I found something EVERY atheist should see.

[midniterider]

56 minutes ago, florduh said:

I officially give up. I'm getting too old for these pseudo intellectual semantic games. Have fun, guys!

 

It makes the day go by faster when you're social distancing.

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

AlI science is based on observation. Epistemologically your reality is based on your sense. Can you prove that you are not a brain in a vat ? 

 

Prove?   No.

 

But you are using exactly the same argument as the Christian apologist and evangelist Sye Ten Bruggencate in his debate with Matt Dillahunty.

 

 

 

The fact that two people  (you and Sye) with deep emotional commitments to supernatural beliefs are both using the same argument should give you pause for thought, Leia.

 

It should trouble you and worry that two people with such strongly opposed views use the same argument to arrive at their diametrically opposed conclusions.

 

The common denominator for you and Sye is emotion.

 

You are both driven to resort to the same tactics to justify your deeply-felt beliefs.

 

 

Which supports my contention that a person with a strong emotional bias is highly unlikely to be able to evaluate their beliefs in a properly rational and dispassionate way.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

p.s.

Please pay attention to what Matt says about being a brain in a vat.  

[WalterP]

3 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

Epistemologically you don't have any more truth than me.

 

That claim simply levels the playing field, equalising things between any two people.

 

Both parties could still be wrong, rendering the claim an obstacle to progress in understanding.

 

It's a justification that doesn't build anyone or anything up.

 

It levels everything down to an absolute minimum.

 

 

Someone who can distance themselves from their emotional commitment to their beliefs probably wouldn't engage in this kind of negative approach.

 

Someone who can't disengage their emotions from their rational thinking probably would engage in this kind of negative approach.

 

 

The Christians who visit this forum will resort to any ploy or tactic to avoid challenging what they most dearly love - their beliefs.

 

 Food for thought.

 

 

Walter.

[sdelsolray]

4 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

To be clear this is not about me arguing about my religions claims but dismissing antitheism which is the claim that all religions are inherently harmful. Do you support the anti-theist claim??

 

Do you consider yourself a "theist"?

[LeiaBryant]

16 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Do you consider yourself a "theist"?

Yes I'm a non-christian theist

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Prove?   No.

 

But you are using exactly the same argument as the Christian apologist and evangelist Sye Ten Bruggencate in his debate with Matt Dillahunty.

 

 

 

The fact that two people  (you and Sye) with deep emotional commitments to supernatural beliefs are both using the same argument should give you pause for thought, Leia.

 

It should trouble you and worry that two people with such strongly opposed views use the same argument to arrive at their diametrically opposed conclusions.

 

The common denominator for you and Sye is emotion.

 

You are both driven to resort to the same tactics to justify your deeply-felt beliefs.

 

 

Which supports my contention that a person with a strong emotional bias is highly unlikely to be able to evaluate their beliefs in a properly rational and dispassionate way.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

p.s.

Please pay attention to what Matt says about being a brain in a vat.  

 

Where in the 2 hour video should we watch for the brain in a vat stuff? Please please. 

 

Is it possible to have a strong emotional bias for logic and rationality?  Are logic and rationality above criticism? 

 

 

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Someone who can distance themselves from their emotional commitment to their beliefs probably wouldn't engage in this kind of negative approach.

 

Someone who can't disengage their emotions from their rational thinking probably would engage in this kind of negative approach.

 

 

Leia can either be emotional .... or rational....but not both? Can people be religious and logical and make good decisions?

 

Isn't it wise to engage both emotion and logic while thinking? To dismiss emotion as a second class citizen in favor of purely dispassionate rational thinking seems like folly. And impossible. And kinda boring.

 

What long term negative effect will Leia suffer if she continues having an emotional commitment to her beliefs? 

 

[disillusioned]

6 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

I think you are wrong too. Let's agree to disagree and work together against destructive cults

 

Certainly we can agree to disagree. I'm unlikely to do much work against cults though. I just can't be bothered.

 

Also, I said that I don't think you are inherently irrational. That doesn't mean that you do not hold certain irrational beliefs. Clearly you do. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing; rationality only gets you so far, in my opinion. Your particular irrational beliefs strike me as false, but, as I said, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

[LogicalFallacy]

6 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

At least we agree on antitheism which is why I made the thread

 

Do we? We haven't really discussed anti theism, I've only stated as long as your beliefs are not harmful I'm happy for you to have them. This is a blanket statement and applied equally to you believing you can fly, to gods being real. 

 

However, in the same vein as flat earth belief, believing you can fly etc, such belief's can and often do lead to harmful outcomes.

 

I actually agree with the anti theist when they say all the good parts of religion we don't actually need religion for, and the world is better off without all the false parts.

 

Be kind, don't be a dick, have compassion. None of these values intrinsically stem from religious belief, and in fact if you need to believe in some god to be good, then I don't trust you. Also please keep believing in that god/woo thing if that's all that's stopping you from being a bad person. (You being in a general sense, not specifically you Leia)

 

Quote

I'm not asking you to believe in my magick just to accept I am inherently irrational or delusional.

 

What exactly do you disagree with?

 

Well my point is I may agree with your above statement, but I don't think it says what you want it to. You are asking that I accept that you are inherently irrational or delusional, and I might well be inclined to. However I believe you wanted to say ..." just to accept I am NOT inherently irrational or delusional." or "just to accept I am inherently rational and not delusional."

 

There are vast differences when you simply put the word not in your sentence.

 

Edit (PS I pretty much stand with Disillusioned statement on the subject of irrationality as it pertains to this thread.)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

How are they different?

Fact is known.  Truth is believed.

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

Leia can either be emotional .... or rational....but not both? Can people be religious and logical and make good decisions?

 

Isn't it wise to engage both emotion and logic while thinking? To dismiss emotion as a second class citizen in favor of purely dispassionate rational thinking seems like folly. And impossible. And kinda boring.

 

What long term negative effect will Leia suffer if she continues having an emotional commitment to her beliefs? 

 

 

That's a lot of questions, midniterider.

 

Let me see what I can do.

 

Leia can either be emotional .... or rational....but not both?

 

No, I never said that.  Scientists are rational and emotional, just like everyone else.  But it is the system of peer review and rigorous testing in science that helps to minimise people's biases.  Such a methodology is far more likely to filter out emotionally-driven biases than if a single person were to self-evaluate their own beliefs.

 

Can people be religious and logical and make good decisions?

 

Yes, of course.  But religious people usually have an emotional investment in their beliefs that prevents them from evaluating them as rationally and logically as possible.  A person who is uninvolved in a certain religious belief is far more likely to test it rationally and logically.

 

Isn't it wise to engage both emotion and logic while thinking?

 

Yes.  It is wise to do that.   My focus is on a religious person's ability to self-evaluate beliefs that they are emotionally committed to.   I contend that too great an emotional involvement yields a shortfall in their wisdom.  They cannot bring their logical faculties to bear fully on testing their beliefs.  Sometimes they rely on solipsistic brain-in-the-vat arguments to avoid challenging their beliefs too strongly.  As I mentioned earlier, visiting Christians will go to any lengths and jump through any number of hoops to avoid threatening their deeply-cherished beliefs.  I'd hazard that this kind of avoidance behaviour isn't limited just to Christians.  If a person is sufficiently emotionally committed to their beliefs, they will, metaphorically, move heaven and earth to keep them from being tested to breaking point.  

 

To dismiss emotion as a second class citizen in favor of purely dispassionate rational thinking seems like folly. And impossible. And kinda boring.

 

Since I don't do that and since I agree that its impossible, I'll say no more on that one.

 

What long term negative effect will Leia suffer if she continues having an emotional commitment to her beliefs? 

 

I couldn't possibly say, midniterider.  She's perfectly entitled to believe whatever she wants and I wholeheartedly respect her right and freedom to make her own path. 

 

All I will say is that this is not the Ex-Christian Spirituality section.  Having posted here, in the Rants and Replies section, she's opened herself up to the possibility of queries, questions and challenges from other members.  Clearly she's a highly intelligent and articulate person and can hold her own in this kind of discussion.

 

For the record, I'm not hostile to her or her beliefs.  Nor am I an anti-theist taking issue with her.  Unlike Thumbelina, I will declare what I believe, if asked.  So far, nobody has asked me in this thread.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

Where in the 2 hour video should we watch for the brain in a vat stuff? Please please. 

 

Is it possible to have a strong emotional bias for logic and rationality?  Are logic and rationality above criticism? 

 

 

 

Is it possible to have a strong emotional bias for logic and rationality?

 

I'd say yes, citing myself as an example.  I just L-O-V-E to gain new insights into the workings of the cosmos and being logical and rational are very important factors in that.  So, there you have it.  I clearly have an emotional bias for logic and rationality.

 

Are logic and rationality above criticism? 

 

Probably not.  But what would you use to criticise them?  Since logic and rationality are part and parcel of critical thinking, if you were to use logic and rationality to criticise logic and rationality wouldn't you have a circular argument on your hands?

 

This leaves the possibility of criticising logic and rationality by using emotion.  I'm going to steer well clear of that hornet's nest! 

 

 Where in the 2 hour video should we watch for the brain in a vat stuff? Please please. 

 

Try watching from the 50 minute mark until 1 hour twelve.  (After that it's Q&A.)  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

45 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

That's a lot of questions, midniterider.

 

Sorry. I was avoiding exercise by asking questions.

 

Isn't it wise to engage both emotion and logic while thinking?

 

Yes.  It is wise to do that.   My focus is on a religious person's ability to self-evaluate beliefs that they are emotionally committed to.   I contend that too great an emotional involvement yields a shortfall in their wisdom.  They cannot bring their logical faculties to bear fully on testing their beliefs.  Sometimes they rely on solipsistic brain-in-the-vat arguments to avoid challenging their beliefs too strongly.  As I mentioned earlier, visiting Christians will go to any lengths and jump through any number of hoops to avoid threatening their deeply-cherished beliefs.  I'd hazard that this kind of avoidance behaviour isn't limited just to Christians.  If a person is sufficiently emotionally committed to their beliefs, they will, metaphorically, move heaven and earth to keep them from being tested to breaking point.  

 

Too great an emotional involvement in magical thinking may affect someone's ability to think rationally. Yes. Maybe there is a study on this I could refer to. Some people can juggle rationality and religion at the same time while others cannot. Or maybe should not. 

 

What long term negative effect will Leia suffer if she continues having an emotional commitment to her beliefs? 

 

I couldn't possibly say, midniterider.  She's perfectly entitled to believe whatever she wants and I wholeheartedly respect her right and freedom to make her own path. 

.

Well, you did mention this: "I contend that too great an emotional involvement yields a shortfall in their wisdom.  They cannot bring their logical faculties to bear fully on testing their beliefs." This may be true, but I wonder how well it holds true for different religions.  

.

All I will say is that this is not the Ex-Christian Spirituality section.  Having posted here, in the Rants and Replies section, she's opened herself up to the possibility of queries, questions and challenges from other members.  Clearly she's a highly intelligent and articulate person and can hold her own in this kind of discussion.

 

For the record, I'm not hostile to her or her beliefs.  Nor am I an anti-theist taking issue with her.  Unlike Thumbelina, I will declare what I believe, if asked.  So far, nobody has asked me in this thread.

 

If Thumbelina would come back, I'd just harass her instead of you. (haha)

.

edited at 4:53

 

 

[sdelsolray]

8 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

...

Let's agree to disagree and work together against destructive cults

Are some, or perhaps all, of the members of these "destructive cults" theists?

[midniterider]

59 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Is it possible to have a strong emotional bias for logic and rationality?

 

I'd say yes, citing myself as an example.  I just L-O-V-E to gain new insights into the workings of the cosmos and being logical and rational are very important factors in that.  So, there you have it.  I clearly have an emotional bias for logic and rationality.

.

Well, be careful and dont neglect your irrationality. (wink haha)

 

Are logic and rationality above criticism? 

 

Probably not.  But what would you use to criticise them?  Since logic and rationality are part and parcel of critical thinking, if you were to use logic and rationality to criticise logic and rationality wouldn't you have a circular argument on your hands?

 

This leaves the possibility of criticising logic and rationality by using emotion.  I'm going to steer well clear of that hornet's nest! 

.

lol. I think you're right. 

 

 Where in the 2 hour video should we watch for the brain in a vat stuff? Please please. 

 

Try watching from the 50 minute mark until 1 hour twelve.  (After that it's Q&A.)  

 

I watched from 50 minutes to 57. OMG. The double-talk from the guy on the left drove me crazy. I'll have to roll 50 - 57 again to check the brain in the vat thing. 

 

 

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Sye is one of the few apologists I cannot watch. He just pisses me off that much. Basically he gets his authority from the Bible and the Bible is true because it says so, and his interpretation is the correct one. The only person worse than him is Kent Hovind. 

[LeiaBryant]

1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

Are some, or perhaps all, of the members of these "destructive cults" theists?

Technically yes because theism is a very broad term

[sdelsolray]

1 hour ago, LeiaBryant said:

Technically yes because theism is a very broad term

 

So...you are an anti theist, except when you're not.

[LeiaBryant]

14 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

So...you are an anti theist, except when you're not.

No I'm not anti-theist want to destroy all religions not just one kind. Did you watch the video in the op

[sdelsolray]

29 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

No I'm not anti-theist want to destroy all religions not just one kind. Did you watch the video in the op

 

Then what would you call yourself, if not a selective anti theist?

 

No, I did not watch the video.  Should I have?

[WalterP]

Where in the 2 hour video should we watch for the brain in a vat stuff? Please please. 

 

Try watching from the 50 minute mark until 1 hour twelve.  (After that it's Q&A.)  

 

I watched from 50 minutes to 57. OMG. The double-talk from the guy on the left drove me crazy. I'll have to roll 50 - 57 again to check the brain in the vat thing. 

 

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

 

midniterider,

 

There's no need for you to get to grips with the brain in the vat thing.  The reason why I cited and posted the video was to draw attention to something else.

 

The fact that Leia and Sye (the Christian apologist in the video) both used the same solipsistic argument to justify their very different beliefs.

 

I submit that people who employ this kind of argument do so to prevent their deeply-held beliefs from being threatened or challenged. 

 

It goes something like this...

 

"Since you can't prove that we aren't all brains in vats, your beliefs are no more justified than mine. So, I'm just as entitled to hold to my beliefs as you are to yours."

 

As I mentioned yesterday, this is a tactic used to deflect criticism by equalising the status of the criticiser and the criticised.

 

 If you read back through this thread you'll see that Leia has used this tactic a lot.  

 

I believe that I am just as rational as you can we agree to that?

Can we agree we are both equally rational and just disagree about the meaning of certain experiences?

How do you evaluate your personal experiences? Can we agree that I am equally as rational as you?

But without more information we will never know who is right so until we know for sure let's agree to disagree and accept both claims as equally valid.

Epistemologically you don't have any more truth than me.

All science is based on observation. Epistemologically your reality is based on your sense. Can you prove that you are not a brain in a vat ? 

 

Do you see the pattern, midniterider?

 

Leia is attempting to neutralise what she perceives as threats to her beliefs by levelling and equalising everyone involved.

 

This is just as much a sign that she feels threatened by us as Sye Ten Bruggencate felt threatened by Matt Dillahunty.

 

That was my point, not the complexities of the brain in the vat argument itself.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

6 hours ago, WalterP said:

As I mentioned yesterday, this is a tactic used to deflect criticism by equalising the status of the criticiser and the criticised.

 

 If you read back through this thread you'll see that Leia has used this tactic a lot.  

 

I believe that I am just as rational as you can we agree to that?

Can we agree we are both equally rational and just disagree about the meaning of certain experiences?

How do you evaluate your personal experiences? Can we agree that I am equally as rational as you?

But without more information we will never know who is right so until we know for sure let's agree to disagree and accept both claims as equally valid.

Epistemologically you don't have any more truth than me.

All science is based on observation. Epistemologically your reality is based on your sense. Can you prove that you are not a brain in a vat ? 

 

Do you see the pattern, midniterider?

 

Leia is attempting to neutralise what she perceives as threats to her beliefs by levelling and equalising everyone involved.

 

 

 

I understand what you're saying. 

 

Theists use one set of tactics and non-theists use a different set of tactics. And neither is going to agree with the other. 

 

(wiggles around in my vat)

 

 

[LeiaBryant]

My primary goal with this thread is to oppose anti-theism not atheism and all it became was a attack on my particular religion rather than a discussion about antitheism.

[florduh]

27 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

My primary goal with this thread is to oppose anti-theism not atheism and all it became was a attack on my particular religion rather than a discussion about antitheism.

 

Just for clarification, your particular flavor of theism is not exempt from criticism from anti theists, and that was how you framed it. The negative aspects of ALL theism has previously been noted and is not limited to what any individual may deem to be those other "harmful sects." They all do harm to some degree and the world would be better off without magical beliefs.

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, LeiaBryant said:

My primary goal with this thread is to oppose anti-theism not atheism and all it became was a attack on my particular religion rather than a discussion about antitheism.

 

Two relevant points already mentioned, Leia.

 

"She's perfectly entitled to believe whatever she wants and I wholeheartedly respect her right and freedom to make her own path."

 

 

"All I will say is that this is not the Ex-Christian Spirituality section.  Having posted here, in the Rants and Replies section, she's opened herself up to the possibility of queries, questions and challenges from other members.  Clearly she's a highly intelligent and articulate person and can hold her own in this kind of discussion.  For the record, I'm not hostile to her or her beliefs.  Nor am I an anti-theist taking issue with her." 

 

You are safe and insulated from searching questions and difficult challenges in the Ex-Christian Spirituality section.

 

But you left that safe zone behind and initiated this thread in the Rants and Replies section, opening yourself up to these lines of inquiry.

 

If you weren't aware that you'd encounter these trials, then I'm sorry.  

 

The asking of difficult questions or the spotting of certain patterns of behaviour do not constitute a specific attack on you or your particular religion.

 

The same methods are also used in the Lion's Den, the Colosseum, General Christian Theological Issues and the Science vs Religion sections.

 

I repeat, I'm not hostile to you or your beliefs, but I do expect you to stand your ground when challenged.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.