Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
danydandan

Logical issues with belief.

429 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Ozymandias

The world is full of people who are believers or non-believers ('don't knows' are, de facto, not believers).

There is no room for logic or science in this matter.

By definition believers ignore the logic and science.

You can only successfully negotiate this questionnaire if you do not believe in God, full stop.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
8 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

By definition believers ignore the logic and science.

f7FdEdG.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 16/10/2018 at 5:08 AM, seanjo said:

Battleground God - Analysis
 
You navigated the battlefield suffering 2 hits and biting 0 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 54th percentile (i.e., 54% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 76492 people who have completed Battleground God.

You can find a list of questions here (page will open in a new tab).

Recap of your Direct Hits
Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 11 and 15, which generated the following response:

Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

 

(God Isn't an imaginary beast that has been proven by constant searches to not exist)

Direct Hit 2

You answered "True" to Question 8 and "False" to Question 16, which generated the following response:

Earlier you said that even in the absence of independent evidence, it is justified to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction. But now you do not accept that the serial murderer Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the killer has exposed that you do not, in fact, think that a belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

(Having the faith that a God exists, is not the same as murder because of your mental instability giving you a conviction)

 

Battleground god.JPG

yup those two questions were flawed  A lack of evidence in either god or the loch ness monster is not a determinant in what one believes   or does not believe, as belief is not evidence based That is, if there is no incidence of something or of  the lack of something, then  both belief and disbelief are justified 

And if sutcliffe believed god told him to kill then, in his mind, he was justified in killing.  What we think is irrelevant  as we are not him. The question asked was HE   justified?  Yes he was, within his own reasoning,  even if  I disagree.  A person's values beliefs ideas etc form the motivation, and thus justification, for their individual actions  

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
On 15/10/2018 at 9:27 PM, Robotic Jew said:

And this nonsense is what keeps these awful institutions alive.

Do you even understand what I typed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
On 11/3/2018 at 3:29 AM, Mr Walker said:

And if sutcliffe believed god told him to kill then, in his mind, he was justified in killing.  What we think is irrelevant  as we are not him. The question asked was HE   justified?  Yes he was, within his own reasoning,  even if  I disagree.  A person's values beliefs ideas etc form the motivation, and thus justification, for their individual actions  

Hi Walker

Good to see you here.:D

In his mind he may have but he does not live in a one person world, and as a person, myself and many billions of others that do live in the real world question the sanity of people who commits these types of crimes. It doesn't matter what he thinks or what you think he thinks, he did what he did and as similar others should be isolated from the general population in one form or another.

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
8 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Good to see you here.:D

In his mind he may have but he does not live in a one person world, and as a person, myself and many billions of others that do live in the real world question the sanity of people who commits these types of crimes. It doesn't matter what he thinks or what you think he thinks, he did what he did and as similar others should be isolated from the general population in one form or another.

jmccr8

The question asked  was "given his beliefs was he justified in killing" The answer is yes.

  Any killing of any type is only justified via our internal beliefs and constructs Thus some go willingly to war while some conscientiously object Some want the death penalty while others abhor it . Some would kill to protect the innocent others would not  Some believe in vengeance others in mercy. 

Of course he should be executed or locked up for life but in his mind he was as justified in killing as a soldier might feel justified in killing the enemy  I cant judge his justification, nor  that of  soldier or a peron who kills to protect his family. Only the individual can know their mind. 

Sometimes i question the sanity of anyone who has a need to express themselves violently, or use violence to get what they want, although, imo, there are instances where violence is acceptable to protect innocent people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The question asked  was "given his beliefs was he justified in killing" The answer is yes.

  Any killing of any type is only justified via our internal beliefs and constructs Thus some go willingly to war while some conscientiously object Some want the death penalty while others abhor it . Some would kill to protect the innocent others would not  Some believe in vengeance others in mercy. 

Of course he should be executed or locked up for life but in his mind he was as justified in killing as a soldier might feel justified in killing the enemy  I cant judge his justification, nor  that of  soldier or a peron who kills to protect his family. Only the individual can know their mind. 

Sometimes i question the sanity of anyone who has a need to express themselves violently, or use violence to get what they want, although, imo, there are instances where violence is acceptable to protect innocent people.  

Hi Walker

It is generally accepted that if a person is not same that they are subject to delusion and not capable of understanding acts/consequences so what you think he believes is your projection. Glad we agree on isolating them.:tu:

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hereticspl
On 16/10/2018 at 4:24 AM, seanjo said:

There is no logic to belief...it's faith...you don't need logic to have faith.

 

Quite the opposite in fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
21 hours ago, hereticspl said:

Quite the opposite in fact

Please elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hereticspl
On 07/11/2018 at 9:58 AM, Podo said:

Please elaborate.

Religious beliefe requires the suspension of logic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
17 hours ago, hereticspl said:

Religious beliefe requires the suspension of logic.

That's exactly what Seanjo was saying. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
52 minutes ago, Podo said:

That's exactly what Seanjo was saying. 

Are you sure?

You have read between the lines and the words and the letters in each word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5

Well that was a ridiculous test...

I answered that it was not rational to base my belie fs about the external world on a firm inner conviction while paying no regard to external evidence, or a lack of it. (That would be a recipe for disaster.)

Then I answered that Darwinian Evolution was false, so they say I contradicted myself because I don't agree with the  scientists. So I am supposedly discounting external evidence and refusing it, rather than examining it and rejecting it. Min d you, scientists once said the world was flat and killed men who said it was round. They also can t decide or agree with each other on it it's bad or good for you to eat eggs. And yet I am irrational to be skeptical of some of what they believe. How absurd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
7 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

Well that was a ridiculous test...

I answered that it was not rational to base my belie fs about the external world on a firm inner conviction while paying no regard to external evidence, or a lack of it. (That would be a recipe for disaster.)

Then I answered that Darwinian Evolution was false, so they say I contradicted myself because I don't agree with the  scientists. So I am supposedly discounting external evidence and refusing it, rather than examining it and rejecting it. Min d you, scientists once said the world was flat and killed men who said it was round. They also can t decide or agree with each other on it it's bad or good for you to eat eggs. And yet I am irrational to be skeptical of some of what they believe. How absurd...

I have my doubts any real, accredited, knowledgable, scientists ever felt that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
19 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

I have my doubts any real, accredited, knowledgable, scientists ever felt that way.

From what I've read, it was commonly accepted by scientists and by laypersons, and men who refuted it were put to death or their very lives threatened at the least.

Interestingly, I've read twice in the bible that the earth is a round orb that hangs on nothing. So it seems that men believed it was round (at least some men at some time in history) and then scientists said no, it's flat, and then other scientists said no, it's round. And they've done the same thing with eggs good, eggs bad, eggs good!

And I'm not knocking science. I'm knocking the test the op posted, where if I don't agree with everything and anything that scientists currently believe, then ima idjit. They do have a history of reversing themselves on many things. Which, mind you, isn't bad. Hopefully we ALL reverse ourselves on many things as we grow and learn more.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5

So basically, the test zaps you if you question a theory. Which is a good thing (to question theories rather than accept them without questions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
49 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

Well that was a ridiculous test...

I answered that it was not rational to base my belie fs about the external world on a firm inner conviction while paying no regard to external evidence, or a lack of it. (That would be a recipe for disaster.)

Then I answered that Darwinian Evolution was false, so they say I contradicted myself because I don't agree with the  scientists. So I am supposedly discounting external evidence and refusing it, rather than examining it and rejecting it. Min d you, scientists once said the world was flat and killed men who said it was round. They also can t decide or agree with each other on it it's bad or good for you to eat eggs. And yet I am irrational to be skeptical of some of what they believe. How absurd...

It's about thinking logically. The subject matter really doesn't matter. That's the point of the teat, while it obviously loaded it sticks rigorously to simple logic. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

It's about thinking logically. The subject matter really doesn't matter. That's the point of the teat, while it obviously loaded it sticks rigorously to simple logic. 

How is it simple logic that I must believe a theory that has holes in it? It's a theory of science, not a law of science. It doesn't pass (at least not yet) the rigorous test of being made a law of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
14 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

From what I've read, it was commonly accepted by scientists and by laypersons, and men who refuted it were put to death or their very lives threatened at the least.

Interestingly, I've read twice in the bible that the earth is a round orb that hangs on nothing. So it seems that men believed it was round (at least some men at some time in history) and then scientists said no, it's flat, and then other scientists said no, it's round. And they've done the same thing with eggs good, eggs bad, eggs good!

And I'm not knocking science. I'm knocking the test the op posted, where if I don't agree with everything and anything that scientists currently believe, then ima idjit. They do have a history of reversing themselves on many things. Which, mind you, isn't bad. Hopefully we ALL reverse ourselves on many things as we grow and learn more.

Yes, way back in the day - say 2,000+ years ago, this was a common belief.

But the vast majority of these folks had no clue what science was, they all thought the sun revolved around the earth - to me they were the original flat earth boys.

There were no universities, no institutions, etc. so fear and tribal knowledge ruled the day......thus, no scientific method in place for "real" scientists to utilize. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

How is it simple logic that I must believe a theory that has holes in it? It's a theory of science, not a law of science. It doesn't pass (at least not yet) the rigorous test of being made a law of science.

Like I said it's not about the subject matter.

And actually evolutionary biologists, have made numerous predictions even specifically stating where the evidence is more than likely to be found in some cases, which have been proven correct. So basically they actually do pass the 'laws of the scientific method'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

 

The apostle Thomas was a real scientist.

He said he would not believe that Jesus was resurrected, until he "put his finger in the nail holes in his hands."

And the he went on to the ends of the earth preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom until the end of his life.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
32 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Yes, way back in the day - say 2,000+ years ago, this was a common belief.

But the vast majority of these folks had no clue what science was, they all thought the sun revolved around the earth - to me they were the original flat earth boys.

There were no universities, no institutions, etc. so fear and tribal knowledge ruled the day......thus, no scientific method in place for "real" scientists to utilize. 

The ancient Greeks believed the earth was round. And Pythagoras in like...the 5th or 6th century believed it. And 2000 years ago some men believed it was round because of the bible. So it's a case of science waffling back and forth, maybe as knowledge was gained then lost then gained again?

Edited by Jen5
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, Jen5 said:

The ancient Greeks believed the earth was round. And Pythagoras in like...the 5th or 6th century believed it. And 2000 years ago some men believed it was round because of the bible. So it's a case of science waffling back and forth, maybe as knowledge was gain then lost then gained again?

Doubt it, it says in the Bible there is a mountain where you can literally see every kingdom. 

That would mean the author assumed the Earth was flat, not round because you obviously can't see around a sphere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
14 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Like I said it's not about the subject matter.

And actually evolutionary biologists, have made numerous predictions even specifically stating where the evidence is more than likely to be found in some cases, which have been proven correct. So basically they actually do pass the 'laws of the scientific method'.

You can fulfill the rigorous standards (not laws) of scientific method and still not meet the even more rigorous standards for your theory to be called a law of science. Until you are able to meet those rigors, you just have a theory.

Edited by Jen5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Doubt it, it says in the Bible there is a mountain where you can literally see every kingdom. 

That would mean the author assumed the Earth was flat, not round because you obviously can't see around a sphere.

If you are referring to satan and Jesus (that's my best guess as to what you are referencing), it doesn't exactly say there is a mountain on earth you can see everything from...It does say he took him to a high mountain or place and showed him all of the kingdom's on earth at once. It might actually be a fun verse to delve into the original Greek on...Sometimes things get lost in translation from the original language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.