|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Scepticism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Straggler writes: We have another topic on the subject of craziness. What does being crazy really look like? With regard to answers/claims that pertain to any reality that exists external to one's own mind - No. Probably not. What did you have in mind? Also have you watched my video where I talk about "inside and outside"?Inside & Outside- Broadcast your self LIVE Edited by Phat, : changed subtitle Edited by Phat, : added video
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined:
|
The first sentence plainly reads "In the beginning God created the heaven and earth." It clearly and literally says that the earth was made "in the beginning."
Again, your reading comorehension is terrible here.The Bibke does NOT say that the Earth was "made." It says the Heavens and Earth were CREATED. Every formless star and planet was void of a solid geometrical shapes, but all matter that is here today was CREATED then, in that instant. To support the comprehension of this verse, were see that the Sun, itself, was "made" time keeper over the Solar Clock at some point in the story.The Sun had always been there "from the beginning," it was "made" the authority iver earth time much later in the story. The Sun and the Moon and all the Stars were "MADE the authority over the circadian Earth Time as soon as had life appeared in the late Archean or 3rd duration of the geological rock formation: Gen. 1:14 And God, (The First Cause), said, Let there be (Sidereal Time), lights in the firmament of the heaven, (for the reason) to divide the (12 hour) day from the (12 hour) night; and let them be for (the purpose of) signs, (astronomical, symbolic references),\[B\] and for (the purpose to designate) times, (the four seasons), and for (the 24 hour period to be called) days, (the "day" of 24 hours as distinguished from the days of long Eras), and years (of 365 day): Strong's ConcordanceTransliteration:`asah = made [H6213] = made: [asah = appoint, ordain, institute]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Certainly appears to be moving to me. I've looked at for a while, even stared just off to the side and I cannot get any sensation of movement - it just looks garish, stationary and garish, however I look at it. There are probably better examples of optical delusions. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It isn't actually moving but approx 98% of human beings will perceive it as moving. ... Interesting. Perhaps those 2% that don't see it moving are better trained at observation ... Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Certainly skeptics should question the validity of such an approach....
Ultimately I think you'll find that skepticism becomes part of pragmatism. It is justified on the basis that a questioning and lacking-belief approach demonstrably yields practical results and makes relentless adherence to pointless superstition unnecessary. Someone who was entirely unskeptical or genuinely agnostic with regard to every conceivable un-evidenced scenario (there might be brain damage inducing ethereal elephants congregating in my garden or there might not, I have no way of deciding either way) would spend their entire existence in a sort of Pascals wager state of avoidance of the terrible consequences of non-belief (going to hell, having brain damaged children etc. etc.) Pragmatically speaking skepticism is necessary. Like Dr A said everyone is a skeptic but some people make subjective exceptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Conversely when confronted by an evidentially unsupported but unfalsifiable proposition your approach to skepticism demands either: ... be given equal credence ... Equality is a false paradigm and is typical of Faux Noise blatherings and poor thinking. Curiously, I don't need to give either claim credence, pro or con, rather I can wait (not holding my breath) for evidence pro or con before needing to apply any credence to either. You should remember this from last go-round. And you, as an atheist, should be able to understand half of this.
Consilient with reality. What is reality? How do you know?
Because, in the specific case of ethereal elephants, if too many congregate in one place their inaudible trumpeting causes long term brain damage to small children. Only when it's too late and my children grow into brain damaged adults. So do you think I should evacuate my children from my house just in case there are a congregation of ethereal elephants in my garden? Or do you (skeptically?) think this unevidenced proposition not something remotely worth worrying about? Ah, I see you have chosen your normal approach:
my Message 32: What would be the more productive use of your time:
It appears you've chosen "A" while I will still take "C" ... You realize, I hope, that your opinion is not based on any empirical evidence in this regard and thus you should be skeptical of it, according to your precepts above ... or is this a special pleading? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : ...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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Yeah I've seen the other thread and I've decided to stay out of it. I think Crazy is an emotive and oft misused word. I think many people (most? maybe even all?) hold some views that can be considered eccentric and that "crazy" is in many ways a culturally relative term. I'd reserve it for those who are so distanced from reality as to be effectively unable to function in the real world rather than those who say things I consider idiotic on a debate board where I expect to ardently disagree with people anyway.
So - No I don't think you are crazy. I think you share a culturally widespread delusion and that you seek to justify it through various mental contortions. I think that most others who share your delusion are too lazy or apathetic to explore their belief in the way that you do and that it is mildly admirable that you at least think about these things where many avoid such questioning. But primarily I just think you are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
No normal person would sit there without comment or action and allow small children to incur brain damage if this was a remotely realistic possibility would they? If this scenario was remotely likely it would demand action wouldn't it?
On the basis that you wouldn't risk brain damage to small children simply to score points in an internet debate I can only conclude that your lack of concern, despite long-winded assertions regarding things being unproven and whatnot, is because to all practical intents and purposes you are as skeptical of the brain-damage-inducing-congregation-of-ethereal-elephants-in-my-garden as I am. If you consider this scenario a remotely realistic possibility why aren't you more concerned regarding the potential brain damage being induced in small children?
