How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2015, 02:58 PM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(31-07-2015 01:48 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 01:23 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't know if there is. I don't think the evidence of what we see in existence shows any absolute facts, values, or morals. These all appear to be mental constructs, but I don't absolutely know there is no absolutes.

Laws are also another humanly created term with multiple meanings. Those meanings don't really reflect anything other than humans labels them. And Law is clearly just a label as that's just the term in English used.

I can respect your honest statement--thanks for sharing it--that you don't see absolute facts, values or morals. The following questions, therefore, are not meant to shame you, only to enlighten you--and they're good for me to hear as well:

Are you absolutely sure there is no absolute truth?
Well I stated this clearly and purposefully already Q. No, I'm not absolutely sure. I don't know on the case.
Quote:If it is a falsity to say there is absolute truth, don't we have to assume that truth exists to say anything is false?
To say something isn't true isn't the same as saying it is false. You've been on here long enough that you should understand how rational positions on ideas work.
Quote:If there is absolute truth, was it arrived at by random, natural causes?
I don't know if there is, but there is no logically proven reason why any concept still of absolutes or certainties couldn't come about via natural causes. Random or not random.
Quote:If love is truth and hate is false or wrong, how much does love weigh? How large in cubic measurement is hate?
This makes no sense. And if it did make sense how could one calculate the "weight" when you gave no variables, just arbitrary terms.
Quote:Are love and hate merely chemical? Could love and hate be part of the absolute truths I preach on?
There is evidence to support they're mainly chemical yes. Though "could" they be absolutes, potentially if it were a real thing.
Quote:If there are no absolute truths, how come all societies regard murder as absolutely wrong? You see, no one wants to abort life, pro life people affirm life, pro choice people would never kill a toddler, only fetuses they believe are not really living humans, right? Because then abortion would be murder, right?
We are all the same species, there is no great difference between how we behave and act. We share common evolutionary paths and common early cultures that helped establish a great deal of how societies would be structured. Though I don't agree they do regard it as "absolutely" wrong. They also punish abortion less than certain types of killing and punish types of murder wrong. They don't even in the bible or ancient cultures to today's cultures judge equally on degrees of what murder is. Your stances and views don't accurately reflect variations that are around the world. I think further studying of laws, opinion, and cultures not of ones you are familiar with would do you well to expand what others think. Instead of assuming what they think and believing you assume correctly.
Quote:And even cannibals do elaborate rituals and prayers, dancing about before they boil their prey, because they know inside how murder and eating people is wrong, right? And even serial killers know murder is wrong but they just don't feel like its wrong when they kill, right?
You're making an assumption, they do this because they "know murder is wrong." You have evidence of anthropological sources on this? I don't know this is certainly the "reason" upon rituals. There are times people eating any thing honor and preform rituals for honoring reasonings not for declaring it wrong. So I would say I don't know because you just made an assertion without evidence I can't confirm or deny for certain. That also doesn't accurate depict all serial killers. No not all know it's wrong but don't feel it is wrong. There are many sociopath killers who don't feel it is wrong because they lack the normal style brain chemistry that gives people the social feelings to empathize and relate to humans to a degree where they usually wouldn't want to harm them. It varies as some don't proclaim or demonstrate they "know" it was wrong.
Quote:And morals are absolute, of course. A Hindu pays for their sin by working their karma. A Christian trusts that Jesus pays for their sin. An atheist deals with the guilt we ALL feel when we sin by saying there is no sin, no guilt.
well you've transitioned well from asking questions to stating assumptions now. I've never seen an atheist say there is no "emotion" of guilt. There are emotions that effect humans and other social creatures, wolves are a notable example, to feel guilt. It's an emotional response that makes people strive to in some way better the situation or better themselves.

Because the concept is shared across humanity is not in any logical path an evidence point it is absolute. It can be such a way because we are all of the same species and evolutionary origin. People make up far too much to distinguish our differences but we really are still largely the same.
Quote:But there are absolutes. I'm absolutely certain of this fact.

You profess to be absolutely certain but how can you define you know to have justified true belief? How do you qualify what you THINK you know is what you Actually know? Where is the line you draw on? To where you quantify you absolutely know something?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2015, 01:51 PM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(31-07-2015 02:07 PM)julep Wrote:  Double posting because for some reason, I can't see my reply. Apologies if it appears twice; I am responding to Q.

Children who are told not to touch dangerous things by adults are to avoid doing so and are very immature children if they protest entrapment when caught in temptation.

No, I would not hold that value judgment as true. Adults' judgment of what constitutes a "dangerous thing" is questionable, and in many cases, what is being punished essentially is any deviation from abject obedience (and therefore entrapment). My parents felt the TV program M*A*S*H was a dangerous thing and forbade us to watch it. We children obeyed or got beatings, so we followed this rule; this did not, however, make M*A*S*H a dangerous thing, or the rule a good rule, or my parents worthy of being blindly obeyed. It just meant that we children recognized the power dynamic of our household and bided our time until we could get away.

I don't find knowledge of good and evil to be a dangerous thing; the dangerous thing was the abusive creator who punished all of his creations from that point forward for the acts of two.
[/quote]

Head knowledge of good and evil isn't a dangerous thing--that can be a good thing, a thing that protects us.

Experiential knowledge of disobedience to God, or if you like, parents, can be a dangerous thing, a destructive thing, a deadly thing. Disobedience is always contextual, yes, and you have a strong sense of context regarding biblical texts here, however, telling a child to Stop! and having them not listen could literally kill them dead.

There are numerous statements in both testaments affirming the moral goodness of knowledge and wisdom. There are numerous statements affirming the danger of disobedience, which is different than knowledge.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(31-07-2015 02:58 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 01:48 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I can respect your honest statement--thanks for sharing it--that you don't see absolute facts, values or morals. The following questions, therefore, are not meant to shame you, only to enlighten you--and they're good for me to hear as well:

Are you absolutely sure there is no absolute truth?
Well I stated this clearly and purposefully already Q. No, I'm not absolutely sure. I don't know on the case.
Quote:If it is a falsity to say there is absolute truth, don't we have to assume that truth exists to say anything is false?
To say something isn't true isn't the same as saying it is false. You've been on here long enough that you should understand how rational positions on ideas work.
Quote:If there is absolute truth, was it arrived at by random, natural causes?
I don't know if there is, but there is no logically proven reason why any concept still of absolutes or certainties couldn't come about via natural causes. Random or not random.
Quote:If love is truth and hate is false or wrong, how much does love weigh? How large in cubic measurement is hate?
This makes no sense. And if it did make sense how could one calculate the "weight" when you gave no variables, just arbitrary terms.
Quote:Are love and hate merely chemical? Could love and hate be part of the absolute truths I preach on?
There is evidence to support they're mainly chemical yes. Though "could" they be absolutes, potentially if it were a real thing.
Quote:If there are no absolute truths, how come all societies regard murder as absolutely wrong? You see, no one wants to abort life, pro life people affirm life, pro choice people would never kill a toddler, only fetuses they believe are not really living humans, right? Because then abortion would be murder, right?
We are all the same species, there is no great difference between how we behave and act. We share common evolutionary paths and common early cultures that helped establish a great deal of how societies would be structured. Though I don't agree they do regard it as "absolutely" wrong. They also punish abortion less than certain types of killing and punish types of murder wrong. They don't even in the bible or ancient cultures to today's cultures judge equally on degrees of what murder is. Your stances and views don't accurately reflect variations that are around the world. I think further studying of laws, opinion, and cultures not of ones you are familiar with would do you well to expand what others think. Instead of assuming what they think and believing you assume correctly.
Quote:And even cannibals do elaborate rituals and prayers, dancing about before they boil their prey, because they know inside how murder and eating people is wrong, right? And even serial killers know murder is wrong but they just don't feel like its wrong when they kill, right?
You're making an assumption, they do this because they "know murder is wrong." You have evidence of anthropological sources on this? I don't know this is certainly the "reason" upon rituals. There are times people eating any thing honor and preform rituals for honoring reasonings not for declaring it wrong. So I would say I don't know because you just made an assertion without evidence I can't confirm or deny for certain. That also doesn't accurate depict all serial killers. No not all know it's wrong but don't feel it is wrong. There are many sociopath killers who don't feel it is wrong because they lack the normal style brain chemistry that gives people the social feelings to empathize and relate to humans to a degree where they usually wouldn't want to harm them. It varies as some don't proclaim or demonstrate they "know" it was wrong.
Quote:And morals are absolute, of course. A Hindu pays for their sin by working their karma. A Christian trusts that Jesus pays for their sin. An atheist deals with the guilt we ALL feel when we sin by saying there is no sin, no guilt.
well you've transitioned well from asking questions to stating assumptions now. I've never seen an atheist say there is no "emotion" of guilt. There are emotions that effect humans and other social creatures, wolves are a notable example, to feel guilt. It's an emotional response that makes people strive to in some way better the situation or better themselves.

Because the concept is shared across humanity is not in any logical path an evidence point it is absolute. It can be such a way because we are all of the same species and evolutionary origin. People make up far too much to distinguish our differences but we really are still largely the same.
Quote:But there are absolutes. I'm absolutely certain of this fact.

You profess to be absolutely certain but how can you define you know to have justified true belief? How do you qualify what you THINK you know is what you Actually know? Where is the line you draw on? To where you quantify you absolutely know something?

To answer your question, I have certainty about the Bible for many reasons. But my certainty regarding a theistic god can be traced to our scientific certainty that the universe has a finite beginning, as well as design in evidence.

I would object only to one response you made--that absolute values and truths can evolve. 2 + 2 = 4 is reality, not an evolved effect. The sum never was 3 at any time. The universe shows evidence of design.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2015, 06:17 PM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(03-08-2015 01:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I would object only to one response you made--that absolute values and truths can evolve. 2 + 2 = 4 is reality, not an evolved effect. The sum never was 3 at any time. The universe shows evidence of design.

The bolded sentence is a non sequitur.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2015, 10:13 PM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(03-08-2015 01:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 02:58 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Well I stated this clearly and purposefully already Q. No, I'm not absolutely sure. I don't know on the case.
To say something isn't true isn't the same as saying it is false. You've been on here long enough that you should understand how rational positions on ideas work.
I don't know if there is, but there is no logically proven reason why any concept still of absolutes or certainties couldn't come about via natural causes. Random or not random.
This makes no sense. And if it did make sense how could one calculate the "weight" when you gave no variables, just arbitrary terms.
There is evidence to support they're mainly chemical yes. Though "could" they be absolutes, potentially if it were a real thing.
We are all the same species, there is no great difference between how we behave and act. We share common evolutionary paths and common early cultures that helped establish a great deal of how societies would be structured. Though I don't agree they do regard it as "absolutely" wrong. They also punish abortion less than certain types of killing and punish types of murder wrong. They don't even in the bible or ancient cultures to today's cultures judge equally on degrees of what murder is. Your stances and views don't accurately reflect variations that are around the world. I think further studying of laws, opinion, and cultures not of ones you are familiar with would do you well to expand what others think. Instead of assuming what they think and believing you assume correctly.
You're making an assumption, they do this because they "know murder is wrong." You have evidence of anthropological sources on this? I don't know this is certainly the "reason" upon rituals. There are times people eating any thing honor and preform rituals for honoring reasonings not for declaring it wrong. So I would say I don't know because you just made an assertion without evidence I can't confirm or deny for certain. That also doesn't accurate depict all serial killers. No not all know it's wrong but don't feel it is wrong. There are many sociopath killers who don't feel it is wrong because they lack the normal style brain chemistry that gives people the social feelings to empathize and relate to humans to a degree where they usually wouldn't want to harm them. It varies as some don't proclaim or demonstrate they "know" it was wrong.
well you've transitioned well from asking questions to stating assumptions now. I've never seen an atheist say there is no "emotion" of guilt. There are emotions that effect humans and other social creatures, wolves are a notable example, to feel guilt. It's an emotional response that makes people strive to in some way better the situation or better themselves.

Because the concept is shared across humanity is not in any logical path an evidence point it is absolute. It can be such a way because we are all of the same species and evolutionary origin. People make up far too much to distinguish our differences but we really are still largely the same.

You profess to be absolutely certain but how can you define you know to have justified true belief? How do you qualify what you THINK you know is what you Actually know? Where is the line you draw on? To where you quantify you absolutely know something?

To answer your question, I have certainty about the Bible for many reasons. But my certainty regarding a theistic god can be traced to our scientific certainty that the universe has a finite beginning, as well as design in evidence.

I would object only to one response you made--that absolute values and truths can evolve. 2 + 2 = 4 is reality, not an evolved effect. The sum never was 3 at any time. The universe shows evidence of design.

I'm was not saying absolutes can evolve. I am saying how can we be sure they really are absolutes at all. You are thinking they certainly are but what you call absolutes can have cultural differences and evolved though viewing as societies have changed.

The universe also shows no need or design and evidence there is no design. It is far from clear to be showing any signs of design. There are a few things unanswered but that is not nearly enough of a logical case for evidence for design. Whether the universe, Which is in this current realm, has a finite beginning or it is an infinite/ever existing state, neither is a case of showing design. It's simple to grasp that. it's because we don't have any data to measure whether X system is impossible naturally.

The natural state still is I don't know. And to make the claims of design being here are very small and flimsy. There should be far better evidence to prove design if it was reasonable to assume. Then for the next mental step, "Design must be proved before a designer can be inferred." -Percy Shelley. There has been a growing understanding the last several centuries in some areas how people have for too long been assuming an answer without the evidence there. That has harmed more people than we want to still remain harmed. Not knowing certainly is far better for most minds than assuming an answer.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 09:30 AM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(03-08-2015 06:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 01:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I would object only to one response you made--that absolute values and truths can evolve. 2 + 2 = 4 is reality, not an evolved effect. The sum never was 3 at any time. The universe shows evidence of design.

The bolded sentence is a non sequitur.

Sorry, I'll correct:

The universe's origins and many of its current facets show multiple elements of design including precision, order, sustainability and the ability to generate anthropic principles supporting life on Earth.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 09:34 AM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(03-08-2015 10:13 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 01:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  To answer your question, I have certainty about the Bible for many reasons. But my certainty regarding a theistic god can be traced to our scientific certainty that the universe has a finite beginning, as well as design in evidence.

I would object only to one response you made--that absolute values and truths can evolve. 2 + 2 = 4 is reality, not an evolved effect. The sum never was 3 at any time. The universe shows evidence of design.

I'm was not saying absolutes can evolve. I am saying how can we be sure they really are absolutes at all. You are thinking they certainly are but what you call absolutes can have cultural differences and evolved though viewing as societies have changed.

The universe also shows no need or design and evidence there is no design. It is far from clear to be showing any signs of design. There are a few things unanswered but that is not nearly enough of a logical case for evidence for design. Whether the universe, Which is in this current realm, has a finite beginning or it is an infinite/ever existing state, neither is a case of showing design. It's simple to grasp that. it's because we don't have any data to measure whether X system is impossible naturally.

The natural state still is I don't know. And to make the claims of design being here are very small and flimsy. There should be far better evidence to prove design if it was reasonable to assume. Then for the next mental step, "Design must be proved before a designer can be inferred." -Percy Shelley. There has been a growing understanding the last several centuries in some areas how people have for too long been assuming an answer without the evidence there. That has harmed more people than we want to still remain harmed. Not knowing certainly is far better for most minds than assuming an answer.

You are correct, we should not assume an answer, but we can weigh specific evidence to come up with probable answers. For example, you wrote:

"I'm was not saying absolutes can evolve. I am saying how can we be sure they really are absolutes at all. You are thinking they certainly are but what you call absolutes can have cultural differences and evolved though viewing as societies have changed."

Is the law of noncontradiction something that has evolved over time? Is it only applicable in certain cultures across history? Is there any (concrete, not abstract) science that works when A and not-A are an equivalency?

You and I can dialogue starting with are there any absolutes that are always, well absolute, but any denial of absolute truth presupposes truth (you've pointed out a falsity) making truth's existence logically inescapable.

In other words, we know that true and false, right and wrong exist, so there is an absolute for us:

An individual thing can be either true or false but not both at the same time.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(03-08-2015 01:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2 + 2 = 4 is reality, not an evolved effect.

