How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And Vlad doubles down on his begging the question, and adds in some straw.

Explanation?

[Nearly Sane]

Explanation?

You assumed the thing you were trying to argue for (begging the question), god, and added something about naturalism that hadn't been claimed,  straw.

[Stranger]

From what I've seen from your refutations of the reasons they all end in we don't know.

Which further demonstrates your general inability to pay attention to what is said to you.

However there has to be some working out for why Ghosts etc are crazy......let's see it.

As I said, there is no reason at all to think any of them are real - it is therefore crazy to take them seriously.

WTF am I argument about this for? Do you think any of them (except your favourite type of god) are not crazy?

[Enki]

''Gentlemen we are not going to explore Van Dieman's land because we do not have detailed maps of it''

On the contrary:

Gentlemen, we are going to explore Van Dieman's land because we have evidence that it exists, even though we have not yet detailed maps of it.

Gentlemen we are not going to expend any more energy on Cervantes' Barataria because, having found no evidence for its actual existence, we have come to the conclusion that it is probably only a creation of someone's imagination. Hence, unless evidence comes to light that this is not so, we would rather spend our energies in more productive areas.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You assumed the thing you were trying to argue for (begging the question), god, and added something about naturalism that hadn't been claimed,  straw.

No, I am merely talking here about the search for God. I gave two possible outcomes     God or God free, maybe I should have said gods then that would have been gods or gods free.

Trying to pull anything like we don't know but we know it isn't god is a bit silly

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the contrary:

Gentlemen, we are going to explore Van Dieman's land because we have evidence that it exists, even though we have not yet detailed maps of it.

Or even we are going to explore Van Diemens Land because some people claim to have found it, even though we have not yet detailed maps of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I said, there is no reason at all to think any of them are real - it is therefore crazy to take them seriously.

[/quote]
Show working out since ''there is no reason is a positive assertion''. You seem to have ended up arguing circularly here.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I am merely talking here about the search for God. I gave two possible outcomes     God or God free, maybe I should have said gods then that would have been gods or gods free.

Trying to pull anything like we don't know but we know it isn't god is a bit silly

If you are just going to argue with points not in the posts you are replying to but made up stuff, it sort of makes discussion pointless. It has a sort of random quality which after a bottle of Bailey's Espresso Coffee, a few jellies and a watch of The Lair of the White Worm might be taken as charming but in the cold light of a 20 watt bulb is just heinously idiotic

[Stranger]

I gave two possible outcomes     God or God free...

Nope - zero evidence for any god(s) is not only a possible outcome it is the actual outcome.

Trying to pull anything like we don't know but we know it isn't god is a bit silly

Given zero evidence or reasoning for a fantastical story, the only rational conclusion is to reject it while admitting that it cannot be totally ruled out.

Any other conclusion is silly.

Oh, and of course, the god that is just and fair, has an important message for humankind, is able to deliver it in any way it chooses, and knows human nature, is 100% ruled out by the absence of a clear message.

[Stranger]

Show working out since ''there is no reason is a positive assertion''. You seem to have ended up arguing circularly here.

Stop being an idiot.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop being an idiot.

''There is no reason is a positive assertion.
Crazy is a positive assertion.

Let's see working out from you which avoids using the one to support the other.

[Stranger]

''There is no reason is a positive assertion.
Crazy is a positive assertion.

Let's see working out from you which avoids using the one to support the other.

Stop being an idiot.

Alternatively: stop trying to change the subject because your argument has been comprehensively demolished.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given zero evidence or reasoning for a fantastical story, the only rational conclusion is to reject it while admitting that it cannot be totally ruled out.

So lets get this straight, the only rational conclusion is to reject it and not reject it at the same time.

[Enki]

Or even we are going to explore Van Diemens Land because some people claim to have found it, even though we have not yet detailed maps of it.

Or even,

We are going to try to establish the existence of Van Dieman's Land because some people claim to have found it. If we can verify these people's claims then we shall seek to explore it. If, after rigorous scrutiny, we find that there is no evidence of its existence, it would obviously be a meaningless activity trying to explore it as we have nothing to base our explorations on. Consequentially, we will divert our energies towards more meaningful projects.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If, after rigorous scrutiny,

But this is all about not scrutinising! Because we are gambling on something not being there without knowing that it isn't.

I think you might be stretching the metaphor too.

[Stranger]

So lets get this straight, the only rational conclusion is to reject it and not reject it at the same time.

No. I meant what I said, not what you want me to have said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. I meant what I said, not what you want me to have said.

So what do you see as the difference between them?

[Stranger]

Sorry old son I think your bonfire has been well and truly pissed on.

Back to Brave Sir Vlad-Robin.

For the hard-of-thinking: it is perfectly possible to accept or reject an idea or proposal without 100% certainty. Indeed, outside of the fields of logic and mathematics, 100% certainty is simply not possible.

Hence one can reject a notion on the grounds of it having bugger all in the way of supporting evidence or reasoning while understanding that it is unfalsifiable.

This isn't rocket science, it's the way everybody gets through their lives.

Vlad, you need to grow up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Back to Brave Sir Vlad-Robin.

For the hard-of-thinking: it is perfectly possible to accept or reject an idea or proposal without 100% certainty. Indeed, outside of the fields of logic and mathematics, 100% certainty is simply not possible.

Hence one can reject a notion on the grounds of it having bugger all in the way of supporting evidence or reasoning while understanding that it is unfalsifiable.

This isn't rocket science, it's the way everybody gets through their lives.

Vlad, you need to grow up.

That's all very well but it amounts to the same thing. Refusal to pursue even without full
knowledge of correctness of refusal. In other words a punt, and even worse for you.......
a faith position.
See reply 312

Also is your rejection actual rejection or are you definition diddling?
Is it possible to rationally reject if something if it is actually unfalsifiable?

have as nice a day as you can.

[Enki]

But this is all about not scrutinising! Because we are gambling on something not being there without knowing that it isn't.

I think you might be stretching the metaphor too.

I think the metaphor has definitely been stretched towards its rather ludicrous limit.

If you call going where the evidence(or lack of evidence) leads, and making a provisional decisions based upon that evidence(or lack of evidence), as gambling, then so be it. However, if that is the case, then I gamble with every decision I make in whatever area you care to name, either consciously or unconsciously). The only thing one can possibly ascertain is one's assessment of the odds. If, after rigorous scrutiny, one comes to the conclusion that the idea of gods is unlikely(the odds are against), then it is quite rational not to believe in these gods. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the metaphor has definitely been stretched towards its rather ludicrous limit.

If you call going where the evidence(or lack of evidence) leads, and making a provisional decisions based upon that evidence(or lack of evidence), as gambling, then so be it. However, if that is the case, then I gamble with every decision I make in whatever area you care to name, either consciously or unconsciously). The only thing one can possibly ascertain is one's assessment of the odds. If, after rigorous scrutiny, one comes to the conclusion that the idea of gods is unlikely(the odds are against), then it is quite rational not to believe in these gods. 

The question remains Enki. Can scrutiny which ends with a question mark over the existence or nonexistence of something be described as rigorous?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the metaphor has definitely been stretched towards its rather ludicrous limit.

If you call going where the evidence(or lack of evidence) leads, and making a provisional decisions based upon that evidence(or lack of evidence), as gambling, then so be it. However, if that is the case, then I gamble with every decision I make in whatever area you care to name, either consciously or unconsciously). The only thing one can possibly ascertain is one's assessment of the odds. If, after rigorous scrutiny, one comes to the conclusion that the idea of gods is unlikely(the odds are against), then it is quite rational not to believe in these gods. 

But there is an extra dimension here, that of stake. Now everybody who has partaken in this debate has talked about odds but not stake with the exception of Wiggs and Rhiannon. My contention is that this is either conscious or unconscious avoidance.

How does one work out the probability of God or naturalism or any unfalsifiable?

[Rhiannon]

So you think the stakes really are about whether we want to be saved or not? Is that why you believe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you think the stakes really are about whether we want to be saved or not? Is that why you believe?

I believe because I have encountered Christ and encountered God before opening up to Christ.
Jesus is salvation and what gives life it's meaning. I have glimpsed an existence where he is absent and can state that if my life is not so different from others he is dispensing a common grace to all but to keep us going to the point where we enjoy his fellowship. For me that is what can be passed up by any.

[Rhiannon]

I believe because I have encountered Christ and encountered God before opening up to Christ.
Jesus is salvation and what gives life it's meaning. I have glimpsed an existence where he is absent and can state that if my life is not so different from others he is dispensing a common grace to all but to keep us going to the point where we enjoy his fellowship. For me that is what can be passed up by any.

But I once believed because I thought I'd encountered god but then god disappeared and stopped being real. And I tried all the 'methods' I'd used before of seeking god (Bible study, prayer, the sacraments, collective worship etc) but he didn't come back and I couldn't find him. So in the end I concluded that it hadn't been real to start with, but was something I'd needed for some reason.

And I find my life more meaningful now because I'm responsible for finding that meaning.

Your truth isn't my truth. Why is it so hard for you to accept that?