- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Messages
- 5,695
- Reaction score
- 1,805
- Location
- Madison, WI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Knowledge.
... that is accepted in a properly basic way and is not scientifically proven in any way...
Knowledge.
So everybody seems to agree that skepticism is in fact a really good thing to have.
So why is it that when it comes to religion, all that goes out the damned window???
Why is it NOT a good thing to be skeptical about god, the devil, heaven, angels, hell, and so forth?
faith (fāth)►
n. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Because there's no evidence, and skeptics tend to want to see evidence of some sort. "beyond a reasonable doubt".
When someone with faith in something tries to convince a skeptic that what they have faith in is a concrete reality, much dancing tends to ensue.
A lot of things seem to make people feel entitled to be a jackass to those who don't share their view of things. I don't think skepticism is any more responsible for jackasses than any other views. I would put cynics way out in front in jackass entitlement.
I agree and I disagree...there is evidence for the believer, there's just not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt for the skeptic...there's a difference between the 2...but your 2nd statement is a good reason the 2 should not argue about, ever...every person has to discover...or not...that evidence for themselves...no one else can do it for them...the earnest desire to know has to be there 1st and foremost...for most skeptics, I don't think it's there...they're out to prove there is no God, do or die...
I agree that it is generally good.
I can't speak for others, but speaking solely for myself, I've personally experienced God in my life, and I've experienced his goodness. I find my belief in God to be rational in the same way that I find my belief in the four things that I listed to devildavid as being rational. In short, I don't need to be skeptical of something that I have experienced for myself.
And this goes back to what we were just talking about, I can swear up and down that I have experienced God in my life, as I have just done, but that does nothing to "prove it" to you, since I am the only person who can see my own personal experiences. You can claim that my experiences had nothing to do with God and have naturalistic explanations and likewise, but you can't imagine exactly what I experienced. That's the tricky thing with personal experiences... they're personal (purely testimonial) and can only be accepted by someone else through means of belief (not by evidence).
How do you know with complete certainty that what you experience in "day to day life" is reality, and not existence as a brain in a vat being stimulated by a mad scientist, or existence as a body lying in the Matrix induced to live in a virtual reality?How do you know with complete certainty that what you experienced is factually a supernatural entity that you call god?
What do you mean?Why aren't all claims of god/supernatural experience exactly the same?
How do you know with complete certainty that what you experience in "day to day life" is reality, and not existence as a brain in a vat being stimulated by a mad scientist, or existence as a body lying in the Matrix induced to live in a virtual reality?
In the same way that you "know" you are experiencing "reality", I "know" that I am experiencing "God". Why should one experience be trusted with little to no skepticism but the other experience be doubted with extreme skepticism?
What do you mean?
... that is accepted in a properly basic way and is not scientifically proven in any way...
I agree and I disagree...there is evidence for the believer, there's just not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt for the skeptic...there's a difference between the 2...but your 2nd statement is a good reason the 2 should not argue about, ever...every person has to discover...or not...that evidence for themselves...no one else can do it for them...the earnest desire to know has to be there 1st and foremost...for most skeptics, I don't think it's there...they're out to prove there is no God, do or die...
I agree that it is generally good.
I can't speak for others, but speaking solely for myself, I've personally experienced God in my life, and I've experienced his goodness. I find my belief in God to be rational in the same way that I find my belief in the four things that I listed to devildavid as being rational. In short, I don't need to be skeptical of something that I have experienced for myself.
And this goes back to what we were just talking about, I can swear up and down that I have experienced God in my life, as I have just done, but that does nothing to "prove it" to you, since I am the only person who can see my own personal experiences. You can claim that my experiences had nothing to do with God and have naturalistic explanations and likewise, but you can't imagine exactly what I experienced. That's the tricky thing with personal experiences... they're personal (purely testimonial) and can only be accepted by someone else through means of belief (not by evidence).
Maybe, maybe not... but that's not the point... The point is: Why do you accept that you are not a brain in a vat or a body in the Matrix? On what grounds do you accept that?If I'm a brain in a vat or in the matrix then god has even less meaning.
Yeah, a "reality" within another "reality"...It becomes an illusion within an illusion.
It's not defeatism. I'm not understanding what point you're making after that, and I'm not sure how you conclude that it is "made up nonsense"... That goes back to my question above: Why do you accept that you are not a brain in a vat or a body in the Matrix? On what grounds do you accept that? It's a perfectly legitimate question that gets to the core of your belief system...That isn't skepticism, it's defeatism. And if you test it to the limits, you end up dead. Not much point in using skeptical though to conclude any such made up nonsense.
People have free will, and have their own desires and goals, and aren't perfect and make mistakes. Do claims not vary widely on many other things that have one truth? Some people claim that chiggers "latch onto" oneself and that effective treatment is to use nail polish to "drown" them... Is that true? No... the chigger is lone gone by the time that one experiences the itching sensation from the chigger "bite". One can take an example of pretty much anything and find that claims about it vary widely even though there is one truth...Why do the claims vary so widely? Not all religions believe in the same type of god or the same religious concepts. If there is one truth and one god you'd think they would all agree.
Maybe, maybe not... but that's not the point... The point is: Why do you accept that you are not a brain in a vat or a body in the Matrix? On what grounds do you accept that?
Yeah, a "reality" within another "reality"...
It's not defeatism. I'm not understanding what point you're making after that, and I'm not sure how you conclude that it is "made up nonsense"... That goes back to my question above: Why do you accept that you are not a brain in a vat or a body in the Matrix? On what grounds do you accept that? It's a perfectly legitimate question that gets to the core of your belief system...
People have free will, and have their own desires and goals, and aren't perfect and make mistakes. Do claims not vary widely on many other things that have one truth? Some people claim that chiggers "latch onto" oneself and that effective treatment is to use nail polish to "drown" them... Is that true? No... the chigger is lone gone by the time that one experiences the itching sensation from the chigger "bite". One can take an example of pretty much anything and find that claims about it vary widely even though there is one truth...
People have free will, and have their own desires and goals, and aren't perfect and make mistakes. Do claims not vary widely on many other things that have one truth? Some people claim that chiggers "latch onto" oneself and that effective treatment is to use nail polish to "drown" them... Is that true? No... the chigger is lone gone by the time that one experiences the itching sensation from the chigger "bite". One can take an example of pretty much anything and find that claims about it vary widely even though there is one truth...
These are not beliefs.
It's technically possible, but I have no good reason to doubt my experience.So it is possible your experience of god is a mistake.
Strawman Fallacy.Chiggers are not analogous to gods.
Nope, and free will may very well be an illusion. However, if free will is an illusion, then everything I do has absolutely no significance/meaning. Free will is a necessary condition of the meaningfulness of life, so I might as well assume that I do in fact have it (and would be justified and inclined to believe that I have it).How do you know people have free will?? How do you know that you don't have the illusion of free will? Can you show that to be true using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature?
Nope, and free will may very well be an illusion. However, if free will is an illusion, then everything I do has absolutely no significance/meaning. Free will is a necessary condition of the meaningfulness of life, so I might as well assume that I do in fact have it (and would be justified and inclined to believe that I have it).
But to expand upon that, free will isn't choosing A over not-A... but rather free will is making a choice without being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. I can lift up my arm at any time and nothing else is causing me to do so. It's seemingly purely my choice and my choice alone...
Free will is evidenced through personal experience (the choices we make, and being held accountable for those choices), so free will is justified to believe in unless there's a defeater for believing in it.
So it doesn't exist because I can't prove it using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature??In other words, you can't show a damn thing, but you might as well assume it's true anyway.
My personal opinion is that the concept is of free will, or lack of free will is null and void, since you can't prove or disprove it one way or another, and the claim for free will is used to attempt to resolve contradictions that it really doesen't.
It's called special pleading.So everybody seems to agree that skepticism is in fact a really good thing to have.
So why is it that when it comes to religion, all that goes out the damned window???
Why is it NOT a good thing to be skeptical about god, the devil, heaven, angels, hell, and so forth?
So it doesn't exist because I can't prove it using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature??
Then I guess minds other than your own don't exist... then I guess the reality of the external world doesn't exist... then I guess you haven't existed for more than five minutes... then I guess you are a brain in a vat, or a body in the Matrix... I mean, you can't prove any of these things you justifiably believe by "using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature" ...
So, give it a whirl and get back to me once you realize that you are demanding me to do something that you don't even bother to do or apply to your own beliefs...
Once you start doing that with your own beliefs, I'll start doing it with mine...
So it doesn't exist because I can't prove it using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature??
Then I guess minds other than your own don't exist... then I guess the reality of the external world doesn't exist... then I guess you haven't existed for more than five minutes... then I guess you are a brain in a vat, or a body in the Matrix... I mean, you can't prove any of these things you justifiably believe by "using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature" ...
So, give it a whirl and get back to me once you realize that you are demanding me to do something that you don't even bother to do or apply to your own beliefs...
Once you start doing that with your own beliefs, I'll start doing it with mine...
No that isn't what I said. I said the concept is null and void because it can not be either proven or disproven.
Alrighty... In that case, then the things I listed to you should be "null and void" in concept, according to you, because they also can't be either proven or disproven...
But you not only accept their concepts, you accept them as justifiably objectively true... Why is that?
So it doesn't exist because I can't prove it using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature??
Then I guess minds other than your own don't exist... then I guess the reality of the external world doesn't exist... then I guess you haven't existed for more than five minutes... then I guess you are a brain in a vat, or a body in the Matrix... I mean, you can't prove any of these things you justifiably believe by "using arguments that have tangible evidence for it, rather than arguments that are entirely conceptual in nature" ...
So, give it a whirl and get back to me once you realize that you are demanding me to do something that you don't even bother to do or apply to your own beliefs...
Once you start doing that with your own beliefs, I'll start doing it with mine...
Nope, and free will may very well be an illusion. However, if free will is an illusion, then everything I do has absolutely no significance/meaning. Free will is a necessary condition of the meaningfulness of life, so I might as well assume that I do in fact have it (and would be justified and inclined to believe that I have it).
But to expand upon that, free will isn't choosing A over not-A... but rather free will is making a choice without being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. I can lift up my arm at any time and nothing else is causing me to do so. It's seemingly purely my choice and my choice alone...
Free will is evidenced through personal experience (the choices we make, and being held accountable for those choices), so free will is justified to believe in unless there's a defeater for believing in it.