Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The worst thing about religion

Page 14 of 33 [ 517 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 33  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 12:14 pm

corroonb wrote:
How is a truth ever "indisputable"?

Also, because I never got back to this, if all truths are disputable, then all truths can be untrue. If all truths can be untruths then all truths must be justified, if all truths must be justified then the justifications must be justified for the justifications are truths, therefore the number of justifications for any single article of truth must be infinite. The number of justifications a person has can only be finite though, therefore, no human can absolutely know any truth, therefore any absolute statement of knowledge is false atheistic or theistic, and therefore nobody can say anything about anything.



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 12:15 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
What is belief?

Is it correct or worthwhile to believe things that you have no reason to believe?

Belief with reason = sanity

Belief without reason = insanity

Give me reason for anything you believe. Let's just say a given belief is P.

1. Suppose that P is some piece of knowledge. Then P is a justified true belief.
2. The only thing that can justify P is another statement – let's call it P1; so P1 justifies P.
3. But if P1 is to be a satisfactory justification for P, then we must know that P1.
4. But for P1 to be known, it must also be a justified true belief.
5. That justification will be another statement - let's call it P2; so P2 justifies P1.
6. But if P2 is to be a satisfactory justification for P1, then we must know that P2
7. But for P2 to count as knowledge, it must itself be a justified true belief.
8. That justification will in turn be another statement - let's call it P3; so P3 justifies P2.
9. and so on, ad infinitum.

Gotta love the regress argument. You also have gotta love Reformed Epistemology, which is simply a modified version of foundationalism.


Any knowledge is an infinite system of related propositions which we assume are true.

This is a better system than belief as positive statement which is what religion is.

I believe in God because I believe on God and so on.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 12:16 pm

corroonb wrote:
Sanity is identical in my mind to logic and truth.

Insanity is belief without reason (religion, superstition, faith healing, paranormal) and false belief (round world, creationism)

That is not the medical definition and any psychologist would know that. In fact, depressed people are actually more realistic than satisfied people. If realism is reflective of logic and truth, but depression is unhealth, then sanity is mental unhealthiness. Your position then seems to break down.

Also, if you'll note, I put forward a philosophical argument that all reasons are arbitrary, meaning that if logic and truth are the measure then nobody can measure up.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

19 Aug 2008, 12:17 pm

corroonb wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
How is a truth ever "indisputable"?

That is a frankly ridiculous thing to say. He has stated himself that he thinks logic (and therefore truth) are social constructs and necessarily insane if the society the constructed them is insane. So the truth is not true after all and you should read more before agreeing with a statement.

Umm..... no, I said SANITY is a social construct.


Sanity is identical in my mind to logic and truth.

Insanity is belief without reason (religion, superstition, faith healing, paranormal) and false belief (round world, creationism)

well, I could say that part of the Insane mind is to have a belief system, any belief system, to be so certain about anything, but that's me.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


benjimanbreeg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,515

19 Aug 2008, 12:18 pm

Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:
One of you come and play sport with me, and i'll laugh at you.


Chess?

Edit: I don't care to run around outside kicking balls.

I have lately taken to playing the Ruy Lopez as white, and scored quite well with it so far. Or, if I have to play black, the Alekhine's defense is always fun.

And I have never been one for physical sports either- regardless of my physical fitness, I have always been far too clumsy to succeed in such endeavors. And I don't really find success in sports to be all that impressive or intimidating.


lol, and chess is very impressive and intimidating? or knowing a lot about a fairytale? :lol:

well, thats cause your not very good at them. If you were you'd be different. Being an athlete is very impressive, it takes more commitment than studying or playing chess. If your overweight, thats too bad. But you shouldn't be insulting sportsmen. Haha, who's more talented the worlds greatest chess player or Tiger Woods? :wink:



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

19 Aug 2008, 12:19 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Who says science has worth? it has results plenty but worth is subjective.


This is actually an interesting topic. Pure research, without application to human needs, is essentially useless. But is it? Is there an inherent nobility or use in increasing the knowledge in the world around us? I am pursuing a career in science not because of it's use or an urge to help mankind, but because of raw interest.

Orwell wrote:

And I have never been one for physical sports either- regardless of my physical fitness, I have always been far too clumsy to succeed in such endeavors. And I don't really find success in sports to be all that impressive or intimidating.


Oh, I was always the same way. Perhaps I could have developed the requisite level of fitness and skill, but I simply never cared that much about sports to really feel that need to become skillful.

I looked up the Ruy Lopez opening, believe it or not I have never heard of it. I always meant to play more chess.


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 12:19 pm

corroonb wrote:
Any knowledge is an infinite system of related propositions which we assume are true.

This is a better system than belief as positive statement which is what religion is.

I believe in God because I believe on God and so on.

Umm.... you really have not clearly attacked my argument. For one, you don't HAVE an infinite system, your mind cannot even conceive of an infinite system. Therefore if you must appeal to an infinite system, you must also lack justification, which then means that anything you think is illogical.

Religion is simply a variant of foundationalism, you know, reformed epistemology, that clever idea by Alvin Plantinga.



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 12:21 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Sanity is identical in my mind to logic and truth.

Insanity is belief without reason (religion, superstition, faith healing, paranormal) and false belief (round world, creationism)

That is not the medical definition and any psychologist would know that. In fact, depressed people are actually more realistic than satisfied people. If realism is reflective of logic and truth, but depression is unhealth, then sanity is mental unhealthiness. Your position then seems to break down.

Also, if you'll note, I put forward a philosophical argument that all reasons are arbitrary, meaning that if logic and truth are the measure then nobody can measure up.


