Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[The Grand Nudger]

Things like that happen when you aren't using a common language.

saying that as long as you believe you will continue to believe could be a tautology. Does it concern you that it makes belief beliefs own cause? That it does not require a first mover to set it in motion? A self re-enforcing closed loop system.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah, gods are often subject to fates.   You've added a new wrinkle.  Fatalism is the thing you're describing when you talk about determinism...and claim that it is ridiculous.  Now, however, you're saying that the fatalism which you think is ridiculous is a strong argument for your god?

I have no idea what you are referring to.  I didn't post anything on fatalism on this thread.
Except that a second ago you mentioned it, and I responded. My response did not adduce fatalism as an epistemic foundation for Yahweh.

Whose posts are you reading?

Everytime you yammer on about "determinism this" and "determinism that" and "atheistic reductionism" the other.....you've been describing the content of a fatalist, and not deterministic, world.

[Angrboda]

I think he's trying to say axiomatic when he talks about a tautology.

Per google, one usage of the term is "a statement that is always true by its own structure."

My claim was, "As long I am still finding it impossible to disbelieve Religion-X, I will continue to believe Religion-X."

Yet the entire gallery is saying that is NOT an example of a tautology.

I'm still scratching my head over this one....

Except that isn't the belief you were referring to. You said, "Posted by a person who can't seem to comprehend that, for many of us, our belief is a tautology." The belief is Christianity, not this proposition which you've just posted. You might believe this in addition to Christianity, but only a complete moron would think that is the belief at issue. So you've simply replaced something non-tautological with something tautological and thinking that I wouldn't notice.

[OakTree500]

Nobody or no thing made you do it.

But the pain receptors in my body tell me it hurts. So who told me it hurts?

You seem to be confusing conscious acts [like throwing a punch] and stuff like thirst [which is a bodily function that tells you to drink water] - those are different types of actions

Not sure if you were reluctant to answer my last question. 

Honestly I've just gotten tied of whatever you believe is happening here. You keep saying one thing, that to me isn't reading the same back. I say something as straight forward as I can, and again you seem to think I'm talking about something else.

I'll just move on and leave this for now.

[Jal]

Fine. Let's speculate that such occurs deterministically/ randomly, often enough to preserve the species.  (This coincidence is beyond my wildest imagination, but let's humor the idea for a moment). Did you notice something? No  hunger or thirst is needed in this domino effect. There is no apriori correlation between hunger and food-consumption. The chips just fall where they may.

That's because nobody but an ignorant Christer assumes that determinism and randomness are the same thing.  You really are butt fucking stupid.

Words derive their meaning from context. My apologies for assuming that atheists are wise enough to realize that.

In that context, by "random" I simply meant things like:
- blind causality indifferent to the outcome
- unintentioned  causality

I wasn't insinuating "pure randomness" defined as non-predetermined arbitrary chaotic outcomes.

[Jal]

Per google, one usage of the term is "a statement that is always true by its own structure."

My claim was, "As long I am still finding it impossible to disbelieve Religion-X, I will continue to believe Religion-X."

Yet the entire gallery is saying that is NOT an example of a tautology.

I'm still scratching my head over this one....

Except that isn't the belief you were referring to.  You said, "Posted by a person who can't seem to comprehend that, for many of us, our belief is a tautology."  The belief is Christianity, not this proposition which you've just posted.  You might believe this in addition to Christianity, but only a complete moron would think that is the belief at issue.  So you've simply replaced something non-tautological with something tautological and thinking that I wouldn't notice.

Yes in that context, that's exactly the belief I was referring to. It's not my fault you lack sensitivity to context.

[Jal]

I have no idea what you are referring to.  I didn't post anything on fatalism on this thread.
Except that a second ago you mentioned it, and I responded. My response did not adduce fatalism as an epistemic foundation for Yahweh.

Whose posts are you reading?

Everytime you yammer on about "determinism this" and "determinism that" and "atheistic reductionism" the other.....you've been describing the content of a fatalist, and not deterministic, world.

That seems patently false. Fatalism presupposes a higher governing power, and I've been addressing deterministic atheists who do NOT believe in a higher governing power.

I don't know whose posts you are reading.

[The Grand Nudger]

If a fatalist word was a world with a greater need of gods as an existential explanation...then a reasonable god believer might not wish to object. An atheist, otoh, is far less likely to believe in worlds that allegedly require gods - rightly or wrongly.

[Jal]

Things like that happen when you aren't using a common language.

saying that as long as you believe you will continue to believe could be a tautology.  Does it concern you that it makes belief beliefs own cause?  That it does not require a first mover to set it in motion?  A self re-enforcing closed loop system.

Concern me? Not terribly. I can't even question Yahweh's existence in good conscience. 

Again, if Yahweh exists, this kind of invincible revelation is His only possible way of reliably leading us (aside from robotically controlling us). Therefore, mostly it's more comforting than "concerning" as it seems to strongly suggest veracity. 

But yes, all of us should be a little concerned about everything - we should take all our beliefs only tentatively - at least until we reach 100% certainty.

I only have about 90% certainty about Yahweh's existence.  I want to rise to the level of prophethood experiencing Yahweh's revelations at 100% certainty.

So to some small extent: yes, the revelation will remain slightly "concerning" at least until I apprehend it at 100% certainty.

[The Grand Nudger]

Would it be fair to say, then, that your soul or mind is not a self contained causal loop? That it has been acted upon and that this past action determined your current and future states?