22 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeYour beloved atheism only makes sense to you because you are dishonest.
No, of course not, he joined the religion he was born and indoctrinated into.
As do the vast majority of people who are religious.
The only viable position if you really explore rationally the evidence is atheism.
Most people don't however explore things rationally.
You are a perfect case in point.
If you became honest - you would find that your arguments for your atheism would vanish.
This is rational.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by SuzianneYes indeedy.
Oh really.
Could you supply the Book, Chapter and Verse of this "passage"?
have done several times.
Deuteronomy 22:28~29
King James Version (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
New International Version (NIV)
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
English Standard Version (ESV)
28 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
New King James Version (NKJV)
28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
Hope to have been some help.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Sep 11
oh and just for reference here is what RJHinds said about this.
Originally posted by googlefudge
The bible doesn't prove anything.
You say it's in the bible, the bible is true.
I say how do you know the bible is true,
you say because the bible says so, or I just know it...
thus the bible is true because the bible says it is true.
This is circular.
You know That neither I, nor anyone else not already in your religion,
and not even all ...[text shortened]... ve to accept that this is abominable and that not everything in the bible can be true or just.
In those days this was a way of punishing the man and making him
responsible for the woman and any child that would result.
The Holy Bible proves itself to be true by telling the end from the
beginning. No other book has done this. Everything that archeologist
have been able to investigate have proven to agree with the accounts
recorded in the Holy Bible. Noah's boat has been discovered in the
mountains where the Holy Bible said it came to rest. The places that
are mentioned in the Holy Bible that was once thought to have been
mythical places have been discovered. The Holy Bible speaks of
real people and places that have been verified, not made up places
like fairy tales. The Shroud of Turin appears to be the burial cloth of
Christ because it has all the evidence of a tortured and crucified man
whose legs were not broken to ensure death like is normally the way
the Romans did it, but with a large blood stain at the side consistent
with a spear described in the Holy BIble. There were also blood stains
around his head consistent with the crown of thorns that was pressed
on the head of Jesus and evidence of the whipping to his back. There
is so much evidence that proves the Holy Bible that it would take a
book to completely list them all. I think men have already attempted
to list some of them in books. Search it out.
Apparently it is a punishment for the rapist to make him marry the woman he raped....
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by Dasaseriously
Your beloved atheism only makes sense to you because you are dishonest.
If you became honest - you would find that your arguments for your atheism would vanish.
This is rational.
give it a rest.
I don't give a damn that you think I am dishonest (particularly as for you the word means
something different from what everyone else thinks it means)
I am never, ever, going to be persuaded by your ludicrous pronouncements.
Either try actually reasoning with me.
Or stop bothering because I am a lost cause.
As it stands you are just the guy wandering around with a sandwich board saying the end of the world is nigh
And babbling insane nonsense.
It's moderately amusing for a bit till it gets irritating.
Present reasoned arguments of why I am wrong that don't mention the Vedas and instead rely on reason and evidence.
Or go bother someone else who actually cares about your holy books.
23 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudge"Infallibilism" is a view about the conditions for the justification of a belief; basically, that a belief is justified only if it is epistemically certain. On this view, certainty is required for knowledge. Your claim is simply that sometimes people know with certainty. But that view is compatible with fallibilism (e.g., You are epistemically certain that P, but would have known P even if your evidence wasn't sufficient to show with certainty that P). You are mistaking infallibilism (a theory about the criteria for knowledge) with periodic infallibility (the mere claim that sometimes we're certain). So, actually, you didn't know what the word meant.
I did indeed, and i do know what the term means.
What I meant is that I hold that there are occasions where you can know with certainty.
But they are rare enough that limiting knowledge to only such occasions makes the term not worth having.
Ok for your example.
I would not personally claim to 'know' that a lottery ticket will not win, I would ...[text shortened]... world.
Partly because I don't think a unified theory of knowledge is actually possible.
Fine, you would claim not to know P, despite having evidence sufficient to show that the P is 99.99999% likely. Presumably, then, you would also claim not to know where your keys are, or what day it is, or..., since there are also infinitesimal chances that those beliefs are false.
The example deals with knowledge claims, not probability judgments. If you don't claim to know P or Q, then there is no paradox. The problem is that by increasing the number of tickets, you can make the probability of P or Q as close to 1 as you want. Which means that any fallibilist threshold for justifiability can be met. If you want to dispense with knowledge claims when there is any uncertainty, that's fine. But then you're an infallibilist. Deal with it.
23 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf you quote one of your science journals to establish your beliefs why can I not use the Vedas to establish mine.
seriously
give it a rest.
I don't give a damn that you think I am dishonest (particularly as for you the word means
something different from what everyone else thinks it means)
I am never, ever, going to be persuaded by your ludicrous pronouncements.
Either try actually reasoning with me.
Or stop bothering because I am a lost cause.
As it s ...[text shortened]... on reason and evidence.
Or go bother someone else who actually cares about your holy books.
Remembering your books are subjected to speculation and fabrication - and mine are not.
The Vedas appeal to reason and logic and they do not support the falsities of the Bible and Koran.
But if you like I can discuss with you and not mention the word God or the Vedas because what I present would be based on common sense and rational and logic and an honest disposition.
Only condition is that you must also embrace common sense, logic, rational and honesty as well.
23 Sep 11
Originally posted by bbarrThis is a nice example, particularly since the credence level for each Pn can be brought basically arbitrarily close to 1.
What are you talking about? I'm taking a billion highly unlikely events and assuming that the negation of their conjunction is certain. Here it is again (using P1..Pn to stand for the propositions):
P1: Ticket 1 will not win.
P2: Ticket 2 will not win.
....
Pn: Ticket n will not win.
Suppose N is some very large number. Then, the probability of ...[text shortened]... can't always justifiably believe the entailments of what we believe (i.e., closure is false).
I would bite the bullet by denying that our justifiably held beliefs are closed under entailment. I am fine with the state of affairs that one can justifiably believe Pn for all n even though there is no epistemic certainty thereof and even though Pm is in fact false for some particular m. But then I cannot in this case accept that the justification is closed under entailment.
By the way, on http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/closure-epistemic/ they list a general epistemic closure principle (could surely be qualified much further) as, for example, the following:
If, while knowing various propositions, S believes p because S knows that they entail p, then S knows p.
Your example does not directly conflict with this, since S in fact does not know all the "various propositions" here, since Pm is in fact false for some m. Do you have a similar troublesome example where all the various propositions are known?
23 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgenon-belief however doesn't need a justification.
First, that's not true, there are plenty of religious believers who claim outright knowledge.
You can see some on these very forums.
Also not all (or even most) religious believers are Christian.
I am not saying, all believers must have rock hard evidence for their beliefs... Although they should.
What I am saying is that a positive belief needs ...[text shortened]... less evidence to believe you if you tell me your name, than if you tell me a god exists.)
If you want me to believe something (anything) then you need to present a reason for me to do so.
Absent such a reason the default start position should be non-belief.
Really.
Let's start with you, for instance.
Funny how such poppycock parades itself as wisdom when, in reality, it's really just bad information.
You doubt yourself, do you?
23 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeQuoting this passage in its undeveloped state only highlights your ignorance of the concepts in view. One must expand their view of the topic to include the surrounding verses as well as the under girding principles in place. You recoil at a rape and lose sight of the value of life.
Yes indeedy.
have done several times.
Deuteronomy 22:28~29
[b]King James Version (KJV)
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his ...[text shortened]... s violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
Hope to have been some help.[/b]
Pity, that.
23 Sep 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSo if I believe with every ounce of my being that I know of a way to save your life, I would be doing you a favor to withhold the information because I can't prove it?
negative. belief is not a foundational structure on which to build knowledge. to have any credibility, knowledge must be built upon reasoned arguments supported by observation, evidence, experimentation and experience, which brings the onus of proof on the believer.
to share something you truly 'believe' as a matter of 'faith' is dishonest and irresponsible, unless it's a result of some mental illness, in which case it's pitiful.
I disagree entirely.
Your post seems to have delved into unprovoked condescension which is a shame. Speaking condescendingly toward others does not promote rational discussion and often times results in insult-laden shouting matches.
Just because I believe something I can't prove, doesn't mean I'm dishonest, irresponsible, and/or mentally ill. Any cutting-edge scientific theorist, for example, would take great issue with that claim.
23 Sep 11
Originally posted by sumydid
[b]So if I believe with every ounce of my being that I know of a way to save your life, I would be doing you a favor to withhold the information because I can't prove it?
I disagree entirely.
i know you disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that you can't demonstrate that my life is in danger or even that you have the solution to save it. it could be that what you believe without proof is actually harmful to yourself and to others.
Your post seems to have delved into unprovoked condescension which is a shame. Speaking condescendingly toward others does not promote rational discussion and often times results in insult-laden shouting matches.
i'm not responsible for your fragile ego. it is what it is. if you share something you believe is truth, but it's based on faith alone, it is irresponsible and dishonest unless you're suffering from a mental illness. such people are subject to hearing and seeing things that are not there and they can't be held personally responsible for their delusions.
Just because I believe something I can't prove, doesn't mean I'm dishonest, irresponsible, and/or mentally ill. Any cutting-edge scientific theorist, for example, would take great issue with that claim.
i never said believing something you can't prove makes you dishonest or irresponsible or mentally ill.
the claim is if you share something you believe on faith as truth, you are being dishonest, etc.
further, no cutting-edge scientific theorist would take great issue with the claim because they are theorists. they only describe as truth those things they can prove. everything else are presented as hypothesis and speculations.
let's take an example of how your beliefs can cause harm or damage.
suppose you believe greatly and with absolute certainty that the earth is flat and anybody who sails past the horizon will fall off the edge to their deaths. you've never personally seen this nor traveled much on the sea. you just heard it from someone you trust.
in order to save the lives of explorers, you implore them not to sail beyond into the horizon or else they will fall to their deaths. your dishonest and irresponsible rantings might actually cause a potential explorer to forgo sailing into the horizon and potentially making new discoveries.
23 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThere have been many folk medical remedies that have been handed downOriginally posted by sumydid
[b]So if I believe with every ounce of my being that I know of a way to save your life, I would be doing you a favor to withhold the information because I can't prove it?
I disagree entirely.
i know you disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that you can't demonstrate that my life is in danger or explorer to forgo sailing into the horizon and potentially making new discoveries.
that no one knew why they worked, but people continued to believe in
them regardless of the modern medical knowledge. So how is sharing
these remedies with someone else a bad thing even though it is not known
for sure if these remedies will work for that person?
P.S. If you are told by doctors that you believe in and have faith in that
your life is in danger unless you do what they say, would you make them
prove it to you before you would agree?
23 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHinds"life in danger" -what do you mean by that? old age?
There have been many folk medical remedies that have been handed down
that no one knew why they worked, but people continued to believe in
them regardless of the modern medical knowledge. So how is sharing
these remedies with someone else a bad thing even though it is not known
for sure if these remedies will work for that person?
P.S. If you are to ...[text shortened]... danger unless you do what they say, would you make them
prove it to you before you would agree?
23 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrNo, it won't.
What are you talking about? I'm taking a billion highly unlikely events and assuming that the negation of their conjunction is certain. Here it is again (using P1..Pn to stand for the propositions):
P1: Ticket 1 will not win.
P2: Ticket 2 will not win.
....
Pn: Ticket n will not win.
Suppose N is some very large number. Then, the probability of P1, P2,...Pn being true will be correspondingly high.
If there are a billion tickets, for instance, then the probability of P1 being true is .999999999. The fallibilist claims we can know propositions that are uncertain. Here, P1...Pn each meet a very high threshold (it can be arbitrarily high, if you increase the number of tickets) for being likely true. Each would be a candidate for knowledge. Belief in each would be justified. But if epistemic closure is true (or some other agglomeration principle), then belief in the conjunction of these propositions would also be justified.
Which is why I say epistemic closure, or your application of it here, is faulty.
But we know that that conjunction is false, since one ticket will win. So, either knowledge requires certainly, or we can't always justifiably believe the entailments of what we believe (i.e., closure is false).
Or rather, the entailments of what we believe is fallible. But that's why the system is called fallibilism surely? But I wouldn't say 'closure is false', I would say 'closure is fallible'.