To the Anti-Religious

[DarkSun]

Frankly, I don’t care since no one has to continue debating in this thread

Well, this is going nowhere, so I might take your hint and leave. Nice talking with you all. ^_^

Bye.

 

[rageoftyrael]

You aren't even going to try and point out the flaws in his example? You know themadhair is probably going to take that as a win, right?

 

[DarkSun]

Do you regard the existence of pink fairies, as a proposition, to be equally justified with the proposition of their non-existence?
Please try not to miss the point this time and answer the above question.

With regard to empirical evidence? Yes.
In my personal opinion which is based on zero empirical evidence? No.

I've answered this several times, but you must have missed it.

 

[DarkSun]

You aren't even going to try and point out the flaws in his example? You know themadhair is probably going to take that as a win, right?

You think there's flaws? Perhaps you could point them out. :sarcastic

I probably shouldn't because there really isn't any point. We'll just end up repeating the same stuff for ten pages, both of us, when we both think we've already invalidated the others' point. That doesn't sound very appealing to me.

 

[rageoftyrael]

I personally don't see the flaws, i've been arguing against this, i just took a backseat for a while. I was just saying that if you don't even attempt to address his example, you've lost the debate.

 

[DarkSun]

I personally don't see the flaws, i've been arguing against this, i just took a backseat for a while. I was just saying that if you don't even attempt to address his example, you've lost the debate.

I'm obviously wrong, anyway. So there's no real point in continuing. My inferior intellect is obviously not a match for his supreme intelligence.

 

[themadhair]

With regard to empirical evidence? Yes.
In my personal opinion which is based on zero empirical evidence? No.

As pointed out to you the observations made with no fairies constitute evidence.

And the reason you hold that personal opinion is because you recognise, on at least some level, why taking the null hypothesis of non-existence is the proper default for any existence claim. The question of why you don’t apply the same reasoning to god concepts is worth posing.

 

[DarkSun]

I am not worthy! I am not worthy!!! :sad4:

:run:

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I agree. I’m attacking the idea not the holder of that idea, and I resent the implication you are making here that I am doing otherwise.
Frankly, I don’t care since no one has to continue debating in this thread, and I reject outright the notion that any idea should be beyond scrutiny.
I know.
Reading it again I still get that same implication. I don’t think it was your intent, but it is how it reads.
Well we could take ideas and analyse them in pretty much the same way hs been done in this thread…..
This is a thread on an internet that was directed to the anti-religious. I participated in this thread after someone made comments that I thought needed a response. Given the context I simply don’t care if such scrutiny is unwelcome for some.
As a random, but somewhat related aside, I generally don’t dish out criticism in real life unless I am criticised first. Never been one to sit back and take certain comments. If someone wants to brand me as an “immoral scrum” (which actually happened a few days ago after I responded ‘blessed be’ to a ‘may god be with you’) then they are asking for some serious criticism.
To reiterate a point I made earlier – disrespecting an idea isn’t the same as disrespecting a person.

It has been my experience that when people acknowledged that such a ‘dark’ exists they tended to be relieved of their fear. Trying to ignore it or rationalise it away seems counterproductive. The first step to coping with something is to accept that something exists.
And I have to completely disagree with your reasons by paraphrasing an idea from Epicurus – why should I fear something when I cannot concoct a reason to be afraid?
This is a concept that makes no sense to me because you ignore the factor that matter most to me – namely intellectual honesty.
I’ll answer the above by posing the following questions:
1) What makes you think I don’t re-evaluate what I have accepted on a regular basis?
2) What does any of this have to do with the idea being examined?
3) Why are so many folks so insistent on bringing this up in discussions such as these given the answer to number 2?
Unfortunately you really only succeed in attempting the former here. You also neglect, or are unaware of, that I used to be one of “those people”.
This is forum so….???
Absolutely not. An idea that is catastrophically flawed deserves to be called out rather than worked within. It is also unreasonable to grant dodgy premises in this way when, and this is based upon years of experience, you will not get the same in return.

There is also another problem here with this approach which is much more subtle. I’m an active critic regarding Scientology and, for the last 18 months, I’ve been reading and studying their materials. It has gotten to the point where I can think in Scientology terms and concepts. One former member though I was an ex because I could speak fluent Scientologese. The relevance of this is that, within the confines of the Scientology world view, there simply is not any possibility for challenge. When thinking in Scientology terms problems just disappear. From what I remember of my Christianity the situation wasn’t much different.

In summary, by granting the premises of a world view you sometimes lose the basis for your challenges in a very subtle way.
And what are my premises? This would seem to be a relevant point, and you would need to point out where such are rendering my criticisms invalid.

I’ve snipped the science rant due it being irrelevant as you probably already know. Start a thread if you want to go down that road.
This doesn’t really follow from the topic, and has no bearing on the truth values of the topics being discussed. I’m rather curious why you think this line of reasoning is relevant. If my reasoning is flawed point out where.
I. Care. About. Whether. An. Idea. Is. True. Or. Not.
I know some folks (I’m looking at PureX) have accused me of insulting them, but I have not done so. I attacked the idea and only the idea.

I will readily admit I have done some projection; I have been working through some internal squabbles as we debate. And as such I apologize. Perhaps much of my "criticism" has not found its mark. I certainly was/am not aware of your history.

However, your golden standard of "intellectual honesty" is somewhat lacking though. You can't be certain much of anything you hold to be true actually is. The response to this almost always is: "Show me the evidence." But this COMPLETELY ignores the human element. Are we ready for the truth?

Hypothetical scenario: We are all in the matrix. We are actually hooked up to machines which harvest our neurochemistry for pharmacologically active substances on the galactic drug market. A race of advanced alien species knows this truth. And valuing truth they decide to free all of us from the machines and then simply leave (because all they care about is truth). We are now exposed to the "naked" truth that virtually everything we "knew" to be true was a lie, that we are alone, and we have no idea how to fend for ourselves.

So you "Care About Whether An Idea Is True Or Not" and not about the consequences of your actions... Do you contend that this is moral?

MTF

 

[themadhair]

However, your golden standard of "intellectual honesty" is somewhat lacking though. You can't be certain much of anything you hold to be true actually is.

Have I used an idea I hold to be true as a counterargument that you feel is false? If not then why is this relevant?

Are we ready for the truth?

????

Do you contend that this is moral?

Advocating intellectual honesty, using logic and reason to evaluate claims, pointing out fallacies and contradictions, etc. isn’t moral??? And ffs this is an internet forum - if you want to paint what I am doing as something immoral by citing the matrix then fill your boots. I somehow suspect that I won’t be buying into the idea or feeling guity over it.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Have I used an idea I hold to be true as a counterargument that you feel is false? If not then why is this relevant?

????

Advocating intellectual honesty, using logic and reason to evaluate claims, pointing out fallacies and contradictions, etc. isn’t moral??? And ffs this is an internet forum - if you want to paint what I am doing as something immoral by citing the matrix then fill your boots. I somehow suspect that I won’t be buying into the idea or feeling guity over it.

Not seeing the connection? It is relevant because even someone (like yourself) who interacts with life according to a principle of intellectual honesty when stripped of certain propositions would fail.

The matrix example shows that even someone like yourself can be "not ready" for truth. Sometimes people are not ready, willing, and/or able to accept something as truth. Sometimes truth cannot be applied to someone's life without causing harm. And if you can't see how that is relevant or possible, then I think the conversation is done.

MTF

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Not seeing the connection? It is relevant because even someone (like yourself) who interacts with life according to a principle of intellectual honesty when stripped of certain propositions would fail.

The matrix example shows that even someone like yourself can be "not ready" for truth. Sometimes people are not ready, willing, and/or able to accept something as truth. Sometimes truth cannot be applied to someone's life without causing harm. And if you can't see how that is relevant or possible, then I think the conversation is done.

MTF

Fail? How so?

The truth hurts sometimes. The mature mind accepts that and sets about dealing with and living with that unpleasant truth. Are you suggesting that believing a lie is better?:faint:

 

[themadhair]

Not seeing the connection?

Frankly no.

It is relevant because even someone (like yourself) who interacts with life according to a principle of intellectual honesty when stripped of certain propositions would fail.

And what presupposition am I applying to this discussion that you feel is failing?

The matrix example shows that even someone like yourself can be "not ready" for truth.

Let me see if I can put this simply – I don’t care. If I had took this attitude I’d probably still be attending the chapel every week and kept my mouth shut leading to a life of self-denial.

And if you can't see how that is relevant or possible, then I think the conversation is done.

What you are presenting here:
1) Isn’t relevant to the topic;
2) Is grossly insulting to believers;
3) Is suggesting that some ideas shouldn’t be discussed because of particular sensibilities.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Boys and girls, today's word is obtuse. Can you say "obtuse?"

"Ahbtoothe"

 

[OmarKhayyam]

All I want for Christmas is my 2 front teeth so I can say "obtuse."

 

[nonbeliever_92]

"Let's get down to business, to defeat the huns. Did they send me daughters, When I asked for sons? "

 

[Commoner]

Well, this is going nowhere, so I might take your hint and leave. Nice talking with you all. ^_^

Bye.

Am I to understand that you cannot answer my question (post #1176)? http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1713813-post1176.html

 

[Magic Man]

I apologise. There is no arrogance in what you are suggesting at all.

If everyone agrees with you that they don't "know" for a fact whether God exists or not, and that they could be wrong, then I will revoke every single thing I have said.

My question is why you even bring it up? Who cares if some atheists are arrogant. Of course they are. They're a group of people. Some are going to be arrogant. Some are going to be stupid. Some are going to be short, tall, ugly, beautiful, sensitive, caring, uncaring, etc. I'm sure some atheists will claim they know that no god exists, but that's hardly relevant, especially since the whole question is irrelevant to what we've been talking about.

Why did you feel the need to jump in to throw out the arrogance accusation out of nowhere? That's the bigger question.

 

[Madhuri]

My question is why you even bring it up? Who cares if some atheists are arrogant. Of course they are. They're a group of people. Some are going to be arrogant. Some are going to be stupid. Some are going to be short, tall, ugly, beautiful, sensitive, caring, uncaring, etc. I'm sure some atheists will claim they know that no god exists, but that's hardly relevant, especially since the whole question is irrelevant to what we've been talking about.

Why did you feel the need to jump in to throw out the arrogance accusation out of nowhere? That's the bigger question.

It wasn't out of nowhere, it began many pages back with a particular comment and was feulled by the fact that many people became involved in the debate.

 

[dogsgod]

I'd much rather come across as arrogant than whatever that piece of work was. Those exchanges led me to recall the futility of Diogenes begging and pleading before a statue.