Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(4)
Message 316 of 562 (526926)
09-29-2009 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 3:44 PM


Are You?
Why does being asked a question necessitate an assumption?
Does schwag exist?
What have I assumed there?
It assumes that "schwag" has some meaning as a concept. Meaning as a concept that differentiates it from "grass" or "The French" or any other concept. A concept tied to some sort of reality. Otherwise the question is entirely meaningless.
Are you CS? Are you? Will you answer that question?
If your response to this is "Am I what? What the hell are you talking about? Your question is meaningless" then I can only agree. Maybe that makes things clearer?
Its not like it isn't in the dictionary
Could you provide a suitable dictionary definition of "god" so that we all know what we are talking about here? One that everyone will agree upon?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 3:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 5:57 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 317 of 562 (526932)
09-29-2009 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Straggler
09-29-2009 5:11 PM


Re: Evidential Ballpark
Like the position that a lack of objective evidence means that the thing is made-up.
That is a simplistic misrepresentation. I cannot be bothered to go through why again.
I was directly responding to this:
quote:
You made it up. The reason I know is because you don't have any objective evidence for it. There is no other logical conclusion other than, you pulled it out your, as the brits would say, arse.
Message 227
And that when we lack sufficient information to assign possibilities then the default position should be that of not knowing over tkaing the negetive claim.
But we don't lack sufficiant information at all.
I think we do.
We have masses of information. Masses of information about dogs and the likelhood of one being in your back yard. Masses of information about the human proclivity to erroneously attribute things and experiences that they don't understand to the supernatural.
I don't know how the fuck this dog came in, but the masses of information about the human proclivity to erroneously attribute things and experiences that they don't understand to the supernatural is not sufficient to discount the reasons for the beliefs in god as being imaginary enough to claim that it is more likely that god does not exist.
And this is where you would bring forth the evidence and we would hash it out, if we were inclined, in a thread where that was the topic, kinda like where Rahvin tried earlier, in Message 141, where he responded to this:
quote:
I see much more starking similarities that I wouldn't expect and an unexpected lack of major/categorical differences. And I don't feel that "a commonality of human experience and basic thought process" is a good enough explanation. It seems wanting, although its a good start for comming at it from a materialistic perspective.
Look your argument on this is just blatantly silly.
If my argument looks blatantly silly, then its most likely that either I am being silly or you are misunderstanding me.
You are pitting the very real and objectively evidenced possibility of a dog being heard in your back yard against the possibility that an internal voice of god experience was actually due to god and calling them completely equal.
No, I am not, as you can see from the clarification above.
In the crazy situation that you are advocating, where each claim lives in isolation to all other objective knowledge, dogs and gods are equally evidenced. Go figure.
ridiculing the strawman, tsk tsk
There is no such thing as a vacuum of all objective evidence.
Not a problem. I've agreed to this before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 5:11 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 6:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 324 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 6:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 318 of 562 (526933)
09-29-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Straggler
09-29-2009 5:19 PM


Re: Are You?
Why does being asked a question necessitate an assumption?
Does schwag exist?
What have I assumed there?
It assumes that "schwag" has some meaning as a concept. Meaning as a concept that differentiates it from "grass" or "The French" or any other concept. A concept tied to some sort of reality. Otherwise the question is entirely meaningless.
Are you CS? Are you? Will you answer that question?
You don't know if schwag exists or not, do you? Why don't you want to claim that it doesn't?
And what assumption(s) have I made by asking?
But of course it has meaning, and I think Oni knows what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 5:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 6:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 323 by onifre, posted 09-29-2009 6:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


(2)
Message 319 of 562 (526934)
09-29-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Are You?
You don't know if schwag exists or not, do you? Why don't you want to claim that it doesn't?
because I don't know what the question means. "Schwag" could be Ukranian for toast for all I know. In which case saying I don't know if toast exists would be a pretty dumbass answer.
Instead I say I don't know what you are asking I have no opinion whatsoever until you explain yourself. The "I don't know" you are seeking applies to the meaning of the question. Not the answer I cannot possibly give.
And what assumption(s) have I made by asking?
You tell me. I have no idea what it is you are asking. Your question is meaningless to me.
But of course it has meaning, and I think Oni knows what it is.
Well then Oni is in a position to give you an answer where I am not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 5:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 320 of 562 (526935)
09-29-2009 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 3:44 PM


Re: finally, a description
Oh come on, you know about that woo-woo.
Believe me, I tried. Weed, DMT, LSD, shrooms, Xtacy...all with some hope that I would reach a different state of awareness. Or the Zen-like state of existance that is mentioned so much in Eastern philosophy. I meditated (both with experts and on my own in nature).
I tried, as Linda suggested, to search for different avenues to this "elightenment," and at the end...nothing. Not a thing, bro.
So it bothers me when people dismiss a position by saying "well you haven't looked hard enough."
At the end of that whole, "search for nirvana bullshit," I simply asked someone to define for me what it was exactly that I was supposed to be looking for, how will I recognize it, and what do they mean by "god."
You know what I got as an answer, (and that's when I knew it was made up and complete bullshit)?
Almost verbatum, this was the answer: "You are seeking a state of nothingness, God lies within this realm; If you search within yourself, deep enough, in the darkest corners of your mind, there you will find the force that makes up the oneness that we all feel. That is god."
All I could think about, as he was feeding me this line of complete bullshit, was "fuck, I'm out $500."
Ever since then I've been sketical when people say they believe in "god." Truth is, no one has even been able to define what they mean. It's always just a collection of words put together to sound meaningful. God, the word in and of itself, is meaningless in objective reality.
Bill Hicks writes:
Heaven is in a cow's ass.
- Now that I can understand, and fully agree with!
If people aren't taking a negetive position, then there's no issue with the OP.
Right, but the OP claims atheist take a negative position, which I don't agree with.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 3:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


(2)
Message 321 of 562 (526940)
09-29-2009 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 5:54 PM


Re: Evidential Ballpark
CS writes:
Like the position that a lack of objective evidence means that the thing is made-up.
Straggler writes:
That is a simplistic misrepresentation. I cannot be bothered to go through why again.
CS writes:
I was directly responding to this:
Oni writes:
You made it up. The reason I know is because you don't have any objective evidence for it. There is no other logical conclusion other than, you pulled it out your, as the brits would say, arse.
But I didn't say that!!!! Oni did. Take it up with him. But don't attribute it to me.
Straggler writes:
But we don't lack sufficiant information at all.
I think we do.
Well how much more information about the possibility of dogs in your back yard do you need to accept this as an evidenced possibility? How much more information do you need regarding the human proclivity for humans to invent supernatural answers before you consider the possibility that the very concept of the "unknowable" supernatural itself is a human invention as an evidenced possibility? And is this possibility better evidenced than the possibility that gods actually exist? If so regardless of any squabbling over the degree of disbelief any accusations of "pseudoskepticism" are misplaced.
I don't know how the fuck this dog came in...
You started talking about noises in your backyard.
Straggler writes:
There is no such thing as a vacuum of all objective evidence.
Not a problem. I've agreed to this before.
Then what was the backyard noise and figment of your imagination emoticonned comment all about? You seemed to be equating subjective common empirical experiences with the sort exceptional subjective expereinces we have discussed in relation to gods?
I don't know how the fuck this dog came in, but the masses of information about the human proclivity to erroneously attribute things and experiences that they don't understand to the supernatural is not sufficient to discount the reasons for the beliefs in god as being imaginary enough to claim that it is more likely that god does not exist.
Well how many once unexplained natural phenomenon have been erroneously attributed to the sueprnatural? How many times has the supernatural answer ever turned out to be the right one?
is not sufficient to discount the reasons for the beliefs in god
What reasons?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 5:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by onifre, posted 09-29-2009 7:27 PM Straggler has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 322 of 562 (526941)
09-29-2009 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 10:19 AM


The issue is many of us do not accept peoples ideas and positions blindly. That is why there is a debate.
No I, and I am sure others, will not GTFO.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 10:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 323 of 562 (526942)
09-29-2009 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Are You?
I answered the "schwag" question in this post since we got Straggler involved.
CS writes:
Does schwag exist?
What have I assumed there?
Straggler writes:
It assumes that "schwag" has some meaning as a concept.
CS writes:
You don't know if schwag exists or not, do you? Why don't you want to claim that it doesn't?
And what assumption(s) have I made by asking?
The problem is that the "assumtion" is taken out of context. Your question, CS, doesn't really assume anything per se, but it does imply that you are referencing a particular "something."
The assumtion comes in when I answer you, "No I don't believe in your concept of schwag because you haven't defined it, and no one who has ever spoken of schwag before has either. Due to this ambiguity surrounding "schwag," I'm going to assume it's a made up concept. Not "schwag" itself (that could still exist) but that people know what it is."
Then, instead of defining what you mean so we can have honest dialogue, you simply say, "Ha! you are holding to a negative position on schwag."
To which I'll reply, "No, I just have no idea what you're talking about. No position, yet."
But of course it has meaning, and I think Oni knows what it is.
Err, I don't know in what context you mean. In my business "schwag" is what we call merchandise we sell after the shows (CD's, t-shirts, autographed pics... shit like that).
I hate to make a point here, lol, but what do you mean by "schwag"...?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 5:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


(2)
Message 324 of 562 (526944)
09-29-2009 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 5:54 PM


Brief Clarification
I am confused. In Message 302 you said:
Straggler writes:
Well do you think a claim that someone heard a dog in their backyard and a claim that someone experienced god are evidentially equivalent?
For a single isolated experience (the scenario I brought up), yes.
Now you say:
Straggler writes:
You are pitting the very real and objectively evidenced possibility of a dog being heard in your back yard against the possibility that an internal voice of god experience was actually due to god and calling them completely equal.
No, I am not, as you can see from the clarification above.
Straggler writes:
In the crazy situation that you are advocating, where each claim lives in isolation to all other objective knowledge, dogs and gods are equally evidenced. Go figure.
ridiculing the strawman, tsk tsk
What am I missing here? What were you saying with regard to your noise in the backyard example?
If my argument looks blatantly silly, then its most likely that either I am being silly or you are misunderstanding me.
OK. Do you think sightings of birds or hearing noises (maybe a dog?) in your backyard are evidentially equivalent to the sort of expereinces that people cite for gods? Or do you accept that these concepts and thus possibilities are objectively evidenced in ways that gods are not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 5:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 325 of 562 (526950)
09-29-2009 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Straggler
09-29-2009 6:26 PM


Re: Evidential Ballpark
Oni writes:
You made it up. The reason I know is because you don't have any objective evidence for it. There is no other logical conclusion other than, you pulled it out your, as the brits would say, arse.
Straggler writes:
But I didn't say that!!!! Oni did. Take it up with him. But don't attribute it to me.
So then let me explain, because context is very important, and we need to know in what context what I said took place.
I asked for a specific description from RAZD, we all remember that, even you Straggler seemed astonished to see him actually give one.
RAZD said this:
quote:
"Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things."
So here's where logic follows. If it is unknowable, outside our universe (whatever that means), outside of our percetion, or, off doing other things (whatever that is), then how on earth could this description have been evidenced and known by RAZD? Where did he get that description?
And, here's where the assumtion comes in, when he actually gave me a description! Meaning, he thought about what god may look like or be, without evidence that there even is one!
How could he do that without making it up?
How could he describe something that is, by his own description, unknown?
Remember, I'm not talking about God being made up, I'm talking about the concept put forth by people being made up. I think here is where we are having trouble understanding each other.
How could these concepts be anything other than made up, if god itself is an unknown?
Any concept, anyone gives you, unless they have objective evidence to support it, comes from their mind (even for things that we know exist) - it still comes from your mind if you didn't reference any objective evidence. I don't see how it can be referenced any other way, and no one has stepped up to show how it could be referenced another way.
In fact, no one has even given the method for investigating that they used to establish that concept. At this point, even just a method would suffice, IMO.
[abe] Thought about this some more, frankly this thread is consuming a lot of my brain functioning time. Luckily, I have medicine for that.
After I re-read this, this is where the above line of reasoning takes me: If no one can give a method to investigate; if no one can describe what they mean by god; if people make things up; if subjective experience is all you can cite as evidence - then, it follows that, while the possibility that "something exists that is unknown to us" is very possibly true, why are we refering to that as a "god" when the only concepts we have of this word "god" can't be objectively evidenced?
To me this means "god," the word, means absolutely nothing. However, the concepts that people have may still be describing something yet unknown, some unknown force/energy/thingy, perhaps. Who knows at that point.
Also to note, because it is subjective in nature (even if you think that constitutes as evidence) you are then basically saying that god can be anything you subjectively think it is. It is anything and everything, and oddly enough, nothing at all as well.
It has lost all meaning. It means nothing or everything, or whatever you subjectively think it means. Then what the hell are we really talking about at that point?
Anyone's mental image? Then we are gods if we can create gods.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 6:26 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 11:59 PM onifre has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 326 of 562 (526968)
09-29-2009 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Modulous
09-27-2009 4:19 PM


Re: relative scale, implies relative justification
Hi Modulus. Sometimes I feel like I'll never get through the mail, because people keep saying the same thing in different ways. It might be time for triage.
Or to successfully communicate its properties through any medium (and I think we can say it is unlikely for someone to even imagine a creature, significantly different from known ones, accurately).
We know that creatures exist.
Therefore, it must be even less likely for someone to successfully imagine, conceive or describe an entity the likes of which are not only unknown but who is inherently unknowable.
Yes, the fact that we are unable to describe and draw creatures we have not seen does not mean that such creatures do not exist.
The same can be said for alien life on other planets, life so alien perhaps that it is not carbon based: how would one begin to attempt to describe or draw such an organism?
We do not know that such creatures exist, we have no evidence of such life forming, yet it is not insane to posit that such life may be found in the universe. Is it rational to conclude that such life could not exist?
I don't consider the negative position to be true. I consider it is more likely true than the positive position.
But that is not really the question here: that is covered by agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, each considering their subjective based belief more likely than the other option.
The question is whether you consider the negative position more valid than the neutral position, this does not apply to the agnostic theist and the agnostic atheist, so if you do consider the negative position more valid than the neutral position then that separates you from being an agnostic atheist.
It also means you need something more substantial than the subjective based beliefs of the agnostic atheist in order to reach that different level of negative position.
As I said, if you want to consider me a 5, go right ahead. But I'm a 5 that believes that the probability of a god existing is low and I live my life as if a god does not exist.
Again, if your probability analysis is entirely subjective and just "dressed up" opinion, then all you can rationally justify is the agnostic atheist position, not one that claims that the negative position is more valid than the neutral position.
I do admit the uncertainty. Which is why I agree that the position should include a phrase such as "I cannot know with complete certainty but..."
...
I am an agnostic.
And I don't believe a god exists.
And I believe it is unlikely that a god exists.
...
No RAZD, I conclude that the negative hypothesis is more likely than the positive hypothesis AND that "I can't know", by virtue of the entity in question having properties and actions that are 'unknowable'.
Again the question is not relative to a positive hypothesis, but relative to the neutral position, the "I don't know enough to know" position.
It is entirely possible to have a negative hypothesis about something without having the positive hyposthesis.
For instance one can have the "I am not a pseudoskeptic" hypothesis without anyone saying they are. Curiously if that is all they say, then they have failed to support the hypothesis.
The issue of the thread is about Pseudoskepticism. You seem to be of the opinion that position 6 on the Dawkins scale qualifies as Pseudoskepticism. That is to say, we are debating whether or not I am making a negative claim and whether or not I have provided evidence that supports the claim I am making.
Think on it like this, person X has a religious experience which they say came from God Almighty.
Person Y comes along and says, "hmm, I wonder what caused that religious experience." Person Z says "It might have been a temporal lobe seizure."
"Maybe, ", says Y, "but I'm not sure that is the most likely result. It might have been a moment of temporary but dramatic elation that was interpreted by the brain in the only way it was able to make sense of it."
"Hey,", says X, "Maybe it was God!"
"Well, of course it might have been", reply X and Z, "but we have no evidence such a creature exists. Why postulate that it does in order to explain your experience? Your hypothesis is no better than any other unverifiable and unfalsifiable hypothesis someone could come up with. It might be true, but it's not bloomin' likely, mate."
Nor do we have actual objective evidence for your postulated counter claims either, so they are also not "bloomin likely" and you are left with both claims in the same uncertainty.
Once again the logical position is the neutral hypothesis, the we don't know for sure position.
So, having provided the assumptions of my calculation you have the information you need. It is up to you to decide how many possible unfalsifiable and unverifiable entities there are that are not 'god' and then we can determine what the chances are that if one such concept exists, that it is god that is the one.
If you are asking me to do your work for you, then I must conclude that you haven't done it. Sorry you were the one to claim that you had a calculation: I want to see your results. It's your assertion.
It seems to me, that the number of things which would not qualify as a 'god' but are univerifiable and unfalsifiable is rather high.
And do you feel a need to reject them - sorry, claim that their probability is extremely low - before even hearing what they are on this basis?
I wasn't trying to refute you RAZD. Just pointing it out. You didn't seem so worried about all the other probability statements in the scale, but according to your own argument you should have taken issue with all of them. I'm glad to see you agree.
Correct, I don't see the probability numbers as being necessary for the central agnostic positions, as it should be logical to conclude that if you don't have enough evidence to conclude pro or con that then you don't have enough evidence to calculate any kind of reasonable probability.
I also don't see it as defining the two extreme positions either. All that is needed is the assertion that the pro or con position is more likely than the neutral position to have an assertion that needs to be justified with logical proof or substantiating evidence.
For any given phenomenon, there exist many hypothesis that might explain it. Some hypotheses can be whittled down (somewhat, but not entirely) by falsification (of course, the falsifying evidence might itself turn out to be erroneous so we can never technically 100% reject a hypothesis). Then there are some hypotheses for which no evidence exists and an attempt is made to gather such evidence (one way or another).
Then there are those hypotheses that cannot be verified or falsified. There are countless such hypotheses. The one that you (or someone else) propose might be true, but then it might be any of the other countless possibilities. The probability of drawing into that sea of possibilities and drawing out the one(s) that happen to be true is very low.
Which is why an open-minded skeptic would say that there is not enough evidence to know pro or con, and thus there is no reason to make a decision at this time.
If you want evidence that the number of unfalsifiable or unverifiable entities is high, I can try to provide some evidence and an argument as to why that is sufficient.
And yet you seem to be of the opinion that - because something is unfalsifiable or unverifiable - it is more likely to be false than true, no matter what the concept is or whether you have even heard it yet.
If you want evidence that satisfies other hypotheses for the phenomena that people associate with a god, I can try to do that, though some has been presented already.
So - what is it you want, if it has not been provided already? Or - what is lacking in the reasoning behind the evidence?
The empirical objective evidence that can be shown to apply to all cases. The calculations, the logically valid conclusions.
Note that one can provide proofs all night long that 3 is not 2, but that has no effect of the validity or either 3 or 2.
Something better than
  • people make things up
  • people claim to have religious experiences
  • therefore all religious experiences are made up
Something better than "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" - something substantial.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : all

