SecularFuture

mnkbdky
Well... why do you bitch when I use words that mean more than one thing? When I made comments about the "natural" world, I was not just talking about one natural thing, or two natural things. I was talking about ALL natural things. The same applies for my use of the word "supernatural".

Unlike "divine experiences", you could make "being in the company of ducks" a consistant experience, with a little effort.

In other words.... you can't defend your position. Thats what I thought! Like I said in the FIRST post of this thread....

---- "If you believe that some things are impossible, or believe that a god is the governor of your “now” and your “future”, you are -- in fact -- without reason or evidence for those beliefs. You are, essentially hanging by the thin threads of blind -- unfounded -- faith."



CASE CLOSED!

You are the weakest link!
Goodbye!

mnkbdky

I wonder who is more foolish the person who believes contradictions or the one who tries to argue with someone who believes contradictions.

I am tired of trying to explain to SF why his belief is contradictory. Perhaps, somebody else can try.

I wash my hands of this.

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

Mnkbdky
The fact remains. You ignored the majority of my last post because it had questions that you COULD NOT answer. You don't HAVE to answer them to me. Just try answering them to yourself sometime.

Why couldn't you explain how an "immaterial being" could have thought? Why didn't you challenge my 5 Points Against Religious Theism? I gave you the definitions that I was using.

davros4269

Mntbdky,

You require evidence from me that requiring evidence for belief requires evidence?

I can hardly undestand that sentence! Lets use counter examples - what do you believe in that doesn't require evidence? You used counter-evidence to discredit reicarnation and the Mormon god.

Your own experience you cite as personal evidence - would you believe in god without evidence? Even if you don't buy, directly, the above convoluted statement, you certainly act as if you do. While I don't consider your innate-god-notions evidence, _you do_, and this, you have said, is _why_ you believe in god, no?

It does seem as if the statement above, read just right, contradicts itself. I honestly don't know how to word it so that it makes more sense - perhaps, as I've said, English doesn't allow for wording it any better, nevertheless, we both agree with the statement in different ways. I claim that noone really believes anything at all without proof, contradiction or not, the issue is what proof is accepted by whom. I do not accept your innate-god-concept as proof for the following reasons. If you claim that I cannot prove that everything (including belief) requires proof or at least evidence than I at least claim that we all act like it does

Lets assume you are correct in your premise - what prevents each person's imagination from being right then? I claim that you can't defeat my dragon notion - as you say, it has "no defeaters" because I qualified my dragon as bloopless, which not a ridiculous notion, not anymore than omnxxxxx is (actually, they are both rather _silly_).

If you don't accept that, try this: you can say that it doesn't matter, your case is proven, there are no defeaters for your god idea so you win this argument. But I also win my argument for my dragon god. Now, what if I were to say that my dragon god tells me that no other gods exist, not even in the brains of others? Wouldn't both being right be a contradiction and therefore, disprove your premise by your own suggestion? But, how can anyone be _sure_ that a contradiction even exists? It requires outside evidence, right? Therefore can I not claim that without outside evidence to avoid contradictions, your innate-god-sense is defeated?

I have God experiences and therefore believe God exists
Any belief that is based on experience in the abscence of defeaters--sufficient contrary evidence--is justified and is a grounded belief and is therefore rational.
There is not sufficient contrary evidence against the existence of God
Therefore, my belief in God is a justified and grounded belief and therefore rational.

Explain the, "and therefore rational" part?

Further, your belief will never be justified because you don't merely have a vauge god concept, your god has properties which require outside-of-your-brain beliefs to back it up, each of which is a nice target for their own debates, and, refutation (soul/numerical identify over time, the Bible). Your god concept isn't any more rational than my dragon belief or the other poster's Halley Berry fantasy.

You've actually never addressed this point (well, you haven't addressed many of my points) - your god concept must, by your own definition, reside in it's protected cove inside your head. Any attempts to reach out and it no longer holds water.

You also have never addressed the issue of how you know you experienced god or wether you had a chemical imbalance that fatefull day? If either possibility is correct, than you yourself can be your own defeater, can you not?

Deep man, deep!

Tootles,

Davros

mnkbdky

It seems to me with this broad definition of evidence as reasons makes it impossible not to have evidence for any belief. Everyone has some reason for why they believe the things they do. Let me demonstrate.

Colonel Sanders: Why are alligators so angry?

Bobby Bushea: Momma says it's because they have too many teeth and no toothbrush.

The reason why Bobby believes alligators are so angry is because his Momma told him that story. Now, Bobby is rational in believing his Momma in the absence of Colonel Sanders’ public demonstrable proof or evidence that the real reason they are so angry is because of an enlarged medulla oblongata.

I think I would still disagree. Making reasons equal to evidence makes it impossible not to have evidence. When this is done Clifford's statement becomes absurd.

All beliefs have reasons
reasons=evidence
Therefore, to have a belief about X is to have reasons for X
Therefore, to have a belief about X is to have evidence for X

It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence"

becomes,

It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to have evidence for X (anything) upon insufficient evidence.

I am not even sure what this statement is saying. Let alone if it is true.

Notice that my belief is not that the history of scripture (e.g., flood, exodus, etc.) is true--though I do also believe this. Rather it is the belief that the God of whom the scriptures speak about exists. Your belief seems to affirm that the history which is recorded is false and/or the God of whom the scriptures testify does not exist. Both I think suffer from serious problems.

As to the history aspect of the claim I think it is quite clear that even the most liberal readers of scripture agree that at least some of what is written did take place. The character of which the scriptures talk about did exist and the events did happen. The miracles and the reports of Israeli war victories make be suspect but as far as the actual wars and people it is generally assumed that they happened and existed (The flood could be considered a either as an event or miracle. Some believe that the term "all" in the Noahic flood should be understood as "all known X by the author." I tend to agree with this interp.)

Therefore, your ancient mythology affirmation might be a bit of a stretch. Mythology is usually about creatures and/or people that do not actually exist (e.g., Hercules, Medusa). The fact that the characters in the scriptures existed might count as defeaters to your affirmation of ancient mythology.

Regarding God not existing we already agreed that that cannot be known unless there is one is omniscient. However, know that God exist does not require omniscience.

So I am not sure how your affirmation of this fact helps.

Furthermore, I am not sure what it means to have an affirmation or an experience that confirms something as mythology. I understand what it means to encounter the presence of someone or something and therefore know that they/it exist(s). However, I am not sure I understand what it means to experience the falsity of a story. Do you just say this doesn't feel true? The theist is not saying that they feel the story is true, they are saying that a being enters their presence and speaks with them.

There is also the question of, from whom did you receive this affirmation? The theist believes that God is the one who is affirming this; your affirmation is admittedly coming from yourself.

The theist claims that an omniscient God, who is bound to know the truth of his own existence and the truth of the events and miracles in scripture, is providing the reader of scripture with knowledge of his existence and the truth of the events and miracles. It is revealed knowledge not natural knowledge. And unless the theist has reason to believe that God is lying to them they are justified in believing the affirming experience.

Your claim must come from the natural and limited human knowledge. Your claim is that your knowledge of the falsity of God is coming from a nescient human.

Again, I am not sure the two claims are comparable. The first believes that an all knowing being is entering their presence and providing them with insight; the second depends on the acquisition of knowledge completely from their own ignorance.

However, I would agree that in the absence of the God experience or a valid and true argument for God's existence--sufficient contrary evidence--one is justified in not believing in God's existence. For if they do not experience God or think there is evidence from him, Why would they believe in him or even that he exists? There seems to be no reason to believe in the absence of experience or evidence.

Experience can be overridden by physical evidence. Let's take the case of the rape victim. Let's say that the victim took some LSD and somebody was tape recording them the whole time they were tripping including when the person who took the LSD begins to believe they are being raped. The next day the rape victim does not remember taking the LSD and the images of the rape are so real that they believe they actually were raped. So far I think the victim is justified in their belief. However, the victim’s friend comes over later that day and shows the victim the video. The video acts as a defeater. It provides sufficient contrary evidence to the claim of rape. Therefore, that person must give up their belief that they actually were raped. If they do not then they are irrational. However, they are not irrational until they are presented with the contrary evidence.

It does not seems so. It appears that experience is a little weaker than the outward public demonstration of proof. It seems that the latter can override the former, but not vice versa.

Thankfully most of us can tell the difference b/t dreams and reality. If you are cognizant of the fact that your experience of Halle saying she loved you was a dream, not reality, then no you are not justified in believing she does love you in reality.

If you are not aware of the fact that it is a dream or you are under the influence of any mind altering substances then it still does not seem that you are justified. Why? Because your belief making faculties are not functioning properly. It seems that the majority of humans have the ability to tell the diference b/t dream and reality. That is, there belief making processes are functioning properly. Therefore, the normal or proper function of the human belief making system is to tell the difference b/t dream and reality. If you have a dream and believe it is reality then it appears that your belief making processes have been damaged and you are therefore not justified in your belief.

Furthermore, if we have any doubt as to whether your dream was true or not there does seems to be a way to provide sufficient contrary evidence, just ask Halle Berry. If she says she did not, then we slap a restraining order on you and your belief is not justified. If she says she did, then that is one hell of a dream and you need to go to it bigboy.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

haverbob

Who told you anything was positive or negative.? Yes perhaps that happens in the physical world, things atttract or repel, but you seem to be talking about positive and negative opinions (I can't seem to break anyone free of that)

I guess you think I'm misrepresenting realty. No I'm questioning the common OPINIONS of reality (and the opinion of any sleeping person of reality) Until you wake up, your OPINION is your reality. Nobody ever gets this. Don't know why. It's simple.

Do you like really sad movies? I do. Further, I can feel good about myself, for what that's worth, because I adhere to a higher moral code that the Bible provides and a more accurate one at that. [/quote]

Okay, if the Bible din't create your moral code than what did??? I thought there was no moral code until religion came along? So what moral code are you living up to? Did someone else come along later and steal the concept of moral code to create a new moral code? Or is this your own moral code. If it's your own, then you no longer have the obligation of religious scriptures, so why create moral code? If you say that someone else besides the Bible (or any religious scripture) created one and that's what your adhering to, why would it include a moral code? I thought that religions made that stuff up. If you created your moral code, then why did you bother? That's just mental masturbation. Why make up or even live by a moral code if there is no punishment?

Look I know what you are saying because I used to think that way. I was probably more of a cynic than anyone in here. Answer is "yes, feeling is living as long as your are not living through the lens of your opinion, pride needs... and I'm not talking about food and water. But let's suppose that you had no food and water. That's pain.

So at what point does it become "suffering"? It's the suffering I'm after because that's the problem. People don't grieve over pain, it's the suffering that they grieve over. People say "ouch" or ahh. ahh, ahh over pain. Pain can be good. For example, the one thing about cancer is that one can have it for a while and you won't know it. Would it be better if you felt the pain right away, so that you could do something about it? So why avoid pain? Why is it bad? It's great because it tells you that something is wrong. It's the subsequent invented concept of suffering that follows and stems from a negative opinion of pain that I'm after.

That's what really bothers people. Suffering. That's why we feel the need to always quest for more, because we are not happy. We THINK we are suffering. If you were happy, why would you be seeking for more enlightenment and hence be on this board? What else you could you want if you were happy? When's the last time that you asked anyone to explain to you why you were happy or you debated about the fact that you are happy? So your not happy. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you identify that and start thinking about why you are not. That's the beginning of unconditional happiness.

Why would you want to extend life or want to live forever? Let's suppose that life met all of your preconditions for being happy. What happens if your preconditions change? Then life would have to change as well. What happens when you run out of ideas for preconditions? A friend of mine put it best. Why would I want to live forever or be in Heaven forever. How long before Lobster and fine wine becomes boring? If you didn't have an opinion, they wouldn't be serving the same thing in Heaven, and it would all be new and pleasurable (obviously a simplistic example but read between the lines).

I don't think I'm going to get anywhere with this, and that's okay, because I didn't need to. Just interesting stuff. However it gets boring if I can't get someone to see a completely alternative point of view, because I can't have the kind of discussion that I was looking for. Oh well. No one's fault but mine.

davros4269

haverbob,

Until you wake up, your OPINION is your reality. Nobody ever gets this. Don't know why. It's simple.

I don't really know what to make of that. Wake up from this reality into what? Of course my outlook on life is just my opinion. Tell me, do you think you are happier than me for some reason, I mean, is there some reason why I would want to wake up or something? Maybe I'm better off sleeping?

What do you mean wake up anyway, do you mean awaken into a new view of the world that includes Jesus, or are you not that specific?

Oh, I'm sure some of my morals came from the Bible through my parents and from culture itself. However, I don't use the Bible to justify my morals any longer, nor do I keep all of the morals that the Bible preaches. For example, I see no sin in prostitution (although I am in a manogomous relationship and have never been with a prostitute). Most of the sex related issues I have problems with.

I also see no sin in homosexuality, as a matter of fact, I do see "sin" in, how to say, homophobes and the like. I also see sin in the teaching of pseudoscience under the guise of real science, aka, creation/intelligent design. If you want to get picky, I dislike the Bible's views on women, I certainly don't think they should have predefined roles, nor do I think the man should be in charge. I find slavery disgusting, in all forms, even though the Bible allows it in some sense. i could go on and on and on... And I most certainly do not believe in absolute morality.

As for moral origins, i've never read anything on the matter, but I have read a bit about religion origins, societial origins and the like. You must know that the Bible and it's religions weren't the first. So, if we say we base our morals on religion, we don't use the Bible as the ancient-benchmark, so to speak.

There is dispute now about what the oldest language is; i was taught in school that it was Sumerian, but recent findings indicates it may be Egyptian - I won't mention anything earlier yet because without writting and records to dig up, it's speculation.

The Sumerians settled down and discovered farming in Iraq way back and found that they needed to share water for their irrigation ditches. They needed a means to record who got how much, hence writing developed. Now, you can see the use for morals here, no? For a right and wrong below the level of the law, lets say, for lack of a more precise explanation of morals. If the farmers were "nice" to each other, they prospered.

Now go back further to pre-humans and close relatives like chimps. There is some evidence, rather, some interpretations of findings which _may_ indicate that pre-humans had ceremony, funerals, for example. Certainly you don't think they used the Bible as their basis for anything? If they were even as smart, lets say, as a human with downs syndrome, certainly they had a moral code to guide them, since they were quite a bit apart from instinct like we are...if they had ceremony, anwyay.

Take chimps in the middle. i don't know if the word moral would apply, but they certainly have rules/laws, and i don't mean a simple pecking order - complex societal rules.

Like I said, I haven't read much but I would extrapolate that if you go from chimps to pre-humans to summerians, you've got morals without the Bible, although I won't deny that religion had a hand to play with the Sumerians.

Another idea is the idea of anarchy and the bully or 'biggest guy rules' origin of society. A bit like what most tribes are based on. If you start with anarchy and then the biggest guy gets the best girl and the most food, he will want to protect what he has. So, he invents rules and protects his girls, out of a combination of need and love, and his kids. Now, his girls may want to extend this beyond themselves to their families, because of their own connections. Even if the bully has no direct need to protect his wife's mother and her family,it follows that she will be a happier better wife if her own relations are protected. With a bit of thought you can easily extend this to include both the origin of law and morality.

Morality and societal norms would develop as the grease on the gears and allow for smooth operation. Actually, at that level, morality and law might be closer - it may be punishable, by the State (the bully), to have sex before marriage, for example, or to get caught telling a lie. This method could form without the need of religion, though if the bully was a smart-feller, as is the case often, he might _use_ religion to enforce his laws/morality in such a way as to not need a large police force, by calling himself akin to god, and so forth, ala, religion. But certainly in that example, religion is not needed as a starting point, merely as a facilitator.

Here you said: Why make up or even live by a moral code if there is no punishment?

Can I take this to mean that atheists have no morals, or, worse, if there's no Devil and no Hell, why not just rape and pillage until I'm content?

Well, I have kids, I live in a society and I have morals. Certainly since I question my morals in detail and seperate right from wrong, for myself, by using grey-matter instead of dogma, i'd wager, that it's you that's mentally masterbating Not that there's anything wrong with materbation, btw.

The problem I have with your type of happiness is what benefits the few and powerful as well, read history. If the peasants are feeling happy digging in the filth all day, not having a care even though they are malnurished and will die before age 40, thinking it's ok that they will live forever in heaven, who does that benefit? Their lord, and I don't mean god - their land owner.

I completely dislike the philosphy that if you shovel shit you can still be happy just by being happy. Hey, some of us don't like to shovel shit.

Your ideas of living forver are a bit simplistic. Do you think that living forever would be you, as you are now, in your current body, with your current human flesh and mental facalties?

I imagine living forever as a type of software inside a computer system, or cerainly as plastic and metal, to say the least.

NASA studied the problem of really long duration space flight, to nearby stars for example. They concluded that prolonging one's life would be one method of achieving this goal. They also, intelligently, mentioned that a human, as they are today, would go nuts living three times as long and being confined to a ship...so, _change_ that part of the human as well. Make them (you'll like this) happy to be alive so long.

Compare a short lived animal to a long lived animal. Take a fly which lives just a few weeks. compare it to an elephant which lives, what, 30-35 years or something close? After a few weeks, does the elephant get bored with it's life? Of course not, it's _different_.

It would be pretty silly to lengthen the life of future humans significantly and then not change their mental states to go along for the ride.

Actually, if long life is a gradual process, soceity and aspirations will probably change along with it. For example, prinmary school until one is 30, if we live, say, 300 years. I doubt a 300 year old person would be educated, married and divorced and then utterly bored from year 120 to 300...think about it.

Having said that, if I could life 200 years on good health and energy, I'd never be bored - all of your talk about living, don't you have hobbies? I've never been scuba diving, for example, and I don't have a pilots license...the list goes on...

Tootles,

Davros

haverbob

Davros,

Your right there knocking at the door. Just needs one small adjustment. It's not "wake up from this reality". it's wake up from your opinions INTO reality (not FROM this reality, you have to be in reality to wake up FROM it). Your idea (and almost everyone else's) of this reality is actually nothing but your opinions. Opinions block our view of reality because reality is neither good nor bad, it just exists. Reality does not create opinions, we do. If reality created opinions, then animals would have to have opinions also.

Consider Captain Crunch cereal. When i was a kid, I used to LOVE Captain Crunch. Captain Crunch was good !! Now as an adult, I can't even take one spoonful of that crap. Captain Crunch is bad. If Captain Crunch is still the same exact cereal, then how did it go from good to bad? Because my opinions changed. Truth of the matter is that Captain Crunch is neither good nor bad, and it never was. I made it good or bad. So when I look at Captain Crunch as bad, am I seeing reality?

About the Jesus comment. Jesus was trying to tell us something similar, but you really don't need Jesus if you grasp the crux of the matter

Sorry, it's the only way that a feeble mind as myself can think of explaining it. If it hits you, you'll feel a dam burst and EVERYTHING will look different. Want to change your neighbor, your wife your job.... I'll tell you the quickest way you can do that. Drop your opinion of it (not change it from bad to good or vice versa, drop it all together) and I promise you that your neighbor, wife, job....will immediately change. You will see the REALITY of those things instead of your good or bad opinion of it. Best that I can explain

mnkbdky

[QUOTE]Originally posted by davros4269
Mntbdky,

This is a bit messy. Rather I think it should be stated,

I require evidence from you for your belief that beliefs require evidence.

Though I have never seen any evidence--outward demonstrable proof--that my Grandma's name is Aurora I do believe that that is her name. I have also never seen any evidence that she used to be a teacher. Though I do believe she was. I have only been told these things by people, whom I trust. I think it would be a little ridiculous to ask for evidence of my Grandma's former profession or that she really is who she claims to be. In fact, it was recently discovered that my Grandma was a year older than she had been telling everyone. While going through some of her old stuff we came across her birth certificate. It said she was one year older than she claimed. When we asked her she confessed that it was true. Was it irrational to believe that she was the age she told me? No. Should I have first required evidence to believe her? No. However, once we discovered her birth certificate and she confessed, it would be irrational of me to continue to believe she was a year younger than the certificate said.

Now my grandma could have denied it and said that the birth certificate was wrong. Who would I believe? The doctor who made the certificate could have made a mistake. The doctor could have lied. If I choose to believe the certificate would I need evidence that the doctor didn't lie or make a mistake? What happens if I chose to believe my grandma? It seems to me that she would know the date of her birth. She could say that her parents told her that the certificate was wrong. In order to believe my Grandma would I need evidence that her parents really said this and would I need evidence that her parents where telling the truth? I don't think so. I think I have a primia facie right to trust my Grandma.

I do not think experience is evidence. If you read my post to Bill Sneeden you will see why.

In this debate I have defined evidence as the outward or publicly demonstrable proof.

So, I do not consider experience as evidence. I do however consider experience to be a reason. My experience is my reason for believing. It is the underlying motive for assenting to the confirmation of God's existence.

Yup.

Nope. I do not agree with the statement. Again read my post to Bill.

We already know there is one thing you believe for which there is no evidence for, namely, that beliefs require evidence. And while that one evidence-less belief may be untenable I am sure you have many more beliefs for which you have no evidence that are perfectly reasonable.

Have you been provided evidence for you belief that your Grandma's or Great Grandma's name(s) or age(s) really are what people have told you? If not do not fret, I sure you are not being lied to and you are rational for believe those who told you. If you have I am sure there is something you believe that you have not been provided evidence for.

This does not seem to work. Both being right would be a contradiction and contradictions cannot be true. Therefore, both cannot be right. However, does a belief have to be true in order to be rational? Or does a belief have to be true in order to be considered knowledge?

The latter question is more sticky. However, the answer to the first question has to be, No. It appear that one can be rational and still hold a false belief as long as it is not has not been demonstrated to be false.

For example, in the debate concerning how evolution happened there are those who believe that evolution was a slow process and there are others who believe there were rapid periods of evolution. Both sides, I assume, believe they are correct. It is true that only one side can be right or it could also be that both are wrong. These are called contrary positions. However, both sides can be rational in their beliefs. They are both looking at the same data, yet, they come to different conclusions. If it turns out that the slow team was right then were they more rational than the punctuated team? If it turn out that they are both wrong are they both irrational. It does not seem so. The team that was wrong is not irrational, they are only wrong.

That fact that there are contrary belief says nothing about one's rationality, unless is has been demonstrated that their belief is false. Therefore, a contrary belief is not a defeater for rationality.
Contrary beliefs do not prove the others belief wrong. How do we decide who is right? Perhaps we cannot. But that does not make the believers irrational. One can only be irrational when they continue to believe something in the face of sufficient contrary evidence.


Ok.

Any belief that is justified and grounded is rational.
My belief is God is justified and grounded
Therefore, my belief in God is rational

Is this what you wanted?

[quote]Further, your belief will never be justified because you don't merely have a vauge god concept, your god has properties which require outside-of-your-brain beliefs to back it up, each of which is a nice target for their own debates, and, refutation (soul/numerical identify over time, the Bible).[quote]

What are out-side-your-brain beliefs?

I don't think this is true. Anybody can experience my God. Though, if they try to do this with the five senses they will try in vain. It is only through the mind (metaphorically, the heart) that God can be experienced. However, this experience is open to everyone and anyone, much like Plato's cave.

Well, it seems to me that my belief processes are still functioning properly. It is my trust in my perceptual abilities that allows me to say I am experiencing the true God. I still know the difference between what is real and what is fantasy. I know the difference b/t dreams and reality. I know the difference between fact and fiction. I know how to distinguish logical truth from logical falsity. My reasoning abilities are still intact. If my belief processes can be shown to be faulty, then, I can be my own defeater. Though, I guarantee I will pass.

Epistemology is very hard stuff. Trying reading Plato's Theaetetus.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

Mnkbdky
Your reason is based on the assumption that there is not a naturalistic explanation available for what you believe to be the acts of a deity. The real question is –-- Why are you making this assumption? Who / what influenced this assumption?