Why do you believe, what you believe?

[Uzor]

If anything, that just reinforces the fact that memories are unreliable and often exaggerated/fabricated subconsciously.


Thinking about thinking is like masturbating to a mirror.

Well, yes. Its why I don't necessarily trust myself. The current theory as to why it activates the same parts of the brain is because when we think about the future, we draw from past experiences and build on the possible future from that. It does reinforce one of the points I'm making, though, that what I believe is based on my previous experiences and what I consider myself to know. It affects my entire being, all the actions I make any my plans, as any time I envision the future, I base it on my experiences, memories and knowledge. Its why I'm critical to most everything.

And Pahnphoenix, you can't base an outcome based on it happening the past xxx times. Yes, the sun has risen every morning in your lifetime, but that does not mean the sun will rise every morning for all eternity. Yes, it is highly likely that it will rise tomorrow, but can you without a shadow of a doubt say that it will rise every morning for all eternity? Because if you can't without a shadow of a doubt say the sun will rise every morning for all eternity, how can you say that the sun will rise every morning?

[BerenTebogo]

Well, yes. Its why I don't necessarily trust myself. The current theory as to why it activates the same parts of the brain is because when we think about the future, we draw from past experiences and build on the possible future from that. It does reinforce one of the points I'm making, though, that what I believe is based on my previous experiences and what I consider myself to know. It affects my entire being, all the actions I make any my plans, as any time I envision the future, I base it on my experiences, memories and knowledge. Its why I'm critical to most everything.

And Pahnphoenix, you can't base an outcome based on it happening the past xxx times. Yes, the sun has risen every morning in your lifetime, but that does not mean the sun will rise every morning for all eternity. Yes, it is highly likely that it will rise tomorrow, but can you without a shadow of a doubt say that it will rise every morning for all eternity?

We already know that the sun wont rise for eternity. Are you retarded? It's a fucking star. Stars have fucking lifetimes. They live, and then they die.

Why are people arguing against somebody who doesn't know a fact as basic as this?

[Uzor]

I know it won't rise every morning for all eternity, its why I'm making that point. You can't say "The sun rises every morning" unless it will rise every morning for all eternity, because it won't. Its not because I don't know that I won't, its because its wrong to say it will. Its probable that it will rise tomorrow because it has for the past few billion years, but saying it will raise every morning is wrong. If he's going to make an argument about things we now for certain, he should at least phrase it in the correct way, being; "It is probable that the sun will rise tomorrow", not that it will every morning.

[Obev]

The only pertinent question is whether or not we still need a coping tool used by societies who measured the height of their civilization by damning up a river for agricultural purposes.

Heheh.

[Tagus]

You know what's kind of funny when you think about it... despite the fact that the idea is hilarious as a punchline, Darwin made absolutely no effort to suggest that intelligence is a dominant trait in any of his scientific work.

[Obev]

I know it won't rise every morning for all eternity, its why I'm making that point. You can't say "The sun rises every morning" unless it will rise every morning for all eternity, which it won't.

By Russell's celestial teapot you're a fucking idiot. Stars live. Stars die. All signs point to our particular star remaining active for the forseeable future of our planet. From a human perspective, yes, it'll keep going for a really fucking long time. That timescale is measured in millions upon millions of years. The sun will keep rising for longer than the paltry six thousand year "eternity" found in holy books.

[Uzor]

I refer to my previous post, as I'm thinking you missed it.

[Obev]

It's probable. Yes. Highly fucking probable.

And if you're wanting to be absolutely correct, the sun doesn't rise. The earth spins.

[pahnphoenix]

@zetanio,

and if i had said that no one really believes in christianity, your post wouldn't have been idiotic and irrelevant. i'm not scoffing at christianity, i'm explaining how i can know that there's no god. it seems christians don't agree. so what?

@uzor,

oh god. when you get as far along in philosophy school as i have and stop being mindblown by hume, you'll see that you don't need to know something "beyond a shadow of a doubt" to know something in the normal sense of the word 'know', and you sure as hell don't need to know something beyond a shadow of a doubt to believe it.

the point is that the belief that there is no god is no stranger for most atheists than the belief that there's milk in the milk carton i just picked up at the store. i have reasons for the belief. i don't need to sit in an oven and ask about indubitability to form rational beliefs about the world.

very little is known "without a doubt", though this is just stretching the useful meaning of "without a doubt". i know without a doubt that the word 'doubt' refers to doubting. i could have got the word wrong, but there's no good reason for me to doubt it. when i reach my hand down to masturbate, i know without a doubt that mr. penis is going to be there to receive my love. "but maybe it won't be there!" yeah, but it will be. don't be fucking stupid just because you took phil 101.

edit: tl;dr summary: if you responded to every declarative sentence everyone ever said to you with "but what if you're wrong? what if you're misremembering?" you would be treated like an idiot, because you would be an idiot.

[Zetanio]

You totally missed what I did there.

[Uzor]

Words are different because those are things we have decided what they're supposed to mean. And I don't question everything, I'm just slightly disturbed that you try to make a logical argument with a logically flawed sentence. Its like being a grammar nazi without being able to spell. Its also a logical error I see a lot of people use, and it's something that's always irked me.

I don't doubt that your penis will be there when you decide to start playing with it, I don't doubt that I perceive the grass as green and it therefor is green, I just don't assume everyone else perceive it the exact same way. I also don't like to assume that what I'm being told is true, such as someone telling me that Piccadilly Circus is to the left - especially not in England where people get embarrassed if they can't give you directions and as such will make something up in order to make it seem they know what they're talking about.

[fussel]

Science!

It works, bitches!

[pahnphoenix]

Words are different because those are things we have decided what they're supposed to mean. And I don't question everything, I'm just slightly disturbed that you try to make a logical argument with a logically flawed sentence. Its like being a grammar nazi without being able to spell. Its also a logical error I see a lot of people use, and it's something that's always irked me.

I don't doubt that your penis will be there when you decide to start playing with it, I don't doubt that I perceive the grass as green and it therefor is green, I just don't assume everyone else perceive it the exact same way. I also don't like to assume that what I'm being told is true, such as someone telling me that Piccadilly Circus is to the left - especially not in England where people get embarrassed if they can't give you directions and as such will make something up in order to make it seem they know what they're talking about.

the point is that it's neither presumptuous nor "a religion" (because you're "using faith, booo") to be an atheist, because the status of the sentence "there is no god" is just about the same as the status of "there is no milk left in the refrigerator." sure, the atheist might be wrong. there might not be milk left in the refrigerator. human knowledge is not all logical truth.

i can't be bothered to read over all the old posts, but if your problem is that i somewhere used induction and said it gave deductive proof of something, i didn't, so don't worry about it. the giant, GIANT majority of human knowledge is not derived from deductive reasoning alone. we can trust observation and (yes) induction too. hume and descartes be damned.

edit: @zetanio, i did see what you did there, and it was stupid. christianity isn't a religion in virtue of it not being 1+1=2. mull over it during the 5 seconds in which you're capable of thinking about it.

also, @ "words are different b/c they're agreed upon," this is also some pretty naive philosophy here... words are, in general, not "agreed upon" regarding their meaning. that is not how language was or is developed. this is a long tangent and i promised no walls of text. final edit, not to be too haughty, but i can assure you that every logical error you see me make is either a logical error you are making, or some flawed presupposition on your part.

[fussel]

I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.

RIP

[Zetanio]

Look at all the personal insults flying from this guy. Next thing you know he'll be telling me how much better he is then me in real life.

I called you out for using the same argument that Christians (and indeed most religious folks) use to justify the "faith" or "belief" they have. It's entertaining to see it used in that context.

Don't get so mad buddy.

[Jefe]

I'm Catholic and I believe in the do/believe whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't hurt yourself or others. Wanna ride cock? Sure, I don't give a fuck. Wanna believe in God, cool by me. Don't want to? All's cool. Just live and leave me the fuck alone.

[Zoolander]

I believe what I believe because history and evidence has shown me that I'm generally right. I'm also willing to accept and learn from most mistakes, so the few times that I'm not completely right, the next time I will be.

I guess I'm kind of religious then...just that my God is me. hmmm...

Its kind of funny watching the people educated in various fields (political science, philosophy, religion) talk to people who's opinions were probably formulated in a few moments of thought and then demand that their opinion be respected.

[Jefe]

I think you meant whose, but I digress. Anyway, nice assumption right there. It'd be interesting to know their majors though.

[Lucavi]

For the OP, I am a lazy Catholic (believe in God, fail to go to church) and a liberal.

So does this mean you don't believe in extramarital sex? Blast it all.

[Uzor]

the point is that it's neither presumptuous nor "a religion" (because you're "using faith, booo") to be an atheist, because the status of the sentence "there is no god" is just about the same as the status of "there is no milk left in the refrigerator." sure, the atheist might be wrong. there might not be milk left in the refrigerator. human knowledge is not all logical truth.

It is not the same in the least. If you look at the milk carton in the fridge and see it is empty, you can safely state that you're out of milk. You can not, however, look up in the sky and see that you're out of God. God is not a thing you can touch, see or "feel" directly - and yet people believe that he exists. You can't draw the same conclusion about God, because you can't prove whether he exists or not. You can, however, open the fridge and prove that you're out of milk. If you're gonna compare statuses, it would be closer to comparing it to the sun rising tomorrow. Atheists are just as sure that there is no God as them believing the sun will rise tomorrow - and Christians are just as sure that there is a God as they are the sun will rise tomorrow. Both are positive they are correct, which makes it - in my opinion - rather moot to discuss, as there is no way to prove it either way.

also, @ "words are different b/c they're agreed upon," this is also some pretty naive philosophy here... words are, in general, not "agreed upon" regarding their meaning. that is not how language was or is developed. this is a long tangent and i promised no walls of text. final edit, not to be too haughty, but i can assure you that every logical error you see me make is either a logical error you are making, or some flawed presupposition on your part.

Most words are agreed upon, though. We've given "1" a value it represents which is pretty much globally accepted, and we've agreed upon mathematical rules that a plus sign represents adding the two numbers and combining them in to a higher value, as noted by the equal sign which means the two sides of the equation should have equal value. In the same way we've decided what a fork is, what a knife is, what a car is etc. The only words that can be argued as to what they mean are adjectives (what's old to a 10-year old girl may not be old to you, for example), certain nouns - such as feelings - can also be interpreted different. A fork, a knife etc. is still a fork or a knife, even though they may be able to fulfill other tasks than what it was intended for, such as digging or killing. Walk forward, for example, can't really be argued that it can be done in several different ways, or be interpreted differently.

And you can't seriously say I make a logical error when I state you can't say the sun will rise every morning. If you truly have such a high degree in philosophy, you should know it goes against the very concept of logic used in philosophy.