My Beliefs [Trollville]
Offline I'm new here and I just wanted to introduce myself. I do not adhere to the belief of Karma, any "perilous missions" to rescue humanity on behalf of a particular deity, superstitions, dogma, Law of Attraction, Ego, Satan, Christ, or God; yet I do believe in the existence of an After Life, reincarnation, and spirit beings. All the drama, chaos, and violence in the world can be attributed to the unawareness of one's own subjectivity. I later discovered that Albert Ellis, grandfather of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), illustrated this philosophy through his work so I am also a big fan of his.
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
- Login to post comments
Offline Well, in THIS existence anecdotal evidence DOES exists
What on Earth are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything? The claim I made is that many people do not accept scientific evidence and instead prefer supernatural explanations. I base this claim not on personal experience but rather on the overwhelming preponderance of foolish beliefs such as creationism/conspiracy theories/ new age nonsense etc. ad infinitum. From a purely syntactical point of view, I can barely understand you. Is English your first language? Are you still in junior high?
You've made that claim one too many times in this thread alone
What claim? The claim that many people believe in supernatural garbage despite scientific proof? That's not anecdotally based. That comes from a whole truckload of scientific studies performed establishing the proliferation of certain belief systems.
I know u just want to win this argument but you are nowhere close. LOL.
What argument? An argument implies two people defending respective and opposing propositions. As you have not done this, we are not having an argument. Why do you always go back in the threads and fish out old posts instead of continuing with the current line of discussion.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline deludedgod wrote:The majority of people would readily accept scientific proof over supernatural
If only that were true.
I rest my case.
As the supernatural is not proof of anything, DG's statement is true.
The supernatural is an excuse created by lazy intellects so they can stop working..
Anecdotes exist - doesn't make them evidence.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
I hope I don't need to answer that first question. And that last part is not true. Their "evidence" is just different from yours.
.....Indoctrination is misconstrued subjectivity....
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
No, and I would wager that I know more about that subject than you do. But observer bias only helps to demonstrate my point. The forms of evidence you use are heavily contaminated with observer bias. The forms of evidence I employ are filtered of it.
EDIT: Stop fucking quoting yourself! Don't you know how to edit your posts after you write them!
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
You do.
What? What precisely is this evidence of which you speak? You are still appealing to the same fallacious argument which I already dismantled. Some arguments for propositions are valid and sound. Others are not. You cannot defer to the fact that people have different beliefs as a form of justification for epistemological relativism. It is completely meaningless and ad hoc. Having had discussions with religious zealots, I can say that much of their argumentation is riddled with basic logical fallacies. This is a fact that cannot be sidestepped by appealing to subjectivity.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
This is not a response. At this point you are merely being childish.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I beg to differ. The nature of the evidence I employ in arguing against life after death and similar propositions is potable and independantly evaluable and falsifiable. As such, it is less tainted by the various human biases that the evidence you employ will by definition contain. I have already provided some of this evidence in the form of links articulating my beliefs and my reasons for them. These take the form of independantly evaluable arguments.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
We are talking about two different things here. I'm purely talking about "defining evidence" here. NOT validity. That's what YOU keep talking about. You're skipping over the first step.
This is the Petitio Principii fallacy.
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
You idiot! He wasn't talking about your particular experience. He was referring to the problematic nature of anecdotal evidence by giving examples of problems that could arise.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Please don't get into an argument with me about formal logic. You will lose. THe first step is always validity. In any set of propositions, one can construct a truth table that relates the truth of the input values (which are arbitrarily assigned such that in a full truth table, every permutation of T and F is employed. For some truth table with n lines, then there will be 2n inputs) to that of the output (which depends on the logical operators). Any valid argument is one which contains no lines with all T inputs and an F output. Evidence is a concept in informal logic, which necessarily comes after the formal concept of validity (in other words: Formal logic is a priori whereas evidence is a posteriori). Additionally, I should add that if you accuse someone of begging the question, you should (by convention) construct their argument in syllogistic form to demonstrate where the premise relies on the conclusion.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
You DUMB ASS. He was saying it was more then likely a MERE coincidence SIMILAR to what he experienced in the past...and I see you readily ignored Butter's explanation......... yet you erroneously claim to be free of observer bias.....LOL. Yeah. O...K. The "proof" is in the pudding. LOL
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
No. This is completely incorrect. Formal logic (and mathematics) is grounded in a set of axiomatic propositions which are called retortional. That means they necessarily hold on the basis that denying them necessarily confirms them. Every statement in formal logic can be built from a set of retortional propositions.These propositions are underived meaning you don't need to employ a logical set of rules to confirm them (in fact, by definition, they cannot be denied, so they hold under all valuations).
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
So are we trying to change subjects now? There's a fallacy for that too. LOL
What the hell are you talking about? I directly responded to your post!
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
LOL. You mean ONE sentence of my post. While you skipped over several others.
Very well. I suppose then you admit that the argument put forth in that one sentence was invalid. Care to admit that your knowledge of mathematical logic was insufficient for you to make such an argument?
The reason I did not respond to the other post was because when I was talking about "he", I was not referring to ezc, I was talking about butterbattle. He was the one who originally gave the example of the problematic nature of anecdotal experience.
This doesn't really mean anything. Validity, as I said, is a formal concept. When there is a problem with the validity of an argument then there is a problem with the formal structure. These are quite rare errors. Usually, the errors people make are informal in nature. If a person holds a conclusion which is demonstratably false, then either the argument is invalid (the premises are true, but do not necessarily lead to the conclusion) or one ore more premise is false. Errors of validity only pertain to the first type. Formal logic is unconcerned with the actual truth of the premises. That is the domain of informal logic. Validity and evidence are totally different concepts. Validity is a formal concept which is a priori to evidence. Evidence is an informal concept. (Informal in the logical sense, not informal as in casual). The law of non-contradiction (which is true under any valuation) states if there are two propositions P and ~P then it necessarily follows that one of them is false. You hold to P and I hold to ~P. Both of us put forth arguments defending our respective propositions. This means that at least one of the following four must be true:
1. One of my premises is false
2. My argument is invalid
3. One of your premises is false
4. Your argument is invalid
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
"-I have seen a ghost. This is subjective. What if it was shadow created by a passing car? What if it was somebody was playing a prank on me? Etc."
Validity and evidence are totally different concepts. I already said that. Answer this question, can supernatural evidence for the existent or nonexistent of the spiritual world vary from person to person????
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
Mind you it's purely intangible and can not be detected by science.
If such a world exists independant of us, then there would be no reason to suppose so. But I think the bigger problem is that you are using an incoherent term. One page ago you asked why we did not believe in such a world. I provided a link where all the participants reached the conclusion (including me) that the idea of a supernatural realm is meaningless. It would be in your interest to read the contents of that link to see how I am forming my propositions.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Arj,
I will admit to a cursory scan of your posts so I may have missed something.
It seems you came in saying "all beliefs are subjective but my subjective beliefs are correct because they are mine."
Then you moved to saying "I can prove my subjective beliefs are correct because <x> happened to me"
If I've missed something, please enlighten me.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
If only that were true.
I rest my case.
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178