You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Zubeneschamali

Fourier wrote: »

Is "memetic virus" a literary term or a scientific one? i.e. is it for rhetorical effect or is there some kind of study showing certain ideas propagate a certain way?

It is not so much a scientific term as an analogy.

smacl

Fourier wrote: »

Is "memetic virus" a literary term or a scientific one? i.e. is it for rhetorical effect or is there some kind of study showing certain ideas propagate a certain way?

Memetics is a term coined by Dawkins to describe a framework of ideas, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

Fourier

smacl wrote: »

Memetics a term coined by Dawkins to describe a framework of ideas, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

It was more the virus element specifically, i.e. had somebody shown some memes evolve like a virus or is "memetic virus" another way of saying "harmful concept" or "harmful mental framework" or something.

I'm just not sure of the precise meaning.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you are establishing a claim that no one actually denied, rebutted, or took a shred of issue with. Because not one person I have seen here, least of all me, has suggested the belief is not possible. Quite the opposite. We said the belief IS possible if you provide Evidence A. You just are not presenting Evidence A. Or B, C, D, or any other letter either. You have offered NOTHING.

Again you are more interested in talking ABOUT evidence to cover up the fact you are not offering ANY evidence. A common theist move alas, to use as many words as possible to say absolutely nothing.



I neither seek nor require your permission, thanks all the same, but the fact is ONCE AGAIN I never said it does not work. I said it does not work FOR ME. I keep talking about me, and you keep.... despite me pulling your words out of my mouth about 5 times now... extrapolating that into stuff I simply never once said.



I never said that, so your attempt to deny me permission for something you are incapable of denying me permission, is not relevant. What I DID say was that I once came up with a workable definition of the word "faith" which when I applied it.... it was congruent with the behaviour of many theists in many cases that I observed. Not all of course. But many. Bordering on most.

And that definition was basically that theists VERY often offer "evidence" that only works as "evidence" if and only if you assume the conclusion to be true. And you validated this yourself by offering a line of "reasoning" that perfectly matched that description. Thank you, in retrospect, for making my point for me so well.

As I said 23ists do this too. They assume first 23 controls everything. Then suddenly the evidence for this is everywhere. They fail to notice that it would have worked for any other number they were likely to have picked too.

From whence we came

antiskeptic wrote:

Luckily, you aren't being asked to do any such thing.

nozzferraahtoo wrote:

By you. I am however asked to by many other peoples, many times. But as I said, asking me to believe something will fail. I can not by choice assent to the request. I can not choose what to believe, even if others can.

The people asking me to believe could MAKE me believe. Helplessly. All they would have to do is present substantiation for their claims.

This they, like you, have failed spectacularly to do. Your entire post seems to say nothing more than "If you would believe it, then you would believe it" which is hardly a revelation.

Not. by. me.

You say you are asked many times to believe without evidence. And you spend much time laying out your objection to that.

I have laid out a path which doesn't ask you to believe without evidence. Leaving aside my not providing the evidence, can we take it that a path has been laid out which sidesteps the above objection

nozzferrahhtoo

^ You appear to have replied to a post from me, with text from a post by me. I am not about to read through it looking for any content that might be yours. Can you PLEASE learn to use the QUOTE function correctly (it is far from the first time you have failed to do so on this thread) to show at least SOME respect and understanding to your fellow posters here. Then post again and I will reply in kind.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

You say you are asked many times to believe without evidence. And you spend much time laying out your objection to that.

I spent hardly any time laying out my objection to that. I did it quite quickly and in short actually. The time since then it seems has been spent then re-explaining it to one person and one person only.

And it is not an "objection" either. It is just a statement of fact. Like if someone asks me to pick up a 1000kg weight and I tell them I can not do it. I am not objecting to them asking me to. I am just telling them I literally and factually can not do it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have laid out a path which doesn't ask you to believe without evidence.

And I have responded already that it simply will not work for me because my brain.... MINE, not anyone elses.... simply does not work in that fashion. If you can not... and it seems you can not.... offer even a SHRED of substantiation for the idea there is a non-human intelligent intentional agent responsible for my creation.... then you are not likely to lay out any path to my believing that claim.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

By that logic, really wanting something to be true is sufficient evidence to make it true, desire being the 'whatever' in this case. For most of us, that describes delusion.

Arrival at belief A satisfies God's criterion for applying salvation to that person. Belief A has a particular quality. You cannot wish yourself into a belief having that quality (although you could, like you say, wish yourself into a belief that seems to have that quality)

That quality is described as 'end of self'. You cannot wish yourself there. You must a) be there and b) be convinced that you are indeed there.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I spent hardly any time laying out my objection to that. I did it quite quickly and in short actually. The time since then it seems has been spent then re-explaining it to one person and one person only.

Crossed wires so, but whilst we're here.

And I have responded already that it simply will not work for me because my brain.... MINE, not anyone elses.... simply does not work in that fashion.

You are not being asked to believe. You are being asked whether the path laid out evidence > belief would work for you

nozzferrahhtoo

I have answered both of those sentences before. I do not intend to repeat myself. To you at least.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have answered both of those sentences before. I do not intend to repeat myself. To you at least.

Okay. My takeaway is that the path evidence > belief doesn't work for your brain.

You appeared to be saying that that pathway did work for you. That you need evidence to bring about belief. That evidence > belief was the pathway that worked for you.

nozzferrahhtoo

It is not a difficult concept.

I can only believe claims made with substantiation.

Your claim there is a god has thus far no substantiation.

Therefore I do not believe your claim there is a god.

If you want to "take away" something different to anything I actually said, that is certainly your choice to make. It has nothing to do with me.

joe40

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. My takeaway is that the path evidence > belief doesn't work for your brain.

You appeared to be saying that that pathway did work for you. That you need evidence to bring about belief. That evidence > belief was the pathway that worked for you.

Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I just read that post about 5 times and I cannot get any coherent meaning.

The idea of religion and faith is not complicated. You either believe or you don't.
Evidence, in terms of scientific evidence, cannot be used to either prove or disprove religion. Your belief is personal to you.

Mick_1970

The only so called evidence you provided was 'end of self' or facing your own mortality. You seem to be saying that the only way for a god to reveal itself is when a person is at their lowest and has no hope whatsoever.

Does this not reflect more on the person's mental anguish rather than the validity of whichever god they find to comfort them.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yeah the common theistic celebration of death bed or fox hole conversions has always highly amused me. They are literally saying "Look, our beliefs are so ridiculous people start buying them only when they hit the lowest moment of coherence, rationality and emotional stability of their lives... or are out of their mind on the side effects of the drugs helping ease their death!".

And they are PROUD of this as if it says something positive about their ideas. Can you imagine something similar in, say, a court of law. "Now your honor.... good people of the jury..... I am going to make a case that the accused is guilty but do you mind if I use drugs and terror to make you as incoherent and irrational as possible BEFORE I make my case as you are more likely to buy it then???"

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is not a difficult concept.

I agree

I can only believe claims made with substantiation.

Me too.

Your claim there is a god has thus far no substantiation.

Agreed

Therefore I do not believe your claim there is a god.

So far so logical

If you want to "take away" something different to anything I actually said, that is certainly your choice to make. It has nothing to do with me.

Let me put it this way. You are saying in effect:

The pathway to your salvation, if it required your believing something in order to be saved, would have to take the route

1st place the evidence before me
2nd then I will believe.

All I am saying is that that IS the pathway involved in a persons salvation. This in response to your position that you were always being asked to just believe (in the face of no evidence).

In so far as you have dealings with me, that is the pathway to be assumed I am working from. I will never tell you to believe what you have no evidence for.

That doesn't mean I will provide evidence in the form you like or the form you consider evidence.

Nevertheless, that is the route I hold as operated by God. And so we are on the same page at least on that point.

-

I should point out that my presenting evidence that you don't think is evidence is permissible. Permissible because you can dismiss it as non evidence, so no harm done. And I get to present what I consider evidence. Talk of morality, conscience, or whatever. Of course you are free not to respond to anything I say.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

That doesn't mean I will provide evidence in the form you like or the form you consider evidence.

Who cares. It would still be progress given thus far you have not provided ANY evidence at all. Making the attempt would be an improvement on the pages and pages of no attempt at all you have done so far.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Permissible because you can dismiss it as non evidence, so no harm done.

To my recollection I have never just "dismissed" any evidence any theist has taken the time and effort to present. I always explain exactly why it has failed as evidence, usually at great length.

Mere dismissal for me is not an option I have ever felt motivated to take. Which you'd know of course, had you at ANY time actually gotten around to presenting some.

Take a couple of hours to look over my posting history with the user Philologos/Jackass on the topic of religion or with ngarric on the topic of the afterlife and reincarnation as a prep course though. You will find I never "dismissed" anything from them out of hand. I went to great lengths and pains to explain the errors in their reasoning in fact. Though both soon after left the forum and never returned. Go figure

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah the common theistic celebration of death bed or fox hole conversions has always highly amused me. They are literally saying "Look, our beliefs are so ridiculous people start buying them only when they hit the lowest moment of coherence, rationality and emotional stability of their lives... or are out of their mind on the side effects of the drugs helping ease their death!".

And they are PROUD of this as if it says something positive about their ideas. Can you imagine something similar in, say, a court of law. "Now your honor.... good people of the jury..... I am going to make a case that the accused is guilty but do you mind if I use drugs and terror to make you as incoherent and irrational as possible BEFORE I make my case as you are more likely to buy it then???"

Watching a Stalingrad doc the other night which had a lot of interviews with Russian and German soldier survivors.

One German soldier noted wryly that when the heavy bombardment happened for the first time, alot of people learned how to pray.

Given what has been said about arrival at end of self, what would you make of the following foxhole prayer:

Gott in himmel
I don't want to die
My wife and my kids..
Please don't let a shell land here
If, in your grace you spare me I promise to live a good life forevermore
Only you can protect me
Amen

End of self?? Or not?

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

One German soldier noted wryly that when the heavy bombardment happened for the first time, alot of people learned how to pray.

My point exactly. Under extreme emotional duress and terror your rationality tends to go DOWN not up. And suddenly that is when people start believing your nonsense? "Look at my claims, if you terrorise people out of their rational mind, they start believing them!". And theists are PROUD of this fact somehow?

Wow. Just wow.

EDIT: But I would add that this is a common human trait that when we feel like we can do nothing at all, we find SOMETHING to do even if it is ineffectual. I would say that when people learn to pray magically as the bombs start falling it is not because they are finding faith all of a sudden, but rather that prayer gives them SOMETHING to do in the face of feeling there is NOTHING they can do.

We see it, for example, at funerals when people say "He is gone to a better place" or "I will pray for you". They feel they need to say SOMETHING rather than say nothing at all. Even if the thing they say is, like "he is gone to a better place" is insulting presumptive and horrible.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Given what has been said about arrival at end of self, what would you make of the following foxhole prayer:

Cowardly, self interested, ineffectual nonsense would probably be the best I would make of it. And insincere. Spare me and I will lead a good life? So.... despite having a wife and kids he found no reason to live a good life before? And he did not even seemingly mention the wife and kids because he was concerned for THEIR well being in the event of his death. Sounds more like he was trying to guilt his god into a positive decision like a hostage telling the bank robber "Dont shoot I have a wife and children". Emotionally manipulative crap.

He sounds like a dick basically. Like a small child saying "If you give me the choccie I will be a good little boy". Your hypothetical person disgusts me to be honest.

Were I in the foxhole in contrast I would more likely be reciting the Bene Gerrerit Mantra:

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

And then having pushed my cowardice aside, and clung to my rational self, I would turn my hand to doing the best I could to protecting myself and helping my fellow combatants in the pit.

Hell even you theists have a saying that fits better with this. Rather than petitioning gods with petty bribes about living a good life, remember the saying "god helps those that help themselves".

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Who cares. It would still be progress given thus far you have not provided ANY evidence at all. Making the attempt would be an improvement on the pages and pages of no attempt at all you have done so far.

That presupposes I am not evidencing - probably due to preconcieved notions you have about what evidence is relevant.

You, in all probability, want evidence dealing with arguments like fine tuning or irreducible complexity or an Ark that can float? Direct and arguable according the normal methods. Or perhaps you prefer philosophical type argument? I don't know, but along those lines? This is the kind of evidence you suppose could potentially cause you to believe.. if there was a God

If only it worked that way (and I am pretty sure it doesn't).


So how does it work.

Take, for example, that story earlier of our alcoholic reaching end of self and believing he was at end of self. I can't evidence to a person that they are at end of self. It is the state they are in when they reach end if self that evidences end of self to a person.

If that is the route into salvation, then you might see that the evidence you want aren't the kind of evidences that produces belief.

Now we could go look at the bible to see if that is indeed is what the bible says regarding the route to saving belief. We haven't time. But even if you believed that the bible said what I say, that isn't a belief that saves. It would be just an intellectual assent on your part regarding a theological point.

And so, I evidence what I consider worth evidencing. Take our alcoholic story again. Because IF it is true that the route proposed (end of self) is the actual way of salvation THEN what I have said is evidence. Even if you don't believe its true, even if you don't give it your theological assent.

And that evidence can have worth;

- having read the story, a person is aware of the possibility that salvation isn't a matter of believing in some lofty spiritual thing. Or believing without evidence. They'll forget the story quickly, but it is in there nonetheless. Pauldia just reminded me of a story (real) I told on here 4 years ago. A story about a helium balloon. Stories go in (which is why Jesus told stories presumably)

- for someone who has long railed against the idea of believing without evidence or who has railed against having to god-knows-how believe in super spiritual stuff, this story might interest. The idea that salvation occurs through everyday nitty, gritty down to earth life, without any reference to ughh .. religion... might be a novel idea. Novel in a world of "You have to believe Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour. Believe and be saved!!"

- the story might come to mind when someone, you even, finds themselves down the bottom of the barrel and are grasping around desparately for escape. "What was it that antiskeptic said?"

I say this because that latter is precisely what happened me. A mickey mouse tract given me, which found use as a coffee cup place mat for a week or two and was then stuck in the bookcase for many years. Only to be reached for and pulled out and read when I hit the bottom of the barrel.

Trust me. There is method in my apparent madness 😉


I'll get back to your post later. Gotta go

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

You, in all probability, want evidence

I do not want or not want anything. I remain open to what I am offered if you would only get around to offering it.

Evidence for me is not a thing, it is a process. A simple one too:

1) State clearly what your claim is
2) State clear what you think supports that claim.
3) Explain clearly how what was listed in step 2 supports the claim made in step 1.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

- the story might come to mind when someone, you even, finds themselves down the bottom of the barrel and are grasping around desparately for escape. "What was it that antiskeptic said?"

... and then the nasty skeptics realized Antiskeptic was right all along, and Jesus gave him extra Brownie points!

Which is what this is all about - not us, not evidence, argument, reason - it's all about Jesus Club points for antiskeptic.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not want or not want anything. I remain open to what I am offered if you would only get around to offering it.

Evidence for me is not a thing, it is a process. A simple one too:

1) State clearly what your claim is
2) State clear what you think supports that claim.
3) Explain clearly how what was listed in step 2 supports the claim made in step 1.

You've just outlined how you want it. I've just outlined how and why I'm giving it. And how it is a process.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

... and then the nasty skeptics realized Antiskeptic was right all along, and Jesus gave him extra Brownie points!

Which is what this is all about - not us, not evidence, argument, reason - it's all about Jesus Club points for antiskeptic.

It probably a bit like someone farting in a church making you laugh louder than usual but atheist digs are pretty funny.

Jesus Club Points

😀

nozzferrahhtoo

Well given the paltry and pretty awful statistics on the success rate of things like AA, I am not sure where the OP is going with the alcoholic at the bottom of the barrel analogy. Even figures compiled by AA themselves, which you would be forgiven for suspecting might be massaged and exaggerated by interested parties, were truly awful. And the religious over tones of AA are difficult to gloss over, though I have seen some try real hard.

Pushing the boat out to some higher power seems not to help. The least nonsense sentence I have ever heard from theists is, as I said, "god helps those who help themselves". And I would approach the alcoholic with a more proactive and involved set of structures to help him find a cure than telling him to give himself over to some nebulous "higher power" mentioned in 12 steps.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've just outlined how you want it.

Nope. Because the evidence you offer is not constrained by my description of the process. You said I "want arguments like...." and that is simply false. I have no constraint or expectation on what the evidence can be. I JUST want you to tell me a) What the evidence is and why you think it supports the claim.

Your nonsense response would be like us having a conversation like:

Me: Give me something with your hands.
You: You probably want a fruit or something?
Me: No, I really do not care what you give me, just give it to me wiht your hands.
You: Ah you probably wouldn't accept a vegetable anyway.
Me: No I really have no constraints whatsoever, just give me something with your hands.
You: Ah you probably wont like what I choose anyway.

And so on and so on. Anything you can do and say to ignore the fact you are simply not giving anything when asked.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

It probably a bit like someone farting in a church making you laugh louder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z43v54S_zPQ

Zubeneschamali

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

the religious over tones of AA are difficult to gloss over, though I have seen some try real hard.

As I understand it, you just need to acknowledge a Supreme being.

I don't see how any atheist can deny the existence of a Supreme being when tickets for Diana Ross at the Royal Hospital 2020 are on sale now!

nozzferrahhtoo

She is still alive? Or has there been another Resurrection? I am sure I had her filed under "dead" in my head somewhere.

Zubeneschamali

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

She is still alive? Or has there been another Resurrection? I am sure I had her filed under "dead" in my head somewhere.

You cannot kill the Supreme being.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My point exactly

Mine too. The theists claim all foxholers. The atheists deny all foxholers

. Under extreme emotional duress and terror your rationality tends to go DOWN not up.

It can also focus the mind on what's important.

And suddenly that is when people start believing your nonsense? "Look at my claims, if you terrorise people out of their rational mind, they start believing them!". And theists are PROUD of this fact somehow?

Wow. Just wow.

Q.E.D. on the aforementioned atheist position.

EDIT: But I would add that this is a common human trait that when we feel like we can do nothing at all, we find SOMETHING to do even if it is ineffectual. I would say that when people learn to pray magically as the bombs start falling it is not because they are finding faith all of a sudden, but rather that prayer gives them SOMETHING to do in the face of feeling there is NOTHING they can do.

We see it, for example, at funerals when people say "He is gone to a better place" or "I will pray for you". They feel they need to say SOMETHING rather than say nothing at all. Even if the thing they say is, like "he is gone to a better place" is insulting presumptive and horrible.

Indeed. But all prayers down foxholes motivated so??

Cowardly, self interested, ineffectual nonsense would probably be the best I would make of it. And insincere. Spare me and I will lead a good life? So.... despite having a wife and kids he found no reason to live a good life before? And he did not even seemingly mention the wife and kids because he was concerned for THEIR well being in the event of his death. Sounds more like he was trying to guilt his god into a positive decision like a hostage telling the bank robber "Dont shoot I have a wife and children". Emotionally manipulative crap.

Experienced soldiers would be a bit more empathic than you. But I agree, not much end of self to be seen. It was "get me out of here so I can go back to being a self"

Were I in the foxhole in contrast I would more likely be reciting the Bene Gerrerit Mantra:

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

And then having pushed my cowardice aside, and clung to my rational self, I would turn my hand to doing the best I could to protecting myself and helping my fellow combatants in the pit.

We have this ongoing problem about you supposing yourself immune to that which comes natural to man. Not saying you wouldn't do as you say. But I gather than no man really knows how he will react until he's in that foxhole.

Hell even you theists have a saying that fits better with this. Rather than petitioning gods with petty bribes about living a good life, remember the saying "god helps those that help themselves".

Not a biblical quote that I can recall. Might be up there with holy water in terms of God reference.

Right, the boys back in the door. Ciao.