You can't prove a negative (parody)

[Anomalocaris]

Is this an argument for epistemological nihilism?

Defence of religion will often try hard to disguise, but ultimately can never avoid, its infantile qualiitative thinking and its basis in epistemological nihilism.

Since nothing can be really be proven, therefore it can be said that nothing can be qualitatively more proven than my bullshit, therefore it follows, somehow, that you should accept my bullshit, and only those other things which do not contradict my bullshit, as being as good as proven.
.

[Mystic]

? Why isn't the idea that you have a Creator who will show you who you are and the true perception of praise of all your actions one day, not a useful idea for everyone? .

Because attempts to show its usefulness is always met with better grounded, more thorough, more cohensive and less circular demonstration of its lack of usefulness.

I think it's useful, because, it gives you hope, that the praiseworthiness you earn, will be one day truly known and you will know yourself truly. That can be useful in bettering morality as well as making people happier.

What say you to this?

[Anomalocaris]

It is the sort of morality which substitute wishes for facts, hope for strategy, products of ignorant gullibility as received wisdom, and in the process cripple the capacity of society to undertake solid step by step growth in knowledge base which in the long rule affords the essential means to really tackle existential physical challenges.

It's usefulness in making a few happy for false reasons is more than offset by its capacity to cause humanity to stagnate at this point until overtaken and eliminated by course of natural events.

[Mystic]

What about if morality was false. It is also foolish to believe in that? Is it also gullible of humans to have believed in it and thought of it as wisdom?

Will it also stagnate humanity to believe in morality were it to be false?

Is the same true of free-will if free-will wasn't true?

I think you are denying the human experience.

[Anomalocaris]

It is nonsensical to say morality is false. It is only sensible to say particular systems of morality is false, such as because it is inextricably tied to premise known to be as false as is reasonably possible to assert anything to be false.

Jettisoning of systems of morality based on false premise is not the same as jettisoning of morality, although it might be duplicitously asserted to be same by those whose vested interest is purely in the protection of the false premise.

I am not denying human experience. I am objecting to notion that a particularly disgraceful part of human experience, one which saw the subordination of just about everything else to the urge to be led by the nose toward cheap satisfaction the infantile craving for undeserved complacency, should be allowed to worm its way back to the top in the hierarchy respectability amongst of human institutions where it can once again subordinate productive human energy to sterile mental masterbation.

[Mystic]

It is nonsensical to say morality is false.

This maybe be true, I wish I knew. But the question is, if it was false, would we be fools to believe in it? Would we be believing in false wisdom? Would we be pathetic for wishful thinking it is true?

Does evolution favour beliefs that are true all the time, or does it favour beliefs that work and benefit humanity?

Our concept of identity, we work better with it. Belief in free-will, we function with it. The human experience is what it is.

I myself am not sure about morality, free-will, praise, value, human rights. This is something perhaps most Atheists have even more faith in than me.

I tend to want to believe in it. I tend to think even if I come to disbelieve in them, I should act as if they exist from a practical point of view.

But I would love to hear your explanation of why denying morality is real is nonsensical from the naturalism perspective. I say this, because it, seems identity of self, morality, praise, all this is just made up belief with no essence to attribute the quality to from naturalism perspective. I say this because evolution would've developed this concept in conjugation with magical thinking.

[Godscreated]

The difference is that the universe can be measured and the results can be shown to you. God can't be measured. I think most people simplify this argument, it's not that you have to positively prove something to an individual. You have to show that something is capable of existing. Anything that exists can be measured in some way, whether that is light spectrum or electronic weight. Since most Theists agree that there is no way to measure God I think they would be better off just admitting that they believe in his existence on faith rather than even bother with the evidence.

It's really an oversimplification of the argument although I don't blame you, since most people using it over simplify it as well.

So, atoms did not exist before we could measure them, interesting me thinks. By the way it is our fault we can not measure God not His, since we're at fault here, how is it one says God does not exist.

[Anomalocaris]

This maybe be true, I wish I knew. But the question is, if it was false, would we be fools to believe in it? Would we be believing in false wisdom? Would we be pathetic for wishful thinking it is true?

Does evolution favour beliefs that are true all the time, or does it favour beliefs that work and benefit humanity?

Our concept of identity, we work better with it. Belief in free-will, we function with it. The human experience is what it is.

The answer to whether evolution favors beliefs that are true is very evidently variable according to the time and circumstances.

For beliefs that are true to be favored, it must increase the proficiency of the believer in forecasting the consequences of his actions.

For beliefs that are true to actually increase the proficiency of the believer in forecasting the consequences of his actions, the belief must be pragmatically actionable.

In primitive societies with crudely developed means, the capacity to act on any belief is very limited, and means to arrive at true belief, and discern it from other untrue beliefs, are even more limited. In this environment, very few true beliefs can be recognized as such, or can be acted upon with available means. So in this case true beliefs would be of limited utility. Having a few false beliefs that happen to promote certain crude rules of thumbs that happen to provide survival advantage is just as good, since crudeness pervades all available means.

In more advanced societies with refined means, the capacity to act on beliefs have greatly expanded, and means to tell true belief from false have also matured. In this circumstances, many true beliefs can be recognized as such, and can be acted upon with precision. So here true beliefs would be of greatly expanded value in producing forecasts to guide one's actions. Having a few false beliefs that might promote certain crude rules of thumb would comparatively be far inferior in survival value next to refined precision with which true beliefs can be acted upon and can be used to bring about carefully calculated favorable results.

So the answer to your question is, You might have been a small fool, hardly more foolish than the majority of other people, to believe in things that are reasonable detectable as untrue 2000 years ago. You would have become an increasingly big fool, drifting decidedly towards and then below the human average,for believing the things that are reasonable discernable as false as years ticked from 2000 years ago towards the present, and you would be a monsterous fool for continuing to believe demonstratably false things into the future.

[Mystic]

What if evolution produced a false belief in praiseworthiness, in a false belief in value. It would've been useful, doesn't have to be based on reality. Is it foolish to stick to it now, since we have advanced so much in philosophy and science?

[Anomalocaris]

Yes. When there are those who would no longer be fooled, and who therefore are positioned to accurately assess the real reason why the belief still attract adherents, and accurately predict the overall consequences of this false belief, those who remain beholden to falsehood position themselves to the screwed and fleeced sheep and therefore suffer a Darwinian handicap relative those who have penetrated the falsehood.

You can continue to be beholden to the falsehood for the comfort it gives. But it would you who suffer the consequence of being fucked up the ass by priests. You would not be the one who fleece the believers for your own Darwinian advantage.