quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN in addition: should i have to read Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution to know intelligent design is nonsense? should i have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the scientology church and become a 4th level thetan just so i can comment that scientology is bullshit? must i build a spaceship and travel to the moons of jupiter to prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting one of them? if one wants to understand the roots of the 3 desert religions then the bible is certainly a great place to start. but don't pretend that i need to have read the thing cover to cover to have an opinion on superstition generally. if there is no god, then what kind of understanding does the bible give us of god? NONE, that's what. indeed, if there is no god your study of the bible has actually given you completely fallacious knowledge of the world, so how do you reconcile that? in any case, we both know my objections to religion are more social/political in nature so a study of contemporary society and politics is more than enough to signal the death cries of religion in my life. edit: why the fuck would i force myself to read something that i found completely underwhelming (not to mention difficult to read) just so someone might take me more seriously when i say "leviticus is bullshit" when it should already be obvious to them?

Your scenarios in this post are predicated upon the presupposition that the positions you are advancing are correct in the first place.

It's like saying you know you have no gas in your car, and asking 'do I need to turn on the car to know that I have no gas?'

If you already know you have no gas, than of course not, and in this case, you're depicting your positions in a very matter-of-fact, indisputable way.

You've already framed each of these scenarios in terms of your existing position, so none of these instances reflect objective premises

Of course, you could respond with reasons as to why you feel these positions are correct, in which case it leads us right back to where we started in the first place; advancing substantive arguments as to why your positions are correct.

Last edited by Paradox Lost on Sep-10-2008 at 00:24

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost Your arguments in this post are predicated upon the presupposition that the positions you are advancing are correct in the first place. It's like saying 'do I need to turn on the car to know if I have no gas?' If you already think you know you have no gas, than of course not. You've already framed each of this scenarios in terms of your existing position, so none of these instances reflect an objective stance. Of course, you could respond with reasons as to why you feel these positions are correct, in which case it leads us right back to where we started in the first place; advancing substantive arguments as to why your positions are correct.

true. but rather i would focus on the fact that all of the (anti) positions are supported by the same amount of verifiable evidence. ie, there is no evidence of god, the teapot, thetans nor intelligent design. so i will treat them all the same until such evidence arises.

in other words, the onus isn't upon me to prove god's non-existence

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont need to eat a shit sandwhich in order to know it tastes like shit.

I think I love you.

True, the burden of proof rests upon the individual advancing the positive claim, but to what extent is the absence of evidence sufficient to reject those positive claims?

Here's something of a brainstorm:

The typical reply to 'the absence of evidence does not thereby mean the absence of existence, and thus, the rejection of opposing argument based upon the absence of evidence is unfounded' is something similar to the instance of the teapot you outlined above.

If I were to say that simply because I lack the evidence to prove the presence of a teapot orbiting Jupiter, you shouldn't reject the idea of it being there, you would be right to dismiss this as a thoroughly insufficient reason to at least accept the possibility that there may be a teapot orbiting around Jupiter.

But what if I were to tell you that there was, say, a woman giving birth three blocks down from you, though I had no evidence to prove this. Would you reject the possibility of it being true based upon this lack of evidence? Well, you would most likely take into account various factors here. Whether or not you knew me, how reliable I was if you did, perhaps even my appearance and apparent state of mind.

The point is that there are various levels of plausibility when it comes to the issue of rejection based upon lack of evidence. There are things you would and would not reject despite me not being able to prove them, and for different reasons. You obviously feel that Theism lies within the same level of plausibility as an orbiting teapot, but it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why this is, in which case you have to do some positive arguing of your own.

In other words, just because you feel that there is a lack of evidence to support the Theistic claim, it doesn't mean you're off the hook in terms of offering evidence of your own, as you still need to demonstrate why this particular type of claim falls within the category of being legitimately rejected due to the absence of evidence (as opposed to not accepting, but not rejecting, as is the case with other types of scenarios).

The only way you could sit back and reject every non-evidential claim that comes your way is if you don't believe in anything unless there is an evidential basis to support it, in which case that is something of a different discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You've just lost any credibility when it comes to questioning the validity or value of the Abrihamic religions. You cannot be expected to be taken seriously in a discussion on any subject when you won't even take the time to understand what it is you're discussing.

im sorry to keep harping on good old moral hazard here, but given the love that i have for the man his comment has gotten right up my nose...

the problem here is moral's implicit assumption that a study of the texts in the bible can provide validity, when of course it cannot. if a study of the bible could provide validity, then we wouldn't have a bajillion different religions. the validity (or not) of the bible is a matter of faith, which isn't rational or scientific and thusly cannot be validated.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost True, the burden of proof rests upon the individual advancing the positive claim, but to what extent is the absence of evidence sufficient to reject those positive claims? Here's something of a brainstorm: The typical reply to 'the absence of evidence does not thereby mean the absence of existence, and thus, the rejection of opposing argument based upon the absence of evidence is unfounded' is something similar to the instance of the teapot you outlined above. If I were to say that simply because I lack the evidence to prove the presence of a teapot orbiting Jupiter, you shouldn't reject the idea of it being there, you would be right to dismiss this as a thoroughly insufficient reason to at least accept the possibility that there may be a teapot orbiting around Jupiter. But what if I were to tell you that there was, say, a woman giving birth three blocks down from you, though I had no evidence to prove this. Would you reject the possibility of it being true based upon this lack of evidence. Well, you would most likely take into account various factors here. Whether or not you knew me, how reliable I was if you did, perhaps even my appearance and apparent state of mind. The point is that there are various levels of plausibility when it comes to the issue of rejection based upon lack of evidence. There are things you would and would not reject despite me not being able to prove them, and for different reasons. You obviously feel that Theism lies within the same level of plausibility as an orbiting teapot, but it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why this is, in which case you have to do some positive arguing of your own. In other words, just because you feel that there is a lack of evidence to support the Theistic claim, it doesn't mean you're off the hook in terms of offering evidence of your own, as you still need to demonstrate why this particular type of claim falls within the category of being legitimately rejected due to the absence of evidence (as opposed to not accepting, but not rejecting, as is the case with other types of scenarios). The only way you could sit back and reject every non-evidential claim that comes your way is if you don't believe in anything unless there is an evidential basis to support it, in which case that is something of a different discussion.

right. i think i got all that. its a bit early for a refresher course in principles of argument!!

i can only answer with my regular stock answer in these situations: the more fantastic the claim the more fantastic the supporting evidence must be. i find the claim of a higher being to be a pretty fantastic claim.

___________________

Oh PKC, TA is so much nicer now that you're on ignore, I can actually CHOOSE to read your nonsensical spew now!

PS: What would Jesus do?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im sorry to keep harping on good old moral hazard here, but given the love that i have for the man his comment has gotten right up my nose... the problem here is moral's implicit assumption that a study of the texts in the bible can provide validity, when of course it cannot. if a study of the bible could provide validity, then we wouldn't have a bajillion different religions. the validity (or not) of the bible is a matter of faith, which isn't rational or scientific and thusly cannot be validated.

Apparently, you're not familiar with the Traditionalist School of thought, or the 'Perennial Philosophy,' which states that each authentic religious tradition was revealed by the same Divine source, and at different points along human history.

Thus, while each religion is different, they are all equally authentic, and are the result of Divine will. There are adherents to this school of thought from Christianity and other religions, so the authenticity of one religious tradition does not thereby negate the authenticity of another.

If you disagree with this, it would be incumbent upon you to demonstrate the flaws in this school of thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Oh PKC, TA is so much nicer now that you're on ignore, I can actually CHOOSE to read your nonsensical spew now!

and here we have the typical theist tactic when confronted with things they don't wish to deal with: IGNORE. you'll find most religions engaging in this strategy at one time or another (about 50% of americans still deny evolution).

though i guess its a better result than strapping bombs to their chest or manipulating the legal framework to satisfy their myopia, so don't let anyone tell you religious nutjobs haven't made progress in the last 2000 years!!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN right. i think i got all that. its a bit early for a refresher course in principles of argument!! i can only answer with my regular stock answer in these situations: the more fantastic the claim the more fantastic the supporting evidence must be. i find the claim of a higher being to be a pretty fantastic claim.

You know pkr, we could simply cut right down to it and address your problems with Theistic evidence.

I'm sure we would all agree that there have at least been plenty of attempts to provide evidence for God's existence, and evidence for the Divine nature of almost every religious tradition.

You've repeatedly stated that there is none, but unless I have missed something (and I will admit to not following the entire conversation closely), there is a big gap that is present between these evidential supports and your conclusion that no evidence exists.

So what are your responses to some of the arguments in favor of God's existence, which have apparently resulted in your conclusion that there is no evidence to support this claim?

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost Apparently, you're not familiar with the Traditionalist School of thought, or the 'Perennial Philosophy,' which states that each authentic religious tradition was revealed by the same Divine source, and at different points along human history. Thus, while each religion is different, they are all equally authentic, and are the result of Divine will. There are adherents to this school of thought from Christianity and other religions, so the authenticity of one religious tradition does not thereby negate the authenticity of another. If you disagree with this, it would be incumbent upon you to demonstrate the flaws in this school of thought.

no, moral hazard has schooled me briefly on this position. its just fancy side-stepping of the real issue (imo), in that the bible cannot provide validity (for to do so would prove the existence of god).

if the bible cannot prove the existence of god, then whether it is valid or not is purely a matter of personal choice. if it is purely a matter of personal choice (faith) then why would a further study of the bible give me a greater ability to judge its validity (when for me, it is already invalid [because the bible is not evidence of anything])?

moral's criticism basically boils down to that i should finish the movie despite the fact that i thought the first hour or so was shit. since i believe we only have the one life, i have better things to do with that valuable time than read an archaic fantasy novel.

___________________