Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Ouija board etc
-
12-08-2012 12:53am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
While I would tend to think that most people who are atheists are also critical thinkers, it's not always the case, so you do occasionally get atheists who believe in ghosts and other such paranormal phenomena. (To be honest, I'm inclined to think that if you're a "skeptic" and also religious, then you're not very good at one of those things, but that's just me!)
Since atheist on its own really just means "doesn't believe in god(s)", there's really no guarantee that all atheists will also be aghostists
For me, personally, as there has been no evidence of ghosts (or similar paranormal phenomena), a ouija board or haunted house wouldn't be bothersome. I enjoy a creepy movie as much as the next person, but I don't believe it's ghosts moving the indicator on the board.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quatermain wrote: »As far as I'm aware, Tarot decks were used much like a normal deck of cards in games like tarocchini before their use in divination.
Yeah, I'm not too up on the history of the cards, but there must be an overlap. The history is not well known as far as I can tell.
Alan Watts has a good article, which I haven't read in ages, on regular cards here.
There's also stuff like Enochian chess.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of games have some originary occult siginficance. I vaguely recall a good article on Snakes & Ladders as well. Can't remember now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_and_Ladders
The sacred mystery of Buckaroo still evades me. 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
MrStuffins wrote: »Than a theist?
Why on earth are you asking me? You're the person who made the statement :
Atheist doesn't necessarily mean you have absolutely no belief in the paranormal etc. It just means you are more likely to think about thinkgs critically and logically instead of jumping to stupid conclusions like "OMG!!! IT'S MY DEAD DOG CONTACTING ME FROM BEYOND THE BACK-GARDEN GRAVE!".
So, again, "How does being an atheist mean you're more likely to think logically and critically?"0 -
DublinWriter wrote: »...because you inherently trust the value of empirical methodology.
And, now I'm getting all confused here. Is there a secondary requirement for all atheists to trust empiricism or something? That I'm not aware. of. Or are you saying atheists are more likely to follow empirical methods and thus more likely to be logical and critical thinkers? 0 -
-
Why on earth are you asking me?
Because i'd have thought it was a tad obvious.DublinWriter wrote: »...because you inherently trust the value of empirical methodology.With over 90% of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Society's membership being atheists - it's a pretty good indicator. Someone who automatically questions claims which lack proof is at least off to a good start with respect to critical thinking.
Above are 2 nice examples.0 -
-
The query I had was being an Atheist means "you're more likely to think logically and critically".
All I've got so far is that scientists are likely to be atheists.(?) It does seem a fair assumption to make that scientists are likely to think critically and logically but I don't see how I'm expected to assume atheists are more likely to think critically and logically just because scientists do.
Regarding how "obvious" something is. Well, isn't that the first rule of science? Just because something appears obvious doesn't necessarily mean it is true until it is tested repeatedly again and again and again and even then, perhaps somewhat depressingly, it can never actually be true. That's why there's tonnes of research papers mocked and dismissed for investigating the obvious : "Do Amputated Limbs really grow back?". Every so often something counter intuitive is found and that's what makes science what it is.0 -
The query I had was being an Atheist means "you're more likely to think logically and critically".
All I've got so far is that scientists are likely to be atheists.(?) It does seem a fair assumption to make that scientists are likely to think critically and logically but I don't see how I'm expected to assume atheists are more likely to think critically and logically just because scientists do.
Do you really need this explained to you?Regarding how "obvious" something is. Well, isn't that the first rule of science? Just because something appears obvious doesn't necessarily mean it is true until it is tested repeatedly again and again and again and even then, perhaps somewhat depressingly, it can never actually be true. That's why there's tonnes of research papers mocked and dismissed for investigating the obvious : "Do Amputated Limbs really grow back?". Every so often something counter intuitive is found and that's what makes science what it is.
What do you want, a research paper?
Now it's YOU speaking about science?
We're talking about Atheists and Ouija Boards no?0 -
Advertisement
-
MrStuffins wrote: »Do you really need this explained to you?
Yes, yes I do. If it was obvious to me I doubt I'd have asked it. Why does being an atheist mean you're more likely to think logically and critically?
What do you want, a research paper?
Now it's YOU speaking about science?
We're talking about Atheists and Ouija Boards no?
If you have a research paper that shows it then by all means fire away. Apologies to the OP, mods and everyone else for dragging this off topic, but I'm kind of terrible for doing that.
0 -
Yes, yes I do. If it was obvious to me I doubt I'd have asked it. Why does being an atheist mean you're more likely to think logically and critically?
Many Theists, for example Christians, by their nature, possess beliefs which fly in the face of logic.
There's a start!
(By the way, i'm not having a go at Christians. I doubt many Christians would tell you all of their beliefs are based in logic)0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
That's why I prefer to keep an open mind,I like Theology,Superstition,Mysticism,Folklore and other stuff thats a bit well hard to prove or convince people of.
I won't claim I'm right but I like it all the same.
I detach myself from the negative side of it all take what suits me or is appealing and leave the rest....
I wasn't brought up in.a strict catholic home,it said to me when I was 16 son its up to you now make your own mind up 0 -
-
Improbable wrote: »I and many others on this forum have already clearly expressed why we believe that to be the case. There is no valid evidence for the existence of a deity. The rational stance with regards to belief in any subject should be that you do not believe in something until evidence is presented which shows it to be true. Indeed, people adhere to this principle for most aspects of their lives. If your argument is that this should not hold true for belief in a deity, why is that? If your argument is that there is valid evidence for the existence of a deity, I'm sure that if you present it here, I or someone else would be more than glad to demonstrate to you why it is not valid.
There's no reason in the universe why reason has anything whatsoever to do with a question like this. You're telling us that it should when you argue that evidence should apply to these concepts, that evidence should apply to the creator of evidence. I'd love to see someone argue their way out of this paper bag in trying to tell me that it makes sense that evidence, or the supposed* lack thereof, should apply to the creator of evidence.
But no, you tell us it is irrational for people who tell us that they believe X, due to their faith-based decision, using this nonsensical argument that evidence should apply to the creator of evidence, that reason should apply to the creator of reason (& the very concept of reason) - & people think this is rational? On one side of a potentially unanswerable question we have people telling us they've taken a side on one side of the question on nothing more than faith, on another we have people telling us that because evidence apparently* doesn't exist for the creator of evidence that this has any relevance as to whether the creator of evidence exists (& some go further in claiming this implies those philistine out-groupers are just irrational...
).
*And as to the question of evidence, what kind of evidence could there possibly be? Assuming god did suddenly appear, how would you know he was legit? How would you know it wasn't a sub-god in a heirarchy of subgods? How would you know it wasn't a dream? How would you know it wasn't part of a hallucination? How would you know it wasn't part of a hallucination due to the real you being tortured/drowning/X/Y/Z/...? How would you know the laws of physics hadn't just failed & reality as it stands was just morphing into illogicality... How would you know that the mars bar creator of the universe hadn't just gotten fed up & felt it was time to play tricks? How would you know that the snickers bar creator of the universe hadn't just gotten fed up & felt it was time to play tricks? How would you know that the snuckers bar creator of the universe hadn't just gotten fed up & felt it was time to play tricks?
You'll notice how the concept of rationality applies in the above example, but that's merely a rhetorical ploy - there's no reason in the universe why reason has anything whatsoever to do with a question like this, it's just packed in to your assumptions. If we can get past that entirely faith-based assumption we then see that a claim like this is nothing but the product of unjustifiable bias & could very well be true. For all we know someone's lamp is all the evidence that will ever exist for the existence of god in the universe. For all we know existence itself is evidence of the universe. How do you know? How do you not know? How the hell do you decide either way? Again I see no reason why everything & nothing is evidence for the existence of god, that only makes sense to me once I accept all your assumptions about rationality etc... which there really isn't one omicron of justification for. I think the philistine's would refer to that as a faith-based claim.
So please, remind me again why lack of evidence says anything as to whether god exists or not, & why those others are just so irrational?0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »There's no reason in the universe why reason has anything whatsoever to do with a question like this. You're telling us that it should when you argue that evidence should apply to these concepts, that evidence should apply to the creator of evidence. I'd love to see someone argue their way out of this paper bag in trying to tell me that it makes sense that evidence, or the supposed* lack thereof, should apply to the creator of evidence.
But no, you tell us it is irrational for people who tell us that they believe X, due to their faith-based decision, using this nonsensical argument that evidence should apply to the creator of evidence, that reason should apply to the creator of reason (& the very concept of reason) - & people think this is rational? On one side of a potentially unanswerable question we have people telling us they've taken a side on one side of the question on nothing more than faith, on another we have people telling us that because evidence apparently* doesn't exist for the creator of evidence that this has any relevance as to whether the creator of evidence exists (& some go further in claiming this implies those philistine out-groupers are just irrational...).
*And as to the question of evidence, what kind of evidence could there possibly be? Assuming god did suddenly appear, how would you know he was legit? How would you know it wasn't a sub-god in a heirarchy of subgods? How would you know it wasn't a dream? How would you know it wasn't part of a hallucination? How would you know it wasn't part of a hallucination due to the real you being tortured/drowning/X/Y/Z/...? How would you know the laws of physics hadn't just failed & reality as it stands was just morphing into illogicality... How would you know that the mars bar creator of the universe hadn't just gotten fed up & felt it was time to play tricks? How would you know that the snickers bar creator of the universe hadn't just gotten fed up & felt it was time to play tricks? How would you know that the snuckers bar creator of the universe hadn't just gotten fed up & felt it was time to play tricks?
You'll notice how the concept of rationality applies in the above example, but that's merely a rhetorical ploy - there's no reason in the universe why reason has anything whatsoever to do with a question like this, it's just packed in to your assumptions. If we can get past that entirely faith-based assumption we then see that a claim like this is nothing but the product of unjustifiable bias & could very well be true. For all we know someone's lamp is all the evidence that will ever exist for the existence of god in the universe. For all we know existence itself is evidence of the universe. How do you know? How do you not know? How the hell do you decide either way? Again I see no reason why everything & nothing is evidence for the existence of god, that only makes sense to me once I accept all your assumptions about rationality etc... which there really isn't one omicron of justification for. I think the philistine's would refer to that as a faith-based claim.
So please, remind me again why lack of evidence says anything as to whether god exists or not, & why those others are just so irrational?
You're confusing the arguments. Your statements are about the existence of a deity, mine are about the belief in the existence of a deity. Two closely related but separate subjects. Stop trying to move the goalposts.0 -
Improbable wrote: »You're confusing the arguments. Your statements are about the existence of a deity, mine are about the belief in the existence of a deity. Two closely related but separate subjects. Stop trying to move the goalposts.
Yes that somehow negates everything I've said, especially the part where I addressed the whole substance of your post, namely your argument about why it is irrational for the out-group to "believe":sponsoredwalk wrote: »But no, you tell us it is irrational for people who tell us that they believe X, due to their faith-based decision, using this nonsensical argument that evidence should apply to the creator of evidence, that reason should apply to the creator of reason (& the very concept of reason) - & people think this is rational? On one side of a potentially unanswerable question we have people telling us they've taken a side on one side of the question on nothing more than faith, on another we have people telling us that because evidence apparently* doesn't exist for the creator of evidence that this has any relevance as to whether the creator of evidence exists (& some go further in claiming this implies those philistine out-groupers are just irrational...).
despite the fact that you & all the others on this forum see no evidence. If the argument upon which you base this claim of irrationality makes no sense then using your own rationality I think you'll see how you have no justification for saying the out-group are irrational (though apparently people think that logic makes sense since in this thread all we need to do is show that an atheist is more rational than a theist to somehow link atheism & rationality so maybe we are justified in calling theists irrational for believing despite evidence even though there's no reason in the universe why evidence should have any bearing on a question like this).
After that I'm just exploring further the argument you're basing your elitism off of, this idea of evidence, just to show how irrational this argument is. But before that I specifically address how your argument does not imply the others are irrational, so had I known you were going to ignore that the first time I'd have originally posted with the word believe in red 5 times bigger. But I'll just say that my post is not at all about the existence of a deity it's about the idea that evidence has anything to do with a conversation like this & how nonsensical it is to use that idea to put the in-group above the philistines.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
sponsoredwalk wrote: »despite the fact that you & all the others on this forum see no evidence. If the argument upon which you base this claim of irrationality makes no sense then using your own rationality I think you'll see how you have no justification for saying the out-group are irrational (though apparently people think that logic makes sense since in this thread all we need to do is show that an atheist is more rational than a theist to somehow link atheism & rationality so maybe we are justified in calling theists irrational for believing despite evidence even though there's no reason in the universe why evidence should have any bearing on a question like this).
After that I'm just exploring further the argument you're basing your elitism off of, this idea of evidence, just to show how irrational this argument is. But before that I specifically address how your argument does not imply the others are irrational, so had I known you were going to ignore that the first time I'd have originally posted with the word believe in red 5 times bigger. But I'll just say that my post is not at all about the existence of a deity it's about the idea that evidence has anything to do with a conversation like this & how nonsensical it is to use that idea to put the in-group above the philistines.
I'm sorry but I'm actually having a hard time trying to understand exactly what you're saying. Maybe if you simplified it a little bit, I might be able to respond to specific, concise points that you make.
As to the argument that evidence shouldn't have anything to do with this discussion, that's just a case of special pleading. You're trying to make the case that reason and rationality don't have to apply to the creator of reason and rationality but you've not demonstrated why that should be the case, either on the basis of rationality or faith.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
So your concerns about what is evidence, trivially addressed.
Really? All you did was tell us in most general terms that subjective evidence is is not evidence of something because it's subjective, easily falsifiable & unverifiable (which you should really tell any doctor, psychologist, social scientist etc...) & then tell us that objective evidence would constitute evidence without a tap of specifics... Furthermore you haven't even bothered to tell us why, say, a lamp isn't evidence for the existence of god. Just because you're hilariously obvious biases don't apparently lead to you concluding that a lamp is evidence for a deity (nor do I have any way to conclude that about the lamp) it may very well be the only evidence that will ever exist & our own biases are responsible for us not seeing the light... Repeating slogans about objective, verifiable, is fine but can you go any further without giving an inherently flawed & biased example that somehow nullifies the very fact that the evidence could potentially be totally & utterly wrong despite being repeatedly verifiable to the furthest extent of human cognition & further somehow accounts for the fact that there's no reason why a deity could not make contradictory evidence be evidence for it's existence.For the record though, you didn't ask for a definition of acceptable evidence, you asked what would constitute such evidence.
Correct the record because the very first thing I asked was:
"what kind of evidence could there possibly be?"
If you're going to argue that asking what "kind" of evidence isasking for an example of acceptable evidence
& not asking for a definition then frankly I see this as going nowhere.An example I can't give you because I am unaware of the existence of any.
Even playing this rhetoric game, if you could give a definition of the particular kind of evidence that wouldn't leave open the mindfcuk possibilities that this conversation creates then it would be an immediate consequence of the definition to be able to give an example - if you can't even come up with an example you have an inherently flawed definition of what constitutes evidence. If you could give me an example of evidence then we'd be able to derive a good definition quick enough. Quite frankly either way would be enough but thus far you're only attempt - objective or scientific evidence can't be taken seriously, it would not show the existence of a god who has allowed contradictory evidence to be evidence for it's existence, so if that is really the only true deity then you're form of evidence would mean we would be forever without the means to deduce the evidence necessary to know our creator
Your claims implicitly assume the concepts of logic & rationality even apply - a constraint I think you're having a hard time shaking yourself of - when there's absolutely no need for this to be the case.So perhaps it's possible for you to understand why asking what constitutes evidence is an attempt to shift the burden of proof?
This is very simple, someone makes the claim that belief in a deity is inherently irrational because there is no evidence for it, I ask them what kind of evidence could there possibly be & then you tell me I'm shifting the burden of proof? Someone else has formed a crystalline opinion based on their conclusion of the lack of evidence & when I ask them how they got to that conclusion suddenly I'm shifting the burden of proof?On Rationality:
Necessity in this context does not mean that an opinion one way or the other must be held, it is the requirement that an opinion held must have consistent reasoning behind it.
The thing you said necessity doesn't mean is synonymous with what you said it does mean if you actually read it in the context it was posted, namely the context where necessity obviously means you necessarily follow where you're led in order to be rational. I can't see how to interpret that any other way & have it make sense in light of the conversation...In the absence of any evidence for something is it consistent to believe that thing exists? Of course not. There is no reason to allow yourself to believe in such a thing, and so by necessity you shouldn't. Is there evidence for a deity? None that I am aware of. So should I believe in a deity? I should not. So I don't.
Again, to repeat the question again, what in the universe could possibly consist of evidence? How can you justifiably tell us that the lack of evidence is reason enough to call the out-group irrational when you're own definition of scientific, objective evidence is so ridiculously flawed, so insanely biased as to what a deity should be like that it's laughable?Irrational then:
If it is a necessity of rationality that reasoning must be consistent, inconsistent reasoning must be inadequate use of reason when determining rationality. Is there evidence for a deity? None that I am aware of. So should I believe in a deity? I should not. But I will anyway. That's not consistent is it?
Why do you just assume, without a morsel of a tap of justification as to why, rationality or logic applies to a deity? Can you really not comprehend how major an assumption that is to make, let alone how bereft of serious justification it could possibly be?On your final point: You haven't openly claimed any specific deity exists in what I've read of your posts. I clearly defined the type of deity I was talking about myself because of that.
Unlike you I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume a deity has to fit any preconceived mold [especially, though not exclusively, since this inherently assumes concepts such as rationality, logic etc... even apply (oh the unstated assumptions...) & the fact that you'd invoke such concepts really shows you weren't following what I'm saying]. I'm not interested in discussing a specific deity since knocking that one down (to use your words) just shifts the goalposts to the next possibility & on we go in this roundabout indefinitely all the while thinking concepts such as logic & rationality necessarily apply to the discussion, something I'm still waiting for a justification for...I was simply trying to demonstrate that such a deity as I had defined if it existed could very easily provide evidence if it chose to, making belief in it consistent and hence rational. But by doing nothing, belief in such a deity remains irrational because there is still no evidence for it.
I honestly don't know why you set this example up, it's blatantly obvious that this would be possible for the extremely anthropomorphic deity you've created but for some unjustified reason you
a) think rationality even applies,
b) think a deity would care whether people believe in it,
c) still fail to even begin to justify your use of the word irrational.
I don't know why you'd cite an example of an anthropomorphic deity as some kind of rebuttal to someone arguing that the very concepts of logic & rationality themselves have no justifiable reason for even applying to the concept of a deity...Oh, and your third question was meaningless. Evidence doesn't apply to the existence of a deity: Things can exist without our knowledge and often do (Coelacanth's for example were wrongly believed extinct for ages. This was rational, because at the time it was the prevalent belief the only known coelacanth's were fossilised examples millions of years dead.) Evidence does not 'decide' the existence of something, it decides which position is rational.
What did I say?
"In fact, why should evidence even apply to a deity?"
If you seriously & honestly took this question as me saying that a lack of evidence for a deity would mean the deity doesn't exist then yes what I've said appears meaningless, however you'd really have to wonder how I'd have the mental capabilities to get on the internet if I said something like that with a straight face. I mean really, what kind of person would make that argument? Putting aside the fact you'd think I'd make such a ridiculous argument, if you were following anything I was saying you'd see that this was the very last thing I could be saying... My entire argument is that the very concepts of logic & rationality have no justifiable reason for even applying to this discussion - how in the world could that argument simultaneously co-exist with me also saying that because evidence doesn't exist for a coelacanth or a deity it means that the coelacanth or a deity doesn't exist I mean the very question itself is asking why the lack of evidence should say anything about belief in a deity, why it should even apply? Does it not seem questionable that I'd post claims in complete contradiction to the rest of what I'm posting & that maybe I wasn't interjecting arguments that fly right in the face with the rest of what I'm posting?If there was strong evidence for the existence of a deity, philosophers and scientists would have long ago settled the matter. The fact that their isn't and humanity has been engaged in an astoundingly rapid rise from animalistic barbarism to modern times is what keeps the question open for debate in amateur circles such as boards.ie.
Thank you for repeating what I've already said, are you sure you're arguing with the right person here? The people (including yourself) here arguing that it is inherently irrational to pick the out-group side over the in-group side in this debate. Using your own words it implies you all have some form of consistent reasoning you're using. Could you please be the first person in the history of humanity to consistently argue for why choosing one side over the other is done so out of consistent reasoning & not as part of an inherently unjustifiable faith-based choice, especially using scientific evidence as justification for such elitism.0 -
-
Advertisement
Advertisement