FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


How to avoid fear for today and tomorrow?





johans
have you encounter fear for having no money for tomorrow? how do you handle it? how to avoid it?

personally, i have fear of having no money in the future.. basically money is all we need for leaving.. if you rent house, pay electric bills, water bills, food to eat, kids to school signing contracts and postdated check is issued.. sometimes i am tired of thingking too much to pay for.. Very Happy

dont worry GOD is the key to delete the fear..

Very Happy
rjraaz
Fear for coming days requirement is not just the problem for a single person but even for large community that is "Middle Income Group". Most of the people whose come in this are have salary as their earning source that means those are dependent on their employer. Sometimes their salary is just not enough for their families minimum requirement then how they think about that much luxarious life.

Some of people suggest that by controlling their expenses may lead to fulfill their requirement but if you dont have any good income source how much you need to controll expenses.
Hexes
It is the main reason why I am not going to create my own family by now. I could earn money for myself but when I think about maintaining the family I am really scared. I hope that I will get better job and the situation will change. A lot of young people are in the same situation and thats why here in Europe we occur problem of depopulation.
Ankhanu
johans wrote:
have you encounter fear for having no money for tomorrow? how do you handle it? how to avoid it?


Certainly! Financial difficulty is a near universal condition, it seems, no matter how much we earn.
I'm 32, I have a family, no savings, debt and am currently unemployed... I'm generally concerned about the future, especially the fact that I'm half-way through my earning years and have nothing squirreled away for retirement, and that I have a lot of debt crushing to do before I can start saving, really.

That said, given that there's nothing I can do about it right now, I don't worry too much about it. I generally try to reduce the amount of outgoing money, and try to reduce my ecological footprint, but I still live my life as well as I can/can afford. If I fret about what I can't change, where will that get me, other than into misery? I'll find an appropriate job in time, and hopefully this time I'll get something permanent, rather than short-term contracts... but, I'll take what I can get Razz

Basically, it comes down to the old adage, don't worry about the things you can't change, change those you can.
ocalhoun
Well, religious feelings aside... I don't have fear of not having enough money because, well, I have enough money.

The key being enough.
I live in a cheap, grungy room, and drive cars that are cheap and of questionable reliability and safety...
But that means I have no trouble providing for myself, and I have absolutely no debt.
Combine that with a generous array of marketable skills, and I have no concerns about money current or future.

Realizing that money (and more importantly, the stuff it buys you) isn't important is the real key to being free of it.
If you need God to tell you that, well... okay.
johans
when i read all the post.. some of us are worried and some of us worried not much.

for me, i am 30 yrs old. single parent and as part of the security i think for my self and for my son is that when sickness comes ( HOPEFULLY NOT ). I need prepare for it such as financial in terms of health for me health is wealth i tried to avoid it as much as i can and with the help of God with prayers. I have to say i can only depend to our savior Jesus Christ. What i will do is just have some FAITH.

I am trying all the things i can right now when it comes to work and sidelines..

God Bless us all with our daily needs.

Have a Greet day to all!
loremar
And sometimes even if you have faith, go to church, and become nice to everyone, Jesus Christ still won't help. So where does the confidence and assurance come from?

I just deal fear with acceptance, if there is really nothing I can do.
johans
i think the best way to handle fear is we must accept all that has come in our lives.. for sure in that way we can handle fear and work fearless...

faith - you can do much with a little faith... but you can do nothing without it..

" Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" Hebrews 11:1

Very Happy
Ankhanu
johans wrote:
faith - you can do much with a little faith... but you can do nothing without it..

" Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" Hebrews 11:1

Very Happy

Fair assertion, but, everything I've accomplished has been through effort, not faith.
c'tair
I have no fear of tomorrow. I have absolute confidence in myself that somehow and in some way I will be able to manage, at least survive.
Even if you lose all money, there's always dumpster diving or charity. Look at how many hundreds of thousands of people are homeless or without jobs and somehow they live. Sure, they can't play any Call of Duty or go see movies, but they survive.
Then there are pretty big groups of people who seem to be thriving in this economy. People who have abandoned modern ideals and left them behind, people who make due with growing their own food and reading good books.

Remember, there is always a way, there is always something to do to make your situation better or more comfortable. It's only a question of will power and ideas.
boinsterman
johans wrote:
have you encounter fear for having no money for tomorrow? how do you handle it? how to avoid it?


While it seems you are speaking in terms of long-term fear for the future, my experience and training deal more with immediate fear for one's life. I have found it a good way to deal with other kinds of fear, though that requires a kind of relaxed discipline.

Many people define themselves in terms of their problems and their ability to solve them. I have known many people who worry about the future, especially about money or their careers (although often about some unknown force they cannot name). But they can also choose to not define themselves in terms of their problems. In money and lifestyle, they can do with less. (Many people are poor but happy.) They can say "So what?"

I used to be a martial artist, and through that I was a Zen Buddhist for a time. While out of practice on both, I learned many valuable life lessons. The most important of which was how to focus on the present moment--and stay focused on it, or at least to know when I am not. In this way, I can appreciate the beauty and the good even in things which are harmful to me and others, and to gain what benefit from them.

I also used to be a soldier--an infantryman--in the U.S. Army Reserve, and will start with a life lesson from that, as I went through BASIC training and AIT just as I was beginning my karate training, and learned that lesson first. I knew going in that drill sargeants are intimidating for the purpose of giving us the opportunity to say "So what?" By extension, when someone is trying to kill us on a battlefield, we can say "So what?" and do what we need to do as opposed to freezing up or running away. While it took me some time to understand this enough to articulate it, I did learn it. (The concept that I might be required to actually kill someone for a cause I had no control over disquieted me however, and I did not reenlist.)

Modern books on Zen exhorts us to "Live as though you will die in the next instant" and "Live as though your hair is on fire." Perhaps the most quoted saying of Bruce Lee is "To anticipate the outcome is the great mistake." In modern pop culture, this is perhaps best exemplified by Mr. Reese in the new television series "Person of Interest." While there are I some aspects of that show I find disquieting, his character faces certain death with aplomb. He reacts not with fear but with action. Acknowledge any danger that exists but do not define oneself by it. Adapt to the situation. Smile and do what you can with what you have.

In my "normal" state of mind, I might be focused on a task such as typing in these words, but would notice very little of my immediate environment or situation. I would probably be focused on getting out my thoughts onto this forum, or on getting points and coins so I can get a larger account and free domain name. While I am no longer as good at it as I once was, I find that when I succeed in living as though I "will die in the next instant," I become much more focused on my surroundings. A book or a flashlight on the table beside me, or the person sitting beside me, or toys beneath my feet at the top of the stairs, or the squirrels and trees outside my window, might conceivably be sources of danger. But I can also choose to see the beauty in these things--things which otherwise I would not have noticed at all.
johans
wow! Thanks for that long explanation boinsterman.

Very Happy
ricardooliveira
Also fear is a great proof that you are alive!
ocalhoun
ricardooliveira wrote:
Also fear is a great proof that you are alive!

1- There are a lot of other proofs that you're alive that are a lot more enjoyable.
2- I'm not entirely certain that you can't feel fear while dead.
Navigator
You take one day at a time, thinking with your brain rather than with your gut, little smart decisions with your objective in mind and a strong will, will take you there!
Dialogist
Money is car fare but it's not the destination. Of course you need some of it to operate comfortably within a civilised society, but appealing to poverty for second, an actual civilised society has provisions in place to shelter, feed and prolong the inhabitancy of have-nots anyway. I often get the suspicion that a lot of homeless people in the west are that way by choice, and not only do they have ample opportunity to break that cycle with many charitable organisations and government welfare funds, they seem quite content to stay solo. This is just alluding to those that want to stay within the herd. There's many that don't. That have herds of their own. Farmers for example. They are all millionaires these days, but it starts with one egg. Ironically, the outside civilisation pays them for a slice of civilisation. A fried breakfast, dairy products or a nice new woollen sweater. Whenever I see photos of 'uncontacted tribes' (the ones all pointing and firing arrows at the plane taking photos) - those 'uncontacted' ones, I always get a small sense of envy. Not for their mediocre medicinal methods, their culinary conditions or their bamboo teepees. Not even for their independence and self sufficient lifestyle. It's usually just their physique. They look so strong, fit, healthy and vital like they could outrun a cheetah and wrestle a bear. Maybe they have? Still, I doubt they worry too much about a pension plan.

From a religious perspective, "Can't take it with you". Also, from a non-religious perspective, "Can't take it with you". Some dude named D'angelo once said, "The best things in life are not things". If you pardon his 'best-thing-not-being-a-thing then' (double) paradox, you might find yourself in agreement (personally, I didn't because he did a book signing right after, but that's besides the point).
airh3ad
just keep your faith going your fear will be lost. make your self prepare always face tomorrow.
Ankhanu
Dialogist wrote:
Farmers for example. They are all millionaires these days, but it starts with one egg. Ironically, the outside civilisation pays them for a slice of civilisation. A fried breakfast, dairy products or a nice new woollen sweater.

You don't live anywhere near a rural area, do you? Ever met a farmer? It really doesn't sound it.

Not gonna touch your homeless bit, but it's just as disconnected.

Dialogist wrote:
... Still, I doubt they worry too much about a pension plan.

Likely true; they're likely more often worried about next week.

Dialogist wrote:
Money is car fare but it's not the destination.
...
From a religious perspective, "Can't take it with you". Also, from a non-religious perspective, "Can't take it with you".

One of the few things we seem to have some consensus with, it seems.
Dialogist
I do live in a rural area. I am speaking from a metaphorical perspective. The fact is that all essentials of civilisation grow in the ground. This has to be 'curated' by some 'yokel' so that we may don 'the fur coat'. This is what I'm drawing on. Not whether the arable farmer is still the main proprietor of wool or not, or whether sheep's wool is still manipulated to make wool anymore. I do get my dairy products (eggs mostly) from a farm. I get my potatoes from one too. Not out of preference, but convenience. A farmer does door to door with relatively cheap and massive (not to mention delicious) potatoes, eggs, etc round here. I cook them on my state of the art cooker. It simulates fire, which the friction of two sticks in the wild might have originally produced - These are the only concerns of indigenous tribes. I doubt the day of the week is though, unless it they are not getting enough bank holidays on their Gregorian calendar.

It's nice that we agree on the last point, although I've never saw you as somebody who wasn't religious, Ankhanu.
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:
I often get the suspicion that a lot of homeless people in the west are that way by choice, and not only do they have ample opportunity to break that cycle with many charitable organisations and government welfare funds, they seem quite content to stay solo.

I'll touch your homeless bit, if Ankhanu won't.

Most homeless people are either physically disabled, mentally disabled, burdened with a bad criminal record, or badly addicted to drugs/alcohol... or a combination of several of those things. Which makes them ineligible for pretty much all jobs... and often unable to take advantage of those programs... especially since they often lose all forms of ID, which makes getting government assistance very difficult.
Quote:
Farmers for example. They are all millionaires these days, but it starts with one egg.

Verifiably false. Some farmers are not millionaires. I know some personally.
Also, a lot of the 'millionaire' ones may have over a million in assets when you count all their fields and equipment and everything... while still having incomes that are rather modest, because of the cost to operate and maintain all of that. (And also often crushing debt used to purchase all of that.)

There is such a thing as big agriculture; the mega-farms owned by big corporations... and they are wealthy... But they are only a very small percentage of farmers.
Quote:
Ironically, the outside civilisation pays them for a slice of civilisation. A fried breakfast, dairy products or a nice new woollen sweater.

How is that ironic?
That's how this economic system we call 'capitalism' works.
Quote:
Whenever I see photos of 'uncontacted tribes' (the ones all pointing and firing arrows at the plane taking photos) - those 'uncontacted' ones, I always get a small sense of envy. Not for their mediocre medicinal methods, their culinary conditions or their bamboo teepees. Not even for their independence and self sufficient lifestyle. It's usually just their physique. They look so strong, fit, healthy and vital like they could outrun a cheetah and wrestle a bear. Maybe they have? Still, I doubt they worry too much about a pension plan.

Of course they don't worry about a pension plan. Their children take care of them if they're lucky enough to get old... and they repay the favor with knowledge and wisdom to pass down.

They also don't worry about pension plans because their life expectancy is pretty low! ^.^
Quote:

"The best things in life are not things"

Ah, now we come to something I can agree with, and I even appreciate the zen-like way of expressing it as a paradox to be unraveled.

Yes, materialism is not a good way to live your life.
deanhills
I probably don't have as many marketable skills as Ocalhoun, or maybe I'm not as aware of mine, but I don't have any debt either and live well within my means. I'm almost certain all of us live in a template mold and that I'd probably end my life exactly the same. I'll always have enough to live on provided of course something really life shattering does not come along, like a serious disease that requires medical expenses that I can't afford.
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
I often get the suspicion that a lot of homeless people in the west are that way by choice, and not only do they have ample opportunity to break that cycle with many charitable organisations and government welfare funds, they seem quite content to stay solo.

I'll touch your homeless bit, if Ankhanu won't.

Most homeless people are either physically disabled, mentally disabled, burdened with a bad criminal record, or badly addicted to drugs/alcohol... or a combination of several of those things. Which makes them ineligible for pretty much all jobs... and often unable to take advantage of those programs... especially since they often lose all forms of ID, which makes getting government assistance very difficult.
Quote:
Farmers for example. They are all millionaires these days, but it starts with one egg.

Verifiably false. Some farmers are not millionaires. I know some personally.
Also, a lot of the 'millionaire' ones may have over a million in assets when you count all their fields and equipment and everything... while still having incomes that are rather modest, because of the cost to operate and maintain all of that. (And also often crushing debt used to purchase all of that.)

There is such a thing as big agriculture; the mega-farms owned by big corporations... and they are wealthy... But they are only a very small percentage of farmers.
Quote:
Ironically, the outside civilisation pays them for a slice of civilisation. A fried breakfast, dairy products or a nice new woollen sweater.

How is that ironic?
That's how this economic system we call 'capitalism' works.
Quote:
Whenever I see photos of 'uncontacted tribes' (the ones all pointing and firing arrows at the plane taking photos) - those 'uncontacted' ones, I always get a small sense of envy. Not for their mediocre medicinal methods, their culinary conditions or their bamboo teepees. Not even for their independence and self sufficient lifestyle. It's usually just their physique. They look so strong, fit, healthy and vital like they could outrun a cheetah and wrestle a bear. Maybe they have? Still, I doubt they worry too much about a pension plan.

Of course they don't worry about a pension plan. Their children take care of them if they're lucky enough to get old... and they repay the favor with knowledge and wisdom to pass down.

They also don't worry about pension plans because their life expectancy is pretty low! ^.^
Quote:

"The best things in life are not things"

Ah, now we come to something I can agree with, and I even appreciate the zen-like way of expressing it as a paradox to be unraveled.

Yes, materialism is not a good way to live your life.


The metaphorical way in which the farmer reference was worded (which I've already attempted to outline) was one which included, "It starts with one egg". You can take that to mean the probable/possible intellectual property of any farmer if you would be so kind, or if you're feeling perhaps even more charitable, you could even take it as a metaphor for all of civilisation itself (man and animal kind) whether they are rich, poor, mentally disabled, drug addicts, indigenous tribes, civilised or uncivilised. If you'll forgive me, my new thing is finding irrefutable truths (truths of all men) so, regardless of irreducible complexity within signature DNA biological mechanisms, even the cliched Darwinian "Tree of Life" seems to agree with this basic principle (Cambrian explosion, notwithstanding). If you take that egg and produce a million chickens, you either have a civilisation or an Orwellian animal farm - this is why it is "ironic".

From the examples of homelessness victims that you propose, I would accept that some of those unfortunate people are unmanageable, or rather 'un-help-able'. I would concede that "my suspicion" (as I originally stated) was perhaps not as rigourous as required (with respects to my "all farmers are..." sweeping generalisation, lost in the translation of a figurative rhetoric). I do however, maintain that these people are not being overlooked and help is available to them. The Sacrament of Desire-type salvation lies in those incapable of seeing the light - it doesn't mean that the light is not there to be seen. This is the contention: Just because a person is mentally deficient or drug addled, doesn't mean society hasn't presented everything it could (within practical reason) to shelter their homelessness. It's similar to asking a man what he'd like to eat and him saying, "Umbrella!". Is it really your fault if he goes hungry? So perhaps not 100% by choice, but circumstance can't be personally vindicated. I'll avoid whether drug addiction is by choice or not, because I feel my comments would be digressing distantly off topic and vehicle nothing more than controversy.

Again, the "pension plan" of uncontacted tribes was not intended to be quite as literal as you have taken it. One might argue that wisdom of surviving without being placated by government provisions is a legacy which exceeds any less than 4% tax reduction or extended age of retirement. What we are talking about here, is the difference between working all of your life at the job of enriching the following generation's welfare, as opposed to working all of your life at the job of funding your working all of your life at that job. In basic circular logic, I would prefer to live for only half of the former life in lieu of the full, extended latter "life". But again, that's just me.

The finest aspect that I have taken from Zen (since you mention it) was from the (sound of) One Hand (clapping) kōan. I only realised recently that "One" was meant to be qualitative rather than quantitative. This was clearly meant as a capital Ohhhhh! This was a bolt of raw lightning for me. It may also be telling about what a "civilisation" actually is, as opposed to what one/One should be.

If you agree that materialism is not a good way to live your life, would you agree that being a materialist isn't either?
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:

From the examples of homelessness victims that you propose, I would accept that some of those unfortunate people are unmanageable, or rather 'un-help-able'. I would concede that "my suspicion" (as I originally stated) was perhaps not as rigourous as required

I guess I'll settle for that.
Quote:
(with respects to my "all farmers are..." sweeping generalisation, lost in the translation of a figurative rhetoric).

Just glad I could be here to keep the sweeping generalizations in check.
Quote:
It's similar to asking a man what he'd like to eat and him saying, "Umbrella!". Is it really your fault if he goes hungry?

If it is your duty to care for him, yes.
And it is society's duty to care for the helpless, and even the 'unhelpable'. So, yes, society can be faulted for failing to do so.
(Now, there are a variety of different ways a society could do so, just as there are a variety of different types of societies... but no matter the method, the responsibility is still there.)
Quote:

If you agree that materialism is not a good way to live your life, would you agree that being a materialist isn't either?

Lovely amphibole there, I suspect.
There are two meanings of 'materialism' and 'materialist'...
Luckily, I don't need to be precise about which one we're talking about; I'm not a fan of either concept.
johans
a lot of good information has been share and this depends in individual lives and experiences.
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:

Just glad I could be here to keep the sweeping generalizations in check.


Oh, no, good sir. I pointed out that faux pas of mine on your behalf. Humility, eh? Whatever shall it claim next?

Quote:
it is society's duty to care for the helpless, and even the 'unhelpable'. So, yes, society can be faulted for failing to do so.
(Now, there are a variety of different ways a society could do so, just as there are a variety of different types of societies... but no matter the method, the responsibility is still there.)


Excellent, Johans (OP). We have unwittingly arrived at a consensus here. I always find a consensus is best arrived at by two opposing parties. What we have concluded for you is that your faith in God, while in tact and admirable, isn't really mandatory in worrying about financial difficulties. Because society will help you, and even if you are obtusely uncooperative in receiving help, they will still be found accountable for failing you. With celestial guidance and pension plans like this, who needs a tribe?

I'm not sure what an amphibole is, but it sounds corrosive.

Quote:

There are two meanings of 'materialism' and 'materialist'...
Luckily, I don't need to be precise about which one we're talking about; I'm not a fan of either concept.


You're not a fan of evolution? Blasphemy! It's a scientific fact! The best things are things. Things is all there is. Memes can explain the god of all the other gaps. For the ones it can't, the drawn-in arrows can. No seriously though, you are correct, capitalism and naturalism are different topics, but yet, so, so similar in deductive evaluation. Maybe that's why they have the exact same name?
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:

What we have concluded for you is that your faith in God, while in tact and admirable, isn't really mandatory in worrying about financial difficulties.

Whose faith in God? Not mine surely!
In all seriousness, I don't believe in one.
(Though I do like to call myself a prophet of the IPU. (PBUH))
Quote:
Because society will help you, and even if you are obtusely uncooperative in receiving help, they will still be found accountable for failing you. With celestial guidance and pension plans like this, who needs a tribe?

Not celestially based, morally based.
Society is given that responsibility not by any deity or celestial power, but by its own existence.
And who needs a tribe? What do you think society is? -- A tribe! (loosely speaking, of course)
Quote:

I'm not sure what an amphibole is, but it sounds corrosive.

An informal fallacy using the confusion based in a word that could mean multiple things.
--You should be able to look it up by googling 'fallacy amphibole'; it's necessary to add in the 'fallacy' part, because there's also apparently a mineral sharing the same name.
Quote:

You're not a fan of evolution? Blasphemy! It's a scientific fact!

(Philosophic) materialism and evolution are two different things, though they are related.*
I do agree with the materialist about evolution (for the most part), but I do not agree with the materialist** when it comes to the existence of anything spiritual and/or supernatural.

*I think your definitions could use a little work.
(Philosophic) materialism: The idea (and belief) that nothing spiritual or supernatural exists at all... only 'material' things exist.
(Economic) materialism: An obsession with material possessions (to the detriment of all other pursuits), and socially, a tendency to judge people's worth by the things they possess (or lack of possessions).
Those should work a bit better, and if you look them up, I think you'll find them closer to the actual definitions.
(And with those definitions, I am, indeed, not a fan of either.)

**While most materialists are evolutionists; this isn't necessarily so. One could deny the process of evolution while still also denying the existence of anything spiritual and/or supernatural.
Quote:
The best things are things. Things is all there is. Memes can explain the god of all the other gaps. For the ones it can't, the drawn-in arrows can. No seriously though, you are correct, capitalism and naturalism are different topics, but yet, so, so similar in deductive evaluation. Maybe that's why they have the exact same name?

It could be argued that philosophic materialism leads to economic materialism... but I think that isn't really the case.
I place the blame of modern (economic) materialism upon the increasingly precise science and technology of making people want things (ie, marketing and marketing-oriented product design), as well as governments overtly friendly to such endeavors... That's what started it... being adopted and idolized by the culture is what has entrenched it.
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:
Whose faith in God? Not mine surely!


The "OP's (Original Poster's)", as I originally addressed.


Quote:
(Though I do like to call myself a prophet of the IPU. (PBUH))


I doubt you do. I imagine you heard some other pseudo-intellectual say it or saw on some website and thought it was neat. It's pretty far from neat. It's actually quite irritating. Please let that IPU/FSM/DIMG garbage fade into obscurity as perhaps one of the most embarrassing attempts at rational comparison since Russell's teapot.



It's played out. And not only that, it just makes atheists who pride themselves on their logical, epistemological, empirical evidence look like a bunch of bungling buffoons, fallaciously fudging their own data and claiming its the opposition's data. Needless to say, atheists believe in something which doesn't exist, that them, the a-theist, by very definition, wouldn't exist without (from both the theistic and atheistic perspective). Haha, how's that for 'a truth of all men'?

Quote:
Not celestially based, morally based.


Morality is a product of a Designer. It has to be. Inherent right and wrong cannot evolve from a lesser consciousness. The naturalistic requirement of survival incentive actually must do its utmost to move in the completely opposite direction of morality. The arms race has no time for martyrs - It makes them, but it does not suffer them. Your ability, for example, as a moral human being, to differentiate Joseph Mengele from Joseph Lister doesn't begin and end with "they were both doctors". It's called Moral Objectivity. And it does not come from animals who eat their young. Evolution is an entirely amoral process. This is why Dawkins keeps hopelessly clinging that "memes" nonsense- Because without some sort of placeholder model as substitute, his righteous indignation of the "evils of Christianity" contradicts his reasons for holding that view. If you find yourself ever wondering what is true about theism, take a look at what scientists are just 'making up' to replace it (which still fails to explain it) for a much clearer reading.

Quote:
Society is given that responsibility not by any deity or celestial power, but by its own existence.


Do you have proof of that? I don't have proof for or against that, but "my opinion" is the exact opposite to "your opinion". So you telling me this is so, because you say so, isn't any different to a theist saying to you, God exists, because... I said so. So if you allow for extraordinary claims I doubt you're all that bothered about extraordinary evidence (whether this is entitled the "Faith" forum, or not). This suggests that all my points that you may or may not dispute are accurate, because I said so and also even allows for yours to all be true, too. Creating a sort of generic truth, whereby when we both leave the computer, we both have the luxury of telling ourselves that it was "me" that was "right" all along Smile Sound familiar? I realise that this will be the outcome anyway, which is why I often speak of the futility about argumentation on these matters (and why I abscond from the argumentative arena of the "philosophy" and "religion" forums for the more indicative "music" and "design tips" ones. I don't have a problem with the viewpoints expressed, just the shockingly absurd attempt at false advertising).

Quote:
And who needs a tribe? What do you think society is? -- A tribe! (loosely speaking, of course)


Society is a dichotomy of men and women. Men and women are a dichotomy of the human race. Humans (as I have argued) were given an intrinsic moral code. A moral code that could not evolve. A moral code which the brutish "kill or be killed" sentiment of the 'survival of the fittest' ideology could not perpetuate, extrapolate or even tolerate. Therefore, this would suggest to me that human beings are the product of the good that they morally aspire to and obey subserviently. That good can only be a God and that society of human kind can only aspire to higher, not lower. While a "tribe" may well be responsible for influential behaviour, such as 'don't steal, you'll get in trouble', or 'don't kill you'll be answerable' ("memes"), society cannot influence "guilt" no more than an "imaginary" magic man in the sky can influence the irrational love you have for a less than charitable woman or the irrational fear you have of painfully upsetting a fellow 'tribesman'. These notions are not survival tools. These things can and will do you in!

wikipedia wrote:
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject.


My instincts tell me that the author spelled "judgement" incorrectly, but my moral objectivity lets it slide because I feel what he is saying is true.

Cue Chesterton:

G.K. Chesterton wrote:

"Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of 'touching' a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it."


There is a relationship between the science of naturalism and the moral objectivity of human beings. I see it and have it. The latter knows (and feels) that the former is sorely lacking in research.

Quote:
An informal fallacy using the confusion based in a word that could mean multiple things.
--You should be able to look it up by googling 'fallacy amphibole'; it's necessary to add in the 'fallacy' part, because there's also apparently a mineral sharing the same name.


That's what I was riffing off. You did the same thing with the confusion of the meaning. The more popularly understood meaning refers to rocks (hence "corrosion"). I wasn't attempting to confuse Materialists with Materialism, but rather conflate Materialists with Materialism. It was an argument but I didn't find it at all fallacious.

Quote:
(Philosophic) materialism and evolution are two different things, though they are related.*
I do agree with the materialist about evolution (for the most part), but I do not agree with the materialist** when it comes to the existence of anything spiritual and/or supernatural.

*I think your definitions could use a little work.
(Philosophic) materialism: The idea (and belief) that nothing spiritual or supernatural exists at all... only 'material' things exist.
(Economic) materialism: An obsession with material possessions (to the detriment of all other pursuits), and socially, a tendency to judge people's worth by the things they possess (or lack of possessions).
Those should work a bit better, and if you look them up, I think you'll find them closer to the actual definitions.
(And with those definitions, I am, indeed, not a fan of either.)

**While most materialists are evolutionists; this isn't necessarily so. One could deny the process of evolution while still also denying the existence of anything spiritual and/or supernatural.


One could be a proponent of 'Intelligent Design' or 'Guided Evolution' and believe in both. One could be the Bishop of Canterbury. One could be many things. One could argue that God is not supernatural. One could argue, from a Einsteinic or pantheistic view that God is nature. One could hold to a Christian Creation story like Newton or Kepler and still do highly influential science. You are committing a fallacy here yourself (the fallacy of bifurcation), but I'm not really interested in nitpicking away at that. I'm more interested in the cherry-picked "value" of material existence (by materialists - I think I'll just flatly conflate them, what the hey). And especially, how the material is revered over the immaterial. Why they essentially mean the same thing, and why they have the same name. Material-(suffix)ism/ist. The way you can tell they oppose each other is if the prefix differs (a-theist, im-materialist etc).

Quote:
It could be argued that philosophic materialism leads to economic materialism... but I think that isn't really the case.


My view is that a lack of God causes other "gods" to fill that void. This theory can be applied seamlessly to both case-sensitive definitions. It also marries both in an unholy matrimony of devoted inseparability without the need for a church service or a collection plate.

Quote:

I place the blame of modern (economic) materialism upon the increasingly precise science and technology of making people want things (ie, marketing and marketing-oriented product design), as well as governments overtly friendly to such endeavors... That's what started it... being adopted and idolized by the culture is what has entrenched it.



I couldn't agree more. Well said.

In closing, as my points are diverging and digressing, it's safe to assume that with or without faith, the original poster shouldn't worry so much about the material must-haves of a materialist society that seem to be concerning him. If he's a theist, God has his back. If he's a naturalist, welfare has his back with its evolved survival skills. If he's a theistic naturalist, like the good Archbishop, or a psychic illusionist naturalist, like Derren Brown, I've got your back... With my boot.
loremar
Dialogist wrote:
I doubt you do. I imagine you heard some other pseudo-intellectual say it or saw on some website and thought it was neat. It's pretty far from neat. It's actually quite irritating. Please let that IPU/FSM/DIMG garbage fade into obscurity as perhaps one of the most embarrassing attempts at rational comparison since Russell's teapot.



It's played out. And not only that, it just makes atheists who pride themselves on their logical, epistemological, empirical evidence look like a bunch of bungling buffoons, fallaciously fudging their own data and claiming its the opposition's data.

"We have evidence that humans didn't launched a teapot in the outerspace."

Huh? how did you know that aliens didn't put a teapot in space? LOL.

"We have evidence that no person named Santa Claus lived in North Pole."

Science doesn't know a lot of things. And one if them is turning your house invincible. LOL

"We have evidence that human beings aren't kangaroos."

God actually created shape-shifting kangaroos. Nobody knows that there's about 1 million kangaroos disguised as humans. LOL.

William Craig actually missed the point that people can make excuse to the point that nobody can disprove them. And because nobody can disprove them, they have a perfect excuse to go nuts running in the streets with all their crazy claims.
Ankhanu
loremar wrote:
William Craig actually missed the point ...

In general, yeah Razz
For a "professional philosopher", the dude's quite a light-weight philosopher. Start from conclusion, build argument to support conclusion, ignore or belittle what doesn't conform.
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:


Quote:
(Though I do like to call myself a prophet of the IPU. (PBUH))


I doubt you do. I imagine you heard some other pseudo-intellectual say it or saw on some website and thought it was neat. It's pretty far from neat. It's actually quite irritating. Please let that IPU/FSM/DIMG garbage fade into obscurity as perhaps one of the most embarrassing attempts at rational comparison since Russell's teapot.

I think it's neat because,
1- I'm a fan of unicorns. I like having one for a deity.
2- IPUism has more religious holidays than any other religion.
3- Being a prophet, I can claim higher religious status than the priests at my university.
4- IPUism doesn't burden you with a lot of religious laws.

So, it's a good religion to claim for practical purposes.
Quote:

It's played out. And not only that, it just makes atheists who pride themselves on their logical, epistemological, empirical evidence look like a bunch of bungling buffoons, fallaciously fudging their own data and claiming its the opposition's data.

I make no claim of being a strictly logical atheist, and so, empirical atheists should not be judged by my actions.

In fact, when I do claim things, I sometimes claim to be a theist: A prophet of the IPU.
Quote:
Needless to say, atheists believe in something which doesn't exist, that them, the a-theist, by very definition, wouldn't exist without (from both the theistic and atheistic perspective).

Haven't we been through this before?
To find out what an atheist is, you only need to see what a theist is... and then add "not that".
Being an atheist doesn't require the existence of gods, it only requires the existence of theists.
Quote:

Morality is a product of a Designer. It has to be.

You're aware many disagree with this, right?

Personally, I say life, and the whole universe, is like a work of art -- and that everyone should work to improve it. -- And a full set of moral principles can be inferred from that: no designer needed.
Quote:

These notions are not survival tools. These things can and will do you in!

Um, actually they generally are (or at least were) survival tools. One needs only to look at social animals for examples.
Quote:

wikipedia wrote:
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject.


My instincts tell me that the author spelled "judgement" incorrectly, but my moral objectivity lets it slide because I feel what he is saying is true.

I'm not sure what your point is there... but you're clearly using subjectivity, the opposite of objectivity.
Quote:

Cue Chesterton:

G.K. Chesterton wrote:

"Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of 'touching' a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it."


Terrible quote.
1- Reason is often a great alternative to brute force; not the same thing as brute force.
2- Actually, no. Those who appeal to the head rather than the heart are often NOT men of violence.
3- There are plenty of things you can do to a man's head other than hitting it.
Reason =/= violence.
Quote:

Quote:
An informal fallacy using the confusion based in a word that could mean multiple things.
--You should be able to look it up by googling 'fallacy amphibole'; it's necessary to add in the 'fallacy' part, because there's also apparently a mineral sharing the same name.

You did the same thing with the confusion of the meaning.

Actually, I was attempting to prevent confusion, which is the opposite of trying to cause confusion.
Quote:

The more popularly understood meaning refers to rocks (hence "corrosion").

Hence me carefully specifying which I was talking about.
Quote:

The way you can tell they oppose each other is if the prefix differs (a-theist, im-materialist etc).

These linguistic rules do not always hold true.
busaboss
As a student, I will be working harder to enhance my skills while studying and engage myself in opportunities where I can earn some money while studying. The fear in having no money is constant among people. We are afraid of being poor and my way of handling this is by being positive and industrious in every single way I can. Don't lose faith and believe in yourself by that we will all succeed.
deanhills
busaboss wrote:
As a student, I will be working harder to enhance my skills while studying and engage myself in opportunities where I can earn some money while studying. The fear in having no money is constant among people. We are afraid of being poor and my way of handling this is by being positive and industrious in every single way I can. Don't lose faith and believe in yourself by that we will all succeed.
Sounds like a very typical ethic of most of the people of the Philippines I've met. Enormously positive and hard working. Smile
alimddine
Pray and do your best by helping people and by being good.
Dialogist
loremar wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
I doubt you do. I imagine you heard some other pseudo-intellectual say it or saw on some website and thought it was neat. It's pretty far from neat. It's actually quite irritating. Please let that IPU/FSM/DIMG garbage fade into obscurity as perhaps one of the most embarrassing attempts at rational comparison since Russell's teapot.



It's played out. And not only that, it just makes atheists who pride themselves on their logical, epistemological, empirical evidence look like a bunch of bungling buffoons, fallaciously fudging their own data and claiming its the opposition's data.

"We have evidence that humans didn't launched a teapot in the outerspace."

Huh? how did you know that aliens didn't put a teapot in space? LOL.

"We have evidence that no person named Santa Claus lived in North Pole."

Science doesn't know a lot of things. And one if them is turning your house invincible. LOL

"We have evidence that human beings aren't kangaroos."

God actually created shape-shifting kangaroos. Nobody knows that there's about 1 million kangaroos disguised as humans. LOL.

William Craig actually missed the point that people can make excuse to the point that nobody can disprove them. And because nobody can disprove them, they have a perfect excuse to go nuts running in the streets with all their crazy claims.


I think illustrates the futility of the whole entire argument perfectly.

It does exactly what it says on the tin.



It's basic modus tollens.
Dialogist
ocalhoun wrote:

To find out what an atheist is, you only need to see what a theist is... and then add "not that".


Exactly.

Quote:

Being an atheist doesn't require the existence of gods, it only requires the existence of theists.


Being a racist doesn't require the existence of melanin, it only requires the existence of black people. Ancestor -> descendant (fig. 1)

Quote:

I'm not sure what your point is there... but you're clearly using subjectivity, the opposite of objectivity.


Fig 2: I think therefore I am. (Also, See fig 1).

Hold true to your evolutionary temporality and designate some causality, if not for my sake, just for the clarity of your own arguments. Or just space-time itself so we don't hurtle backwards in time to explaining that objectivity and moral-objectivity are not best buds and the latter is NOT a survival tool. In the wild, it's a suicide tool. The line of best fit charting the majority of your arguments seems to suggest (to me) that you believe (not know) that reality seems to suggest (to you) that naturalism is all that there is/all that you may concern yourself (seriously, in a non IPU, ironical way). Again, these are axioms. (Also, See Fig 2).

Whatever Chesterton poetically paradoxed is not really critical to his writing style or my argument. It is relevant though, to wit, he's not talking about literally striking a man's head nor literally being a physically violent man. He's talking about brutish asininity and it's depth-less inability to appeal to anything other than "men of violence", with "violence".

Quote:

You're aware many disagree with this, right?


Many agree with the mass slaughter of innocent lives. Many filled in Jedi for their religion on the census. Most/Many Ad populum arguments are the fabric of Dawkins-esque rebuttals to courtier's replies which, while still fallacious, simply just request, "read up a bit on that, then postulate." Helpfully fallacious, no?
loremar
Dialogist wrote:
It's basic modus tollens.

Which are you referring to? There is nothing modus tollens about what I said. Can you please demonstrate?

Well, Craig's ultimate conclusion is that:
"If you can't disprove it then you can accept it as true."

It's his very conclusion which actually tears apart his argument.
If you can put his arguments in a form of modus tollens, it would be like this:
A. If there is a chinese teapot in space, then humans put the teapot in space.
B. Humans did not put a chinese teapot in space.
C. Therefore there is no chinese teapot in space.

But I can easily tear this apart using Craig's ultimate conclusion:
1. Aliens XYZ exist. You can't disprove that
2. Aliens XYZ are invicible. You can't disprove that
3. Aliens XYZ stole a chinese teapot from earth and placed in space. You can't disprove that
OR
3. Aliens XYZ made a chinese teapot-looking arbiter and placed it on space to observe planet earth'sactivities. You can't disprove that

Therefore(BY Craig's conclusion) since anything that cannot be disproven can be accepted as true, then I can say that premise A in Craig's modus tollens is false since it won't necessarily follow that the teapot was placed by humans and therefore the entire modus tollens is false.

Actually, the idea of accepting any assertion without evidence as true looks exactly like the picture you gave.

In other words, you just hit the nail right on the head.

For any assertion, it's just that it's reasonable to assume it as false if you don't have any proof. Why? because there is more chances that you could be wrong when you don't have proof. There is almost infinite number of things you can claim. If you treat each of it as true then you might have just committed an almost infinite number of errors. It's better to ignore the crazy monkey if you don't want to get bitten. In other words it's safe to be skeptical because most of the claims are more likely to be false than true, or also in other words you have more chance of being right when you just say false. Yes, you could say that there's probably more things in the universe that we don't know and by saying false we could be wrong. But I'd bet my ass that you can imagine far more more things than things you don't know.*

So in any argument, and you have left neither false or true because you can neither prove it or disprove it. Then better stick with false. You will find more luck in it. Wink



*You can rearrange all the things in the universe almost infinitely. In reality, some of these permutations do not occur. Therefore: Imagination > Reality.
Dialogist
loremar wrote:

Which are you referring to? There is nothing modus tollens about what I said.


I know there isn't. I'm referring to his argument to a range of atheistic comparisons, such as Santa Claus, teapots, faires, pixies and kangaroo anthropomorphisms:

A corporeal material earth-made teapot orbiting Mars requires at least one official report of teapot launched into space.
There is no official report of corporeal material earth-made teapot launched into space.
Therefore we are quite justified in believing that there is no corporeal material earth-made teapot orbiting Mars.

Quote:

Well, Craig's ultimate conclusion is that:
"If you can't disprove it then you can accept it as true."


It is simply that if you can't disprove it; you can't disprove it. He quite rightfully jests at the attempts to do so with verifiably tangible and otherwise absurd analogies.

Quote:

But I can easily tear this apart using Craig's ultimate conclusion:
1. Aliens XYZ exist. You can't disprove that
2. Aliens XYZ are invicible. You can't disprove that
3. Aliens XYZ stole a chinese teapot from earth and placed in space. You can't disprove that
OR
3. Aliens XYZ made a chinese teapot-looking arbiter and placed it on space to observe planet earth'sactivities. You can't disprove that


If aliens exist then there is a possibly that intergalactic porcelain looting aliens could be responsible for teapots in orbit.
We have no official reports of intergalactic porcelain looting aliens existing
Therefore we have good reason to believe that intergalactic porcelain looting aliens are not responsible for teapots in orbit.

Modus tollens, as you know, means "the way that denies by denying". This is why I posted the image of ouroboros. And around and around the merry-go-round we go.

The reason I used the word "corporeal" in both arguments is that this is essentially where the "teapot" apologue fails miserably. A material object is not a concept. It is a solid, corporeal, dependant, law of physics abiding object, void of choice, whim, inertia or energy. Substituting a material object for a concept such as "God" in any argument, will fail.

Lest we try an invisible pink unicorn, and should I leave the arena of playing ouroboros tail-chase with my opponents (charitably - as there's absolutely no rational reason why I should grant them that push-out, as we are both doing absolutely the same thing), then I would also like to draw upon a few other reasons why these goblins, fairies, IPUs, leprechauns and Santa comparisons fail.

They fail because we do have evidence of the profound and unshrinking effect the "concept" of "God" has had on mankind. From cavemen to martyrs. Right throughout all the world's major religions and history, we have the literature. We have the religions and we have some of the most bloody and atrocious cataclysmic events both caused and fixed via a religious motive - Right or wrong, malignant or ingrained deep within the human consciousness, man has always looked up. They have either been drawn to him (like me) or drawn away from him (like you) but neither can deny the critical relevance of the pivot, which is God. Now... my argument is simply this:

Nobody has ever died for the Tooth Fairy.

Evidence of a God? Not photographically, no. Evidence that a "teapot" is ludicrously absurd analogy?.. Indefinitely.

James Randi once said, "You can't prove a negative". He has yet to prove this negative to me. You see, "James Randi is not the imagination of himself" is a negative, which I have proved in typing it. So therefore you can prove a negative. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is the scientific community's view, according to Carl Sagan, but then again, he also quite rightly and somewhat adversely stated, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Shall I post the ouroboros picture again or would you like to?

This snake eternally eats it's own tail, I'm afraid. While, "You can't disprove it" is weightless, "Pics or it didn't happen" is too. You, me or anyone, is entitled to believe whatever they like but you see, believing in something that you don't have any solid evidence for, like:

A) God exists.
B) Evolution is happening.

Both require a faith position.

I'll even flip that...

A) God does not exist.
B) Evolution is not happening.

Faith position.

I think I'll just post the pic...

I am done chasing tail, but this is just crying out to be addressed:

Quote:

But I'd bet my ass that you can imagine far more more things than things you don't know.


Please forgive my sounding like an existentialist surrealist zen-buddhist or something here, my intentions are not give you anything other than that which you already value, as rational, logic prioritising person. Ready?...

You only know what you know you know.

When you know that, as I'm sure you do, you'll also have to concede that "All facts are fallible". <--- including that one.

Ouroboros.

The earth used to be flat, right? No, it never was. We thought it was. We thought it was a fact? No, it was just "a model". Like the Big Bang, right? The best we currently have. Like Darwinism? I'm not attacking those beliefs, I'm attacking the presumption of undisputed theories as "facts". Here's one away from the theistic passions of science and scientific passion of theism so I can hopefully feign some kind of neutrality in this:

"640K of memory should be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates in 1981.

While he never printed that quote in a religious text or a science book, he still rode a couple hundred million dollars on it's inerrancy. As a business man and pioneer, he took that as seriously as any fact. Just ten years later, Moore's Law did its thing and his expert beliefs became absolutely laughable! 10/20 years after that, just embarrassing. Like, you know, "the world is flat", embarrassing. Resting your laurels on undisproved theories is what the faithful do.

...Ok, I'll post the pic:

loremar
Dialogist wrote:
A corporeal material earth-made teapot orbiting Mars requires at least one official report of teapot launched into space.
There is no official report of corporeal material earth-made teapot launched into space.
Therefore we are quite justified in believing that there is no corporeal material earth-made teapot orbiting Mars.

I think I have already demonstrated how this modus tollens is a fail if we accept Craig's conclusions.

But also observe how this modus tollens has the same reasoning with why Atheists don't believe in God. That the assertion that God exists requires at least an evidence to prove that this assertion is true. And you even laugh at why Atheists think that they are being reasonable? Rolling Eyes

But then your next statements just explains why:
Quote:
The reason I used the word "corporeal" in both arguments is that this is essentially where the "teapot" apologue fails miserably. A material object is not a concept. It is a solid, corporeal, dependant, law of physics abiding object, void of choice, whim, inertia or energy. Substituting a material object for a concept such as "God" in any argument, will fail.

