Cog's Case Against Religion

[Cognisant]

I'm re-posting this from the "China's crackdown on Religion" to put the focus on religion itself, if you're interested in talking about religion in politics go to the other thread, likewise I'll try to keep the criticism of religion in general here.

Alright here's my perspective on religion, it's a bunch of people coming together to lie to each other so they can more easily lie to themselves.
There's many reasons for this behaviour:

• If you've had a shitty life the prospect of a heavenly afterlife is very appealing.
• If you've suffered at the hands of others the prospect of them being punished for it by some divine arbiter of justice is very appealing.
• If someone you love has died the prospect that they still exist in some metaphysical sense in which you will one day join them is very appealing.
• Death itself is a horrifying reality, just about any alternative would be very appealing.
• The uncertainty of life is a horrifying reality, I was on the bus today and the driver took both hands off the wheel to retrieve a snack from a plastic container, in that moment I was acutely aware that his negligence could get me killed. I don't believe in a divine plan, I don't feel safe in the "knowledge" that everything happens for a reason, I think shit just happens and I was fucking worried.
• There's a lot of comfort to be gained by simply being part of something, that there are people in this world you have never met with whom you have solidarity.
• It's also really nice to feel special, the creator of the universe didn't just create humanity, he created you, he cares about you, indeed you're important to him because not only did he create you he also chose you to be one of his chosen people, the people he prefers above all others, his people.

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.

Instead they might admit they don't know if their deity or whatever exists, they that they merely believe, but they don't mean that their deity or whatever's existence is merely hypothetical. For anyone who has faith that is already beyond question, the uncertainty they're confessing to is uncertainty in their knowledge of that deity or whatever. The distinction is important because the word "belief" is used to hide the delusion, to stop us from calling them out on claiming to know something they don't actually know.

That is the essential nature of religion, people claiming to know something they don't actually know, coming together to lie to each other so they can more easily lie to themselves, it is blatant and willful self-delusion.

Do people need religion?
It could be argued that people are inherently delusional hence why we're not all fatalistic apathetic nihilists and since I'm not like that (all the time) it's a fair assumption that I too have my delusions. Heck maybe the reason I hate religion so much is that it seems everyone else gets to share their delusions whereas mine a more idiosyncratic. Of course I'm not the only atheist but being an atheist isn't really something that unites people, kinda like a no-golfing club, I love not playing golf, I don't play golf all the time.

In any case I don't think people need religion, I can certainly see the appeal and why it has such incredible staying power but I think there's a fundamental difference between my delusion and the religious delusion, that being the open acknowledgement that being anything but an fatalistic apathetic nihilist is delusional. I hope to live long enough to benifit from technological life extension, to go out there among the stars and live what I consider the true life (one where I'm not constrained by the limitations of a finite lifespan) but I don't expect it, y'know hope for the best but expect the worst.

Is religion beneficial?
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, events like parents subjecting their children to brainwashing, physical abuse (exorcism), faith healing (denying them needed medical attention) and genital mutilation (look up female circumcision).

Then there's the rampant pedophilia and other abuses of power/privilege for which religious institutions have a deeply ingrained culture of denial, a culture which I believe stems from the fundamental nature of religious institutions being gatherings of people for the purpose of mutually assisted self-delusion.

Is religion ethical?
I don't think self-delusion is fundamentally unethical, irresponsible maybe, you certainly don't see many atheists in lynch mobs or protesting outside women's health clinics, there are however many non-religious charities which unlike say the Salvation Army don't discriminate with who they provide help to as a form of proselytization.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Spoiler

Alright here's my perspective on religion, it's a bunch of people coming together to lie to each other so they can more easily lie to themselves.
There's many reasons for this behaviour:

• If you've had a shitty life the prospect of a heavenly afterlife is very appealing.
• If you've suffered at the hands of others the prospect of them being punished for it by some divine arbiter of justice is very appealing.
• If someone you love has died the prospect that they still exist in some metaphysical sense in which you will one day join them is very appealing.
• Death itself is a horrifying reality, just about any alternative would be very appealing.
• The uncertainty of life is a horrifying reality, I was on the bus today and the driver took both hands off the wheel to retrieve a snack from a plastic container, in that moment I was acutely aware that his negligence could get me killed. I don't believe in a divine plan, I don't feel safe in the "knowledge" that everything happens for a reason, I think shit just happens and I was fucking worried.
• There's a lot of comfort to be gained by simply being part of something, that there are people in this world you have never met with whom you have solidarity.
• It's also really nice to feel special, the creator of the universe didn't just create humanity, he created you, he cares about you, indeed you're important to him because not only did he create you he also chose you to be one of his chosen people, the people he prefers above all others, his people.

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.

Instead they might admit they don't know if their deity or whatever exists, they that they merely believe, but they don't mean that their deity or whatever's existence is merely hypothetical. For anyone who has faith that is already beyond question, the uncertainty they're confessing to is uncertainty in their knowledge of that deity or whatever. The distinction is important because the word "belief" is used to hide the delusion, to stop us from calling them out on claiming to know something they don't actually know.

That is the essential nature of religion, people claiming to know something they don't actually know, coming together to lie to each other so they can more easily lie to themselves, it is blatant and willful self-delusion.

Do people need religion?
It could be argued that people are inherently delusional hence why we're not all fatalistic apathetic nihilists and since I'm not like that (all the time) it's a fair assumption that I too have my delusions. Heck maybe the reason I hate religion so much is that it seems everyone else gets to share their delusions whereas mine a more idiosyncratic. Of course I'm not the only atheist but being an atheist isn't really something that unites people, kinda like a no-golfing club, I love not playing golf, I don't play golf all the time.

In any case I don't think people need religion, I can certainly see the appeal and why it has such incredible staying power but I think there's a fundamental difference between my delusion and the religious delusion, that being the open acknowledgement that being anything but an fatalistic apathetic nihilist is delusional. I hope to live long enough to benifit from technological life extension, to go out there among the stars and live what I consider the true life (one where I'm not constrained by the limitations of a finite lifespan) but I don't expect it, y'know hope for the best but expect the worst.

Is religion beneficial?
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, events like parents subjecting their children to brainwashing, physical abuse (exorcism), faith healing (denying them needed medical attention) and genital mutilation (look up female circumcision).

Then there's the rampant pedophilia and other abuses of power/privilege for which religious institutions have a deeply ingrained culture of denial, a culture which I believe stems from the fundamental nature of religious institutions being gatherings of people for the purpose of mutually assisted self-delusion.

Is religion ethical?
I don't think self-delusion is fundamentally unethical, irresponsible maybe, you certainly don't see many atheists in lynch mobs or protesting outside women's health clinics, there are however many non-religious charities which unlike say the Salvation Army don't discriminate with who they provide help to as a form of proselytization.

Color-coding in spoiler.

If you'd like to reduce faith to mechanistic and utilitarian terms, it's evolutionarily advantageous because functionally, it's a means of preparation that prolongs existence in an unpredictable world.

I differentiate between faith and what some people do based on it/how they interpret its meaning, something like the difference between pure vs applied math. Religion is applied faith. You don't differentiate, as evidenced by advocating "fatalistic apathetic nihilism."

In your quote, you state "in spite of the evidence." What evidence?

I have no means by which to prove or disprove his existence.

How many threads must you make in the hopes that this time, the enemy will appear in the form of whack-a-moles, as planned? Golf balls, tee'd up and ready to be smited by your mighty 9 iron? As far as I can tell, no one here has made the arguments you're battling.

I hope to live long enough to benifit from technological life extension, to go out there among the stars and live what I consider the true life (one where I'm not constrained by the limitations of a finite lifespan)

It seems like you openly aspire to become God.

 

[QuickTwist]

Cog, you have to prove that people were wrong before because of believing in religion and you can't do that.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

It's not just that. I'm sure there's a succinct phrase to describe this, like ad hominem, though obviously not specifically "ad hominem,"... but he invites others to take up positions he can easily defend against, using strawmen, ostensibly to "win."

Do that across multiple threads, and it makes his opponents look nonsensical because they reference posts in other threads and are forced to repeat arguments they've made elsewhere.

It's like he's playing a video game and keeps starting over every time he dies.

I don't think anyone here disagrees that religious people do some fucked up shit. But that doesn't invalidate religion or the supernatural or otherwise rectify the deficits of empiricism within the context of epistemology.

 

[QuickTwist]

It's not just that. I'm sure there's a succinct phrase to describe this, like ad hominem, though obviously not specifically "ad hominem,"... but he invites others to take up positions he can easily defend against, using strawmen, ostensibly to "win."

Do that across multiple threads, and it makes his opponents look nonsensical because they reference posts in other threads and are forced to repeat arguments they've made elsewhere.

It's like he's playing a video game and keeps starting over every time he dies.

I don't think anyone here disagrees that religious people do some fucked up shit. But that doesn't invalidate religion or the supernatural or otherwise rectify the deficits of empiricism within the context of epistemology.

Don't make it more than it is, man. Cog just an angry nay-sayer.

 

[Hadoblado]

you certainly don't see many atheists in lynch mobs or protesting outside women's health clinics

Errr... No, not that specifically, but there are plenty of examples of atheists conducting themselves poorly too. The thing is... You may not recognise it as such, but your own example of China's crackdown is... well... kinda fucked up.

Maybe this should be the last religion thread for a while? I think they've resulted in some decent discussion, but it's always the same actors with the same positions so we're going to have some serious fatigue soon.

 

[QuickTwist]

you certainly don't see many atheists in lynch mobs or protesting outside women's health clinics

Errr... No, not that specifically, but there are plenty of examples of atheists conducting themselves poorly too. The thing is... You may not recognise it as such, but your own example of China's crackdown is... well... kinda fucked up.

Maybe this should be the last religion thread for a while? I think they've resulted in some decent discussion, but it's always the same actors with the same positions so we're going to have some serious fatigue soon.

I don't have a problem with it. If it looks like nothing new is ever stated, then yeah, probably best to pack that up for a time. But if it's just the same people involved, well, then that is a different thing. If it's the same topic with the same people, BUT new things are being discussed, then you should probably let it roll.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay, fair enough. So long as people are finding value in it then that's cool.

I'm concerned about Lago's comments. While I don't have any problem with attacking ideas, people still can feel attacked when it's their ideas attacked over and over again.

 

[Cognisant]

If you'd like to reduce faith to mechanistic and utilitarian terms, it's evolutionarily advantageous because functionally, it's a means of preparation that prolongs existence in an unpredictable world.

Prepared how, prepared for what? How does "faith" prolong existence?

I differentiate between faith and what some people do based on it/how they interpret its meaning, something like the difference between pure vs applied math. Religion is applied faith. You don't differentiate, as evidenced by advocating "fatalistic apathetic nihilism."

Well as I said the "China's crackdown on Religion" thread I don't have a problem with individual spirituality (using AnimeKitty as my example) so you can believe whatever you want to believe and as long as you keep it to yourself because then it doesn't affect anyone else. For example lets say you don't like gay marriage, ok great don't have one, it doesn't affect you and by keeping your shit to yourself you're not affecting anyone else, but then there's people like this asshole.

Lets say I lived in the US and I called you and left a message on your answering machine saying "stop being religious or I'm going to kill you", it would then be your right to take that message to the police and they would promptly put out a warrant for my arrest, we would then go to court and after due process to ensure I actually sent that message I would be fined (or jailed if I had a history of this sort of thing) and given a restraining order and if I do not comply with it I will be arrested and sent to jail.

That asshole wasn't just making a death threat against one person, he was making a death threat against an entire demographic and calling upon his fellow believers for support, calling upon his religious institution to assist him in enacting political change to have people put to death.

In your quote, you state "in spite of the evidence." What evidence?

Well there's the easy stuff like the Earth not being flat, nor the center of the solar system, nor about 6000 years old, that Noah's ark is logistically impossible, etc.

Fuck it I'm in.

Before we can discuss whether or not god exists we must first define what god is, otherwise any discussion about whether or not god exists is just fucking stupid because nobody really knows what we're talking about.

For the sake of argument I'm going to define god as the system administrator of the server our universe simulation is running on. As far as he is concerned we're just bits of computer memory, he can stop, rewind and modify the simulation at any time for any reason. This god is omnipotent, omniscient and exists outside existence as we know it.

I cannot tell you does great system administrator in the cloud doesn't exist, he exists outside of the simulation, I have no means by which to prove or disprove his existence.

I can however refute claims of his benevolence and wisdom by point out flaws in the simulation, at least they're "flaws" if we assume this simulation is being run for our sake which being a pessimist I find highly unlikely.

The fact that I cannot disprove the existence of the GSA doesn't prove his existence either, god could just as likely be a cosmic unicorn, a literal pile of shit, or me.

So all in all the real question to debate over is whether or not god matters.
Personally I think not, I think if god wanted us to know of his existence he would have made it unarguably evident and the fact that his/her/its/their/whatever existence is not unarguably evident tells us that god is one of three things: fictional, hiding, or irrelevant.

So I guess it comes down to whether or not it's more or less delusional to believe in something without proof than to not believe in something without proof. Well I suppose it's a lot like doing an equation with unknown variables, the answer to N+1 could be anything, it could be 1, -2, or 1000001.5, there are an infinite number of possible answers all of which have an equal possibility of being correct, just as there are an infinite number of supernatural possibilities. Maybe there's one god, maybe there's two, maybe god has an elephant's head, maybe god hasn't arrived yet, maybe we're god and we don't know it, maybe we're all fictional characters in a 10th dimensional entity's novel or maybe we don't know and would be stupid to presume we do because the probability of being correct is infinitesimally small.

True I cannot conclusively disprove that religion is all bullshit, but between and infinitesimally small probability that I'm wrong and the neigh certianty that I'm not wrong I think I've made the right choice.

How many threads must you make in the hopes that this time, the enemy will appear in the form of whack-a-moles, as planned? Golf balls, tee'd up and ready to be smited by your mighty 9 iron? As far as I can tell, no one here has made the arguments you're battling.

That people need religion, that religion is beneficial, that religion is ethical?
Actually they come up a lot, most recently brought up by @higs in the "China's crackdown on Religion" thread.

It seems like you openly aspire to become God.

Are you calling me an asshole?

Errr... No, not that specifically, but there are plenty of examples of atheists conducting themselves poorly too. The thing is... You may not recognise it as such, but your own example of China's crackdown is... well... kinda fucked up.

How so?
Banning children from churches, I'm a huge fan of that.
Tearing down religious iconography, well you can't just build whatever you want wherever you want and even if you have approval to say have a pool in your backyard that approval can be revoked. That's how it works in our country although they rarely revoke approval without a very good reason, for example a decorative pond attracting ducks which are being a nuisance to the neighborhood.

If the Chinese started building communist education centers the Australian government would not allow that, indeed there are laws in place limiting how much of our land and infrastructure they're allowed to invest in to prevent Chinese investors being a threat to our sovereignty.

Anyway lets keep the China/politics stuff in the other thread, indeed wasn't this thread practically your idea? As for "atheists conducting themselves poorly" by all means provide examples, I know I can cite cases of people being murdered in their own homes by religious mobs for daring to be atheists, but what have the atheists been doing?

Maybe this should be the last religion thread for a while? I think they've resulted in some decent discussion, but it's always the same actors with the same positions so we're going to have some serious fatigue soon.

I'm having a GREAT TIME

 

[QuickTwist]

My dear @Cognisant, do you not see your bias or do you simply not care whether it is so damning to others?

 

[Cognisant]

Sayeth the pot to the kettle.

 

[Black Rose]

deleted

 

[QuickTwist]

Sayeth the pot to the kettle.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, I admit I am not perfect.

 

[Black Rose]

I'm not sure what you are referring to, I admit I am not perfect.

Cog is referring to this:


Dictionary

the pot calling the kettle black
phrase of pot

1. used to convey that the criticisms a person is aiming at someone else could equally well apply to themselves.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Spoiler'd to make scrolling easier.

Spoiler

Prepared how, prepared for what? How does "faith" prolong existence?

Already answered here in the rabbit example and type 1/2 error explanation.

Spoiler

Well as I said the "China's crackdown on Religion" thread I don't have a problem with individual spirituality (using AnimeKitty as my example) so you can believe whatever you want to believe and as long as you keep it to yourself because then it doesn't affect anyone else. For example lets say you don't like gay marriage, ok great don't have one, it doesn't affect you and by keeping your shit to yourself you're not affecting anyone else, but then there's people like this asshole.

Lets say I lived in the US and I called you and left a message on your answering machine saying "stop being religious or I'm going to kill you", it would then be your right to take that message to the police and they would promptly put out a warrant for my arrest, we would then go to court and after due process to ensure I actually sent that message I would be fined (or jailed if I had a history of this sort of thing) and given a restraining order and if I do not comply with it I will be arrested and sent to jail.

That asshole wasn't just making a death threat against one person, he was making a death threat against an entire demographic and calling upon his fellow believers for support, calling upon his religious institution to assist him in enacting political change to have people put to death.

Uh huh. This thread is entitled "Cog's Case Against Religion," not "Cog's Case Against a Clusterfuck of Cherrypicked Individuals."

It doesn't affect anyone else if multiple people with shared beliefs choose to congregate either.

In your quote, you state "in spite of the evidence." What evidence?

Well there's the easy stuff like the Earth not being flat, nor the center of the solar system, nor about 6000 years old, that Noah's ark is logistically impossible, etc.

I'm not going to allow you to shift the goalposts away from the original context, which was explicitly about the existence of "their deity," which you've already contradicted:

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.

the neigh certianty that I'm not wrong

Certainty?

That people need religion, that religion is beneficial, that religion is ethical?
Actually they come up a lot, most recently brought up by @higs in the "China's crackdown on Religion" thread.

Yes, higs took your bait.

Are you calling me an asshole?

Your actions speak for themselves.

I know I can cite cases of people being murdered in their own homes by religious mobs for daring to be atheists, but what have the atheists been doing?

Citing this because it's readily available since it was posted in your other thread.

Okay, fair enough. So long as people are finding value in it then that's cool.

I'm concerned about Lago's comments. While I don't have any problem with attacking ideas, people still can feel attacked when it's their ideas attacked over and over again.

My issue is with admitting to being a troll and then engaging in a pitiful, many-threaded attempt at divide and conquer to basically proselytize for atheism.

 

[QuickTwist]

I'm not sure what you are referring to, I admit I am not perfect.

Cog is referring to this:


Dictionary

the pot calling the kettle black
phrase of pot

1. used to convey that the criticisms a person is aiming at someone else could equally well apply to themselves.

I know what Cog was saying. I just do not know the context of where it comes from because he didn't give any.

 

[Black Rose]

It seems like you openly aspire to become God.

Are you calling me an asshole?

Your actions speak for themselves.

So Cog is God and God is an asshole? Good job on the logic. (not trying to be snarky)

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

So Cog is God and God is an asshole? Good job on the logic. (not trying to be snarky)

More like an asshole wannabe than a wannabe asshole. (is trying to be snarky)

 

[Black Rose]

I know what Cog was saying. I just do not know the context of where it comes from because he didn't give any.

well, you did say he was unable to see his own biases so he was saying the same about you. (the pot and kettle)

 

[Hadoblado]

Oh jeez cmon peeps he's just saying he thinks QT is unaware of, or does not care about, his own biases. The same as QT claims of Cog. Keep moving.

 

[QuickTwist]

I know what Cog was saying. I just do not know the context of where it comes from because he didn't give any.

well, you did say he was unable to see his own biases so he was saying the same about you. (the pot and kettle)

What is my bias?

 

[Black Rose]

What is my bias?

I don't know but you say cog cannot see his own personal bias. Can you see your own personal bias QT?

 

[QuickTwist]

What is my bias?

I don't know but you say cog cannot see his own personal bias. Can you see your own personal bias QT?

If that was the extent to which I addressed Cog, you would have a point but that is not all I was saying.

If Cog wants to continue this, he can, but I am no longer going to continue to discuss this with you.

 

[Cognisant]

Prepared how, prepared for what? How does "faith" prolong existence?

Already answered here in the rabbit example and type 1/2 error explanation.

Princeton PEAR might be of interest, but I'm not sure that's the right epistemological approach. The fact is that empiricism has limits, and there may be things beyond the empirical realm that are immune to its measure.

An approach to this that I've had for a while: If someone believes something to have some attribute; true, false, exists, large, small, blue, etc., their actions are influenced by that belief, which makes that belief de facto truth, reflected in the fabric of the web of reciprocal causal influence that surrounds them. Say, a rabbit who believes planes are hawks, and thus hides in his burrow when he sees them. That's a real, measurable effect with influence on the physical world.

Could belief be directly measured? No, but its influence can, and that could rightfully be treated as an invisible, physical force, like magnetism or something. Schrodinger's cat seems applicable. [Lol what?]

Ultimately, the supernatural is a representation of uncertainty and the unknown. At worst, it compensates for perception errors due to our intrinsic non-omniscient nature, and thus literally every discovery is a reinforcing justification for it. In an attempt to describe this existential uncertainty in physical terms, I think this is a reflection of the properties of dimensions themselves; i.e. a 2 dimensional space is contained within a 3 dimensional space; a 2 dimensional being cannot truly conceive what it's like to be 3 dimensional. Our world/universe, however many dimensions it has, would also experience this phenomenon, contained within something inconceivable.

Also, antipsychotics seemed to reduce the symptoms of homosexuality too, as did lobotomies.

If not from empiricism where does your knowledge come from? Because if it's not coming from somewhere then it's coming from nowhere or in other words you're just making shit up and deluding yourself into believing your own made-up shit.

That is the essential nature of religion, people claiming to know something they don't actually know, coming together to lie to each other so they can more easily lie to themselves, it is blatant and willful self-delusion.

It doesn't affect anyone else if multiple people with shared beliefs choose to congregate either.

Your own words were "That's a real, measurable effect with influence on the physical world" and I absolutely agree, religion does have a measurable effect with influence on the physical world, there are many nations around the world where being an atheist can get you killed. So as I see it what you're saying in the above quote is a complete contradiction, what is the KKK if not a religious organization, what are Islamic terrorists if not religious organizations and what are religious organizations if not congregations of people with shared beliefs?

Of course you're going to say not all Christians agree with the KKK and not all Muslims agree with ISIS, and that's an excellent point, just like not all Nazis were involved with gassing the Jews and not all Catholic priests are pedophiles.

You don't know jack shit about the nature of the universe, in particular "At worst, it compensates for perception errors due to our intrinsic non-omniscient nature, and thus literally every discovery is a reinforcing justification for it" what the actual fuck? How does making up your own delusional bullshit make up for being wrong, how is "every discovery" a "a reinforcing justification for it" I mean holy shit talk about confirmation bias.

OH WOW I am so glad you brought that to my attention you homophobic bastard, so that's the solution is it, anti-psychotics and LOBOTOMIES wow you absolute fucking cunt that is amazing. Hey have you heard of this guy named Alan Turing, fucking brilliant man, there's a law named after him which I think you should know about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law

 

[Cognisant]

What is my bias?

I don't know but you say cog cannot see his own personal bias. Can you see your own personal bias QT?

The irony is strong in this one.

 

[Cognisant]

Uh huh. This thread is entitled "Cog's Case Against Religion," not "Cog's Case Against a Clusterfuck of Cherrypicked Individuals."

It really is a pathetic defense, I create a thread to make my case against religion in general but how am I to do that if I'm not allowed to cite specific examples?

I'm not going to allow you to shift the goalposts away from the original context, which was explicitly about the existence of "their deity," which you've already contradicted:

Did I contradict myself? ...no? Okay whatever, I'll play along.
We can discuss whether or not your "God" exists which is pointless because you cannot conclusively define it so we literally don't know what we're talking, although I'm sure you've got some paradox ready like the definition of god's existence is that he exists or the nature of god cannot be defined, in any case I have little interest in this mire of semantic nonsense.

As for the nature of your deity since you reject empirical knowledge (of which there is none pertaining to the supernatural) and in substitute you provide nothing but your own delusions and confirmation bias, then really there's nothing to talk about. Except that due to the fact that the possibilities of the unknown are infinite it's infinitely likely your delusions are false and likewise neigh certain that I'm not wrong in calling out your delusions as delusional.

the neigh certianty that I'm not wrong

Certainty?

Neigh certainty.
Oh I misspelled certainty, how embarrassing.

 

[Black Rose]

Religion is bad because people believe false things and these beliefs make things difficult for others especially if people get together based on these false beliefs.

This is the norm because humans are shitty at understanding reality.

But this does not eliminate true spiritual beliefs from existing.

I believe I have experienced contact with the spirit realm.

I cannot prove it. But I have felt it viscerally as real and being there.

Reality is not just the 3 dimensions we can see. There is a slipstream things flow through.

I believe there is a place beyond where we are now. It is above us in a higher realm.

 

[Cognisant]

I know I can cite cases of people being murdered in their own homes by religious mobs for daring to be atheists, but what have the atheists been doing?

Citing this because it's readily available since it was posted in your other thread.

This is actually quite interesting, are they persecuting the Falun Gong because they're religious or because the Falun Gong are in political opposition to the Chinese government?

Personally if I see someone pick a fight with the biggest guy and the room then complain about getting their ass kicked I'm not inclined to be sympathetic.

 

[Black Rose]

We can discuss whether or not your "God" exists which is pointless because you cannot conclusively define it so we literally don't know what we're talking

My personal God is aware of all reality. (can you paint with all the colors of the wind)

 

[Black Rose]

Falun Gong is dangerous to the government of China because it is a religion of peace.

The Dali Lama is seen as a political enemy for the same reason I think. (?)

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Why are you taking my posts in that thread out of context by responding to them ITT?

Also, because you seem to have ignored the type 1/2 error explanation, I can only assume you agree with it.

Really?... "Do I know everything? No? Holy shit, that means I'm not omniscient!"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4544270.pdf

https://monoskop.org/images/7/7e/Feyerabend_Paul_Against_Method.pdf

No matter how many times you repeat cherry-pick, the actions of individuals remain separate from faith. Also, already addressed.

you homophobic bastard

lmfao. You clearly don't know me, nor my love of dick, very well.

You're also unobservant given that the purpose of my statement was to point out the irony in adaire declaring someone mentally ill for stating a belief in the supernatural, which is a component of one's identity, in line with the instructions in the OP.

"seems"

Spoiler

Much like how the cat hasn't been observed to be dead while the box is closed, the plane hasn't been observed by the rabbit to be a predator, but that doesn't mean it's not.

Every instance of discovery is literally evidence to reinforce belief in the unknown, because, you know, before something was discovered, it wasn't known? Is that really so hard to comprehend? Ietsism isn't much of a stretch from there.

This is actually quite interesting, are they persecuting the Falun Gong because they're religious or because the Falun Gong are in political opposition to the Chinese government?

If you actually read the article you cited in your OP (), you'd know that the Chinese Communist Party is officially atheist.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

It really is a pathetic defense, I create a thread to make my case against religion in general but how am I to do that if I'm not allowed to cite specific examples?

idk. Actually cite examples relevant to the topic? Like... you really don't know the difference, do you? I'm kind of amazed because I don't actually know how to address that.

Did I contradict myself? ...no? Okay whatever, I'll play along.
We can discuss whether or not your "God" exists which is pointless because you cannot conclusively define it so we literally don't know what we're talking, although I'm sure you've got some paradox ready like the definition of god's existence is that he exists or the nature of god cannot be defined, in any case I have little interest in this mire of semantic nonsense.

As for the nature of your deity since you reject empirical knowledge (of which there is none pertaining to the supernatural) and in substitute you provide nothing but your own delusions and confirmation bias, then really there's nothing to talk about. Except that due to the fact that the possibilities of the unknown are infinite it's infinitely likely your delusions are false and likewise neigh certain that I'm not wrong in calling out your delusions as delusional.

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

I don't reject empirical knowledge, I just don't use empiricism beyond its boundaries, much in the same way I don't use a screwdriver as a saw.

Exists vs doesn't isn't just a binary choice. "God doesn't exist" is a single point on an infinite gradient. In what way is choosing from a pool of infinity vs infinity -1 more likely to be correct?

Neigh certainty.
Oh I misspelled certainty, how embarrassing.

I ignored "neigh" as some weird colloquialism.

 

[redbaron]

lol believing in god in 2018

all these arguments are just new ways of playing god of the gaps

people only ask 'why' questions when they can't understand the 'how'. no one gives a why once they understand the how, and even people predisposed to mystical thinking never apply a 'why' thought to anything they understand the how behind

but i don't think even they realise this themselves

 

[Cognisant]

Why are you taking my posts in that thread out of context by responding to them ITT?

Because you brought them up?

Also, because you seem to have ignored the type 1/2 error explanation, I can only assume you agree with it.

Ah sorry I missed that, and no, I don't.

Yeah, feels like a semantics issue. But at least to me, those semantics are being used to justify reverence and all sorts of things. When people believe the content of a book because it comes from the supernatural, it's no longer just a semantic distinction.

And yeah, I'm partial to the definition of the unknown and unknowable, but I don't think that's what others are going for. If it's unknown or unknowable, how is it reasonable to assign values to it? I assume people don't see themselves this way.

It's an extension of the rabbit example I gave in posts 106 and 123. Type 1/2 error. If you don't assign value to something unknown that's "real," it could be detrimental/cause harm. It seems reasonable to assign value if one wants to exist, since otherwise they'd have disproportionately higher risk getting steamrolled.

Isn't that just Pascal's Wager?

Spoiler: Famously refuted by Homer

Really?... "Do I know everything? No? Holy shit, that means I'm not omniscient!"

Yet you claim to know something for which you have no evidence...

No matter how many times you repeat cherry-pick, the actions of individuals remain separate from faith.

Yet you're trying to pin the persecution of the Falun Gong on atheism, the difference is atheism isn't really a reason to do something it's entirely reactionary, even the word "atheist" means someone who does not believe in religion. Much to the lament of would-be atheist leaders uniting atheists is like herding cats, a lack of belief is not common ground, the only time atheists unite is in reactionary opposition to something theists are doing.

The Chinese government isn't persecuting the Falun Gong because they're a religious institution (note that I'm not even trying to deny that the Chinese government a predominately atheist organization, or that they're persecuting the Falun Gong) rather their persecution is based on the Falun Gong's political opposition to the Chinese government and the organ trafficking well that's just money.

It's hilarious that you're trying to accuse me of cherry-picking when I have plethora of examples throughout history and the modern day of religious institutions persecuting people for religious reasons (apparently god hates gays?) whilst also trying to do the same yourself while your only example is a government that just happens to not be religious and is opposing religion in their nation for political reasons.

lmfao. You clearly don't know me, nor my love of dick, very well.

HAHAA ok fair enough.

You're also unobservant given that the purpose of my statement was to point out the irony in adaire declaring someone mentally ill for stating a belief in the supernatural, which is a component of one's identity, in line with the instructions in the OP.

Some mental illnesses are inherent, some are not, religion I would classify as a self-delusional neurosis.

Much like how the cat hasn't been observed to be dead while the box is closed, the plane hasn't been observed by the rabbit to be a predator, but that doesn't mean it's not.

Still talking Pascal's Wager.

Every instance of discovery is literally evidence to reinforce belief in the unknown, because, you know, before something was discovered, it wasn't known? Is that really so hard to comprehend? Ietsism isn't much of a stretch from there.

So you're saying every discovery is proof that we don't know everything and because we don't know everything that gives credence to the possibility that there's other things we don't know, fair enough. But that in of itself doesn't prove anything, just because we haven't sufficiently disproven the existence of unicorns to satisfy even the most hardcore epistemological skepticist doesn't mean that therefore unicorns must exist.

Spoiler: God of the Gaps

 

[Cognisant]

I ignored "neigh" as some weird colloquialism.

LMAO I meant "nigh".
Welp that's it, debate lost, there's no coming back from that.

idk. Actually cite examples relevant to the topic? Like... you really don't know the difference, do you? I'm kind of amazed because I don't actually know how to address that.

I see ISIS and the KKK being due to the self-delusional nature of religion.

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.

What is my "evidence against a deity"?
I don't think I've given you any evidence, I've made a few logical arguments.

I don't reject empirical knowledge, I just don't use empiricism beyond its boundaries, much in the same way I don't use a screwdriver as a saw.

Empiricism has its limits, but how you think you can exceed them baffles me.

Exists vs doesn't isn't just a binary choice. "God doesn't exist" is a single point on an infinite gradient. In what way is choosing from a pool of infinity vs infinity -1 more likely to be correct?

As I wrote earlier god could be many things, my position isn't that I can conclusively prove god does not exist, my position is that I do not know if god exists and neither can you, to which you have replied with Pascal's Wager to which I replied with Homer's counter argument.

 

[~~~]

I think it was Aristotle who said that a wise person convinces someone with their logic Cog.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

lol believing in god in 2018

all these arguments are just new ways of playing god of the gaps

people only ask 'why' questions when they can't understand the 'how'. no one gives a why once they understand the how, and even people predisposed to mystical thinking never apply a 'why' thought to anything they understand the how behind

but i don't think even they realise this themselves

What in the actual fuck? "How?" and "Why?" are not interchangeable. I eat by using a fork to put food in my mouth. I eat because I'm hungry. Not interchangeable. lol?

I choose to believe God exists, but I also know that subjective perception/belief doesn't make God or anything else exist objectively. This is not the same as implying the "gaps" in empiricism are objective evidence for the existence of God. Moreover, you're inviting me to hold you to the burden of proving that empiricism can achieve or enable omniscience, to disprove me.

"Empiricism not being truly objective because intersubjectivity != objectivity" probably also deserves mention here.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Spoiler'd to make scrolling easier.

Spoiler

Ah sorry I missed that, and no, I don't.

Isn't that just Pascal's Wager?

Why not? If you're unexpectedly given a mystery box, it could be any number of things, or it could be a bomb. If you make a type 2 error, treating it like it's a birthday cake instead of a bomb, and it's a bomb, you could die.

Pascal's Wager is basically what happens when you extend basic hypothesis testing outside of the empirical realm. For the rest of this answer I'll refer to it as PW, but it's really just hypothesis testing: I'd argue that the veracity of the outcome of Pascal's Wager when applied to a given outcome depends on where it falls on the epistemological scale. Things seem to work out quite well when the outcome lives in empirics-land, where projected outcomes are verifiable, i.e. we know bombs could kill. Outside of those boundaries, we can't know.

Mr. Simpson is also making a fallacious assumption that someone can't simply be a generic ietsist.

Yet you claim to know something for which you have no evidence...

Or do I? See my response to redbaron.

Spoiler

Yet you're trying to pin the persecution of the Falun Gong on atheism, the difference is atheism really a reason to do something it's entirely reactionary, even the word "atheist" means someone who does not believe in religion. Much to the lament of would-be atheist leaders uniting atheists is like herding cats, a lack of belief is not common ground, the only time atheists unite is in reactionary opposition to something theists are doing.

The Chinese government isn't persecuting the Falun Gong because they're a religious institution (note that I'm not even trying to deny that the Chinese government a predominately atheist organization, or that they're persecuting the Falun Gong) rather their persecution is based on the Falun Gong's political opposition to the Chinese government and the organ trafficking well that's just money.

It's hilarious that you're trying to accuse me of cherry-picking when I have plethora of examples throughout history and the modern day of religious institutions persecuting people for religious reasons (apparently god hates gays?) whilst also trying to do the same yourself while your only example is a government that just happens to not be religious and is opposing religion in their nation for political reasons.

Apparently the Chinese government unites atheists via power and the ab/use of force. They are a secular religion. Their shared belief in communist dogma is their common ground.

"the only time 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.

I just gave you what you asked for: "I know I can cite cases of people being murdered in their own homes by religious mobs for daring to be atheists, but what have the atheists been doing?"

Some mental illnesses are inherent, some are not, religion I would classify as a self-delusional neurosis.

Agreed. We should dose them with first generation neuroleptics, give them a couple rounds of ECT, castrate them, lobotomize them, and harvest their organs to support the "chosen," "sane" people of the world.

My belief in God is as much a part of my identity as my love of dick. If I weren't a rabbit trope, I'd put that in my sig.

LMAO I meant "nigh".
Welp that's it, debate lost, there's no coming back from that.

Damn. The horse visual had me all excited.

So you're saying every discovery is proof that we don't know everything and because we don't know everything that gives credence to the possibility that there's other things we don't know, fair enough. But that in of itself doesn't prove anything, just because we haven't sufficiently disproven the existence of unicorns to satisfy even the most hardcore epistemological skepticist doesn't mean that therefore unicorns must exist.

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.

I refuted god of the gaps in the response to redbaron that I linked earlier.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I think it was Aristotle who said that a wise person convinces someone with their logic Cog.

Was that advice or congratulations?

I see ISIS and the KKK being due to the self-delusional nature of religion.

I see ISIS and the KKK as being due to the self-delusional nature of the self.

What is my "evidence against a deity"?
I don't think I've given you any evidence, I've made a few logical arguments.

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

As I wrote earlier god could be many things, my position isn't that I can conclusively prove god does not exist, my position is that I do not know if god exists and neither can you, to which you have replied with Pascal's Wager to which I replied with Homer's counter argument.

Eh.... You didn't grasp that. Exists vs doesn't exist is a binary that fits Pascal's Wager (which I've refuted). But if there are an "infinite number of supernatural possibilities" like you said in post #9, now you've produced a gradient. The "God exists" category becomes the sum of an infinite number of categories of possible existences, while the "God doesn't exist" category stays a single category. It's literally 1 vs infinity -1 under those circumstances. I made a horrific error using "infinity vs infinity -1."

 

[redbaron]

if you don't think how and why are interchangeable then why does every argument you make happen exclusively in all the areas where the 'how' is vague and none of the areas where the 'how' is well defined?

could it be that you actually have no argument in any area where the 'how' is unassailable?

i don't think i need to prove or disprove anything really, since i'm pretty sure that anyone not a solipsist or subjectivist can already tell how transparently delusional your opportunistic and wilfully ignorant ramblings are

 

[Cognisant]

"Empiricism not being truly objective because intersubjectivity != objectivity" probably also deserves mention here.

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.

Why not? If you're unexpectedly given a mystery box, it could be any number of things, or it could be a bomb. If you make a type 2 error, treating it like it's a birthday cake instead of a bomb, and it's a bomb, you could die.

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.

Pascal's Wager is basically what happens when you extend basic hypothesis testing outside of the empirical realm. For the rest of this answer I'll refer to it as PW, but it's really just hypothesis testing: I'd argue that the veracity of the outcome of Pascal's Wager when applied to a given outcome depends on where it falls on the epistemological scale. Things seem to work out quite well when the outcome lives in empirics-land, where projected outcomes are verifiable, i.e. we know bombs could kill. Outside of those boundaries, we can't know.

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?

Mr. Simpson is also making a fallacious assumption that someone can't simply be a generic ietsist.

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

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.

Apparently the Chinese government unites atheists via power and the ab/use of force. They are a secular religion. Their shared belief in communist dogma is their common ground.

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.

"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.

Agreed. We should dose them with first generation neuroleptics, give them a couple rounds of ECT, castrate them, lobotomize them, and harvest their organs to support the "chosen," "sane" people of the world.

I was thinking education but that works too.

My belief in God is as much a part of my identity as my love of dick. If I weren't a rabbit trope, I'd put that in my sig.

You should that's quite the groundbreaking philosophical argument.

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!

 

[Black Rose]

Why do stawberries taste like stawberies.
and
How do strawberies taste like strawberies.

Are both relatable to the hard problem of consciousness.

Gods existence is both operational and ontologically questionable but so is Gods consciousness.

 

[Polaris]

I think the idea is that 'Why' implies ignorance/intellectual laziness, and 'How' implies genuine curiosity. 'Why' questions intent, I should add, so it is useful for that purpose - dealing with human stuff, because humans aren't always obvious.

Ignoring human affairs, people seem to buy into this idea that a child who asks 'why' all the time must be intelligent, but it's just intellectual laziness. A child that is genuinely curious about finding out the reason behind 'why' will first have to work out the 'how's' through their own initiative.

If a child asks: "why do you eat", the answer most likely somehow becomes restricted to "because I'm hungry". This answer will not satisfy because it doesn't explain anything - if the child is actually curious, that is. So the next question: "why are you hungry" means you'll just have to keep explaining, etc.

A child who isn't intellectually lazy will try to find out the answers themselves because they have already realised the limitations of 'why'. This child will proactively find information about physiology to understand how the body works, in order to understand why we eat. Why is generalised and subjective. How is precise and objective.

But of course, it depends on which answer you would prefer...

I feel like I'm being Captain Obvious here...oh well : / I do understand that 'why' has its uses, of course.

"Why did you drive there?"

That question must be a why question because we cannot deduce the correct answer without doing a lot of complicated research into the other person's behaviour and psychology first. 'Why' becomes a shortcut because we cannot necessarily deduce intent.

Edit. Of course, how also has limitations. Once you get to quantum level physics, it gets weirder. Should we ask 'why' in those cases? Well, if we do, it would imply some sort of intent. I'm still trying to figure that one out...

 

[redbaron]

why is just how for complex things that are hard to understand

 

[Cognisant]

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.

Eh.... You didn't grasp that. Exists vs doesn't exist is a binary that fits Pascal's Wager (which I've refuted). But if there are an "infinite number of supernatural possibilities" like you said in post #9, now you've produced a gradient. The "God exists" category becomes the sum of an infinite number of categories of possible existences, while the "God doesn't exist" category stays a single category. It's literally 1 vs infinity -1 under those circumstances. I made a horrific error using "infinity vs infinity -1."

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.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Responding to rb and Polaris in the same post because of overlap. I'll get to Cog later.

Spoiler'd to make scrolling easier.

Spoiler

Spoiler

if you don't think how and why are interchangeable then why does every argument you make happen exclusively in all the areas where the 'how' is vague and none of the areas where the 'how' is well defined?

could it be that you actually have no argument in any area where the 'how' is unassailable?

i don't think i need to prove or disprove anything really, since i'm pretty sure that anyone not a solipsist or subjectivist can already tell how transparently delusional your opportunistic and wilfully ignorant ramblings are

In general I'm assuming it's because I'm discussing a "why" topic?

"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 would assume @The Grey Man and/or @Blarraun could offer better philosophical and/or mathematical explanations of what I'm trying to say, but I don't want to put them on the spot or pressure them into something that may just be a waste of time, so it's up to them. I already owe Blar responses to two quality posts as it is, and one to TGM.

Assuming I understand you correctly, I don't think I've ever denied not having an objective argument...? I don't think there's any objective argument where the "how" is unassailable, period.

And I don't think you need to prove anything if you just look and see how dumb that argument is and see it's not worth defending. I mean, that's what I do. But believe what you will, I guess. *ba dum tiss*

Spoiler

I think the idea is that 'Why' implies ignorance/intellectual laziness, and 'How' implies genuine curiosity. 'Why' questions intent, I should add, so it is useful for that purpose - dealing with human stuff, because humans aren't always obvious.

Ignoring human affairs, people seem to buy into this idea that a child who asks 'why' all the time must be intelligent, but it's just intellectual laziness. A child that is genuinely curious about finding out the reason behind 'why' will first have to work out the 'how's' through their own initiative.

If a child asks: "why do you eat", the answer most likely somehow becomes restricted to "because I'm hungry". This answer will not satisfy because it doesn't explain anything - if the child is actually curious, that is. So the next question: "why are you hungry" means you'll just have to keep explaining, etc.

A child who isn't intellectually lazy will try to find out the answers themselves because they have already realised the limitations of 'why'. This child will proactively find information about physiology to understand how the body works, in order to understand why we eat. Why is generalised and subjective. How is precise and objective.

But of course, it depends on what answer you would prefer.

I feel like I'm being Captain Obvious here...oh well : / I do understand that 'why' has its uses, of course.

"Why did you drive there?"

That question must be a why question because we cannot deduce the correct answer without doing a lot of complicated research into the other person's behaviour and psychology. 'Why' is a shortcut because we cannot necessarily deduce intent.

Edit. Of course, how also has limitations. Once you get to quantum level physics, it gets weirder. Should we ask 'why' in those cases? Well, if we do, it would imply some sort of intent. I'm still trying to figure that one out...

I think a lot of your criticisms are directed at "why misuse," which I covered above. I also don't think "why" is a lazy line of inquiry, it's just prone to getting lazy responses. Mommy and daddy don't want to do the work of explaining existential reasoning, if they themselves even comprehend it. I also think you describe how "how" can refine "why," which is something I agree it does, but it doesn't replace why's sphere of inquiry. I would also consider genuine answers to "why" to be relatively rare.

If the answer can be deduced through research, "Why did you drive there?" still falls into howland. So how to demonstrate pure why... ()

Cross section: Why an 8 year old eats is going to be completely different from why an 83yo stage IV cancer patient eats, or why the 8 year old's father eats, yet they share the same "how" (assuming the 83yo isn't on a feeding tube or something).

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? Because that's what I've concluded from this. Autodidacticism arising in INTPs because they don't have willing or accessible "teachers" at a specific point in development would fit with a general trend of dismissive-avoidant attachment.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

why is just how for complex things that are hard to understand

why does every argument you make happen exclusively in all the areas where the 'how' is vague and none of the areas where the 'how' is well defined?

For lullz. Truthful, ironic, beautiful lullz.

 

[Black Rose]

Ts are more predisposed to how and Fs why

why do I exist?

 

[Cognisant]

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

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?"

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.

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.

 

[Black Rose]

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

Who am I?

I am an arrangement that follows a path in time.

I could experience being anyone as long as there is a continuity in my transformation.

The network I reside in has switches. They direct all signals and are autocorrective.

Switches rearrange and I am the new directed signals process.

(who I am is contingent of my internal routing system)