Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 258 of 375 (501681)
03-07-2009 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by RAZD
03-07-2009 12:47 PM


Re: contrary means coming to a different end conclusion from the same type of world view
Straggler writes:
Do you agree that belief in the possibility of alien life is an evidentially supported hypothesis and thus not equivalent to faith based belief in the actual existence of supernatural beings?
Mark writes:
Yes.
Bluegenes writes:
Perhaps. But do you see speculation in relation to life forms existing elsewhere as equivalent to speculation about elves and fairies?
Mark writes:
I do
So either Mark thinks that elves and fairies are valid scientific hypotheses as well or you need to place less faith in the seemingly contradictory opinions of one individual.
Mark24's opinion is just that - An opinion.
The possibility of life other planets is not derived from an irrational subjective world view. Unlike belief in supernatural deities.....
Mark24 agrees with ME on that score. So it must be true

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2009 12:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by mark24, posted 03-07-2009 1:11 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 260 of 375 (501685)
03-07-2009 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by RAZD
03-07-2009 12:47 PM


Some World Views Are More Equal than Others - Again.
Hey Straggler, still struggling?
Along with everyone else trying make sense of your non-sensical claims.
Straggler writes:
OK so you agree that faith in deities is borne from an irrational and evidentially inconsistent world view whilst atheism is derived from a rational and evidentially consistent world view?
That may be your opinion of how it works, but it is not my experience, not does it match what I said: "faith is not a conclusion, not a choice, and that no logic, good, bad or indifferent is used."
There is not one thing I know of that contradicts or is inconsistent with what I believe, and thus it is not irrational nor is it "evidentially inconsistent" with the known world.
Really? What do you make of the evidence in favour of humanity inventing gods and deities? Do you think this has any relevance with regard to attempting to objectively evaluate the likelihood of particualr gods or deities actually existing? Or not?
Nor do I see the contrary conclusions between you and Mark24 (among others) as evidence of "a rational and evidentially consistent world view" as the intellectual property of atheists. What I see is that the conclusions are essentially subjective, based on differences in your world views that include other aspects beyond your shared scientific knowledge and atheistic beliefs.
Are all world views equally subjective and unreliable or is a "world view" derived from objective evidence and logic superior in terms of objectivity and reliability?
Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2009 12:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 262 of 375 (501689)
03-07-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by mark24
03-07-2009 1:11 PM


Erm RAZ......
Thanks Mark
Given that the rationality or otherwise of atheism as a whole apparently rests on your shoulders alone I am glad that you have made this clarification.
Hopefully RAZD too has seen this.
If you mail me your address you can have an autograph
I would be honoured to have the autograph of the ONE who has delivered atheism from the depths of irrationality and subjective world view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by mark24, posted 03-07-2009 1:11 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 264 of 375 (501775)
03-07-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by RAZD
03-07-2009 4:45 PM


Re: The Good The Bad And The Biased
Are you really reduced to trying to prove what Mark24 thinks?
Why does it even matter? Your obsession with the opinion of Mark24 is truly a sign of cognitive dissonance.
Try actually addressing the subject at hand instead:
  • What do you make of the evidence in favour of humanity inventing gods and deities? Do you think this has any relevance with regard to attempting to objectively evaluate the likelihood of particualr gods or deities actually existing? Or not?
  • Are all world views equally subjective and unreliable or is a "world view" derived from objective evidence and logic superior in terms of objectivity and reliability?
    Open-minded skepticism.
    Oh you rational being you
    Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 263 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2009 4:45 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 265 of 375 (501859)
    03-08-2009 8:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 263 by RAZD
    03-07-2009 4:45 PM


    Final Words..............(?)
    RAZD has stopped even attempting to answer any questions and is instead displaying a strange and bizzarre obsession with the opinions of Mark24. So I thought I would post a quick summary.
    What is the difference between atheism and deism?
    Straggler: The atheist position is evidentially consistent and therefore rational whilst the deist position is evidentially inconsistent and therefore irrational.
    Example: Belief in the possibility of life on other planets is evidentially supported and thus rational. Belief in the actual existence of deities is evidentialy unsupported and thus irrational.
    RAZD: No this is just your world view. Mark24 (or some other atheist) does not believe in the possibility of alien life. You are refuted!!!!
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    The evidential inconsistencies of individual atheists do not make the atheistic position as a whole evidentially inconsistent. Your entire argument is an Ad Hominem fallacy.
    As your cognitive dissonance has resulted in you ceasing to answer questions I will just state my position and challege you to refute it:
    Straggler writes:
    Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith.
    If you can refute this position then lets hear it.
    If all you are going to do is tell me what you think Mark24 (or anybody elses) opinion is don't bother.
    If all you are going to do is tell me that this is my "world view" without actually explaining why this "world view" is in any way factually incorrect then don't bother.
    Nothing you have said in two threads has refuted this position despite your relentlessly repeated assertions to the contrary.
    How is that cognitive dissonance of yours coming along BTW?
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 263 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2009 4:45 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 266 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2009 12:56 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 267 of 375 (501899)
    03-08-2009 1:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 266 by RAZD
    03-08-2009 12:56 PM


    Re: Final Words..............(?)
    I have to laugh every time you try to claim victory and close down the discussion. Classic avoidance behavior?
    It is you not I who keeps asserting that they have refuted all arguments on the basis of another posters opinion.
    It is you not I who has ceased to answer any questions on the basis of having already refuted everything already.
    RAZD writes:
    Refuted by the contrary conclusion of Mark24. Message 243
    RAZD writes:
    Perhaps if you waited for the answer, or even better, participated in the development of the answer, instead of jumping in with hobnail boots and declaring victory, you would have one.
    I have repeatedly had your answer already.
    RAZD writes:
    You are refuted by Mark24 coming to a contradictory conclusion from the same evidence. This has been pointed out on two threads.
    RAZD writes:
    Refuted by the contrary conclusion of Mark24. Message 243
    There are numerous other examples throughout both threads.
    Your repeated and unexplained assertion that the mere existence of Mark24's contradictory opinion refutes anything is truly and utterly bewildering.
    Especially in light of the fact that Mark24 has unequivocably clarified his position to be the exact opposite of the one you are claiming it to be.
    Straggler writes:
    Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith.
    Curiously you have come to this conclusion based on an absence of evidence of this behavior, and have in fact been told that, no, that is not how it works. So much for your objective pursuit of intellectual consistency.
    Are you trying to use individual opinions as evidence again?
    Why don't you try refuting the atheist position rather than use the ad-hominem fallacy of citing the opinions of individual atheists as some sort of argument clinching point.
    RAZD writes:
    You are free to state your opinion as much as you want. However repeating it does not move the debate forward, and you have simply stopped moving forward.
    Really? In contrast you consider your following statement to be a prime example of moving the dabate forward I presume.
    RAZD writes:
    Refuted by the contrary conclusion of Mark24. Message 243
    Yes this is just as correct as my stating that atheists believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
    Except that your statement has been refuted.
    A complete "absence of evidence" is non-existent and thus irrelevant.
    There is no such thing as a vacuum of all evidence. In the absence of any other objective evidence we must incorporate the objective fact that the human beings making the claim are highly able and very prone to creating demonstrably false concepts.
    If you need any evidence of this go into your local bookshop, go past the science section and have a peruse of the Fiction, Mythology or Religion sections.
    Maybe I should change my statement of position to "Where there is no objective evidence in favour of a claim the atheist continues to eliminate......". Maybe that would make things clearer for you?
    My position is evidentially consistent with ALL of the objective evidence available. Yours is not.
    Straggler writes:
    Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith.
    If you can refute this position then lets hear it.
    If all you are going to do is tell me what you think Mark24 (or anybody elses) opinion is don't bother.
    If all you are going to do is tell me that this is my "world view" without actually explaining why this "world view" is in any way factually incorrect then don't bother.
    AbE - And lets be clear here that "the atheist" refers to the atheistic position that has been presented to you by multiple posters, namely "I find no reason to believe in things for which there is no objective evidence". It is not trivially refuted simply by finding an atheist somewhere in the universe (lets not exclude our possible extraterrestrial atheists) who has evidentially inconsistent opinions that result in them not believing in gods and yet still believing in some other unevidenced entity. Obviously. - End AbE.
    Edited by Straggler, : Clarity
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : Still struggling with my 3 year old whilst trying to post.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2009 12:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 269 of 375 (501923)
    03-08-2009 4:51 PM


    The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
    Straggler's Position writes:
    Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith.
    VROOOM VROOOM - A car can be heard to go by a windowless room in an isolated area nowhere near Disney Land containing an atheist and a deist (of the RAZD variety).
    Atheist: It sounds like a car just went past. I believe that a car just went past. Do you believe that a car just went by as well?
    Deist: Yes I concur. The objective empirical evidence does indeed suggest that a car just went by.
    SILENCE
    Atheist: Do you believe that a pink Mickey Mouse shaped balloon just went past?
    Deist: What? Why would I possibly think that a pink Mickey Mouse shaped balloon just went by?
    Atheist: Well is it possible that a pink Mickey Mouse shaped balloon just went by?
    Deist: I suppose so but what the fuck has that got to do with the price of fish? Why would I even consider that possibility never mind actually believe that a pink Mickey Mouse shaped balloon just went by? The notion is absurd!
    Atheist: Well it isn't contradicted by any evidence so I thought you might believe it to be true.
    Deist: That is just stupid. Do you believe that a pink Mickey Mouse shaped balloon just went past?
    Atheist: Nooooo. That would be a stupid thing to believe.
    Deist: Good I am glad that we agree. What a bizzarre and dumbass question!! (under breath) Geez what a crackpot!
    UNCOMFORTABLE SILENCE
    Atheist: Do you believe in the existence of a supernatural wholly empirically undetectable and objectively unevidenced being.
    Deist: I do. What an insightful question.
    Atheist: But isn't that kind of stupid? On what basis do you believe this?
    Deist: No it is not stupid. It does not contradict any known evidence. It is a perfectly logical and valid position. Don't you believe in the existence of a supernatural wholly empirically undetectable and objectively unevidenced being then?
    Atheist: Nooooo. I do not believe in things for which I have no objective evidence. Why would anyone possibly even think such a thing might exist? Frankly I think the notion is absurd. I was only asking out of boredom. I didn't expect you to take it any more seriously than the balloon question.
    Deist: It is not absurd! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Your disbelief is just a product of your subjective world view. Belief and non-belief are but two sides of the same coin. Neither one more justified than the other. Look I can even draw you a colourful Venn diagram to prove it!!!
    Atheist: Oh.
    LONG LONG SILENCE
    Atheist: Well if you believe in the existence of a supernatural wholly empirically undetectable and objectively unevidenced being do you also believe in the Immaterial Pink Unicorn?
    Deist: How dare you!! Don't insult my intellect with that ridiculous fallacy against reason logic and evidence! The notion is absurd!!
    And so we go on. And on.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 287 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2009 6:39 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 270 of 375 (501949)
    03-08-2009 8:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 268 by mark24
    03-08-2009 2:54 PM


    Re: The Good The Bad And The Biased
    Mark24 writes:
    In all other ways my position is pretty much in line with stragglers. Moreover, I agree 100% in the context of deism & IPU with his statement in the post above:
    Straggler writes:
    Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith.
    100% - Wow now I am honoured!
    What are the odds that your once esteemed and much stated opinions will now be dismissed by RAZD as the mere product of your subjective world view?
    Mark24 to RAZD writes:
    To this day I am still bewildered as to why my opinion makes you right & Straggler wrong.
    Aren't we all?
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 268 by mark24, posted 03-08-2009 2:54 PM mark24 has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 271 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 6:50 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 272 of 375 (502241)
    03-10-2009 1:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 266 by RAZD
    03-08-2009 12:56 PM


    "Absence" Of Evidence
    In light of Percy's comments above let us cease any further claims of refutation on both sides and stick to the primary difference between our positions such that we can better understand your thinking. Namely what exactly constitutes an "Absence of evidence".
    I am going to indirectly refer to the Immaterial Pink Unicorn here. Before you throw your arms up in despair and accuse me of making fun please note that I am using this example not to take the piss out of anyone but because it is symbolic to the argument at hand in a way that everyone understands and also because I cannot think of a better less contentious relevant example. Please please do read on
    I do not understand specifically what you mean when you use the term "Absence of evidence". This needs clarification if we are to gain any insight into your position at all.
    In a complete and utter absence of ALL empirical objective evidence how can we know what properties material or immaterial things can or cannot have?
    In a complete and utter absence of ALL empirical objective evidence what does the concept of colour, or the specific term 'pink', even mean?
    In a complete and utter absence of ALL empirical objective evidence why is a unicorn any more unreal or absurd than a chair, a human being, Oliver Twist or indeed any other possible conceptual entity?
    In a complete and utter absence of ALL empirical objective evidence how can any one concept be considered any more or less real or valid or true than any other concept?
    It seems to me that when you talk about an "Absence of evidence" you are including the evidence against those things in which you DO NOT believe. You are including the distinct and evidenced possibility that unicorns are the product of human invention and you are including evidenced conclusions about the material nature of colour.
    It seems to me that when you talk about an "Absence of evidence" you are ignoring the evidence against those things which you DO believe. You are ignoring the distinct and evidenced possibility that deistic concepts are the product of human invention. Intentional or otherwise.
    In short rather than considering concepts in a vacuum of ALL evidence you are in fact picking and choosing to ignore or include evidence that suits your deistic world view.
    I do not understand how a complete vacuum of ALL objective evidence CAN possibly exist either in practical terms or without making ALL concepts equally valid.
    QUESTION: Given the above can you clarify exactly what you mean by "Absence of evidence"?
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2009 12:56 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 276 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2009 11:04 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 277 of 375 (503173)
    03-16-2009 4:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 276 by RAZD
    03-15-2009 11:04 AM


    Re: "Absence" Of Evidence
    Would you not agree that when we have run out of "ALL empirical objective evidence" that is available that the existence of subjective evidence does not mean there is an absence of evidence?
    No. I would not agree.
    We are empirical beings living in an empirical world. There is always empirical objective evidence at hand. In the absence of any empirical and objective evidence at all in favour of a claim we have the clear and objectively evidenced possibility that the claim is a purely human fictional invention.
    We are an inventive and imaginative species whose penchant for subjective and creative thinking far outweighs our natural ability to derive objective truth. There is a wealth of objective evidence of this fact.
    By ignoring this fact you are selectively ignoring half the evidence avilable.
    There are two parts to this: the absence of convincing evidence, and the absence of any evidence at all, subjective and objective.
    The immaterial pink unicorn falls distinctly into the later class, having no evidence nor experience for this concept, and the only purpose for it, is to (mis)represent concepts that fall into the former class.
    No. No. No.
    Why do you not believe in the IPU? Be specific.
    I do not believe in the actuality of entities for which there is no evidential reason to think even possible.
    You do. Sometimes (e.g. your deity). You don't. Sometimes (e.g. the immaterial pink unicorn)
    My position is evidentially, logically and intellectually consistent. Yours is not.
    This difference is not due the evidence but to the weighting of the evidence by your respective worldviews.
    I am sorry but this is just bollocks.
    There is a clear distinction between those completely unevidenced concepts and those derived from the logical extrapolation of evidence.
    We have seen, and even agreed this, in the discussion of the possibility of alien life etc. etc.
    For you to claim that you know an objective truth of reality (that a deity exists) on the basis of no evidence at all is akin to an ancient hunter gatherer from the dawn of humanity being inspired to conclude that reality is made up of quantum fields.
    As a philosophical possibility there is nothing to actually stop this leap of inspirational insight occurring but the likelihood of it actually occurring is infitesimally small.
    Why should I credit your subjectively derived "conclusions" with my agnosticism?
    What other of the infinite array of unevidenced but conceivable entities must I claim agnosticism towards?
    Other than your deity what other of the infinite array of unevidenced but conceivable entities do you believe in?
    Why is the question of your deity existing even a valid question?
    This comes down to the question of how one validates concepts once the ability to test them scientifically ceases to apply due to the nature of the concept (unfalsifiable, etc), a question I have asked many times here and elsewhere, but have had little in the way of response as yet.
    I do not believe that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" as you relentlessly assert.
    Rather I maintain that your chances of having stumbled across an intrinsic truth of objective reality on the basis of no objective evidence at all is just about zero to all practical intents and purposes.
    Thus I do not believe in your deity. Nor anybody elses.
    Your position is evidentially unjustifiable whilst mine is consistent with ALL of the objective evidence available.
    What is it you say to creationists.....? "Follow the evidence".
    Good advice. You should follow it.
    Enjoy.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 276 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2009 11:04 AM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 278 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2009 4:38 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 279 of 375 (503184)
    03-16-2009 5:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 278 by RAZD
    03-16-2009 4:38 PM


    Re: "Absence" Of Evidence
    Straggler writes:
    No. I would not agree.
    Then you are not open minded.
    Being so open minded as to allow your brains to fall out of your head is neither noble nor intellectually justifiable.
    There is ample evidence against the reality of deities. Evidence that you continue to ignore.
    So do you accept that there is objective evidence in favour of the possibility that the IPU is a non-existent human invention?
    Or not?
    Do you accept that there is objective evidence in favour of the possibility that deities and gods are non-existent human inventions?
    Or not?
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : spelling
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 278 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2009 4:38 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 280 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2009 7:05 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 281 of 375 (503245)
    03-17-2009 1:05 AM
    Reply to: Message 280 by RAZD
    03-16-2009 7:05 PM


    Re: "Absence" Of Evidence
    So is it an evidenced possibility that gods and deities are human inventions?
    Or not?
    If someone came to you claiming to have derived the objective existence of a testable and verifiable entity (a comet, an undiscovered particle - something like that) on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone (i.e. no empirical evidence or prior knowledge to support the claim at all) - How would you rate the chances of that claim actually being verified as true?
    A) Almost certain to be verified
    B) High
    C) 50/50
    D) Low
    E) Essentially zero
    Please be honest.
    Bearing Percy's suggestion in mind maybe you could explain your answer.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 280 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2009 7:05 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 282 by petrophysics1, posted 03-17-2009 8:10 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 284 of 375 (503284)
    03-17-2009 9:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 282 by petrophysics1
    03-17-2009 8:10 AM


    Re: "Absence" Of Evidence
    So Petrophysics - Not a fan huh?
    If you can explain how RAZD's (or your own) deistic conclusion, based on no objective evidence whatsoever, is even remotely likely to be true - then lets hear it.
    If you can explain how such conclusions, based on no objective evidence whatsoever, are to be deemed anything other than the product of human invention without contradicting all of the evidence we have in favour of such things being the product of human invention - then let's hear it.
    If you can explain why subjective "evidence" is ignored as completely unreliable and utterly pointless in the presence of objective evidence but suddenly becomes the benchmark of evidential certainty whenever we are considering "irefutable" deities and other matters of faith - then lets hear it.
    If you can explain why the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is NOT a logical argument in purely evidential terms against those concepts which are equally derived from no evidential basis at all - then lets hear it.
    If you cannot explain any of these things don't bother replying.
    A deist considers all of human existence and experience while the atheist and creationist picks and chooses what to deny out of hand.
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
    I do not believe in the actuality of those things for which there is no evidence based reason to think even possible. In this I am totally consistent.
    I recognise human experience and existence as exactly that. Human experience and existence. I do not deny it. I embrace it.
    I do not feel the need to diminish that human experience or existence by inconsistently and irrationally picking and choosing amongst all the possible fantasy beings available so that I can instead attribute my human experience and existence to an "invisible friend" of some sort.
    I don't think human experience is so inadequate as to require such fantasies in order to validate it.
    It is the deist and theist who pick and choose the evidence they will or will not accept. Evidential and intellectual inconsistency. How else can faith in one wholly unevidenced thing but not another possibly be justified?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 282 by petrophysics1, posted 03-17-2009 8:10 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 286 of 375 (503305)
    03-17-2009 2:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 280 by RAZD
    03-16-2009 7:05 PM


    Courtroom Equivalence - NOT!
    Straggler writes:
    Being so open minded as to allow your brains to fall out of your head is neither noble nor intellectually justifiable.
    Strange how the use of subjective evidence in court doesn't require everyone in the justice system to allow their brains to fall out of their heads, while pursuing justice. Should one conclude you think justice is neither noble nor intellectually justifiable?
    BWEAHAHAHAHAHA!
    Subjective evidence? Court? Are you mad? Or are you just confusing informed opinion with wholly subjective "evidence" yet again?
    JUDGE: So how do you know the defendant?
    WITNESS: I don't.
    JUDGE: Do you know of the defendant?
    WITNESS: No.
    JUDGE: But you are here as a witness for the defence. Is that correct.
    WITNESS: Yes your honour.
    JUDGE: On what basis?
    WITNESS: Subjective evidence your honour.
    JUDGE: OK......... So tell us what does your subjective evidence tells us about this case?
    WITNESS: The defendant is innocent.
    JUDGE: Really? How do you conclude this?
    WITNESS: I can feel his innocence. I know he is innocent. I have faith in his innocence. I have had a personal subjective experience that can only be explained by means of his complete innocence. Thus it is true. He is innocent. There is no convincing evidence to suggest otherwise so my evidence must be taken into account.
    JUDGE: Get this idiot out of my courtroom.
    So RAZ - Do you really think that the sort of subjective personal experience that leads you to have faith in your deity is the sort of "evidence" that would be allowed in a court of law?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 280 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2009 7:05 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 290 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2009 7:25 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 293 of 375 (503350)
    03-18-2009 2:35 AM
    Reply to: Message 290 by RAZD
    03-17-2009 7:25 PM


    Re: Courtroom Equivalence - NOT!
    There is a reason that ones own mother is not usually considered a suitable character witness for the defence in a court of law. Something called lack of objectivity
    Your notion that courtroom evidence of any sort somehow validates purely and wholly subjective personal experience as a form of evidence in favour of gods existing is truly ridiculous.
    You are correct that your silly straw man is not representative of subjective evidence used in courtrooms
    But is it representative of the subjective evidence used to conclude that gods exist?
    If your whole argument genuinely rests on courtroom character witness testimonial being evidentially equivalent to personal experiences of spiritual revelation then........well how the once mighty have fallen.
    If you are not saying that courtroom character witness testimonial is evidentially equivalent to spiritual revelatory experience then why bring it up at all in this context?
    You have refuted your own example.
    perhaps you have reached the limits of your logical arguments that you need to resort to such a poor argument.
    Well when you simply refuse to answer repeated questions I have to find other ways to amuse myself. I will try asking the same question yet again:
    Is it an evidenced possibility that gods and deities are human inventions?
    Or not?
    Is there, or is there not, a gray area between absolute objective reality, and the necessarily subjective experience of that reality?
    There is no grey area between those concepts which are objectively evidentially founded and those which are not.
    We have long ago established that the IPU, deities and claims of alien abduction are evidentially equivalent in this respect. We have long ago established that the possibility of alien life existing elsewhere in the universe is not.
    Your relentless obsession with covering this same refuted ground over and over and over again is just tedious.
    If there are repeated subjective experiences of something, when does it become objective evidence?
    How many times must you have the same dream before it becomes real?
    Is repeat experience really the measure of objectivity?
    Your insistence that wholly subjective evidence is valid in any way is utterly refuted by your own refusal to use such "evidence" in any situation where the result can actually be verified or refuted.
    If someone came to you claiming to have derived the objective existence of a testable and verifiable entity (a comet, an undiscovered particle - something like that) on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone (i.e. no empirical evidence or prior knowledge to support the claim at all) - How would you rate the chances of that claim actually being verified as true?
    A) Almost certain to be verified
    B) High
    C) 50/50
    D) Low
    E) Essentially zero
    Please be honest.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 290 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2009 7:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024