Lucyfish Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Just now, Saxon said: You don't know what the burden of proof means if you think that it is symmetric. The Burden of proof applies to all positive claims, or 'hypotheses'. The antitheses to these claims are refered to as 'skeptical positions' or 'null hypotheses'. In philosophy a null hypothesis is considered true until a burden of proof has been generated which proves the competing hypothesis. "There is no god" is a positive claim. A skeptical position would be "There might not be a god" or "there probably isn't a god but I don't know for sure." skep·ti·cism ˈskeptəˌsizəm/ noun noun: scepticism; noun: skepticism 1. a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vae Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 48 minutes ago, Saxon said: I would describe belief in father christmas as 'intellectually incapacitating' but some people don't view that as harmful, presumably because they don't value their intellects anyway. I dunno which of these images fit better, so you get both. Anyway... This, OP, this really bothers me about your family: Quote They did this to a relative of mine a long time ago who had problems of her own. They told her that she needs to go to church and took her with them to church. That didn't help her. Its not going to help her. What she really needed was to see a psychiatrist or a doctor. But no, they went with taking her to church. This kind of mindset they carry can be outright dangerous. And this is where I feel people need to put their religious beliefs on the back-burner. If you're already disturbed by that choice, that's good. That's when religion crosses the barriers from being harmless self-placation to reckless endangerment, and you should be cautious about this in the future when regarding them and their advice. You very well may have to rely on yourself to get things done instead of coming to them for answers or guidance, if this is how they choose to help someone else's problems. Just be careful of that. Personally, on the current discussion, I don't believe in anything in particular. I carry around a few different stones to remind me of certain things (one is to be more cautious with my money, one is for keeping myself aware and intuitive, one is to articulate my words properly and to have confidence in my speaking power). I do not believe that they are actually doing anything, from a factual sense, but they do make me feel better and keep focus on things that I already should be pushing myself to do, to begin with. Sometimes, I pick up or abandon thoughts that are comforting, but I understand them for what they are. That's simply what I choose to do, because my brain chemistry is already set on ultra difficulty, and sometimes I need the pick-me-up. People can criticize that of me if they want, but my fucks are invested in more valuable places than validation for harmless personal practices. Nor do I pass any sort of judgement on my religious friends (which I have and have had a number of), because as long as they aren't harming anyone else with their beliefs, it's not my place to tell them how to comfort themselves. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Just now, Lucyfish said: "There is no god" is a positive claim. A skeptical position would be "There might not be a god" or "there probably isn't a god but I don't know for sure." skep·ti·cism ˈskeptəˌsizəm/ noun noun: scepticism; noun: skepticism 1. a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something. It's not a positive claim because there is a 'no' in the middle of it, Lucyfish. That's why it's a negative claim, or an 'antithesis'. Negative claims are presumed correct, in Philosophy, until they are displaced by a positive claim being proven. For instance without being able to prove there is a tooth fairy, the antithesis 'there is no tooth fairy' is justified. You could overturn that status by finding a tooth fairy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derin Darkpaw Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Saxon said: I think you should review what you've just written. You're trying to convince me that Lucyfish's perspective is justifiable, because I should think of it as a morally justified lie. I am not trying to convince you of anything in regards to Lucyfish's specific perspective merely attempting to understand the general view you seem to hold in regards to religion. Also yes I am attempting to argue from the point that religion may in fact be a delusion, but that it can be a morally justifiable one. @Lucyfish Yes the burden of proof falls on you to prove that a god exists. Much like Russels Teapot we must presume it does not exist until a sufficient argument can prove it exists. Edited December 30, 2015 by Derin Darkpaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucyfish Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Just now, Saxon said: It's not a positive claim because there is a 'no' in the middle of it, Lucyfish. That's why it's a negative claim, or an 'antithesis'. Negative claims are presumed correct, in Philosophy, until they are displaced by a positive claim being proven. For instance without being able to prove there is a tooth fairy, the antithesis 'there is no tooth fairy' is justified. You could overturn that status by finding a tooth fairy. That is not skepticism though. There are no rules in philosophy, it's a purely personal way of thinking. There is no grand jury of philosophers who determine how someone's philosophy is allowed to work. Saying something doesn't exist doesn't automatically make it not exist. We didn't know there were particles in our air until we discovered it, that doesn't mean anybody who said "there are nothing in the air" was automatically correct. It's just like you yourself said, believing in something doesn't automatically make it tangibly true. To say "there is no god" is a belief. Saying it's an irrefutable truth is literally the exaqct same thing as a Christians saying god's existence is irrefutable truth. You are being a major hypocrite, I'm sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) There are starting to be more comments than I can reply to before more comments are generated...and many of these comments are insinuations that I am fat or ugly. @Derin Darkpaw Lucyfish has, for much of this discussion, being trying to convince me that spiritual ideas are, in fact, not delusions, so I'm glad that I've convinced at least one person. That is not skepticism though. There are no rules in philosophy, it's a purely personal way of thinking. There is no grand jury of philosophers who determine how someone's philosophy is allowed to work. Saying something doesn't exist doesn't automatically make it not exist. We didn't know there were particles in our air until we discovered it, that doesn't mean anybody who said "there are nothing in the air" was automatically correct. It's just like you yourself said, believing in something doesn't automatically make it tangibly true. To say "there is no god" is a belief. Saying it's an irrefutable truth is literally the exaqct same thing as a Christians saying god's existence is irrefutable truth. You are being a major hypocrite, I'm sorry. There are rules in philosophy. Philosophy is an academic field that is several millennia in age, and in that time the grand philosophers managed to figure out at least some rules which were necessarily true. Antitheses are presumed true before their theses because, this way, it is possible to demonstrate the hypothesis and correct a mistake. The reverse is logically impossible, so if you accept a thesis which has not justified it's burden of proof, you will never be able to dislodge your mistake. Edited December 30, 2015 by Saxon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derin Darkpaw Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Lucyfish said: There are no rules in philosophy, it's a purely personal way of thinking. Oh no there you are totally wrong. Philosophy especially in regards to logic and how to form arguments has some very specific and rigid rules. Terms have exacting definitions and arguments can be constructed that are just flat out immediately wrong because they break rules of discussion. @Saxon It wasn't you that convinced me to become an atheist that happened several months ago for a variety of other personal reasons. However I still believe that faith can be beneficial even if it isn't true. Edited December 30, 2015 by Derin Darkpaw 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucyfish Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 1 minute ago, Saxon said: There are starting to be more comments than I can reply to before more comments are generated...and many of these comments are insinuations that I am fat or ugly. @Derin Darkpaw Lucyfish has, for much of this discussion, being trying to convince me that spiritual ideas are, in fact, not delusions, so I'm glad that I've convinced at least one person. It's literally just as deluded as saying there can be no spirituality. You are subscribing to the same exact doctrine, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sycophantic Feline Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 I see people bringing up Stalin. It's certainly interesting that people have to look into the past to find any sort of violence linked to atheism, while even then, atheism itself was not the driving force for their actions,rather, they were motivated by political,nationalistic, or racial views. Whereas religion continues to do harm to a great ammount of people to this day...but I suppose that's acceptable collateral damage. Let's continue to spread something harmful worldwide...because people are raised to be too mentally weak to come to terms with mortality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucyfish Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Just now, Derin Darkpaw said: Oh no there you are totally wrong. Philosophy especially in regards to logic and how to form arguments has some very specific and rigid rules. Terms have exacting definitions and arguments can be constructed that are just flat out immediately wrong because they break rules of discussion. I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Logic is the only thing that determines correct or incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 1 minute ago, Lucyfish said: It's literally just as deluded as saying there can be no spirituality. You are subscribing to the same exact doctrine, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. ...and we're back into 'the tooth fairy is real' territory again. :\ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derin Darkpaw Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 1 minute ago, Lucyfish said: I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Logic is the only thing that determines correct or incorrect. Yes and Logic has rules. You can simulate logical arguments with mathematical formula and if certain rules are broken the argument is invalid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucyfish Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Just now, Saxon said: ...and we're back into 'the tooth fairy is real' territory again. :\ Please stop being a hypocrite. I'm pretty done with this now. You talk to me like I'm trying to force some irrefutable truth against contradicting evidence, when you yourself are the one doing exactly that. You are being very close-minded and trying to force it on other people by attempting to debunk their personal beliefs, and for what? "The truth?" 2 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said: Yes and Logic has rules. You can simulate logical arguments with mathematical formula and if certain rules are broken the argument is invalid. "There is no god because there is no proof of there being one" isn't exactly the same logic as "there is a god because there is no proof of there being not one?" Because it looks like the exact same logic to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Closed at OP's request 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts