MTG Salvation

The question is really in the title: How can people be fully atheistic, yet believe in intangibles such as 'the soul'? While I understand there is no true logical contradiction, it has always struck me as incongruous.

---

I was listening to atheist advocate Sam Harris's book A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion when he explained his belief that consciousness is irreducible to physicality of the brain. To have this staunch atheistic neuroscientist explain how he felt science was fundamentally incapable of unraveling the mysteries of sentience... well, I guess I was a little jealous (an emotion I've never been good at dealing with).

I have felt my own stance as an "agnostic deist" needed -as an effort to make it more defensible- to add "strict physicalist" to it. Yet, here was a famous atheist explaining his essential dualism... well, I guess I felt gypped.
I am a true physicalist -don't get me wrong- thus I don't know how modern 'atheists' can buy into 'spiritualism.'


Again, while I understand there isn't a logical contradiction, it strikes me as incongruous.

Quote from DJK3654 »

They have a choice whether to care

This is true of everyone in any situation, ever.
A prisoner is not free in body, but he can be more free in mind than his jailer.

Quote from Highroller »

This, on the other hand, is emotional manipulation. It's also disturbing.

But, the positive stuff's not? Tell a drug addict or a morbidly obese person positive feelings can't be manipulative...
Anyway, when the kid broke down crying I should have not emailed his mother? I should have let him emotionally manipulate ME and get away with cheating?
And, btw, I was very upset to see him that upset. But, I told him I needed to do it for his own good. You know why?
BECAUSE I TRULY BELIEVE IT WAS FOR HIS OWN GOOD!

...

Well, anyway, it's clear this isn't going to be a subject I can debate impassively, nor is it one I'm going to be convinced about.
(At least I know my religious views are malleable, since -you know- they've mutated. But, I know I'm not going to be convinced on this number.)

If you want to believe I'm some kinda evil monster -HR- for trying to get kids to perform well in my class, that's fine. I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise.
And, I need to stop posting on this thread anyway. You all are causing me 'emotional pressure.'

Quote from DJK3654 »

I see your point, but I wouldn't consider what you are talking about as emotional manipulation, but emotional pressuring.

And, I see your point, but I think it's just mincing words.

I would also like to point out people respond to 'emotional pressure' very differently. I had one student break down crying BEGGING me not to email his mother about cheating, while another time the student didn't seem to give a single ****. Was one identical email "emotional manipulation" on my part, while the other was "emotional pressure?" Will I ever even know how much both really felt about what happened?

Each individual deals with emotion in different ways. You can't predict how much someone might care about what you're saying to them. It could be devastating, it could be nothing.

Quote from DJK3654 »

Emotional manipulation is where it starts to become subliminal, when you take it to the extreme and twist their entire way of thinking around an issue by pressuring them.

When you're dealing with someone very young, ANY change in their thinking is an "extreme twist." When you know next to nothing, everything is a "revelation."

I understand you feel it's a matter of degrees. But, I know people are too different for you to really accurately know how much you're affecting someone. Additionally, I'm not going to lose sleep over if I'm 'manipulating' people or 'pressuring' them. I'm going to do what I can to make my students learn.

Which, I guess, makes me realize I can get little out of this conversation. It's not fair of me to engage in a debate I know I'm not going to be swayed about.


ttyl

Quote from Highroller »

That's not emotional manipulation.

Yes it is, and that's my point.
You praise them when they do something you want, and castigate them when they don't. That's how they learn.

---

Reading this thread really makes my head spin. I can only assume many of you have never taught children anything, or -if you have- you've never really thought about what you're doing: You make them feel bad when they do something you think is bad and make them feel good when they do something you think is good. It doesn't matter if that "something good" is critical thinking or praising God.

When my students ask an insightful question, finish a hard problem, or come in for extra help when they don't get something, I make sure they feel good. I smile, say "good job," and write positive comments on their report card. I tell them they're going places.

When they act disruptive in class, don't turn in assignments, or copy off of other students, I make sure they feel bad. I scowl, say "I'm so disappointed," and email their parents. I tell them they're hurting their future, and I'm only making them feel awful for their own good.

I want them to do well; I want them to be critical thinkers and question life logically and rationally; I want them to understand physics. But, they're kids. Humans are wired for instant gratification and superstition. We have to be broken of those habits. And, I use the word "broken" purposefully.

Now, I'm sure someone on this thread is going to tell me how they're naturally not like that. How they've been inquisitive, smart, and driven from a young age. That they've never needed someone to emotionally manipulate them to be that way. Well, I have two things to say to you. First: Gratz, but most people aren't naturally like that, and I've got to teach most people, not you. Second: Just because you naturally internalized the emotional manipulation doesn't make it less. If you really are all you claim, I know you beat yourself up on the inside. You get mad at yourself when you fail. You feel awful when you don't live up to your potential. Or, maybe you just feel great when you do. Maybe no one taught to you that -and that's great for you- but you're still doing it to yourself.

Humans need discomfort or joy in order to be motivated. We're wired to want pleasure and to avoid pain. That's just how it is.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120731.gif

My parents used emotional manipulation on me all the time to increase my performance in school.

Now, as a physics teacher, I use emotional manipulation to motivate students to do their work for my class and preform better on tests.

Is this an example of the immoral indoctrinating you guys are talking about?

(And -as a followup question- have you ever tried to REASON with a 13 year old about why they should do their physics homework, when they just know they'll hit it big in anime with their Original Character in a few years? Then realize I have to convince over a hundred of them to do their work. So, a personally tailored and well researched argument about how a half-vampire half-werewolf isn't a 'sure thing' as a novella isn't a practical solution.)

If the KKK said burning crosses on blacks' lawns was really a form of modern art, would burning crosses not be a racist act?

Or, is it all about the unknowable Truth in the motivation behind the act? We'll never really know if Shigeru Miyamoto is truly not sexist, so does that make us fundamentally unable to evaluate Mario?

I believe that Battle for Zendikar is the worst set ever. On par with the suck of Homelands and/or Prophecy. There are many reasons that I hate Battle for Zendikar , but I better get the good points out of the way, the few gems in the rough:
* Awaken is a great mechanic, it’s innovative and fun and I hope we see this built up more in Oath of the Gatewatch .
* Zendikar Expeditions I can’t believe that they actually tried this, and they pulled it off perfectly!
Ok, now to the bad:
Battle for Zendikar has a terrible story. Battle for Zendikar story is an unoriginal story about a youth that’s different from the peers around him/her, and this causes him/her to go on a grand journey to save the realm. It’s the exact same thing we saw in Theros and Original Zendikar ; it’s unoriginal and boring.
Battle for Zendikar rares are terrible. Out of the (X) rares in this set, only (Y) are even worth the money you pay for the pack. There are no Chase rares worth pulling in this set at all (I’m ignoring Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger and Gideon, Ally of Zendikar for my argument, because they actually suck).
Battle for Zendikar doesn’t do Set Mechanics well enough. Battle for Zendikar tries to pull off building around Rally in a way that Original Zendikar did, but (fails to be different enough/isn’t powerful enough/is too far away from) Original Zendikar . Building our decks for us around Allies is stupid.
Stasis Snare makes (control/midrange/aggro) stupid good! This set’s theme Land Fall makes (control/midrange/aggro) ridiculously good! I can’t believe Wizards would do something like that and hose aggro while making midrange so good.
Natural Connection makes Green (usually green or blue in that blank) suck. Ramp has already not had enough support since day one! Why they would take away Ramp’s power like this is stupid.
These reasons are why I declare Battle for Zendikar the worst set ever/the reason magic is dying.

@Crashing00: At this point in my life I like to think I can admit when I'm over my head. My thesis work was experimental. I can work with data, but -as far as I can tell- we don't have any here. Does this mean it's impossible to show what we're trying to show? No, it just makes it purely theoretical, which -I admit- isn't what I studied as deeply as I could have. But, I know you have and do. While we all also know what side your personal bias puts you on for this debate, I know you can put aside your personal biases when it comes to matters of theoretical mathematics.
So, I will ask you directly:

Can you show what Blinking Spirit is trying to show? Can you show "that the God hypothesis space is less than half the whole of the possibility space," or some other equivalent Bayesian probability that mathematically proves agnostic atheism has more credence than agnosticism? And, is there no subsequent proof that can be used for agnosticism or agnostic deism that's just as valid?

If you say "Yes, agnostic atheism is more mathematically valid than any other form of agnosticism, here it is the proof [proof]" I pledge to never post on this thread again (not even to nitpick DJK3654 to little pieces, which we all know I'm jonesing to do). Even if I don't fully understand what you wrote, I pledge to meditate on it until I do and not make an ass out of myself by arguing.

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

A proposition is not a parallel or equivalent to its negation. When a proposition is necessarily false, that means its negation is necessarily true.

I understand that, but what I don't understand is how:

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

Now, here's the "not-God" proposition, the negation: "It is not the case that there existed a God at a time before the beginning of time."

Can be true. You might have negated the first half of the statement, but not the second. I would assume the best you could do is say "at a time before the beginning of time" = F. So anything conjoined to it -including but not limited to "It is not the case that there existed a God"- still makes the sentence false.

I know if the proposition is false, the negation is true, but you didn't negate the WHOLE proposition.
"X^F" is false, and so is "~X^F." What you would need to do is go from "X^F" to "~XvT," which you didn't do.

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

Lengths and areas are not sets. They cannot have the property "uncountably infinite", because it is a property of sets.

A topological space can be uncountable. [1] I thought that was what we were talking about?

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

So you dismiss the idea of "measurements", and ask for a ratio instead? What do you think a ratio is?

In my last post I, for the first time, directly asked for a measurement of the probability space in question. But, in that same post I realize -and subsequently wrote- this wouldn't be the minimum requirement you needed to show. You needed to show the ratio of the spaces was between one and zero, which should be easier for you. (The spaces would have the same units, so the ratio would be unitless. But, I assume you know this, and the next.)

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

If I say that the God hypothesis space is less than half the whole of the possibility space, then I have measured it.

And when you assert that without argument, you are begging the question.

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

Quote from Taylor »

So, how are you showing:
0 < ["God":"EverythingElse"] < 1

I've already answered this. Sea turtles. New Age music. Basic arithmetic.

My understanding was this thread is about evidence and proof, you got any of that?
Regardless, you've been saying it's 'reasonable' to say it's true, which isn't proof in any form or even -really- an argument. It's an appeal to common sense. If you're going to claim it, show your work; or it will not be me begging the question...

Edit: And, please do understand I am all about appealing to common sense when it comes to personal beliefs. I'm not holding anything against anyone when it comes to using such methods in circumstance like this one, personally. But, that's not -as far as I can tell- what the OP is talking about. He is saying the evidence points away from agnosticism and towards agnostic atheism. So, in this case, I'm not looking for hand-waving statements about how it's "reasonable to assume" that the "God hypothesis space is less than half the whole of the possibility space;" I'm looking for evidence and/or proof that is the case.

---

Quote from DJK3654 »

Another point in the argument Blinking Spirit has been conveniently making for me.

He's been making the same argument you would?
Or, are you saying that any argument that comes to the same conclusion as the thing you "know" is true might as well be yours? Us vs Them and all that?

Quote from DJK3654 »

We don't have any actual number for such a wide area because the number of possibilities is absurd, you could even argue infinite depending on where you draw the line between one possibility and another.

I couldn't agree more.
Which is why it's equally absurd to claim the "God Probability space" must be smaller than the rest, as you agonistic atheists do.

Quote from DJK3654 »

Even if we had absolutely no idea at all how many possibilities there are opposed to 'god exists', are you going to assert that the likely possibility is only a few? Far more likely out of the literally infinite number of different numbers, is that there are an extremely large number of possibilities. What's the average result of a random number between 1 and infinity? You can't even put a number to that, because infinity breaks the whole calculation. To assert that because we don't know how many possibilities there are, we cannot say how likely any one possibility is is absurd when the question being answered is so open-ended. Furthermore, this argument ignores the fact that 'not god' propositions have evidence, several theories describe (not completely though) how the universe has come to exist outside of God. Not only does the lack of evidence make God unlikely, but the evidence suggesting a world that works without God makes it even more so.

I'm going to assert I don't really know anything about it, and neither do you.
Look DJK3654, as you posted in your OP about common arguments you've already had, I've already had this one.Well, that's less comprehensive than I would have liked, I guess it was a long time ago.

Anyway, if we can't even say where the "God" ideas end and the "not God" ones begin, how can you claim you know one probability space is large than the other? The existence of a loony book shouldn't affect the answer, one way or the other.

Quote from DJK3654 »

EDIT: Consider also that the agnostic assessment of God still makes each individual God unlikely, given not only how many gods there are historically, but also the consideration of further possible gods. So the agnostic should still consider religions not worth believing in, because any one of them is unlikely to be right.

Right. But, so?
Unless you really are on a "Us vs Them" kick, and since the agnostics aren't with 'Them' they must be with 'Us?' And, that's desirable?

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

Stop wasting my time, Taylor.

:/ Clearly if I'm doing all that, then I have some fundamental misunderstandings of what's being said. If you don't want me wasting your time, it might be more productive to explain it in more detail (as opposed to just throwing 2 word dismissals in my direction).
If you feel I was strawmanning you, I can -at least- say truthfully it was not my intention to do so. I would HOPE you'd know I have more respect for you than that...
...Anyway, let me follow my own advice and attempt some clarifications.

From what I can tell there are two main debate points we are discussing:

1) Exactly what the logical classification of the question "What came before everything?" and/or the statement of "X came before everything."
When I first proposed the question, you asked me if I was advocating the Hard Atheist position. I assumed this meant you understood the answer to the question was necessarily "notGod." I explained that I felt that "X came before everything" we equally nonsense for both "x=notGod" and "x=God," -thus- that I was advocating the Weak Agnostic position. But, you insisted I didn't know what I was talking about. After a few posts of you correcting me, I restated the question you started with, asking if you really knew the answer to be necessarily "notGod." Was it flippant for me to use your exact words? Probably. Could I have stated it better? Always true.
But, was it my intention to make a deliberate strawman of your position? No, no it was not.

I was hoping by restating your question I would prompt you to explain why you felt the statement was true for "notGod" and false for "God," since I perceived -from your opening question to me- you starting with that position, and it seemed nothing I said in the interim deterred you from it (or simply I was being nonsensical).

I would suspect you know (and knew that when you started debating me on this thread) my primary way of arguing is to simply negate what the other person is saying. It's not meant to be disrespectful on my part. I do so because -often- I've found the negation to be as valid as the original. It's my way of saying "I find the hypothesis as valid as the null." Is it the best way to express this? Probably not, but I didn't mean it as a strawman. I legitimately misunderstood your position as: The statement was true for "notGod" and false for "God" (and -I will admit- I still don't fully understand.)

2) The relative sizes of the probability space of "God" and "notGod."
My understanding is that your position is that the "God" probability space is smaller than the rest of the probability space. (I say 'my understanding' to try and avoid another strawman. Please let me know if my summery is incorrect or incomplete.)
My position is that both spaces are uncountably large, unmeasurable, or other-wised not defined in such a way that they can be compared.

Now, as to your "Fallacy of equivocation" statement, maybe I've been teaching high school geometry too long, but my current understanding is you create a volume or space by integration or multiplication of sides. While I understand the point you were making about an infinity of points in a continuum that -yet- creates a finite space or volume, I really don't see it applying in this case. I think there is an equivocation on your part in that delineation. If a side of our space is uncountably long (and the other sides aren't approaching 0) than the space is infinitely large. You claim this is a Category mistake, but I -currently- don't see it.

Now, as your "begging the question" statement, I don't see how I could be doing that, unless all of Agnosticism is a question beg. My understanding is the fundamental principle of all forms of Agnosticism is we don't have enough information know, thus such a probability space WOULD be immeasurable. Am I understanding your short dismissal correctly? Are you saying that the probability space is fundamentally measurable?
But, I do have a question if the space -for the purpose of this discussion- cannot be considered immeasurable. If the spaces is measurable, then what are the measurements? Well, I understand that might not be a fair question. Maybe you could give me an order of magnitude for the ratio between the "God" space and everything else? Since, that's really what we're debating.
1:10 1:1000 1:1000000 1:∞ ?
Or, if you can't provide an order of magnitude, then how exactly are you determining "God" < "notGod" in your probability space? That the ratio of the two is less than 1? I assume you would also have it above 0. So, how are you showing:

0 < ["God":"EverythingElse"] < 1

Quote from Wildfire393 »

Policy is relevant here because this thread was clearly created in response to this thread, which the OP of this thread commented in until it got locked for being a necro. That thread opened by saying
which was clearly a condemnation of people trying to affect policy using the "biblical defintion of marriage" as their basis.

Alright, so do we have two sides to that debate? My understanding is you need at least two sides to debate something, and it doesn't even look like anyone is willing to even play Devil's Advocate here.

We just have a bunch of people saying it's asinine to get the legal definition from the Bible, and then agreeing with each other while everyone else ignores them and discusses the OP for THIS thread... I hesitate to use the word "circle-jerk," but I'm pretty sure we -at least- have the clear definition of that term....

Quote from FearDReaper »

What exactly is the point of this thread? Do you want to prove that Christians should abolish gay marriage because the bible says so? Even if you could prove that (which you seem to be failing to achieve), whats your end game? All you would have proven is that the bible says some pretty hurtful and hateful stuff that serves no purpose beyond causing pain to hard working/ law abiding citizens.

Quote from Lallo »

The real question is, who cares what the bible says? The US government is, supposedly, separate from religious institutions. Yeah, marriage is a word associated with religion, but words can have multiple meanings based on the context in which they are used. So, the government allows gay marriage. Stop trying to turn this into a theocratic government. It's obnoxious, dangerous, and overall just a bad idea.

Quote from DJK3654 »

@jynxed Exactly. And that is how it should be. Religious beliefs are not facts, they should not decide how society operates. If people want to believe them, that's their decision others are entitled to their own opinion and society shouldn't encroach on them with the personal beliefs of others.

This thread isn't about public policy, and I don't think it was the direction the OP wanted the discussion to go (and he's pushing it deep into esoteric-ville, I mean 'Arzareth?' wut?) . Anyway, so far, you're the only ones that have brought public policy up. Literally no one here has proposed there should be any coloration between the Biblical definition and the legal definition of "marriage."

We are simply discussing what the Biblical definition is. If you find that particular piece of knowledge uninteresting, I think you're on the wrong thread.

Quote from Lallo »

Don't you have something better you could be doing as a Christian?

I'm sure all people likely could be doing something better than posting on a forum. I don't know why you're leveling this only at Christians.

I see DJK3654 is still ignoring my responses to his posts. But, that might be for the best.

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

What? A question actually is something that's neither true nor false. Because, y'know, it's a question. Of course I'm talking about the answer!

If by "nonsense" you mean "contradiction", as you appear to and as you should in this case, then you already have my response: all contradictions are false.

So you're saying that atheism is logically necessary? That doesn't square with all the other stuff you've said.

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

Clearly some of these regions have to be smaller than half the board. And clearly they all have to be the same size, or else you're privileging one hypothesis over the others. So the "God" hypothesis region is smaller than half the probability space. Which means the regions that are not the "God" hypothesis region are collectively larger than half the probability space. This is okay because "not God" is not a hypothesis. It's every hypothesis, except the "God" one(s).

Ahem, so you're saying the cardinality, more commonly know as the 'size' of the set, shouldn't concern us. But, we should be concerned with the area, also known as the 'size.'
Sure.
Anyway, the problem still exists. The 'area' (or size) of these regions are uncountable, infinitely large.

You can't say 'not God' is larger than 'God' because the spaces we're considering aren't measurable.

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

The principle of explosion shows that if you assume a contradiction to be true, this implies an absurdity. Thus, the contradiction is false. Basic reductio ad absurdum. No hand-wavey notions of "neither true nor false" necessary.

Alright, but I don't think any of that helps your case as to the answer to the absurd question. The question might be 'false,' but the answer is still not. Since the answer is what were talking about, I stand by original statement: "You're confusing "nonsense" with "false.""

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

You don't determine probability by comparing Cantor cardinalities, because that would imply absurdities about probabilities on continua (where all sections no matter how small have the same number of points). Even if you did, you don't have any Cantor cardinalities to compare here -- "uncountably infinite" is everything above aleph-null.

Then what bases are you using to justify "not God" as being more probable than "God?"

I got a job at an all boy's Catholic high school teaching physics. It's ~1,500 students based on the "Lasallian tradition" (I never heard of it until now), and I'll be teaching most of the Juniors in the school (6 sections of ~20). This will be a HUGE change from my last job at a public high school in New Mexico with ~78 students in the whole place.

I'm sure they think I'm Catholic, since I went to a Benedictine all boy's high school (it was on my résumé and they asked me about it, extensively). I did nothing to dissuade them of that misconception. I even took the Flying Spaghetti Monster off my car for the first time in 6 years.
(I put him over my front door frame.)

As part of my job requirement, I will have to start each class (not 'day,' 'class') by leading the students in prayer. I have no issue doing so, but I am worried about forgetting.