FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Anti-supernatural bias
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 10 of 12 « First 89 10 1112
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-15-2012, 05:40 PM   #91
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Now the task of the historian is not to make value judgments about what is possible, and what is not.
A belief about what is possible is not a value judgment.
A value judgment about what is possible is a value judgment.
I guess it would be, if anyone ever made one, but I've never heard any historian do that.
Indeed. Anyone who decides that the supernatural cannot occur cannot be a historian.
Because you say so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Circularity can work both ways.
Of course it can. What do you think we should infer from that, when we're doing history?
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 05:56 PM   #92
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Now the task of the historian is not to make value judgments about what is possible, and what is not.
A belief about what is possible is not a value judgment.
A value judgment about what is possible is a value judgment.
I guess it would be, if anyone ever made one, but I've never heard any historian do that.
Indeed. Anyone who decides that the supernatural cannot occur cannot be a historian.
Because you say so?
Because nobody has proved otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Circularity can work both ways.
Quote:
Of course it can.
As we now know.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 06:44 PM   #93
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
The universe runs on miracles.

The supernatural exists.
Yes, that is the exact same statement. All magical beliefs are essentially equal, and are all equally absurd.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 06:48 PM   #94
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Secondly the idea that telling a group of people that claims for which they believe they have strong evidence are ruled out on a-priori grounds, no matter how strong their evidence, seems unlikely to be a strategy for peacefully settling disputes. Even if strong methodological naturalism were valid it seems unlikely to be effective in promoting genuine dialogue between people of differing world-views.
It would be counterproductive for scientific method take any notioce of "worldviews."

All magic can and should be ruled out a priori from any kind of empirical examination/ Let's be adults here. There is no such thing as magic. There is zero reason ever to humor the possibility. It is counterproductive, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual to do so.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 01:32 AM   #95
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post

Secondly the idea that telling a group of people that claims for which they believe they have strong evidence are ruled out on a-priori grounds, no matter how strong their evidence, seems unlikely to be a strategy for peacefully settling disputes.
So it was wrong to lock up those Christians who killed a teenager because they thought he was a witch?

We should have dialogued with them, professing agnosticism as to the possibility of the boy really being a witch (after all, he did confess to being a witch)
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 12:24 PM   #96
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Because you say so?
Because nobody has proved otherwise.
So, whatever has not been proved false should be assumed true. That's your epistemology?
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 12:25 PM   #97
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Because you say so?
Because nobody has proved otherwise.
So, whatever has not been proved false should be assumed true.
Why?
sotto voce is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 12:26 PM   #98
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Circularity can work both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver
Of course it can. What do you think we should infer from that, when we're doing history?
Are you going to answer the question?
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 12:28 PM   #99
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Because you say so?
Because nobody has proved otherwise.
So, whatever has not been proved false should be assumed true.
Why?
You tell me. You're the one suggesting we should believe something just because "nobody has proved otherwise."
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 12:30 PM   #100
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Because you say so?
Because nobody has proved otherwise.
So, whatever has not been proved false should be assumed true.
Why?
You tell me.
Why?

Quote:
You're the one suggesting we should believe something just because "nobody has proved otherwise."
That's not what you wrote, though.
sotto voce is offline  
 
Page 10 of 12 « First 89 10 1112

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:57 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.