Arriving at a Theistic Belief

[KWED]

Using logic and reason to lever people out of beliefs not arrived at by that method, is likely to prove futile. You are obviously of at least average if not above average intelligence, yet you seem a little tardy in learning this lesson.

Hmm. Not familiar with the concept of "education" then?

 

[KWED]

No, just that both versions are without evidence or logic. You have no evidence and not logic to show it. It is an opinion/belief not based on evidence or logic.

1. There is evidence that there is no evidence for the supernatural.
2. I did not claim that there was evidence for the conclusion. Merely that it logically follows from the premise. If you claim that it is not logical, then feel free to show why.

I thought you claimed to be the logic nerd around here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmm. Not familiar with the concept of "education" then?

So give examples of both valid and invalid deductions and the same with sound and unsound.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

1. There is evidence that there is no evidence for the supernatural.
2. I did not claim that there was evidence for the conclusion. Merely that it logically follows from the premise. If you claim that it is not logical, then feel free to show why.

I thought you claimed to be the logic nerd around here.

Okay.
Simple symbol deduction.

P1: A is B
P2: B is C
C: A is D

P1: A is B
P2: B is C
C: A is C

Which is valid and how? Which is invalid and how?

 

[mangalavara]

This is called "confirmation bias".

So you believe that someone can be convinced that their belief is correct, despite it being irrational?

Your Western epistemology and logic are irrelevant to someone who believes in Hindu philosophy.

 

[1213]

So simply being able to think about something is evidence for the existence of that thing?

Obviously, if I imagine that some atheist would be wise, it is not evidence in this case, because I know I just imagined it, without any reason. But, if someone else comes to say, I know that some atheist is wise, then I can't rule out the idea as just imaginary, because I can't be sure if the person is just making things up as he goes, or has he really some good reason to claim so. This is why it would be small evidence for the matter. But, evidence doesn't necessary mean the claim is true. It is possible that the evidence is because of some other reason.

 

[1213]

...We excel at story telling, ....

Sorry, I disagree with that. People seem to be very poor at imagining anything original.

 

[DNB]

Nonsense. There are plenty of plausible hypotheses for both that do not require a supernatural god.
What's more, adding an extra layer of inexplicability doesn't answer any questions.

More nonsense. Morality, love and other such concepts have clear evolutionary benefit.
What's more, some of god's "morality" is no longer considered acceptable by civilised society.

I'm sure you can see the fatal flaw in that statement.

Early man explained his environment through means that were miles away from god and religion as it is generally known today. And the actual answers for the universe that we have so far discovered have no need for any supernatural element.

There is not a culture or society, since the beginning of time, that the majority of its populace did not revere at least a single deity. Atheists have always constituted 1%, or the landslide minority of the world. Your alleged facts are fallacious.

 

[DNB]

Do you know that other primates, or dolphins don't have the concept of the spiritual - or is it a bare assertion?
Why do you think elephants undertake elaborate burial rituals or chimps and bonobos have collective grief rituals for dead members of their group?

Erm, yes it does. It is observed in other species and has obvious evolutionary benefits.

Why?

How is one particular species' evolved abilities evidence for a god?

So, you've met a Buddhist dog or a Muslim cat? You've seen a Zoroastrian fish, or a camel with a burka on its head? You've been to a mosquito temple, or a an altar created by worms?

 

[DNB]

You are question begging "spiritual being".

It's an axiomatic fact. Man does not behave according to his faculties, which are superior to all other creatures on earth. But, rather, has proven to be the most inept, impractical, and self-anihilating of them all. Clearly an influence, other than his intellectual faculties, has dictated the majority of his actions on earth, big or small.

 

[DNB]

1. Not everyone has self-destructive tendencies. Yes they do. The majority of mankind has failed in relationships, marriages, business, peaceful relations, avoiding war, greed, and so on
2. Much bigotry and intolerance originates in religion. No, it's not. No religious leader ever promoted such dispositions.
3. People often favour instant gratification over the long-term and uncertain gains of moderation.: Like I said, man, unlike all other creatures, is impractical and impetuous.

Not really. These are a consequence of childhood indoctrination.: Well then, either like i said, tell man to grow up., or, this presupposes man's innate endowment of the spiritual nature

Perhaps his foolish dementia is caused by his mistaken belief in the spiritual? Why are you, as always, repeating me, or talking in circles?
It seems true that the less religious, secular societies tend to rank higher on safety, security, welfare, health etc than those that promote or follow a spiritual path.: Give up on the stats.

 

[KWED]

So give examples of both valid and invalid deductions and the same with sound and unsound.

Even for the master of the non sequitur, you have quite outdone yourself there.
Chapeau!

 

[KWED]

Your Western epistemology and logic are irrelevant to someone who believes in Hindu philosophy.

What are "Western" and "Hindu" philosophy, and why are they incompatible?

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is where religionists so often trip themselves up, by assuming that everyone follows their same mental process (essentially equation begging and confirmation bias).

The reason why we suspect or accept (not "believe") that material existence may be all there is, is because that is what all the evidence points to. (Note: I am talking about actual evidence here, not personal opinion and anecdote).
When evidence comes to light that suggests something else, then our position will change accordingly.

Ironically, it is the religionist who assumes there must be something else, and bases their position on that baseless assumption.

All the evidence points towards consciousness being a product of the physical brain. Every attempt to demonstrate otherwise has failed.

You appear to be getting confused here. Of course the brain responds to stimulus, but that response appears to be manufactured by the brain.
And yes, the stimulus that the brain is responding can indeed be manufactured by the brain itself. Or do you think that the nightmare that frightens the child actually exists out there somewhere, independent of the child's brain?

Not so. They can occur due to a range of reasons, sometimes spontaneously and sometimes without any other indication of any condition. They can even be induced to order in an entirely healthy brain and body.

Indeed. That is what the rational thinker always does. What they don't do is assume that messages from god are a thing in the first pace.
So, are you claiming that any personal moment of realisation that leads to a change in behaviour must have an external, divine source?

Cool story bro. Not sure why you think that contains any "evidence" though.

So you are saying that such epiphanies and changes of heart must be assumed to be caused by something external to the brain.
You should really reserve judgement until there is something more than just your desire for it to be true.

But at the end of the day, you are still just assuming that an event that can be perfectly well explained through the internal workings of the brain must somehow be evidence of a god.

And how, exactly, is a fictional character's experience evidence for a god orchestrating such moments of clarity?

If you think that “all the evidence points towards consciousness being a product of the physical brain” you have fallen down a solipsistic hole, somewhere between reviewing evidence and interpreting it.

If the world your senses offer a window on originates in the brain, that would make your experience of life a series of hallucinations. So then how can you trust your senses?

I suspect actually, that you do trust your senses, most of the time. You clearly trust reason and logic, despite having just demonstrated the tenuous nature of your grasp of both. So there is a world outside your brain, and you believe in it; and not only because you can point to half digested and far from fully understood studies confirming this or that aspect of the world. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest you believe that it is, for example, a cold grey winter’s morning, because you can look out of your window and see it?

Well here’s the thing; there are other mental tools human beings are equipped with besides logic and reason, and other means of perception besides the five physical senses. Almost anyone can make a connection with the God Consciousness within, but doing so requires development of tools you clearly are not familiar with. Because you are not familiar with these tools, does not mean you do not have access to them, nor that you cannot learn to use them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But we are presenting claims and arguments. Surely I don't have to explain what "burden of proof" entails in this context?

No, we are not doing that; you are stuck in a cycle of claims and arguments, your mind repetitively describing these rigid and inflexible patterns. Where are you going with them? It looks like absolutely nowhere. Change the record, alter the dynamic, follow a different path; you might find yourself wandering into new and exciting territory, instead of pacing the same old boring psychic prison yard.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Even for the master of the non sequitur, you have quite outdone yourself there.
Chapeau!

Google deduction valid sound

Now you claimed that this deduction is reasonable:

"P1: There is no evidence for the supernatural.
C: Therefore it is unreasonable to claim it as true*."

A tad simplistic, but eminently reasonable.

Arriving at a Theistic Belief

Well, it might be, but it is not valid.
As for reasonable, that is subjective and without evidence, since the "therefore" is cognitive.
As for education I learned this in highschool. When did you learn about logical deductions?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, we are not doing that; you are stuck in a cycle of claims and arguments, your mind repetitively describing these rigid and inflexible patterns. Where are you going with them? It looks like absolutely nowhere. Change the record, alter the dynamic, follow a different path; you might find yourself wandering into new and exciting territory, instead of pacing the same old boring psychic prison yard.

Well, I don't like some of your words. But yes, once I as a skeptic changed from scientific skeptic to global skeptic, there was a whole new world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is a bad thing, imo. It implies that only that which can be shown to exist through scientific observation can be acceptable as evidence to rational human beings.

How else can you determine that something exist, if not by demonstrating its existence through some type of empirical means?

That is false.

I don't see how. Give an example of something we all agree exists, yet can't be empirically shown to exist.

We are able to evaluate historical phenomena, and make reasonable conclusions. That does not entail empirical observation.

Example?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it isn't. It is more complex than you suggest.
Either all these people are being irrational, or there is something more going on.

Millions of people in the world believe in scientology.
Either all these people are being irrational, or there is something more going on.

Millions of people in the world believe in tarrot readings.
Either all these people are being irrational, or there is something more going on.

I can go on for a while like this.

Bottom line is that we KNOW people are very prone to superstition and irrational beliefs.
It's not exactly uncommon....

Do these people have no reason for their beliefs?

All people have reasons for their beliefs. That doesn't mean those reasons are rational.

They have reasons, that you wish to deny as being rational.

When the reasons are given and we find out that they rest on logical fallacies or other problematic things, then they aren't rational.

For those reasons to be rational, they would have to be rooted in objective evidence.
But they never are. They are always rooted in logical fallacies, in "feelings" or in mere subjective opinion which might or might not be culturally informed.

You usually do this by crying "fallacy", and terminating the debate.

Which is the only thing one can do when fallacies are used to make an argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How else can you determine that something exist, if not by demonstrating its existence through some type of empirical means?



I don't see how. Give an example of something we all agree exists, yet can't be empirically shown to exist.



Example?

"Agree" is an example. The word is cognitive, abstract and have no objective referent.