If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Survey of American public's scientific knowledge reveals improved familiarity with basic science, and declining belief in alien abduction, astrology, Bigfoot, and evolution   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 534
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

7985 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2007 at 7:03 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



534 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-02-18 04:00:09 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD: You know trying to referee a logical debate between parties is not much fun.

Why would you ever try to referee a religious flame war on fark? People don't exactly weed out the fallacies before hitting the "add" button 'round these parts.
 
2007-02-18 04:00:21 AM  
Beelzebear: That's a new one. Proved by whom? Dan Brown? What about the 2nd-century Gnostic texts that explicitly claim Jesus is the true God, more so than the Old Testament God? Okay, they're heretics, fine. But what about the unique role Jesus played in the letters of Paul? Irenaeus? Or how about Origen? Justin Martyr? All authors who had a clear and pronounced veneration of Christ in their writings. But don't take my word for it, consider for an analysis of Jesus' own view of his unique status, or Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity by Larry Hurtado.

This is the quote that I was replying to. Notice please how was speaking of the Divinity of Jesus in his post. The thread of the Divinity of Jesus in the Modern Age is related to his status as the Messiah. If he wasn't specified as the Messiah by modern adherents, then his status as the figurehead of the Church would be moot.


This would be relevant if and only if 1. my previous assertion about using incorrect premises to prove him wrong didn't stand (it still does, I assure you -- a falsehood does not prove another falsehood false), and 2. (and this one is important so I've gone ahead and bolded it for all our sakes) he wasn't responding to cthu1hu's post that read, in part, "It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus and his divinity wasn't a part of Christian doctrine untill the 1st Council of Nicia in June of 325."

I want you to realise how that went down:

cthu1hu: "It's proven beyond a doubt that Jesus' divinity was invented and codified at the first First Council of Nicaea."
Mr Sunshine: "Actually here's a few examples of belief in Jesus' divinity before that."
You: "Jesus did not have a unique status though. That time period in history was rife with "messiahs." As Jesus didn't fulfill the Old Testament (Hebrew) definition of what the messiah was to be, or to have accomplished, his divinity wasn't considered a fact until decided upon long after his death."

Or, parsed slightly, we get:

cthu1hu: Incorrect assertion.
Mr Sunshine: Correct assertion.
You: Meaningless and incorrect assertion.
 
2007-02-18 04:02:02 AM  
Mr Sunshine

Dawkins repeatedly eschews rebuttals from his opponets, even to the point of flat-out ignoring them, and thinks he has thereby rebutted them.

The only rebuttals I've ever seen him ignore are the thoroughly ignorant ones. It is a form or arrogance quite common for people with the word Oxon. after their degree, handed down from tutor to student through the ages. An elitist vice to be sure, but one which would require the reform, nay the destruction of a thousand year old institution to eliminate.
 
2007-02-18 04:02:59 AM  
I see now... and I stand corrected.
 
2007-02-18 04:03:18 AM  
Mr Sunshine: Hypocritical? No. It's not a strawman either. Oversimplified? Yes. But everything is on internet forums, sadly. The interview above and Dawkins' various and sundry books give us solid examples. Dawkins repeatedly eschews rebuttals from his opponets, even to the point of flat-out ignoring them, and thinks he has thereby rebutted them.

Yes, it is. If your position is that he does this, you must prove it. You may use your strawman argument as an analogy or hypothetical situation compared to what he does, but without the actual comparison it is completely invalid.

fonik: Why would you ever try to referee a religious flame war on fark? People don't exactly weed out the fallacies before hitting the "add" button 'round these parts.

Partly because I'm a masochist and partly because it makes me feel like a big man.
 
2007-02-18 04:03:50 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD: That's like claiming a biography is fictitious because they don't know who ghostwrote it. It's moronic,

That's like claiming a biography is true, even though we don't know who wrote it.

Two, some of these are dubious authorities at best.


What makes any of sunshine's scholars/theologians any more legitimate? He, after all, is the one who started this whole appeal to authority claptrap. Maybe it's a little too much cognitive dissonance to question those so called authorities with the same tight ass?
 
2007-02-18 04:04:52 AM  
Upon further reading, I'd have to say this is the sanest religion thread I've seen.
 
2007-02-18 04:08:19 AM  
Bad_Seed: The only rebuttals I've ever seen him ignore are the thoroughly ignorant ones. It is a form or arrogance quite common for people with the word Oxon. after their degree, handed down from tutor to student through the ages. An elitist vice to be sure, but one which would require the reform, nay the destruction of a thousand year old institution to eliminate.

And interestingly -- or perhaps ironically or hypocritically -- enough, the very thing which Dawkins advocates doing.
 
2007-02-18 04:08:35 AM  
Must suck to know that this guy is the foremost athority on the afterlife/supernatural, whose knowledge far exeeds that of any theoligins living or dead...

i.cnn.net
 
2007-02-18 04:11:05 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD

And interestingly -- or perhaps ironically or hypocritically -- enough, the very thing which Dawkins advocates doing.

Go Team Dawkins!!!
 
2007-02-18 04:16:05 AM  
cthu1hu: That's like claiming a biography is true, even though we don't know who wrote it.

I can assure you that as witty that that sounded when you thought it up, it is not. Allow me to elucidate: Given that nobody's assertion that the Gospels were true even though we don't know who wrote it, your analogy is crippled from the word go. The authorship of the actual text is entirely irrelevant as opposed to the veracity of the text itself, which is my point. Your counterpoint seems to be "we should distrust that which we do not know from whence it originates." A more correct position (the one I hold specifically because it is correct) is "we should distrust that which we do not know of its veracity, and utterly reject that which we know to be false, and utterly embrace that which we know to be true."

What makes any of sunshine's scholars/theologians any more legitimate? He, after all, is the one who started this whole appeal to authority claptrap. Maybe it's a little too much cognitive dissonance to question those so called authorities with the same tight ass?

Nothing... except for the fact that 0Icky0 openly invited him to name any authority he felt fit to recommend on the subject, meaning Mr Sunshine wasn't making an appeal to authority, he was making a book recommendation.

It's entirely possible you got the feeling I was picking on you, and rest assured this isn't the case. If you go back and actually read my posts, you'll notice that I call out Mr Sunshine's logical fallacies as well. If any of you have a point to make, make it with logic and not simply by spewing off at the mouth.
 
2007-02-18 04:19:56 AM  
Mr Sunshine: Still waiting for yours or anyone else best evidence, hell worst evidence that god exists.
I provided some sources, you refuse to look at them. This is my fault, how?


If the evidence exists as you claimed, you should be able to provide it. Evidence, strong or no, shouldn't take an entire book to explain, either.

Is there evidence or is there not? It's a simple question.
 
2007-02-18 04:23:40 AM  
cthu1hu: Must suck to know that this guy is the foremost athority on the afterlife/supernatural, whose knowledge far exeeds that of any theoligins living or dead...

Yay strawman!

Beelzebear: Go Team Dawkins!!!

Hardly. What's frustrating about Dawkins is that he openly admits that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis (therefore it has validity) and it is not currently falsifiable (it cannot be tested).

By his own admission, he has essentially said that God is a valid hypothesis that has not been tested but that he will come to a conclusion without testing the hypothesis first. Which makes him a hypocrite for railing against religion as irrational and unfounded, when he openly admits both religion is not such, and his own beliefs are thereby equally as such. (And an extremely bad scientist.)

Furthermore, as the author of the selfish gene, you would expect him to at least understand the very "specieism" he is prone to rail against.

The only thing I hate more than an Atheist with quasi-religious beliefs is a dogmatic Atheist with quasi-religious beliefs who will fully admit his theory is as untested as a dogmatic theist's religious beliefs.

Hypocrisy and hypocrites farking suck, no matter their personal creed. I would have imminent respect for Dawkins if he didn't turn his beliefs into a hypocritical (anti)Holy War against the very things he purports to (and I actually do) hate.
 
2007-02-18 04:26:23 AM  
cthu1hu: If the evidence exists as you claimed, you should be able to provide it. Evidence, strong or no, shouldn't take an entire book to explain, either.

Now you're defining what evidence is worthy of being considered, which is ridiculous. If evidence takes a billion years, that's how long it takes.

I have (my) evidence, but I'm enjoying watching Mr Sunshine flop around a little too much to throw him a bone. Screw it, I'm the ref, not the fighter.
 
2007-02-18 04:27:08 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD
If your position is that he does this, you must prove it.

Well shoot, you should have just asked in the first place before going all "thou hypocrite."

Dawkins stated in an interview (here, I know it's freerepublic, I'm sorry), "no serious theologian takes the Old Testament literally anymore." I'm not 100% sure what he means by 'literally,' whether he means "You have to obey all the laws of the Old Testament" or "the Old Testament is an accurate record." The two are often used withot clearly distinguishing. In any case, there are, in fact, theologians who do take the Old Testament literally. But Dawkins' cavalier dismissal of numerous theologians as not "serious" is not the major issue.

But look at what's going on here: Dawkins had previously described, in The God Delusion, God as "a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." He goes on to use this characterization of God to attack God, in the book and elsewhere. Where does he get this idea of God? "Read your Old Testament, if you think that. Just read it."

Now here's an interesting question. Dawkins defines the hypothesis he is targetting, then attacks it. But then he tells us that that hypothesis, that construct of God, is not taken by any serious theologian. That it was, in fact, just a primitive myth that isn't prevalent in our modern religious systems.

So why did Dawkins bring it up in the first place? Maybe because he was addressing the "nonserious" theologians. But surely such a move was unnecessary given the other methods he used later on in his work? And it wasn't necessary to prove the point in that same chapter (i.e. he could have used a portrayal of God that "serious" theologians held, thus making his argument more potent).
 
2007-02-18 04:28:10 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD: meaning Mr Sunshine wasn't making an appeal to authority, he was making a book recommendation.

Why didn't you just say that to farking begin with? You're not masturbating while you're typing, are you?

A more correct position (the one I hold specifically because it is correct) is "we should distrust that which we do not know of its veracity, and utterly reject that which we know to be false, and utterly embrace that which we know to be true."

So what is your assertion, that there is no legitimate skepticism that historical jesus existed?

That because your mainstream reputable theologians believe that it's not even up to debate? Without any evidence to back it up? Without any eye witness accounts?
 
2007-02-18 04:33:17 AM  
Mr Sunshine: Well shoot, you should have just asked in the first place before going all "thou hypocrite."

I did ask that, in fact. And you said "that's not a strawman". But it was, and now it is not. Good, I've corrected two people. I just gotta get cthu1hu to get off his persecution kick and start some critical thinking.

Fair enough, since you did some critical thinking I'll throw you another logical bone for Dawkins: He never says why God as a "misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" is a proof against the existence of God. Since this is a description in The God Delusion, which is a primary thesis on the non-existence of God, then his entire logical premise is an ad hominem attack. The premise that God exists is not true because God can be characterized as undesirable.

Basically, once you make a single logical fallacy, your entire argument is shot to shiat. Which is why I hate Dawkins.

See what you get when you apply critical thinking? Now won't that be helpful in future arguments which involve critical thinking?
 
2007-02-18 04:34:38 AM  
cthu1hu
Is there evidence or is there not? It's a simple question.

I'm not going to reduce over a thousand pages of writing to a four-paragraph blurb. Apart from the fact that any such effort is grossly oversimplifying, and hence misleading or unsatisfactory, I simply could not do the fine authors justice. I find it difficult to believe you could think that possible. I've given ample recommendations for reading. I'm not going to try and compress them into a ten-second soundbite because you can't be bothered to read the sources I provided for you. You're sticking your head in the sand. I'm not going to beat you over the head with a book, sooner or later you'll have to go to a library and actually read the damn thing. Education is a wonderful thing. For someone who champions themselves, you sure are reluctant to learn.
 
2007-02-18 04:35:16 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD: Now you're defining what evidence is worthy of being considered, which is ridiculous. If evidence takes a billion years, that's how long it takes.

I have (my) evidence, but I'm enjoying watching Mr Sunshine flop around a little too much to throw him a bone.


Oh, so now you have evidence too? Wow! Well, any evidence will do. Please put forth your best effort. If it's worth its weight in salt, you should be able to provide it with minimal verbiage--because I know "evidence" to you guys means a back and forth that lasts days, ending in such a shiatstorm of comfirmation bias overload that the poor sap gives up.

Screw it, I'm the ref, not the fighter.

Right, which is not at all what you've been doing.
 
2007-02-18 04:42:32 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD

I did ask that, in fact.
Not how it sounded on my end the first time round. In any case, you didn't say "please."

I don't believe that Dawkins' characterization of God as "a misogynistic. . . etc." is the central premise on which the entire book is based. Nor do I believe that it is solely ad hominem or argument from outrage. Admittedly, I don't have a copy here and can't double-check on the full scope of his thoght progression, so the discussion is sterile.

See what you get when you apply critical thinking? Now won't that be helpful in future arguments which involve critical thinking?
Don't patronize me. Watch out for that ego as well.
 
2007-02-18 04:45:01 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD: The premise that God exists is not true because God can be characterized as undesirable.

His arguments have a bit more substance(p) than that.
 
2007-02-18 04:45:47 AM  
cthu1hu: Why didn't you just say that to farking begin with? You're not masturbating while you're typing, are you?

I felt the fact that 1. my only picking on logical fallacies would adequately illustrate the fact that this may not have been an actual logical fallacy and 2. his book recommendation is recorded as an indelible portion of the server record which you undoubtedly and absolutely were aware of (as easily proven when you respond to Mr Sunshine "Yeah. If you read them, instead of slamming them without reading them, you might find out what they have to say." with "Really? Then please present the best evidence that god exists, oh learned one.") that that might have been prima facie completely obvious.

So what is your assertion, that there is no legitimate skepticism that historical jesus existed?

No.

That because your mainstream reputable theologians believe that it's not even up to debate? Without any evidence to back it up? Without any eye witness accounts?

Not simply theologians. Most scholars involved in this field accept the historical (though not necessarily the divine) Jesus. Including theologians, of course, but also historians, archaeologists, &c. And to say there's no eye witness accounts is to dismiss entire sections of history as having not happened because there was no eye witness acount; not merely the Christian and pre-Christian period in Judea, but entire portions of Mesoamerican, European, Asian, African and Indian history are gone as well, as well as other chunks of Semite history -- not merely Hebrews, either, but Akkadians and pals. I suggest you refine your area of criticism a little, given that case.

And to suggest that there are no eyewitness accounts is equivalent to suggesting that there are no eyewitness accounts to a murder because it is the court stenographer who transcribes the actual testimony, which is essentially what happened with the gospels. Oral testimony recorded, as it was, in that particular mode at that particular time in history. The fact that the synoptic gospels and the various apocryphal gospels do in fact agree in most ways is usually taken as one of the largest proofs of a historical Jesus. The second important proof is the age old question, "why?" Why make up Jesus when you could just as easily have used any historical figure at that particular time, if you wanted a miracle-maker? Ah, but then we'd be debating the veracity of their existence, instead.
 
2007-02-18 04:57:36 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD
I'm enjoying watching Mr Sunshine flop around a little too much to throw him a bone

Please, oh great IQ'ed one? Just a scrap? Have mercy upon a simpleton such as I. I marvel at your brilliance, curse my own stupidity, and pray that one day I might achieve but a hundreth part of your glory.
 
2007-02-18 05:00:56 AM  
cthu1hu: Oh, so now you have evidence too? Wow! Well, any evidence will do. Please put forth your best effort. If it's worth its weight in salt, you should be able to provide it with minimal verbiage--because I know "evidence" to you guys means a back and forth that lasts days, ending in such a shiatstorm of comfirmation bias overload that the poor sap gives up.

1. You did not ask me, you asked Mr Sunshine
2. You have frequently used lengthy arguments to support your own position, yet request that others do not do so. This is, again, a logical fallacy. Inconsistent argument, to be specific.
3. Who are us "guys"?
4. The laws of conservation of matter-energy and 2nd thermodynamics and parsimony. Wordless enough for you?

Right, which is not at all what you've been doing.

Except that it is. I haven't picked sides. People act like retards, I punish them with the humiliating truth. I'm not responsible for your actions.

His arguments have a bit more substance(p) than that.

As is demonstrably provable from the link to the radio transcript provided by Mr Sunshine in response to my request that he illustrate his analogy or leave it as a strawman fallacy, his arguments do not, in fact, have a bit more substance than that. A single logical fallacy is a wrench in the whole works, no matter how many premises (ironic since you yourself claim, and I quote, "[e]vidence, strong or no, shouldn't take an entire book to explain, either." -- yet you link to a lengthy essay which is hawking a book -- does this type of hypocritical and inconsistent behaviour not seriously unnerve you for practicing it?) one has to their argument. If you have a hundred premises and you arrive at the fiftieth premise by way of a fallacy in the 49th, everything after is garbage. Utterly unusable. I'm sorry, that's just the way logic works. And since Dawkins himself makes the argument that is the fallacy which I illustrate, any conclusion of his is to be rejected immediately. In fact, his entire book is to be thrown in the garbage and any lectures he is giving to be walked out of, until he amends his ridiculous ways. Until each and every single one of his premises are cogent, they are to be ignored. Period. That you agree with the conclusion is irrelevant.

Again, I can't help but find it hilarious that I am to provide evidence with a minimum of verbiage but hey, Dawkings (pops) has some deep (and verbi) arguments. And yes, I know I made up the word verbi.

Mr Sunshine: Not how it sounded on my end the first time round. In any case, you didn't say "please."

I don't say please in a debate. I say please when I'm asking my grandma to pass me the salt. If you can't behave according to the accepted norms of logical debate, I do not get polite.

I don't believe that Dawkins' characterization of God as "a misogynistic. . . etc." is the central premise on which the entire book is based.

Central is irrelevant. It could be entirely tangential. It is broken and fails.

Don't patronize me. Watch out for that ego as well.

Don't deign to be patronized to. A person once told me to stop correcting them. I told them I'd stop correcting them when they stopped farking up. That applies now, as always.
 
2007-02-18 05:01:52 AM  
Mr Sunshine: Please, oh great IQ'ed one? Just a scrap? Have mercy upon a simpleton such as I. I marvel at your brilliance, curse my own stupidity, and pray that one day I might achieve but a hundreth part of your glory.

As well you should, until you stop using broken logic. And unlike you, I'm not joking.
 
2007-02-18 05:04:21 AM  
Don't stop now, guys, I just popped some kernels and grabbed a beer.
 
2007-02-18 05:04:46 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:

Yes, but there are no eyewitness accounts. And there is no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, so who cares what archaeologists think?

You admit that skepticism is legitimate. All the theologians in the world can postulate until they melt like Nazis looking at the arch. Doesn't change the fact that it is speculation.

And I'm the one who's lacking in the critical thinking department?

The second important proof is the age old question, "why?"

That's far from being "proof" in any sense.
 
2007-02-18 05:04:49 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD

So correct me. Stop wanking. Quit this "Sunshine's being stupid!" schtick you got going and be productive.
 
2007-02-18 05:14:10 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD: By his own admission, he has essentially said that God is a valid hypothesis that has not been tested but that he will come to a conclusion without testing the hypothesis first.

I haven't exactly gone through all of Dawkin's works, so I don't know all of his arguments, but it seems like he thinks it would be logically irresponsible to build upon the conclusion that a god exists when the only rational argument for a god existing is that its existence is unprovable. Perhaps you have some relevant quotes that you could produce, otherwise you are guilty of a strawman argument.
 
2007-02-18 05:16:21 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD

"The laws of conservation of matter-energy and 2nd thermodynamics and parsimony"

This is what we get from the boundless I.Q. as to the proof of a Supreme Being? "Proofs" that have no basis in scientific fact? Occam's Razor (sorry "parsimony") as a proof for a Supreme Being. Wow, boy, you really got me there. Entropy explains it all for you. Yep, I am convinced.
 
2007-02-18 05:16:47 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD: 1. You did not ask me, you asked Mr Sunshine
2. You have frequently used lengthy arguments to support your own position, yet request that others do not do so. This is, again, a logical fallacy. Inconsistent argument, to be specific.
3. Who are us "guys"?
4. The laws of conservation of matter-energy and 2nd thermodynamics and parsimony. Wordless enough for you?


Puh-lease!!

his arguments do not, in fact, have a bit more substance than that. A single logical fallacy is a wrench in the whole works, no matter how many premises (ironic since you yourself claim, and I quote, "[e]vidence, strong or no, shouldn't take an entire book to explain, either." -- yet you link to a lengthy essay which is hawking a book -- does this type of hypocritical and inconsistent behaviour not seriously unnerve you for practicing it?)

Yes, in fact, they do. And I was correcting you with that link to Dawkins, not sunshine. Nothing hypocritical and inconsistent about it.

And since Dawkins himself makes the argument that is the fallacy which I illustrate, any conclusion of his is to be rejected immediately.

Bullshiat.

Yeah, and there's nothing at all incogent about christianity and/or the bible.
 
2007-02-18 05:17:31 AM  
cthu1hu: You admit that skepticism is legitimate. All the theologians in the world can postulate until they melt like Nazis looking at the arch. Doesn't change the fact that it is speculation.

Most observations are speculations. Heisenberg demonstrated we cannot know both the mass and speed of a particle because testing its speed alters its mass and testing its mass alters its speed. However, we speculate that any two particles will be equal if composed of the same stuff (such as two electrons) and if ricocheting off one another in opposite directions, we can measure one for velocity and one for mass and speculate that we know the velocity and mass of both. Don't assume that extremely educated speculation is the same as wild speculation. Most of us speculate that things are true on general principle. I speculate that Helsinki exists. I've never been there. I know of no eye witnesses. Texts mentioning Helsinki could be forgeries, as could any photos be crude manipulations.

This too is speculation in the most solipsist sense of the word.

And I'm the one who's lacking in the critical thinking department?

So lacking that if we were face to face and I wasn't graced with the infinite mercy and patience that I am that I would have long ago shot you simply for annoying me.

The second important proof is the age old question, "why?"

That's far from being "proof" in any sense.


Yes, when removed from context it does tend to get that way? The grander question which you have, of course, cut out of your response was, "why invent a Messiah at all when history was rife with people who would have adequately fit the bill and not required any invention on your part." I thought that the previous explanation I gave, that the multitude of Gospels agreed on the various historical aspects of Jesus, would have led you to use this critical thinking which you seem to believe you have and I do not to reason that if the historical record is generally in agreement and oral tradition is so shoddy than any fictional account would have wildly deviated a long time before being recorded, as it were. This also sort of negates the fact that we only don't have eyewitness testimony if you only accept the canonical synoptic gospels as your testimony of choice. While there's obvious forgeries concerning gospels involving Jesus, there exists amongst the apocrypha that which purports to be first hand knowledge of the mission of Jesus from his multitude of disciples. They date properly and aren't obvious forgeries. This is as close to a verified eyewitness account as you're going to get (I get the dubious feeling that this won't be good enough for you since the veracity of these historical records cannot be verified, obviously, and that by extension you would accept nothing as eyewitness testimony).

Now I got up to take a break and forgot where I was. Oh well.

Mr Sunshine: So correct me. Stop wanking. Quit this "Sunshine's being stupid!" schtick you got going and be productive.

I have been correcting you. Would you like me to enumerate and reference the instances?
 
2007-02-18 05:23:04 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD
I have been correcting you. Would you like me to enumerate and reference the instances?

Yeah, I'd like to see it.
 
2007-02-18 05:23:18 AM  
The pretension oozing out of this thread could grease the buttholes of the entire republican party.
 
2007-02-18 05:25:09 AM  
cthu1hu: The pretension oozing out of this thread could grease the buttholes of the entire republican party.

Especially since those political types are pretty greasy to begin with.
 
2007-02-18 05:28:57 AM  
fonik: I haven't exactly gone through all of Dawkin's works, so I don't know all of his arguments, but it seems like he thinks it would be logically irresponsible to build upon the conclusion that a god exists when the only rational argument for a god existing is that its existence is unprovable. Perhaps you have some relevant quotes that you could produce, otherwise you are guilty of a strawman argument.

It is equally irresponsible to build upn the conclusion that a god does not exist when the only rational argument for a god not existing is that its lack of existence is unprovable. Since Dawkins admits that it is an untested hypothesis, he should not hold a belief either way. I'm not saying his belief is right or wrong, but given that premises that he's put forward on the scientific validity of God, it is irresponsible to draw a conclusion either for or against God.

Beelzebear: This is what we get from the boundless I.Q. as to the proof of a Supreme Being? "Proofs" that have no basis in scientific fact? Occam's Razor (sorry "parsimony") as a proof for a Supreme Being. Wow, boy, you really got me there. Entropy explains it all for you. Yep, I am convinced.

Funny, because parsimony is what seperates my theory from Stephen Hawkings' theory. See, his theory is based on the exact same foundation as mine, except where I throw up my hands after the singularity and go "shiat, I don't know", he goes "Imaginary time". Yeah, parsimony. Reducing the amount of entities. You can google imaginary time if you want to know what I'm talking about.

And that's not even counting the fact that I never said I believed the evidence led to the conclusion, just that I had evidence. If I have evidence of a crime it doesn't mean the crime ever went down. There could be a more rational (or entirely irrational but true explanation.) Stop reading into things that don't exist. You already got called on it once and had to admit you're wrong, which I respect, but do you really want to do it again?

cthu1hu: Puh-lease!!

To which point is this responding to?

Yes, in fact, they do. And I was correcting you with that link to Dawkins, not sunshine. Nothing hypocritical and inconsistent about it.

Since you also requested that I offer my evidence without much verbiage, your defence is not only moot but borderline stupid for being made. It remains inconsistent and hypocritical, demonstrably so.

Bullshiat.

No, logic. Dawkins himself admits to the fallacy. The fallacy is a premise. All premises after are to therefore be rejected. The conclusion is to be rejected. I don't care if you don't like it because logic doesn't care if you don't like it.

Yeah, and there's nothing at all incogent about christianity and/or the bible.

This is germane to the topic how?

Also, it's another example of tu quoque.
 
2007-02-18 05:33:24 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD: and that by extension you would accept nothing as eyewitness testimony

I would glady accept any eyewitness account as eyewitness testimony.

"why invent a Messiah at all when history was rife with people who would have adequately fit the bill and not required any invention on your part."

Why invent Paul Bunyan? Or Thor? Or Zues? Or Hercules?

So lacking that if we were face to face and I wasn't graced with the infinite mercy and patience that I am that I would have long ago shot you simply for annoying me.

Your critical thinking skills are matched only by your maturity.
 
2007-02-18 05:37:41 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD: It is equally irresponsible to build upn the conclusion that a god does not exist when the only rational argument for a god not existing is that its lack of existence is unprovable. Since Dawkins admits that it is an untested hypothesis, he should not hold a belief either way. I'm not saying his belief is right or wrong, but given that premises that he's put forward on the scientific validity of God, it is irresponsible to draw a conclusion either for or against God.

Absolutely! A lack of evidence is not evidence unless the lack of evidence is evidence itself. Meaning to say, God can certainly exist as long as the bible is wrong about most statements about god's actions and power. This can be generalized by examining the similarities in creation stories. All creation stories that I've studied so far have been contradictory to verifiable scientific fact. I gathered from Dawkin's videos and lectures that his argument wasn't "No God can possibly exist," it was more like, "Your God can't possibly exist." Otherwise, why would he specifically attack the personality traits of the Christian god if his argument was general to all religions?

It's possible that in videos or interviews that I haven't seen, he poses the argument that NO god can exist, but unless you can produce such evidence of his beliefs, you have committed a fallacy.
 
2007-02-18 05:42:21 AM  
cthu1hu: I would glady accept any eyewitness account as eyewitness testimony.

Then feel free to peruse the apocryphal gospels at your leisure. They're easily found.

Why invent Paul Bunyan? Or Thor? Or Zues? Or Hercules?

Miraculous, miraculous, miraculous, miraculous.

The better question would be, "why invent George Washington? Or Nero? Or Ummon? Or Mohammed?"

All of these people have had mythologies built around historical fact. All of your examples are of pure mythology with no actual personage existing or, for that matter, needing to exist. None of Zeus' stories are extensive preachings on social justice. Paul Bunyan doesn't grow frustrated with money lenders profaning the temple. Hercules doesn't chide the materialists for subverting the culture. Thor doesn't sit with money lenders and tax collectors because they're people too.

Unlike the others, none of their "deeds" can be seperated from their miracles, whereas the bulk of Jesus' existence is mundane preaching and whatnot.

Your critical thinking skills are matched only by your maturity.

I agree, it is pretty mature not to kill people over petty disagreements. I'm flattered that you've so complimented my ability to think critically.
 
2007-02-18 05:44:01 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD: To which point is this responding to?

All of the above.

Since you also requested that I offer my evidence without much verbiage, your defence is not only moot but borderline stupid for being made. It remains inconsistent and hypocritical, demonstrably so.

But I'm not offering evidence to anything, jackass. I'm correcting your grossly misinformed opinion that Dawkins' argument consists solely of god not existing because he's unpleasant.

Pick practically any paragraph in the article and you'll find a different argument, valid in its own right. I don't give a flying fark if he made an alleged logical mistake in any point, past present or future.

The bible has many mistakes. Do you reject it wholly with the same bullheaded gusto?
 
2007-02-18 05:47:52 AM  
fonik: Absolutely! A lack of evidence is not evidence unless the lack of evidence is evidence itself. Meaning to say, God can certainly exist as long as the bible is wrong about most statements about god's actions and power. This can be generalized by examining the similarities in creation stories. All creation stories that I've studied so far have been contradictory to verifiable scientific fact. I gathered from Dawkin's videos and lectures that his argument wasn't "No God can possibly exist," it was more like, "Your God can't possibly exist." Otherwise, why would he specifically attack the personality traits of the Christian god if his argument was general to all religions?

That makes the assumption that creation myths are literal and not allegorical.

It's possible that in videos or interviews that I haven't seen, he poses the argument that NO god can exist, but unless you can produce such evidence of his beliefs, you have committed a fallacy.

Since he is an atheist, he by definition believes that no god exists. Furthermore, if you clicked on cthu1hu's little link above, you would see the following: "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God" You will notice that that does not say "Why There Almost Certainly Is No Abrahamic God". If you read further, you will see this: "Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence, what should be our best estimate of the probability that God exists, given the evidence now available? Pretty low I think, and here's why." You will notice, again, that that does not involve an Abrahamic God.

Thus you see that he has drawn an atheist conclusion based on his tacit admittance that it is an untested hypothesis.

Why would you think me so base and puerile as to commit an obvious logical fallacy?
 
2007-02-18 05:48:10 AM  
Aww, this thread is losing its entertainment value.

/although I bet doc mojo is searching for a good quote to post right about now.
 
2007-02-18 05:48:22 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD

Ok, I admitted that I was wrong, thank you for correcting me on the previous discussion. However, correcting me on your opinion of proof of a Supreme Being doesn't make sense. You first said that you have evidence, and then say that even though you have evidence, that is not proof. Great, got that.

As to the Imaginary Time (Hawking) statement. Yes, he postulates that after the event horizon there was a twinning (or more) of the time streams and uses this to fill holes in his Quantum Mechanics. Throwing up your hands and saying that Occam's Razor necessitates the existence of a defining hand seems counter-productive though. Surely it would be more reasonable to state that the theory may be flawed, or that we are unable at the present time to work the numbers. A supreme being takes a huge leap in logic from there, does it not?
 
2007-02-18 05:50:29 AM  
It's not a circle-jerk of sophistry, it's Fark.com

Oh your grace? I'm still waiting.
 
2007-02-18 05:51:04 AM  
cthu1hu: All of the above.

Since you have been asking for evidence, it's now my turn to do the same. On what evidence do you answer that to all of the above?

But I'm not offering evidence to anything, jackass. I'm correcting your grossly misinformed opinion that Dawkins' argument consists solely of god not existing because he's unpleasant.

Since I never said Dawkins' argument constisted solely of God not existing because he's unpleasant, I'm not sure what you're rambling about.

Pick practically any paragraph in the article and you'll find a different argument, valid in its own right. I don't give a flying fark if he made an alleged logical mistake in any point, past present or future.

In its own right, yes. If a logical fallacy is to be inserted into the middle of the premises, it is no longer valid, and since none of his arguments exist in their own right, then the introduction of a logical fallacy thereby taints the entire argument. Welcome to Logic 101.

The bible has many mistakes. Do you reject it wholly with the same bullheaded gusto?

Of course.
 
2007-02-18 05:54:49 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD: Why would you think me so base and puerile as to commit an obvious logical fallacy?

Because you did. "Almost certainly" != "certainly", and to accuse someone else of making that mistake is also pretty dumb without evidence.

His argument that there is probably no god stems directly from the myths and stories that are part of the religion. This is the opposite approach that you can observe from other philosophers such as Kant, who argues first that there IS a god, regardless of the myths and stories surrounding it, and then moves on to rationally prove different parts of the religion.

So basically, your misrepresentation of his argument tries to place him in the opposite category of theological philosophers.
 
2007-02-18 05:56:19 AM  
If you insist on pointing out fallacies when someone makes even the slightest farkup, it would be big of you to admit your own minor mistakes.
 
2007-02-18 05:57:00 AM  
Beelzebear: However, correcting me on your opinion of proof of a Supreme Being doesn't make sense. You first said that you have evidence, and then say that even though you have evidence, that is not proof. Great, got that.

I said I had evidence, I didn't say the evidence was meaningful. You have to consider, however, I just stated the three laws -- parsimony's not really a law, though -- that cthu1hu requested. I didn't have time to elaborate.

As to the Imaginary Time (Hawking) statement. Yes, he postulates that after the event horizon there was a twinning (or more) of the time streams and uses this to fill holes in his Quantum Mechanics. Throwing up your hands and saying that Occam's Razor necessitates the existence of a defining hand seems counter-productive though. Surely it would be more reasonable to state that the theory may be flawed, or that we are unable at the present time to work the numbers. A supreme being takes a huge leap in logic from there, does it not?

Not really, no. Hawking seems to arrive at his thread of reasoning the same way as I do; Conservation of matter-energy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics put a definite start point to the universe since they, twinned, basically say the universe is finite. What Hawking argues (and he does so, openly, to deny the existence of any deity), was that time intersects with what he terms "imaginary time" to create a singularity. This is about one more entity than God (by about I mean actually, his involves two entities, mine involves one). The lesser leap of logic is a theistic creator. I'm not saying it's right and that I buy it, I'm just saying it's evidence. When you have an eminent physicist giving tacit admittance that if it wasn't for increasing the entities to explain the existence of the universe, you would basically require some God, limited or not... it's fairly strong evidence.
 
2007-02-18 05:58:20 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD: Then feel free to peruse the apocryphal gospels at your leisure. They're easily found.

Um, we don't even know who the real authors are. And even if we did, it's not generally accepted consensus that they're eyewitness accounts accept to christians with conformation bias seeping out of their ears.

Paul Bunyan doesn't grow frustrated with money lenders profaning the temple.

Allegedly.

Unlike the others, none of their "deeds" can be seperated from their miracles, whereas the bulk of Jesus' existence is mundane preaching and whatnot.

So absence of miracles proves that jesus existed. Your logic is as impeccable as your spelling.
 
2007-02-18 05:58:45 AM  
www.happynews.com
 
Displayed 50 of 534 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report