World to end May 21st(this Saturday)

[Kijutsu]

Btw to anyone who thinks there is an afterlife and a god: there isn't.

This is an unprovable statement.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

[sinewav]

She's right. The responsibility for proof lies on the claimant. There is no reason to believe anything magical happens to you after you die. When someone makes a supernatural claim such as "you have a soul and it goes someplace," it's up to that person to provide proof. There is no responsibility on the other party to prove there isn't an afterlife. Occam's Razor, chrisd, you know this.

[chrisd]

She's right. The responsibility for proof lies on the claimant. There is no reason to believe anything magical happens to you after you die. When someone makes a supernatural claim such as "you have a soul and it goes someplace," it's up to that person to provide proof. There is no responsibility on the other party to prove there isn't an afterlife. Occam's Razor, chrisd, you know this.

Well, I do not believe in Occam's Razor. "The fewest assumptions". Can these even be counted? Humans are notoriously bad at spotting assumptions that they are used to making. If they can be counted, is it even a finite number? What if one theory has an equal number of assumptions to another? The simplest ones? Simple is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe we need to add an assumption to define simple? But Occam's Razor forbids that.

There is also an "I have rights" attitude that looms large in this post. If somebody wants to claim something that he cannot prove freedom of speech makes him free to do so. There is no "responsibility for proof". Anybody can believe, disbelieve or ignore him. And this "anybody" who believes/disbelieves/ignores also has not responsibility of proof.

There is also the assumption that objective truth exists. I generally like the idea of objective truth, but many people do not. Nobody has a way of proving or disproving the existence of objective truth. However, you and liz seem to tend to a materialistic world view. That is all fine and good if you like that, but the assumption of objective truth is somewhat problematic in a materialistic world view. This objective truth would have to exist in the imperfect hardware of the human brain. Is this even possible? If two human beings hold the same objective truth, is it actually the same? How are we going to check that? For one thing, the theory of constructivism that is popular in educational circles would object against the idea that two people can hold the same idea. (A nice excuse for a teacher who likes to claim that some things just can't be explained to some people!)

[Phytotron]

Bad pop-pseudo-philo blather, chrisd. Your hallmark. And using a lot of superfluous, obnoxious exclamation points doesn't make you any more right.

Occam's Razor isn't actually the primary principle here. (I don't know if sinewav even intended to convey that, of if he was just tagging it at the end.) You do display an apparent misunderstanding of the principle, nonetheless. But that aside....

Rather, the main thrust of sinewav's post, and the uncredited quote from Bertrand Russell, is that of basic logic. The burden of proof is always on the one positing a positive claim. "You can't prove a negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Right, but given a lack of evidence, empirical and rational, especially when combined with more verifiable evidence and/or reasonable explanations to the contrary, it is quite reasonable to rule out a claim, and one can take that to 99% certitude (while also acknowledging the inherent provisionality of science). This is #*@$ing basic.

In this same vein, absence of belief is not equivalent to affirmative belief. Period. Likewise, absence of naturalistic explanation is not proof of supernatural explanation. Likewise, saying "I don't know" is not equivalent to "I do know." Once more, this is all #*@$ing basic. Those who want to argue otherwise want only to erect a false position of equal credibility in order to advance an ideological agenda. The stork is not a co-equally credible explanation for reproduction.

Your comment about freedom of speech made no goddamn sense. All I can derive is perhaps some postmodernistic, solipsistic viewpoint ("if I believe something, my truth is no less valid than your truth, because I believe it"), which, as far as I'm concerned, holds no water in a rational conversation. May as well bring up magic crystals and spiritual planes.

On your argument about "objective truth"—more nonsense. First, who brought up "objective truth?" Oh, you. Straw man. Few of a so-called "materialistic" (I'll assume you mean naturalistic, scientific) position would speak of a capital-T metaphysical Truth. An objective reality/nature that exists independent of the mind, which can can be observed, measured, and described intersubjectively through the scientific method? Yes. And guess what, buddy, that's by far the best we have.

Second, "This objective truth would have to exist in the imperfect hardware of the human brain." Oxymoronic, meaningless statement with nothing to back it up.

I've been getting the impression that you do, indeed, subscribe to some sort of solipsism and/or postmodernism. Cogito ergo es. Yeah, no. Muddleheaded claptrap taken to the extreme, and lacking in any intellectual credibility. Again, worthless.


[Incidentally, for the record, I don't give a shit what Liz/vogue says, and am not directly defending her statements, or at least the phrasing thereof; only responding to yours. I doubt even the sincerity of much of hers. It seems to me that most of her "views" are largely formulated from an "oh yeah, well **** you" level of contemplation. More snotty, sass-imbued faux-rebellion resulting from apparent ASPD. "In what way can I interject that will piss off the greatest number of people, thus giving me pleasure?"]

Ever heard of Christian humility?

Heard about it, sure. Witnessed it? Not so much. (Get it? Witnessed? Ba-dump-thump. ) And understand that there is a significant, substantive difference between genuine humility, and having an everpresent cloud of inferiority, indignity, belittlement, debasement, shame, and a persecution complex hanging over your head. Humility is not contingent upon acquiescence, subjugation, and subservience to a deity—any deity, even a wonderfully benevolent one, but especially a cruel and vengeful one—and the religion that promotes it. Holding a belief to the contrary is not humility, it is an assault on human dignity.

@sine: Buddha didn't die for our sins, did he?

Neither did a certain bearded, Semitic demi-god that was shamelessly purloined, plagiarised even, from preceding demi-gods die for a fictional, at best metaphorical, concept.

Beat me too it, Phytotron. And while I'm not here to defend or promote a buddha....

And of course, Buddha isn't the only source.* Jesus was derived from several godmen preceding his supposed birth by thousands of years, and including those within polytheistic religions. Indeed, most all religions feature some similar saviour/resurrection figure. For those with a spiritual bent, this might be characterised as the "many paths" view of religions. But here we come back to that, "better, more reasonable explanation with evidence to the contrary" principle: Comparative religion (that they all basically ripped off one another) combined with human universals.

Gotta add, I don't get the focus on criticising monotheism. What about polytheism, pantheism, animism, or whatever other sort of theism or spiritualism? What about the Goa'uld?!

* Although, as you're apparently aware, though others here may not be, some suggest a strong connection. Including, by the way, ya know, Buddhism still has a sort of hell. Plus, from the Eight and Ten Precepts: Abstain from singing, dancing, playing music, attending entertainment performances. <Buddhist Footloose joke>

[Concord]

You show a perfectly logical statement to a four year-old and they think it's loony. They show you something rational and you think they're silly. Point of view. Rationality, like religion, doesn't actually exist. They're all beliefs.

[Kijutsu]

[Incidentally, for the record, I don't give a shit what Liz/vogue says, and am not directly defending her statements, or at least the phrasing thereof; only responding to yours. I doubt even the sincerity of much of hers. It seems to me that most of her "views" are largely formulated from an "oh yeah, well **** you" level of contemplation. More snotty, sass-imbued faux-rebellion resulting from apparent ASPD. "In what way can I interject that will piss off the greatest number of people, thus giving me pleasure?"]

Oh yeah? Well **** you!

[lol]

[sinewav]

* Although, as you're apparently aware, though others here may not be...

Yeah. Years ago I imagined the cultural influence of Buddhism following trade routes to the west, something the wiki article touches on. It's pretty conceivable that it influenced biblical fiction.

Gotta add, I don't get the focus on criticising monotheism.

Ha! You caught me. That's some bullsheet thing I do. It's easier for me to talk about religion that way since your big three western religions (Judaism, Islam,Christianity) all have the same core; the Old Testament. (hey, isn't Zoroastrianism going through a resurgence?) It is difficult to talk to most people about eastern religions since few people I come across know much about them. From a human rights perspective Hinduism is way more horrible than Islam, but it gets really confusing to talk about God in Hinduism, because you know, God exists, and you are God too, and so is the chair you are sitting on...

I also avoid lumping in Buddhism and Daoism to the religion argument since there is a distinct philosophy intertwined with each, and some people don't even consider them religions, just "lifestyles." You can be a "Christian Buddhist" which doesn't make a lot of sense to people since you can't be a Jewish Muslim or a Muslim Shintoist. However, I'm perfectly aware of some of the unbelievably stupid practices in Buddhism. So is this a religious bias I have toward Buddhism and Daoism? Kind of. The thing that makes them different from the others is both are atheistic and anti-supernatural. So, there are things I like about them, philosophically, but not religiously.

I guess instead of saying monotheists, I could say "supernaturalists." How does that sound? That's really what I'm getting at. Thanks for calling me out on that one.

[Word]

The Christian experience becomes beautiful and blessed, when we realize how God is everything in life. Then, embracing a sense of being nothing to make way for God to be all seems completely natural. For Christians, this awareness of the nothingness of ourselves to experience the richness of life through God is the essence of humility.

(couldn't formulate it better)


...It's not complete powerlessness.

[Olive]

And using a lot of superfluous, obnoxious adjectives and adverbs doesn't make you any more right either.

[Mecca]

+1 to Phytotron

+1 to Olive

[sinewav]

The Hindu experience becomes beautiful and blessed, when we realize how Brahman is everything in life. Then, embracing a sense of being nothing to make way for Brahman to be all seems completely natural. For Hindus, this awareness of the nothingness of ourselves to experience the richness of life through Brahman is the essence of humility.

Christianity stealing from Hinduism? Who is right? Hinduism is thousands of years older...

You should take a comparative religions class. You'll quickly realize that it's all just stories, and the gods are no more real than the Norse, Roman, or Egyptian gods of old.

[nsh22]

You should take a comparative religions class. You'll quickly realize that it's all just stories, and the gods are no more real than the Norse, Roman, or Egyptian gods of old.

implying thor, zeus, aphrodite, et al arnt real

[Clutch]

You should take a comparative religions class.

I wish my school had this. This seems like an interesting (yet heated, and confusing (for me) argument).

[galaxy invader]

damn it I missed the end of the world

[Concord]

This seems like an interesting (yet heated, and confusing (for me) argument).

a double parenthetical! I've only read about these

(almost as rare as the consecutive parenthetical)(I kno rite?)