|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 1:01:34 GMT
If you believe something or don't believe something it is because you have an opinion on it one way or another. Don't believe is not the same as believing not. When I don't believe something, it means that I have no reason to believe it. If I believe something is not true ("believing not"), that means I have a belief as to its veracity. This is black and white thinking. Please see this video to understand what I mean. yes, I have an excellent reason. There is no evidence for a creator. There is nothing wrong in admitting we don't know. I don't know how the universe came into existence. For example, if you saw a watch while on a trek on a mountain. Do you say "I believe god put it there" (believing in god) or "I believe someone threw it there" (believing in an alternative) or "I don't know how it came to be there" ?( Not believing one way or the other, admitting we don't know.) Which sounds the most reasonable to you? No, I am trying to be logical.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 15, 2012 1:18:16 GMT
I agree with the logic of what you're saying. What I don't agree with is that you are being logical yourself. In a world where it's possible for a human being to be completely impartial, what you're saying would be fine, but that's not the world we're living in, and that's not who you are, you are not impartial. If you were a machine fair enough but you're not. A machine has no feelings about the data that it works with, with a machine it's simply data in and data out, no opinion, no feelings, nothing. The idea that you a human being can have no partiality about something as potentially significant as the existence or otherwise of a creator is far fetched to say the very least.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 1:23:34 GMT
I agree with the logic of what you're saying. What I don't agree with is that you are being logical yourself. In a world where it's possible for a human being to be completely impartial, what you're saying would be fine, but that's not the world we're living in, and that's not who you are, you are not impartial. If you were a machine fair enough but you're not. A machine has no feelings about the data that it works with, with a machine it's simply data in and data out, no opinion, no feelings, nothing. The idea that you a human being can have no partiality about something as potentially significant as the existence or otherwise of a creator is far fetched to say the very least. I am being logical if I follow logic. You said yourself that you agree with my logic. Then why is my conclusion regarding the existence of god illogical? You are right. I am not impartial. I am partial to Chocolate fudge sundaes. What does that have to do with my logically correct argument here? Ad hominems are seldom good arguments.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 1:25:20 GMT
I agree with the logic of what you're saying. What I don't agree with is that you are being logical yourself. In a world where it's possible for a human being to be completely impartial, what you're saying would be fine, but that's not the world we're living in, and that's not who you are, you are not impartial. If you were a machine fair enough but you're not. A machine has no feelings about the data that it works with, with a machine it's simply data in and data out, no opinion, no feelings, nothing. The idea that you a human being can have no partiality about something as potentially significant as the existence or otherwise of a creator is far fetched to say the very least. If I said to you "Leprechauns exist". Would you say "I don't believe you" or "I believe you are wrong" ?
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 15, 2012 1:26:45 GMT
I agree with the logic of what you're saying. What I don't agree with is that you are being logical yourself. In a world where it's possible for a human being to be completely impartial, what you're saying would be fine, but that's not the world we're living in, and that's not who you are, you are not impartial. If you were a machine fair enough but you're not. A machine has no feelings about the data that it works with, with a machine it's simply data in and data out, no opinion, no feelings, nothing. The idea that you a human being can have no partiality about something as potentially significant as the existence or otherwise of a creator is far fetched to say the very least. I am being logical if I follow logic. You said yourself that you agree with my logic. Then why is my conclusion regarding the existence of god illogical? You are right. I am not impartial. I am partial to Chocolate fudge sundaes. What does that have to do with my logically correct argument here? Ad hominems are seldom good arguments. The fact that you're not impartial applies to everything, particularly issues as major as the existence or otherwise of god. If you had no feelings about it one way or another you'd be a machine. But I know you're not.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 1:29:31 GMT
I am being logical if I follow logic. You said yourself that you agree with my logic. Then why is my conclusion regarding the existence of god illogical? You are right. I am not impartial. I am partial to Chocolate fudge sundaes. What does that have to do with my logically correct argument here? Ad hominems are seldom good arguments. The fact that you're not impartial applies to everything, particularly issues as major as the existence or otherwise of god. If you had no feelings about it one way or another you'd be a machine. But I know you're not. No. This is again black and white thinking. I am impartial regarding some things and partial regarding other things. Why do I have to be either partial or impartial all the time? Why even have the word "impartial" then?
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 15, 2012 1:32:30 GMT
The fact that you're not impartial applies to everything, particularly issues as major as the existence or otherwise of god. If you had no feelings about it one way or another you'd be a machine. But I know you're not. No. This is again black and white thinking. I am impartial regarding some things and partial regarding other things. Why do I have to be either partial or impartial all the time? Why even have the word "impartial" then? It's not that you "have" to be partial or impartial, the fact is that as a sentient being, you are never impartial. The idea that you can be impartial when it comes to such a huge issue is far fetched.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 1:33:51 GMT
No. This is again black and white thinking. I am impartial regarding some things and partial regarding other things. Why do I have to be either partial or impartial all the time? Why even have the word "impartial" then? It's not that you "have" to be partial or impartial, the fact is that as a sentient being, you are never impartial. The idea that you can be impartial when it comes to such a huge issue is far fetched. I don't believe god exists and I don't know how the universe came into existence. What do you find far fetched about that?
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 15, 2012 21:01:01 GMT
I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at. What I'm saying to you is that you cannot be impartial when it comes to the existence of god. To imply otherwise is far fetched.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 21:10:46 GMT
I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at. What I'm saying to you is that you cannot be impartial when it comes to the existence of god. To imply otherwise is far fetched. Do you have a valid argument or just definitive pronouncement with absolutely no backing? I am telling you my position and you are telling me that my position is not possible. What do you mean by that? Just because you cannot wrap your head around my position does not mean that my position is wrong/impossible by default.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 15, 2012 21:34:48 GMT
You're saying that when it comes to the issue of whether or not the entire universe is the product (so to speak) of a creator, you are completely impartial. You have no feelings about it either way and you base your opinions purely on the presence or lack of what you would reagrd as evidence for such a creator. The implications of such an issue are colossal and yet you have no emotional response to it. And that's your position. I understand the position that you claim to have but I don't buy it. But I'm pretty sure that you do genuinely feel that this is your position.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 21:59:03 GMT
You're saying that when it comes to the issue of whether or not the entire universe is the product (so to speak) of a creator, you are completely impartial. No, my position is that I don't know, and I am unwilling to take a stance on it until I have further evidence one way or the other. impartiality has nothing to do with this. I tend not to have emotional responses for things I don't know. The implications of getting to know that the universe is really a computer program are also colossal. I don't have an emotional response to that claim because I don't know whether it is true. There are infinite number of possibilities of how the universe came into existence and I cannot be expected to have an emotional response to every one of them. Just because religion is so ingrained in our history does not mean that every one takes it as seriously as you seem to. I haven't been brought up in a religious household, and frankly don't give a damn about religion. I know that other people feel that religion and the subject of god are important. I don't. By the same token other people should acknowledge that the god question is not important to me. If I get to know that the universe was created by a god, then of course I will have an emotional response. I am not going to pre empt an emotional response. Well, too bad. This is just your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but don't give in to the need to tell me what I am supposed to feel or think about these things.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 15, 2012 22:04:47 GMT
Just to clarify, I'm not religious. You do realise that being a theist doesn't mean being involved in a religion. Ok so if you're saying that you genuinely have no feelings about such issues, that's great. In my opinion that's not true and you do but like you say that's just my opinion, and you certainly seem to believe that you have no feelings about those issues. Each to their own and good luck to you.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 15, 2012 22:17:18 GMT
In my opinion that's not true and you do but like you say that's just my opinion, and you certainly seem to believe that you have no feelings about those issues. Each to their own and good luck to you. I would say in your experience it is not true, not in your opinion. But now you have met me online and increased your experience. So I hope you will be more accommodating of differing viewpoints when meeting someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 15, 2012 22:23:19 GMT
Perhaps we can ponder over what "always" and other words mean, that's not a problem, but there's still the issue of why you use those words whilst telling me that you don't know what they mean. Don't you think that's a bit odd? I don't think you've really explained that. It's not about me being accommodating or not being accommodating to other people's views, it's a case of having a hard time, as anyone would, getting one's head around the idea that someone doesn't know what a word means but still uses it. If you can do that maybe we can move forward.
EDIT : I do apologise, but it seems that I was replying to the other thread. I got confused. I'll re edit this in a second.
RE EDIT : My response to what you're saying here is the same as what I said befotre, which is that I find it far fetched that a human being can address the issue of the existence or otherwise of a creator without any feelings about it. I think you're being idealistic and perhaps you'd like to think that you have no feelings about it. I'm not saying that to patronise you but it seems like the best explanation, considering that you are a human being living in a huge universe. Come on, you can't seriously expect anyone to believe that you can remain impartial when it comes to that question. I just don't buy it. But you're of course free to believe what you like.
|
|