mererdog

You are correct that you can rightly say you do not believe. You are incorrect that it is logical in those circumstances to conclude that their conclusion is wrong. Poor argumentation does not disprove a conclusion. Despite what the courts think, a man does not become a murderer simply because he has a bad lawyer. It is common for people to use false premises in arguments supporting true conclusions. It is common for people to think a true conclusion follows from one set of true premises, when it actually follows from a different set of true premises. These mistakes are problems with people, not with the truth. As such, these mistakes can't tell us which conclusions are true. They can only tell us which people make mistakes- which is all of us.

I was discussing basic epistemology. General principles that apply as readily to fish as to God. Really, it is mostly about us, as humans. What convinces us, what prevents us from seeing the truth, and how we can be more effective thinkers despite our shortcomings. You know, trivial stuff.

Easier said than done. This is that thing again where belief is not a choice. We all like to think that when we see the proof we will be convinced of the truth. But it just doesn't work like that. The process is super messy and only partly in our control. Because we are invested in our beliefs, we reflexively protect that investment by fighting against anything that threatens our beliefs. Sometimes we see a black swan, but since we "know" it can't be real we simply dismiss it as a fake. It keeps things simple and makes life easier to cope with, you dig? Also, for the record, black swans are not the only non-white swans. Beware the false dichotomy that leads to shifting goal-posts. Don't conflate a way to disprove the claim with the way to disprove the claim. No evidence become no objective evidence becomes no objective evidence made out of chocolate....

No. You are trying to determine motive by examining action (or lack thereof). It doesn't work. The mother may never learn he ate the candy, but the other kid will know who hit him. This means you may simply be seeing children engaged in reflexive risk analysis, and accepting only rewards with an acceptable level of risk. Or not. We can't tell, can we?

No. "No number of sightings of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white. The sighting of just one black one may disprove it." - Karl Popper

In order for this kind of argument to work, you need to assume that you have all the relevant information. You have to assume, in other words, that there is no unaccounted for variable which changes the logical conclusion. This means that trusting the conclusion requires trusting that there is nothing important about God that you do not know.

The honest answer to the question is either "I don't know" or "Not to my knowledge." Your logic here follows the following pattern- I have seen a lot of swans The swans I saw were white. All swans are white. A more familiar use of this sort of bad thinking runs like this- "I've known his teacher for thirty years and she's never given me any reason to think she was capable of doing anytging like that. She just isn"t that sort of person."

I have seen some fairly compelling evidence for reincarnation. I am not a believer, by any stretch of the term. In point of fact, I tend to pooh-pooh the idea. But I have seen evidence that I can't explain away. At least not without without resorting to calling people liars or fools with no real cause to do so other than that they make claims that run contrary to my preconceptions. As for what I want versus what the Bible promises, I see no way there can be evil in the world created by an all-powerful God, unless that all-powerful God is evil. I find the story of Revelations morally repugnant and, quite frankly, horrifying. I would rather be punished for doing the right thing than rewarded for doing wrong. I would rather burn for standing up for my loved ones than live forever knowing any of them suffer.

Depending entirely on what pile of assumptions you use to define God... Simple logic says that if God is all-powerful, God can produce objective, verifiable evidence that God exists. Consider the assertion "My teacher molested me." It may be impossible to find objective, verifiable evidence of such a claim. Should such A claim therefore simply be dismissed?

Any assertion can be dismissed. That does not mean any assertion should be dismissed. The argument from ignorance asserts that an argument that has not been proven true can be treated as if it is false. The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy of relevance. It seeks to infer the truth of a claim based on factors irelevant to the truth of the claim. It is lazy thinking. When hearing "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," most people focus exclusively on the lesson regarding the effect of lying on reputation. There is, however, a deeper lesson about the danger of complacency. With their lives at stake, the villagers have a responsibility to determine the truth of The Boy's claim. When they tire of chasing false leads, they become irresponsible, refusing to put effort into duscerning the truth. And they get eaten.

The "Intimate Knowledge" argument is inherently unassailable, in this context. That's why I originally suggested it. While citing evidence that can't be independantly verified is a fairly crap way to convince others, it is a great way to construct an argument that cannot be disproven. It invites ad hominem, in the form of accusations of insanity or lies, but it stands up as logical justification.

You speak of Mother Earth. Let me ask you, is a mother a figure of nurturing kindness, or of overbearing control? Is a mother a thing to be longed for or a thing to be feared? Should we seek to connect with it, or to free ourselves from it? The invisible assumptions you speak of are not built into the language. They are carried into the language by those who use it. Two people will use the same words to mean completely different things. Two people will hear the same words and take them to mean completely different things. All based on each individual's personal assumptions about how people talk. Rthym forms tone. Accent forms dialect. Familiarity forms expectation. To understand any use of language requires the answering of basic questions. Is the use literal? Figurative? Ironic? Sardonic? Is this idiom or jargon? Is it an unfamiliar mode of expression, or simply an overdressed word salad?

A spiritual being of a specific religion would not always be a proper noun. Shinto has yōkai, as an example. While specific to Shinto, they are not a singular thing within Shinto (note the "they").

Humans are irrational creatures. We love. We hate. We have faith in things unseen. We don't restrict ourselves to what is reasonable. We look beyond what is and see what should be. We climb mountains purely for the sake of climbing mountains. We help people who deserve no help and we hurt people who deserve no blame. We cling to hope when all is already lost. We cling to fear when we are at our safest. This irrational tendency is not something to be scorned. It is an integral part of the human condition. It is a defining quality of who we are. When we are at our greatest, it is right there, shining brightly, pushing us forward.

Offense is an emotional response, not a rational response. As such, it doesn't have to make sense to be real. In fact, it is extremely common for people to be upset by something while believing they shouldn't be upset by it- to believe they shouldn't care what someone says, while simultaneously caring what that someone says. That disconnect tends to increase the person's emotional response, because they not only respond negatively to what was said, but also to feeling forced into having this negative response they dont think they should have. It can be a bit of a feedback loop. You've never experienced this?

Supreme Being is a proper noun (and capitalized) when it refers to a singular thing. It gets confusing in common comparative religious use, because while the many different religions have many Supreme Beings, each is a singular thing within the context of its specifc religion.

So, there are things called"ugly truths." They include phrases like "If you keep drinking like that, you're going to destroy your liver," "If you keep running around with all those guys, you're going to get a bad reputation," or "You hurt your grandmother's feelings when you talk like that." No one likes to be on the recieving end of them, but we often need to hear them. What Dan said may not be true, but he believes it is. It represents as valid a cause/effect relationship in his mind as the notion that too much sugar will rot a kid's teeth. To him, it is not an insult, and not an attack- it is just the way things are. When you say his words are offensive, you are saying that his beliefs are offensive. It may not be true, but you believe it is. You can no more choose not to see it as offensive than he can choose to see it as offensive. You are slaves to your preconceptions, with outside input your only hope of being freed. Or, at least, I believe that to be true.

From the article above... "Our study shows that decisions are unconsciously prepared much longer ahead than previously thought. But we do not know yet where the final decision is made. We need to investigate whether a decision prepared by these brain areas can still be reversed." That possibility of reversal is the core of the issue to me. It seems clear to me that a thing can only rightly be called a choice if it is possible to choose differently. If you can only choose differently in specific circumstances (like you get new evidence) then it is not really a choice in any other cicumstance. I also think that something can be the result of a choice without, itself, being a choice. Like stepping out of the plane is a choice, but falling is just gravity. There's a fascinating old case study of a man who lost a large segment of his memory, and the ability to form new ones. He didn't know where he lived, so he could not choose to go home. But he would go for a daily walk with no destination in mind, and inevitably wander home. Ask him how he did it, and he would just get confused...

The science of choosing unconsciously...

A more apt analogy would be "I want to get married but I can't, so marriage isn't a choice for me" He said he wants to have faith in his nephew. Perhaps he has even tried and failed. If a thing is impossible to do, is it fair to call it a choice?

One of the most effective ways to understand how a system works is to look at the ways in which it can break down. Malfunction highlights interactions you may not otherwise notice, and provides proof of the difference between what is present and what is needed. Figuring out the causes of failure is a necessary part of figuring out the causes of success.

Different nervous system. Different endocrine system. You and I do not process the same information in the same way. We can't process information in the same way. We can't choose to do so, any more than we can choose to have the same fingerprints. Beyond that, no data set exists in a vacuum and no two people share identical experiences. We have all had different inputs, and while any specific difference may only be slight, we're talking about as many experiential differences as there are seconds in a day. It adds up, you know? And what it adds up to is a mental framework that dictates how we react to new information. The obvious example of how this works is people who literally dont speak the same language. They will not react the same way to hearing the same words, you know? And they don't choose to react differently, it just happens as an unavoidable result of their inherent differences. Now consider the schizophrenic suffering from delusions. Did he choose these beliefs? Can he choose to believe differently?

I am bad at accepting compliments gracefully, so I will choose to believe you never said that.

So choose to believe that Washington was not the first US president. Choose to believe the evidence saying that he is is wrong. Choose to believe every history teacher you ever had was wrong about this. Choose to believe your parents and everyone you respect is wrong. If it boils down to a choice, choose differently. Beliefs based on the evidence are just beliefs based on belief in the evidence. If belief is a choice, you can choose not to believe the evidence. Others believe things that go counter to the evidence. How do they do this, if you cannot choose to do so? What does that tell you about your claim that other beliefs are choices? If you chose to believe, you can choose to disbelieve. If you chose to disbelieve, you can choose to believe. This is the accusatory part of the claim. The part that tells others they just aren't trying hard enough. The part that accuses the atheist of ignoring history, and the Christian of ignoring science. The part that points fingers and assumes ill will.

You have stated that you have chosen to believe that George Washington is the first U.S. president. You have stated that you can choose to disbelieve it. The experiment is designed to test these claims. The way to test the claims is to choose differently. So... Choose to believe he isn't the first. Don't wait until you are convinced by new evidence. That does not prove choice. Don't wait until the belief fits your world-view and gains the ring of truth. That doesn't prove choice. Just try to choose to believe that George Washington was not the first U.S. president, despite having no good reason for doing so.