my theory

To say that nothing happens by accident is a tricky subject. Things should be explained about what you mean when you make such assertions.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Agrias

I'm an idiot? I'm far from an idiot. I have a 4.0 at my university, and teach MCAT classes (read: medical school admission test preparation classes).

My basis on calling you a fool was not one of insult, but of common sense, to better you as a person. Look at the world around you, it did not happen by accident. Nothing happens by accident, and even if it does, it's someone's accident. That is my basis for anti-atheism. Prove me wrong.

Double Post:
Also, I will cease to post in this thread, as it is a waste of time to argue with fools.

Later.

Ahaha, what the fuck? Who the hell cares what your GPA is? I'm personally not an atheist, but if your idea of debating is calling someone a fool for being one, that's pretty weak. ''Prove me wrong''? The burden of proof is on you; I'm pretty sure that pure science tells us that nothing happens by accident as well, so that alone is no basis for saying that ATHEISTS R DUM (P.S. I TEACH MTAC CLASS!!).

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

Tanisari, isn't there some sort of quantum thing that says something about things being indeterminate before they are observed? This is way out of my field, so I'm probably wrong, however, it's amusing to think that the world was shapeless before we saw it.

You're talking about Schroedinger's Cat. Don't have time to explain it, so look it up online. But it's to do with radioactive decay and subatomic particale interactions and their slipperiness. But anything that's even large enough to see in a common light microscope has a probabilty of such occurences happening so small that it would take longer than the universe has been around to witness properties like that.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Agrias

I'm an idiot? I'm far from an idiot. I have a 4.0 at my university, and teach MCAT classes (read: medical school admission test preparation classes).

My basis on calling you a fool was not one of insult, but of common sense, to better you as a person. Look at the world around you, it did not happen by accident. Nothing happens by accident, and even if it does, it's someone's accident. That is my basis for anti-atheism. Prove me wrong.

Double Post:
Also, I will cease to post in this thread, as it is a waste of time to argue with fools.

Later.

I agree nothing happens by accident as science tells us. Why does it have to be god that created what is now? As an atheist i have to prove nothing since i believe in nothing. you believing in whatever you believe has to show me prove of what you believe. Is the biggest reason for your intellect your GPA,well any moron can do that with hard work. Intellect is not define by the amount of work you do but your ability to think. And the way you debate shows you are a moron.

Quote:

Read philosophy: you will realize how mundane you are.

I agree there are no original ideas only modifications. The better way i should have done it is a theory. THe only reason i called it my theory is because i haden't read it before and it came from my thoughts.

I was speaking idiomatically.

In my readings of cultural relativism, I have felt that the arguments in favor of it are not as compelling as those against it. I think if you take a closer look at the belief/knowledge distinction, you will come to a similar conclusion.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by coeccias

In my readings of cultural relativism, I have felt that the arguments in favor of it are not as compelling as those against it. I think if you take a closer look at the belief/knowledge distinction, you will come to a similar conclusion.

Could you tell me the belief/knowledge distinction so that i may be able to know if it's correct.

FELIPE NO

Ethics and epistemology were not branches of philosophy that I focused my studies on, so what I relay to you may be a bit simplified. Cultural Relativism (also called Moral Relativism) is a meta-ethical theory which denies the universal truth of moral claims. The formulation of a general argument supporting Cultural Relativism that I am familiar with goes thusly:

(1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
(2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

This is not a sound argument as it is invalid (meaning that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise(s)). The premise deals with what people believe while the conclusion deals with what really is the case. While this does not prove the conclusion to be false, a proponent of Cultural Relativism has not proven it to be true.

When dealing with any theory, one must also consider the framework with which it must mesh. The outlining of this ethical theory also raises epistemological concerns. A claim of belief (or the majority's claims of belief) is being equated to a claim of knowledge.

Why is it that 'I believe that P', where P is any proposition, is not equal to 'I know that P'? One can claim belief in P whether P is true or false. One cannot claim knowledge of P unless P is true. In the case where the majority of a culture/society believes that P, they are not entitled to make a claim of knowledge regarding P no matter how many people are on their side.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Moral Relativity does not preclude an objective moral 'truth', at least it doesn't always. It is a theory which runs on the basis that since we don't know what the objective moral truth is (hence objectivists haven't proved themselves correct either), that we can't really know which culture/belief system etc. is correct. Since it cannot be measured against a known truth, it's something that must remain inconclusive.

It's often boiled down into the terms you put forth, but those neglect to include the significant points about the possibility of one 'true' moral, just that it's unknown and therefore not assumed to be so. Also a popular way to attack the theory is to cite examples which have known truths (world is flat etc.) which is a flawed comparison from the start.

But yeah, beliefs do not equal knowledge. Knowledge is true (until a time when it is revealed to have been false). You can believe anything (See faith), but that does not in itself make it true, only allows you to convince yourself of it's validity. If you are in a group-think situation as the OP's theory presents, then their beliefs will allow them to convince themselves that they 'know' a thing. It doesn't go any further than that, they may be correct, they may be incorrect. Who's to say?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by insertnamehere

As an atheist i have to prove nothing since i believe in nothing. you believing in whatever you believe has to show me prove of what you believe.

You clearly don't understand atheism. You cannot be an atheist without belief, because atheism requires the strong belief in the absence of any god. You have to prove your belief just as much as Agrias has to prove hers/his. If you were to believe in nothing, you'd be a nihilist, and probably too fucked up to type.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

You clearly don't understand atheism. You cannot be an atheist without belief, because atheism requires the strong belief in the absence of any god. You have to prove your belief just as much as Agrias has to prove hers/his. If you were to believe in nothing, you'd be a nihilist, and probably too fucked up to type.

Excuse me, nihilism is not about believing in nothing. Rather it is the belief that existence cannot be asserted. It connotes certain freedoms of morality and belief.

Nihilism and Atheist are independent things; nihilism is not the extreme form of anything.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I know nihilism and atheism are not related, but "belief that existence cannot be asserted" is the same as belief in nothing. Believing in nothing is not the same as holding no beliefs.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Four arugments why this theory is like a ridiculous virus:

1
Imagine a rational society. If your view is correct, everyone would adhere to the common wisdom. Except if the tilt is pretty even (51/49), which would cause people to be iffy until some random event tilted the odds one way. So under your view, a rational society will eventually never, ever be able to change it's opinions about anything. (If anyone came up with a new theory it would be instantly quashed by the majority). New facts or information can never inform a people's ethics.

Well, unless foriengers or aliens invaded or something. (And there would have to be enough foriengers become the majority! And, the prevailiing view of ethics would have to be "we should be open to ethics discussions with foriengers").

Retarded example: Say there's an island of people who believe "any foreigners should leave immediately, and commit suicide for defiling our holy ground." Say a few other countries believe in world-wide diplomacy or the scientific value of exploration. The small bands of explorers they send would meet a town of islanders. The islanders convince the foriengers to go commit suicide. So the island is never ever invaded or even properly contacted, unless other countries send HUGE landing parties all at once. As an added bonus, the rest of the world that believes in exploration and diplomacy will continue to send explorer after explorer because they believe in those ideals, even knowing that whoever they send will get killed, because they can't ever un-believe in the value of striving for diplomacy.

2
This puts an awful lot of faith in the "starting" beliefs of a culture. Different groups could believe different things, and then using your rules, end up at completely different lifestyles. What would happen if everyone suddenly started using your rule?

Imagine a kid who acts wild joins a cult for two years, and then leaves because it's stupid. Compare that to an almost identical person who never met the cult recruiter and just listens to death metal instead. In a normal world they both end up being almost the same by the time they're 30. But if they started following your theory, the person in the cult would follow the cult majority and never, ever leave. Meanwhile, the rest of the country, following your beliefs, would live "normal" and completely diffently.

Are you suggesting that the two equal kids, one of whom was "destined" to be in a cult for only two years and one who was destined to act normally, should end up with completely different lifestyles for the rest of their lives? After all, they just make decisions "at the size of the majority" so the kid in the cult can never ever leave it. (Unless the majority decides to enter the cult for some reason - which depends on whatever their beliefs on cult-breaking are at the precise moment your theory takes effect).

Also, depending on when in history we applied your philosophy, humanity's beliefs would crystallize on totally different outcomes. Is that ok with you?

3
Gene/meme argument: Because majority wins, this philosophy buts a lot of weight on the number of subscribers. But we know that overpopulation can be deadly. Anyone with a philosophy of "have a lot of kids" or "don't use birth control" would probably eventually beat out other viewpoints, irregardless of how dangerous overpopulation is. But it's not like the overpopulators can ever decide that having too many kids is dangerous, because beliefs get stuck.

4

Originally Posted by insertnamehere

There is one parodox to my theory, but i donth consider this proving my theory wrong. Just cause it's wrong that one single instance does not mean it'a wrong all the time. if you think that parodox proves my theory wrong then try proving common sense is wrong. if you donth believe common sense is absolute truth then tell me what is right and wrong.

A good theory of philosophy should avoid monster-barring. You are supposed to throw as many paradoxes at your theory as you can to see if you can bring it down - that's good philosophy. You can't just will away contradictions for no reason, unforunately.

(Besides which, "the world is round" arugment is a fact, not a belief, and you said your theory doesn't apply to facts...)

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

I know nihilism and atheism are not related, but "belief that existence cannot be asserted" is the same as belief in nothing. Believing in nothing is not the same as holding no beliefs.

It is not. It is a belief that nothing exists.

There's a huge difference.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Why is it that 'I believe that P', where P is any proposition, is not equal to 'I know that P'? One can claim belief in P whether P is true or false. One cannot claim knowledge of P unless P is true. In the case where the majority of a culture/society believes that P, they are not entitled to make a claim of knowledge regarding P no matter how many people are on their side.

People believe it they can claim it to be true or false, but when shown knowledge it no longer becomes an opinion or ethical issue, but it becomes a fact. my theory does not aplly to facts if you read my first post.

Quote:

Moral Relativity does not preclude an objective moral 'truth', at least it doesn't always. It is a theory which runs on the basis that since we don't know what the objective moral truth is (hence objectivists haven't proved themselves correct either), that we can't really know which culture/belief system etc. is correct. Since it cannot be measured against a known truth, it's something that must remain inconclusive.

My theory only aplies within a society. A society cannot judge another society. So what may be true in one society it's not true in another.

Quote:

It's often boiled down into the terms you put forth, but those neglect to include the significant points about the possibility of one 'true' moral, just that it's unknown and therefore not assumed to be so. Also a popular way to attack the theory is to cite examples which have known truths (world is flat etc.) which is a flawed comparison from the start.

As i previously stated it doesn't apply to facts since their's no need to prove them right or wrong since their facts.

Quote:

But yeah, beliefs do not equal knowledge. Knowledge is true (until a time when it is revealed to have been false). You can believe anything (See faith), but that does not in itself make it true, only allows you to convince yourself of it's validity. If you are in a group-think situation as the OP's theory presents, then their beliefs will allow them to convince themselves that they 'know' a thing. It doesn't go any further than that, they may be correct, they may be incorrect. Who's to say?

As i keep saying this KNOWLEDGE IS FACTS.Believes are the ones that can be proven right or wrong, who's to say if their correct or not; society

Quote:

Imagine a rational society. If your view is correct, everyone would adhere to the common wisdom. Except if the tilt is pretty even (51/49), which would cause people to be iffy until some random event tilted the odds one way. So under your view, a rational society will eventually never, ever be able to change it's opinions about anything. (If anyone came up with a new theory it would be instantly quashed by the majority). New facts or information can never inform a people's ethics.

Well, unless foriengers or aliens invaded or something. (And there would have to be enough foriengers become the majority! And, the prevailiing view of ethics would have to be "we should be open to ethics discussions with foriengers").

Retarded example: Say there's an island of people who believe "any foreigners should leave immediately, and commit suicide for defiling our holy ground." Say a few other countries believe in world-wide diplomacy or the scientific value of exploration. The small bands of explorers they send would meet a town of islanders. The islanders convince the foriengers to go commit suicide. So the island is never ever invaded or even properly contacted, unless other countries send HUGE landing parties all at once. As an added bonus, the rest of the world that believes in exploration and diplomacy will continue to send explorer after explorer because they believe in those ideals, even knowing that whoever they send will get killed, because they can't ever un-believe in the value of striving for diplomacy.

No they wouldn't have to adhere to it but they have to accept it.

Retarded example: A man believes murder is right, so he takes it to court. Since the majority believe murder is wrong he obiously losses and has to accept society's views.

I myself don't agree with all of society's views.

Number two: same reply as above. The kid doesn't have to follow the majority.As to your history comment. As history has told us not everybody followed society. Many belives where brought on by one man who thought diffrently than the society, but he convinse people thus changing the popular believe.

Number three: same answer as above. Why put numbers if their all the same concept.

Quote:

A good theory of philosophy should avoid monster-barring. You are supposed to throw as many paradoxes at your theory as you can to see if you can bring it down - that's good philosophy. You can't just will away contradictions for no reason, unforunately.

My reason for weeding out this parodox is because my theory is both right and wrong, but what makes it wrong only makes it wrong for that one case not any others. This parodox get's us nowhere props to whoever gets it.

FELIPE NO

I was explaining Moral Relativity, not really addressing your theory directly.

You say that your theory applies only within one society, and does not reach further than that. What distinction do you use to make determine where a society begins and ends? You've got a range of groups within groups which may or may not agree with the larger picture.

ie: A household may share beliefs that are contrary to their neighbourhood, the neighbourhood may believe differently than the city, the city may believe differently than the region, the region may believe differently than the country, the country may believe differently than the continent, the continent may believe differently than the rest of the world.

So, where do you draw the line, and if it's not arbitrarily drawn, what's the reasoning behind defining a society as being X, but Y is too big, and Z is too small?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

In my thought, I always connect common sense with norm. Norm is "law" of a group and in order to be in this group is to follow it's norm.

You can say that majority decides which is right and wrong but it also depends on the norm.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Agrias

I'm an idiot? I'm far from an idiot. I have a 4.0 at my university, and teach MCAT classes (read: medical school admission test preparation classes).

My basis on calling you a fool was not one of insult, but of common sense, to better you as a person. Look at the world around you, it did not happen by accident. Nothing happens by accident, and even if it does, it's someone's accident. That is my basis for anti-atheism. Prove me wrong.

LOL. It's almost sad, how much of a jackass you are. Anyway, your theory on the impossibility of being an "accident" is pointless. Here's my rebuttal:

My basis on calling you a jackass was not one of insult, but of common sense, to stroke my ego better you as a person. Look at the world around you, it happened by probability. Whether there was a motivation (which is what theism implies) is unknown, but there was a cause and effect. Cause and effect does not imply motivation, no matter how you'd like to look at it. It's impossible to disprove athiesm by disproving accidents. Atheism doesn't center on accidental creation, it's centers on non-motivational creation. Accidental is simply a word you're putting in atheist's mouths to work for your benefit, and implies that it wasn't supposed to happen, which then implies there is a motivation at work.

It's hilarious that you think you have an airtight argument considering how paper-thin it was. Though I guess all that ego inflation doesn't help things.

Plus, you care about pro wrestling, which automatically makes you an idiot.

There's nowhere I can't reach.