Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 42 of 562 (525053)
09-21-2009 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-19-2009 4:22 PM


I'm missing something...I think
Hi RAZD,
There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry.
While I agree that it's not honest to hold to a position not having done the leg work of investigating, it also seems dishonest to claim someone hasn't done the research when no viable method of research is available.
IOW, how would you, or Marcello Truzzi, suggest we investigate claims for which no method of investigating is available?
He says:
quote:
They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves...
Is this in fact the only way one can know certain claims to be true or false, to try having a "psychic experience" -whatever that is- or altered states?
Can you, or Marcello Truzzi, be more specific as to what that actually entails?
if you claim a negative position, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for it.
Fair enough, but what method exists to investigate the claim that would help provide proof against the claim?
People have no trouble addressing this issue when creationists try to claim that evolution is not a true science etc etc - to provide evidence that disproves evolution, and the same should hold for any philosophical or logical position.
But there is a method to do the research for or against evolution. What method of research do you suggest for investigating philosophical claims that would then yeild evidence for or againsts certain philosophical claims?
If no method exists, then why would there even need to be a burden of proof for either side of the position?
This may sound completely nonsensical, but to me, claiming to be a "deist" is the same as saying, "I believe nothing exists and that "nothing" is something in reality."
If that doesn't make any sense, then I agree with you. In fact to me, deism positions don't make much sense either.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2009 4:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2009 9:17 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 43 of 562 (525067)
09-21-2009 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2009 10:02 AM


atheist towards what?
Hi Hyro,
An atheist disbelieves in deities
What is a diety?
As an atheist, I simply hold to the position that established God(s) within religious beliefs lack evidence for their existance. But I'm not an atheist toward something that lacks any characteristic or that doesn't make any claims about the nature of reality. That seems to me to be completely unnecessary.
If a diety is simply, some unknown force, then it seems to me that that lack of deifinition doesn't merit any position for or against it, since it really is an undefined "thing."
Define it, then we can take a position for or against it.
The point that RAZD is making, and I am in agreement, is that atheism lends itself to a hardnosed approach towards questions of divinity.
But what in fact are you suggesting that atheists are atheists towards? - Yahwah, Allah, Vishnu, Ra, Zeus...? - I think, since these concepts of God carry with it certain claims about reality, attributed to these God(s), an atheist position can be established on evidence against the claims themselves.
But if your (or RAZD's) personal concept of God doesn't make any claims about reality, and as such has no established characteristics, then one need not be for or against your concept. IOW, I am not an atheist against RAZD's concept of God, because RAZD's concept of God makes no claims about reality; his concept exists solely in his mind.
I don't think the burden of proof is required for or against a diety, because no one has explained what a diety is, yet.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2009 10:02 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2009 2:02 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 48 of 562 (525075)
09-21-2009 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
09-21-2009 1:54 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
Wud-up, CS.
But its irrelevant to the idea of a nondescript god existing.
If it's "nondescript," then how can it also carry with it the word "God"...?
What is a nondescript God supposed to be?
And how is a "nondescript God" different from a "god concept that I made up"...?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 1:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 2:08 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 55 of 562 (525092)
09-21-2009 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Straggler
09-21-2009 2:02 PM


Re: atheist towards what?
I would be interested to know if RAZD agrees with this because if he does him and I really have no dispute whatsoever. I am not an atheist to that sort of god either. How could I be? This would be like telling someone that their choice of favourite colour was objectively wrong. Absurd.
Exactly. And to then apply some level of "belief" or "disbelief" to such an ambiguous concept seems unnecessary. I'm an atheist toward specifc god(s), not undefined concepts; in those cases I hold no opinion because it seems rather worthless to have one.
That immaterial god concepts exist only in the internal mind of the experiencee and have no existence or direct bearing or interraction with any reality external to that mind would be my position too. But I really don't think that is what RAZD has been saying all this time.
If it does in fact interract with reality, in any way, then IMO the burden lies not in the proof for or against God, but in the method used to come to either position.
In Message 1 it states:
quote:
There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . .
Like I wrote to him, this is all well and good, to say that one should not hold to an a priori opinion having not fully investigated. But then the question has to be put forth, How do we investigate it?
RAZD's source, Marcello Truzzi, says:
quote:
trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves
Which seems like a rather poor way to investigate. And I honestly doubt someone like RAZD feels this is an appropriate method of investigating claims as well.
But we can wait for his reply before we further guess his opinion on the matter.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2009 2:02 PM Straggler has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 57 of 562 (525098)
09-21-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by New Cat's Eye
09-21-2009 2:08 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
Because nondescript doesn't mean "no description", its means "not well defined".
But just before the "not well defined" definition, it states, "belonging or appearing to belong to no particular class or kind."
So either the word God needs to be redefined to include "God, but not really belonging to a classical or particular concept" - IOW - nothing more than an individual concept, or something along those lines. Or, we simply don't use the word "God" to define such ambiguous concepts.
To which I would then hold no position of belief (atheist or otherwise) since no definitive attributes are prescibed to this particular (or your individual concept) of (for lack of a better word) God.
Its conception evolved over the millennia.
But it must have an origin in the human mind, right? Ergo, "God concept I made up," right?
You get the cruiseship contract?
I did, but it's not a contract per-se. It's just a monthly booking. I just got back from a Key West/Bahamas/Jacksonville cruise.
Funny story that you and Straggler (and others) can appreciate:
I get off in the Bahamas, having been told that if you walk around offers of bud come from every direction, with an agenda to try some island bud. I get approached to buy some at a Starbucks (which I was at to use their Wifi) but I didn't have any cash on me. So I go to an ATM but by the time I get back the dude was gone. But the urge to smoke was not LOL. So I head out in search of some more. Finally, when I go through a small street some other guy approaches me with the same offer; I say yes and we position ourselves for a transaction of product/cash.
I get the bag, stuff it in my pocket and he tells me to head to the beach where I can smoke away from their street cameras and cops. So I head toward the beach. But, realizing that I still needed to roll this stuff, I needed a place with no wind where I could do this. So I head back to the Starbucks to sit in one of the bathroom stalls and roll in peace.
I get to the stall, close the door and set my computer bag on my lap. I pull out the rolling paper and the bag he sold me. I open up the bag to take the weed out and... it was fuck'n EMPTY! I got sold $30 worth of empty fuck'n bag!
But the shows on the ship went great. I send my avails for Oct and I'll wait to see what happens. Thanks for asking dude.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 4:28 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 60 of 562 (525106)
09-21-2009 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by New Cat's Eye
09-21-2009 4:28 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
The concept of god, in general, exists even without all the specifics that various cultures have ascribed to it.
Right, but only as individual ambiguous concepts.
Thus...
quote:
To which I would then hold no position of belief (atheist or otherwise) since no definitive attributes are prescibed to this particular (or your individual concept) of (for lack of a better word) God.
I'm sure a lot of the concept emerged from people's objective experiences as well.
Objective or otherwise, the end result, IOW, my (your) conclusion of said experience, is subjective. Since it doesn't follow any specific religious concept of God, the concept itself, that of the individual God in question, is made up in the mind of the individual who had the experience.
How can I be an atheist toward that?
---------------------------------------
I've worked on 4 different cruiseships over the last year. A lot of those Second City folks were fun and cool. Meet any?
Na, just me and a comic juggler on this cruise.
Nassau? I was there. They tried to sell me drugs too. I'd never buy drugs off of a stranger though.
Lesson learned, dude.
I was curious because I had been on those ships. How'd you like the crew quarters?
As a performer I was alone in my cabin, small, but not too bad.
Or all those oriental people eating that nasty fish and rice that they make in the crew mess?
I don't get it, I'm counting every fuck'n carb I eat and these people have a mountain of rice on their plate and they're as thin as a rail! The fish stuff they eat is gross looking, though!
I thought it was cool to see all the behind the scenes stuff that goes on in a cruiseship.
I just wanted to bang a dancer.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 5:04 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 62 of 562 (525112)
09-21-2009 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by New Cat's Eye
09-21-2009 5:04 PM


Re: "Obviously" Made-Up?
Why can't their be collective ambiguous concepts?
But if the collective ambiguous concepts are of the experience, then there is nothing to reject. It's the name "God" that gives it a quality that seems to be past the point of concept or idea.
After I tell you all the details!
You can only give me details of your experience, right? The notion of it being representative of a God is your added portion.
That takes us past the stage of concept and into an established represenative for your concpt, that I would then ask you to define. You say "it was God." I'll ask you to describe it. "Its a nondescrpt concept of God." Then I'll ask, having nothing to base your concept on, how do you know it's a God? "Well throughout time people have had these expereinces and they've attribute it to God." Ok, but since they too had no basis to concluide it was God, how did they know it was God?
This will continue to we get to the first person who saw something they couldn't explain naturally, or had an experience that they couldn't explain naturally, and set the ball rolling with their concept/idea/made up version (for lack of a better word) of God.
Thus it has it's origin in the human mind as an ambiguous concept, that, due to the nature of its ambiguity, was adopted by others with shared, unexplainable, experiences.
But it's never more than an ambiguous concept attributed to a subjective experience.
Ah, that's nice you had a cabin. I had one on one ship but the other three were crew quarter with bunk beds.
Yea, that sucks. I saw those, too fuck'n cramp for me.
Yeah it was. You didn't get a taste of the goat curry, did you?
Oh that's what that was.
Oh shit some of them were hot. I met a few dancer girls working out in the gym and that alone was reason enough to come back and pretend like I was working out They're fit and flexible.
Them and the girls working in the spa. There was a Romanian chick, Christ! what an ass!
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2009 5:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 71 of 562 (525148)
09-21-2009 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
09-21-2009 9:17 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
The point is that for you to have a valid negative hypothesis that it must be based on evidence
Right, understood, I must have evidence. Now, how can I get the evidence for it? How do I falsify your claim and therefore support my negative hypothesis with evidence against your position?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2009 9:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2009 11:36 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 75 of 562 (525158)
09-21-2009 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
09-21-2009 11:36 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Hi RAZD, I hope I'm not annoying the issue with my questions.
It's not about falsifying my hypothesis, it is about supporting your negative hypothesis.
I guess I'm just confused then because, wouldn't falsifying your hypothesis be in support of my negative hypothesis?
Isn't that in fact the only way I can support my negative hypothesis with evidence?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2009 11:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2009 8:26 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 101 of 562 (525333)
09-23-2009 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD
09-22-2009 8:26 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Hi RAZD,
Hi Onifre, no annoyance yet.
LOL, cool.
So you see no way to support a negative hypothesis, and yet this doesn't make you question whether the negative position is valid?
But I do see a way. By showing that the alternative to my negative hypothesis is a made-up/conjured-up/imagined concept. Which would then change what you consider to be a negative hypothesis into a default position that I hold; no hypothesis needed.
IOW, I don't need to have a hypothesis, negative or otherwise, for something that doesn't exist beyond a concept in the human mind. Simply put, you haven't established what I have a negative hypothesis about because "God," as in the celestial entity of religious folklore, has never been established to exist beyond matters of faith and the human mind. The only position one can take is that of atheist.
If you are a theist in regards to some other celestial entity, not of a religious nature, then the term "atheist" doesn't apply, because the term "God" doesn't appy anymore either.
You wouldn't question me being a #7 on the scale if the question was, "Do I believe Zeus is the ruler of Mount Olympus?" But it seems like when the descriptions for God become more and more ambiguous, this should somehow philosophically force me to change my position to a #6 or even a #5, but why? You didn't do anything but change from the old version (Zeus) that has evidence against it, to a new version has the same evidence against it. Both Zeus and this *new* version are products of the human imagination and have never presented evidence to the contrary.
If you can see no reason to believe a positive hypothesis, and no reason to believe a negative hypothesis, doesn't that make you de facto an agnostic on the issue?
