Things Theists say (broadly speaking)

 In the eleven years of doing youtube as a skeptic I've encountered plenty of theists who really believe the things that I do not. I've noted a trend of things that come up in those talks, here are some of those things:

~~~~

0: You believe/think (X)!

Assuming that I believe (or do not believe)/ or feel about things in (X) (Y) or (Z) ways. This is very common and one of the most annoying things I encounter - just ask me. Stop shoving ideas in my head or feelings into my brain! 

1: The universe came from "nothing".

This isn't something I, nor any atheist/skeptic/non-believer that I am aware of believes in. No one that I know of makes this claim. This *click* book has a click-bate name, if you read it you will find its not a "nothing" - just he uses that word. However even if he did think it was "nothing" that would be HIS stance, not mine. I do not KNOW where/how universe "came to" be - or even if those are the right words, cosmology is very hard - you need to deal with complex maths and modeling to even start to do it right, and that is way beyond me, and way beyond most people.

Not knowing does not mean thinking it came from nothing.

"But if it didn't come from God....where did it come from?" that is a loaded question that assumes it came from somewhere - but the answer is... I do not know. I do not pretend to know. Its a mystery that I'm okay with. But - yeah no we don't think the universe came from "nothing" - I'm not sure that a nothing is even possible! No rules? What would that look like? If you had no rules then you wouldn't have anything to stop something coming from nothing would you? If you have a rule then you do not have a nothing.

2: Look at the trees!

I've looked at them. Now what? Oh see we should be amazed at trees I guess. Why? Well because... it was made by GOD. Really? How can ya tell? Well this goes into an analogy about how things are built by people yadada therefor tree is built by god. But - no, trees evolved like all other living things, and so that doesn't need a god at any point to do any of that.

3: It only makes sense if God did it.

That's nice. But that doesn't make it true. Just because something "makes sense" to you does not make that thing TRUE. What matters is if the thing is true, not if it "makes sense" or not. The true nature of reality might seem incoherent to us. Or it might be really silly like the number 42, 69 or 27! Who knows! But your appeal to your own personal limited thinking does not and is not an argument nor is it proof of anything other then you don't know logic. LEARN LOGIC.

4: Atheists have no moral justification.

What is your argument? Who cares? What if it is true? So? This is of course a poisoning of the well and a full misunderstanding of what "atheist" is/means. To be atheist does not tell you anything about morals, ethics, how to vote, where to live, what to put on, etc. It is an answer to the question "Do you believe in god?" If no - then you are an atheist. That's it. It is NOT a worldview. Theists keep thinking that it is, but it isn't. It just is a view that we do not believe in a god. So to say that we have no (X) when that wouldn't even apply is rather clunky. But - yeah.... we do have moral justification in ethics. A lot of ethical systems exist out there to pick from. The atheist can't pick DCT (divine command theory)- but is free to pick from any of the other ones. So we have plenty of grounding. This non-starter of a try at an argument is to suggest that DCT is the BEST ethical system - that no other ethical system grounds morals - because GOD. God somehow (?) grounds morals. Is it good because God said it or because it is good? Euthyphro remains unanswered to this day (at least in a coherent manor to my knowledge).

Saying that God = Good and thus whatever is "Good" is God doesn't ground anything at all, it just asserts. It moves the problem back. We humans made morals including DCT. The problem(s) with DCT are numerous but at the top of the list is that you can't really be sure its GOD that said to do (or not do) the thing. Worse then that, you do not get to question God. Every moral system other then DCT you get to question if the thing is or is not right. You get to ask why/how that action is good. DCT is all about might makes right. God said it, that settles it. Appeal to authority 101. Of course this leads to disaster when two groups of people claim God said to do something - one says hats on Sunday, one god says no hats on Sunday- well... time to kill some hat lovers! Yay! Also of course there are two groups of people who are fighting over a single spot on the earth because God told them both that that spot belongs to them, and not the other people. Yikes. 

More to come....

Pseudologic spotting.

People with zero videos... weird.

So I've noted that three people have all posed insane things about formal logic as of late.

And one person who has videos but none of them are anything to do with logic (a few video games and some home video family-type vids).

In every case I am bewildered at both how they SEEM to know a lot about formal logic, and yet - they don't.

Its odd to me that if they did have the understanding they suggest that they would not also make content - why limit yourself to text?

Speculation about the motives of people of course, is just that. There is nothing special about this. Plenty of people do not have content. It just "feels weird" - ah - emotion! See there is the first step towards pattern seeking that would be all to easy to go down the rabbit hole with.

These people posting are - I think, using chatgpt or something like it, and/or taking from random webpages ideas about formal logic to make there own. Why? Well - no idea why. I had to call one out for being trollish at this point because they keep digging in deeper with things that are less sensical.

Formal logic is most useful for the abstract world. It works great in maths and on paper but doesn't (always) work with real world objects.

For whatever reason these keyboard warriors have come "at me" for my video on the atheist experience's broken argument to defend that broken argument. Its not REALLY broken you see.... yea well no it is. BUT... no still broken.

BUT. Nope.

However, one person that I'm including in my odd people that talk logic was not about that argument at all, rather he mentioned something I've never heard of or read about!

"S5 logic"

https://philarchive.org/archive/ANDMLT#:~:text=The%20modal%20logic%20system%20S5,logic%20goes%2C%20system%20of%20logic.

https://mally.stanford.edu/S5.html#:~:text=The%20axioms%20of%20S5%20are,p%2C%20then%20p%20is%20true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S5_(modal_logic)

Example of how it gets "abused"

https://joshualrasmussen.com/s5/

(Former skeptic Joshua Rasmussen left Christianity to pursue truth through reason and philosophy. Over time, his intellectual pursuit led him back to a strong belief in God.)

With abstract objects (X) and (Z) we can do a lot of fun things, and then one can get to strange formulas that then when non-abstract should (one would think) still work... but... it doesn't always work. Oh sometimes it does. But other times - nope.

Why? Well because the real world is not one of the abstract. (mostly) we are dealing with real day objects here.

However, the person(s) that want an abstract world ie: "Spiritual" could abuse formal logic.

Does not matter if it is for or against God - I do not care. I only care that the argument is SOUND. (to be sound it must be valid as well) the SOUND part is really what matters most because that means you have found no logical errors.

Well - how does one look for logical errors? By looking at the real world! Ah - so see, informal (and formal) logic has it limits. Its great to have A=B, B=C, C=D, therefor A=D Sure that works! But... if you turn that to "God is a lobster, lobster can be eaten, eating them can be done by atheists therefor God can be eaten by atheists!" well... that doesn't work anymore! But!?! It worked as abstract...!!! Sure. But not in the real world once we pulled it from the abstract letters to become real objects - or assume they are real objects - then it clearly no longer works.

Logic, has its limits. So with the abstract one can very much play with the notions of "possible" to get to "actual" to say that god is possible therefor is actual and you can indeed put all sorts of logical formulas around that to """prove""" that is true. (Not enough quotes in the universe)

So... people are - I am deeply afraid - abusing formal logic because well - it CAN be abused. They have not bothered with informal logic or simply do not care and/or are trolls and/or .... bleep if I know - all I know is that - they are not using it in ways they should.

However, no where does it say how one "should" use logic of course. Anyone can use it for - well anything. Even to make things appear to be real when they are not.

Pseudoscience is a thing people use! And well... so is pseudologic!

It shouldn't surprise me - I've been telling theists this for years! I guess it comes at a strange angle to see people who might be atheists (I assume they are, no idea) would use pseudologic to make an argument that a broken argument is not broken.

Why? Just use a better argument?!

Well bleep who knows.

People are weird.

Kinda like this theist who I have been typing at who insists that everyone worships something even though I've told him I do not, he insists that I do. He can "see" that I do. So he must be right. Even though he isn't right because I know I do not worship anything.

Its a wacky world we live in.

Learn real logic so you can spot pseudologic.

You are...

You are...

You are the sum total of all the potential of humanity that has existed to this point. You are more than a name, a sexual orientation, your politics, your beliefs or lack thereof; you are more than a father, son, mother, daughter; you are more than any and all labels, and all without any need to add that you have some eternal spirit. Maybe you do, I don't know; I don't believe in such things.

But know this, we humans are so much more than the mere sum of our parts, and woe be to those that dare suggest we are reducible to the lowest thing, more so when they do so because religion drives them – in an effort to win the religious vs. non-religious debate. I've seen, "For the atheist, humans are mere animals, here by chance." Well... we are animals, and we are here in part because of chance, but also because we won. We beat the odds – somehow, we made it, so far. We won the game of life, at least for a moment. So no, we are not JUST anything.

You are so much more than I can even hope to begin to write about.

Of course, that's the good news.

The bad news is that we will not reach all the things – because even though we do have the potential to do it, that does not mean we WILL do it. Our bodies are limited, our minds are limited, and our desires restrain us.

Oh sure, I could work out every day starting tomorrow and get nice muscles for my effort – but I don't want to do that! I just do not want to! But maybe you have that desire in you! Great! Then you go get it! The worst thing we can do is not do the thing we CAN do – it's one thing to not be able to do (X), it's a whole other thing to not do it when you COULD do it, and more so if you want to. Nothing should stop you then – well... but reasonability – bills, chores, requirements, whatever... maybe.

But still, but still – you can maybe sort all that out and do the thing. That's what makes you great, that's what makes us great! We need to know that. You need to know that.

Well, maybe you did, but here is a reminder, that you are. 

The bible is super mega moral!

Psalms 137:9 Blessed the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rock: the children represent the future generations, and so must be destroyed if the enemy is truly to be eradicated.

1 Samuel 15:3 

Hosea 13:1 

Isaiah 13:16 

Numbers 31:17 

Deuteronomy 21:18

Exodus 21:15 

Exodus 22:19 

Death! Kill!! War! Stuff!! Glad no one (by no one I mean lots of people) take this out of context!

So yeah, the bible says that killing people is fine under some conditions and also seems to be fine with genocide. That doesn't seem good to me. 

One example of a chrich doing things in or not in the bible that I can point to is the CoC:

The Chirch of Christ (click) thinks that you can't use mechanical intraments even though Psalm 33:2 says otherwise! (click)

One example of a church doing things in or not in the Bible that I can point to is the CoC:

The Church of Christ thinks that you can't use mechanical instruments, even though Psalm 33:2 says otherwise!

Maybe there are no modern churches (thank goodness!) that follow the laws of the Bible, but my point is, it doesn't say these things are bad; rather, it says they are good. That is bad. How can you make good ethics with bad morals? No idea!

Ah well, maybe someone will explain it to me one day in a logical way...

"Nark"

NARK!

Tonight we smelled smoke, and looked outside, the people across from us were buring something in the front yard, this is of course, against fire relguations and the managment's rules.

We looked at the fire it was pretty small, but still it could spread - the windows were dark, no porchlight on - was there anyone home over there? Should we check? Just as we were pondering all this, two people came out to attend to the fire - ah good, someone is watching it.

I overheard them bitterly complaining about how people should `mind there own busness" and said something about someone being fat (perhaps directed at me or my brother) and that `this is what's wrong with America' and of course, "Why do people got to Nark?"

Ah yes, the imature mentality of the anti-nark. Don't be a tattletale! The word "nark" is the `grownup' (ha!) version of this. A number of years ago, somone was shot in this area, and I recall one person talking to the news people, talking to whomever was out there "please come forward, your not a nark..."

Today we have the saying "see something, say something". Yet, this old mentality still exists. Don't "tell" on someone.

Well - why the bleep shouldn't you? If you see someone doing something illegal - shouldn't you report it?

Minding your own busness - well great but a FIRE isn't the time to do that - because fire spreads! FIRE BAD but if your doing something you shouldn't - well maybe someone is going to say something about that, and perhaps, they are doing so for protection of others.

See someone go in a house that you've never seen before? Ah well - its fine, don't NARK. Oh someone looks like they are breaking into a car? Not my problem.

Its never your problem and never your busness until it effects you and you wish someone would call for help on your behalf. 

But this - mentality that people shouldn't "nark" where did it come from? How do we get rid of it? 

Looking at the web - you can see some sad answers from people that dislike `snitching' or `narking' - these low brow, not well thought out ideas of that its betraying a trust or something of that sort, how about its doing what is right? If someone breaks a rule - a law, and so on - shouldn't you say something?

"Stand up for yourself" - oh well... that could lead to problems of all kinds. The whole point of cops and lawers and judges is to make us cival - right?

Yet, what I fear is perhaps that THEY think I am a Nark - they BELEVE that, and might seek to do me, my properity, or my friends/family harm. Because they FEEL that I did something - and that is the sort of mentality that I fear.

Is being a nark good/bad/depends? Shouldn't we try to do what is right, and in the end, if we see something - shouldn't we say something?

Labels: Bug or Feature?

Labels: bug or feature?

#LGB is trending on Twitter and other places.

And no, it's not about trains, so let's not derail this topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGB_Alliance

Talks about a group that has made advanced to take the "T" out of the LGBT

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-it-s-time-to-take-the-t-out-of-lgbt-10493352.html

Says that the "T" needs to break off from the LGB

https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2015/11/06/lgbt-groups-respond-petition-asking-drop-t

Talks about how the "T" should not be removed at all.

Let's not even go down the rabbit hole that is "TERFs" - oh boy!  Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminists! Sounds like fun! I'm sure nothing could go wrong...

This https://www.transhub.org.au/101/trans-lgbt gives one people's view of why the T is in the LGBT.

However, my focus is not on the politics, sexuality, gender, or whatever that the LGBT stands for, but rather the label itself.

Labels are a bug in our software.

Our software, in this analogy that I'm using to make this whole presentation, is reality itself. Whoever or whatever made it left in plenty of bugs and no patch for us, so we are on our own.

Labels are - useful features - I'm a skeptic. Atheist. Agnostic, Igtheist, utilitarian, Logician, male, heterosexual, middle age, white, American, human, omnivore, VET, single. Ex-christian, infidel. Bipedal, insomniac! Also, a few other labels that I'd rather not disclose and a few that I reject, and others that I pretend not to have.

So it's a feature - you know something about me you did not know.

Yet, you can not know all there is to know about me with just those labels.

But, I am not just any of those. Basing my identity, my "self" on any of that would not be useful to me, as I'm more than any of that.

So it's a bug then - because it's not as functional as we would like, also it's bad because anyone can claim to have any label and there is no way to stop them from doing so! 

Yet, we have this separation of a label into smaller labels - because the LGBT is not "just" a label, it's also a movement, it's also a political ideology of sorts, its... what is it really? Who says what it is? Can anyone claim ownership of it?

Well, no. But people can and will claim it regardless, and other people will want their own label. They will move away from the current label to a new or old label, because people want to self identify.

That's fine, but it's making the system go buggy now. The feature that was useful in one place is now running rampant all over the place! Why?

Because.... humans are complex. We are social creatures; we yearn for a group, but we also like to be alone and our own self. We put on a group identity yet might lose the self identity. Such is the danger of the label.

So, how can we best use this feature, or how do we patch this bug?

That... is my question.

I do not know how to solve it! You do it! GO GO GO! ... and let me know when you have it figured out! :)

Celestal judgement?

I said in a post that Christianity has no true celestial judgment, and was asked how I would think actual judgment should be done in the afterlife. This was my response:

~~~~

If there is a celestial judgment at the end of it all, then I would expect that one would have to experience all the emotions they caused to other people (and perhaps other creatures as well). 

Perhaps you could pick to do (X) number of bad ones then (X) number of good, or maybe you would do one good, one bad and so on. After you were done experiencing all that you caused others to feel, then you have been both punished, and rewarded in full, you get to know what it was that you did, and you then get to rest awhile.

Perhaps then you can either keep existing or hit a button to end existing, I'm not sure what an existence would matter if you couldn't learn, grow, change, if you had nothing to challenge you, but maybe there would be stuff to do, who knows, regardless the justice part would be settled.

This is closer to how Zoroastrianism views it, but for them its more that if you are "better" then "bad" that you would get to get the good place, but if you were worse then good, you go to the bad place. 

That isn't quite as fair as the system that I thought of here. And that's also part of the problem, I can think of a better system. I - a mere mortal can come up with several better systems in fact. 

The reason I can - (and you could as well) come up with better systems is because humans in the past made up the ideas. Why? It's a perfect way to lure people into thinking that (X) is true. If you question (X) you go to the BAD PLACE ooo scary! The appeal to fear (a logical fallacy) could very well compel people to keep believing OR become believers (or both). If that doesn't work you also have the carrot, (appeal to bribe) believe it and get (z) reward. 

It's a way to keep people believing and scare them from giving up on the belief system. 

Of course, to enforce that more, you have the scare of that you might still not make it even if you do believe, making you work that much harder to really, really believe it. 

The good behavior is then simply tacked onto and on top of that, as clearly we humans can be good without DCT (see my video called that) - we can be good to each other and the world without the bible, in fact, its pretty hard to follow all 613 commandments these days - we have laws against stoning people to death - so you can't drag someone to the edge of town and kill them (by stoning!) when they have mixed fabrics or talk back to the elder or blasphemy. 

These ideas of the afterlife, plenty of religions and cults have them. Heaven's gate promised its followers that if they died they would go to the "good place" behind the comet.

There is no evidence for such a place though, yet people died to go there. They really, really beleved in it. 

Belief can be good, or bad, and it can make you do or not do good or bad things. But, if we can not or will not question it, well - that brings the problems. 

I wonder what the Gate person would have said about the afterlife - celestial judgment - what did they think happened to people who were not part of the group? Sadly, we can not know because they are gone. 

With them, the beliefs they held also die out. As do religions given enough time and/or pressure. 

As we humans keep moving forward, the bible will stay static. It's unable to answer plenty of questions about today's world, we can clearly see the morals and ethics of it are highly questionable if not outright offensive. Its only a matter of time before we as a species move on. Turn the page of the history books, your religion is just a chapter in the grand story of humanity.

I might have gone on a bit of a tangent there, but I do that sometimes.

As a skeptic, I can see the flaws in the belief system, but as a former believer I know just how powerful the hold of faith can be.

Maybe if its so full of problems, and you can not fix them, that it's time to find a new belief system, one where, perhaps you do not have as many issues.

I do hope that if you do that - that it will not be hard or painful as it was for me. Everyone has a different experience though when reconverting when they do so of course.

And... okay I'm super mega tangent now.

Learn logic, be skeptical. 🦞