Why you choose to not believe?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2014, 10:08 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(01-11-2014 01:30 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(01-11-2014 08:54 AM)Anjele Wrote:  It is not a choice!!!!!!!

that is all - move on

I haven't been checking up on this thread as much as everyone else, but hasn't this been said and proven a dozen times? Is he/she still fighting that fact or have we moved onto something different?

No my.. I'm not fighting this. I was wrong about my thoughts on the matter, and the "choose to believe" wording was a poor choice. I agree with the ones who state you don't choose to believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2014, 10:09 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(01-11-2014 01:18 PM)Free 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 dared to get an education.

I'm here trying to do the same thing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2014, 10:42 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2014 11:06 PM by Switz5678.)
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(01-11-2014 04:41 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  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.

Well I guess the answer is yes/no. I don't really believe an afterlife exists, or that I know any condition of it if it does. I think that it is more reasonable to hope for, or entertain this idea, if it makes you more happy.

There are a lot of misconceptions about what I have been saying.

Things like
This is based on Christianity, Islam etc..
That I'm stating this is a 50/50 scenario
That I know anything about this afterlife w a God/afterlife w/o a God.

"All volcanic activity is hereby caused by an Icelandic elf named Yarl who lives in Svalbard."

The problem with this is that we know that tectonic plates cause volcanic activity.

------------------------------

consider this..

If I were to come here and say the likelihood of an afterlife is decent... I'm fairly certain that I would get a lot of responses asking me how did I come to that conclusion because it wouldn't make sense!

Well, this is the same reasoning that causes me to question the multiple individuals who say that there is close to zero chance. I notice that you guys are much more willing to accept this line of thinking. Bias I assume. My "decent" and their "~zero" both are wrong for the exact same reason.. There is no way we can know this! If you believe either you are doing so without evidence to support it.
-------

Now there have been a couple who recognized this point, and they gave me some very good insight

Examples
-If we know so little that we can't make any statistical assessment then we can't say anything meaningful about it either.

-Entertaining a scenario from something we can't make any statical assessment of could be dangerous because it could influence how you live your life.
------

Now as it stands I still stand by the concept that if you can't make a statistical assessment (at this time) about an afterlife, and it makes you happy to do so, entertain the chance of it. Not because it means it's more likely to be true.. The reason is that you are happier. If you gain no happiness from entertaining either one, then don't.

Anything that you can apply some form of statistical assessment to DOES NOT apply to the above.

What's so crazy to me is not one person will Either
A. Provide any rationale to their ~zero chance of afterlife
B. acknowledge that they can think of no way to provide a probability

There is a FUNDAMENTAL error in thinking that the chances to win the lottery lottery compare to the chances of an afterlife. In the first we know the number of possibilities, and in the other we don't. In one we Know the way TO EVEN find the probability, and in the other we don't. Estimates, which are just a rough guesses at probability, are only valuable if they closely correlate to the actual probabilities. Estimates, which don't have any fundamental probability to correlate to don't really mean anything at all
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2014, 11:19 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
With the above said I'm done writing in this thread.. I will read the responses though. If you really still want to engage in calm and respectful discourse about this just PM me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2014, 11:59 PM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2014 10:24 AM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(01-11-2014 10:05 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  
(01-11-2014 08:51 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Try to at least make your answers intellectually consistent and based in reality. It's conducive to good conversation.

I looked through your posts, and I don't see the need to address your points. You go for personal attacks, and others have already made more developed arguments without doing so.

Sorry there skippy but pointing out that your thinking is flawed and the effects that flawed thinking has on your world view, and then taking the time to explain in detail why it's flawed and how you can correct it, is not a personal attack. It's an observation and an attempt at education. Pointing out your fallacies is also not a personal attack. I attacked your reasons. I attacked your lack of evidence. I attacked your irrationality. I attacked your nonsensical and intellectually incoherent and inconsistent beliefs. I didn't attack you personally because I don't give a single sweltering fuck who you are. I care what you believe and why. Full stop.

You can not like my blunt nature all you want, but not coddling you is not the same as an attack. If your not willing to address questions asked in earnest go right ahead but I've no choice but to assume you don't have any answers if you are unwilling or unable to answer them. I can't tell if your lack of answers is due to ignorance or just plain being obstinate because they look the same to me.

What afterlife do you believe in? Describe your beliefs, not just state that you have a belief, that's a vapid statement.
How did you determine that this afterlife was more probable then another afterlife, if no data exists to compare and contrast?
How do you deal with Occam's Razor showing that your argument is in fact the least likely due to added and unnecessary complexity?
How can we possibly experience an afterlife when everything we know about the brain proves that the mind, identity, and consciousness all begin, depend upon, and end with the brain?
How can a person experience anything devoid of anything and everything that makes you... you?
How do you square your claim to have a reasonable belief without any legitimate reasons?
Why do you believe in this thing without evidence, but not everything else that lacks evidence? What is your criteria for determining what groundless beliefs are valid and which are not?


Have at it lad if you have the stones.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2014, 12:19 AM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(01-11-2014 10:42 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  Well, this is the same reasoning that causes me to question the multiple individuals who say that there is close to zero chance. I notice that you guys are much more willing to accept this line of thinking. Bias I assume. My "decent" and their "~zero" both are wrong for the exact same reason.. There is no way we can know this! If you believe either you are doing so without evidence to support it.

Here is the problem though: that is total bullshit. I PERSONALLY have provided several avenues of evidence to explore as to why the concept of an afterlife, especially as it is commonly presented throughout history, is as close to zero as can safely be said in any field.

You chose to ignore these avenues of evidence deliberately but that does not mean they don't exist and that we don't have them.
That said we don't even need any fucking evidence to toss out, as probable or even possible, claims made without evidence. Hitches Razor takes care of your argument before you finish making it.

At best the only type of afterlife we don't have evidence against is one that is:

A.) In no substantial way identifiably different from an afterlife that does not exist.
B.) Has not been described in a single correct detail by any religion.
C.) Can not include you in any way that includes your body, thoughts, emotions, memories, or identity or house any other humans with those qualities.

If you wanna believe in that watered down weak ass afterlife go right ahead. Or you can pick up your ball and go home cause you don't like hard questions you can't obfuscate around in the most non-committal and vague way possible which is what seems to be your intention now. Our two claims are not equal and fuck you for trying to claim that they are. You have yet to demonstrate a mechanic that allows an afterlife to be even POSSIBLE let alone gotten to the stage of arguing probability. You have your cart before your pony.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 02:36 AM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2014 02:54 AM by Switz5678.)
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(02-11-2014 12:19 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(01-11-2014 10:42 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  Well, this is the same reasoning that causes me to question the multiple individuals who say that there is close to zero chance. I notice that you guys are much more willing to accept this line of thinking. Bias I assume. My "decent" and their "~zero" both are wrong for the exact same reason.. There is no way we can know this! If you believe either you are doing so without evidence to support it.

Here is the problem though: that is total bullshit. I PERSONALLY have provided several avenues of evidence to explore as to why the concept of an afterlife, especially as it is commonly presented throughout history, is as close to zero as can safely be said in any field.

You chose to ignore these avenues of evidence deliberately but that does not mean they don't exist and that we don't have them.
That said we don't even need any fucking evidence to toss out, as probable or even possible, claims made without evidence. Hitches Razor takes care of your argument before you finish making it.

At best the only type of afterlife we don't have evidence against is one that is:

A.) In no substantial way identifiably different from an afterlife that does not exist.
B.) Has not been described in a single correct detail by any religion.
C.) Can not include you in any way that includes your body, thoughts, emotions, memories, or identity or house any other humans with those qualities.

If you wanna believe in that watered down weak ass afterlife go right ahead. Or you can pick up your ball and go home cause you don't like hard questions you can't obfuscate around in the most non-committal and vague way possible which is what seems to be your intention now. Our two claims are not equal and fuck you for trying to claim that they are. You have yet to demonstrate a mechanic that allows an afterlife to be even POSSIBLE let alone gotten to the stage of arguing probability. You have your cart before your pony.


Well.. I know this thread has died to many, but for some reason I have been thinking about it quite a bit. I want to answer your questions WhiskeyD. Stones? haha

"What afterlife do you believe in? Describe your beliefs, not just state that you have a belief, that's a vapid statement."

I was very vague in describing an afterlife because I don't know what it would entail if it did actually exist.

"How did you determine that this afterlife was more probable then another afterlife, if no data exists to compare and contrast?"

I don't

"How do you deal with Occam's Razor showing that your argument is in fact the least likely due to added and unnecessary complexity?"

Really Occam's razor? I don't really give two shits.

"How do you square your claim to have a reasonable belief without any legitimate reasons?"

This isn't about a reasonable belief

"Why do you believe in this thing without evidence, but not everything else that lacks evidence? What is your criteria for determining what groundless beliefs are valid and which are not?"

I don't believe in this afterlife. What I determined to be valid is that we have no clue on the probability. I believe only that when it comes down to the argument that I presented. My grounds for this is that we aren't sure how to test it..
-----------

You think I wouldn't accept the proof of no afterlife?

I didn't like the fact that evolution was proved. I accept it though because fuck my feelings

You think I like the idea that being a good person doesn't necessarily mean that I enjoy eternal bliss?

"I PERSONALLY have provided several avenues of evidence to explore as to why the concept of an afterlife, especially as it is commonly presented throughout history, is as close to zero as can safely be said in any field."

Oh really?? I didn't know that I presented a concept of an afterlife which has been commonly presented.. If you can please provide evidence? You have no fucking clue what probability is, and when it can be used IMO.

"Hitches Razor takes care of your argument before you finish making it."

Honestly same feeling as Occ Razor, but I'll help you along. When you can't be sure the means you are using to test a thing really even tests the thing.. You can't say much now can you?

- In reply to this statement: "Well, this is the same reasoning that causes me to question the multiple individuals who say that there is close to zero chance. I notice that you guys are much more willing to accept this line of thinking. Bias I assume. My "decent" and their "~zero" both are wrong for the exact same reason.. There is no way we can know this! If you believe either you are doing so without evidence to support it."

you say
"Our two claims are not equal and fuck you for trying to claim that they are."

Did I say they were equal? learn to comprehend. I said they were wrong for the same reason.. not that they were equal. fuck who?
---------

My question to you is:

How do we know that the tests we have done are valid way of measuring an afterlife potential?

Stones?

I'll give credit where credits due though.. You are a very good turd polisher
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 04:41 AM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(06-11-2014 02:36 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I was very vague in describing an afterlife because I don't know what it would entail if it did actually exist.
I didn't ask you what you know about the after life I asked you what you personally believe about the after life. Those are two different questions.


(06-11-2014 02:36 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  Really Occam's razor? I don't really give two shits.
The fact that you do not give a shit in no way is a answer to the problem it provides with your claim which I raised. Occam's razor is a logical tool to help us determine the probability of a claim. If you are going to assert we can't determine probability while simultaneously and egregiously ignoring any tool that could help us to do that then you are simply deluding yourself.
That's not to say that an after life is not possible, the one I described is theoretically possible, but it is less probable then the claim one does not exist and this is logically true.
The fact you want to avoid accountability to this fact is not my problem.
(06-11-2014 02:36 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  This isn't about a reasonable belief
Now you are just lying through your fucking teeth.
From your OP:
(29-10-2014 04:28 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I guess my basic line of reasoning can be summed up as follows..
(29-10-2014 04:28 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  My end game from this would be that its rational to believe, and not rational to not believe.
You are the one that claimed you had a line of reasoning which leads you to the belief that it is rational to believe in an afterlife and whats more that it is irrational to not believe. Now you are claiming that you DON'T have a belief in the afterlife and that it's not about a reasonable belief anyway.
Bullshit, you are a snake oil salesman and nothing more.

(06-11-2014 02:36 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I don't believe in this afterlife.
(29-10-2014 04:28 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  My end game from this would be that its rational to believe, and not rational to not believe.
Sure you don't.


(06-11-2014 02:36 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  What I determined to be valid is that we have no clue on the probability.
Occam's Razor still says hello. Your unproven, undemonstrated, content free belief in an afterlife is logically the least probable to be true. That you don't want to use a tool designed to help us determine probability..to determine probability is not our problem, it's yours.

(06-11-2014 02:36 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I didn't like the fact that evolution was proved. I accept it though because fuck my feelings
uhhh...
(29-10-2014 04:28 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  -In the absence of the ability to discern possibility/probability you should choose what makes you most happy.
Your entire line of reasoning to justify your belief in an afterlife as rational was "we don't know so I'll believe what makes me happy and call that rational".
Fuck your feelings indeed, it's a central pillar of your justification.

(06-11-2014 02:36 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I didn't like the fact that evolution was proved.
Before I respond to anymore of your, lets call them, answers I would like to know WHY you didn't like that evolution was proven true? You're not an atheist that's obvious and the only reason to dislike evolution being true is for Religious reasons. What do you self identify as? Christian? Muslim? Deist?

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
06-11-2014, 05:37 AM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(06-11-2014 02:36 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I don't believe in this afterlife. What I determined to be valid is that we have no clue on the probability. I believe only that when it comes down to the argument that I presented. My grounds for this is that we aren't sure how to test it..

Nothing, like literally nothing supernatural has ever been proven or even been shown to be remotely real. It's possible? Yes, theoretically everything is possible as an idea, but reality is all we know. And reality is natural.

(06-11-2014 02:36 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I didn't like the fact that evolution was proved. I accept it though because fuck my feelings

Err why? What is so terrifying about the theory of Evolution? You can still be a theist and accept evolution. A lot of Christians do. At least in Europe, it's pretty much a settled topic.

(06-11-2014 02:36 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  How do we know that the tests we have done are valid way of measuring an afterlife potential?

Setting apart the fact that "life" as we know it is biological processes, and you cannot have them without something that produces them, i.e. a body.

That's impossible. You cannot test an afterlife. It's impossible by definition. An afterlife would belong to a domain we don't live in. If we could test it, it would be natural, and not supernatural. Science can only test measurable and verifiable phenomena, natural phenomena. Not magic, not ghosts, not anything else of that sort.

You claim that there is a 50/50 probability, but I doubt that's correct. The only reason you think so is that you have been educated and/or informed about religious views of afterlives, so your mind can accept it. But that's a biased thought. It's like thinking that Harry Potter and Hogwarts may exist, because why not.

(If it does please tell them to send me the letter.)

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Polyglot Atheist's post
06-11-2014, 04:06 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(06-11-2014 05:37 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  That's impossible. You cannot test an afterlife. It's impossible by definition. An afterlife would belong to a domain we don't live in. If we could test it, it would be natural, and not supernatural. Science can only test measurable and verifiable phenomena, natural phenomena. Not magic, not ghosts, not anything else of that sort.

You claim that there is a 50/50 probability, but I doubt that's correct. The only reason you think so is that you have been educated and/or informed about religious views of afterlives, so your mind can accept it. But that's a biased thought. It's like thinking that Harry Potter and Hogwarts may exist, because why not.

(If it does please tell them to send me the letter.)

Exactly! you can not test this.

I did entertain a 50/50 scenario.. I shouldn't have.

This was all I was trying to say.

When you have an undefinable probability why not hope for a said scenario if it makes you happy. I really don't care what it is you want to hope for.. The point is that for some having hope makes them more happy.

If you were to have a medical condition that has a 75 percent mortality rate would you not hope for that 25 percent being you? Would that not make you more happy to operate under the hope that you will survive?

With that said why not apply the same rationale to something in which there is no defined probability?


The way I described this in the OP was bad. I failed, and I need to put my big boy thinking cap on before I do something like that again. I have learned much from this
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: