A discussion on TFES forum

[brimstoneSalad]

And do you think we should be violent towards meat-eaters?

That's not what I said. It's not WHAT somebody believes, but how they behave to you personally in conversation and interaction.
If a meat eater tries to kill and eat you, you may use violence.

You have no basis to be violent to even a serial rapist, unless he or she is threatening you, or insulting you to your face and provoking you (look into your local law to find if that is legal where you live).

I don't think that would help, I think that would make their beliefs even stronger. Why would it be different for the conspiracy theorists?

It's not about beliefs, it's about certain kinds of behavior.

[teo123]

Are you speaking to me now? If so when did I force my belief on to others?

Aren't you arguing that you should punch a person if he thinks that you are a part of a conspiracy? Maybe I misunderstood you.

You'de imagine that meat eaters speak what way? Please be more clear in your posts. I suggest when quoting someone you try to shorten down the quote as much as possible so that people understand what you are referring to.

"If I were wrong (as you suggest may be the case) I would most probably receive some type of stimulus that would decrease the chance of me repeating my action."

Clearly you have heard from many people who have seen planes first hand, and make no such claims about dragons.

Well, I've heard more people claiming to have experienced God than people claiming to have been in an airplane.

Only if you're a complete moron.

Scientific consensus:
Do airplanes exist? Yes.

How is that hard to misunderstand?

Well, how do you even define an airplane?

Why do you believe airplanes probably exist, but not believe dragons probably exist?

Well, first of all, I think I basically understand how the airplanes work. There is nothing I know that apparently contradicts them. As for the dragons, it is contradictory to what we see that, for example, they have fire in their mouth. I mean, they would burn themselves. Besides, they are supposed to talk with a human voice, and that's not something we see in other animals, and is contradictory to what we know about how brains and how larynges work. Also, and this may be the actual reason, I've never heard of anyone arguing that airplanes don't exist.

It also only takes one person who knows about it to feel bad to blow the whistle.

Well, sometimes it doesn't. Think of the holocaust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holoc ... ne_1944.29

You have no basis to be violent to even a serial rapist, unless he or she is threatening you, or insulting you to your face and provoking you (look into your local law to find if that is legal where you live).

That doesn't make any sense. And how was I exactly insulting and provoking him? I just said "I don't believe you." If someone claimed to have won the lottery, wouldn't you say exactly that? I mean, even if you believe that winning the lottery is possible? Or what if some of your friends claimed to have been into space? What? You believe it's possible, but wouldn't you say you didn't believe them? There is obviously a giant difference between believing that airplanes exist and believing that someone you know has been in one.
But, you are right, it's way better to say something like "You've been hypnotized into believing that" than "I don't believe you", since the latter can easily be misinterpreted. Next time I will say the former.
My intuition somehow tells me that if someone says that he has been in a magical flying machine then he is lying, but it's obviously not true. When my grandmother claimed to have been in an airplane the day before, when she wasn't able to get out of a bed, she probably wasn't trying to intentionally deceive us.

[brimstoneSalad]

Teo, please use the name of the person you're quoting in the quote tag like this:

stuff

Code: Select all

[quote="teo123"]stuff[/quote]

Well, I've heard more people claiming to have experienced God than people claiming to have been in an airplane.

And unless you understand why that claim is logically impossible or otherwise credibly explained by science, you should tentatively believe the experience itself.

If you don't know much about religion (or only as much as you know about airplanes) and everybody around you says god is real, then you should probably tentatively believe that too.
Positive atheism is for those who understand enough about religion to know why it's bullshit. Otherwise, you should be tempered by "agnosticism".

Well, how do you even define an airplane?

The Wikipedia article should suffice. This is not an issue of ignosticism.

Well, first of all, I think I basically understand how the airplanes work.

You should not need to in order to tentatively accept others' words.

There is nothing I know that apparently contradicts them. As for the dragons, it is contradictory to what we see that, for example, they have fire in their mouth. I mean, they would burn themselves. Besides, they are supposed to talk with a human voice, and that's not something we see in other animals, and is contradictory to what we know about how brains and how larynges work.

This is a reason to be skeptical of dragons, but not of airplanes. Since you can't contradict it, you should generally accept other people's experiences and consensus.

Also, and this may be the actual reason, I've never heard of anyone arguing that airplanes don't exist.

There you go. Unless you have a strong reason to believe otherwise, then you should generally believe the consensus.
The scientific consensus overrides the consensus of the ignorant public, and the consensus of the ignorant public should override your own skepticism unless you have a very strong reason to believe otherwise. There is probably no reason strong enough to reject scientific consensus for somebody ignorant of science (you have to have a specialization in the particular field to really question consensus).

It also only takes one person who knows about it to feel bad to blow the whistle.

Well, sometimes it doesn't. Think of the holocaust.

1. That was war time, bordered were pretty locked down, and it's hard to get information in and out.
2. War is also a time of propaganda, so you need more evidence: you can't just accept rumors (which there were many of, including Nazis eating babies, etc.)
3. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The holocaust was an extraordinary claim.
4. The information was coming from victims, not people part of the conspiracy (those people could have more easily provided evidence, like Snowden did).
5. The information did get out.

And how was I exactly insulting and provoking him? I just said "I don't believe you."

You called him a liar.

If someone claimed to have won the lottery, wouldn't you say exactly that? I mean, even if you believe that winning the lottery is possible? Or what if some of your friends claimed to have been into space? What? You believe it's possible, but wouldn't you say you didn't believe them? There is obviously a giant difference between believing that airplanes exist and believing that someone you know has been in one.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. His claim was not that extraordinary. If he had claimed to have been in a car, would you have doubted him?
Airplanes are pretty mundane. I, at least, have flown more times than I can easily count by memory (probably well over 50, but that's a wild guess, it's a common form of transportation).

Flying is common place.
If you're really peasants in a developing country and you can't imagine somebody being rich enough to go on an airplane and he was bragging about it, and you knew him to be prone to bragging and lying for attention, rather than using it as evidence that airplanes exist, then it may have been appropriate to doubt it.

My intuition somehow tells me that if someone says that he has been in a magical flying machine then he is lying, but it's obviously not true.

Airplanes are not magical. In no part of their definition or function is magic evoked. Dragons are by definition magical creatures.

When my grandmother claimed to have been in an airplane the day before, when she wasn't able to get out of a bed, she probably wasn't trying to intentionally deceive us.

Correct, but she is also mentally ill. It's more appropriate to doubt the truth of her claims (while not calling her a liar) than it is to doubt somebody of otherwise sound mind when talking about physical experiences.

[teo123]

Why would a claim that there is a holocaust be an extraordinary statement, but the claims about factory farming wouldn't be? And how does saying "I don't believe you" imply that another person is lying when there are so many other possibilities? And do you think that ancient philosophers like Epicurus weren't right in rejecting the concept of God, even though they weren't able to explain the experiences people have using science? I mean, their arguments, like the problem of evil, are basically arguments from ignorence, as much as my arguments against rockets and heliocentrism (math apparently showing that vertical sunrays should appear parallel if the Sun is very far away) are, right? Seriously, what you are saying seems to be exactly the opposite of what other atheists are saying.

[brimstoneSalad]

Why would a claim that there is a holocaust be an extraordinary statement, but the claims about factory farming wouldn't be?

They might be, and we'd need evidence. And we have evidence: a wealth of it from hidden cameras.

Also, we have evidence directly from the industry about standard practice (aside from some of the extreme documented abuses), which is also cruel (such as debeaking, and confinement).

The evidence is overwhelming. The evidence fits the claim.

And how does saying "I don't believe you" imply that another person is lying when there are so many other possibilities?

It's the simplest explanation to a clear empirical claim, like "I've been on an airplane", unless you prove another.
If somebody says "god exists" it's OK to say you don't believe that, since it's not a claim of personal experience.

If somebody claims to have spoken to god, you can say you don't accept that it was god that the person spoke to, but you do believe that person believes he or she has spoken to god. A good question to ask is why that person believes it was god.

And do you think that ancient philosophers like Epicurus weren't right in rejecting the concept of God, even though they weren't able to explain the experiences people have using science?

People make all kinds of claims to personal experience: the difference in a claim to have been on an airplane and to have felt god speak to them in their heads should be apparent. One is very difficult to divorce from an empirical reality with the exception of rare and extreme hallucination, the other is very common, do not indicate a god (they indicate a source, but say nothing about what it is), and conflict with each other from different sources.

If everybody had the same kind of experience of god independently, that would be evidence.

That said, Epicurus didn't reject the existence of gods. He postulated that they were without pain and were also free of fear and in peace -- aponia and ataraxia -- and thus by nature indifferent to mundane reality (otherwise, they would not be at peace, and would have fear).

I mean, their arguments, like the problem of evil, are basically arguments from ignorence, as much as my arguments against rockets and heliocentrism (math apparently showing that vertical sunrays should appear parallel if the Sun is very far away) are, right?

The argument of the problem of evil IS very often an argument from ignorance, and I've talked about this in the past. Philosophically, it's a very poor argument for atheists to make. In order to do it properly, it has to be logically exhaustive, which is a task few people are up to.

Seriously, what you are saying seems to be exactly the opposite of what other atheists are saying.

Most other atheists are stupid, like most people are stupid. Atheists are not immune to making bad arguments.

There are good reasons to believe that a god does not exist, but you aren't familiar with them, so you should be an agnostic atheist (as are most scientists) and not a positive atheist.

[teo123]

I don't know now. To me, the explanation that he has been in an airplane doesn't seem so simple. Not that I am trying to be insulting, but not a single person on the Earth knows how to make an airplane. Like, think of all of the parts an airplane is made from. The propeller, the engines, the wings, the windows, all of those measuring devices, the seats, the toilets, all of those systems needed to even get into an airplane… Don't you think it adds up to something extremely complicated?
And if you think that it's not immoral to tell someone you don't believe them when they tell you that they spoke with God, why would it be immoral to tell someone you don't believe him if he tells you he was in an airplane? Seriously, why would it be moral to express your beliefs about atheism but not your beliefs about the conspiracies? Isn't it a bit hypocritical from you as an atheist who happens not to be a conspiracy theorist? Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you are saying.
By the way, when I, recently on TFES forum, linked to the Cambridge declaration on consciousness and to the Earthlings on Youtube, they told me that it is a part of some giant conspiracy, linking it to the conspiracy of global warming. When I refuted their arguments against the global warming (linking to some bloggers who have already done that), they came up with new ones. The discussion then went to the topic of the politics, and so on. There also seems to the consensus among the members of that forum (both most of the Flat Earthers and most of the Round Earthers) that all of the doctors are involved in a giant conspiracy hiding that alcohol can cure heart-diseases and that smoking can cure anaemia. I don't think I'll post on that forum about veganism, or any other topic, any more. I will only make a thread refuting the arguments for the Flat Earth Theory, and if I stop believing in conspiracies, I will also post the refutations of the arguments I used to support the conspiracy theories, and I will link to that thread in my signature. Is that all right?

[Red]

I have shit to do, but this has been bothering me. Don't expect a coherent response.

I don't know now. To me, the explanation that he has been in an airplane doesn't seem so simple. Not that I am trying to be insulting, but not a single person on the Earth knows how to make an airplane. Like, think of all of the parts an airplane is made from. The propeller, the engines, the wings, the windows, all of those measuring devices, the seats, the toilets, all of those systems needed to even get into an airplane… Don't you think it adds up to something extremely complicated?

