The illogical logic...

[Segev Moran]

For most social insects, the 'rules' are genetically coded. And for some insects, that may include what we would call rape.

I don't understand what you are saying here... what "rules"? the moral ones?

 

[Nous]

you can find moral "codes" in every specie in nature

Really!!!!?? Where do you find the moral code in chrysanthemums?

Where do you find the moral code in, say, lions? When and how was the hypothesis about finding a moral code in lions tested?

 

[Segev Moran]

Unlike those who look into the elements of an issue to try to discern relationships and conclusions, I believe theists, among others, look to authority

authority??

or similar events in the past to tell them what to believe or do.

Can you give an example?

If X worked in the past and Y is similar, it should probably work with Y today.

What does X represent?
What does Y?
And what do you mean they are similar?
are you claiming that last year physics worked differently?
how about 10 years ago? would you say the physical universe we live in changed its rules?
how about the last 800?
last 1500?
last 2000?
last 5800~?

and this is quite the opposite of how skeptics (and likes) or scientists think.

In order to check if something will work, we check if it works.

we can predict things based on todays science, and discover deeper based on those predictions that are very very hard to make.

how wondrous it is when such a prediction comes true?
only then, btw, you can add a + sign to your theory, only if nothing else can contradict your theory, and nothing else can provide a better demonstration of things than your theory.

if somewhere along the way, the falsification of your theory is becoming true, your theory is being "disqualified".

imagine how much evidence we found that contradict evolution for example? none, so far.
imagine how many predictions were discovered to be true? thousands.
thousands of pieces of information is being discovered by the day, and so far nothing can provide a better explanation than evolution.
if some day, an evidence that falsify evolution will emerge, than no one will believe it is true the same as no one believes (almost no one ) the earth is flat. ( btw, if some day an evidence that will prove earth is flat will emerge, real scientist will be the first to know, i can assure you )

This and the fact that most people aren't into introspection or care to bother with anything more than casual considerations. I believe most people prefer to keep life as simple as possible, and let issues unfold as they may as long as they're not overly consequential.
.

I think you really underestimate humanity. its a shame.
and you are clearly denying the young generations different pov than the older one.

 

[David T]

Usually when I debate, i make sure that the person I talk with, understands my definition of the words i use (only when there is more than one common definition). as i see it, it is vital for a debater to have a clear understanding of the terms being used by the other debater in order to have a fuller understanding of the arguments presented.

For some reason, it always seems to me very hard to understand the exact definition of some words that theist who argue against me use.

When i ask for example what is moral, i have my very clear definition of what it is, and there is a common understanding what we mean by it, but to theists, it is more than a word describing a relative understanding of good acts and bad act, but rather some kind of an objective force or power, that is the absolute good.

It took me quite some time to understand that their logic works very different than the logic of skeptics and the likes.

So i try to understand what is the cause of the different logic mechanism? why is it that my logical assessment is so different than the logical assessment of theist people?

I think one major difference, is what skeptics and theists grasp as cause.

When i ask my self, what is the cause of something i do, it is split into 2 different things (for me),
The cause as: The goal i want to achieve by performing an action
and
The cause as: The events that led me to take that action

I'll try and provide an example:

I help and old man cross he street.

My goal will be to make sure the old man successfully crosses the road. I of course also want to provide example to others that it is not a bad habit to help the older.

As for the events that leads me to help the old man cross the street, it is the fact that i wish that when i will be old, people will help me in a case of need. it is of course a bit deeper than that, but the bottom line is indeed that (it has got to do a lot, of course, with the way i was raised by my parents who taught me to respect and help people when i can).

Most theists that i speak with, will never use such a logic to explain why they help someone. It will usually be due to gods will, or something like that. (which is great, as long as it is causing you help others).

The more i debate, the more i try to clearly understand the logic behind the theist beliefs, and i really cant seem to understand it.

I would love if someone can raise to the challenge, and explain me the way the "theistic logic" works.

please use the starting point of explaining what is math to you? is it something invented, or discovered, by humans?

Thanks and cheers

They use the exact same methodology as you do.

Usually when I debate, i make sure that the person I talk with, understands my definition of the words i use (only when there is more than one common definition). as i see it, it is vital for a debater to have a clear understanding of the terms being used by the other debater in order to have a fuller understanding of the arguments presented.

For some reason, it always seems to me very hard to understand the exact definition of some words that theist who argue against me use.

When i ask for example what is moral, i have my very clear definition of what it is, and there is a common understanding what we mean by it, but to theists, it is more than a word describing a relative understanding of good acts and bad act, but rather some kind of an objective force or power, that is the absolute good.

It took me quite some time to understand that their logic works very different than the logic of skeptics and the likes.

So i try to understand what is the cause of the different logic mechanism? why is it that my logical assessment is so different than the logical assessment of theist people?

I think one major difference, is what skeptics and theists grasp as cause.

When i ask my self, what is the cause of something i do, it is split into 2 different things (for me),
The cause as: The goal i want to achieve by performing an action
and
The cause as: The events that led me to take that action

I'll try and provide an example:

I help and old man cross he street.

My goal will be to make sure the old man successfully crosses the road. I of course also want to provide example to others that it is not a bad habit to help the older.

As for the events that leads me to help the old man cross the street, it is the fact that i wish that when i will be old, people will help me in a case of need. it is of course a bit deeper than that, but the bottom line is indeed that (it has got to do a lot, of course, with the way i was raised by my parents who taught me to respect and help people when i can).

Most theists that i speak with, will never use such a logic to explain why they help someone. It will usually be due to gods will, or something like that. (which is great, as long as it is causing you help others).

The more i debate, the more i try to clearly understand the logic behind the theist beliefs, and i really cant seem to understand it.

I would love if someone can raise to the challenge, and explain me the way the "theistic logic" works.

please use the starting point of explaining what is math to you? is it something invented, or discovered, by humans?

Thanks and cheers

Sergev, you seem to be under the strange assumption that they understand the topic! The sub-conscious is a funny thing.

 

[Robert Vincelette]

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason shows us what logic can do and what it can't do. It helps us to read his Metaphysics of Morals and Ethics to understand the categorical imperative and how we ought to treat others.

 

[Segev Moran]

I think you would benefit from reading Luc Ferry's "A Brief History of Thought."


Shouldn't it be the events that caused me to formulate that goal?

can you give an example?

 

[Quintessence]

So... I'm a little confused by the opening post. I don't understand what this "skeptic" group is or what this "theist" group is, why those two would be mutually exclusive categories, or how we could generalizable about their thinking/learning styles any fashion. Okay, more than a little confused, actually.

Honestly, I would not try to understand people based on them happening to be a theist of some sort. This "theist logic" category you are attempting to construct just does not exist because "theist' is not a homogenous category. There is no "theist logic" style that applies to all theists. Maybe less of the 'me vs them' style of thinking will be helpful?

 

[Segev Moran]

They use the exact same methodology as you do.

Sergev, you seem to be under the strange assumption that they understand the topic! The sub-conscious is a funny thing.

why wouldn't they? they use the exact logic as i use to most things in life.
they just refer to it in different terms i think.
but when it comes to "beyond", they neglect that same logic. i think most of them are just unaware of it.

my logic used to work the same in the past, but as i learned more and more about the spiritual world, and in parallel learned about the physical world, i learned that the scientific method is objective unlike the entire spiritual world which is mostly subjective.

 

[Segev Moran]

That is the fate of atheists. Demanding freedom, they lose it, and lose their souls too.
Still, not to worry: logic is so great isn't it?

Lol.
indeed it is
its not lost, just closed in a box with my other toys

 

[Segev Moran]

Really!!!!?? Where do you find the moral code in chrysanthemums?

Where do you find the moral code in, say, lions? When and how was the hypothesis about finding a moral code in lions tested?

If you were a flower, what would you say your moral codes are?
I bet you kids can answer this question quite easily

I don't know much about this specific flower but if i use the logic of a flower:

it provides nourishment to many species.
if a flower had the ability to describe its behavior like us, would you say it was considered as a moral thing or not?

 

[Segev Moran]

Where do you find the moral code in, say, lions?

just look at their social behavior and you'll quickly find it.

When and how was the hypothesis about finding a moral code in lions tested?

lol.. you do realize there is no moral code right?
there is no actual code. my whole point is that moral is something we use to describe a social behavior. it is not an actual entity.

 

[Segev Moran]

[QUOTE="Quintessence, post: 5196937, member: 32163"]So... I'm a little confused by the opening post.
[/QUOTE]
I Hope i'll be able to clear the confusion (sorry, lol, the color was killing me

I don't understand what this "skeptic" group is

Skeptics are people who base their beliefs on things that are most probable.
this is based on demonstrate-able evidence.

or what this "theist" group is,

Theists are people who believe there is a god, entity or force that is responsible for the creation / manipulation / manifestation and so on of everything that exists.

why those two would be mutually exclusive categories, or how we could generalizable about their thinking/learning styles any fashion.

They are certainly not exclusive.
I used those two as example as you can be an atheist and non-sekular, but not the other way around.

