What If You're Wrong

[mikkel_the_dane]

Something that can be observed by any party (barring sensory issues, of course), and whose existence, placement aspect (or any combination) point toward the hypothesis being proposed. Something that distinctively explains the parts of the observed phenomenon as we find it in existence and that does not, itself, stand in conflict or contradiction with any other part of the hypothesis or further related observable phenomena.

So how do you explain methodological naturalism:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence for reality is to be found literally everywhere. The same is actually said by people who claim that God exists - that "the evidence is everywhere." But when it is applied to the reality we all (at least appear to) share and inhabit (again - according to the massive preponderance of EVIDENCE we each and collectively have at our disposal), then you claim "fowl!" What a load of absolute crap.
Good for them, I guess? I can't be arsed to care about those people's opinions then, honestly. If they aren't interested in providing evidence for wild claims than they can get out of my face.

Thank you, that was all I needed.

I believe in objective reality, because my belief appear to work and I don't need evidence. Evidence is a cognitive construct what follows from the belief in objective reality.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So how do you explain methodological naturalism:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

In order to exist at all, you've got to start somewhere. Doesn't mean that anything and everything anyone ever wants to imagine is actually a part of shared experience. Not even close.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Thank you, that was all I needed.

I believe in objective reality, because my belief appear to work and I don't need evidence. Evidence is a cognitive construct what follows from the belief in objective reality.

Exactly... and I will continue to react to and interact with the reality with which I am presented. What are YOU going to do?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Christians seem to have had a long obsession with trying to convert the Chinese.

Personally, I have had many many of them try to
win me to "god", and i had the pascal thing
used on me before I knew what to call it.
I'm not convinced you know what it is.

Different experiences. Maybe you never heard anyone
express any thought at all along those lines. I have,
though nobody expressed Pascals as you did,
the illogic of that being too much for anyone, probably.


Now, as for your odd strawman about
piling riches, where is that supposed to have
come from? Nothing i stated or implied.

If you see only (exaggerating) the monastic or the
miserly life as possibilities, maybe think a bit more?

You don't think all there is for an atheist is
an accounts ledger-do you?

If you feel that no religious practice no matter
how extreme or costly could be a waste,
we disagree on that and so be it.

If tho you are laughing at me on the basis that I
am arguing for a self indulgent life of greed
an unconcern for others that is another matter.

For if so, it speaks only of you, that you
would so much as conceive of it, let alone present it.

And what it says of the spiritual lessons you
have internalized is not too cool either.

Or maybe you would like to clarify that
you did not actually mean what you said.

Dear Audie

I must confess that I did not understand much of what you said to me there (I am of simple and straight-forward wording), though I sense that if I had, it would have saddened me.

Therefore I’m concerned that I may have upset you first? If so; this was not my intention.

I laughed when I read what you wrote, not because you seem ridiculous to me (I have no idea who you are or what you stand for), but because I literary cannot imagine regretting the way I live - even if there is no God. And yes, my alternative to living as I do now would be to live as I used to: an ambitious, self-centred, “successful” but - in my view - terrible life.

Why does this upset you...? And, if it does not, why address me as you do...?

I could be wrong and your response be not an unkind one (like I said, I did not fully understand it). If so, feel free to ignore my question.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[syo]

I know, many atheists here don't agree with Richard Dawkins.

Whan asked what if he is wrong with the Christian God, he replied we could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance. Or about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea.

In my opinion, that didn't answer the question.

Christian God, eh?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Putting unrealistic demands on others is not reasonable. If a person is denying reality in a face to face debate it is the one time that a quick slap across the face is justified. It immediately demonstrates the error of his ways nonverbally with no lasting damage.

I don't deny objective. I just haven't seen compelling evidence for it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly... and I will continue to react to and interact with the reality with which I am presented. What are YOU going to do?

Question if both naturalism and the supernatural is correct. I haven't been able to get either of them to work with compelling evidence, so in practice I am an agnostic to any positive metaphysical claim, other than the minimal acceptance of objective reality is real.

In practice I personally combine aspects of science, philosophy and religion as they work for me.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I think the point of the question is that if the atheist is wrong, there may well be dire consequences. Whereas if the theist is wrong, there would be no consequence at all.

I don't ascribe to the theist's threats, so either way is OK with me. But that's the 'argument' that some theists present.

But it's a flawed argument, since theists face just as dire a threat if they happen to choose to believe in the wrong god.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Here is a popular video featuring Richard Dawkins which has almost 60 000 likes:

I know, many atheists here don't agree with Richard Dawkins.

Anyway, since thousands of Youtube likes speak a clear language, I thought I could make it a thread.

Whan asked what if he is wrong with the Christian God, he replied we could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance. Or about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea.

In my opinion, that didn't answer the question.

If we are wrong about the creator if there is one... it's like being wrong about the host of where we are invited. It does matter.

Please note there was a quite similar thread recently: why is it important to "Believe"..?, it was focused more on salvation, if I understood it right.

What's your solution? Are you suggesting that people need to claim to believe in every single god that has ever been proposed in order to hedge their bets? Otherwise if you choose to believe in the Christian god and it turns out that the only god is the flying spaghetti monster, you're just as screwed as the atheists are.

So, do you worry that your lack of belief in the flying spaghetti monster might have dire consequences for you? If not then you understand why atheists don't worry about whether or not their lack of belief in the Christian god will have dire consequences.

 

[Quetzal]

If we are wrong about the creator if there is one... it's like being wrong about the host of where we are invited. It does matter.

Correct, but the host should introduce himself in a way that resonates with all of his guests. God has not done so, so he should not be surprised when people don't know who he is.

 

[Brickjectivity]

...Anyway, since thousands of Youtube likes speak a clear language, I thought I could make it a thread....

The true greatness of Dr. (Prof) Dawkins is his Selfish Gene arguments which are not theological. He isn't a theologian and doesn't have a religious background. He's unquestionably knowledgeable about Biology. If you want to know about Biology you could do worse than read his materials.

 

[stvdv]

If we are wrong about the creator if there is one... it's like being wrong about the host of where we are invited. It does matter.

IMO:

According to the Bible this is not problematic at all, because that host is said to be omniscient (hence He knew it already) and omnipotent (hence He could have changed our 'being wrong' but did not), which is obvious, because He does not judge us, He only loves us unconditionally for who we really are ... theist and atheist alike ... because He knows what the first Commandment means "love thy neighbor as thyself" ... God loves Himself, so He loves all. And furthermore we are all His children according to the Book, so the Father is responsible for how the child finally grows up. And you better belief that this Father will take full responsibility. Not all parents do, but definitely this Father. Being the Father (capitalized), He should live up to His own Teachings, otherwise how could we take His Teachings serious?

So, there is no way in Heaven, that there will be a problem IF we were just a bit wrong in what we believed

And besides that, according to the same Book, this God values loving, compassionate, empathetic behavior. And this anyone can do anyway

If im wrong in wrong, i can live with that. How about you, can you live contently if you are proven wrong?

That is a very useful question. To accept "having it wrong" takes a lot of practice. It's not something that most people easily master. You need to really love yourself first, before being able to accept "having it wrong" on what God is or is not

Considering that God is beyond form and name, I would say that it's rather impossible to have it all right about what God is or is not, don't you think?

So, it seems to me that hard-core theists might be in for a bigger surprise than non-theists (when it comes to "knowing what God is (not)"

 

[PureX]

But it's a flawed argument, since theists face just as dire a threat if they happen to choose to believe in the wrong god.

Not necessarily. Many religions are not exclusionary in that way. They tend to presume that everyone has their own "pathway to God" and that all pathways are equally legitimate. And the exclusive aspect of some Christian religious expression is, I think, a misread of the original Christian message and promise.

 

[syo]

And the exclusive aspect of some Christian religious expression is, I think, a misread of the original Christian message and promise.

Well said. Us pagans exist and we are not satanists.

 

[stvdv]

Who cares what "Dawkins" says?

Turn the question around.

What of you theists with your huge investment
in religion, what if you are wrong?

Throw all these questions away

Maybe there is no right and/or wrong at all

 

[Bird123]

Here is a popular video featuring Richard Dawkins which has almost 60 000 likes:

I know, many atheists here don't agree with Richard Dawkins.

Anyway, since thousands of Youtube likes speak a clear language, I thought I could make it a thread.

Whan asked what if he is wrong with the Christian God, he replied we could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance. Or about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea.

In my opinion, that didn't answer the question.

If we are wrong about the creator if there is one... it's like being wrong about the host of where we are invited. It does matter.

Please note there was a quite similar thread recently: why is it important to "Believe"..?, it was focused more on salvation, if I understood it right.

OK, let's ask some questions. What if atheists are wrong? Being wrong is part of the learning process. No one acquires true wisdom without being wrong then learning from being wrong.
OK, let's ask some questions. What if Christians are wrong? Why would believing really be important to God? Doesn't God know some of His children make mistakes? Why would this bother God? Why would God fry His children for simply being wrong? Wouldn't any being who would create Hell knowing anyone would go there for eternity be a Monster??
OK, let's ask some questions. What if they are both wrong? Aren't they both relying on Beliefs instead of Facts? If one really cares if God exists, would not one search for God until they found God instead of relying on and blindly following the beliefs of others??
OK, let's ask some questions. Is it all about being right? Is it about gaining followers? Shouldn't be about Discovering the Real Truth????
OK, let's ask some questions. Why is it we and they? Shouldn't it be US? Why is controlling the thinking of others so important that one results to intimidation, fear, coercing and a threatening God? Why are others condemned simply because they do not believe you or choose to walk their own path? If God created great diversity, why would God condemn the world for having it?

Since God is perfection, How can God create such imperfection?? God can't. Really look at this world, the universe and the people. Can you see the perfection? We are all on the road to perfection. God isn't through creating yet. WE are all in the learning part. Some may want us all to go the same path, however, with diversity, everyone has their own lessons to learn. Each must walk their own path to perfection. No one can do it for you. We are not meant to follow. We are meant to stand on our own two feet, THINK, and move forward to Intelligence and Wisdom. God doesn't condemn for mistakes or being wrong. God is counting on them to lead you to the right path.
OK, lets ask some questions. What if I am wrong? I can't wait for my next Great Screw up. It's going to be Glorious...... Finally, Don't hungry students advance much faster than those who claim to know it all?

What is the first thing a wise man realizes when a wise man truly becomes wise??? Anyone???Anyone??? The first thing a wise man realizes when a wise man truly become wise is that there is so much more to Learn!!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Does it need to be? And yes, subjective evidence is, indeed, evidence.

Okay, so we refer now to Dr. Oliver Sacks book, "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat." And we find therein a lot of "subjective evidence" for people absolutely believing a lot of strange things that are simply untrue, based on the "subjective evidence" presented to them by their own brains. So, was his wife a hat?

Another example, a woman with anosognosia who had a paralyzed arm, but insisted she could move it quite well. When asked why it wasn't moving, she replied that it wasn't her arm. "Whose is it?" asked the doctor. "My son's," she answered.

So, was that her son's arm? Her own subjective evidence made it perfectly clear to her that it was.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course the main problem with Pascal's wager is that it ignores the fact that belief is not voluntary for a rational thinker. I cannot force myself to believe that horses can sprout wings and fly no matter how many myths about Pegasus that I read. The same applies to the existence of a god.

YES!!

That was just about exactly my reaction to Pascal's Wager when I was introduced to it several centuries (oh, wait, decades) ago. Wouldn't an omniscient God know that I didn't really believe, but was faking it so as not to fall victim to Pascal's "logic?"

 

[SalixIncendium]

Okay, so we refer now to Dr. Oliver Sacks book, "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat." And we find therein a lot of "subjective evidence" for people absolutely believing a lot of strange things that are simply untrue, based on the "subjective evidence" presented to them by their own brains. So, was his wife a hat?

Another example, a woman with anosognosia who had a paralyzed arm, but insisted she could move it quite well. When asked why it wasn't moving, she replied that it wasn't her arm. "Whose is it?" asked the doctor. "My son's," she answered.

So, was that her son's arm? Her own subjective evidence made it perfectly clear to her that it was.

From the perception of the man in Dr. Oliver Sacks' book, he had evidence that his wife was a hat. So in his view, yes, his wife was a hat.

From the perception of the woman with anosognosia, she had evidence that it was her son's arm. So in her view, yes, it was her son's arm.

Tell how these two people's views affected you. What do you have to gain, aside from stroking your ego, in telling them they're wrong? How do they benefit from you telling them they're wrong?

These are their truths. What right do you have to impose your truths upon them?