Stefan's atheism ?

[barn]

44 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

Forgive me,[...]

All is fine, dandy and with rose petals.

=(Rosa floribunda 'Europeana').

Thank you for your interesting engagement, see you around.

Barnsley

Edited May 5, 2018 by barn
' the other roses, their petals are more graceful '

[Kohlrak]

23 minutes ago, neeeel said:

 

What? Evidence, and proof are pretty much synonymous. they can vary in exactly what they mean, eg a mathematical proof, but are often interchangeable.

 

 

Proof and evidence are similar, but not the same. If someone is dead in front of me, and i see blood on the hands of someone else in the room, that is evidence that the person with blood on their hands committed murder. It's also evidence of self-defense. It's also evidence of the person attempting to perform CPR on the dead person. It could be evidence for a multitude of other things depending on why the person before me is dead. However, it is not proof.

 

26 minutes ago, neeeel said:

 

What proof do I have that space exists? Not sure what you mean by space? Do you mean where the planets and stars are? I can look out into the night and see the stars and planets. Sight, sound, taste , touch and smell is proof that something exists( it could be a hallucination, sure, but all of your senses and knowledge build to a coherent understanding of the world).

 

Same with whales. I have seen pictures and videos of whales. I have seen other fish, and dolphins, it doesnt seem a stretch to believe that bigger fish exist. I can, if I want, go and see a whale in a zoo, or pay to go on a boat and see a whale. If I didnt believe in whales, I would also have to believe that there is a huge conspiracy by nearly every other human being to pretend that whales exist, to fake pictures, movies, and robotic whales to put in zoos and seas. It seems very unlikely.

 

 

People on drugs see God, angels, satan, Bob Marley, Elvis in his 80s, and a number of other things. People on drugs can "smell colors." People with problems without it being tied to drugs can see these things, too. None of this is proof, but evidence. I believe in whales, dolphines, and a number of other things, because of the scale of evidence. It's quite possible there is a conspiracy against me, but that's not a reasonable line of thought. Evidence is enough. The problem with evidence is that, unlike proof, it tends to disappear, degrade, etc.

 

We could go further: there is plenty of evidence that UFOs exist. Sure, some people fake videos of UFO sightings, and people also photoshop their photos to show these 10 out of 10 babes with them claiming that they're a girlfriend. 10 out of 10 women exist, but that doesn't mean it's their girlfriend (maybe they are, but we know there are plenty of confirmed fakes). Meanwhile, unidentified objects are in our skies all the time. We have plenty of visual evidence of this. What we don't have is evidence that these things are from anywhere other than earth. We also know that governments and scientists are constantly trying to make objects fly using different shapes and methods. Are people who believe in UFOs irrational or insane? What about people who believe in extraterrestrials? What about people who believe they're angels or demons? What about people who believe angels or demons are extraterrestrials? We don't need to go through all the questions to come to a simple reasonable conclusion: some people can believe in things that we find ridiculous, while being reasonable and rational in doing so. Given we don't have all the evidence that they do, they might have plenty more than we for whatever they believe. They could also be irrational, as well. We don't know. But that is one of the many reasons we believe in free speech: there are things we don't know, and it's not ethical to silence someone simply because we don't agree with them. That's why rationality is important, as well: if you claim someone is irrational, you are attempting to discredit or silence someone you don't agree with, and you have to ask yourself if it is even appropriate. Project MKUltra (the very conspiracy theory that led people to equate tinfoil hats with irrational conspiracy theories) should be a good indication of how we need to start being more careful with who we brush aside: they might be nutty, doing irrational things, but they might also be onto something even if they're wrong (turns out they were onto something, it just wasn't mind control rays).

 

50 minutes ago, neeeel said:

It seems like you think you have "gotcha'd" me because I accept some things without proof, and not others. You are incorrect. Whales are consistent with everything I know about the world. The possibility that its a hoax is incredibly small, in my opinion. There is physical evidence of whales. Are you seriously saying theres no evidence that whales exist?

 

Please don't suggest that i'm irrational simply because you are. But let me ask you, does "being consistent with everything I know about the world" constitute as proof or evidence to you? God's existence certainly isn't inconsistent with anything i know. Neither unicorns, space aliens, or Dovahkiin. I certainly have a much different standard.

53 minutes ago, neeeel said:

theres also the point that, if I am wrong about whales, its not a huge deal. It doesnt change my life in any way. If I believe in a (Christian) god, it affects my life hugely, in how I think and act. So, I can accept that whales exist, without being too bothered about it, any lack of evidence doesnt have an effect. If I accept god without evidence, there is a huge effect on my life. Delusion about whales has next to no effect. Delusion about god has a huge effect.

 

Oh, so the consequences of belief or disbelief are important factors as well? Truth doesn't care how much or little evidence we have. Truth doesn't care about the consequences of truth. I could be wrong, or I could be right, but the consequences of whether i'm right or wrong have no bearing on whether i'm right or wrong, or are you suggesting that they do? Because, if you want to go down that path, if God doesn't exist, it can ruin my worldview to find that out, but if God does exist, it could very well ruin your worldview. If the consequences are a major factor for whether or not you believe, that's your choice, but don't lie to yourself that one side is infinitely more appealing than it really is.

 

59 minutes ago, neeeel said:

What evidence is there that god exists? So far , anything I have come across is ludicrous, inconclusive, or doesnt hold up rationally. 

 

As i said, evidence comes and goes, just like in murder trials. I'm not here to argue that God exists, but instead that people who believe in God are not irrational simply for believing in God. I could cite a number of things that have not gone, and still are evidence of God, but like in my murder example above, they are also evidence for other explanations.

[neeeel]

you are correct, evidence and proof are not the same. I stand corrected

 

We seem to be roughly on the same page, I would even agree that everyone has irrational beliefs. This doesnt mean that people who believe in god are not irrational. It means that everyone is irrational to some degree. I am not irrational for believing that whales exist. I dont think you can claim that my evidence for whales is the same as other peoples evidence for god.

[Kohlrak]

7 hours ago, neeeel said:

you are correct, evidence and proof are not the same. I stand corrected

 

We seem to be roughly on the same page, I would even agree that everyone has irrational beliefs. This doesnt mean that people who believe in god are not irrational. It means that everyone is irrational to some degree. I am not irrational for believing that whales exist. I dont think you can claim that my evidence for whales is the same as other peoples evidence for god.

 

I wouldn't say that everyone has irrational beliefs. Evidence, not proof, is the basis for whether or not one can believe something based on logic. Base beliefs often come from some degree of evidence. It is when, in the face of contrary evidence, or when your own logic is internally inconsistent, that you become irrational (see definition one provided by google).

 

As for whales, you would be right: the evidence for whales is much stronger than the evidence for God. So let me make a strange case for God, here, one that seems to be very difficult to swallow or follow, because it would be a case using no evidence for the existence of God (aside from the universe itself). This isn't meant to be  legitimate case for God, but to show that even without evidence belief in God can be rational (not smart, and this wouldn't even convince me, but at least it's rational). We know we exist. Either God created the universe or He didn't, regardless of whether or not He used evolution to put man here (or whether or not we're an accident). Now, it is irrational to believe something exists simply without logic and/or reason, but we know the universe exists (without which, we wouldn't). So, the idea that our universe itself is intelligent, therefore God, could still be rational. The argument against would be "well, that's assigning a property to the universe without any evidence what-so-ever and therefore a violation of occam's razor." Yes, i made this case to an atheist before, and that was the counter-argument, which isn't really accurate, but was a good attempt. I asked him why we assume "lack of intelligence" is any different, to which he responded "everything we know that isn't alive is unintelligent." My counter argument (which, I didn't think of at the time, and wish i did, not that it was really meant to be convincing that God does exist) is that the basis for which we define life, we have no reason to believe the universe does not fit, but instead plenty of reason to believe the universe itself DOES fit (to be fair, things which clearly do not live or exist also fit into definition). We believe that viruses are alive, yet other than reproduction (which, under multiverse theory, the universe technically does) it really doesn't have any qualities of life. In the case of something so fundamental as the universe, "intelligence" and "unintelligent" really aren't any more likely than the other, therefore occam's razor cannot be reliably applied (most things that we know that are in constant motion of any kind [like the universe], are very much alive and intelligent [but it really isn't fair to call the universe alive and intelligent simply because it is the container for living and intelligent life]). Now, the universe being itself, and also intelligent, would arguably be all knowing, since it would know everything of itself (or at least try to). Also, since without it existence is impossible, we could argue that to some degree, it is omnipotent.

 

Now, i wouldn't put the above argument as an end all explanation to the existence of God: it's not even remotely convincing, and, at best, proposes a 50-50 scenario, and doesn't even go into the God of Christianity or any other religion. But your challenge is not only to prove the above wrong, but also prove it as both illogical and unreasonable. I'll give you a hint on how to dismantle this: the argument's most likely going to come from demanding a definition for intelligence. You'll also want to take a weak stab at a definition for life, but that might prove even more challenging (as google wasn't very yielding of any particularly strong definition, and it seems that "authorities" have a very, very hard time nailing this down, even without abortion being an issue on the table). Even then, you're making a counter argument. Worse yet, that is one of many, many cases for the potential existence for God, so even if you manage to shoot that down as irrational (it's not enough to simply throw evidence against it, since the person would not be irrational until they reject logic and reason), it doesn't mean all religious are irrational, but if the above idea is rational, then we cannot say that believing in God is immediately irrational (just incredibly unlikely from a rational person who's likely to have more than a little evidence to the contrary). This is why atheists have so much trouble putting God to rest: occam's razor cannot be applied to properties of things that we admittedly don't understand in the slightest.

 

Stefan Molyneux's case of omnipotence and omniscience being unable to co-exist is pretty strong (the only case i've actually seen him make, though i assume he has more?), but does God loose God status if It is missing either attribute? Meanwhile, the rational person (at least a believer) would also question whether or not our definitions of omnipotence and omniscience are rational (for example, the question i asked is whether or not time exists, therefore the past and future being a reasonable subset of knowledge to apply to omniscience). I would argue further, that if the future is already written, then free-will comes into question. This would suggest that free will is also irrational if time exists, unless there's a good argument that escaped my eyes and ears (which is possible, but I expect it, or at least this conflict, to be on Stefan's plate at some point) that contradicts this point. Let's be honest here, since we're talking about Stefan overall, he has admitted that he's been unfair with God, and, like many atheists, this quick, sharp dismissal of Christians as irrational is indicative of this.

 

Fact is, we won't easily make a decision either way of whether or not God exists. This frustration that we have with each other is because we assume the other is irrational. I am not frustrated with atheists, because I do indeed see the rational standpoint. But, unlike myself, my opponents do not. All i want is that both sides of the argument come to accept this. The fact that we know, and have discussed this for such a long period of time, suggests that we (humanity) really haven't finished this discussion. We've defeated santa, ghosts (for the most part), unicorns, dragons, mermaids, yet for some reason we can't defeat God or the state. Clearly there's a reason for this, except we don't know what it is. The frustration only shows that we're not seeing the reason. Worse yet, we keep seeming to reinvent God, in particular.Yes, we have these people, turtles and all.