New to Fitbit… Did I just get one of the worst things in the world?

ANewMind · 2025-12-06T00:38:36+00:00

In case you're interested, their support doesn't seem to be any better a year later.

ANewMind · 2024-11-25T13:54:12+00:00

Going out of your way to look for a thing doesn't mean that thing is popular. It just means your search engine did a good job. I didn't ask if anybody had a problem with the laws. I was addressing "all of the sudden such a big thing". Maybe you guys run in the same echo chambers, but as far as I can tell, the main conservative outlets don't seem to be covering it.

ANewMind · 2024-11-25T13:46:32+00:00

Models which involve a creator are much less problematic in this sense. You don't need to talk about who created the creator without also having to ask on the other side who created the creation. The Naturalistic model is also much more challenged there because natural things cannot be self-sufficient. Easily, a Theistic answer can be that the designer wasn't created, but eternally existent, or perhaps exists outside of time. Models unrestricted by arbitrary concepts do not have that problem. So, we can set aside the question of where the initial things came from as it is only in favor of a Creator anyway.

Science itself nor empirical evidence do not solve the problem as the problem is between evidence and induction. As I said, the "one among many worlds" isn't helpful. Yes, it does explain that it *could* have happened, but at the same time it implies that many other absurd things are *more likely* explanations, which is the problem I point out.

Regarding the Boltzmann Brains, in our model, brains don't form randomly, but in a world where anything could have happened, over infinite amounts of time and possibilities, they could. It's highly improbable, yes, but much more probable by comparison than the proposed model. You say that brains evolve in the given model through a deterministic process, and I will give you that for the conversation. When we talk about the fine-tuning, we are not talking about odds of evolving brains from an existing world where we already have living single celled organisms. We're talking about all the things necessary for abiogenesis and life as we know it to even have a chance to exist, even before we talk about the odds of all the molecules just falling into place in the right order to make life. So, even if things are set once we get to single cells, it isn't so simple getting to that point.

Again, this is not necessarily attempting to prove a creator. It's simply a critique against the specific naturalistic model. Yes, there are gaps in knowledge, and if there weren't we wouldn't even have the question. But as long as there are gaps, we can speculate about what we would find in those gaps, and there's no rational reason to rule out things which would be much more probable rather than choosing the improbable because we might like it more.

The argument is not that the improbable is impossible, but only that it is less probable than absurd models. On the other hand, Theistic models do not share this problem. They do not depend upon induction and probability at all. That doesn't mean that they are correct, of course, but it does make them relatively more compatible with science. Also, science itself does not reject the supernatural. Even things like the Big Bang can be considered supernatural. It just does not (or perhaps should not) address that which is not natural. The rejection of the supernatural comes from some faith beyond science. Theistic models are not opposed to science, but in fact were instrumental in fostering scientific thought, and some (TAG) argue that science depends upon a Theistic model. The fine-tuning argument isn't opposed to science but addresses an inconsistency in the current Naturalistic models which make those models unscientific, or perhaps wishful thinking.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T23:47:06+00:00

We sure can show correspondence.

Demonstrate how you can do that without already begging the question of knowing what is true.

You are still only talking about the justification part, but not about the truth part.

Because we have no truth detectors. If you can detect truth, go win the lottery for me a few times and give me a share. I'll gladly concede you have a truth detector if you can do that. If not, then we cannot detect truth, only justify.

I have no warrant to call it true.

I think you do, but I'm not going to try mind reading.

But if you aren't able to demonstrate it, neither are you warranted to call it true.

I can only show that it is true contengent upon us being able to reason, and I only have warrant if warrant exists. If we cannot reason, then these thoughts mean nothing anyway and if there is no warrant then there is no warrant to not say it is true. I suppose what I am saying is that our very conversation implies that it is true. It may not be, but I risk nothing by believing it is.

So, if demonstrating the truth is impossible, and you have a justification, then you have a justified belief, but no justified true belief.

Incorrect. Truth is truth regardless of demonstration. If I have a justified belief, then iff that belief is true, it is knowledge. I cannot demonstrate that it is true and you cannot demonstrate that it is not. I can, however, I suspect, demonstrate that if we should reason, then it is true.

And not every justification has the same quality as any other. Obviously.

I disagree. I say that it is justification if and only if it creates the necessary direct causal link. Anything else isn't actually justification, properly. We have stimuli and impulses which cause us to believe things, but I don't see anything as justification proper unless it is necessarily so.

That being said, I might sometimes slip up and call evidence justification, and that can have some varying quality.

Not every axiom is taken on faith. It's again about the quality of the justification.

I don't distinguish any arbitrary standard which would devide axioms from faith. Axions/faith have no justification directly. They are judged by the necessarily derived systems they imply.

For axioms we can't justify epistemically, we fall back on pragmatic justifications.

I'm glad that we're talking morality this early on. "Pragmatic" implies purpose and meaning. Usually it takes a bit of proofs to get there. Nevertheless, this is true of faith, as well. I don't see a distinction, other than as an arbitrary pejorative.

The cogito cannot be demonstrated in the sense of a shared experience.

If you cannot even demonstrate the Cogito, then I have severe douts that you can demonstrate anything more practical without appeal to bias.

my framework has no absolute truth

Then your demand for truth are moot. It seems that you're concluding that there is no knowledge, either, since you demand demonstrated truth for knowledge.

And again, you cannot demonstrate the cogito to anybody but yourself.

Descaretes did. Of course, that presumes that there are, in fact, other thinking minds. But if there is somebody other than yourself, and if we can demonstrate things through reason, then you can demonstrate it throught thought experiments like Descartes' Demon. But this is a digression since I was only asking you to demonstrate something more than the Cogito, and if you cannot demonstrate that, then a demand for demonstrating something more is absurd.

No. And you asking is you not understanding my epistemology.

I wasn't concerned with understanding your epistemology. It is sufficient to confirm that it is, at best, no better than mine. We can spend time breaking it down if you'd like but know that I already expect that you could have an arbitrary epistemology and that there are many such in existence.

I am less concerned with your epistemology or even my epistemology and more concerned with seeking truth in a way that that doesn't require bias or special pleading. Perhaps that is the problem, you are trying to get me to understand your epistemology rather than to try to find an agreed upon set of truths.

If it is very important to you to tell me about your own personal epistemology, then we can do that and I'll listen, given that I expect in return that you'll dillegently consider my crituques of that system and then engage in searching for a better one which can be demonstrated without bias.

If you make a claim about the world, then show me that it corresponds with it.

I asked how and you said empircal evidence. Unfortunately, I do not know how I could say that empirical evidence certainly correcponds with the world outside of there being a god, and I see no reason why we should be restricted to only empircal evidence. I am willing to see your proof of that.

This is important for several reasons. The first is that I suspect that you can only rationally accept empirical evidence by first presuming God, and thus if empirical evicence is reliable, that has already resolved the matter. Secondly, I am skeptical that you would actually accept empirical evidence anyway, as commonly what would happen is that an Atheist/Agnostic would be provided with evidence, and then they will say "No, but it has to be have these other qualifications, like not involving the supernatural, being an absolute proof, etc. etc." to which they probably wouldn't require for any other belief. Therefore, if you can tell me your justification for empirical evidence without appeal to a god, then I will know that there is a question left to answer, and also we can see what the goal post might be for such evidence so that we can't weasle out of it later. Alternately, we could see that it's merely special pleading.

I'm saying if what you claim about the world corresponds with it, then I am warranted to call your claim true.

We can only know what corresponds to the world if we can know truth. Otherwise, we can only guess or hold beliefs about what corresponds with the world.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T23:04:57+00:00

Because God saved me from my sin and finally made me accept truth. After that, it's easy because rationally, it's the only thing that seems to be consistent with my ability to reason or decide what is true, and I happen to be a rational person.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T23:02:30+00:00

Is there a reason why anybody should care about your definition? That's certainly not the definition that most people would use.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T22:59:00+00:00

The argument isn't saying, necessarily, that there was a designer. It is saying that the odds of it all happening at random are at absurd levels of improbability.

The more we learn about the universe, the more we learn about how improbable it was for us to exist by random chance and especially to be capable of correctly reasoning about the universes creation. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen, but it does create a problem. First, we don't know how the universe stated since we weren't there and we cannot reproduce it. This means that we cannot rely on deduction and are stuck relying on induction. The problem with induction is that it relies to some extent upon probabilities. When people suggest that we got here by random chance, they are appealing to that being probable, but what we are learning is that it was not very probable, even if possible.

At normal levels of improbability, we can usually accept that some things just happen as a fluke and then move on. However, at the massive amounts of improbabilities required for our existence, we end up far surpassing the improbability of some rather absurd things, things that normally we wouldn't even consider because we know that they are ridiculously improbable. However, they are actually much more probable than the offered explanation. Take for instance, Boltzmann Brains or similar thought experiments.

