• Science is inherently atheistic
    ↪Rank Amateur


    We can just agree to disagree as you suggested if its getting frustrating. I was just trying to track your view here and started from the beginning, but I get not wanting to repeat yourself.
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    ↪Rank Amateur


    The purpose of the baby example was to illustrate what it means to not have a belief about something. I guess it was a bad example because it wasnt meant to make a comparison anout knowledge of god.
    So lets forget about what I think about this and address your thinking in it.
    You said “not believing in the existence of god is an active act”. Is it only the lack of belief in god that is an active act or does it work that way for all lack of belief? I'm not trying to trap you here but if you answer yes that seems problematic to me.
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    ↪Rank Amateur


    I disagree with your first sentence. Not believing in something is not a truth claim. This is what the teapot analogy illustrates. This is precisely the semantic game we discussed, not believing in something is the absence of a belief not a belief in something. A baby is in this state concerning all kinds of belief, what you are saying by not making the distinction is that as soon as the baby becomes aware of ANY claim no matter how preposterous or unsupported he becomes automatically bound by some sort of burden of proof for an absence of belief that hasnt changed at all since he was ignorant of it in the first place. This is a very poor way to go about it, and is not the way its done for any other beliefs as you yourself pointed out.
    But I was actually hoping you would answer my question directly. You’ve obviously heard these explanations before and not been convinced. I doubt I can put it clearer than anyone else that understands it.
    So, I was hoping to get a clear idea of where exactly you are coming from and where you stand.
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    ↪Rank Amateur


    Ok, so you are wanting atheists to have a similar position towards god as you do towards the teapot? To assert there isnt a god? Is that right?
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    ↪Jake


    Hilariously flawed, you are talking right out your ass.
    First, you tell me im trusting an authority called reasoning and therefore my view is no more or less justified than the view of the one not based on reason but ancient books written by primitives and what is your basis for doing that? Reason!
    Spectacular failure. Not to mention I just got through explaining exactly why your assertion here is wrong.
    Cherry on the cake? You dont even know what intellectual dishonesty means!
    Congratulations sir, you have the proud distinction of the single, most profoundly ignorant post I have ever bothered to respond to. What can I say, i had a good long laugh.
    We are done here, you go ahead and have the last word.
  • Is our dominion over animals unethical?
    You don't get to choose what to base morality on. That's the subjectivist error again - see my answer to Terrapin above. — Herg

    But you do? You have decided suffering is the basis for morality, how is that different? You discovered it written into the code of the universe by god or what?
    I am not a subjectivist, but only a fool thinks morality is anything other than a human creation for humans. There is just no foundation for it to be otherwise. Its amazing to me when someone has the audacity to essentially say “my made up moral basis is legit, but your made up moral basis is not.”
    Morality is something we decide to create. Once we decide to create it, then we can refer to reason to create an objective standard for it. Im really couldnt care less where you think your moral basis comes from, as long as it and the resulting moral
    System make sense.
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    ↪Rank Amateur


    Well, it is a sort of semantic game but I think it is the believer who makes it that way, by calling “disbelief” a belief. The goal is to create a false equivalence so the believer doesnt have to support their position. Then, in order to correct that fallicy the non believer is forced to get into the semantics.
    I mean, it IS a passive tense version in some sense thats the point. (That you arent making an assertion or claim).
    Also, I think its a similar error to say “chose/choose to disbelieve”. I dont know how one can do that and make it distinct from a delusion. Same with “choosing to believe”. You are either convinced or you arent, you dont really make a choice.
    Im sympathetic to what you are saying, these sorts of arguments are tired. This is because people on both sides muddy the waters by misunderstanding these sorts of arguments. They regurgitate what they have heard other people on their side of the debate say, repeat the same arguments but do not really umderstand them. Ive had this exact same conversation with atheists who were actually using the argument!
    For myself, there are other more convincing or interesting arguments to have than this one but it always seems like this one and some variation of “no one is certainof anything so I dont have to defend my belief”, which is another false equivalence and uninteresting imo
  • Idealism vs. Materialism
    The same information could have many encryption keys but the only encryption key that makes the information relevant (gives it a conditioned existence so to speak) is the one you have (ie. mind). — Nils Loc

    Yes, but relevent and existing are not the same thing.
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    ↪tim wood


    ...irreconcilable and they coexist?
  • Idealism vs. Materialism
    ↪Nils Loc


    I would say that the information does still exist, it just exists in an encrypted state.
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    ↪Rank Amateur


    “There is no god” and “i lack belief in god” are not the same thing.
    If someone claims god exists, the person who lacks belief is still is waiting on the burden of proof, starting with what god is. Once they do that they might say something like “there is no god” but it would have to be based on what was proffered. For example, if someones claims god exists and defines god as (in addition to whatever else) as a benign force of nature that protects all children from harm then the person might look at harm befalling children and say “i do not believe in god” on the basis that harm is befalling children and have a reasonable basis for doing so.
    So thats the distinction between the two.
  • Idealism vs. Materialism
    But can they exist without any mind. — Nils Loc

    Why wouldnt they?
  • Idealism vs. Materialism
    ↪Nils Loc


    Only our perception of them needs a mind. They can exist without our minds.
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    ↪Rank Amateur


    Google “Russels Teapot”. That will put you on the right track.
  • Idealism vs. Materialism
    Trees are not matter though, they are trees. You violate the law of identity if you say trees are matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

    This is like saying “t-shirts are not clothes though, they are t-shirts. You violate the law of identity if you say t-shirts are clothes” and in the context of this discussion you then use that statement to conclude that there are no clothes, or people cannot experience clothes but somehow still experience t-shirts.
    Im afraid your a bit confused here.
    And matter isnt decribing an idea, it is describing, in general as you said, something physical. When you experience the t-shirt, you are also experiencing clothes.
  • Is our dominion over animals unethical?
    What I was seeking, from both you and Terrapin, was some rational justification for your belief that it's okay to eat animals but not humans. I'm not getting one, so I assume neither of you has one to offer. — Herg

    It is because generally speaking animals are not ethical creatures, they are not moral agents. You are basing morality off of suffering, rather than moral agency. I do not.
    Sorry, I lost track of who I have been interacting with on this topic and thought you and I had been over that already. Have you read the rest of my posts concerning this topic?
  • Is our dominion over animals unethical?
    Interesting response. You and I clearly live on different planets when it comes to morality. — Herg

    Not really. The suffering of the humans if I ate their kid or sibling is real, and a moral consideration. Likewise with the pet. You just think that in addition, its wrong to eat a pet cuz its wrong to eat animals. I dont add that, because it doesnt make sense. Thats the only real difference.
    You were trying to make an emotional appeal by using humans in example rather than an actual argument, and now you are trying to pretend Im some kinda crazy person with otherworldly moral sensibilities so you once again do not have to make an actual argument.
  • Is our dominion over animals unethical?
    Would any meat-eater like to tell us why it would be wrong to kill and eat a severely mentally subnormal human - who, let us say, does not even have the mental ability to learn and speak a language - and how this would be morally any different from killing and eating a pig or sheep or cow? — Herg

    It would be wrong because of the emotional attachments other humans (the only creatures human morality applies too) have to this severly mentally subnormal human. Like killing and eating someones pet.
    Other than that, nothing. It seems pretty distastful to me but not immoral.
  • At what age should a person be legally able to make their own decisions?
    ↪TheHedoMinimalist


    See that makes no sense to me. Old enough to consent to sex with all that might entail (babies mostly) but not drink alcohol?
  • Causation: Is it real?
    ↪Terrapin Station


    That it was intended to create a distinction between the one proceeding cause and all the proceeding relevant causes.
    Lol, I suppose the answer should be obvious enough to me by now, sorry for the confusion.
  • Causation: Is it real?
    ↪Terrapin Station


    Am I just reading into your use of “immediately”?
  • Causation: Is it real?
    DingoJones Hume claimed causation is Temporal priority, spatial contiguity and constant conjunction. All “immediately temporal” means is that the cause comes before the effect. — Jamesk

    That is what “temporal” means, the “immediate” implies a distinction between the one proceeding cause and all the relevent proceeding causes. That is a curious distinction to make, so I inquired.
  • At what age should a person be legally able to make their own decisions?
    ↪TheHedoMinimalist


    Ya, you are right. Some sort of standard age needs to be established, but at least we should be consistent on that age of adulthood. Old enough to vote? Old enough to drink booze or smoke pot or whatever else.
    It should be the same across the board, agency of adulthood. For example, even though with pot (just became legal here in Canada) can effect brain development until a person is 23 or so the legal age should match the legal age of adult agency whatever that may be. Their decision isnt about whether or not it is healthy for them, its about whether they are “adult enough” to decide for themselves to risk their health.
    So how to determine that age? How about we take the minimum age for the max adult responsibility thats already on the books in whatever country or society we are talking about. For example, at what age can the kid be drafted to war? If they are old enough for that bit of adulthood, they are old enough for pretty much anything else. Hows that?
  • At what age should a person be legally able to make their own decisions?
    ↪TheHedoMinimalist


    I know too many 22+ year olds who make stupid decisions and vote for poor reasons or even cant handle alcohol. I know 14 year olds who could handle driving or drinking booze. Why should we have to take on the risk of the former? Why does a 14 year old fully capable of adult decisions have to pretend he isnt just because he is 14 years of age?
    Why operate such that we ignore the actual capability of each individual?
    Plus, you must consider that there are different levels of aptitude at different areas of maturity, all the more reason to be precise rather than generic in the approach.
  • Is our dominion over animals unethical?
    ↪karl stone


    Lol, mic drop. Well said.
  • Causation: Is it real?
    ↪Jamesk


    Lol, oh. I should have caught that. Still, “immediately temporal” implies the same thing.
  • At what age should a person be legally able to make their own decisions?
    ↪TheHedoMinimalist


