|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Identifying false religions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
subbie writes: Would you maintain an agnostic position if someone claimed that I had an 80 year old oak tree growing out of my left ear? Did you see the additions I made (while you were posting I fear)? The answer to this latest question is that I would be very doubtful about that. I would have a high degree of confidence that you do not have an 80 year old oak tree growing out of your ear. But I've been wrong before. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Did you see the additions I made (while you were posting I fear)? I did not, but not to worry. As I said, I'm not playing gotcha, looking for inconsistencies that I can then wave in the air and claim victory. I'm exploring parameters.
The answer to this latest question is that I would be very doubtful about that. I would have a high degree of confidence that you do not have an 80 year old oak tree growing out of your ear. Okay, so why agnostic about Russell's teapot but skeptical about subbie's oak tree? Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Wait, you're conflating concepts.
I can be unsure but skeptical. I can say I'm more doubtful about your oak tree than Russell's Tea pot; there can be a whole range of positions between absolute surety, likely, unlikely and absolute denial. Edited by jar, : No reason given. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Rahvin (et al)
What's been rankling Straggler for months now (and prompted me to limit participation in threads that start down this road) is that RAZD claims that it is rational to hold any unfalsified logically valid position - that tentative belief or disbelief is a matter of personal opinion. If it is a logically valid concept that isn't falsified by empirical evidence, then it can't really be irrational (no matter how much you may want it to be), basically by definition:
quote: What's been "rankling Straggler for months now" is that he cannot demonstrate that the agnostic position is irrational, while I have demonstrated that his position fails the test of logical analysis.
As it related to deities, RAZD says that the only truly logical position is total agnosticism, As has been amply demonstrated (except that I wouldn't say total), for any concept where there is not sufficient evidence for, nor sufficient evidence against, the concept for the formation of a logical conclusion.
... but that it is perfectly rational to slightly believe or disbelieve in gods according to one's own opinion. Specifically WHEN there is an absence of contrary evidence that would invalidate or falsify the opinion.
OR to disbelieve in god/s (as atheists are fond of doing) based on one's own opinion. Curious that you keep ignoring this part. When there is not sufficient evidence for, nor sufficient evidence against, a concept for the formation of a logical conclusion, THEN the only basis one has for making a decision is opinion (based on personal worldview, experiences and biases). This is true whether you decide to believe or disbelieve a concept. There is no functional difference between an atheist belief or a theist belief in this regard, so if you allow the atheist beleif to be rational then you allow the similar theist belief to be rational, or one is guilty of special pleading etc.
Straggler and I (and others) disagree rather strongly. We think that there are several reasons to believe that the existence of gods is less likely than the nonexistence of gods, and so the only rational belief is that gods tentatively do not exist, pending additional evidence. We don't think "opinion" has anything to do with it, that it's simply the only rational conclusion (ie, the most likely amongst all logically valid hypotheses). And yet, curiously, all you have is opinion. You and Straggler and bluegenes etc can all have a high opinion of your own opinion/s, but somehow that fails to amount to anything more than confirmation bias towards your own opinions (something everyone is guilty of, and thus proves nothing). 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 Phage0070, thanks for the amusing post ...
Message 227: RAZD writes: Sorry, special pleading. The agnostic position is the only one supported by logic, so if any choices are "insanity" then it is both positions that take an opinion (true or false) based on a lack of evidence. Pardon, I mean "the other two" as you said, not the latter two. Agnosticism is indeed the only reasonable position in a complete lack of evidence. (now): So you don't believe Bigfoot exists, but you cannot say it because your personal cult of insanity doesn't allow you to admit it for fear of becoming an atheist. Amusingly, I am agnostic - totally agnostic - on the question of bigfoot, as pointed out:
Message 226: I can be totally agnostic on the issue of bigfoot, and that means I neither believe nor disbelieve the claim of the person who had a personal experience (subjective evidence) and they are of the opinion that they saw bigfoot.
Message 244: No, I am open minded to the possibility that bigfoot may exist, but remain skeptical about it, needing more evidence before deciding one way or the other. It's more like lacking disbelief. So my "personal cult of insanity" has forced me to take "the only reasonable position" on the issue of bigfoot? Perhaps you don't understand the difference ... it's also like lacking an opinion.
Message 224: Keep in mind that deciding not to believe a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is false. Keep in mind that deciding not to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is true. Keep in mind that deciding not to decide until there is more evidence is not the same as having an opinion\belief\etc that the concept is either true OR false. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Perhaps I'm reading too much into what you're saying. I assumed that when you said, "I don't know," that meant completely no position on the matter. Not likely, not unlikely, not even slightly more likely that not. I assumed it meant no opinion whatsoever on likelihood.
How do you feel about Sagan's famous aphorism, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
RAZD writes: And yet, curiously, all you have is opinion. You and Straggler and bluegenes etc can all have a high opinion of your own opinion/s, but somehow that fails to amount to anything more than confirmation bias towards your own opinions (something everyone is guilty of, and thus proves nothing). That's a very definite statement coming from someone who is completely uncommitted on whether or not Satan is manipulating his mind. It would certainly be irrational behaviour for such a person to express any opinions on anything. But, to explain your behaviour as being the result of a mind manipulating Satan would be explaining it with a random baseless explanatory hypothesis, wouldn't it? And smart people who rate their opinions highly know that such hypotheses are always very unlikely to be correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
subbie writes: Perhaps I'm reading too much into what you're saying. I assumed that when you said, "I don't know," that meant completely no position on the matter. Not likely, not unlikely, not even slightly more likely that not. I assumed it meant no opinion whatsoever on likelihood. The term "know" is one that I use pretty carefully. "Know" tends to be pretty emphatic, an end.
subbie writes: How do you feel about Sagan's famous aphorism, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" It would make a nice bumper sticker. But again, I try not to make extraordinary claims. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
So when you say, "I don't know," you mean that you lack absolute or near absolute certainty about the matter, although you may have a belief about the likelihood of the matter. Do I have it right?
It would make a nice bumper sticker. It probably does. The gist of my question, however, was whether you agree with it. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
subbie writes: So when you say, "I don't know," you mean that you lack absolute or near absolute certainty about the matter, although you may have a belief about the likelihood of the matter. Do I have it right? Bigger range then that. "I don't know" can be anything from near absolute certainty something is likely to near absolute certainty something is unlikely.
subbie writes: The gist of my question, however, was whether you agree with it.
The problem is that an "extraordinary claim" depends on the individual considering it. What YOU might think extraordinary I might consider very ordinary. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
So when you say
Well, if there is neither evidence something exists or does not exist I would think it was rational to say..."I don't know." that could include you believing that it's nearly absolutely certain to be so, but not 100% certain. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
RAZD writes: Amusingly, I am agnostic - totally agnostic - on the question of bigfoot, as pointed out: I hope you understand this isn't contradictory to my statement that "you don't believe Bigfoot exists", right? It would be a shame if you still didn't understand agnosticism to the existence of something implied lack of belief in its existence.
RAZD writes: So my "personal cult of insanity" has forced me to take "the only reasonable position" on the issue of bigfoot? No, your "personal cult of insanity" has prevented you from phrasing the reasonable position in a particular manner.
RAZD writes: Keep in mind that deciding not to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is true. Keep in mind that deciding to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding the claim is false.
RAZD writes: Keep in mind that deciding not to decide until there is more evidence is not the same as having an opinion\belief\etc that the concept is either true OR false. Keep in mind that lacking an opinion that the concept is either true or false implies lack of belief that the concept is true or false. Thus, agnosticism toward the concept implies lack of belief (and lack of disbelief).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
subbie writes: So when you say
jar writes: Well, if there is neither evidence something exists or does not exist I would think it was rational to say..."I don't know." that could include you believing that it's nearly absolutely certain to be so, but not 100% certain. I think we need to step back a ways here. What I suggest is that we move through how I go about identifying false religions (although IMHO all religions including the one I practice could be called false). It will be a slow journey and as in the Grand Canyon thread I'd like to keep it step by step and make sure we agree on each layer before going further. If that is okay then we could do it here, or in another thread if you prefer. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: I would likely tell you my beliefs about God or god to be rational and logical. On what evidential basis?
jar writes: Straggler writes: Is your belief in GOD irrational? I would certainly say so. Yet your belief in God or god is not? What is the evidential difference? Be specific.
jar writes: Straggler writes: Is atheism towards this GOD irrational? NOTE: By atheism I don't mean absolute denial of existence. I mean the conclusion that the actual existence of this creator of "all that is seen and unseen" is highly improbable.
Not at all, in fact until evidence is presented, really strong evidence sufficient to convince you fully, I would say that it is both the rational and logical position. So how are God or god evidentially different to GOD such that atheism is not also rationally justified towards these differently "spelt" entities?
jar writes: Beliefs are irrelevant to the actual existence or non existence of the critter. Yet it is rational to conclude that any unevidenced entity is improbable is it not?
jar writes: The answer to all of those questions is ..."My belief." And how is your un-evidenced belief any different from mere personal preference? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: If it is a logically valid concept that isn't falsified by empirical evidence, then it can't really be irrational (no matter how much you may want it to be), basically by definition: But neither fat jolly magically undetectable Santa Claus nor the empirically undetectable Easter Bunny have been empirically falsified. They cannot, by definition, be empirically falsified. Yet you quite sensibly accept that the actual existence of these entities has been refuted as the product of human invention in all all but the most pointless and pedantic of philosophical senses. The same must apply to any empirically imperceptible entity as there is no means by which it's human conception can have been arrived at but by the internal workings of the human mind. This is the fact you refuse to confront.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024