Why you choose to not believe?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2014, 05:19 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
Drive by theism?
We're just talking to each other again.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 05:20 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

Alrighty, let's have a bit of fun shall we?

(29-10-2014 04:28 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  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.

We cannot prove that there is no life after death, nor can we prove that there is no god, but that is not our job. It is the proponents of such beliefs which have to answer the burden.
This burden has not been remotely met, as such the default is to remain sceptical of the existence of an afterlife until it is proven.

However, I would argue that we can discern the likelihood of one of the other, based on the balance of probabilities; which is more probable: a continuation of life post-mortem, for which there are no viable models or mechanisms known, or a total cessation of life upon the time of death?
I wager the latter is more probable; it fits all current evidence and does not require unevidenced assumptions.

(29-10-2014 04:28 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  -I see life/living as preferable to death/nonexisting.

Ones feels are totally irrelevant when it comes to reasoning.

(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.

No.
If you lack the ability to judge the probability of two opposing views, perhaps you should not be doing such thinking; leave it to the people who are capable of performing simple mental tasks.

Fact of the matter is: happiness is totally irrelevant to truth. I can't just decide that Huldufólk exist simply because I can't absolutely disprove them and it would make me happy.

(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.

I dare-say you have failed.

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
29-10-2014, 05:23 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(29-10-2014 04:51 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(29-10-2014 04:28 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  What I can't understand is why the choice to believe in a Godless universe without the chance of afterlife?

Are you saying that you chose to believe in a god and an afterlife because you wanted it to be true rather than because you thought it actually was?

So really you are admitting that you are deliberately fooling yourself?

No what I'm saying is that since I can't gain the insight to form a solid belief based on evidence I choose to believe in afterlife/god/unicorn. If I were to know better through evidence, and then choose to believe despite that evidence I would be deliberately fooling myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 05:25 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2014 05:29 PM by Mathilda.)
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(29-10-2014 05:13 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  Person A (believes in something that they believe is Darwinian evolution but isn't)
The chances must be astronomical for the constituents required for the complex chemistry to turn into biology, and then go through selective processing to end with us humans.

Fixed for you.

Person C

Person accepts the scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution, understands current theories of abiogenesis and understands that the process is inevitable given the right conditions and that human kind is one of many different possible results.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
29-10-2014, 05:25 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(29-10-2014 05:17 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I'm sorry guys there are so many responses I can't keep up with them.. I'm trying hahahaha

I can wait. Dualism and the Mind-Body problem deserve some serious consideration and contemplation before you reply. I know I spent a shitload of time pondering them at Uni during my Omphaloskepsis 101 class.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 05:27 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
I choose to believe there is a giant, invisible, intangible dragon following me everywhere, who keeps track of anyone I do not like and flies off to give them nightmares while I sleep.

We cannot test whether he exists or not, and I would greatly prefer he exist, therefore it is rational for me to believe in him. Drinking Beverage

Popcorn I put more thought into fiction than theists put into reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes CleverUsername's post
29-10-2014, 05:28 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(29-10-2014 05:23 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  
(29-10-2014 04:51 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Are you saying that you chose to believe in a god and an afterlife because you wanted it to be true rather than because you thought it actually was?

So really you are admitting that you are deliberately fooling yourself?

No what I'm saying is that since I can't gain the insight to form a solid belief based on evidence I choose to believe in afterlife/god/unicorn. If I were to know better through evidence, and then choose to believe despite that evidence I would be deliberately fooling myself.

And here we have it yet again. A characteristic common to all ardent theists or zealots. An inability to think in relative terms, only absolutes. You can't absolutely know one thing therefore anything goes.

No. One is more plausible than another.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mathilda's post
29-10-2014, 05:29 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(29-10-2014 05:20 PM)Free Thought 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

Alrighty, let's have a bit of fun shall we?

(29-10-2014 04:28 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  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.

We cannot prove that there is no life after death, nor can we prove that there is no god, but that is not our job. It is the proponents of such beliefs which have to answer the burden.
This burden has not been remotely met, as such the default is to remain sceptical of the existence of an afterlife until it is proven.

However, I would argue that we can discern the likelihood of one of the other, based on the balance of probabilities; which is more probable: a continuation of life post-mortem, for which there are no viable models or mechanisms known, or a total cessation of life upon the time of death?
I wager the latter is more probable; it fits all current evidence and does not require unevidenced assumptions.

(29-10-2014 04:28 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  -I see life/living as preferable to death/nonexisting.

Ones feels are totally irrelevant when it comes to reasoning.

(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.

No.
If you lack the ability to judge the probability of two opposing views, perhaps you should not be doing such thinking; leave it to the people who are capable of performing simple mental tasks.

Fact of the matter is: happiness is totally irrelevant to truth. I can't just decide that Huldufólk exist simply because I can't absolutely disprove them and it would make me happy.

(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.

I dare-say you have failed.

Failed what might I ask? Do you feel superior because you have somehow uncovered some agenda that I'm pushing?

Burden of proof has nothing to do with it, and I think the concept flew right over your head to be honest. I'm not saying => God exists, and if you think otherwise please show me.

Please my friend, if your intentions do be good, provide me a means to mathematically find this probability
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 05:29 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
double post

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 05:31 PM
RE: Why you choose to not believe?
(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.
My end game from this would be that its rational to believe, and not rational to not believe.

The happiness value of a proposition does not imply its truth value.

"The argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin, is a logical fallacy that the perceived outcomes of a proposition can determine its veracity. An example of arguing from adverse consequences might go like: belief in the theory of evolution leads to eugenics; therefore the theory of evolution is false. Conversely an argument from favourable consequences might go: belief in God leads to an increase in charitable giving; therefore God exists."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_fr...nsequences

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: