Why you choose to not believe?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2014, 10:50 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
Feels do not determine reality or probability.

/Thread

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
31-10-2014, 11:51 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 04:00 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  [Image: god.jpg]
That is officially the most adorable thing I've seen all day. It's the pout that sells it.
(31-10-2014 10:32 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I can think of a couple of legitimate ways of finding probabilities

-summing all possible out comes and then dividing what your looking for by that sum. completely Accurate
-repeated events through history in which we can form some likelihood factor off of. Can vary wildly from Very accurate to not accurate at all
-Proving it true. Completely Accurate
-Proving it false. Completely Accurate

There are most likely more, but I'm inebriated and tired
That is officially the most adorable thing I've seen all day. It's the pout that sells it. (I kid. I promise.)

Since attempting to engage peoples arguments at face value rather than pointing out how their underlying reasoning is faulty is rapidly becoming my thing; how about I actually find some odds for Switz using the methods he's(?) called valid?

(Rounding the bollocks off of this because I'm a lazy fuck and Fermi estimations don't need to be particularly precise anyway.)
Quote:-summing all possible out comes and then dividing what your looking for by that sum. completely Accurate
So this site says that they have statistics for 4200 distinct religions.

The three largest of them are Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam so let's include another 40 mutually exclusive interpretations of each of them. Lets assume that everything else is arguing semantics of the text and that their core tennents are similar enough to describe the same deity or groups of deities.

Lets assume that across all of human history we have lost and never found any evidence of one third of the different faiths.

And finally lets add one for the denial and lack of faith in all religions. (Because 7 is a better number than 6 and I find numbers with no repeating digits to be more aesthetically pleasing.)

So that's:
1 = 1 = 0.0000177714%
4200+40+1386+1 5627

Of having the correct religious belief or lack of religious belief.
Quote:-repeated events through history in which we can form some likelihood factor off of. Can vary wildly from Very accurate to not accurate at all
I'm not actually sure what this means. It's fine though.

Because google says that a likelihood factor appears in Bayesian probability. Which in this instance "What are the odds of each religion being accurate when compared to how the world evidently works." (Thank you google.)

So let's give a lot of religions the benefit of the doubt and say that only one in six of them aren't immediately dismissed thanks to what we understand about the world (and we don't look into it any further.) and one third of the remainder aren't immediately dismissed on inconsistencies in the text.

So that's:
5627 * 16% * 33% = 297 = 0.00336%
Quote:-Proving it true. Completely Accurate
Not possible.
Quote:-Proving it false. Completely Accurate
Also not possible. You can't prove a negative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2014, 12:32 AM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 10:34 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 10:21 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I will tomorrow perhaps..

Please don't. You're an incapable idiot.

Well.. At least I'm capable of self-control, and won't resort to weak personal attacks. I'm a humble person, and I've been wrong many a times in my life. If you look throughout this post you'll notice that I will cede points, and apologize for my errors. The problem with people like you is that you can't discern the difference between someone who might not see clearly, but is trying, and someone who refuses to see clearly. I assure you the difference of views of god/afterlife between you and I is magnitudes less then myself vs a christian.

Considering the fact that this is my first real exposure to a group of atheists.. I've got an unexpected sour taste in my mouth. I thought that you guys, being a minority in the general public + on Average more intelligent, would be less likely to insult, and more eager to help along a person who might just be in a little rut.

I clearly don't understand how people are ascertaining a likelihood of things of which they know not how to test. Does this likelihood really have any applicability to what IS, or is it just some tool that we employ that sometimes works. I mean that is truly whats the fundamental issue for me. I should have just went with that from the beginning before I tried to formulate some argument based on this.. That was stupid of me

So if you don't want people like me posting in this forum then fine
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2014, 12:54 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2014 01:05 AM by Switz5678.)
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 11:51 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 04:00 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  [Image: god.jpg]
That is officially the most adorable thing I've seen all day. It's the pout that sells it.
(31-10-2014 10:32 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I can think of a couple of legitimate ways of finding probabilities

-summing all possible out comes and then dividing what your looking for by that sum. completely Accurate
-repeated events through history in which we can form some likelihood factor off of. Can vary wildly from Very accurate to not accurate at all
-Proving it true. Completely Accurate
-Proving it false. Completely Accurate

There are most likely more, but I'm inebriated and tired
That is officially the most adorable thing I've seen all day. It's the pout that sells it. (I kid. I promise.)

Since attempting to engage peoples arguments at face value rather than pointing out how their underlying reasoning is faulty is rapidly becoming my thing; how about I actually find some odds for Switz using the methods he's(?) called valid?

(Rounding the bollocks off of this because I'm a lazy fuck and Fermi estimations don't need to be particularly precise anyway.)
Quote:-summing all possible out comes and then dividing what your looking for by that sum. completely Accurate
So this site says that they have statistics for 4200 distinct religions.

The three largest of them are Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam so let's include another 40 mutually exclusive interpretations of each of them. Lets assume that everything else is arguing semantics of the text and that their core tennents are similar enough to describe the same deity or groups of deities.

Lets assume that across all of human history we have lost and never found any evidence of one third of the different faiths.

And finally lets add one for the denial and lack of faith in all religions. (Because 7 is a better number than 6 and I find numbers with no repeating digits to be more aesthetically pleasing.)

So that's:
1 = 1 = 0.0000177714%
4200+40+1386+1 5627

Of having the correct religious belief or lack of religious belief.
Quote:-repeated events through history in which we can form some likelihood factor off of. Can vary wildly from Very accurate to not accurate at all
I'm not actually sure what this means. It's fine though.

Because google says that a likelihood factor appears in Bayesian probability. Which in this instance "What are the odds of each religion being accurate when compared to how the world evidently works." (Thank you google.)

So let's give a lot of religions the benefit of the doubt and say that only one in six of them aren't immediately dismissed thanks to what we understand about the world (and we don't look into it any further.) and one third of the remainder aren't immediately dismissed on inconsistencies in the text.

So that's:
5627 * 16% * 33% = 297 = 0.00336%
Quote:-Proving it true. Completely Accurate
Not possible.
Quote:-Proving it false. Completely Accurate
Also not possible. You can't prove a negative.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.. .

Yes mathematically you can prove something to be true. If you want me to go with the can't prove a negative fine.. In this case you prove something else true that shows the other can't be true.

I also thought deductive arguments, as long as they were valid and sound, were true??

Everything you wrote about religions has no application to my point.

My point as of right now is simple..

You cant calculate the probability of an afterlife. IF you create an estimate/likelihood guess in your head, it's not based on an actual probability. This estimate/likelihood guess is fundamentally different then ones made about winning the lottery, or getting in a car crash.

I edited to add that I appreciate that you tried to take on the best form of my argument, and gave me the benefit of the doubt. I'm finding this a rare trait around here
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2014, 01:13 AM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(01-11-2014 12:54 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I also thought deductive arguments, as long as they were valid and sound, were true??
Running out of battery. Being quick and not adressing arguments at the moment. (Thank you. though I'm not doing it to be nice.)

That's not true. Regarding logic:
A workman can dig a hole of a certain dimensions in 60 seconds.

The output of one workman is similar to that of another workman.

Therefore 60+ workmen can dig a hole of the same dimensions in 1 second.

That arguement is sound (It's premises are accurate) it's valid (it's conclusion follows from it's premisies) but it's not true (it's conclusion isn't accurate).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2014, 02:36 AM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(01-11-2014 12:54 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 11:51 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  That is officially the most adorable thing I've seen all day. It's the pout that sells it.
That is officially the most adorable thing I've seen all day. It's the pout that sells it. (I kid. I promise.)

Since attempting to engage peoples arguments at face value rather than pointing out how their underlying reasoning is faulty is rapidly becoming my thing; how about I actually find some odds for Switz using the methods he's(?) called valid?

(Rounding the bollocks off of this because I'm a lazy fuck and Fermi estimations don't need to be particularly precise anyway.)
So this site says that they have statistics for 4200 distinct religions.

The three largest of them are Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam so let's include another 40 mutually exclusive interpretations of each of them. Lets assume that everything else is arguing semantics of the text and that their core tennents are similar enough to describe the same deity or groups of deities.

Lets assume that across all of human history we have lost and never found any evidence of one third of the different faiths.

And finally lets add one for the denial and lack of faith in all religions. (Because 7 is a better number than 6 and I find numbers with no repeating digits to be more aesthetically pleasing.)

So that's:
1 = 1 = 0.0000177714%
4200+40+1386+1 5627

Of having the correct religious belief or lack of religious belief.
I'm not actually sure what this means. It's fine though.

Because google says that a likelihood factor appears in Bayesian probability. Which in this instance "What are the odds of each religion being accurate when compared to how the world evidently works." (Thank you google.)

So let's give a lot of religions the benefit of the doubt and say that only one in six of them aren't immediately dismissed thanks to what we understand about the world (and we don't look into it any further.) and one third of the remainder aren't immediately dismissed on inconsistencies in the text.

So that's:
5627 * 16% * 33% = 297 = 0.00336%
Not possible.
Also not possible. You can't prove a negative.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.. .

Yes mathematically you can prove something to be true. If you want me to go with the can't prove a negative fine.. In this case you prove something else true that shows the other can't be true.

I also thought deductive arguments, as long as they were valid and sound, were true??

Everything you wrote about religions has no application to my point.

My point as of right now is simple..

You cant calculate the probability of an afterlife. IF you create an estimate/likelihood guess in your head, it's not based on an actual probability. This estimate/likelihood guess is fundamentally different then ones made about winning the lottery, or getting in a car crash.

I edited to add that I appreciate that you tried to take on the best form of my argument, and gave me the benefit of the doubt. I'm finding this a rare trait around here

Feel free to respond to my post.

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
01-11-2014, 03:12 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2014 03:41 AM by Switz5678.)
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(31-10-2014 10:49 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 12:34 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  Yeah, I should have worded this one better. I'm sorry

No need to apologize to me. You can always lie to yourself to try to make yourself feel better. You know, pretend to have "faith" in the existence of an afterlife/god. If every logical part of your brain says that the possibility seems irrational, then I doubt it will give you much peace.
Seems, to me, like it would be better to accept what seems most realistic and learn to be happy with that.

I'm not lying to myself. Every logical part of my brain points to the idea that it's irrational to consider I know the possibility. I do accept that which is more realistic, it is you who needs to reconsider. This isn't considering things like the possibility of living from a 5280 foot free fall, or the possibility of winning the lottery.. This is something that really nothing can be said besides the fact that we wonder about it. I'm not claiming that any religions have it right in any way shape or form, and therefor I carry none of the baggage that follows these religions, which is easily dismissed. This god could be some alien, and we are in a computer simulation for all I know..Afterlife conditions? don't fucking have a clue.. With all that said, what I'm claiming is that you should entertain the scenario which makes you most happy at this point. If you would rather wait for evidence that you might not ever attain instead, and that takes precedence over your happiness then I think that's stupid. On the other hand, if you wont gain some happiness from entertaining some scenario, and => don't.. Well that is perfectly reasonable to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2014, 04:18 AM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(01-11-2014 03:12 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  With all that said, what I'm claiming is that you should entertain the scenario which makes you most happy at this point. If you would rather wait for evidence that you might not ever attain instead, and that takes precedence over your happiness then I think that's stupid. On the other hand, if you wont gain some happiness from entertaining some scenario, and => don't.. Well that is perfectly reasonable to me.

Believing in things without evidence, the basis for good reasoning, is unreasonable. End of the line, full stop. For fuck's sake, it really is that simple... Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
01-11-2014, 04:41 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2014 04:45 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(01-11-2014 03:12 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  With all that said, what I'm claiming is that you should entertain the scenario which makes you most happy at this point. If you would rather wait for evidence that you might not ever attain instead, and that takes precedence over your happiness then I think that's stupid. On the other hand, if you wont gain some happiness from entertaining some scenario, and => don't.. Well that is perfectly reasonable to me.

So, it's smarter to believe in that which has not been demonstrated because of feels than it is to withhold judgement without feels being part of the equation?

All volcanic activity is hereby caused by an Icelandic elf named Yarl who lives in Svalbard.
This thought entertains me and I shall pass it done the generations.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
01-11-2014, 06:03 AM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
^ and ^^ and all over the place in this thread.

This can't be repeated often enough.

As for the idea that people should believe that which would make them most happy no matter what the evidence says: I don't think most people could maintain something like that. Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable and supressing it is exhausting.

That's esspecially true for the "feel good" agnostism Switz is advocating. You get all of the "I am believing this as an aesthetic choice" and none of the benifits. No new interpersonal relationships, no sense of smug superiority, no promise of eternal reward, no ethos to reinforce your bias, no rituals, no habits.

I see the appeal of most religions but Switz; I don't get this.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: