Scroll up or flip back to previous pages and read my "evidence". — 180 Proof

You have evidence for the nonexistence of god! I got to see this.

Another "blind guess" (i.e. assertion without corroborating evidence or sound argument), Frankie? :roll: — 180 Proof

If it is not a "blind guess", present your evidence and we will resolve the mater.

Right now I believe there is no unicorn on the table I'm sitting at. Also there is no pot of gold. Also there is no lobster.... — Cabbage Farmer

Again, we will try another approach. While you are technically correct, and can believe in everything you have listed there, this is not how the human brain works. If the human brain were forced to consider all of these things every time it looked at a table, or anything else for that mater, it would quickly overload and become nonfunctional. It would not be the proper tool we require to navigate the universe.

Can't someone believe in stars and planets, rivers and oceans, plants and animals... and all sorts of things, — Cabbage Farmer

Let me put it another way then. None of these things you have listed here require Belief. Their existence is fact. They are objectively real. They are practically demonstrable. Yes you can believe in these things, but in our current highly technological environment, I don't know why you would need to. I have personally confirmed the existence of every item you have on your list there, including personally operated telescopes to confirm planets and stars, as well as, personally being able to comprehend the physics involved with telescopes.

When discussing the question of "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods that exist"...the words, "I believe..." ...is nothing more than a disguise for, "I blindly guess... ."

The use of "I blindly guess..." seems to bother some people, so they use, "I believe..." instead. — Frank Apisa

I don't see how that is any different than what I said.

The position of the agnostic as written in the proposition is the only position an agnostic can't claim or assert. — god must be atheist

“Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.”

~ Thomas Huxley

So, what position were you talking about?

If I am agnostic, I claim no knowledge of god. But god would certainly have knowledge of god. So to claim that an agnostic thinks he or she is god while he claims no knowledge of god despite being god himself or herself is the stupidest conclusion anyone could draw. — god must be atheist

I am agnostic (a slightly modified version of Huxlian agnosticism). Who is the agnostic claiming to be god. I have never heard of this?

Ok, I can accept that. I think that’s the point that 180 Proof was making. That denying that any Gods exist is a meta-belief in the truth value of the claim. But that isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to me to be, what @Frank Apisa and others are insisting. — Pinprick

It is the same with theists. They believe that the claim "their is a god" is true.

Right now I believe there is no unicorn on the table I'm sitting at. Also there is no pot of gold. Also there is no lobster.... — Cabbage Farmer

Why in the would you bother your brain with all of these beliefs?

Can't someone believe in stars and planets, rivers and oceans, plants and animals... and all sorts of things, without believing in God and without "believing in nothing"? — Cabbage Farmer

Why would you need to believe in any of these things? Their existence is demonstrable.

↪SonOfAGun I agree. However, I would propose that “what is true to you” = belief. Again, how can you believe something that you don’t think is true? — Pinprick

Your wording is wrong. Believing that no god or gods exist is not "believing in something that you don't think is true." It is believing in the truth value of the claim that "there is/are no god/gods.

Reason is a descriptor of how we think about or approach a problem: deductively, inductively, abductively, backward inductive, critically, counter factually, by intuition, etc.

Logic is a mathematical based process of Identifying valid and invalid arguments within language. This can be done because language has a mathematical nature to it even though it deals with many abstract concepts, where as, math would be considered pure logic.

SonOfAGun
69
^^^Edit changed Latter to former I always mess up my latter and former^^^
— SonOfAGun

I cannot tell you how happy I am to see this edit (correction).

Some of the posts lately have got me wondering if some super brand of new pot is going around. When I read your post as originally written...I thought, maybe pot has nothing to do with it. Maybe I have gone bat-shit crazy.

But...here I have a reprieve...at least a temporary one. — Frank Apisa

^^^Edit changed Latter to former I always mess up my latter and former^^^

Notice, I’m not suggesting that it must be objectively true, only that you must think it is. — Pinprick

There is "what is true": uranium 235 has an atomic weight of 235.044 g/mol, and then there is "what is true to you": god does/doesn't exist. The only truth that actually maters, for ALL practical purposes, is the former: That which can be shared among all as "Truth". What you personally believe is relevant to only you and those you can convince to believe the same. Jumping off the empire state building with a set of aerodynamically unsound wings kills all people.

^^^ Edited. Done. Sorry.

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that truth is irrelevant to the criteria of belief? To me, saying that something “is” implies that it exists. If you mean something different than that, please explain. — Pinprick

Yes, truth is irrelevant to the criteria of belief. One can believe something that is objectively false if they are absent the requisite facts needed to "know", and sometimes people can even believe the opposite in spite of knowing the facts, or they can even lack the capacity to fully comprehend the facts.

Truth statement/claim: God IS not real
Truth statement/claim: God IS real

^^^They cannot both be true. Facts are required to settle the mater. Yet none that can settle the mater currently exist.

As opposed to a Claim of uncertainty for instance.

God may not be real
God may be real

Or a claim to knowledge

I don't know that god is real
I don't know that god is not real
I know that god is not real
I know that god is real

For both the knowledge claim and the truth claim, facts and reason are required to claim objective truth, because facts and reason rule the domain of objectivity.

If you stick to subjectivity anything is fine. The problem comes when you claim that you know what is true for other people as well.

4. X thinks god may/may not exist = agnostic (not theist and not atheist) — TheMadFool

Yah, that is not what an agnostic is. Literally: No gnosis/No "knowledge of spiritual mysteries". This includes both the claims to knowledge for or against the existence of any god or gods. In other words prove your claims or shut up, as defined by the person who coined the term Thomas Huxley.

My essential question of what the criteria is for beliefs remains unanswered as best I can tell. If a belief is “to think something is true,” then a belief cannot be “to think something is not true.” The definition of Atheism everyone seems to be pushing is a claim that something is not true (the EOG). Therefore, that claim cannot be a belief. — Pinprick

This is a misconception. It is not to think something is TRUE or NOT. It is only to make the claim that something IS. It is like the misconception around natural selection and artificial selection when arguing with Christians: the mechanism is "selection" artificial or natural is irrelevant.

That depends a lot on the exact situation. If anyone only wants to have between 1 and 3 children anyways, with about equal outliers to either side, the problem hardly comes up unless you need to drastically reduce population. On the other hand, a system where you buy procreation rights might cause more affluent families to have more children, "cornering the market" so to speak. What better way to ensure your family/caste/class stays in power than to control how the next generations are raised? Have your children literally inherit the earth. — Echarmion

Did you read my initial proposal?

That depends a lot on the exact situation. If anyone only wants to have between 1 and 3 children anyways, with about equal outliers to either side, the problem hardly comes up unless you need to drastically reduce population. On the other hand, a system where you buy procreation rights might cause more affluent families to have more children, "cornering the market" so to speak. What better way to ensure your family/caste/class stays in power than to control how the next generations are raised? Have your children literally inherit the earth. — Echarmion

These are all things that would need to be worked out by law scholars and philosophers of that time.

Your statement is not connected to the post you were replying to.

"Birth rates in India are going down"
"The population will probably reach X in year Y"

Those are separate. There is a topical connection, but no logical one. — Echarmion

Ok, that is fine I'll just stick with the statistics.

I think I know what you are trying to say... So you are saying the only course of action to prevent overpopulation is eventually to instill government control. You may be right there, but I guess I'm getting at if that is morally the "right" thing for government to be involved with.

See here's the thing, government population control measures just show you how much people are a commodity for society.. They are numbers to be culled and enculturated or not. This actually goes right into my ideas that society itself is an ideology. People are "pressed" into life/society and enculturated on various levels in order to maintain the current situation or to mitigate past situations. People should not be used as such. — schopenhauer1

It is what it is, and will be what it will be whether or not I am right.

And yet the statisticians are still calculating a possible 15 billion in 2100.

https://nationalpost.com/news/could-earths-population-hit-15-billion
— SonOfAGun

I feel compelled to point out that this is a complete non-sequitur — Echarmion

How exactly do statistics not follow.

With your model you are saying: Life is worth procreating and living as long as the world is not populated. — schopenhauer1

This is wrong. I am trying to be objective. My own desires are irrelevant .

↪SonOfAGun
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/birth-rate — schopenhauer1

And yet the statisticians are still calculating a possible 15 billion in 2100.

https://nationalpost.com/news/could-earths-population-hit-15-billion

It's actually proven..look at any statistic, that the more women are educated, the less likely they are to have a lot of children. Look at any birth rate of countries that have been more educated over time. India is a great example actually. — schopenhauer1

As I said, go ask how well education is working in those countries. This is a physical problem not theoretical.

Forcing people to stop forcing others, is totalitarian. For example, vegans very well may be in the right. We are harming animals for no reason..However, to force people to stop is too strong a measure. Being something seen on the fringe, it is going to be one person at a time, or maybe as a media campaign, but not as a mandated thing. Most of these personal biological decisions, even if I am strongly against them, should not be government mandated. — schopenhauer1

"Forcing people to stop forcing others, is totalitarian."

I am going to go ahead and assume you mean "forcing others to do what you want is totalitarian" because I don't understand the alternative. And I would not disagree with you. Only the things that I described are not a prescription from me. They are how I think the problem will actually be solved.

"For example, vegans very well may be in the right."

Yah, I highly doubt that that is the truth.

"Most of these personal biological decisions, even if I am strongly against them, should not be government mandated."

Whether or not they should is irrelevant to whether or not they will be.

There is where the ideological debate can lie. — schopenhauer1

Yah I don, see it happening man. you go ask the people in India, Africa, and china how well education solves the birthrate problem.

Okay, now you are getting a bit better. No, it is not about wording. We were explicitly talking about procreation, not sex. While I agree sex is pleasurable, physical affection feels nice, and certain cultural (and perhaps biological) triggers enable us to be attracted to certain people, we can nevertheless choose to prevent that from leading to birth. We can even prevent sex itself even if we like it too. However, I will agree, reckless abandonment to what feels good could lead to these consequences (accidental births), it is not like other animals who cannot deliberate. We can still decide that making a life that suffers is worse off than the joy of one's own particular moment. Because we are such flexible animals we can do that. The structures are already in place to allow it for Western/modern societies- birth control, etc. — schopenhauer1

As I said before "People will do what they are genetically programmed to do If left to their own devices." The statisticians seem to agree with me, as they are projecting that the world populations will reach 15 billion at around 2100 AD.

So again, How is your moral hand waving going to change this?

Also I am not getting bitter, I knew I was in the right all along. which is why I went and looked into things.

You're not going to find much because it's not true.. But thank you for helping me prove my point. It is a common misconception though if it is any consolation. That article really dissected that well too, how people perceive things that way. — schopenhauer1

Since I cannot find any other material, We'll Just have to analyze the material we do have.

"It is far more probable that the reproduction behavior is governed by more simple mechanisms. The most basic of these could be the sexual drive which is recognizable in all animals. In addition many animals are apt to display maternal behavior patterns when under influence of specific stimuli and/or hormones which are produced as a result of pregnancy and lactation. This behavior is not a permanent motivational characteristic of the animals concerned: It disappears when the production of hormones stops and can be reactivated by artificial administration of hormones. Some animals are outfitted with an
inhibition against attacking the young of their own species; some species of apes even help young
ones of other parents in case of danger.

These three mechanisms seem to function relatively independently of each other. They are governed by different factors. None of them seems to come forth from a conscious desire for offspring, but nevertheless they result in continuous procreation."

See I got into this mess because I relied one your wording. Human beings do have an innate sexual drive. Whether or not humans have an "innate need for children" is made entirely irrelevant by the fact that they have an innate sexual drive. One may literally choose not to have children yet still be carried over that threshold by their sexual drive. This is simply nothing more than word games. Yes human beings do not have an "innate need for CHILDREN" but they still have a sex drive that gets them their all the same.

So stupid.

Are you kidding? That whole article is saying that the idea that there is an innate instinct to procreate is actually wrong. Actually, thank you for providing this.. More evidence that procreation is not an instinct. Look at what the article actually says :lol: :

He says right here:

[quote=IS THERE AN INNATE NEED FOR CHILDREN?
Ruut Veenhoven
Published in: European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, vol 1 pp 495-501]
Why this theory is wrong
This theory seems plausible at first glance, but looking at it more closely we can see that it is
based on simplifications and that its predictions turn out to be faulty. We will examine the
propositions mentioned above successively.
3.1 Animals have no 'desire for offspring'
It is true that almost all animals produce offspring, but it is probably not true that this behavior is
determined by an innate desire for offspring. It is highly improbable that animals are motivated
by such conscious wishes for long-term effects. It is far more probable that the reproduction
behavior is governed by more simple mechanisms. The most basic of these could be the sexual
drive which is recognizable in all animals. In addition many animals are apt to display maternal
behavior patterns when under influence of specific stimuli and/or hormones which are produced
as a result of pregnancy and lactation. This behavior is not a permanent motivational
characteristic of the animals concerned: It disappears when the production of hormones stops and
can be reactivated by artificial administration of hormones. Some animals are outfitted with an
inhibition against attacking the young of their own species; some species of apes even help young
ones of other parents in case of danger.
These three mechanisms seem to function relatively independently of each other. They are
governed by different factors. None of them seems to come forth from a conscious desire for
offspring, but nevertheless they result in continuous procreation.
3.2 Neither have human beings an innate need for children
Contrary to animals, human beings are capable of pursuing conscious long-term goals. Many
human beings are conscious of a desire for children and work to have them, but this behavior is
not necessarily dictated by an innate need. Human behavior is seldom directly governed by
instincts. Again and again the ever-present influence of environmental circumstances and
learning has been demonstrated. It is improbable that they would not influence the procreation
behavior. In addition human instincts are seldom linked to such specific patterns of behavior. As
far as instinctual tendencies in human beings may be assumed they pertain to vague preferences
which are manifested in very different forms of behavior. Reasoning along this line we could
hypothesize that human beings have instinctual needs for security, love, esteem and
meaningfulness (Maslow, 1964). These needs might be realized in parenthood as well as in a
cloister life, in a political career as well as in an intimate interaction with friends, etc.
The specific form in which the individual chooses to realize his instinctual needs is
probably highly affected by his experience and by the alternatives the socio-cultural environment
offers him. It makes more sense to look at parenthood as one of these alternatives than to
postulate an innate and compelling desire for children.
The idea of an instinctual desire for children is not only a theoretical simplification but
also fails to meet empirical support. If there were such a built-in need the desire for children
should be universal, but this prediction is not confirmed by facts. Millions of people decide
spontaneously for voluntary childlessness. In Canada 5 % of all married couples opt for
childlessness (Veevers, 1973). In the Netherlands 15 % of the couples married in the last few
years intend to forego parenthood (NIDI, 1974). This is not a temporary modern whim, but a
Ruut Veenhoven 2 Is there an innate need for children?
phenomenon that has also been observed in earlier times, In medieval Western European society,
for example, a major part of the population remained childless.
These facts, however, offer no decisive evidence against the procreation-instinct theory. It
could be agreed that all these childless people pay a heavy price for their choice, that the
violation of such a compelling need makes people unhappy -- in any case less happy than people
who follow this need. Here we arrive at propositions 4, 5 and 6 mentioned earlier. To test these
propositions a secondary analysis was made of the data from an investigation concerning the
health and the life circumstances among a representative sample of the adult population of the
Netherlands, As we will see below these data give no support to the predictions of the
procreation-instinct theory. — schopenhauer1

[/quote]

Yah I just looked at the excerpt from google and posted it. I should have looked at the article. Not saying I agree though. looking for other information, something more current, but there isn't much on the subject so far. But I definitely don't agree that procreation is not instinctual.

However, the preference for wanting a child is not instinctual, it is still just a preference — schopenhauer1

"All species of animals have an innate urge to create offspring. If not they would have died out. 2. As a result, all normal adult human beings feel the inner need to bring forth children them-selves."

https://personal.eur.nl/veenhoven/Pub1970s/75c-full.pdf

However, the preference for wanting a child is not instinctual, it is still just a preference — schopenhauer1

The descendants lives are spared any suffering by not being born. The people who are living have to deal with it, not use people, and break the very cycle of suffering they themselves are dealing with by being born themselves. — schopenhauer1

That is not how it is going to play out man. People will do what they are genetically programmed to do If left to their own devices. And no amount of moral hand waving is going to change that. Come on man reality is just one step further. it is better over here.

Why should anyone have children? It is all Draconian- making decisions on others behalf. If you say because some hypothetical "majority" like it.. I will have words. — schopenhauer1

talk to me again when you and everyone you know are starving to death.

For one that assumes money is available as a metric in the scenario we're talking about. You seem to be assuming a capitalist system here, but in a situation of strictly limited resources that's hardly a given. — Echarmion

What I assume is that there will always be those who have more than others, regardless of whatever system is in place. I don't see the downfall of capitalism coming anytime soon, it is more efficient than any other currently known/demonstrated system.

But given that, such a system would mean that every generation, the poor people die out, leaving only the rich families. That means for those left over, there is only one way to go on the economic ladder - down. That means everyone rich who decides to procreate will be hell bent on ensuring the status quo remains unchanged. It's not hard to imagine all the ways in which this could go horribly wrong. — Echarmion

No this is not what that means, because it would not be only the "rich" that would be allowed birth rights. you would never be able to sell something like that to society as a whole, and if you were to emplement it over time it would eventually be revolted against. You do not need only the rich to have children, just the poor not to, there is plenty of middle ground there.

For one that assumes money is available as a metric in the scenario we're talking about. You seem to be assuming a capitalist system here, but in a situation of strictly limited resources that's hardly a given.

But given that, such a system would mean that every generation, the poor people die out, leaving only the rich families. That means for those left over, there is only one way to go on the economic ladder - down. That means everyone rich who decides to procreate will be hell bent on ensuring the status quo remains unchanged. It's not hard to imagine all the ways in which this could go horribly wrong. — Echarmion

What are the alternatives?

No. you are proposing , not predicting. And you are being disingenuous and irresponsible. You have been exposed. — unenlightened

And now you are a mind reader.

↪SonOfAGun So you're suggesting to swap one immoral policy for another, which is possibly even worse? I think I've already made clear that I'm not in favor of that. — Tzeentch

As I have already said, it has nothing to do with what "I" want to be done, only what is likely to be done and acceptable.

Why would there be revolt? Do you think people would find it an unacceptable curtailment of their freedom? — unenlightened

No I do not find it to be acceptable, but I am also not faced with mass food shortages and starvation. It is not about me, it is about what is possible, feasible, and achievable practically.

Why is it acceptable for women but not men? — unenlightened

It is not about what I think is acceptable. It is about what I think will be accepted.