Total Posts:375|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How to have an intelligent discussion 1/3

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 9:40:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Please do not post until this is completely posted.

I've had some requests by the members of this forum to create a tutorial on how they. Personally could make this section better. This tutorial which is a 3 part series, will cover how to use logic, deal with trolls and just generally have a better forum experience.

I did copy and paste this guide from a Satanic forum I used to visit a lot, but it makes a bunch of great points on the proper use of logic, and explains it quite simply. I am aware that some things are a matter of faith, and don't wish to say you must justify those things with cold hard logic. You should be honest about whether something is a matter of faith though. You should also be able to defend your beliefs with logical arguments, the ones not honestly and openly taken by faith.

I'm certainly not picking on the religious folks in this section though. The atheists have an equally hard time, displaying logic when having a discussion. There seems to be a blind emotional type of arguing going on in a lot of places, though good logical arguments also take place. This guide to logic, is my gift to you. Taken from http://www.the600club.com...

There are many reasons for the popularity of paranormal beliefs in the United States today, including: (1) the irresponsibility of the mass media, who exploit the public taste for nonsense, (2) the irrationality of the American world-view, which supports such unsupportable claims as life after death and the efficacy of the polygraph, and (3) the ineffectiveness of public education, which generally fails to teach students the essential skills of critical thinking. As a college professor, I am especially concerned with this third problem. Most of the freshman and sophomore students in my classes simply do not know how to draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence. At most, they've been taught in high school what to think; few of them know how to think.

In an attempt to remedy this problem at my college, I've developed an elective course called "Anthropology and the Paranormal." The course examines the complete range of paranormal beliefs in contemporary American culture, from precognition and psychokinesis to channeling and cryptozoology and everything between and beyond, including astrology, UFO's and creationism. I teach the students very little about anthropological theories and even less about anthropological terminology. Instead, I try to communicate the essence of the anthropological perspective, by teaching them, indirectly, what the scientific method is all about. I do so by teaching them how to evaluate evidence. I give them six simple rules to follow when considering any claim, and then show them how to apply those six rules to the examination of any paranormal claim.

The six rules of evidential reasoning are my own distillation and simplification of the scientific method. To make it easier for students to remember these half-dozen guidelines, I've coined an acronym for them. Ignoring the vowels, the letters in the word "FiLCHeRS" stand for the rules of Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability and Sufficiency. Apply these six rules to the evidence offered for any claim , I tell my students, and no one will ever be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief. You'll be filch-proof.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 9:42:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Falsifiability

It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false.

It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning.

The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known - the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible - logically impossible - for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue - in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable.

For example, the true claim that the life span of human beings is less than 200 years is falsifiable; it would be falsified if a single human being were to live to be 200 years old. Similarly, the true claim that water freezes at 32 degrees F. is falsifiable; it would be falsified if water were to freeze at, say, 34 degrees F. Each of these claims is firmly established as scientific "fact", and we do not expect either claim ever to be falsified; however, the point is that either could be. Any claim that could not be falsified would be devoid of any propositional content; that is, it would not be making a factual assertion- it would instead be making an emotive statement, a declaration of the way the claimant feels about the world. Nonfalsifiable claims do communicate information, but what they describe is the claimant's value orientation. They communicate nothing whatsoever of a factual nature, and hence are neither true nor false. Nonfalsifiable statements are proportionally vacuous.

There are two principal ways in which the rule of falsifiability can be violated - two ways, in other words, of making nonfalsifiable claims. The first variety of nonfalsifiable statements is the undeclared claim: a statement that is so broad or vague that it lacks any propositional content. The undeclared claim is basically unintelligible and consequently meaningless. Consider, for example, the claim that crystal therapists can use pieces of quartz to restore balance and harmony to a person's spiritual energy? What does it mean to have unbalanced spiritual energy? How is the condition recognized and diagnosed? What evidence would prove that someone's unbalanced spiritual energy had been - or had not been - balanced by the application of crystal therapy? Most New Age wonders, in fact, consist of similarly undeclared claims that dissolve completely when exposed to the solvent of rationality.

The undeclared claim has the advantage that virtually any evidence that could be adduced could be interpreted as congruent with the claim, and for that reason it is especially popular among paranormalists who claim precognitive powers. Jeanne Dixon, for example, predicted that 1987 would be a year "filled with changes" for Caroline Kennedy. Dixon also predicted that Jack Kemp would "face major disagreements with the rest of his party" in 1987 and that "world-wide drug terror" would be "unleashed by narcotics czars" in the same year. She further revealed that Dan Rather "may (or may not) be hospitalized" in 1988, and that Whitney Houston's "greatest problem" in 1986 would be balancing her personal life against her career." The undeclared claim boils down to a statement that can be translated as "Whatever will be, will be."

The second variety of nonfalsifiable statements, which is even more popular among paranormalists, involves the use of the multiple out, that is, an inexhaustible series of excuses intended to explain away the evidence that would seem to falsify the claim. Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant stars at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress their claims, point to a secret "government conspiracy" that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case. Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their powers. Psychokinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from skeptical observers. Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge. The multiple out means, in effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 9:45:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true. The rule of logic thus governs the validity of inference. Although philosophers have codified and named the various forms of valid arguments, it is not necessary to master a course in formal logic in order to apply the rules of inference consistently and correctly. An invalid argument can be recognized by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises are true, then the argument is invalid. Consider the following syllogism, for example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid; because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample. If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. Not all valid arguments are sound, however. Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is frequently problematic; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. If the argument passes these two tests, however - if it is both valid and sound - then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

The rule of logic is frequently violated by pseudoscientists. Erich von Daniken, who singlehandedly popularized the ancient-astronaut mythology in the 1970's, wrote many books in which he offered invalid and unsound arguments with benumbing regularity ( see Omohundro 1976). In Chariots of the Gods? he was not above making arguments that were both logically invalid and factually inaccurate - in other words, arguments that were doubly unsound. For example, von Daniken argues that the map of the world made by the sixteenth century Turkish admiral Piri Re'is is so "astoundingly accurate" that it could only have been made from satellite photographs. Not only is the argument invalid (any number of imaginable techniques other than satellite photography could result in an "astoundingly accurate" map, but the premise is simply wrong - the Piri Re'is map, in fact, contains many gross inaccuracies (see Story 1981)

Comprehensiveness

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be exhaustive - that is, all of the available evidence must be considered.

For obvious reasons, it is never reasonable to consider only the evidence that supports a theory and to discard the evidence that contradicts it. This rule is straightforward and self-apparent, and it requires little explication or justification. Nevertheless, it is a rule that is frequently broken by proponents of paranormal claims and by those who adhere to paranormal beliefs.

For example, the proponents of biorhythm theory are fond of pointing to airplane crashes that occurred on days when the pilot, copilot, and/or navigator were experiencing critically low points in their intellectual, emotional, and/or physical cycles. The evidence considered by the biorhythm apologists, however, does not include the even larger number of airplane crashes that occurred when the crews were experiencing high or neutral points in their biorhythm cycles (Hines 1988:160). Similarly, when people believe that Jeanne Dixon has precognitive ability because she predicted the 1988 election of George Bush (which she did, two months before the election, when every social scientist, media maven and private citizen in the country was making the same prognostication), they typically ignore the thousands of forecasts that Dixon has made that have failed to come true (such as her predictions that John F. Kennedy would not win the presidency in 1960, that World War III would begin in 1958, and that Fidel Castro would die in 1969). If you are willing to be selective in the evidence you consider, you could reasonably conclude that the earth is flat.

Honesty

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without self-deception.

The rule of honesty is a corollary to the rule of comprehensiveness. When you have examined all of the evidence, it is essential that you be honest with yourself about the results of that examination. If the weight of the evidence contradicts the claim, then you are required to abandon belief in that claim. The obverse, of course, would hold as well.

The rule of honesty, like the rule of comprehensiveness, is frequently violated by both proponents and adherents of paranormal beliefs. Parapsychologists violate this rule when they conclude, after numerous subsequent experiments have failed to replicate initially positive psi results, that psi must be an elusive phenomenon. (Applying Occam's Razor, the more honest conclusion would be that the original positive result must have been a coincidence.) Believers in the paranormal violate this rule when they conclude, after observing a "psychic" surreptitiously bend a spoon with his hands, that he only cheats sometimes.

In practice, the rule of honesty usually boils down to an injunction against breaking the rule of falsifiability by taking a multiple out. There is more to it than that, however: The rule of honesty means that you must accept the obligation to come to a rational conclusion once you have examined all the evidence. If the overwhelming weight of all the evidence falsifies your belief, then you must conclude that the belief is false, and you must face the implications of that conclusion forthrightly. In the face of overwhelmingly negative evidence, neutrality and agnosticism are no better than credulity and faith. Denial, avoidance, rationalization, and all the other familiar mechanisms of self-deception would constitute violations of the rule of honesty.

In my view, this rule alone would all but invalidate the entire discipline of parapsychology. After more than a century of systematic, scholarly research, the psi hypothesis remains wholly unsubstantiated and unsupportable; parapsychologists have failed, as Ray Hyman (1959:7) observes, to produce "any consistent evidence for paranormality that can withstand scrutiny." From all indications, the number of parapsychologists who observe the rule of honesty pales in comparison with the number who delude themselves. Veteran psychic investigator Eric Dingwall (1958:162) summed up his extensive experience in parapsychological research with this observation: "After sixty years' experience with most of the leading parapsychologists of that period I do not think I could name a half dozen whom I could call objective students who honestly wished to discover the truth."
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 9:48:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Replicability

If the evidence for any claim is based upon an experimental result, or if the evidence offered in support of any claim could logically be explained as coincidental, then it is necessary for the evidence to be repeated in subsequent experiments or trials.

The rule of replicability provides a safeguard against the possibility of error, fraud, or coincidence. A single experiment concerns the production of nuclear fusion or the existence of telepathic ability. Any experiment, no matter how carefully designed and executed, is always subject to the possibility of implicit bias or undetected error. The rule of replicability, which requires independent observers to follow the same procedures and to achieve the same results, is an effective way of correcting bias or error, even if the bias or error remains permanently unrecognized. If the experimental results are the product of deliberate fraud, the rule of replicability will ensure that the experiment will eventually be performed by honest researchers.

If the phenomenon in question could conceivably be the product of coincidence, then the phenomenon must be replicated before the hypothesis of coincidence can be rejected. If the coincidence is in fact the explanation for the phenomenon, then the phenomenon will not be duplicated in subsequent trials, and the hypothesis of coincidence will be confirmed; but if coincidence is not the explanation, then the phenomenon may be duplicated, and an explanation other than coincidence will have to be sought. If I correctly predict the next role of the dice, you should demand that I duplicate the feat before granting that my prediction was anything but a coincidence.

The rule of replicability is regularly violated by parapsychologists, who are especially fond of misinterpreting coincidences. The famous "psychic sleuth" Gerard Croiset, for example, allegedly solved numerous baffling crimes and located hundreds of missing persons in a career that spanned five decades, from the 1940's until his death in 1980. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of Croiset's predictions were either vague and nonfalsifiable or simply wrong. Given the fact that Croiset made thousands of predictions during his lifetime, it is hardly surprising that he enjoyed one or two chance "hits". The late Dutch parapsychologist Wilhelm Tenhaeff, however, seized upon those "very few prize cases" to argue that Croiset possessed demonstrated psi powers (Hoebens 1986a:130). That was a clear violation of the rule of replicability, and could not have been taken as evidence of Croiset's psi abilities even if the "few prize cases" had been true. (In fact, however, much of Tenhaeff's data was fraudulent - See Hoebens 1986b)

Sufficiency

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations: (1) the burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant, (2) extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and (3) evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim.

The burden of proof always rests with the claimant for the simple reason that the absence of disconfirming evidence is not the same as the presence of confirming evidence. This rule is frequently violated by proponents of paranormal claims, who argue that, because their claims have not been disproved, they have therefore been proved. (UFO buffs, for example, argue that because skeptics have not explained every UFO sighting, some UFO sightings must be extraterrestrial spacecraft.) Consider the implications of that kind of reasoning: If I claim that Adolf Hitler is alive and well and living in Argentina, how could you disprove my claim? Since the claim is logically possible, the best you could do (in the absence of unambiguous forensic evidence) is to show that the claim is highly improbable - but that would not disprove it. The fact that you cannot prove that Hitler is not living in Argentina, however, does not mean that I have proved that he is. It only means that I have proved that he could be - but that would mean very little; logical possibility is not the same as established reality. If the absence of disconfirming evidence were sufficient proof of a claim, then we could "prove" anything that we could imagine. Belief must be based not simply on the absence of disconfirming evidence but on the presence of confirming evidence. It is the claimant's obligation to furnish that confirming evidence.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence for the obvious reason of balance. If I claim that it rained for ten minutes on my way to work last Tuesday, you would be justified in accepting that claim as true on the basis of my report. But if I claim that I was abducted by extraterrestrial aliens who whisked me to the far side of the moon and performed bizarre medical experiments on me, you would be justified in demanding more substantial evidence. The ordinary evidence of my testimony, while sufficient for ordinary claims, is not sufficient for extraordinary ones.

In fact, testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim, whether it is offered by an authority or a layperson, for the simple reason that a human being can lie or make a mistake. No amount of expertise in any field is a guarantee against human fallibility, and expertise does not preclude the motivation to lie; therefore a person's credentials, knowledge, and experience cannot, in themselves, be taken as sufficient evidence to establish the truth of a claim. Moreover, a person's sincerity lends nothing to the credibility of his or her testimony. Even if people are telling what they sincerely believe to be the truth, it is always possible that they could be mistaken. Perception is a selective act, dependent upon belief, context, expectation, emotional and biochemical states, and a host of other variables. Memory is notoriously problematic, prone to a range of distortions, deletions, substitutions, and amplifications. Therefore the testimony that people offer of what they remember seeing or hearing should always be regarded as only provisionally and approximately accurate; when people are speaking about the paranormal, their testimony should never be regarded as reliable evidence in and of itself. The possibility and even the likelihood of error are far too extensive (see Connor 1986)

Conclusion

The first three rules of FiLCHeRS - falsifiability, logic, and comprehensiveness - are all logically necessary rules of evidential reasoning. If we are to have confidence in the veracity of any claim, whether normal or paranormal, the claim must be propositionally meaningful, and the evidence offered in support of the claim must be rational and exhaustive.

The last three rules of FiLCHeRS - honesty, replicability, and sufficiency - are all pragmatically necessary rules of evidential reasoning. Because human beings are often motivated to rationalize and lie to themselves, because they are sometimes motivated to lie to others, because they can make mistakes, and because perception and memory are problematic, we must demand that the evidence for any actual claim be evaluated without self-deception, that it be carefully screened for error, fraud, and appropriateness, and that it be substantial and unequivocal.

What I tell my students, then, is that you can and should use FiLCHeRS to evaluate the evidence offered for any claim. If the claim fails any one of these six tests, then it should be rejected; but if it passes all six tests, then you are justified in placing considerable confidence in it.

Passing all six tests, of course, does not guarantee that the claim is true (just because you have examined all the evidence available today is no guarantee that there will not be new and disconfirming evidence available tomorrow), but it does guarantee that you have good reasons for believing the claim. It guarantees tha
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 9:54:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's not done, part got cut off, sorry

Passing all six tests, of course, does not guarantee that the claim is true (just because you have examined all the evidence available today is no guarantee that there will not be new and disconfirming evidence available tomorrow), but it does guarantee that you have good reasons for believing the claim. It guarantees that you have sold your belief for a fair price, and that it has not been filched from you.

Being a responsible adult means accepting the fact that almost all knowledge is tentative, and accepting it cheerfully. You may be required to change your belief tomorrow, if the evidence warrants, and you should be willing and able to do so. That, in essence, is what skepticism means: to believe if and only if the evidence warrants.

References

Connor, John W. 1984.. Misperception, folk belief, and the occult: A cognitive guide to understanding. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, 8:344-354, Summer.

Dingwall, E.J. 1985. The need for responsibility in parapsychology: My sixty years in parapsychological research. In A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology. 161-174. Ed. by Paul Kurtz. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

Hines, Terence. 1988. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Buffalo N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

Hoebens, Piet Hein, 1981. Gerard Croiset: Investigation of the Mozart of "psychic sleuths" SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, 6(1):17-28, Fall

-------------- 1981-82. Croiset and Professor Tenhaeff: Discrepancies in claims of clairvoyance. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, (2):21-40, Winter

Hyman, Ray. 1985. A critical historical overview of parapsychology. In A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology, 3-96, Ed. by Paul Kurtz, Buffalo N.Y., Prometheus Books

Omohundro, John T. 1976. Von Daniken's chariots: primer in the art of cooked science. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, 1(1):58-68 Fall

Story, Ronald D. 1977. Von Daniken's golden gods, SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, 2(1):22-35, Fall/Winter.

James Lett is an associate professor of anthropology, Department of Social Sciences, Indian River Community College, 3209 Virginia Ave., Ft.Pierce, Florida 34981, U.S.A.. He is author of The Human Enterprise: A Critical Introduction to Anthropological Theory.
T aken from Skeptical Inquirer.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 10:20:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 9:40:22 PM, Wylted wrote:
Please do not post until this is completely posted.

I've had some requests by the members of this forum to create a tutorial on how they. Personally could make this section better. This tutorial which is a 3 part series, will cover how to use logic, deal with trolls and just generally have a better forum experience.

I did copy and paste this guide from a Satanic forum I used to visit a lot, but it makes a bunch of great points on the proper use of logic, and explains it quite simply. I am aware that some things are a matter of faith, and don't wish to say you must justify those things with cold hard logic. You should be honest about whether something is a matter of faith though. You should also be able to defend your beliefs with logical arguments, the ones not honestly and openly taken by faith.

I'm certainly not picking on the religious folks in this section though. The atheists have an equally hard time, displaying logic when having a discussion. There seems to be a blind emotional type of arguing going on in a lot of places, though good logical arguments also take place. This guide to logic, is my gift to you. Taken from http://www.the600club.com...

There are many reasons for the popularity of paranormal beliefs in the United States today, including: (1) the irresponsibility of the mass media, who exploit the public taste for nonsense, (2) the irrationality of the American world-view, which supports such unsupportable claims as life after death and the efficacy of the polygraph, and (3) the ineffectiveness of public education, which generally fails to teach students the essential skills of critical thinking. As a college professor, I am especially concerned with this third problem. Most of the freshman and sophomore students in my classes simply do not know how to draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence. At most, they've been taught in high school what to think; few of them know how to think.

In an attempt to remedy this problem at my college, I've developed an elective course called "Anthropology and the Paranormal." The course examines the complete range of paranormal beliefs in contemporary American culture, from precognition and psychokinesis to channeling and cryptozoology and everything between and beyond, including astrology, UFO's and creationism. I teach the students very little about anthropological theories and even less about anthropological terminology. Instead, I try to communicate the essence of the anthropological perspective, by teaching them, indirectly, what the scientific method is all about. I do so by teaching them how to evaluate evidence. I give them six simple rules to follow when considering any claim, and then show them how to apply those six rules to the examination of any paranormal claim.

The six rules of evidential reasoning are my own distillation and simplification of the scientific method. To make it easier for students to remember these half-dozen guidelines, I've coined an acronym for them. Ignoring the vowels, the letters in the word "FiLCHeRS" stand for the rules of Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability and Sufficiency. Apply these six rules to the evidence offered for any claim , I tell my students, and no one will ever be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief. You'll be filch-proof.

What's the saying "LOGIC IS SUBJECTIVE" Some people can only see the barn door no matter how big or small the barn is.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 10:24:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What's the saying "LOGIC IS SUBJECTIVE" Some people can only see the barn door no matter how big or small the barn is.

I've never heard that, but it seems true enough.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,009
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Great suggestions. You are turning the religious forum into a philosophy forum.
How do you deal with Christians who argue from "faith" which they have plenty of and atheists who argue against this "faith" which they have very little of?

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 10:58:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Great suggestions. You are turning the religious forum into a philosophy forum.
How do you deal with Christians who argue from "faith" which they have plenty of and atheists who argue against this "faith" which they have very little of?

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"

Words of wisdom
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 11:06:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 9:40:22 PM, Wylted wrote:
The six rules of evidential reasoning are my own distillation and simplification of the scientific method.
A worthy attempt, Wylted, however...

The scientific method treats language and intuition as untrustworthy, therefore a great deal of philosophical reasoning is considered scientifically invalid.

Moreover, the kinds of arguments used in theological apologetics and eisegesis (validating one's own beliefs by 'reading into' scripture) are also scientifically invalid. So essentially, empiricism invalidates from the outset, much of the religious thought that people of faith rely on.

Further, there are numerous well-established philosophical attacks on empiricism that people of faith like to use. For example, they'll point out that senses and measure are fallible, and provide no surety of ontology (which is true in itself.) However, they'll then presuppose that intuitions and language are somehow more reliable than observation, so that intuitions and language must be disproven, while empirical conjectures must be proven.

And many faith arguments are 'may' arguments, rather than 'must' arguments, i.e. if a conjecture might be true then I may believe it, and therefore the burden is on you to disprove it. By contrast, science only entertains conjectures that solve existing problems, are consistent with observations to date, and come with their own falsification tests, so the burden is on you to show that any conjecture should be considered in the first place.

Do the religious want to use empirical reasoning? Some might, but it's pretty clear that religious fundamentalist movements don't. They're built on a platform of anti-secularism, antimodernism and presuppositionalism. And among Evangelicals, New Agers and other fundamentalists the key retorts against empirical accountability boil down to arguments like:

1) "I'm an individual and you can't make me accountable for what I think and say."
2) "You're being subjective too. Prove you're not!"
3) "Until science is right about everything, I don't need to be accountable for anything!"
4) "Empiricism is materialism, and materialism can't explain qualities like love or consciousness."

My conclusion: you can't get anyone to sign up to 'reasonable' standards of discourse when they're defending the unreasonable. All you can do is point out the hypocrisies involved in demanding accountability without offering reasonable standards of accountability oneself.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 12:26:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Great suggestions. You are turning the religious forum into a philosophy forum.
How do you deal with Christians who argue from "faith" which they have plenty of and atheists who argue against this "faith" which they have very little of?

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"

i'm an atheist because i don't have any faith, no gods have ever given me any reason or evidence to have any faith.
if you claim to have faith that there are gods, then are you also willing to admit that you might be wrong and your god may not exist?

here are some simple yes or no questions, so far Zues and Odin answered no on at least 1 of these. if your god can't answer yes on all 4 then your god is useless to me.

is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?
is your god capable of interacting with me, without my permission?
does your god want me to know it exists?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 12:37:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 11:06:35 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/19/2015 9:40:22 PM, Wylted wrote:
The six rules of evidential reasoning are my own distillation and simplification of the scientific method.
A worthy attempt, Wylted, however...

The scientific method treats language and intuition as untrustworthy, therefore a great deal of philosophical reasoning is considered scientifically invalid.

Moreover, the kinds of arguments used in theological apologetics and eisegesis (validating one's own beliefs by 'reading into' scripture) are also scientifically invalid. So essentially, empiricism invalidates from the outset, much of the religious thought that people of faith rely on.

Further, there are numerous well-established philosophical attacks on empiricism that people of faith like to use. For example, they'll point out that senses and measure are fallible, and provide no surety of ontology (which is true in itself.) However, they'll then presuppose that intuitions and language are somehow more reliable than observation, so that intuitions and language must be disproven, while empirical conjectures must be proven.

And many faith arguments are 'may' arguments, rather than 'must' arguments, i.e. if a conjecture might be true then I may believe it, and therefore the burden is on you to disprove it. By contrast, science only entertains conjectures that solve existing problems, are consistent with observations to date, and come with their own falsification tests, so the burden is on you to show that any conjecture should be considered in the first place.

Do the religious want to use empirical reasoning? Some might, but it's pretty clear that religious fundamentalist movements don't. They're built on a platform of anti-secularism, antimodernism and presuppositionalism. And among Evangelicals, New Agers and other fundamentalists the key retorts against empirical accountability boil down to arguments like:

1) "I'm an individual and you can't make me accountable for what I think and say."
2) "You're being subjective too. Prove you're not!"
3) "Until science is right about everything, I don't need to be accountable for anything!"
4) "Empiricism is materialism, and materialism can't explain qualities like love or consciousness."

My conclusion: you can't get anyone to sign up to 'reasonable' standards of discourse when they're defending the unreasonable. All you can do is point out the hypocrisies involved in demanding accountability without offering reasonable standards of accountability oneself.

