Very good! Memory IS subject to confirmation bias. Which is why a strong memory isn't always enough if other evidence contradicts it. Memory is suggestive but not conclusive as I've pointed out before.
But this is a moot point. I challenge you to find me a person who "remembers" god as opposed to the millions of people who remember shirts.
By the way, ready to admit yet that your shirt example is a stupid one and that you didn't understand set theory?
Unfortunately you need to prove that a sincere belief is the same as memory since most people only believe in god. They have no memory of it.
In fact, just looking around you will show that you're wrong. Ask a few people who truly believe in god and then ask them if they "remember" it. They will say "NO!"
You're caught and you know it. You can't wriggle out of the hole you made for yourself so easily. And you have only your ignorance of set theory to blame.
Specifically, your statement "and therefore a proof by memory can be considered a proof by sincere belief." is factually and mathematically incorrect.
Honestly at this point, I'm here just to watch you dig yourself deeper in. It's fun - especially if you don't realize it:D
Read your own posts. I never said a sincere belief was enough. I was talking about MEMORY under specific circumstances. As amply demonstrated, belief != memory.
I don't think you can progress much in intellectual circles without understanding set theory. Perhaps you should come back to slashdot in a year or two.
Again - read set theory. If A is a subset of B, then proving a condition for B proves the condition for A. Not the other way around.
Here, A = Memory. B = Belief. Memory is a subset of belief. Therefore, a proof by BELIEF is also a proof by memory. You've gotten confused with elementary maths.
Example. B is the set of all cars. A is the set of ferarris. A is a subset of B. You need to prove something for all cars (B) to have it true for ferrarris as well. The opposite doesn't work. So proving that all ferraris are expensive doesn't mean that all cars are expensive.
Fail.
Unfortunately, you need to prove the opposite. That belief implies memory. Since most people believe in god, but don't remember it.
I don't know if you're genuinely confused, or you're deliberately trying to fudge the matter. If the former, then I'm debating with an incompetent. If the latter, then you already know you've lost.
Another lie. Citation please. Remember that three year old you referred to earlier? If this is the way you got them to agree with you, no wonder you're trying to use it on everyone else.
You failed. You didn't read the arguments on the atheist page. For example, you didn't address the ontological arguments. At least make an attempt to lie convincingly.
Also, you continue to make a fool of yourself by assuming that all believers remember god. Aka - insanity.
Feel free to claim victory as you lie on the ground covered in dust. You just look all the more pathetic.
By the way - what happened to the detailed refutation of every single point in the atheist wiki page? Am I to understand that your silence on the issues we haven't covered yet means you agree that atheism is the only valid way of thinking?
"Again, epistemologically speaking, belief and recall are the same thing."
You couldn't be more wrong. A person can believe in god and not "remember" it. In fact, most people are like this. It's hilarious as to how you conflate the two. All you've shown is that memory implies belief. Not the other way around.
Basic set theory my boy. Clearly you don't have much training in logic.
You're making a fool of yourself now. It's obvious you have nothing else to say with your conflation of belief and memory. And you hope that repeating something like a broken record will change reality.
Just the kind of person who seems to accept the fact that god might exist. Thank you for being such a wonderful representative.
"Ah. so you aren't retracting your earlier postulation - sincere belief suffices where physical evidence is unavailable. Gotcha."
I'm not sure we're speaking the same language here. You see, I speak English where memory is not the same as belief. Either you're speaking another language, or you're drunk. I'm not sure whether you're old enough to drink or not, but please learn in the future going forward to make sure you use your words correctly.
"Precisely how does the psychologist determine the veracity of the proposition that Life is Suffering?"
Belief != Memory. This is getting tiresome.
"That's what we are doing here. What did you think we are doing?"
I leave it as an exercise to you to go through the page, isolate the arguments we HAVEN'T addressed yet, and get back to me on those. Otherwise, in the absence of that, you agree with me that atheism is the only valid system of thought in today's world.
Please don't so openly demonstrate your ignorance by equating a linear equation with the default proposition that there's no god. Besides, you yourself admit that you dont' believe in a Zokooloo. So what gives?
"Yet you believe the shirt exists even though it is also unproven by experiment."
As I said (for the umpteenth time), there are many experiments to prove that the shirt existed.
Smart people learn from their mistakes. You apparently continue to make the same mistake of not reading the most recent post before asking the same question again. Feel free to close your ears and go "la la la la la!"
"Your evidence so far has been that it is okay to believe stuff and people who don't believe the things you do are insane. Any other evidence you would like to put forward?"
My evidence is that since there's no physical evidence for god and since no experiment can ever be devised to prove/disprove it, it's by definition a pure thought experiment. Your job is to poke a hole in that if you can. Naturally you can't, so here's my prediction: In your next post you are going to completely ignore it as though it never happened.
Apparently you don't know the difference between a memory and a belief. Why am I surprised after all this time?
Forgive me for making the charitable assumption that you were sane. I now proclaim you insane and that you imagined the shirt. Barring any other physical evidence of course. As usual you haven't read what was assigned to you.
"Get on with it stop moaning. I'm not your mummy."
All that hard work too much for ya eh? Much easier to just point to a link. Btw, I just pointed you to the atheist section of wikipedia. Waiting for your detailed rebuttal of every single point made there.
"It does not affect the physical world as we observe it."
Sure it does. There are receipts, credit card charges, the memory of clerks who sold it to you (even if it's too weak to recall), fibers of the shirt in your house, the memory of those who have seen you wear it, CCTV cameras and a whole bunch of other stuff. Everything physical leaves a trail all over the place if you really want to find the evidence. A strong memory can even be sufficient if insanity is ruled out. And what does god have going for it? Zip. Zilch. Nada. And so you can compare them...how exactly?
"You've already said that (in the shirt example) in the absence of empirical evidence other non-empirical evidence will suffice to make belief in the shirt reasonable."
No, I said a MEMORY of the shirt CAN be reasonable if it's a true memory. And contrary to what you think, there are way to distinguish between a false memory and a true one. Psychologists do it all the time.
Please respond to the arguments made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism. Otherwise they will be considered proven. I will hold you to counter EACH AND EVERY point.
This is what happens when you don't read everything assigned to you. Refer to my previous post on how a false sincere believe can also be caused due to insanity. I was being charitable to you by not taking that route, but you seem to want to rub your face in it - well, your choice.
"That is what I just said."
No, you didn't. Zero as a number is equivalent to atheism...how exactly? Citation please. These lapses of memory are really bogging you down here.
While there's nothing extraordinary about the behavior of greenhouse gases, the amount of evidence proving the scale of it is extraordinary.
"So to be clear, if one party doesn't reply to a point made by the other, that point can be considered true?"
At least have the grace to say "Yeah, that was a stupid example". Since YOU brought it up, I assumed you would have followed it. I never started spouting mystical wisdom about extrasolar planets. Don't start something you can't finish. The fact that we found star wobbles is good evidence. If we didn't find them, that would have been a blow to the extrasolar planet theory. Occam's razor at work again.
What experiments have been proposed to validate the existence of a deity? None. Hence it fails the Occam's razor test.
"None of your remarks in support of Zokooloos being analogous to a deity have panned out."
A la contraire, YOU haven't shown how god is not a thought experiment since there's not a shred of physical evidence for it. My burden of evidence has already been met. If you don't think so, you have to show HOW it has not been met. Neither of which you have done. So my point has already been proved. Waiting for your attempted rebuttal.
A physical memory? So (according to you) in the absence of any empirical evidence, a sincere belief will suffice as evidence for the existence of something?
Not necessarily. The other possibility is that you're insane. Let me know if that explanation suits you.
"That is *exactly* what people do."
Then they are insane.
"Your homework"
Just admit that you can't understand your own references and can't place them here in your own words. It's a lot more honest than hiding behind a link.
Note how you still fudge the issue and run away from addressing precisely how you believe that a Zokooloo is not like god. You're damning yourself with every successive post.
Slashdot Mirror
Very good! Memory IS subject to confirmation bias. Which is why a strong memory isn't always enough if other evidence contradicts it. Memory is suggestive but not conclusive as I've pointed out before.
But this is a moot point. I challenge you to find me a person who "remembers" god as opposed to the millions of people who remember shirts.
By the way, ready to admit yet that your shirt example is a stupid one and that you didn't understand set theory?
Oh, I see! You got your refutation of the ontological argument from a three year old!
Fascinating stuff. Be sure to mention that in your "references" section.
You don't get off that easily. Submit your refutation here in detail before you ask for anything else.
"Functionally a memory is a sincere belief"
Unfortunately you need to prove that a sincere belief is the same as memory since most people only believe in god. They have no memory of it.
In fact, just looking around you will show that you're wrong. Ask a few people who truly believe in god and then ask them if they "remember" it. They will say "NO!"
You're caught and you know it. You can't wriggle out of the hole you made for yourself so easily. And you have only your ignorance of set theory to blame.
Specifically, your statement "and therefore a proof by memory can be considered a proof by sincere belief." is factually and mathematically incorrect.
Honestly at this point, I'm here just to watch you dig yourself deeper in. It's fun - especially if you don't realize it :D
Read your own posts. I never said a sincere belief was enough. I was talking about MEMORY under specific circumstances. As amply demonstrated, belief != memory.
I don't think you can progress much in intellectual circles without understanding set theory. Perhaps you should come back to slashdot in a year or two.
"We did address the ontological arguments."
No - you didn't. Here's the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism. And after you address that, I have many more waiting for you. Please send in a detailed refutation for each.
Waiting for your detailed refutation of the ontological argument against god.
Again - read set theory. If A is a subset of B, then proving a condition for B proves the condition for A. Not the other way around.
Here, A = Memory. B = Belief. Memory is a subset of belief. Therefore, a proof by BELIEF is also a proof by memory. You've gotten confused with elementary maths.
Example. B is the set of all cars. A is the set of ferarris. A is a subset of B. You need to prove something for all cars (B) to have it true for ferrarris as well. The opposite doesn't work. So proving that all ferraris are expensive doesn't mean that all cars are expensive.
Fail.
Unfortunately, you need to prove the opposite. That belief implies memory. Since most people believe in god, but don't remember it.
I don't know if you're genuinely confused, or you're deliberately trying to fudge the matter. If the former, then I'm debating with an incompetent. If the latter, then you already know you've lost.
"You said you were yourself insane."
Another lie. Citation please. Remember that three year old you referred to earlier? If this is the way you got them to agree with you, no wonder you're trying to use it on everyone else.
You failed. You didn't read the arguments on the atheist page. For example, you didn't address the ontological arguments. At least make an attempt to lie convincingly.
Also, you continue to make a fool of yourself by assuming that all believers remember god. Aka - insanity.
It IS great. And iOS IS bad. What's the deal? Since iOS has a much larger market share than Windows mobile, the latter needn't be mentioned. Simple.
Feel free to claim victory as you lie on the ground covered in dust. You just look all the more pathetic.
By the way - what happened to the detailed refutation of every single point in the atheist wiki page? Am I to understand that your silence on the issues we haven't covered yet means you agree that atheism is the only valid way of thinking?
Good. Glad that's cleared up.
"Again, epistemologically speaking, belief and recall are the same thing."
You couldn't be more wrong. A person can believe in god and not "remember" it. In fact, most people are like this. It's hilarious as to how you conflate the two. All you've shown is that memory implies belief. Not the other way around.
Basic set theory my boy. Clearly you don't have much training in logic.
Memory is a circumstance. Belief is not. Show me a person who "remembers" god, and I'll show you an insane person.
You're making a fool of yourself now. It's obvious you have nothing else to say with your conflation of belief and memory. And you hope that repeating something like a broken record will change reality.
Just the kind of person who seems to accept the fact that god might exist. Thank you for being such a wonderful representative.
I'm beginning to take pity on your slowness (hence the patience). The shirt might exist because of your MEMORY not your belief. Not the same thing.
Belief has nothing to do with it my boy. Again.
"Ah. so you aren't retracting your earlier postulation - sincere belief suffices where physical evidence is unavailable. Gotcha."
I'm not sure we're speaking the same language here. You see, I speak English where memory is not the same as belief. Either you're speaking another language, or you're drunk. I'm not sure whether you're old enough to drink or not, but please learn in the future going forward to make sure you use your words correctly.
"Precisely how does the psychologist determine the veracity of the proposition that Life is Suffering?"
Belief != Memory. This is getting tiresome.
"That's what we are doing here. What did you think we are doing?"
I leave it as an exercise to you to go through the page, isolate the arguments we HAVEN'T addressed yet, and get back to me on those. Otherwise, in the absence of that, you agree with me that atheism is the only valid system of thought in today's world.
Please don't so openly demonstrate your ignorance by equating a linear equation with the default proposition that there's no god. Besides, you yourself admit that you dont' believe in a Zokooloo. So what gives?
"Yet you believe the shirt exists even though it is also unproven by experiment."
As I said (for the umpteenth time), there are many experiments to prove that the shirt existed.
Smart people learn from their mistakes. You apparently continue to make the same mistake of not reading the most recent post before asking the same question again. Feel free to close your ears and go "la la la la la!"
"Your evidence so far has been that it is okay to believe stuff and people who don't believe the things you do are insane. Any other evidence you would like to put forward?"
My evidence is that since there's no physical evidence for god and since no experiment can ever be devised to prove/disprove it, it's by definition a pure thought experiment. Your job is to poke a hole in that if you can. Naturally you can't, so here's my prediction: In your next post you are going to completely ignore it as though it never happened.
Pure speculation on my part.
Apparently just like god.
Apparently you don't know the difference between a memory and a belief. Why am I surprised after all this time?
Forgive me for making the charitable assumption that you were sane. I now proclaim you insane and that you imagined the shirt. Barring any other physical evidence of course. As usual you haven't read what was assigned to you.
"Get on with it stop moaning. I'm not your mummy."
All that hard work too much for ya eh? Much easier to just point to a link. Btw, I just pointed you to the atheist section of wikipedia. Waiting for your detailed rebuttal of every single point made there.
"It does not affect the physical world as we observe it."
Sure it does. There are receipts, credit card charges, the memory of clerks who sold it to you (even if it's too weak to recall), fibers of the shirt in your house, the memory of those who have seen you wear it, CCTV cameras and a whole bunch of other stuff. Everything physical leaves a trail all over the place if you really want to find the evidence. A strong memory can even be sufficient if insanity is ruled out. And what does god have going for it? Zip. Zilch. Nada. And so you can compare them...how exactly?
"You've already said that (in the shirt example) in the absence of empirical evidence other non-empirical evidence will suffice to make belief in the shirt reasonable."
No, I said a MEMORY of the shirt CAN be reasonable if it's a true memory. And contrary to what you think, there are way to distinguish between a false memory and a true one. Psychologists do it all the time.
Please respond to the arguments made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism. Otherwise they will be considered proven. I will hold you to counter EACH AND EVERY point.
This is what happens when you don't read everything assigned to you. Refer to my previous post on how a false sincere believe can also be caused due to insanity. I was being charitable to you by not taking that route, but you seem to want to rub your face in it - well, your choice.
"That is what I just said."
No, you didn't. Zero as a number is equivalent to atheism...how exactly? Citation please. These lapses of memory are really bogging you down here.
While there's nothing extraordinary about the behavior of greenhouse gases, the amount of evidence proving the scale of it is extraordinary.
"So to be clear, if one party doesn't reply to a point made by the other, that point can be considered true?"
At least have the grace to say "Yeah, that was a stupid example". Since YOU brought it up, I assumed you would have followed it. I never started spouting mystical wisdom about extrasolar planets. Don't start something you can't finish. The fact that we found star wobbles is good evidence. If we didn't find them, that would have been a blow to the extrasolar planet theory. Occam's razor at work again.
What experiments have been proposed to validate the existence of a deity? None. Hence it fails the Occam's razor test.
"None of your remarks in support of Zokooloos being analogous to a deity have panned out."
A la contraire, YOU haven't shown how god is not a thought experiment since there's not a shred of physical evidence for it. My burden of evidence has already been met. If you don't think so, you have to show HOW it has not been met. Neither of which you have done. So my point has already been proved. Waiting for your attempted rebuttal.
Well...you said that I'd read it. Was that another "thought experiment" of yours? I can see a trend here...
A physical memory? So (according to you) in the absence of any empirical evidence, a sincere belief will suffice as evidence for the existence of something?
Not necessarily. The other possibility is that you're insane. Let me know if that explanation suits you.
"That is *exactly* what people do."
Then they are insane.
"Your homework"
Just admit that you can't understand your own references and can't place them here in your own words. It's a lot more honest than hiding behind a link.
Note how you still fudge the issue and run away from addressing precisely how you believe that a Zokooloo is not like god. You're damning yourself with every successive post.
It's not hypocritical because I never praised Microsoft's smartphone model. Come on dude - let it go. What's bugging you so much?