How can you believe in religion?

[Professor Emeritus]

Breh, we had this same disconnect in the other thread. You claim to be purely rational even when that's scientifically proven to be false. You claim to be only interested in science, not philosophy, while making blatantly philosophical claims that find no support in science. What is the point of engaging with someone who has no expertise whatsoever in the fields in question, yet a priori "knows" that he's right anyway?

Just like in our previous argument, if you're not even willing to educate yourself on a topic and just assume you're right anyway, there's nothing to be done. The question of what types of questions science can and cannot answer is NOT a scientific question, it's overtly a Philosophy of Science question.


Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of science.

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You don't like that. I get it. You're stuck in an outdated Modern worldview where knowledge is absolute and pure rationality is the ultimate human aim. That shyt was bushed by philosophers AND scientists decades ago as philosophically untenable and scientifically unsupportable. Its appeal lies in its simplicity and arrogance, but it's not how the world works.

Take a philosophy of science class from a respected institution. Just one.

 

[Th3Birdman]

Breh, we had this same disconnect in the other thread. You claim to be purely rational even when that's scientifically proven to be false

But I didn't-- you're not reading, that's why we are having a disconnect. You are not prepared to engage with someone that knows what you're trying to say and can refute it, that's all.

Also, I did NOT claim to *be* purely rational-- I claimed to have come to a conclusion rationally. There's a huge difference there, let's be careful with our words, and not create strawmen.

You claim to be only interested in science, not philosophy, while making blatantly philosophical claims that find no support in science

And which claims were those? Mind listing them?

I'll admit, there is potential for me having misspoke (it's nearly 3am here in LA, and I'm on the tired side), and I have no problem clarifying a position.

But I don't actually think I did. I think you're flailing, and trying to see what sticks.

To clarify, a debate is inherently philosophical. That doesn't make my argument philosophical in nature, however: 3=1+2 is a mathematical expression that can be demonstrated with evidence. Presenting that evidence to someone arguing the opposite is a debate, but the content of that debate isn't, itself, philosophical. Arguing matters of fact isn't philosophy.

What is the point of engaging with someone who has no expertise whatsoever in the fields in question, yet a priori "knows" that he's right anyway?

You did this last time.

You have no evidence that I have no expertise in the fields I discuss on this board, and just because I've not elected to give you my credentials doesn't mean I don't have any. It just means you don't know. Schrodinger's Degrees, to put it in philosophical terms




This is a message board. You send a message, I send a message. You can stop at any time, I am not holding you hostage. I don't necessarily take you quitting as a victory, but it doesn't look great. My point is that you can choose to engage with the points I make and stop thinking I don't have the credentials to make these arguments (which most definitely stand up to objective scrutiny, mind you). I haven't asked for yours, nor do I think they're relevant, when the claims and things you say are easily refuted without them.

Let's put it this way-- one of us gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to argue, and has become internationally known for their ability to do this, live or otherwise.

The other is you.

Just like in our previous argument, if you're not even willing to educate yourself on a topic and just assume you're right anyway, there's nothing to be done.

It's probably not a great idea to make points that could also be used against yourself.

I am not assuming anything-- I can SHOW my claims to be accurate. You can't. You have to rely on famously obstructive processes like philosophy, which isn't interested in answering questions, but in how to ask questions. This has actually causes roadblocks to scientific progress, so yes, I am mildly hostile to the concept when it is used in this context.

Do you notice how I didn't post the definition of the word supernatural, and yet knew exactly what it meant? And that you literally posted the definition, that reiterated exactly what I said?

Look man, I know my shyt. I have been doing this a LONG time. You've met your match or your superior. This IS my area of expertise. One of them, anyway.

You're stuck in an outdated Modern worldview where knowledge is absolute and pure rationality is the ultimate human aim

Take a philosophy of science class from a respected institution. Just one.

Jordan Peterson does what you do all day, and it's fukking exhausting listening to you people talk in circles. I'm not interested in philosophy, or even the philosophy of science. I am interested in the practical application of scientific principles

Just go on and admit I upset you, and you don't want to actually engage what I'm saying, because you sure as hell aren't reading what I'm saying.

It's OK to back out.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

But I didn't-- you're not reading, that's why we are having a disconnect. You are not prepared to engage with someone that knows what you're trying to say and can refute it, that's all.

Also, I did NOT claim to *be* purely rational-- I claimed to have come to a conclusion rationally. There's a huge difference there, let's be careful with our words, and not create strawmen.

But you cannot come to any decision purely rationally. That's what the research of Damásio and others has discovered. I pointed it out to you and you just ignored it.

Keeping Emotions Out of It Is Actually a Disaster

Making good decisions comes down to "being rational" and "keeping emotions out of it," right? Actually, no. According to the latest neuroscience research, it's time do away with this outdated mode of thinking and adopt a more wholesome, accurate view on emotions and decision making.

www.6seconds.org

The Importance of Feelings

The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio explains how minds emerge from emotions and feelings.

www.technologyreview.com

Emotion, Decision Making and the Orbitofrontal Cortex

Abstract. The somatic marker hypothesis provides a systems-level neuroanatomical and cognitive framework for decision making and the influence on it by emo

academic.oup.com

The fact that you seem to know nothing about the actual biology of decision-making, yet speak so confidently on the subject, is in line with your other claims in this thread. You appear bright, but when you assume that just being bright means you can know things you haven't actually studied, the potential for a Dunning-Kruger Effect rears its ugly head.

And which claims were those? Mind listing them?

Well, for starters, the definition of "supernatural". That's a blatantly philosophical claim, no amount of scientific experimentation can tell you how to define a word. You attempted to hinge your entire argument on an incorrect definition of supernatural, but you aren't even willing to study the actual field that defines what is natural or supernatural.

You did this last time.

You have no evidence that I have no expertise in the fields I discuss on this board, and just because I've not elected to give you my credentials doesn't mean I don't have any. It just means you don't know.

The field in question is Philosophy of Science, and you have explicitly stated that you have zero interest in that field. So I think its fair to say that you have no expertise in the field in question.

Let's put it this way-- one of us gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to argue, and has become internationally known for their ability to do this, live or otherwise.

The other is you.

I guess Skip Bayless is an even greater arguer then.

If you're a legendary debater, and I'm just a nobody, then the fact that this discussion is so lopsided makes my position look even better.





* The existence of God is a BIG question.

* The possibility of supernatural phenomena is a BIG question.

* Whether or not emotions guide decisions is a comparatively small question.

* The difference between philosophy and science is a comparatively small question.



If we can't trust you on the small questions, on things that are well established and easy to demonstrate, then how can anyone trust you on the big ones?

 

[Rekkapryde]

How can u not? The more I think about the universe and my thoughts get deeper. The more I believe.

For me, the big bang theory ain't cuttin it.

And I've had too many weird things happen in my life to believe it's all a coincidence.

So...

 

[KBtheKey]

Where's the option for "believe in what you think is true, if you feel that truth makes you a better person"

If your truth doesn't do result in anything positive for you, then you either need to reassess your choices or just be fine with being doomed to whatever fate and afterfate you're working towards

 

[Th3Birdman]

But you cannot come to any decision purely rationally. That's what the research of Damásio and others has discovered. I pointed it out to you and you just ignored it

I didn't ignore it, I quite literally debunked it:

This is irrelevant to the point and expressly wrong.

Eating food is a rational decision. Hunger is not an emotion, it is a physiological state that if left untreated, will kill you. Non-human animals experience hunger and seek out food, not due to emotion, but due to the physiological state of hunger.

There ARE solely rational decisions. Deflection debunked.

Further, the first link you provided is not peer reviewed, and is an argument for why we SHOULD use emotions to make decisions, and that it is "bad advice" to tell people to not use their emotions to make decisions...

...NOT THAT YOU ****CANNOT**** MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE UNEMOTIONAL, which is your argument.

Do you even read the sources you cite??? The VERY FIRST ONE debunks your position, as it states quite clearly that making unemotional decisions is a bad idea, meaning of course that it IS possible in the first place.

They even quoted it for you:

Well, for starters, the definition of "supernatural". That's a blatantly philosophical claim, no amount of scientific experimentation can tell you how to define a word

OK, I now see that you are entirely unserious.

The definitions of words is now philosophy? Lmao!

In case you were unaware, language existed before the concept of philosophy, meaning the meanings of words existed before the concept of philosophy.

I don't know why you do this to yourself.

You attempted to hinge your entire argument on an incorrect definition of supernatural

He says my definition of supernatural, which was

By definition, the supernatural cannot be observed in this reality. Once it has been observed, it ceases to be supernatural-- that's what the word "supernatural": beyond/outside observable reality.

...is incorrect, only to then post this...

Dictionary.com: 1. of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

...which literally says what I said.

You can't make this shyt up

The field in question is Philosophy of Science, and you have explicitly stated that you have zero interest in that field. So I think its fair to say that you have no expertise in the field in question

I have no interest in the Golden State Warriors, being a Laker fan.

Does this mean I know nothing about the Golden State Warriors?




By the way, YOU inserted the Philosophy of Science into this. It is not the "field in question". We were discussing whether or not you were being rational for assuming the universe needed a creator. Like you always do when questioned on this, you turn into Jordan Peterson and commence with the gish gallop, forcing us to talk about other things.

I guess Skip Bayless is an even greater arguer then.

If you're a legendary debater, and I'm just a nobody, then the fact that this discussion is so lopsided makes my position look even better.

Rhakim, the only people that would potentially agree with you are

A) people too stupid to understand what we're talking about and

B) religious people looking for someone to affirm their beliefs.


This is the second time I have outclassed you on this topic, and, just like last time, you are gearing up to run away from this conversation. You STILL got outstanding balances from the other thread. It is lopsided, but not in the way you were hoping.

* The existence of God is a BIG question.

* The possibility of supernatural phenomena is a BIG question.

* Whether or not emotions guide decisions is a comparatively small question.

* The difference between philosophy and science is a comparatively small question.

1. No it's not. Believers already assume he exists, atheists don't have a reason to believe he does. The only people interested in this are people like you and I, nikkas that ain't getting paid to argue about this on the internet. No one really cares about this anymore, you believe or you don't. That's the majority of humans on Earth.

2. Again, no it's not. It's not even a big topic on YouTube like it was when the site first came up. Believe me, I know.

3. I agree, but that is something you decided to latch onto, because you attempted to equate what you did, instead of admitting I was right and moving on. You wanted to paint us as the same, because, apparently, me making a factual claim was too much for you to handle, and you had to bring me down to your level. Mission failed.

4. Lmao. I don't even know where to start. So I won't.

If we can't trust you on the small questions, on things that are well established and easy to demonstrate, then how can anyone trust you on the big ones?

As my debate opponent, I expect you to say that. That is the goal, isn't it? Paint the other as incompetent, or wrong?

I mean, I get it. You have to do this. Focusing on the original topic made you look a way. Just know it doesn't phase me. I'm still willing to discuss why you're wrong about the word supernatural, and its definition in this context.

 

[MMS]

For me, the big bang theory ain't cuttin it.

And I've had too many weird things happen in my life to believe it's all a coincidence.

So...

Curtis rankins might have been a divine recruit

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I didn't ignore it, I quite literally debunked it:

You didn't debunk it, you made the ridiculous claim that decisions to eat aren't emotional, just because you feel that's true. Please do the research.

Further, the first link you provided is not peer reviewed, and is an argument for why we SHOULD use emotions to make decisions, and that it is "bad advice" to tell people to not use their emotions to make decisions...

I said explicitly that the first link was an layman's explanation, but it refers to peer-reviewed research. The 2nd link was by one of the masters of the field. And the 3rd link was a peer-reviewed summary of the research with over 50 citations.

Emotion, Decision Making and the Orbitofrontal Cortex

Abstract. The somatic marker hypothesis provides a systems-level neuroanatomical and cognitive framework for decision making and the influence on it by emo

academic.oup.com

..NOT THAT YOU ****CANNOT**** MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE UNEMOTIONAL, which is your argument.

Do you even read the sources you cite??? The VERY FIRST ONE debunks your position, as it states quite clearly that making unemotional decisions is a bad idea, meaning of course that it IS possible in the first place.

They even quoted it for you:

It's "unreasonable" because it's not possible for a regular person. It's only possible for those who have their prefrontal cortex damaged, and in that case they have extraordinary difficulty coming to any decisions, debating even the simplest shyt until finally ending up at decisions almost at random, or just doing what others tell them to do. You would know this if you actually read the research. People who have their rational facilities intact, but their capacity to feel emotion damaged, find it almost impossible to make decisions.

It's "outdated" because research has shown that it's not possible to leave your emotions out of it. We now know that the ability to come to decisions is profoundly controlled by our emotional capabilities.

It's "bad advice" because you're telling them to do something impossible, and because our brains are clearly designed to make emotion central to the decision-making process.



You're just making shyt up based off of your misreading of an article, on a subject that you clearly know nothing about, and hoping you'll win over people who know as little about the subject as you do. What's the point of that? Do you really believe that you just understood and debunked an entire field of study after reading a few paragraphs?



And the current situation is an object study. You've become so emotionally invested in being right that it's virtually impossible that you'll accept this as true, because you don't want to be proven wrong. So, ironically, in this very moment you're proving how critical emotions are to decision-making. But, interestingly, even if you were unemotional coming into the conversation, you still wouldn't be able to come to a reasonable conclusion without emotions. You'd just be more likely to employ your emotional capacity effectively, as opposed to what you're doing now.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

OK, I now see that you are entirely unserious.

The definitions of words is now philosophy? Lmao!

In case you were unaware, language existed before the concept of philosophy, meaning the meanings of words existed before the concept of philosophy.

I don't know why you do this to yourself.

And scientific discoveries existed before the concept of science. Did someone have to know what science is in order to invent a pully system? People debated the meaning of life long before they had the concept of "philosophy" to know that's what they were doing, but they were still doing philosophy.

Determining what counts as "natural" and what counts as "supernatural" is a blatantly philosophical debate. You trying to claim it isn't just paints you into a weird corner.

I have no interest in the Golden State Warriors, being a Laker fan.

Does this mean I know nothing about the Golden State Warriors?

On multiple occasions you have used your lack of interest in Philosophy of Science to defend why you refuse to learn anything about it. On top of that, you make numerous claims about philosophy of science that are manifestly ignorant and show you know nothing about the field. So no, the question of whether you've ever studied philosophy of science is not up for debate.

So long as you continue to reject the exact field that actually studies the questions you're bringing up, there's literally nothing to discuss.

 

[Diunx]

People are really scare of nothingness, that's the reason, everyone is scared shytless about not existing anymore.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

For me, the big bang theory ain't cuttin it.

Ironically, Big Bang Theory was developed by a brilliant Catholic priest. And some famous atheists of the time rejected it, because they refused to believe that the universe might have a beginning.

But I agree with you that Big Bang is not adequate to explain the existence of the universe, because merely knowing that the Big Bang happened does not explain how it could have happened, what caused it or what came before it, or why there was even a spacetime reality for it to occur in in the first place.

 

[MMS]

Where's the option for "believe in what you think is true, if you feel that truth makes you a better person"

If your truth doesn't do result in anything positive for you, then you either need to reassess your choices or just be fine with being doomed to whatever fate and afterfate you're working towards

fate is a belief too

in fact its one of the most miserable religions

People are really scare of nothingness, that's the reason, everyone is scared shytless about not existing anymore.

then at the heart of it: fear is their real God

 

[Th3Birdman]

You didn't debunk it, you made the ridiculous claim that decisions to eat aren't emotional, just because you feel that's true. Please do the research.

In order to produce movement, the body needs calories as a fuel source, and electrolytes (potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, etc.) to produce biomechanical, physiological action. Calories and electrolytes are literally biologically necessary for your heart to function. You can only get them by consuming food.

Please, in detail, explain how the need to eat, and therefore the action of acquiring that food is EMOTIONAL. Then apply this same logic to, say, a scorpion, and explain why its search for food is also EMOTIONAL.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

The 2nd link was by one of the masters of the field. And the 3rd link was a peer-reviewed summary of the research with over 50 citations

As I said, the first link you provided contradicts your entire premise, that decisions cannot be made without emotions. They very obviously can. This is an incredibly weird hill to die on, and I have no idea why you trying.

However, I'll bite: the third link you posted is in fact, NOT peer reviewed to the extent that would have the somatic marker hypothesis graduating to a theory. It literally refers to itself as a hypothesis in the paper itself, and all reverse citations, which means they might have found some linkages but have not effectively proven their hypothesis correct.

This hypothesis has been subject to (negative) scrutiny for years:

So all you have done is pass off an idea that was (improperly) tested as evidence of your claim, and hoped that I wouldn't understand it. It is obvious you have only a rudimentary understanding of how the scientific process works, but you cannot pass off a research paper as EVIDENCE, when it is not yet a theory in science.

That paper is 23 years old. If it's not a theory yet, it probably won't ever be one. The fact that it has critique at all is, once again, evidence against your claim that you cannot make decisions without emotion. It literally is possible. Hell, this paper itself is only saying that *most* decisions we make have emotional ties, but *not all*, because... well, duh.



Would you like to try your bullshyt again, or was this enough?

I can do this all day.

 

[MMS]

In order to produce movement, the body needs calories as a fuel source, and electrolytes (potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, etc.) to produce biomechanical, physiological action. Calories and electrolytes are literally biologically necessary for your heart to function. You can only get them by consuming food.

Please, in detail, explain how the need to eat, and therefore the action of acquiring that food is EMOTIONAL. Then apply this same logic to, say, a scorpion, and explain why its search for food is also EMOTIONAL.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

you haver a certain fallacy going for you that you dont seem to grasp

you can put all those things in a soup and it wouldnt be alive

what makes it alive requires something outside of understanding to act upon those ingredients in an intelligent manner

furthermore, assuming that those ingredients self-assembled to make you is even more buffoonish.

Biochemistry is an amazing science though that was my focus during my undergrad in chemical engineering

 

[Th3Birdman]

you haver a certain fallacy going for you that you dont seem to grasp

you can put all those things in a soup and it wouldnt be alive

what makes it alive requires something outside of understanding to act upon those ingredients in an intelligent manner

furthermore, assuming that those ingredients self-assembled to make you is even more buffoonish.

Biochemistry is an amazing science though that was my focus during my undergrad in chemical engineering