you don't have a problem with my saying it's unprovable, since you don't contest this). Two, believe in the one which is extremely, extremely, unlikely (in God). Three, simply admit you don't know either way. You just assume that I'm suggesting we all pick up a Bible and start thumping away? Thanks for revealing *my* bias by telling us all that I'm insisting you subscribe to Pascal's Wager. Since this is entirely not the case, and indeed agnosticism seems the most rational choice here, if you're done telling my position to me I'll continue...
Well, it's certainly a good thing I'm not defaulting to this type of argument then, isn't it? Once again you're jumping the gun and assuming my post was some attempt to get you to admit that God exists. Read my post again, and ask yourself, "is this guy's purpose to get me to go religious, or take a look at the basis of the knowledge I have more carefully?" I'm not suggesting you take up religious faith, I'm just suggesting you analyze the basis of your own knowledge a bit more carefully. Once you've done this, I do NOT suggest you jump from one type of faith to an even more unlikely one - in fact, my sole purpose here is to get you to recognize that knowledge, in almost any form it takes, is fundamentally an article of faith.
Of course, you aren't dealing with that at all - you're too busy painting me in a light that best suits your purpose here, which seems to call out anyone who doesn't join you in your little diatribe of "Religion is wrong wrong wrong ha ha ha!" Read first, think, then accuse.
I don't know if you've noticed here, but this thread isn't about singular faith - it's about religion. Yes I'm being general, but the topic is general, so it's fitting. For any given faith, the case I'm presenting will be riddled with addendums and caveats to tailor it, and if you're interested in pursuing that course, by all means - do so. I never intended to do so, so I don’t see how my case “breaks down” at all. Of course, I can see why you do, because you’ve come into this assuming that I’m demanding you jump ship for religion. I'm merely providing a general statement for a general topic. And how religions interact with each other is not my problem - that is theirs, and yes, it's a fundamental problem of which many religious people are wilfully ignorant. Again, not my problem, and not ANYTHING close to what I intended to do here. To repeat, my intention here is to get you to take a look at the basis of YOUR knowledge and see that it too has an element of faith, so go easy on the religious types. And you have not so much as glanced at that, but rather have jumped headlong into this accusatory diatribe suggesting I’m trying to get you to go religious.
My “argument is also flawed in its very premise that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by converting to a religion”… I never so much as insinuated this. You are blatantly misrepresenting my case and putting words into my mouth that were the farthest thing from my mind while I was posting. You think I’m going on about Nietzschean arguments as to faith in the faculty of reason because I want you to go religious? Nietzsche’s famous for “God is dead!” – did you ever stop to think that those arguments I’ve levelled can be applied even more critically to religious faith than they can in the relatively benign faiths in science, reason, mathematics, etc?
I know of Pascal’s Wager quite well, thanks. I don’t see why the hell you brought it into this post though, because my post didn’t have anything to do with it. Get off your soapbox and forget your agenda. You’ve done nothing here but read an argument that tends towards an agnostic position more than anything, that’s attempting to show that all knowledge has a basis in a faith, did not attempt to assess the validity of those claims in the slightest, and simply went off on a diatribe against me trying to cram religion down your throat. When you start reading what I’m writing rather than what you want to hear so you can oppose it, then we can talk.
Diamond621 said:
Well that's an interesting strategy of picking on the analogy and ignoring the case presented. So, I give three options. One, believe in the option which is unprovable (atheism - I'm assuming you don't have a problem with my saying it's unprovable, since you don't contest this). Two, believe in the one which is extremely, extremely, unlikely (in God). Three, simply admit you don't know either way. You just assume that I'm suggesting we all pick up a Bible and start thumping away? Thanks for revealing *my* bias by telling us all that I'm insisting you subscribe to Pascal's Wager. Since this is entirely not the case, and indeed agnosticism seems the most rational choice here, if you're done telling my position to me I'll continue...
Diamond621 said:
Well, it's certainly a good thing I'm not defaulting to this type of argument then, isn't it? Once again you're jumping the gun and assuming my post was some attempt to get you to admit that God exists. Read my post again, and ask yourself, "is this guy's purpose to get me to go religious, or take a look at the basis of the knowledge I have more carefully?" I'm not suggesting you take up religious faith, I'm just suggesting you analyze the basis of your own knowledge a bit more carefully. Once you've done this, I do NOT suggest you jump from one type of faith to an even more unlikely one - in fact, my sole purpose here is to get you to recognize that knowledge, in almost any form it takes, is fundamentally an article of faith.
Of course, you aren't dealing with that at all - you're too busy painting me in a light that best suits your purpose here, which seems to call out anyone who doesn't join you in your little diatribe of "Religion is wrong wrong wrong ha ha ha!" Read first, think, then accuse.
Diamond621 said:
I don't know if you've noticed here, but this thread isn't about singular faith - it's about religion. Yes I'm being general, but the topic is general, so it's fitting. For any given faith, the case I'm presenting will be riddled with addendums and caveats to tailor it, and if you're interested in pursuing that course, by all means - do so. I never intended to do so, so I don’t see how my case “breaks down” at all. Of course, I can see why you do, because you’ve come into this assuming that I’m demanding you jump ship for religion. I'm merely providing a general statement for a general topic. And how religions interact with each other is not my problem - that is theirs, and yes, it's a fundamental problem of which many religious people are wilfully ignorant. Again, not my problem, and not ANYTHING close to what I intended to do here. To repeat, my intention here is to get you to take a look at the basis of YOUR knowledge and see that it too has an element of faith, so go easy on the religious types. And you have not so much as glanced at that, but rather have jumped headlong into this accusatory diatribe suggesting I’m trying to get you to go religious.
Diamond621 said:
My “argument is also flawed in its very premise that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by converting to a religion”… I never so much as insinuated this. You are blatantly misrepresenting my case and putting words into my mouth that were the farthest thing from my mind while I was posting. You think I’m going on about Nietzschean arguments as to faith in the faculty of reason because I want you to go religious? Nietzsche’s famous for “God is dead!” – did you ever stop to think that those arguments I’ve levelled can be applied even more critically to religious faith than they can in the relatively benign faiths in science, reason, mathematics, etc?
Diamond621 said:
I know of Pascal’s Wager quite well, thanks. I don’t see why the hell you brought it into this post though, because my post didn’t have anything to do with it. Get off your soapbox and forget your agenda. You’ve done nothing here but read an argument that tends towards an agnostic position more than anything, that’s attempting to show that all knowledge has a basis in a faith, did not attempt to assess the validity of those claims in the slightest, and simply went off on a diatribe against me trying to cram religion down your throat. When you start reading what I’m writing rather than what you want to hear so you can oppose it, then we can talk.
AfterShafter
Deity
Diamond621 said:
To quickly deal with another of your edits... Pascal's Wager was not referenced. The argument did not rely on it, actually could be used as an argument against it, and yet it's the basis of your rolling criticism. Get it the hell out of your head, reread my posts, then we can talk. Got it? And also, for Nietzsche delving into it, if he did it was in his youthful philosophy which I'm not interested in here nor am I referencing, and his mature philosophy which I'm referencing is without exception contrary to the spirit of Pascal's Wager. What the hell makes you think I'm citing him in support of it? Why are you even bringing it in here at all other than to completely misconstrue what I'm saying?
Diamond621
Chieftain
I never said you were citing him in support of it, I said he delved into it - critically, yes, but it was a point of study
