New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

Fervent said:

Perhaps there is a disconnect on this, because opinions aren't subject to true or false categories. They're purely matters of subjective taste.

Click to expand...

Then I don't know why the confusion on the personal opinion which is ones faith.

Fervent said:

I got the joke, didn't find it funny. So I decided to make a point.

Click to expand...

I saw no point to your reply in that section to be made.

Fervent said:

I can't, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize dishonesty. Whether that is dishonesty with me or with yourself, I don't know. But if you think your evaluation is just your opinion and not reflective of reality, then why do you think you can supply arguments rather than just falling back on it being a matter of opinion and not objective reality?

Click to expand...

Now you are venturing into territory which last time lead me to conclude you were using presuppositional apologetics as your POV. That feeling is coming back...

Fervent said:

Your definition of "belief" is lacking, or rather a contradiction of terms.

Click to expand...

Beliefs are one category of opinions. Don't know why this one is so hard. You seemed to agree several times already, but change your mind, usually in the same post.

Fervent said:

Perhaps you can enlighten me. What is the difference between "I believe there are no gods" and "I don't believe there are any gods"? How is that not a distinction without a difference?

Click to expand...

For starters-- those ARE NOT the two things that have been compared. And they certainly look the same.

The position I don't hold: "I believe there are no gods."
The position I do hold: "I don't believe in any gods."

Fervent said:

Nope, there is no presumption of atheism as there is a presumption of innocence. That's an argument from ignorance.

Click to expand...

Not only am I not tying to analogize atheism to innocence, but even if I had been it was not an argument from ignorance. I'm beginning to question your familiarity with philosophy, or at least argument and logic.

Fervent said:

There isn't, atheists just insist there is as a matter of tactics and a basis for flawed arguments.

Click to expand...

I think this confirms my suspicion. It's not even the dumbest thing about this thread, because the definition of atheist has nothing to do with the thread or even anything I have been arguing elsewhere in the thread.

Ophiolite said:

Off topic comment: Removing the "not proven" option from the Scottish Justice system has been proposed, though I think the three options, guilty, not guilty, or not proven, currently remain as options. The important nuance between not guilty and not proven apparently evades, or confuses many jurors. Claiming they are different ways of saying the same thing, as some do, is rather like conflating butchery with an axe with surgery with a scalpel. Odd really. I think it is a nice distinction, in both senses of the word.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize they used all three. I thought it was that "not proven" was used instead of "not guilty".

Hans Blaster said:

Then I don't know why the confusion on the personal opinion which is ones faith.

Click to expand...

Are you saying your atheist beliefs are your faith?

Hans Blaster said:

I saw no point to your reply in that section to be made.

Click to expand...

It was about there being no functional distinction between moral and personal taste if all beliefs are simply opinions.

Hans Blaster said:

Now you are venturing into territory which last time lead me to conclude you were using presuppositional apologetics as your POV. That feeling is coming back...

Click to expand...

I don't begin presuming God exists, though there might me some affinity with presuppositional apologetics since I do maintain that the undefended metaphysical commitments of atheists are often more responsible for their conclusion than any real evaluation of evidence or argumentation.

Hans Blaster said:

Beliefs are one category of opinions. Don't know why this one is so hard. You seemed to agree several times already, but change your mind, usually in the same post.

Click to expand...

I let it slide, but beliefs are stronger than simply opinions. Opinions aren't subject to truth constraints, as they are purely a matter of taste.

Hans Blaster said:

For starters-- those ARE NOT the two things that have been compared. And they certainly look the same.

Click to expand...

What do you mean?

Hans Blaster said:

The position I don't hold: "I believe there are no gods."
The position I do hold: "I don't believe in any gods."

Click to expand...

So what's the difference? All I see is you've switched "there" to "in" which I fail to see the semantic change.

Hans Blaster said:

Not only am I not tying to analogize atheism to innocence, but even if I had been it was not an argument from ignorance. I'm beginning to question your familiarity with philosophy, or at least argument and logic.

Click to expand...

If you weren't analogizing the two, then what were you attempting to do with it? And it is an argument from ignorance, because it presumes an objective fact from a state of ignorance.

Hans Blaster said:

I think this confirms my suspicion. It's not even the dumbest thing about this thread, because the definition of atheist has nothing to do with the thread or even anything I have been arguing elsewhere in the thread.

Click to expand...

There's no semantic difference, you made a syntactical change and presented it as a semantic change when none is apparent. So how does changing "there" to "in" make any difference?

I think my conclusions about this conversation we have been having for a couple days was headed this way, but your response to someone else has "sealed the deal" for me. Let's take a look at it...

Fervent said:

Last I checked, such an entity would be the one to set the rules not us.

Click to expand...

[The "entity" in question is a being that caused the universe to come into existence.] At most we could say that such an entity would set the rules of nature (create physics). There is no reason to think a priori that it would create moral rules, or even care about such things.

Fervent said:

My guess is you're jumping in mid-stream and not digging deep to the core of your epistemology and ontology.

Click to expand...

@Ophiolite may be "jumping in mid-stream", but this is the exact same claim you make against all of us who disagree with your religious assertions (which seem hardly relevant to anything in this thread, particularly the OP). The next step after telling us we don't dig deep enough into our own philosophical foundations, is to tell us that we are wrong when we try to define them.

Fervent said:

I see no need to present evidence or arguments, because God in His wisdom has chosen to hide Himself from those who esteem themselves wise in the world.

Click to expand...

So, the whole philosophy thing was just a deflection. Figures. I should have picked up those clues that my opinion was dismissable because I don't follow your religion. That seems to be why you got so hung up about my beliefs then and now.

Fervent said:

Nah, I was commissioned to preach not to argue. You want to look a gift horse in the mouth, that's on you.

Click to expand...

No one is interested in your preaching, especially any of us whom you claim are not worthy for God to not hide from.

I am done with this part of the conversation, and any continued participation on this thread will be only related to teens that think they are werewolves or whatever it is.

Hans Blaster said:

I think my conclusions about this conversation we have been having for a couple days was headed this way, but your response to someone else has "sealed the deal" for me. Let's take a look at it...



[The "entity" in question is a being that caused the universe to come into existence.] At most we could say that such an entity would set the rules of nature (create physics). There is no reason to think a priori that it would create moral rules, or even care about such things.

Click to expand...

Oh? And how did you come to conclusions about what kind of rules such a being would put in place? What basis do you have for speculation?

Hans Blaster said:

@Ophiolite may be "jumping in mid-stream", but this is the exact same claim you make against all of us who disagree with your religious assertions (which seem hardly relevant to anything in this thread, particularly the OP). The next step after telling us we don't dig deep enough into our own philosophical foundations, is to tell us that we are wrong when we try to define them.

Click to expand...

If you've got "foundations" then I suspect you didn't keep digging til you hit bottom. Cause as far as I can tell, there are no viable solutions to Munchaussen. But I am skeptical even of that.

Hans Blaster said:

So, the whole philosophy thing was just a deflection. Figures. I should have picked up those clues that my opinion was dismissable because I don't follow your religion. That seems to be why you got so hung up about my beliefs then and now.

Click to expand...

Not at all, perhaps you might have seen in my response to another that I am a philosophical skeptic? I'm not kidding about that, I am skeptical of all truth claims that are not tautologies. So the one thing I know is Truth is Truth. Beyond that, my recourse is faith.

Hans Blaster said:

No one is interested in your preaching, especially any of us whom you claim are not worthy for God to not hide from.

Click to expand...

Not my claim.

Hans Blaster said:

I am done with this part of the conversation, and any continued participation on this thread will be only related to teens that think they are werewolves or whatever it is.

Click to expand...

Cool, glad we ended up exactly where we started off.

Fervent said:

Cause as far as I can tell, there are no viable solutions to Munchaussen.

Click to expand...

If you had told us that earlier, all this discussion would have been unnecessary, since clearly your own beliefs are without foundation. Or did you not dig deeply enough to recognise that?
My reference to Matthew 7:3-5 seems even more appropriate now.

Ophiolite said:

If you had told us that earlier, all this discussion would have been unnecessary, since clearly your own beliefs are without foundation. Or did you not dig deeply enough to recognise that?

Click to expand...

Oh? Did you miss the part where I said my recourse is faith? I do not pretend to know from my own philosophical foundations, but instead depend on revelation from on high. My foundations do not depend on the powers of my intellect, because when I looked there for solid ground the only thing I found was a tautology.

Ophiolite said:

My reference to Matthew 7:3-5 seems even more appropriate now.

Click to expand...

Not at all, because I unabashadly embrace faith. I do not pretend that my beliefs are built on claims of "evidence" which somehow vanishes and turns into demands for proof the minute such "evidence" is requested.

Fervent said:

Oh? Did you miss the part where I said my recourse is faith? I do not pretend to know from my own philosophical foundations, but instead depend on revelation from on high. My foundations do not depend on the powers of my intellect, because when I looked there for solid ground the only thing I found was a tautology.

Not at all, because I unabashadly embrace faith. I do not pretend that my beliefs are built on claims of "evidence" which somehow vanishes and turns into demands for proof the minute such "evidence" is requested.

Click to expand...

I've already expressed my views about faith. Forum rules forbid me from defending those views. But leaving your comments unanswered is more of a load on my ehtical drives than breaching those rules. Your faith position is a cop out to justify believing in something for which there is no substantive evidence, but which you wish to believe because . . . . . . you wish to believe it. To avoid an infinite regress of this discussion I am placing you on Ignore until I've, more or less, forgotten what it was about. Should take about a month. See you on the other side.

Ophiolite said:

I've already expressed my views about faith. Forum rules forbid me from defending those views. But leaving your comments unanswered is more of a load on my ehtical drives than breaching those rules. Your faith position is a cop out to justify believing in something for which there is no substantive evidence, but which you wish to believe because . . . . . . you wish to believe it. To avoid an infinite regress of this discussion I am placing you on Ignore until I've, more or less, forgotten what it was about. Should take about a month. See you on the other side.

Click to expand...

The fact that you get upset at my acceptance of faith is evidence in and of itself. If atheism is true, why is there any issue with me choosing to believe in things because I want them to be true? Why should I care about silly little things like what can be proven, when at the end of the day it really makes no difference? If faith improves my life, why would I not embrace faith? To be left with existential angst in an uncaring universe for my short miserable life? You cite ethics, but you have no basis for any sort of ethical high horse since in your view it can only be a matter of personal preference with no reason to abide by ethical principles so long as they aren't convenient.