The medical definition is false. Emotional reasoning or beliefs are insanity. This is not about illness or health. This is about reason and non-reason (insanity). You have changed the terms of the argument in a crude attempt to convince yourself of victory.

Depressed people cognitively distort the world, this is a form of insanity.

You argument is pointless but not necessarily false. If it is true, the you have no good reason to believe in god and yet you do.



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 12:22 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Any knowledge is an infinite system of related propositions which we assume are true.

This is a better system than belief as positive statement which is what religion is.

I believe in God because I believe on God and so on.

Umm.... you really have not clearly attacked my argument. For one, you don't HAVE an infinite system, your mind cannot even conceive of an infinite system. Therefore if you must appeal to an infinite system, you must also lack justification, which then means that anything you think is illogical.

Religion is simply a variant of foundationalism, you know, reformed epistemology, that clever idea by Alvin Plantinga.


Is the assumption that I exist one that relies on an infinite regression of related propositions?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2008, 12:23 pm

benjimanbreeg wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:
One of you come and play sport with me, and i'll laugh at you.


Chess?

Edit: I don't care to run around outside kicking balls.

I have lately taken to playing the Ruy Lopez as white, and scored quite well with it so far. Or, if I have to play black, the Alekhine's defense is always fun.

And I have never been one for physical sports either- regardless of my physical fitness, I have always been far too clumsy to succeed in such endeavors. And I don't really find success in sports to be all that impressive or intimidating.


lol, and chess is very impressive and intimidating? or knowing a lot about a fairytale? :lol:

well, thats cause your not very good at them. If you were you'd be different. Being an athlete is very impressive, it takes more commitment than studying or playing chess. If your overweight, thats too bad. But you shouldn't be insulting sportsmen. Haha, who's more talented the worlds greatest chess player or Tiger Woods? :wink:


Who has the intelligence to design and build?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 12:23 pm

benjimanbreeg wrote:
lol, and chess is very impressive and intimidating? or knowing a lot about a fairytale? :lol:

No, chess is not impressive or intimidating either.

Quote:
well, thats cause your not very good at them. If you were you'd be different.
I'm not very good at chess, either.

Quote:
Being an athlete is very impressive, it takes more commitment than studying or playing chess.

You'd be surprised, at the top level, how much dedication is required to play chess well.

Quote:
If your overweight, thats too bad. But you shouldn't be insulting sportsmen.

I'm not overweight. I'm 6' and 150 lbs, not heavy at all. I could be in better physical condition, but the main reason for me not being good at sports is that I'm a klutz. And I never insulted sportsmen.

Quote:
Haha, who's more talented the worlds greatest chess player or Tiger Woods? :wink:

There have been some pretty amazing chess players. Bobby Fischer and Jose Raul Capablanca, along with Paul Morhpy, are difficult to match in talent. And in modern times, Magnus Carlsen is insanely talented. He's younger than I am and already close to being the strongest in the world.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 12:28 pm

corroonb wrote:
The medical definition is false. Emotional reasoning or beliefs are insanity. This is not about illness or health. This is about reason and non-reason (insanity). You have changed the terms of the argument in a crude attempt to convince yourself of victory.

So, you are redefining terms to suit your needs? Sorry, I don't feel the need to play this game of reducing all things to reason. A crude attempt? You are the one who is redefining terms to suit your need, as sanity is a measure of mental health and has always been so, without regard to reason or unreason.

Quote:
Depressed people cognitively distort the world, this is a form of insanity.

How? I clearly stated that they have more realistic views of the world than non-depressed people, who tend towards overconfidence.

Quote:
You argument is pointless but not necessarily false. If it is true, the you have no good reason to believe in god and yet you do.

Well, it denies EVERYONE a branch to stand off of. It has a point as you are making the positive assertion that our basis of knowledge is unjustified, if your basis of knowledge is unjustified by reason as well, then neither of us have means to address the other. If you rehabilitate your stance, then through that means we can rehabilitate our stance.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 12:29 pm

corroonb wrote:
Is the assumption that I exist one that relies on an infinite regression of related propositions?

Well, let's see, you claim you exist. Why do you exist? You need a justification to say that you exist without presupposing your existence.

I mean, heck, to me the claim you exist would demand infinite regression of propositions as I would have to justify all sorts of epistemic means to do this.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

19 Aug 2008, 12:31 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Is the assumption that I exist one that relies on an infinite regression of related propositions?

Well, let's see, you claim you exist. Why do you exist? You need a justification to say that you exist without presupposing your existence.

He did said "assumption"...


_________________
* here for the nachos.


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

19 Aug 2008, 12:32 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:
One of you come and play sport with me, and i'll laugh at you.


Chess?

Edit: I don't care to run around outside kicking balls.

I have lately taken to playing the Ruy Lopez as white, and scored quite well with it so far. Or, if I have to play black, the Alekhine's defense is always fun.

And I have never been one for physical sports either- regardless of my physical fitness, I have always been far too clumsy to succeed in such endeavors. And I don't really find success in sports to be all that impressive or intimidating.


lol, and chess is very impressive and intimidating? or knowing a lot about a fairytale? :lol:

well, thats cause your not very good at them. If you were you'd be different. Being an athlete is very impressive, it takes more commitment than studying or playing chess. If your overweight, thats too bad. But you shouldn't be insulting sportsmen. Haha, who's more talented the worlds greatest chess player or Tiger Woods? :wink:


Who has the intelligence to design and build?

I would think of Intelligent Design as a conjecture, not the process, but the idea that someone designed the universe.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 12:34 pm

twoshots wrote:
He did said "assumption"...

Well, right, but if it is only an assumption, then it does not have epistemic value, just as an assumption of god's existence. There must instead be an emphasis on proof, otherwise we have irrationality.