Villain

If there is no such thing as an objective definition of a philosopher, then it leaves us only with our subjective definition, which may or may not be a combination of others subjective definitions. What we should not do is deny our responsibility to choose by pretending that there is no choice.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that there is an objective thing such as a philosopher, by which people can class you or anyone else as. Euthyphro springs to mind .

Well like Hypervalent_Iodine I would prefer to report them to the police (out of interest why is that not a viable option?) but given the choice presented I think I would want the suicide of the killer. It's interesting because it's almost a variant of the trolley problem and in that case I think I would save the many for the few (if it comes down to simple numbers)

The police is not an option in this case because it passes responsibility to a third party and can stop people from thinking about the situation in favour of a cultural norm.

I appreciate that this is a thought experiment, but can't accept the dichotomy you've presented. You are asking whose life or lives would I rather save (assuming that this person would do what I say) where the choice is between a sociopathic murderer (it doesn't matter what they do for a living) or numerous 'innocent' bystanders (I say 'innocent,' because for all I know they could be murderers too). My response is that I cannot rank a life as being more or less worth saving in that manner as I don't believe that it is my position to make that judgement, nor do I think that it should be anyone else's.

 

If I were presented with this question in real life, my answer is that I would not answer, as I have already stated. At best I would say not to, on the proviso that they turn themselves in to authorities. How is that not an appropriate answer to your question? What exactly is compelling me to have to make a choice between the two options in the first place?

There is nothing compelling you, I was merely asking for an option and explanation from those that want/ed to answer. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to answer within the parameters. If you can't or don't want to, then don't.

They aren't a relative, you know them because she saved your life after a car accident. (Please stick to the options if you are going to answer).

There exists a doctor, who saves a life every week day. On weekends, she takes on a persona in the lines of American Psycho and kills one person on Saturdays and one person on Sundays.

Lately she has confided in you and has given you the option to decide whether they should commit suicide or not. Their life lies in your hands, what would you chose and why?

 

I would have to rethink things. But how would it do that? The convict can't kill any more innocents, and it's not a deterrent.

 

I can understand the perspective of the victims; I was in the DC area when the snipers were killing people back in 2003, and it was not a nice feeling to be thus terrorized, and I can only try an imagine what the friends and families of the people killed felt. I didn't lose any sleep when they executed John Allen Muhammed. But that's a big reason why you don't let the targets of a crime choose the punishment. It's a justice system, not a revenge system.

 

It's also cheaper (in the US) to put people in prison for life rather than executing them

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.UtP8iqUfz8s

The innocent people, killed by the convict sentenced to life in prison, all work in the prison (guards, cleaners etc), obviously it's just hypothetical.

 

Once you kill a wrongly-convicted person, it's impossible to free them.

To play devil's advocate, let's assume the death penalty saves more innocent lives then those that are wrongfully accused and sentenced to death, would you chose death penalty or not?

Not sure why this is in the Ethics section.

The OP has also failed to mention the high Gini coefficient in South Africa which is more likely to have contributed to crime than the lack of the death penalty.

In any event, " die hard christians who insist that creationism is right" should be able to provide evidence to support their assertion.

Unless they don't want to, in which case they'll just carry on with their lives. This assertion only makes sense if both sides buy into it.

We're probably too far apart on this for any of this to matter, but off the top of my head:

• Provisional acceptance versus faith-based certainty
• Based on well tested models of underlying system dynamics versus made up to suit whatever fiction or wish desired by the believer
• Consistent across all observers regardless of worldview versus different depending on who you happen to ask
• Well defined and falsifiable by observation versus ambiguous and not even testable by definition
• Dynamic and updated/refined based on experience versus consistent and static regardless of evidence, and even in the face of contradictory evidence
• Rational versus absurd
• Etc.

The idea is that there are important differences between things like a child's belief that an easter bunny is responsible for hiding eggs in spring and an adults recognition that genetics play an important role in our morphology. Treating them as if they are equivalent as you've been doing here suggests a myopic agenda, lack of practical reason and rationality, and implies that you're failing to approach the discussion in good faith.

 

If you think there is no relevant difference between fiction and non-fiction, then that's your prerogative. Have fun with that.

 

- The amount of acceptance is dependant on the person accepting

- Models bring in the problem of induction, which is not validated by reason exactly the same as faith systems

- The consistency really doesn't matter, either it's right or wrong, and with induction there's no way of knowing until it's wrong much the same as faith

- Only false things can be proven/tested as false so you're suck with not knowing the truth factor much like faith

- Changing your induction because it failed only highlights the problem of induction further, there is no rule that says faith systems can't change so I don't know why you are portraying them as such

- Rational?????? Look up the definition

- Etc.

 

Would you consider legal defense 1: "We found his DNA at the scene, and the weapon with his prints on it in his car"

And legal defense 2: "We just have absolute faith that he did it."

 

to have equivalent veracity?

Welcome to the thread

Your example of a singular case really doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about.

I and others already have repeatedly. You're conflating use of the word faith, and disregarding the importance of evidence and verifiability. A provisional acceptance that the sun will rise again tomorrow based on our understanding of the dynamics involved in the system is not equivalent to absolute faith based solely on unevidenced belief that Brahman or Apollo or Allah float outside the universe and decide which leprechauns get to exist.

On what grounds are they different?

^ Out of curiosity, are you being intentionally obtuse about this point, or are you genuinely continuing to miss it? Do you even know?

So far I've questioned the legitimacy of using induction to which you've replied: evidence and historical observation, which clearly suggests that you are the one missing the point. If I've missed something else you are welcome to point it out.

Cannot offer an axiomatic proof, only confirmation. We have a model that doesn't just say, duh it happened before so will happen again. We have a model that predicts when, where, etc. It works, but can and will fail someday.

 

You are basically saying 99% = 1% If something isn't 100% or 0% true, then we know nothing. You don't operate that way. If you were a brain in a vat, maybe. But there is a reality out there, or at least that's what I'm going with.

 

There's really nothing new that you've added here, besides maybe the word 'model'.

 

 

Logical proof doesn't separate the two, but EVIDENCE and VERIFICATION do. That's why you see all the noise about evidence. Without it, anything goes.

 

Going back to the swans, we have some idea why there are white ones and black ones and some mixture. Would you expect to find a tie-dyed swan? How about a transparent one? Is there a REASON why you might be skeptical about that? Is it only because no one has ever seen one?

Look, you can write it in italics if you like, it's not going to change things.

I'm not looking for swans so I'm not expecting to find any. If I was to see a tie-dye swan I would probably be quite surprised since I've never seen one before but that is because of habit not reason.

That wasn't my position, though, and this should be clear based on the words I actually posted. You even quoted it, so it's odd there remains such confusion. Again, here's what I said:

 

" [The idea that the sun will probably rise again tomorrow morning is not faith, but is instead] a provisional acceptance of something as being likely, not a blind faith that something is absolutely correct. A scientific thinker will always stipulate that we could be wrong, only that it's unlikely given the consistency of historical observation and our understanding of the underlying dynamics of the system."

 

On what grounds are you provisionally accepting the sun will rise? Historical observation and our understanding, in this case, are 'All observed A's have been B's'.

 

 

I did not suggest that.......................tends to reduce blood glucose levels.

I get your point and at face value they seem at opposite ends of the spectrum but if we break both methods down, reason is not what differentiates the two.

Perhaps the issue is that you're describing it as an assumed position, instead of a conditional conclusion. In case you aren't aware or are being intentionally obtuse, I'll spell it out for you. The idea that the sun will rise again tomorrow is a conditional conclusion rooted in evidence and reason. It's really that simple. It's a provisional acceptance of something as being likely, not a blind faith that something is absolutely correct. A scientific thinker will always stipulate that we could be wrong, only that it's unlikely given the consistency of historical observation and our understanding of the underlying dynamics of the system. That likelihood is only further strengthened by the fact that such observations are also consistent across ALL observers, regardless of worldview or ideology.

 

Compare that, however, to the position of theists who conclude with absolute certainty in the face of zero evidence whatsoever that their position is valid and accurate. Recall also that different theists have different perspectives about the nature of god(s) or heavens, and each thinks their own personal version of these ideas are absolutely correct, despite the fact that their positions are not consistent with all other theists on the planet and often the faith based beliefs of one individual directly contradict the faith based beliefs of other individuals. There is no consistency, and either one or both of them is wrong.

 

To suggest the two are equivalent (a confidence that the sun will come up again tomorrow and a bind faith that your own personally preferred version of the existence of cloud surfing sky pixies who care whether or not we wear clothes of different fibers or stone homosexuals to death) is to be disingenuous in the extreme. It suggests that perhaps you're not approaching the discussion in good faith, and instead are here solely to muddy the waters and attempt to buttress your baseless religious position by suggesting some false equivalency with science and empiricism. You're conflating the usages of the term faith, and ignoring the important differences in the application of the term across the different contexts.

No let me spell it out for you: All observed A's have been B's, doesn't mean that all A's are B's. Using historical observation as a justification is circular reasoning.

I used the word faith, which doesn't mean 'absolute certainty' so the rest of your argument is a straw man. You're also suggesting that theists never change their theological viewpoint, which is also ridiculous.

Nowhere did I say they were equivalent, I did however mention that neither is validated through reason and that both required faith to be validated.

If you think the sun only rises 60% of the time then you have not been paying attention.

Or was that just an attempt to divert attention away from how successful science is and what a poor showing religion has when it comes to actually achieving things?

If it was the latter then I think you failed quite spectacularly. Most of us still know what evidence is and that it is the distinction between science and religion..

Also, you seem to be deliberately missing the point that it is backed by experimental evidence (in a way that religious faith is not).

Induction is only right when it's not wrong, but one can only tell when it's wrong. The classic example is: all swans are white, which seemed correct until a black swan was seen. You seem to be so in awe of the times that induction has served a purpose but conveniently ignore all the times that it has lead to failure.

 

 

 

 

How is the data obtained via scientific naturalism not reason?

As pears pointed out there is a difference between a singular piece of evidence pointing to a singular conclusion and drawing an universal conclusion from multiple events.

Nobody cares about the pure logic POV because all it tells you is that you don't really know anything (ask Descartes). That's no use to anyone (except those seeking to pretend that religion is as well founded as science).

 

The assumption that what has happened tends to continue to happen is indeed an assumption. It is however an assumption based on evidence.

It is self- referential to say "(that which has always been observed will continue to be observed)" but that's not a problem, because it's generally true.

 

There are still two systems here, one is based on evidence (and includes, implicitly and often explicitly) the assumption that evidence works.

There the other system which, by now, is largely based on deceipt, and contradictory assertions, is called religion.

I guess it's of no use pointing out that you're using circular reasoning, since logic is a waste of time in your point of view.

You need to learn that induction, while not absolutely reliable, is the basis on which most human progress has been made.

Comparing it to the made up fantasy world that is religion doesn't make you look good.

 

You also need to realise that I do understand its flaws, that why I said " and things that are repeatable tend to be repeatable" rather than "and things that are repeatable are repeatable"

Your assertion of my ignorance flies in the face of the facts.

In honour of the new Anchorman: 60% of the time, it works everytime .

 

So knowing how the solar system works and the motions of the Earth is not enough to assume the sun will come up tomorrow?

You can assume but that is exactly my point, it is an assumed position which is not backed through reason.

I can't speak for iNow, but my faith that the sun will come up tomorrow is based on evidence (it has come up every morning before, and things that are repeatable tend to be repeatable)

 

 

If I was asleep at the time, my mind (and it's habits) wouldn't be affecting the break of dawn, but it would still happen.

 

That's half the difference between scientific and religious belief- the importance of evidence.

The other difference is that science wants to change, but religion wants to stay the same.

Only one of those two strategies can lead to improvement.

Your sun example is a mistake of induction as I pointed out in the post above yours.

Except, it's NOT the same, and one IS supported by reason and evidence. It's a conflation of terms, and you're basically using little more than a word trick in an attempt to buttress your religious position. The usages are importantly different, as one is equivalent to "justified confidence" whereas the other is equivalent to "unevidenced belief." One is about having expectations based on evidence and experience, the other is about blindly accepting something as absolutely true based on wish-thinking and worldview alone.There was a good article elucidating this position just 2 weeks ago, and I've laid it out myself repeatedly here in the past. You are merely repeating a long debunked canard. You can continue posting with vitriol, condescension, and personal venomous barbs all you want, but doing so will not in any way change the simple truth of what I've shared.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.htmlAnd finally, here:http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Yip, some more induction, wrong again. Maybe you should read up on the problem of induction this time or stay ignorant, it's your choice.

As always, we're seeing theists conflate the usages of faith. My "faith" that the sun will come over the horizon again tomorrow morning is based on evidence and experience and is better described as "trust," and it is not the same as your "faith" that a magical sky dictator floats around in the clouds and cares whether or not we eat fish on Fridays or masturbate. My "faith" that insulin lowers blood sugar levels is hardly equivalent to your "faith" that we go to magical place called heaven when we die. Pretending they are the same is either ignorant or disingenuous, neither of which is all too flattering for the person expressing the conflation of terms.

 

Faith is little more than pretending to know something that cannot be known. This was also already pointed out repeatedly and quite clearly in the thread to which Hypervalent linked.

Yes and your 'faith' that the sun will come up tomorrow is merely a habit of your mind and is not supported by reason, just like all other forms of faith, why don't you educate yourself and go look up the 'problem of induction'.

 

Because it asks you to unquestioningly believe in something you can't possibly know about.

 

Relying on faith is like selling everything you own to place a bet on a horse race. You're absolutely sure of the bet NOT because you've scouted the track and know every horse and jockey and have taken weather and crowds into consideration. You place the bet based on a "hunch", a gut feeling, or because someone else told you the horse was a winner.

 

How is that rational?

Get off your high horse, all human systems are built upon a foundation of faith.

 

But it's neither.

 

It's not soapboxing because Trimidity isn't pushing an agenda she isn't willing to discuss, and it's not off-topic because Trimidity was responding to why atheism might be considered a religion. It seems perfectly legitimate to spotlight why atheists are forced to discuss god(s) with theists, especially if those discussions are being used to support the ridiculous notion that talking about why you don't believe in god(s) makes you religious.

 

And the topic is "Can atheists be religious?", in case you didn't know.

I realise that moderators are not exempt from human bias but it takes a lot of imagination to say that their post is not pushing an agenda. The use of the word 'must' clearly shows a command. Not to mention the overall theme that generalises theist are somehow forcing (yes force was used) people to into submission. It's promoting bigotry and if the same post had been done by a theist the result would have been completely different. I just don't see why this sort of stuff is condoned.

Thanks Phi

 

Villain,

 

 

 

Factual correctness

 

a.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/strategies-of-the-jehovahs-witnesses

b.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3596

c.

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/09/162570987/german-catholics-path-to-heaven-comes-with-taxes

d.

http://humanismbyjoe.co/catholic-sex/

e.

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/divorce/

 

Relevance to the thread

 

Title of the thread: ‘Are atheists religious?’ (for your benefit Villain)

 

Point made by s1eep:

 

i. S1eep posits that, because atheists answer and re-state their position on the existence of God, then they are religious

ii. My comment pointed out the reasons (factually correct, above – please feel free to challenge if you think necessary) why it is impossible for atheists to ignore the God question and to ignore the quality control by which theists reach their conclusions – in a nutshell, many theist institutions seek to dominate various spheres of public life, on the back of conclusions that they have reached through faith alone. The consequences are shared by all.

 

If you are unable to understand the logical progression of the two points above then it is beyond my powers to help you.

 

 

 

 

No, I am not suggesting that these types of abuse are perpetrated only by theists. However, female genital mutilation (FGM) occurs almost exclusively in Muslim communities. The other types of abuses creep in once vulnerable individuals have been primed to accept, unquestioningly, ‘truths’ passed down by authority figures – the male (husband/father) being second only to God himself, with wives and children expected to be subservient to his rule. It is not difficult to appreciate how child sexual abuse scandals, such as the one that has riddled the Catholic Church, are left to go unchecked for decades. Atheists and fellow theists ought to intervene whenever and wherever such an abuse takes place – whether it be perpetrated by an atheist or by a theist.

 

I notice, Villain, that you criticise the style of my comments and not their content. What's up with that?

 

If the distribution of pamphlets is forcing you to stave off conversion then it's probably good for you because obviously your position is not very strong.

If you're an atheist why would you even consider what the catholic church has to say? If the attempts at brainwashing in the 50s and 60s failed, which they did, then how are certain published views affecting your life?

If you're addressing S1eep then don't write layman77 at the beginning of your post or at least address S1eep in a new paragraph addressed to S1eep. It doesn't make sense to all of a sudden claim that you're answering a post by S1eep.

I'm glad to read that you are indeed opposed to all forms of abuse, I suggest that you highlight that in future instead of pointing to certain transgressions as if they are the only ones that you would oppose.

 

Well, it probably did read like a manifesto, I am a humanist and heavily invested in these questions. I maintain though, that my comments addressed the assertions put forth by other members (s1eep, if I remember correctly) that becoming involved in discussions on the existence or otherwise of God, and other theological questions, renders atheists automatically 'religious'. If you cannot be bothered to invest the energy to tell me which part of my comments you deem to be factually incorrect, and which parts you deem to be inappropriately emotional, then I am afraid I cannot be bothered to invest the energy in responding to your accusations any longer. Good day.

Why I have to further point out what is wrong with your post doesn't make any sense to me, it's so blatantly obvious.

 

 

Atheists must re-state their positions so as to stave off conversion. More importantly, atheists must reclaim from theists the spheres of public life that theists have historically taken for granted, including matters of morality, finance, sexual behaviour, marriage and relationships.

Clearly preaching and soapboxing which is against rule 8 section 2 of the Forums rules, not to mention off topic (it's 'Can theists be religious?' in case you didn't know).

 

 

When theists begin dominating their wives and children by maiming them (FGM) or by threatening or carrying out sexual, physical, psychological or emotional abuse - or when they initiate wars in the name of religion - or when they persecute non-believers (Inquisition) or homosexuals - you can guarantee that atheists will intervene. Damn right we will. Because humans belong to humanity not to a particular nation or religion.

Are you saying that dominating wives and children by maiming or by threatening, sexual, physical, psychological or emotional abuse is only wrong when theists do it or are you making some bs claim that only theists do these kinds of things?

 

Villain, how was that soapboxing? I was addressing the question, as raised in the thread, regarding the reasons why atheists take part in the discussion with respect to the existence or otherwise of God. One member suggests that, since atheists become involved in the discussion, they are not passively lacking belief in God but are actively believing in the lack of a God, and therefore are religious. My response above outlines the reasons why atheists become involved in the discussion - namely because theists hijack all spheres of public life, it is impossible not to become involved. The thread was long, which is why I did not choose to quote and reply to individual snippets of the discussion, but rather read through and to make a mental summary of the key points - and to reply to the summary as a whole.

 

If there is anything in there which you think is factually incorrect and is merely an emotional soliloquy, then please let me know, as I have no qualms about defending my arguments and their relevance to the thread.

 

Tri

I don't know which post you're replying to (since as you've pointed out there's no quote) but the part that I quoted reads like some sort of manifesto.

 

Atheists must re-state their positions so as to stave off conversion. More importantly, atheists must reclaim from theists the spheres of public life that theists have historically taken for granted, including matters of morality, finance, sexual behaviour, marriage and relationships. Being (for the most part) tolerant folk, atheists are happy to grant theists the freedom to choose and practise their religion, so long as they keep themselves to themselves as far as these practises and opinions are concerned. When religious types begin attempting to dominate the women and children in other groups and (more commonly) their own group - religion becomes a problem. Adults (assuming that they have not been indoctrinated beyond all repair since childhood) have the freedom to choose their own religion based on their preferred methods of gleaning truth. Children are not so fortunate, especially if the familial and community pressures are strong to conform and to forego any questioning. When theists begin dominating their wives and children by maiming them (FGM) or by threatening or carrying out sexual, physical, psychological or emotional abuse - or when they initiate wars in the name of religion - or when they persecute non-believers (Inquisition) or homosexuals - you can guarantee that atheists will intervene. Damn right we will. Because humans belong to humanity not to a particular nation or religion.

Soapboxing is against the forum rules

But because religion doesn't necessarily involve belief in gods, then that explains why atheists can also be considered religious.

I think you mean to say: because religion doesn't necessarily involve belief in gods, atheists are not necessarily irreligious.