Critique
Offline Humanity can either exist without murder, rape, and physical abuse, or it cannot.
If it can, then such a state can only be reached through some external stimuli, i.e., one not experienced in all of human history.
Contingent Theistic Belief:
Through power or knowledge, God is the external stimuli that will bring about a state of non-murder, rape, and physical abuse.
Falsiable:
If at any time humanity exists without murder, rape, and physical abuse, then such a belief will be shown to be false.
Evidence for such a belief:
(1) History supports the belief that humanity cannot progress on its own to a state of non-murder, rape, and phsyical abuse.
(2) God, if he exists, may be an "external stimuli"--depending on what definition of "God" one has.
(3) Individuals have shown that they are capable of not murdering, raping, or physical abusing, and therefore it is reasonable to believe that all individuals are capable of the same restraint and may exercise such restraint in the same way and at the same time.
//
Hopefully I used all the terminology correctly.
Now:
Q: Why is this belief unreasonable? Why is it irrationale?
//
Now, I want to try something. More specifically, I want you to try something. Respond only with questions, which may include hypotheticals. It keeps the responses short, specific, and helpful.
If you really can't hold yourself to this request, then feel free to share your thoughts in whatever manner you wish. I'd much rather read your responses than nothing at all.
- Login to post comments
Which part don't you get? I re-read it, and it seems perfectly clear.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Of course you do, you wrote it.
I never said "If something were to occur we could speculate that something might have caused it"; rather, if anything, I stated "If something is to occur then we can speculate as to what could cause it."
Perhaps you see no difference in the two, but I certainly do; at least as much as I see a difference between the following two statements: "If a person were to walk into a room, we could speculate as to who it is" rather then "if someone were to walk into the room, we can speculate as to who it would be."
So.. did you just not remember correctly? Or did you actually have a particular meaning in saying it as you did?
If you did not have a particular meaning, or you see the two statements as a distinction without a difference, then I guess I'll come back to it to distinguish it (if I can).. but, for the moment, I'd rather find out whether or not you meant what you said.
Your statement is not almost tautological, nor is it necessarily true. Furthermore, even if it were both of these things, I fail to see how you're comparing it to my argument.
If you want me to write in the equivalent format as you have just done, and still keep the substance of my argument, here:
"If humans ever act uniformly in a way that individuals have shown themselves capable--yet as a group have never done--something external to humans, and not appearing in all of history, will have caused them to act that way."
I have adjusted it slightly in order to fall in accord with Spences valid criticism.
Do you still think the two statements are comparable? If so.. that's fine, but I need more of an explanation.
Edit: Because your summary of my argument and my argument (even following your linguistical pattern) do not seem similar to me. Of course, I could be way off.. it wouldn't be the first time in the last couple of days.
(Cosmetic edits)
And with that.. I'm out for the night. Procrastinated on reading way too long.
Erm... yes... If something were to occur, we could speculate as to what might have been the cause.
You don't get that positing that we can speculate as to the cause of an event is trivial?
This is not an accurate statement, or it is so imprecise as to be nearly meaningless. It is trivial to point out that if humans do something humans have never done, it will be something that has not occurred in all of history. It is not a given that something "external" to humans would necessarily be the cause of such an event. "External to humans" is vague. Would a man-made drug count as "external"? Would natural selection count? Supposing that we had something very wrong about the theory of natural selection, we could posit that a significant evolutionary change in humanity might cause the behavior you suggest.
In other words, depending on how you decide to precisely define "external," either you have a trivial statement, or a false one.
Trivial: If humans behave quite uniformly differently from our expectations, then something in the environment would be the cause of it. (Natural selection being "part of the environment" )*
False: If humans behave quite uniformly differently from our expectations, then something beyond the environment would be the cause of it.
Well, to be fair, you could make a philosophical objection to me calling it false, and then we could play the same old boring game of epistemology vs. hypothetical speculation. Proposing the possibility of a genuinely "external" force -- something outside of that which we can explain as part of humanity and its environment -- is fine for idle word games and philosophy 101, but it's not part of what you and deludedgod have been discussing, namely a justification for an increase in our estimation of a thing's real probability.
Well, I'm just reacting to what you've written, based on the normal meanings of the words, or the meanings which you have specified. It might be that you have a concept which is quite different from what your words have conveyed, but it's quite beyond me to imagine what that might be, since all I have is the words as you have written them.
* Consider that if even if humans were to behave in an unexpected way of their own volition, we could only speculate that something had made them decide collectively to do so, and we could only speculate that this decision was based on perceptions, which are our interpretation of our environment.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Er, I wasn't concerned with the summary on the concession or 3. If I gave the impression I was trying to nitpick the logic, my apologies. I figured you already had the rambo cat and deludedgod doing that. I was focusing more on the issues beyond using the word "god."
I wasn't making any formal argument, just pointing out some issues with the word "god." My problem isn't necessarily that you're using the word "god," it's more that there are so many meanings of the word "god" for different people that if you wish to use it, you really need to define it very precisely. And especially given the way you mean the word, "God" sends the wrong impression to most people and probably isn't the best word for the occasion. Thus, attaching a word with less baggage, so to speak, would probably be a better idea.
So our four key parts are...
1. External: I'm not even sure what you mean (nor does anyone else). External compared to what? The human body? How about drugs, like previously mentioned? Earth? How about, I don't know, aliens that will arrive on Earth in 2 years, 3 months, and 4 days to name me intergalactic supreme leader? Can it be physical, or is this something you're claiming is supernatural?
2. Stops bad things: I assume you mean prevent them from happening in the first place? Somewhat nebulous, but the specifics on this likely depend on the answer to #1.
3. Through knowledge and/or power: Does this mean the police force from Minority Report fits your definition of "god?" Does this even need to be a separate point from #2? Unless you mean the force can't simply talk a would-be rapist out of raping someone or something...maybe I'm just tired (3 AM here) and missing something important that you're seeing on this bit. Clarification would be appreciated.
4. Not experienced throughout history: Hamby already touched on this subject. So the basic idea is something weird happens to everyone that's never been seen before and that's a sign of "god," more or less? What if rapes still occurred but all murders stopped? That would be unique, would it fulfill your definition of this aspect of "god?"
So...it eliminates humans and everything humans have done/observed, in a nutshell?
After reading the article there, I notice quite a few things missing that were in my psychology textbook. To couple this with the excessive expansion this topic has seen in the last 12 hours, I'm going to simply back out of this topic. I'll not have time to read through every post and respond at this rate of growth, meaning I'll not be able to properly contribute.
That does not mean that I forfeit my position.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Oh. Then why didn't you ask that, instead of asking about the absence of rape and murder?
Is it that you're associating the hope of eradicating certain behaviours?
No, I don't think so. You can doubt all you like about gravity, but it will remain active. Healthy doubt is one thing, but doubting the effects of gravity remaining constant is a bit silly. If someone were to suggest that they could turn water into wine, for example, I'd doubt that to be true. If they were to say that they found a hole in general relativity, I'd say, "Really?" because that would be amazing. I would doubt that to be true as well, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
But from that standpoint, there's no point in putting people in insane asylums.
And when those actions are informed by beliefs in fairies and elves, how reasonable do you think the actions will be?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Rhad, this is a non-sequitor (it does not follow that simply because some people are moral that all persons must be moral)... and besides the formal fallacy, dead wrong. Some human beings are clinical sociopaths; they do not experience guilt, have diminished consciences and propensities toward aggression. Here is an article on the subject.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940