Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
74 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 8/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists can't hold office in the USA?
Straggler
Member (Idle past 201 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 766 of 777 (751789)
03-05-2015 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 761 by New Cat's Eye
03-05-2015 2:59 PM


Re: Genericness
Does Zeus meet the definition of "god" you have provided?
Are believers in Zeus theists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 768 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2015 12:15 PM Straggler has taken no action

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1394
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 767 of 777 (751828)
03-06-2015 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 761 by New Cat's Eye
03-05-2015 2:59 PM


CS writes:

Stop lying about me, dick.

CS writes:

You're really grasping at straws to make me look like I've done something wrong here and you're being a real prick about it.

CS writes:

I'm just about ready to blacklist your ass.

CS writes:

What I don't like is you lying about me. Stop it.

Thanks for sharing.

Edited by dronestar, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 768 of 777 (751836)
03-06-2015 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 766 by Straggler
03-05-2015 6:26 PM


Re: Genericness
So Lets abandon this "generic" nonsense shall we?

Nah, atheist reject gods in general and we were talking about how to define an atheist.

Generic gods are part of that topic.

If and when we're talking about how to define a theist, we can get into that criteria then.

CS writes:

We haven't been talking about the god that I believe in

You put yourself forward as an example of a theist in this thread. Message 132

If you see me using myself in a hypothetical situation where we walking into shapes on the floor (as an attempt to explain why I think that children start in a "void" position) as me talking about the god that I believe in, well, then I'm sorry but I don't think I'm capable of effectively communicating with you.

Tell us what evidence you have that the Easter Bunny is not real.

quote:
The Easter Bunny (also called the Easter Rabbit or Easter Hare) is a folkloric figure and symbol of Easter, depicted as a rabbit bringing Easter eggs. Originating among German Lutherans, the "Easter Hare" originally played the role of a judge, evaluating whether children were good or disobedient in behaviour at the start of the season of Eastertide.[1] The Easter Bunny is sometimes depicted with clothes. In legend, the creature carries colored eggs in his basket, candy, and sometimes also toys to the homes of children, and as such shows similarities to Santa Claus or the Christkind, as they both bring gifts to children on the night before their respective holidays. The custom was first mentioned in Georg Franck von Franckenau's De ovis paschalibus[2] (About Easter Eggs) in 1682[3] referring to a German tradition of an Easter Hare bringing Easter eggs for the children.

Then tell us if you accept that there is any evidence that "generic" gods are not real.

I don't know how to gather evidence about generic gods.

Does Zeus meet the definition of "god" you have provided?
Are believers in Zeus theists?

Yes, the Greeks who believed in Zeus were poly-theists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 766 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 6:26 PM Straggler has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 769 of 777 (751837)
03-06-2015 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 749 by dronestar
03-04-2015 5:04 PM


agnsoticism is still not a positive claim ...
RAZD writes:

that I am agnostic and believe that the evidence against god/s is as poor and inconclusive as the evidence for god/s. Now, I am open-minded to either being true, but as such I am not making a claim either way.

Errm, . . . you just made a claim in your first sentence. As coyote succinctly writes, you ARE claiming a 50/50 proposition.

To be specific, I made a yawn-producing, potentially falsifiable claim that gods do not exist outside of man's imagination. ...

You know if you are not going to pay attention, then there is not much point in discussing something with you.

This is like claiming that flipping a coin and predicting it is going to fall on "not heads" (ie your position on god/s) is NOT a claim ...

Heads, Don't Know or Not Heads?

... but somehow saying "don't know" IS a claim. Fascinating, just fascinating.

I see I need to often remind you that we are currently testing both our hypotheses.

What hypothesis of mine are you talking about? The one where you make up my having a claim when there is none?

Nor are you robustly testing your hypothesis. How would you test that deist gods do not exist? Again, you have made the claim regarding all god/s, and the onus is (still) on you to support it. So far you haven't.

... You may falsify my claim by presenting a real god any time that you wish. I'll wait.

To suggest that an agnostic just take a deist god (or any god for that matter) out of their back pocket and make it sing and dance for you like a puppet - when such god/s could/would be totally disinterested in whether you believe or not - simply shows two things:

  1. that you don't understand that the agnostic would be convinced by having such evidence, and
  2. that you do not have a robust falsification test that covers all possible supernatural beings.

Such arguments did not convince me when I was an atheist, and are part of the reason I am now a deist/agnostic.

You have not answered my questions, which is part of the give and take of honest debate.

Curiously, these questions do test your claim ... and the consistence of your approach to questions with little or no evidence on which to base a sound conclusion.

And I can keep repeating these questions until you answer.

Message 740: ...

Now I think you will agree

  1. that there is not sufficient objective empirical evidence that demonstrates conclusively that god/s exist nor that they do not exist ... so we eliminate the (A) position,
  2. that there is no need to form an opinion whether god/s exist or not ... so we can eliminate the (B) position.

So that leaves us with my position (C) that I can wait for further information before making an informed decision ...

... and your position (D) where you jump to a conclusion based on your opinion\beliefs rather than evidence and logic.

Curiously I think the (C) position is more akin to a scientific approach, than the (D) position of leaping to a conclusion based on poor, logically questionable thinking. Position (C) says "we don't know, we should find out more before deciding" while (D) says "I already know and don't want to waste my time looking" ...

Curiously theists also think they know the answer (the theist says "I know, god-did-it"), and I don't see any qualitative difference in the degree of evidence available between your position and theirs.

But I am open-minded,

Are the anecdotal rumors that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (believed by biologists to be extinct since the last mating pair was killed in the '50s, ironically to confirm their identification) exists deep in the Louisiana swamps ...

True, Don't Know or False?

Are the anecdotal rumors that the Yeti (which might be an unknown bear related to polar bears) exists high in the Himalayan mountains ...

True, Don't Know or False?

Are the anecdotal rumors that the sasquatch exists deep in the northwest mountain forests ...

True, Don't Know or False?

Are the anecdotal rumors that the god/s exist deep in the spirit world beyond our ability to measure them (but not beyond an ability to experience them, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as some people claim) ...

True, Don't Know or False?

For the record, I consistently take the (C) position of "Don't Know" on each of these -- what do you do?

RAZD writes:

Now I think you will agree
A. that there is not sufficient objective empirical evidence that demonstrates conclusively that god/s exist nor that they do not exist

Hold on there Baba Looey, you just admonished ME for supposedly concluding my claim. We are in the middle of testing our claims, why are you rushing to rule that I have no evidence?

So you are claiming path (A), that validated scientific evidence exists which clearly shows that god/s do not exist. Fascinating. Alert the newspapers, schedule time on TV ... announce a press conference: the world will want to know.

If you have objective empirical evidence that god/s do not exist then trot it out: don't be shy. Stop pussy-footing around with innuendo and your various logically challenged arguments from incredulity etc. and get to the solid evidence.

Curiously, I won't hold my breath, as I have yet to see "sufficient objective empirical evidence" on which a valid conclusion can be reached. Certainly the unsubstantiated hypothetical argument that all supernatural beings are made up does not convince me. You need evidence ... you need to show that supernatural beings are made up ... with proof of authorship, yes?

Harry Potter: fictional supernatural stories, as discussed by the known author, J. K. Rowling, that kind of thing.

No, I already told you, the next subject is the Egyptian crocodile god Sobek. But first answer the question about the supernatural rats and their association with gods.

So find the authors and show that they wrote fiction as opposed to (possibly fanciful) documentation of actual experience/s.

That is (one of) your claim/s, yes?

Looks to me like you got some work to do. Libraries are open late tonight.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : format


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 749 by dronestar, posted 03-04-2015 5:04 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 770 by dronestar, posted 03-09-2015 3:36 PM RAZD has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1394
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 770 of 777 (752239)
03-09-2015 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 769 by RAZD
03-06-2015 12:35 PM


Re: agnsoticism is still not a positive claim ...
Hi RAZD,

RAZD writes:

You have not answered my questions, which is part of the give and take of honest debate.


Chuckle. Perhaps you can be a good example and clearly answer my original question first:
Are you:
1. Theist about reincarnated rats and their association with gods
2. Agnostic about reincarnated rats and their association with gods
3. Atheist about reincarnated rats and their association with gods

RAZD writes:

Stop pussy-footing around with innuendo and your various logically challenged arguments from incredulity etc. and get to the solid evidence.


Chuckle. Says the person who apparently, incredulously, considers that reincarnated rats associated with real gods really can exist.

RAZD writes:

Again, you have made the claim regarding all god/s, and the onus is (still) on you to support it. So far you haven't.


Yes, I'm also shocked, shocked that going through all of history's thousands of years, multitudes of cultures, and their ample lists of fictional gods was going to take more than an afternoon. If only I had previously asked for your patience.

RAZD writes:

Such arguments did not convince me when I was an atheist, and are part of the reason I am now a deist/agnostic.


Ahh, . . . so before I finish presenting my evidence, you are declaring my claim a failure. That doesn't sound very open-minded to me. Are you sure you are correctly describing yourself as an agnostic?

RAZD writes:

2. . . . you do not have a robust falsification test that covers all possible supernatural beings.

I have yet to see "sufficient objective empirical evidence" on which a valid conclusion can be reached. Certainly the unsubstantiated hypothetical argument that all supernatural beings are made up does not convince me. You need evidence ... you need to show that supernatural beings are made up

Man's imagination is infinite. And there seems to be an equal amount of fictional gods. So a preponderance of evidence is all I can realistically present.

RAZD, I can't change a willfully set mind, but I am wondering if my evidence is valid to others?

Any participants (besides RAZD) want to play along in the following court of NATURAL law? . . .

Last Fall, after two years, I finished working on the Federal Grand Jury. To indict somebody with a crime, we were specifically instructed to consider if the evidence presented was more likely true than not. If twelve members voted yes, a "true bill" was created. The suspect was then charged with the crime and it moved to trial.

Well, if this system is good enough for the Justice Department of the USA, then it should be good enough in this forum. Can the forum's participants help me create a true bill from the following?

I'll present my evidence showing that all gods are fiction and only exist in man's imagination is more likely true than not. If I get 12 affirmative votes from the forum's participants, then RAZD is declared erroneous, and I have valid evidence.

Okay, let's go . . . the case number to this case is EVC030615, the evidence:

1. I call to the witness stand Mr Coyote. Do you affirm the testimony you make is true.

"I do."

Mr. Coyote, . . . by the way that's a nice looking tie, . . . uhh, . . . what is your occupation?

"I have been a professional archaeologist for the past 20+ years."

Mr Coyote, you have a vast knowledge of many cultures and their many alleged gods. Do you believe the evidence against god/s is as poor and inconclusive as the evidence for god/s?

"After thousands to tens of thousands of years of shamans of all stripes making claim after claim about the existence and desires of their particular deities, all the while providing no evidence that stands up to scrutiny, how could anybody intelligently claim it is a 50/50 proposition? That would be pretty silly. What's the fancy Latin term in logic for "argument based on wishful thinking?"

Thank you Mr Coyote, you may step down.

2. My next witness is Mr. Straggler. Please remove the bowler hat Mr. Straggler. Do you affirm the testimony you make is true.

"I do."

Please present your testimony to the jurors.

"My friend Sam is a leprechaun-ist. Sam, often rolls his eyes and tells people that they are being a typically closed minded a-leprechaun-ist. According to Sam, Leprechauns do exist deep in the spirit world, far beyond our abilities to measure them. But not beyond an ability to experience them, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as many other people observe their gods. Sam states that leprechauns are real, they DO EXIST! Sam points out that the evidence a-Leprechaun-ists cite showing that some leprechauns are fictional logically fails to support their position that no leprechauns can exist. Sam makes it clear that he most definitely is not talking about the obviously fictional strawman examples that a-leprechaun-ists tirelessly cite. Sam delightedly takes their inabilty to provide further justification as to why their a-leprechaun-ist “positive position” is any more valid than his own pro-leprechaun positive position as a clear sign that his argument regarding the two “positive positions” being neither more valid than the other is entirely sound."

So there is no difference between a Leprechaunist and Theist?

"None that I can reckon."

Thank you Mr. Straggler, you may step down.

3. I would like to introduce our next witness, Ron L. Hubbard. Mr Hubbard, Do you affirm the testimony you make is true.

"Oh, absolutely."

Before founding the religion Scientology, you wrote science-FICTION stories, correct?

"Oh, absolutely."

Science-FICTION means made-up, fabricated, imagined, and non-real stories, correct?

"Oh, absolutely."

Afterwards, you created a religion that states that each human has a soul which is a "Thetan" that came from another planet. Is this silly nonsense?

"Oh, absolutely NOT! Thetans exist deep in the spirit world, far beyond our abilities to measure them. But not beyond an ability to experience them, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as many other people observe their gods. Thetans are real, they DO EXIST!"

So there is no difference between a Thetanist and Theist? (Sounds like am am lisping)

"None that I can reckon."

Thank you Mr. Hubbard, you may step down.

4. And lastly, one more witness, I call to the stand little two-year-old Cindy Lou Who. Do you affirm the testimony you make is true.

"Yu'up."

Does the Easter Bunny Exist?

"Yes, but not as the popular fictional character. Rather as a real God with many supernatural abilities."

But what about the providential evidence from the German Lutherans or Georg Franck von Franckenau's De ovis paschalibus in 1682? And there's no church to your God. And, for goodness sake, you're only TWO years old!

"I can assure you, regardless of one's age or alleged historical providence, the real Easter Bunny does exist deep in the spirit world, far beyond our abilities to measure Him. But not beyond an ability to experience Him, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as many other people observe their gods. The Easter Bunny, as a real god, DOES EXIST!"

So there is no difference between an Easter Bunnyist and Theist?

"None that I can reckon."

Thank you Miss Who, you may step down.

5. Unfortunately, our court time and resources are limited, I will only be able to present a truncated list of history's alleged fictional gods. Alas, I don't have the author's names of each alleged fictional god, nor their recorded copyrighted date (lousy budgeted library hours). But again, at this time, you are only being asked if the presented gods below are more likely fiction (imaginations from man's mind) than real:

• Millions of Hindus pray over statues of Shiva's penis. Do you think there's an invisible Shiva who wants his penis prayed over or is this silly fiction?

• Jehovah's Witnesses say that, any day now, Satan will come out of the earth with an army of demons, and Jesus will come out of the sky with an army of angels, and the Battle of Armageddon will kill everyone on earth except Jehovah's Witnesses. Or is this silly fiction?

• Aztecs skinned maidens and cut out human hearts for a feathered serpent god, was that belief silly fiction?

• Catholics are taught that the communion wafer and wine magically become the actual body and blood of Jesus during chants and bell-ringing. Silly fiction?

• Millions of American Pentecostals spout "the unknown tongue," a spontaneous outpouring of sounds. They say it's the Holy Ghost, the third god of the Trinity, speaking through them. Fiction?

• Ancient Greeks thought a multitude of gods lived on Mt. Olympu. ???

• India's Thugs thought the many-armed goddess Kali wanted them to strangle human sacrifices. Do you think there's an invisible goddess who wants people strangled or is this fiction?

• Tibet's Buddhists say that when an old Lama dies, his spirit enters a baby boy who's just being born somewhere. Silly fiction?

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/doubt.html

Okay, jurors I have completed the evidence and testimonies presented for this case. If you believe I presented evidence that shows all gods are MORE LIKELY to be fictional imaginations (existing only in man's imagination) THAN NOT, please vote, post an affirmative reply. (A reminder, we need TWELVE votes to indict.)

Thank you.

Edited by dronestar, : typo, "TWO"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 769 by RAZD, posted 03-06-2015 12:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 771 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2015 4:35 PM dronestar has replied
 Message 774 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2015 7:57 AM dronestar has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 771 of 777 (752243)
03-09-2015 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 770 by dronestar
03-09-2015 3:36 PM


Re: agnsoticism is still not a positive claim ...
hateful post. sorry I retract it.

Edited by 1.61803, : disclaimer

Edited by 1.61803, : bad post. bad day.sorry


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 770 by dronestar, posted 03-09-2015 3:36 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 772 by AZPaul3, posted 03-09-2015 6:50 PM 1.61803 has seen this message
 Message 773 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-09-2015 8:16 PM 1.61803 has seen this message
 Message 776 by dronestar, posted 03-12-2015 4:56 PM 1.61803 has seen this message

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6630
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 772 of 777 (752260)
03-09-2015 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 771 by 1.61803
03-09-2015 4:35 PM


Sphygmomanopost
hateful post. sorry I retract it.

I'm also sorry you retracted your post. I've been down with a bit of a bug lately and could have used something to get my blood pressure up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 771 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2015 4:35 PM 1.61803 has seen this message

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 773 of 777 (752265)
03-09-2015 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 771 by 1.61803
03-09-2015 4:35 PM


Re: agnsoticism is still not a positive claim ...
hateful post. sorry I retract it.

Awe man, those are the best!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 771 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2015 4:35 PM 1.61803 has seen this message

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 774 of 777 (752283)
03-10-2015 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 770 by dronestar
03-09-2015 3:36 PM


Re: agnsoticism is still not a positive claim ... still no real evidence (sigh)
RAZD writes:

You have not answered my questions, which is part of the give and take of honest debate.


Chuckle. Perhaps you can be a good example and clearly answer my original question first:
Are you:
1. Theist about reincarnated rats and their association with gods
2. Agnostic about reincarnated rats and their association with gods
3. Atheist about reincarnated rats and their association with gods

Gosh I thought I had. I am agnostic about reincarnation, fascinating idea. Of course the idea includes reincarnation as any possible life-form based on karma ...

Can you show that reincarnation does not occur? (that would be evidence)

Can you show that this was made up by an author you can name? (that would be evidence)

Now you can answer mine:

Message 769: You have not answered my questions, which is part of the give and take of honest debate.

Curiously, these questions do test your claim ... and the consistence of your approach to questions with little or no evidence on which to base a sound conclusion.

And I can keep repeating these questions until you answer.

Message 740: ... (again)

Are the anecdotal rumors that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (believed by biologists to be extinct since the last mating pair was killed in the '50s, ironically to confirm their identification) exists deep in the Louisiana swamps ...

True, Don't Know or False?

Are the anecdotal rumors that the Yeti (which might be an unknown bear related to polar bears) exists high in the Himalayan mountains ...

True, Don't Know or False?

Are the anecdotal rumors that the sasquatch exists deep in the northwest mountain forests ...

True, Don't Know or False?

Are the anecdotal rumors that the god/s exist deep in the spirit world beyond our ability to measure them (but not beyond an ability to experience them, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as some people claim) ...

True, Don't Know or False?

For the record, I consistently take the (C) position of "Don't Know" on each of these -- what do you do?

Chuckle. Says the person who apparently, incredulously, considers that reincarnated rats associated with real gods really can exist.

While also remaining skeptical of it. Again you fail to understand the agnostic position, and instead of providing evidence you use another logical fallacy: the argument from incredulity and the appeal to ridicule. You'll excuse me if I find these arguments specious and content barren diatribes that tell me more about your state of mind than any content of scientific or rational value.

And meanwhile you still have not supported your claim with actual evidence of an objective empirical nature (as you claim to have).

Perhaps you need to go back and read this part of my last post again:

You know if you are not going to pay attention, then there is not much point in discussing something with you.

This is like claiming that flipping a coin and predicting it is going to fall on "not heads" (ie your position on god/s) is NOT a claim ...

Heads, Don't Know or Not Heads?

... but somehow saying "don't know" IS a claim. Fascinating, just fascinating.

I see I need to often remind you that we are currently testing both our hypotheses.

What hypothesis of mine are you talking about? The one where you make up my having a claim when there is none?

Nor are you robustly testing your hypothesis. How would you test that deist gods do not exist? Again, you have made the claim regarding all god/s, and the onus is (still) on you to support it. So far you haven't.

If you can explain to me how saying "don't know" on a coin toss is making a claim while saying "not heads" is NOT making a claim, then I might be more interested in your arguments.

RAZD writes:

Again, you have made the claim regarding all god/s, and the onus is (still) on you to support it. So far you haven't.


Yes, I'm also shocked, shocked that going through all of history's thousands of years, multitudes of cultures, and their ample lists of fictional gods was going to take more than an afternoon. If only I had previously asked for your patience.

Going through history and actually showing that something was actually made up by an actual author would be objective empirical evidence.

Going through history and just claiming that something was made up is not evidence, but just your opinion. How Faithlike.

RAZD Message 769 (full context added):

... You may falsify my claim by presenting a real god any time that you wish. I'll wait.

To suggest that an agnostic just take a deist god (or any god for that matter) out of their back pocket and make it sing and dance for you like a puppet - when such god/s could/would be totally disinterested in whether you believe or not - simply shows two things:

  1. that you don't understand that the agnostic would be convinced by having such evidence, and
  2. that you do not have a robust falsification test that covers all possible supernatural beings.

Such arguments did not convince me when I was an atheist, and are part of the reason I am now a deist/agnostic.

Ahh, . . . so before I finish presenting my evidence, you are declaring my claim a failure. That doesn't sound very open-minded to me. Are you sure you are correctly describing yourself as an agnostic?

Curiously I was giving you a heads-up on what I found inconclusive before.

You really need to follow the argument, and not try to misrepresent things. What I said was that your purported falsification test was not robust enough to consider all possible supernatural aspects (it is rather simplistic at best). It certainly fails as a compelling argument imho.

This had nothing to do with your continued failure to present objective empirical evidence of authorship, and you pretending it did means you are not paying attention.

RAZD writes:

2. . . . you do not have a robust falsification test that covers all possible supernatural beings.

I have yet to see "sufficient objective empirical evidence" on which a valid conclusion can be reached. Certainly the unsubstantiated hypothetical argument that all supernatural beings are made up does not convince me. You need evidence ... you need to show that supernatural beings are made up

Man's imagination is infinite. And there seems to be an equal amount of fictional gods. So a preponderance of evidence is all I can realistically present.

So you admit that you are unable to show that they are in fact fictional by naming an author or providing actual objective empirical evidence that they are in fact fictional -- all you can do is run a Gish-Gallop on them claiming that they are fictional.

Can you understand why this is not compelling argument?

The argument that humans are capable of imagination so therefore anything they think of is fictional based on imagination is rather logically sloppy, incomplete and inconclusive, imho, and it certainly is not a compelling argument when based on nothing but opinion.

There are tons of detective stories, fictions about murder and mayhem, with authors. Does the existence of those stories based on imagination mean that detectives do not exist? Is that really your argument?

RAZD, I can't change a willfully set mind, but I am wondering if my evidence is valid to others?

Nor can you convince a skeptical person without actual objective empirical evidence that what you claim is in fact based on objective empirical evidence rather than an opinion based on incredulity and ridicule.

You really want me to just accept your opinion, because: opinion? How Faithlike.

Any participants (besides RAZD) want to play along in the following court of NATURAL law? . . .

Last Fall, after two years, I finished working on the Federal Grand Jury. To indict somebody with a crime, we were specifically instructed to consider if the evidence presented was more likely true than not. If twelve members voted yes, a "true bill" was created. The suspect was then charged with the crime and it moved to trial.

Well, if this system is good enough for the Justice Department of the USA, then it should be good enough in this forum. Can the forum's participants help me create a true bill from the following?

I'll present my evidence showing that all gods are fiction and only exist in man's imagination is more likely true than not. If I get 12 affirmative votes from the forum's participants, then RAZD is declared erroneous, and I have valid evidence.

And still no actual objective empirical evidence, just opinion and an appeal to the opinions of others. Your "evidence" is made up "testimony" in a hypothetical court.

Fascinating. Just fascinating.

Curiously Grand Juries do not result in convictions (just the prosecutor presents evidence and testimony of subjective and anecdotal evidence), but whether or not a case goes to trial -- where the objective empirical evidence is presented and opinions are cross-examined to ascertain their validity. There is a well known statement that "Grand Juries can indict a ham sandwich" ... but that doesn't mean the ham sandwich is guilty.

And now you are adding the logical fallacy of the appeal to popularity ... ... you essentially are admitting that you do not have a basis for a scientific conclusion.

So, now that you have actually demonstrated a lack of sufficient objective empirical evidence that demonstrates conclusively that god/s exist nor that they do not exist ... you have now eliminated the (A) position in the flow chart, and we can get back to your real position:

Message 740: ... (again)

Now I think you will agree

  1. that there is no need to form an opinion whether god/s exist or not ... so we can eliminate the (B) position.

So that leaves us with my position (C) that I can wait for further information before making an informed decision ...

... and your position (D) where you jump to a conclusion based on your opinion\beliefs rather than evidence and logic.

Curiously I think the (C) position is more akin to a scientific approach, than the (D) position of leaping to a conclusion based on poor, logically questionable thinking. Position (C) says "we don't know, we should find out more before deciding" while (D) says "I already know and don't want to waste my time looking" ...

Curiously theists also think they know the answer (the theist says "I know, god-did-it"), and I don't see any qualitative difference in the degree of evidence available between your position and theirs.

So, more song and dance or honest answers?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 770 by dronestar, posted 03-09-2015 3:36 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 775 by dronestar, posted 03-12-2015 4:13 PM RAZD has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1394
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 775 of 777 (752755)
03-12-2015 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 774 by RAZD
03-10-2015 7:57 AM


Re: agnsoticism is still not a positive claim ... still no real evidence (sigh)
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes:

So, more song and dance or honest answers?


Well, how about honest dancing?
RAZD writes:

and instead of providing evidence you use another logical fallacy: the argument from incredulity and the appeal to ridicule.

Yes, I am shocked, shocked to find serious beliefs and ruminations about Easter Bunnies, Leprachans and rat-gods lead to ridicule. Shocking.

RAZD writes:

And now you are adding the logical fallacy of the appeal to popularity you essentially are admitting that you do not have a basis for a scientific conclusion.

When a person is convicted by a jury using testimony, science, evidence and inductive reasoning, I suppose you would argue that that system too is really, nothing more than an illogical appeal to popularity.

RAZD writes:

Can you show that reincarnation does not occur? (that would be evidence)

You keep asking me to prove a negative? I cannot demonstrate conclusively that something doesn't exist. Curiously, you can remember every other logical fallacy except this one . . . for some reason.

RAZD writes:

all you can do is run a Gish-Gallop on them claiming that they are fictional.

In a Grand Jury, one sits for hours, sometimes many sessions over weeks, and sometimes even months to hear an unending tedium of evidence and testimony. Curious that you need to dismiss a large body of evidence, derogatorily, as "Gish-Gallop."


Drone writes:

Perhaps you can be a good example and clearly answer my original question first:
Are you:
1. Theist about reincarnated rats and their association with gods
2. Agnostic about reincarnated rats and their association with gods
3. Atheist about reincarnated rats and their association with gods

RAZD writes:

Gosh I thought I had. I am agnostic about reincarnation, fascinating idea.


How curious. I keep repeating my question, and you keep dodging it, partially answering it only in the most generic of terms. What are you terrified of? That the great pumpkin will hear your insincerity and then punish you by passing you by?
RAZD writes:

Going through history and just claiming that something was made up is not evidence, but just your opinion. How Faithlike.

Chuckle, and ouch. Seriously though, you are claiming, conclusively, scientifically, declaratively, with 100% proof, that EVERY piece of evidence I presented is only an opinion? Really?

RAZD writes:

Your "evidence" is made up "testimony" in a hypothetical court.


Do you not see how incredibly ironic your statements above are? You are dogmatic and slavish to a process that, unless scientifically concluded, COMMANDS you approach EVERYTHING with an infinitely open mind to the point of 100% gullibility. EVERYTHING you cannot conclusively and scientifically PROVE as true or false, your system demands you MUST maintain strict open-minded agnostism.

But the moment your system starts to wobble at the knees, you fold quicker than superman on laundry day . . . without any conclusive scientific proof whatsoever, you declare that ALL my is evidence is 100% opinion. I haven't witnessed such sureness since Dick Chaney stated he knew where Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was hid. What happened to the agnosticism? Wow, talk about special pleading.

RAZD writes:

The argument that humans are capable of imagination so therefore anything they think of is fictional based on imagination is rather logically sloppy, incomplete and inconclusive, imho, and it certainly is not a compelling argument when based on nothing but opinion.

Chuckle. I keep asking, besides man's imagination, where does the supernatural exist? It's not a difficult question. Why so coy?

RAZD writes:

Curiously Grand Juries do not result in convictions (just the prosecutor presents evidence and testimony of subjective and anecdotal evidence), but whether or not a case goes to trial -- where the objective empirical evidence is presented and opinions are cross-examined to ascertain their validity. There is a well known statement that "Grand Juries can indict a ham sandwich" ... but that doesn't mean the ham sandwich is guilty.

I already repeated that I cannot prove conclusively that gods do not exist . . . Alas, I cannot prove a negative. However, I can show a system that successfully uses a preponderance of evidence. And more importantly, the grand jury uses a system that successfully guards against fraud, irrationality, and infantilism. It IS useful in filtering sheer crap. On the other hand, your system not only welcomes crap, it swaddles it like crap in a diaper.

My non-dogmatic system easily allows me to dispose of the notion of a child believing in the Easter Bunny as a god, just as I would throw away a used kleenex. But your system is mandated to accept this embarrassing notion, because it can not conclusively and scientifically prove around the world, all through history, that some child did not have a supernatural god-like experience through the Easter Bunny. As a mandated perpetually open-minded individual, you must tuck away that filthy, disease-ridden, used kleenex into your breast pocket until a day you hope may eventually find conclusive evidence. Ugh, over the years, how many of those disgusting snot-rags are in your pockets?

And similar to the Easter-Bunny-god, you can't declare that leprechauns do not exist (because you do not have 100% scientific conclusive proof that every infinitely distinct leprechaun does not exist). Nor that L Ron Hubbard's Thetans do not exist (because you do not have 100% scientific conclusive proof from interviewing each and every scientologist ever existed).

Nor can you declare that reincarnated rats and their association with gods do not exist. (If you ever answered my question in full)

With imagination, comes infinite doubt that forever renders your system fatally flawed.

I'd lose it.

Enjoy.

Edited by dronestar, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 774 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2015 7:57 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 777 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2015 5:14 PM dronestar has taken no action

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1394
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 776 of 777 (752760)
03-12-2015 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 771 by 1.61803
03-09-2015 4:35 PM


Re: agnsoticism is still not a positive claim ...
Actually a little unfocused, but really not that hateful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 771 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2015 4:35 PM 1.61803 has seen this message

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 777 of 777 (752763)
03-12-2015 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 775 by dronestar
03-12-2015 4:13 PM


Re: agnsoticism is still not a positive claim ... still no real evidence (sigh)
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes:

So, more song and dance or honest answers?


Well, how about honest dancing?
RAZD writes:

and instead of providing evidence you use another logical fallacy: the argument from incredulity and the appeal to ridicule.

Yes, I am shocked, shocked to find serious beliefs and ruminations about Easter Bunnies, Leprachans and rat-gods lead to ridicule. Shocking.

and so we have more song and dance ...

Basically your argument is that because you are convinced (have convinced yourself) that I should be. This is also what Faith says.

In a Grand Jury, one sits for hours, sometimes many sessions over weeks, and sometimes even months to hear an unending tedium of evidence and testimony. ...

And if it goes to trial then you get testimony for the other side, you get the testimony of the Pope and other believers. Can they show that god/s exist? No, but they can cast doubt on your claim.

I already repeated that I cannot prove conclusively that gods do not exist . . . Alas, I cannot prove a negative. However, I can show a system that successfully uses a preponderance of evidence. ...

While ignoring evidence of religious people believing they have religious experiences. Cherry picking your evidence to fit your belief is not a scientific process.

So I do not find that your dog and pony "preponderance of evidence" show is any more convincing than the "preponderance of evidence" that believers claim to have.

I already repeated that I cannot prove conclusively that gods do not exist . . . Alas, I cannot prove a negative. However, I can show a system that successfully uses a preponderance of evidence. ...

The question comes down to why you feel you need to reach a conclusion ...

Message 774: So, now that you have actually demonstrated a lack of sufficient objective empirical evidence that demonstrates conclusively that god/s exist nor that they do not exist ... you have now eliminated the (A) position in the flow chart, and we can get back to your real position:

Message 740: ... (again)

Now I think you will agree

  1. that there is no need to form an opinion whether god/s exist or not ... so we can eliminate the (B) position.

So that leaves us with my position (C) that I can wait for further information before making an informed decision ...

... and your position (D) where you jump to a conclusion based on your opinion\beliefs rather than evidence and logic.

Curiously I think the (C) position is more akin to a scientific approach, than the (D) position of leaping to a conclusion based on poor, logically questionable thinking. Position (C) says "we don't know, we should find out more before deciding" while (D) says "I already know and don't want to waste my time looking" ...

Curiously theists also think they know the answer (the theist says "I know, god-did-it"), and I don't see any qualitative difference in the degree of evidence available between your position and theirs.

Is something forcing you to make a decision (path (B))? What would that be? Or can we eliminate path (B) in the flow chart?

... However, I can show a system that successfully uses a preponderance of evidence. ...

But you do not show that imagination was involved. All you have is wishful thinking, you don't even have hearsay or anecdotal evidence.

... and yet you still don't answer the questions where you could demonstrate how this system of yours works for you:

Message 774: Now you can answer mine:

Message 769: You have not answered my questions, which is part of the give and take of honest debate.

Curiously, these questions do test your claim ... and the consistence of your approach to questions with little or no evidence on which to base a sound conclusion.

And I can keep repeating these questions until you answer.

Message 740: ... (again)

Are the anecdotal rumors that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (believed by biologists to be extinct since the last mating pair was killed in the '50s, ironically to confirm their identification) exists deep in the Louisiana swamps ...

True, Don't Know or False?

Are the anecdotal rumors that the Yeti (which might be an unknown bear related to polar bears) exists high in the Himalayan mountains ...

True, Don't Know or False?

Are the anecdotal rumors that the sasquatch exists deep in the northwest mountain forests ...

True, Don't Know or False?

Are the anecdotal rumors that the god/s exist deep in the spirit world beyond our ability to measure them (but not beyond an ability to experience them, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as some people claim) ...

True, Don't Know or False?

For the record, I consistently take the (C) position of "Don't Know" on each of these -- what do you do?

If you have a consistent methodology then show me how you apply it to these questions.

With imagination, comes infinite doubt that forever renders your system fatally flawed.

And yet I am not talking about imagination -- that is your albatross -- I am talking about anecdotal evidence, a level of evidence that doesn't rise to a scientific level, but which has been used in courts of law to both convict and acquit people (with reasonable doubt criteria).

Curiously I find that consistently taking path (C) provides a rational, logical position based on the level of available evidence for each of these questions.

I'd lose it.

Is that what drives you to jump to conclusions?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 775 by dronestar, posted 03-12-2015 4:13 PM dronestar has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022