"I just believe in one fewer god than you do"

[Dezaad]

I'll never understand one person's need to try and "right the wrong" of another person's epistemological perspective on life and the nature of their own existence.

I know what I know, I feel what I feel, and if that doesn't translate into an "acceptable" explanation for you, then oh well.

It is much more honest to simply say that no matter how much we know in this world, we will never know everything, and each person carries a piece of the puzzle. If you are too busy dissecting the correctness of other people's deep views on life, you'll miss the point of living.

I can only speak for myself, but I assure you that I am not "too busy" dissecting the correctness of other people deep views on like. Well, to be honest, I am doing such a thing only to the extent that they seem to be asking me to challenge their beliefs, and it is only one of several motivations for engaging in the exercise. I also do it to see if I will conclude that my own reasonings are sound or flawed.

But, in any event, why do you make your utterance? Isn't the busyness of dissecting the correctness of other people's dissection of the correctness of other people's deep views on life equally likely to cause you to miss the point of living?

 

[Orion]

I can only speak for myself, but I assure you that I am not "too busy" dissecting the correctness of other people deep views on like. Well, to be honest, I am doing such a thing only to the extent that they seem to be asking me to challenge their beliefs, and it is only one of several motivations for engaging in the exercise. I also do it to see if I will conclude that my own reasonings are sound or flawed.

I can see that's what you're doing... but others act as if it's life or death, or that victory must be assure or something. It's those kinds of ego battles that I don't really get when it comes to this kind of discussion.

But, in any event, why do you make your utterance? Isn't the busyness of dissecting the correctness of other people's dissection of the correctness of other people's deep views on life equally likely to cause you to miss the point of living?

I'm just remarking on the futility. I felt that after reading 7 pages of it, I had to contribute something or I would have walked away feeling that I completely wasted my time.

 

[Dezaad]

I will address the remainder of your post, later. One point that I want to make is this. There is a difference between having a belief and performing some action based on that belief.

Of course. But, pragmatically, it is the action that has a bearing on a life, not the belief (or neutral, or non-belief) itself. Belief without action is rather empty of consequence, and not something I think I would really wish to contend.

For example, I don't think I would care if someone claimed that there existed an all powerful entity which has never affected our Universe in any way, didn't care what we did in our lives and basically ignored in every respect possible that our Universe exists and that there was nothing we could do to get that entity's attention. This would be a belief in which no action at all would be rational, and I don't think I would bother discussing it with the person.

But, most claims, whether objectively substantiated or not, move us to some kind of action of consequence, even if only minor.

 

[Dezaad]

I can see that's what you're doing... but others act as if it's life or death, or that victory must be assure or something. It's those kinds of ego battles that I don't really get when it comes to this kind of discussion.



I'm just remarking on the futility. I felt that after reading 7 pages of it, I had to contribute something or I would have walked away feeling that I completely wasted my time.

I think that by your own standards, you did anyway. Not sure, but I'm just thinking that is the logical conclusion of your assertions.

 

[Orion]

I think that by your own standards, you did anyway. Not sure, but I'm just thinking that is the logical conclusion of your assertions.

I did what anyway?

 

[Dezaad]

I did what anyway?

Wasted your time.

 

[Orion]

Wasted your time.

CC thanked my comment so it was useful to someone!

Anyway, I'm done here. ttyl

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I agree right up with you to the "small chance" part. The idea that we are in a position to call those odds is insane to me, like John Madden predicting the winner of the Superbowl in the year 3000.

If John Madden predicted the winner of the Superbowl in the year 3000, by saying their would be no winner, and no superbowl, I think he would be about 99.999% correct.

 

[Ikari]

You can not completely disprove a negative if the positive assertion lacks falsifiability which is what the article is saying, however, using inductive logic we can safely assume that there is no god due to the fact that all known methods of direct and indirect emprical observation have failed to provide one scrap of evidence for its existence.

This is the line of reasoning which best aligns itself with a logical argument. People want to say that no belief is a belief or that atheists have burden of proof. The problem is that gods, as we have now defined them, are not measurable systems. Thus you cannot demand prove of the negative against an immeasurable system. To put it bluntly, the god Hamiltonian is non-Hermitian. The only tools we have are the tools of observation available to the human race, and in all the years of human existence there has been no demonstration of gods by any means of observation we have. Furthermore, there is nothing inherent to nature which demands the existence of a god.

I think in the end the whole "atheists have to prove the negative" is a deflect topic meant to dissuade those from questioning any form of proof of a god. Of course none exists, the solutions to the Hamiltonian are imaginary and there is no eigen vector set which can define the system, no eigen values which would say we could measure and observe it. It is entirely possible to prove a negative or demonstrate the negative if the proposed system is measurable. Since the god system is inherently immeasurable, it makes no sense to say that one has to prove the negative.

 

[scourge99]

Faith is usually associated with religion and belief in God. However, faith can also be associated with emotion. What I am wondering is how an atheist would define faith outside a typical religious definition.

Its for reasons like this I dislike and don't use the term "faith" to describe my own beliefs or positions. I prefer, instead, to DIRECTLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY state my position or beliefs.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Of course. But, pragmatically, it is the action that has a bearing on a life, not the belief (or neutral, or non-belief) itself. Belief without action is rather empty of consequence, and not something I think I would really wish to contend.

Yet because not all belief translates into action... or the same action, condemning the belief is illogical as it is not the belief that creates the consequence.

For example, I don't think I would care if someone claimed that there existed an all powerful entity which has never affected our Universe in any way, didn't care what we did in our lives and basically ignored in every respect possible that our Universe exists and that there was nothing we could do to get that entity's attention. This would be a belief in which no action at all would be rational, and I don't think I would bother discussing it with the person.

But, most claims, whether objectively substantiated or not, move us to some kind of action of consequence, even if only minor.

Even if that is the case, if those actions affect only the person who has that belief, why would you care?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Its for reasons like this I dislike and don't use the term "faith" to describe my own beliefs or positions. I prefer, instead, to DIRECTLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY state my position or beliefs.

Your answer indicates that you did not get what I said.

 

[Dezaad]

Yet because not all belief translates into action... or the same action, condemning the belief is illogical as it is not the belief that creates the consequence.

I disagree that an action cannot logically be condemned along with an action that flowed from it. Illogical beliefs can logically lead to specific bad actions, and the two definitely ought to be a matter of social concern. The action may very well be illegal, but whatever the case in that regard, the action is not the whole problem.

Even if that is the case, if those actions affect only the person who has that belief, why would you care?

If indeed an action does affect only the person who has the belief, I don't care in the least. Did you assume I did?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I disagree that an action cannot logically be condemned along with an action that flowed from it. Illogical beliefs can logically lead to specific bad actions, and the two definitely ought to be a matter of social concern. The action may very well be illegal, but whatever the case in that regard, the action is not the whole problem.

Since this only happens sporadically, and not all the time, it is illogical to condemn a belief, for the actions of a few based on that belief.

If indeed an action does affect only the person who has the belief, I don't care in the least. Did you assume I did?

Just checking.

 

[Dezaad]

Since this only happens sporadically, and not all the time, it is illogical to condemn a belief, for the actions of a few based on that belief.

What happens sporadically? That people do harmful things on specific beliefs? I think it happens frequently enough that the tight link between the two, harmful action and misguided belief, is as much as self evident.

People are partly nasty brutish animals by nature, driven primarily by emotionality and self centeredness. Rationality is a major line of defense used to moderate this nature. To the extent it has this effect, it is about persuasion toward altering belief. Rationality is abused, though, to retain beliefs that, once accepted, logically lead to the justification of nasty, brutish impulses and drives.