Why you choose to not believe?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2014, 10:24 AM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 02:02 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  So anyone a go for showing me that they have, through tests that they can show are valid(measure what they intend to measure), derived the likelihood? I say we don't have any idea about the probability, but Some say we do, and the burden of proof is on you.

This isn't what you asked for, but nonetheless, you might find it educational.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-ste...28710.html

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 11:42 AM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2014 12:11 PM by Switz5678.)
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 05:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 02:02 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I never claimed evidence ( this is a copy/paste from the topic 'Choices'.. Didn't want to derail the thread, and thought it should be here. I hope that's okay?)

"What I thought was that we don't have enough information to even form a probability. When that situation arises why not entertain the scenario you like most. You will be happier. This is more of a philosophy then anything else

We don't have enough information to form a probability of you dying tomorrow. Would you entertain the scenario of your death? of course in this scenario we could find pertinent data which we could use to develop a probability. Things like your age, condition of health, how much you drive each day..


When were speaking of an after-life though we don't even know how to measure the probability. We aren't sure that the test we do are even valid. I don't think the probability is 50/50, I think we have no fucking clue what it is at this time.

People were throwing around likelihood of this and that based on tests that were done of which we aren't even certain they measure what they're intended to measure. The test's that we have done are reasonable try's, but to say after them that you now know some likelihood in my opinion is misguided. The ones who think that we have some 'likelihood' measure are the ones that are deluding themselves

There were a lot of responses to my argument/philosophy in a negative manner. I shoulder part of the blame for not choosing the correct wording, but the snide personal attacks/choosing to attack the weaker version of what I intended (when I think some could realize) was just flabbergasting. When someone can approach me, and show that this "likelihood" was derived through a valid test then I'll thank them, and move on from it. Until they do they can just pound sand for all I care."

So anyone a go for showing me that they have, through tests that they can show are valid(measure what they intend to measure), derived the likelihood? I say we don't have any idea about the probability, but Some say we do, and the burden of proof is on you.

You are doing it again, conflating estimation and calculation. People estimate the likelihood of things all the time.

You are a ranting child sobbing "why? why? why?".

you can not have an estimate with any measure of reliability when you don't even know how to measure the thing. Point. Blank. Period.

I'm not conflating anything. First you said it was likelihood and probability, and I showed you that was bullshit. Now you change it to estimation and calculation hahaha.

Listen, you are making the assertion that you have an estimation that in some way means something. Prove it?

Until then you're just a blind old man uttering "but? but? but...?"

I can make an estimation on a lot of fucking things, but they don't mean shit if I know nothing about the parameters, if my 'tests' are valid etc..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 12:00 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2014 12:17 PM by Switz5678.)
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 10:24 AM)Impulse Wrote:  This isn't what you asked for, but nonetheless, you might find it educational.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-ste...28710.html

I don't really make any claims about an afterlife really. Anyways, at the end of the day this has turned into people stating they have an estimation/likelihood/probability. I don't think they do

Its akin to pulling a single blue ball out of a bag in which we don't know how many balls there are, and then saying well the chance of a red one is small. furthermore, in this case we know that by removing all the balls is a valid test for red, but in the case of an afterlife we aren't sure if the test we do show anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 12:05 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 10:24 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 02:02 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  So anyone a go for showing me that they have, through tests that they can show are valid(measure what they intend to measure), derived the likelihood? I say we don't have any idea about the probability, but Some say we do, and the burden of proof is on you.

This isn't what you asked for, but nonetheless, you might find it educational.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-ste...28710.html

I clicked on the link. In the Huffington article there is a story of a patient who had a NDE named Marie. She claims to have seen a shoe on a ledge outside her hospital room while in a NDE condition. A nurse named Kimberly Clark climbed out on the ledge and did indeed find a shoe, the nurse also claims that there was no way the patient Marie could have seen it.

I came across an article about a month ago which investigates this claim and which I bookmarked. Here's a copy of part of the report with a link of the entire lengthy article at the bottom.

"As part of our investigation, Ebbern and Mulligan visited Harborview Medical Center to determine for themselves just how difficult it would be to see, from outside the hospital, a shoe on one of its third-floor window ledges. They placed a running shoe of their own at the place Clark described and then went outside to observe what was visible from ground level. They were astonished at the ease with which they could see and identify the shoe."

"Clark's claim that the shoe would have been invisible from ground level outside the hospital is all the more incredible because the investigators' viewpoint was considerably inferior to what Clark's would have been seventeen years earlier. That is because, in 1994, there was new construction under way beneath the window in question and this forced Ebbern and Mulligan to view the shoe from a much greater distance than would have been necessary for Clark (32)."


"They easily placed their running shoe on the ledge from inside one of the rooms and it was clearly visible from various points within the room. There was no need whatsoever for anyone to press his or her face against the glass to see the shoe. In fact, one needed only to take a few steps into the room to be able to see it clearly. To make matters worse for Clark's account, a patient would not even need to strain to see it from his or her bed in the room. So it is apparent that many people inside as well as outside the hospital would have had the opportunity to notice the now-famous shoe, making it even more likely that Maria could have overheard some mention of it (32)."

[Maria's shoe] would have been visible, both inside and outside the hospital, to numerous people who could have come into contact with her. It also seems likely that some of them might have mentioned it within earshot....

"[And Clark] did not publicly report the details of Maria's NDE until seven years after it occurred. It is quite possible that during this interval some parts of the story were forgotten and some details may have been interpolated.... [Moreover], we have no way of knowing what leading questions Maria may have been asked, or what Maria might have "recalled" that did not fit and was dropped from the record (32-33)."

So much for the shoe story.

Here's the full article.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith...HNDEs.html

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
31-10-2014, 12:09 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2014 12:26 PM by Switz5678.)
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 09:33 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(29-10-2014 07:54 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I would be delusional if I had evidence to the contrary. What I'm saying my man is that there is No/None/Zilch/zero means to confront the likelihood of said scenarios. When that situation arises why not choose to entertain the scenario which makes you happiest? I'm not saying that this scenario is the choice all people would make. Perhaps since you have no evidence for the scenario I would choose, you choose the other, and that makes you happy. Then I think that is perfectly reasonable.

I'm not contemplating a 6000 year old world, and entertaining that idea because it makes me happy. I know thats bullshit. I'm saying that when something is 50/50 truly, and at this time you can't possibly know, it is reasonable to entertain what makes you happiest.

Thinking you can survive your own death is a 50/50 proposition is like thinking you can survive being hit by a train is a 50/50 proposition. I don't think you understand probability.

no my man I don't think you know what I meant, I'm sorry.. I don't think this is a 50/50 scenario.


I think
A. We don't know how to test in a valid way at this time.
B. Can't form a likelihood then (well we can, but that estimation isn't worth shit, and to use it in an argument is perplexing)



This could be for any scenario, and I think the choice of 'after-life' has tainted my point. You could say you want to entertain the scenario of unicorns, and If that makes you happy then You should. That was my point!

I'm not even here, at this time, to defend this afterlife scenario to be honest. I'm here to find out how some claim to have an estimation that means anything at all
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 12:13 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(29-10-2014 04:28 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I can understand the obvious flaws in all the mainstream religious belief systems. What I can't understand is why the choice to believe in a Godless universe without the chance of afterlife? or even an afterlife without a God entity?
------------------------------------
I guess my basic line of reasoning can be summed up as follows..

-We're unable to discern a method to establish the likelihood of one, or the other.
-I see life/living as preferable to death/nonexisting.
-In the absence of the ability to discern possibility/probability you should choose what makes you most happy.

My end game from this would be that its rational to believe, and not rational to not believe.
---------------------------------------

Anyways, I'm interested in hearing your views

I'm not choosing not to believe. What a person believes shouldn't be a choice. It's an involuntary result of the information and knowledge they have.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 12:26 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
First I'll give some background. I'm in my early 40's. I grew up Episcopalian, which was a kind of Christianity that you could take out whenever you needed it, but it didn't really have much impact on your day to day life. Around the age of 20 I became a Southern Baptist and "accepted Jesus into my heart" (due to the influence of people I'd met in college). For a while (several years) that seemed good, but many things I came to understand over time led me to give up my faith. Some of these realizations were:

1) To be a Christian is to accept the bible as fact. This is not a major groundbreaking revelation, but it still took several years for me to really understand this. There is no other "evidence" to base belief on. And I came to understand that the reason many Christians believe in the inerrancy of the bible is that they HAVE to. If the bible can be proven inerrant in some parts, then we can't be sure that ANY of it is true. I had a devout Christian tell me one time during a Sunday School discussion that Christians have to reject evolution because if it's true then the bible is wrong. That's seemed like circular logic to me. If we can't trust the bible then there really is no reason for anyone to be a Christian, because:
2) God does not directly reveal himself at all, so if he exists, he has decided to stop confirming his existence like he did during biblical times. Why would he do that? If he craves our worship like the bible says he does, wouldn't he want to make himself known?
3) One argument I've heard for Christianity is "how can so many people be mistaken"? Well, if we're to take the sheer numbers of believers as a proof of god, then we also have to look at how large numbers of those Christians live. I got to know many Christians very well, and I could not see how their belief made any impact that proved existence of god. Oh sure, if they had personal troubles they would pray for god to take care of it, and they'd claim that made them feel better, but I couldn't tell how their prayer actually changed any outcome. Prayer seemed more of a placebo than something that had any real impact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 12:05 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 10:24 AM)Impulse Wrote:  This isn't what you asked for, but nonetheless, you might find it educational.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-ste...28710.html

I clicked on the link. In the Huffington article there is a story of a patient who had a NDE named Marie. She claims to have seen a shoe on a ledge outside her hospital room while in a NDE condition. A nurse named Kimberly Clark climbed out on the ledge and did indeed find a shoe, the nurse also claims that there was no way the patient Marie could have seen it.

I came across an article about a month ago which investigates this claim and which I bookmarked. Here's a copy of part of the report with a link of the entire lengthy article at the bottom.

"As part of our investigation, Ebbern and Mulligan visited Harborview Medical Center to determine for themselves just how difficult it would be to see, from outside the hospital, a shoe on one of its third-floor window ledges. They placed a running shoe of their own at the place Clark described and then went outside to observe what was visible from ground level. They were astonished at the ease with which they could see and identify the shoe."

"Clark's claim that the shoe would have been invisible from ground level outside the hospital is all the more incredible because the investigators' viewpoint was considerably inferior to what Clark's would have been seventeen years earlier. That is because, in 1994, there was new construction under way beneath the window in question and this forced Ebbern and Mulligan to view the shoe from a much greater distance than would have been necessary for Clark (32)."


"They easily placed their running shoe on the ledge from inside one of the rooms and it was clearly visible from various points within the room. There was no need whatsoever for anyone to press his or her face against the glass to see the shoe. In fact, one needed only to take a few steps into the room to be able to see it clearly. To make matters worse for Clark's account, a patient would not even need to strain to see it from his or her bed in the room. So it is apparent that many people inside as well as outside the hospital would have had the opportunity to notice the now-famous shoe, making it even more likely that Maria could have overheard some mention of it (32)."

[Maria's shoe] would have been visible, both inside and outside the hospital, to numerous people who could have come into contact with her. It also seems likely that some of them might have mentioned it within earshot....

"[And Clark] did not publicly report the details of Maria's NDE until seven years after it occurred. It is quite possible that during this interval some parts of the story were forgotten and some details may have been interpolated.... [Moreover], we have no way of knowing what leading questions Maria may have been asked, or what Maria might have "recalled" that did not fit and was dropped from the record (32-33)."

So much for the shoe story.

Here's the full article.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith...HNDEs.html

It's less detailed than what you described, but the article I linked also says:

Quote:Later investigators found that Clark had misrepresented the difficulty of observing the shoe on the ledge. Placing their own shoe in the same position they found it was clearly visible as soon as you stepped into Maria's room.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 12:34 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 12:13 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(29-10-2014 04:28 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I can understand the obvious flaws in all the mainstream religious belief systems. What I can't understand is why the choice to believe in a Godless universe without the chance of afterlife? or even an afterlife without a God entity?
------------------------------------
I guess my basic line of reasoning can be summed up as follows..

-We're unable to discern a method to establish the likelihood of one, or the other.
-I see life/living as preferable to death/nonexisting.
-In the absence of the ability to discern possibility/probability you should choose what makes you most happy.

My end game from this would be that its rational to believe, and not rational to not believe.
---------------------------------------

Anyways, I'm interested in hearing your views

I'm not choosing not to believe. What a person believes shouldn't be a choice. It's an involuntary result of the information and knowledge they have.

Yeah, I should have worded this one better. I'm sorry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 12:00 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I don't really make any claims about an afterlife really. Anyways, at the end of the day this has turned into people stating they have an estimation/likelihood/probability. I don't think they do

The claim that you are making about an afterlife is that there is currently no particular reason to believe there is or that there isn't one so therefore we may as well choose our preference. The article I posted disputes this by a) refuting the typical "proofs" of an afterlife and 2) offering it's own reasons for believing there isn't an afterlife. Taken together, it means the non-existence of an afterlife is far more likely.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: