My First Debate with a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2017, 06:00 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(28-01-2017 04:13 PM)minorwork Wrote:  When an action is a necessity but without complete knowledge upon which to base a logical course of action, what IS the logical method of choosing an action?

We rarely, if ever have "complete knowledge" on which to base a decision. What we do have is the ability to weigh the expected outcomes of various actions within the limited knowledge that we do have based on experience with similar situations. We can also seek additional input from others in order to make as rational of a choice as we possibly can.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
28-01-2017, 06:40 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  It is not only possible but preferable at times to avoid the scientific method. A crude invention.

What exactly do you think the scientific method is? You rail against it and then talk about troubleshooting problems which means you employ it even though you seem think that you are avoiding it.

What do you propose is a better method to determine what is actually real and how things work?

Why do you think that if science doesn't have complete and perfect answers to every question right now it isn't of value?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 06:41 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
Sorry I kinda co-hijacked your thread, Scarlet.

But as Liberal Redneck puts it, these people kinda "get my red up", so to speak:

[Image: 304.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 09:57 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(28-01-2017 07:19 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Sometimes I get the distinct impression that they simply can't conceive of not believing that the god exists at all.
Just so. Unbelief is such a taboo that it becomes inconceivable. This is why some believers in my extended family will go to their graves convinced that I am "going through a phase" or "simply misunderstand". Despite that I'm a 60 year old who became non-practicing in my late 30s and officially deconverted in my late 40s. [shrug]
(28-01-2017 07:19 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I guess I'll have to start being careful to say "I don't believe any god exists" rather than "I don't believe in god" like I have to be careful never to say I have faith in anything because they so often conflate the various meanings of that word.
Yeah, that should do it but their brains will just vapor-lock.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
29-01-2017, 12:03 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(28-01-2017 05:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Keep searching for a reason to put Blind Faith over Logic. I wish you luck with that.
I did NOT use the term Blind Faith. You find I have implied I am searching for Blind Faith? Hahahahaha. Sorry if I've led you to infer I"m searching for reasons to use Blind Faith. Nothing is further from the truth as far as my own struggle out of stupidity figuring that religion is made for stupid people and science is made for stupid people who are ashamed of their stupidity.

Blind Faith is yours to imagine you saw it behind my text/utterances. I have never said a word about looking for Blind Faith as a basis for action. Lots of friends express sympathy by "praying" for an intervention to which I, tongue in cheek, reply that I'm shaking a chicken foot and rattle in their direction. It is a mocking reply making fun of their "Blind Faith."
When acting is a necessity but knowing I have not complete knowledge, then, if time permits, Bayes Theorem proves useful. I try to do it anyway but not in as strict and contemplative a fashion as time would permit. Might be you know of Kahneman's Type I and Type II thinking. And so if there is little time Type I intuitive gets the acting going and if more time is allotted then by all means Type II effortful thinking pays off more than Type I.

[Image: bayes_theorem.jpg?w=500&tok=926420]

The result is an expression of probability. Is it an expression of Logic by your criteria? Seems the acting on probability entails some kind doubt still remains. If not, then I'm interested in how doubt is denied with Bayes.

Destroyer of Worlds
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2017, 03:38 PM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2017 03:52 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(29-01-2017 12:03 PM)minorwork Wrote:  
(28-01-2017 05:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Keep searching for a reason to put Blind Faith over Logic. I wish you luck with that.
I did NOT use the term Blind Faith. You find I have implied I am searching for Blind Faith? Hahahahaha. Sorry if I've led you to infer I"m searching for reasons to use Blind Faith. Nothing is further from the truth as far as my own struggle out of stupidity figuring that religion is made for stupid people and science is made for stupid people who are ashamed of their stupidity.

Blind Faith is yours to imagine you saw it behind my text/utterances. I have never said a word about looking for Blind Faith as a basis for action. Lots of friends express sympathy by "praying" for an intervention to which I, tongue in cheek, reply that I'm shaking a chicken foot and rattle in their direction. It is a mocking reply making fun of their "Blind Faith."
When acting is a necessity but knowing I have not complete knowledge, then, if time permits, Bayes Theorem proves useful. I try to do it anyway but not in as strict and contemplative a fashion as time would permit. Might be you know of Kahneman's Type I and Type II thinking. And so if there is little time Type I intuitive gets the acting going and if more time is allotted then by all means Type II effortful thinking pays off more than Type I.

[Image: bayes_theorem.jpg?w=500&tok=926420]

The result is an expression of probability. Is it an expression of Logic by your criteria? Seems the acting on probability entails some kind doubt still remains. If not, then I'm interested in how doubt is denied with Bayes.
Can you explain what you mean by "science is made for stupid people who are ashamed of their stupidity. "?

Also what is wrong with doubting?
Doubting is a very useful tool for staying alive. Please don't get this confused with absolute skepticism which results in inaction.

Are you sure you aren't a supporter of blind faith?
Correct me if I am wrong but if you are opposed to logic based decisions & more drawn to faith based decisions then is this not an example of blind faith?
Or did I miss something?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2017, 05:01 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(29-01-2017 03:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(29-01-2017 12:03 PM)minorwork Wrote:  I did NOT use the term Blind Faith. You find I have implied I am searching for Blind Faith? Hahahahaha. Sorry if I've led you to infer I"m searching for reasons to use Blind Faith. Nothing is further from the truth as far as my struggle out of stupidity figuring that religion is made for stupid people and science is made for stupid people who are ashamed of their stupidity.

Blind Faith is yours to imagine you saw it behind my text/utterances. I have never said a word about looking for Blind Faith as a basis for action. Lots of friends express sympathy by "praying" for an intervention to which I, tongue in cheek, reply that I'm shaking a chicken foot and rattle in their direction. It is a mocking reply making fun of their "Blind Faith."
When acting is a necessity but knowing I have not complete knowledge, then, if time permits, Bayes Theorem proves useful. I try to do it anyway but not in as strict and contemplative a fashion as time would permit. Might be you know of Kahneman's Type I and Type II thinking. And so if there is little time Type I intuitive gets the acting going and if more time is allotted then by all means Type II effortful thinking pays off more than Type I.

[Image: bayes_theorem.jpg?w=500&tok=926420]

The result is an expression of probability. Is it an expression of Logic by your criteria? Seems the acting on probability entails some kind doubt still remains. If not, then I'm interested in how doubt is denied with Bayes.
Can you explain what you mean by "science is made for stupid people who are ashamed of their stupidity. "?
Properly said the phrase runs:
Religion is designed for stupid people. Science is designed for stupid people who are embarrassed by their stupidity, who want to do something about it.


Given that religion functions to give its followers comfort and self-assurance in their innate superiority, but science (when properly understood can only make one uncomfortable and doubtful about knowing anything for certain then there is nothing wrong inherently with certainty or doubt but that an individual perverts them to their own benefits.
Quote:Also what is wrong with doubting?
Doubting is a very useful tool for staying alive. Please don't get this confused with absolute skepticism which results in inaction.
I'll try to avoid that dead end for sure. My life has been devoted to acting to solve problems or preventing the problems arising in the first place when I can. I embrace doubting, but am constantly, as necessity demands distinguishing when doubting is required over the advantages of confidence when knowledge is had or if it is NOT had in which case I try to employ Bayes and consider the odds and if they make sense in the situational necessity of the moment.
I am presently in the midst of having to be a counsel on family matters of which I have little enthusiasm to do so. A religious family, father minister *sigh* offering to care for young boys so my step-daughter can get a job. Geez, I don't want this.
Quote:Are you sure you aren't a supporter of blind faith?
I am IGNOSTIC, not agnostic. I don't know how to answer as I'm not psychic and don't trust my inference of your terms references yet.
Quote:Correct me if I am wrong but if you are opposed to logic based decisions & more drawn to faith-based decisions then is this not an example of blind faith?
Is Bayes a faith-based algorithm or logic based on YOUR criteria of faith and logics?
Quote:Or did I miss something?[quote]
Missed something, seems to me. More likely I failed to get across something for which I apologize. But I admit to being challenging to get to know your thought processes and word term references.

Science, IMO, is the belief in the ignorance of experts which forms the mainstay of the attitude of scientists until their self-esteem, their comfort, and self-assurance in their innate superiority depends on a certainty which they claim from science as their skyhook to innate superiority. THEN they have made science into scientism. Massimo Pigliucci wrote a good deal about scientism. \

I have over my desk Carvaggio's The Incredulity of St. Thomas to remind me of the advantages of doubt. My career in the coal mine saw problem resolutions advance or detract most depending on the degree of doubt that I gave the reports of those explaining the problem rather than my assuming NOTHING and exploring myself, but when a boss or mine manager explains, I listened and tended at times to forget my mantra of doubting. Still, if I know a miner operator has slipped some dirt into the stop button to keep the machine from starting, then I can give him his half hour nap. I won't 'kill' myself in the problem resolution. I'll get a paid lunch and STILL make everybody happy for the less time taken by NOT doubting ALL witnesses but listening to the operator confess to sabotage at risk of his pain by my beating the shit out of him if I found it was sabotage and he hadn't told me. Go along, get along, and get paid a lunch and fix the problem in less time than with science. All is right with the world.

Seemed logical to me at the time, but others thought I worked on faith and I didn't dissuade them. In a coal crew for a study of roof bolter and the unit repairman said a buggy was down behind the miner stopping production. The crew saw me take a tape measure out, measure down and sideways on a controller case and give the center X a couple of sharp hits with a bit hammer and walked back to the shop bench. Of course, I laid the sign of the cross on it afore I left. I was back reading cock books and up come the repairman and boss amazed. Such are the things of legend which now I don't allow any more. Faith is what others had in me, but doubt is what I had about my abilities. If told I was the best they had, them needing me to stay over, I'd respond, "If I'm the best you have, then you guys are in a heap of trouble."

No, there is no faith, there is some luck if a guess works out to be the problem solution with the hammer hits, but it is an educated guess, and purposeful as a contactor under the cover at that location sticks sometimes and stops the machine dead.

I don't place the ultimate bet, a blow job, on logical conclusions anymore either. Funny stories about such insistence on knowing logic and knowledge misapplied at the mine, but FAITH there was measured in the value of the bet.
Faith is the willingness to act/wager on belief without proof.

Destroyer of Worlds
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2017, 05:57 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2017 05:49 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(29-01-2017 05:01 PM)minorwork Wrote:  
(29-01-2017 03:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Can you explain what you mean by "science is made for stupid people who are ashamed of their stupidity. "?
Properly said the phrase runs:
Religion is designed for stupid people. Science is designed for stupid people who are embarrassed by their stupidity, who want to do something about it.


Given that religion functions to give its followers comfort and self-assurance in their innate superiority, but science (when properly understood can only make one uncomfortable and doubtful about knowing anything for certain then there is nothing wrong inherently with certainty or doubt but that an individual perverts them to their own benefits.
Quote:Also what is wrong with doubting?
Doubting is a very useful tool for staying alive. Please don't get this confused with absolute skepticism which results in inaction.
I'll try to avoid that dead end for sure. My life has been devoted to acting to solve problems or preventing the problems arising in the first place when I can. I embrace doubting, but am constantly, as necessity demands distinguishing when doubting is required over the advantages of confidence when knowledge is had or if it is NOT had in which case I try to employ Bayes and consider the odds and if they make sense in the situational necessity of the moment.
I am presently in the midst of having to be a counsel on family matters of which I have little enthusiasm to do so. A religious family, father minister *sigh* offering to care for young boys so my step-daughter can get a job. Geez, I don't want this.
Quote:Are you sure you aren't a supporter of blind faith?
I am IGNOSTIC, not agnostic. I don't know how to answer as I'm not psychic and don't trust my inference of your terms references yet.
Quote:Correct me if I am wrong but if you are opposed to logic based decisions & more drawn to faith-based decisions then is this not an example of blind faith?
Is Bayes a faith-based algorithm or logic based on YOUR criteria of faith and logics?
Quote:Or did I miss something?[quote]
Missed something, seems to me. More likely I failed to get across something for which I apologize. But I admit to being challenging to get to know your thought processes and word term references.

Science, IMO, is the belief in the ignorance of experts which forms the mainstay of the attitude of scientists until their self-esteem, their comfort, and self-assurance in their innate superiority depends on a certainty which they claim from science as their skyhook to innate superiority. THEN they have made science into scientism. Massimo Pigliucci wrote a good deal about scientism. \

I have over my desk Carvaggio's The Incredulity of St. Thomas to remind me of the advantages of doubt. My career in the coal mine saw problem resolutions advance or detract most depending on the degree of doubt that I gave the reports of those explaining the problem rather than my assuming NOTHING and exploring myself, but when a boss or mine manager explains, I listened and tended at times to forget my mantra of doubting. Still, if I know a miner operator has slipped some dirt into the stop button to keep the machine from starting, then I can give him his half hour nap. I won't 'kill' myself in the problem resolution. I'll get a paid lunch and STILL make everybody happy for the less time taken by NOT doubting ALL witnesses but listening to the operator confess to sabotage at risk of his pain by my beating the shit out of him if I found it was sabotage and he hadn't told me. Go along, get along, and get paid a lunch and fix the problem in less time than with science. All is right with the world.

Seemed logical to me at the time, but others thought I worked on faith and I didn't dissuade them. In a coal crew for a study of roof bolter and the unit repairman said a buggy was down behind the miner stopping production. The crew saw me take a tape measure out, measure down and sideways on a controller case and give the center X a couple of sharp hits with a bit hammer and walked back to the shop bench. Of course, I laid the sign of the cross on it afore I left. I was back reading cock books and up come the repairman and boss amazed. Such are the things of legend which now I don't allow any more. Faith is what others had in me, but doubt is what I had about my abilities. If told I was the best they had, them needing me to stay over, I'd respond, "If I'm the best you have, then you guys are in a heap of trouble."

No, there is no faith, there is some luck if a guess works out to be the problem solution with the hammer hits, but it is an educated guess, and purposeful as a contactor under the cover at that location sticks sometimes and stops the machine dead.

I don't place the ultimate bet, a blow job, on logical conclusions anymore either. Funny stories about such insistence on knowing logic and knowledge misapplied at the mine, but FAITH there was measured in the value of the bet.
Faith is the willingness to act/wager on belief without proof.
Ok I'll answer this one point at a time using the edit function.
You are starting to shotgun me with walls of texts.
Due to time constraints I can't answer all the same time & I prefer not to spend hours drafting a single reply.

1. Science is designed for stupid people? I would think it's designed for everyone. This includes both smart & stupid people. Is there any reason why you singled out stupid people?
If it is designed for stupid people then what do smart people use when they want to find answers?

2. You said science MAKES people uncertain & uncomfortable. What were they before they applied the science? Certain & Comfortable? If so then why did they bother listening to the science. Are you one of those ignorance is bliss sort of people? I hope that's not what you think IGNOsticism is.

3. You said Religion seeks to make people certain & comfortable. This only applies to the followers of said religion. In fact anyone outside of this religion's bubble (which is the majority of mankind) is bound to feel uncertain & uncomfortable with the religion's teachings.

4. Wiki. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a coherent, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.

Are you only opposed the ambiguous definition of God or are you opposed to unambiguous definitions as well?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 04:48 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
Am I needed... or you got this?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 06:34 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(03-02-2017 04:48 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Am I needed... or you got this?
Who are you speaking with?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: