Why I am an athiest

@neologist,

Word.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979, in a previous post wrote:

The actual meaning of Occam's Razor is an interesting read and Wiki is a pretty good starting point.
Wiki wrote:
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham, and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
Are you asserting nothing exists outside the universe?
No. I'm asserting that I don't know what (if anything) exists outside the universe.
Then I suppose the next question to follow must be: Could a unifying force exist outside the universe?

It could. But it probably doesn't (probability being determined by Occam's Razor).

Also bear in mind that when we try to fill an "unknown" variable which is as profound as something completely outside of our experience (outside of our Universe), that we should not limit ourselves to choosing between possibilities which we can perceive, but recognize that the highest probability is for something which we have not even conceived of yet (because there are probably more things about the outside of the Universe which we don't know, than things which we do know).

Emphasis mine.
It is that thing not conceived which I assert should be obvious to those who look with discernment.

2 Replies

@neologist,

Or credulity . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Or credulity . . .

Depending on the depth of one's inquiry

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

It is that thing not conceived which I assert should be obvious to those who look with discernment.

Not conceived, in this instance, being synonymous with simply unknown. If that's all you're saying, then I think we agree.

Or are you trying to imply that anything which we haven't conceived of yet must be "God"?

1 Reply

It is important for you to keep in mind that Neo assumes that it is plausible to conceive of the god in which he believes and that an intelligent (or what he considers intelligent) argument for that god can be made with no more evidence than a study of scripture.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I am neither angry, nor have i indulged any obfuscation (do you even know what the word means?). Just because someone doesn't swallow your drivel doesn't mean that he or she is angry. I can see why you would want to classify this as semantics--after all, that idiocy you posted about belief as though it were never anything other than blind faith is otherwise indefensible.

I proposed a definition of belief further up the thread precisely to avoid these sorts of tangents. But you'd rather call me an idiot than try to understand my point, and plundged in the first semantic debate you could think of. In essence: "there are all sorts of other types of belief than blind faith" -- sure there are... and there's also more than one type of idiotic, aggressive or fanatical obfuscators.

Quote:

All people believe many things which are inferred, but not directly supported by "facts." (We can dispense for now the silliness of making assertions about "facts.")

Your first sentence is close to my point, although I would rush to say that "facts" (what's your beef with them?) can often be used to "infer" or fit several rival hypotheses, so how do people chose? More often than not, by looking at how well the rival hypotheses fit their world view.

Like if the newspaper astrologist is right about your day a few times, you can either 1) "believe" him/her prophetic gift; or 2) attribute it all to chance; or 3) analyse the astrologist's "predictions" to spot a degree of vagueness, manipulation or self-fulfilling prophecies. People with a desire for enchantement and magic tend to go for 1. People who believe in chance go for 2, and those that see the media as a web of deceit easily go for 3. This is just an example to illustrate how prior world views influence the hypothesis we opt for, when facts can fit several explanations, which is generally the case,

Quote:

Your rhetorical skills are a mess.

Indeed there are... as are your emotional intelligence and capacity to contribute positively to a debate.

Quote:

If people "derive patterns" from experience and education (i know of no reasonable distinction between the two), but are in a situation in which they don't or cannot know what will transpire, they are operating from a belief.

What will transpire from what? You mean what will come out as an outcome from the situation? If you'd like to define belief as any bet we place, that's fine with me, but I am talking of a higher order of mental commitment, the stuff we "truly believe".

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

You wrote,

Quote:

we "truly believe".

That's just subjective semantics. I truly believe you are ignorant!

See what I mean?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I truly believe you are ignorant!

Aren't we all?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Yes.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

You are talking of credulity

If it pleases you to believe that... but I am truly speaking of real-life epistemology, of how each one of us mixes observations and beliefs to form a world view and therefore to chose a path or attitude to life. Our beliefs define us. People who think they harbor no beliefs at all -- beliefs of a religious or philosophical type, not the more mundane beliefs that others will stop at a red light or that the grocery is open untill 8:00 pm, to set aside Setanta's tangent -- are either mentally dead or quite naïve about themselves.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

You wrote,

Quote:

of how each one of us mixes observations and beliefs to form a world view and therefore to chose a path or attitude to life. Our beliefs define us.

To a certain degree, yes. However, circumstances can change in an instant where we will "forget" our beliefs, and act at the moment dependent upon what faces us.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It is important for you to keep in mind that Neo assumes that it is plausible to conceive of the god in which he believes and that an intelligent (or what he considers intelligent) argument for that god can be made with no more evidence than a study of scripture.

Not totally true. I'll get to that later. Meanwhile this is fun.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
It is that thing not conceived which I assert should be obvious to those who look with discernment.
Not conceived, in this instance, being synonymous with simply unknown. If that's all you're saying, then I think we agree.

Or are you trying to imply that anything which we haven't conceived of yet must be "God"?

Your words

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

This is not a tangent, it is an objection central to the discussion. No one is obliged to operate from your definitions. I don't believe that i called you an idiot, but if you can quote such a post i'll review it. I have said that you post drivel--you do. I have described what you post as silliness. When you deny that there is any other type of belief but blind faith, and then state a few sentences later that your speaking about "that other kind of faith"--an inferential acknowledgement that there are more than one kind of faith, or belief, that's pretty damned silly. Once again, you apparently don't know what obfuscate means. I have made no attempts to make statements which are not clear. I am not attempting to confuse anyone or anything. Is this some little pet insult of yours?

This is not a "semantic debate." You can try to dodge the issue that way, but i'm not buying it. You chose to portray belief only as blind faith, and that is not accurate. More than inaccurate, it doesn't even begin to describe the functionality of belief in society. It's perfectly reasonable to call you on that, and to describe such a remark as drivel.

I'm contributing positively to this debate. Although it appears that you don't understand this part, if everyone agreed with you, there wouldn't be a debate. You're just displaying a puerile reaction to being contradicted. Your latest lofty pronouncements clearly contradict what you have written earlier, and it makes your effort to appear wise and profound merely silly.

Quote:

I am talking of a higher order of mental commitment, the stuff we "truly believe".

My, my . . . you really are impressed with yourself. This is twaddle. Get over it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

neo wrote:
You are talking of credulity
If it pleases you to believe that... but I am truly speaking of real-life epistemology, of how each one of us mixes observations and beliefs to form a world view and therefore to chose a path or attitude to life. Our beliefs define us. People who think they harbor no beliefs at all -- beliefs of a religious or philosophical type, not the more mundane beliefs that others will stop at a red light or that the grocery is open untill 8:00 pm, to set aside Setanta's tangent -- are either mentally dead or quite naïve about themselves.

Tell that to Frank. Other than the New Jersey Guesser, we all take circumstantial and anecdotal observations into account when we form our belief systems.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

To a certain degree, yes. However, circumstances can change in an instant where we will "forget" our beliefs, and act at the moment dependent upon what faces us.

Not sure I understand what you have in mind. An example would help.

We can obviously change from one belief or belief system to another. That was what the poster who started this thread was experiencing. Some people seem able to do that pretty quickly and effortlessly but for most, it's a struggle or an epiphany. We can also feel unsure, torn apart, or live for a while in a state of confusion and disbelief. I always suspected that depression had to see with a collapse of belief systems.

But can we really forget our beliefs?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Life changing events that are traumatic and sometimes painful. They can be anything that is traumatic to the individual. Since we react differently to traumatic events, it's almost impossible to provide a simple example. One example might be the loss of your child or children. Another might be that the individual is diagnosed with a life threatening disease that is not curable, and the doctor gives the patient only a few months to live.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

This is not a tangent, it is an objection central to the discussion. No one is obliged to operate from your definitions.

This a discussion about religion, not traffic lights. Try and stay on topic. I am talking of religious or philosophical beliefs. If you want to talk about another type, fine. Talk away but I for one am not interested in changing the subject.

Quote:

I don't believe that i called you an idiot, but if you can quote such a post i'll review it. I have said that you drivel--you do. I have described what you post as silliness.

And idiocy.... In fact you used many insults in a few posts. This is the resort of the weak. But be my guest: keep making a fool of yourself.

Quote:

Once again, you apparently don't know what obfuscate means. I have made no attempts to make statements which are not clear. I am not attempting to confuse anyone or anything. Is this some little pet insult of yours?

Once again, you tried to confuse the matter by talking about stuff totally out of topic. And you succeeded, kuddos to you, since we are indeed talking of something entirely different from faith and beliefs now... You seem quite enamoured with your own semantics and rhetorical skills, like someone who would happily juggle with words as a way to avoid thinking.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The loss of a child, or one's own death are pretty good examples (knock on wood...) of a triger to change belief systems. Where was God during the holocaust? Etc. But even there, it's always possible to propose several moral, philosophical or religious interpretations of the same event. Eg the "scourge of God" theory about Atila (bad guys as punishments from God, or tools of God) has been used about Hitler as well, implying that nazism was God's way of gathering Jews out of Europe to create the modern state of Israel.

It's important to keep in mind that facts are not naturally leading us all to the same interpretation of facts. There's a huge gap between facts (observations) and theories that explain facts, and there's usually more than one theory to explain the facts, even the most traumatic ones.

1 Reply

Why I am an athiest

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know