Rayman Pirate-Community

Keane wrote:But then you actually are taking an agnostic stance, no?

Indeed, I know I can't prove my position to be true so I accept that God could exist with the equal possibility that Santa could exist. In other words, in the same way most people don't believe in Santa, I don't believe in God.

People have gotten more intelligent since 2008; this topic has lost a lot of its magic.

Keane wrote:Bump, I wanna talk about religion again. Is agnosticism the only legitimate position to take? Religious and atheists can't prove they're right, but everyone can admit they don't officially know what's real. Checkmate.

You're overlooking another component of agnosticism, which is the unknowability. To quote Wikipedia, “agnosticism is the philosophical view that the existence of God or the supernatural are unknown and unknowable”. While someone will have a hard time proving to you that God exists—or not, proving that this statement itself can neither be proved nor disproved will give you a hard time too.

Ambidextroid wrote:I've said this before but I don't see the point in holding an agnostic point of view to be "safe", you might as well hold the same view about whether we are in the Matrix or not, and whether our politicians are lizard people, and any other random statement that cannot be disproven. Considering the fact that we are almost certainly not in the Matrix, to the extent at which I would say I'm certain we are not in the Matrix, I would say I'm certain there is no God.

Ambidextroid wrote:I was trying to explain that I am practically certain that there is no God, as I assume God doesn't exist. However, I'm not technically 100% certain but I don't let that miniscule percentage of doubt get in the way of my "practical" certainty, if that makes sense.
In other words technically nobody can be certain about anything, which makes the word quite useless unless it's taken with a pinch of salt.

Ambidextroid wrote:Indeed, I know I can't prove my position to be true so I accept that God could exist with the equal possibility that Santa could exist. In other words, in the same way most people don't believe in Santa, I don't believe in God.

You keep mentioning the probability that God exists and how small it is. Can you please elaborate on how you calculate/estimate said probability? (Of course you can't, but I have a feeling you're basing your reasoning on Occam's razor, but are treating it as more than the heuristic technique it is.)

Keane wrote:I lean towards atheism, but it's impossible to argue that's a certain believe. A "safe" point of view would be to decide that you know the answer and become a devout whatever without proven evidence. If people were honest with themselves everyone would be an agnostic who leans in a direction.

Why? It's perfectly possible to be both agnostic and atheist, and that's the case for me.

Hunchman801 wrote:You keep mentioning the probability that God exists and how small it is. Can you please elaborate on how you calculate/estimate said probability? (Of course you can't, but I have a feeling you're basing your reasoning on Occam's razor, but are treating it as more than the heuristic technique it is.)

I thought the definition of atheist automatically encompassed agnostics...
And of course I can't calculate any probability, maybe I'm just phrasing it poorly. If you were walking down the street and someone bumped into you, what's the probability that it was someone wearing a red shirt? How about someone wearing any shirt? The first is less probable than the second. How about the probability that it was a sentient mango beast? Less probable still. When I say probability or chance, I'm more saying what is more apparently likely considering what we know about the world and general laws of the universe, logic and common sense, etc. and not basing it on any actual mathematics.
I remember talking about Occam's razor before, but to be honest I'm just basing my reasoning on what makes sense in my noggin and it's proving not to be the easiest thing to put into words.

Ambidextroid wrote:I thought the definition of atheist automatically encompassed agnostics...

Nope, atheism is the belief that there is no god.

Ambidextroid wrote:And of course I can't calculate any probability, maybe I'm just phrasing it poorly. If you were walking down the street and someone bumped into you, what's the probability that it was someone wearing a red shirt? How about someone wearing any shirt? The first is less probable than the second. How about the probability that it was a sentient mango beast? Less probable still. When I say probability or chance, I'm more saying what is more apparently likely considering what we know about the world and general laws of the universe, logic and common sense, etc. and not basing it on any actual mathematics.
I remember talking about Occam's razor before, but to be honest I'm just basing my reasoning on what makes sense in my noggin and it's proving not to be the easiest thing to put into words.

Well, among competing hypotheses, you are selecting the one with the fewest assumptions (no red shirt, no sentient mango beast, etc.). This is Occam's razor. And while it's a great heuristic tool, it is not irrefutable principle. Take classical and quantum mechanics, for example. Until we observed the behavior of particles at a very small scale, there was absolutely no need to come up with quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics were the model that worked and required the fewer assumptions, so we stuck with it until we realized it didn't work at all scales. Your perception of the world may lead you to think that there is no place for God to explain what you see of it, but what do you really know of it?

Hunchman801 wrote:Nope, atheism is the belief that there is no god.

I had just taken the word for what it was, "atheist" seems to mean "not a theist" which would include agnostics

Hunchman801 wrote:Well, among competing hypotheses, you are selecting the one with the fewest assumptions (no red shirt, no sentient mango beast, etc.). This is Occam's razor. And while it's a great heuristic tool, it is not irrefutable principle. Take classical and quantum mechanics, for example. Until we observed the behavior of particles at a very small scale, there was absolutely no need to come up with quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics were the model that worked and required the fewer assumptions, so we stuck with it until we realized it didn't work at all scales. Your perception of the world may lead you to think that there is no place for God to explain what you see of it, but what do you really know of it?

I don't use this as my method of perceiving the world, it just seems to make practical sense when considering whether God exists. If I thought about it long enough I might be able to make out a complete picture of how I perceive the world that's consistent with my view of God, but I clearly haven't given it enough thought

I think that believing in God is better than nothing, because, at least, have something to rely on or to believe, and it is always a relief to think that there is something better awaiting for you after your death, I can only imagine how much of a pain it can be thinking about yourself lifeless and decaying in the dirt eaten out by insects and just be out of existence forever.
In addition our universe is far too complex to have been created by pure randomness out of nothing, there must be something behind it.

incognito wrote:I can only imagine how much of a pain it can be thinking about yourself lifeless and decaying in the dirt eaten out by insects and just be out of existence forever.

I would think imagining there's a possibility that you'll spend the entirety of your life in hell if you don't meet God's quota would be much more frightening and life crippling, but then again I've never met anyone religious who's doubted that they'll go to heaven.

I'm not sure if it belongs here exactly, but I was recently thinking about free will and came across an idea. What if free will is less about making decisions, but more about how your brain will always choose what is best for you?
There's a theory that the universe could be simulated if we knew the position of every atom, the flow of all energy and the exact neurons that fire in everyone's brains, from which we could exactly predict the future meaning free will would not exist. If you believed this you might think humans follow some sort of predetermined life and and that we couldn't make decisions of our own.
However, what if we could make decisions but there is always an inevitable outcome?
For example, if you were standing on some train tracks and a train was approaching, you might ask "if there is no free will, do I even have a choice here?" but I would say you do have a choice; of course it's both physically possible to stand still, or to jump out of the way. There's nothing stopping you, yet we all know the outcome is that you will inevitably jump out of the way of the train because it is in your best interest. It's not that you didn't have the choice, it's just that the human mind will calculate the best outcome and aim for it.
So if you were to travel into the future and find that you've got a job in a certain field, it's not that you were predetermined to have that job, it's just that the brain will always calculate what is in its best interest and if that leads you to a good job, that just means your brain is quite good at calculating what is best for you. If you find that you are in a bad position, then maybe it's not as good at calculating that best outcome.

So while we may have a predetermined life in the sense that you could travel into the future and see exactly what you are doing in 10 years, it isn't because our lives are on a rail and we do not get to make any meaningful decisions. It's just because the human brain is not a random object; it runs on logic, and will always try its best to calculate what is best for you to progress, survive, reach your goals etc.
I suppose I'm not really bringing anything new to the table, I'm simply putting it another way. I've heard people refuse to believe the sort of predetermined predictable theory as it implies they don't have any choice in life which is hard to grasp, but I'd say you shouldn't feel discredited if your life is "predetermined", as the decisions that got you there are still yours.

Ambidextroid wrote:It's just because the human brain is not a random object; it runs on logic, and will always try its best to calculate what is best for you to progress, survive, reach your goals etc.
I suppose I'm not really bringing anything new to the table, I'm simply putting it another way. I've heard people refuse to believe the sort of predetermined predictable theory as it implies they don't have any choice in life which is hard to grasp, but I'd say you shouldn't feel discredited if your life is "predetermined", as the decisions that got you there are still yours.

Hmf, my brian didn't always took the best decisions for me obviously.

I like to think that life can't be predicted as everything begins with a choice, like you said with the train, make a break at that instant, in that moment you can't know what'll happen, you see a man about to jump on the tracks with the train approaching, you can't know what'll happen as the choice wasn't made. You can also stand still or lead the man to safety, there are many ways that thing can happen, I don't think calculations can help with this. But I noticed that when I used to follow my coded life discipline I wasn't even thinking about the choice, I was doing the things that my body didn't wanted me to do generally to win control over myself, and I ended up feeling completely released from any kind of constraints choices could give me. It might seem a bit awkward but I suggest you to read about synchronicity and self control.
I also like think that the only way to win the mastery of your fate is to be the master of yourself as the constant pressure your body can give you with leads somehow puts you in a "single way" situation.

incognito wrote:I like to think that life can't be predicted as everything begins with a choice, like you said with the train, make a break at that instant, in that moment you can't know what'll happen, you see a man about to jump on the tracks with the train approaching, you can't know what'll happen as the choice wasn't made. You can also stand still or lead the man to safety, there are many ways that thing can happen, I don't think calculations can help with this.

Aye, there are many possible choices, but you have to come to one decision; I'm saying that this decision is inevitable. Depending on what's running through your head, what's in your best interest, what's happening around you at that moment etc., your brain will calculate the best outcome for you and come to an inevitable decision. There's no randomness, your brain will only ever make one decision in that situation.
Someone could walk over and stop you from standing in front of the train, but that would be a calculation performed by their brain.
I propose that every decision and everything we do in our lives is not a whimsical choice but a calculation performed by our brains to do what's in our best interest, or if not then just an (also inevitable) quirk of the human brain.

If I have not said so already, I am agnostic. In the realm of 'I don't know, can't prove it one way or another, and don't care to think deeper than that.' I am thinking of turning to bhuddism/taosim instead.

neo wrote:If I have not said so already, I am agnostic. In the realm of 'I don't know, can't prove it one way or another, and don't care to think deeper than that.' I am thinking of turning to bhuddism/taosim instead.

I don't see how someone could consider turning to a range of religions, surely if you follow a religion it's because you actually believe in its scripture and supernatural elements? But if you're saying you're thinking of adopting one of two very different religions, it seems to suggest that you don't believe either.
I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't quite get it...

Ambidextroid wrote: I don't see how someone could consider turning to a range of religions, surely if you follow a religion it's because you actually believe in its scripture and supernatural elements? But if you're saying you're thinking of adopting one of two very different religions, it seems to suggest that you don't believe either.
I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't quite get it...

I don't believe in it, since I have no proof otherwise. Yet I also know I can't disprove it. Buddhism seems to be about truth and enlightenment and not about any spiritual beings, which is why I would rather choose something I can believe in.

Ambidextroid wrote:There's a theory that the universe could be simulated if we knew the position of every atom, the flow of all energy and the exact neurons that fire in everyone's brains, from which we could exactly predict the future meaning free will would not exist. If you believed this you might think humans follow some sort of predetermined life and and that we couldn't make decisions of our own.

The theory in question is the mere consequence of materialism (all things are the result of material interactions) and determinism (precisely that of the laws of the universe, meaning that the same initial state and conditions will always yield the same result). One can easily see how the combination of these two assumptions results in the future being written, and predictable should we have perfect knowledge of the current (or past) state of the universe as well as of the laws that govern it.

So, does it mean that free will doesn't exist? In a way, your brain still chooses. Not what's best, because it doesn't know (and that would most likely be impossible to determine), it just chooses according to its structure and the information it receives. Just like giraffes didn't evolve long necks to reach tall trees, but they're the result of subsequent mutations that gave them a competitive advantage, your brain does not pursue a greater goal, it just so happens that it's become rather good at taking decisions because good decisions allowed your ancestors to survive.

But then, who knows whether the universe is only made of matter? Anyone that believes in God doesn't think so. As for determinism, it was shaken by quantum indeterminacy, even though it is reasonable to assume it can be ignored for macroscopic events.

In conclusion, your reasoning is correct, but the assumptions it requires can't be proved for sure.

Hunchman801 wrote:In a way, your brain still chooses. Not what's best, because it doesn't know (and that would most likely be impossible to determine), it just chooses according to its structure and the information it receives.

I didn't mean the human always finds the best outcome, just that it chooses what it thinks is best. No human with a perfectly happy life would commit suicide out of nowhere, for example (unless you had a mental illness or something else that dramatically effected your decision making).

Hunchman801 wrote:Just like giraffes didn't evolve long necks to reach tall trees, but they're the result of subsequent mutations that gave them a competitive advantage, your brain does not pursue a greater goal, it just so happens that it's become rather good at taking decisions because good decisions allowed your ancestors to survive.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this correctly... You say "your brain does not pursue a greater goal", if you mean evolution's impetus is not to pursue a greater goal then I agree, I wasn't referring to evolution, just that our minds calculate roughly what it thinks is most beneficial for us.

Hunchman801 wrote:In conclusion, your reasoning is correct, but the assumptions it requires can't be proved for sure

Couldn't that be said about anything though?

The only religions I believe in these days is sleeping and eating. Can I get an amen?

Ambidextroid wrote:I didn't mean the human always finds the best outcome, just that it chooses what it thinks is best. No human with a perfectly happy life would commit suicide out of nowhere, for example (unless you had a mental illness or something else that dramatically effected your decision making).

Ambidextroid wrote:I'm not sure I'm understanding this correctly... You say "your brain does not pursue a greater goal", if you mean evolution's impetus is not to pursue a greater goal then I agree, I wasn't referring to evolution, just that our minds calculate roughly what it thinks is most beneficial for us.

I was simply saying that a materialistic point of view does not necessarily conflict with the notion of free will, but rather explains it as the product of material interactions. In that sense, your brain does not really look for the best option, it simply happens to find it quite often because billions of years of evolution and natural selection have made it quite good at that.

Ambidextroid wrote:Couldn't that be said about anything though?

I suppose. After all, our perception of reality is not the same thing as reality itself, so what can we be certain of?

Hunchman801 wrote:In that sense, your brain does not really look for the best option, it simply happens to find it quite often because billions of years of evolution and natural selection have made it quite good at that.

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes I agree, I suppose I was just phrasing it simply (the same way you would say a neural network "tries" winning a game of chess, when it actually just happens to win quite often because of the training data it's been through)

Yes, though in this case an even better analogue would be neuroevolution (using evolutionary algorithms to select neural networks).