I found a really nice video titled "conspiracy theorists" on youtube once. Sadly, it's only in german but maybe some people speak german here ^^ Title: Why are you a conspiracy theorist?
This guy takes people who do not believe in moon landing as an example for this. He says that the opposite of to know is not "not knowing" but to believe and that, especially in case of moon landing, many conspiracy theorists show patterns that are rather typical for religion than for science. "Religiously believed collides often with the normative power of facts, because the believed claim was made without knowing the state of facts. If the contradiction becomes obvious, apparent and verifiable, then the believed will not be revised but shielded from reality with a protective claim in which fact arguments should fizzle out, as proven very formidable in case of "intelligent design"." (Gosh these are some sentences that contain mainy words without direct equivalents in english x_x)
"If I want to know what other people know, I have to learn it. If I want to believe what other people believe, I only have to believe it. This only requires willingness but few work and setbacks are excluded, because believes are no subject to principles of general falsifiability. Scientific statements are subject to the requirement that they have to be verifiable, with, of couse, the implication that if the verification is negative, the statement will be taken back as wrong and this result forces the creator of the statement back to desk or to the lab to rethink. Science is no replacement for religion. Religio means "reconnect". The "Sci" in "Science" is the same like in scissors, "der schere" (the scissors ), something will be seperated. "Scheitern" (to fail) and gescheit (clever) have the same origin, here something gets seperated, too. Namely, in failing the plan or purpose from reality, that is clearly perceptible and it's possible to draw consequences from it. If one is clever, he can seperate cause and effect in analysis of what happened and try the same again based on the realized, but respectiveley different. For this, one have to take completely note of content of the previous failure, only this way one can also get more clever. This is very troublesome and only brings one to where one is then, everything that one wants to know further than this has to be acquired the exact same way and accepted that one will fail over and over again doing so to seperate right from wrong. So you really have to like this." [...] "Nature is like it is and not like we would like it to be, so we have to revise claims that proved wrong." [...] "How easy is it instead to remove the bearer of bad news like "you were mistaken" from the dialogue as a servant of evil powers."
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:38 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:33 Gnosis wrote: [quote]
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 04 2010 01:53 daz wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:19 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
It's a fairly strong assumption, then, unless you have an example of something that began to exist, and didn't have a cause. Otherwise yes, it's a safe assumption (much like the "assumption" that all men die). The question of the origin of the big bang is quite an interesting one
Sorry, to interfere in your discussion, but the Kalam cosmological argument has been debunked, so many times, it's not even funny. And if WLC would be honest, he would just admit it and move on.
It basically contains fallacies in every single premise (and not only the most obvious ill "leap" towards a god or personal agent as WLC calls it). Fact is, we hardly have evidence that ANYTHING ever came into existence, at least in the sense Kalam implies (except for some weird quantum effects). What we mean with "coming into existence" in everyday talk is that mattter or energy changes form or configuration and becomes another macro entity. The "stuff" everything is made of was already there since the Big Bang. Therefore, there is simply is no grounds to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", since as far as we are concerned we never actually witnessed something beginning to exist in this sense (and if it happens at the quantum level we could not observe any cause). The way WLC treats infinities just demonstrates a very limited understanding of math and it frustrates me that he apparently never takes up a book to read up on that, in spite of it being pointed out to him wherever he goes ... Kalam really holds no water...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Why would a religious person 'have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things'? Just because a person believes that some sort of higher being created everything means he has to believe every other possible belief that cannot be neither proven nor unproven? No.
They do if they want to avoid hypocrisy. Cherrypicking beliefs of equal validity and evidence is inherently illogical.
On May 03 2010 16:47 jalstar wrote: Case 1: If you stay, you win. If you switch, you lose.
Case 2: If you stay, you lose. If you switch, you win.
If the host eliminates a door at random, you have a 1/3 chance of winning by staying, a 1/3 chance of winning by switching, and a 1/3 chance that you lose either way
Regarding the underlined, you state that its 1/3. 1/3??!??!?!!?!?!? How is that always in my best interest to switch? According to the movie and the videos, it is supposed to now be a 66% of winning if I switch...yet, you claim it's 1/3.
Case 1 - Win or lose. 50/50
Case 2 - Win or lose. 50/50
If the host eliminates a door, you do not have 3 doors. You have 2 doors. The prize is in one of those remaining TWO doors, not three.
The mere fact that you have 2 case scenarios helps further reinforce my point.
Bruce, are you trolling?
The Monty Hall problem is solved and proven mathematically. You can verify that result experimentally, in case you think that mathematical proof doesn't apply to the real world. It is an objective fact that by switching, you win 2/3 of the time, and by not switching, you win 1/3 of the time. You've already received at least a half dozen correct explanations. You are not correct, and you only hinder yourself by attempting to defend your prejudices.
I will give you an analogous situation. Alice, Bob, and Carol want to be employed by you. You pick Alice, and she leaves the room. Bob and Carol compete in a test, and Carol is found to be a superior potential employee than Bob. Given that information, would you hire Alice, or would you switch to Carol? Do you have equally good reason to believe Alice would be the best worker as you do to believe Carol would be the best worker?
