I don't agree with this right off the bat. — Terrapin Station

The only way I can make sense of that is you a difference between an agnostic and an atheist. Yes, this is true. However, the similarity, which my argument depends on, is that both don't assign the truth value ''true'' to the proposition: God exists.

What's the difference between someone who thinks fairies may exist (person A) and another who thinks fairies don't exist (person B)?

The difference is purely abstract and when someone asserts that fairies exist, both persons, A and B, will demand for evidence. I mean that agnosticism and atheism are more closely related than, agnosticism and theism. So, it becomes reasonable to state the default truth value of any proposition is false.

So, it turns out that you're writing this long, rambling thing simply to present Pascal's Wager yet again. <sigh> — Terrapin Station

I did say that my argument is like Pascal's wager. It involves analysis of the potential for gain or loss. However, my argument is analogical and reveals a paradox in human behavior - two similar situations being handled in contradictory ways.

So, you see a difference between God and a dog. I should've been clearer in my post. Got carried away by the thought. Anyway...

I don't want to get into a debate about God's nature. I only want to point out:

1. The similarity, so far as potential harm is an issue, between God and a dog.

2. The apparent disparity in the way God and a dog are treated (despite 1)

Your comment though is relevant as you don't see God and a dog to be sufficiently similar. However, the key similarity on which argument hangs is potential threat. Nothing else about a dog matters and it is considered a wise decision to assume as true the equivalence dog = danger.

Flip page to God. From the reasoning presented in the above paragraph, all that matters is the potential threat issuing from God's person viz. hell. If it's wise to isolate the threat that a dog represents, it should also be wise to fix your attention on the threat from God.

If you want to avoid being the conflicted: It is valuable to determine if your conflicter fits into (1) or (2), as it may change the approach you take to bring the perception to light. If you suspect (2) and not (1), then the conflicter has no motive to lie, and so you can be more forward about it. If you suspect (1), then the conflicter may lie, and so further investigation would be needed to get to the bottom of the conflict (while still assuming innocence until proven guilty ... not an easy thing to do). — Samuel Lacrampe

So, the solution differs between (1) and (2). That's sensible.

You have a point. The pendulum swings both ways.

However...

There's a major difference between, as you call it, super-rationlists and religious fanatics.

First, we must remind ourselves that humans have been killing each other since recorded history. This is a fact, undeniable and still true to this day.

Religion came along and it multiplied the ''reasons'' for killing: apostasy, adultery, witchcraft, heresy, not to mention inter-faith clashes.

A super-rationalist, who has quit religion, loses religious reasons to harm and kill. S/he may still kill but this isn't a flaw in the super-rationalist. S/he is just being human and picks other reasons to kill - anger, jealousy, psychopathy, power, etc. The same can't be said of the religious fanatic - s/he derives grounds, religious ones, to kill.

What is unclear is how scientism contributes to rationalization. — praxis

It's a positive feedback loop or a vicious cycle depending on what one's attitude is. Rationalization leads to science and science leads to rationalization.

The question is if it is possible to do science while not believing the truth of the results. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes, apparently, we can. You're the proof.

Anyway...

Science is the world's official purveyor of truth and with good reason. It explains well and predicts well.

Not choosing to believe in science runs the risk of losing touch with reality and that has consequences, consequences which are generally harmful.

So, your choice boils down to choosing between truths and falsehoods, between safety and danger.

Belief is a choice, correct. Truth is not a choice - either something is or is not.

It's dangerous to not believe truths.

So, choosing not to believe in science is dangerous.

I see.

So, looking down on someone is a lesser evil than malicious intent.

So, don't they deserve separate solutions? Your solution doesn't seem to make that distinction.

maybe God died when he stopped communicating with humans, and we've been left to fend for ourselves. — CasKev

Yes, that's a possibility and, more to my point, it doesn't definitely rule out the existence of God.

Touch wood, I'm not like that. — mcdoodle

:D

Isn't being completely non-superstitious better than being moderately superstitious (avoiding extremes). The latter is susceptible to a slippery slope...leading to fanaticism.

I think there's a big difference between what is unknown, and what is supernatural. — CasKev

But...

Don't you think such a view puts the cart before the horse? We don't, rather shouldn't, dictate what can or cannot happen. To the contrary, we observe our reality and then discover, as opposed to invent, what is possible/impossible. I mean nature is the repository of facts and we merely receive them. The relation between nature and us isn't an equality. Therein our ignorance assumes a significance - we can't rule out truth in superstition completely; at least not to the degree we do now.

As you've rightly pointed out, we have to be cautious. Extremism of any kind is folly.

However, I sense a great danger in the full import of the second quote "There is superstition in avoiding superstition". To me it reopens the door to the dark ages, witch-burning and all that. Clearly, such a worldview can be extremely difficult to handle and fanaticism is almost a certainty.

On the other hand, take the modern scientific approach to superstition. It's much more benign.

So, for best results, it's better to think of superstitions as untruths and avoid them.

Those who are looking for the utmost of simplicity will opt for God — Rich

I must disagree. With God, we have 2, what Occam calls entities:

1. God

2. The mechanism of how 1 interacts with us

With determinism we have only one entity i.e. 2

But wouldn't that be complexifying the matter. We'd have to give up the perfectly good concept of causation that underpins determinism.

Opting for God would still require an explanation on how fate works. There needs to be a process through which God imposes his will on us.

To the extent that I know, logic doesn't allow the flexibility your argument seems dependent on.

Why don't you use propositions like we normally do? Perhaps, with your enthusiasm, we can get somewhere.

Also, you haven't commented on my argument.

I'll offer you a normal deductive argument below. It follows from my inductive argument here.

1) If something comes from nothing then we should see things appearing from nothing

2) We don't see things appearing from nothing

Therefore,

3) It's false that something comes from nothing.

3) is just another phraseology for nothing comes from nothing.

What do you mean by marginal?

Anyway...

When someone steals he must have some reason for doing it - a kind of cost-benefit arithmetic - unless he's a klepto.

Your argument is that the thief got the math wrong.

Note that the thief is looking at it from another perspective, perhaps material gain.

You're looking at it from a more abstract angle BUT you still stand to gain.

Therein lies the problem. Not stealing or not doing wrong is not about gain.

How could Hitler's followers praise his "logical" plan? — Advocate

Logic is just a tool. Just as a hammer can be used to create an awesome sculpture and also to kill someone, logic can be used to serve the good and the bad.

That was already explained to you by others earlier in the thread. — Terrapin Station

But the difference, if I understood correctly, is as @Bitter Crank said "Fate has an author", which, to me, means God.

If this is the case, by what means does God exercise control over our lives? The only way God can be involved is through manipulating causation.

If that's true then, by Occam's razor principle, we can purge the God angle and simply subscribe to determinism.

If you don't agree with the above, why?

If you'll allow me to make a guess, I think the we're still not out of the woods yet.

The obvious proliferation of weapons from AK-47's to Hydrogen bombs, resurgent and emerging diseases, environmental degradation, religious fanatcism and the moral vacuum of atheism, and last but not the least, the stray mega-ton asteroid that could be on a collision course with the earth, all seem to spell doom for life on Earth.

Put otherwise, it's not just weapons that can cause the apocalypse. Simply driving your car may be writing the last chapter of human civilization.

A cost-benefit analysis of theft seems to me an immoral approach to the problem.

By your logic, we stand to gain by not stealing and I think being a good person is more about eliminating the self and personal gain from the equation.

So is it cogent that in the majority of cases, straightforwardness could lead to social conflict rather than agreeableness? — Anthony

Why are these things so complicated?

Fine nuances in meaning make a huge differene. I mean there's a subtle shade of difference between honesty and bluntness. The former is good but the latter is bad manners. Manipulation is patently bad but guiding is good and there's only a slight difference between the two.

To be able to say anything meaningful, it becomes necessary to make these small distinctions. We can't just say being straigtforward is good/bad because, well, it's not that striaghtforward.

I don't understand how p can be equated to something or how ~p can be nothing.

As far as I know, p are statement variables in logic. To have an argument you must have statement constants - using uppercase letters - and only then is there an argument we can judge.

You seem to be using sentential logic in a very odd way. Can you clarify? Thanks

Note that the statement is about our reality. So, it has to be proven through observation. My proof:

1) All observed things in this world are not things that come from nothing

Therefore,

2) ALL things in the universe are not things that come from nothing

2) is identical to nothing comes from nothing
The argument is inductive; statistical to be specific.

Nor am I... If you by chance happen to die from this sickness, can I have sex with your body? :D :P — intrapersona

Well, since you asked permission, I'd say yes, of course.

What right? I thought you just said there were no rights? :D "So, it seems quite natural to infer that death should render all rights null and void." — intrapersona

:D I'm not feeling too well

A good analysis. Learned. Thanks.

What I want to say is...

Malicious intent and looking down on someone seem too similar to deserve a distinction. Perhaps you see some reason to separate the two. I'd like to know thanks.

"Fate" has connotations aside from "not having complete control of one's existence" — Terrapin Station

What are they?

I think you're equating lying with, say, a firearm - both are amoral means toward potentially moral or immoral ends. Have I got that right? — Heister Eggcart

Yes.

1. In a murder case, the weapon is simply the means to achieve an objective (death) and it isn't judged. The person, his objective to kill, is judged. What are actions but means to achieve ends.

2. Evaluating actions as good/bad leads to confusion because consequences are notoriously difficult to evaluate, and inherent moral attributes, again are very difficult to judge.

Well, even alive we don't have 100% right over our bodies. Drugs are illegal. Suicide is illegal. So, it seems quite natural to infer that death should render all rights null and void.

That aside, I don't think it's necessary for any metaphysical continuation, á la soul, to legitimize the right of a dead person over the body.

It's no good saying "look at it this way" because I'm not looking at it in any way. Nihilism isn't a choice, it's what happens when you don't make a choice. I just want the ability to make a choice. — daldai

You mean Nihilism is the truth? That's the only way I can make sense of the claim that you have no choice.

I agree but...

This situation, Nihilism, makes sense only in the present. I don't know if it'll still be relevant in the future. Scientific advancement is a real thing and with it will come many discoveries that'll transform our lives. May be I'm being too optimistic but there is a chance, no matter how small, that living conditions will improve.

Well, there's nothing much we can do for you NOW. The world is pretty much without meaning - anything we can latch onto dies, decays and literally vanishes. If science is to be believed, not even the universe is spared this sad fate.

However, view it from another perspective - the one that believes human and all conscious (I mean aliens) pursuit of knowledge can be interpreted as the universe trying to understand itself. So, our search for meaning is not just a case of one sad species that's awakened in a cold indifferent world. It's the universe itself that has gained self-awareness and it's the universe itself that yearns for meaning. That being the case, we needn't look for a higher power in our quest for meaning because we can give life any meaning we want. Of course we need to reason well and use the right emotional guidance to achieve a meaning which meets the criteria of wisdom.

In my humble opinion we must first make a distinction; that between ends and means. If you look at the class of human actions, by which I mean our speech and deeds (have I left anything out?), we immediately understand they're means to an end. The end, the goal, is more abstract and drives our actions.

As means, I consider human actions to be like tools and tools don't have moral import. It's the ends, the objectives, that have any moral relevance.

Honesty is an end in itself and so can be evaluated as good/bad but lying is a means and is neither good nor bad.

Or...

aCb <-> (aRb & ~bCa & ~(Ex)(xCa & xCb) & ~aNb)

(Ex)(Ey)(xCy <-> xRy & ~yCx & ~(Ez)(zCx & zCy) & ~xNy)

Thanks for pointing out the mistake. My logic is rusty. How's the above formulation

But I'm not making an argument. Perhaps the ''then'' misled you.

I'm defining causation.

xCy = x causes y
xRy = x is correlates with y
xNy = x is correlated coincidentally with y

1. xRy
2. ~yCx
3. ~(Ez)(zCx AND zCy)
4. ~xNy

Then

xCy <-> 1 & 2 & 3 & 4

:P

It's best not to define terrorism because we may, god forbid, include ourselves in its extension.

You might find this interesting: Henrietta Lacks

So I do not think that atheism appeals entirely to reason, nor theism to emotion. — Lone Wolf

You're right it's not a clear cut case of reason vs emotion. We may be deeply moved by a good argument and rationality helps to navigate the emotional landscape.

One thing I'd like to point out is that all religions, at least the major ones, advocate love, promise happiness. Aren't these emotions? That's why I said religion is rooted in emotion.

Atheism, on the other hand, puts religion under the lens of cold logic. It brushes aside the emotional aspects of religion and what's left isn't that impressive, rationally speaking.

No I don't buy fate. — Terrapin Station

Why? Surely one can't ignore the fact that somethings pertinent to one's life are beyond our control. Doesn't that amount to fate of some kind?

Their claim is that each thing in the past, present, and future has always been fixed and settled, whether or not it was causally determined..." (emphasis mine) — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What is the mechanism by which the past, present, and future becomes "fixed and settled"?