Go Back   AFA Forums > Religion, Unreason and Similar Tropes > Belief Central

Belief Central A place for the discussion of belief or a colony for repeated logical fallacies or misrepresentations.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1251  
Old 19th March 2017, 07:20 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 17,906
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Yes, based on methodological naturalism there are only 2 sources of receiving information. But if there exists the supernatural it is possible for there to be more sources.
It does not matter how much "information" one gets from "supernatural sources" there is no way to evaluate it. So it is useless.

One does find however, that many sources of information claimed to have originated from supernatural sources, are actually from natural sources, misinterpreted. This includes claims by humans that they have heard the word of god, claims that people have seen fairies or ghosts, etc, etc.

And by evaluating a claim does not mean one gauges the strength of belief, or the antiquity of the claim, or how many believe it. These are all false methods of evaluation. This is why a lot of theological "epistemology" is hopelessly flawed.

Religions make a big show of telling their flocks NOT to look to reason, and not to look for evidence [especially contrary evidence], because they know that those things are the killers of religious belief.

In fact they demonise it. Knowledge is a sin, "doubting Thomas's" are held in contempt. Thus we have "Old Nick" the trickster. Talk about projection! The religious are projecting their own tricks onto their enemies: people who follow reason and evidence.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifyable hypotheses to destruction.
  #1252  
Old 19th March 2017, 08:42 PM
Strato's Avatar
Strato Strato is offline
What Me Deluded?
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Bellarine, Geelong.
Posts: 4,965
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy.

St. Thomas Aquinas.
__________________
Order degrades to disorder and does so because there are so many ways to be disordered.
Brian Greene, The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos.
  #1253  
Old 20th March 2017, 11:39 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
The Irreverent Mr Black said View Post
So, A,B, therefore Z? Please clarify if that's how you're going. (Include accounting for confirmation bias, if you can, just to be helpful.)

I've been down that road, ptutt. Some of the longer-established posters here are aware of how I became a believer, and what followed.
I wouldn't say A, B, therefore Z. But maybe, A, B, therefore C, D or E .

I'll give you some background...

Ever since young (about 5yrs old), with minimal instruction (we maybe talked about religion twice as a family that I can remember and I never went to church) I have had a sense of God's presence and who God is.

I received a Gideon's bible in high school and read it. I was deeply impacted by Jesus life and teaching.

In my early 20's I saw the futility of life as it laid before me and sort deeper meaning and purpose and decided I should go to church.

Then the JW's started visiting and I studied with them.

At that time I prayed for God to help me find the truth. Shortly after, my best friend, who was agnostic, had just started to be involved in bible study and asked me to join.

I studied the bible with some of the guys from that church and agreed with the teaching and decided to commit my life to God.

My nature is to always question. Question everything. I annoy people because they think I don't trust their knowledge, but I just seek to understand and I continue to prod until I do.

So, here I am. I have questions. I have questions in my own faith (that I don't seek answers here ). I have attempted to rationalise a naturalistic worldview, but I have questions.

I don't come here to convince anyone of anything. It's a discussion. It's a journey...I have no destination in mind. Hope we can mutually benefit along the way.
  #1254  
Old 20th March 2017, 11:42 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
pipbarber said View Post
...therefore, why on earth are you attempting to justify that belief through reason and the machinations of physical reality?
I did say primary reason. I also think reasoning and observation can support belief.
  #1255  
Old 21st March 2017, 12:03 AM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Stick around with Dtella dubia
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Living on the celiing
Posts: 1,664
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Quote:
The Irreverent Mr Black said View Post
So, A,B, therefore Z? Please clarify if that's how you're going. (Include accounting for confirmation bias, if you can, just to be helpful.)

I've been down that road, ptutt. Some of the longer-established posters here are aware of how I became a believer, and what followed.
I wouldn't say A, B, therefore Z. But maybe, A, B, therefore C, D or E .

I'll give you some background...
(snip for brevity by Black)
Yet each of these steps would follow under confirmation bias.

Ever lost your faith, Ptutt?

I went, step by step, down the road, hand in hand (or so I supposed) with God. Wonderful things happened, and my faith grew.

Well, I'm here now, an unbeliever, after my journey and a close brush with joining the ministry.

I've got some notes that might turn into a book, and might soon start releasing segments on the forums.

I hope to help you test everything in a very Thessalonian way.
__________________

Democracy is all about not electing the wrong man-eating lizard. - Douglas Adams

Like Blue Lightning, DanDare liked this post
  #1256  
Old 21st March 2017, 12:06 AM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Stubby said View Post
I first said it in post 1069.

Without actually using the word “evolve” I also made several points about the changing of morals over time in post 1094.

Again, without using the word “evolve” I referred to morality being understood through new learning in post 1189.

In post 1197, I expressly stated that morality evolves. In fact, what I said was “I contend that what is considered moral evolves over time as we as a race learn stuff.”

In fact, it was you who asked me if morality had improved, in post 1215, just yesterday.

In reply to that question, I said, “Of course morality has improved – at the very least we as a species now accept that the whole planet shouldn’t be killed off for not following arbitrary rules”: Post 1218
I just wanted to confirm if you wanted to hold to the view that morality has improved. Thanks.

Quote:
You are misquoting me or misrepresenting the context of the quote. I do not respect that. Please apologise.



“Improvement” is defined as: “a thing that makes something better or is better than something else.” I have no idea where you get your definitions from. Anyway, your whole thinking is flawed here. I think the fact that humans now understand that slavery, raping your enemies' daughters and killing children in the name of religion are immoral means morality has improved. Don't you?
Note here, you are trying to support your case by asking for my agreement. I am asking you to support your case from first principles. How do you know it has improved? How do you evaluate improvement? How do you measure the goodness of morality?

Quote:

Not at all.

Again with the quote mining. Why is that apologists always resort to this?

My exact quote was: “The collective wisdom of tens of thousands of years of information and understanding.”
Not quote mining, I was just too lazy to type the codes for italics. Sorry about that.

You say “The collective wisdom of tens of thousands of years of information and understanding.” How is that a measure? Please demonstrate how you use it to evaluate the 'goodness' of an action.

Quote:
To answer the question – which I have repeatedly done over the entire thread – I will refer you back to one of my comments (in post 862 and dated 2 August 2016) when I answered your question about caveman Bob and caveman Barry.
Actually, if you review my question and your response you would see that your answer, was not an answer to my question.

I stated "Good and bad have to do with intent/purpose. To decide if something is good/bad we first need to determine what we are trying to achieve."

I then used the example to demonstrate that when purpose is subjective, how can one person say that another's actions are wrong if they don't hold to the same intent or purpose of particular actions.

I ended my example with "So the problem is if purpose is arbitrarily assigned, even if useful one cannot say to another that what they are doing is wrong if they have arbitrarily assigned a different purpose."

The point you made seemed to be that behaviours that promote greater survival prevail. From what I can tell this has nothing to do with my questions you claim to have answered.

Quote:


I respectfully suggest that you now admit that you have failed to prove that morality is objective.
Suggestion respectfully denied
  #1257  
Old 21st March 2017, 12:19 AM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,815
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

@Phil – Although I'm not going to duplicate all of the excellent points being made by some of your interlocutors, further to Mr Black's most recent post, could I offer these thoughts for you to reflect upon? It's a part of a debate between some Sydney Atheists and some Seventh Day Adventists from a year or two back.

If you have the right sort of computer or device and OS, this should open at the correct place, which is not the start:



If my attempt at time-forcing the link doesn't work for you, or it opens at the start, use this link instead:



but fast forward to about 1 hour, 10 minutes and 30 seconds. Then, the speaker, Alaric Goldkhul, a Theologian, speaks for less than 10 minutes. Listen to what he says.

And reflect upon Alaric's thoughts, to borrow Mr Black's turn of phrase, in a very Thessalonian way.

Best wishes,
BL
__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Blue Lightning; 21st March 2017 at 12:46 AM.
Thank DanDare thanked this post
  #1258  
Old 21st March 2017, 12:30 AM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
DanDare said View Post
Depends on what you mean by it. Bring back the quantum indeterminancy. Then you cannot know the future, even if it is fully determined that is true. But you have models of how you want the future to go. Of what actions you can take to bring that future into being, and how likely they may be to succeed. The fact that you may be totally wrong, totally right or somewhere in between makes no difference because you cannot know that and don't make it a concern.


You seem to think that a mind is a monolithic, single entity. I know that is how it feels, I feel like I am one "thing". However we are not, we are a community of mind parts all working together and often producing internal conflict.
Ok, that makes sense. Although, I would still say the mind is a single entity with many parts. What is amazing about he human brain is the coordination of the different brain centres to package the information together.

Quote:
When you learn you are building new mind parts and connecting them to existing ones. When your body is stressed different parts of your mind have more autonomy and control than others. Same if you relax and meditate. When you "think through a problem" part of your mind is building scenarios, other parts of your mind are pulling them apart looking for flaws, still others looking for values and possibilities.

The problem is too few people are good at, or even do, introspection to understand how they, themselves, actually work.
That stuff is too scary. Much easier to believe we are perfect beings and adjust the facts to suit . They are not good at it because of their genetics and environment which predicts their future actions and thoughts.

So we have 2 scenarios:
i) a naturalistic worldview where all of our actions are determined by our genetics and environment. We could not have willed ourselves to do anything different than what we have done. On this view, accountability does not make sense, just as a rock is not accountable because the rocks behaviour determined by it's intrinsic properties given it and it's environment causes it to roll down a hill and kill someone.
ii) a supernatural worldview where we have a spirit or soul with the ability to act freely and independently from past events. On this worldview accountability for actions does make sense.
  #1259  
Old 21st March 2017, 01:20 AM
Sendraks's Avatar
Sendraks Sendraks is offline
Buffoon
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 500
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
I also think reasoning and observation can support belief.
They are the only ways to support a belief.

Unless a belief can be evidentially supported, it is baseless.
__________________
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - which is true. Because if it did, it would stop" - Dara O'Briain
Like DanDare liked this post
  #1260  
Old 21st March 2017, 04:27 AM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,650
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
That stuff is too scary. Much easier to believe we are perfect beings and adjust the facts to suit . They are not good at it because of their genetics and environment which predicts their future actions and thoughts.

So we have 2 scenarios:
i) a naturalistic worldview where all of our actions are determined by our genetics and environment. We could not have willed ourselves to do anything different than what we have done. On this view, accountability does not make sense, just as a rock is not accountable because the rocks behaviour determined by it's intrinsic properties given it and it's environment causes it to roll down a hill and kill someone.
ii) a supernatural worldview where we have a spirit or soul with the ability to act freely and independently from past events. On this worldview accountability for actions does make sense.
Don't know what exactly you find scary, but your comparing a rock, that can only react to physical changes in keeping with the physics of that process doesn't really have any similarity to a person.

Unfortunately your ii) doesn't take into account god, who already knows everything that has ever happened and is going to happen. In that scenario you don't have free will, you are always going to do what god knows you are going to do whether you think you are exerting free will or not!

In scenario ii) how can you be held responsible for actions that are going to happen regardless of your illusion of free will?
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Like DanDare liked this post
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 09:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.