Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Morality or Obedience?
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
I've been watching this back and forth for a while, and I think you two are talking past each other. You (Tass) are speaking about "reasonable assumptions" and Seer is speaking about "absolute proofs." I think you need to remember that he is a theist, and they are somewhat prone to binary thinking. So he is correct in his (somewhat extreme) statement: you have no way of "absolutely proving" that a primate "subjectively experiences X." They could be fooling you. They could be mimicking. There are a dozen possibilities that COULD explain the behavior without resorting to "they experience X human trait."
In other words, he is speaking in absolutes (e.g., prove it without possibility of error, like a mathematical proof) and you are speaking probabilities/plausibilities (e.g., the behavior strongly indicates X, which most likely means Y). From my perspective, that makes you both right. Qualia is an internal experience. It may be possible to prove someone (or something) experiences qualia, but it is not possible to know the experience as if it were you own. The best we can do is observe behavior, compare it to our own and what drives us, and infer that the same thing is most likely happening for that other being. It is a reasonable assumption, it is plausible, it is just not provable in the same way that someone can prove that the angles of a triangle always sum to 180 degrees.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
It happens a lot...The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostWell - not ALL thesists - and not ALL the time - but there is a tendency in that direction I have noticed (hence the term "prone"). A thing is "true" or it is "false," no in between. I've even seen the the law of noncontradiction reduced to "a statement cannot be true and untrue" excluding the "in the same way and at the same time" part. And if I point out the second part, I become a "post-modern hypocrite with relativist leanings."
It happens a lot...
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI've been watching this back and forth for a while, and I think you two are talking past each other. You (Tass) are speaking about "reasonable assumptions" and Seer is speaking about "absolute proofs." I think you need to remember that he is a theist, and they are somewhat prone to binary thinking. So he is correct in his (somewhat extreme) statement: you have no way of "absolutely proving" that a primate "subjectively experiences X."They could be fooling you. They could be mimicking. There are a dozen possibilities that COULD explain the behavior without resorting to "they experience X human trait."
In other words, he is speaking in absolutes (e.g., prove it without possibility of error, like a mathematical proof) and you are speaking probabilities/plausibilities (e.g., the behavior strongly indicates X, which most likely means Y). From my perspective, that makes you both right.Qualia is an internal experience. It may be possible to prove someone (or something) experiences qualia, but it is not possible to know the experience as if it were you own. The best we can do is observe behavior, compare it to our own and what drives us, and infer that the same thing is most likely happening for that other being. It is a reasonable assumption, it is plausible, it is just not provable in the same way that someone can prove that the angles of a triangle always sum to 180 degrees.Last edited by Tassman; 04-09-2018, 12:41 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI don't believe binary thinking is any more prevalent among theists than it is non-theists. I believe being prone to binary thinking is something that's true for humans in general (and it's not necessarily a bad thing) and has nothing to do with being a theist or not. If it seems like theists are more prone to it than non-theists(and notice I'm not saying non-religious) it's probably because we theists are of a overwhelmingly greater number than non-theists. Any statement to the effect that "theists are more/less prone to X than non-theists" where X stands for anything that isn't tautologically true of theists but not non-theists is most likely going to be insupportable, without any reliable statistic to back it up. It's the same with any statistic that show e.g. that "theists tend to have a lower grade of education than non-theists" and then someone comes around interpreting it to mean that somehow the fact that you're a theist is somehow the very reason why you only have a lower degree of education, or vice versa. But in reality it's simply the fact that "being prone to binary thinking", or "having a fairly low degree of education" is generally true of humans in general and the reason why it might seem more prevalent among theists is simply because the amount of theists is so massively larger than non-theists that any tendency among humans in general is going to be much more pronounced among theist than among non-theists.
Thanks for making me reflect on that a bit more. I was making associations I cannot justify.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
My radar usually goes off when someone speaks in superlatives. Seer does speak in absolutes a fair amount. I'm not sure I can say, "always."
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYes, I agree. I have said exactly this throughout the thread, as recently as in my most recent post #857 above.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostMy radar usually goes off when someone speaks in superlatives. Seer does speak in absolutes a fair amount. I'm not sure I can say, "always."
Yeah - I know. Just thought I'd stick my nose in with an outside perspective.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI don't believe binary thinking is any more prevalent among theists than it is non-theists. I believe being prone to binary thinking is something that's true for humans in general (and it's not necessarily a bad thing) and has nothing to do with being a theist or not. If it seems like theists are more prone to it than non-theists(and notice I'm not saying non-religious) it's probably because we theists are of a overwhelmingly greater number than non-theists. Any statement to the effect that "theists are more/less prone to X than non-theists" where X stands for anything that isn't tautologically true of theists but not non-theists is most likely going to be insupportable, without any reliable statistic to back it up. It's the same with any statistic that show e.g. that "theists tend to have a lower grade of education than non-theists" and then someone comes around interpreting it to mean that somehow the fact that you're a theist is somehow the very reason why you only have a lower degree of education, or vice versa. But in reality it's simply the fact that "being prone to binary thinking", or "having a fairly low degree of education" is generally true of humans in general and the reason why it might seem more prevalent among theists is simply because the amount of theists is so massively larger than non-theists that any tendency among humans in general is going to be much more pronounced among theist than among non-theists.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
23 responses
130 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Today, 06:22 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,122 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
254 responses
1,246 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-22-2024, 12:21 PM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
53 responses
420 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-11-2024, 11:01 AM |
Comment