Total Posts:230|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What would it take....

Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 9:22:15 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
... for you to become an atheist/theist?

Here is the question. We all know that we might be wrong in our beliefs. So the question is what would it take for you to change your belief. There are many things that will convert atheists to theism. Yet i have never ever heard a theist purpose one thing that would convert them to atheism. So for this reason I am mostly interested in theists.
Please remember the difference between strong and weak atheism. What would it take to make you not believe there is a god.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 1:26:34 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Geass.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 5:44:53 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
A Klondike Bar
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 6:36:27 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/5/2008 2:02:42 PM, s0m31john wrote:
At 10/5/2008 12:55:43 PM, LR4N6FTW4EVA wrote:
A preponderance of evidence.

http://img396.imageshack.us...
Repent

YOU ARE THE WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!

At 10/5/2008 1:36:32 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 10/5/2008 1:26:34 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Geass.

Which geass?

That would depend on my personality, now wouldn't it? ;)
But to get a Geass I would have to meet a person capable of giving Geass.
And if I did, and I got Geass....
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 8:46:23 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I would have to have this "God" fellow on empirics, and have it there often enough that my very survival is pretty much incompatible with the notion that I'm hallucinating that often... kinda like free will. :D

Or a logical proof based on premises I can't dispute, that would work.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 11:01:51 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/5/2008 8:46:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I would have to have this "God" fellow on empirics, and have it there often enough that my very survival is pretty much incompatible with the notion that I'm hallucinating that often... kinda like free will. :D

Great analogy R_R... So... lets assume that your 'empirics' required this god to be omnipotent... but now what about your logical proof that an omnipotent god doesn't exist... would you disband from logic or from your 'empirics'?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 8:08:16 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I'd check all premises all god**** year long, and if I couldn't figure out which premise of the contradiction was wrong, I'd become a Hegelian, since such would be adequate evidence that the law of non-contradiction is invalid, meaning I'd lose both empirics and logic :D.

But, really now. What empirical evidence could possibly demonstrate god was OMNIPOTENT? I'd have to, basically, observe him doing EVERY ACTION POSSIBLE, or at least a statistically significant sample, and I'd have died a few times over in the process.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 9:07:48 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 8:08:16 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'd check all premises all god**** year long, and if I couldn't figure out which premise of the contradiction was wrong, I'd become a Hegelian, since such would be adequate evidence that the law of non-contradiction is invalid, meaning I'd lose both empirics and logic :D.

But, really now. What empirical evidence could possibly demonstrate god was OMNIPOTENT?

Oh... but a feeling R_R a mere feeling...LOL. :D That is since you're considering feelings to be a source of empirical evidence. (free will) Look I'm going to tell you right now. I have empirically experienced God and the fact that he is all powerful. *Literally* you may not believe me but it is true. - no joke here. In fact God controlled my mind and body; actually controlled my very thoughts, made my arms and legs move around, held me down, crushed me... etc. etc. He controls your mind, informs you that he is all powerful, and you cannot disagree or question him bc you can't control your mind to do so. When god comes to you he forces your brain to realize he is all powerful in a way you have never realized anything before in your life R_R. There is a sensation (or way) of realization (derived empirically) that you cannot imagine yet bc you haven't experienced it; it is absolute and undeniable. And it will scare the living sh#* out of you. One thing you begin to understand when this happens is that the feeling of logic is just a feeling in your brain. A feeling no more significant than any other feeling. However this feeling of realization i'm talking about is a feeling that is so much more positive than anything you have experienced, so much more undeniable than the feeling of logic or anything else, you simply KNOW god exists and he is omnipotent bc you have experienced - empirically - a feeling vastly more sure than logic could ever be.

It took me several years of partaking in certain rituals in order to experience this, but anyone could in fact. Why have i done these things you may ask? Bc i am F@*king obsessed with wanting to know what the F%#k is going on in this thing called reality. However .... ultimately i must choose logic over ANY sensation i have bc logic is comprised of rules that have always worked and that exist independently of my mind.

I realize that we are basically computers R_R, computers that have a bunch of software programs on them to help them survive and many of these software programs are self contradictory. For example you have a program in you that makes you submissive to others, this was good for the smooth functioning of a tribe. You also have a program in you that makes you an ego manically maniac.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 9:15:15 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
See here's the problem. I don't trust the perceptions of someone who would say something like this:

"For example you have a program in you that makes you submissive to others, this was good for the smooth functioning of a tribe."

See, anyone who says that can't be very perceptive. Your kitchen must have the poisons and foods very far apart.

And, of course, I already addressed the "Feelings" bit as inaccurate in our little debate :D.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 9:16:09 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
As for rules that have always worked comprising logic... where did you learn this if not empirically?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 9:21:34 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
oh i forgot, i suppose the question is this:

Suppose you have experienced god were omnipotent with your "empirics" in the way i have, unimaginable to you in your current state, what then?

Here is a little graph that can help show what i mean by these empirical sensations.
It measures the level of certainty about a posited truth acquired through each.

^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ .............................................................................
^ ............................^...............................................
^ ............................^.......... ^ ..............^................
^ ............................^.......... ^.............. ^.............. ^
Omnipotent God ....Logic.... Morality.... Free Will.... Pleasure
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 9:27:09 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 9:15:15 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
See here's the problem. I don't trust the perceptions of someone who would say something like this:

"For example you have a program in you that makes you submissive to others, this was good for the smooth functioning of a tribe."

See, anyone who says that can't be very perceptive. Your kitchen must have the poisons and foods very far apart.

you vastly oversimplify the issue, lets take this into another realm. Do you perceive the existence of the self? A self? yourself?
What is logic proves that self cannot not exist as a thing? Perhaps as a action but not a thing. Yet might it be the case that we have evolved the a mechanism that makes a feel as though we have a self for the very sake of our survival?
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 9:32:13 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
so many typos im gonna try that again:
you vastly oversimplify the issue, lets take this into another realm. Do you perceive the existence of the self? A self? yourself?
What if logic proves that a self cannot not exist as a thing? Perhaps as an action but not a thing. Yet might it not be the case that we have evolved with a mechanism that makes us feel as though we have a self for the very sake of our survival?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 9:54:14 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
It's not the power of empirics that lends certainty, it's their consistency.

And, as I said, if I came across such an empiric sensation of an omnipotent being I would be forced to be a Hegelian :D.

"Do you perceive the existence of the self? A self? yourself?"
If I perceive anything, this proves the "I." :D

"
What is logic proves that self cannot not exist as a thing?"
I'll cross that bridge when you bring it to me, and not before.

"Yet might it be the case that we have evolved the a mechanism that makes a feel as though we have a self for the very sake of our survival?"

How so? I have yet to notice a single instance in which a delusion not specifically labelled a delusion has ever been useful.
Furthermore, the notion of survival assumes the notion that there is something to survive. Thus, such a feeling cannot have evolved falsely :D.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:16:29 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Ragnar and I were recently debating whether the feeling of free will absolutely must be a perception. That is to say that the feeling absolutely must correlate to what is actually going on. I said no it might just be a feeling. (or false perception.) R_R claimed that our so called perceptions cannot be false because if they didn't correlate with reality we would be "insane 100% of the time." We wouldn't be able to perceive food from poison.

Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
All I have to do is notice my own perception until you disprove it, in which case I soon find out I am dead, because it is not possible for me to live if my perceptions are that bad that much of the time
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:33:55 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"R_R claimed that our so called perceptions cannot be false"
Specifically, a perception that occurs 100% of the time cannot be.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:39:35 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 7:33:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"R_R claimed that our so called perceptions cannot be false"
Specifically, a perception that occurs 100% of the time cannot be.

well then i guess my point was that Dan Dennett disagrees as do i.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 8:02:34 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
All of that video was about evading perception. It did nothing to create false perceptions, except where such required specifics acts of effort to create perceptions, like with the squares and circles.

In any case, I await the explanation of how I end up eating food and not poison so consistently, if I can't perceive the difference nearly consistently enough.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 8:06:32 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
In any case, I await the explanation of how I end up eating food and not poison so consistently, if I can't perceive the difference nearly consistently enough.
claiming that the feeling of free will is an illusion doesn't imply that all perceptions are illusions.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 8:10:28 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Since the perception is so frequent, it implies illusion is frequent enough to most likely result in a statistically insignificant chance of perception being accurate enough often enough to result in all the necessary perceptions for survival being correct long enough for me to still be here.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 8:16:28 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 8:10:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Since the perception is so frequent, it implies illusion is frequent enough to most likely result in a statistically insignificant chance of perception being accurate enough often enough to result in all the necessary perceptions for survival being correct long enough for me to still be here.

wow R_R calling in the Chewbacca defense
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 8:22:04 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
That's a claim that it's a special type of perception, subject to different rules. What justifies it?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.