|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pseudoskepticism and logic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi bluegenes, this is getting tiresome.
Dawkins' scale: "4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' " Ultimately your continued insistence on nit-picking a secondary argument is unproductive, off topic and irrelevant. The primary argument is from Truzzi and his definition of true skeptic. That this matches "Completely impartial agnostic" is all that is relevant to the thread.
Truzzi defines the "true skeptic" as one who " takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved." Atheism of the "6" variety on the Dawkins scale does not claim that the god hypothesis is disproved, neither does atheism claim to explain the ultimate origins of the universe and everything. The problem is that you are still asserting that god/s are unlikely and that is a negative claim. On this claim the true skeptic would say "the claim is not proved rather than disproved" AND that if you claim a truth - that god/s are unlikely - you need to bear the burden of proof.
The "6" position is agnostic. LOL Over 500 posts on this thread and this is the best you can do? Special pleading anyone? Equivocation anyone? This provides me with this humorous image: Atheist: I'm an atheist, a "6" on Dawkins Skalea strong atheist, I believe that god/s are highly unlikely. Skeptic: where's your evidence? Atheist: I don't need to provide evidence because I'm an agnostic. Skeptic: so you are not really an atheist? Atheist: No I'm an atheist, Skeptic: Why are you an atheist? Atheist: because there is all kinds of evidence that shows that god/s are unlikely Skeptic: where's your evidence? Atheist: I don't need to provide evidence because I'm an agnostic. and on it goes, post after post after post.
Yes. See above. And why aren't you a "complete agnostic" on the proposition "gods are highly unlikely"? Got evidence against it? But I am agnostic about it, it certainly is NOT PROVEN, nor has it been proven. I am not claiming that your assertion is wrong, but that it is UNSUPPORTED. As an agnostic deist my primary position is that we don't know, that there is insufficient information to know or form a logical conclusion. I believe there may be gods, but I don't assert that this is true or even necessarily likely, it's just what I believe, my opinion, my entirely subjective analysis, and I do not try to convince a single other person that my personal view is true.
... but you'd probably treat it as a high "6" on the Dawkins scale, ... Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Welcome to the thread Kisimons,
So RAZD are you really agnostic to orbiting teapots or not. Why don't you read my posts and see if you can answer that question.
I don't see how dismissing somebody elses claim for something that they have no evidence for is asserting a negative position that I need to back up with evidence of my own. I'm not trying to refute the claim, I'm just making a practical decision to ignore/dimiss an unevidenced claim until there is evidence for it. Dismissing (if you really need to) someone else's claim because it is not proven is not the issue here. Making a claim that X is unlikely, though is different - it is asserting a relative truth, and this assertion needs to be supported.
Most people live their lives on the practical assumption that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (until there is further evidence to refute it). Most people live their lives based on assumptions of what is true based on their personal world view of reality, whether that world view includes gods or not, and on the assumption that the world will continue to behave according to their personal world view of how reality behaves. This has no bearing on the actual truth of any of the world views involved, and nobody has an inside track on what reality actuall includes. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Modulus, getting down to the end issue?
Agreed. Correct. You keep saying this like I've disagreed with you about it or something. It's quite odd. Yes, they could. And both the mechanical explanation and CIA poisoning could be occurring at the same time. This is perfectly in line with the argument I'm making - do you think it isn't? Indeed. So - of all the possible things you could be experiencing (moon rays, CIA poison, aliens, Cartesian demons...) what are the chances any one of them is right if we assume that one of them is? I mean - we are going to have to essentially guess here, and you've guessed that god is preferred. I think your guess is no better than rolling a die, or interpreting entrails. Could you explain why this is not the case, if your choice is better? So the fact remains that we do not know if a religious or spiritual experience could be real or not, not one of these arguments shows that one is more likely than another, and there just is not sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that either X or notX is true. Neither position is provenNeither position is invalidated The logical position is that "we don't know" or the agnostic position.
Which question, exactly, does it not answer? Whether or not the experience is a true experience of a religious or spriritual nature. This could be true in either pile.
And then you go on to answer it 'no.' Read it again:
quote: There is no "no" there.
You suggest that you do not hold that omphalism is true and you suggest that you also do not hold that omphalism is false. The question is - why do you decide to not hold that it is true? Why does it matter that there is no evidence? It could be true, right? Either could be true, each is unproven, each is not disproven, each is not supported by sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt whether they are true or not. If it is true, then it is true.If it is false, then it is false. And we won't know until we have evidence that demonstrates one or the other. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi xongsmith,
Number of RAZD Posts: 10,877 and steadily climbing Good lord, man. That could take a very long time!Some of them ramble on for pages & pages. Actually I meant in just this thread, so that reduces it to 108 posts at this time. You can use the new feature to filter for "RAZD posts only" and then use the browser search for "teapot" or whatever, as this filter usually lists all the posts by said person on one page (at least that is my experience, I'm set for 100 posts per page and it still shows all of mine on one page). Note to Percy - can we have an "ignore smilies" option? Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Modulus,
I am not asking if RAZD believes omphalism to be false. I am not asking RAZD if he thinks it can be known. I am not asking RAZD if he thinks he does know. I am merely asking RAZD if he has accepted a belief in omphalism. Does RAZD hold the belief that omphalism is true? Is RAZD a '2' on Omphalism? No. Curiously I've been thinking more about what omphalism really means: that god/s created the universe at some stage of development, and that it has proceeded afterward according to the rules set out by such gods, rules that are also incorporated into the evidence of stuff before the point of creation, such that there is no discernible point where one can be able to point to and say "after this is real, before this is illusion" and which also control how things will continue to occur after (now). Thus any hypothesis based on evidence that includes any mixture of {before} and {after} will provide the same degree of accuracy in making predictions independent of where the breakpoint lies. The breakpoint could be the formation of the universe (results in deism), it could be 6000 years ago (results in YEC earth, but still with flood problems) or it could be last thursday. We don't know. Do I think it is true? Possible, but there is insufficient information to say. Do I think it is false? Possible, but there is insufficient information to say. The possibility that the breakpoint could be the point between time and notime for this universe would be consistent with deism, but that would be my personal opinion. As such you could put me down as a weak "3" - weak theistic agnostic - at most. Certainly not a 2. However, this still does not resolve the issue of this thread: That people who make a negative claim bear a burden to demonstrate the evidence and logic to show that their claim is a rational conclusion rather than just their world view opinion. It seems to me that the argument/s have run their course, and I do not see any resolution any time soon. As such I ask you to provide your summary post to this thread, and we can end the debate with an agreement to disagree, an inconclusive result. Thanks. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi bluegenes, I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP. If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler, I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP. If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread. Adding response to Message 533 so you only have to deal with one reply: You can make all your assertions you want to in your summary post. The problem you will have will be sticking to the topic and showing how you have actually answered the issue in the OP: the issue is NOT about the relative validity of various views, it is about the fact that when you make a claim it needs to be supported by evidence and valid logic. This is well accepted for positive claims, and thus this thread explores the same burden of proof\substantiation for negative claims. Atheism is just one example of such a negative claim (eg - there are no god/s), but belief/nonbelief is not what the thread is about. It will be interesting to see if you answer the topic in your final post. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Stile, sorry that you are coming in at the end here, but I don't see your argument as significantly different from others here. The issue is NOT about the relative validity of various views, it is about the fact that when you make a claim it needs to be supported by evidence and valid logic. This is well accepted for positive claims, and thus this thread explores the same burden of proof\substantiation for negative claims. Atheism is just one example of such a negative claim (eg - there are no god/s), but belief/nonbelief is not what the thread is about.
I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made. Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP. If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Rrhain, the issue is NOT about the relative validity of various views, it is about the fact that when you make a claim it needs to be supported by evidence and valid logic. This is well accepted for positive claims, and thus this thread explores the same burden of proof\substantiation for negative claims. Atheism is just one example of such a negative claim (eg - there are no god/s), but belief/nonbelief is not what the thread is about.
I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made. Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP. If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi xongsmith, I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP. If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Onifre, I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP. If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi kisimons, sorry that you are coming in at the end here, but I don't see your argument as significantly different from others here. The issue is NOT about the relative validity of various views, it is about the fact that when you make a claim it needs to be supported by evidence and valid logic. This is well accepted for positive claims, and thus this thread explores the same burden of proof\substantiation for negative claims. Atheism is just one example of such a negative claim (eg - there are no god/s), but belief/nonbelief is not what the thread is about.
I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made. Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP. If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi LindaLou, I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP. If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Catholic Scientist, I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP. If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi AdminNosy, I'll use this for a general call to post summaries for this topic, asking that each person only post one summary and make no further replies.
I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made. I am asking people to provide their summary of how they have answered the OP. Any other issues need to be taken to a new thread. The topic was repeated in Message 232:
quote: Atheism is one example of a negative claim. Other examples have been provided, such as the claim that the earth is not less than 400,000 years old Message 427:
quote: Thus each summary should provide a similar example of evidence and logic to support other negative claims. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024