    It should be judged according to the individual, whether or not they can handle say, drinking alcohol. So who decides? Id say parents until they feel the kid is no longer a kid. So rather than sussing out each activity, a general rule of adulthood designation decides by the kids guardian. This guardian should decide based on a case by case.
  • At what age should a person be legally able to make their own decisions?
    ↪TheHedoMinimalist


    You used a 17 year old in your example so I was answering based on that.
    I think other laws cover your concerns, a 9 year old drinking as much booze as they want sounds like child endangerment. The parents should be held accountable for that, the law already covers this behaviour. I believe it will for any example you come up with.
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    ↪Herg


    Impressive, now go and google anti-theist and agnostic.
  • At what age should a person be legally able to make their own decisions?
    ↪TheHedoMinimalist


    Their parents? Would we need a law for that?
  • Causation: Is it real?
    The immediately temporarily antecedent action(s) or event(s) that produce a particular subsequent event. — Terrapin Station

    Why temporarily? Are you looking to create some sort of distinction between causal chains/events?
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    ↪Terrapin Station


    I find it useful to always make a distinction between a belief in god and a belief in religion, its an efficient means of parsing what exactly a person believes and what you might think they believe.
    Anyway, sounds like we agree the data and conclusion bears more scrutiny, but I would still maintain that the correlation is significant and worth serious consideration.
  • Yes, you’d go to heaven, but likely an infinitely worse heaven
    Are you saying this universe represents the end of God's supposedly unending range of preferences? — VoidDetector

    Not at all. Do you not undestand what parameters are? I admit that “preferential parameters” is a bit clumsy but im always happy to clarify if you ask. I do find it hard to imagine you actually tried here though, unless I missed my mark you seem to have me confused with some sort of theist, apologist or some kind of wishy washy, spiritually open soft atheist?
  • Yes, you’d go to heaven, but likely an infinitely worse heaven
    ↪VoidDetector


    How do you know that this isnt the best god could do? If god wants a universe with free will, or any other preferential parameters, why cant this be the best result based in those parameters?
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    I'm making an early New Year resolution, which is to avoid the use of the word 'atheist' altogether, on the grounds that it's hopelessly ambiguous. Henceforth I shall try to restrict myself to the two words 'anti-theist' and 'agnostic', which are unambiguous and jointly exhaust the possible meanings of 'atheist'. — Herg

    Its not ambiguous in the least, its actually quite simple. Also, neither agnostic or anti-thiest cover what the word atheist means, they each are distinct and necessary.
    If the answer to do you “believe in god?” is anything other than “yes”, you are an atheist. You can also be an antitheist and/or agnostic. They are not mutually exclusive. Atheism means “without belief”, anti-theism is when you are against religion(s) and agnostic is a stance on whether or not the existence of god can be known. If you are just the classic fence sitting agnostic, you are also an atheist.
    Obviously people can obscure and misuse the terms for their own ends, but these are the classic definitions.
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    I didn't easily find the actual questionnaire online. Do you know where the questionnaire is, plus the data re exactly how many people they polled and how they selected the people they polled? — Terrapin Station

    No, Ive never read the questionnaire, just the results and some data breakdown. I remember articles stating the study “concluded” that high atheism countries are happier but the actual study data I read didnt seem quite that strong.
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    Saying that Correlation doesn't mean causation doesn't end the story.
    As it says on Wikipedia/Correlation does not imply causation, one can extrapolate causality from trends.
    And the trend is indicating that religious presence tends to contrast happiness, wealth and prosperity.
    I bet the world trade center terrorists quickly correlated their religion, with the cause of their destructive actions.

    Simply put, you likely won't hear a person condemning a nation, and threatening to destroy said other nation in the name of nothing.. aka in the name of absence of belief.[/

    In this instance, the countries could very well have other reasons for being happy. The Scandinavian countries for example have economic and social considerations, so a case could be made either way and the data I pointed out is not conclusive.
    Thats all I was commenting on.
    In general I think its foolish to think religion doesnt cause certain behaviours. Im not one of these people who thinks you cannot trace the root cause of plently of terrorism or other horrors directly to religion.     — VoidDetector
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    ↪Terrapin Station


    The UN Happiness Report and World Happiness Index indicate this trend, the least religious countries tendung to be the happiest. Correlation doesnt mean causation though, so a grain of swlt might be best.
  • Science is inherently atheistic
    The problem with your post is that you fail to acknowledge that scientists worthy of the name recognize that religions are about things, subjects, that by their nature remain outside of science - they have to or they wouldn't be religions. — tim wood

    Right, in the same sense other made up things are “outside” science, like astrology, magic, witchcraft, teapots in space, spaghetti monsters, etc etc.

    To the OP, I dont think that science is an atheistic endeavor. Its not about disproving god and it would have to be implicitly about that to be considered atheistic. Its about more than that single claim, its about any claim, its a method for determining the way things work. Its like saying gardening is about eating carrots. Not really.
  • The subject in 'It is raining.'
    ↪Wallows


    No, the subject of the sentence is not a reference to itself. The rain isnt raining.
    Your question has been answered, the subject of that sentence is the weather conditions.
    Now what? You said this was an interesting topic...sorry, you said it was good. How so?
Home » DingoJones