Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Atheism or Naturalism?
Comments
-
-
1) Well, from a scientific standpoint that then leaves us not knowing what is was I saw, all it leaves are guesses, assumptions. So in such a scenario one idea could theoretically be just as valid as any other idea.
Nonsense, just because you don't examine further what you saw doesn't mean all possibilities are equally valid. In such a situation the rational thing to do is to look at the more plausible explanations (people make mistakes all the time about what they thing they saw) over the implausible explanations (we have no known system for ghosts to exist, or shape shifting aliens, or time travelers)
The biggest issue here is not that we don't know what you saw, but your refusal to consider the most plausible explanation, that you simply made a mistake in your judgement.
That is a common issue with tales of the paranormal, the belief of the person involved in their own infallible judgement.
Just because it is possible doesn't mean I won't dismiss it. I dismiss it as being so implausible as to be hardly worth considering without further confirmation, which you can't provide.2) You dismiss it? No you don't you just said it was possible?Have you considered that there could be "unknown" laws which we haven't yet quantified?
Sure, and as soon as you discover them, let me know.
At the moment you have simply seen a woman walk passed a window and concluded it was a ghost because you don't know where she went after the passed the window.
The only "unknown" is the gap in your assessment of what happened. To jump from that to the conclusion it was a ghost is frankly moronic.3) Facts, logic, rationale are all subjective. If you believe I'm stupid or silly that's fine with me, believe me I've been called worse
I've no idea if you are stupid.
What you are saying is stupid, as is the logic you are using to support it. It is nothing more than wishful thinking, and invoking the "unknown" any time you are pressed to support what you are saying.
If the world was run on that sort of nonsense we would be still in the middle-ages. Thankfully it isn't.0 -
Unless you have access to a dictionary.
No definition of rational includes "belief without evidence."
You know this and therefore are trying to alter the actual definition as you are with empiricism.
And elves are different to fairies...
You can argue all you want that your belief is different, but we've shown it's not and you can't point to anything that show otherwise.
You believe in ghosts for the same reasons some people believe in god.
These reasons are silly and irrational.
But as I've said, most atheists here are atheists because they critically examine the idea of God, then applying the same thing to other ideas like ghosts reach the same conclusion.
You clearly do not critically examine any of your own beliefs.
1) That depends on your starting point - my starting point is that most things (possibly everything) is subjective, your starting point is that everything is objective. Your rationale is not my rationale.
2) Yes, of course elves are different to fairies - elves can't fly. Not the elves round here anyway
You and others have shown that belief in a god and belief in "ghosts" aren't different? Eh, nope. It comes down to whether one can believe in something without having scientific proof of its existence, I say yes, you and others say no. All you have done is put an opposing argument which just as I cannot prove to you that ghosts exist (not that that is my aim) you cannot prove to me your arguments are correct, you have no proof and I have no proof - you choose to believe what you are saying and I choose to believe what I am saying.
3) It is silly and irrational based upon your concept of rationality, not mine.
4) You said "most atheists here", so you accept there are others who view things differently? Yes, I do critically examine what I believe I have seen and I arrive back at the same conclusion, that being that I "believe" I saw "ghosts".0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
So you're now admitting your position isn't empirical in the philosophical sense?1) That depends on your starting point - my starting point is that most things (possibly everything) is subjective, your starting point is that everything is objective. Your rationale is not my rationale.
Cause if you're holding that everything is subjective then you can't be empirical.
Well yes we have. We've shown how the claims follow the exact same structure as yours. And we've shown how both entities are stupid explanations. And we've explain how we all feel they are fictional.2) Yes, of course elves are different to fairies - elves can't fly. Not the elves round here anyway You and others have shown that belief in a god and belief in "ghosts" aren't different? Eh, nope.
You've yet to show how they are any more different than elves are to fairies.
And again if you are believing something without proof, you haven't actually observed it, thus it's not empirical, and if you're believing it regardless of proof you're not being rational.It comes down to whether one can believe in something without having scientific proof of its existence, I say yes, you and others say no. All you have done is put an opposing argument which just as I cannot prove to you that ghosts exist (not that that is my aim) you cannot prove to me your arguments are correct, you have no proof and I have no proof - you choose to believe what you are saying and I choose to believe what I am saying.
Also that's not been our argument. Go back and actually read what we are saying.3) It is silly and irrational based upon your concept of rationality, not mine.
Yes, there's other atheists who swallow all sorts of supernatural and pseudo-scientific bull****.4) You said "most atheists here", so you accept there are others who view things differently?
But you clearly do not critically examine your belief.Yes, I do critically examine what I believe I have seen and I arrive back at the same conclusion, that being that I "believe" I saw "ghosts".
You've failed to actually exclude other possibilities, or seek less stupid explanations.
when we presented you with those explanations you've admitted that they could explain what you saw, but you dismiss them because you don't like them and want to believe in ghosts.
This is not critical thinking.0 -
-
-
No.
Why have you not made a mistake? What reason do you have for that conclusion?
Why pick a ghost as opposed to any other fantastic thing it could have been? What reason do you have for that conclusion?
When did I say that?
Your position that it is possible it happened so it is reasonable to conclude that it did happen. This is an inherently unreasonable conclusion.
This can be demonstrated quite easily by applying it to any other situation. It is possible that I can win in the Lottery. Should I then take out a massive loan and run up a huge debt because I will win the Lottery?
Or would this be a pretty unreasonable thing to do, because just because I might win the lottery has no baring on whether I will or not?
How convinced you are by them is irrelevant. You strike me as a person who really wants to believe in fantastical things, so it is not surprising you are convinced by nonsense in support of the supernatural while rejecting the mundane as unsupported.
