Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 4:01:53 GMT
"Faith" can be applied to many things though. Having "Faith" in your belief that there isn't a God or afterlife for example. Well first of all I've never said that there wasn't a god, so I certainly don't appeal to faith that there isn't one. Everything is relative to the available evidence, because evidence is the only way to determine the truth of some aspect of reality. Nothing requires faith, meaning, there is no way to determine something is true using faith. Religious is just believing something anyway, which is irrational by definition. I don't have faith that there isn't a god, don't need it, and wouldn't want it. If the evidence ever shows there is one, I'll be the first in line to accept it as true. Sorry, I wasn't using the term "Your" in a personal way, more generalized. I have found the way many Atheists behave it's like a religion unto it's own anyway. It really depends on how the person applies their "Faith" anyway, if someone wants to believe there is a God and they leave it at that then it's harmless. When they start killing or harming others for not having the same "Faith" then it becomes a problem. Same applies to Atheists or anyone with any other type of belief system.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 3, 2017 4:09:50 GMT
Sorry, I wasn't using the term "Your" in a personal way, more generalized. I have found the way many Atheists behave it's like a religion unto it's own anyway. It really depends on how the person applies their "Faith" anyway, if someone wants to believe there is a God and they leave it at that then it's harmless. When they start killing or harming others for not having the same "Faith" then it becomes a problem. Same applies to Atheists or anyone with any other type of belief system. Atheism is an absence of religion and it's not a belief system either. It's just a position on a single question that we aren't convinced is true, very similar to us not being convinced that unicorns are true, and I'm sure you can see that isn't a belief system. We'd be perfectly happy being rid of religion so we wouldn't have to talk about it or keep dealing with it to be honest.
And believing in a god isn't completely harmless. It teaches people to accept non answers as though they are true, and promotes all sorts of fantasies like prayer as though they work.
I promote that a society that understands reality and makes decisions accordingly, will always be preferable to a society that makes decisions based on myths and fantasy.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 3, 2017 6:38:24 GMT
If someone says that their personal belief is based on faith, what does that have to do with convincing you of the merits of their belief system? It's a statement but themselves, not an attempt to convert you to their religion. Should they instead base their personal subjective belief system on what you tell them they should? Based on what, if not faith in your subjective belief system that values truth over whatever it is they get out of religion? They should base it on evidence for the simple reason that there is no other method for determining what is true from what isn't.
Also, what is with protecting "personal beliefs". Who seriously is so insecure about what they think that they're afraid to discuss it, or can't defend it. If either is the case, that is a big clue that you should probably not believe it.
Do you apply the same to political beliefs? Do you honestly believe there's no subjective quality to making such judgements as to what path is "better" to take then any of the others? What if someone doesn't value "truth" as highly as you do? Why should they base their beliefs on truth rather than something like what makes them feel good?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 3, 2017 6:54:24 GMT
Do you apply the same to political beliefs? Do you honestly believe there's no subjective quality to making such judgements as to what path is "better" to take then any of the others? What if someone doesn't value "truth" as highly as you do? Why should they base their beliefs on truth rather than something like what makes them feel good? How is god subjective? Either there is evidence for one or there isn't. There is nothing subjective about it. You certainly can't compare it to a subjective political decision which contains various pros and cons to consider when making a decision.
You just wrote "why should they base their beliefs on truth rather than something that makes them feel good". Do I even need to respond to that? I tell you what. I'll just believe I'm immortal because that would make me feel good. So there's no reason to go to the doctor now that I believe that, and I can do all the crack I want. Bring on the aids ridden hookers too because why would I base my beliefs on truth when I can believe what makes me feel good? Right?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 3, 2017 12:19:29 GMT
Faith can be used to justify any religious belief from god to Zeus to Ra to anything else. All you have to do is say, "it's a matter of faith".
It simply isn't a reliable method for determining truth, and hence saying your belief is based on faith, is not a valid basis for accepting your position as true. Isn't that the point? Faith is believing despite not knowing if your belief is true.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 3, 2017 15:26:09 GMT
Isn't that the point? Faith is believing despite not knowing if your belief is true. Which means it's irrational. What else do you believe to the point you base your life on it being true without knowing if it's actually true?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 3, 2017 16:00:08 GMT
Faith can be used to justify any religious belief from god to Zeus to Ra to anything else. All you have to do is say, "it's a matter of faith".
It simply isn't a reliable method for determining truth, and hence saying your belief is based on faith, is not a valid basis for accepting your position as true. Isn't that the point? Faith is believing despite not knowing if your belief is true. Christian faith is defined a little differently and then it just becomes a matter of whether that is something the individual can accept. Faith is a far higher standard of mere belief and thus cannot be merely belief, guesswork, and constant doubt.
Faith is believing in something you know is true without doubt based on what you know of the individual making the guarantee.
It is irrelevant that others like the OP may not believe that a Christian has faith. There is no reason for us to prove anything to the likes of him. So he can believe that faith means nothing since it doesn't for him and it has no bearing on faith actually meaning something for the ones that have it.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 3, 2017 18:15:07 GMT
1. Any epistemic method can be used to reach different conclusions. 2. But is truth necessarily not relative, for one? 3. What is assessing accuracy and reliability? 1. Not true. One of the reasons I value epistemic/Bayesian rationalism is because two Bayesians can not agree to disagree. Their priors can differ, but once they hash that out and align them, the conclusions must be identical. 2. Truth is "the phrase 'snow is white' is true iff snow is white." (See Tarski) 3. When the observation matches the prediction. Greater accuracy means a greater narrowness in the prediction. Reliability means repeatability of said prediction. Arch isn't doing a good job at responding to your points, but better responses are available from people that know this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 3, 2017 20:04:34 GMT
One of the reasons I value epistemic/Bayesian rationalism is because two Bayesians can not agree to disagree. Their priors can differ, but once they hash that out and align them, the conclusions must be identical. Slightly off topic: That is precisely the problem I have with some Bayesians: They pretend that the Bayseian formula works (which it does with correct priors), and in doing this they distract from the priors. Like those mathematicians who used the Bayesian formula to calculate the probability of a man having committed a murder. Their result: He almost certainly did it. Of course, they had assumed a 50% a priory probability for him to have committed a murder (he did it, or he didn't); but in using the Bayes formula as a smokescreen, they thought they could make a case. I don't know if the man was convicted. Back to topic: Good luck determining an a priory probability for the existence of a deity.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 3, 2017 21:24:30 GMT
1. Any epistemic method can be used to reach different conclusions. 2. But is truth necessarily not relative, for one? 3. What is assessing accuracy and reliability? 1. Not true. One of the reasons I value epistemic/Bayesian rationalism is because two Bayesians can not agree to disagree. Their priors can differ, but once they hash that out and align them, the conclusions must be identical. 2. Truth is "the phrase 'snow is white' is true iff snow is white." (See Tarski) 3. When the observation matches the prediction. Greater accuracy means a greater narrowness in the prediction. Reliability means repeatability of said prediction. Arch isn't doing a good job at responding to your points, but better responses are available from people that know this stuff. One thing at a time. Re (1). For one, even if we're talking strictly about mathematical formulae and avoiding natural language statements, there can be disagreements about how either the semantics and/or the formal procedures of any particular formula should be handled.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 3, 2017 21:30:37 GMT
As I had said, "I'm not saying that you'll agree with this or that I agree with it (that's just the point, isn't it?)." The point would ultimately be to realize there is no evidentiary case for a god, and logic does not lead to one either, so believing it to be true is simply irrational and as a society we should stop believing it. Meanwhile, some of the folks who believe that there is an evidentiary case for gods, and who believe that logic implies that there are gods, see our disbelief despite what they count as evidence or logical implication as simply irrational and feel that we should stop denying that there are gods.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 3, 2017 23:53:02 GMT
Meanwhile, some of the folks who believe that there is an evidentiary case for gods, and who believe that logic implies that there are gods, see our disbelief despite what they count as evidence or logical implication as simply irrational and feel that we should stop denying that there are gods. They can believe there is evidence, but there isn't. Please name any verifiable testable evidence that has ever been presented. We both know you can't.
Logic does not imply there is a god. Any logical argument you've ever heard for one always ends in leaping to the conclusion that a god did it but never concludes that a god is the only possible answer.
I'm sure they feel like we should stop denying it. But they have no basis for thinking we should even consider the idea seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 4, 2017 12:59:50 GMT
Meanwhile, some of the folks who believe that there is an evidentiary case for gods, and who believe that logic implies that there are gods, see our disbelief despite what they count as evidence or logical implication as simply irrational and feel that we should stop denying that there are gods. They can believe there is evidence, but there isn't. Please name any verifiable testable evidence that has ever been presented. We both know you can't.
Logic does not imply there is a god. Any logical argument you've ever heard for one always ends in leaping to the conclusion that a god did it but never concludes that a god is the only possible answer.
I'm sure they feel like we should stop denying it. But they have no basis for thinking we should even consider the idea seriously.
You're coming across as very thick. You're not going to think that any evidence really counts as evidence of god. I'm not going to think that, either. So I can't present any evidence to you that you or I will count as evidence of god. This is just the point--that neither of us is going to count any evidence as evidence of god, but that some people will count some evidence as evidence of god, and they're going to say, "you can believe that there isn't evidence, but there is" etc. It's a subjective matter of interpretation (of objective facts), criteria (for evidence, for implication), etc.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 4, 2017 16:43:10 GMT
You're coming across as very thick. You're not going to think that any evidence really counts as evidence of god. I'm not going to think that, either. So I can't present any evidence to you that you or I will count as evidence of god. This is just the point--that neither of us is going to count any evidence as evidence of god, but that some people will count some evidence as evidence of god, and they're going to say, "you can believe that there isn't evidence, but there is" etc. It's a subjective matter of interpretation (of objective facts), criteria (for evidence, for implication), etc. It's not thick, it's just that I've heard all of these arguments many times, and yes, I will gladly think evidence counts as god as soon as it actually demonstrates there is a god. Like how you can drop something and show gravity works, or compare dna to show relationships. It's so exhausting when you say things like, I'll never accept any evidence. Well maybe the problem is that you don't have any good evidence. Ever thought of that?
It isn't subjective at all.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 4, 2017 18:45:04 GMT
You're coming across as very thick. You're not going to think that any evidence really counts as evidence of god. I'm not going to think that, either. So I can't present any evidence to you that you or I will count as evidence of god. This is just the point--that neither of us is going to count any evidence as evidence of god, but that some people will count some evidence as evidence of god, and they're going to say, "you can believe that there isn't evidence, but there is" etc. It's a subjective matter of interpretation (of objective facts), criteria (for evidence, for implication), etc. It's not thick, it's just that I've heard all of these arguments many times, and yes, I will gladly think evidence counts as god as soon as it actually demonstrates there is a god. Like how you can drop something and show gravity works, or compare dna to show relationships. It's so exhausting when you say things like, I'll never accept any evidence. Well maybe the problem is that you don't have any good evidence. Ever thought of that?
It isn't subjective at all.
Taking droping something as evidence of gravity is no less a matter of (subjective of course) interpretation of objective facts, subjective criteria for evidence, implication, etc. We can work on why you can't see this (that it's no less a matter of subjective interpretation, etc.), but it might take awhile, as in months or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 4, 2017 19:04:11 GMT
Taking droping something as evidence of gravity is no less a matter of (subjective of course) interpretation of objective facts, subjective criteria for evidence, implication, etc. We can work on why you can't see this (that it's no less a matter of subjective interpretation, etc.), but it might take awhile, as in months or whatever. It isn't subjective at all, and isn't up to interpretation. You can measure the consistent rates of falling, compare that with objects of different mass, compare that with the relationships of other planets and moons, and guess what? It's always consistent. IT'S NOT SUBJECTIVE.
And honestly I don't believe you actually think it is. I'm going to hope you're just trolling.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 4, 2017 19:20:02 GMT
Taking droping something as evidence of gravity is no less a matter of (subjective of course) interpretation of objective facts, subjective criteria for evidence, implication, etc. We can work on why you can't see this (that it's no less a matter of subjective interpretation, etc.), but it might take awhile, as in months or whatever. It isn't subjective at all, and isn't up to interpretation. You can measure the consistent rates of falling, compare that with objects of different mass, compare that with the relationships of other planets and moons, and guess what? It's always consistent. IT'S NOT SUBJECTIVE.
And honestly I don't believe you actually think it is. I'm going to hope you're just trolling.
You'd be comparing things, right? Or you're saying that something else is comparing things?
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 4, 2017 20:57:06 GMT
Do you apply the same to political beliefs? Do you honestly believe there's no subjective quality to making such judgements as to what path is "better" to take then any of the others? What if someone doesn't value "truth" as highly as you do? Why should they base their beliefs on truth rather than something like what makes them feel good? How is god subjective? Either there is evidence for one or there isn't. There is nothing subjective about it. You certainly can't compare it to a subjective political decision which contains various pros and cons to consider when making a decision.
You just wrote "why should they base their beliefs on truth rather than something that makes them feel good". Do I even need to respond to that? I tell you what. I'll just believe I'm immortal because that would make me feel good. So there's no reason to go to the doctor now that I believe that, and I can do all the crack I want. Bring on the aids ridden hookers too because why would I base my beliefs on truth when I can believe what makes me feel good? Right?
I asked you if better was subjective, not god. ...what has god (any of them) got to do with a discussion about faith and beliefs and whether or not a qualifier like "better" is subjective or objective in nature? You're welcome to believe you're immortal if it makes you feel good. I have no problem with that because it has no effect on me whatsoever. It's not like you're trying to convince me that I'm immortal....and if you were, it would be a whole different conversation.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 0:37:46 GMT
You'd be comparing things, right? Or you're saying that something else is comparing things? No, you're confirming the force is always proportional to the mass of the objects involved, and everybody who wants to test this can do it easily for themselves if you have any doubts. In fact you're encouraged to test it for yourself. It's not subjective.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 0:41:42 GMT
I asked you if better was subjective, not god. ...what has god (any of them) got to do with a discussion about faith and beliefs and whether or not a qualifier like "better" is subjective or objective in nature? You're welcome to believe you're immortal if it makes you feel good. I have no problem with that because it has no effect on me whatsoever. It's not like you're trying to convince me that I'm immortal....and if you were, it would be a whole different conversation. The better path is always the one based on decisions that most closely match reality, as your decisions will be based on reality. For whatever reason, you aren't interested encouraging education, if you really don't see any concern with people walking around being delusional about reality.
|
|