|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Identifying false religions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I would agree. So, would you consider that evidence that it does not exist?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Rahvin writes: Imagine you've never seen another human being before, and I tell you "Jimmy is tall." Would you have any way to tell if Jonny is also tall, or short, or what the difference is? Nope.
Rahvin writes: So far you've told me that, in the absence of any evidence, "I don't know" or "I don't believe that" are both rational answers to a mysterious question. But why are those rational answers? Would "I think so" be irrational then? If so, why? Yes, I think "I think so" would be irrational. I think the big difference is based not on logic but rather my experience with Atheists. Most Agnostics and Atheists I've come in contact with are willing to change their position should sufficient information be presented to change their position. However, when there is no evidence saying "I think so" is not based on evidence or even the lack of evidence. The atheist and agnostic can say "I don't believe because there is 'No evidence' or 'Insufficient evidence' to be convincing".
Rahvin writes: I'm asking you what criteria you use to determine which beliefs are rational, so that I can understand your reasoning. Other than what I have presented I'm not sure I can help you. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Suppose it is described as producing effects in the real world and there is no credible evidence that such effects have ever been observed?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
subbie writes: Suppose it is described as producing effects in the real world and there is no credible evidence that such effects have ever been observed? Well, I don't see a problem there at all. For example, I see no reason that the GOD I believe in couldn't get a doctor to try just one more test or drug, to consider one more idea, to interfere in events here at will. Now within this universe the reasonable way to produce effects is ...wait for it...wait for it, using the tools available in this universe. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
Rahvin writes: Imagine you've never seen another human being before, and I tell you "Jimmy is tall." Would you have any way to tell if Jonny is also tall, or short, or what the difference is Nope. Well, likewise I have no real way to differentiate "rational" vs "irrational" from what you've told me. I don't know what qualifies one belief as "rational" to jar and what does not. I have a very simple test for determining which belief is rational, given that a "belief" is defined as the hypothesis that an individual thinks has the greatest probability of being true: The rational belief in any set of logically valid competing hypotheses is the one determined to have the greatest probability of accuracy given available evidence. To believe any other hypothesis other than the most probable is irrational. In the case of exactly equal probabilities, the only rational belief is to simply state that the answer may be any of the equally probable hypotheses. In the case of a toss of a six-sided dice, any belief that a specific number will come up is irrational; the only rational belief is that the result will be an integer between one and six. Believing that the result could be twelve, or 4.3, would be irrational. Given a case where Hypothesis A) has a 51% chance of being true, Hypothesis B) has a 49% chance, it would only be rational to believe Hypothesis A). Given a case where Hypothesis A) has a 45% chance of being true, Hypothesis B) has a 30% chance, and Hypotheses C) has a 25% chance, it would only be rational to believe that Hypothesis A) is most likely true; it would be more irrational to believe that Hypothesis C) is true than to believe Hypothesis B) is true. This works for any and all hypotheses. Given equal information and correct math, it should be impossible for perfectly rational individuals to disagree on matters of objective fact (as opposed to things like color preference). All beliefs are tentative to the degree that the hypotheses they represent are likely to be true. Would you agree that this is a good definition for the word "rational?" If not, why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jar writes: Now within this universe the reasonable way to produce effects is ...wait for it...wait for it, using the tools available in this universe. Only if you're limited to them. I'd go to work on my magic carpet if I could.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Rahvin writes: Would you agree that this is a good definition for the word "rational?" If not, why not? Does it work for you? If so great. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
bluegenes writes: Only if you're limited to them. I'd go to work on my magic carpet if I could.
jar writes: Now within this universe the reasonable way to produce effects is ...wait for it...wait for it, using the tools available in this universe. Only if you're limited to them. I'd go to work on my magic carpet if I could.
See, that is the difference between you and me. I'd pick a Ferrari 250 or a 330. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jar writes: See, that is the difference between you and me. I'd pick a Ferrari 250 or a 330. There are no speed limits on carpet flying, and it's pollution free. You don't know the traffic jams and parking problems in my area. With the carpet, you just magically open your office windows, fly in and park on the floor, and it becomes part of the office furniture. Then I would put my feet up and enjoy watching the elves who are doing the work for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Well, I don't see a problem there at all. For example, I see no reason that the GOD I believe in couldn't get a doctor to try just one more test or drug, to consider one more idea, to interfere in events here at will. That, of course, is not responsive to my question. Don't assume that I'm necessarily alluding to anything in particular with my questions. I'm not playing gotcha. I'm exploring the parameters of your general claim that if there's no evidence one way or another, it's rational to say "I don't know." Now, please answer the actual hypothetical. If certain effects are predicted and those effects are not observed, is that evidence of non-existence? Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
subbie writes: Now, please answer the actual hypothetical. If certain effects are predicted and those effects are not observed, is that evidence of non-existence? I thought I did answer it. I would say "maybe, maybe not".
subbie writes: I'm exploring the parameters of your general claim that if there's no evidence one way or another, it's rational to say "I don't know." LOL No idea what else you might want. I believe it is a rational position. Seems pretty simple to me, when there is no evidence either way the MOST rational position IMHO is to say "I don't know". Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Seems pretty simple to me, when there is no evidence either way the MOST rational position IMHO is to say "I don't know". It certainly does seem simple at first blush. That's why exploring it further is so interesting. There's no evidence regarding Russell's teapot. Do you say "I don't know?" Edited by subbie, : Tweak language Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
subbie writes: There's no evidence regarding Russell's teapot. Do you say "I don't know?" Me? Of course. AbE: Are you trying to find out if I am consistent in my beliefs and criteria? If that is the case then I can save you some effort. I will gladly admit that many of my beliefs are irrational, unreasonable and inconsistent. Does that save you some time or effort? Edited by jar, : add postscript Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Me? Of course. Wonderful. You and I have never met. You've never seen a picture of me, to the best of my recollection. Would you maintain an agnostic position if someone claimed that I had an 80 year old oak tree growing out of my left ear? Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024