Straggler writes: Are all world views equally consistent with reality or are some more so than others? How do you determine which are more consilient with reality and which are less? RAZD writes: What is reality? How do you know? Well that is the crux of the matter isn't it? In order to explore this let's consider someone who has a radically different world view to either you or I and who thus takes a radically different approach to knowledge. Consider hypothetical Bob. Bob works under the assumption that empirical evidence is designed to deceive. That scientific conclusions are those of weak minded fools too embroiled in the deception to see the wood for the trees. Instead Bob relies on a sacred text and divine revelation in order to gain access to the truths of reality. According to his method of knowing the Earth is about 1,000 years old. According to his method of knowing the empirical evidence that says that the Earth is billions of years old was put there to deceive and cannot be trusted. Is Bob's world view equally as valid as a more scientific world view?Is Bob's conclusion regarding the age of the Earth more or less likely to be correct than the scientific conclusion? How do we decide?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No normal person would sit there without comment or action and allow small children to incur brain damage if this was a remotely realistic possibility would they? If this scenario was remotely likely it would demand action wouldn't it? On the basis that you wouldn't risk brain damage to small children simply to score points in an internet debate I can only conclude that your lack of concern, despite long-winded assertions regarding things being unproven and whatnot, is because to all practical intents and purposes you are as skeptical of the brain-damage-inducing-congregation-of-ethereal-elephants-in-my-garden as I am. If you consider this scenario a remotely realistic possibility why aren't you more concerned regarding the potential brain damage being induced in small children? So you continue with (A) Loudly proclaim to all around you that it is "Highly likely to be incorrect and only fools would pursue it" What do you consider more rational behavior:
Curiously I would find both A and B positions bizarre if not delusional.
Well that is the crux of the matter isn't it? ... And yet you didn't answer it.
... In order to explore this let's consider someone who has a radically different world view to either you or I and who thus takes a radically different approach to knowledge. Consider hypothetical Bob. Bob works under the assumption that empirical evidence is designed to deceive. That scientific conclusions are those of weak minded fools too embroiled in the deception to see the wood for the trees. Instead Bob relies on a sacred text and divine revelation in order to gain access to the truths of reality. According to his method of knowing the Earth is about 1,000 years old. According to his method of knowing the empirical evidence that says that the Earth is billions of years old was put there to deceive and cannot be trusted. More word games, instead of answering the question.
Is Bob's world view equally as valid as a more scientific world view? Amusingly, I am pretty sure that he would think it was more valid, otherwise he wouldn't behave the way he does.(1)
Is Bob's conclusion regarding the age of the Earth more or less likely to be correct than the scientific conclusion? And I already asked you (Message 32):
OK. But is every world view equally correct or are some more correct than others? What does "more correct" mean -- that they are more consilient with your views? To which you replied "Consilient with reality." Now when I ask what is reality, you seem to be saying that reality is "more correct" -- making a circular argument rather than answering the question. So are you going to answer this time or evade and wheedle around the issue with smoke screens and more word games?
How do we decide? Indeed ... how does Hypothetical Bob decide? Enjoy (1) - actually his name was Hans and he believed the world was flat, but that was years ago and on another board. Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 348 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
There are probably better examples of optical delusions. How about the illusion that the sun goes around the earth? Or the illusion that there are solid things?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
The surfaces of the tables are the same shape and size. Print it out, cut it up and compare.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Why not? ...but I dont want to end the day with a question regarding Gods interaction with me. (See what I did there? There's always a potential question.)
Phat writes:
It's funny how some of those cliches are a mirror to the speaker. In fact, it's just the opposite. If you're not skeptical, you're the one who falls for everything.
One must stand for something or else they will fall for anything! Phat writes:
Why? as far as "there" I would define there as being in communion, or walking in the Spirit, if you will. (See above.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It says the Heavens and Earth were CREATED. Every formless star and planet was void of a solid geometrical shapes, but all matter that is here today was CREATED then, in that instant. Not according to scientists. But in any case, if that was true, the passage might as well read: "In the beginning God created the Apple Macintosh", and you could still read it in such a way as to interpret it as being true. This is not a tribute to the wisdom of the Bible, but to your ability to read anything however you want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3775 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
That is what makes this writing appear on face value as divinely revealed. Or, an advanced race of aliens, posing as a supreme being decided to play a little joke and implanted the thoughts into those sheep farmers who would then write the books of the bible.... Or Apollo, bored with his life on Olympus, decided to pose as the one true supreme being while the other Olympic Gods were busy playing poker... Or, we look at the historical context of these writing and find out that many of the writings accepted into today's bible are unremarkably similar to previous myths and stories from other religions. That these other myths and stories were contemporaneous or previous to the writings of the people who wrote the bible and parts of the bible are just plagiarized stories. In any case, we use skepticism to help lead us to the most likely story, and remember the axiom, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," while continuing our search for evidence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024