Freethought & Rationalism Archive

christ-on-a-stick · 02-10-2003, 05:27 PM

Well nevermind then....

Carry on

Luiseach · 02-10-2003, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thieving Magpie
Must I reiterate? There is nothing 'wrong' necessarily with it. However, it is closed-minded, none the less.

There is still no logical connection being made here between 'closed-mindedness' and 'evidentialism'.

If what you claim were valid, we could speculate about any number of possible pseudo-facts, without first considering the potential evidence for them based on what we know already (evidence in hand)....invisible purple monkeys, the Great Pumpkin, the Tooth Fairy, heck.....even Jehovah.

The case for saying it is closed-minded to demand evidence for true belief has not been justified as yet...

Mageth · 02-10-2003, 05:30 PM

Must I reiterate? There is nothing 'wrong' necessarily with it. However, it is closed-minded, none the less.

Must I reiterate? It is not "closed-minded." You apparently do not know what the term "closed-minded" means.

A dictionary definition:

close-minded (adj): Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

I am not intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others (hint: requiring evidence before accepting a belief or opinion is not being "intolerant", nor is logically critiquing those beliefs and opinions; further, being "tolerant" does not require one to accept any unsupported belief or opinion as fact), and I am most definitely not "stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas." I discover new evidence, change my mind, and am receptive to new ideas all the time. Doing those things, however, most emphatically does not require one to accept ideas (such as the existence of a god) without good evidence!

Mageth · 02-10-2003, 05:33 PM

I see a difference, but it has no bearing on what I was trying to say.

Perhaps that's because what you're trying to say is fundamentally flawed. If you're open-minded, you'll seriously think about that.

Thieving Magpie · 02-10-2003, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Do I have evidence of the existence of gods? Depends which gods we are talking about.

You name the god, in fact define it as best you can, and then present your evidence. I will consider it, even though the chances are that it's "evidence" that I've seen presented, and refuted, many times.

I worship a rock because it is a rock. Does it exist?

Quote:

The message is that physical things are unimportant in comparison to spiritual matters.

You might squeeze that out of Job, but you'd have to filter it quite a bit to remove a lot of other messages contained there.

And if this is the primary message, why did god do what he did in Job 42:10, and on to the end of the chapter, giving to Job "twice as much as he had before"? What happened to those much more important "spiritual matters?"

The the more important 'spiritual matters' are still there. What about all the people who had died?

Quote:

If you say "God loved job and was honoring his faith", why did god allow him to be squashed, when god said of him in the first chapter "there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" And did so just because Satan taunted him??? Did god, gasp, think that he might be wrong?

One might wonder if the Christian God was actually trying to teach Satan a lesson.

Quote:

This means that you are closed-minded towards anything for which 'good' evidence is not provided of its existence.

You can call such an approach "closed-minded" if you must, but I don't think my approach qualifies as such. I reserve judgment on the existence of something for which "good" evidence is not provided. As well I should, and I recommend you do as well. I certainly do not believe something to exist for which there is no good evidence. Do do so would be folly. In fact, I would imagine you are "closed-minded[/i] in much the way I am about a lot of things.

That really brings into question what 'good evidence' is, though I assume you are referring to the scientific/logical variety. It should be noted though, that this is not the only evidence that can be accepted, and not all of it is good, anyhow. Other than on that particular note, I do agree with you here.

Have you considered that there may very well be "more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in our philosophies"?

Well, there certainly may be, but I have no justifiable reason to believe in the existence of any particular "thing in heaven and earth not dreamt in our philosophies." I'll consider believing in one or more of them when presented with actual evidence for its existence.

Given that reasoning, you certainly have no justifiable reason to not believe in the existence of any particular "thing in heaven and earth not dreamt in our philosophies." Without 'good' proof on either side, you can neither confirm or deny a thing.

Thieving Magpie · 02-10-2003, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Must I reiterate? There is nothing 'wrong' necessarily with it. However, it is closed-minded, none the less.

Must I reiterate? It is not "closed-minded." You apparently do not know what the term "closed-minded" means.

A dictionary definition:

close-minded (adj): Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

Are you not being intolerant of the belief that sometimes 'faith' is all that is necessary, and not 'good' evidence?

Mageth · 02-10-2003, 06:03 PM

I worship a rock because it is a rock. Does it exist?

Umm, this doesn't make any sense in the context. I know rocks exist, for chrissakes. Gods are a totally different subject.

The the more important 'spiritual matters' are still there. What about all the people who had died?

Exactly; god allowed them to suffer and die just to win a bet with Satan. Another interesting lesson we learn about God from the Book of Job.

One might wonder if the Christian God was actually trying to teach Satan a lesson.

Again, this doesn't make much sense. And it would make Job, and us, no more than little pawns in some kind of game between God and Satan.

Given that reasoning, you certainly have no justifiable reason to not believe in the existence of any particular "thing in heaven and earth not dreamt in our philosophies." Without 'good' proof on either side, you can neither confirm or deny a thing.

I think one problem you're having is that you're putting something into "not believing" that's not there. As far as god(s) go, I lack belief in gods. I don't go about actively "not believing" in them. My not-belief is not a belief, it's a lack of belief. The same holds true for any other "thing in heaven." I'll lack belief in them until I get some good evidence.

Just because I may not be able to postitively "confirm or deny" the existence of some thing (e.g. god) doesn't mean that I'm unjustified in lacking belief in the existence of such a thing. However, one could say that without evidence, I would be unjustified to believe in the existence of such a thing, or to actively deny the possibility of existence of such a thing (which I don't, and which seems to be the meaning you're putting to "not believing").

I lack belief in god(s). However, I neither confirm nor deny that it is possible that a god exists. I've seen no evidence to conclusively support the existence or non-existence of a god. Now, how from those statements can you deduce that I have no justifiable reason to lack belief in the existence of god(s)?

Can you "confirm or deny" the existence of Allah, Vishnu, elves, leprechauns, giant pink whales in the atmosphere of Jupiter, or any other number of things I could dream up? And if you can't, does that mean that you believe in all those things??? Or would you characterize yourself as lacking belief in them, or not believing (as in denying the existence of) them?

Mageth · 02-10-2003, 06:13 PM

Are you not being intolerant of the belief that sometimes 'faith' is all that is necessary, and not 'good' evidence?

Only if you twist the meaning of the word "intolerant" to mean that I don't accept as truth the assertion that "faith is all that is necessary, and not "good" evidence". I understand that you and others hold that to be true, and bully for you. I won't try to stop you unless such a belief goes messin' about with the government. I might try to reason with you to show you that there's a better way to make decisions about what's real and what's not. Further, in any scientific discussion, such a belief has no place, and should not be tolerated.

Can't you see that holding such a belief opens one to any and all of what I called "silly" ideas and beliefs? Using such a belief to make judgments about such things, what criteria would you use to distinguish which of these ideas and beliefs to accept and which to reject? Can't you see that holding such a belief means that any belief is just as valid as any other, unless one applies criteria such as I have espoused to distinguish between them?

Thieving Magpie · 02-10-2003, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
I worship a rock because it is a rock. Does it exist?

Umm, this doesn't make any sense in the context. I know rocks exist, for chrissakes. Gods are a totally different subject.

Not necessarily, a rock is a god if I believe it is one, regardless of what characteristics it has.

Quote:

The the more important 'spiritual matters' are still there. What about all the people who had died?

Exactly; god allowed them to suffer and die just to win a bet with Satan. Another interesting lesson we learn about God from the Book of Job.

Again you assume that this is bet oriented. The fact that many people died indicates that this was not a matter of material possession. Besides, in Christian's eyes, we are only here by the grace of God, so he can do with us what he wants.

Quote:

One might wonder if the Christian God was actually trying to teach Satan a lesson.

Again, this doesn't make much sense. And it would make Job, and us, no more than little pawns in some kind of game between God and Satan.

Is it so impossible that we could be pawns like that?

Quote:

Given that reasoning, you certainly have no justifiable reason to not believe in the existence of any particular "thing in heaven and earth not dreamt in our philosophies." Without 'good' proof on either side, you can neither confirm or deny a thing.

I think one problem you're having is that you're putting something into "not believing" that's not there. As far as god(s) go, I lack belief in gods. I don't go about actively "not believing" in them. My not-belief is not a belief, it's a lack of belief. The same holds true for any other "thing in heaven." I'll lack belief in them until I get some good evidence.

I do not mind a 'lack of belief' but that is far more agnostic than it is atheist... and it usually is not apparent when one such as yourself refers to things like the Christian God as 'imaginary' which you did earlier on in this thread, and basically sparked my indignation.

Thieving Magpie · 02-10-2003, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Are you not being intolerant of the belief that sometimes 'faith' is all that is necessary, and not 'good' evidence?

Only if you twist the meaning of the word "intolerant" to mean that I don't accept as truth the assertion that "faith is all that is necessary, and not "good" evidence". I understand that you and others hold that to be true, and bully for you. I won't try to stop you unless such a belief goes messin' about with the government. I might try to reason with you to show you that there's a better way to make decisions about what's real and what's not. Further, in any scientific discussion, such a belief has no place, and should not be tolerated.