Fucking Q trying to math again. It's always hilarious. 2+2=11 or 2+2=10 are both as easily proven as 2+2=4. Where's your absolute truth now? Fucking idiot.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
04-08-2015, 10:22 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2015 10:26 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(04-08-2015 09:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 10:13 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I'm was not saying absolutes can evolve. I am saying how can we be sure they really are absolutes at all. You are thinking they certainly are but what you call absolutes can have cultural differences and evolved though viewing as societies have changed.

The universe also shows no need or design and evidence there is no design. It is far from clear to be showing any signs of design. There are a few things unanswered but that is not nearly enough of a logical case for evidence for design. Whether the universe, Which is in this current realm, has a finite beginning or it is an infinite/ever existing state, neither is a case of showing design. It's simple to grasp that. it's because we don't have any data to measure whether X system is impossible naturally.

The natural state still is I don't know. And to make the claims of design being here are very small and flimsy. There should be far better evidence to prove design if it was reasonable to assume. Then for the next mental step, "Design must be proved before a designer can be inferred." -Percy Shelley. There has been a growing understanding the last several centuries in some areas how people have for too long been assuming an answer without the evidence there. That has harmed more people than we want to still remain harmed. Not knowing certainly is far better for most minds than assuming an answer.

You are correct, we should not assume an answer, but we can weigh specific evidence to come up with probable answers. For example, you wrote:

"I'm was not saying absolutes can evolve. I am saying how can we be sure they really are absolutes at all. You are thinking they certainly are but what you call absolutes can have cultural differences and evolved though viewing as societies have changed."

Is the law of noncontradiction something that has evolved over time? Is it only applicable in certain cultures across history? Is there any (concrete, not abstract) science that works when A and not-A are an equivalency?

You and I can dialogue starting with are there any absolutes that are always, well absolute, but any denial of absolute truth presupposes truth (you've pointed out a falsity) making truth's existence logically inescapable.

In other words, we know that true and false, right and wrong exist, so there is an absolute for us:

An individual thing can be either true or false but not both at the same time.

I think there may be a misreading of what am meaning or saying on this. You've twice seemed to veer the point of my stance on "evolving" & absolutes not as I was stating or intending to state.

Because for you to ask if I think this logical position evolved, it doesn't make sense unless you interpenetrated that differently than I intended. I don't think "absolutes" evolve. I was attempting to say to you, the things you had SPECIFICALLY called absolutes, I.E. Guilt/Murder in the posts before. That I don't think for certain are absolutes, That's why I said "what you call absolutes" to direct it toward the things you have previously stated are absolutes.(maybe I should of said those things by name or said the exact things you called or labeled, but I didn't seem to get the exact point across)

To answer it, I don't know if the law of non-contradiction evolved over time, I would say think no. But I would not be certain it is an absolute thing either as there are capable systems of logic that don't accept it is certain. I've seen claims of electronics/quantum fields/closed Theories(which sure is theory not application.) So it's still something is not certain because some law claims of that nature are hard to verify or find falsifiable. They stand in a hard to make a certain judge state.

I don't agree to your view that places statements in a black/white manner. Things seemingly may not be both true & false, but not true doesn't mean false. Just as Not Guilty doesn't mean Innocent. It can simply mean we don't have the information, lack the evidence necessary to conclude either, or maybe there is no discernible answer to questions at hand. Different forms of Logic's hold trues to a different degree sometimes. I would think for something to be absolute, it would have to apply to these forms of logic that demonstrate practical consistency. I think there are some tautologies that would apply, those I may take a closer to firm stance as absolutes, but I still don't proclaim to Know they are absolute.

Denial is, but I am not in a position that states I deny absolute truth. To me it is an Unknown/I don't know/perhaps not stance. It is not a position that presupposes truth. I don't proclaim to have truth or know if anyone has or can understand truth.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 11:54 AM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(04-08-2015 09:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 06:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  The bolded sentence is a non sequitur.

Sorry, I'll correct:

The universe's origins and many of its current facets show multiple elements of design including precision, order, sustainability and the ability to generate anthropic principles supporting life on Earth.

It is your opinion that there is evidence of design, but there is nothing to support that notion.

And what does " the ability to generate anthropic principles supporting life on Earth" even mean?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: