Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
190 online now:
jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 188 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,834 Year: 1,582/23,288 Month: 1,582/1,851 Week: 222/484 Day: 40/105 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
jar
Member
Posts: 32038
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 286 of 479 (569811)
07-23-2010 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by subbie
07-23-2010 9:19 PM


Re: on GOD
subbie writes:

Would you maintain an agnostic position if someone claimed that I had an 80 year old oak tree growing out of my left ear?

Did you see the additions I made (while you were posting I fear)?

The answer to this latest question is that I would be very doubtful about that. I would have a high degree of confidence that you do not have an 80 year old oak tree growing out of your ear.

But I've been wrong before.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 9:19 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 9:28 PM jar has responded

subbie
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 287 of 479 (569812)
07-23-2010 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by jar
07-23-2010 9:24 PM


Re: on GOD
Did you see the additions I made (while you were posting I fear)?

I did not, but not to worry. As I said, I'm not playing gotcha, looking for inconsistencies that I can then wave in the air and claim victory. I'm exploring parameters.

The answer to this latest question is that I would be very doubtful about that. I would have a high degree of confidence that you do not have an 80 year old oak tree growing out of your ear.

Okay, so why agnostic about Russell's teapot but skeptical about subbie's oak tree?


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 9:24 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 9:37 PM subbie has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32038
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 288 of 479 (569813)
07-23-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by subbie
07-23-2010 9:28 PM


Re: on GOD
Wait, you're conflating concepts.

I can be unsure but skeptical.

I can say I'm more doubtful about your oak tree than Russell's Tea pot; there can be a whole range of positions between absolute surety, likely, unlikely and absolute denial.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 9:28 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 10:41 PM jar has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 289 of 479 (569814)
07-23-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Rahvin
07-23-2010 5:14 PM


rational vs irrational? or another false dichotomy (again)?
Hi Rahvin (et al)

What's been rankling Straggler for months now (and prompted me to limit participation in threads that start down this road) is that RAZD claims that it is rational to hold any unfalsified logically valid position - that tentative belief or disbelief is a matter of personal opinion.

If it is a logically valid concept that isn't falsified by empirical evidence, then it can't really be irrational (no matter how much you may want it to be), basically by definition:

quote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
The American HeritageĀ® Dictionary Ā© 2009

What's been "rankling Straggler for months now" is that he cannot demonstrate that the agnostic position is irrational, while I have demonstrated that his position fails the test of logical analysis.

As it related to deities, RAZD says that the only truly logical position is total agnosticism,

As has been amply demonstrated (except that I wouldn't say total), for any concept where there is not sufficient evidence for, nor sufficient evidence against, the concept for the formation of a logical conclusion.

... but that it is perfectly rational to slightly believe or disbelieve in gods according to one's own opinion.

Specifically WHEN there is an absence of contrary evidence that would invalidate or falsify the opinion.

OR to disbelieve in god/s (as atheists are fond of doing) based on one's own opinion. Curious that you keep ignoring this part.

When there is not sufficient evidence for, nor sufficient evidence against, a concept for the formation of a logical conclusion, THEN the only basis one has for making a decision is opinion (based on personal worldview, experiences and biases). This is true whether you decide to believe or disbelieve a concept.

There is no functional difference between an atheist belief or a theist belief in this regard, so if you allow the atheist beleif to be rational then you allow the similar theist belief to be rational, or one is guilty of special pleading etc.

Straggler and I (and others) disagree rather strongly. We think that there are several reasons to believe that the existence of gods is less likely than the nonexistence of gods, and so the only rational belief is that gods tentatively do not exist, pending additional evidence. We don't think "opinion" has anything to do with it, that it's simply the only rational conclusion (ie, the most likely amongst all logically valid hypotheses).

And yet, curiously, all you have is opinion. You and Straggler and bluegenes etc can all have a high opinion of your own opinion/s, but somehow that fails to amount to anything more than confirmation bias towards your own opinions (something everyone is guilty of, and thus proves nothing).

Enjoy.


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 262 by Rahvin, posted 07-23-2010 5:14 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by bluegenes, posted 07-23-2010 10:48 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 300 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 3:47 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20488
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 290 of 479 (569822)
07-23-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Phage0070
07-21-2010 10:08 PM


Logical Position is a Cult of Insanity?
Hi Phage0070, thanks for the amusing post ...

Message 227:
RAZD writes:

Sorry, special pleading. The agnostic position is the only one supported by logic, so if any choices are "insanity" then it is both positions that take an opinion (true or false) based on a lack of evidence.

Pardon, I mean "the other two" as you said, not the latter two. Agnosticism is indeed the only reasonable position in a complete lack of evidence.

(now): So you don't believe Bigfoot exists, but you cannot say it because your personal cult of insanity doesn't allow you to admit it for fear of becoming an atheist.

Amusingly, I am agnostic - totally agnostic - on the question of bigfoot, as pointed out:

Message 226: I can be totally agnostic on the issue of bigfoot, and that means I neither believe nor disbelieve the claim of the person who had a personal experience (subjective evidence) and they are of the opinion that they saw bigfoot.

Message 244: No, I am open minded to the possibility that bigfoot may exist, but remain skeptical about it, needing more evidence before deciding one way or the other.

It's more like lacking disbelief.

So my "personal cult of insanity" has forced me to take "the only reasonable position" on the issue of bigfoot?

Perhaps you don't understand the difference ... it's also like lacking an opinion.

Message 224: Keep in mind that deciding not to believe a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is false.

Keep in mind that deciding not to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is true.

Keep in mind that deciding not to decide until there is more evidence is not the same as having an opinion\belief\etc that the concept is either true OR false.

Enjoy.


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 245 by Phage0070, posted 07-21-2010 10:08 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Phage0070, posted 07-24-2010 12:20 AM RAZD has responded

subbie
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 291 of 479 (569825)
07-23-2010 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by jar
07-23-2010 9:37 PM


Re: on GOD
Perhaps I'm reading too much into what you're saying. I assumed that when you said, "I don't know," that meant completely no position on the matter. Not likely, not unlikely, not even slightly more likely that not. I assumed it meant no opinion whatsoever on likelihood.

How do you feel about Sagan's famous aphorism, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?"


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 9:37 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 10:59 PM subbie has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 866 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 292 of 479 (569828)
07-23-2010 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by RAZD
07-23-2010 9:47 PM


Re: rational vs irrational? or another false dichotomy (again)?
RAZD writes:

And yet, curiously, all you have is opinion. You and Straggler and bluegenes etc can all have a high opinion of your own opinion/s, but somehow that fails to amount to anything more than confirmation bias towards your own opinions (something everyone is guilty of, and thus proves nothing).

That's a very definite statement coming from someone who is completely uncommitted on whether or not Satan is manipulating his mind. It would certainly be irrational behaviour for such a person to express any opinions on anything.

But, to explain your behaviour as being the result of a mind manipulating Satan would be explaining it with a random baseless explanatory hypothesis, wouldn't it? And smart people who rate their opinions highly know that such hypotheses are always very unlikely to be correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2010 9:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

jar
Member
Posts: 32038
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 293 of 479 (569831)
07-23-2010 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by subbie
07-23-2010 10:41 PM


Re: on GOD
subbie writes:

Perhaps I'm reading too much into what you're saying. I assumed that when you said, "I don't know," that meant completely no position on the matter. Not likely, not unlikely, not even slightly more likely that not. I assumed it meant no opinion whatsoever on likelihood.

The term "know" is one that I use pretty carefully. "Know" tends to be pretty emphatic, an end.

subbie writes:

How do you feel about Sagan's famous aphorism, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?"

It would make a nice bumper sticker.

But again, I try not to make extraordinary claims.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 10:41 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 11:03 PM jar has responded

subbie
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 294 of 479 (569833)
07-23-2010 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by jar
07-23-2010 10:59 PM


Re: on GOD
So when you say, "I don't know," you mean that you lack absolute or near absolute certainty about the matter, although you may have a belief about the likelihood of the matter. Do I have it right?

It would make a nice bumper sticker.

It probably does. The gist of my question, however, was whether you agree with it.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 10:59 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 11:17 PM subbie has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32038
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 295 of 479 (569835)
07-23-2010 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by subbie
07-23-2010 11:03 PM


Re: on GOD
subbie writes:

So when you say, "I don't know," you mean that you lack absolute or near absolute certainty about the matter, although you may have a belief about the likelihood of the matter. Do I have it right?

Bigger range then that. "I don't know" can be anything from near absolute certainty something is likely to near absolute certainty something is unlikely.

subbie writes:

The gist of my question, however, was whether you agree with it.

The problem is that an "extraordinary claim" depends on the individual considering it. What YOU might think extraordinary I might consider very ordinary.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 11:03 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 11:21 PM jar has responded

subbie
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 296 of 479 (569836)
07-23-2010 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by jar
07-23-2010 11:17 PM


Re: on GOD
So when you say

Well, if there is neither evidence something exists or does not exist I would think it was rational to say..."I don't know."

that could include you believing that it's nearly absolutely certain to be so, but not 100% certain.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 11:17 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 9:58 AM subbie has not yet responded

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 479 (569844)
07-24-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by RAZD
07-23-2010 10:20 PM


Semantic Insanity or Dishonesty?
RAZD writes:

Amusingly, I am agnostic - totally agnostic - on the question of bigfoot, as pointed out:

I hope you understand this isn't contradictory to my statement that "you don't believe Bigfoot exists", right? It would be a shame if you still didn't understand agnosticism to the existence of something implied lack of belief in its existence.

RAZD writes:

So my "personal cult of insanity" has forced me to take "the only reasonable position" on the issue of bigfoot?

No, your "personal cult of insanity" has prevented you from phrasing the reasonable position in a particular manner.

RAZD writes:

Keep in mind that deciding not to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is true.

Keep in mind that deciding to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding the claim is false.

RAZD writes:

Keep in mind that deciding not to decide until there is more evidence is not the same as having an opinion\belief\etc that the concept is either true OR false.

Keep in mind that lacking an opinion that the concept is either true or false implies lack of belief that the concept is true or false.

Thus, agnosticism toward the concept implies lack of belief (and lack of disbelief).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2010 10:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by RAZD, posted 07-25-2010 6:55 PM Phage0070 has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32038
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 298 of 479 (569860)
07-24-2010 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by subbie
07-23-2010 11:21 PM


Re: on GOD
subbie writes:

So when you say

jar writes:

Well, if there is neither evidence something exists or does not exist I would think it was rational to say..."I don't know."

that could include you believing that it's nearly absolutely certain to be so, but not 100% certain.

I think we need to step back a ways here.

What I suggest is that we move through how I go about identifying false religions (although IMHO all religions including the one I practice could be called false). It will be a slow journey and as in the Grand Canyon thread I'd like to keep it step by step and make sure we agree on each layer before going further.

If that is okay then we could do it here, or in another thread if you prefer.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 11:21 PM subbie has not yet responded

Straggler
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 299 of 479 (570086)
07-25-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by jar
07-23-2010 3:21 PM


Re: on GOD
jar writes:

I would likely tell you my beliefs about God or god to be rational and logical.

On what evidential basis?

jar writes:

Straggler writes:

Is your belief in GOD irrational?

I would certainly say so.

Yet your belief in God or god is not? What is the evidential difference? Be specific.

jar writes:

Straggler writes:

Is atheism towards this GOD irrational?

NOTE: By atheism I don't mean absolute denial of existence. I mean the conclusion that the actual existence of this creator of "all that is seen and unseen" is highly improbable.

Not at all, in fact until evidence is presented, really strong evidence sufficient to convince you fully, I would say that it is both the rational and logical position.

So how are God or god evidentially different to GOD such that atheism is not also rationally justified towards these differently "spelt" entities?

jar writes:

Beliefs are irrelevant to the actual existence or non existence of the critter.

Yet it is rational to conclude that any unevidenced entity is improbable is it not?

jar writes:

The answer to all of those questions is ..."My belief."

And how is your un-evidenced belief any different from mere personal preference?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 3:21 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by jar, posted 07-25-2010 4:22 PM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 300 of 479 (570095)
07-25-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by RAZD
07-23-2010 9:47 PM


Re: rational vs irrational? or another false dichotomy (again)?
RAZD writes:

If it is a logically valid concept that isn't falsified by empirical evidence, then it can't really be irrational (no matter how much you may want it to be), basically by definition:

But neither fat jolly magically undetectable Santa Claus nor the empirically undetectable Easter Bunny have been empirically falsified. They cannot, by definition, be empirically falsified. Yet you quite sensibly accept that the actual existence of these entities has been refuted as the product of human invention in all all but the most pointless and pedantic of philosophical senses.

The same must apply to any empirically imperceptible entity as there is no means by which it's human conception can have been arrived at but by the internal workings of the human mind.

This is the fact you refuse to confront.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2010 9:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2010 9:11 PM Straggler has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020