User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 72

  1. #31
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    First you say I am equivocating something; then at the end you point out the very thing I was talking about. The only difference is that you distinguished a rational-empirical model from a pragmatic one, whereas I didn't take it far enough to give them labels.
    I mention it but only as an aside. It's pretty clear the caller did care about whether his beliefs were true in a classical sense (he said as much right near the beginning of the conversation), so he was not just using a different 'model of truth'. So far as I can tell, he really was just being inconsistent--after all his comments were a vague mish-mash of different philosophical positions.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    I only brought up the taste of cake as an example of something that can be unfalsifiable.

    If it was a personal matter then he didn't have to call into the show. You're getting into esoteric knowledge. If he wanted to go that route he didn't have to specify unfalsifiablility. The fact that he did is important.


    So all gods exist then? Every claim is just fine?
    1. How did you get the idea that I wrote something about esoteric knowledge? It's simply about objective proof vs. personal faith, it doesn't have to get more involved.
    2. The question for the atheist side involves objective, empirical proof of God's existence; but throughout I have been talking about personal, subjective proof (happiness or whatever). That's not solipsism, and the opposite of solipsism is not the idea that all gods exist, which is an empirical and not a subjective claim. You're crossing categories on me.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  3. #33
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    I mention it but only as an aside. It's pretty clear the caller did care about whether his beliefs were true in a classical sense (he said as much right near the beginning of the conversation), so he was not just using a different 'model of truth'. So far as I can tell, he really was just being inconsistent--his comments were a vague mish-mash of different philosophical positions.
    I would not expect consistency from an average caller to a local show. So then it becomes necessary to puzzle out exactly what he's trying to say. I don't know why I allow this discussion to get side-tracked into some vague mish-mash, when D'Souza was perfectly clear. Or clear enough to root out any of his mistakes.

    The caller said at the very beginning that he believes in an unfalsifiable God - i.e., that "can't be demonstrated." Now in my experience, unfalsifiable means "cannot be falsified." There is a huge difference. So the caller is clearly talking over his head from the word "go." So one is forced to ask if he is talking about a God that can't be falsified, or one that can't be demonstrated.

    The entire video is full of such crap that I am forced to interpret everything in it. But the caller cannot even properly categorize his own beliefs so I can't decide whether he was in favor of classical, empirical modes of truth. His stated thesis, however, was that his faith in God makes him happy therefore God is real.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  4. #34
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    It's called the law of excluded middle. If P is inconsistent with Q, then P entails not-Q. That is to say, if atheism is inconsistent with God descending from the sky to bring judgement upon non-believers, then atheism entails that it will not happen. Since this is something we could observe, it is something atheism predicts will never happen. Such an observation would falsify atheism--it's just not a scientific prediction.
    That depends on what kind of atheist one is. I for example do not believe, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that I'm right.

    I say I have no reason to believe but I wouldn't dare do something such as predict that this will never ever happen.

    Yes, precisely. Atheists are normally hypocrites. They'll use unfalsifiability like a club to bash theists with, but then not apply that same standard to their own views. I mean, that lady literally said she wouldn't believe anything that is not falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is being used as a criterion of acceptability. However, consistently applied, this is devastating to almost everything atheists typically believe (including, ironically, the notion of falsifiability itself).
    I think these are some overarching generalizations that are irrelevant.
    Also, at what point does she say this? I missed it. Can you give me the time when she explicitly says this?

    If we are to get to the truth, and because we want to.
    So then you agree?
    Bald guy challenges the caller directly: "How do you know that the truth value is unobtainable?"

  5. #35
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    1. How did you get the idea that I wrote something about esoteric knowledge? It's simply about objective proof vs. personal faith, it doesn't have to get more involved.
    Personal faith is esoteric.

    2. The question for the atheist side involves objective, empirical proof of God's existence; but throughout I have been talking about personal, subjective proof (happiness or whatever). That's not solipsism, and the opposite of solipsism is not the idea that all gods exist, which is an empirical and not a subjective claim. You're crossing categories on me.
    It's not about proof. It's about justification.
    'Personal proof' is a dangerous thing, by the way. I was pointing out that if you accept personal proof, you pretty much accept all gods.

    You'd even accept my own argument because I could say that I have personal proof that it is true and it's what makes me happy.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    That depends on what kind of atheist one is. I for example do not believe, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that I'm right.
    Ha! Yes, I had almost forgotten about the distinction between "hard" and "soft" atheism and "hard" and "soft" agnosticism. I'm not exactly sure how to categorize your belief, but agnosticism is based on the limits of knowledge, whereas atheism makes a definite knowledge claim by declaring God's non-existence. So I would say you're an agnostic of some kind.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  7. #37
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Personal faith is esoteric.
    No, but I'll let you do the work of looking up "esoteric" because bashing you over the head with a dictionary is not my style.

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    It's not about proof. It's about justification.
    'Personal proof' is a dangerous thing, by the way. I was pointing out that if you accept personal proof, you pretty much accept all gods.

    You'd even accept my own argument because I could say that I have personal proof that it is true and it's what makes me happy.
    In YOUR view, it's about justification and not proof. However, proof is a form of justification. A personal form of justification, or proof, doesn't have to apply to all gods, that's why it's personal and not intersubjective. I've not said one thing about personal truth leading to the acceptance of anything beyond my own truths. Nor does this view logically imply any such thing. What it implies is that everybody has a right to the truth within his or her own being, and atheists have no right to deny this.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  8. #38
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Ha! Yes, I had almost forgotten about the distinction between "hard" and "soft" atheism and "hard" and "soft" agnosticism. I'm not exactly how to categorize your belief, but agnosticism is based on the limits of knowledge, whereas atheism makes a definite knowledge claim by declaring God's non-existence. So I would say you're an agnostic of some kind.
    Agnostic atheist.

    I follow the cosmic teapot argument. If I argue that there's a teapot orbiting the sun and it can't be detected by any of our instruments or experiments, I would be wrong to expect you to believe me.

  9. #39
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    No, but I'll let you do the work of looking up "esoteric" because bashing you over the head with a dictionary is not my style.
    I already did. If you're claiming to know something that cannot be demonstrated to me, and others claim to share this knowledge and have their own internal practices and inner language (and idioms and buzzwords and an entire culture) then I say it fits the definition.

    In YOUR view, it's about justification and not proof. However, proof is a form of justification. A personal form of justification, or proof, doesn't have to apply to all gods, that's why it's personal and not intersubjective. I've not said one thing about personal truth leading to the acceptance of anything beyond my own truths. Nor does this view logically imply any such thing. What it implies is that everybody has a right to the truth within his or her own being, and atheists have no right to deny this.
    Yes that's fine. I'm just looking for consistent reasoning.

  10. #40
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    That depends on what kind of atheist one is. I for example do not believe, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that I'm right.
    So you don't think that atheism is true but you believe it anyway? Is it not possible to claim that you're right without committing yourself to atheism come what may?

    I say I have no reason to believe but I wouldn't dare do something such as predict that this will never ever happen.
    It's not about what you predict, but what atheism predicts. You are not atheism. Atheism is a proposition with definite logical consequences. When those consequences constrain the content of empirical observation, we call them 'predictions'.

    I think these are some overarching generalizations that are irrelevant.
    I don't think they're irrelevant.

    Also, at what point does she say this? I missed it. Can you give me the time when she explicitly says this?
    Right at the beginning. Maybe she misspoke, but it would be far from the first time I've heard atheists make such claims. Many subsequent comments appeared to lean on the same assumption.

    So then you agree? Bald guy challenges the caller directly: "How do you know that the truth value is unobtainable?"
    I agree, but the atheist is being inconsistent.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

Similar Threads

  1. [E4] A difficult question for 4's
    By Santosha in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-22-2011, 03:21 PM
  2. [INFJ] INFJs ask difficult questions
    By SilkRoad in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-23-2011, 09:28 PM
  3. Words of Wisdom, Inspiring Quotes, etc
    By rivercrow in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-21-2008, 06:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO