/lit/ - Literature

I personally think a great many books should be banned for having an anti-moron theme.

Nice argument dude.

>>2021285

Well, that would be one of the lighthearted insults (with a grain of truth), wouldn't it?

>>2021281

Just because we can't provide a watertight definition of something, it doesn't mean we aren't able to define things sufficiently to delineate them. Otherwise why would we even have words like 'Science', 'Religion', 'History'?

If the wider context of my comments don't allow you to understand me (a common aspie trait), let me be specific.

Religion, in its highest and most simple form, begins with the question "why do we exist?" - note - "why" do we exist, not "how do we exist?" which is to say that "big bang, lots of shit happens, evolution, us!" isn't a sufficient philosophical or religious answer.

Religion then puts forth the proposition that this question is unanswerable via any form of inductive or deductive logic.

It then posits a hypothetical thing, we will call this "God" that would provide a sufficient answer to the question.

The central point of religion is that because the question is unanswerable, it requires "faith" to believe in this positive outcome.

Now, whatever you call 'science', you have to agree that it is purely limited to the "how" of the universe. It has no desire, and indeed no tools, to go any further.

This is why I say that while they are distinct, they are not diametrically opposed. Science allows us to greater understand the universe; but it is irrelevant to the question religion is trying to answer.

>>2021272

I'm not trolling; I'm simply mingling honest opinion with lighthearted insults. It makes the debate more lively.

I trip because I find that arguments are more fun when you can't back out because you're losing.

If you think I'm trolling, then highlight the opinion I've expressed that is so absurd I couldn't reasonably entertain it, and tell me why it's wrong.

>>2021270

When all fails; derail!

It's irrelevant whether we can accurately define the parameters of a discipline. That doesn't refute any of my points.

>>2021224

Fuck you're dense. Every discipline has it's own axioms, language, and focus. I never said that theology doesn't have a system of logic.

You can dispute my calling 'burden of proof' a scientific concept if you want, I only called it that for want of a better word. But what you can't dispute is that it is a logical convention, not an irrefutable argument. Further, we are talking about a concept that ALL REASONABLE PARTIES AGREE IS BEYOND PROOF. Something that is beyond proof by very definition, due to being outside, and greater than, any system we can observe or make observations about. Raising burden of proof it raising a logical convention in an inappropriate context. This is what distinguishes the assertion from say "unicorns exist."

Science and religion are *obviously* separate disciplines. I have no idea why you greentexted that. English literature isn't science. Psychology isn't science. Anthropology and history aren't science. Are you saying that because we don't adhere to scientific methodology that those disciplines are worthless and can't provide knowledge?

I would go on. But there really isn't much point because you haven't grasped any of the nuances or subtleties of my earlier posts. I'm so far above you that you can't see me, and therefore think I'm beneath you. You're like a 12year old reading Shakespeare for the first time.

>>2021202

I'm mainly arguing to hone my rhetoric, and to entertain myself at this point, but I'll continue to answer questions honestly.

As above, my own position is that "God" is only a serious concept at a pretty abstract level. I don't know quite where I sit on the issue, because it varies day to day for me, but I am convinced that it ultimately comes down to a question of "faith."

My response to the 'burden of proof' flows from that. Burden of Proof is a scientific concept - not some irrefutable logical rule - it's just a convention to allow things to run smoothly and logically. My earliest point is that science and religion are two completely separate systems of thought. One of the fundamental axioms of religion is that you can't "prove", you have to have faith. This is not as radical as it sounds. Please see: >>2020754

I don't believe there is any tenable argument for the Theodic God...well, that isn't entirely true. There is no argument that currently convinces me; but I am formulating one currently as an intellectual exercise which I believe takes a new approach.

Dawkins, you may note, has a similar position - he doesn't outrule Spinoza type "God' - my criticisms of Dawkin's specifically are that a. he contributes nothing new. b. in simplifying things, he fools people into a false understanding. c. this leads to a lot of very annoying, very ignorant people.

>>2021198

LOL. Well that's a first. I apologize profusely to: >>2021180

Anyway,

I'm not even going to wade into that arena. I am convinced that mysticism is BS, and neither your links, nor your personal testimony, have any power to change that. Might I suggest that maybe you're just having lucid dreams? They are pretty trippy, and you can experience them through meditation; but it's just amusing neurological fun, nothing spiritual.

>>2021189

Getting desperate. You know you've won once "U Mad" enters the arena.

And lets face it, I know it, you know it, I completely destroyed you. At least have the generosity of spirit to admit defeat.

>>2021180

You know, I get this vague feeling, given the picture that dude posted with, that maybe, you know, just maybe, he might have been another one of you Dawkins fags being sarcastic. I guess that makes you both retards, huh?

If you're so sharp, homeschool, get in here and dazzle me with the beauty of your logic.

>>2021150

I second the latter two of these recs. Real good stuff.

>>2021134

Thanks for clearing that up, thou walking billboard. Now humanity can go back to doing what it did before it asked the 'big' questions: fornicating rabidly and murdering each other.

>>2021128

I wasn't making an argument, I was making a clarification.

>>2021112

Don't you mean: "thanks for calling me out on my ridiculous assertions in a comical way?"

I wasn't addressing what Dawkins actually does ( I dealt with that earlier); I was addressing what YOU claimed he did (and showed you were a moron)

=)

>And calling him unoriginal and redundant isn't really a criticism of content, more style. it doesn't disprove what he says.

No it isn't you fucknut. I'm calling his CONTENT redundant. How is that a criticism of style? It's like that Woody Ellen skit:

Francis Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald came home from their wild new years eve party. It was April. Scott had just written Great Expectations, and Gertrude Stein and I read it, and we said it was a good book, but there was no need to have written it, 'cause Charles Dickens had already written it. We laughed over it, and Hemingway punched me in the mouth.

If you think he "goes over established justifications for a belief in God", and adequately answers them, you are in sore want of an education my friend.

>>2021099

The question you are asking is age old skepticism. You aren't the first or the last person to ask that.

The answer, unfortunately, is we don't have a clue. This guy:

>>2021096

Obviously thinks that there is an objectively true reality, of which we can know things. This is the pragmatic, reasonable thing to believe.

Of course there are some that deny the existence of external reality entirely, and there are others who claim that our perception means we get a distorted view of reality that may be untrue or merely one of many valid perspectives.

I personally think that reality is objectively real and that we do have some ability to know things about it. This is why. We are a product of evolution - our minds evolved on the basis of ensuring survival and reproduction. As a result, our view of the world is likely to be tweaked to suit those ends. Now the best way to ensure survival would be to know truths about external reality - the man who can tell there is a tiger about to eat him (When there actually is) is more likely to survive - so we are likely to know the external world (at least partially). Of course, this is also why the mind is so illogical when it comes to sex.

>>2021097

Superfluous if it is merely chimerical. That is, if consciousness is a real property of our minds then it is probably has an evolutionary advantage like you say, rather than being a spandrel. However many argue that consciousness is illusory, that we don't really have it - we are mechanistic. This is where I argue that if this is so, the feeling of consciousness, the illusion of it is superfluous. You can imagine the everything functioning exactly as it does now, without this extra 'beingness.' Maybe you are claiming that the illusion itself is evolutionarily useful - but I confess that I find this slightly different to grasp...for reasons I am struggling to articulate fully.

>>2021082

I like the image you posted with that post.

It's funny because guess which sort of people find academic language confusing and therefore assume its purpose is to obfuscate not clarify? the same sort of people who think that Dawkins makes any valid points

Problems:

1. Dawkins says nothing that hasn't been said better before him, therefore he is redundant, therefore not worth reading.

2. Internal consistency isn't enough.

All men like beer
I am a man
Therefore I like beer.

That argument is internally consistent but it isn't sound. that means its wrong For an argument to be sound it has to be externally consistent as well. Unfortunately, Dawkins isn't.

>>2021075

Sorry, I forgot the name of the dude, its this recent argument for theism that takes quite an interesting approach, but I can't remember shit about it except that it was thought provoking.

>>2021076

Go do an epistemology paper.

I'll tell you why if someone doesn't beat me to it:

Say you believe that the sky is blue. It is a true. It is a belief you have. So you would say you KNOW the sky is blue.

But, what if you were blind, and had never seen the sky, nor been told anything about it by others.

Would you still say such a person had knowledge that the sky was blue? (NO you wouldn't)

It is important how you come to have a true belief. A man could have nothing but true beliefs purely by chance, but he wouldn't have knowledge.

>>2021026

Yeah. I personally think that one of the problems of our focus on deconstruction is that we forget that things can be more than the sum of their parts - relational properties may give rise to important properties.

I think the concept of "I" is false not because it is some sort of illusory thing that arises out of our neuro-chemistry, but because it over-simplifies. Really, it is impossible to delineate my consciousness from anyone elses. Even now, via these messages, we are directly effecting each other's mental states no less than our brains effect themselves - it is just movement of information - it doesn't matter whether that be via nerve signals, sound waves or vision.

I was thinking about why I consider "why?" to be a valid question re. existence, when there are those who would say otherwise. One of my reasons is that "why?" seems to be the essence of our being. Man is a creature that asks questions. (am I quoting someone?) To deny the question, is to deny our humanity.

>>2021027

OK, I thought I had something in mind that would interest you, but I can't find it, so I'll take a different approach.

One of the arguments Dawkins deals with is the ontological argument. Now, I don't like this argument at all, and I feel, like Dawkins that it ultimately fails. In his book however, the version he deals with is Anselm's (the original), and he flippantly dismisses it with a very basic argument that was raised during Anselm's lifetime. The ontological argument however, has been significantly developed over its history and is still being debated today. The more developed versions are robust enough to withstand all of Dawkins arguments, and there is still contemporary debate about whether the ontological argument is vaild. Within the discipline of philosophy it is still an open question (although I think Kant dealt with it sufficiently when he argued that existence isn't a property). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

So there you go. Regardless of the ultimate status of the argument - it should be easy to see that Dawkins refutation of it is insufficient.

>>2020995

Actually, he said that Dawkin's arguments are high school level shit. Your lack of basic comprehension furthers my suspicion that writing out all the arguments would be pretty pointless, but I might link something.

>>2020964

I told you, or someone else, way, way back that if you don't want to accept my testimony, go do a degree in philosophy and theology.

All I did was make a throwaway observation about what I think of Dawkins' book. I don't really care if you remain under the illusion that he deals with sophisticated arguments - but my testimony is corroborated by plenty of other posters throughout the thread.

>>2020927

Well, you see, pretty much any argument that X stands for would be completely incompatible with the explanation given in B.

In much the same way, because Dawkins' arguments are all of B type - that is, they are counter-arguments - they are irrelevant to other arguments for God.

With regards to whether Dawkin's fails to address these other, better, arguments, the answer is 'yes'. That was my original point. I've already refused to deal with any of the "X"'s. I can't be any more explicit.

>>2020881

I'm not asking you to trust me about it. I furnished a separate argument as to why Dawkin's arguments are unsatisfactory. I'm not refusing to meet arguments head on - I'm just setting the parameters within which I am comfortable to debate.