What matters is is there a rational logic behind each conclusion.
And not every opposing theory is equally valid, otherwise you could not say that it was a ghost over a time travelling alien.
1) I never said I didn't make a mistake, I said I "believe" I saw a ghost, that doesn't mean I did. Whenever I say I believe something that doesn't mean I cannot be wrong. Jus as I don't believe in god however that ddoesn't mean god doesn't exist but I don't believe god exists.
2) Why did I choose to classify what I saw as a "ghost"? Because generally the phenomena I witnessed is described as a "ghost"? Could it actually be someone from the future where time has splintered or whatever, sure, however I believe it was a ghost for the reasons I've given - what I saw is generally termed a "ghost" and I am simply sunscribing to that terminology. Why should I give any more credence to it being say a fracture in time, or a trick of the mind or whatever than I should give to it being a so-called ghost?
3) And your position seems to be that it is unlikely it happened therefore it didn't? And you call my position unreasonable.......
4) I think euromillions is tomorrow 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
but you are basing everything on your perception of reality
The whole point of what I've said is that I'm not basing anything on my perception of reality.
I am saying that reality exists outside of our heads and continues to exist regardless of what we think about it.if we can't measure it, if we can't see it, if we can't study it, if we can't replicate it - it doesn't exist. Why?^2 No idea how you got that from what I wrote.
I am saying -- again -- that reality and perceptions of reality are different things. As far as I can understand your position, you appear to think that there is no such thing as an external reality, asserting instead that (somehow) there are simply opinions or perceptions concerning it, all of which have an equal epistemological basis.0 -
The whole point of what I've said is that I'm not basing anything on my perception of reality.
I am saying that reality exists outside of our heads and continues to exist regardless of what we think about it.^2 No idea how you got that from what I wrote.
I am saying -- again -- that reality and perceptions of reality are different things. As far as I can understand your position, you appear to think that there is no such thing as an external reality, asserting instead that (somehow) there are simply opinions or perceptions concerning it, all of which have an equal epistemological basis.
But you are. You believe your logic and your "facts" are correct, are real, are justified - I am saying that they are simply your facts, your logic, your rationle - that doesn't mean they are mine or anyone elses. Others can agree with you but that doesn't really matter, they are still what you accept as being true.
Yes, reality does exist outside our heads (I guess, can't be certain but I would assume so - by the way what proof do you have that it does? Just wondering) However it's how we interpret that reality. Youre absolutely correct maybe I have mixed up reality and the perception of reality - sorry, obviously I'm not as intelligent as you
I come back to the fact that there are no facts if you see what I am saying, there is when everything else is stripped away, only opinion. I mean there are facts but they are only facts as long as everyone agrees with their assertions, they are only facts to the individual or the group (of course made up of individuals) To another they are whatever, myths, lies, falsehoods, non-facts if such a word exists, lol. Don't you see what I am trying to get across to you? 0 -
-
But you are. You believe your logic and your "facts" are correct, are real, are justified - I am saying that they are simply your facts, your logic, your rationle - that doesn't mean they are mine or anyone elses. Others can agree with you but that doesn't really matter, they are still what you accept as being true.
Yes, reality does exist outside our heads (I guess, can't be certain but I would assume so - by the way what proof do you have that it does? Just wondering) However it's how we interpret that reality. Youre absolutely correct maybe I have mixed up reality and the perception of reality - sorry, obviously I'm not as intelligent as you I come back to the fact that there are no facts if you see what I am saying, there is when everything else is stripped away, only opinion. I mean there are facts but they are only facts as long as everyone agrees with their assertions, they are only facts to the individual or the group (of course made up of individuals) To another they are whatever, myths, lies, falsehoods, non-facts if such a word exists, lol. Don't you see what I am trying to get across to you?
I've said this already, but...
A fact is a fact is a fact. When we're using the scientific definition of the word, a fact for you is a fact for me is a fact for all. And, we are using the scientific definition of the word because we're talking about an observation. Science concerns observations. There are no subjective facts, as the definition of the word fact precludes subjectivity. Facts are objective.
Logic is logic is logic. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy for both of us. A bad logical argument when used by you cannot be a good one when used by me, or vice versa. The premises of your argument might be subjective, but your logical argument is not.
So, saying that a fact is subjective, or that logic is subjective; that they both differ from person to person depending on their acceptance, is nothing short of ridiculous.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
But how can God exist for these people but not for you?
That's not an answer. Please spare us your nonsensical metaphysical ****.
What specifically distinguishes something that is true from a delusion or a fiction?
Do you believe there is a difference?
How? *shakes fist* Because I don't believe
It is an answer, it is simply an answer that you do not accept.
Do I believe there is a difference, yes, of course. Each bloody person will have what they think is true and what they think is false and what they are uncertain of.0 -
But that's simply stupid and a double standard.How? *shakes fist* Because I don't believe
There's plenty of people who don't believe in stuff that we can objectively true.
If we are to follow your "logic" (using the term very loosely) then these people are justified in ignoring whatever part of reality they choose and inserting their own fairy tales.
No, it's metaphysical waffle I a think even you don't understand.It is an answer, it is simply an answer that you do not accept.
So what is the difference how do you tell them apart?Do I believe there is a difference, yes, of course. Each bloody person will have what they think is true and what they think is false and what they are uncertain of.0 -
Hello, hello -- facts are not opinions?You believe your logic and your "facts" are correct, are real, are justified - I am saying that they are simply your facts, your logic, your rationle - that doesn't mean they are mine or anyone elses.
Glad to see we agree at lastYoure absolutely correct maybe I have mixed up reality and the perception of reality 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement