Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[Sheldon]

Religion has truly corrupted your thinking. You are still into Believing. One who discovers does not accept. One who discovers considers all the possibilities.

Religion has corrupted your thinking. You want knowledge served up so that you can decide what you will believe in. You still do not get it. Burden of proof rests solely on those who seek the knowledge. If you demand it the other way, then you seek others to convince you to believe.

Can you even grasp what I am saying to you or has religion corrupted you to the point you can not see this at all?


That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I think it is possible religion has corrupted the thinking of many people, though I'd need to see sufficient objective evidence for your claim, however what you have created is a no true Scotsman fallacy there.

Burden of proof rests solely on those who seek the knowledge.

In that case I have an invisible poodle to sell you, it's a very very rare breed, mums the word. I can let you have first refusal.

Can you even grasp what I am saying to you or has religion corrupted you to the point you can not see this at all?

That one is called a poisoning of the well fallacy. Can you grasp why? I can explain if not, and unlike your fallacy I'll cite the explanation and demonstrate that it is a known logical fallacy.

As far as your video, it would not take long to discover the truth and one might just get the opportunity to really help another person.

Indeed, though why you're telling me this as if I didn't know that is unclear?

It must be great when things are always very clear to you, sadly I don't think life is always like that, which is why I keep an open mind, and treat all claims the same.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, everything can't be done using validation.

Since I never claimed it could this would be a straw man fallacy.

So there is no one validation method for all of it.

Since I never claimed it could this would be another straw man fallacy.

I can't be rational all the time.

I seriously doubt anyone can, though how rigorously one tries would of course matter, if one cares about being rational.

Even I could avoid all fallacies,

Really? You use straw man fallacies relentlessly, it's like you don't have the patience to find out what someone thinks, so you assign conclusions they've not made based on how you view the world. It's an easy mistake to make, as we probably all do it sometimes, but you do it in almost every response?

 

[Heyo]

can something be both possible and impossible?

When you throw a die, is it possible that you get a one?
Is it possible that you don't get a one?

 

[Sheldon]

When you throw a die, is it possible that you get a one?
Is it possible that you don't get a one?

Is it impossible you will get a 1?

It's possible you won't get a one, is very different from getting a one is impossible.

 

[Heyo]

Is it impossible you will get a 1?

Is it impossible you get a 7?

 

[Sheldon]

Is it impossible you get a 7?

Yes if it is a six sided dice, and you mean in one throw? Though the relevance escapes me? Something cannot be both possible and impossible, they are logical negations of each other.

As far as possible and impossible are concerned, we can know both, or neither, we cannot know just one.

 

[Heyo]

Yes if it is a six sided dice, and you mean in one throw? Though the relevance escapes me? Something cannot be both possible and impossible, they are logical negations of each other.

As far as possible and impossible are concerned, we can know both, or neither, we cannot know just one.

The relevance is in the set of possible outcomes. In the case of the extraterrestrials both existence and non-existence are possible outcomes at current knowledge (as is 1 and not one in the die throw).
So the possibility of non-existence is not equal to the impossibility of existence.

The possibility of flegaallafoops existing is given with my current knowledge.

(In fact, I know that flegaallafoops exist. I just created a new monster for my RPG campaign and named it "flegaallafoop".

 

[Sheldon]

The relevance is in the set of possible outcomes. In the case of the extraterrestrials both existence and non-existence are possible outcomes at current knowledge (as is 1 and not one in the die throw).
So the possibility of non-existence is not equal to the impossibility of existence.

Sorry I'm not seeing the connection, getting a 7 in one throw on a six sided dice seems impossible, but of course if I'm being duped because information is missing then so be it, though this rather reinforces my earlier assertion that we cannot if something is possible or not, without sufficient evidence.

As for "extra terrestrial life, well again I may be wrong, but it seems we already know that life is possible in the universe, as we have an objective example, thus I think this is sufficient objective evidence that it is at least possible elsewhere in the universe, given it's size and age. How probable it is, is another matter of course. It's not something I've spent much time on though I am aware of the Drake equation, which is to say I'm aware it exists, and broadly what it implies. As the link sates "It is more properly thought of as an approximation than as a serious attempt to determine a precise number."

To clear up any confusion my hypothetical example was deliberately offered with no evidence to show we couldn't assess whether it was possible or not. Obviously accurately defining what it was is evidence, all pertinent facts and information of something is evidence, whether it is sufficient is another matter. If I said they invisible, and friendly, you'd not really have any objective evidence to help you assess if they are possible.

So the possibility of non-existence is not equal to the impossibility of existence.

These are two different claims, as I said stating it's possible that something doesn't exist, is very different from the absolute claim it is impossible for it to exist.

 

[Muffled]

Well, I do it with other skeptics. I am a global skeptics, yet most skeptics are limited skeptics.

I wonder if everything is wrong how anything can be right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wonder if everything is wrong how anything can be right?

Well, I don't believe in either right or wrong in the standard sense.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, I don't believe in either right or wrong in the standard sense.

I think you mean morally yes?

Or do you mean a claim for example like "the world is flat" is not objectively wrong?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you mean morally yes?

Or do you mean a claim for example like "the world is flat" is not objectively wrong?

We are right smack in part in metaphysics and epistemology. As you have never clarified your positions on metaphysics, I don't know what you mean in the end.

 

[Sheldon]

I think you mean morally yes?

Or do you mean a claim for example like "the world is flat" is not objectively wrong?

We are right smack in part in metaphysics and epistemology. As you have never clarified your positions on metaphysics, I don't know what you mean in the end.

I was asking if in this claim you meant right or wrong strictly in a moral sense, rather than a generic one?

Well, I don't believe in either right or wrong in the standard sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was asking if in this claim you meant right or wrong strictly in a moral sense, rather than a generic one?

Neither in the moral nor cognitive sense. Again I am a global skeptic.

 

[Sheldon]

Neither in the moral nor cognitive sense. Again I am a global skeptic.

Which was why I asked do you consider the assertion the earth is flat, to be wrong?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which was why I asked do you consider the assertion the earth is flat, to be wrong?

For a certain cognitive stance yes.
Why I am a good proof that there is a God

 

[Sheldon]

For a certain cognitive stance yes.

An objective one? Or are you saying the shape of the earth is a subjective opinion?

"One of the best documented methods for determining the Earth’s roundness was first performed (to our knowledge) by the ancient Greeks. This was achieved by comparing the shadows of sticks in different locations. When the sun was directly overhead in one place, the stick there cast no shadow. At the same time in a city around 500 miles north, the stick there did cast a shadow.

If the Earth were flat then both sticks should show the same shadow (or lack of) because they would be positioned at the same angle towards the sun. The ancient Greeks found the shadows were different because the Earth was curved and so the sticks were at different angles. They then used the difference in these angles to calculate the circumference of the Earth. They managed to get it to within 10% of the true value – not bad for around 250 BC."

That is objective evidence...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

An objective one? Or are you saying the shape of the earth is a subjective opinion?

"One of the best documented methods for determining the Earth’s roundness was first performed (to our knowledge) by the ancient Greeks. This was achieved by comparing the shadows of sticks in different locations. When the sun was directly overhead in one place, the stick there cast no shadow. At the same time in a city around 500 miles north, the stick there did cast a shadow.

If the Earth were flat then both sticks should show the same shadow (or lack of) because they would be positioned at the same angle towards the sun. The ancient Greeks found the shadows were different because the Earth was curved and so the sticks were at different angles. They then used the difference in these angles to calculate the circumference of the Earth. They managed to get it to within 10% of the true value – not bad for around 250 BC."

That is objective evidence...

Your texts are obscure and weird to me, so that is objectively true and real. And further it is meaningless and that is objective true and real. Indeed you are meaningless.

 

[Bird123]

I think it is possible religion has corrupted the thinking of many people, though I'd need to see sufficient objective evidence for your claim, however what you have created is a no true Scotsman fallacy there.



In that case I have an invisible poodle to sell you, it's a very very rare breed, mums the word. I can let you have first refusal.



That one is called a poisoning of the well fallacy. Can you grasp why? I can explain if not, and unlike your fallacy I'll cite the explanation and demonstrate that it is a known logical falla



Indeed, though why you're telling me this as if I didn't know that is unclear?

It must be great when things are always very clear to you, sadly I don't think life is always like that, which is why I keep an open mind, and treat all claims the same.

You seem to deal so much in Beliefs. Is this sufficient evidence of religion's corruption? Your actions and choices demonstrate the evidence in question. It's just like God's actions demonstrate God. Can you see??

Once again, you want me to supply you evidence so you can decide whether to Believe or not. Clearly, you do not understand what I have been saying.

What do you do when things are not clear?? Do you wait for the answers to come to you? Do you seek in life??? What do you seek?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Sheldon]

Your texts are obscure and weird to me, so that is objectively true and real. And further it is meaningless and that is objective true and real. Indeed you are meaningless.

You seem to have ignored the objective evidence, and I don't know what "text" your talking about.

" When the sun was directly overhead in one place, the stick there cast no shadow. At the same time in a city around 500 miles north, the stick there did cast a shadow.

If the Earth were flat then both sticks should show the same shadow (or lack of) because they would be positioned at the same angle towards the sun. "

I don't know what you are claiming is meaningless, or why you are claiming it is meaningless, so that at least is meaningless.