Can't you see that holding such a belief opens one to any and all of what I called "silly" ideas and beliefs? Using such a belief to make judgments about such things, what criteria would you use to distinguish which of these ideas and beliefs to accept and which to reject? Can't you see that holding such a belief means that any belief is just as valid as any other, unless one applies criteria such as I have espoused to distinguish between them?

Oh, I'm fully aware of the dangers that having faith presents - but that does not mean it is a wholly terrible thing.

Constant, and unrestrained war would be terrible - but sometimes it is good, and preferable. Can we agree on this one point?

I see faith like war in that sense - much of the time it makes no sense at all, but there is, I believe, such a thing as reasonable faith, and even necessary faith. Some people even consider such faith to be 'good evidence' but it is not commonly accepted as such.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-10-2003, 05:27 PM	#41
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	Well nevermind then.... Carry on

02-10-2003, 05:30 PM	#43
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Must I reiterate? There is nothing 'wrong' necessarily with it. However, it is closed-minded, none the less. Must I reiterate? It is not "closed-minded." You apparently do not know what the term "closed-minded" means. A dictionary definition: close-minded (adj): Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas. I am not intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others (hint: requiring evidence before accepting a belief or opinion is not being "intolerant", nor is logically critiquing those beliefs and opinions; further, being "tolerant" does not require one to accept any unsupported belief or opinion as fact), and I am most definitely not "stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas." I discover new evidence, change my mind, and am receptive to new ideas all the time. Doing those things, however, most emphatically does not require one to accept ideas (such as the existence of a god) without good evidence!

02-10-2003, 05:33 PM	#44
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I see a difference, but it has no bearing on what I was trying to say. Perhaps that's because what you're trying to say is fundamentally flawed. If you're open-minded, you'll seriously think about that.

02-10-2003, 06:03 PM	#47
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I worship a rock because it is a rock. Does it exist? Umm, this doesn't make any sense in the context. I know rocks exist, for chrissakes. Gods are a totally different subject. The the more important 'spiritual matters' are still there. What about all the people who had died? Exactly; god allowed them to suffer and die just to win a bet with Satan. Another interesting lesson we learn about God from the Book of Job. One might wonder if the Christian God was actually trying to teach Satan a lesson. Again, this doesn't make much sense. And it would make Job, and us, no more than little pawns in some kind of game between God and Satan. Given that reasoning, you certainly have no justifiable reason to not believe in the existence of any particular "thing in heaven and earth not dreamt in our philosophies." Without 'good' proof on either side, you can neither confirm or deny a thing. I think one problem you're having is that you're putting something into "not believing" that's not there. As far as god(s) go, I lack belief in gods. I don't go about actively "not believing" in them. My not-belief is not a belief, it's a lack of belief. The same holds true for any other "thing in heaven." I'll lack belief in them until I get some good evidence. Just because I may not be able to postitively "confirm or deny" the existence of some thing (e.g. god) doesn't mean that I'm unjustified in lacking belief in the existence of such a thing. However, one could say that without evidence, I would be unjustified to believe in the existence of such a thing, or to actively deny the possibility of existence of such a thing (which I don't, and which seems to be the meaning you're putting to "not believing"). I lack belief in god(s). However, I neither confirm nor deny that it is possible that a god exists. I've seen no evidence to conclusively support the existence or non-existence of a god. Now, how from those statements can you deduce that I have no justifiable reason to lack belief in the existence of god(s)? Can you "confirm or deny" the existence of Allah, Vishnu, elves, leprechauns, giant pink whales in the atmosphere of Jupiter, or any other number of things I could dream up? And if you can't, does that mean that you believe in all those things??? Or would you characterize yourself as lacking belief in them, or not believing (as in denying the existence of) them?

02-10-2003, 06:13 PM	#48
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Are you not being intolerant of the belief that sometimes 'faith' is all that is necessary, and not 'good' evidence? Only if you twist the meaning of the word "intolerant" to mean that I don't accept as truth the assertion that "faith is all that is necessary, and not "good" evidence". I understand that you and others hold that to be true, and bully for you. I won't try to stop you unless such a belief goes messin' about with the government. I might try to reason with you to show you that there's a better way to make decisions about what's real and what's not. Further, in any scientific discussion, such a belief has no place, and should not be tolerated. Can't you see that holding such a belief opens one to any and all of what I called "silly" ideas and beliefs? Using such a belief to make judgments about such things, what criteria would you use to distinguish which of these ideas and beliefs to accept and which to reject? Can't you see that holding such a belief means that any belief is just as valid as any other, unless one applies criteria such as I have espoused to distinguish between them?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.