"When you don't believe in God..........

[fishsauce]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's important to let everyone know that I believe on a completely emotional basis that all people in this world who don't agree with me are wrong, and I make this incredibly broad, obtuse generalization (in which I assume I have god-like powers and know squat about the principles that everyone in the world lives by) based entirely on nothing scientific or provable using rudimentary logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

fixed your post to reflect what you really said.

[NotReady]

So you disagree with DS? And of course that you're right (about whatever you're trying to say which happens to be unintelligible) is so obvious that you can't bother with making any rational explanation.

[fishsauce]

You're kidding, right? I thought my post was pretty self-explanatory. But if you want me to break it down for you, here goes:

You said: "I think it's important to demonstrate that all non-theistic worldviews are fundamentally irrational and that no one really lives by that principle." Which, interpreted by anyone who can pass the rouge test, is the same as: "I think it's important to let everyone know that I believe on a completely emotional basis that all people in this world who don't agree with me are wrong, and I make this incredibly broad, obtuse generalization (in which I assume I have god-like powers and know squat about the principles that everyone in the world lives by) based entirely on nothing scientific or provable using rudimentary logic."

To be more specific, when you say "I think it's important to to demonstrate that..." that's the part that really means "I think it's important to let everyone know that I believe..." because you aren't demonstrating anything, you are just going to let us know your opinion.

When you say later in your post "My hope is that..." and "My job is simply to defend..." that means that what you are saying is "...on a completely emotional basis..." because you really want these things to happen or be true, but there is no other justification.

Then, when you say "...that all non-theistic worldviews are fundamentally irrational..." what you're really saying is "...that all people in this world who don't agree with me are wrong..."

Finally, when you say "...and that no one really lives by that principle" what you are really saying is "...and I make this incredibly broad, obtuse generalization..." because that's exactly what it is, your statement has no more quality than something moronic like "all people from the north are jerks." As well as you are asserting that you are aware of how EVERYONE who is a non-theist thinks - that's the "(in which I assume I have god-like powers and know squat about the principles that everyone in the world lives by)" part. And finally, your opinion is based on YOUR individual beliefs in YOUR particular implementation of a god, which is "based entirely on nothing scientific or provable using rudimentary logic."

There's nothing above that refers to Sklansky, I have no idea where that came from.

And for the record, I think your first statement in this thread is somewhat accurate (only "somewhat" because in that statement you assert the existence of a "true God") - as a nontheist, while I do not subscribe to the concept of a god, I agree that I take the final authority and responsiblity for myself, my life, and all of my actions and their consequences. So props to you for that.

But the statement you followed that with is asinine. How could you possibly have the slightlest clue as to what my, or anyone else's, worldview is and what principles I live by? Even if you did, how could you possibly be qualified to assess their rationality? How rational are yours? What about the worldview and principles (which could be very similar to yours) of god-fearing christian people who really like to molest children? What about the worldview and principles of a suicide bomber, killing in the name of his god?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

As well as you are asserting that you are aware of how EVERYONE who is a non-theist thinks


[/ QUOTE ]

So please, stop yammering emotionally and show me rationally where I'm wrong and you're right. Go ahead, justify logic, science and morality. Do it. You will no doubt win a prize as the first in history cause no one else has ever done so on an irrational basis. Let's hear it.

[ QUOTE ]

There's nothing above that refers to Sklansky, I have no idea where that came from.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should read the whole thread before regurgitating nothing but nonsense. He said "Stipulated" to my first post, and he's agreed before that what I say is logical.

[ QUOTE ]

But the statement you followed that with is asinine. How could you possibly have the slightlest clue as to what my, or anyone else's, worldview is


[/ QUOTE ]

Every conceivable world view has been published, at least since Plato. If you have an original one which has never before graced the eyes of mankind, hack away.

[fishsauce]

[ QUOTE ]

So please, stop yammering emotionally and show me rationally where I'm wrong and you're right.


[/ QUOTE ] Dude, you obviously haven't read anything I have written. And you're the one who is running on emotion here, not me.

[ QUOTE ]

Go ahead, justify logic, science and morality. Do it. You will no doubt win a prize as the first in history cause no one else has ever done so on an irrational basis. Let's hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You miss the point completely. The point is: everyone has to do these things - make these justifications, come to their own conclusions about what they believe and feel is true - for THEMSELVES. Everyone needs to see their own proof, and it's absurd to think that your proof or beliefs are right for everyone, almost as ridiculous as you claiming to know what I think.



[ QUOTE ]

You should read the whole thread before regurgitating nothing but nonsense.


[/ QUOTE ]
Which is pretty funny, because all I've done is just repeat what you have said. And of course point out the problems with it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The point is: everyone has to do these things - make these justifications, come to their own conclusions about what they believe and feel is true - for THEMSELVES.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that everyone has to decide for themselves. What people have confused at least since Kant is that whatever they decide for themselves is true - and this is what I meant when I agreed with the OP that if one rejects God he puts himself in the place of God, as the Bible states it in Genesis, "knowing good and evil".

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone needs to see their own proof, and it's absurd to think that your proof or beliefs are right for everyone, almost as ridiculous as you claiming to know what I think.


[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm not asking anyone to belive what I do just because I believe it - I'm saying that what I present is truth and can be rationally justified. If God says something that applies to all mankind then it is right for everyone, not because I say it, but because He does. And I don't claim to know what you think, you're much too sensitive. I claim there are really only two ways that anyone CAN think about ultimate matters, usually expressed as design vs. chance or personal vs. impersonal. If you're a non-theist, which you've admitted, then you think in terms of chance and/or the impersonal. There's no alternative. I'm not claiming to read your mind.

[CancerMan]

[ QUOTE ]
If God says something that applies to all mankind then it is right for everyone, not because I say it, but because He does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain to me why you do or don't believe Joseph Smith? http://lds.org/ The founder of the Church of latter day saints.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
as a nontheist, while I do not subscribe to the concept of a god, I agree that I take the final authority and responsiblity for myself, my life, and all of my actions and their consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
For many people, I think this can be a very dangerous attitude to have, depending on how it is implemented. Many very bad things happen to people through no fault of their own. They may try to take responsibility for these terrible results by thinking that if they had acted more wisely or made better decisions, then they could have avoided those circumstances. This is not always true and can lead to despair or cause them to change behavior that was otherwise benefitting them.

On the flip side, many very good things happen to people through no fault of their own. They may try to take responsibility for them by thinking that these great results are due to their superior intellect and cunning. It can lead to hubris and reinforce behavior which will harm them in the long run.

I think many people fail to realize that they are not the final authority over what happens in their life. They can partially control their "winrate," but there is still variance.

[fishsauce]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as a nontheist, while I do not subscribe to the concept of a god, I agree that I take the final authority and responsiblity for myself, my life, and all of my actions and their consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
For many people, I think this can be a very dangerous attitude to have, depending on how it is implemented. Many very bad things happen to people through no fault of their own. They may try to take responsibility for these terrible results by thinking that if they had acted more wisely or made better decisions, then they could have avoided those circumstances. This is not always true and can lead to despair or cause them to change behavior that was otherwise benefitting them.

On the flip side, many very good things happen to people through no fault of their own. They may try to take responsibility for them by thinking that these great results are due to their superior intellect and cunning. It can lead to hubris and reinforce behavior which will harm them in the long run.

I think many people fail to realize that they are not the final authority over what happens in their life. They can partially control their "winrate," but there is still variance.

[/ QUOTE ]


Good point. While I certainly cannot speak for anyone else who shares my sense of autonomy, I know that there is a big difference between the things I am responsible for occuring and the things that "happen" to me. I suspect that many nontheists have embedded in their philosophies a sense of the randomness of the universe and incorporate that into their way of dealing with unfortunate things as well as good things that happen. I'm not interested in debating its relative merit, but many theists certainly have a similar mechanism in the "will of god" or "god was on my side."

I think in general, the problem of taking too much responsibity for the good things that happen in one's life is more of a human psychological issue than a philosophical one. We've all seen studies where people who are not very good at something or not very intelligent tend to think the opposite.