Arriving at a Theistic Belief

[KWED]

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.

Someone telling you an event happened is not evidence that the event happened.

But, evidence doesn't necessary mean the claim is true. It is possible that the evidence is because of some other reason.

If there is evidence that shows the event happened, then it is reasonable to accept that it happened.

"Evidence" is something that can be independently corroborated, tested and verified. It is not simply a claim.

 

[KWED]

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?

Are you claiming that it is reasonable to insist that x exists when there is no evidence for x, or not.
Your post doesn't make it clear.

 

[KWED]

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.

Firstly, that is just an argument ad populum. (IOW, "Eat ****, 100 billion flies can't be wrong".)
Second, You cannot lump all belief in gods into the same homogeneous mass. Most of them are mutually exclusive. So your numbers are actually "Percentage following god X vs everyone else", which makes every religion a minority.
Lastly, irreligion is way more than 1%, and has been in the past. At the last census, 0ver 60% of UK respondents stated that they were not religious. Even 6% of Saudi Arabians claim to be "committed atheists".

Your alleged facts are fallacious.

Careful with that irony. It burns!
As JP Moynahan said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts".

 

[KWED]

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?

Your attempts at humour do not hide your inability to address my points.
You were simply wrong in your claims. That's what comes from assuming that what you think is actual fact rather than doing a little research.

 

[KWED]

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.

Sorry, no idea what you are on about here.

 

[KWED]

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

Fallacy of composition.

2. Much bigotry and intolerance originates in religion. No, it's not. No religious leader ever promoted such dispositions.

I suggest you read the Bible and Quran. They contain plenty of intolerance, discrimination and supremacist ideology.

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.

Wrong. A famous study by Olds and Milner showed that rats would starve to death in order to keep delivering electronic stimulus to the pleasure centre in their brain.

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

Or maybe just stop indoctrinating children into ancient superstition?

Perhaps his foolish dementia is caused by his mistaken belief in the spiritual

? Why are you, as always, repeating me, or talking in circles?

You make a claim. I respond to it. It's kinda how debate works.

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.

You: "I reckon x is true"
Me: "Here's some data showing x is not true"
You: "Give up on the stats"

If what you are saying here is that you are not interested in evidence or rational argument, I'd kinda realised that already.

 

[KWED]

Google deduction valid sound

Now you claimed that this deduction is 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?

So you agree that it us unreasonable to insist x exists if there is no evidence for x.

Not sure what the rest of your post is supposed to be about.

BTW, the comment about "education" was in response to someone claiming that it is pointless and futile to try and use reason and evidence to explain to people why they are wrong about something.
Do you think that education is pointless and futile? (Actually, you probably do, don't you?)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you claiming that it is reasonable to insist that x exists when there is no evidence for x, or not.
Your post doesn't make it clear.

We have 3 concepts: Reasonable, valid and sound. The latter 2 are connected in logic, but reasonable is not. But since you seem want to concentrate on reasonable, reasonable it is.
But before we get to reasonable as such tell me the difference between the verb "be" in the present tense for these 2 cases of "is":
It is unwise to walk on a frozen lake, if the ice is too thin.
Yes, it could be a longer sentence, but just tell me if the definition of the verb "be" is the same in the 2 cases.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you agree that it us unreasonable to insist x exists if there is no evidence for x.

Not sure what the rest of your post is supposed to be about.

BTW, the comment about "education" was in response to someone claiming that it is pointless and futile to try and use reason and evidence to explain to people why they are wrong about something.
Do you think that education is pointless and futile? (Actually, you probably do, don't you?)

We haven't gotten to what I think about it being reasonable or not, or what I think about education.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am not a part of your "we". I believe differently.

Yes, which is why you love (don't love!) differently.

We are people Christ died for, per the Bible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, which is why you love (don't love!) differently.

We are people Christ died for, per the Bible.

Yeah, I am not one of them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yeah, I am not one of them.

Which is why you shudder at "we". You want to separate from me--but I want you to have eternal life, per the Bible, not separated from me, God and others forever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which is why you shudder at "we". You want to separate from me--but I want you to have eternal life, per the Bible, not separated from me, God and others forever.

You are not me. Leave me alone for your personal beliefs as how you do your life. I will do that same when it comes to you as you.

 

[KWED]

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.

We know that we can alter specific areas of consciousness by physically, chemically or electrically altering specific parts of the brain. That alone is enough to suggest that consciousness is a product of the physical brain.
Then there is the fact that all signs of consciousness end when the physical brain dies.
Add to that the fact that every attempt to demonstrate consciousness existing independent of the brain has failed, and it seems entirely reasonable to accept that consciousness is a product of the physical brain - until some contradictory evidence is forthcoming.
Do you have any such evidence? (Note: claims of NDEs or OBEs by living people is not any such evidence).

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 have never claimed the physical world exists only in the brain.

I suspect actually, that you do trust your senses, most of the time.

Of course I do. I never claimed otherwise (I think you may be confusing me with @mikkel_the_dane ). However, I also know that my senses can be deceiving and so I can't assume that everything they tell me is always accurate. Same with claims made by other about what their senses tell them. Pretty straightforward stuff.

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?

No idea what your point is here. Are you claiming that because I assume that it is night when I look out of the window at 2.00am and it's dark, therefore I must also trust people when they claim god spoke to them?

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.

Oh, you are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Of course I do. I never claimed otherwise (I think you may be confusing me with @mikkel_the_dane ). However, I also know that my senses can be deceiving and so I can't assume that everything they tell me is always accurate. Same with claims made by other about what their senses tell them. Pretty straightforward stuff.
...

Well, I also trust my senses in general like you.

 

[Sutekh]

We know that the brain can produce experiences that are not real, despite seeming completely real to the subject.
Therefore any "personal psychic experience" cannot be claimed as "evidence".
To paraphrase Hume, if you experience something that means the laws of nature are meaningless, it is more likely that you simply imagined it.

Thanks for your typical Atheist lecture, Mr. Know it all. It takes a lot of balls to arrogantly spew your theories by validating it as the "right one."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We know that the brain can produce experiences that are not real, despite seeming completely real to the subject.
Therefore any "personal psychic experience" cannot be claimed as "evidence".
To paraphrase Hume, if you experience something that means the laws of nature are meaningless, it is more likely that you simply imagined it.

You do know that there are laws of nature is an axiomatic assumption and not a fact.

 

[KWED]

Thanks for your typical Atheist lecture, Mr. Know it all. It takes a lot of balls to arrogantly spew your theories by validating it as the "right one."

You seem upset. Fear not, I wasn't having a go, just explaining that it isn't always a good idea to assume that everything you experience must necessarily be real - especially if it means we have to through out the laws of physics in order to accommodate it.

 

[KWED]

You do know that there are laws of nature is an axiomatic assumption and not a fact.

The laws of nature do exist. The effectively describe the way things work. However, you are correct if what you meant is that they are not actual "things" with a physical existence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The laws of nature do exist. The effectively describe the way things work. However, you are correct if what you meant is that they are not actual "things" with a physical existence.

No, they don't. There are no laws of all of nature in a scientific sense.