Okay, more than a little confused, actually.

Did that make any sense?
if not, you can think of it as if i said: people who believe in the spiritual non demonstrable world (mostly theists) and those who do not (skeptics and the likes)

Honestly, I would not try to understand people based on them happening to be a theist of some sort.

Me neither.
I wasn't trying to understand someone, i was trying to understand something.

This "theist logic" category you are attempting to construct just does not exist because "theist' is not a homogenous category. There is no "theist logic" style that applies to all theists. Maybe less of the 'me vs them' style of thinking will be helpful?

i disagree (obviously).
do you happen to be a theist?

 

[Daisies4me]

I don't place my logic above anything. It's just a way to support my choices/actions.
Maybe that's a hard thing for religious folks to do, support their choices and actions beyond simply saying they are doing God's will.

(quote)

Hi Nakosis
what stands out to me in your post is......MY.........MY......

which is why most people reject many things...

just sayin'...

peace

 

[ChristineM]

Are you trying to suggest that insects do abide by moral precepts? Just state that argument by which you have concluded such.

No, i am saying that its not up to you to dictate what another species sees as right and wrong.

However if an ant or bee for example deviates from the accepted norm that ant or bee soon realises the error of it's ways

 

[Nakosis]

(quote)

Hi Nakosis
what stands out to me in your post is......MY.........MY......

which is why most people reject many things...

just sayin'...

peace

I can only honestly talk about things as they related to me. I don't presume to be talking for anyone else.

 

[Nous]

If you were a flower, what would you say your moral codes are?
I bet you kids can answer this question quite easily

I don't know much about this specific flower but if i use the logic of a flower:

it provides nourishment to many species.
if a flower had the ability to describe its behavior like us, would you say it was considered as a moral thing or not?

just look at their social behavior and you'll quickly find it.

lol.. you do realize there is no moral code right?
there is no actual code. my whole point is that moral is something we use to describe a social behavior. it is not an actual entity.

No, i am saying that its not up to you to dictate what another species sees as right and wrong.

However if an ant or bee for example deviates from the accepted norm that ant or bee soon realises the error of it's ways

You guys definitely prove that anti-religious people are just as full of anti-scientific nonsense as the young-earth creationists.

 

[ChristineM]

You guys definitely prove that anti-religious people are just as full of anti-scientific nonsense as the young-earth creationists.

And your peer reviewed scientific evidence for this is...?

Btw, i am not anti religious, i am anti deliberate ignorance.

Anyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe so long as they don't threaten their belief on other people.

 

[Nous]

And your peer reviewed scientific evidence for this is...?

For instance, your claim about moral precepts being necessary for humans to "thrive" and "stay together" is anti-scientific nonsense. No one has ever tested any such hypothesis.

 

[Quintessence]

Skeptics are people who base their beliefs on things that are most probable.
this is based on demonstrate-able evidence.

Hmm. Have to say I haven't seen someone define "skeptic" in quite this fashion before. Going with what is most probable doesn't sound like skepticism at all to me, it sounds like something else entirely (a utilitarian statistician, perhaps?).

Did that make any sense?
if not, you can think of it as if i said: people who believe in the spiritual non demonstrable world (mostly theists) and those who do not (skeptics and the likes)

Okay... so kind of confused because of how you are defining "skeptic" based upon probability. Why would someone who bases their beliefs on probability necessarily reject the "spiritual" (another word I'm not sure what we mean by) world? How to you determine probabilities for these things? I seem to recall a rather wise thread around here once that pointed out the ridiculousness of talking about the "probability" of gods being rather nonsensical... ?

Me neither.

I wasn't trying to understand someone, i was trying to understand something.

I think the point still stands. I think too much is being attributed to someone being a theist and how that impacts how they approach the world. "Theist" is a very superficial and uninformative label as it tells us nothing about that person's theology and much less about how they approach mythology and the world in general.

i disagree (obviously).
do you happen to be a theist?

With how you are defining theist? I suppose not. Doesn't stop me from being one, though, and finding this notion of "theist logic" untenable. It seems to me what you are noticing has nothing to do with theism and everything to do with mythic/literary/poetic/artful thinking. Which humans are capable of regardless of whether or not they identify as (or are labeled by outsiders as) theist or atheist.

 

[ChristineM]

For instance, your claim about moral precepts being necessary for humans to "thrive" and "stay together" is anti-scientific nonsense. No one has ever tested any such hypothesis.

I never said it was scientific. However there is plenty of research on morality and civilization

morality and civilisation - Google Scholar

However that does your post does not provide any justification for your claim