Thread: Any Sceptics here annoyed...

Thanks Might take you up on that in future

Everyone else: Sorry for taking the thread off topic

Originally Posted by really

Good question; but that wasn't my point; to me I am not going to categorize everything to find a conclusion like that. Right or wrong isn't a matter, it's whether I am saying that everybody thinks the same or not. The issue becomes a problem with discrimination, racism, sexism, generalizing etc. If I did that, without knowing how, why or who conditions and experiences happen to; have not the slightest sympathy; create a very false view; as misjudgment.

But right and wrong is the issue.
If you are - say - 90% sure god exists,
- You are 90% sure the statement "God exists" is correct.
- You are 90% sure the statement "God does not exist" is incorrect.
- Therefore it would be reasonable to be 90% sure that anyone who says "God does not exist" is making an incorrect statement - ie. they are wrong.

It doesn't - of course - say why they are wrong, how they think, or anything else about their nature, save for the fact that they believe something that you are 90% sure is not right.

Originally Posted by really

Are you saying that having "no purpose" is equally unfounded as having "a purpose", in this context? This seems to be taken from a non-dualistic viewpoint.

I'm saying that the human mind can rationalize it's way out of anything even if that answer is staring them directly in the face. Haven't you ever heard a smoker attempt to use logic to rationalize smoking? It's circular nonsense. Why do you think I stay out of R/S? I don't need to prove anything to anyone, and one thing is for certain; You aren't getting anyone to quit smoking by spouting logic, let alone make someone see god if they don't already. Completely futile. And, why should one care either way? They are obviously in that mindset for good reason, if only in their own mind.

So for the individual who sees no intent in the universe will decide to see just that, and under that perception it seems so clear and real to them. It doesn't matter that under their perception the universe just somehow magically decides to will itself out of nothingness to create the trillions upon trillions of stars out of swirlling gases, and then turn around and magically create single-celled life on one of those trillions upon trillions of specks of space dust, which in time splits and forms more complex life which form complex DNA and other forms of complex evolution enough to bestow upon them the ability to realize the scope and vastness of it all... Nah...at that point, they decide to turn around and disown it entirely and say, "Nope, it's just a coincidence. It couldn't be possibly be intended. Highly Improbable."

And, for whatever reason, they choose not to see that blatant and obvious contradiction of using the very gift they gave themselves to deny their own nature, despite it staring them in the face every second of every day. They will logically sit there and use their time to argue against the genuineness and awe of the moment. Something so absurd to begin to imagine once you truly understand.

I've been in their shoes once upon a time so I can understand where they come from. Although, the logic used to get there couldn't be more skewed if they tried.

When all signs point to yes, saying no just isn't logical. Asking for falsifiability for the moment is absurd in itself, as well. Think about it...

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

But right and wrong is the issue.
If you are - say - 90% sure god exists,
- You are 90% sure the statement "God exists" is correct.
- You are 90% sure the statement "God does not exist" is incorrect.
- Therefore it would be reasonable to be 90% sure that anyone who says "God does not exist" is making an incorrect statement - ie. they are wrong.

It doesn't - of course - say why they are wrong, how they think, or anything else about their nature, save for the fact that they believe something that you are 90% sure is not right.

Sure; good point. But once again, this is not the way I think about this, there are different contexts, morals, "rights and wrongs" which I am fully unaware of in this case, and through that sense I cannot make any judgement. I can only express what I have learned and help people learn what I have; if it rises high beyond the norm, so be it. Subjective ideas are sometimes hard in some cases to relate to other persons.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I'm saying that the human mind can rationalize it's way out of anything even if that answer is staring them directly in the face. Haven't you ever heard a smoker attempt to use logic to rationalize smoking? It's circular nonsense. Why do you think I stay out of R/S? I don't need to prove anything to anyone, and one thing is for certain; You aren't getting anyone to quit smoking by spouting logic, let alone make someone see god if they don't already. Completely futile. And, why should one care either way? They are obviously in that mindset for good reason, if only in their own mind.

So for the individual who sees no intent in the universe will decide to see just that, and under that perception it seems so clear and real to them. It doesn't matter that under their perception the universe just somehow magically decides to will itself out of nothingness to create the trillions upon trillions of stars out of swirlling gases, and then turn around and magically create single-celled life on one of those trillions upon trillions of specks of space dust, which in time splits and forms more complex life which form complex DNA and other forms of complex evolution enough to bestow upon them the ability to realize the scope and vastness of it all... Nah...at that point, they decide to turn around and disown it entirely and say, "Nope, it's just a coincidence. It couldn't be possibly be intended. Highly Improbable."

And, for whatever reason, they choose not to see that blatant and obvious contradiction of using the very gift they gave themselves to deny their own nature, despite it staring them in the face every second of every day. They will logically sit there and use their time to argue against the genuineness and awe of the moment. Something so absurd to begin to imagine once you truly understand.

I've been in their shoes once upon a time so I can understand where they come from. Although, the logic used to get there couldn't be more skewed if they tried.

When all signs point to yes, saying no just isn't logical. Asking for falsifiability for the moment is absurd in itself, as well. Think about it...

Yes I agree; just seems like a different point of view now.

I don't quite get what you mean.
Morals don't have anything to do with this. (When I said right/wrong here what I really meant was true/false I suppose)

When making a judgement about how sure (90% ?) you are of something you would/should take into account your own ignorance.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Why do you think I stay out of R/S? I don't need to prove anything to anyone,

Please come to R/S. Please. It would be fun.

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

When making a judgement about how sure (90% ?) you are of something you would/should take into account your own ignorance.

If I'm not 100% sure, than 90% is as good as nothing; I'm not jumping to any conclusions that everybody else is wrong just that my experiences may be more fitting. And, if you read my post correctly, taking into account my own ignorance is exactly what I am doing; which makes it no longer ignorance.

I mean there are far too many things that come into play that I could miss whilst referring to another's life and judgment. If you understand mine exactly, good for you.

I don't really see any point arguing this any further.

I'm still not understanding you.
What you're saying is you can't know if other people's beliefs are right or wrong because they may have experienced something related that you haven't, right? I agree, but...
In the same way, you can't be sure if you're own beliefs are correct because there may be something related that you haven't experienced yet.

I'm saying that those two uncertainties are the same thing. That is, if you are genuinely 90% sure that you are correct, then that probability of 90% should take into account both what you have observed, and what it is possible you haven't observed. The latter includes anything anyone else may have observed, so your 90% certainty can be applied to other people.

I could go one about this for much too long so I'll just say this:
Being 90% sure of "A", yet 50% sure that someone else is right to believe "not-A" is illogical.
It results in you believing "A" is both 90% and 50% probable.

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

I'm still not understanding you.
What you're saying is you can't know if other people's beliefs are right or wrong because they may have experienced something related that you haven't, right? I agree, but...
In the same way, you can't be sure if you're own beliefs are correct because there may be something related that you haven't experienced yet.

I'm saying that those two uncertainties are the same thing. That is, if you are genuinely 90% sure that you are correct, then that probability of 90% should take into account both what you have observed, and what it is possible you haven't observed. The latter includes anything anyone else may have observed, so your 90% certainty can be applied to other people.

You're right, that's what I've said; that's why I am not jumping to any conclusions about others.

This is not a matter of math, by the way.