|
duodenum posted:I'm sure I'll regret touching the poop, but the point is that these Bronze Age cultures ascribed anything they didn't understand to the acts of a supernatural power. You're doing the same thing if you misunderstand how flawed the senses and brain can be, especially in extraordinary circumstances, and ascribe your "experiences" to the supernatural. It's telling how all of the testimonials I've cared to read in this thread describing why one believes seem to boil down to such "experiences." in other words, in the absence on any evidence, you are certain that every supernatural experience has a physiological explanation i think faith's pretty ridiculous, but if you're going to have faith you might as well have it in something that gives meaning to your life
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I've had no supernatural experiences. I don't believe you can have a truly supernatural experience. I believe the fact of existence at all is sufficient proof of God's existence. So, the strong anthropic principle? The Abrahamic God?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:in other words, in the absence on any evidence, you are certain that every supernatural experience has a physiological explanation You have that backwards, it should read: "In the absence of any evidence, experiences that are physiological are being given supernatural significance." In one hand, the chasm between effect and explanation makes sense. On the other hand, the chasm is "here's a story, I believe it and you can't tell me I'm wrong." No, I can't walk through the effects one describes, chemical reaction to chemical reaction, and tell you why you have a supernatural experience, point by point, but the physiology of sense and interpretation is very complex and assuming an explanation based on chemistry and physics is MUCH more believable than the myth of your choice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:if you're going to have faith you might as well have it in something that gives meaning to your life I apologize, I don't mean to misrepresent you by skipping the last bit of your post. My reply to this sentiment would be to criticize the need for "meaning." The universe is a cold, heartless machine. We can all be destroyed in a moment, and there is absolutely no meaning necessary to explain the physics and chemical processes that lead to our existence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
duodenum posted:I apologize, I don't mean to misrepresent you by skipping the last bit of your post. My reply to this sentiment would be to criticize the need for "meaning." The universe is a cold, heartless machine. We can all be destroyed in a moment, and there is absolutely no meaning necessary to explain the physics and chemical processes that lead to our existence. the thing is that if you're down to just picking and choosing what to believe (which you are, really) it's pretty ridic to deliberately pick "the universe is a cold heartless machine" ahead of one that makes you feel good
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:the thing is that if you're down to just picking and choosing what to believe (which you are, really) it's pretty ridic to deliberately pick "the universe is a cold heartless machine" ahead of one that makes you feel good What's ridiculous is that you're making a decision based on how it feels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
The flip side of "the universe has no meaning" is "the universe imposes no meaning on you." Radical freedom and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:the thing is that if you're down to just picking and choosing what to believe (which you are, really) it's pretty ridic to deliberately pick "the universe is a cold heartless machine" ahead of one that makes you feel good This is the way stupid and unimaginative people believe atheists think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:the thing is that if you're down to just picking and choosing what to believe (which you are, really) it's pretty ridic to deliberately pick "the universe is a cold heartless machine" ahead of one that makes you feel good You can't choose what to believe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You can't choose what to believe. no
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Ok, prove it by choosing to believe that the sun orbits the earth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, prove it by choosing to believe that the sun orbits the earth. i don't want to
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:but there isn't But there are mechanisms by which we know most of these experiences could have come about. So even if we can't say "person A felt experience X because of this mechanism", we have some ideas other than something supernatural that could be true. I mean, God of the gaps is a bad approach even if you don't have any other alternative ideas, but it's especially bad when you *do* know of some non-supernatural ways such things could have come about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:But there are mechanisms by which we know most of these experiences could have come about. So even if we can't say "person A felt experience X because of this mechanism", we have some ideas other than something supernatural that could be true. I mean, God of the gaps is a bad approach even if you don't have any other alternative ideas, but it's especially bad when you *do* know of some non-supernatural ways such things could have come about. but this is hopelessly unscientific
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:But there are mechanisms by which we know most of these experiences could have come about. So even if we can't say "person A felt experience X because of this mechanism", we have some ideas other than something supernatural that could be true. I mean, God of the gaps is a bad approach even if you don't have any other alternative ideas, but it's especially bad when you *do* know of some non-supernatural ways such things could have come about. Even worse, it's ultimately irrelevant. Even if I have the most vivid personal experience imaginable, that vision doesn't justify believing in something that is beyond the ability of humans to test. "There is eternal life after death" is something we are not capable of testing, so there can be no basis to believe it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
To get to the other side!!!!!!!!! e: responding to the op's title question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Even worse, it's ultimately irrelevant. Even if I have the most vivid personal experience imaginable, that vision doesn't justify believing in something that is beyond the ability of humans to test. "There is eternal life after death" is something we are not capable of testing, so there can be no basis to believe it. you can't test whether other people are actually sentient though, so this is a pretty ridiculous way of deciding what to believe
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:you can't test whether other people are actually sentient though, so this is a pretty ridiculous way of deciding what to believe
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, prove it by choosing to believe that the sun orbits the earth. Ok, for the next 30 minutes this is what I believe. Trip report: 0:01 Feels like a dumb thing to believe. Don't think I'll keep this up, past the agreed upon 30 minutes
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:To the extent any knowledge is achievable, this is definitely testable. You are a bad poster. you are a sufficiently complex markov chain generator
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:you are a sufficiently complex markov chain generator Is it possible to test this, and if not why would you believe it? You don't actually believe this, but why don't you if you think it's a compelling argument?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Ok, for the next 30 minutes this is what I believe. No, you misunderstand, it's not enough to just say you believe it. Anyone can do that, you have to actually choose to become convinced of it. If beliefs are an active choice (hint: they aren't, there's that whole "convinced" thing I mentioned a second ago) it should be trivial to do. And yet nobody in all of human history has ever been able to do it on command. Gosh, it's almost like you can't! Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jul 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, you misunderstand, it's not enough to just say you believe it. Anyone can do that, you have to actually choose to become convinced of it. If beliefs are an active choice (hint: they aren't, there's that whole "convinced" thing I mentioned a second ago) it should be trivial to do. And yet nobody in all of human history has ever been able to do it on command. Gosh, it's almost like you can't! So, choosing your beliefs is impossible because if it was possible it would make changing your beliefs trivial, but anyone claiming they can choose their beliefs trivially isn't really choosing their beliefs, because choosing your beliefs is impossible? Am I getting that right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, you misunderstand, it's not enough to just say you believe it. Anyone can do that, you have to actually choose to become convinced of it. If beliefs are an active choice (hint: they aren't, there's that whole "convinced" thing I mentioned a second ago) it should be trivial to do. And yet nobody in all of human history has ever been able to do it on command. Gosh, it's almost like you can't! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohNbDnlQp78
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:So, choosing your beliefs is impossible because if it was possible it would make changing your beliefs trivial, but anyone claiming they can choose their beliefs trivially isn't really choosing their beliefs, because choosing your beliefs is impossible? Am I getting that right? Anyone who claims to have done it voluntarily on a whim instead of by becoming convinced is lying, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
 Arbitrarily choosing to believe is a huge part of the Christian tradition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:you are a sufficiently complex markov chain generator That would appear to fit the definition of sentience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Anyone who claims to have done it voluntarily on a whim instead of by becoming convinced is lying, yes. How do you know?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:How do you know? Because free will is a lie, you can't choose anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Because free will is a lie, you can't choose anything. That's a red herring, but fine. How do you know that my belief about the orbits of the sun and the earth, which is presumably just a physical structure in my brain, could not change based upon the visual input of "Ok, prove it by choosing to believe that the sun orbits the earth"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
god literally gave us free will i dunno what ur going on about
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:but this is hopelessly unscientific It's mere parsimony. X is known to exist. Y may or may not exist. Either would explain observation Z. X should be the preferred explanation until it can be ruled out. This does not "prove" that X is the correct explanation. It is simply prudent to attempt to rule it out as other explanations are possibly non existent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:but this is hopelessly unscientific I'm not saying we should decide one of those possibilities is true. I'm saying that, given the existence of other, more likely (natural) possibilities, it makes even less sense to assume the supernatural is responsible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:That's a red herring, but fine. How do you know that my belief about the orbits of the sun and the earth, which is presumably just a physical structure in my brain, could not change based upon the visual input of "Ok, prove it by choosing to believe that the sun orbits the earth"? Because beliefs change by becoming convinced of the validity of their alternatives, not through conscious decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Because beliefs change by becoming convinced of the validity of their alternatives, not through conscious decisions. This is basically true, though it's still possible for someone to convince themselves to change their beliefs without any outside intervention. If someone keeps repeating to themselves that "X is true", there's a good chance they'll come to genuinely believe it over time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Whatever happened to that Kyrie Eleison guy who only posted about the importance of pure Christian life and anime?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Whatever happened to that Kyrie Eleison guy who only posted about the importance of pure Christian life and anime? Don't forget the conflicted homosexuality. Think he got banned. Hope he finally figured out it is ok to be gay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Because beliefs change by becoming convinced of the validity of their alternatives, not through conscious decisions. But your reasoning for this appears to be circular. Previously you gave as evidence of this assertion that nobody in human history had been able to conciously decide change their beliefs. However, any person who says they have, you assert to be lying, because you have already decided it is impossible. This is a lot like people who believe the world was created in 7 days, because the bible says so. If you provide evidence this is not the case (like fossils), then the evidence must be a lie, because it would contradict the bible which is always true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:But your reasoning for this appears to be circular. Previously you gave as evidence of this assertion that nobody in human history had been able to conciously decide change their beliefs. That wasn't evidence so much as it was sarcastic mockery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:That wasn't evidence so much as it was sarcastic mockery. Do you have any evidence for your assertion, then? Or do you just take it on faith that it's not possible to conciously change beliefs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 00:24
|
|