Health and Religion

[af_newbie]

First define God. Then go from there.

Embrace God? What are you talking about?  You make no sense.

It is like me saying embrace Goo Goo.

You seem to have forgotten our earlier conversations. We have previously discussed in some depth how one can define God to the best of our ability given our limited perspectives. I would refer you back to those prior conversations. Or if you wish you can review the conversation I had with Astargath on the same topic here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24470502#msg24470502

I have laid out a logical argument and you apparently are either unable to comprehend it or you understand it and cannot refute and are thus prevaricating. I am a busy man and have no interest in forum games. My time is limited so if you lack the ability to understand you lack the ability to understand and if you are simply playing dumb for the fun of it then we are also both wasting our time. Regardless I have shared what I wanted to share on the topic and the time has come for me return to work so I will give you the final word to inspire us all with your wisdom.

So what are you embracing? Something that you cannot define? I like to know how you can embrace something that cannot be defined.  

Like I said, you might as well embrace my Goo Goo. LOL.

I will tell you what you are embracing.  A cultural relic that has been ingrained into your memory since childhood.  You know, the smell of an old church, old paintings, songs, prayers, the main stories from the religion you we brought up in.  That is what you are embracing.

If you were born in Saudi Arabia you will be here trying to convince everyone that ALLAH is the only way, and that he will punish you in the lakes of fires if you don’t follow him.

Your position is as idiotic as that of any Muslim, Hindu or a Jew; solely based on culturally driven NONSENSE.

[Astargath]

As a philosophical matter it seems nice but not as science. A logical truth is 100% true in all situations, right? That can exist, the problem is, how can you know that? Have you been in all of those possible situations and if you haven't, how can you claim it's a logical truth?

Here is what the AI researcher Douglas Hofstadter wrote on the topic. The answer to your question is in the realization that reasoning is not subjective.

“You might feel that each person is completely unique and therefore that no one can be relied on as a predictor of how other people will act, especially in an intensely dilemmatic situation. There is more to the story, however.

Any number of ideal rational thinkers faced with the same situation and undergoing similar throes of reasoning agony will necessarily come up with the identical answer eventually, so long as reasoning alone is the ultimate justification for their conclusion. Otherwise reasoning would be subjective, not objective as arithmetic is. A conclusion reached by reasoning would be a matter of preference, not of necessity. Now some people may believe this of reasoning, but rational thinkers understand that a valid argument must be universally compelling, otherwise it is simply not a valid argument.

If you’ll grant this, then you are 90% of the way. All you need ask now is which world is better for the individual rational thinker: (one with thinkers all cooperating or all defecting)
...
Since I am typical, cooperating must be preferred by all rational thinkers. So I’ll cooperate.” Another way of stating it, making it sound weirder, is this: “If I choose cooperation, then everyone will choose cooperation.”
...
“We live in a world filled with opposing belief systems so similar as to be nearly interchangeable, yet whose adherents are blind to that symmetry. This description applies not only to myriad small, conflicts in the world but also to the colossal... Yet the recognition of symmetry - in short, the sanity - has not yet come. In fact, the insanity seems only to grow, rather than be supplanted by sanity. What has an intelligent species like our own done to get itself into this horrible dilemma? What can it do to get itself out? Are we all helpless as we watch this spectacle unfold, or does the answer lie, for each one of us, in recognition of our own typicality, and in small steps taken on an individual level toward sanity?”
...
“To many people, this sounds like a belief in voodoo or sympathetic magic, a vision of a universe permeated by tenuous threads of synchronicity, conveying thoughts from mind to mind like pneumatic tubes carrying messages across Paris, and making people resonate to a secret harmony. Nothing could be further from the truth. This solution depends in no way on telepathy or bizarre forms of causality. It’s just that the statement “I’ll choose C and then everyone will”, though entirely correct, is somewhat misleadingly phrased. It involves the word “choice”, which is incompatible with the compelling quality of logic. Schoolchildren do not choose what 507 divided by 13 is; they figure it out. Analogously, my letter really did not allow choice; it demanded reasoning. Thus, a better way to phrase the “voodoo” statement would be this: “If reasoning guides me to say C, then, as I am no different from anyone else as far as rational thinking is concerned, it will guide everyone to say C.””

There are many holes in your argument. First:

''Any number of ideal rational thinkers faced with the same situation and undergoing similar throes of reasoning agony will necessarily come up with the identical answer eventually'' How is this known?

Let's say for a moment that it's true, what does it matter for us? Humans cannot be ideal rational thinkers and even if somehow someone could, how would we ever know?

Your arguments fail to really prove anything as they offer 0 evidence of anything that it's claimed there.

[BADecker]

As a philosophical matter it seems nice but not as science. A logical truth is 100% true in all situations, right? That can exist, the problem is, how can you know that? Have you been in all of those possible situations and if you haven't, how can you claim it's a logical truth?

Here is what the AI researcher Douglas Hofstadter wrote on the topic. The answer to your question is in the realization that reasoning is not subjective.

“You might feel that each person is completely unique and therefore that no one can be relied on as a predictor of how other people will act, especially in an intensely dilemmatic situation. There is more to the story, however.

Any number of ideal rational thinkers faced with the same situation and undergoing similar throes of reasoning agony will necessarily come up with the identical answer eventually, so long as reasoning alone is the ultimate justification for their conclusion. Otherwise reasoning would be subjective, not objective as arithmetic is. A conclusion reached by reasoning would be a matter of preference, not of necessity. Now some people may believe this of reasoning, but rational thinkers understand that a valid argument must be universally compelling, otherwise it is simply not a valid argument.

If you’ll grant this, then you are 90% of the way. All you need ask now is which world is better for the individual rational thinker: (one with thinkers all cooperating or all defecting)
...
Since I am typical, cooperating must be preferred by all rational thinkers. So I’ll cooperate.” Another way of stating it, making it sound weirder, is this: “If I choose cooperation, then everyone will choose cooperation.”
...
“We live in a world filled with opposing belief systems so similar as to be nearly interchangeable, yet whose adherents are blind to that symmetry. This description applies not only to myriad small, conflicts in the world but also to the colossal... Yet the recognition of symmetry - in short, the sanity - has not yet come. In fact, the insanity seems only to grow, rather than be supplanted by sanity. What has an intelligent species like our own done to get itself into this horrible dilemma? What can it do to get itself out? Are we all helpless as we watch this spectacle unfold, or does the answer lie, for each one of us, in recognition of our own typicality, and in small steps taken on an individual level toward sanity?”
...
“To many people, this sounds like a belief in voodoo or sympathetic magic, a vision of a universe permeated by tenuous threads of synchronicity, conveying thoughts from mind to mind like pneumatic tubes carrying messages across Paris, and making people resonate to a secret harmony. Nothing could be further from the truth. This solution depends in no way on telepathy or bizarre forms of causality. It’s just that the statement “I’ll choose C and then everyone will”, though entirely correct, is somewhat misleadingly phrased. It involves the word “choice”, which is incompatible with the compelling quality of logic. Schoolchildren do not choose what 507 divided by 13 is; they figure it out. Analogously, my letter really did not allow choice; it demanded reasoning. Thus, a better way to phrase the “voodoo” statement would be this: “If reasoning guides me to say C, then, as I am no different from anyone else as far as rational thinking is concerned, it will guide everyone to say C.””

There are many holes in your argument. First:

''Any number of ideal rational thinkers faced with the same situation and undergoing similar throes of reasoning agony will necessarily come up with the identical answer eventually'' How is this known?

Let's say for a moment that it's true, what does it matter for us? Humans cannot be ideal rational thinkers and even if somehow someone could, how would we ever know?

Your arguments fail to really prove anything as they offer 0 evidence of anything that it's claimed there.

What a subtle way to tell him he's not human.     

[CoinCube]

There are many holes in your argument. First:

''Any number of ideal rational thinkers faced with the same situation and undergoing similar throes of reasoning agony will necessarily come up with the identical answer eventually'' How is this known?

It is known via logical deduction. If ideal rational thinkers are faced with a symmetrical situation and reasoning alone is the ultimate justification they will reach identical conclusions.

This must be true if reasoning is objective as arithmetic is.

Let's say for a moment that it's true, what does it matter for us? Humans cannot be ideal rational thinkers and even if somehow someone could, how would we ever know?

I agree we cannot be ideal rational thinkers. Our biological limitations alone guarantee that. But that does not mean we should not try. Indeed it would be idiotic not to try.

C.S. Lewis wrote a nice discussion on this point.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ&t=160s

Your arguments fail to really prove anything as they offer 0 evidence of anything that it's claimed there.

Not sure I am following you here. My arguments are simple logic that anyone is capable of following. What evidence are you looking for?

What a subtle way to tell him he's not human.    

Ha ha I doubt the subtlety was intentional but that was funny.

[Astargath]

There are many holes in your argument. First:

''Any number of ideal rational thinkers faced with the same situation and undergoing similar throes of reasoning agony will necessarily come up with the identical answer eventually'' How is this known?

It is known via logical deduction. If ideal rational thinkers are faced with a symmetrical situation and reasoning alone is the ultimate justification they will reach identical conclusions.

This must be true if reasoning is objective as arithmetic is.

Let's say for a moment that it's true, what does it matter for us? Humans cannot be ideal rational thinkers and even if somehow someone could, how would we ever know?

I agree we cannot be ideal rational thinkers. Our biological limitations alone guarantee that. But that does not mean we should not try. Indeed it would be idiotic not to try.

C.S. Lewis wrote a nice discussion on this point.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ&t=160s

Your arguments fail to really prove anything as they offer 0 evidence of anything that it's claimed there.

Not sure I am following you here. My arguments are simple logic that anyone is capable of following. What evidence are you looking for?

What a subtle way to tell him he's not human.    

Ha ha I doubt the subtlety was intentional but that was funny.

Well, if you agree humans cannot be ideal rational thinkers, then whats the point of bringing it up? We gain nothing with it.

[BADecker]

Well, if you agree humans cannot be ideal rational thinkers, then whats the point of bringing it up? We gain nothing with it.

You're wrong! The gain is finding out who the joker is who asks a bunch of hypothetical questions because he doesn't have anything substantial to say.

[earlyfacer]

from what i observed religion always have a long discussion, i think this is a never ending discussion.

[CoinCube]

Well, if you agree humans cannot be ideal rational thinkers, then whats the point of bringing it up? We gain nothing with it.

Humans cannot be “ideal” anything. We can’t be ideal parents or ideal employees. We cannot be ideal athletes or ideal mathematicians.

We may not be able to achieve perfection but we can approximate it to the best of our ability. Yes we are guaranteed to fall short but to the degree we succeed everyone benefits.

[Astargath]

Well, if you agree humans cannot be ideal rational thinkers, then whats the point of bringing it up? We gain nothing with it.

Humans cannot be “ideal” anything. We can’t be ideal parents or ideal employees. We cannot be ideal athletes or ideal mathematicians.

We may not be able to achieve perfection but we can approximate it to the best of our ability. Yes we are guaranteed to fall short but to the degree we succeed everyone benefits.

But you dont know how wrong you are if you dont know the real truth, therefore you could be 99% wrong about god and you wouldnt know it.

[af_newbie]

Well, if you agree humans cannot be ideal rational thinkers, then whats the point of bringing it up? We gain nothing with it.

Humans cannot be “ideal” anything. We can’t be ideal parents or ideal employees. We cannot be ideal athletes or ideal mathematicians.

We may not be able to achieve perfection but we can approximate it to the best of our ability. Yes we are guaranteed to fall short but to the degree we succeed everyone benefits.

But you dont know how wrong you are if you dont know the real truth, therefore you could be 99% wrong about god and you wouldnt know it.

His epistemological tools do not lead him even close to the truth, so you can assume he is wrong about everything.

Like I said before, the scientific method is the best tool we have, anything else can easily lead you to mental masturbation or worse, delusion or schizophrenic episodes. You know the “I am the prophet”, “I have found the light” type of conditions.

[CoinCube]

His epistemological tools do not lead him even close to the truth, so you can assume he is wrong about everything.

Like I said before, the scientific method is the best tool we have, anything else can easily lead you to mental masturbation or worse, delusion or schizophrenic episodes. You know the “I am the prophet”, “I have found the light” type of conditions.

Translation: His arguments lead to conclusions that falsify what I have arbitrarily and subjectively defined as "truth" so I am going to assume he is wrong about everything and stop thinking about his arguments.

[Astargath]

His epistemological tools do not lead him even close to the truth, so you can assume he is wrong about everything.

Like I said before, the scientific method is the best tool we have, anything else can easily lead you to mental masturbation or worse, delusion or schizophrenic episodes. You know the “I am the prophet”, “I have found the light” type of conditions.

Translation: His arguments lead to conclusions that falsify what I have arbitrarily and subjectively defined as "truth" so I am going to assume he is wrong about everything and stop thinking about his arguments.

I'm not assuming anything, you are. Your arguments show humans cannot determine whether something is true or not. It's also really easy to prove that using the scientific method works far better than simply using your reasoning and logic. For example:

Let's say you don't know much about anything. An apple falls on your head, you start to think about it, why does that happen? Will you ever be able to determine it's gravity only using your logic without performing any experiment or gathering evidence? Of course not. In fact logically, the earth could simply be accelerating upwards, that would make sense logically and would explain the apple falling.

[BADecker]

His epistemological tools do not lead him even close to the truth, so you can assume he is wrong about everything.

Like I said before, the scientific method is the best tool we have, anything else can easily lead you to mental masturbation or worse, delusion or schizophrenic episodes. You know the “I am the prophet”, “I have found the light” type of conditions.

Translation: His arguments lead to conclusions that falsify what I have arbitrarily and subjectively defined as "truth" so I am going to assume he is wrong about everything and stop thinking about his arguments.

I'm not assuming anything, you are. Your arguments show humans cannot determine whether something is true or not. It's also really easy to prove that using the scientific method works far better than simply using your reasoning and logic. For example:

Let's say you don't know much about anything. An apple falls on your head, you start to think about it, why does that happen? Will you ever be able to determine it's gravity only using your logic without performing any experiment or gathering evidence? Of course not. In fact logically, the earth could simply be accelerating upwards, that would make sense logically and would explain the apple falling.

Now all you are saying is that the people who put the scientific method together, did it without using logic.  So, they got the scientific method some other way than through logic, right? It must have been told to them by God through the Bible. Why else would they believe that science theory, which can be changed at any moment by the whims of scientists making a directional change in what they observe (based on their desires), is the truth? It's all about religion. The whole scientific method is a religious thing... and we know that religion was around long before modern science.

So, using the scientific method, I have just proven that science is an illogical branch of religion. And you helped me do it through your post that I quoted.



EDIT: Btw, ever heard of the expanding universe? There isn't any gravity. It's the inertia of the expansion that gives the impression of gravity.

[CoinCube]

I'm not assuming anything, you are. Your arguments show humans cannot determine whether something is true or not. It's also really easy to prove that using the scientific method works far better than simply using your reasoning and logic. For example:

Let's say you don't know much about anything. An apple falls on your head, you start to think about it, why does that happen? Will you ever be able to determine it's gravity only using your logic without performing any experiment or gathering evidence? Of course not. In fact logically, the earth could simply be accelerating upwards, that would make sense logically and would explain the apple falling.

You are correct that my arguments do highlight the difficulty humans indeed any consciousness must face when determining whether something is true. Indeed there are only two possibilities. You can become a epistemological nihilist and decide you can never know anything at all ever or you can assume some basic foundation to ground yourself upon and build your knowledge upon it.

Once you really understand this you understand that faith is unavoidable. Ultimately we choose to have a faith in our core beliefs and build everything we are upon that faith. Even the nihilist have faith in their nihilism they certainly cannot prove nihilism is true. Most people don't understand their own assumptions. They adopt a whole host of them but don't actually ever analyze them to any degree or even know what they are.
 
The scientific method is an extremely useful tool for answering questions but it is just a tool. It is an error to elevate that tool to a stature that it does not warrant and pretend it will answer questions it never can. One of the assumptions you must make if you believe scientific facts exist is that the universe is rational (results from today will predict reality tomorrow) and that knowledge exists. Science ultimately is just disciplined observation, testing, and recording of results very useful but limited in what it can answer.

What I have endeavored to show in this thread is that faith in God is superior then faith in alternatives like nihilism and definitely superior to lying to oneself and pretend denying you have faith. To some degree I have succeeded and to some degree I have failed. That depends on the reader.  

[af_newbie]

I'm not assuming anything, you are. Your arguments show humans cannot determine whether something is true or not. It's also really easy to prove that using the scientific method works far better than simply using your reasoning and logic. For example:

Let's say you don't know much about anything. An apple falls on your head, you start to think about it, why does that happen? Will you ever be able to determine it's gravity only using your logic without performing any experiment or gathering evidence? Of course not. In fact logically, the earth could simply be accelerating upwards, that would make sense logically and would explain the apple falling.

You are correct that my arguments do highlight the difficulty humans indeed any consciousness must face when determining whether something is true. Indeed there are only two possibilities. You can become a epistemological nihilist and decide you can never know anything at all ever or you can assume some basic foundation to ground yourself upon and build your knowledge upon it.

Once you really understand this you understand that faith is unavoidable. Ultimately we choose to have a faith in our core beliefs and build everything we are upon that faith. Even the nihilist have faith in their nihilism they certainly cannot prove nihilism is true. Most people don't understand their own assumptions. They adopt a whole host of them but don't actually ever analyze them to any degree or even know what they are.
 
The scientific method is an extremely useful tool for answering questions but it is just a tool. It is an error to elevate that tool to a stature that it does not warrant and pretend it will answer questions it never can. One of the assumptions you must make if you believe scientific facts exist is that the universe is rational (results from today will predict reality tomorrow) and that knowledge exists. Science ultimately is just disciplined observation, testing, and recording of results very useful but limited in what it can answer.

What I have endeavored to show in this thread is that faith in God is superior then faith in alternatives like nihilism and definitely superior to lying to oneself and pretend denying you have faith. To some degree I have succeeded and to some degree I have failed. That depends on the reader.  

Faith is not a reliable method to discover the truth. The scientific method is.

The only thing you showed is how faith indoctrination can lead to delusions.

[CoinCube]

Faith is not a reliable method to discover the truth. The scientific method is.

The only thing you showed is how faith indoctrination can lead to delusions.

You don’t understand epistemology.

You effectively worship a technique as capable of supplying answers it cannot and will never give. Like the cult of pythagoras you have found something that provides some answers and assume in error that it will provide all answers.

Science is just a technique. It is the observation that if I do X in a controlled manner then Y happens predictably. That is useful information certainty but it does not address nor is it capable of answering the important questions in life.

[BADecker]

Faith is not a reliable method to discover the truth. The scientific method is.

The only thing you showed is how faith indoctrination can lead to delusions.

^^^ Strong, faith-based, religious-types, like af_newbie, have great faith in the scientific method.

[af_newbie]

Faith is not a reliable method to discover the truth. The scientific method is.

The only thing you showed is how faith indoctrination can lead to delusions.

You don’t understand epistemology.

You effectively worship a technique as capable of supplying answers it cannot and will never give. Like the cult of pythagoras you have found something that provides some answers and assume in error that it will provide all answers.

Science is just a technique. It is the observation that if I do X in a controlled manner then Y happens predictably. That is useful information certainty but it does not address nor is it capable of answering the important questions in life.

Are you sure you understand the “big” words?  Maybe you should stick with comic books and other fairy tales you are so fond of.

Your constant blabbing about nothing is nauseating.

[earlyfacer]

I'm a christian and I don't hate atheists. I can't actually remember when was the last time I felt hate, probably back when I was still an atheist and slave to my emotions like Moloch is today

Did you seriously just say you don't hate Atheists, then in the next sentence slander me?

The hypocrisy is getting thick, and we're still on the first page... slow down hoss

maybe he converted in becoming a christian.

[CoinCube]

Are you sure you understand the “big” words?  Maybe you should stick with comic books and other fairy tales you are so fond of.

Your constant blabbing about nothing is nauseating.

So reason and rational argumentation nauseate you? This sounds more like an emotional response then a logical one.
Perhaps it is related to your view of religion as a cult?

You realize that the majority of Atheists in North America come from your cult, don't you?

Indoctrinating children into your cult is child abuse.

I saw this article today. Figured you would approve.

China: Schoolchildren taught to 'hate God,' Christianity an 'evil cult'
https://www.christianpost.com/news/china-schoolchildren-taught-to-hate-god-christianity-an-evil-cult.html

Christian parents in China have shared how their schoolchildren are being taught that Christianity is an “evil cult” and encouraged to “hate God” as the officially atheist country continues to tighten its grip on religion.

According to Chinese persecution watchdog Bitter Winter, since the Regulations on Religious Affairs legislation was implemented last year, schools around China have adopted “unprecedented measures” to keep students away from Christianity. Schools in China are government-controlled, and therefore Communist in ideology.

The policy has resulted in difficult situations for families as children are encouraged to question the beliefs of family members and report those closest to them to authorities.

Several Christian parents shared their stories with Bitter Winter, revealing the magnitude of China’s animosity toward Christianity.

“My teacher says that Christianity is an evil cult,” one boy explained to his mother. “[That] if you believe in it, you will leave home and not take care of me. You might set yourself on fire, too.”

Another mother shared how, after discovering an anti-Christian school textbook in her son’s backpack, she hid many of the items that identified her as a believer to help her son with his anxiety.

A month later, when her son found another religious leaflet in his mother’s bag by chance, he “angrily took a fruit knife from the kitchen and fiercely poked several holes in it,” according to the outlet.

He then threatened his mother to give up her faith because “Christianity is an evil cult” and she “mustn’t believe in it.”

“Before starting school, I told my child about God’s creation, and he believed it,” the woman explained. “But after being taught at school, my child is like a different person. In atheistic China, these pure and innocent children have been taught to hate God.”

Kindergarten and primary schools are also teaching children how to oppose religion. In late April, a primary school in Xinzheng city in the central province of Henan encouraged young children to refrain from believing in any deity.

“If your mom goes to church and believes in God, she doesn’t want you as her child anymore,” one teacher said.

Another school screened a propaganda video in which Jesus followers were depicted as big scary monsters. After the presentation was complete, a teacher warned that Christian relatives might “cast spells” on the youngsters.

One of the parents at the school said that as a result, her son actively opposed her reading religious books in the family home. Another student was terrified that his mom was going to be led away by police.

Others students were advised to “supervise” their parents to ensure that they don’t practice their faith.

“It leads to a dead-end,” one young student said of his father's Christian faith. “If you attend gatherings, you will be arrested.”

China introduced revised regulations on religion in February, which included banning under-18s from attending church or receiving any religious education.

The new regulations have also forced primary schools in Henan to warn parents that they are not allowed to breach the country's laws on the practice of religion.

"No one may use religions to disrupt social order, harm citizens or impede the national education system," read a letter by the Ninth Primary School of Linzhou city of Anyang and the First Primary School of Chengguan town of Xingyang city of Chengzhou.

"It is an offense for any organizations or individuals to guide, support, permit and condone minors to believe in religions or participate in religious activities," it warned.

Officials have also reportedly claimed schools are places "for the state to foster students to build up socialist society," with parents told they have an obligation "to nurture children in accordance with national laws and social requirements."

China ranks as the 27th worst nation in the world when it comes to Christian persecution, according to Open Doors USA’s World Watch List. Open Doors has expressed concern that the religious affairs in China now “lies with the Communist Party.”

What you don't understand is that rejection of God does not free you from religion. It just drives you into an ideology and to borrow the words of Jordan Peterson ideology is corrupt; it's just a parasite on religious structures.

Jordan Peterson: The Collapse of Belief Systems, Nihilism and The Way Out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8UTMl3BK80