Cog's Case Against Religion

[The Grey Man]

Spoiler

"Why" and "how" are two completely different spheres of inquiry. "Why" addresses purpose, meaning, reasoning, agency; its very nature is subjective. "How" addresses process, function, mechanics. Whereas the steps and processes of "how" can be measured, it's impossible to measure "why," though lots of "sciencey" people do seem to insert reasoning into processes, like "peahens choose to mate with males who have brightly colored tails because their tails are an indicator of fitness." No way in hell do they actually know why the females make that choice. "Why" is also definitely misused in place of "how," like in "Why is the sky blue?"

Do you have specific examples of where I'm conflating "Why?" and "How?"

I'm not sure what you want me to do? Break epistemology with the existential equivalent of Kim Kardashian's ass? If you want me to make a "how" argument, the best I have atm is what's apparently a rule of math (I'm not a mathematician) that dictates that an n-dimensional space must be contained within an n+1-dimensional space, contained within (n+1)+1, etc., which is inconceivable to anything within the n-dimensional space. This extrapolates to nothing existing without being contained within something inconceivable, which seems to meet the criteria of the "undetermined transcendent reality" required for a belief in ietsism, to me. I mentioned it here via Sagan. It also seems to answer "If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?"

I haven't read much of this thread, but since you've invoked me, I'll comment on the difference between 'why' and 'how' and on ietsism.

A 'why' is the explanation of a phenomenon from a final cause, a 'how' its explanation from an efficient cause. The final cause of a phenomenon is always some intended outcome, a temporal consequence which follows from it if certain conditions are met, whereas its efficient cause is its cause sensu stricto, its immediate temporal precedent from which it follows inexorably. You are right in saying that 'why' is subjective in that the intended outcome must be intended by some one, who is none other than the subject of the objectification of that outcome in some temporally preceding phenomenon, which is attractive or, to borrow a psychology term, has incentive salience to him. To complete the duality, the cause of a phenomenon sensu stricto does not necessarily have incentive salience, nor even any particular motivational property: in this sense, 'how' is objective. To conclude, the 'why' of a thing is its subjective motive, its 'how' its objective cause. Materialists think to assimilate the former into the latter in accordance with their overall metaphysical programme of perversely denying the subject and recognizing only objects, which should be no less an object of ridicule than its physical cognate in the fool who emerges triumphantly from the wilderness to declare that he has found only a multiplicity of trees and no forest.

Concerning ietsism, I'm unfamiliar with the doctrine, but it based on your broad description of it as the belief in an "undetermined transcendent reality", it appears to be an adaptation of Kant's transcendental idealism. If by 'transcendent' you mean 'not immanent', then this transcendent reality would be equivalent to the Kantian thing in itself, which is completely unknowable. All analogies, including your dimensional analogy, are inadequate for describing what it might be because it need not share any of the properties of our immanent intuitive knowledge, including time and space as conditions of possibility for other properties.

I will have more to say about subject-object duality and the thing in itself in my next thread (when I get around to posting it), to which I hope you'll redirect any responses to my previous posts, should you still feel bound to make them.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Within the Jungian paradigm, in general, do you think it's acceptable to conclude that along a basic thinker/feeler divide that Ts are more predisposed to how and Fs why, resulting in naturally diverging understandings of the world?

Without justifying my claim, I had made the assumption that "how" was Te and "why" Ti.

--

Cognisant made an argument about God existing being one point on an infinite line and thus having an infinitesimal chance of being correct, using the analogy of N+1. But the thing is, if you have the variable N in an equation, its chance of being 1 is not infinitesimal. Because there are many equations that have N=1. The chance of N being 1 might not be large, but it's significant.

Likewise, the chance of God being real is not infinitesimal.

Yes there is a gradient of knowing, from things we are sure about to things we are not sure about, but we don't need to have an absence of any kind of speculation. I would say that being confident in your assertion when it's just a speculation may be misguided, but there is even a place for that, a la Pascalian reasoning.

The problem with Pascal's wager though is that someone could make a claim with the opposite effect of what a particular religion claims, and then you have positive infinity combating against negative infinity. So we still have to use discernment in forming a conclusion.

--

Also calling something a "delusion" implies that the belief is incorrect. If you yourself don't know whether it's correct or not, probably best to just call it a "belief".

--

Putting ethics aside for now, there are many religious people throughout history and modern day who have done good deeds and made achievements that will benefit all mankind, however I don't think any of their deeds or achievements can be directly attributed to religion. On the other hand I think there's plenty of setbacks and atrocities that can be directly attributed to religion even if religion wasn't the sole motivating factor

This just seems strange and unfair. People do good and bad things, religious people do good and bad things.

I even hear many atheists say that religion has a tendency to make people act more morally. Indeed, if you check your actions against a moral code, and that moral code has been subjected to a history of scrutiny, then it makes sense that it would improve your actions.

For me, Christian ethics has given me more peace of mind, though not without its share of confusion because I'm often unsure of what the law (Biblical law) is telling me to do. e.g. when it says offer the evil man no resistance, what does this mean? But overall it has given me an external guide I can reference rather than simply trying to rely on my own judgement to make up my mind. It is a form of education.

 

[~~~]

Pascal's Wager

You are probably familiar with the standard arguments around PW Lagomorph; so here is another instead. What about if you apply Twining's principals of proof to the argument? Yeah I know it is cheating because he is outside the philosophy realm - but insightful nonetheless.

 

[Cognisant]

@redbaron they're talking semantics and I blame you for it.

Cognisant made an argument about God existing being one point on an infinite line and thus having an infinitesimal chance of being correct, using the analogy of N+1. But the thing is, if you have the variable N in an equation, its chance of being 1 is not infinitesimal. Because there are many equations that have N=1. The chance of N being 1 might not be large, but it's significant.

Likewise, the chance of God being real is not infinitesimal.

Spoiler

 

[Cognisant]

To elaborate on WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?

For every equation where N equals 1 there's an infinite number of variations where the ONLY thing to change is that N does not equal 1, it's basic algebra, you can't argue with it that's just how it is. It doesn't matter that there's an infinite number of possible equations because then there's an infinitely infinite number or equations where N does not equal 1, and yes that's a thing, you can multiply infinite values.

 

[redbaron]

it's what i do

extract the salt from all parties involved

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Spoiler'd to make scrolling easier.

Spoiler

Perfection may be an impossible ideal but 5 Sigma is pretty damn close.
Scientific discoveries are no trivial matter, nothing is deemed true unless it has been thoroughly tested, then thoroughly tested again by multiple independent parties.

Yes, I know how empiricism works, or at least is supposed to work.

Just off the top of my head, without referencing anything by, say, Feyerabend, paradigm shifts occur relatively frequently (that particular issue is that the failures of science are simultaneously deemed successes of science if science identified them), journal articles are retracted frequently, the statistics used in lots of published studies are invalid, failed experiments are almost never published, and results that are deemed politically and/or institutionally unfriendly are suppressed.

True but assumptions have to be reasonable, I could assume there might be an IED outside my front door and starve to death in my own kitchen in which case avoiding death by bomb hasn't done me any good.

The potential IED doesn't care what you or anyone else deems reasonable. The potential for false positives and false negatives still exists. I can't believe... you're arguing against your own foundations at this point if you seriously disagree with hypothesis testing:

Spoiler

Not knowing is not a reason to do or not do something, for all we know god prefers an atheist, indeed considering god has apparently chosen to hide from us that's a more reasonable assumption than god wanting us to believe in him despite giving us every reason to doubt his existence.

I mean what does blind faith prove? Especially blind faith motivated by the fear.
Indeed how do you even know your blind faith is in the right god?

If god would punish me with eternal damnation for making the reasonable assumption that he doesn't exist how much worse would the punishment be if I worshiped the wrong god? Consider what is the Christian god's FIRST commandment?

I never said that not knowing was a reason to act or not act.

Motivated by fear?

Ietsism doesn't require a specific god or manifestation of god.

Are you trying to hedge your bets?
Yeah good luck outwitting an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent entity.

....no? I have no reason to arbitrarily restrict God to a specific form. I can't rule out the idea of a god being able to change forms at will. I also haven't mentioned anything regarding omnipresence.

Or do I? See my response to redbaron.

Your choice to believe god (a god, I don't know which) exists is the assumption of a fact for which you have no proof, I don't need to prove your assumption wrong to prove that it's a baseless assumption and the probability of is being correct is infinitesimally small.

I'm not asking you to. That was in response to you saying this: "Yet you claim to know something for which you have no evidence..." I don't claim to know something for which I have no evidence. In my response to redbaron that I linked, I stated that I knew a subjective belief in something doesn't make it exist. Why do you apparently believe that knowledge is a prerequisite for belief? How else does one create values?

I'd like to direct you to a guy named Freddy who came up with this idea called ubermensch, which, at least in part, was defined by the ability to create their own values using the power of their will, becoming a law unto themselves by surpassing themselves, to survive absurdity. The idea is similar to many other concepts and models of self-actualization and ego development, as well as occult ideas like the Hermetic Great Work, which pre-dated Freddy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Work

"The Great Work is, before all things, the creation of man by himself, that is to say, the full and entire conquest of his faculties and his future; it is especially the perfect emancipation of his will."

Well I am here to shit on religion so I'll accept that premise, of course if it's a religion then they're not really atheists are they? So what we're seeing with the Chinese government persecuting the Falun Gong isn't atheists persecuting the religious, it's one religion persecuting another. Yeah that makes perfect sense religious people are always persecuting each other I mean that practically summarizes the entire history of the middle east.

Is the term 'secular religion' that hard to grasp? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion

Though if you're actually trying to say that atheism is a religion, I agree, because belief in the supernatural isn't a prerequisite for a religion.

"the only time atheists (as atheists) unite is in reactionary opposition to something theists are doing."

I don't even know where to start with ^that. I'll try again after I stop laughing.

Y'know you don't have to join the Falun Gong and oppose the Chinese government, you could just not do that, I dunno just playing devil's advocate.

Sorry. Still laughing.

Also, Falun Gong was initially supported by the Chinese government.

I'm saying that continued and repeated discovery implies that uncertainty has a static quality, and that uncertainty itself is ultimately what's being worshipped.

THEN STOP BEING SO CERTAIN ABOUT IT!

It appears you're conflating my certainty of the endurance and fidelity of the unknown with certainty of its contents.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

why do I exist?

To experience. To be.

"Yahweh" = "I am that I am"

Spoiler

I'll do you one better, who do you exist?

Who am I?

It's okay, he just misspelled "how."

You are probably familiar with the standard arguments around PW Lagomorph; so here is another instead. What about if you apply Twining's principals of proof to the argument? Yeah I know it is cheating because he is outside the philosophy realm - but insightful nonetheless.

ah...er...uh... o.0 Can you be more specific? You might be giving me too much credit. I have no idea what you're actually trying to say. The only conclusion I got was that the idea of legal pluralism seems really, really dumb from scanning its wiki article.

Without justifying my claim, I had made the assumption that "how" was Te and "why" Ti.

I don't actually believe the gradient thing. My argument was predicated on the scenario Cognisant created. Now, your gradient thing might be different if it's more fleshed out.

I think Ti and Te in this context are just different approaches to "how," taking things apart and putting things together, respectively.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Spoiler

If you ask a religious person if they know their deity or whatever exists they might say they do, and if you ask them how they'll say they feel it or they just know or they had some kind of drug induced supernatural experience. That's not knowledge, that's choosing to believe, people choose to believe what they want to believe in spite of the evidence because they want to believe it, that isn't reason that is self delusion.

You implied that you had such evidence where I quoted you in post #2 and highlighted green in the spoiler.

Claiming there is evidence against a deity while also claiming there's no way to have such evidence looks like a contradiction to me.

Choosing to believe in spite of knowing they have no rational basis for that belief.
Choosing to believe in mythology that contradicts known physics (the logistical impossibility of Noah's ark).

It's not evidence sufficiently conclusive to disprove the possibility of a god existing but conclusive enough to point out that your beliefs are an unreasonable assumption.

Knowledge isn't a prerequisite for belief, and a belief not based on knowledge is not a delusion if it cannot be proven to contradict reality. When something like, say, Noah's ark, does contradict apparent reality, it's usually a metaphor. I fail to see how you can declare a belief in the unknown to be unreasonable given your inability to refute the validity of using type 1 & 2 errors in hypothesis testing.

I will not allow you to drag the conversation into an arena where you can recover by mischaracterizing the context of my words. If you continue to do so, I may choose to stop communication with you.

Why do you assume there can only be one possible existence in which god does not exist?

Also with regard to your beliefs I'm not talking about whether or not a god exists but whether or not your god exists and in opposition I am merely stating that out of all possible gods and godless existences the god you believe in is infinitesimally unlikely.

Unless you're conceding that you do not believe in a specific god in which case I've almost succeeded in making you an atheist, after all how can you honestly say you believe in god when you don't know who or what your god is? I am perfectly happy to admit that gods may exist, because as far as I'm concerned it or they are inconsequential if I am unable to determine who or what they are or even if they exist at all.

Because it's true? (Unless you're trying to make a game wherein the personal beliefs of any individual are true for that individual, to allow for a coexistence of multiple atheists and theists.) To make that assumption, I'm defining the universe as "all that is," i.e. all "multiverses" would be contained within it.

My beliefs haven't changed in a number of years. I'm not stating a general belief of my own here, I'm restricting myself to the scenario you presented, A.K.A. the hole you dug.

I believe I sufficiently addressed the potential form of a god earlier. That "unknown" thing seems awful, awful static. Glad to see you admit your closet agnosticism. Though if you believe that a potential god is certainly inconsequential if you are unable to determine its existence, that belief is unfounded.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Not really, if there's only one dimension then all you have is a point on a line, lets say that's the X axis, two dimensions gives us an XY plane, three dimensions an XYZ plane (the spatial dimensions as we know them) four dimensions adds time, and so on and so forth.

Spoiler

I don't need to be omniscient to comprehend time as a dimension, any game that lets you use time travel as a game mechanic (the Prince of Persia games) lets you interact with time from an outside perspective, of course you can't look at every moment simultaneously but it gives you ability to navigate in much the same way a blind person can navigate three dimensional space by feeling their way around.

In fact being able to manipulate time like this is actually a fifth dimensional perspective since not only are you able to view the past/future you're able to interact with them as well, changing outcomes and acting with foreknowledge of events, navigating all possible outcomes until you find the one you want.

Of course navigating fifth dimensional space with three dimensional senses is extremely inconvenient, to achieve the outcomes you want you're relying heavily on your intuition to predict how your actions will affect things whereas for an entity with fifth dimensional senses the outcomes would be as apparent to it as we can see our hands in front of our eyes.

If the progression of dimensionality follows a pattern, time is not the 4th dimension.

It seems like a dimension because theoretically it can move forwards and backwards, but it's not spatial, at least in the sense that it doesn't fit the pattern of dimensional space being composed of the immediately preceeding dimension: The 2nd is composed of infinite lines, the 3rd is composed of infinite planes, the 4th is composed of infinite 3d objects, etc. Time is present in all dimensions, so it stands to reason that if time is indeed a dimension, it would be "0."

Oh, and what's this intuition stuff you mentioned? How does that stuff work?

they're talking semantics

Simply labeling something semantics is not an argument. Words mean things. Your is not you're just like 2 is not 3. Moreover, it's a sad attempt to cover the series of false assumptions you've made.

Philosorabbit strikes again.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Spoiler

Spoiler

"Why" and "how" are two completely different spheres of inquiry. "Why" addresses purpose, meaning, reasoning, agency; its very nature is subjective. "How" addresses process, function, mechanics. Whereas the steps and processes of "how" can be measured, it's impossible to measure "why," though lots of "sciencey" people do seem to insert reasoning into processes, like "peahens choose to mate with males who have brightly colored tails because their tails are an indicator of fitness." No way in hell do they actually know why the females make that choice. "Why" is also definitely misused in place of "how," like in "Why is the sky blue?"

Do you have specific examples of where I'm conflating "Why?" and "How?"

I'm not sure what you want me to do? Break epistemology with the existential equivalent of Kim Kardashian's ass? If you want me to make a "how" argument, the best I have atm is what's apparently a rule of math (I'm not a mathematician) that dictates that an n-dimensional space must be contained within an n+1-dimensional space, contained within (n+1)+1, etc., which is inconceivable to anything within the n-dimensional space. This extrapolates to nothing existing without being contained within something inconceivable, which seems to meet the criteria of the "undetermined transcendent reality" required for a belief in ietsism, to me. I mentioned it here via Sagan. It also seems to answer "If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?"

I haven't read much of this thread, but since you've invoked me, I'll comment on the difference between 'why' and 'how' and on ietsism.

A 'why' is the explanation of a phenomenon from a final cause, a 'how' its explanation from an efficient cause. The final cause of a phenomenon is always some intended outcome, a temporal consequence which follows from it if certain conditions are met, whereas its efficient cause is its cause sensu stricto, its immediate temporal precedent from which it follows inexorably. You are right in saying that 'why' is subjective in that the intended outcome must be intended by some one, who is none other than the subject of the objectification of that outcome in some temporally preceding phenomenon, which is attractive or, to borrow a psychology term, has incentive salience to him. To complete the duality, the cause of a phenomenon sensu stricto does not necessarily have incentive salience, nor even any particular motivational property: in this sense, 'how' is objective. To conclude, the 'why' of a thing is its subjective motive, its 'how' its objective cause. Materialists think to assimilate the former into the latter in accordance with their overall metaphysical programme of perversely denying the subject and recognizing only objects, which should be no less an object of ridicule than its physical cognate in the fool who emerges triumphantly from the wilderness to declare that he has found only a multiplicity of trees and no forest.

Concerning ietsism, I'm unfamiliar with the doctrine, but it based on your broad description of it as the belief in an "undetermined transcendent reality", it appears to be an adaptation of Kant's transcendental idealism. If by 'transcendent' you mean 'not immanent', then this transcendent reality would be equivalent to the Kantian thing in itself, which is completely unknowable. All analogies, including your dimensional analogy, are inadequate for describing what it might be because it need not share any of the properties of our immanent intuitive knowledge, including time and space as conditions of possibility for other properties.

I will have more to say about subject-object duality and the thing in itself in my next thread (when I get around to posting it), to which I hope you'll redirect any responses to my previous posts, should you still feel bound to make them.

Not in any order:

1. Thanks.
2. Holy shit! Thanks!
3.

Spoiler

4. That was perfect. I'm essentially speechless.

*Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, there is possibly a flaw or need for clarification. "How?" does indeed address the objective, but assuming it's being asked and interpreted by a subjective agent, its answer is at best intersubjective. I say "possibly" because I wonder about the intersection between inter-agent intersubjectivity and within-agent repeated measures/observations assuming the agent's heuristic/s are static. In other words: *spirit fingers* Heisenberg's uncertainty and the observer effect.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

its answer is at best intersubjective

Is there an objective beyond the intersubjective? Would pure objectivity be essentially unknowable?

To elaborate on WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?

For every equation where N equals 1 there's an infinite number of variations where the ONLY thing to change is that N does not equal 1, it's basic algebra, you can't argue with it that's just how it is. It doesn't matter that there's an infinite number of possible equations because then there's an infinitely infinite number or equations where N does not equal 1, and yes that's a thing, you can multiply infinite values.

Maybe in some abstract representation of possibilities but in the REAL world, the chance of N=1 is not infinitesimal, because like I said, there are plenty of real equations where N=1.

I'd have to give a little thought to how that translates into the idea of belief in God, but your argument about belief in God being infinitesimal sounded pretty bad.

e.g. consider empiricism. For any observation, there are an infinite number of possibilities of what that observation means, and if only a finite range of those interpretations are true, then your chance of getting the right interpretation is infinitesimally small, therefore empiricism is useless blah blah but obviously that argument is ridiculous.

 

[The Grey Man]

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, there is possibly a flaw or need for clarification. "How?" does indeed address the objective, but assuming it's being asked and interpreted by a subjective agent, its answer is at best intersubjective. I say "possibly" because I wonder about the intersection between inter-agent intersubjectivity and within-agent repeated measures/observations assuming the agent's heuristic/s are static. In other words: *spirit fingers* Heisenberg's uncertainty and the observer effect.

This difficulty vanishes if we distinguish between what is objective and what is absolute. An objective truth is true for the subject of that object, an absolute truth for all subjects. So, while it may be objectively true for me at this moment that one phenomenon follows from another (e.g. smoke from fire), it may not be true for everyone at all times. To claim that such an immanent causal law is absolute (e.g. to claim that smoke always follows from fire) is to make a problematic judgment; contingent and necessary successions of phenomena are indistinguishable from each other, as Hume famously pointed out.

Now, to tie this back into my original point, it's all the same whether one laments that all causal laws may be situational illusions or rejoices that the shimmering veil of nature appears to exhibit some universal patterns: causes are efficient only in objects/phenomena and do not explain the subject.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

@The Grey Man

If one says "I feel warm due to the fire"* is that a subjective truth?

*(or more simply "I feel warm")

 

[The Grey Man]

If you really do feel warm, it's a subjective truth combined with a fictitious objective explanation for why you feel that way. Fictitious because the fire didn't actually cause you to feel warm, if I'm correct in surmising that the fire is some objective phenomenon, which is toto genere different from and, as such, can exert no influence upon the subjective aspect of experience.

We can talk about a mental continuum embracing your mind and that of the fire whereby the latter can truly be said to have caused your subjective warmth, but that may be beyond the compass of this thread.

 

[Cognisant]

Perfection may be an impossible ideal but 5 Sigma is pretty damn close.

Scientific discoveries are no trivial matter, nothing is deemed true unless it has been thoroughly tested, then thoroughly tested again by multiple independent parties.

Yes, I know how empiricism works, or at least is supposed to work.

Just off the top of my head, without referencing anything by, say, Feyerabend, paradigm shifts occur relatively frequently (that particular issue is that the failures of science are simultaneously deemed successes of science if science identified them), journal articles are retracted frequently, the statistics used in lots of published studies are invalid, failed experiments are almost never published, and results that are deemed politically and/or institutionally unfriendly are suppressed.

So what’s your point, that science is unreliable?

It’s as reliable as anything can be, old theories are replaced with new ones when new information is available, as they should be, science isn’t about starting with a hypothesis and cherry-picking facts to support that hypothesis it’s about gathering evidence to determine which hypothesis is most likely correct.

No doubt people try to make false claims and misrepresent data to serve their personal interests/agendas, people will always lie and cheat to get what they want. But in the scientific community anyone who builds a reputation on false claims is doomed to be brought down by other people looking to build their own reputations. The more prestigious the people exposed as frauds the better for the people exposing them, this is why any possibility of Einstein being proven wrong is such big news, his theories aren’t untouchable because the scientific community reveres him, we revere him because his theories have (so far) been untouchable.

As for results that are politically and/or institutionally unfriendly being suppressed yeah that’s totally happening and it’s a big problem, not a science problem, it’s a everything else problem, a scientist doesn’t want to publish false results because he knows he will inevitably be exposed as a fraud but it’s hard to do science at all if nobody’s funding your research. Traditionally this is why the vast majority of research would be funded by government grants but even they come with strings attached, governments want military technologies, much to the lament of the physicists who worked on the Manhattan project.

Science is often a Faustian deal with politics and private interests, this doesn’t mean science itself is a bad thing, politics and private interests are the bad things we need to free science from by demanding governments provide no-strings-attached research grants.

True but assumptions have to be reasonable, I could assume there might be an IED outside my front door and starve to death in my own kitchen in which case avoiding death by bomb hasn't done me any good.

The potential IED doesn't care what you or anyone else deems reasonable. The potential for false positives and false negatives still exists. I can't believe... you're arguing against your own foundations at this point if you seriously disagree with hypothesis testing:

Spoiler

Pascal’s Wager isn’t hypothesis testing, to test the hypothesis that god will punish me if I don’t believe in him I’d need several clones of myself (with souls) some of which will be theists, some of which will be atheists, and just to be thorough lets have some of them be agnostics too, I then have to kill them all and somehow observe what god does to them, THAT is testing the hypothesis.

Which obviously we can’t do.

Also you’re advocating that I believe in god to avoid the consequences of an untested hypothesis, which I have negated with another hypothesis, that god will punish me more for believing in the wrong god, which is as valid a hypothesis as any other untested hypothesis.

Give up Anakin I have the high ground.

Not knowing is not a reason to do or not do something, for all we know god prefers an atheist, indeed considering god has apparently chosen to hide from us that's a more reasonable assumption than god wanting us to believe in him despite giving us every reason to doubt his existence.

I mean what does blind faith prove? Especially blind faith motivated by the fear.

Indeed how do you even know your blind faith is in the right god?

If god would punish me with eternal damnation for making the reasonable assumption that he doesn't exist how much worse would the punishment be if I worshiped the wrong god? Consider what is the Christian god's FIRST commandment?

I never said that not knowing was a reason to act or not act.

Motivated by fear?

Ietsism doesn't require a specific god or manifestation of god.

1. Yes you did, you’re the one who brought up this Pascal’s Wager nonsense.
2. Yes motivated by fear.
3. So you believe that… you don’t know? LOLWUT

Are you trying to hedge your bets?

Yeah good luck outwitting an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent entity.

....no? I have no reason to arbitrarily restrict God to a specific form. I can't rule out the idea of a god being able to change forms at will. I also haven't mentioned anything regarding omnipresence.

Whaddya mean “no” you brought up this Pascal’s Wager nonsense.

Your choice to believe god (a god, I don't know which) exists is the assumption of a fact for which you have no proof, I don't need to prove your assumption wrong to prove that it's a baseless assumption and the probability of is being correct is infinitesimally small.

I'm not asking you to. That was in response to you saying this: "Yet you claim to know something for which you have no evidence..." I don't claim to know something for which I have no evidence. In my response to redbaron that I linked, I stated that I knew a subjective belief in something doesn't make it exist. Why do you apparently believe that knowledge is a prerequisite for belief? How else does one create values?

Ah there’s that word again “belief” oh how the religious abuse it.

There’s belief and then there’s religious belief, I believe I might have sushi for lunch today, I might or I might not, but religious belief is different when you say you believe in god you’re not saying god might or might not exist, you’re saying you believe that god does exist, that the existence of god is to you a forgone conclusion.

A conclusion without evidence is a delusion, it’s all well and good to believe god might exist, I believe god might exist, but to say you believe god does exist that’s different, it sounds similar to believing god might exist but that’s semantic camouflage for the delusional statement that you believe god does exist.

I'd like to direct you to a guy named Freddy who came up with this idea called ubermensch, which, at least in part, was defined by the ability to create their own values using the power of their will, becoming a law unto themselves by surpassing themselves, to survive absurdity. The idea is similar to many other concepts and models of self-actualization and ego development, as well as occult ideas like the Hermetic Great Work, which pre-dated Freddy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Work

"The Great Work is, before all things, the creation of man by himself, that is to say, the full and entire conquest of his faculties and his future; it is especially the perfect emancipation of his will."

The creation of man by himself = Creating my robot body.

The full and entire conquest of his faculties = Brain-Computer interface.

And his future = Technological life extension.

The perfect emancipation of his will = The True Life

Well I am here to shit on religion so I'll accept that premise, of course if it's a religion then they're not really atheists are they? So what we're seeing with the Chinese government persecuting the Falun Gong isn't atheists persecuting the religious, it's one religion persecuting another. Yeah that makes perfect sense religious people are always persecuting each other I mean that practically summarizes the entire history of the middle east.

Is the term 'secular religion' that hard to grasp? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion

Though if you're actually trying to say that atheism is a religion, I agree, because belief in the supernatural isn't a prerequisite for a religion.

That’s a new concept to me, I suppose Communism is sort of like a religion, I still don’t accept atheism can be a religion because I know as an atheist myself who wants to see an institution for atheists by atheists to oppose religious institutions that although it has been tried many times it just doesn’t work, just as I personally don’t want to live under the Chinese government even though I agree with their suppression of religion.

I'm saying that continued and repeated discovery implies that uncertainty has a static quality, and that uncertainty itself is ultimately what's being worshipped.

THEN STOP BEING SO CERTAIN ABOUT IT!

It appears you're conflating my certainty of the endurance and fidelity of the unknown with certainty of its contents.[/QUOTE]
Once again back to the whole Pascal’s Wager thing, you “believe” (by which I mean you assume you know) that there is a god who will punish me if I do not believe in him otherwise your entire defence your faith has been disingenuous.

If you merely believed the unknown is unknown we wouldn’t be arguing, there’s nothing to argue about that, it’s not a belief it’s a self-evident fact.

 

[Black Rose]

1. I believe God exists because I think I have encountered God before.
2. Heaven and Hell are faulty concepts, instead, there will be a world transformation.
3. Everyone will come back alive as the internet begins to wake up.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think your materialistic/consumerist understanding of religion is what's at fault for your misunderstanding on what 'religion' is. Generally Christians don't pick and choose to become Christian, they're compelled by something so deeply that they have no other compelling choice but to believe. It's the same with other religions. Christianity isn't believed because there's a benefit like putting on sun cream lotion or taking vitamins, it's simply a certain view of the world in relation to God. Intrinsically there's simply no benefit at all whatsoever, in fact I can bet the more "hardcore" Christians would argue that believing in Jesus is detrimental because you have to see the world and all of its actions and consequences in terms of sin (but as well as redemption). If you really want to grasp Christianity it's better just to go to a church and talk to people so you can understand their perspective, not just rant about it on the internet as if you knew every crease and niche of it.

 

[Black Rose]

(?)(religion is not bad because we feel that it is true)(?)
(?)(religion is bad because religion may not be true)(?)

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Is there an objective beyond the intersubjective? Would pure objectivity be essentially unknowable?

My answer to that before TGM told me about Kant's Thing In Itself was "we can't know, and yes," and it's still the same, it just has a name now.

TGM's distinction between the objective and the absolute in post #63 is also relevant.
I hope I'm not being redundant.

Spoiler

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, there is possibly a flaw or need for clarification. "How?" does indeed address the objective, but assuming it's being asked and interpreted by a subjective agent, its answer is at best intersubjective. I say "possibly" because I wonder about the intersection between inter-agent intersubjectivity and within-agent repeated measures/observations assuming the agent's heuristic/s are static. In other words: *spirit fingers* Heisenberg's uncertainty and the observer effect.

This difficulty vanishes if we distinguish between what is objective and what is absolute. An objective truth is true for the subject of that object, an absolute truth for all subjects. So, while it may be objectively true for me at this moment that one phenomenon follows from another (e.g. smoke from fire), it may not be true for everyone at all times. To claim that such an immanent causal law is absolute (e.g. to claim that smoke always follows from fire) is to make a problematic judgment; contingent and necessary successions of phenomena are indistinguishable from each other, as Hume famously pointed out.

Now, to tie this back into my original point, it's all the same whether one laments that all causal laws may be situational illusions or rejoices that the shimmering veil of nature appears to exhibit some universal patterns: causes are efficient only in objects/phenomena and do not explain the subject.

You're quickly becoming my new favorite Canadian.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Spoiler'd to make scrolling easier.

Spoiler

So what’s your point, that science is unreliable?

Spoiler

It’s as reliable as anything can be, old theories are replaced with new ones when new information is available, as they should be, science isn’t about starting with a hypothesis and cherry-picking facts to support that hypothesis it’s about gathering evidence to determine which hypothesis is most likely correct.

No doubt people try to make false claims and misrepresent data to serve their personal interests/agendas, people will always lie and cheat to get what they want. But in the scientific community anyone who builds a reputation on false claims is doomed to be brought down by other people looking to build their own reputations. The more prestigious the people exposed as frauds the better for the people exposing them, this is why any possibility of Einstein being proven wrong is such big news, his theories aren’t untouchable because the scientific community reveres him, we revere him because his theories have (so far) been untouchable.

As for results that are politically and/or institutionally unfriendly being suppressed yeah that’s totally happening and it’s a big problem, not a science problem, it’s a everything else problem, a scientist doesn’t want to publish false results because he knows he will inevitably be exposed as a fraud but it’s hard to do science at all if nobody’s funding your research. Traditionally this is why the vast majority of research would be funded by government grants but even they come with strings attached, governments want military technologies, much to the lament of the physicists who worked on the Manhattan project.

Science is often a Faustian deal with politics and private interests, this doesn’t mean science itself is a bad thing, politics and private interests are the bad things we need to free science from by demanding governments provide no-strings-attached research grants.

I just disproved the notion that "nothing is deemed true unless it has been thoroughly tested, then thoroughly tested again by multiple independent parties."

I assume you can't actually counter that, given your 4 paragraph response to it wherein you talk a lot without saying anything, while also agreeing with me.

Pascal’s Wager isn’t hypothesis testing, to test the hypothesis that god will punish me if I don’t believe in him I’d need several clones of myself (with souls) some of which will be theists, some of which will be atheists, and just to be thorough lets have some of them be agnostics too, I then have to kill them all and somehow observe what god does to them, THAT is testing the hypothesis.

Which obviously we can’t do.

Also you’re advocating that I believe in god to avoid the consequences of an untested hypothesis, which I have negated with another hypothesis, that god will punish me more for believing in the wrong god, which is as valid a hypothesis as any other untested hypothesis.

Give up Anakin I have the high ground.

lol... Please revisit my first response in post #38: https://www.intpforum.com/threads/cogs-case-against-religion.27451/#post-590287

you’re advocating that I believe in god

I have made no such advocation.

1. Yes you did, you’re the one who brought up this Pascal’s Wager nonsense.
2. Yes motivated by fear.
3. So you believe that… you don’t know? LOLWUT

1. Again, first response in post #38.

2. ....Got any proof? That faith is motivated by fear? Surely a great science advocate such as yourself can demonstrate this to, say, a 95% confidence interval.

3. I wrote that before TGM told me about Kant's Thing In Itself, which has since led me to noumenon.

Whaddya mean “no” you brought up this Pascal’s Wager nonsense.

This isn't an argument. You accused me of trying to hedge my bets by restricting the qualities of a god to your own limited understanding of form.

I countered that I can't rule out the idea of a god being able to change forms at will, having earlier questioned your assumption of motivation by fear.

My points remain uncontested. And not just those two.

Ah there’s that word again “belief” oh how the religious abuse it.

There’s belief and then there’s religious belief, I believe I might have sushi for lunch today, I might or I might not, but religious belief is different when you say you believe in god you’re not saying god might or might not exist, you’re saying you believe that god does exist, that the existence of god is to you a forgone conclusion.

A conclusion without evidence is a delusion, it’s all well and good to believe god might exist, I believe god might exist, but to say you believe god does exist that’s different, it sounds similar to believing god might exist but that’s semantic camouflage for the delusional statement that you believe god does exist.

"you’re saying you believe that god does exist, that the existence of god is to you a forgone conclusion."

Which I also know does not objectively bring a god into existence, as stated several times, beginning with post #37: https://www.intpforum.com/threads/cogs-case-against-religion.27451/#post-590286

There is no difference in objective effect between a subject believing something does exist vs might exist. your argument is moot and repeating it doesn't make it any less invalid.

You don't seem to keep track of conversational history very well, nor do you seem to possess any urge to maintain your own integrity by compensating for that by referencing the written record. I can only assume you're either unaware or doing it intentionally.

It seems your answer to "Why do you apparently believe that knowledge is a prerequisite for belief?" is that a conclusion without evidence is a delusion.

If so, that's circular reasoning, and as I mentioned previously, a delusion is a belief held contrary to evidence, not a belief held without it.

The creation of man by himself = Creating my robot body.

The full and entire conquest of his faculties = Brain-Computer interface.

And his future = Technological life extension.

The perfect emancipation of his will = The True Life

Seems like the most boring and redundant existence I could possibly imagine.

I assume you responded to that not specifically within the context of Freddy, otherwise I'd hold you to what Freddy espouses.

Once again back to the whole Pascal’s Wager thing, you “believe” (by which I mean you assume you know) that there is a god who will punish me if I do not believe in him otherwise your entire defence your faith has been disingenuous.

If you merely believed the unknown is unknown we wouldn’t be arguing, there’s nothing to argue about that, it’s not a belief it’s a self-evident fact.

I was talking about the persistence of uncertainty and basically how any belief is a projection upon that uncertainty.

Do you.... disagree that uncertainty is persistent, or that people project beliefs upon it? Because those would be germane counters that actually address my point.

Otherwise, you're inserting assumptions of fear and punishment and other shit. Again, see post #37 ITT.

 

[Black Rose]

I do not understand the whole rabbit, hawk, airplane, thing?

random thought: as for Pascal's Wager: a statue of Baphomet was erected in Detroit in 2015. some say it is the one true god.

 

[~~~]

ah...er...uh... o.0 Can you be more specific? You might be giving me too much credit. I have no idea what you're actually trying to say. The only conclusion I got was that the idea of legal pluralism seems really, really dumb from scanning its wiki article.

Like this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/. Yeah, you have to read his books on proof.

 

[QuickTwist]

You can reason yourself in circles, but if you do not see the big picture, it's all for not.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I do not understand the whole rabbit, hawk, airplane, thing?

If a rabbit sees a hawk, it runs and hides in its burrow so it doesn't get eaten. When this happens, the rabbit causes a bunch of small changes in its environment that affect the world around it. It stops eating, it might trample plants or an insect on its way to the burrow, running from the hawk could have prevented it from encountering a mate, etc. Each of these changes disperses into the surroundings. The plant growing next to a plant that was trampled gets more light, his rabbit neighbor might encounter the mate instead, etc. The effect goes on infinitely.

If a rabbit has a belief that planes are hawks and runs to its burrow when it sees a plane, even though the rabbit's belief is wrong, the effects on the surrounding world are the same as if he were right, just as if the plane really was a hawk.

If someone believes in a god, then their actions will reflect that upon their surroundings.

My argument was that even if a god is unknowable, a way to verify its existence might be to indirectly measure the effects of believing in it.

Like this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/. Yeah, you have to read his books on proof.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

My argument was that even if a god is unknowable, a way to verify its existence might be to indirectly measure the effects of believing in it.

Going by the rabbit/hawk/plane example, wouldn't you only be verifying whether or not people believe in God, which we already know anyway?

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

My argument was that even if a god is unknowable, a way to verify its existence might be to indirectly measure the effects of believing in it.

Going by the rabbit/hawk/plane example, wouldn't you only be verifying whether or not people believe in God, which we already know anyway?

Pretty much. Cog didn't attack that part of it though.

 

[Cognisant]

I think measuring god's influence is a great idea, but whether or not god makes people's lives better is too vague, we need specifics, something measurable.

Any suggestions?
How about longevity and wealth, if god favours people who believe in him they should be wealthier and live longer right?

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I think measuring god's influence is a great idea, but whether or not god makes people's lives better is too vague, we need specifics, something measurable.

Any suggestions?
How about longevity and wealth, if god favours people who believe in him they should be wealthier and live longer right?

I take it that this attempted shift in discussion signals you've admitted defeat on prior points? I'm still curious about the basis of your belief in that intuition stuff.

But anyway, why arbitrarily restrict the channel of a god's influence? What actual basis is there to do so?

 

[Black Rose]

But anyway, why arbitrarily restrict the channel of a god's influence? What actual basis is there to do so?

God being a false positive (hawk, airplane) means that Gods influence is just Imaginary shit in peoples minds. People don't give a damn about God because of his "supposed" "social" influence but because they believe God is an actual reality of existence. God as a social influence but not an actual reality, an actual divine being looking over everything, is a horseshit thing to put belief behind. People believe in a real God, not a social construct. Either God is real or everything is horseshit. It is dishonesty to say God is a real being when God is nothing but a social construct. It is complete sophism.

Gods influence as a social construct is not the same as God being a real entity aware of all existence influencing people. If God the being aware of all existence does not exist then God is not real i.e. does not exist and has no influence at all. Social constructs don't count because God needs to actually exist to be the source of Gods own influence. A social construct does not lead to an actual God in existence that would be God as God is conceptualized to be.

Is God real or is God not real? A social construct is not real. It is horseshit in the mind.

 

[Puffy]

Thesis:

You all have daddy issues and are either seeking the parental love of the ideal father figure you never had (theist) or you're displaying parental defiance by rejecting and getting angry with the idea of said ideal parental figure (atheist)

Discuss.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Spoiler

But anyway, why arbitrarily restrict the channel of a god's influence? What actual basis is there to do so?

God being a false positive (hawk, airplane) means that Gods influence is just Imaginary shit in peoples minds. People don't give a damn about God because of his "supposed" "social" influence but because they believe God is an actual reality of existence. God as a social influence but not an actual reality, an actual divine being looking over everything, is a horseshit thing to put belief behind. People believe in a real God, not a social construct. Either God is real or everything is horseshit. It is dishonesty to say God is a real being when God is nothing but a social construct. It is complete sophism.

Gods influence as a social construct is not the same as God being a real entity aware of all existence influencing people. If God the being aware of all existence does not exist then God is not real i.e. does not exist and has no influence at all. Social constructs don't count because God needs to actually exist to be the source of Gods own influence. A social construct does not lead to an actual God in existence that would be God as God is conceptualized to be.

Is God real or is God not real? A social construct is not real. It is horseshit in the mind.

<3

Thesis:

You all have daddy issues and are either seeking the parental love of the ideal father figure you never had (theist) or you're displaying parental defiance by rejecting and getting angry with the idea of said ideal parental figure (atheist)

Discuss.

Eh, I'm mostly playing to a third party audience while also making the thread into a sort of index so as to restrict the dominance of certain individuals in the future by redirecting future interactions here, while learning a few new terms along the way.

It's a mix of ego expression and some unlikely yet flickering hope for community betterment.

 

[Minuend]

You're quickly becoming my new favorite Canadian.

Say, would you mind rephrasing what he says in your words?

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

You're quickly becoming my new favorite Canadian.

Say, would you mind rephrasing what he says in your words?

Can you? Then, like, compare notes?

 

[Minuend]

You're quickly becoming my new favorite Canadian.

Say, would you mind rephrasing what he says in your words?

Can you? Then, like, compare notes?

I'll take that as a no

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

You're quickly becoming my new favorite Canadian.

Say, would you mind rephrasing what he says in your words?

Can you? Then, like, compare notes?

I'll take that as a no

I can and probably will, but I want to get something out of it too. I have an instinctive resistance against spontaneous requests where I can't see the utility of fulfillment on the other party. Basically, what would you get out of it? You're triggering internal hostility alarms vs ostensibly being a partner in discovery.

 

[Rolling Cattle]

I take it that this attempted shift in discussion signals you've admitted defeat on prior points? I'm still curious about the basis of your belief in that intuition stuff.

Pretty much. Cog didn't attack that part of it though.

Having an intellectual discussion isn't about being better than other people, or about winning, or confusing people. It's about reaching a common understanding and taking in feedback.

If a rabbit sees a hawk, it runs and hides in its burrow so it doesn't get eaten. When this happens, the rabbit causes a bunch of small changes in its environment that affect the world around it. It stops eating, it might trample plants or an insect on its way to the burrow, running from the hawk could have prevented it from encountering a mate, etc. Each of these changes disperses into the surroundings. The plant growing next to a plant that was trampled gets more light, his rabbit neighbor might encounter the mate instead, etc. The effect goes on infinitely.

If a rabbit has a belief that planes are hawks and runs to its burrow when it sees a plane, even though the rabbit's belief is wrong, the effects on the surrounding world are the same as if he were right, just as if the plane really was a hawk.

If someone believes in a god, then their actions will reflect that upon their surroundings.

My argument was that even if a god is unknowable, a way to verify its existence might be to indirectly measure the effects of believing in it.

Doesn't this lead itself right into chaos theory? I'm not saying you're wrong, belief in deities does have effects on the world. In fact, I don't think anyone is going to argue against that. It's because of the negative effects of blind faith that atheists ask believers to question their beliefs.

The belief in deities will probably ultimately lead to unexpected results. For instance me deciding that deities exist, thus influencing my actions, then affecting an algae bloom in 2020. There's too many variables involved and would be almost impossible to trace the root causes or predict all the outcomes.

But you're arguing that dieties do exist because believing in them causes things to happen. I think where people like cog are coming from is that belief suppress science, blooms pseudoscience and fake facts, and in some cases justifies oppression ..etc.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I take it that this attempted shift in discussion signals you've admitted defeat on prior points? I'm still curious about the basis of your belief in that intuition stuff.

Pretty much. Cog didn't attack that part of it though.

Having an intellectual discussion isn't about being better than other people, or about winning, or confusing people. It's about reaching a common understanding and taking in feedback.

Spoiler

Indeed. I don't respond to everyone like I do to Cog, right? Others ITT haven't addressed points I've made, and they haven't been prodded, right? And only on this specific subject, because of history. Not just in the context of his threads immediately preceeding this, but, like, the past decade.

Cog is in a category all his own in my mind. This topic is basically who he is; as much a part of his identity as building things, if not more so, because what does he discuss more frequently, and with the more intensity? The outcomes are predictable, as are his arguments, which he's repeated for so long, as if they've never been refuted. We're both aware of this, to the extent that threads like these have become a ritual of sorts; a dance just to dance; a game; fun. Neither party is here under the pretense of intellectual discovery from the other. Indeed, Cog made this known in his two immediately preceeding threads, and I've already alluded to my learning ITT, of new terms along the way, as a side effect. The only reason there's space for narcissistic expression on my part is because I know the outcome of these interactions with Cog so well.

I'm overtly worshipping TGM because more than anything else, he's managed to bring something novel (to me) to a discussion of a subject that previously, nearly every iteration of which was stale, and he did so in a way that was easy to learn and readily accessible. This is something I appreciate. The response of mine you've quoted below was my attempt to bring something more novel into something cold and dead as well.

Why am I responding to this with such intensity? Because if such a perception is allowed to develop into a character judgment against me, I know that such a judgment would be inaccurate.

I think such a character judgment may be behind @Minuend 's insinuation that I'm some know it all egotist pseudointellectual who's overtly agreeing with something I don't actually comprehend.

An attack on my character by someone whom I'd previously deemed both non-hostile and observant, from someone surely familiar with Cog's history of discussing religion, was not expected. It was out of character, and the assumption is obviously not true, otherwise I wouldn't have summoned TGM to begin with, identifying him as someone who likely knew more about it than me. If I were playing the know it all game, my response would have been a quick implied "you got me"; something like this: "hehe.... ", vs an invite for shared exploration.

So yes, I think I know what this is reasonably well, but I didn't immediately know what this was. Arguably, I should have stayed in character and argued for el-ahrairah, but that's not as easy to pull off in the philosophy vs religion subforum.

Doesn't this lead itself right into chaos theory? I'm not saying you're wrong, belief in deities does have effects on the world. In fact, I don't think anyone is going to argue against that. It's because of the negative effects of blind faith that atheists ask believers to question their beliefs.

The belief in deities will probably ultimately lead to unexpected results. For instance me deciding that deities exist, thus influencing my actions, then affecting an algae bloom in 2020. There's too many variables involved and would be almost impossible to trace the root causes or predict all the outcomes.

But you're arguing that dieties do exist because believing in them causes things to happen. I think where people like cog are coming from is that belief suppress science, blooms pseudoscience and fake facts, and in some cases justifies oppression ..etc.

1. Now, we've got to take a moment for some clarity. We're discussing a post I wanted to take into religion territory in a thread in philosophy territory. I only initially cited that example ITT to link Cog directly to an example of type 1/2 error recognition.

What I intended to aim for there was that it's the neverending, unpredictable component of that, the impossibility of fully comprehending and tracing "butterfly effects in all directions simultaneously," which infinitely extends the unknown, thus bringing "God" into existence, assuming, as I mentioned elsewhere, that "God" is a reductionist proxy label for the unconceiveable unknown, which is ultimately what's being worshipped. If possible, I would like to keep this discussion there to prevent continued derail, because discussion of religion in the affirmative is prohibited in the philosophy subforum.

2. "Was" That argument has since been supplanted ITT by Kant's Thing In Itself via TGM.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

You're quickly becoming my new favorite Canadian.

Say, would you mind rephrasing what he says in your words?

Can you? Then, like, compare notes?

I'll take that as a no

He's right that I was conflating objective and absolute.

For me, it's placed the generalizability of observations on a new gradient wherein subjective and intersubjective remain at the same positions as they were, but objective becomes something causal, while absolute takes the place of the unknowable in an existential context, which is where I'd initially slotted "objective."

My understanding is now that causality itself is objective and related to "how," whether, as subjects, we perceive the relationships accurately or not. "Why" remains subjective, and the "absolute" existential truth remains unknown.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

TLDR: The sword's still sharp. Have everyone's jimmies been de-rustled yet?

TLDR: TLDR: "Ho hum."

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

if god favours people who believe in him they should be wealthier and live longer right?

No, that's not the case.

Simply put, the point of becoming religious is not to better* yourself (at least not in the sense that you are suggesting), at least not in this life. That may come as a result since many sins are self-destructive in a physical sense, but it is not the main point.

The two laws of the Gospel are:

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.
2. Love your neighbour as yourself.

So the point is not to better yourself, it is to honour and serve God first and foremost, but also other people.

*perhaps I should have used the term "benefit" rather than "better". Using the term "better" is too confusing, because there are definitely ways in which religion does, or at the very least intends to, make someone a better person.

 

[Rolling Cattle]

Indeed. I don't respond to everyone like I do to Cog, right? Others ITT haven't addressed points I've made, and they haven't been prodded, right? And only on this specific subject, because of history. Not just in the context of his threads immediately preceeding this, but, like, the past decade.

Cog is in a category all his own in my mind. This topic is basically who he is; as much a part of his identity as building things, if not more so, because what does he discuss more frequently, and with the more intensity? The outcomes are predictable, as are his arguments, which he's repeated for so long, as if they've never been refuted. We're both aware of this, to the extent that threads like these have become a ritual of sorts; a dance just to dance; a game; fun. Neither party is here under the pretense of intellectual discovery from the other. Indeed, Cog made this known in his two immediately preceeding threads, and I've already alluded to my learning ITT, of new terms along the way, as a side effect. The only reason there's space for narcissistic expression on my part is because I know the outcome of these interactions with Cog so well.

I'm overtly worshipping TGM because more than anything else, he's managed to bring something novel (to me) to a discussion of a subject that previously, nearly every iteration of which was stale, and he did so in a way that was easy to learn and readily accessible. This is something I appreciate. The response of mine you've quoted below was my attempt to bring something more novel into something cold and dead as well.

Why am I responding to this with such intensity? Because if such a perception is allowed to develop into a character judgment against me, I know that such a judgment would be inaccurate.

I think such a character judgment may be behind @Minuend 's insinuation that I'm some know it all egotist pseudointellectual who's overtly agreeing with something I don't actually comprehend.

An attack on my character by someone whom I'd previously deemed both non-hostile and observant, from someone surely familiar with Cog's history of discussing religion, was not expected. It was out of character, and the assumption is obviously not true, otherwise I wouldn't have summoned TGM to begin with, identifying him as someone who likely knew more about it than me. If I were playing the know it all game, my response would have been a quick implied "you got me"; something like this: "hehe.... ", vs an invite for shared exploration.

So yes, I think I know what this is reasonably well, but I didn't immediately know what this was. Arguably, I should have stayed in character and argued for el-ahrairah, but that's not as easy to pull off in the philosophy vs religion subforum. [/spoiler]

Doesn't this lead itself right into chaos theory? I'm not saying you're wrong, belief in deities does have effects on the world. In fact, I don't think anyone is going to argue against that. It's because of the negative effects of blind faith that atheists ask believers to question their beliefs.

The belief in deities will probably ultimately lead to unexpected results. For instance me deciding that deities exist, thus influencing my actions, then affecting an algae bloom in 2020. There's too many variables involved and would be almost impossible to trace the root causes or predict all the outcomes.

But you're arguing that dieties do exist because believing in them causes things to happen. I think where people like cog are coming from is that belief suppress science, blooms pseudoscience and fake facts, and in some cases justifies oppression ..etc.

1. Now, we've got to take a moment for some clarity. We're discussing a post I wanted to take into religion territory in a thread in philosophy territory. I only initially cited that example ITT to link Cog directly to an example of type 1/2 error recognition.

What I intended to aim for there was that it's the neverending, unpredictable component of that, the impossibility of fully comprehending and tracing "butterfly effects in all directions simultaneously," which infinitely extends the unknown, thus bringing "God" into existence, assuming, as I mentioned elsewhere, that "God" is a reductionist proxy label for the unconceiveable unknown, which is ultimately what's being worshipped. If possible, I would like to keep this discussion there to prevent continued derail, because discussion of religion in the affirmative is prohibited in the philosophy subforum.

2. "Was" That argument has since been supplanted ITT by Kant's Thing In Itself via TGM.

Thank you for clarifying. I think I have a much better sense where you are coming from.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Thank you for clarifying. I think I have a much better sense where you are coming from.

You are now officially my third favorite Canadian.

 

[Rolling Cattle]

Thank you for clarifying. I think I have a much better sense where you are coming from.

You are now officially my third favorite Canadian.

I'm only agreeing with you as far as people worshipping the uncertain things that are beyond their control. And I'm ready to admit that I haven't fully recalled every point made by both arguing sides. (I haven't read too deep into your debates with cog). I'm also not that well versed in philosophy as you and TGM seem to be.

Generally, Cog's recent arguments haven't really rubbed me the wrong way, though if they've been going for a decade, maybe I've only seen the tip of the iceberg.
EDIT: (facepalm) except for banishing religion in china, liberty of thought seems to be more important in my opinion.

After your response, I just started realizing that I might not be really adding anything insightful, I don't have anything you both don't already know about, so I'll just take a back seat and take stuff in.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

After your response, I just started realizing that I might not be really adding anything insightful, I don't have anything you both don't already know about, so I'll just take a back seat and take stuff in.

My intent was never to pressure you at all, or suppress discussion. All of your assumptions were reasonable. I only know what I know from reading those old threads, after all. TGM is just a fuckin' beast...

Don't be afraid to ask questions, or play the game even though you know how the discussion will end. I mean, what fun could a roller coaster be? There's no progress! You just get off at the same place you got on! How Sisyphean!

 

[Cognisant]

I take it that this attempted shift in discussion signals you've admitted defeat on prior points?

No, the heck are you so smug about I haven't conceded anything, I do however have more important things to do hence why I've fallen out of the discussion.

If someone changes my mind on something I tell them, until then assume I haven't.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother,
and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city,
and unto the gate of his place;

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious,
he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die:
so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

-

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death,
[and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him:
as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD],
shall be put to death.

-

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:
they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

-

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD:
whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

-

 

[onesteptwostep]

^

And that's why Jesus came to die on the cross though, right? John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"

Perhaps jumping from disobedience to parents in a tribal kingdom to a metanarrative of one's sinful nature is a bit much, but you are very misunderstanding Christianity if you take in the Mosaic Laws that were meant for the tribal Israelites as definitive of what Christianity is supposed to be about. Those in the kingdom had to perish if they did not partake in its sparse and frugal society. Superimposing our own civil milieu onto the ancient Israelites wandering in the desert pre-AD or to some barely formed kingdom squashed between Egypt and Persia is a special kind of bias atheists tend to conjure. The Israelites were always under some existential crisis- the amazing fact however is that their spiritual descendants are still around today even if they were up against all odds.

 

[onesteptwostep]

And speaking of Kant, I'd love to take pictures of my intro to Kant chapters to elaborate more on his take on the structure of the self, world and God and so on if anyone's interested. *pokes Cog*. Kant really is the cure to people who can only understand the world in an empiricist manner.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Kant really is the cure to people who can only understand the world in an empiricist manner.

How's that? Wasn't it the whole point of the Critique that reasoning not grounded in empirical experience is meaningless?