On May 04 2010 03:59 tinman wrote: did you guys know that there is an individual in this very thread who credits our ability to walk to critical thinking? i am not making this shit up.
How did you learn to walk? Did you observe other people walking, and attempt through trial and error to copy the motion? Did you experiment with various forms of body positioning and locomotion (not to mention general muscle firing) until you could replicate it?
From your reaction, I must facetiously conclude that you do not know how to walk, and that your parents in fact hold you up and pump your legs to simulate walking, as you apparently never engaged in observation, thought, or experimentation on the subject of walking.
On May 04 2010 04:02 tinman wrote: hey. that employee example was actually pretty good.
and here i was thinking you were a raging fucktard.
no dude i am totally down with liking people who despise me.
but man one second you're telling me that critical thinking taught me how to walk. the next minute you're going to be telling me critical thinking died for my sins.
walking is a spinal reflex. you don't even need a brain to do it. look it up. have you critically thought for a second that since critical thinking is unique to our species but walking isn't that maybe there's a simpler explanation?
On May 04 2010 04:11 tinman wrote: walking is a spinal reflex. you don't even need a brain to do it. look it up. have you critically thought for a second that since critical thinking is unique to our species but walking isn't that maybe there's a simpler explanation?
Have you critically thought for a second that perhaps critical thinking is not unique to our species?
tinman United States. May 04 2010 04:14. Posts 213 PM Profile Blog Quote # my fucking dog learns from observation and trial & error. i don't expect him to be weighing in on our debate any time soon though.
Under the definition of critical thinking that you all seem to be using, your dog likely does use critical thinking. Most people here seem to be using critical thinking to mean basing their actions on repeated observation of identical or at least similar scenarios. This is a useful definition, and under it animals do engage in critical thinking as proven by Pavlovian conditioning. After observing that a specific stimulus is followed by some specific action, they come to expect that said action will always follow said stimulus.
If you think Pavlov's dogs are a bad example, you can find countless similar ones in humans. You are speaking as though critical thinking and sentience were the same thing.
person a: "critical thinking is responsible for everything good in human existence like agriculture and computers and... umm... walking!"
person b: "man you really think any developmental psychologist would be caught dead in a field with that notion that infants critically think they're way into bipedal locomotion?"
person a: "OF COURSE! how else would we learn to walk except by observation, trial & error, and long periods of rigorous introspection about our past failures!"
person b: "you know animals walk, right?"
person a: "well maybe ANIMALS can think critically too!"
just in case you are confused about how you got to where you are in this argument. there's the etiology. now i'm going to go youtube a video of baby chickens and watch them reason their way into walking within the first 48 hours of their existence.
tinman United States. May 04 2010 04:14. Posts 213 PM Profile Blog Quote # my fucking dog learns from observation and trial & error. i don't expect him to be weighing in on our debate any time soon though.
Under the definition of critical thinking that you all seem to be using, your dog likely does use critical thinking. Most people here seem to be using critical thinking to mean basing their actions on repeated observation of identical or at least similar scenarios. This is a useful definition, and under it animals do engage in critical thinking as proven by Pavlovian conditioning. After observing that a specific stimulus is followed by some specific action, they come to expect that said action will always follow said stimulus.
If you think Pavlov's dogs are a bad example, you can find countless similar ones in humans. You are speaking as though critical thinking and sentience were the same thing.
oh my fucking god you guys are fucking killing me.
did you watch the goddamn motherfucking videos? you find me a dog that "wants to be better at thinking" and works toward that end by "seeking out and being guided by knowledge and evidence that fits with reality even if it refutes his cherished doggy beliefs."
of course you can define critical thinking however you want to. congratulations on being the first to discover that definitions of words are not sewn inextricably into the fabric of the universe.
Posted to your first response, which was apparently not towards me.
I'm just trying to respond to the definition of critical thinking that most people in this thread seem to be using based on their posts. If you define critical thinking in terms of motives of improving your thinking skills or some such, then animals could be said not to think critically as they are unlikely to think about thinking.
my definition of critical thinking is manipulating the laws of gravitation and time via human sacrifice and the careful arrangement of precious stones.
I'm not trying to claim that critical thinking is responsible for everything good or that nothing can be worth while if doesn't stem from critical thinking.
my definition of critical thinking is the proliferation of black holes in the vacuum of space following the mutual extinction via intergalactic nuclear war of two alien races we'll now never discover.
Are we restricting critical thinking to conscious evaluation of modes of thought? In that case, learning to walk would not be an application of critical thinking. It is, however, a direct application of the scientific method.
EPT
), something will be seperated. "Scheitern" (to fail) and gescheit (clever) have the same origin, here something gets seperated, too. Namely, in failing the plan or purpose from reality, that is clearly perceptible and it's possible to draw consequences from it. If one is clever, he can seperate cause and effect in analysis of what happened and try the same again based on the realized, but respectiveley different. For this, one have to take completely note of content of the previous failure, only this way one can also get more clever. This is very troublesome and only brings one to where one is then, everything that one wants to know further than this has to be acquired the exact same way and accepted that one will fail over and over again doing so to seperate right from wrong. So you really have to like this."
