Freethought & Rationalism Archive

keyser_soze · 06-19-2003, 06:22 AM

And back to the topic....

diana · 06-19-2003, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
And back to the topic....

Right you are, sir. My apologies.

To correct my derail and get this sucker back on track, I'll ask for some explanation of what you meant in your OP:

Quote:

I posted it [the excerpt from Demon Haunted World], as one would post the IPU puzzle, because I am constantly amazed at the people who wish to win an argument using the exact same proof of non-disproof as that shown above. It [It what?]seems to be such a widespread practice among theists, that I wonder that it [It what?] does not come as an addendum to every bible these days. So what do theists think about this [This what?]? Does it [It what?] help to give shape to our frustration [Huh?]? Does it help you [theists, you mean?] to see why your beliefs seem so shallow and ridiculous [to atheists, I assume]?

Sorry, keyzer. I just don't follow unqualified pronouns and articles very well. There may be others like me who need some clarification.

Thanks,

d

Worldtraveller · 06-19-2003, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
Well, so far I have one theist's viewpoint "I refuse to think about it damnit", and several viewpoints on that particular theist. But as to the topic, what does everyone think? To me this is the way I see theology as it's represented by it's members....is this the way you see it as well?

The big difference I see is that the fundies also have the obscurity of the distant past working for them. They can say that thier god did all of these miracles back then. And really, is there any way to disprove it? I realize the shifting of the burden of proof, but that's sorta the point of the topic.

And nowadays, they give credit to god for a lot of things, but I don't see that as the same thing.

[offtopic] How often have you seen a professional athlete, for instance, in the post (winning) game interview thanks 'god and jesus' for this win?? I just wonder why they don't cry out every time they lose, 'where was jesus when I was on the 3 yard line and tripped?'

Or at the very least, go to the opposing team and say 'jesus loves us more than you!'

[/offtopic]

But like the quote from Mr. Sagan says, it's not like they can point to a particular play, and say,"see, Jesus threw great body block there that let me score!"

In theory, if god/jesus were as great an influence as they would like us to believe, life would easy AND fair!

Just my $0.02 worth....

-Lane

Normal · 06-19-2003, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veriditically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exceiting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so." --Carl Sagan THE DEMON HAUNTED WORLD, Random house 1995 p171

It seems to be such a widespread practice among theists, that I wonder that it does not come as an addendum to every bible these days. So what do theists think about this? Does it help to give shape to our frustration? Does it help you to see why your beliefs seem so shallow and ridiculous?

It was colorfully pointed out by "theophilus" that the Carl Sagan quote amusingly falsifies itself. "Claims that cannot be tested" is itself a claim that cannot be tested.

As for theists who thrieve on "lack of disproof ~ proof", I see no difference between that and atheists who use "lack of proof ~ disproof".

Hawkingfan · 06-19-2003, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
As for theists who thrieve on "lack of disproof ~ proof", I see no difference between that and atheists who use "lack of proof ~ disproof".

I thought you were a big fan and promoter of Occam's Razor? Well, maybe I was wrong.

But using Occam's Razor one can see why the two statements are not equal.
Just plug in some ridiculous claim (instead of "the existence of god") and you'll see what I mean. Like if I said I can fly by simply flapping my arms. However, I have no proof. But you cannot disprove it either. So are the statements equally reasonable to believe? Nope. Occam's Razor shows that "lack of proof ~ disproof" is the most reasonable to assume.

CX · 06-19-2003, 08:05 AM

Some common responses I get are:

1) ??????????

2) "You think too much!"

3) "Not everything can be proven through reason."

4) "Should we order Italian or Chinese?"

5) "That's a very arrogant position."

6) "I feel sorry for you."

7) "Don't be so sure you don't believe."

8) "Too much information and knowledge can be a bad thing."

etc. etc. etc.

I almost forgot...

9) "You're a fool!"

Normal · 06-19-2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan
But using Occam's Razor one can see why the two statements are not equal.
Just plug in some ridiculous claim (instead of "the existence of god") and you'll see what I mean. Like if I said I can fly by simply flapping my arms. However, I have no proof. But you cannot disprove it either. So are the statements equally reasonable to believe? Nope. Occam's Razor shows that "lack of proof ~ disproof" is the most reasonable to assume.

As a skeptic "lack of proof ~ disproof" and "lack of disproof ~ proof" are on equal footing with me. The only thing that would do is "proof ~ proof".

Family Man · 06-19-2003, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
It was colorfully pointed out by "theophilus" that the Carl Sagan quote amusingly falsifies itself. "Claims that cannot be tested" is itself a claim that cannot be tested.

"Claims that cannot be tested" is not a claim as far as I can tell. The entire quote, however, is a claim, and a claim backup up by the story and logic Sagan provided. It makes perfect sense to me, and I fail to see any valid criticism of it.

CX · 06-19-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man
"Claims that cannot be tested" is not a claim as far as I can tell. The entire quote, however, is a claim, and a claim backup up by the story and logic Sagan provided. It makes perfect sense to me, and I fail to see any valid criticism of it.

How might we test the statement, "Untestable claims have no truth value."?

Hawkingfan · 06-19-2003, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
As a skeptic "lack of proof ~ disproof" and "lack of disproof ~ proof" are on equal footing with me. The only thing that would do is "proof ~ proof".

So I take it you believe in Santa Claus?

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

06-19-2003, 06:22 AM	#11
keyser_soze Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: god's judge (pariah) Posts: 1,281	And back to the topic....

06-19-2003, 08:05 AM	#16
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	Some common responses I get are: 1) ?????????? 2) "You think too much!" 3) "Not everything can be proven through reason." 4) "Should we order Italian or Chinese?" 5) "That's a very arrogant position." 6) "I feel sorry for you." 7) "Don't be so sure you don't believe." 8) "Too much information and knowledge can be a bad thing." etc. etc. etc. I almost forgot... 9) "You're a fool!"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.