Replying to a lack of reason with reason - Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

WP Members: > 70,000

New Today: 21
New Yesterday: 34

Replying to a lack of reason with reason

Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Phoenix

Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12092
Location: La belle province

Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:05 pm Post subject:

Ancalagon wrote:

I haven't made assertions of the existence of a theistic God in this thread. If you make an assertion of the non-existence of such a God, you then have the burden of proof of such non-existence.

This is in many ways an intellectually insulting statement. There is nothing to assert the existence of God to begin with, yet you act as if claiming it unlikely requires the burden of proof, when the path leading to the "unlikely" or "nonexistent" position is based on the lack of proof for theism to begin with...

So... please provide disproof for Cronus chopping off Uranus' junk to free the Hetaconshires and Cyclopes

Ancalagon wrote:

After all, if God exists, he made the universe and everything in it. Why should God be detectable by scientific methods? (Especially if he does not wish to be detected.)

The assumption that something doesn't exist unless science can detect it is a philosophical assumption.

This is where the argument leaves credible territory, I'm afraid
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Ancalagon
Computer Geek
Phoenix

Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 2388

Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:19 pm Post subject:

Vigilans wrote:

There is nothing to assert the existence of God to begin with, yet you act as if claiming it unlikely requires the burden of proof,

I didn't say anything about claiming it unlikely. I said something about claiming it impossible.

OP has claimed it impossible, and according to his provided rationale for who has the burden of proof, it's him.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:26 am Post subject:

Ancalagon wrote:

Quote:

This is not disrespect, this is respect for all.

So you think it would be respectful of me to, for example, start calling you "the thing"?

Quote:

Get over yourself. I don't need to expand my generalized pronouns and nouns. They are all encompassing, you just need to be less arrogant and think that only your pronoun is good enough or the only right pronoun.

You should read my response to Vigilans' question.

"it" and "thing" are not insults. I'm sorry you feel that they are, but they just aren't. This is ridiculous.

You can call me whatever you want. I don't really care if I receive respect or ridicule, and I especially don't care if you use broader pronouns to describe me. It is more precise to use "he" in my case, but you did not necessarily know I was male, and referring to me as "it" or "thing" or "being" or "person" or whatever other general term you want is perfectly fine.

The definition of "it" and "thing" I was using.

It - pronoun: (used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded)

Thing - noun: (some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described)

In the context of asking what the name was, "the thing" is the correct string of words to use. I am having trouble formulating the same sentence without using that word. I could use "Isn't its name Yahweh?" but that uses "its" which you similarly don't seem to like. Why do people even refer to this entity as male? Does he have male reproductive organs? I've never read in any religious text about "his" junk. And why would he have those parts, given the concept of this entity, being all powerful, all knowing, and unique of its kind...what would "he" need them for??? Gender neutral has to be right...right? But even if your concept is a male, how am I supposed to know that? And why are you being offended that I don't just assume it is male? Are you offended by a lack of presumption? Why?

I don't know how to explain more why these very simple, general, and commonly used words are not offensive, cannot be offensive. But, you are likely beyond my help anyway. So I'm going to go....um, and do something productive.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?

TM
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:20 am Post subject:

Reason and religion: The argument against a theistic god was done as I quoted by Epicurus about 2000 years ago and disproves what is known as the «3-O» god, IE omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. We can continue that “god works in mysterious ways” or any other colloquialism on the topic is ad hoc and thus a logical fallacy. We can continue with evidence, among it the fact that the laws of nature and evolution by natural selection bear no marks of being touched by a creator and even if they were, it is clear that such a god does not interact with its creation. Moving on, as Keller said, a god that performs miracles and contact some is unfair and that is not a characteristic of the Christian god. Every “scientific” claim the Bible has made can be refuted and has been refuted in Victor Stenger’s book “The God Hypothesis”. One of the main points by Stenger is that if we approach god in much the same way cosmologists do new planets, by observation, we can see that the proposed miracles could not have taken place because “residue” would be left behind. For instance, if god stops the sun (as the bible claims he does) that is a claim that god stopped the rotation of the earth for a time. This is something that A: would violate the laws of nature and B: would be observable by several more advanced cultures at the time. Manipulation of words: Manipulation of words occur when you do not state your definitions, I clearly stated which definition I was using in every argument I made. The first statement was to illustrate that I use one definition for reason which is clearly inconsistent with faith and then you dispute the definition that I used rather than the argument. The second statement proves that according to dictionary definitions it becomes an oxymoron to say “I believe in faith due to reason” if one uses the definitions of the words I stated that I was using. “Outs” “There exists no such thing as a commonly accepted Atheist doctrine outside of “There exists no deities” is not ad hoc, “god works in mysterious ways”, “evil may happen due to some more good coming out of it” and so on is ad hoc. This also relates to your disagreement with the problem of evil, where your reply is ad hoc at best or an argument from ignorance at worst. Causation and correlation: It doesn’t fail to distinguish them at all; they are both listed because they are both relevant to the topic at hand. How can I put this, when a Christian burns a woman at the stake for being a witch, when a jewish person takes a blade to the penis of a newborn or groups of Muslims take sharp rocks to the genitals of a baby girl, that is behavior which is caused by religion. When the Nazi Germans (Many of whom were from Catholic strongholds such as Prussia and Bavaria) displayed anti-Semitic behavior this may correlate with the church preaching anti-Semitism as doctrine for about a thousand years. Stephen Weinberg famously said “If left to their own devices, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things, for a good person to do an evil thing that takes religion”. Can you present me with a case where Atheism is either a cause or a correlation to anti-social behavior? The Teapot and Dr. Collins I know the quote “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” as well; however it’s not really relevant here as the teapot goes towards pointing out that when such an assertion is made the reasonable standpoint is to be either a teapot agnostic or a teapot atheist. The teapot was coined by Dr. Russell to refute just the kind of argument from ignorance that you are making. In essence, your reply about Dr. Collins and the Scientific method is the exact reason why Dr. Russell came up with the teapot. Furthermore, as Stenger states in his book, even if god itself does not exist, one should be able to scientifically measure his interactions with the world. As I stated with the “stopping the sun” bit, that is something that would have been observed by multiple other cultures. I’m sorry for saying this, but you appear to be the kind of person who has never read any of the arguments against his position ever because we keep coming back to arguments that have been made throughout history. So, considering that my initial argument was that you could not hold a religious belief if you applied correct logic and reason. Then add that you since then have made logical fallacies in every one of your replies (ad hoc, non sequitur and argumentum ad ignoratum) I’d say my assertion is becoming stronger by the reply.

Ancalagon
Computer Geek
Phoenix

Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 2388

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:53 pm Post subject:

TM wrote:

The argument against a theistic god was done as I quoted by Epicurus about 2000 years ago

Why mention this? Are you asserting that something written about 2000 years ago is somehow automatically correct? If that is the case, I can quote you a few other things written about 2000 years ago that you might not like as much.

Quote:

and disproves what is known as the «3-O» god, IE omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

And as I've previously stated, the definitions you're using are not what I would use.

Since you like fallacies so much, I'll name this one for you: Strawman.

Quote:

We can continue that “god works in mysterious ways” or any other colloquialism on the topic

That phrase was used by you, not by me.

Quote:

We can continue with evidence, among it the fact that the laws of nature and evolution by natural selection bear no marks of being touched by a creator and even if they were, it is clear that such a god does not interact with its creation.

What would a mark of being touched by a creator look like? How is it clear that God does not interact with his creation?

Quote:

Moving on, as Keller said, a god that performs miracles and contact some is unfair and that is not a characteristic of the Christian god.

What?

Quote:

Every “scientific” claim the Bible has made can be refuted and has been refuted in Victor Stenger’s book “The God Hypothesis”.

I was not aware of any scientific claims in the Bible.

Quote:

One of the main points by Stenger is that if we approach god in much the same way cosmologists do new planets, by observation, we can see that the proposed miracles could not have taken place because “residue” would be left behind.

Why would it make sense to approach the possibility of an all-powerful being who can warp the laws of nature at will in the same way as the possibility of a new planet?

I don't actually assert the miracle you mention, but it does seem a stretch to claim that an all-powerful being could not have possibly pulled it off. In particular, your assertion that it should be disbelieved because it would violate the laws of nature is just silly. What is meant by miracle if not a violation of the laws of nature?

Quote:

if one uses the definitions of the words I stated that I was using.

If your argument requires the acceptance of definitions which I don't accept, why don't you change the form of the argument so that I can accept the definitions used, or else argue for the correctness of your definitions?

Quote:

This also relates to your disagreement with the problem of evil, where your reply is ad hoc at best or an argument from ignorance at worst.

You like quoting the names of fallacies, but doing so is not an argument.

Quote:

Causation and correlation:

It doesn’t fail to distinguish them at all; they are both listed because they are both relevant to the topic at hand.

Have you really not heard of the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy (aka correlation does not imply causation)?

Quote:

How can I put this, when a Christian burns a woman at the stake for being a witch, when a jewish person takes a blade to the penis of a newborn or groups of Muslims take sharp rocks to the genitals of a baby girl, that is behavior which is caused by religion.

My jaw dropped when I read this. Until now, you had been polite, and I had really appreciated that.

