I've De-De-Converted....

ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
I've De-De-Converted....

Been a while... I have some bad (or good news depending on how you look at it)...

I've de-de-converted.... Sorry if this comes as a shock... call me irrational or whatever.. just thought I'd let you guys know.

I've following in the footsteps of others, I suppose: Flew, McGrath, Lewis, Collins, among others...

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:BobSpence

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

To use a decision grid as in PW requires probabilities to be assigned to each input.

This is impossible in the case of a supernatural dependence, anything that we cannot derive actual finite probability estimates.

The actually value for the given probability of anything the decision matrix be a non-zero probability so long as the payoff is large.

The problem is the payoff is not known.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:
'infinite' payoffs also render it questionable - they make no sense when applied to finite beings.

Like I said, it need only be arbitrarily large. It doesn't have to be infinite

But you don't, you cannot. know it, it could be arbitrarily large torment.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

There is a strong likelihood from all the evidence that any state of affairs would ultimately eventually bore us to insanity if continued indefinitely.

The whole 'eternal life in heaven' concept is an a primitive, naive idea.

EDIT: You cannot fill in the column "IF <this God doesn't exist> THEN ...". The answer could 'logically' range from plus to minus infinity, depending on what entity or state of affairs you postulate.

At best it is a wash - maybe infinite bliss maybe eternal torment. 

Doesn't help decide, unless you start restricting the cases considered, but there is no way to apply meaningful argument and logic to make positive assessments of possibilities in the supernatural, 'anything goes' realm. Only negative assertions, based on the only thing we can know, ie that we cannot know any specifics about what entities may or may not exist, or their motives or intent.

The decision matrix applied broadly does not prescribe what the contents of the payoff are. But that's not the point of a broadly applied matrix... it's a rubric for pointing one in a direction without necessarily dealing with the details. In most cases, I doubt someone, save a sadist, would even consider infinite bliss in the terms of eternal torment. William James called such things "live options".

You keep missing the point. Any assumptions about the payoffs are pure speculaltion. Therefore so is where it points to.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

Any discourse beyond this is the purest empty speculation, AKA philosophy.

Empty speculation? Hardly when one considers the possibilities. And I think you need not apply your term "philosophy" so broadly as you do with medieval. If I heard that, I'd think you were talking about lots more than what I think you mean by that... including, but not limited tom the "empty speculation" of people like Popper and Hume.

You have no basis for estimating the possibilities.

And you know I refer to 'empty speculaion' as applying to philosophy generically. Individual ideas from anyone may be worth consideration, if they are soundly based, whether you feel like labelling that particular idea with the virtually meaningless label of 'philosophy'.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

Everything which really exists in any form. Every 'realm' - to specifically include the proposed 'realm' which is 'outside' or 'beyond' 'time and space' in which it is commonly posited by Theists that God occupies, as a blatant dodge to avoid the fundamental problems we point out in their arguments.

I'm not positing any such realm... I'm not trying to be dodgy either.

I agree that there  are basic problems with theistic arguments. I can't remember how many times I pointed these problems out to people on this board, and my opinion of these things hasn't changed.

I was not assuming you were necessarily using that particular dodge. Although when you try to argue that science may not apply to your basis for contemplating the existence of something you would categorize as 'God', you are doing something almost equivalent.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

And 'tweaking' PW to make it work is both dishonest and simultaneously demonstrating the fallacy of the basic concept. If you can devise a version that makes any idea of God you prefer 'work' with it, the whole framework is useless. Any argument that can be made to 'prove' anything is thereby shown to actually prove nothing.

I'm not trying to make a particular god "work" with it... I looked at the ideas of the wager and made fewer of assumptions than Pascal.

Second, it is not an attempt to prove anything. Anyone that says Pascal's Wager or anything of the like proves something doesn't understand its purpose... it is a pragmatic tool that seeks to make decisions in light of uncertainty. But it in no way guarantees the results of the decision...

In that context, yes, but you then need to acknowledge that it can also indicate you have no basis for a decision when you have to pull the figures for half the columns out of your ass.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

That really is a fundamental when you are speculating about what is not 'accessible' to empirical/evidence-based investigation. Pretty much anything is 'possible' in that context. You cannot even do 'statistics' on the likelihood of any posited version of a God, which makes any version of PW void.

I granted that... empirical/evidence based investigation in the search for God I think is largely zero-sum. The sort of applications of statistics is not the rigor that one is going to get from numerical analysis. But the reasoning behind what is more likely and less likely does not require such rigor either.

If you cannot get indications either way for the existence or non-existence of God, even estimates of likelihood, then you are, as I keep saying in the area of pure speculation, which takes you nowhere.

I made no reference to the precision of 'numerical analysis', but once you assigne even a purely subjective guess as to the likelihood of a proposition, you can, via Baysian analysis rigorously compute the implied likelihood of related possibilities.

====

 

All your discourse in this thread amounts to little more than "I now think something that is sort-of like a God may exist, and I now think I would feel better assuming it does rather than assuming it does not, so I am no longer inclined to atheism."

The rest is a confused and fallacy-riddled attempt to dress it up in more impressive 'reasoning'.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:The problem

BobSpence wrote:

The problem is the payoff is not known.

You're still hung upon on what is "known"... if something is known, then there is no need to wager.

BobSpence wrote:

But you don't, you

cannot. know it, it could be arbitrarily large torment.

Then why would anyone wager on such a thing? If a possible scenario resulted in that, then it would be a reward, would it?

BobSpence wrote:

You keep missing the point. Any assumptions about the payoffs are pure speculaltion. Therefore so is where it points to.

But that's the nature of gambling in the first place. If something was otherwise known, then there would be no need to wager.

BobSpence wrote:

And you know I refer to 'empty speculaion' as applying to philosophy generically. Individual ideas from anyone may be worth consideration, if they are soundly based, whether you feel like labelling that particular idea with the virtually meaningless label of 'philosophy'.

If what Hume and Popper did isn't philosophy, then what is it? You've completely relabeled something in your own terms such that it becomes meaningful to one person and one person alone: you.

BobSpence wrote:

I was not assuming you were necessarily using that particular dodge. Although when you try to argue that science may not apply to your basis for contemplating the existence of something you would categorize as 'God', you are doing something almost equivalent.

Equivalent? Hardly... it's an entirely different kind of enterprise than something like Decartes was proposing where one reasons from a priori truth, deductively. Pragmatism is a posteriori and reasons based on utility and consequence.

BobSpence wrote:

In that context, yes, but you then need to acknowledge that it can also indicate you have no basis for a decision when you have to pull the figures for half the columns out of your ass.

Such a decision is not necessarily final decision. It's one step, and insofar as that is concerned what it does do is move one away from one position that is diametrically opposed to to everything in a particular category.

BobSpence wrote:

If you cannot get indications either way for the existence or non-existence of God, even estimates of likelihood, then you are, as I keep saying in the area of pure speculation, which takes you nowhere.

All I need to know is if the probability is non-zero for the decision matrix to work... IOW, it is not void until there is something says that probability of the of a god of any kind is 0.

BobSpence wrote:

All your discourse in this thread amounts to little more than "I now think something that is sort-of like a God may exist, and I now think I would feel better assuming it does rather than assuming it does not, so I am no longer inclined to atheism."

There you go (again) asserting something about my feelings as if this was some sort of emotive rigamarole.

BobSpence wrote:

The rest is a confused and fallacy-riddled attempt to dress it up in more impressive 'reasoning'.

Insofar  as I can tell, you have failed at every turn to produce a fallacy. Your would-be objections don't mitigate anything I've said in the least bit because they fail to either address the content of my reasoning or assume something that is simply not the case. the fallacies are on your part, not mine.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:That's

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

That's essentially admitting it is a slippery slope. Insofar as I can tell, "just that it exists" means that the rubric can me adjusted such that it is largely relative to the person adjusting it such that it still doesn't solve the problem.

Determining the minimally acceptable level of helpfulness is an interesting question but it isn't necessary to make an argument that it's wrong to be excessively unhelpful. I don't think it's important because of what your position on this matter seems to be.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
I think it is better ethic to act in a manner without obligation to do so than to act under obligation to do so. But one's decision to do good is his or her prerogative. But to say that he or she lacks a disposition to do good is an undue judgement...

It could be wrong but I wouldn't say it's undue. If you have a disposition to do good then it's a reasonable expectation that you do it.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
I think I agree with you here. But unless there is some obligation, I don't think there is any grounds to judge one as morally inept.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Maybe it was not clear enough. I think determining the right action by finding some corresponding obligation as an approach to resolving a moral problem is particularly problematic when it comes to the question of helping people. I don't believe it's the right question. 

Also thanks BobSpence and redneF. I respect both of your opinions.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:BobSpence

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

I was not assuming you were necessarily using that particular dodge. Although when you try to argue that science may not apply to your basis for contemplating the existence of something you would categorize as 'God', you are doing something almost equivalent.

Equivalent? Hardly... it's an entirely different kind of enterprise than something like Decartes was proposing where one reasons from a priori truth, deductively. Pragmatism is a posteriori and reasons based on utility and consequence.

What a posteriori knowledge could you possibly be using?

Do you mean to tell me there's evidence of the supernatural and that life after death is possible?

You mean I missed those announcements?

Fffffuckkkk!!!

 

Gauche wrote:

Also thanks BobSpence and redneF. I respect both of your opinions.

Thanks, Gauche, and you're welcome.

Well, we've been polar opposites on a number of things in the past, and probably will disagree in the future, but it doesn't mean that I don't respect a lot of what you do say.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Determining the

Gauche wrote:

Determining the minimally acceptable level of helpfulness is an interesting question but it isn't necessary to make an argument that it's wrong to be excessively unhelpful. I don't think it's important because of what your position on this matter seems to be.

Then what grounds are used to make moral judgements such that it's not merely in the eyes of the beholder?

Gauche wrote:
It could be wrong but I wouldn't say it's undue. If you have a disposition to do good then it's a reasonable expectation that you do it.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Maybe it was not clear enough. I think determining the right action by finding some corresponding obligation as an approach to resolving a moral problem is particularly problematic when it comes to the question of helping people. I don't believe it's the right question. 

The question isn't about with I think I should do, rather what others think I should do. I don't understand how one can deem my actions or inaction at morally right or wrong with any sense of normative justice.

Help me understand how this is done from your point of view.

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:What a

redneF wrote:

What a posteriori knowledge could you possibly be using?

Religious truth claims.... I'm not making up new ones.

Such things may be a priori in someone elses mind but anything I ascertain from another's mind is a posteriori to me.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Gauche

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Determining the minimally acceptable level of helpfulness is an interesting question but it isn't necessary to make an argument that it's wrong to be excessively unhelpful. I don't think it's important because of what your position on this matter seems to be.

Then what grounds are used to make moral judgements such that it's not merely in the eyes of the beholder?

Objective ones, like the 'The right to swing one's fist should end at the other person's nose, lest I relish the thought of getting my nose busted, either by someone swinging their fist first, or for smashing mine because I struck their's first'

 

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Gauche wrote:
It could be wrong but I wouldn't say it's undue. If you have a disposition to do good then it's a reasonable expectation that you do it.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Maybe it was not clear enough. I think determining the right action by finding some corresponding obligation as an approach to resolving a moral problem is particularly problematic when it comes to the question of helping people. I don't believe it's the right question. 

The question isn't about with I think I should do, rather what others think I should do. I don't understand how one can deem my actions or inaction at morally right or wrong with any sense of normative justice.

Help me understand how this is done from your point of view.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:redneF

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

redneF wrote:

What a posteriori knowledge could you possibly be using?

Religious truth claims.... I'm not making up new ones.

Such things may be a priori in someone elses mind but anything I ascertain from another's mind is a posteriori to me.

And how will you be able to able to distinguish which peoples' a priori ideas are the most compatible with reality when you find contradictory claims?

How do you propose to separate the wheat from the chaff?

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:And how will

redneF wrote:

And how will you be able to able to distinguish which peoples' a priori ideas are the most compatible with reality when you find contradictory claims?

How do you propose to separate the wheat from the chaff? 

At this point, this is a secondary issue. I'm working on that rubric.... I'll let you know when I'm done if you care.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:BobSpence

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

The problem is the payoff is not known.

You're still hung upon on what is "known"... if something is known, then there is no need to wager.

BobSpence wrote:

But you don't, you

cannot. know it, it could be arbitrarily large torment.

Then why would anyone wager on such a thing? If a possible scenario resulted in that, then it would be a reward, would it?

Exactly. Precisely my point. The Wager scenario, when not dishonestly constrained with preconceived God concepts, has that possible outcome.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

You keep missing the point. Any assumptions about the payoffs are pure speculaltion. Therefore so is where it points to.

But that's the nature of gambling in the first place. If something was otherwise known, then there would be no need to wager.

There is also no point wagering if you cannot know the possible outcomes, and part of that unknown is the impossibility of discounting the possibility really bad, and no assurance of any possibility of a good one.

Of course it wouldn't be a wager if we could be confident of the outcome, that is another of your Mr. Obvious comments which totally misses the point. 

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

And you know I refer to 'empty speculaion' as applying to philosophy generically. Individual ideas from anyone may be worth consideration, if they are soundly based, whether you feel like labelling that particular idea with the virtually meaningless label of 'philosophy'.

If what Hume and Popper did isn't philosophy, then what is it? You've completely relabeled something in your own terms such that it becomes meaningful to one person and one person alone: you.

Intelligent, informed reasoning. You don't have to label it at all. Especially not as 'philosophy' - that word has far too much ancient baggage attached.

Again you miss the point. You don't understand what I mean by 'reasoning', without me putting into some ill-defined category??

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

I was not assuming you were necessarily using that particular dodge. Although when you try to argue that science may not apply to your basis for contemplating the existence of something you would categorize as 'God', you are doing something almost equivalent.

Equivalent? Hardly... it's an entirely different kind of enterprise than something like Decartes was proposing where one reasons from a priori truth, deductively. Pragmatism is a posteriori and reasons based on utility and consequence.

YES, when you include empty concepts like 'not accessible to science', it has zero utility or reason, except maybe purely within your subjective world, which is largely irrelevant to anyone else. IOW if it helps you think about things, fine. Doesn't make it mean anything to anyone else.

Actually modern science can very much apply to helping you organize your thoughts and feel more comfortable about things.

So it is very much the same thing.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

In that context, yes, but you then need to acknowledge that it can also indicate you have no basis for a decision when you have to pull the figures for half the columns out of your ass.

Such a decision is not necessarily final decision. It's one step, and insofar as that is concerned what it does do is move one away from one position that is diametrically opposed to to everything in a particular category.

But since it is entirely within the subjective world, why should we care? Except as treating you as a study case for confused thinking, especially as an example of how someone can drift back into some ill-defined quasi-religious belief.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

If you cannot get indications either way for the existence or non-existence of God, even estimates of likelihood, then you are, as I keep saying in the area of pure speculation, which takes you nowhere.

All I need to know is if the probability is non-zero for the decision matrix to work... IOW, it is not void until there is something says that probability of the of a god of any kind is 0.

No you don't. I am not going to point out your misconception yet again.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

All your discourse in this thread amounts to little more than "I now think something that is sort-of like a God may exist, and I now think I would feel better assuming it does rather than assuming it does not, so I am no longer inclined to atheism."

There you go (again) asserting something about my feelings as if this was some sort of emotive rigamarole.

Quote:

It is. Since your 'reasoning' is devoid of data of any kind, all you have is emotion to drive you back toward some kind of God.

BobSpence wrote:

The rest is a confused and fallacy-riddled attempt to dress it up in more impressive 'reasoning'.

Insofar  as I can tell, you have failed at every turn to produce a fallacy. Your would-be objections don't mitigate anything I've said in the least bit because they fail to either address the content of my reasoning or assume something that is simply not the case. the fallacies are on your part, not mine.

I have referred to them repeatedly. Your reasoning, as presented here, is totally confused, inconsistent, and fallacious. That applies to your 'reasoning' about both your own and my thinking.

You appear incapable of grasping some really basic points, and blame me instead for making bad arguments.

I am beginning to think I am wasting my time with you, and I think I have covered most of the issues of interest to others following the thread.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Bob may have mentioned

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

All your discourse in this thread amounts to little more than "I now think something that is sort-of like a God may exist, and I now think I would feel better assuming it does rather than assuming it does not, so I am no longer inclined to atheism."

There you go (again) asserting something about my feelings as if this was some sort of emotive rigamarole.

 

Your feelings in this but he did not talk about emotions in a negative way. Your introduction of Pascal's Wager and earlier posts suggested you felt there might be some pay-off to your new position so he's correct in suggesting you feel there is a positive accruing to you from god belief - even if this is just a more relaxed life with a sense of belonging, or whatever satisfaction/intellectual equilibrium god belief might offer in the context of your personal ideas on this subject.

The other point he touches on here (and you mention elsewhere) seems to me to be the crux of this discussion - it's that you think something that could be described as a god has a greater than zero chance of existence and presumably - law of non contradiction? - does exist.

I can't help adopting the sceptical view here. I don't believe you can prove the existence of anything other than ideas solely on the basis of ideas. I won't deny that this sceptical position applies just as much to the empiricist materialists here as it does to the theists, making it a bit of a double-edged sword but it's not an apples to apples comparison.

It seems clear in certain areas the atheist materialist and the theist supernaturalist are outlining hypotheses for which there is currently too little data for their cases to be adequately proven. But I would argue the empiricist has a set of mechanisms that have showed in the past they can prove many hypotheses.

I'm tempted again by the sceptical position that there are things that cannot be known from our perspective (what is external to space time for instance). But it does not change my belief that it is only through empiricism that groups of ideas about things can be shown to be generally true.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Exactly.

BobSpence wrote:

Exactly. Precisely my point. The Wager scenario, when not dishonestly constrained with preconceived God concepts, has that possible outcome.

You keep missing the point. Any assumptions about the payoffs are pure speculaltion. Therefore so is where it points to.

There is also no point wagering if you cannot know the possible outcomes, and part of that unknown is the impossibility of discounting the possibility really bad, and no assurance of any possibility of a good one.

Of course it wouldn't be a wager if we could be confident of the outcome, that is another of your Mr. Obvious comments which totally misses the point.

I think you think that I'm am pulling all the possibilities "out of my ass" which is not the case at all. The options are the ones that already exist. I'm not making up new ones. But somewhere you missed that.

BobSpence wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

And you know I refer to 'empty speculaion' as applying to philosophy generically. Individual ideas from anyone may be worth consideration, if they are soundly based, whether you feel like labelling that particular idea with the virtually meaningless label of 'philosophy'.

ubuntuanyone wrote:

If what Hume and Popper did isn't philosophy, then what is it? You've completely relabeled something in your own terms such that it becomes meaningful to one person and one person alone: you.

ubuntuanyone wrote:

Intelligent, informed reasoning. You don't have to label it at all. Especially not as 'philosophy' - that word has far too much ancient baggage attached.

You're digging yourself in deeper by calling Popper and Humes philosophy "Intelligent, informed reasoning". Insofar as I can tell, you basically conceded that you relabeled philosophy as you see fit such that it is more or less a meaningless term outside of your own world.

BobSpence wrote:

Again you miss the point. You don't understand what I mean by 'reasoning', without me putting into some ill-defined category??

I do understand what you mean by "reasoning". But all you've done is replace one allegedly ill-defined category with another of the same label based on your own arbitrary standards that is completely useless unless your there to dictate what is one goes in one category and in another.

BobSpence wrote:

YES, when you include empty concepts like 'not accessible to science', it has zero utility or reason, except maybe purely within your subjective world, which is largely irrelevant to anyone else. IOW if it helps

you

think about things, fine. Doesn't make it mean anything to anyone else.

Actually modern science can very much apply to helping you organize your thoughts and feel more comfortable about things.

So it is very much the same thing.

What is being employed here is probabilities. It lacks the sort of empiricism that I think is necessary to form science, and why I would never label it that.

At the same time, it is looking at a posteriori truth claims and evaluating them in light of one another.  This does involve data gathering, and some kind of analysis, but it isn't based on experimental data.

To attempt approach this with science would be a misuse of science, but at the same time, I think one can attempt to be as scientific about as he or she can be.

BobSpence wrote:

But since it is entirely within the subjective world, why should we care? Except as treating you as a study case for confused thinking, especially as an example of how someone can drift back into some ill-defined quasi-religious belief.

I'm not looking at a subjective world... I'm looknig at the one in which I exist. And I have openly granted that my beliefs are not well defined because I haven't bought into a particular form of theism. I'm okay with that for now because I haven't stopped looking.

BobSpence wrote:

I have referred to them repeatedly. Your reasoning, as presented here, is totally confused, inconsistent, and fallacious. That applies to your 'reasoning' about both your own and my thinking. 

You appear incapable of grasping some really basic points, and blame me instead for making bad arguments.

I am beginning to think I am wasting my time with you, and I think I have covered most of the issues of interest to others following the thread.

When you post objections, either they don't apply or don't take into state something that isn't true.

I can't dictate how you spend your time. If you feel like you're wasting your time, then stop posting.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Your

Atheistextremist wrote:

Your feelings in this but he did not talk about emotions in a negative way. Your introduction of Pascal's Wager and earlier posts suggested you felt there might be some pay-off to your new position so he's correct in suggesting you feel there is a positive accruing to you from god belief - even if this is just a more relaxed life with a sense of belonging, or whatever satisfaction/intellectual equilibrium god belief might offer in the context of your personal ideas on this subject.

Perhaps I misunderstood what he meant by "feel better assuming" as if it has something to do with my emotional state and I interpret this in light of an earlier post,

BobSpence wrote:

So you only have emotional reasons for your position. If you are not applying empirical, scientific evidence, that is all you have.

Science is actually quite applicable to your stance - the science of psychology, and, to an extent, neuroscience.

It certainly has nothing to do with Truth.

Given that, I thought that my interpretation of his comments was about what I was feeling in to of emotions etc.

The more emotive side of what I was getting at has to do with content and completeness when acting upon belief. What I did to come to that point was an exercise in pragmatic reasoning.

Atheistextremist wrote:

The other point he touches on here (and you mention elsewhere) seems to me to be the crux of this discussion - it's that you think something that could be described as a god has a greater than zero chance of existence and presumably - law of non contradiction? - does exist.

The decision matrix employed in by me considers the expectation of the existence of a god in light of the possibility of superdominance. So long as the expectation is non-zero, that is even if it is really low, the potential payout swamps the expectation.

Atheistextremist wrote:
I can't help adopting the sceptical view here. I don't believe you can prove the existence of anything other than ideas solely on the basis of ideas. I won't deny that this sceptical position applies just as much to the empiricist materialists here as it does to the theists, making it a bit of a double-edged sword but it's not an apples to apples comparison.

It seems clear in certain areas the atheist materialist and the theist supernaturalist are outlining hypotheses for which there is currently too little data for their cases to be adequately proven. But I would argue the empiricist has a set of mechanisms that have showed in the past they can prove many hypotheses.

I'm tempted again by the sceptical position that there are things that cannot be known from our perspective (what is external to space time for instance). But it does not change my belief that it is only through empiricism that groups of ideas about things can be shown to be generally true.

I wouldn't go down the path I did if I could be empirical about it. The nature of empirical materialism is self-limiting such that it cannot be applied, and any attempt to do so would be a violation of the materialist enterprise. I don't deny the value of empirical analysis.

But at the same time, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of anything. Pascal's Wager and the like aren't arguments for the existence of a god. If the essence of what I am considering could be known, there would be no need to wager at all. What I doing is granting that and going to secondary modes of justification... I'm asking, i n light of uncertainty on the matter, especially when something like superdominance is involved, what would be the wisest thing to do.

 

 

 

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:jcgadfly

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It seems like you're tweaking it to "Because I'm not really sure whether a God is a bastard or not It's safer for me to be on its good side (whatever that "good side" might be)"

Is that a reasonable assessment?

I dunno if god is a "bastard" or not... I'm sure there's plenty of possible gods in the pantheon of theism that would fit that category. Insofar as an "assessment"... I'd probably more likely to label it a "caricature".

Then enlighten me on what makes your position a more "educated" play it safe guess. Or is your sole quibble that I capitalized "god" which made you think of the Abrahamic one?

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntu,the options only

ubuntu,

the options only exist as ideas, there is zero reason to think that any particular one exists as for real, or even as a possibility, or if they do, that they are the only options that would apply as actual consequences of making a particular decision about what position to adopt wrt a God, or God(s), if any. In regard to 'God', the ideas are ALL made up, by naive, uninformed or misinformed, speculation or wishful thinking, which is describable by the colloquialism I used.

You don't even know if they are possibilities at all, let alone what their probabilities are. You dismissed the idea that you need to consider the possibilities of infinite negative outcomes, but it is intellectually dishonest to exclude options which would render the Wager pointless solely on the basis that they would make it so. Unless you can demonstrate objectively that they have zero probability. Once you try to balance or compare infinities, you should know that the answer is indeterminate. So 'superdominance' doesn't help you, unless you are prepared to risk infinite torment to gain infinite 'bliss', with unknown, actually unknowable, odds.

Philosophy is NOT the same as 'reasoning'. The term can be applied to 'reasoning', but it also can be, and has been, applied to all kinds of modes of thought. That is why I reject the word as something to be used in serious discourse. It will only confuse matters. You are insisting on the unnecessary application of a label which can only confuse the issue because of all the baggage associated with it. 'Reasoning' may still be a little fuzzy, but it is far clearer and more appropriate label to refer to the category of mental activity it is applied to. The category that it was specifically intended for.

I am simply removing/ignoring that distracting label and considering their ideas on their merit.

The problem with 'truth claims' in the context of 'beyond the natural', the context of 'gods' and related ideas, you are not conducting an intellectually rigorous investigation if you are only "evaluating them in light of one another." You need to evaluate them against ALL relevant possibilities. But since, in this context, there are an infinite number of alternatives, none of which, including the infinitesimal fraction of these possibilities that have already occurred to someone, none of which we have any basis of evaluating their probability, you are not conducting a valid investigation, if you are seeking something deserving the label 'truth'.

In the absence of empirical evidence, ALL those 'possibilities', those claims, only exist in the SUBJECTIVE world.

u wrote:

When you post objections, either they don't apply or don't take into state something that isn't true.

It is only your opinion that they don't apply. In many cases, they would only 'not apply' if your claim itself had some validity. That statement is simply another manifestation of the error I am pointing to.

And tell me why I should take into account or "state" (?) "something that isn't true" ? 

Or what did you mean to say there?

EDIT: Did you mean to say that my objections "state something that isn't true". It just occurred to me that was most likely what you meant to type, or something similar. IOW that my objection assumed, or was based on, something specifically untrue.

Of course, that is your opinion or interpretation vs. what I actually was saying.

You are clearly wrong in many of your assertions/assumptions, as I keep pointing out.

 /EDIT

========

I know I said I would probably stop responding, but my passion for 'seeking the Truth' and  my disgust at what I see as gross violations of any honest search for Truth, such as Religion, or Woo, or just highly confused ideas claiming to be seeking a truth, I often cannot help myself.

Not to mention when I see you continuing to grossly misunderstand and misrepresent my words...

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:redneF

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

redneF wrote:

And how will you be able to able to distinguish which peoples' a priori ideas are the most compatible with reality when you find contradictory claims?

How do you propose to separate the wheat from the chaff?

At this point, this is a secondary issue.

I realize that you've made the primary issue a secondary issue.

The primary issue being that the antithesis of 'natural' (supernatural) was conjured up out of the imaginations of Platonic minds. Minds who thought the basic elements were earth, wind, fire and water. There's no doubt in my mind that many, if not the majority of philosophers would have jettisoned their ideas based on insufficient data if they had the data that we do.

Does the antithesis of 'other than natural' resonate with you as a brilliant solution to infinite regress dilemma based on the 1 dimensional time assumption?

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
I'm working on that rubric.... I'll let you know when I'm done if you care.

Ok.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

But at the same time, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of anything.

Then what are you worried about?

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I'm asking, i n light of uncertainty on the matter, especially when something like superdominance is involved, what would be the wisest thing to do.

Wear clean underwear.

Oh, and not waste time with the one life you know you have, with irrational fears.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Gauche

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Determining the minimally acceptable level of helpfulness is an interesting question but it isn't necessary to make an argument that it's wrong to be excessively unhelpful. I don't think it's important because of what your position on this matter seems to be.

Then what grounds are used to make moral judgements such that it's not merely in the eyes of the beholder?

Sorry, I wrote that wrong. I meant you can make an argument that it's wrong to be excessively unhelpful without knowing what the right amount of help is. 

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
The question isn't about with I think I should do, rather what others think I should do. I don't understand how one can deem my actions or inaction at morally right or wrong with any sense of normative justice.

Help me understand how this is done from your point of view.

When people start to say things like that it makes me think they are appealing to subjectivity or saying that ethics requires an authority, both of which are conversation enders.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
That got me to pause a moment to be reminded ..

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Been a while... I have some bad (or good news depending on how you look at it)...

I've de-de-converted.... Sorry if this comes as a shock... call me irrational or whatever.. just thought I'd let you guys know.

  I am very curious to know (admittedly from another forum) if you allow for "Falsifiability" in your current views?.  Basically, you may be wrong.

Quote:
In another part of the forum somebody remarked, "I must admit I study Christian apologetics much the same way a biologist might study a colony of monkeys"
 

   ..  .. His  remarks  of 'I study Christian apologetics . . .'   Made me pause a moment .   I  was reminded to any of us that pay attention, although many do not adhere to any faith;  A lot come from a background of 'Faith'.  I am not sure of your background.  Does  your view have a stance on "Falsifiability" ?

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:the options

BobSpence wrote:

the options only exist as ideas, there is zero reason to think that any particular one exists as for real, or even as a possibility, or if they do, that they are the only options that would apply as actual consequences of making a particular decision about what position to adopt wrt a God, or God(s), if any. In regard to 'God', the ideas are ALL made up, by naive, uninformed or misinformed, speculation or wishful thinking, which is describable by the colloquialism I used.

If the probability of a god is zero, then there is no need to wager. Insofar as I can tell, in that you think that "the ideas are ALL made up" then you think that such is the case. But how do you know this?

If there is even the remotest chance that one of these exists, then there is also a remote probability that there are actual consequences too.

The point of my tirade is not to prove the existence of any entity -- merely to consider the possibility

BobSpence wrote:

You don't even know if they are possibilities at all, let alone what their probabilities are. You dismissed the idea that you need to consider the possibilities of infinite negative outcomes, but it is intellectually dishonest to exclude options which would render the Wager pointless solely on the basis that they would make it so. Unless you can demonstrate objectively that they have zero probability. Once you try to balance or compare infinities, you should know that the answer is indeterminate. So 'superdominance' doesn't help you, unless you are prepared to risk infinite torment to gain infinite 'bliss', with unknown, actually unknowable, odds.

First, You continue to equate infinite torment to bliss as if that were some sort of option to wager on, but that's simply not the case. To use Williams Jame's terminology, It is not a "live" option insofar as I don't know of any form of theism that promotes such a view or if there is one it would not be something that I would wager on, even in the broadest application. Second, I think you continue to think that I'm making up possibilities or something of the like... I am not making up any sorts of new religious truth claims. The options already exist.

BobSpence wrote:

Philosophy is NOT the same as 'reasoning'. The term can be applied to 'reasoning', but it also can be, and has been, applied to all kinds of modes of thought. That is why I reject the word as something to be used in serious discourse. It will only confuse matters. You are insisting on the unnecessary application of a label which can only confuse the issue because of all the baggage associated with it. 'Reasoning' may still be a little fuzzy, but it is far clearer and more appropriate label to refer to the category of mental activity it is applied to. The category that it was specifically intended for.

I am simply removing/ignoring that distracting label and considering their ideas on their merit.

My beef is not with your use of the word "reasoning", rather you abuse of the word "philosophy" You're not removing anything... you're making allegedly ill-defined labels even more ill-defined which isn't helpful at all.

BobSpence wrote:

The problem with 'truth claims' in the context of 'beyond the natural', the context of 'gods' and related ideas, you are not conducting an intellectually rigorous investigation if you are only "evaluating them in light of one another." You need to evaluate them against ALL relevant possibilities. But since, in this context, there are an infinite number of alternatives, none of which, including the infinitesimal fraction of these possibilities that have already occurred to someone, none of which we have any basis of evaluating their probability, you are not conducting a valid investigation, if you are seeking something deserving the label 'truth'.

In the absence of empirical evidence, ALL those 'possibilities', those claims, only exist in the SUBJECTIVE world.

As I've said, I don't believe there is an  "infinite number of alternatives". What I'm looking at is what already exists. Even in a worst case scenario, the number of possibilities would still be less than infinite.

BobSpence wrote:

It is only your opinion that they don't apply. In many cases, they would only 'not apply' if your claim itself had some validity. That statement is simply another manifestation of the error I am pointing to.

And tell me why I should take into account or "state" (?) "something that isn't true" ? 

Or what did you mean to say there?

EDIT: Did you mean to say that my objections "state something that isn't true". It just occurred to me that was most likely what you meant to type, or something similar. IOW that my objection assumed, or was based on, something specifically untrue.

Of course, that is your opinion or interpretation vs. what I actually was saying.

You are clearly wrong in many of your assertions/assumptions, as I keep pointing out.

One -- your statement concerning bliss being equated to torment... that doesn't apply. Second, such statements as there being an infinite number of possibilities -- this isn't true. That's what I'm getting at.

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Been a while... I have some bad (or good news depending on how you look at it)...

I've de-de-converted.... Sorry if this comes as a shock... call me irrational or whatever.. just thought I'd let you guys know.

  I am very curious to know (admittedly from another forum) if you allow for "Falsifiability" in your current views?.  Basically, you may be wrong.

Quote:
In another part of the forum somebody remarked, "I must admit I study Christian apologetics much the same way a biologist might study a colony of monkeys"
 

   ..  .. His  remarks  of 'I study Christian apologetics . . .'   Made me pause a moment .   I  was reminded to any of us that pay attention, although many do not adhere to any faith;  A lot come from a background of 'Faith'.  I am not sure of your background.  Does  your view have a stance on "Falsifiability" ?

Falsifiability is a criterion that is used when one is doing empirical, test-drive research. Insofar as this is concerned, I think it's a good idea and should be preferred as a primary mode.

If one wagers, one is looking at what is must prudent in light of uncertainty. If one could falsify something under this paradigm, there would be no need to wager. Wagering, IMHO, is thereby secondary.

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:When people

Gauche wrote:

When people start to say things like that it makes me think they are appealing to subjectivity or saying that ethics requires an authority, both of which are conversation enders.

I'm not looking for ethics to have authority... I'm looking for a means to provide some sense of normative justice -- that is something that is not merely in the eyes of the beholder. It doesn't have to require an authority.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:The primary

redneF wrote:

The primary issue being that the antithesis of 'natural' (supernatural) was conjured up out of the imaginations of Platonic minds. Minds who thought the basic elements were earth, wind, fire and water. There's no doubt in my mind that many, if not the majority of philosophers would have jettisoned their ideas based on insufficient data if they had the data that we do.

Does the antithesis of 'other than natural' resonate with you as a brilliant solution to infinite regress dilemma based on the 1 dimensional time assumption?

I don't see people abandoning religious beliefs in light of the data we have...

One need not look to far in our own universe to places where space and time collapse. There's no need to posit "other than natural" otherwise.

Second, I think what we really face is something more like Munchausen's trilemma. You can choose circularity, infinite regress, or axioms. This has applications in epistemology and ontology alike.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:BobSpence

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

the options only exist as ideas, there is zero reason to think that any particular one exists as for real, or even as a possibility, or if they do, that they are the only options that would apply as actual consequences of making a particular decision about what position to adopt wrt a God, or God(s), if any. In regard to 'God', the ideas are ALL made up, by naive, uninformed or misinformed, speculation or wishful thinking, which is describable by the colloquialism I used.

If the probability of a god is zero, then there is no need to wager. Insofar as I can tell, in that you think that "the ideas are ALL made up" then you think that such is the case. But how do you know this?

If there is even the remotest chance that one of these exists, then there is also a remote probability that there are actual consequences too.

The point of my tirade is not to prove the existence of any entity -- merely to consider the possibility

I can't know that the possibility is absolutely zero, but my assessment is there is negligible justification for taking it seriously.

Made-up ideas are not necessarily of zero probability of truth. You are simply logically wrong there.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

You don't even know if they are possibilities at all, let alone what their probabilities are. You dismissed the idea that you need to consider the possibilities of infinite negative outcomes, but it is intellectually dishonest to exclude options which would render the Wager pointless solely on the basis that they would make it so. Unless you can demonstrate objectively that they have zero probability. Once you try to balance or compare infinities, you should know that the answer is indeterminate. So 'superdominance' doesn't help you, unless you are prepared to risk infinite torment to gain infinite 'bliss', with unknown, actually unknowable, odds.

First, You continue to equate infinite torment to bliss as if that were some sort of option to wager on, but that's simply not the case. To use Williams Jame's terminology, It is not a "live" option insofar as I don't know of any form of theism that promotes such a view or if there is one it would not be something that I would wager on, even in the broadest application. Second, I think you continue to think that I'm making up possibilities or something of the like... I am not making up any sorts of new religious truth claims. The options already exist.

Totally invalid argument.

Again you are restricting your options to 'known forms of Theism", which is specifically rejecting any options which invalidate your argument, the kind of thing you repeatedly accuse me of.

That is reinforced by the fact that you are only considering the options that are currently considered by existing belief systems. You make a virtue of not making up any new truth claims, when that is part of the problem - you are assuming that the the only possibilities are those described by belief systems which, by their nature, will only entertain a subset of the possible 'gods' ie those who will reward you for accepting them, rather than punish you for being gullible. You are doing what you accuse me of, only considering the options which you find acceptable.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

Philosophy is NOT the same as 'reasoning'. The term can be applied to 'reasoning', but it also can be, and has been, applied to all kinds of modes of thought. That is why I reject the word as something to be used in serious discourse. It will only confuse matters. You are insisting on the unnecessary application of a label which can only confuse the issue because of all the baggage associated with it. 'Reasoning' may still be a little fuzzy, but it is far clearer and more appropriate label to refer to the category of mental activity it is applied to. The category that it was specifically intended for.

I am simply removing/ignoring that distracting label and considering their ideas on their merit.

My beef is not with your use of the word "reasoning", rather you abuse of the word "philosophy" You're not removing anything... you're making allegedly ill-defined labels even more ill-defined which isn't helpful at all.

This gets to you, doesn't it?

Your conclusion is utterly absurd.

By not using the ill-defined word 'philosophy' in this context, i don't have to worry about unnecessary associations from the long history of that word.

What labels am I making even more ill-defined?

'Philosophy'? I couldn't make it any worse than it is. And that is of no consequence to people who think seriously about things, who aren't so pathologically obsessed with labels. I have zero concern about such a thing.

"Reasoning"? By using it in its standard contemporary sense and context? Of corse not.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

The problem with 'truth claims' in the context of 'beyond the natural', the context of 'gods' and related ideas, you are not conducting an intellectually rigorous investigation if you are only "evaluating them in light of one another." You need to evaluate them against ALL relevant possibilities. But since, in this context, there are an infinite number of alternatives, none of which, including the infinitesimal fraction of these possibilities that have already occurred to someone, none of which we have any basis of evaluating their probability, you are not conducting a valid investigation, if you are seeking something deserving the label 'truth'.

In the absence of empirical evidence, ALL those 'possibilities', those claims, only exist in the SUBJECTIVE world.

As I've said, I don't believe there is an  "infinite number of alternatives". What I'm looking at is what already exists. Even in a worst case scenario, the number of possibilities would still be less than infinite.

On what grounds do you reject the "infinite number of alternatives"??

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

It is only your opinion that they don't apply. In many cases, they would only 'not apply' if your claim itself had some validity. That statement is simply another manifestation of the error I am pointing to.

And tell me why I should take into account or "state" (?) "something that isn't true" ? 

Or what did you mean to say there?

EDIT: Did you mean to say that my objections "state something that isn't true". It just occurred to me that was most likely what you meant to type, or something similar. IOW that my objection assumed, or was based on, something specifically untrue.

Of course, that is your opinion or interpretation vs. what I actually was saying.

You are clearly wrong in many of your assertions/assumptions, as I keep pointing out.

Those ideas I expressed were merely guesses as to what you meant, since as typed it makes no sense, so I have no idea what you meant. IOW the very opposite of "your opinion or interpretation vs. what I actually was saying."

I was honestly asking you what you meant by the quoted statement, which made no sense, and finally decided you must have made a typo. I don't think you clarified that for me. Or are you saying the statement as typed is just what you intended?

In which case, I still don't understand what you meant there.

Again I am just asking for clarification, not jumping to conclusions.

Quote:

One -- your statement concerning bliss being equated to torment... that doesn't apply. Second, such statements as there being an infinite number of possibilities -- this isn't true. That's what I'm getting at.

Bliss obviously isn't 'equated' to torment, that is nonsensical.

Is English your second language? Not trying to be insulting, but you frequently make phrases like "bliss being equated to torment" which make no sense in English. It does make it hard to argue in a context where slight slippages of interpretation of language can lead to serious misunderstanding.

You have given no justification for ignoring the option of torment of similar or greater magnitude than the bliss option, but opposite in polarity, of course.

Other than referring to someone else's opinion on what existing faiths believe, which fails to answer the issue, or simply saying it would make the Wager not applicable, thereby actually agreeing with my basic point...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Born that way?

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

Why? What was the motivating factor in your pirouette? 

 

Maybe quantum electrodynamic vibrations in the ether triggered the internal hard wiring and his God antenna started working properly.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntu,consider the scenario

ubuntu,

consider the scenario where the God likes to have vast numbers of mortal souls readily available to him for his amusement, and this involves them experiencing quite a bit of pain and distress.

To get them into his domain, he needs them to have a strong belief and willing acceptance of him, right up to their death.

This will require encouraging the belief that he offers them an eternal bliss in the after-life.

This defeats your Wager scenario, in that you have no basis for discounting such scenarios, or similar.

Of course, normal believers will insist that God cannot lie, as it is "not in his nature", or some such naked assumption, so you will never get that from a 'regular' religion.

But I don't see how you logically and honestly can ignore such 'possibilities', where 'God' is a deceiver, so screwing up the Wager.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Wryly chuckles

Lion IRC wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

Why? What was the motivating factor in your pirouette? 

 

Maybe quantum electrodynamic vibrations in the ether triggered the internal hard wiring and his God antenna started working properly.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:redneF

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

redneF wrote:

The primary issue being that the antithesis of 'natural' (supernatural) was conjured up out of the imaginations of Platonic minds. Minds who thought the basic elements were earth, wind, fire and water. There's no doubt in my mind that many, if not the majority of philosophers would have jettisoned their ideas based on insufficient data if they had the data that we do.

Does the antithesis of 'other than natural' resonate with you as a brilliant solution to infinite regress dilemma based on the 1 dimensional time assumption?

I don't see people abandoning religious beliefs in light of the data we have...

I do. I can't imagine why you don't.

Even priests are admitting they lost the faith, but still continue being priests because it's their only marketable skill.

Add to that Mother Teresa's confessions of never actually feeling anything like god her whole life...

I don't know how you're connecting the dots...

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
One need not look to far in our own universe to places where space and time collapse. There's no need to posit "other than natural" otherwise.

Based on what I've learned from reading and learning from theoretical physicists and the like, I don't see a reason to hold dearly to any present notions or understanding of space/time, and even less reason to try and reconcile anything in my mind about how it all 'works'.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:I can't know

BobSpence wrote:

I can't know that the possibility is absolutely zero, but my assessment is there is negligible justification for taking it seriously.

Made-up ideas are not necessarily of zero probability of truth. You are simply logically wrong there.

If a made-up idea is true, then it is only true by accident.

I was under the impression that you thought there was zero probability not because the gods were made up, but because other things show this to be the case, such as science or something of that nature showing that gods don't exist.

Sorry if I misread you.

BobSpence wrote:

Again you are restricting your options to 'known forms of Theism", which is specifically rejecting any options which invalidate your argument, the kind of thing you repeatedly accuse me of.

That is reinforced by the fact that you are only considering the options that are currently considered by existing belief systems. You make a virtue of not making up any new truth claims, when that is part of the problem - you are assuming that the the only possibilities are those described by belief systems which, by their nature, will only entertain a subset of the possible 'gods' ie those who will reward you for accepting them, rather than punish you for being gullible. You are doing what you accuse me of, only considering the options which you find acceptable.

The focus of a categorical wager is to move away from that which is diametrically opposed to unbelief. You're dealing with the minutia of what comes after such a categorical wager when one starts to compare the particular forms of theism against others, which has been my argument all along. I'm not dealing in the minutia with a categorical wager... that doesn't mean that such minutia cannot waded through otherwise. Not knowing such things does not mitigate the argument in the least bit. It is an argument against that which is diametrically opposed. The categorical wager does not lead one to belief, rather away from unbelief. It's the first step among many as far as I'm concerned.

In terms of focus, the reason I'm not taking into account unknown forms of theism is pretty simple: one wouldn't know how to wager on such things otherwise. In terms of options where bliss = eternal-torment, besides being nonsense, I'd never wager on such a thing in first place.

BobSpence wrote:

This gets to you, doesn't it?

Your conclusion is utterly absurd.

By not using the ill-defined word 'philosophy' in this context, i don't have to worry about unnecessary associations from the long history of that word.

What labels am I making even more ill-defined?

Because general use includes Hume's and Popper's work among others... And unless someone has BobSpence's definitive list of what is and isn't philosophy, you create confusion rather than clarity.

BobSpence wrote:

 

'Philosophy'? I couldn't make it any worse than it is. And that is of no consequence to people who think seriously about things, who aren't so pathologically obsessed with labels. I have zero concern about such a thing.

"Reasoning"? By using it in its standard contemporary sense and context? Of corse not.

You're not helping yourself or anyone else here. You're arbitrary redefining of words amounts to confusion in any context. You talk about "philosophy" as you want it to be rather than as it actually is.

BobSpence wrote:

On what grounds do you reject the "infinite number of alternatives"??

See above.

BobSpence wrote:

In which case, I still don't understand what you meant there.

Again I am just asking for clarification, not jumping to conclusions.

I was going off of one of your earlier concerning in the context of rewards: you said, "it could be arbitrarily large torment" and "maybe infinite bliss maybe eternal torment"... I understood this to mean that you were saying that a reward could be eternal torment, which I do think is nonsense.

BobSpence wrote:

You have given no justification for ignoring the option of torment of similar or greater magnitude than the bliss option, but opposite in polarity, of course.

Other than referring to someone else's opinion on what existing faiths believe, which fails to answer the issue, or simply saying it would make the Wager not applicable, thereby actually agreeing with my basic point...

Torment is not necessary when considering only in the categorical sense of what I'm applying. What I'm looking at is at most no reward versus reward.

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

ubuntu,

consider the scenario where the God likes to have vast numbers of mortal souls readily available to him for his amusement, and this involves them experiencing quite a bit of pain and distress.

To get them into his domain, he needs them to have a strong belief and willing acceptance of him, right up to their death.

This will require encouraging the belief that he offers them an eternal bliss in the after-life.

This defeats your Wager scenario, in that you have no basis for discounting such scenarios, or similar.

Of course, normal believers will insist that God cannot lie, as it is "not in his nature", or some such naked assumption, so you will never get that from a 'regular' religion.

But I don't see how you logically and honestly can ignore such 'possibilities', where 'God' is a deceiver, so screwing up the Wager.

This is getting into the minutia beyond what I've been arguing for, but in any case, I'll entertain you.

I think this is rather simple even with the "not in his nature" defense: a god that is true presumably cannot lie. If such a god is a deceiver god, then he lied about his nature to his believers such that they never actually believed in him in the first place, rather in some other deity as described by the deceptions. It is thereby impossible to believe in such a deity in the first place.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:BobSpence

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

ubuntu,

consider the scenario where the God likes to have vast numbers of mortal souls readily available to him for his amusement, and this involves them experiencing quite a bit of pain and distress.

To get them into his domain, he needs them to have a strong belief and willing acceptance of him, right up to their death.

This will require encouraging the belief that he offers them an eternal bliss in the after-life.

This defeats your Wager scenario, in that you have no basis for discounting such scenarios, or similar.

Of course, normal believers will insist that God cannot lie, as it is "not in his nature", or some such naked assumption, so you will never get that from a 'regular' religion.

But I don't see how you logically and honestly can ignore such 'possibilities', where 'God' is a deceiver, so screwing up the Wager.

This is getting into the minutia beyond what I've been arguing for, but in any case, I'll entertain you.

I think this is rather simple even with the "not in his nature" defense: a god that is true presumably cannot lie. If such a god is a deceiver god, then he lied about his nature to his believers such that they never actually believed in him in the first place, rather in some other deity as described by the deceptions. It is thereby impossible to believe in such a deity in the first place.

You know how a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

How the hell can you speculate about something you cant prove exists.

Quote:
a god that is true presumably cannot lie.

If it is a god, HOW would you know? If you don't know what it looks like, what material it is made of(PRESUMABLY NO MATERIAL) And you cannot even put it on a polygraph, HOW the fuck would you know.

This is what people want to believe. This is what is called a NAKED ASSERTION.

You are speculating about the immaterial and might as well be arguing that a "true Klingon" cannot lie.

"A true Muslim god cannot lie"

"A true Jewish god cannot lie"

"A true pink unicorn cannot lie"

NAKED ASSERTION. Before you can even say what a god's capabilities are, you have to prove it's existence first.

You cant do that and you know you cant, so you work backwards with your logic to suit your own desires.

"My god cannot lie" DUH, name me one fan of any pet invisible friend of any name that wont claim that.

YOU: "I am not like the others"

YES YOU ARE, you speculate about fictional beings and are merely trying to avoid the same inconsistencies, logical fallacies and outright scientific absurdities.

AGAIN, you merely have an empty box and you keep trying to put different colored bows on it fooling yourself into thinking that you are doing something different, thinking we wont see it.

There is no such thing as invisible non-material thinking entities BY ANY NAME. It is all in your head and merely your own wishful thinking.

Dress the skunk up in different suits all you want, it is still a skunk.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:BobSpence

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

I can't know that the possibility is absolutely zero, but my assessment is there is negligible justification for taking it seriously.

Made-up ideas are not necessarily of zero probability of truth. You are simply logically wrong there.

If a made-up idea is true, then it is only true by accident.

Of course, but being made-up does not necessitate zero probability, is my point.

Quote:

I was under the impression that you thought there was zero probability not because the gods were made up, but because other things show this to be the case, such as science or something of that nature showing that gods don't exist.

Sorry if I misread you.

I still think there is negligible probability of Gods existing because of a total lack of positive evidence for them, a la Russell's Teapot.

If a God does exist it would be utterly absurd to believe he is a loving God, so your Wager still fails.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

Again you are restricting your options to 'known forms of Theism", which is specifically rejecting any options which invalidate your argument, the kind of thing you repeatedly accuse me of.

That is reinforced by the fact that you are only considering the options that are currently considered by existing belief systems. You make a virtue of not making up any new truth claims, when that is part of the problem - you are assuming that the the only possibilities are those described by belief systems which, by their nature, will only entertain a subset of the possible 'gods' ie those who will reward you for accepting them, rather than punish you for being gullible. You are doing what you accuse me of, only considering the options which you find acceptable.

The focus of a categorical wager is to move away from that which is diametrically opposed to unbelief. You're dealing with the minutia of what comes after such a categorical wager when one starts to compare the particular forms of theism against others, which has been my argument all along. I'm not dealing in the minutia with a categorical wager... that doesn't mean that such minutia cannot waded through otherwise. Not knowing such things does not mitigate the argument in the least bit. It is an argument against that which is diametrically opposed. The categorical wager does not lead one to belief, rather away from unbelief. It's the first step among many as far as I'm concerned.

In terms of focus, the reason I'm not taking into account unknown forms of theism is pretty simple: one wouldn't know how to wager on such things otherwise. In terms of options where bliss = eternal-torment, besides being nonsense, I'd never wager on such a thing in first place.

So it is an intellectually dishonest process, riddled with groundless assumptions and preconceptions, NOT based on a simple estimate of likelihood of various possible outcomes.

You have no more basis to wager on 'known' forms of Theism.

I am certainly not dealing in minutia, I am looking at the broad picture.

It has no direction unless you make a bunch of unwarranted presuppositions.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

This gets to you, doesn't it?

Your conclusion is utterly absurd.

By not using the ill-defined word 'philosophy' in this context, i don't have to worry about unnecessary associations from the long history of that word.

What labels am I making even more ill-defined?

Because general use includes Hume's and Popper's work among others... And unless someone has BobSpence's definitive list of what is and isn't philosophy, you create confusion rather than clarity.

I really don't care. I don't need to worry about the word 'philosophy', since I can consider and discuss the merits of their ideas perfectly well without it. You are absolutely wrong. There is nothing confusing about discarding it as long as we have soem sort of agreement on what constitutes good and bad reasoning, which is the domain of logic and critical thinking. 

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:
 

'Philosophy'? I couldn't make it any worse than it is. And that is of no consequence to people who think seriously about things, who aren't so pathologically obsessed with labels. I have zero concern about such a thing.

"Reasoning"? By using it in its standard contemporary sense and context? Of corse not.

You're not helping yourself or anyone else here. You're arbitrary redefining of words amounts to confusion in any context. You talk about "philosophy" as you want it to be rather than as it actually is.

Have you asked them? Have you noticed their responses?

I am NOT redefining any words, just dropping the use of one ill-defined one with a lot of confusing baggage. I don't care about 'phiosophy' as a term, I care about good reasoning, critical, evidence-based reasoning, even informed speculation. I just don't need it!!!

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

On what grounds do you reject the "infinite number of alternatives"??

See above.

BobSpence wrote:

In which case, I still don't understand what you meant there.

Again I am just asking for clarification, not jumping to conclusions.

I was going off of one of your earlier concerning in the context of rewards: you said, "it could be arbitrarily large torment" and "maybe infinite bliss maybe eternal torment"... I understood this to mean that you were saying that a reward could be eternal torment, which I do think is nonsense.

You still haven't clarified the quote directly.

But Ok. 

I did not say a 'reward' could be eternal punishment, I said that the response of a god to your falling for his story may be eternal torment rather than a 'reward'. The word 'reward' does imply a positive outcome, I agree.

But I only used the terms 'outcome', and 'consequence', not 'reward', when referring to the range of possibilities. AFAICS, I only used the word 'reward' in the specific context of a positive outcome, never in the context of torment.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

You have given no justification for ignoring the option of torment of similar or greater magnitude than the bliss option, but opposite in polarity, of course.

Other than referring to someone else's opinion on what existing faiths believe, which fails to answer the issue, or simply saying it would make the Wager not applicable, thereby actually agreeing with my basic point...

Torment is not necessary when considering only in the categorical sense of what I'm applying. What I'm looking at is at most no reward versus reward.

It is not necessary, but you have no basis for excluding it as a possible outcome. Bliss is not a necessary option either. You are specifically excluding the possibility for dishonest reasons, because it doesn't allow you to argue for belief being the best option.

See, I can do ad hominem too.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:I'm not

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I'm not looking for ethics to have authority... I'm looking for a means to provide some sense of normative justice -- that is something that is not merely in the eyes of the beholder. It doesn't have to require an authority.

I don't know how to interpret some of your responses. I said that people seem to agree being excessively unhelpful is wrong. There has been almost no discussion about reasons so I don't know why you would say it's in the eye of the beholder. The idea that moral pronouncements are just opinions doesn't come free anyway, it requires some argument and frankly I won't waste my time with that.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:I still

BobSpence wrote:

I still think there is negligible probability of Gods existing because of a total lack of positive evidence for them, a la Russell's Teapot.

If a God does exist it would be utterly absurd to believe he is a loving God, so your Wager still fails.

This is a complete red herring. This isn't about love, rather reward. 

BobSpence wrote:

Again you are restricting your options to 'known forms of Theism", which is specifically rejecting any options which invalidate your argument, the kind of thing you repeatedly accuse me of.

That is reinforced by the fact that you are only considering the options that are currently considered by existing belief systems. You make a virtue of not making up any new truth claims, when that is part of the problem - you are assuming that the the only possibilities are those described by belief systems which, by their nature, will only entertain a subset of the possible 'gods' ie those who will reward you for accepting them, rather than punish you for being gullible. You are doing what you accuse me of, only considering the options which you find acceptable.

Again...you keep making the same mistake by trying to discredit the general with the particular. Punishment is a red herring too... I'm not doing what you accuse you of doing in that when I consider the known options, I do so based on secondary reasons that are sequential to the initial wager.

BobSpence wrote:

So it is an intellectually dishonest process, riddled with groundless assumptions and preconceptions, NOT based on a simple estimate of likelihood of various possible outcomes.

In what sense? The general? The particulars? That's at best a vague statement.

I make one basic assumption for the general... it is better to believe where superdominance is involved than not to believe.

BobSpence wrote:

You have no more basis to wager on 'known' forms of Theism.

I am certainly not dealing in minutia, I am looking at the broad picture.

It has no direction unless you make a bunch of unwarranted presuppositions.

You are dealing with the minutia.. you're looking at particular aspects of gods such as  lovingness and their truthfulness.

All your objections amount to a crock of fallacies.... 

BobSpence wrote:

Your conclusion is utterly absurd.

By not using the ill-defined word 'philosophy' in this context, i don't have to worry about unnecessary associations from the long history of that word.

What labels am I making even more ill-defined?

Your self-appointment as czar of what is and isn't philosophy is absurd.

The only one that seems concerned about the associations with that word is you too...

BobSpence wrote:

I really don't care. I don't need to worry about the word 'philosophy', since I can consider and discuss the merits of their ideas perfectly well without it. You are absolutely wrong. There is nothing confusing about discarding it as long as we have soem sort of agreement on what constitutes good and bad reasoning, which is the domain of logic and critical thinking. 

BobSpence wrote:

I am NOT redefining any words, just dropping the use of one ill-defined one with a lot of confusing baggage. I don't care about 'phiosophy' as a term, I care about good reasoning, critical, evidence-based reasoning, even informed speculation. I just don't need it!!!

If you were to make a categorical statement about philosophy, you are making a statement about everything contained that category... even what you find to be "good reasoning, critical, evidence-based reasoning, even informed speculation" among other things. You're killing yourself.

BobSpence wrote:

I did not say a 'reward' could be eternal punishment, I said that the response of a god to your falling for his story may be eternal torment rather than a 'reward'. The word 'reward' does imply a positive outcome, I agree.

One who falls for lies by a deceiver god believed in the another god described by the deception.

BobSpence wrote:

It is not necessary, but you have no basis for excluding it as a possible outcome. Bliss is not a necessary option either. You are specifically excluding the possibility for dishonest reasons, because it doesn't allow you to argue for belief being the best option.

The basis for excluding is the fact that it is torment. Who would wager on such a thing?

If you are referring to your counter example, the one  believed the lies believed in a god that was described by the lie.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:BobSpence

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

I still think there is negligible probability of Gods existing because of a total lack of positive evidence for them, a la Russell's Teapot.

If a God does exist it would be utterly absurd to believe he is a loving God, so your Wager still fails.

This is a complete red herring. This isn't about love, rather reward. 

A positive reward assumes a God who loves us, in some sense, as distinct from one who doesn't, who could then punish us for belief.

So it is not a red herring in any sense.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

Again you are restricting your options to 'known forms of Theism", which is specifically rejecting any options which invalidate your argument, the kind of thing you repeatedly accuse me of.

That is reinforced by the fact that you are only considering the options that are currently considered by existing belief systems. You make a virtue of not making up any new truth claims, when that is part of the problem - you are assuming that the the only possibilities are those described by belief systems which, by their nature, will only entertain a subset of the possible 'gods' ie those who will reward you for accepting them, rather than punish you for being gullible. You are doing what you accuse me of, only considering the options which you find acceptable.

Again...you keep making the same mistake by trying to discredit the general with the particular. Punishment is a red herring too... I'm not doing what you accuse you of doing in that when I consider the known options, I do so based on secondary reasons that are sequential to the initial wager.

 

So you would be cool with risking eternal torment then.

Quote:
 

BobSpence wrote:

So it is an intellectually dishonest process, riddled with groundless assumptions and preconceptions, NOT based on a simple estimate of likelihood of various possible outcomes.

In what sense? The general? The particulars? That's at best a vague statement.

I make one basic assumption for the general... it is better to believe where superdominance is involved than not to believe.

Superdominance assumes belief will lead to an infinite reward. It ignores the possibility of infinite punishment.

It only addresses the position where the existence of God is extremely unlikely, but non-zero.

So that in no way answers my objection. 

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

You have no more basis to wager on 'known' forms of Theism.

I am certainly not dealing in minutia, I am looking at the broad picture.

It has no direction unless you make a bunch of unwarranted presuppositions.

You are dealing with the minutia.. you're looking at particular aspects of gods such as  lovingness and their truthfulness.

All your objections amount to a crock of fallacies.... 

The possibility of infinite torment is not a fallacy. Ignoring it is.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

Your conclusion is utterly absurd.

By not using the ill-defined word 'philosophy' in this context, i don't have to worry about unnecessary associations from the long history of that word.

What labels am I making even more ill-defined?

Your self-appointment as czar of what is and isn't philosophy is absurd.

The only one that seems concerned about the associations with that word is you too..

I said I don't care about how others use the word. That is the opposite of what you claim I am doing.

Your persistent objections to my position demonstrate that you certainly care, and care deeply.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

I really don't care. I don't need to worry about the word 'philosophy', since I can consider and discuss the merits of their ideas perfectly well without it. You are absolutely wrong. There is nothing confusing about discarding it as long as we have soem sort of agreement on what constitutes good and bad reasoning, which is the domain of logic and critical thinking. 

BobSpence wrote:

I am NOT redefining any words, just dropping the use of one ill-defined one with a lot of confusing baggage. I don't care about 'phiosophy' as a term, I care about good reasoning, critical, evidence-based reasoning, even informed speculation. I just don't need it!!!

If you were to make a categorical statement about philosophy, you are making a statement about everything contained that category... even what you find to be "good reasoning, critical, evidence-based reasoning, even informed speculation" among other things. You're killing yourself.

I am saying that the category of 'philosophy' is either ill-defined, or defined so broadly as to encompass all reasoning, which makes it a useless term.

I am NOT saying anything about the contents of a category when I say the category itself is ill-defined. That would be another fallacy on your part.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:

I did not say a 'reward' could be eternal punishment, I said that the response of a god to your falling for his story may be eternal torment rather than a 'reward'. The word 'reward' does imply a positive outcome, I agree.

One who falls for lies by a deceiver god believed in the another god described by the deception.

BobSpence wrote:

It is not necessary, but you have no basis for excluding it as a possible outcome. Bliss is not a necessary option either. You are specifically excluding the possibility for dishonest reasons, because it doesn't allow you to argue for belief being the best option.

The basis for excluding is the fact that it is torment. Who would wager on such a thing?

If you are referring to your counter example, the one  believed the lies believed in a god that was described by the lie.

I am stunned that you repeat this particular response.

That is the epitome of what you criticise me for, excluding something which doesn't fit, which invalidates, your position.

You are responding with by agreeing with me, that if 'torment' were an option, there would be no point to the wager. So to exclude the option for that reason is to concede my point. Do you have a valid justification for excluding the torment option?

I should remind you that 'torment' is not something new in the context of PW, it arises in the 'Many Gods' argument, where believing in the wrong God also could bring infinite punishment. It is explicit in Islam.

Your response to my counter example does not answer or really address my point. 

Your answers continue to add to my reasons for ignoring, treating with contempt, so much 'philosophical' arguement.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Lion IRC

Brian37 wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Thoughts require a material process. PERIOD. To suggest that there is a "thing" out there that can think like a human that has no material, IS ABSURD, by any name, no matter what attributes you want to give it or what name you want to give it.

You are no different than any other human in human history. You may have been an atheist, but as far as I am concerned you might as well never have left theism. You are suffering the same self inflicted delusion of all the anthropomorphism no matter what pretty colors you want to slap on your empty box. You are merely projecting human qualities on a non-existent fantasy.

There never was a god and never will be a god. Gap filling is gap filling no matter who is doing it or why. All you are proving here is that you had a change of mind. Big woopty doo.

"I once was" is not an argument. Humans switch positions all the time, that hardly constitutes a universal standard. It just means you fell for something you like believing.

WHEN you can prove your pet invisible friend claim like we can prove DNA, mitosis, computers, cell phones, galaxies, black holes, ect ect ect, until then you have nothing.

I'm sorry it bothers you that I am pulling back the curtain and exposing your fantasy for what it is. You merely want a super hero to exist. Just because you claimed to have been an atheist doesn't mean shit to me. I used to be a Christian, so what?

"It's true, why don't you believe me".

EVIDENCE, plain and simple. You don't have it otherwise you'd have a Nobel Prize and beat everyone to the patent office by now.

"Allah, God, Yahweh, Thor, Marduke, god(generic), invisible thinking "something", are the same as Harry Potter. Klingons and tooth fairy. Fiction is fiction no matter how you dress it up and delude yourself into swallowing crap, no matter how elaborate the crap is.

Your pet fictional invisible friend is no different than any claimed in human history. It is merely another delusion with different colors.

What does any of this have to do with anythnig I said about moral obligation?

 

"...anthropomorphism...projecting human qualities..."

Well DUH!

We are humans. We think human thoughts. Our perspectives are HUMAN perspectives.

A dog, a fish, a bird, a human....each perceive reality through different eyes.

Since when are humans supposed to think like NON-HUMANS?

How ELSE are we supposed to describe the other beings we find existing in our human reality if not by reference to HUMAN language and HUMAN attempts at description of them?

 

OF COURSE we describe divinity in ways we can relate to!

What other way do we have?

 

Funny how you pontificate about super heros that cant be proven to exist, but yet you and I type on computers. I hate to tell you this, but computers were not created by prayer of any god,Not Allah, or Thor or your zombie god.

We have reality. Human fantasy is the unfortunate gap filling idiots like you do. You could call your pet god Biff and it would mean the same to reality as pink unicorns or snarfwidgets.

All you admit to here is having swallowed the imaginations of others. Kwanza and Scientology got started the same way.

 

When we type something on a keyboard we CREATE SOMETHING NEW!  Get it?

Something created which didnt exist before.

...Information. Imagination. DNA code. That comes from mind - not from matter, not from plastic keys with meaningless symbols. 

You talk about "reality" at a time in human history when the notion of "reality" is getting spookier and spookier.

If a theist spoke about "reality" the way science 2011 does - dark energy, multiverse, time travel, unseen extraterrestrial dimensions - it would be called WOO!

 

Kwanza and Scientology got started the same way? Thats pretty funny coming from an atheist who IMAGINES there is no God.

 

Hey ubuntuAnyone,

I took your name in vain over at rationalskepticism.org in a NOMA dispute thread.  http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/examples-of-beliefs-holding-back-science-t26569-20.html#p1053393 

Can you please clarify whether you think science and belief are incompatible or not.

I hope I didnt misrepresent you over there but I reported what I thought was your view that they are NOT and that science/evidence is a double-edged sword cutting both ways - the athiest using it in one direction and the theist using it in another. :cheers:

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote: When we

Lion IRC wrote:

 

When we type something on a keyboard we CREATE SOMETHING NEW!  Get it?

Something created which didnt exist before.

...Information. Imagination. DNA code. That comes from mind - not from matter, not from plastic keys with meaningless symbols. 

You talk about "reality" at a time in human history when the notion of "reality" is getting spookier and spookier.

If a theist spoke about "reality" the way science 2011 does - dark energy, multiverse, time travel, unseen extraterrestrial dimensions - it would be called WOO!

 

 

Typing is creating something new ? I hope your not serious, although you probably are. Words are pre-historic, the fact that humans have evolved to express them in better methods, from tablets, to parchments, to quill and paper, to typewriters and now computers is merely a continuation of our ever changing and evolving language. Certainly not a creation.

DNA is not produced by the mind.Information and imagination are produced by biological process working through the brain. Therefore, mind is actually matter, just for your information.

Um what the scientists have discovered about the nature of reality is based on observations, tests and measurements. No woo there.

Are you being serious Lion IRC ? Or are you a closet Atheist that is just having a bit of a laugh ? Or are you a theist that just enjoys taunting atheists? You don't have to answer that if you would like to plead the fifth amendment. However, I must view some of these previous posts that you must be joking and are simply having some fun with this.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:A positive

BobSpence wrote:

A positive reward assumes a God who loves us, in some sense, as distinct from one who doesn't, who could then punish us for belief.

So it is not a red herring in any sense.

A god's reward not more implies love than the a lottery payout implies the that the government loves me... It simply not necessary.

BobSpence wrote:

So you would be cool with risking eternal torment then.

Superdominance assumes belief will lead to an infinite reward. It ignores the possibility of infinite punishment.

It only addresses the position where the existence of God is extremely unlikely, but non-zero.

So that in no way answers my objection.

The possibility of infinite torment is not a fallacy. Ignoring it is.

 

It's largely a red herring -- the reason why is there is a risk of infinite punishment regardless of what one does with beliefs or otherwise.

And if you want to know why I would only focus on known systems is simple too, and these reasons are largely secondary to the issue I'm dealing with. All systems can be wrong, yet only one can be right. If that is true, then there are 3 possibilities for what would be true. First, the system exists and is known. Second, the system exists, but us unknown. Third, the system doesn't exist at all. Given this, what peopel are claiming to be "truth" is made up or distorted such that the set of possible options is limited.

BobSpence wrote:

I said I don't care about how others use the word. That is the opposite of what you claim I am doing.

Your persistent objections to my position demonstrate that you certainly care, and care deeply.

I am saying that the category of 'philosophy' is either ill-defined, or defined so broadly as to encompass all reasoning, which makes it a useless term.

I am NOT saying anything about the contents of a category when I say the category itself is ill-defined. That would be another fallacy on your part.

You're getting dodgy here. You've said other things about philosophy other than that it is ill-defined.


BobSpence wrote:

I am stunned that you repeat this particular response.

That is the epitome of what you criticise me for, excluding something which doesn't fit, which invalidates, your position.

You keep trying to force it into my position when I keep telling you it is not necessary to consider such things.

BobSpence wrote:

You are responding with by agreeing with me, that if 'torment' were an option, there would be no point to the wager. So to exclude the option for that reason is to concede my point. Do you have a valid justification for excluding the torment option?

As an option for the outcome of a wager, no. As a consequence for believing the wrong thing, yes. That is, no one in their right mind would explicitly wager on something that resulted in torment, and what I mean by not wagering on torment. What I said otherwise is that torment is a possible consequence for any given scenario -- belief and unbelief. Insofar as that is concerned, it need no be considered when generally considering the general picture, an that's why I exclude it.

BobSpence wrote:

I should remind you that 'torment' is not something new in the context of PW, it arises in the 'Many Gods' argument, where believing in the wrong God also could bring infinite punishment. It is explicit in Islam.

In some forms of Islam, yes, and Christianity too. So given two mutually exclusive systems, it doesn't matter what one wagers on, there is always that possibility. So when looking at what is available, there is not necessary to consider it.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Hey

Lion IRC wrote:

Hey ubuntuAnyone,

I took your name in vain over at rationalskepticism.org in a NOMA dispute thread.  http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/examples-of-beliefs-holding-back-science-t26569-20.html#p1053393 

Can you please clarify whether you think science and belief are incompatible or not.

I hope I didnt misrepresent you over there but I reported what I thought was your view that they are NOT and that science/evidence is a double-edged sword cutting both ways - the athiest using it in one direction and the theist using it in another. :cheers:

Science uses empirical methods, experiments, etc. to make observations about the world. Given that, any discussions that extend beyond this scope are not scientific discussions. Atheists and theist alike shore up arguments with facts from science, but these arguments themselves are not science. And it seems to me to be tit-for-tat on both sides concerning the arguments, not the science.

(Although some stuff that people call "science" is questionable.)

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The RAW information content

The RAW information content of a closed system is fixed.

When we type we rearrange unstructured patterns of information into patterns which are of significance to ourselves and others sharing our language. Part of this process involves a flow of specific patterns of information from our brains through into patterns of symbols relayed to other people and back into concepts in the mind of the readers. The ideas, the patterns of information in our thoughts come from the information we absorb through our senses and from the expressed ideas of others, shuffled around in out own minds to seek patterns which make sense to us, which align with existing ideas and memories.

Computer programs have been designes which are capable of coming up with genuinely novel ideas in specific areas, applying these principles.

Minds are particular good at pattern recognition, so can latch onto useful patterns when they arise, either by juggling existing ideas, and recognising useful or interesting patterns in the world around them.

In reproduction of living creatures, the specific information comes from the environment the creature and its ancestors has adapted to, via the process of Natural Selection. The raw information that evolution works on comes from random processes of mutation acting on energy and matter from the chemical environment.

'Information' is a description of the configuration of physical matter. Truly novel patterns of information arise by random processes. Specific patterns that are useful in specific contexts are selected from that random stuff by interaction with that context, which may be processes going on in a brain, or some environmental constraints leading to differential replication of various patterns, as in evolution. To come up with really new ideas, thinkers will often try to encourage their minds to approximate a random process. One modern technique is known as 'brain-storming'.

Positing some higher power or sentience is of no relevance or utility to actually understanding all this.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntu,if it is not

ubuntu,

if it is not necessary to consider the torment/punishment option, then it is also not necessary to consider the bliss/reward option. To assert otherwise is to be logically inconsistent.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:ubuntu,if it

BobSpence wrote:

ubuntu,

if it is not necessary to consider the torment/punishment option, then it is also not necessary to consider the bliss/reward option. To assert otherwise is to be logically inconsistent.

I think completely logically consistent to not consider such things because of the certainty of biting torment under one system or another as described with the mutual exclusivity of Islam and Christianity. If one restricted to merely these two options, regardless of which one is chosen, one is in jeopardy of torment under the other system. In any case though, one is in jeopardy under both systems if one does not choose It doesn't change the probabilities of for either one resulting in reward, nor does it detract from it so it isn't necessary to consider it. I think the same holds true in a more general application too.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:BobSpence

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

ubuntu,

if it is not necessary to consider the torment/punishment option, then it is also not necessary to consider the bliss/reward option. To assert otherwise is to be logically inconsistent.

I think completely logically consistent to not consider such things because of the certainty of biting torment under one system or another as described with the mutual exclusivity of Islam and Christianity. If one restricted to merely these two options, regardless of which one is chosen, one is in jeopardy of torment under the other system. In any case though, one is in jeopardy under both systems if one does not choose It doesn't change the probabilities of for either one resulting in reward, nor does it detract from it so it isn't necessary to consider it. I think the same holds true in a more general application too.

So you simply don't take the possibility of torment int account at all, as long as there is a possibility of reward? I really don't get it. But if you personally are really prepared to risk the torment scenario for even a small prospect of reward, then go for it.

Just don't bother presenting some twisted 'logic' applied to total guesswork on what 'divine scenario' actually obtains if any, to justify your subjective preferences - it is intellectually bankrupt.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Yes the

ex-minister wrote:

Yes the rich are malevolent if they do nothing when it is entirely in their power. Humans recognize that and even in story. Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" with Ebenezer Scrooge. Here Scrooge could help Bob Crachit's child Tiny Tim and if he doesn't Tim will die. You don't see Scrooge as mean spirited before he wakes up? 

So in this situation you would choose to do nothing? And if so would you be fine with it?

Then there is Potter in "It's a wonderful life".

These show that humans at least have the concept of helping someone in desperate need. We reward good samaritans and hate those who turn away. 

 

And the one big difference between the finite rich and infinite god is the rich don't have endless wealth. They can only give so much and they can only see so much being very limited humans. An all-knowing and all-powerful god, where it would cost him absolutely nothing to help, he loses nothing, that you want to support with some term other than malevolent?

"Let them hate me so long as they fear me!" -mad emperor with a God Complex

Some problems that I see with morality being discussed thus so far in the thread;

ex-minister: Scrooge eventually helps Tiny Tim, millions and at some point in the indeterminate future billions still die horrifically excising the "excess population". It is beyond Scrooge's control since he is (as you say) "finite", and dies later on either in a prophecy given to him in the story or simply because harm is rather inevitable. (read below)

A person who refuses to help is not malevolent so much as poorly informed and incompetent. The "rich" and in particular Scrooge that you use as an example do not automatically wish harm on anyone, but they accept that it will happen regardless of what they do from being so jaded towards life. It is worth pointing out that simply throwing money at the World's social problems as many socialites are inclined to do today does not, by itself, constitute "help".

The PoV that Ubuntu apparently comes from, implies that he believes that harm is inevitable. It is indeed going to happen to some extent, at least according to every metric we have available now. It's one of those ridiculously safe assumptions. People get harmed all the time, the world turns. What I see as unacceptable, is that UA (and millions of others) seemingly thinks that an intangible being of great power enables such harm because of "free will" and because "God works in mysterious ways". Apparently, even though UA's main issue isn't atheism vs theism, I'm not alone in this regard.

Gauche: how does someone accurately determine what their optimal "best" is or if they are "excessively unhelpful"?  Quite simply, they don't. It is purely a matter of opinion. IMO, a given person will waste ginormous amounts of "finite" personal resources determining how to most compassionately apply themselves in life in what is termed "a fool's errand". There are certainly quite a few bad ways to expend one's resources in the name of "helping". I could very well give you all a tome's worth of examples of 'toxic compassion' or 'sick love' sometime, and I assure you all that there are plenty of genuine attempts to minimize harm that will wrench everyone's stomach. Incest or sexual abuse, by themselves, factor as merely the tip of the iceberg of "Man's (misguided) Inhumanity to Man". Doing some sort of subjective "good" to someone else can be more harmful than making it abundantly clear that you are their enemy and wish harm to them. In the latter example, a person knows exactly how to correctly regard you. In the former, you can deceive and manipulate them towards even more grievous forms of harm. A person being misled into thinking they do good, kindness, benevolence, etc at someone else's behest while actually doing great harm is also something that people agree is quite easy to do, at least from my corner of the earth. It is readily possible to con others into a false sense of morality, as religion succeeds at doing this everyday.

I find it odd that you (rightfully) decry moral obligations in society, yet weasel in a moral obligation entirely of your own making.

ubuntuanyone: Indeed, when is a person's level of compassion and contribution to society ever enough? In today's world, there doesn't appear to be a neatly and narrowly defined level of 'sufficient morality'. That is where problems like those I bring up arise.

Bobspence: Your posts strike me as more accurate about morality than most of the people posting in this thread, possibly even myself. It is bizarre for me to agree with you, as I usually have a violent agreement with you instead over simple differences in choice of words. IMO, you deserve apropos and not simply because we overlap in personal opinion.


Everyone else: Morality is almost exclusively a choice decided by an individual with some degree of help/hindrance from socializing. Morality is not two dimensional nor does it simply arise in a vacuum. This is still true in examples of bad or nonfunctional morality, as well as morality that a random individual somewhere on the internet disagrees with. Maybe another RRS'er or famous, academically-renowned philosopher beat me to this particular point, but it still bears repeating.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: Bobspence:

Kapkao wrote:

 

Bobspence: Your posts strike me as more accurate about morality than most of the people posting in this thread, possibly even myself. It is bizarre for me to agree with you, as I usually have a violent agreement with you instead over simple differences in choice of words. IMO, you deserve apropos and not simply because we overlap in personal opinion.

 

OMG Kapkao, what has happened to you ?   Seriously, you've lost your fire. You used to come in here and do everything except break furniture and now you're almost servile.  Weird.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:So you

BobSpence wrote:

So you simply don't take the possibility of torment int account at all, as long as there is a possibility of reward? I really don't get it. But if you personally are really prepared to risk the torment scenario for even a small prospect of reward, then go for it.

It's quite simple... there is a risk of being wrong no matter what one chooses and therefore torment is a possible outcome no matter what one chooses.

In the aforementioned scenario concerning Islam and Christianity, if one chooses Christianity, then there is the possibility of torment under Islam. If one chooses Islam, there is the possibility of torment under Christianity. If one chooses neither, there is the possibility of torment under both. In all three choices, there is a possible outcome that results in torture.

Given the certainty of choosing something with a possible outcome of torture makes the probability of choosing something 1. IOW, whenever someone chooses something with a possible reward under one system there is always possible outcome of torment in another system. This is the case even in the general sense of a categorical treatment. It is inevitable to choose something that results in a possible outcome of torment. For this reason I don't think it is necessary to consider it, because it doesn't matter what I choose concerning torment. What does matter on the other hand is what I choose concerning reward.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote: ... if

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
... if one chooses Christianity, then there is the possibility of torment under Islam. If one chooses Islam, there is the possibility of torment under Christianity. If one chooses neither, there is the possibility of torment under both. In all three choices, there is a possible outcome that results in torture.

That requires faith. Because there's no evidence. Duhhh....

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
For this reason I don't think it is necessary to consider it, because it doesn't matter what I choose concerning torment. What does matter on the other hand is what I choose concerning reward.

If there was evidence, that would be true.

Have you got any?...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
unbuntu,under that scenario,

unbuntu,

under that scenario, reward cancels out to 1 as well.

So you are basing your decision on the 50% chance of reward rather than torment if you chose either God, vs the certainty of torment if you reject both.

But there is still no evidence for any such God, and the actual situation could be the reverse, with no way to decide between any of them, because of no evidence.

You have no way of knowing whether the actual God, if any, would necessarily torment non-believers - you have to assume that the probability of torment under non-belief is greater than under belief. That would be true based on existing religious ideas, but people would be extremely unlikely to posit a God who did not punish unbelief in some way, even less one who rewarded it, so it is an extremely biased sample of the possibilities, so not a valid guide.

I see, personally, the only honest way is to go about living in the best human way possible, with regard to our fellow citizens, undistorted by contemplating the imagined edicts of an imagined being. If there is a God, and wants to punish me for honesty, so be it. I can at least be satisfied that I didn't debase myself by fake worship of such a morally bankrupt being. Especially since the reality of any such being seems to me so vanishingly small.

It is ultimately a subjective, personal decision.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

unbuntu,

under that scenario, reward cancels out to 1 as well.

So you are basing your decision on the 50% chance of reward rather than torment if you chose either God, vs the certainty of torment if you reject both.

The certainty of torment is invariant no matter what one chooses. Reward doesn't cancel out to 1, rather is something like a 1/3 chance under the scenario described above: Christianity is the outcome, Islam is the outcome, or neither are the outcome.

BobSpence wrote:
But there is still no evidence for any such God, and the actual situation could be the reverse, with no way to decide between any of them, because of no evidence.

You have no way of knowing whether the actual God, if any, would necessarily torment non-believers - you have to assume that the probability of torment under non-belief is greater than under belief. That would be true based on existing religious ideas, but people would be extremely unlikely to posit a God who did not punish unbelief in some way, even less one who rewarded it, so it is an extremely biased sample of the possibilities, so not a valid guide.

If there was evidence for such things, then one doesn't need to wager. I wouldn't even propose such things otherwise.

But insofar as bias is concerned, I think that is largely a red herring. First, many religions are inclusive regardless of what one believes. Second, some religions make no difference between believers of other religions and  unbelief. Third, the certainty of torment under any choice makes torment invariant.

It's not that there is 1 possible outcome of torment for a single choice, rather many. Suppose I added some form of animism to the scenario concerning Christianity and Islam.. The possibility for reward is something like a 1/4 chance: animism, Christianity, Islam, and non of the above. If one chooses any one of these, the possible outcome of torment is something like 3/4 for choosing one of them. No matter what one chooses, one has a possible outcome of torment.

BobSpence wrote:
I see, personally, the only honest way is to go about living in the best human way possible, with regard to our fellow citizens, undistorted by contemplating the imagined edicts of an imagined being. If there is a God, and wants to punish me for honesty, so be it. I can at least be satisfied that I didn't debase myself by fake worship of such a morally bankrupt being. Especially since the reality of any such being seems to me so vanishingly small.

It is ultimately a subjective, personal decision.

I affirm your right to choose what you want. The choice to believe concerning these matters, I think, is a personal decision insomuch as it is for one not to believe.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 725
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
I thought we execute

I thought we execute Christians on here who betray us.

The OP is very naive for simply falling for the Judeo-Christian MYTH.  Just look at the idiot O'Reilly trying to tell Dawkins that the Judeo-Christian story is not a myth yet he HORRIBLY failed in producing any corroboration showing the Judeo Christian myth is different from the hundreds of other myths told all over the planet!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: OMG

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

OMG Kapkao, what has happened to you ?   Seriously, you've lost your fire. You used to come in here and do everything except break furniture and now you're almost servile.  Weird.

Yay mood disorders! Despite the fact that I do genuinely see Bobspence's comments in a more "careful" light, I think it's a safe bet that I'll be "servile" for the rest of fall and most of winter. In either February or March (rough guess), I'll get my fire back and I'll attempt to find another channel for it besides RRS. I also had a serious "WTF!?" moment on the boards not too long ago, and have had a valuable chance to become self-reflective and cautious again. I also had a few panic attacks, as well. Ever had one of those? They're loads of fun. (bitter black sarcasm) 

Nevertheless, I've mellowed out a bit. Still here, still unapologetic, anti-idealistic, anti-individualistic, and callous at times... just not willing to pick a fight over it, or drain moderator resources unnecessarily (or at all). Also not willing to derail someone's thread over personal bs.

Mind the red wine stain on the carpet, and thanks for the compliment... I think.  

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)