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Modulous, posted 09-27-2009 4:19 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Modulous, posted 09-30-2009 5:08 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 327 of 562 (526972)
09-29-2009 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Phage0070
09-27-2009 10:37 PM


Re: wonderful - now let's revisit the topic
Hi Phage0070, still with the incredulity argument?
So would a god. If you think my pit throws the rules in the air, a deity blows them out of this world.
And this would change the agnostic position being the default mode how?
The default state of claims is assumed non-existence.
No the default state is the neutral one of not knowing unless there is evidence to base a conclusion on.
A claim that has no evidence to support it has nothing to increase its probability ...
BINGO.
The claim that there are no gods has no evidence to support it.
The claim that the negative position is more rational than the neutral position is a claim that needs to be substantiated.
or you fall into the pseudoskeptic chasm.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Phage0070, posted 09-27-2009 10:37 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Rrhain, posted 09-30-2009 6:22 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 328 of 562 (526974)
09-29-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by bluegenes
09-28-2009 3:56 AM


Re: How many 50%s in 100%?
Hi bluegenes,
Which you've thrown out because you've finally realised that you cannot be "4" (50/50) for more than two mutually exclusive god propositions. Well done!
No, I've thrown it out because it was not part of the original post, and is only causing confusion or opportunity for people to harp on it instead of deal with the issue, as you have done.
I did.
Curiously though, what you did NOT do was provide any evidence to substantiate a negative position.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2009 3:56 AM bluegenes has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 329 of 562 (526975)
09-29-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Rrhain
09-28-2009 4:55 AM


Negative hypothesis = burden
Hi Rrhain,
Sorry, but I am not impressed. Truzzi says anyone with a negative hypothesis that doesn't substantiate it with evidence is a pseudoskeptic.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Rrhain, posted 09-28-2009 4:55 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Rrhain, posted 09-30-2009 6:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 330 of 562 (526978)
09-29-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Otto Tellick
09-29-2009 1:28 AM


Re: Golden Rule? Thanks.
Thanks Otto, for both replies.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-29-2009 1:28 AM Otto Tellick has 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