Seriously? Just because you have no idea how it works doesn't mean it doesn't work at all. There are experts who spent years in engineering school (or where ever the go to learn how to build planes), and you're saying they don't know how to build an airplane? That's fucking hilarious. Plus, unless you're just being general, there are a lot more pieces that are needed to construct an airplane. By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that this is a personal incredulity fallacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
I've been on airplanes. Internationally. I haven't a clue as to how they work, but hey, it looks like they do. And if you're really stuck, ask an expert before making baseless, meaningless assertions. I genuinely hope I didn't misunderstand your reply here.
Look, I'm sure you're a good guy, but You have to learn that even if something is super complicated (to you at least), that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[brimstoneSalad]

Don't you think it adds up to something extremely complicated?

No. Just build a model airplane. It's not hard. You can order the parts online.

Do you believe motors work? Do you accept the existence of combustion? Batteries? Do you believe remote controls work? Do you accept the existence of foam and balsa wood? Do you accept the mechanics of cervos?

It's really not complicated. You're just very stupid right now, and you have a lot to learn.

Yes, of course one person can build an airplane, it would just be very tedious if you want to build every single part from scratch (which is stupid).
If I explain how to build everything from raw materials, are you then going to complain that we can't create the raw materials of iron and wood from nothing?

Go to a model airplane forum and tell them you don't believe airplanes exist, or think people can't build them
http://www.rcgroups.com/aircraft-electric-airplanes-4/

Watch the videos here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9zTuy ... Ez1216noAw
The recent video is them flying around a toaster. It's retardedly simple to build an airplane today.

There are plenty of other videos on building airplanes.

The computer you're using now is FAR more complicated than an airplane. These things are just sums of their parts, working together. If you accept that the parts work, you can assemble them yourself and see them work.

If there's any particular part of an airplane you don't accept (do you have an issue with believing in windows?) then we can discuss that particular part.
If you don't believe they work together, you can witness them working together yourself, and you can do the math that proves they do if you learn how.

[brimstoneSalad]

And if you think that it's not immoral to tell someone you don't believe them when they tell you that they spoke with God,

No, say: "I believe you think you talked to something, but how do you know it was god? What if it was the devil pretending to be god? What if it was an alien beaming the voice into your head to trick you? What if it was a split personality or hallucination in your brain that you were talking to?"

All of these "what ifs" are equally plausible or more plausible than it being god (the latter is the most plausible: a hallucination of a voice is a lot simpler and more common than hallucinating something like a plane ride).

why would it be immoral to tell someone you don't believe him if he tells you he was in an airplane?

You can say you believe he or she believes he or she has been on a plane.

"I believe you think you were on a plane, but how do you know it was a real plane? What if it was a computer simulation? What if it was actually a dragon in the shape of a plane? What if it was a hallucination?"

You can say that and not be a complete asshole.

The problem with these "what ifs", however, and what makes you an idiot for saying something like that is that they're all less plausible than the person actually having been on a plane in most cases.
Do not attempt to replace a more plausible explanation with a less plausible one.

The only case where it's more plausible is with your grandmother, who is known to have delusions, and who you knew to be inside all day when she said she was on the plane.

For other people, your default position should be to believe them.

By the way, when I, recently on TFES forum, linked to the Cambridge declaration on consciousness and to the Earthlings on Youtube, they told me that it is a part of some giant conspiracy, linking it to the conspiracy of global warming. When I refuted their arguments against the global warming (linking to some bloggers who have already done that), they came up with new ones.

That's not surprising.
Maybe you can see a little bit of how frustrating and intellectually dishonest conspiracy theories are.

I don't think I'll post on that forum about veganism, or any other topic, any more.

That's probably for the best.

[teo123]

One person is able to build a whole airplane all by himself? Are you kidding me? Seriously, how do you make a propeller? How do you make an engine? How do you make the wings? How do you make the windows? How do you make all those measuring devices? How do you make the seats? How do you make the toilets? And, as you already know, there are so many other parts. How do they work? How do you make them? An airplane isn't simple at all. Anyone who claims it is simple is ignorant.
Ever watched this video? It kind of changes the way you look at the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE
And I wasn't claiming that airplanes don't exist, I was just claiming they aren't the simplest explanation for my ex-friend claiming to have been in one.