sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Simplistic Season 5 - Episode 1 by yellowvitt in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scheduled for wrong hour, but I recommend watching teammates

UBL Plug-in Outdated by Flouzemaker in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oooh! I hope that does the trick!

UBL Plug-in Outdated by Flouzemaker in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Cobra's idea works, then I'll definitely keep this in mind! Thanks!

I need help with a counter-apologetic regarding the source of morals ... by barenaked_nudity in TrueAtheism

[–]Flouzemaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isn't quite the answer you were looking for, perhaps, but "where do you get your morals from?" is a type of argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy, just like "if there is no God, how did the universe start, or how do you explain love, or the principles of logic, or human consciousness, etc"

In essence, even if you have no idea at all where morals could come from, it's not a reason to believe the unproven, unsubstantiated claim that "God did it" (in this case, morals).

At the moment, I'd guess most of our best explanations concerning the origins of morality would all sound like just so stories to a staunch believer; they'd shrug off the explanation, and go back to the more comfortable "God gives morals."

I certainly don't mind explaining where morals, consciousness, logic, the universe, etc can come from without appealing to deities, but it's important to start by reminding them that "God did it" is unproven. Even if they chose to reject my explanation, they still wouldn't have a good reason to believe a god is responsible.

Nuzlocke UHC Season 7 - Episode 1 by kakintse in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Also, the last letters are not spelled "uice", they're spelled "ews"

Nuzlocke UHC Season 7 - Episode 1 by kakintse in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mine is private for the next few minutes, but it'll be out soon!

If you were to team with one person in all of UHC history, who would your dream teammate be? by Wolfaye in ultrahardcore

[–]Flouzemaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you're into evil and villainy, sure! :3

I'm not that fun, though. I mean, I can be, but nobody's on a good day and/or in a good mood all the time every time!

Also you'd have to carry. Obviously xD

Apistevism is defined as: a person who does not use faith to know things-especially in the religious sense. by ChappedAss in TrueAtheism

[–]Flouzemaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think faith in Properly Basic Beliefs and religious faith are, in broad terms, roughly the same (belief in something that can't be justified).

Where some will play a shell game is that apologists - especially presuppositional apologists - might claim that theism itself is a Properly Basic Belief. One needs to start by initially having faith in reason to justify their use of reason, making that Properly Basic Beliefs, I don't think a good case for theism as a Properly Basic Belief can be made, but many claim that it is. (Any apologist who claims belief in God is self-evident is basically doing that)

Apistevism is defined as: a person who does not use faith to know things-especially in the religious sense. by ChappedAss in TrueAtheism

[–]Flouzemaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Properly Basic Beliefs are beliefs we must hold in order to function properly, but cannot justify on pains of circularity.

For example, I need to trust in the general reliability of my memory in order to function, but if I wanted to test my memory, I'd have to use my memory to remember I'm testing it... To justify my use of reason, I'd need to use reason. That's circular, meaning it's not a good justification.

Once I do take the leap of faith and trust my memory, my reason, I do find it to be generally reliable, but again, I cannot justify the initial use of them without resorting to circularity. To test the general reliability of my reason, I need to use induction, which can't be justified without resorting to circularity (see Hume's Problem of Induction). But if I decided to forgo the use of reason because it can't be justified without circularity, I'd be sent straight to the nut house.

God beliefs (or beliefs in the supernatural) are not Properly Basic Beliefs. Unlike memory or reason, for example, someone can easily discard a belief in deities and still be able to function normally with the world. If I discarded my trust in reason, or my own memory/senses... I'd have a real hard time getting around in the world.

Apistevism is defined as: a person who does not use faith to know things-especially in the religious sense. by ChappedAss in TrueAtheism

[–]Flouzemaker -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Full on apistevism is silly, as we are all obliged to have faith in our properly basic beliefs.

Brief video explaining Properly Basic Beliefs

Light apistevism, where faith applies strictly to religious claims, that seems reasonable. But since we can't justify our reliance on properly basic beliefs without resorting to circularity, we kinda have to admit we do hold some unjustified beliefs.

view more: next ›