statichaos wrote:There is absolutely no logical argument that I can make to convince someone to believe in God, and I say that as a theist. None. Then again, I'm not a theist who thinks that you're necessarily going to burn for eternity if you don't believe, so it's not like it's a big deal to me. To me, the experience is entirely subjective, intuitive, and emotional. A delusion? Perhaps. But it's a delusion that I continue to experience no matter what medication I'm on, so I've decided to live with it and be happy with it.

In fact, those of my fellow theists who attempt to "prove" the existence of god with pen and paper are responsible for some of the most horrifying lapses in logic and reason that I've ever seen.

Oh hey, Static. Good to see you found your way over here.

atrasicarius wrote:

statichaos wrote:There is absolutely no logical argument that I can make to convince someone to believe in God, and I say that as a theist. None. Then again, I'm not a theist who thinks that you're necessarily going to burn for eternity if you don't believe, so it's not like it's a big deal to me. To me, the experience is entirely subjective, intuitive, and emotional. A delusion? Perhaps. But it's a delusion that I continue to experience no matter what medication I'm on, so I've decided to live with it and be happy with it.

In fact, those of my fellow theists who attempt to "prove" the existence of god with pen and paper are responsible for some of the most horrifying lapses in logic and reason that I've ever seen.

Oh hey, Static. Good to see you found your way over here.

Hey atrasicarius!

Ooh, I spelled that right without checking.

Lion IRC wrote:I think reciprocity is an ethical framework that has an element of the “abstract” or “transcendent”.
And why shouldnt it be called abstract. It's not limited to humans.

Indeed: reciprocity is widely reported throughout the natural world.... which thereby lends credence to..... magic men? No, that reciprocity is a strategy evolved through natural selection. Humans, as the most culturally complex creatures and capable of abstract thought, have simply taken it into the abstract realm.

ray wrote:hahaha. Funny.

I meant are you serious about giving me proof for the existence of a person you have
never personally met, seen, measured, weighed, and all sorts of other scientific standards.

And yet you would hold me to a higher standard to prove the existence of a single human being than you hold yourself to prove the existence of a God?

Unfortunately, if human beings are so difficult to prove the existence of, I will therefore require proof that you exist, before I can accept anything you say about God.

If you really want to go through with this then please create a new
thread entitled "Proving Obama's Existence" in the Philosophy section, and also have last few
posts shifted there, and then we will carry on.

But you are missing the point. You providing evidence for the existence of God would answer the question posed in the OP. Comparing the evidence you provide to the evidence for Obama's existence would just be a potentially amusing sideline and would therefore not constitute much of a derail at all.

So if you have any evidence for God,whenever you're ready, there's a good chap...

Proving the existence of people who obviously do exist is not the same as proving something that doesn't exist does.

The onus is always on the person making extraordinary claims to prove that those extraordinary claims are valid. The onus is not on the unbeliever. So sorry you believers out there if you want me to acknowledge your god, present him to me.

Ray,

To make a point that I think will be way over your head:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/obamavisitchina/2009-11/15/content_8974242.htm

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66102/6796228.html

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/18/content_12485444.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/world/asia/16shanghai.html

http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/12394.html

You see what that is? That is independent corroboration. Many different sources report on the activities of this human being, often along with photographic evidence and/or accounts from people who spoke to him (usually in front of witnesses and/or TV cameras). Many of these accounts agree with each other on who Obama is, what he looks like and what he gets up to. All of these accounts can be subjected to independent scrutiny, to try and ensure we are not all being taken in by a con-man or being fooled by a hologram.

So then, evidence for God?

sanja wrote:

Xeno wrote:Try your internet dictionary.

I did.
Marriam Webster's too.
No results.
Some kind of slang?

I find this little exchange quite interesting. Sanja says she can not find the meaning of sfaik. Yes, I know it has already been explained by someone else, but the correct answer is also the first six hits to a google search on sfaik.

I am see no evidence here that sanja answers quite simple questions for herself, and this may be apposite for other aspects of this discussion.

sanja wrote:<rubbish snipped>

Selective quotation and nonsensical responses ignored.

sanja wrote:

Xeno wrote:

sanja wrote:

Xeno wrote:Recall, I said that our brains allow us to develop the theory and application of ethics and morality and this is given in education.

And I agree with that.

Not very effectively, because you have yet to agree with our evolved fundamental morality, so if you think you are agreeing then you are probably not reading.

Why should I?

If now you disagree, why did you agree just above?
Clearly, I am right that you are not reading successfully and so do not even appear to know to what you are responding.

sanja wrote:

Xeno wrote:

sanja wrote:

Xeno wrote:The core ethics about which I am talking all relate to moral dilemma problems (of a general form "save who and how many"). These are answered very consistently.

"Save who and how many"?
So, you have solved one of main philosofical problems?
Ok, two houses in flame, your child in one, and three children of your neighbour in other.
Whom do you save?

I said you get quite consistent answers to such questions across cultures and religions. Don't bother trying to change the subject.

I'm not changing the subject.
My question was directly asocciated to bolded part above.
My question asks proof for bolded claim.
If there is some problem whith my understanding of your english, please, explain some more.

The problem is simply that your precise dilemma-question is a one-off. It is scientifically useless for me to respond. Here are a couple of references where you can look at the literature. The first is on moral dilemmas and rules, by Nichols & Mallon. It has a fairly extensive reference list on prior work in the same field. The second is shows consistent judgements by members of a non-European/American culture.

You will find far more material simply by going to a university library and asking on the subject.

sanja wrote:Those references must be pretty good ones. I do not buy "it's just so cause we said so" articles.

An interesting question really. I wonder what you will read and "buy".

sanja wrote:(for example, I do not buy abstracts of reports about researches - I need to see full report. Only full report provides valid evidences)
...
I cannot do my own reasearch if I am not familiar with the full report of research.

Cali has been kind enough to provide extensive material on the evolutionary underpinning of moral judgements. Read and enjoy.

Quantal wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Give it your best shot through logic and reason - no regurgitation of dogma though, if you please, I have heard it before and it didn't convince me....why should intelligent people accept the god hypothesis as valid?

I think using logic and reason alone I would only want to ask people to consider the existence of God as valid possibility. To support that I would say that the belief in a supernatural being has been widespread across many cultures and across time and no-one has disproved the existence of God. To go a little further one may say that belief in God is the generally accepted norm, and should therefore be our null hypothesis, and the onus is upon those who want to reject the norm to disprove the norm. In the absence of disproving the norm then I would say the norm must be considered a viable option.

Quantal,

Your logic and reasoning are faulty, at best. Appealing to a widespread belief is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum. Argument from popularity. As an example, the widespread belief that the earth was flat was the norm. It was, for some time, impossible to show that the world was any other shape.

Secondly, an argumentum ad populum us no basis for an assertion that should become the null hypothesis. An unfounded assertion is meaningless, no matter how many people adhere to it.

Back to my flat earth example. You should note a very important distinction on what was proven. It was proven that the world was an oblate spheroid. That is the assertion, and it is well supported by evidence. No one set out to disprove that the fucking thing was flat. In the world of logic, it is not possible to prove a negative.

And again, in the world of logic, you are dead wrong about who has the onus to do the proving. The person or group making the assertion has the onus to prove it. That assertion, in your case, being the existence of god. Prove it. See Russell's Teapot for a very good discussion on the problem of onus.

By the way, the norm, as you put it, is a possibility. Pretty fucking unlikely, but a possibility. You may have noticed how god is less and less needed as man's knowledge of the universe is increased? What you have left is the god of the gaps. Not much of a reason to think such a thing exists, if it is supposed to be this omnipresent, omiscient, omnipotent thing.

Xeno wrote:

sanja wrote:

Xeno wrote:Try your internet dictionary.

I did.
Marriam Webster's too.
No results.
Some kind of slang?

I find this little exchange quite interesting. Sanja says she can not find the meaning of sfaik. Yes, I know it has already been explained by someone else, but the correct answer is also the first six hits to a google search on sfaik.

google is not dictionary.
And again: you were online, when I first asked you.
When I talk to someone, I always prefer that someone to explain what he ment. That is what I do, if someone does not understand me.
And I am specificly cautious if I know that someone is not native speaker of my language. That just somehow prevents me from being a cunt.

So, I thought it was a word, and I used proper dictionaries.
I never presumed it was an acronym, you didn't write it with capital letters.
So I searched it in dictionary.
Either you do not know difference between google and dictionary, either you are just showing no interest for comon human communication, based on desire for understanding.

It pretty much seem to me that your main goal is proving something to yourself, more than explaining something to me. Now, my english is not so good, but I believe that is called "showing off". (though, "showing off" might be euphemism )

Xeno wrote:
I am see no evidence here that sanja answers quite simple questions for herself, and this may be apposite for other aspects of this discussion.

can you answer simple questions?
For example - tebra, koj ti je moj?

Xeno wrote:

sanja wrote:<rubbish snipped>

Selective quotation and nonsensical responses ignored.

interesting, I always point to nonsensial responses, and point why they are nonsensial.
Otherwise, it would just mean that I label something I cannot figure as nonsensial. Which would, again, mean that I, myself, am either stupid, either cunt.
I do sometimes skip to unswer to something what I do not find important.

Xeno wrote:

sanja wrote:

Xeno wrote:Recall, I said that our brains allow us to develop the theory and application of ethics and morality and this is given in education.

And I agree with that.

Not very effectively, because you have yet to agree with our evolved fundamental morality, so if you think you are agreeing then you are probably not reading.

Why?
It's interesting, you seem to fail to understand everything I wrote.
You said - ou brains allow us to develop theory and application of ethics.
I agree.
I think that our brain allow us to develop mathematical theories.

Yet, even though I do know that our brain evolved, I do not believe that there is "fundamental maths" which evolved within us, which is comon to our species, and which allow us to develop mathematical theories.
Maths is something we gain through learning.

I believe morality is taught. And our brains allow us any learning.
Comprende?

Xeno wrote:

Why should I?

If now you disagree, why did you agree just above?

yes, lol. It's really funny, if you miss to comprehend with what I agreed.

Xeno wrote:
Clearly, I am right that you are not reading successfully and so do not even appear to know to what you are responding.

And, clearly, secretary of state is right that brawndo's got what plants crave.

Xeno wrote:
The problem is simply that your precise dilemma-question is a one-off.

why?

Xeno wrote:
It is scientifically useless for me to respond.

oh, please, do explain to me "scientific" uselessness of responding on some post in forum discussion.
And please, do compare it to scientific usefull respont to some forum post.
And, please, do not miss to explain what is scientific about it.
So far, you did not behave like a scientist, in any way.
You acted like a teenager who has a great urge for just showing off.

Xeno wrote:
Here are a couple of references where you can look at the literature. The first is on moral dilemmas and rules, by Nichols & Mallon. It has a fairly extensive reference list on prior work in the same field. .

link.

Xeno wrote:

The second is shows consistent judgements by members of a non-European/American culture.

an abstract.
Ok, I will subscribe to see full report (if by "ful article" they mean "full scientific report")
Though, I've googled this, and I shall check it out.

Xeno wrote:
You will find far more material simply by going to a university library and asking on the subject.

Oh, yes, the mountain I live on is full of university libraries.
They are mostly placed in caves

Xeno wrote:

sanja wrote:Those references must be pretty good ones. I do not buy "it's just so cause we said so" articles.

An interesting question really. I wonder what you will read and "buy".

full scientific report.
(I wonder if you comprehend the meaning of that)

sanja wrote:

sanja wrote:(for example, I do not buy abstracts of reports about researches - I need to see full report. Only full report provides valid evidences)
...
I cannot do my own reasearch if I am not familiar with the full report of research.

Cali has been kind enough to provide extensive material on the evolutionary underpinning of moral judgements. Read and enjoy.

[/quote][/quote]
I will.
When I find her post
(though, in the meantime, I have watched Andy Thomson's video about the stuff, and it seems pretty interesting. Though, I'm still not sure if I can consider myself as moral. To much reading Dostoyevsky, I believe )

Sanja, if you're gonna hang out online, you should to learn to speak internet.

I started to read that article I googled:

Level I: Pre-conventional morality. While infants are essentially amoral, very young children are moral in a rather primitive way, as described by the two preconventional stages.

Stage 1. We can call this the reward and punishment stage. Good or bad depends on the physical consequences: Does the action lead to punishment or reward? This stage is based simply on one's own pain and pleasure, and doesn't take others into account.

Stage 2. This we can call the exchange stage. In this stage, there is increased recognition that others have their own interests and should be taken into account. Those interests are still understood in a very concrete fashion, and the child deals with others in terms of simple exchange or reciprocity: "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." Children in this stage are very concerned with what's "fair" (one of their favorite words), but are not concerned with real justice.

so far, it seem that it is taught.

(anyway, how did we come to morality issue here? Shouldn't we discuss why atheists "should" believe in god? )

atrasicarius wrote:Sanja, if you're gonna hang out online, you should to learn to speak internet.

does that include that I have to forget that it is a human being on the other side, when I speak to someone?

sanja wrote:

atrasicarius wrote:Sanja, if you're gonna hang out online, you should to learn to speak internet.

does that include that I have to forget that it is a human being on the other side, when I speak to someone?

No. It just means you should learn to recognize common internet slang, or else you'll be confused a lot.

atrasicarius wrote:
No. It just means you should learn to recognize common internet slang, or else you'll be confused a lot.

if I talk to not-egocentric person, I wont, I will get an answer with no problems.
Every language has it's internet slang.
One just cannot recognise it so easily if it is not his native language.
I recognise english acronyms if they are written with capital letters.

And, again, if he wasn't on-line while we spoke, I would have google that, after all.
(though, it was nice to see a decent human being answering to my question about it, wasn't it? I just love to speak to nice folx much more than googling )

sanja wrote:

atrasicarius wrote:
No. It just means you should learn to recognize common internet slang, or else you'll be confused a lot.

if I talk to not-egocentric person, I wont, I will get an answer with no problems.
Every language has it's internet slang.
One just cannot recognise it so easily if it is not his native language.
I recognise english acronyms if they are written with capital letters.

And, again, if he wasn't on-line while we spoke, I would have google that, after all.
(though, it was nice to see a decent human being answering to my question about it, wasn't it? I just love to speak to nice folx much more than googling )

Sanja, don't worry about it, if you have trouble with English slang, ask me, I'll help you without sending you web-surfing.

sanja wrote:
(anyway, how did we come to morality issue here? Shouldn't we discuss why atheists "should" believe in god? )

Not just atheists; anyone! What is the most convincing argument you know?

It really wasn't a loaded question, I just wanted to get some discussion going!

So far only one person has really provided a single assertive claim about why we should believe. It was ad populum, but at least it was on topic!

Still, if you guys want to go onto morality, be my guest!

Reciprocal systems in nature are evolved behaviours retained by natural selection due to the benefits gained from them. These systems keep cohesion in social groups. They present the cultural arena in which the individual of the group operates. At all times, exploitation of the system is a valid strategy of the system.

Humans, having a more complex brain with abstract thought, more advanced future modelling, and the ability to posit intention, naturally create more complex strategies that require verbalising, and ultimately codification. Proto-morality is based on verbalised natural rules.

Spearthrower wrote:

sanja wrote:
(anyway, how did we come to morality issue here? Shouldn't we discuss why atheists "should" believe in god? )

Not just atheists; anyone! What is the most convincing argument you know?

I do not know any convincing argument.
I do not feel a need to convince anyone.

Spearthrower wrote:
It really wasn't a loaded question, I just wanted to get some discussion going!

Yes, but your question presumed that theists (mentioned in title) believe that you (mentioned in title) should believe.

I debunked you on that (you just haven't noticed that)
theist do not, by default, think that anyone should believe.
I do not even think that I should believe.
I just do.

Spearthrower wrote:
So far only one person has really provided a single assertive claim about why we should believe. It was ad populum, but at least it was on topic!

That one person, than, is the only person here who believes that he and others should believe.
My answer was on topic too.
You cannot say that only assertive claims are on topic, because you have bias in your title (presumtion that all theists think that they, or other people, should believe)

Spearthrower wrote:
Still, if you guys want to go onto morality, be my guest!

Ok.
I consider myself as amoral.
How about you?

Spearthrower wrote:
Reciprocal systems in nature are evolved behaviours retained by natural selection due to the benefits gained from them. These systems keep cohesion in social groups. They present the cultural arena in which the individual of the group operates. At all times, exploitation of the system is a valid strategy of the system.

Humans, having a more complex brain with abstract thought, more advanced future modelling, and the ability to posit intention, naturally create more complex strategies that require verbalising, and ultimately codification. Proto-morality is based on verbalised natural rules.

admitt you copy-pasted that

statichaos wrote:There is absolutely no logical argument that I can make to convince someone to believe in God, and I say that as a theist. None. Then again, I'm not a theist who thinks that you're necessarily going to burn for eternity if you don't believe, so it's not like it's a big deal to me. To me, the experience is entirely subjective, intuitive, and emotional. A delusion? Perhaps. But it's a delusion that I continue to experience no matter what medication I'm on, so I've decided to live with it and be happy with it.

In fact, those of my fellow theists who attempt to "prove" the existence of god with pen and paper are responsible for some of the most horrifying lapses in logic and reason that I've ever seen.

And this is something I completaly agree with.

Sanja, not to be rude, but I don't think you should play word-games in a foreign language! I struggle to make sense of your posts anyway without having to try to understand what you think "should" means, and why we should be treated to another post based on that definition.

You've spent so much time trying to tell me my question was wrong, but only written that you don't want to convince anyone. Ok, no problem! Perhaps other people do, thanks!

Finally: Even in jest, please don't imply that I am plagiarising!

Sanja

That's a very nice pick-up on 'should'. Indeed, why should anyone believe at all? Why should I believe?

I think I have spent quite a bit of my life heartily wishing I didn't believe, but alas and alack, I am presented with the 'dark dazzling darkness' of God again and again. Then again, I don't think I do believe. What has belief got to do with God? Either God presents himself to us or not.

If not, then enjoy life.