God did it

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, just "yes".



Yea yeah, whatever.

You win. Everything is subjective and mere opinion, facts don't exist and objective research is impossible. Whatever. Have fun using your internet capable device wich apparantly only works because of the "subjective opinions" of some engineer.

No, everything is not subjective and everything is not objective. As long as you do a dichotomy and can't combine the 2, I continue.
Gravity is not everything.
Everything is not objective.
Everything is not subjective.
Everything is not "is".
Everythings were, are, will be a combination of many aspects and relationships.
As long as you do:
Everything is with science and the rest doesn't matter, I can "get" you.
What matters, making sense, sensible, worth, useful, good and what not are in humans for the everyday world and not out there as observable.
You act as if you can observe the purpose of life using science. You can't. And you can't use reason and logic on everything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, everything is not subjective and everything is not objective.

Then you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and your entire case becomes even more meaningless then it already was.

As long as you do a dichotomy and can't combine the 2, I continue.

It's a dichotomy by definition. Things are either objective or they aren't. If they aren't, they are subjective.
It's either one or the other. Otherwise, both words are meaningless.

Gravity is not everything.
Everything is not objective.
Everything is not subjective.
Everything is not "is".

Never claimed otherwise, as I have explained so many times already. I don't know how many more times the scope within wich I'm talking needs to be clarified, before it sinks through.

Everything is with science and the rest doesn't matter, I can "get" you.

Never said that. That's again just you inventing stuff.

You act as if you can observe the purpose of life using science.

Never said anything remotely like that. Again just you inventing stuff.

And you can't use reason and logic on everything.

Never said that either. Again just you inventing stuff.


Perhaps you should start responding to what is actually said instead of the stuff you are imagining that people say......

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
It's a dichotomy by definition. Things are either objective or they aren't. If they aren't, they are subjective.
It's either one or the other. Otherwise, both words are meaningless.
...

So how can from the Big Bang all to now, something objective caused something subjective.
That is your problem. Objective things caused that I subjectively can write this.

You can't explain, how subjectivity is cause by objective things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So how can from the Big Bang all to now, something objective caused something subjective.
That is your problem. Objective things caused that I subjectively can write this.

You can't explain, how subjectivity is cause by objective things.

Objective reality bringing forth beings with brains capable of subjective thought, is not at all a problem.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Objective reality bringing forth beings with brains capable of subjective thought, is not at all a problem.

So objective turns subjective. So it can't be objective OR(logic) subjective.

Are you conceding that logic has a limit?

 

[BilliardsBall]

1. That has not happened yet so it'd be a guess at best.

2. I have nothing against Christians so you're projecting.

3. You're so insecure you think everyone who disagrees hates Christians so I guess your persecution complex is shining through as well.

I'll upgrade you in my perception if you stop being so ridiculously biased. Any disagreement or argument i'll ever have with you has nothing to do with faith or religions. It has everything to do with you trying to bend everyone to see things your way.

But if you have to actively DO that, it means your arguments are too weak on their own.

What you mean by evidence is not the same others mean by it, for example, yet you are not seeing this divide of viewpoints. You just cry persecution for any sort of disagreement.

I honestly am worried about your medication.

So--you are insulting me, saying I'm insane and off meds, rather than exhibiting the precise love and respect that undermines what the Bible teaches consistently--I love you, you hate me.

THANK YOU for AGAIN being a typical forum skeptic. I appreciate your affirmation of my faith!

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's not a proper application about Occam's razor.

If anything, Occam's razor is the last thing I would invoke to try and support my case, if I were you...
Because Occam's razor is this: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

Another way of formulating that, is that the explanation that requires the least assumptions is the most likely one.

The idea that religion is just another manifestation of superstition, requires no assumptions at all. We know superstition exists. And purely by the number of vastly, vastly different and mutually exclusive faith based beliefs systems, we KNOW that MOST of them HAVE to be incorrect. At best, only one is correct. But since they all make the same type of faith-based superstitious claims, it is far more likely that all are incorrect.

So, in summary:
We know people are easily deceived.
We know people are very prone to superstition, confirmation bias, etc
We know that most religions have to be wrong
And last but not least, the "faith" in "faith based beliefs", literally means that unjustified assumptions are being made.

On the other hand, concluding that the religious are most likely mistaken, requires no assumptions at all - or at least no unjustified assumptions and / or far less assumptions then thinking a small group of believers happens to have stumbled on the one correct religion.


So to conclude: invoking occam's razor properly, actually leads to the opposite conclusion then you are shooting for...............



It is in fact disengenous of you to pretend as if these "profound life experiences" all agree with eachother and/or can be lumped together. I can guarantee you that the "profound life experiences" of hindu's will be vastly different from the ones of scientologists which in turn in vastly different from the ones of christians, wiccans, voodoo sjamans, bigfoot spotters or alien abductees.

Please do not pretend as if you agree / believe the claims of such experiences. You don't.
You don't believe the experiences of scientologists, because you are not a scientologist. You think that's nonsense. You think they are wrong / mistaken.
You think the same about the experiences of muslims, hindu's, wiccans, voodoo sjamans, alien abductees etc etc etc.

Please do not pretend otherwise, unless you are really going to claim that next to being a christian, you also believe in Shiva, Allah, Bigfoot, Quetzalcoatl, Lord Xenu and our immortal inner Thetans, voodoo magic, etc etc. I'm guessing though, that you don't.

So clearly, that must mean that you, just like me, think these people are mistaken, do you not?

Consider how you feel about these people's beliefs and their experiences. Now realise that I think the exact same about yours.

And for the record: I don't doubt people's experiences. I accept that they had experiences. I think most people are sincere. But that doesn't mean that I believe their explanation / interpretation of these experiences.

Take alien abductees for example. Did you know that there are those that actually pass lie detector tests etc? They are really sincere. They really do honestly believe that they were abducted by aliens. I don't doubt that they had an experience wich makes them believe this. I just think they are mistaken about what they think they've experienced. Maybe they just had a really really life-like dream - that would also be an experience. Perhaps they had a fever and started hallucinating. So many options are possible.

Note also that atheists aren't immune to superstition. An atheist is capable of believing all kinds of non-religious nonsense as much as the next person.



That's not a feeling. That's a fact. A fact that is extremely easy to point out.
A stupid stereotype optical illusion already illustrates it. A few cleverly arranged lines on a piece of paper and your brain can't figure it out and gets it completely wrong.

A magician's entire carreer is build around the fact that humans are hilariously easy to deceive.




What speaks volumes, is your pathetic attempt at changing the topic just to try and get an opening to bash atheist's morals and ethics.

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response. Respectfully, one of your central arguments seems to be:

"It is in fact disengenous of you to pretend as if these "profound life experiences" all agree with eachother and/or can be lumped together. I can guarantee you that the "profound life experiences" of hindu's will be vastly different from the ones of scientologists which in turn in vastly different from the ones of christians, wiccans, voodoo sjamans, bigfoot spotters or alien abductees."

I agree--after all--I have a Bachelor's in Religion from a secular university. Field exercises even included mosque attendance and much more.

I can tell you this--it is vital, as you know, in a debate format, to define terms. You are saying I cannot lump together these experiences, but by definition:

"Encounters with a god, the numinous, past lives, the supernatural, superstitions like witchcraft, Christian/Jewish/Muslim prayer and 1,000 other things we can name have this in common: THEY THOROUGHLY ON THEIR FACE REPUDIATE MATERIALISM AND ARE NEAR UNIVERSAL AMONG HUMAN KIND."

Thanks for letting me clarify. Or put differently, here's my thesis, "Since one person ever in human history encountering a genuine post-death experience or a god demolishes materialism, it takes a HUGE amount of BLIND FAITH to believe that NO ONE EVER has had such an experience, since such experiences are NEAR UNIVERSAL."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Does not follow.



Does not follow.



What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.



Well, it's kind of hard to use scientifically grounded logic when talking about a hypothetical world that is filled with magic and which is indistinguishable from sheer fantasy..................

After all, if scientifically grounded logic was the starting point, then bronze age mythologies wouldn't even be suggested in the first place, because science comes forth from evidence and data, not from "dreams" and "visions" and "revelations".

I cannot recall ever on RF suggesting the starting point is magical visions or revelations. The starting point should be skepticism followed by a critical appraisal of alleged eyewitness accounts in addition to alleged prophecy fulfillment--for the Bible, which claims both and is grounded in a logical step process toward trust in Jesus Christ.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So--you are insulting me, saying I'm insane and off meds, rather than exhibiting the precise love and respect that undermines what the Bible teaches consistently--I love you, you hate me.

THANK YOU for AGAIN being a typical forum skeptic. I appreciate your affirmation of my faith!

Well, I used to be a typical forum skeptic, but I am trying to change.
But I get the short satisfaction of vilifying the opponent. It never really lasts, at least for me, so I am trying to learn it differently and get more out of it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1. You have no authority to talk about science. You don't believe in science.
2. What is timelight?
3. Are you saying that God spent eternity making angels and heaven? If that is that case, why do people say "God needed another angel in heaven" when a child dies?

That's really funny. But I can see how you might come to that conclusion since I sometimes write about Adam & Eve and the Flood as if I actually believed in them.



That's quite a spread since spiritual people are not logical and logical people are not spiritual.

What is that supposed to mean, "I don't believe in science"? How rude. I not only trust science, I try to apply the scientific method to theology. Science rules! How dare you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
"Encounters with a god, the numinous, past lives, the supernatural, superstitions like witchcraft, Christian/Jewish/Muslim prayer and 1,000 other things we can name have this in common: THEY THOROUGHLY ON THEIR FACE REPUDIATE MATERIALISM AND ARE NEAR UNIVERSAL AMONG HUMAN KIND."

...

It depends on how you view knowledge in regards to any positive metaphysics and ontology.
Because it doesn't follow what reality really is based on what humans say about it. But that is skepticism and philosophy. And I will only continue if you want to.

 

[Darkstorn]

So--you are insulting me, saying I'm insane and off meds, rather than exhibiting the precise love and respect that undermines what the Bible teaches consistently--I love you, you hate me.

THANK YOU for AGAIN being a typical forum skeptic. I appreciate your affirmation of my faith!

I was accusing you of a bunch of other things like dishonesty and insecurity too. You didn't address those in any way so i'll take it as a silent admission.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was accusing you of a bunch of other things like dishonesty and insecurity too. You didn't address those in any way so i'll take it as a silent admission.

I hope you have a good enough life. But please try to keep it some what more civil.
I get that you Know how the world works and you properly view e.g. irrationalism to mean that everything is subjective.
Everything is not subjective.
Everything is not objective.
The list goes on, for all the things everything is not as long as you list only one factor at a time.

 

[Darkstorn]

I hope you have a good enough life. But please try to keep it some what more civil.
I get that you Know how the world works and you properly view e.g. irrationalism to mean that everything is subjective.
Everything is not subjective.
Everything is not objective.
The list goes on, for all the things everything is not as long as you list only one factor at a time.

I feel like you're trying to make me drown in a puddle. You need to get a lot deeper than that if you really want to give me advice.

My advice to you: Stop regressing everything into nothingness. The only thing you'll achieve is no one understanding your view. They warn you about this very effect when you study philosophy: Don't believe in your own **** too hard, otherwise you'll just be another dogmatist.

I could reduce you to nothing. But it'd be redundant, like most of your reasoning. To purposefully try to make things as complex and "relative" as possible bears no practical purpose in my opinion. I like to simplify instead of adding needless complexity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I feel like you're trying to make me drown in a puddle. You need to get a lot deeper than that if you really want to give me advice.

My advice to you: Stop regressing everything into nothingness. The only thing you'll achieve is no one understanding your view. They warn you about this very effect when you study philosophy: Don't believe in your own **** too hard, otherwise you'll just be another dogmatist.

I could reduce you to nothing. But it'd be redundant, like most of your reasoning. To purposefully try to make things as complex and "relative" as possible bears no practical purpose in my opinion. I like to simplify instead of adding needless complexity.

Here is the reduction of everything as per Descartes. I doubt everything, but I realize there is something left, Namely that I doubt. So you can't reduce everything down to nothing, because there is something. That you can reduce.

I know this and you don't. BTW words are not magic, so you can't reduce me to nothing, because your words hold no magical power over me.

 

[night912]

No, everything is not subjective and everything is not objective. As long as you do a dichotomy and can't combine the 2, I continue.
Gravity is not everything.
Everything is not objective.
Everything is not subjective.
Everything is not "is".
Everythings were, are, will be a combination of many aspects and relationships.
As long as you do:
Everything is with science and the rest doesn't matter, I can "get" you.
What matters, making sense, sensible, worth, useful, good and what not are in humans for the everyday world and not out there as observable.
You act as if you can observe the purpose of life using science. You can't. And you can't use reason and logic on everything.

You just torn apart your whole argument. You believe that everything is not objective or subjective and yet you tell others that their views are subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You just torn apart your whole argument. You believe that everything is not objective or subjective and yet you tell others that their views are subjective.

No, some of their views are about the subjective, others are about the objective. But some posters confuse objective and subjective.
Now if you want to be technical, all we say about reality is in part subjective, because we say it, but that has a limit. Words are not magical and thinking is not the only thing humans do. When we start interacting with some parts of reality, we run into the objective, which we can't control with words, thinking and feelings. But there are some things, we can do with words about thoughts and feelings. We can try to influence other humans.

To deny that we can use words about thoughts and feelings, requires words about thoughts and feelings. So of course words about thoughts and feelings are a part of reality and they can influence other humans' behavior.
BTW Anyone explaining to you that reality is objective or something similar to that effect, are trying subjectively to influence you to think in the same manner.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I cannot recall ever on RF suggesting the starting point is magical visions or revelations

In religion, any religion, that is always the starting point.
Religions aren't discovered through objective analysis of testable data.

The starting point should be skepticism followed by a critical appraisal of alleged eyewitness accounts in addition to alleged prophecy fulfillment--for the Bible, which claims both and is grounded in a logical step process toward trust in Jesus Christ.

No amount of "testimony" is ever enough to accept claims concerning the suspension or violation of natural law.
No amount of "testimony" is ever enough to accept extra-ordinary claims of any kind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Encounters with a god, the numinous, past lives, the supernatural, superstitions like witchcraft, Christian/Jewish/Muslim prayer and 1,000 other things we can name have this in common: THEY THOROUGHLY ON THEIR FACE REPUDIATE MATERIALISM AND ARE NEAR UNIVERSAL AMONG HUMAN KIND."

How can that ever be the case, if at best only one version of these experiences can be accurate?

After, it is not possible that both hindu's and christians are correct. One or both HAS to be wrong.

This is my actual central point: of ALL those mutually exclusive things, AT BEST only 1 is correct.
Meaning that the vast majority MUST be mistaken.

How could such things ever repudiate anything, if it has - at best - a success rate of 0.1%????
That makes no sense at all...

Now, if we also take into account the very real, very demonstrated psychological fact that humans are incredibly easy to deceive, have a demonstrated tendency to hold irrational and superstitious beliefs....

Then it seems to me instead of "repudiating materialism", the very fact that there is such a wide range of mutually exclusive beliefs... seems to me that it instead repudiates all those beliefs.


Having said that... even if 100% of people followed the same religion, it would still be a faith based undertaking with no rational evidence to back it up.

Such faith based beliefs have exactly zero explanatory power and therefor can't repudiate anything at all.

Now, eventhough I don't label myself a materialist (to dogmatic for my taste - I don't know if the physical is all that exists), at least materialism is supported by literally all data.... Because the ONLY thing we can actually confirm to exist, is the physical.

Thanks for letting me clarify. Or put differently, here's my thesis, "Since one person ever in human history encountering a genuine post-death experience or a god demolishes materialism, it takes a HUGE amount of BLIND FAITH to believe that NO ONE EVER has had such an experience, since such experiences are NEAR UNIVERSAL."

Here's where your case falls apart imo. With the word "genuine". That is just a claim. A claim not in evidence.

Having said that, as I have explained already, I completely disagree that such experiences are near universal.

What is actually near universal is that humans are superstitious, easy to deceive, prone to type 1 cognition errors, have a tendency to infuse agency in random events,.... and religions are just one manifestation of that. Alien abductees are another.

There is actual evidential support for my thesis, while I see nothing but problems with yours.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So objective turns subjective. So it can't be objective OR(logic) subjective.

Objective as in "objective reality" and subjective as in "subjective opinions" are adjectives, but you are using them as nouns. So yours is a nonsensical statement with no meaning.

So I can only repeat myself: there is absolutely no problem with objective reality bringing forth beings capable of subjective thought.

Case in point.... biological reproduction. How reproduction works, the process of biological reproduction, is an objective process. That is to say, how it works is distinct from human opinion concerning how it works. It works the way it works, regardless what humans believe about it.

Yet the result is a being capable of subjective thought.

So there you go... an objective process that brings forth a subjective being.

He shoots, he scores.....

Are you conceding that logic has a limit?

Are you asking random irrelevant questions again?