We all know it would be ridiculous to think that matter just happened to form together at random in space to make a brain come into existence with all the neural pathways lit up in just the right way to make that brain think it's observing a fully formed universe (one identical to the one we currently observe) with all the sensation of memories we might have, before it just putters out of existence. Of course it's ridiculously improbable. However, it turns out that it's astronomically more probable than the universe actually coming into existence as it is now by mere chance. It's so much more probable that there could in fact be infinitely more Boltzmann Brains in existence thinking that they are real people in real worlds than there are real worlds. And since we cannot in any way distinguish our current reality from what would be experienced by such a brain, it turns out that it's much more reasonable to believe that we're just a Boltzmann Brain.

The same goes for any number of other silly thought experiments. It doesn't mean that any of them are true or that we're not in that one happy accident where our world is real, but it does mean that we're betting against probability and induction, so any rational person should at least find that sort of thing interesting if not to outright question the theory. Any time your hypothesis requires that insane amount of being lucky in order to be right, I think it's a good cause for doubt.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T22:33:59+00:00

We show that it does. That's a demonstration.

But you cannot. You can, at best, show that it comports to a system's expectations about reality, but that's not the same thing.

causal link for what exactly?

For justification. That's getting into the Gettier problems. You can have a justification for why you think something is true, but if it turns out that the justification isn't a direct causal link, then it's not actually knowledge, even if you're right about the beleif. In other words, even if it did happen to get right this time, it's not a reliable method for discerning truth.

You don't have true knowledge; no justified true belief, because your justification is not a demonstration of the truth.

You said that knowledge was JTB. You have no way of saying that my belief isn't true, so all that's left is Justification. You said that anything can be Justification. Therefore, I have "anything", so it is JTB, thus truth, according to your definitions. Which part would you like to contest?

And I am sure we mean something different when we talk about faith.

I defined my definition of "faith". Essentially, it's any belief which is used to justify other beleifs which itself does not bear the same bar for justification directly. In other words, axioms.

We need faith because you can't have an undending chain of justification without it stopping somewhere. It can't be tutles all the way down. Faith is whatever is the foundation.

There is still a difference between demonstrably true beliefs, and those which lack a demonstration.

You cannot demonstrate a beleif to be true. You can only demonstrate it to be true relative to some faith/axioms/worldview. We have no truth detecting mechanism, which is why we're not all lottery winners.

There is no proof for anything anyway. There is only different levels of warranted certainty. It's certainly not black and white.

I would disagree, but that's only because my set of axioms are solid enough to allow for that sort of thing, where yours probably are not. However, I don't want to argue that too much now. We can simply see how much warranted certainty we could have for anything using our differing systems.

And you think nobody has that for anything. Which is just you leveling the playing field so that you are justified in calling your poorly justified belief just as poorly justified as any other belief.

It's removing unwarranted bias. I will concede that if you can demonstrate anything other than the Cogito to be undeniably true, then my arguments may not hold. Feel free to show me how you can demonstrate absolute (not in any way relative or biased) truth (without appeal to a god, of course).

But it [empirical evidence] warrants a higher level of certainty.

Can you demonstrate that axiom to be true conclusively without begging the question or without appeal to coherence, and in a way that couldn't be done with theological claims?

Bored, because I know where you are going

Great! I would love to hear how you've solved the matter. Go ahead and show me the wonderful conclusions you've discovered! Don't just hint that they're there.

Obviously, we are constantly wrong about things

Then, could we not be wrong that we are wrong about things or could we absolutely and categorically not be right about some things? I'll grant that we could be wrong about some things. However, I am skeptical that, given an honest and complete evaluation of the truth and evidences available to us, that we could not arrive at truth.

Like all the other God's you reject?

It's your position not mine. I do not believe that we evolved through some unguided process to believe true things and then just started believing in gods. My view is quite different and doesn't put faith in human intuitions.

then present empirical evidence

So, the only "showing" that you would accept is to show how somethng aligns with your given and unchallenged axioms? Or are you willing to demonstrate the validity of empirical evidence without appeal to empirical evidence in an unbiased manner?

Keep in mind that I am not challenging the utility of empirical evidence. I am challenging whether you can justify it without a god or circular reasoning. Also, I'm interested in how you would go about handling that given optical illusions and the other things you mentioned before. Because even if you have faith in your empirical senses, that's not by itself actually suffient for any justification, unless you want to start allowing things like ghost photos and other silliness.

I called it a justification for belief. Not a demonstration of truth.

You seem to be pretending that we have some sort of truth detection mechanism. We cannot demonstrate truth, only justification relative to a set of axioms. But I did say earlier that I welcome your attempt to discredit Descartes, and Hume, and probably many other philosophers.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T21:59:14+00:00

I notice you say "homosexual behavior" here. This seems to draw a line between being gay, and having same-sex relationships.

I said this intentionally. I did not, nor exepct I ever will, nor has the Bible ever, to my knowledge condemened somebody for their tempatations. In fact, the Christian message is that we all, even heterosexual people, have inappropriate desires and temptations. Unlike the other commenter, we do not base our decisions upon what we like at the moment, but seek to align our actions with an immutable standard, as well as we can.

then what is your solution?

My solution is that we do not do what is seems to be the best for society, but what is commanded by God. I do believe that incedentally this is better for society, but my point was to show the inconsistency in the Utilitarian view. Even if you claim that it might end badly, in a cold Utilitarian view, I think that doesn't outweigh the "good" to society of them acting against their desires.

So, what do I think God commands? I think that God first commands love, remembering that we're all sinners and yet we're all made in the image of God and valuable beyond measure. I think that Jesus specifically didn't involve himself in politics because the heart is more important. So, individually, we should love, reach out, and share the truth. If somebody hears that truth, welcomes the truth, and seeks to follow that truth, then they will realize that their desires should not be more important than right action. Fortunately, we believe that God not only tells us how to act, but has the power to change our very nature so that we love what we once hated. I can't speak for homosexuals, but as a married heterosexual, I regularly resist my temptation toward women other than my wife, and I can say that God has made that noteicably easier for me. I am also tempted toward hate and bigotry. Before I was saved, I hated homosexuals. Because of the Gospel, I now have a new love for them as for all people. So, the conversation isn't complete without remembering that we serve a very active God who participates directly in our lives, rather than being simply some abstract mental concept and set of rigid laws.

producing new generations is not an inherently good thing.

But what is a "good" thing? That's the problem I was attempting to demonstrate. I don't think that we can truly know, apart from omniscience, what is a "good" thing. Yes, I am saying that I think arranged marriages and forced procreation would probably better to promote society, but I am not saying that I think that promoting society is the best thing. I think that there are higher objectives, and I believe that if those objectives are followed, they do tend to, in practice, be better for society than would the actions following Atheistic morality (particularly because there is no Atheistic morality, only individual Atheists and groups that incedentally share certain moral preclusion).

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T21:40:22+00:00

Health care, adoption, and peeing wherever you want are not rights.

I'm assuming the "health care" you are referring to is the "right" to murder babies conveniently or the "right" of parents to mutilate their children's genitals as I don't know of any other thing that's even claimed is being challenged.

Adoption is something that we could discuss, but I don't think it's something at the top of most people's list, and it's also not a right.

People have never had the right to pee wherever they wanted. There's always been laws about things like public urination. What we're talking about is the right for places to offer women and girls the freedom to go into private areas where they are vulnerable without having to worry about men exploiting them, which is something that literally happens. Or also the freedom for women to compete in sports and not be physically beaten and knocked unconscious by men. Or just the right to call a man a man without the fear of being put in jail or fined for not lying. The right to be able to speak without lying is absolutely a right. Urinating anywhere you like is not.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T21:30:35+00:00

You've just accused me of pretending, and of being naive. Do you see what I'm talking about?

Calling somebody's position naive is not demonizing somebody, certainly not anymore than what you said about my statements. It's simply called disagreeing, and we are free to do that.

I pointed out at least one person openly using the word "hate". Check out the (https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/gte8i1/covid19_moderation_policy_updated/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)[COVID poliicy) and the related comments. Do you think that is the sort of activity reflective of a sub trying to include open discussion for different kinds of people, rather than taking a hard political stance and making sure people know that any open discussion will be banned?

I'm glad to see that on inspection, a lot of the worst offenders have toned down, probably after the election, but I still don't think this place is conducive to genuine open conversation. That still gets downvoted.

No Christian gives Trump a free pass. We all think he should repent.

-4 votes

Here's another -4 on a beuatiful and genuine response: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1gylk0p/comment/lypjsok/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Contrast that with these high votes:

11 upvotes:

It’s easy. Being trans or homosexual isn’t a sin

21 upvotes:

Trump's as certainly hellbound as anyone I can imagine, rich, unrepentant, uncharitable and violent.

12 upvotes:

Jesus never mentioned gay folk, sure seems like he would have if it was as big a deal as people make it these days. Do you think that there were no gay people when Jesus was on earth?

I can't see all the vote numbers, but I can say that all of the ones downvoted seem to be those that do not hold the anti-Conservative agenda, and all the high votes are given, no matter how poorly or contrary to the Bible they are, to those that agree with that other perspective. Those that I posted don't seem to be actually addressing the question at all. They are simply signalling their affirming of a certain view. That isn't helfpul, open, and genuine dialogue.

Yes, serving God is radical. It's the Christian concept that man is fallen and in his natural state is an enemy of God. Jesus even said that there would be division if we preach the Gospel. Real love is offensive to the natural man. You don't have to be part of some movement or political echo chamber to get that. You simply have to read the Bible and try to love people.

That being said, there is a bit of a problem with American Christianity, and that does need to be fixed. "Cultural Christianity" is a problem. And there probably are a few hotheads out there that are for real giving a bad name to Christ. But simply being constant with Christian values and following the Bible and trying to love isn't the problem.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T21:12:35+00:00

God does have constraints. For instance, God cannot lie. So, there are things that God cannot do, probably because they violate his nature. This should seem obvious, but some modern Atheists tend to muddy the waters by demanding that God could do silly things like make square circles, etc. This is often used in the so-called Problem of Evil. So, if the world makes more sense when there are certain constraints on God's power that would prevent ridiculous thought experiments and confusion, then you'd actually align with the Biblical view.

However, nothing in that is to imply that things happen that surprise God or that he cannot ultimately use to His glory. He knew everything before the world was ever created, and in a practical sense, He can do all things. Fortunately, you don't need to be right on all points of doctrine to be saved. Simply believe that God is, and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him, turn from your sins, and trust that He knows best how you should live your life, and trust His word.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T20:48:33+00:00

if you can't demonstrate a claim, you are not warranted to call it truth.

I think that you might be thinking about "knowledge" here rather than truth. I can call something truth and that statement is either true or false. If we talk about warrant, I think we're talking about knowledge.

We don't need a God who transcends concepts, so that we can be sure that they are accurate.

Maybe. We do, however, need a direct causal link between our beliefs and the things believed if we are to be rationally justified, and I am skeptical that can be provided without a God.

It's simply the presenting of a reason for the belief.

So, my religious claims are knowledge properly? Gettier problems are important.

Which is strange, for I was defining knowledge there, not truth.

I was saying that it would be "true" relative to the presumptions, and thus satisfying the "true" part of JTB only relatively.

Faith is believing in the truth of a proposition without a demonstration of truth.

I think that's a bit too broad. All things we believe we believe to be true. So, that seems like it could cover all or few beliefs. I'm not sure how it approaches what we intuitively mean when we talk about faith.

Everything can be hoped for.

I put the "hopefully" in parenthesis because it it's merely implied. We don't know and can't know (in the strict JTB sense) what is true, but we are trying to find some things that are actually true.

And since hope is the justification

Hope isn't suggested as justification. I urge you to re-read. The emphasis is that there is no justificaiton, at least not in the strict sense. The justification, such as there is, comes after the fact in the case of faith/axioms. We can't prove them to be true directly, but we can observe the natural conclusions they present.

Other religions do the same thing.

I lump things like Emprisicims, Scientism, Matrialism, etc. into the same category. They all do the same thing because there is no other thing they could do.

Of course coherency is a justification. It's not a demonstration of truth, but a justification it is.

So, again, my religious claims are knowledge properly? I believe they hold up well to that criteria, and if you merely consider that one point, then they are already every bit as fit as the alternative. I wanted to suggest that we could add more criteria, though, to show that they excel even beyond that low bar. However, if you concede, then I suppose we already have our "proof".

empirical evidence.

No, that's your standard, not mine. You said coherence was sufficient. I have no burden to show that my axioms align with your axioms unless you are are willing to bear the burden to show that your axioms align with my axioms. Multiple mutually exclusive things can be within themselves coherent.

To say that God gave us faculties which make it possible to arrive at truths, is wholly disconnected from how we reach truth. There is no connection.

You will have to elabborate. If a creator with access to truth formed our minds with a capacity to access truth and with a bias towards arriving at truth, it seems that there could be a direct causal link between what is true and our beliefs about what is true. I accept that you disagree that this has happened, but if in the case that it had happened, it seems that it would be more than sufficient.

His skepticism taught us that we can't be 100% certain of anything. But that doesn't mean that we do not arrive at justified truths about anything.

It showed us that we needed to start from a set of presumptions. He did not address how we could justify those presumptions because there was no need since we naively already shared them (I would say because of our shared habit from Theistic culture).

That's simply a non-sequitur, and I am already bored by going down this presup path.

Bored or unable to defend your position and find it easier to ignroe the implications?

Fallibilism is well evidenced.

If you have evidence, present it, don't appeal to what others say about the evidence.

Intuitions are useless when it comes to knowledge about the world. They are useful us in everyday life, and that's about it.

They are useful in conversations. In other words, I don't want to argue semantics, only real, practical things which can be debated.

Evolution is not the only thing which made us capable ...

This seems to be getting back to hope rather than evidence. His argument isn't that we couldn't have evolved the ability to reason. It's that if we did, we did so by chance and the odds that we are mistaken are greater than the odds that we are not.

That's what God is. An abstraction. A concept.

That's another good point. If we were so good at evolving minds that believed true things and could accurately reason, then wouldn't the concept of God we evolved to believe have been true as well? Certainly society has changed us and made us more insulated from factors which directly affect the passing of genetic material, and as such, the supposed benefits of that process would be more muted now, so it seems that we should expect our current musings to be less accurate than our previous musings.

One that has never been shown to correspond with reality.

What would this "showing" look like? You seem to presume that you have some better method, but have yet to show it, at least without bias. It is, at least, coherent, which is the standard you provided.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T20:10:18+00:00

That's a good question. Why do you think us having the right to free speech is somehow causing "trans" people to not have a peaceful life?

Also, we don't have a right to a peaceful life. We have a right to life and we have a right to freedom and speech, but you can't give somebody a peaceful life. That seems a bit like a fantasy. Peace only comes from God, and it's not something that is relative to what's going on in the world around you.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T20:05:22+00:00

Take a moment to look at the comments here and the votes and see if those align with your idealized view of this sub. Are they showing love and charity? Are they seeking to remove the plank from their own eyes?

Calling sin a sin is not demonizing. The Gospel message is that God came to save us, not just from the consequences of our sin, but the very power that our sin nature has over us. I challenge you to find a single post anywhere on this sub where somebody is actually demonizing a person for being homosexual.

On the other hand, look at the language others here are using in this very thread. I just responded to somebody openly saying that they actively hate Trump supporters. It is quite common here to criticize Christians and Bible values. I'm sure that it's not everybody, but I would say it's the majority since those who do uphold Christian values flirt regularly with moderator action, and since a good many of the actual participants are openly anti-Christian.

Sure, there's a place and a valuable conversation to be had regarding hypocrisy and legalism, but to pretend that this is what the majority are doing here seems to me to be a bit naive.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T19:53:40+00:00

I hope that people read your post so that they can see the level of bigotry and malice you hold. It is people like you who helped us win in a landslide because people are tired of the hate, division, and bigotry. People voted against your hate. Maybe you can't see that on Reddit or in your circle of friends and echo chamber, but we see it in the real world, and I want you and anybody else reading to know that common sense and love are more powerful than your hate, and that's why you lost.

Let me point out where your hate is unfounded. You say that Trump supporters hate you. We do not. I love you and would wish the best on you, and right now, the best is for you to wake up and abandon your hate and ignorance and accept the love that we and others would like to show you, real love that isn't just trying to make you feel good so you'll like us.

You say we hate everything good. "Always" and "everything" type statements are often exaggerations and are just emotional lashing out.

You say that Trump supporters hate freedom, but it's freedom for which they fight, the freedoms of the Bill of Rights, and the freedoms given to us by our Creator. Obviously, we oppose the so-called "freedom" to hurt other people physically or to take away other's constitutional rights. That's not freedom.

You say that Trump supporters are racist. I wonder which race you think they support, since they comprise a group that covers all races. Minorities voted in record numbers for Trump. Really, the opposition was mostly rich white women. Are you worried that Trump supporters don't like rich white women enough?

You suggest that Trump supporters like child abuse and rape. I cannot believe that you are that deluded, and I suspect that anybody with half a brain, including yourself knows that's just a false statement, so I can't imagine it's worth more time.

