To the Christians here...

[drkitten]

You've established for your own satisfaction that testimony means little or nothing. That is not the case for me, especially when testimony is all that is offered or possible for a particular question.

Then you're a fool. Because the unreliability of testimony is well-understood and independently confirmed. As I implied earlier, the psychology literature is rife with examples of people demonstrably testifying falsely and in perfect confidence.

If testimony -- especially unreliable testimony -- is all that is offered or possible for a particular question, then a proper treatment of evidence would be to conclude that the question is unanswerable. This happens all the time in the legal profession; if a particular piece of evidence is not of sufficiently reliable quality, it's thrown own. If as a result of throwing out the unreliable evidence, nothing is left, then the case is simply dismissed.

One of the basic problems is that you, like many Christians, seem unable to "properly" evaluate testimony for reliability. In particular, you seemed to have a problem with my "testimony" in the post to which you responded:

Yes, testimony is problematic. I include yours.

I don't know what you found problematic about my testimony -- to the best of my knowledge, I made no statements that were not independently verifiable from third-party sources. In this sense, I'm not providing testimony as much as I am reportage....

 

[infornography]

The classic formulation is that science enables us to understand how to build an atom bomb, and religion enables us to understand why it may be wrong to use one.
...
Likewise, love is not simply a social onstruct. It is real, regardless of what we might wish it to be and what we might decide it to be. It is something we are able to experience, and which through experiencing in our lives we are able to observe and come to understand better. That's an example of religion.

These are poor examples. Religion does not have a monopoly on ethics and morality. There are strong societal reasons for having a solid sense of ethics and morality. If people were to go around murdering eachother then noone would have a sense of security which leads to high stress levels and a plethora of other problems. This is more of a sociology issue than a religious one.

Similarly religion does not have a monopoly on an understanding of love. In fact I would say this is more psychology's department than religion's.

Largely I agree with what you say, but these statements really strike me as... wrong.

Give me a prediction that the macroevolutionary theory makes. You know, how they question Nostradamus stuff. After it happens, you say that it was predicted. So make a prediction then. Place it in a particular point in time. When that time comes, we'll see about the prediction.
...
Oh, well this is not what I was thinking about. I was thinking about events happening in the future, as opposed to things that already exist. Meaning, those fossils have been there for a long, long time. Those fossils didn't just come into being five years after the day they started to look for them. They were already there.

-Elliot

You sir are looking for a prophecy not a prediction. A prediction in a scientific sense is more along the lines of the examples already provided. Here is one for you. I wish I remember who ran the experiment but some researchers in California raised a whole bunch of fruit flies in a container that was very wide but just barely tall enough for them to walk around. They hypothosized that the wings of these fruit flies would be bred into at least vistigial organs or at most completely gone.

They let them breed and reproduce, but since fruit flies use their wings in their mating rituals, the ones with shorter wings were the more successful at mating.

Eventually they developed such short wings that the mating rituals no longer used them and they were a hinderance so wings were completely bred off of them.

Fruit flies with no wings. Just as the microevolutionary prediction predicted. Now the goal of this excercise was a hope that they could release these flightless fruit flies into the world and cause problems for the existing fruit fly population. I do not know how or if they successfully tracked the effects of this, but that was the goal.

I am ready to attack, not insult, anyone who turns out to adhere to religious doctrine that threatens my way of life. I limit my "insults" to flippant comments made behind their back, and that is only to spark emotion so my posts get replied to (snicker). I will never resort to name-calling or any other kind of purposeful insults when dealing with someone directly.

So it doesn't qualify as an insult if it is flippant and done behind someone's back huh? Negative attention is better than no attention? You think like my cat apparently.

 

[drkitten]

You call that statement "evidence"?

No, I call that a summary statement. (More specifically, it's an expert opinion, as defined in the US by FRE Article VII and in UK Law by CPR Part 35.)

If you actually wanted "evidence" about the realism or lack thereof of a self-acknowledged and rather weak joke, I could provide it. I've got great stacks of psychological studies that have been done over the past century about the causes of suicide and depression. I doubt you would want to read that report, and I know I don't particularly want to write it. But on a question of sufficient importance, I could and would provide evidence.

And you call evidence of God "weak"?

Well, from what you've presented so far, I call it "non-existent." I'll let you know when you achieve the lofty heights of "weak."

 

[I less than three logic]

Okay; let me think.....................................................

After thinking about it, I'd have to say that I don't know. I can only believe, because (since I'm not physically dead yet), I have no way to know otherwise. That's why I'm forced to believe or disbelieve.

Better?



When I think, I ponder, consider, and reason. When I believe, I have reached a decision to accept that reasoning (to various extents), even though it is not proven to me.




Had you asked me that question, I would have given you a simple yes or no.

Now you’re just being intentionally thick headed just to argue. Yes, like many words, think and believe have many meanings, and one meaning for both of them happens to be the same.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/believe

intransitive senses
1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I believe so>

So now that we’ve established that they are in fact the same question, perhaps you can give me that yes or no answer.

No verifiable evidence, but there are the biblical references of such, as well as other religious references of such.

No verifiable evidence. You could have stopped there; the rest of that sentence is irrelevant. Biblical references and other religious references are not evidence.

Since you "have this tendency not to put belief into things for which have no evidence", you must clearly have some evidence of the existence of this "non-existent state".

What would that evidence consist of.

This one is just simple logic, again I think (believe) you’re just being intentionally obtuse just to argue. If something doesn’t exist, then it is in a non-existent state.

I don't know.

Do you?

There you go again changing the words I used, and this time I used believe and not think. Odd how you changed both think and believe into know, yet insist they don’t have similar meanings, isn’t it? Do you believe, think, have an opinion on whether or not something, anything at all, doesn’t exist?

You must certainly have some evidence that "you wouldn’t experience oblivion". Can you share it with us?

Yes, good catch. That was a poor choice of words on my part, since non-existence isn’t exactly what is implied by the word oblivion. However, I was originally talking about non-existence when elliotfc described what I said as oblivion. I took this to have the same meaning when I wrote the reply. If you didn’t exist, this includes the idea of no soul, nothing of you existed, how could you experience anything?

Well, I can accept "I simply stopped experiencing" during surgery, or even during other experiences (?) in life. However, you were still alive and in physical form.

How do you know what occurs after physical death, and if "oblivion" or "non-experience" applies?

I don’t know, stop using that word. I never implied its uses in any of my statements. It is just the most logical conclusion. I have no evidence of a soul or an afterlife; I do have evidence that when my brain stops functioning I stop experiencing. There is evidence my brain will quit functioning when I die; therefore I have reason to believe I’ll stop experiencing when I die.

An eternity of "non-experience" or "oblivion" is more reassuring?

You mean more reassuring than the idea of existing within nothingness, absolutely. Perhaps you are unable to comprehend the concept of non-existence, and thus, it is indistinguishable from existence within nothingness to you. I attempted to illustrate the concept with the anesthesia analogy, non-existence isn’t forever in darkness, it is just not experiencing anymore.

You can choose?

How do you know?

Choose what, know what?

 

[rocketdodger]

So, you want to "re-educate" them, or proselytize to them regarding the magnificence and righteousness of "logical thought"?

No, I simply want them to have to live according to their ideas. As I see it, most of the current problems in the world stem from the religious using what science and rational thought have developed, without admitting to themselves that they are using it. How many Christians, having been saved from death via modern medicine, will proclaim "god had nothing to do with that, it was all human ingenuity?"

You want to "segregate irrational people that believe in nonsensical dogma with rational people that believe in the power of logical thought" so that those who are doing that nasty believing stuff get "straightened out", yet you "vehemently proclaim my intolerance of the purposefully irrational people who purposefully interfere with my life"?

Yes, because by segregation I just mean that if someone wants to reap the benefits of science they must admit that they are doing so.

 

[infornography]

Asking for proof from a rational Christian (yes there is such a thing) for the existance of god or even what may constitute proof to them of the nonexistance of god is ultimately a waste of time.

I would wager that the majority of Christians on these forums are of the rational variety and therefore are unlikely to attempt any serious proof of the existance of their diety as such proof does not exist. Similarly proof against the existance of a god does not exist. There is quite frankly insufficient evidence.

