|
|
#61
11-16-2005, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Unless you're suggesting that just saying that 'talking about god is meaningless' is about god, which it isn't. [/ QUOTE ] But it is. [/ QUOTE ] But it isn't, its about meaning. God is just a placeholder in this argument, replace it with 'udvig' if you like. 'talking about udvig is meaningless unless you have some conception of udvig.' chez 
|
|
#63
11-17-2005, 03:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood. [/ QUOTE ] This is precisely what I mean when I say it is semantic. There are two acceptable definitions of 'skeptic': 1. One who tends to disbelieve a notion. 2. One who tends to withhold judgment on a notion. I was critiquing the skeptic position on the basis of the first definition. You are saying that the second definition is more apt. In general, I feel that you are being too lenient on most people who identify themselves as 'skeptic' or 'rationalist' or 'bright.' The ones I respect most tend to fall into your definition, and in this case, I feel that the believer and the 'skeptic' are at epistemological loggerheads....BUT....some of the people whom we characterize as skeptics -- James Randi, Earl Doherty, Richard Lewontin, etc. -- tend to fit the first definition. It is a prejudicial bias, for instance, that leads Doherty to the wild conclusion that Jesus never lived, evidence be damned. This is the brand of 'skepticism' which troubles me.
|
|
#64
11-17-2005, 08:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood. [/ QUOTE ] This is precisely what I mean when I say it is semantic. There are two acceptable definitions of 'skeptic': 1. One who tends to disbelieve a notion. 2. One who tends to withhold judgment on a notion. I was critiquing the skeptic position on the basis of the first definition. You are saying that the second definition is more apt. In general, I feel that you are being too lenient on most people who identify themselves as 'skeptic' or 'rationalist' or 'bright.' The ones I respect most tend to fall into your definition, and in this case, I feel that the believer and the 'skeptic' are at epistemological loggerheads....BUT....some of the people whom we characterize as skeptics -- James Randi, Earl Doherty, Richard Lewontin, etc. -- tend to fit the first definition. It is a prejudicial bias, for instance, that leads Doherty to the wild conclusion that Jesus never lived, evidence be damned. This is the brand of 'skepticism' which troubles me. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, definitely the second. Believing something isn't the case is the same type of thing as believing that something is the case (although you could offer a probabilistic argument that more things are false than true). chez
|
|
#65
11-17-2005, 09:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.
wanted to edit but 2+2 went funny on me and now its too late.
It is the second definition that I mean by skeptical but in this thread I am not simply talikng about withholding judgement. Its not like a unicorn which I could withhold judgement about but where I know what unicorn means - a unicorn is a horse with a horn and I understand the concepts of horse and animal with horn. 'god' is nothing like that. 'god' is the answer given to some questions like 'why am I here?' or 'what caused the universe' but I don't understand anything about the answers by sticking the word 'god' in. So any idea of 'god' is a product of the mind and independent of anything that is being understood. A skeptical mind (this is what I mean by skeptical) doesn't form beliefs about whether such ideas are true or false. chez
|
|
#66
11-17-2005, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.
Who says he doesn't??
|
|
#67
11-17-2005, 11:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.
[ QUOTE ]
So any idea of 'god' is a product of the mind and independent of anything that is being understood. A skeptical mind (this is what I mean by skeptical) doesn't form beliefs about whether such ideas are true or false. [/ QUOTE ] How is this any different than say 'time,' which seems to exist in apriority within the mind?
|
|
#68
11-18-2005, 07:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.
[ QUOTE ]
Any person who would rob a bank if they were sure they could get away with it, but doesn't because they aren't, is at least as bad a person as an actual bank robber. The only difference between them is that the bank robber is crazy or less worried about jail. Their disregard for others is totally equal. [/ QUOTE ] It is the way people are brought up. Your mom tells you "if you do that, I am going to beat you up" and that's why you don't do it. All of this forms the character so that "good" people don't even waste time on thinking about crime because they know about the punishment. It happens in the subcontience. They know that behaving according to the rules will not be punished, so they don't even take the risk of trusting their own "better" judgement. People who think they could get away with crime have probably managed to escape the punishment of their parents too often when they were kids. Just an idea... A very easy example would be a redlight with a camera. I bet that people (who know about it) respect the redlight with camera much more than one without camera, simply because they know that they can't get away with "crime".
|
|
#69
11-18-2005, 08:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So any idea of 'god' is a product of the mind and independent of anything that is being understood. A skeptical mind (this is what I mean by skeptical) doesn't form beliefs about whether such ideas are true or false. [/ QUOTE ] How is this any different than say 'time,' which seems to exist in apriority within the mind? [/ QUOTE ] The nature of time is a toughie but I think the bit you mean is a necessary part of the way we perceive the world. Thats a different type of concept to one about something that created the world so that we could perceive it, no belief in such an entity is required for the perception. chez
|
|
#70
11-18-2005, 08:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.
Hiya chezlaw,
[ QUOTE ] The nature of time is a toughie [/ QUOTE ] Not really. Time is a measure of change. The unit of time is a quantum change in the universe. No changes, no time, everything frozen, including time measurements instruments. No one, nothing, possibly aware of the passage of time. Time is truly meaningless ouside changes. Most people think time has to do with endurance. It is the reverse. Got it? (it is a derived measure).
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