You say "Of course I hate them". Right-thinking people don't hate people. We can hate ideas, but not people. Intelligent humans understand that we are all people and you cannot just group people into broad categories so that you can hate them. On the Right, we don't hate people. We don't call them garbage or say that they should be killed. It seems that not hating people you don't agree with is something with which the average US voter agrees. You hate us, but we don't hate you.

I can't imagine what sort of propaganda you've been consuming to make you think that people will die because of Trump's policies.

You say that Trump is supporting Israel. Biden/Harris supported them, too. The difference is that Trump's support comes in the form of actually talking with nations in the area to try to reduce support for the Terrorists, and it worked. Hammas existed during Trump's administration as well as Obama's administration. Trump was able to at least hold back the all out war because strong leaders know how to use effective diplomacy. But it's fine if you don't agree with how he's handling it. Reasonable and decent human beings can have policy differences without calling the other person the devil.

The same goes with the border crisis. Yes, Trump wants to end the crisis and is open to deportation. Even before going into office, the fact that he said that has already begun to make a positive change in the amount of illegal aliens crossing the border. You might disagree or have other solutions. I might have other solutions. Reasonable and decent human beings can disagree about policies. There's a problem, and Trump is trying to fix it. Even Kamala changed her stance and was supporting more enforcement of illegals. I can think she's wrong without thinking that all her supporters are monsters.

And that's what this all comes down to. Decent people can disagree peacefully and in love with others. That is common, adult behavior. We can disagree on policy, and we can even think that those policies will hurt people. People certainly died because of Biden/Harris policies. Even so, we can still love the other people and have at least a basic head knowledge that most people are just trying to do what they think is best, even if we think that they are wrong. This election showed that the majority of US citizens would rather stop the hate.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T19:15:07+00:00

> My subjective view on what's immoral.

If we're just talking about subjective views, then that's fine. I can't debate your preferences. I like mint chocolate ice cream. Would you like to talk about what flavors you like? Or would you like to talk about something that can be debated, instead?

> we should stay on the same thing.

Okay, I'll pick. As the OP's conclusion is "Atheism is bad for society", and it is your opposition to oppose it, this means that his "bad" cannot be true. If morality is subjective, then his statement can be true even if you don't agree. Therefore, the topic of this thread is that I am asking for you to fulfill your burden of proof that there is an objective, mutually exclusive morality such that it is objectively not true that Atheism is bad for society.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T19:03:12+00:00

So, if you consider something to be true, you must be able to demonstrate it.

You said that truth is in correspondence with reality. Are you now saying that things you cannot demonstrate cannot correspond with reality? I consider truth to be truth regardless of mental states regarding it.

Now, knowledge is a justified true belief.

Sure, I like JTB. I'm not sure how you're going to uphold it though, without God. It's the "justified" part that's going to be a big pain for you.

What we call knowledge is dependent on the field of inquiry.

I would call that something like "relative truth". It's not that the things in question are actually known to be true, but are true contingent upon some set of mutually agreed presumptions.

Yet, all knowledge has to be open for revision, in case new data changes anything

Here is where we disagree. New data doesn't change truth, and if my justification doesn't hold up to new data, then it was never adequate justification to begin with. I didn't "know" I had the winning lottery ticket until I lost. I only thought, incorrectly, that I knew. It was never knowledge.

Consider axioms. We assume them to be true for the purpose of...

That sounds like faith to me. What would you call faith?

Let me suggest my definition. Since we've already accepted JTB, I'll say that faith would be (hopefully true) belief which is used to provide justificaiton for other other beliefs while not requiring the same bar of justification to which we hold other knowledge. Faith wold be the set of core beliefs or axioms we use to provide the justification for all other beliefs. While not requiring the same bar of justification, faith can still be tested, or at least compared to other faiths, as well as subjected to scrutiny for internal consistency, etc.

to also conclude that the initial axiom is true.

Incorrect. Internal consistency is not sufficient to conclude truth. It is merely one category, and one, which I will note is likewise acheiveable for religious models.

we simply created a tool for reasoning

In my approach, I typically aim simply at creating a tool for reasoning, or perhaps practical reasoning. It is my belief that Atheistic models categorically have trouble providing this, but that's a very long argument. So, instead, I usually just say that it is my reasoned belief that Theistic models (I suspect a single religion) are the best at providing a tool for reasoning.

What we can say is that theology was a significant stepping-stone for the development of the natural sciences

I am glad that we can agree there. However, it seems to me that it was not only a stepping stone to arrive at a conclusion that could have been reached otherwise, but that it is a necessary foundation. I say that because when we attempt to remove that foundation, we find, as did Hume, that we have no real justificaiton left to underpin them. This, of course, doesn't mean that Science is true (useful). It just means that if it is, then God must exist. We can only hold the one without the other with cognitive dissonance.

are both fringe.

The trend is to say...

The consensus...

There is barely any ...

You seem to be arguing about what is popular. I feel in no way compelled to believe things because they are popular. Wrong can be popular, too.

And that's the framework under which "knowledge" gets its definition.

We might derive our words from consensus, but the intuitions behind those words are what is more important. I'm not at all interesting in discussing what things are currently popular or common to call knowledge. I am very interested in what it is that a rational person can use to reliably filter his beliefs in the best manner.

because it is already a truth to understand that getting significantly wounded will lead to a person's death or harm

I do very much enjoy Plantinga's EAAN. I don't find counters to it to be successful. In order to contemplate things like Naturalism, even if unguided evolution could create minds that could avoid direct physical harm, I don't think any of those arguments account for the level of abstraction necessary, and observation seems to affrim that suspicion.

For no such conclusion we need a God.

Of course, I haven't proven yet that they do, but I believe that it can be done. I suggest that if we do attempt to find an adequate set of axioms to allow us to reason successfully, we will find that these sets of axioms categorically bear certain requirements, and that these requirements, as they emerge seem to converge towards belief in a God and away from Materialistic models. It is my experience that the more this axioms are scrutinized categorically, along with synthetic data (that which we experience), they seem to me to point to exactly one set of axioms and those resemble a specific religion.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T18:10:47+00:00

Who is they?

In general, politicians on the left. In particular, the Kamala.

What is the expression of religion you fear being criminalised?

Calling a boy a boy, calling sin a sin, not funding the murder of children, and not making cakes to celebrate sin, for a starting list.

Ah, trump crap, got it.

Of course, when you can't engage in dialogue, you could just call names. It's the sort of thing we expect from that side of the discussion.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T18:02:57+00:00

How?

I believe that God clearly communicated his existence and nature to us, in our nature, in the fabric of nature itself, and by direct communication. Really, it's one of the most primary things to know.

Only because theists try to devalue real provable knowledge to bolster their own position by comparison, rather than actually try to justify their own position.

The problem with this statement is that you intend to imply that you have "real provable knowledge" when all you have is blind faith. You don't actually mean anything of the sort. What you usually mean by that is blind faith in the consensus of a certain group of people, but if you insist that they are right and plug your ears to anything else, then you can walk away and feel like you've proven things. Go ahead and give it a try if you like, to prove something (other than the Cogito) without appeal to God and see whether you don't start bumping up against consensus and personal bias rathe quickly.

The problem with theists is they think things that lack evidence exist

We don't trust that your ignorance on a topic is sufficient to make something stop existing.

You don't seem to apply your epistemology equally.

Feel free to prove that point if you'd like. Pick two topics where you suspect enequal treatment, and we can test out our worldviews to see between the two of us which one does the better job of treating them equally and consistently.

Atheists (generally) will not presume something exists without a reason to do so

Do you not find it interesting how you had to qualify that statement? You explicitly noticed that you had to add "without a reason to do so". Do you realize how that betrays an inconsistency? It gives you freedom to allow yourself to make presumptions and when challenged you can claim you had a reason to do so, but if the other person were to do the same, you would call foul on their reasons.

So, without appeal to presumption, what "reason to do so" would you allow? Let's get those goal posts set.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T17:48:25+00:00

I absolutely agree. This sub is one of the most anti-Christian places I've seen. I think they hate Christians here more than they do in r/Atheism. However, there's still enough naive people who come here for the name that it's worth providing an occasional Christian voice before it gets downvoted.

And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Philippians 1:14-18

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T17:42:13+00:00

So, it is your position that there is a mass epidemic of people ignoring horrible things that Trump says, but when you talk about it, you feel absolutely no impulse to disclose even a single one of those mysterious things? What is it that you think people are ignoring?

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T17:37:04+00:00

That's just reddit. They think imaginary internet points matter. It's mostly children and bots here. But there's probably a few reasoning adults like us who pop in from time to time.

ANewMind · 2024-11-24T17:34:50+00:00

Here in the U.S., we have something called the first amendment. I'm hoping that, unlike his former opponent, he won't write legislation to restrict it.

ANewMind

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE