Freud categorized people into 2 groups, those who were believers and those who were unbelievers. Believers were those who had faith in God/gods/souls/etc. Unbelievers were the atheists/agnostics/humanists/etc. My question to you is regarding doubt. All believers in our daily lives experience feelings of doubt. Many unbelievers assume believers blindly follow their said religion, without realizing the doubt that challenges us regularly. I am curious about your doubts.

I find that believers typically spend their lives with doubts and their faith challenged here and there, but before death they usually feel abject certainty that they were right. Would I be correct in assuming the opposite is true regarding unbelievers? Do you spend your lives in absolute certainty of your beliefs (after all, you have modern science on your side), only to experience great feelings of doubt when on the brink of death?

I guess I have talked with fellow Christians about their doubts and how they have used faith and such to overcome their doubts. I'm wondering if unbelievers experience similar doubts, and if so, how they overcome them. I imagine it a different form of doubt. When a believer experiences doubt, they have science staring them in the face saying "you are wrong". Does an unbeliever ever feel inside themselves as though a potential soul might be whispering their ear "you are wrong"?



[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 09-27-2005).]

Having doubts is a burden of those who base themselves on something that makes allegations that can be proven wrong. An agnostic, for example, has no such doubts, since he makes no allegations that can be proven wrong.

I don't speak for anyone here, but I personally have no doubts. I'm a materialist, I believe only that which is proven physically to exist, nothing else; therefore, there are no doubts.

Their "faith" seems to be denial to me. It's easy to ignore things to justify decisions.

I have nothing to doubt in. I've been in some scary situations when I could've very well been near death, and I knew it; however, I didn't suddenly decide to convert or anything. Nothing whispered to me except my fear.

But can't doubts also be used to strengthen faith? Are they always a burden?

As far as faith being a form of denial, there is just as much a possibility that a lack of faith could be a form of denial. People assume that believers only believe in God because the want a God to exist. Is it not possible that an unbeliever only believes there is no God because, for various reasons, they would not want a God to exist?

edit: It also isn't necessarily about a "sudden urge to convert". For instance, why would an atheist cry out "Oh God!" when about to die? Why even use the term?

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 09-27-2005).]

quote: Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Would I be correct in assuming the opposite is true regarding unbelievers? Do you spend your lives in absolute certainty of your beliefs (after all, you have modern science on your side), only to experience great feelings of doubt when on the brink of death?

Who besides the rare exception of few individuals (who had been through a near-death experience) would be able to answer that? I will still vouch about the weakness of my "absolute certainty":

Being a non-believer doesn't render a person incapable of doubt. Don't forget that doubt is usually the driving force that jump-started them into becoming unbelievers. We already have a strong inclination for doubt. The vast majority of all non-believers started out by believing, even if it was only half-assed.

The whole "what if i'm wrong?" scenario, that kind of doubt probably isn't as pronounced for me as it is for you just because I am unconcerned with what happens after I physically expire. At that point, I've officially hit the end of the road as far as ever being able to aspire to anything ever again. When my brain is dead, nothing else happens that I am conscious of. I really believe that. I kind of itch for the possibility of being able to believe that the excess "energy" hovering around after I die could somehow be tied in to an interpretation of "soul" that I could feel comfortable with (and confident in). That might register as a form of doubt, or even regret, if you want to call it that. Not that I'd be conscious enough to regret that I slacked on researching it as a belief. But you feel me.

There are hardly any ways at all to answer that in a way to satisfy your curiousity, because you and I have two completely different concepts of "soul".

Crying out "Oh, God!" right at the moment of death is such an overused euphemism. I'd personally opt for "Oh, fuck!" or just "Oh Noooooo!". No deep meaning implied, just my last (agitated)remarks.

[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 09-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

But can't doubts also be used to strengthen faith? Are they always a burden?



If you don't have doubts, what are you going to strengthen? Nothing.

It's those who have doubts that apparently deem the need to "strengthen" anything. Not to mention that I would consider it bad for someone to "strengthen" their belief in something illogical.

quote:

As far as faith being a form of denial, there is just as much a possibility that a lack of faith could be a form of denial. People assume that believers only believe in God because the want a God to exist. Is it not possible that an unbeliever only believes there is no God because, for various reasons, they would not want a God to exist?



If the unbeliever had no logical argument to support his disbelief, then you would have a point; the fact is, they do, so why in the world would they be in denial?

quote:It also isn't necessarily about a "sudden urge to convert". For instance, why would an atheist cry out "Oh God!" when about to die? Why even use the term?



It's a commonly used term, devoid of any theological connections. When you say, "For God's sake" are you really thinking about about a god, and the sake of that god? No.

Doubting if a supreme being does exist? Sure I openly admit that said being could exist, I don't argue that point. I merely argue the evidence supporting that being.

quote:Do you spend your lives in absolute certainty of your beliefs (after all, you have modern science on your side), only to experience great feelings of doubt when on the brink of death?

I'm pretty sure I'll die an atheist, and even if I do profess my belief on my death bed, in which god would I choose?

i have had doubts in the past, but these stem from a yearning to be with my loved ones forever rather than from any belief that god might exist. this is - i suspect - the root of many peoples belief; they dont want to accept that after they die there will be nothing of them left except some rancid meat.

these "doubts", if you cant call them that, occur seldom and never last long. reational thought reaserts itself over the idle fantasies.

freud was a strange lad - brilliant but very odd!

[This message has been edited by darth_vector (edited 09-27-2005).]

Your post is meaningless. You categorize people in "believers" and "unbelievers". This makes your post invalid. It makes your post empty, it makes your post useless, it makes your post crap. Your post is surreal, in a shitty way. It hasn't got anything to do with life or reality. Believers and unbelievers don't even exist. They're just words used by people to categorize themselves and others into these boxes that they don't know what they mean.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I don't speak for anyone here, but I personally have no doubts. I'm a materialist, I believe only that which is proven physically to exist, nothing else; therefore, there are no doubts.

So you don't believe in logic? How about gluflomb? Nevermind, I just made that up. I use bubble gum to keep my brain cells together. You will never understand the wonders of the mind. That's why you'll always be the host to the parasite. That's why you're the never-ending victim.

I pity your lack of humanity. They only way for you to see humanity is through sheer pain, terror and agony. I will write my name in your bones.

I have doubts. Like: I doubt believers will ever make any sense. I doubt believers will ever make me change my mind. I doubt faith will ever get me anywhere over what I can see proven.

That answer your question?

i dont think i'll have any doubts when i die, being agnostic. my reasoning is that if God sends me to hell, he is fundementally evil. Because it's really sweet of him to make others feel his presence and not me. He obviously wants me to to be ignorant of him, otherwise i would have 'felt' him yes? Now if he's going to send me to hell for that, then he truly is fundementaly evil. and if that's the case, i'd rather go to hell.

Think about it for a second. God knows beforehand what all our beliefs are going to be when we die, before he created us. He therefore knows before hand if we're going to hell or not. He therefore created those of us who are going to hell, for the fun of sending us to hell. how could he possibly not be evil with that mindset?

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

So you don't believe in logic? How about gluflomb? Nevermind, I just made that up. I use bubble gum to keep my brain cells together. You will never understand the wonders of the mind. That's why you'll always be the host to the parasite. That's why you're the never-ending victim.



Why would I not believe in logic? It's a form of reasoning, which is a process of thought, which are chemical interactions, which exist in the material plane. Anything else?

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

my reasoning is that if God sends me to hell, he is fundementally evil.

God knows beforehand what all our beliefs are going to be when we die, before he created us.

1. How do you know it is not you that is fundamentally evil?

2. This, I question too. Granted God is all-knowing, but it is also said he is just. This leads me to believe he knows what the consequence of any possible choice we could make in life could be, but leaves the actual choice up to us. Knowing all possible consequences of all possible actions still grants him the right to be claimed 'all-knowing' while still granting mankind free will. I don't know. I guess it's the definition of 'all-knowing' that is debateable here. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

I could never respect a God who accepted deathbed conversions. I will live and die on my convictions, even if you're right, and I do burn in hell. And I'll still consider myself your moral superior.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I could never respect a God who accepted deathbed conversions. I will live and die on my convictions, even if you're right, and I do burn in hell. And I'll still consider myself your moral superior.

Deathbed conversions are mostly a xian, catholic belief. It used to take time, willpower and knowledge to convert and it still does according to halachic (law) authorities.

[This message has been edited by ryanl (edited 09-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Why would I not believe in logic? It's a form of reasoning, which is a process of thought, which are chemical interactions, which exist in the material plane. Anything else?

Prove it exists. Prove logic exists. Note that I'm the master of Formal Logics.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Freud categorized people into 2 groups, those who were believers and those who were unbelievers. Believers were those who had faith in God/gods/souls/etc. Unbelievers were the atheists/agnostics/humanists/etc. My question to you is regarding doubt. All believers in our daily lives experience feelings of doubt. Many unbelievers assume believers blindly follow their said religion, without realizing the doubt that challenges us regularly. I am curious about your doubts.

I find that believers typically spend their lives with doubts and their faith challenged here and there, but before death they usually feel abject certainty that they were right. Would I be correct in assuming the opposite is true regarding unbelievers? Do you spend your lives in absolute certainty of your beliefs (after all, you have modern science on your side), only to experience great feelings of doubt when on the brink of death?

I guess I have talked with fellow Christians about their doubts and how they have used faith and such to overcome their doubts. I'm wondering if unbelievers experience similar doubts, and if so, how they overcome them. I imagine it a different form of doubt. When a believer experiences doubt, they have science staring them in the face saying "you are wrong". Does an unbeliever ever feel inside themselves as though a potential soul might be whispering their ear "you are wrong"?



I'd like to state the fact, that your statement on " all believers experience doubt daily", is very much flawed. If we have doubts about the word of God then we should fast, like Jesus said. Peter said, "Why couldn't we cast the demon out." Jesus said, "Because of your doubt and unbelief, but not to worry this kind (the doubt), only comes out by PRAYER and FASTING. I've gotten to a point in my walk with Christ, if it's in the bible, and you can back up what you're saying with scripture after scripture, I believe it, because I know my God isn't limited.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Prove it exists. Prove logic exists. Note that I'm the master of Formal Logics.

If you were a "master of Formal Logics", you would know that it is impossible to do so, without first invoking a priori piece of knowledge.

Moreover, if you had any grasp of materialism you would know that a philosophical materialist is, in essence, an empiricist; someone who uses the scientific method when basing his beliefs. The scientific method does not require proof beyond any and all doubt, since it admits that things are potentially falsifiable.

In other words, your request is a foolish, not only because it is impossible to fulfill, but because I don't need to "prove logic exists" in order to practice it and/or be a materialist.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

I'd like to state the fact, that your statement on " all believers experience doubt daily", is very much flawed. If we have doubts about the word of God then we should fast, like Jesus said. Peter said, "Why couldn't we cast the demon out." Jesus said, "Because of your doubt and unbelief, but not to worry this kind (the doubt), only comes out by PRAYER and FASTING. I've gotten to a point in my walk with Christ, if it's in the bible, and you can back up what you're saying with scripture after scripture, I believe it, because I know my God isn't limited.

Perhaps I exagerated a bit. Not daily, but any believer who says they never have any doubts regarding their religion is either

a) a liar.

b) ignorant.

Doubt is not always complete disbelief. It can be merely questioning the little things. Or rethinking the boundaries and philosophies of the religion. Overcoming doubts strengthen one's faith, therefore it is good to be challenged by doubt from time to time (so long as the doubt does not destroy the faith entirely).

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Perhaps I exagerated a bit. Not daily, but any believer who says they never have any doubts regarding their religion is either

a) a liar.

b) ignorant.

Doubt is not always complete disbelief. It can be merely questioning the little things. Or rethinking the boundaries and philosophies of the religion. Overcoming doubts strengthen one's faith, therefore it is good to be challenged by doubt from time to time (so long as the doubt does not destroy the faith entirely).

When I first came to God, I doubted alot. Now when I'm confused about something, I stick with what I know, and turn to God for answers. If ever a doubt does arise, I doubt my doubt, not God.

Ya know, doubt can destroy your faith, that's why you have to renew your mind daily so you're transformed by the Word of God. You've read the parable about the seeds sown. haven't you?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If you were a "master of Formal Logics", you would know that it is impossible to do so, without first invoking a priori piece of knowledge.

Moreover, if you had any grasp of materialism you would know that a philosophical materialist is, in essence, an empiricist; someone who uses the scientific method when basing his beliefs. The scientific method does not require proof beyond any and all doubt, since it admits that things are potentially falsifiable.

In other words, your request is a foolish, not only because it is impossible to fulfill, but because I don't need to "prove logic exists" in order to practice it and/or be a materialist.

So, you can't prove that logic exists, is that what you are saying? How about randomness. Do you believe in randomness? Or infinity?

You dumb spic. You think you can impress me with your thesaurus? You have the idea that you've been enlightened. The truth is, you're far more close minded than this religious fucktards.

You're a rationalizing piece of shit, and you need a good beating.

The fact remains that your request is a stupid one, as I already showed. I cannot "prove" logic because logic is a priori piece of knowledge. Moreover, you have yet to prove why I even need to prove it exists in order to believe it in and be a materialist.

Thus, this subsequent request is even more stupid.

P.S. You should be ashamed if you actually think any of the words I said required a thesaurus.

What is logic?

Well, traditionally, it is considered a philosophy.

Depending on the area within "Logic", it deals with what are considered "argumentative fallacies" ("informal logic") or with propositions/inferences ("formal logic" -- i.e. propositional logic, first order logic, et cetera).

If it rains, you get wet, huh?

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

If it rains, you get wet, huh?

Not if you're wearing...a pancho! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif) http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

If it rains, you get wet, huh?

Not necessarily.

Logic exists because logic is a product of the mind. It does not claim to exist on the physical realm. Religion exists, An omnipotent being, not so sure.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Not necessarily.

So the sun is shining about your head?

[This message has been edited by Snoopy (edited 09-29-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Not necessarily.

So the sun is shining above your head?

No. No.

Sure thing, Mr. Tautology.

And you call yourself a master of Formal Logics...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-01-2005).]

Overall I've found that Rust happens to be the best all around debater in these forums. What do you do for a living Rust?

quote:Originally posted by Atomical:

Overall I've found that Rust happens to be the best all around debater in these forums. What do you do for a living Rust?

Hey hey, I could kill Rust in a debate any day, if I had the inclination...which happens to be right now.

Rust: You cannot claim to be a materialist/empiricist while simultaneously claiming that logic is a priori. Materialism doesn't allow for any abstract concepts, especially not ones which precede the point where, for a materialist, existence begins.

Since any argument you have made or will make would be negated if you deny the existence of logic as a priori, you have two options:

1. Do not accept logic as a priori, which would thus render you unable to create, understand, or refute any type of argument.

2. Accept logic as a priori, and become something other than a materialist.

I think this is what snoopy was trying to say.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

Hey hey, I could kill Rust in a debate any day, if I had the inclination...which happens to be right now.



How silly that you feel you need to prove something.

quote:

Rust: You cannot claim to be a materialist/empiricist while simultaneously claiming that logic is a priori. Materialism doesn't allow for any abstract concepts, especially not ones which precede the point where, for a materialist, existence begins.

Prove that materialism does not allow for abstract concepts. While you're at it, please explain and justify why there have been materialists thinkers through out history; unless of course you believe that there haven't been any (as your argument would require), in which case you would have to justify why there haven't been any, and why your definition of materialism flies in the face of these people.

quote:

Since any argument you have made or will make would be negated if you deny the existence of logic as a priori, you have two options:

1. Do not accept logic as a priori, which would thus render you unable to create, understand, or refute any type of argument.

2. Accept logic as a priori, and become something other than a materialist.

I think this is what snoopy was trying to say.

I know what he was trying to say. I already dealt with that. Materialists do believe in abstract concepts; examples include justice, and love. To claim that they do not is to be ignorant of what materialism really is.

You've made numerous claims with nothing to back them up. Now prove that materialists cannot believe in abstract concepts or admit that you cannot and withdraw your argument.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-01-2005).]

quote:How silly that you feel you need to prove something.

No, Atomical merely provided the impetus for me to challenge one of your contradictory statements. Let's try to keep away from the personal attacks, OK? I don't like when people get snippy with me, and your response is very snippy.

quote:Prove that materialism does not allow for abstract concepts. While you're at it, please explain and justify why there have been materialists thinkers through out history; unless of course you believe that there haven't been any (as your argument would require), in which case you would have to justify why there haven't been any, and why your definition of materialism flies in the face of these people.

You ought to keep track of what you say. I'm going by the definition of materialism which you provided, restated here:

quote:Rust:

I'm a materialist, I believe only that which is proven physically to exist, nothing else; therefore, there are no doubts.



Therefore,

materialist -- One who believes only in that which is proven to physically exist.

I'm arguing your definition of materialism, here. There may be philosophers who have classified themselves as 'materialists,' but they are almost certainly using a different definition.

Your definition does not allow for logic, which, no matter how you try to mince it, does not exist in the physical realm.

You may not argue the point that "logic is just a chemical reaction in the brain," because then logic becomes a posteriori, and cannot be used in your argument.

Logic MUST be a priori in order for this discussion to take place. I said this before but you ignored that argument.

Since logic MUST be a priori, your definition of materialism MUST be changed because it denies logic as a priori.

I hope you understood me this time.

quote:Now prove that materialists cannot believe in abstract concepts or admit that you cannot and withdraw your argument.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

No, Atomical merely provided the impetus for me to challenge one of your contradictory statements. Let's try to keep away from the personal attacks, OK? I don't like when people get snippy with me, and your response is very snippy.

You claiming that you can "kill me in a debate" is just as "snippy" and as personal as what I said. If you do not want ad hominen attacks then please don't center the reason for your argument around one.

quote:

You ought to keep track of what you say. I'm going by the definition of materialism which you provided, restated here:

Nothing I said refuted that definition, moreover, I would like to point out that I actually further explained what I meant when I argued with Snoopy, so it would be dishonest to not use that clarification I gave then as well.

Also, that is a personal attack. I find it absurd that you chastise me for using one and then use on yourself.

quote:

I'm arguing your definition of materialism, here. There may be philosophers who have classified themselves as 'materialists,' but they are almost certainly using a different definition.

That's baseless assertion, you have provided nothing to show that other materialists don't use that definition.

quote:aterialist -- One who believes only in that which is proven to physically exist.

I'm arguing your definition of materialism, here. There may be philosophers who have classified themselves as 'materialists,' but they are almost certainly using a different definition.

Your definition does not allow for logic, which, no matter how you try to mince it, does not exist in the physical realm.

You may not argue the point that "logic is just a chemical reaction in the brain," because then logic becomes a posteriori, and cannot be used in your argument.

Logic MUST be a priori in order for this discussion to take place. I said this before but you ignored that argument.

Since logic MUST be a priori, your definition of materialism MUST be changed because it denies logic as a priori.

I hope you understood me this time



Like I said, logic is a thought process, and thoughts are chemical reactions in the brain. Thus, I can certainly believe that in logic by believing in thoughts, without refuting the definition I gave.

As for your argument that logic would then be 'a posteriori', you provided nothing to support it. Show how it being a chemical interaction means that it is 'a posteriori' knowledge as opposed to 'a priori'.

quote:Quod erat demonstrandum.

Quo errat demonstrator.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-02-2005).]

quote:You claiming that you can "kill me in a debate" is just as "snippy" and as personal as what I said. If you do not want ad hominen attacks then please don't center the reason for your argument around one.

It wasn't personal--it was an opinion (or fact, as it seems) stated to an outside party. Furthermore, you have no way of knowing where my argument was "centered," so don't presume to act like it.

quote:Also, that is a personal attack. I find it absurd that you chastise me for using one and then use on yourself.

It's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact, a statement that you did not keep track of what definition you were using. Don't be silly.

quote: That's baseless assertion, you have provided nothing to show that other materialists don't use that definition.

I have proven that the definition is impossible to hold or use--it's paradoxical. Refer to my last post.

And here you contradict yourself again (and since you're playing dirty, I will too): you say "other materialists," implying that you use that definition, but above you said that you provided further clarification. Which one is true? Are you using the simpler definition or the one with more qualifiers? Clarify.

By the way, I'm saying you play dirty because you're accusing me of ad hom where there is none, and you're playing the technicality game.

quote:ike I said, logic is a thought process, and thoughts are chemical reactions in the brain. Thus, I can certainly believe that in logic by believing in thoughts, without refuting the definition I gave.

Can you re-word that? I think you might have added an extra word, and I think I know hat you're saying, but I'm not going to take a chance.

quote:As for your argument that logic would then be 'a posteriori', you provided nothing to support it. Show how it being a chemical interaction means that it is 'a posteriori' knowledge as opposed to 'a priori'.

You don't understand the definition of a priori. It essentially means "before perception;" in other words, it would exist before anybody could observe it. If you assert that logic is "a chemical reaction" it is no longer a priori because it must be perceived.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

It wasn't personal--it was an opinion (or fact, as it seems) stated to an outside party. Furthermore, you have no way of knowing where my argument was "centered," so don't presume to act like it.

It was most certainly personal, as it referred to me, personally. It also implied that I am a lesser debater, which is in fact an insult.

quote:It's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact, a statement that you did not keep track of what definition you were using. Don't be silly.

That is not a statement of fact, because that would mean that I somehow forgot the definition I used, which I did not.

quote: have proven that the definition is impossible to hold or use--it's paradoxical. Refer to my last post.

And here you contradict yourself again (and since you're playing dirty, I will too): you say "other materialists," implying that you use that definition, but above you said that you provided further clarification. Which one is true? Are you using the simpler definition or the one with more qualifiers? Clarify.

By the way, I'm saying you play dirty because you're accusing me of ad hom where there is none, and you're playing the technicality game.

1. You have proven no such thing. The whole point of this debate is to so, and it's obvious that the debate has not even come close to ending.

2. I never said other materialists used that definition. You're putting words in my mouth.

3. It was an ad-hominem. It was a statement aimed at man, the very definition of an ad-hominem. 'Ad-hominem' does not mean insult.

quote:Can you re-word that? I think you might have added an extra word, and I think I know hat you're saying, but I'm not going to take a chance.

I don't see how I can re-word it. Thoughts are chemical reactions that happen in the brain. Logic is a result of those thoughts. Thus logic results from something material, and thus I have not contradicted the definition I gave.

quote:You don't understand the definition of a priori. It essentially means "before perception;" in other words, it would exist before anybody could observe it. If you assert that logic is "a chemical reaction" it is no longer a priori because it must be perceived.

I'm not saying that logic is a chemical reaction, at least not the way you imply. I'm saying that thought is a chemical reaction in the brain (i.e. chemical reactions in the brain -- among other things, I'm trying not to complicate the issue with more biology -- produce thought). I'm saying that logic is a thought process. It being a thought process does not mean that it was perceived. The fact that there was no logic before (or at least that it was not called so) and then man reflected on it (via those thoughts) and then arrived at the conclusion that it is logic, means that it is 'a priori'.

A posteriori would mean that man arrived at logic via proof. I'm not saying he did, so how would it be 'a posteriori'? That's exactly what you have not supported with any argument.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

And you call yourself a master of Formal Logics...

That I am.