Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
25 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Putting faith in its place [YT] rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For your perusal:

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mb
Faith doesn't require logic it requires..... FAITH.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hefferan
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Didn't you already post at least one of these by the same narrator, or was that someone else?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
A L D A R O N
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
A L D A R O N
badge
----[---->+<]>++.+++++++++++.--------.---.>-[--->+<]>---.---.-.
Avatar
mb
Brilliant. This should be a required part of every school curriculum.

(But you really need to change your avatar.)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dane Peacock
United States
Stansbury Park
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
That tickles
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Could that have been any more tedious? Pack about 45 seconds of material into 10 minutes of brain-numbing lecturing. Ugh.

To sum up:

1. God cannot exist because he is either impossible or unknowable
2. All other arguments are invalid
3. Quit preaching to us
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
Didn't you already post at least one of these by the same narrator, or was that someone else?


I think someone else posted an older one, and youtube remembered that I'd seen it and recommended this one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeppster wrote:
I thought the video made a valid point (though a little heavy-handedly), and I give it credit for not discrediting faith. This video says exactly what I always want to say to someone when they claim that their belief in God is valid because the Bible tells them so.


While it was an excellent video and I think it said many of things Marshall has posted previously, I don't think it addressed that God is valid because the Bible tells them so at all. The Bible argument is about trust. People are trusting their ancestors to be not lying or stupid when they wrote down these things they experienced andd gave a supernatural cause to. The video didn't address trusting the testimony of others at all.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I haven't had a chance to watch all the others yet, but if you are interested there are more here: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=QualiaSoup&view=videos
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hefferan
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
col_w wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
Didn't you already post at least one of these by the same narrator, or was that someone else?


I think someone else posted an older one, and youtube remembered that I'd seen it and recommended this one.


Ah, right. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What I got out of the video was that there is no way you can prove your God is the real/true/correct one and you shouldn't try to make others change their lives to suit your beliefs. Also, don't be surprised or offended when someone who doesn't share your beliefs tells you why they don't belief the same way. Faith by definition exists in the absence of facts, just don't expect everyone to share you faith.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
1. Set up nearly equivalent metaphor
2. Show how nearly equivalent metaphor disproves God
3. Strawman
3. ???????????????
4. PROFIT
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
But I do love this guys' videos.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think it's offensive or bullying to ask someone you're dining with, who I assume is a friend or family member, to respect your faith and at least bow their head and/or wait to eat until you're done praying.

That's just respect.

If I had a Muslim friend who feasted from sun up to sun down during Ramadan (I did), I wouldn't eat a meal in front of him while he was fasting, I'd wait to eat until he could. That doesn't mean I'm Muslim, it means I'm a decent human being. And respectful of my friend and his beliefs.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jageroxorz wrote:


If I had a Muslim friend who fasted? from sun up to sun down during Ramadan (I did), I wouldn't eat a meal in front of him while he was fasting, I'd wait to eat until he could. That doesn't mean I'm Muslim, it means I'm a decent human being. And respectful of my friend and his beliefs.


To me being respectful is not inviting him to lunch or an early supper. If he was a coworker and we were at work, I wouldn't consider it rude to eat my lunch in front of him. I don't have his beliefs and expecting me to change my behavior would be disrespectful to me.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry, I meant fasted.

-_-'
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
jageroxorz wrote:


If I had a Muslim friend who fasted? from sun up to sun down during Ramadan (I did), I wouldn't eat a meal in front of him while he was fasting, I'd wait to eat until he could. That doesn't mean I'm Muslim, it means I'm a decent human being. And respectful of my friend and his beliefs.


To me being respectful is not inviting him to lunch or an early supper. If he was a coworker and we were at work, I wouldn't consider it rude to eat my lunch in front of him. I don't have his beliefs and expecting me to change my behavior would be disrespectful to me.


Well, at work is different. This was at college, where things were much more "fluid"
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
Here are some notes on the first 3:11 on the vid.
************
There is a great game called, "What's in the box?".
It goes a bit like "The Twelve Days of Christmas" with each player adding an item and often an action after repeating everyone-else's inclusions.
There is nothing at all necessarily futile about asking "What's in the box".

Depending on the size of the building the cube can contain the Amazon River.

We can only make "valid justifiable statements" about what is in the cube on the basis of logic or current knowledge. And we can only make VJS about what is not in the cube on the same basis. New knowledge may reveal that something previously rejected as a VJS may in fact be in the box.

"No reason to accept an unjustified claim"? - hah - rubbish - us humans choose to accept unjustified claims whenever that acceptance appears most beneficial to us.

So an "omniscient being capable of choice" cannot exist in another brane? What a juvenile crock of shit.

A claim of "I have a logical argument that requires the existence of a personal creator of our universe" is LOGICALLY fallacious? Oh Sweet Stupidity, Save this Ridiculous Shithead.

**********
I've tried to go on but this stuff is as bad as the "reasoning" that can be seen in early versions of the WP "Rapture" articles and I've overdosed on stupidity for now.

Just because something is against faith/God/religion does not mean that its sensible, smart or correct. This video will make you dumber and dumber.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BagpipeDan wrote:

2. Show how nearly equivalent metaphor disproves God


I think you and an earlier poster are missing the point. He's not saying that God is disproven but rather that God cannot be proven -- and thus, one person has no basis for telling another person that they should or must believe in God.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jageroxorz wrote:
I don't think it's offensive or bullying to ask someone you're dining with, who I assume is a friend or family member, to respect your faith and at least bow their head and/or wait to eat until you're done praying.

That's just respect.


Is it offensive or bullying if you are asked to remove your clothes at dinner during a full moon esbat? Or just respect for someone practicing Gardnerian Wicca?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
There is a great game called, "What's in the box?".
It goes a bit like "The Twelve Days of Christmas" with each player adding an item and often an action after repeating everyone-else's inclusions.


Is this just a neat side comment or does it relate to the substance of the video? (I'm guessing the former, which is cool...I might play that with my daughters.)

Quote:
There is nothing at all necessarily futile about asking "What's in the box".

Depending on the size of the building the cube can contain the Amazon River.


Yes and no. I think he's made the implicit assumption that the building is on earth rather than, for example, encompassing our solar system. No cube (or building, for that matter) on earth can contain the Amazon River, not merely because of size but because we know something about the Amazon and that includes that it isn't in a cube/building.

Quote:
We can only make "valid justifiable statements" about what is in the cube on the basis of logic or current knowledge. And we can only make VJS about what is not in the cube on the same basis. New knowledge may reveal that something previously rejected as a VJS may in fact be in the box.


Sure, but that's rather his point, isn't it? There's symmetry in that we need valid justification for either type of statement but while we can make VJSs about some things not being in the cube we can't make them about anything being in the cube.

Quote:
"No reason to accept an unjustified claim"? - hah - rubbish - us humans choose to accept unjustified claims whenever that acceptance appears most beneficial to us.


1. The fact that people do something doesn't make it justified.
2. His general point is quite valid in the context he makes it. If you believe X but cannot justify that belief, no one else has any inherent reason to accept X as true.

Quote:
So an "omniscient being capable of choice" cannot exist in another brane? What a juvenile crock of shit.


Heh. He definitely put in some beings he considers logically inconsistent without offering arguments. Not unreasonable, given the time-frame, but it certainly invites rebuttal or requests for support.

My guess is that he subscribes to the view that perfect omnniscience (i.e. including perfect knowledge of the future) requires predestination which is incompatible with choice. YMMV.

Quote:
A claim of "I have a logical argument that requires the existence of a personal creator of our universe" is LOGICALLY fallacious? Oh Sweet Stupidity, Save this Ridiculous Shithead.


It's easy to call him a ridiculous shithead, but this is one thing where he makes a case for his position. Why not rebut it instead of calling names?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jageroxorz wrote:
I don't think it's offensive or bullying to ask someone you're dining with, who I assume is a friend or family member, to respect your faith and at least bow their head and/or wait to eat until you're done praying.

That's just respect.


I think it comes down to context. If I'm at someone else's home and they choose to say grace, I wait quietly while they do it. I don't bow my head or say 'amen' but I certainly don't dig in or talk. I agree, that's just respect -- not so much for their beliefs but for them and their choices.

On the other hand, I've twice had someone ask or insist (once each) on saying grace in my home when they were a guest. I considered that very rude. In one case I acquiesced and in the other I said no.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
I appreciate your thoughts Chad. I'm pretty sure that you know that its the quality of this video that I object to - not the educating of people about logic and reason. I hope this is obvious to others too.

Chad_Ellis wrote:
1. The fact that people do something doesn't make it justified.
2. His general point is quite valid in the context he makes it. If you believe X but cannot justify that belief, no one else has any inherent reason to accept X as true.

I agree but. "No reason to accept an unjustified claim", is something else. There is often a very good reason to accept an unjustified claim - the perceived pay-off of accepting it can outweigh the perceived costs of rejecting it. So its not justified but it is reasonable.

Chad_Ellis wrote:
My guess is that he subscribes to the view that perfect omnniscience (i.e. including perfect knowledge of the future) requires predestination which is incompatible with choice. YMMV.

I have a 52 card deck with the 2 Clubs stained on back and front. ( I have "sentience" about the identity of that card.) When we play with this deck I try and ignore that knowledge - I have sentience but often don't utilise it. I see nothing in "omniscience" that demands a single "state of self" - I have some sentience and multiple states, why would absolute sentience require only one state?

I do not have problems with some-one subscribing to the view you suggest - but (from memory here) to put it forward as a cut and dried logical impossibility in something that is (hopefully) aimed at "beginners" appears to be more likely to develop "belief" rather than "critical thought" in the viewer.

Chad_Ellis wrote:
...
Pinook wrote:
A claim of "I have a logical argument that requires the existence of a personal creator of our universe" is LOGICALLY fallacious? Oh Sweet Stupidity, Save this Ridiculous Shithead.


It's easy to call him a ridiculous shithead, but this is one thing where he makes a case for his position. Why not rebut it instead of calling names?

Rebut "I have a LOGICAL argument that A is B"?
When ANY presupposition can be used? It is is very possible that the argument is logically coherent but founded on rubbish. (I did not hear him making any case that shows only well evidenced, rational and reasonable assumptions can be used in logical arguments.) Such an argument is almost certainly going to be fallacious, just not necessarily "logically fallacious".

I call him names cause he is making Reason, Logic and Science look like rubbish. I see these things as very important tools that can give people more control over their lives. But for that to happen these tools have to be used properly. Terms have specific meanings - like numbers, 3 is not 5 or 3,456,677 - and using the terms properly means using them accurately. Given the quality of reasoning that is being promoted in the video name calling seems more appropriate.

I can imagine that its very exciting to see a world-view that one finds oppressive (Religion) being attacked and "shown" to be lacking and that seeing "Reason, Science and Logic" used in such ways makes RSL look more attractive and exiting than they'd look if they were being used accurately. But the price of that glamorous image is an increasing belief in the magic of reason and science, sloppy and inaccurate thinking and the loss of an opportunity for people to learn more about our current understandings of both the universe and humans.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
I agree but. "No reason to accept an unjustified claim", is something else. There is often a very good reason to accept an unjustified claim - the perceived pay-off of accepting it can outweigh the perceived costs of rejecting it. So its not justified but it is reasonable.


Can you be more specific? I can certainly see, for example, someone attending church and acting Christian because this avoids social consequences, just like some gay people choose to be in the closet, but that doesn't mean actually accepting the claim. I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind, though.

Chad_Ellis wrote:
I have a 52 card deck with the 2 Clubs stained on back and front. ( I have "sentience" about the identity of that card.) When we play with this deck I try and ignore that knowledge - I have sentience but often don't utilise it. I see nothing in "omniscience" that demands a single "state of self" - I have some sentience and multiple states, why would absolute sentience require only one state?


I think this is a long and complex discussion. Suffice to say, he's weighed the arguments and believes that its an incoherent concept. I happen to agree with him, and we can have the debate if you like.

Quote:
I do not have problems with some-one subscribing to the view you suggest - but (from memory here) to put it forward as a cut and dried logical impossibility in something that is (hopefully) aimed at "beginners" appears to be more likely to develop "belief" rather than "critical thought" in the viewer.


I had a similar reaction, FWIW. I liked the video much more than you did and thought that the overall quality of thinking was high, but there were definitely things I didn't like. I think he resorted to caricature when putting words in the mouths of theists (although some theists do say those things) and I think he listed contentious items like the one we're discussing here as though they were clean-cut and obvious to all.

Quote:

Rebut "I have a LOGICAL argument that A is B"?
When ANY presupposition can be used? It is is very possible that the argument is logically coherent but founded on rubbish. (I did not hear him making any case that shows only well evidenced, rational and reasonable assumptions can be used in logical arguments.) Such an argument is almost certainly going to be fallacious, just not necessarily "logically fallacious".


The worst you can say then is that he was imprecise. It seemed clear to me that he was saying that any logical argument that asserted the existence of God had to include either logical fallacies or unsupported premises. Thus, the argument would be fallacious even though it might be logically valid.

As for the rest, it's probably best that we agree to disagree on how well or poorly he was using logic, science and reason.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.