Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 46 of 562 (525073)
09-21-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Straggler
09-21-2009 1:28 PM


Re: The Unicorn Rides Again
The point I am making is that RAZD cannot claim open minded skepticism requires that we be agnostic about everything for which there is no evidence if he himself is not agnostic about the IPU.
There is evidence that the IPU was made-up to parody religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2009 1:28 PM Straggler has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 47 of 562 (525074)
09-21-2009 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Straggler
09-21-2009 1:49 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
What facts lie behind the "obviousness" of this conclusion? What evidence do you have that so thoroughly convinces you not just of the possibility that the IPU might be a human invention but that it almost certainly is?
The IPU website(s) and wikipedia article explain it rather well.
Is the objective evidence that suggests that the IPU is a human invention vastly superior to the (complete lack of) objective evidence that the IPU actually exists?
Yes, just like for some other specific descriptions of gods.
But its irrelevant to the idea of a nondescript god existing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2009 1:49 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by onifre, posted 09-21-2009 1:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2009 2:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 48 of 562 (525075)
09-21-2009 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
09-21-2009 1:54 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
Wud-up, CS.
But its irrelevant to the idea of a nondescript god existing.
If it's "nondescript," then how can it also carry with it the word "God"...?
What is a nondescript God supposed to be?
And how is a "nondescript God" different from a "god concept that I made up"...?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 1:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 2:08 PM onifre has replied

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


(2)
Message 49 of 562 (525076)
09-21-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by onifre
09-21-2009 12:58 PM


Re: atheist towards what?
IOW, I am not an atheist against RAZD's concept of God, because RAZD's concept of God makes no claims about reality; his concept exists solely in his mind.
I would be interested to know if RAZD agrees with this because if he does him and I really have no dispute whatsoever. I am not an atheist to that sort of god either. How could I be? This would be like telling someone that their choice of favourite colour was objectively wrong. Absurd.
That immaterial god concepts exist only in the internal mind of the experiencee and have no existence or direct bearing or interraction with any reality external to that mind would be my position too. But I really don't think that is what RAZD has been saying all this time.
Perhaps we should ask him directly whether he believes that his gods exist externally to his mind or not? Although this question might be better coming from you than from me for obvious reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 09-21-2009 12:58 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by onifre, posted 09-21-2009 2:54 PM Straggler has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 50 of 562 (525080)
09-21-2009 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by onifre
09-21-2009 1:57 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
If it's "nondescript," then how can it also carry with it the word "God"...?
Because nondescript doesn't mean "no description", its means "not well defined".
Nondescript Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
What is a nondescript God supposed to be?
quote:
God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.[1] God is also the creator of the universe including man.
God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".
God - Wikipedia
And how is a "nondescript God" different from a "god concept that I made up"...?
Its conception evolved over the millennia.

You get the cruiseship contract?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by onifre, posted 09-21-2009 1:57 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by onifre, posted 09-21-2009 3:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


(2)
Message 51 of 562 (525082)
09-21-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
09-21-2009 1:54 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
But its irrelevant to the idea of a nondescript god existing.
Is this "nondescript" god immaterial, conscious and intelligent? Just how nondescript are we talking here?
Is the objective evidence that suggests that the IPU is a human invention vastly superior to the (complete lack of) objective evidence that the IPU actually exists?
Yes, just like for some other specific descriptions of gods.
Then we seem to have found yet more common ground.
Which specific descriptions does it not apply to? Or would you be willing to go as far as I do and say all specific descriptions are covered by this argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 1:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 2:16 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 562 (525085)
09-21-2009 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
09-21-2009 2:09 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
Is this "nondescript" god immaterial, conscious and intelligent? Just how nondescript are we talking here?
I dunno. I suppose it is like a continuum and we could talk about however descript you want to get.
Then we seem to have found yet more common ground.
Which specific descriptions does it not apply to?
The ones that have been shown to be made-up; Apollo pulling the sun across the sky with a chariot, for example.
Or would you be willing to go as far as I do and say all specific descriptions are covered by this argument?
Nope. I'd bet there's some specific descriptions that haven't been shown to be made-up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2009 2:09 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2009 2:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


(2)
Message 53 of 562 (525089)
09-21-2009 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
09-21-2009 2:16 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
OK. We are obviously getting nowhere with the IPU and it's Wiki "evidence". I will try and make my serious point again. Please bear with me before you start getting indignant.
Nope. I'd bet there's some specific descriptions that haven't been shown to be made-up.
Has the Ethereal Yelow Squirrel been shown to be made-up? How about the Incorporeal Giant Toad? Are you an atheist or an agnostic with regard to these entities?
Again before you kick off at me I am being serious. What is the evidence that these entities are made-up? We both agree that they are made-up. But what evidence do we have on which to base this near certain conclusion? I would say that the evidence for this is immense but I want to see if you do too.
Seriously. Think about it beyond "they are obviously" made up. Why exactly is it so obvious to you that this is almost certainly the case? What facts are involved here?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 2:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 2:47 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 54 of 562 (525091)
09-21-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Straggler
09-21-2009 2:35 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
Has the Ethereal Yelow Squirrel been shown to be made-up? How about the Incorporeal Giant Toad?
No, they have not been shown to be made-up. But since they follow the adjective-adjective-noun format of the IPU, I'm thinking that you just made them up but weren't creative enough to go with a different format to hide it (or left it obvious on purpose).
Are you an atheist or an agnostic with regard to these entities?
Well, I don't know if they exist or not but I doubt it because 1) it looks like you just made them up 2) they are self contradictory and 3) that they just seem ridiculous to me and are in no way consitent with my worldview.
I would say that the evidence for this is immense but I want to see if you do too.
I'm not catching what you're hinting at.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2009 2:35 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2009 3:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 55 of 562 (525092)
09-21-2009 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Straggler
09-21-2009 2:02 PM


Re: atheist towards what?
I would be interested to know if RAZD agrees with this because if he does him and I really have no dispute whatsoever. I am not an atheist to that sort of god either. How could I be? This would be like telling someone that their choice of favourite colour was objectively wrong. Absurd.
Exactly. And to then apply some level of "belief" or "disbelief" to such an ambiguous concept seems unnecessary. I'm an atheist toward specifc god(s), not undefined concepts; in those cases I hold no opinion because it seems rather worthless to have one.
That immaterial god concepts exist only in the internal mind of the experiencee and have no existence or direct bearing or interraction with any reality external to that mind would be my position too. But I really don't think that is what RAZD has been saying all this time.
If it does in fact interract with reality, in any way, then IMO the burden lies not in the proof for or against God, but in the method used to come to either position.
In Message 1 it states:
quote:
There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . .
Like I wrote to him, this is all well and good, to say that one should not hold to an a priori opinion having not fully investigated. But then the question has to be put forth, How do we investigate it?
RAZD's source, Marcello Truzzi, says:
quote:
trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves
Which seems like a rather poor way to investigate. And I honestly doubt someone like RAZD feels this is an appropriate method of investigating claims as well.
But we can wait for his reply before we further guess his opinion on the matter.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2009 2:02 PM Straggler has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 56 of 562 (525095)
09-21-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by New Cat's Eye
09-21-2009 2:47 PM


Evidenced Beyond Belief
Are you an atheist or an agnostic with regard to the actual existence of the Immaterial Pink Unicorn? The Ethereal Yellow Squirrel? Wagwah the god of PC bluescreens? Rahvin's Mookoo? Why? All of these concepts are empirically unknowable and irrefutable. So why are you not agnostic towards these entities as per the "open minded skeptic" aproach of RAZD's opening post?
No I mean really why?
Ask yourself "why" beyond the instinctive "it's obviously made-up" knee-jerk reaction. What facts lay behind the "obviousness" of this conclusion? Is it because you have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that someone could have made it up? Is it because you know as an objectively evidenced fact that practically every human being on the planet is entirely capable of inventing ten such improbable concepts before breakfast? Is it because you think there was a motive for someone to invent the IPU (to prove a point to theists in this particular case)? Is it because you know for a fact that given sufficient motive or need (conscious or unconscious) humans can and do invent such concepts with barely more effort or thought than it takes to breathe? Is this supported by the further fact that humans have invented (and genuinely believed in) a vast array of now redundant and (with the benefit of modern scientific understanding) "silly" supernatural concepts? Is the possibility that the IPU is a human invention objectively evidenced? I would say this possibility is staggeringly and overwhelmingly evidenced. Evidenced to the point of near certainty in fact. Indisputably vastly more evidenced than the entirely objectively unevidenced possibility that the IPU might actually exist. With regard to the IPU I think we can all agree that "very probably human invention" atheism is the wholly justified response.
Now other than the conscious intent of the creation which (arguably I suppose - but I am far from convinced) might justify a greater degree of confidence in the claim that the IPU is a human invention what exactly is different about the evidence on which we all justify atheism in the IPU and the evidence which I am citing as a reason for "it's very probably a human invention" atheism with regard to any other given god concept claimed by humanity?
My reasons for atheism towards the IPU and yours are identical. But you are blatantly in denial about the application of this exact same evidence to some immaterial gods while I apply the same thinking consistently to all. This is special pleading on your part. Either way neither of us base our atheism towards the IPU on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Similarly nor do I base my atheism with regard to any other given immaterial god purely on the basis of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
There is evidence. It is just so "obvious" and well grounded and unthinkingly indisputable that we don't even think of it as evidence. But the possibility that any given god concept is the product of human invention is evidenced beyond belief.
Think about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 4:18 PM Straggler has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 57 of 562 (525098)
09-21-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by New Cat's Eye
09-21-2009 2:08 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
Because nondescript doesn't mean "no description", its means "not well defined".
But just before the "not well defined" definition, it states, "belonging or appearing to belong to no particular class or kind."
So either the word God needs to be redefined to include "God, but not really belonging to a classical or particular concept" - IOW - nothing more than an individual concept, or something along those lines. Or, we simply don't use the word "God" to define such ambiguous concepts.
To which I would then hold no position of belief (atheist or otherwise) since no definitive attributes are prescibed to this particular (or your individual concept) of (for lack of a better word) God.
Its conception evolved over the millennia.
But it must have an origin in the human mind, right? Ergo, "God concept I made up," right?
You get the cruiseship contract?
I did, but it's not a contract per-se. It's just a monthly booking. I just got back from a Key West/Bahamas/Jacksonville cruise.
Funny story that you and Straggler (and others) can appreciate:
I get off in the Bahamas, having been told that if you walk around offers of bud come from every direction, with an agenda to try some island bud. I get approached to buy some at a Starbucks (which I was at to use their Wifi) but I didn't have any cash on me. So I go to an ATM but by the time I get back the dude was gone. But the urge to smoke was not LOL. So I head out in search of some more. Finally, when I go through a small street some other guy approaches me with the same offer; I say yes and we position ourselves for a transaction of product/cash.
I get the bag, stuff it in my pocket and he tells me to head to the beach where I can smoke away from their street cameras and cops. So I head toward the beach. But, realizing that I still needed to roll this stuff, I needed a place with no wind where I could do this. So I head back to the Starbucks to sit in one of the bathroom stalls and roll in peace.
I get to the stall, close the door and set my computer bag on my lap. I pull out the rolling paper and the bag he sold me. I open up the bag to take the weed out and... it was fuck'n EMPTY! I got sold $30 worth of empty fuck'n bag!
But the shows on the ship went great. I send my avails for Oct and I'll wait to see what happens. Thanks for asking dude.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 4:28 PM onifre has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 58 of 562 (525102)
09-21-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Straggler
09-21-2009 3:08 PM


Re: Evidenced Beyond Belief
Are you an atheist or an agnostic with regard to the actual existence of the Immaterial Pink Unicorn? The Ethereal Yellow Squirrel? Wagwah the god of PC bluescreens? Rahvin's Mookoo? Why? All of these concepts are empirically unknowable and irrefutable. So why are you not agnostic towards these entities as per the "open minded skeptic" aproach of RAZD's opening post?
No I mean really why?
Really, its because they are obviously made-up. That, and that those ones are self contradictory.
Ask yourself "why" beyond the instinctive "it's obviously made-up" knee-jerk reaction. What facts lay behind the "obviousness" of this conclusion? Is it because you have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that someone could have made it up? Is it because you know as an objectively evidenced fact that practically every human being on the planet is entirely capable of inventing ten such improbable concepts before breakfast? Is it because you think there was a motive for someone to invent the IPU (to prove a point to theists in this particular case)? Is it because you know for a fact that given sufficient motive or need (conscious or unconscious) humans can and do invent such concepts with barely more effort or thought than it takes to breathe? Is this supported by the further fact that humans have invented (and genuinely believed in) a vast array of now redundant and (with the benefit of modern scientific understanding) "silly" supernatural concepts? Is the possibility that the IPU is a human invention objectively evidenced? I would say this possibility is staggeringly and overwhelmingly evidenced. Evidenced to the point of near certainty in fact. Indisputably vastly more evidenced than the entirely objectively unevidenced possibility that the IPU might actually exist. With regard to the IPU I think we can all agree that "very probably human invention" atheism is the wholly justified response.
Nope, those really aren't the reasons for me. And none of that really applies to the god I believe in.
Now other than the conscious intent of the creation which (arguably I suppose - but I am far from convinced) might justify a greater degree of confidence in the claim that the IPU is a human invention what exactly is different about the evidence on which we all justify atheism in the IPU and the evidence which I am citing as a reason for "it's very probably a human invention" atheism with regard to any other given god concept claimed by humanity?
Because I have doubt that someone could have made it up, or make up ten of them before breakfast, nor do I see a motivation for the invention, nor do I see the past inventions of gods as relevant to my currently believed god, and I don't seem my concept of god as being silly. None of your justification for atheism towards the IPU are applicable to the god that I believe in.
My reasons for atheism towards the IPU and yours are identical.
I don't think so. Not really any of those questions you wrote had anything to do with my atheism towards the IPU.
But you are blatantly in denial about the application of this exact same evidence to some immaterial gods while I apply the same thinking consistently to all. This is special pleading on your part.
So, no... I'm not special pleading. Its a totally different case.
Either way neither of us base our atheism towards the IPU on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Similarly nor do I base my atheism with regard to any other given immaterial god purely on the basis of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
Okay, I can grant you that.
But your conclusion doesn't follow from your argument so the only adequate argument you left with is the absence of evidence.
There is evidence. It is just so "obvious" and well grounded and unthinkingly indisputable that we don't even think of it as evidence. But the possibility that any given god concept is the product of human invention is evidenced beyond belief.
Nah, I don't think so. Well, maybe possibly, but not really all that much. Its not as if any god concept has been shown to be human invention. Some of them most certainly have, and some of them have not. The possibility is always there though, so what?
You're conclusion that any god concept is more likely to be made-up than not doesn't follow from the fact that some of them have.
Think about it.
Its not really that profound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2009 3:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Straggler, posted 09-22-2009 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 59 of 562 (525104)
09-21-2009 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by onifre
09-21-2009 3:18 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
Because nondescript doesn't mean "no description", its means "not well defined".
But just before the "not well defined" definition, it states, "belonging or appearing to belong to no particular class or kind."
So either the word God needs to be redefined to include "God, but not really belonging to a classical or particular concept" - IOW - nothing more than an individual concept, or something along those lines. Or, we simply don't use the word "God" to define such ambiguous concepts.
To which I would then hold no position of belief (atheist or otherwise) since no definitive attributes are prescibed to this particular (or your individual concept) of (for lack of a better word) God.
The concept of god, in general, exists even without all the specifics that various cultures have ascribed to it.
Its conception evolved over the millennia.
But it must have an origin in the human mind, right? Ergo, "God concept I made up," right?
No.
I'm sure a lot of the concept emerged from people's objective experiences as well.

I did, but it's not a contract per-se. It's just a monthly booking. I just got back from a Key West/Bahamas/Jacksonville cruise.
I've worked on 4 different cruiseships over the last year. A lot of those Second City folks were fun and cool. Meet any?
I get off in the Bahamas,
Nassau? I was there. They tried to sell me drugs too. I'd never buy drugs off of a stranger though.
I got sold $30 worth of empty fuck'n bag!
Yeah, it just doesn't work. We either got to do it so out in the open that we'd get caught or so secretively that I could easily get screwed over.
But the shows on the ship went great. I send my avails for Oct and I'll wait to see what happens. Thanks for asking dude.
I was curious because I had been on those ships. How'd you like the crew quarters?
Or all those oriental people eating that nasty fish and rice that they make in the crew mess?
I thought it was cool to see all the behind the scenes stuff that goes on in a cruiseship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by onifre, posted 09-21-2009 3:18 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by onifre, posted 09-21-2009 4:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 60 of 562 (525106)
09-21-2009 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by New Cat's Eye
09-21-2009 4:28 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
The concept of god, in general, exists even without all the specifics that various cultures have ascribed to it.
Right, but only as individual ambiguous concepts.
Thus...
quote:
To which I would then hold no position of belief (atheist or otherwise) since no definitive attributes are prescibed to this particular (or your individual concept) of (for lack of a better word) God.
I'm sure a lot of the concept emerged from people's objective experiences as well.
Objective or otherwise, the end result, IOW, my (your) conclusion of said experience, is subjective. Since it doesn't follow any specific religious concept of God, the concept itself, that of the individual God in question, is made up in the mind of the individual who had the experience.
How can I be an atheist toward that?
---------------------------------------
I've worked on 4 different cruiseships over the last year. A lot of those Second City folks were fun and cool. Meet any?
Na, just me and a comic juggler on this cruise.
Nassau? I was there. They tried to sell me drugs too. I'd never buy drugs off of a stranger though.
Lesson learned, dude.
I was curious because I had been on those ships. How'd you like the crew quarters?
As a performer I was alone in my cabin, small, but not too bad.
Or all those oriental people eating that nasty fish and rice that they make in the crew mess?
I don't get it, I'm counting every fuck'n carb I eat and these people have a mountain of rice on their plate and they're as thin as a rail! The fish stuff they eat is gross looking, though!
I thought it was cool to see all the behind the scenes stuff that goes on in a cruiseship.
I just wanted to bang a dancer.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 5:04 PM onifre has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024