EPTWhat 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.
Critical Thinking and Skepticism - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
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. | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 03 2010 12:38 Lixler wrote: 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. 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. It might help if you examined the ideas of faith and belief in the classical sense, and in the Enlightenment / post-enlightenment (esp. post-Hegelian / Kierkegaardian) sense. It could possibly be reasonably asserted that religious people lack scientific proof, but other proofs (such a philosophical), I'm not so sure the claim can be made so easily. I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof". | ||
|
Lixler
United States265 Posts
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: 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. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
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. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote: 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. | ||
|
phyren
United States1067 Posts
1. Critical thinking, or logic, is not the "be all, end all" system that some people seem to think it is, and those youtube videos never make the claim that it is. That said, it is an important set of skills that provides us with what history seems to suggest is our best way of understanding the world. The claims that some people make that not everything can be logically justified to everyone's satisfaction, and so certain things must be simply accepted in the interesting of practicality are perfectly valid and also an example of a logical argument. They do not make critical thinking or the importance of evidence any less important; on the contrary they provide an example of why critical thinking is important. It is important to evaluate the benefits of evidence with the practical difficulty of obtaining it in mind. 2. Some people seem to be upset over the use of a youtube video and a video game forum thread to discuss some fairly deep things. They dismiss these as insufficient media for the discussion of complex and historied topics. Their feelings are an example of an opinion and shouldn't be attacked by those who want to discuss these topics, just as they shouldn't insist that others can't cold a discussion. 3. Someone claimed that people should believe that their opinions are fact and prefer the expansion of their own beliefs to the extinction of all others in order for their beliefs to be practically useful. I believe what this person is talking about it the concepts of "memes" and the requirement of one to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. The requirement to eventually make a decision while still using critical thinking skills simply means that one must act as though whatever beliefs they have are fact at the moment. Keeping an open mind allows these beliefs and thus the "facts" one operates with the assumption of, to change. None of this is incompatible. It is, like in point one, the use of logic to state that where there is uncertainty, practical concerns must still be met. As to the idea of "memes;" essentially the theory is that ideas spread or die out just as life does. You absorb ideas from your surroundings and only occasionally produce new ones. The ideas you absorb, and indeed any you produce, are only likely to survive if they encourage their own survival, usually to the extinction of opposition. This does not mean that anyone's beliefs should require them to kill dissenters. Instead, what is suggested is that the only way you are likely to believe in something, say a particular system of values, is if part of the system is a belief that it should be preserved and that it is superior to others. A hyperbolic example of this would be Dave Chappelle's keeping it real skits. /end giantwalloftext | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) People do things (some good!) in the name of God, not many do so for the spaghetti monster. So, while the tree might not be real, the fruit is delicious. People who argue about the provability of God, like that was somehow the goal of religion, are missing the point. | ||
|
Lixler
United States265 Posts
On May 03 2010 13:54 gyth wrote: People do things (some good!) in the name of God, not many do so for the spaghetti monster. So, while the tree might not be real, the fruit is delicious. People who argue about the provability of God, like that was somehow the goal of religion, are missing the point. Please don't try to say Christianity has been a positive influence for humanity. | ||
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
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. er what? Obnoxious people are obnoxious. Atheists just don't believe in god. Now the reason atheists and religious people clash is blame on both and honestly if religion held no sway other than a belief system I wouldn't care. Unfortunately some laws that I don't quite agree with come to fruition only because of religion existing...some scientific research is either halted aggressively or loses funding. If religious agenda were completely innocent and didn't affect my life at all I wouldn't care about it. Unfortunately neither of those is true. From a purely neutral standpoint the concept of God is actually ridiculous. There is however a certain attachment to the idea of God and the whole live your life morally thing but only when you want to line that bugs me. In short, I don't care what you believe as long as you keep it away from me. | ||
|
BruceLee6783
United States196 Posts
I think about philosophy and such every single day. It's good to know that there are others in this world that think the way I think. The hard part is getting my points across. It's a skill, just like anything else. The more I practice, the better I get. By the way...did anyone watch his video about math? He referenced "The Monty Hall predicament" which is something that I saw in the movie "21", where Kevin Spacey's character lectures on the topic of "variable change", in reference to using probability to your advantage. I don't agree with that, however. Perhaps it is that neither Spacey nor QualiaSoup do a good enough job of explaining it. I rewinded that part of the Youtube video and the movie over and over and over, and I tried my best to listen and think about what he was saying, but I could not grasp that concept. Could someone knowledgeable about that concept explain it to me better? | ||
|
tinman
United States287 Posts
give me, in plain English, one scientific reason that i should only believe things for which there is scientific evidence. | ||
|
Lixler
United States265 Posts
On May 03 2010 15:03 tinman wrote: Lixler. give me, in plain English, one scientific reason that i should only believe things for which there is scientific evidence. One scientific reason? Because that's the basis of scientific reason But anyway, there's no "real" reason to prescribe to scientism (and I don't think I said anything about empirical evidence specifically), the only problems arise when you're trying to convince someone else of your views for whatever reason. | ||
|
tinman
United States287 Posts
| ||
|
Lixler
United States265 Posts
On May 03 2010 15:13 tinman wrote: so quit trying to convince others of your views and move along. Were you going to say that regardless of what I said? | ||
|
tinman
United States287 Posts
but then you said: the only problems arise when you're trying to convince someone else of your views for whatever reason. you do the math. | ||
|
Lixler
United States265 Posts
I was referring to deriving believes without any kind of evidence, something I'd very much like to think I don't do. | ||
|
tinman
United States287 Posts
what evidence do you have that one should not derive beliefs without any kind of evidence. | ||
|
Lixler
United States265 Posts
On May 03 2010 15:26 tinman wrote: ok let's try again. what evidence do you have that one should not derive beliefs without any kind of evidence. Well, why should you ask for evidence for that statement? Aren't you presupposing the answer already? | ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
On May 03 2010 15:26 tinman wrote: ok let's try again. what evidence do you have that one should not derive beliefs without any kind of evidence. Because 9/11 happens? | ||
|
tinman
United States287 Posts
one moment you're saying that you don't hold beliefs for which there isn't any evidence. the next moment you're balking when i ask you to provide evidence for that belief. | ||
| ||
