Print

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

[Pjoo]

"I believe there's no God but if you say there's no God I will jump on you".

Yeah pretty much. You are not justified to state is as truth, cause no matter how much you state it, it doesn't make it any more true to religious person.
You can say that when person holds ball in air, and drops the ball, it falls down. Anyone can test it. It happens. It's kinda problem with high energy particle collisions as science, but those test results are things I wouldn't understand so I tend to trust scientific consensus on that matter.
If ball falls down and person keeps insisting it stayed in the air for the sake of argument, it's not his justified belief, as he perceives that it falled down and states it contrary to what he actually beliefs.

[Ampersand]

I know I can never tell a religious person that god does not exist and be believed. I never attempt to, and I never make that claim.

What I can say, and what I do claim is that their reasons for believing in such things are demonstrably flawed.

[Pjoo]

What I can say, and what I do claim is that their reasons for believing in such things are demonstrably flawed.

You think justified belief required objective reason, I do not. It's just your view of "justified belief" differs from mine, just like people have different opinions on right ammount of skepticism and such. Neither is more wrong than other, people just base it how they see represents the truth best. And I believe subjective beliefs have nothing to do with the truth so I do not demand more than subjective reason for a belief.

[Leafsnail]

I believe subjective beliefs have nothing to do with the truth so I do not demand more than subjective reason for a belief.

This statement just does not make sense.  So you're saying that the fact that they believe it doesn't make it any more likely to be true, but the fact that they believe it makes it more likely to be true?  I'm not trying to strawman, I really don't know what you're trying to say.

[Areyar]

If you are saying "Whatever anyone else believes is fine, I don't neccesarely believe it myself, but they are welcome to their ideas and I require no qualifications to respect those beliefs" or : all ideas that I don't ascribe are equally irrelevant to me.
It does however show alot of ...denigration in my opinion to not try to advise others of your own ideas on the matter?

I think it is a matter of in what way we show our respect for our fellows.
Some do so by leaving others in what is percieved as a erroneous belief.
Now if atheism was as likely as theism and as illogical as theism, then advising believers of their error would be tantamount to preaching. 
In my estimation the atheist model is much more likely to be more accurate of reality than the theist model.

Now when a Jehova's witness or jessuit or hare Crishnah tries to discuss with me the errors of my perception of reality, I return the favour...if I got time, it tends to take a long time.

One important criterium: if you need to stop thinking about a thing to keep believing in it (blind faith), it is very unlikely.

[Pjoo]

I believe subjective beliefs have nothing to do with the truth so I do not demand more than subjective reason for a belief.

This statement just does not make sense.  So you're saying that the fact that they believe it doesn't make it any more likely to be true, but the fact that they believe it makes it more likely to be true?  I'm not trying to strawman, I really don't know what you're trying to say.

What anyone believes has no effect on what is the truth, so I don't demand a reason that makes sense to me, as the mindset is different and what I see as "likely to be true", might not be "likely to be true" for everyone else.

In my estimation the atheist model is much more likely to be more accurate of reality than the theist model.

I agree.
But you see, "In my estimation the theist model is much more likely to be more accurate of reality than the atheist model."... You estimate based on what? No proof of God? Hmm... statistics for God existing with every new claim for miracle? Your mindset might be one that rejects supernatural, but on the other hand, there are people who aren't as skeptic. They can believe some of the millions of claims and all the I-see-them-as-miracles. They can perceive God to speak to them, either because he does or because they are delusional.

Now when a Jehova's witness or jessuit or hare Crishnah tries to discuss with me the errors of my perception of reality, I return the favour...

They state your perception of reality has errors, you state they are stupid, it all works out correct according to my perception of reality

It does however show alot of ...denigration in my opinion to not try to advise others of your own ideas on the matter?

I don't understand this sentence, sorry. Could you please rephrase?

If you are saying "Whatever anyone else believes is fine, I don't neccesarely believe it myself, but they are welcome to their ideas and I require no qualifications to respect those beliefs"

More like, "I don't neccesarely believe x myself, but as I cannot possibly state something I estimate likely is true or even likely to be true, so I accept whatever anyone else believes about x."
I cannot say it is likely, because obviously im biased, even when trying not to be, and my estimate of reality is based on how I perceive it. And every person perceives it different way, so it makes sense people have different estimates on reality of something.


Statment "I know God is unlikely to exist" is illogical, cause there cannot be knowledge that "God is unlikely to exist", knowledge means it's true, but that cannot be true, as God being true is binary, but that is just estimate. If it's not knowledge, but I think it's more likely to be this way, it's my belief. If I don't have knowledge, I shouldn't go selling it as one.

[Leafsnail]

What anyone believes has no effect on what is the truth, so I don't demand a reason that makes sense to me, as the mindset is different and what I see as "likely to be true", might not be "likely to be true" for everyone else.

Yes, and?  Regardless of whether their mindset thinks it's more likely to have a God or not, they're still being illogical.  You're just shifting the linguistic goalposts by saying "Everyone thinks about things, therefore everyone is logical and correct".

[Vester]

I know I can never tell a religious person that god does not exist and be believed. I never attempt to, and I never make that claim.

What I can say, and what I do claim is that their reasons for believing in such things are demonstrably flawed.

So what do you do when someone doesn't have reasons for believing?

[Pjoo]

What anyone believes has no effect on what is the truth, so I don't demand a reason that makes sense to me, as the mindset is different and what I see as "likely to be true", might not be "likely to be true" for everyone else.

Yes, and?  Regardless of whether their mindset thinks it's more likely to have a God or not, they're still being illogical. 

They are illogical based on what? Your mindset that "all information is more likely to be true if it can be proven false"? Scientific skepticism isn't requirement for truth, it's requirement for "not truth random claim" not being regarded as truth.

You're just shifting the linguistic goalposts by saying "Everyone thinks about things, therefore everyone is logical and correct".

Umm... because everyone is correct? It is correct to say "God might exist", or that "There might be indestructible teapot revolving around the Sun that is too small to observe". Unless you give me deductive argument why not.

And pointing out logical flaws in arguments, telling people why they are being stupid, sharing thoughts, etc. Are all good, cause they make people consider ways of looking at the universe they haven't thought of yet and help them correct errors with their way of thinking.



Oh, and my deductive argument why "God might exist" is true.
If God's existance cannot be proven, it can be turned into form: God exists or god doesn't exist. If we could prove it way or another, premise that it can exist or that it can't would be wrong.

p = god exists
p v ¬p

p ¬p  p v ¬p
1  0      1
0  1      1

Tautology, so "god might exist" is always correct unless you can give logically deductive argument why God doesn't exist.

[Leafsnail]

Which is what I've been saying.  Except you jumped on me a few pages ago for saying "God almost certainly does not exist".  So where do you actually stand on this?

[Pjoo]

Which is what I've been saying.  Except you jumped on me a few pages ago for saying "God almost certainly does not exist".  So where do you actually stand on this?

Statment "God almost certainly does not exist" is illogical, cause there cannot be knowledge that "God almost certainly does not exist", knowledge means it's true, but that cannot be true, as God being true is binary, but that is just an estimate. And stating something as knowledge instead of belief is, well, incorrect.

Again, if you meant to say, "I believe God almost certainly does not exist", I agree.

[Leafsnail]

Statment "God almost certainly does not exist" is illogical, cause there cannot be knowledge that "God almost certainly does not exist", knowledge means it's true, but that cannot be true, as God being true is binary, but that is just an estimate. And stating something as knowledge instead of belief is, well, incorrect.

This statement is incorrect, by your logic.  It should read:

I believe that the statment "God almost certainly does not exist" is illogical, cause I believe that there cannot be knowledge that "God almost certainly does not exist", I believe that knowledge means it's true, but I believe that cannot be true, as I believe that God being true is binary, but I believe that is just an estimate. And I believe that stating something as knowledge instead of belief is, well, incorrect.

You cannot say that all truths are relative and then make a series of absolute statements.

[Pjoo]

Statment "God almost certainly does not exist" is illogical, cause there cannot be knowledge that "God almost certainly does not exist", knowledge means it's true, but that cannot be true, as God being true is binary, but that is just an estimate. And stating something as knowledge instead of belief is, well, incorrect.

This statement is incorrect, by your logic.  It should read:

I believe that the statment "God almost certainly does not exist" is illogical, cause I believe that there cannot be knowledge that "God almost certainly does not exist", I believe that knowledge means it's true, but I believe that cannot be true, as I believe that God being true is binary, but I believe that is just an estimate. And I believe that stating something as knowledge instead of belief is, well, incorrect.

You cannot say that all truths are relative and then make a series of absolute statements.

I haven't stated all truths are relative, I said beliefs are relative. There isn't only one belief, but there is only one truth.
And logic is just another human invention that has set of rules, and if you don't play by the rules, no one accepts you are even playing. If it's decided that p = not not p, and p and q are true only if p and q are both 1, it's not up to debate. Debating logics is like trying to play chess against person who is watching television. Hence the "illogical". Same with maths, science or philosophy. They all have their set rules you follow.

1=2. Well, it would be, if you allowed me to divide with 0, but mathematics states it's impossible.
p <=> ¬p, well, it would be if that would be the truth table.

"God almost certainly does not exist" means, God has chance of x% of existing and not 100-x% chance of not existing, but God either exists or it doesn't, so it doesn't have chance of existing( or not existing), thus statement is always false. According to logic anyways. Unless I have any logical flaws there, but feel free to point them out.

You are free to assign value for x, not that it matters.

And logic is only way to make sense of anything, so if logic is not always correct, you just agreed with everything I say. Doesn't make much sense, does it!?

[Leafsnail]

My point is that you are criticising me for making what you regard as an absolute statement, then bringing in a whole barrage of absolute statements.  It smacks of hypocrisy.

[Pjoo]

My point is that you are criticising me for making what you regard as an absolute statement, then bringing in a whole barrage of absolute statements.  It smacks of hypocrisy.

I can deductively show it's true, assuming logics apply. It's just assumed every human accepts logics, cause language kind of needs it.

Premises "God almost certainly does not exist" and "God either exists or he doesn't" are contradictory, because if God exists, there is no chance for him not to exist, and if God doesn't exist, there is no chance for him to exist.

I don't mind you stating it is impossible that yellow sock is black. It's by definition, yellow, not black. I mind you stating truth without deductive proof. Again with assuming logic applies. Without logic there isn't much to go with, so generally all arguments which state logic doesn't have to apply are pointless. As at the same time they are stating logic has to apply.