Only when applicable, like when one asks my position on biological alien life. I would see no reason to hold to a negative or positive hypothesis in regards to that question. I agree that at that point, the only honest position is that of agnostic.
But for a made-up/conjured-up/imagined concept, such as the ones used to describe ambiguous celestial entities, there is no hypothesis needed, negative or otherwise.
[abe] As Laplace said: "I have no need for that hypothesis."
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2009 8:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2009 10:47 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 136 of 562 (526015)
09-25-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
09-24-2009 10:47 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Hi RAZD, and thanks for the responce.
Interestingly, you now need to provide evidence to support this positive hypothesis, and of course, we both understand that this evidence can't just be made up, right?
Right, evidence for the fact that people make things up should be presented. But I don't you're arguing that it hasn't been presented? Surely we can all agree, even in our own day-to-day lives, that people make things up; this isn't being questioned, right?
Your second hypothesis is implicit rather than explicit: that this applies completely and in all cases. It may not appear that his is part of your claim above, but logic should tell you that without it, your first hypothesis fails automatically. This is called a hidden assumption in logic. This too is a positive hypothesis and needs to be supported with evidence.
Fair enough, and while I don't presume to know all the possible cases where humans have made things up, I can say with confidence that the notion of God(s) is one of the areas in which made-up concepts are known to exist.
But my point isn't so much to point out that the concepts of God(s) are made-up, my point is that the premise "there could be a God) is made-up. This is where the onus false on the person making the claim, rather than on the skeptic rejecting it.
You defend that by saying:
RAZD writes:
So we have the objective empirical evidence from science and from everyday life that there is often an element of truth in any subjective observation.
Here's where I see a problem. You used the word "observation" following subjective, I don't agree with that. An "observation," by definition, is objective, the conclusion as to what was observed is the part that's subjective.
So I would change your statement to say, "we have the objective empirical evidence from science and from everyday life that there is often an element of truth in any subjective conclusion."
If you can agree with my change, then the following applies...
While I agree that there is often an element of truth to any subjective conclusion, I also feel that your conclusion can't be a vague inference to something ambiguous and undefined, especially when the undefinable, ambiguous "something" lacks even a single shred of objectivity*.
* I'm using this definition of objectivity: source
quote:
a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.
So there could be an element of truth to any subjective conclusion, but an undefined, ambiguous "something" (that for some reason being called "God") is not a conclusion; therefore, there simply can't be an element of truth to it. "It" hasn't been established.
At best, all I can say for sure is that there is an element of truth to you having an expereince, but that's about it.
Ah, so your default position is to be agnostic where no evidence pro or con exists.
No. What I'm saying is that no position/hypothesis (negative or otherwise) is needed when the premise fails to be established.
Fair enough, we agree on that.
Then, quickly, let me try to understand why we both agree with that.
A biological alien is not a vague, ambiguous, undefinable concept; it is defined as biological (which we know exists), it is from another planet (which we know exist), it would have evolved from natural process (which we know to occur).
The premise has been established as something grounded in objective reality. We can agree because we can understand what we are both agreeing to.
But an ambiguous, undefinable "something" is not something we can understand, even by the the person claiming that it exists. So if you can't understand what you are describing, how can I? Furthermore, how can I be required to hold to a position/hypothesis (negative or otherwise) for something so vague?
Really? Or did the old concept of Zeus contain a kernel of truth, and that what has been stripped away is the limited understanding from a previous time, an interpretation limited by a limited understanding?
Without getting into what that kernel of truth is, because honestly I find none, lets say there was. But you fail to establish why one of those kernels is the actual god itself? That seem like one big f'n kernel, in fact, that's the entire cob-o-corn, right?
You've allowed for the premise to be possible when no shred of evidence supports that. After we allow the premise to be possible, then yea, I can agree that some kernel of truth may exist within the whole story. But before we can do that, we have to establish that the premise is true to some degree.
Which brings me back to objectivity:
quote:
a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.
If god/s created the universe then aren't they also responsible for lightning?
Can you define/describe/explain what you mean by "god"? I need to know what you're talking about before I can follow the rest of your claims.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2009 10:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2009 2:12 PM onifre has replied
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 8:57 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 143 of 562 (526038)
09-25-2009 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Straggler
09-25-2009 2:12 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Oni writes:
Surely we can all agree, even in our own day-to-day lives, that people make things up; this isn't being questioned, right?
Strggler writes:
RAZD is indeed requesting evidence of this fact.
Well then, he should come to a comedy show, watch cartoons, or perhaps sit through a class on Chakras.
If he isn't then I don't understand what evidence it is he keeps challenging me specifically to present.
As I understood it, he was asking for the evidence in support of the negative position. My only point is that for his vague concept of some ambiguous force (that for some reason is being refered to as God), no position (negative or otherwise) can be given.
Simply put, he hasn't established what I have a negative position for. Me personally, I consider myself an atheist towards established god/s found in religion, cults, tribes, etc. However, I don't consider myself an atheist toward a vague concept of some ambiguous "force."
Frankly, if someone says God is simply an unknown force that exists somewhere in the universe, then I hold no opinion on that vague new version.
[abe] Btw, Spain and Venezuela kicked ass today! Good luck with Uruguay tomorrow.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2009 2:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Rahvin, posted 09-25-2009 5:11 PM onifre has replied
 Message 148 by Kitsune, posted 09-25-2009 5:22 PM onifre has replied
 Message 152 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2009 5:41 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 144 of 562 (526039)
09-25-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by New Cat's Eye
09-25-2009 2:14 PM


Re: False Dichotomy? What False Dichotomy?
Now, we do have evidence that the specifics of certain concepts are indeed imaginary, but we don't have any objective evidence towards the concepts in their entirety being imaginary.
I'd say, the fact that even the ones claiming belief can't understand it themselves or describe it, seems to imply that its imaginary.
Hate to put you on the spot bro, but in your best description, can you explain what you mean by a god? What does that word (god) mean to you?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2009 2:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 158 of 562 (526101)
09-25-2009 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Rahvin
09-25-2009 5:11 PM


Word...
In other words, your answer to the question "does an indescribable, unfathomable god exist?" is:
"I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you?"
I agree that the vagueness of the assertion prevents establishing an opinion in such cases. One may as well ask "do you believe in something?"
Exactly. As I thought about it more, the idea of replacing the classical version of god with this new vague version, seems a lot like someone is trying to move the goal posts to something less and less definable. Placing us (athiest) in a philosophical uphill battle against an assertion so vague in its description that we can only answer "I don't know" to the question of "if it exists."
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Rahvin, posted 09-25-2009 5:11 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 160 of 562 (526105)
09-25-2009 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Kitsune
09-25-2009 5:22 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Hi Linda Lou, haven't had the pleasure of debating you yet, looking forward to it. I enjoy reading your posts.
May I remind you of the definition of pseudoskepticism in the OP. Such things as chakras would seem to be off topic in a debate about theism/atheism, but the point still applies:
Maybe so, but certain words can trigger reactions from the very people one is seeking to get a reaction from.
Believing "this is nonsense" about something before you investigate it, and feeling no obligation to defend that belief, is not a truly skeptical position, which IMO is the main point that RAZD is making here.
Fair enough, and I agree. However, lets not presume that everyone who claims something is nonsense (which I didn't claim it was) hasn't taken the time out to investigate it.
In regards to what I believe RAZD is discussing, I haven't said that what he claims to believe in is nonsense. I am simply asking for a better definition of what he believes in to know if I actually dismiss it. I honestly have no idea what he's talking about when he uses the word "God." If it's not religious, cultic, tribal, etc., then what is it?
I am not an atheist in regards to some indescribable force that exists in the universe; I would not define that as a "God," so I hold no opinion of it. I don't have a negative position/hypothesis towards that; I'm not skeptical of something like that; frankly, I don't know what "that" even is. All I seek is a clear explanation of "that."
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Kitsune, posted 09-25-2009 5:22 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2009 9:29 AM onifre has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024