Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheDarkJay]

The use of Moronic is probably my fault, I've been using it a few times XD Words like "Stupid" carry the meaning of "logically unsound" to me anyway, and I have trouble associating words with emotions so didn't even see the offensive nature >.<

In case you can't tell, I don't have natural people skills. Still have to fake more than is probably healthy... ^^

[MrWiggles]

Confrontation is a positive force, it encourages us to think about the ideas, to challenge them. I can't see how that's a bad thing :S

Or it makes people agitated and want to kill you.

So? If they don't like it, they can just avoid me or the subject. I won't bring it up, I just respond when they do.

I can hardly avoid my own mother you know.

I confront my mother a lot. I got her to weed out various woo beliefs. Such as ghosts, god, loch ness monsters  and a few others. She changed my mind as well.

There nothing wrong with confrontation. I saw we lack it really in the US. The over oppressive need to be politicly correct shuns confrontation.

[Grakelin]

Confrontation doesn't kill people, people kill people.

[chaoticag]

Confrontation is a positive force, it encourages us to think about the ideas, to challenge them. I can't see how that's a bad thing :S

Or it makes people agitated and want to kill you.

So? If they don't like it, they can just avoid me or the subject. I won't bring it up, I just respond when they do.

I can hardly avoid my own mother you know.

I confront my mother a lot. I got her to weed out various woo beliefs. Such as ghosts, god, loch ness monsters  and a few others. She changed my mind as well.

There nothing wrong with confrontation. I saw we lack it really in the US. The over oppressive need to be politicly correct shuns confrontation.

She'd sooner throw me into a bonfire than listen to me. Logic and mental stability are not her strong points you know.

[Andir]

Confrontation doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Heh... http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/20/website-warns-south-park-creators-face-retribution-depicting-muhammad/

[Bauglir]

There's a difference between "My senses tell me X, Y, and Z are all true, and A, B, and C are all false", which is what the probabilities of something like you being a billionaire or not are ultimately based on, and "My senses tell me absolutely nothing about X, Y, Z, A, B, or C", which is what anything about there being a God or not is based on. If your senses all tell you something, that's evidence that it's accurate (if not proof). If your senses cannot tell you one thing or another, then that is no evidence in favor or against. Generally, if your senses can't tell you one thing or another, it doesn't matter, because for all intents and purposes it works out the same as far as you can tell. Afterlives are different in that if they exist, your senses will EVENTUALLY tell you, so it makes a difference, but your senses can't tell you anything one way or the other. You can't logically endorse either outcome, you can only say "This question is unanswerable" and move onto something productive. That's not the same as saying "I don't believe in afterlives", even if you live your life in exactly the same way as consequence.

EDIT: I threw in the logical appeal bit cause I forgot that somebody else had introduced it, and you said something to the effect of "That seems like a pretty silly reason to call somebody moronic", which due to my forgetfulness came off as you basically saying "Either you agree with me or you're calling people morons and so you're bad and you should feel bad". Sorry bout that, my bad. I'll go strike it out.

[MrWiggles]

Confrontation is a positive force, it encourages us to think about the ideas, to challenge them. I can't see how that's a bad thing :S

Or it makes people agitated and want to kill you.

So? If they don't like it, they can just avoid me or the subject. I won't bring it up, I just respond when they do.

I can hardly avoid my own mother you know.

I confront my mother a lot. I got her to weed out various woo beliefs. Such as ghosts, god, loch ness monsters  and a few others. She changed my mind as well.

There nothing wrong with confrontation. I saw we lack it really in the US. The over oppressive need to be politicly correct shuns confrontation.

She'd sooner throw me into a bonfire than listen to me. Logic and mental stability are not her strong points you know.

Matt Dilihunty of Atheist Experience fame grew up in a fundamental household. When he finally came clean, there were a few years that his family was rather cold with him. Though they don't discuss with one another, but I believe Matt that if they were to confront him he would stand up for himself.

I subscribe to this, and offer to advice for you. Don't confront them but don't back down if you can.

[chaoticag]

Eh, I'll just pretend untill I can get as far away from my mother as possible. Then cut off dependence.