And for what reason can a concept may not be reduced into its material objects if indeed God is a concept?
Concepts can only hold ontological status because of the material objects that constitutes them. For example, Love. Love is a concept and it can be reduced into its biological origins such as hormones, brain chemistry, etc. Love itself does not exist independently as if you can extend its existence beyond the material objects in which it emerges from. Beyond that is nothing but plain words and holds no real existence.

God on the other hand can not be reduced into the physical world. God interacts with people as if it can hear prayers. God has a free will. God has emotions. God is intelligent.
Now if God truly exists, then his mind can be reduced into some form of physical object - which is something that obviously we have no evidence for. And it's only reasonable to not believe it.

Quote:
They fail because we do have evidence of the profound and unshrinking effect the "concept" of "God" has had on mankind. From cavemen to martyrs. Right throughout all the world's major religions and history, we have the literature. We have the religions and we have some of the most bloody and atrocious cataclysmic events both caused and fixed via a religious motive - Right or wrong, malignant or ingrained deep within the human consciousness, man has always looked up. They have either been drawn to him (like me) or drawn away from him (like you) but neither can deny the critical relevance of the pivot, which is God.

Well, we do have evidence of all the horrors as a result for the BELIEF in "God". But do we have evidence for "God" itself? Absolutely NO.

Quote:
James Randi once said, "You can't prove a negative". He has yet to prove this negative to me. You see, "James Randi is not the imagination of himself" is a negative, which I have proved in typing it. So therefore you can prove a negative. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is the scientific community's view, according to Carl Sagan, but then again, he also quite rightly and somewhat adversely stated, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Absence of evidence means there's more likely of an absence especially if we're talking about extraordinary claims. Well, if we're talking about one suspect then the claim may be ordinary; it's either he did it or he didn't. But science has shown us that there may be several suspects and God is just the most extraordinary of all suspects. Imagine pointing a random person in a crowd and claim that he did the crime, that's how extraordinary it is.

Quote:
B) Evolution is happening.

Both require a faith position.

Although I might say that I have faith(trust) with scientists' conclusions about Evolution. I can infer from my observations that scientists are proven to be reliable when it comes to facts, most of the time. Hence, I can say that it's not a faith(belief not based on proof) position.

Quote:
A) God does not exist.
B) Evolution is not happening.

Faith position.

Claiming to know that God does not exist is a faith position. Not believing that God exist is not; the lack of evidence is proof that it's reasonable not to believe.

Quote:
When you know that, as I'm sure you do, you'll also have to concede that "All facts are fallible". <--- including that one.

The fact that the Earth is round or that we can circumnavigate it. Is it fallible? LOL

Quote:
The earth used to be flat, right? No, it never was.

Well, if facts are fallible, how do you know that Earth is not flat? This is just to show how stupid your logic is.
Quote:

While he never printed that quote in a religious text or a science book, he still rode a couple hundred million dollars on it's inerrancy. As a business man and pioneer, he took that as seriously as any fact. Just ten years later, Moore's Law did its thing and his expert beliefs became absolutely laughable! 10/20 years after that, just embarrassing. Like, you know, "the world is flat", embarrassing. Resting your laurels on undisproved theories is what the faithful do.

Well, the "world is flat" belief is embarassing today is just as embarassing as the "world is round" belief is embarassing before. For the former, we have evidence for the contrary; For the latter, we have no evidence. The latter may also be extraordinary because we can think of many other possibilities as to what the world really looks like as a whole. It could have been infinitely flat, as far as we care.

You know what? The Ouroboros seems like a nice addition for the IPU, FSM, fairies, pixies, and all that stuffs. Smile
Dialogist
loremar wrote:

I think I have already demonstrated how this modus tollens is a fail if we accept Craig's conclusions.


Really? You have? Where? All I saw you do was use the exact same method he did, to refute both his premises and his conclusion (you actually used his conclusion to refute his premises which was remarkable) and then claimed that in/by doing so, you have showed it to be false. How does that work? Not even satisfied trying to clease his wall by throwing poop at it (metaphorically), you actually then went on to do some bizarrely irregular things. "You can't disprove that" appeared as an inference in both of your Xs and Y's and even/therefore your conclusion! This is not even modus tollens. It affirming the consequent. It is #2 on the list fallacious faux pas, right after #1 of course, that wretched Straw man:

loremar wrote:

Well, Craig's ultimate conclusion is that:
"If you can't disprove it then you can accept it as true."


Without getting into anal retentiveness of fallacies, intentional, unintentional or otherwise, let's just say that in using the same logic against that logic (regardless if it is done incorrectly) in an attempt to disprove it only shows that your logic is as flawed as it is. Because if P implies Q, and Q is not true, then P cannot be true - modus tollens.

Quote:

But also observe how this modus tollens has the same reasoning with why Atheists don't believe in God. That the assertion that God exists requires at least an evidence to prove that this assertion is true. And you even laugh at why Atheists think that they are being reasonable?


Atheists don't believe in God because an assertion has been made that has no evidence? Whose assertion? The belief holder's or the belief holder's? Atheists do believe that they don't believe in God. A-theist is a anti-thiest. A perversion of "thiest", by its own definition. If any assertion has been made, let's not look down the wrong end of the telescope. Let's look at the etymology in a vein hope to salvage some kind of chronological burden of proof.

etymonline.com wrote:

1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).


Now we've defined the antecedent (A thing or event that existed before or logically precedes another), let's fully appreciate, quite rationally and logically what an "atheist" is. It is an opposition to theism. One could attempt the fallacy of denying the antecedent (I've heard some such arguments about "man probably wasn't born a theist" before) but they fail. To hold a belief that goblins do not exist, guess what need? Yes, either goblins or people who believe in goblins. You can't declare yourself an "a-gujistic" You know why? Because there's no such thing as a gujistic! Chesteron put his hands on it: "If there was no God, they'd be no atheists" Where's your burden of proof now?

loremar wrote:

Love is a concept and it can be reduced into its biological origins such as hormones, brain chemistry, etc.


LOL. I love this. What about math? Can math be reduced into it's biological organs? Can math even be proved true? More importantly: Can math even use it's own truths to prove itself true? You can count the amount of times I've typed "math" in this paragraph and what do you have to show for it? Where is the evidence that I have typed "Math" six times? Do you have the number 6 at hand? Can you post a photograph of it for me, or send it to me so I can verify if it's true?

Maybe a modus tollens argument displaying why it isn't true would make it true?

My logic is "stupid", agreed. All logic is. But yours is truly comical. The deductible in-complexities of "Love", indeed. Hopefully you have enough faith in axioms to turn that telescope around and apologise for your short-sightedness, as an atheistic apologetic immediately. It never ceases to amaze me how this appeal to authority of so-called "rationalists" appears to find it's naturalism any authority on anything, other than being "without". But please don't take my words as volatile, Loremar, I do appreciate the discussion, and for once, it's lovely to have some people of true unwavering faith here in the faith forum.
busaboss
deanhills wrote:
busaboss wrote:
As a student, I will be working harder to enhance my skills while studying and engage myself in opportunities where I can earn some money while studying. The fear in having no money is constant among people. We are afraid of being poor and my way of handling this is by being positive and industrious in every single way I can. Don't lose faith and believe in yourself by that we will all succeed.
Sounds like a very typical ethic of most of the people of the Philippines I've met. Enormously positive and hard working. Smile


Hi sir deanhills, it's really good to hear that from you. All Filipinos strive hard in every way we can in a particular field we are currently in. We always believe in our self and combine it with hard work so that we will not be moved by the challenges. Conquering your fear is quite easy if and only if you want to overcome it. Very Happy
loremar
Dialogist wrote:
Really? You have? Where?

I was simply showing you that you can't make the premise that "There is no teapot in space because humans didn't put it there" IF we have to believe in anything that has no evidence or you can't disprove. Simply because I can think of several possibilities why there is teapot in space even without any evidence or evidence of the contrary. Such as I can say that there are aliens who are capable of creating teapot and they are the ones who put the teapot in space. Really! How's that difficult to understand.
Quote:
It affirming the consequent. It is #2 on the list fallacious faux pas, right after #1 of course, that wretched Straw man:
Quote:
Well, Craig's ultimate conclusion is that:
"If you can't disprove it then you can accept it as true."

That is not strawman. Let me demonstrate:
A. Craig said "You don't believe ONLY because there is contrary evidence."
B. We don't have contrary evidence.
Therefore we believe.
Sounds familiar? Yes it's called modus tollens.
But there is also a reason why I disagree with premise A. Why? Because I can think of another reason why I "don't believe". When a person does not believe, it's not necessarily because there is contrary evidence, it is also because there is no evidence. Let me demonstrate:
A. I believe only because there is evidence.
B. There is no evidence.
Therefore I don't believe.
See? I just made a modus tollens. But my modus tollens is a lot more valid than Craig's. Why? Can you think of another reason why I believe? Can you say I believe because there is no contrary evidence? No, because that is just f***ng STUPID. That is also the reason why Craig's premise that people "only don't believe only because there is contrary evidence" is also completely f***ng STUPID. Because by saying so would mean that you'd believe if there is no contrary evidence. It' just stupid.

Quote:
Atheists don't believe in God because an assertion has been made that has no evidence?

Correct.
Quote:
Whose assertion?

Whoever came up with the f****ng idea that there is a God!
Quote:
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).

I agree with the etymology. Atheist means "Without God" from a- "without" + theos "a god".
Quote:
"If there was no God, they'd be no atheists"

Wrong. You just gave the definition of atheist. If there is no God, meaning "without God", there will be atheists. In fact by default, everyone is atheist. A person becomes a theist because somebody shoved the idea that "there is a God" into that person. And whoever came up with that idea, he was an atheist before he came up with the idea. See? So who came first? the Atheist or the Theist? Everyone's born an atheist meaning "without God" until that idea was asserted into their face by a theist.
Quote:
LOL. I love this. What about math? Can math be reduced into it's biological organs? Can math even be proved true? More importantly: Can math even use it's own truths to prove itself true? You can count the amount of times I've typed "math" in this paragraph and what do you have to show for it? Where is the evidence that I have typed "Math" six times? Do you have the number 6 at hand? Can you post a photograph of it for me, or send it to me so I can verify if it's true?

Number 6 can hold ontological status if I hold six objects in my hand. So yes, a number can be reduced into physical objects. Otherwise, it's just a number without any bearing to reality. So if I say 6. 6 what? I can think of the number six in my head. But would it hold any reality if six does not represent a real object in the real world?

For example there are exactly 464 casualties in Typhoon Ondoy on October 24, 2009 here in Philiipines. 464 casualties hold real meaning in reality because it represent real people in the real word. But what if I estimate instead and say there's about 500 casualties? Does 500 hold any meaning in reality? It's just a number.

So what abut God? Can you find anything that exists in the Universe that represents the word "God"? No, and it would not hold any existence or ontological status in reality without existing as a physical object/entity. God has a mind. So where/what in the Universe is God's mind? Where? What?
NOWHERE! NONE!
ocalhoun
I won't directly moderate it because I was participating in it...

But I think this thread may be getting into (yet another) off-topic debate about the existence or non-existence of god.
...Which the faith forum was intended to prevent.
Bikerman
<Steps in as guest-mod, merely to warn/inform that if ocalhoun feels unable to moderate a thread he is active in, I will, if required, step in and take the indicated action, despite my normal policy of not contributing to threads here.>
In this case I think Ocalhoun has a point and would ask posters to bring this back on track or risk it being locked.
Dialogist
Understood and agreed. I wasn't attempting to evangelise or be wrongheaded in my back and fourth with loremar. I was merely to trying enrich the understanding of logic and rationality, not in a deductive or reductionist capacity, quite the opposite. In short, you can't battle flawed logic with flawed logic. You can't even really refer to logic without accepting the flawed logic which makes it palatable. It's fine for the rationalist to accept the best method of concluding - as long as he accepts the axioms (themselves, if we could prove true, would be called theorems) which 'allow' him (not render him insuperable) to attempt to use it to deny anything (this is all I'm saying, all I've ever been saying).

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem wrote:

For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent.


This is insuperable, and yet... it uses modus tollens. Which itself, is not (reliant on axioms). How so? Well cold reading, telepathy, remote viewing and telekisis are pseudoscience. Granted. You know why? Confirmation Bias. That's one man saying, well I can do it, it's not my fault if I can't prove it. ie: "Thinking" this is also a pseudoscience. Thinking anything is a pseudoscience. Existing is. I could put this to test with a hypothesis but that would fail too. Just like this one:

60 men can work 60 times as fast as one man.
1 man can dig a hole in 60 seconds.
Therefore 60 men can dig a hole in 1 second.

Bye, bye modus tollens, you've been a dear old friend.

I'm done though, just trying to give more to the wrong-headedness rather take anything away from it (besides it's apparent lawful above-the-law lawlessness), it is not infallible. It is entirely fallible. It is a beautiful thing when done correctly and it should embrace the fundamentals as being the unprovable unqualifiables that they have always been (that's all). Science, math and logic have no arguments with I'm saying. They all in fact, rely heavily on it - which is really what this "off-topic" thread (on my part) has been stressing from the get-go - Everything requires Faith! Thank you for leaving the thread open for me to get my last twopenneth in. I am appreciative of that. Peace, loremar.
loremar
Why can't people just use plain English?? Verbosity doesn't help you make a point. It makes you sound smart but it doesn't really make you smart.

lawful above-the-law lawlessness. What's that even mean???

Anyways, I thought it's fair I should have last few words before our posts get removed.
Dialogist
loremar wrote:
lawful above-the-law lawlessness. What's that even mean???


I thought it was self-explanatory. lawful (it's accepted and beyond reproach), above-the-law (it acts on an authority beyond what is acceptable) and lawlessness (it does as it pleases). I did try to use other words but they ended up even more verbose. I was referring to stalwart orthodoxy of the scientific community, by the way, not the moderating.

I was actually enjoying the discussion, loremar. And 'last words' was never my desire. I feel somewhat like a reversed Mr. Hitchens though, God rest his polemist soul, as I'm essentially playing to a home crowd (not mine), and while my views maybe taken as inflammatory to certain people, even staying on topic, adhering to respectability and gentlemanly conduct and citing and sourcing all of my references, I'm still in 'bible-belt university' or "a lion amongst the lambs" as Mr Hitchens once put it, whether faith forum or not (and whether the epigram is reversed or not). This stigma matas not but it follows me around like a cartoon rain cloud. If you would like to debate with me within a neutral setting, I would happily accept and relish such a challenge. Not because I'm a sophist, but because I believe in what I am saying and have presentable solutions to replace the object of my criticisms with. I cannot think where such an arena could exist on this website though. And neither can you, that's why we're now arching last words through a closing elevator door. Which to be honest, is just pitiful.
Related topics
now they'll try to accuse Iran (more evidence)
IS it MID february Just asking
sms jokes
sms jokes
PHP vs RUBY
A debate of religion, science, and more
Is Jesus Perfect?
Fire, brimstone, and a perfectly cut lawn.
Poem : Emma
Tomorrow Never Comes!!!!!
Risk (a poem)
Why do you practice the religion you follow?
Paying 100-150 FRIH$ for a SIMPLE LOGO!
Small Diabetes FAQ
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.