Any who say that they were a devout Christian and no logner are, would you have been able to spell out exactly what would have made you disbelieve god before you actually did so? If so you are a rare breed.

What it comes down to is faith vs circumstantial evidence. Which do you trust more? You cannot reasonably compare the two because they are completely different approaches to the question.

 

[rocketdodger]

Including, for example, those who dislike faith in God, participate in an internet forum discussing the foolishness of faith in God, and who discuss how faith in God could be done away with by re-educating them?

Yes, that is why I admitted that I have only a few types in mind when I say "religion." And just so you know, I doubt anyone on this forum (at least, anyone intelligent) will argue with you that faith in god is foolish. They will, however, argue with you, for example, that believing the god you have faith in is omniscient, omnipresent, male-gendered, omnibenevolent, had a son who died for everyone's sins, gave moses some stone tablets, caused a massive flood, and a whole lot of other such junk, is either foolish or extremely selfish.

Funny; every time I do so on this forum, generalizing about skeptics who dislike "organized religion", I get pounced on like a mouse in a house full of cats...................

But that is because you generalize that everyone here dislikes organized religion. I am simply generalizing that someone who calls themself a member of an organized religion will adhere to its doctrine. In other words, if you are a Christian, you will adhere to Christian doctrine. If one wishes to consider themselves a christian and not adhere to the doctrine, then something is off somewhere -- they either are not a christian or the doctrine of everyone else is wrong.

 

[rocketdodger]

Because rationality has nothing to do with physical lifespan.

Don't you perhaps mean "rationality has nothing to do with physical lifespan as long as there are rational people willing to take pity on the irrational and help them out?"

 

[rocketdodger]

So it doesn't qualify as an insult if it is flippant and done behind someone's back huh? Negative attention is better than no attention? You think like my cat apparently.

Actually, according to most definitions of "insult," no. Someone can be "be insulted" by something I say regardless, but the only way I can "insult" them is in a communication with their person.

 

[Nova Land]

These are poor examples. Religion does not have a monopoly on ethics and morality.

Nor does astronomy have a monopoly on the study of stars. Nevertheless, astronomy is a useful thing to have.

I have not said that religion has a monopoly on ethics and morality, nor have I said that religious people have a monopoly on these things. What I have said is that religion -- an organized system for looking at metaphysical reality -- is a useful thing to have.

There are strong societal reasons for having a solid sense of ethics and morality. If people were to go around murdering each other then no one would have a sense of security which leads to high stress levels and a plethora of other problems.

Yes. Likewise, there are practical reasons why the existence of gravity is useful. If we didn't have gravity, life in virtually every society which has existed on this planet would be very difficult. Nevertheless I do not believe that gravity is a social construct.

Nor do I believe that my aversion to inflicting unnecessary harm on others is simply a social construct. I believe it is wrong to do so, and I believe that most people know in their hearts (or whatever metaphoric expression you prefer) that it is wrong.

Yes, if we all went around murdering each other or raping each other or robbing from each other, whenever we thought we could get away with it, we would live in a stress-filled society with little real security. But that is not the reason I refrain from such behavior.

Is that the reason you refrain from doing these things? I haven't met you, but I suspect it is not. I have met many people in my life, and I have yet to meet anyone for whom that turned out to be the reason. So what you have presented is an interesting theory, but it doesn't seem to match reality.

 

[ReFLeX]

That is because they are delusional and lack the ability to think critically about themselves.

Evidently you missed my point. Starting off a conversation with the essential message, "You're wrong," will just end in "No, you're wrong." "No, YOU..." and rational discourse will be over before it starts.

Please tell me where I have ever resorted to namecalling. Here is a hint: you will not find any instances.

You know what, no. I won't bother going through what constitutes "namecalling" or "insults" because that would be going beyond childish. If you can label a pleasant, well-meaning celebrity a "religious tool" without believing you've called someone a name, then I won't waste my time on that sub-argument.

Perhaps we are not communicating fully. When I say "religious" I mean "adherents to the doctrine of one of the popular organized religions." I do not mean anyone else, although I suppose the actual definition of "religious" could be interpreted to mean just about anyone with a cause.

Yes, that is what I mean, also. I don't know if you've noticed, but they comprise as much as 90% of the world's population, and as such, are just as varied in their beliefs and values as the non-religious. Most Christians I know are hardly what you'd call committed to their religion. A lot of them wouldn't readily admit it but they don't have religion as that great a priority. For example, I seriously doubt you would find religion has as much effect as geography does on people's ethics. That is partly because many religions are very old and core values can differ greatly even across the same religion.

So, by definition (at least, my definition), if one adheres to a doctrine, then generalizing that they will adhere to that doctrine is a pretty safe bet.

Actually, upon reading this sentence, maybe you will have to clarify what you mean by "adhere". Because most of your comments on the religious seem to apply to fundamentalists rather than the religious as a whole.

 

[ReFLeX]

Is that the reason you refrain from doing these things? I haven't met you, but I suspect it is not. I have met many people in my life, and I have yet to meet anyone for whom that turned out to be the reason. So what you have presented is an interesting theory, but it doesn't seem to match reality.

Actually, few people you will meet will be completely aware of why they act ethically. Cognition only plays one part in the motivation of many social/moral behaviours. That fact is a major problem with logical arguments about ethics, and a large reason many people don't understand the objective of philosophy. As in, "I don't need to study Bentham to know that I shouldn't punch strangers in the face."

 

[ReFLeX]

This could extend to religion of course. If there is no life after death, there goes what the model says.

Ah, ok, and how will we go about verifying the afterlife? It remains tautologous.

With a tautology for a model (Whatever happens, it's God's will), no matter what Transpires there would be no reason to discard that model.

Then why do people *in fact* discard the model?

Aha, just like I said in the above post. Logical arguments actually have terrible persuasive power for issues that are so emotionally involved, like religion and ethics. I suspect many more people have been deconverted by personal tragedy than by other atheists, and I dislike that as much as you do. But humans are not purely logical animals, and that's not something we can fix.

Of course I only know what I read in the posts. If I'm wrong...well...if I make a self-esteem assertion that is INCORRECT, then the person's self-esteem is such that it won't be shaken by my assertion.

You don't think it's a problem how unconcerned you are about having your assertions actually be correct?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You've established for your own satisfaction that testimony means little or nothing. That is not the case for me, especially when testimony is all that is offered or possible for a particular question.

Then you're a fool.....

I suppose that was an eventuality. Now when I respond in kind, I'll be the a**hole, right? I'll be the intolerant one, right? I'll be the "woo", huh?

...Because the unreliability of testimony is well-understood and independently confirmed. As I implied earlier, the psychology literature is rife with examples of people demonstrably testifying falsely and in perfect confidence....

You think I don't know this?

...If testimony -- especially unreliable testimony -- is all that is offered or possible for a particular question, then a proper treatment of evidence would be to conclude that the question is unanswerable....

How is this different than what I repeatedly wrote?:

I don't know. I can only believe, because (since I'm not physically dead yet), I have no way to know otherwise. That's why I'm forced to believe or disbelieve.

Why is that so difficult for some to understand?

The question is unanswerable. You must either believe or disbelieve. I choose to believe, and you appear to disbelieve.

Period.

This happens all the time in the legal profession; if a particular piece of evidence is not of sufficiently reliable quality, it's thrown own. If as a result of throwing out the unreliable evidence, nothing is left, then the case is simply dismissed.

And does that mean that the crime never occurred, counselor?

One of the basic problems is that you, like many Christians, seem unable to "properly" evaluate testimony for reliability. In particular, you seemed to have a problem with my "testimony" in the post to which you responded:

Yes, testimony is problematic. I include yours.

I don't know what you found problematic about my testimony -- to the best of my knowledge, I made no statements that were not independently verifiable from third-party sources.

Classic. The sages of the ages (if they are religious) are all wrong, but I should believe anti-religious skeptics.

...In this sense, I'm not providing testimony as much as I am reportage....

Ummmmmmmmmm............reporting is testimony.

 

[Huntster]

....So now that we’ve established that they are in fact the same question, perhaps you can give me that yes or no answer.....

Unbelievable (as opposed to the believability of God).

From the beginning; I assume this is the original question:

Darkness, nothingness, loneliness; is that really what you think non-existence would be like?

If so, here is my answer:

I don't know. I can only believe or disbelieve, because (since I'm not physically dead yet), I have no way to know otherwise. I don't even know what "non-existence" is or could be.

No verifiable evidence, but there are the biblical references of such, as well as other religious references of such.

No verifiable evidence. You could have stopped there; the rest of that sentence is irrelevant. Biblical references and other religious references are not evidence.

That game again?

No thanks. No merry-go-round rides involving the definition of English words with me anymore. If you can't read and understand the dictionary, that's not my problem, and I really don't give much of a damn if you "get it" or not.

Since you "have this tendency not to put belief into things for which have no evidence", you must clearly have some evidence of the existence of this "non-existent state".

What would that evidence consist of.

This one is just simple logic...

Logic is a simple opinion reached through reasoning. You have no physical evidence?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You must certainly have some evidence that "you wouldn’t experience oblivion". Can you share it with us?

....If you didn’t exist, this includes the idea of no soul, nothing of you existed, how could you experience anything?[/QUOTE]

I don't know. This is "new ground" for me. I have no idea what you're talking about. That's why I'm asking questions.

Well, I can accept "I simply stopped experiencing" during surgery, or even during other experiences (?) in life. However, you were still alive and in physical form.

How do you know what occurs after physical death, and if "oblivion" or "non-experience" applies?

I don’t know...

Interesting. You've finally admitted that you "don't know".

We're making headway................

...It is just the most logical conclusion. I have no evidence of a soul or an afterlife...

You have the evidence, or at least access to the evidence. You have just chosen to reject it.

I do have evidence that when my brain stops functioning I stop experiencing.

And where is that evidence? There is ample evidence otherwise from others.

There is evidence my brain will quit functioning when I die; therefore I have reason to believe I’ll stop experiencing when I die.

Hey! You believe? I'm getting hopeful here!

 

[I less than three logic]

You act like you’re defending something when I’m not attempting to argue against your beliefs in anyway. I’m only attempting to illustrate an idea.

If you were incorrect in your beliefs, then what would happen after death? You said the only thing that could convince you was “Death, then darkness”. However, that cannot convince you if you no longer exist. If you do not have a soul, if your consciousness ends when you die, how can you be convinced of anything when nothing about you exists to be convinced?

Hope you don’t mind me barrowing your format of taking other’s statements out of the context of the rest of what they said.

I don't even know what "non-existence" is or could be.

I don't know. This is "new ground" for me. I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you are unable to comprehend such an idea, then that can only be attributed to your failed ability and no one else’s. I’m not attempting to say this is the case, or that I know any of this is correct; I’m only drawing out the logical conclusion if that is the case. If you didn’t have a soul, if your consciousness ends when you die and there is no afterlife, do you really think (not know, but have the opinion, believe, or suppose) it would be like experiencing an eternity of darkness with nothing everywhere? As Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Keep that in mind when you make your answer, you don’t have to accept it, but at least entertain the idea.


Oh, and one more thing about your post.

Logic is a simple opinion reached through reasoning. You have no physical evidence?

You can’t have physical evidence about something that doesn’t exist. Now stop dodging my original question. Do you think (not know, but have the opinion, believe, or suppose) that there is absolutely nothing that doesn’t exist?

 

[infornography]

Nor does astronomy have a monopoly on the study of stars. Nevertheless, astronomy is a useful thing to have.

I have not said that religion has a monopoly on ethics and morality, nor have I said that religious people have a monopoly on these things. What I have said is that religion -- an organized system for looking at metaphysical reality -- is a useful thing to have.

Perhaps I missed something but I never thought of religion as an organized system for looking at metaphysical reality. Its more of a dogmatic system for stating a believed metaphysical reality. It doesn't really have anything in place for organizing or considering possibilities.

If you know of such a system please enlighten me... I know that sounds sarcastic but I don't mean it as such. I am genuinely curious now.

I can see how philosophies often grouped with religions sometimes have something that might fit that description. I'm mainly thinking about Taoism at this point. I've never really felt comfortable classifying it as a religion. But even Taoism is less of an organized system and more of a state of mind.

Perhaps you meant more of a framework to fit concepts into. For instance looking at why God would give us love or ethics and look at what he intended for us through their use. As far as true anaysis of those concepts, psychology and sociology would serve us much better I would think.

Yes. Likewise, there are practical reasons why the existence of gravity is useful. If we didn't have gravity, life in virtually every society which has existed on this planet would be very difficult. Nevertheless I do not believe that gravity is a social construct.

Apples and oranges. This comparison is silly. Gravity is a phenomenon that happens outside of human perception. It would happen without lifeforms. Love and ethics are concepts that cannot happen without them being percieved by an intelligence.

Nor do I believe that my aversion to inflicting unnecessary harm on others is simply a social construct. I believe it is wrong to do so, and I believe that most people know in their hearts (or whatever metaphoric expression you prefer) that it is wrong.

Yes, if we all went around murdering each other or raping each other or robbing from each other, whenever we thought we could get away with it, we would live in a stress-filled society with little real security. But that is not the reason I refrain from such behavior.

Is that the reason you refrain from doing these things? I haven't met you, but I suspect it is not. I have met many people in my life, and I have yet to meet anyone for whom that turned out to be the reason. So what you have presented is an interesting theory, but it doesn't seem to match reality.

I have often questioned my motivations for ethical behavior. Every time I do I come to the conclusion that ethics are beneficial for many social reasons. They were instilled in me either by parental/societal forces or by instinct. Which is the primary source, I could not say, but I suspect it to be a combination of the two.

In my questioning of my own behaviors and beliefs I try to analyze everything impartially and I have decided that I need to retain my ethical programming (for lack of a better term) and not attempt to dispell it since if I were to behave in an unethical manner, then I would lose several societal advantages I currently have such as the trust of my employer and coworkers, the trust of my family and friends, etc. trust is a very powerful tool that ethical behavior affords me and I value it more than I do any theoretical gain from forgoing such behaviors.

As to why I originally behaved ethically, as I said I imagine that was a combination of nature and nurture that instilled a sense of "right and wrong".

 

[trvlr2]

Yes, that is why I admitted that I have only a few types in mind when I say "religion." And just so you know, I doubt anyone on this forum (at least, anyone intelligent) will argue with you that faith in god is foolish. They will, however, argue with you, for example, that believing the god you have faith in is omniscient, omnipresent, male-gendered, omnibenevolent, had a son who died for everyone's sins, gave moses some stone tablets, caused a massive flood, and a whole lot of other such junk, is either foolish or extremely selfish.



But that is because you generalize that everyone here dislikes organized religion. I am simply generalizing that someone who calls themself a member of an organized religion will adhere to its doctrine. In other words, if you are a Christian, you will adhere to Christian doctrine. If one wishes to consider themselves a christian and not adhere to the doctrine, then something is off somewhere -- they either are not a christian or the doctrine of everyone else is wrong.

Exactly. So, Huntster, mind explaining which parts biblical you actually believe,and to which xtian tenets you actually adhere ?

 

[infornography]

Exactly. So, Huntster, mind explaining which parts biblical you actually believe,and to which xtian tenets you actually adhere ?

Oh for the love of.... be fair now.

Anyone who has read a well annotated version of the bible should be well aware of exactly how vague a lot of the passages really are. There are probably as many interpretations as there are Christians to interpret it. To say that one man is less of a Christian because he does not believe exactly the same as Jerry Falwel is just insulting to the individual and to Christianity as a whole.

 

[rocketdodger]

You know what, no. I won't bother going through what constitutes "namecalling" or "insults" because that would be going beyond childish. If you can label a pleasant, well-meaning celebrity a "religious tool" without believing you've called someone a name, then I won't waste my time on that sub-argument.

But when I say "religious tool" I mean exactly that -- an instrument used by organized religion the organism to further its ends. This seems very different from something like "yo mamma stinks" or something along those lines.

Because most of your comments on the religious seem to apply to fundamentalists rather than the religious as a whole.

My comments apply exactly to people who believe and follow certain doctrine. If they think they are christian yet do not follow such doctrine, then they should be able to ignore my comments. I would not be insulted by foreigners who generalize about "Americans" if their comments do not apply to myself, even though I am also an American.