310 réponses à ce sujet

[Captain Cornhole]

Where to begin...

[Siansonea]

AwesomeName wrote...

termokanden wrote...

AwesomeName wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

To me, if something cannot be proven to exist by direct or indirect observation, then my default position on that matter is "it doesn't exist".

Fair enough.  Personally I cannot think that way.  Otherwise I'd be saying there definitely isn't a sticker stuck underneath this bed I'm on, even if there was one, because I haven't checked yet.

Whether there's a sticker stuck under your bed can be checked by observation.

But what if I can't for some reason?  What if no one can?  I don't see how a thing doesn't exist until you observe it (unless we're talking quantum mechanics or something).

In any case, there's no reason to presuppose there's a sticker under your mattress, or "believe" there's a sticker under your mattress. Until the matter is settled by observation, then there isn't a sticker under your mattress. And really, in this example, if the sticker has no effect on the world whatsoever (if it had an effect, we could infer its existence indirectly) then it might as well NOT exist, don't you think? For all practical purposes, it doesn't, since it has zero effect on observable reality.

[Siansonea]

greengoron89 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Well, how can you? Belief is a pretty straightforward thing. You either believe something, or you don't. We don't even have a word for the quantum state between belief or disbelief. See, people think that belief is a conscious, informed choice, but it's really not, it's merely a state of being. You either believe something is true in the absence of observation, or you don't believe it. It's a pretty simple on/off switch. Belief is either present, or it is absent. And as soon as you start to doubt your beliefs, well, you've pretty much already crossed over into disbelief, whether you know it or not. You may SAY you still believe something, but if you've got doubts, you don't have belief. You're simply trying to save face. Honestly, it's not that complicated, but because this is such a hot-button issue, people try to bolster their decaying position with this idea that there is this Switzerland of noncommittal quasi-belief that lets them off the hook for their disbelief. But it's just a way to make oneself feel better, or avoid the connotations of a label they find disagreeable. ::shrug::

Sounds like you're overthinking this waaaaay too much.

I'd rather "overthink" it than accept a facile and inherently unfounded position simply because I "like" it better, or whatever was the criteria for how you arrived at your opinion on the matter at hand.

[termokanden]

AwesomeName wrote...

But what if I can't for some reason?  What if no one can?  I don't see how a thing doesn't exist until you observe it (unless we're talking quantum mechanics or something).

Nobody's saying it doesn't exist until you observe it (edit: it looks like Siansonea II is actually saying it, but anyway) . But the scientific point of view here is that if you cannot observe it in any way, then there is no reason to think it's actually there. But that is not the same thing as saying you can prove it doesn't exist.

Personally, I tend not to look under my furniture. If you don't look there, there's no reason to keep it clean

Blacklash93 wrote...

When did I ever say it was happening now or even in a certain way?

Look at life millions of years ago and look at it now. I'd say the nature of many things have changed.

You didn't. I thought it was implied earlier that we have evolved in a certain positive way. I'm not personally convinced, but one can always hope.

I think it's pretty clear that the human race is constantly changing thogh.

Modifié par termokanden, 07 juin 2012 - 10:16 .

[android654]

So, have people pulled out rulers and started comparing sizes yet?

[eroeru]

Siansonea II wrote...

eroeru wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

eroeru wrote...


You say this based on what? I think it's pretty self-evident that people can ignore a question. And a sceptic can shun all knowledge, leaving only the word "belief" to account for the thing that others aspiringly call "knowledge". Also, "belief", as is defined in western tradition can very well need basis - and having "knowledge" as as this basis seems to me as accurate as having "proof".

By the way, I've never been a fan of Knowledge = Justified True Belief myself. The definition just doesn't hold anything meaningful I think.

I can't make heads or tails of this. What is your question?

I was referring to this mostly: "
You can't exist in a pure state of belief/nonbelief.  "

Well, how can you? Belief is a pretty straightforward thing. You either believe something, or you don't. We don't even have a word for the quantum state between belief or disbelief. See, people think that belief is a conscious, informed choice, but it's really not, it's merely a state of being. You either believe something is true in the absence of observation, or you don't believe it. It's a pretty simple on/off switch. Belief is either present, or it is absent. And as soon as you start to doubt your beliefs, well, you've pretty much already crossed over into disbelief, whether you know it or not. You may SAY you still believe something, but if you've got doubts, you don't have belief. You're simply trying to save face. Honestly, it's not that complicated, but because this is such a hot-button issue, people try to bolster their decaying position with this idea that there is this Switzerland of noncommittal quasi-belief that lets them off the hook for their disbelief. But it's just a way to make oneself feel better, or avoid the connotations of a label they find disagreeable. ::shrug::

Well put, but I still must uphold my own. 

I was not talking about a quasi-state, nor of a "belief" as a state. I was talking of "belief" as a proposition that has a (important) place in one's mind. But if one simply does not deal with a question, he doesn't hold the appropriate belief. It's not a "disbelief" then either (in my book), as it simply is not. 

But if I were to account for your definition, then sure. Still, I'm not fully convinced of the merits of this "belief state" concept.

From common language-usage, I have thus far regarded "belief" as either a 1.) proposition-like assertation, or 2.) something more akin to "faith", which will probably not be further defined, if not in some other description of a state, usually joyous, or somehow "true" intuitively.

Modifié par eroeru, 07 juin 2012 - 10:16 .

[Chromie]

android654 wrote...

So, have people pulled out rulers and started comparing sizes yet?

My God can kick your Gods ass!

[eroeru]

jreezy wrote...

android654 wrote...

So, have people pulled out rulers and started comparing sizes yet?

So how does that work, "My religion is bigger than yours"?

Yes.

[Volus Warlord]

Skelter192 wrote...

android654 wrote...

So, have people pulled out rulers and started comparing sizes yet?

My God can kick your Gods ass!

Ever play Age of Mythology?

[termokanden]

DuckSoup wrote...

Anyway, he could just be sleeping now and when he wakes up he'll be p*ssed and we'll all be done for. Who knows? Nobody. 

I read this part first and instantly thought "Cthulhu".

Modifié par termokanden, 07 juin 2012 - 10:29 .

[DarkDragon777]

eroeru wrote...

jreezy wrote...

android654 wrote...

So, have people pulled out rulers and started comparing sizes yet?

So how does that work, "My religion is bigger than yours"?

Yes.

No.

[Gotholhorakh]

termokanden wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...
The nature of man will never change, but more and more we are finding ways to mitigate its harmful effects.

The nature of humans can change. Life changes and has for countless years. It's just up to biology, is all.

But is there evidence to suggest that we are becoming more altruistic? I don't think so.

There's no evidence to suggest we are becoming more altruistic, less altruistic or staying just as altruistic as we were last week.

(That's even if one trusts in social psychology, which is in itself more a belief system than any religion. Making noises a bit like a proper scientist does not a science make.)

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 07 juin 2012 - 10:33 .

[eroeru]

Also, someone brought up Pascal's wager. Well, can anyone explain to me why does the one side of the wager have to be the belief of a Christian god?

I can be as fruitful in saying that "1.) if you believe that there is a great prostitute on planet X who will be yours forever for all eternity after death on the condition that you believe her and her alone (PS what does the last part even mean?), you either (PS why "either"? this presupposes only two choices) win after death or lose nothing and 2.) if you believe that there is nothing, you don't win nor lose nothing from your belief."

Modifié par eroeru, 07 juin 2012 - 10:38 .

[termokanden]

eroeru wrote...

Also, someone brought up Pascal's wager. Well, can anyone explain to me why does the one side of the wager have to be the belief of a Christian god?

There is no good reason. That's exactly what's wrong with the logic of it.

[Arcadian Legend]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

eroeru wrote...

jreezy wrote...

android654 wrote...

So, have people pulled out rulers and started comparing sizes yet?

So how does that work, "My religion is bigger than yours"?

Yes.

No.

Oh no he diin't!

[eroeru]

@
termokanden 

It can be a *bit* more meaningful if it presupposed a "God" which was more widely defined. As in any spiritual entity or state that gives you some good immortality after death, only on the condition if you believe in that immortality.

Now the condition, and the possibility of such entity or immortality are dubious. Also, how much weight should one put on the belief, in order for it to "pass" as sufficient?

Modifié par eroeru, 07 juin 2012 - 10:43 .

[android654]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

eroeru wrote...

jreezy wrote...

android654 wrote...

So, have people pulled out rulers and started comparing sizes yet?

So how does that work, "My religion is bigger than yours"?

Yes.

No.

Are you sure? Seems that everyone here is just trying to see who is "bigger." It's funny, in a sad way.

[billy the squid]

DuckSoup wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Look at it is this way: If you believe you can live in heaven infinitely and if you don't then hell is your reward. Forever is a very long time, so no matter how small the chance is, a pragmatic would opt to believe. Just to be sure, I have decided to believe all such religions.

This is kinda something I've always thought, but it's a tricky one. 

I used to think as a kid, that because there is a chance that Heaven and Hell may be real, then I should do all I can in my life not to annoy God and get on his bad side because I want to go to Heaven. Even if I'm wrong and neither exist then I've lost nothing.

Then I read the Bible and it soon dawned on me that if I were to follow everything closely - as is written - I wouldn't be able to lead a "practical" life based on how the world works at the present. There are so many things that realistically speaking I wouldn't be able to do. 

This had me very frightened for a while. How would I not go to Hell? 

Then, after some thought, it occured to me that if God had created us then he'd know that we are capable of. He'd also be aware of our fickle beaviour. He'd know that the world we live in is very different to that which existed when we were put here.  

This helped me. 

I chose to believe that God would understand this and he would probably be a bit more flexible in his approach. More willing to let things slide than perhaps he once was. That as long as I'm a good, decent person who tries to live well I'd be alright. I'd be even more alright because I have faith. Not a faith which I have forced myself into - I wasn't sent to Sunday school or church or because my parents believed and insisted I should too - it all came naturally to me out of nowhere. It's just...  there. In me. I don't know why or how, it just is. But you can't just do it one way or the other - that's not genuine faith. 

Anyway, he could just be sleeping now and when he wakes up he'll be p*ssed and we'll all be done for. Who knows? Nobody. 

Then I envy your faith.

I always had doubts, but I never analysed it too much until I was 16/17 when any shred of faith I had was shattered and I turned my back on it. Really I don't believe in anything anymore, I'll live my life how I see fit, judged by my own moral compass and whether that makes me good man is something I will have to live with.

I'll enjoy life for the little moments of happiness and that's that, whether there is something else after, I don't know and I don't concern myself with anymore. It gives me some comfort that my actions here matter, and this is not a game where things are weighed up and I can be forgiven later or I can repent my sins. It keeps me grounded that you have one life, don't throw it away and treasure it and those close by.

Modifié par billy the squid, 07 juin 2012 - 10:45 .