[Kebooo]

There's a difference between "My senses tell me X, Y, and Z are all true, and A, B, and C are all false", which is what the probabilities of something like you being a billionaire or not are ultimately based on, and "My senses tell me absolutely nothing about X, Y, Z, A, B, or C", which is what anything about there being a God or not is based on. If your senses all tell you something, that's evidence that it's accurate (if not proof). If your senses cannot tell you one thing or another, then that is no evidence in favor or against. Generally, if your senses can't tell you one thing or another, it doesn't matter, because for all intents and purposes it works out the same as far as you can tell. Afterlives are different in that if they exist, your senses will EVENTUALLY tell you, so it makes a difference, but your senses can't tell you anything one way or the other. You can't logically endorse either outcome, you can only say "This question is unanswerable" and move onto something productive. That's not the same as saying "I don't believe in afterlives", even if you live your life in exactly the same way as consequence.

EDIT: I threw in the logical appeal bit cause I forgot that somebody else had introduced it, and you said something to the effect of "That seems like a pretty silly reason to call somebody moronic", which due to my forgetfulness came off as you basically saying "Either you agree with me or you're calling people morons and so you're bad and you should feel bad". Sorry bout that, my bad. I'll go strike it out.

But here's what I'm saying: you assume your senses are real, not delusions, you assume your memory is real, you assume reality itself is here and not just a trick you're being strung along with in some matrix-esque machine.  You have to make many assumptions about things, that if true, you'd have no means to ever know for certain, in the same way we have no way to analyze the truth of god or an afterlife.  Why assume your senses are accurate or that your memory is true?  Because it's practical and makes sense to you, I assume.  For me, it's practical and makes sense to disbelieve in something I see no reason at all to believe in.  That doesn't mean I believe my position is proven, because as this argument shows, every belief we take is an unproven one.

If you claim you are divine, and that you are the second coming of Jesus, I am certainly going to positively disbelieve that, even if I have no way to detect your "soul" or divinity.  Now that does not mean I disbelieve in its possibility.  I simply make an assumption, based on what I consider to be reasonable and practical, on the truth of reality, like you have assumed your senses and reality to be true, for practicality.  The question of reality, your senses, and memory are unanswerable.  If we are a simulation that is to never be told of its simulation status, then it is unanswerable.  But we can still come to what we believe is true or false.  Would it be stupid to believe god is disprovable?  Would it be stupid to believe he has been disproved?  Of course.  But we don't have to assume those things to believe in a truth or falsehood.

[Grakelin]

Confrontation doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Heh... http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/20/website-warns-south-park-creators-face-retribution-depicting-muhammad/

I saw that! My favorite part was how whenever they had Muhammad talk or they disguised him somehow, the shot would switch to two men who would say

"Is this okay? Can we get in trouble for this?"

"I guess we'll just have to wait and see."

[Bauglir]

There's a difference between "My senses tell me X, Y, and Z are all true, and A, B, and C are all false", which is what the probabilities of something like you being a billionaire or not are ultimately based on, and "My senses tell me absolutely nothing about X, Y, Z, A, B, or C", which is what anything about there being a God or not is based on. If your senses all tell you something, that's evidence that it's accurate (if not proof). If your senses cannot tell you one thing or another, then that is no evidence in favor or against. Generally, if your senses can't tell you one thing or another, it doesn't matter, because for all intents and purposes it works out the same as far as you can tell. Afterlives are different in that if they exist, your senses will EVENTUALLY tell you, so it makes a difference, but your senses can't tell you anything one way or the other. You can't logically endorse either outcome, you can only say "This question is unanswerable" and move onto something productive. That's not the same as saying "I don't believe in afterlives", even if you live your life in exactly the same way as consequence.

EDIT: I threw in the logical appeal bit cause I forgot that somebody else had introduced it, and you said something to the effect of "That seems like a pretty silly reason to call somebody moronic", which due to my forgetfulness came off as you basically saying "Either you agree with me or you're calling people morons and so you're bad and you should feel bad". Sorry bout that, my bad. I'll go strike it out.

But here's what I'm saying: you assume your senses are real, not delusions, you assume your memory is real, you assume reality itself is here and not just a trick you're being strung along with in some matrix-esque machine.  You have to make many assumptions about things, that if true, you'd have no means to ever know for certain, in the same way we have no way to analyze the truth of god or an afterlife.  Why assume your senses are accurate or that your memory is true?  Because it's practical and makes sense to you, I assume.  For me, it's practical and makes sense to disbelieve in something I see no reason at all to believe in.  That doesn't mean I believe my position is proven, because as this argument shows, every belief we take is an unproven one.

Well, actually, I assume them because it makes no difference whether I'm right or wrong. If I'm wrong, it's not like I'll ever know about it, if my senses are unable to detect it. With the question of a God/afterlife, the general rule is that, at some point, I'll know, so I can't really make the same claim. And once I'm past those basic assumptions, further assumptions that are necessary for life are based on probabilities that I've observed (or, arguably, am biologically disposed to use); I have no such probabilities in the case of a God, so I can't make any conclusions about what's likely to be true or false.

[Andir]

.. in the case of a God, so I can't make any conclusions about what's likely to be true or false.

But just as in invisible unicorns, right now the only "logical" option is concluding that it's likely false.  IMHO.  There's no point up and changing the way that you live because there MIGHT be an invisible unicorn who will stab you to death if you violate his supposed moral code when your life is in a fine balance.

[Ampersand]

The problem is with people who seem to think that there is really anyone who's arguing that a God does not exist, at least in this thread.

I, and no atheist I know will ever claim that God does not exist. The lack of evidence is all I need to say that I do not believe that one does exist. Under MY definition of the word Atheist, it merely means the negative of belief in a god, rather than the positive belief that there is no god. The two are entirely separate ideas and do not share anything between them philosophically. I agree with Jay in that one cannot defend a position of actively believing in the non-existence of something without proof that it doesn't exist, BUT that has never been what Atheists in general have tried to support. There are definitely morons out there on the internets who will spout off without thinking, but this just demonstrates one thing:

There is no central dogma that defines what an Atheist is. It is a label of exclusion, not inclusion. You can only tell what a person does NOT think if they call themselves an Atheist, not what they DO think. The idea that you can twist a person saying that they don't believe in a god into they believe that there is no god is asinine.

Is it moronic for someone to positively believe I am not a billionaire, or positively believe the universe isn't a simulation?  Does someone have to doubt all of reality and make no positive beliefs to avoid being a moron?  I'd like a clear, explicit answer from anyone that takes your position.

There are practical degrees of certainty. I am more certain, for example, that unicorns do not exist, than I am that you are not a billionaire. I have absolutely no evidence that either claims are true, but I do not throw out the possibility of such things being true either, in a purely logical way. I cannot defend the claim that you are not a billionaire; if you asked me to defend the negative position logically, I CAN'T. It wouldn't be 'moronic', but it would still be a step beyond what logic can demonstrate to take a negative position.

For all -practical- purposes, however, 99 percent certainty is basically equivalent to 100 percent certainty. You make these practical assumptions based on high degrees of certainty all the time, even if you don't think about it. There is no guarantee that a bridge you drive over doesn't collapse under you, no guarantee that the plane you are in won't crash to the ground, and so on. What you have is such a high degree of certainty that you aren't going to bother getting out of your car and inspecting every bridge you drive over just to be sure it won't kill you.

Even though you cannot rule out the possibility entirely, you can still for all practical purposes say 'that bridge is going to stay up' despite being unable to prove it absolutely.

That's the court I'm in. I am going to say that I definitely do not believe that you are a billionaire, but I will not claim that you definitely are not, either. To say that puts me in the position where -I've- made a claim, that -I- have to back up with evidence. I am not going to do that, because then you no longer are in a defensive position, and only have to demonstrate that I do not have sufficient evidence to claim absolutely that you are not a billionaire, and you'd be absolutely right.

[Kebooo]

There's a difference between "My senses tell me X, Y, and Z are all true, and A, B, and C are all false", which is what the probabilities of something like you being a billionaire or not are ultimately based on, and "My senses tell me absolutely nothing about X, Y, Z, A, B, or C", which is what anything about there being a God or not is based on. If your senses all tell you something, that's evidence that it's accurate (if not proof). If your senses cannot tell you one thing or another, then that is no evidence in favor or against. Generally, if your senses can't tell you one thing or another, it doesn't matter, because for all intents and purposes it works out the same as far as you can tell. Afterlives are different in that if they exist, your senses will EVENTUALLY tell you, so it makes a difference, but your senses can't tell you anything one way or the other. You can't logically endorse either outcome, you can only say "This question is unanswerable" and move onto something productive. That's not the same as saying "I don't believe in afterlives", even if you live your life in exactly the same way as consequence.

