JS Lavertu

@Dcleve Valid point, I was mistaken on the specifics! Still, I think we can agree that the claim remains falsifiable, despite being true.

[2/2] The only way to prove it is to get personal revelation, but since there is no way to distinguish between a god that doesn't answer (for whatever reason) and a god that doesn't exist, we've reached a point where its impossible to contradict the truth claims of ANY religion. A believer can merely say that the lack of revelation is due to not meeting the threshold, independently of whether or not their god exists. Just as you do here.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@pygosceles Your refusal to acknowledge that, without actual evidence, other religion's claims to objective truth have just as much value as yours does not constitute a flaw in my argument. I understand the rationale of your argument: If your claim is objectively true, getting an answer WOULD be proof. But if it ISN'T, getting an answer is simply delusions or self-deception (in the exact way you claim the followers of other religions are deluded or self-deceiving). Since the contents of your mind aren't accessible, an outside observer cannot tell the difference based on your words. [1/2]

@pygosceles Also, this just came to mind: "The sky is blue" is true AND falsifiable. If I measure the wavelength of light coming from the sky and it doesn't land within roughly 450-495nm, the claim would be wrong. A claim being falsifiable doesn't depend on the claim ultimately being true or not.

@pygosceles I can see there is no rational discussion to be had here since you aren't willing to engage with my argument in good faith. Shame.

@pygosceles At the end of the day, your claim of objective truth is functionally equivalent to other religions claims of objective truth. Both depend on claims that revelation will follow if you you are sincere enough, and that any lack of revelation just means you aren't doing it right. I'm sorry, but your claim is just as self-evident as the claims of other religions, which is to say not at all.

@pygosceles Which brings us to the main issue. You claim A and notB, they claim B and not A. Both of you claim that sincere faith will eventually result in proof of your claim. So tell me, how can I tell the difference between a god that doesn't think I meet the threshold for revelation and a god that doesn't exist? If I sincerely ask in faith for the Christian God and get no answer, you'll say I'm doing it wrong and that the objective truth is right there. If I sincerely ask in faith for the Muslim God, they'll say I'm doing it wrong and that the objective truth is right there.

@pygosceles I don't think you could strawman my argument harder if you tried. In case you didn't notice, I'm not religious. The actual conversation is this: Pygo: "My religion is objectively true and self evident, all others are wrong." Another religious person: "No, MY religion is objectively true and self-evident, all others are wrong". JSL: "At least one of you must be wrong and since I don't know which (if any), I can't use one person's claim of objective truth to verify either religion."

@pygosceles Consider this idea: Your claim to know the Christian God exists is the result of deception by Shaitan, but if you ask Allah sincerely in faith, he will reveal the truth. If you don't get an answer from Allah, you are simply deluding yourself and aren't asking sincerely in faith. See how the exact same argument you use to dismiss other religions can dismiss yours?

@pygosceles It's rather ironic that you'd accuse me of having trouble reasoning objectively because I don't want something to be true given your complete refusal to engage with the fact that other religions use the exact same argument you use to prove their claims and discard yours as delusions or lies. Your line of reason provides no way to verify or test which contradicting claim is true (if any), because it fundamentally relies on claims that cannot be falsified. It's neither basic science or good logic.

@pygosceles You claim the God of Christianity will answer whereas the others will not because they do not exist. Others claim the God of Islam/Hinduism/etc. will answer whereas the others will not because they do not exist. You start by defining your position as being correct and use that as a justification to say it is correct, that's just circular reasoning. You've provided zero reason why a neutral observer would accept your religion's claim to objective truth over any other religion's claim to objective truth.

@pygosceles The exact same logic you use to dismiss other religions can be used to dismiss yours. You claim that other religion's attestations are dishonest or deluded, others claim that your religion's attestations are dishonest or deluded.

@pygosceles Lets say I meet a Christian, a Muslim, and a Hindu. Using the argument you presented, all three claim to have objective knowledge that their religious beliefs are true and that the other two are dishonest or deluded. By definition, we know that at least two of them must be wrong. How can we test which are wrong and which are right? If you can use "if you ask in faith, you will receive an answer from God" to justify the Christian faith, you can use "if you ask in faith, you will receive an answer from Allah/Shiva/Odin/etc." to justify any religion.

By the exact same logic, Islam/Zoroastrianism/Hinduism/etc are all veritably true, as all truly converted muslims/zoroastrianists/hindus/etc can attest. Since all these religions are incompatible, all but one (at least) MUST be wrong by definition. Given that the exact same logic simultaneously proves (potentially) true statements AND (demonstrably) false statements, how exactly are we meant to use it? Either you have a logical paradox... or the logic is just wrong.

@pygosceles I would love to see you debate a follower of another religion: just an endless stream of "No, I'M right", "No, I'M right", No, I'M right" with no actual proof in sight.

True, not all confidence is equal. The problem is that the mechanism by which you discard other religions confidence makes your own confidence unreliable. Again, this isn't something you can sidestep by saying "nuh-uh, I know I'm right": if others can be deluded in their sincere and honest belief, you can be too. Endlessly saying that your claim is equivalent to saying the sky is blue still isn't valid.

@pygosceles And now you've simply reverted to pure special pleading. Your only justification is repeating "I'm right" which isn't proof of anything.

For the sake of argument, assume your god doesn't exist: how could you tell that your sincere and honest belief isn't the result of some delusion you aren't aware of? Unless you mean to say that Christians are a special breed of humans incapable of self-delusion? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If everyone that isn't Christian can be deluded into sincere and honest belief in something that isn't true, you can too.

@pygosceles You CLAIM objective knowledge, that is not the same as having objective knowledge. I just showed that its impossible for you prove your beliefs aren't the result of some false cause. Endlessly repeating that your claim is equivalent to saying the sky is blue doesn't make it a valid analogy. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion and other religions wouldn't exist.

@pygosceles Your lack of self-awareness is truly a thing to marvel at.

In any case, I moved this to chat to clean up the answer page. And since we clearly aren't going to agree, I'll simply wish you a good day and leave it there.

[2/2] The only way to prove it is to get personal revelation, but since there is no way to distinguish between a god that doesn't answer (for whatever reason) and a god that doesn't exist, we've reached a point where its impossible to contradict the truth claims of ANY religion. A believer can merely say that the lack of revelation is due to not meeting the threshold, independently of whether or not their god exists. Just as you do here.

@pygosceles Your refusal to acknowledge that, without actual evidence, other religion's claims to objective truth have just as much value as yours does not constitute a flaw in my argument. I understand the rationale of your argument: If your claim is objectively true, getting an answer WOULD be proof. But if it ISN'T, getting an answer is simply delusions or self-deception (in the exact way you claim the followers of other religions are deluded or self-deceiving). Since the contents of your mind aren't accessible, an outside observer cannot tell the difference based on your words. [1/2]

@pygosceles Also, this just came to mind: "The sky is blue" is true AND falsifiable. If I measure the wavelength of light coming from the sky and it doesn't land within roughly 450-495nm, the claim would be wrong. A claim being falsifiable doesn't depend on the claim ultimately being true or not.

@pygosceles I can see there is no rational discussion to be had here since you aren't willing to engage with my argument in good faith. Shame.

@pygosceles At the end of the day, your claim of objective truth is functionally equivalent to other religions claims of objective truth. Both depend on claims that revelation will follow if you you are sincere enough, and that any lack of revelation just means you aren't doing it right. I'm sorry, but your claim is just as self-evident as the claims of other religions, which is to say not at all.

@pygosceles Which brings us to the main issue. You claim A and notB, they claim B and not A. Both of you claim that sincere faith will eventually result in proof of your claim. So tell me, how can I tell the difference between a god that doesn't think I meet the threshold for revelation and a god that doesn't exist? If I sincerely ask in faith for the Christian God and get no answer, you'll say I'm doing it wrong and that the objective truth is right there. If I sincerely ask in faith for the Muslim God, they'll say I'm doing it wrong and that the objective truth is right there.

@pygosceles I don't think you could strawman my argument harder if you tried. In case you didn't notice, I'm not religious. The actual conversation is this: Pygo: "My religion is objectively true and self evident, all others are wrong." Another religious person: "No, MY religion is objectively true and self-evident, all others are wrong". JSL: "At least one of you must be wrong and since I don't know which (if any), I can't use one person's claim of objective truth to verify either religion."

@pygosceles Consider this idea: Your claim to know the Christian God exists is the result of deception by Shaitan, but if you ask Allah sincerely in faith, he will reveal the truth. If you don't get an answer from Allah, you are simply deluding yourself and aren't asking sincerely in faith. See how the exact same argument you use to dismiss other religions can dismiss yours?

@pygosceles It's rather ironic that you'd accuse me of having trouble reasoning objectively because I don't want something to be true given your complete refusal to engage with the fact that other religions use the exact same argument you use to prove their claims and discard yours as delusions or lies. Your line of reason provides no way to verify or test which contradicting claim is true (if any), because it fundamentally relies on claims that cannot be falsified. It's neither basic science or good logic.

@pygosceles You claim the God of Christianity will answer whereas the others will not because they do not exist. Others claim the God of Islam/Hinduism/etc. will answer whereas the others will not because they do not exist. You start by defining your position as being correct and use that as a justification to say it is correct, that's just circular reasoning. You've provided zero reason why a neutral observer would accept your religion's claim to objective truth over any other religion's claim to objective truth.

@pygosceles The exact same logic you use to dismiss other religions can be used to dismiss yours. You claim that other religion's attestations are dishonest or deluded, others claim that your religion's attestations are dishonest or deluded.

@pygosceles Lets say I meet a Christian, a Muslim, and a Hindu. Using the argument you presented, all three claim to have objective knowledge that their religious beliefs are true and that the other two are dishonest or deluded. By definition, we know that at least two of them must be wrong. How can we test which are wrong and which are right? If you can use "if you ask in faith, you will receive an answer from God" to justify the Christian faith, you can use "if you ask in faith, you will receive an answer from Allah/Shiva/Odin/etc." to justify any religion.

By the exact same logic, Islam/Zoroastrianism/Hinduism/etc are all veritably true, as all truly converted muslims/zoroastrianists/hindus/etc can attest. Since all these religions are incompatible, all but one (at least) MUST be wrong by definition. Given that the exact same logic simultaneously proves (potentially) true statements AND (demonstrably) false statements, how exactly are we meant to use it? Either you have a logical paradox... or the logic is just wrong.

@user142083 I could say the same.

@user142083 When someone starts comparing inclusivity workshops to Marxism, 1984, and "red politics"... Yeah, we're in right-wing conspiracy territory.

@TheDemonLord Well, I guess I was naive for hoping this wouldn't devolve into right-wing conspiracy theories.

@TheDemonLord Nothing in that definition implies talking about the details of people's sexuality. In fact, looking at QueerTown's website, it's trivial to see that their workshops deal with inclusivity and understanding (two topics that are extremely relevant to the workplace). Seems to me like your argument is just more of the usual anti-LGBTQ moral panic.

@TheDemonLord That line of reasoning only works if the workshop is about sexuality specifically (as opposed to inclusivity/sensitivity), which we both know it isn't. So yeah... that line disproves nothing.

@TheDemonLord "due to integrating with the existing culture" Are you saying that, for example, people who's family has lived in the US for generations but don't have "English names" aren't integrated with US culture? Is Barack Obama not integrated with English culture? As for unconscious bias being abandoned: [Citation needed]

@TheDemonLord What makes you think the current hiring process is based on meritocracy? It's well documented that people with white-sounding names get contacted for interviews significantly more. Would you argue that having a white-sounding name makes you more qualified than people who don't?

@Questor None of those things were suggested in mxyzplk's answer.

@Questor Their suggestions wouldn't be racist, they'd be pointless since the vast majority of companies are already more likely to hire white men. Besides, if the hiring process wasn't biased as you seem to claim, wouldn't you expect to see ~50% of software engineering hires to NOT be white men? Is that the case?

@darijgrinberg That sounds like a very strong claim given that the answer does not even state the field of the department in question. Are you claiming that colonialism has never had an impact on any field of study or do you have more information on the specific situation?

@RedBaron Musk is the richest man in the world, not some average Joe with a mortgage. Pretty sure his billions worth of stock would serve as collateral for a loan.

@KRyan Exactly, it's just a matter of pretending the language is real, just as we pretend to swing swords and cast spells. The end experience is just as enjoyable.

I'd also interesting to consider that there's very little insentive to create such languages, even if the authors had the resources and time. I'd assume the vast majority of players wouldn't consider a game to be worse because it's fantasy languages aren't "real".