I believe that the religious would likely avoid arguments such as "is God real" , since it's a matter of faith and they could instead use the techniques listed to argue about arguments such as whether the book of Paul is aged correctly or not. Or some other such arguments I can't think of. The matters of faith, obviously shouldn't be debated at all, because it's a matter of faith and preaching it to those that don't share it is ineffective, and speaking your faith to those who do believe it is pointless.
bulproof
Posts: 25,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 12:46:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"
Oh how profound to you and the clown that said wise words.
It makes no sense at all so well done you.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 1:30:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 12:37:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/19/2015 11:06:35 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
My conclusion: you can't get anyone to sign up to 'reasonable' standards of discourse when they're defending the unreasonable. All you can do is point out the hypocrisies involved in demanding accountability without offering reasonable standards of accountability oneself.
I believe that the religious would likely avoid arguments such as "is God real" , since it's a matter of faith and they could instead use the techniques listed to argue about arguments such as whether the book of Paul is aged correctly or not.

A key trigger for the fundamentalist/Evangelical split from mainline Protestantism is the Higher Criticism that emerged from Germany in the late 19th century, and which was subsequently supported by archaeological and other independent evidence. [http://www.amazon.com...]

Higher Criticism (aka Historical Criticism) is a series of historiological techniques seeking to better understand the context, motivation, meaning and impact of ancient texts using a combination of source criticism (who wrote the document), form criticism (how does its presentation link to content), redaction criticism (how does the document link to source materials, and change over time), tradition criticism (how does it link to inherited traditions) and related methods. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

Like the Enlightenment itself, Higher Criticism emerged from the Protestant idea that reason and evidence would produce better insight than appeals to authority. For a time, as with the study of nature, it was assumed that whatever rational, empirical study produced would validate theological beliefs. Yet, just as geology, astronomy and biology overturned long-held dogmatic Christian beliefs, Higher Criticism revealed the Bible to be, not a coherent assembly of facts and moral guidance parachuted in to help humanity, but a series of historical texts tracing the development and change of cultural, philosophical and political thought. While this didn't dismiss the notion of the BIble being divinely inspired, it became impossible to accept a historiological understanding of the BIble while maintaining a literalist interpretation.

Along with science, secularism and a growing tendency for mainline Protestantism to abandon dogmatic authority in favour of Christianity-in-spirit, these ideas so offended conservative Protestant thought that some swung away from empiricism altogether, in favour of individualism, scriptural literalism, activism, and a tendency to conflate empiricism with secular propaganda.

That embattled, paranoid, intellectually isolated position has lasted for over a century, growing if anything more entrenched over time, and more adroit at evasion and deception.

It now cannot be assumed that any conversation involving Evangelical or fundamentalist thought will accept or adhere to empiricism. Empiricism may be ignored, dismissed, applied selectively, questioned as part of a secular/materialist/atheist conspiracy, or it may be demanded to be subjugated to revelation. Failure to do so may be cast as part of the moral and intellectual slide of humanity into barbarism, with Biblical literalism and 'old time religion' alone keeping the flame of civilisation alive.

So as I said, if you want to appeal to empiricism in some of the more heated and unproductive discussions (also among the most frequent discussions here), you have to defend it. It can't be assumed.

Or put another way: some religious groups are engaging this forum by entirely different rules.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 1:43:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Great suggestions. You are turning the religious forum into a philosophy forum.
How do you deal with Christians who argue from "faith" which they have plenty of and atheists who argue against this "faith" which they have very little of?

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"

This is actually a slightly misleading analogy. Try this:

It's like someone saying "you can buy something with real money, but not with monopoly money", and someone replying to him "there is a special store in which I can buy things with monopoly money; I won't tell you where it is, nor will I buy anything in order to show you that I can buy things with it; and despite the fact that everything you can see that I own has been bought with real money, monopoly money is just as valuable in the real world."
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 1:51:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 1:35:51 AM, Wylted wrote:
What's your personal views on empiricism?

A chat about empiricism is almost worth a thread in itself, Wylted. :)

We know from clinical observation of people solving problems that language and intuitions are unreliable and constantly over-valued. The problem is, for most of the history of human thought, language, intuition and reason were the only tools anyone had. Appeals to language and intuition are still prevalent throughout informal problem-solving, and also appear in formal thought like philosophy and theology.

Modern critical thought cannot rely on reason alone for validation and verification, because reason alone isn't strong enough to overcome problems with ontology and subjective biases underpinning intuition. Thus, we need something independent of human thought to ground our ideas in, and empiricism fits the bill very well.

Despite some straw-man argumentation to the contrary, empiricism isn't materialism. It accommodates ideas like metaphysics, spirituality and qualitative concerns perfectly well. However, it does curtail the way you can formulate ideas and argue them.

For example, I've argued before that some characteristics of 'God' are empirical, while others probably aren't. So if you want a coherent conversation about God according to your idea of empirical accountability, you'd have to state what characteristics you're talking about, and first show that they're empirically verifiable/falsifiable.

For example: intelligent creation is an empirical characteristic, as is sympathetic involvement in human affairs. But characteristics like divinity, supremacy, uniqueness, omnipotence and moral authority are more problematic. If you want to argue those as qualities of your Creator, you'd need credible tests to independently validate and falsify them, and I don't think they exist.

So, empiricism: a great idea if you can make it work as a standard. But how do you get it accepted when key religious traditions and religious politics broadly seek to reject and/or modify it?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 1:55:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 12:46:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"
Oh how profound to you and the clown that said wise words.
It makes no sense at all so well done you.

It makes perfect sense. I get it, why don't you? "Logic is subjective"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Harikrish
Posts: 11,009
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 2:31:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 12:26:22 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Great suggestions. You are turning the religious forum into a philosophy forum.
How do you deal with Christians who argue from "faith" which they have plenty of and atheists who argue against this "faith" which they have very little of?

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"

i'm an atheist because i don't have any faith, no gods have ever given me any reason or evidence to have any faith.
if you claim to have faith that there are gods, then are you also willing to admit that you might be wrong and your god may not exist?

here are some simple yes or no questions, so far Zues and Odin answered no on at least 1 of these. if your god can't answer yes on all 4 then your god is useless to me.

is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?
is your god capable of interacting with me, without my permission?
does your god want me to know it exists?

Why an atheist like you cannot be helped.

1. Atheists do not accept a benevolent creator created the universe and all creatures great and small. They instead believe in evolution which makes them monkey believers of common ancestry.

Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man:""The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded."

According to Darwin your common ancestors were monkeys which makes you a monkey.

To answer your questions

is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?
is your god capable of interacting with me, without my permission?
does your god want me to know it exists?

God would want you to know you can be more than Darwin's monkey.

Atheists like you have higher rates of suicide than people with strong religious affiliations.

Religious Affiliation, Atheism and Suicide
http://www.adherents.com...

Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org...

Here are other downsides to believing you are a monkey.

Protective Functions of Religious Traditions for Suicide Risk

Atheist doctors 'more likely to hasten death',than treat atheists.
http://www.theguardian.com...

Assisted Suicide Is Most Common In Atheists.
http://www.medicaldaily.com...

Atheist Personality Disorder: Addressing A Distorted MindsetPaperback " June 29, 2009
by Fr. John J. Pasquini (Author)
Fr. Pasquini's work puts to death the intellectual hopes for atheism and brings to light the mental disorder behind the atheist mindset. . . . With the advances in molecular biology, 'cosmic' mathematics, and the psychology of atheism, atheism has lost its intellectual validity-being more the product of a psychological disorder whose origins are found in childhood development.
http://www.amazon.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 2:54:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 2:31:34 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/20/2015 12:26:22 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Great suggestions. You are turning the religious forum into a philosophy forum.
How do you deal with Christians who argue from "faith" which they have plenty of and atheists who argue against this "faith" which they have very little of?

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"

i'm an atheist because i don't have any faith, no gods have ever given me any reason or evidence to have any faith.
if you claim to have faith that there are gods, then are you also willing to admit that you might be wrong and your god may not exist?

here are some simple yes or no questions, so far Zues and Odin answered no on at least 1 of these. if your god can't answer yes on all 4 then your god is useless to me.

is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?
is your god capable of interacting with me, without my permission?
does your god want me to know it exists?

Why an atheist like you cannot be helped.

1. Atheists do not accept a benevolent creator created the universe and all creatures great and small. They instead believe in evolution which makes them monkey believers of common ancestry.

Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man:""The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded."

According to Darwin your common ancestors were monkeys which makes you a monkey.

If you use Apes, yeah.

And it's pretty clear that we are still Apes today.

To answer your questions

is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?
is your god capable of interacting with me, without my permission?
does your god want me to know it exists?

God would want you to know you can be more than Darwin's monkey.

And yet, we are still apes.

Atheists like you have higher rates of suicide than people with strong religious affiliations.

Religious Affiliation, Atheism and Suicide
http://www.adherents.com...

As I said in another thread, the study doesn't show this unless you invent information that isn't in it.

Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org...

As I said in another thread, the study doesn't show this unless you invent information that isn't in it. As I said there:

- The study doesn't talk about atheist; to link it to them, you have to invent definitions, or make statistical assumptions not present in the study.

- This study covers depressed patients, not the population as a whole. You can't apply it to the population as a whole without inventing definitions and making statistical assumptions not present in the study.

- Correlation is not causation, as the study points out and provides a reasonable explanation for non causative correlation mechanisms.

Here are other downsides to believing you are a monkey.

Protective Functions of Religious Traditions for Suicide Risk

Atheist doctors 'more likely to hasten death',than treat atheists.
http://www.theguardian.com...

Atheist Doctors are more likely to hasten death, and prevent suffering of terminally ill patients? You make that sound like a bad thing!

Assisted Suicide Is Most Common In Atheists.
http://www.medicaldaily.com...

Again, the actual study doesn't mention Atheist (but not affiliation) in the results, would you also suggest it's a bad thing to be widowed? Or Over 65? Those populations have a far higher assisted suicide rate.

You make assisted suicide to prevent suffering at the end of life a bad thing. As If a decision to end your life instead of going through a significant amount of distress is some sort of horrible choice that is evidence of a troubled mind.

Atheist Personality Disorder: Addressing A Distorted MindsetPaperback " June 29, 2009
by Fr. John J. Pasquini (Author)
Fr. Pasquini's work puts to death the intellectual hopes for atheism and brings to light the mental disorder behind the atheist mindset. . . . With the advances in molecular biology, 'cosmic' mathematics, and the psychology of atheism, atheism has lost its intellectual validity-being more the product of a psychological disorder whose origins are found in childhood development.
http://www.amazon.com...

Yes, because a priest who has demonstrated theistic bias, and who has published no articles in psychology that I can find, and does not have any qualifications in the subject I can see is not a good source for statements on psychology.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,009
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 3:09:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 12:46:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"
Oh how profound to you and the clown that said wise words.
It makes no sense at all so well done you.

You got banned for your stupidity. Continuing display of your stupidity persists.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 3:21:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 12:26:22 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Great suggestions. You are turning the religious forum into a philosophy forum.
How do you deal with Christians who argue from "faith" which they have plenty of and atheists who argue against this "faith" which they have very little of?

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"

i'm an atheist because i don't have any faith, no gods have ever given me any reason or evidence to have any faith.
if you claim to have faith that there are gods, then are you also willing to admit that you might be wrong and your god may not exist?

here are some simple yes or no questions, so far Zues and Odin answered no on at least 1 of these. if your god can't answer yes on all 4 then your god is useless to me.

is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?
is your god capable of interacting with me, without my permission?
does your god want me to know it exists?

The God of Jesus Christ in the name of Jesus Christ is a yes on all counts. But the thing is, does He have any use for you? It"s one thing to not be aware, that there is a God, and it"s another on how to come to the Creator and Judge of all things should you have the opportunity. If one doesn"t acknowledge power, then should or would power acknowledge them?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,009
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 3:39:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 1:43:11 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Great suggestions. You are turning the religious forum into a philosophy forum.
How do you deal with Christians who argue from "faith" which they have plenty of and atheists who argue against this "faith" which they have very little of?

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"

This is actually a slightly misleading analogy. Try this:

To begin with "money cannot buy you happiness" is not an analogy. It is simply a statement that is either true, not true or something in between. It is the relationship between money and happiness.
An Analogy is a comparison. Get an education.

It's like someone saying "you can buy something with real money, but not with monopoly money", and someone replying to him "there is a special store in which I can buy things with monopoly money; I won't tell you where it is, nor will I buy anything in order to show you that I can buy things with it; and despite the fact that everything you can see that I own has been bought with real money, monopoly money is just as valuable in the real world."
Nobody besides you think you can use Monopoly money to buy real things. Only you are offering a convoluted understanding of a simple statement. "Money cannot buy you happiness".
Get an education. You are too stupid to engage in an intelligent discussion.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 3:44:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 9:40:22 PM, Wylted wrote:
Please do not post until this is completely posted.

I've had some requests by the members of this forum to create a tutorial on how they. Personally could make this section better. This tutorial which is a 3 part series, will cover how to use logic, deal with trolls and just generally have a better forum experience.

this will be great. Especially about dealing with trolls.

Not everything is replicable. Pretty much all personal experience is not. And the theory of falsifiability is itself unfalsifiable, and your description of logic does not take into account uncertainty. Overall, the approach of constructing a model to best fit the data is not supported by your theories.

For example, Xavier has a cute name and fleas. He could well be a dog. Some kind of hairy animal anyway. That model can be tweaked as more information comes in .
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 3:58:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 3:39:54 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/20/2015 1:43:11 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Great suggestions. You are turning the religious forum into a philosophy forum.
How do you deal with Christians who argue from "faith" which they have plenty of and atheists who argue against this "faith" which they have very little of?

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"

This is actually a slightly misleading analogy. Try this:

To begin with "money cannot buy you happiness" is not an analogy. It is simply a statement that is either true, not true or something in between. It is the relationship between money and happiness.
An Analogy is a comparison. Get an education.

Your statement was preceded with "It is like..." it's pretty self evident that you were making a comparison. You making a comparison was further reinforced by the context of your whole post.

Unless you want to change the obvious and universal meaning of "It is like..." from "this thing I just said can be compared to the thing I'm about to say..." to "I am totally just making a statement right now", I think you'd probably need to readdress this comment.

You were drawing a comparison between the pauper situation, and faith.

Basically, you believe you can derive truth (happiness in your analogy) from faith (money in your analogy). As Atheists do not have faith (money), you feel they cannot ascertain whether faith brings truth or not.

Hence, you made this analogy to try and explain that the pauper cannot claim money can't buy happiness (You can't get truth from faith) unless they have or have had money (faith).

So yes, it was an analogy, and a comparison, and I understood exactly what you were saying and why you were saying.

It's just wrong, and wrong for the reasons I further clarified in my own analogy.

It's like someone saying "you can buy something with real money, but not with monopoly money", and someone replying to him "there is a special store in which I can buy things with monopoly money; I won't tell you where it is, nor will I buy anything in order to show you that I can buy things with it; and despite the fact that everything you can see that I own has been bought with real money, monopoly money is just as valuable in the real world."
Nobody besides you think you can use Monopoly money to buy real things. Only you are offering a convoluted understanding of a simple statement. "Money cannot buy you happiness".
Get an education. You are too stupid to engage in an intelligent discussion.

You projection aside, it seems you don't really understand what an analogy is, or what it's purpose is.

Let me explain.

You were trying to say that having faith allows you to have access to something that those without faith can't access. Hence you trying to elaborate on it with your "Money can't buy you happiness" analogy (and it was an analogy): Indicating that those without money cannot make statements about whether money can't buy happiness; because you don't have any and it's impossible for such people to determine whether that's true.

However, as I alluded to, and you seem to have completely missed by making the assumption or implying that I am ACTUALLY talking about what monopoly money can buy.

You are making a claim that asserts that you get something real out of it. (here is a special store in which I can buy things with monopoly money).

However, you can't show that at all, you cannot or will not show any tangible information or truth that comes from your faith ("I won't tell you where it is, nor will I buy anything in order to show you that I can buy things with it" ).

Moreover, any time when you need "truth" or tangible information in real life, you rely on not-faith to come to the answer; yet continue to assert that faith has value when it comes to determining truth: ("despite the fact that everything you can see that I own has been bought with real money, monopoly money is just as valuable in the real world")

So in this analogy; your faith is monopoly money, your assertion that faith can give you access to truth is like the claim monopoly money can buy things; your continual assertions that it can do so, and we can't understand because we don't have it is like asserting that monopoly money can buy you things, yet your unwilling to show it.

The analogy is actually fair, and I hope explaining it to you as I have above will allow you to actually understand what you're talking about and allow you to understand your own position, rather than simply asserting how wrong I am.

For someone who continually derides me for not being educated, it seems you are making some horrendous logical, definitional and contextual errors in your posts.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,009
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 4:06:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 2:54:54 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/20/2015 2:31:34 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/20/2015 12:26:22 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Great suggestions. You are turning the religious forum into a philosophy forum.
How do you deal with Christians who argue from "faith" which they have plenty of and atheists who argue against this "faith" which they have very little of?

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"

i'm an atheist because i don't have any faith, no gods have ever given me any reason or evidence to have any faith.
if you claim to have faith that there are gods, then are you also willing to admit that you might be wrong and your god may not exist?

here are some simple yes or no questions, so far Zues and Odin answered no on at least 1 of these. if your god can't answer yes on all 4 then your god is useless to me.

is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?
is your god capable of interacting with me, without my permission?
does your god want me to know it exists?

Why an atheist like you cannot be helped.

1. Atheists do not accept a benevolent creator created the universe and all creatures great and small. They instead believe in evolution which makes them monkey believers of common ancestry.

Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man:""The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded."

According to Darwin your common ancestors were monkeys which makes you a monkey.

If you use Apes, yeah.

And it's pretty clear that we are still Apes today.

That is not what Darwin said. No apes mentioned.

Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man:""The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded."

To answer your questions

is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?
is your god capable of interacting with me, without my permission?
does your god want me to know it exists?

God would want you to know you can be more than Darwin's monkey.

And yet, we are still apes.

Darwin called you a monkey.

Atheists like you have higher rates of suicide than people with strong religious affiliations.

Religious Affiliation, Atheism and Suicide
http://www.adherents.com...

As I said in another thread, the study doesn't show this unless you invent information that isn't in it.

Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org...


As I said in another thread, the study doesn't show this unless you invent information that isn't in it. As I said there:

- The study doesn't talk about atheist; to link it to them, you have to invent definitions, or make statistical assumptions not present in the study.

- This study covers depressed patients, not the population as a whole. You can't apply it to the population as a whole without inventing definitions and making statistical assumptions not present in the study.

- Correlation is not causation, as the study points out and provides a reasonable explanation for non causative correlation mechanisms.

There is both causation and correlations identified in the study. You can't read because you are a monkey pretending to be an ape.

Here are other downsides to believing you are a monkey.

Protective Functions of Religious Traditions for Suicide Risk

Atheist doctors 'more likely to hasten death',than treat atheists.
http://www.theguardian.com...

Atheist Doctors are more likely to hasten death, and prevent suffering of terminally ill patients? You make that sound like a bad thing!

Assisted Suicide Is Most Common In Atheists.
http://www.medicaldaily.com...

Again, the actual study doesn't mention Atheist (but not affiliation) in the results, would you also suggest it's a bad thing to be widowed? Or Over 65? Those populations have a far higher assisted suicide rate.

You make assisted suicide to prevent suffering at the end of life a bad thing. As If a decision to end your life instead of going through a significant amount of distress is some sort of horrible choice that is evidence of a troubled mind.

Atheist Personality Disorder: Addressing A Distorted MindsetPaperback " June 29, 2009
by Fr. John J. Pasquini (Author)
Fr. Pasquini's work puts to death the intellectual hopes for atheism and brings to light the mental disorder behind the atheist mindset. . . . With the advances in molecular biology, 'cosmic' mathematics, and the psychology of atheism, atheism has lost its intellectual validity-being more the product of a psychological disorder whose origins are found in childhood development.
http://www.amazon.com...

Yes, because a priest who has demonstrated theistic bias, and who has published no articles in psychology that I can find, and does not have any qualifications in the subject I can see is not a good source for statements on psychology.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 4:12:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 4:06:06 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/20/2015 2:54:54 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/20/2015 2:31:34 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/20/2015 12:26:22 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:39:21 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Great suggestions. You are turning the religious forum into a philosophy forum.
How do you deal with Christians who argue from "faith" which they have plenty of and atheists who argue against this "faith" which they have very little of?

It is like the pauper telling the rich, "money cannot buy you happiness". And the rich telling the pauper. "You cannot even try!!!!!"

i'm an atheist because i don't have any faith, no gods have ever given me any reason or evidence to have any faith.
if you claim to have faith that there are gods, then are you also willing to admit that you might be wrong and your god may not exist?

here are some simple yes or no questions, so far Zues and Odin answered no on at least 1 of these. if your god can't answer yes on all 4 then your god is useless to me.

is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?
is your god capable of interacting with me, without my permission?
does your god want me to know it exists?

Why an atheist like you cannot be helped.

1. Atheists do not accept a benevolent creator created the universe and all creatures great and small. They instead believe in evolution which makes them monkey believers of common ancestry.

Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man:""The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded."

According to Darwin your common ancestors were monkeys which makes you a monkey.

If you use Apes, yeah.

And it's pretty clear that we are still Apes today.

That is not what Darwin said. No apes mentioned.

Both are true, to an extent.

Monkey is really polyphyletic, like the term "Lizard" or "Fish", and so it's not entirely accurate (information probably not accessible to Darwin)

We are definitely apes, and Mammals, and Simiforms (and therefore monkeys), but in the interests of being specific and accurate, saying we are "monkeys" is slightly misleading scientifically.

Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man:""The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded."

And?

To answer your questions

is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?
is your god capable of interacting with me, without my permission?
does your god want me to know it exists?

God would want you to know you can be more than Darwin's monkey.

And yet, we are still apes.

Darwin called you a monkey.

And?

A Creationist was the first one to call us Apes; prior to darwin.

Why does this even matter. What is important is whether that statement is true. Which it is.

Atheists like you have higher rates of suicide than people with strong religious affiliations.

Religious Affiliation, Atheism and Suicide
http://www.adherents.com...

As I said in another thread, the study doesn't show this unless you invent information that isn't in it.

Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org...


As I said in another thread, the study doesn't show this unless you invent information that isn't in it. As I said there:

- The study doesn't talk about atheist; to link it to them, you have to invent definitions, or make statistical assumptions not present in the study.

Ignored!

- This study covers depressed patients, not the population as a whole. You can't apply it to the population as a whole without inventing definitions and making statistical assumptions not present in the study.

Ignored!

- Correlation is not causation, as the study points out and provides a reasonable explanation for non causative correlation mechanisms.

There is both causation and correlations identified in the study. You can't read because you are a monkey pretending to be an ape.

Read the study again, it was actually clear in stating that this the measured effect is not necessarily causation.

Here are other downsides to believing you are a monkey.

Protective Functions of Religious Traditions for Suicide Risk

Atheist doctors 'more likely to hasten death',than treat atheists.
http://www.theguardian.com...

Atheist Doctors are more likely to hasten death, and prevent suffering of terminally ill patients? You make that sound like a bad thing!

Assisted Suicide Is Most Common In Atheists.
http://www.medicaldaily.com...

Again, the actual study doesn't mention Atheist (but not affiliation) in the results, would you also suggest it's a bad thing to be widowed? Or Over 65? Those populations have a far higher assisted suicide rate.

You make assisted suicide to prevent suffering at the end of life a bad thing. As If a decision to end your life instead of going through a significant amount of distress is some sort of horrible choice that is evidence of a troubled mind.

Atheist Personality Disorder: Addressing A Distorted MindsetPaperback " June 29, 2009
by Fr. John J. Pasquini (Author)
Fr. Pasquini's work puts to death the intellectual hopes for atheism and brings to light the mental disorder behind the atheist mindset. . . . With the advances in molecular biology, 'cosmic' mathematics, and the psychology of atheism, atheism has lost its intellectual validity-being more the product of a psychological disorder whose origins are found in childhood development.
http://www.amazon.com...

Yes, because a priest who has demonstrated theistic bias, and who has published no articles in psychology that I can find, and does not have any qualifications in the subject I can see is not a good source for statements on psychology.

And these were all ignored too!

Why do you want to avoid defending your own position?