EDIT: I threw in the logical appeal bit cause I forgot that somebody else had introduced it, and you said something to the effect of "That seems like a pretty silly reason to call somebody moronic", which due to my forgetfulness came off as you basically saying "Either you agree with me or you're calling people morons and so you're bad and you should feel bad". Sorry bout that, my bad. I'll go strike it out.

But here's what I'm saying: you assume your senses are real, not delusions, you assume your memory is real, you assume reality itself is here and not just a trick you're being strung along with in some matrix-esque machine.  You have to make many assumptions about things, that if true, you'd have no means to ever know for certain, in the same way we have no way to analyze the truth of god or an afterlife.  Why assume your senses are accurate or that your memory is true?  Because it's practical and makes sense to you, I assume.  For me, it's practical and makes sense to disbelieve in something I see no reason at all to believe in.  That doesn't mean I believe my position is proven, because as this argument shows, every belief we take is an unproven one.

Well, actually, I assume them because it makes no difference whether I'm right or wrong. If I'm wrong, it's not like I'll ever know about it, if my senses are unable to detect it. With the question of a God/afterlife, the general rule is that, at some point, I'll know, so I can't really make the same claim. And once I'm past those basic assumptions, further assumptions that are necessary for life are based on probabilities that I've observed (or, arguably, am biologically disposed to use); I have no such probabilities in the case of a God, so I can't make any conclusions about what's likely to be true or false.

But if you die and there's nothing there, then you won't ever "know" because you cease existing.  Perhaps the people that run the simulation would make you aware of it right before we die.  Or suppose there is no afterlife, why do you assume there must be an afterlife if there is a divine creator?  Your question would only pertain to whether there is an afterlife or not.

[Kebooo]

There are practical degrees of certainty. I am more certain, for example, that unicorns do not exist, than I am that you are not a billionaire. I have absolutely no evidence that either claims are true, but I do not throw out the possibility of such things being true either, in a purely logical way. I cannot defend the claim that you are not a billionaire; if you asked me to defend the negative position logically, I CAN'T. It wouldn't be 'moronic', but it would still be a step beyond what logic can demonstrate to take a negative position.

For all -practical- purposes, however, 99 percent certainty is basically equivalent to 100 percent certainty. You make these practical assumptions based on high degrees of certainty all the time, even if you don't think about it. There is no guarantee that a bridge you drive over doesn't collapse under you, no guarantee that the plane you are in won't crash to the ground, and so on. What you have is such a high degree of certainty that you aren't going to bother getting out of your car and inspecting every bridge you drive over just to be sure it won't kill you.

Even though you cannot rule out the possibility entirely, you can still for all practical purposes say 'that bridge is going to stay up' despite being unable to prove it absolutely.

That's the court I'm in. I am going to say that I definitely do not believe that you are a billionaire, but I will not claim that you definitely are not, either. To say that puts me in the position where -I've- made a claim, that -I- have to back up with evidence. I am not going to do that, because then you no longer are in a defensive position, and only have to demonstrate that I do not have sufficient evidence to claim absolutely that you are not a billionaire, and you'd be absolutely right.

And what are you basing certainty on?  Probability?  What are you basing that probability on?  Belief?  More probability?  So how do many probabilities lead to greater certainty?  Can you be certain they lead to greater certainty?  I would say you can't.  I think I'm having a difficult time getting my point across because of the limitations of language.

You definitely do not believe I am a billionaire.
I definitely do not believe in a divine creator.

So if I say, do you believe I am not a billionaire, or that unicorns do not exist, you must answer no, going by your line of reasoning.  But why does belief have to have certainty?  When did belief mean we have, without any shred of doubt, absolute certainty?  One of its working definitions is an opinion.  What is the purpose of the word belief if we cannot positively believe anything?  Do you believe in anything with certainty?  If so, what and why?