First, I should note that all of the above are instances of the "Appeal to emotion", "Cherry picking", and "Association" fallacies. Second, your examples, though offensive, are not very good. You should know that female "circumcision" is an African custom, not specifically a Muslim one. The reason it is associated with Islam so much is that a fair amount of the area in which it is practiced is Islamic. (My mentioning this as an African custom is not meant to insult Africans in general, as there are very large areas where it is not practiced at all. I am merely pointing out the geographic (not religious) nature of this unfortunate practice.)

While male circumcision is controversial, it is simply not on the same level as female genital mutilation or burning at the stake. Nor is it always performed for religious reasons, and it seems to have at least some medical benefits. While I am not advocating for it, mere mention of it is hardly an argument.

Burning at the stake and other methods of torture and execution by torture do have an unfortunate connection with religion at certain points in history, but in pointing this out you are ignoring all the secular connections with torture and execution by torture.

Quote:

When the Nazi Germans (Many of whom were from Catholic strongholds such as Prussia and Bavaria) displayed anti-Semitic behavior this may correlate with the church preaching anti-Semitism as doctrine for about a thousand years.

Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Quote:

I know the quote “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” as well;

I did not quote anyone here.

Quote:

The teapot was coined by Dr. Russell to refute just the kind of argument from ignorance that you are making.

I am not making such an argument. I don't think there is a proof or disproof of the existence of God, so I responded to your assertion that there was such a disproof.

Quote:

Furthermore, as Stenger states in his book, even if god itself does not exist, one should be able to scientifically measure his interactions with the world.

I don't care who stated it or where, you haven't given me reason to think God should be scientifically measurable.

Quote:

So, considering that my initial argument was that you could not hold a religious belief if you applied correct logic and reason. Then add that you since then have made logical fallacies in every one of your replies (ad hoc, non sequitur and argumentum ad ignoratum) I’d say my assertion is becoming stronger by the reply.

I'm more familiar with mathematical logic than the informal "list of fallacies" style, but I've noted several fallacies of yours above.

More importantly, this statement itself is an "Argument from fallacy", aka the fallacy fallacy.

There are several instances where, for example, you labelled something as 'ad hoc' without justification. I don't particularly care about the name of the fallacy, I want to know the location of my alleged incorrect reasoning, not that you think it's the such and such fallacy.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Ancalagon
Computer Geek
Phoenix

Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 2388

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:02 pm Post subject:

NarcissusSavage wrote:

This is ridiculous.

I agree that further discussion of the point would not be productive. (Although you would probably disagree with my reasons.)

On the "does God have genitals" question: No, of course not. There are instances in the Bible where he is referred to in specifically female form (though these are much less common).
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

fraac
Tufted Titmouse
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 1865

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:14 pm Post subject:

Thom_Fuleri wrote:

fraac wrote:

It's possible to be a perfectly rational religious person.

Not really. The whole point of religious faith is that you're believing in something without evidence.

Without evidence that you can present to someone else. Any genuinely religious person would have plenty of firsthand evidence. Compare it to an autistic savant who can factor big numbers: he knows the answers but he can't possibly explain it to a random idiot. Funny thing about all the properly clever religious people like Jesus or Buddha is they know and explicitly say that all they can do is tell you stories, you have to reach the truth by yourself.

Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Phoenix

Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12092
Location: La belle province

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:35 pm Post subject:

If it is "evidence" that cannot be presented outside of the person's own mind- how is it evidence? That savant example is nonsensical, the savant would simply be able to demonstrate his or her ability by... factoring big numbers... in his head (so no calculator or piece of paper).. in front of people, and getting the answer right. Mental math capability is something most people have or can develop, and furthermore can demonstrate their ability... A guy or gal who claims to have met or spoken to God/s cannot in any way demonstrate it in this manner. At least, none have ever been able to as of yet _________________ Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Thom_Fuleri
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Posts: 802
Location: Leicestershire, UK

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:06 pm Post subject:

fraac wrote:

Thom_Fuleri wrote:

fraac wrote:

It's possible to be a perfectly rational religious person.

Not really. The whole point of religious faith is that you're believing in something without evidence.

Without evidence that you can present to someone else. Any genuinely religious person would have plenty of firsthand evidence.

A paranoid schizophrenic can be convinced that the government is spying on him, but cannot produce any evidence to someone else. All his evidence is first hand - and yet we would not consider this person to be thinking rationally.

Quote:

Compare it to an autistic savant who can factor big numbers: he knows the answers but he can't possibly explain it to a random idiot.

Actually, that may not be rational thought. The means by which a savant can do these feats are often a mystery. As I've said elsewhere, being rational and being right do not necessarily go together. You can be one without being the other. But if we were to assume this WAS a rational process (and I'm not committing on that one either way), it could be verified. The fact the answers are demonstrably correct IS the evidence.

Quote:

Funny thing about all the properly clever religious people like Jesus or Buddha is they know and explicitly say that all they can do is tell you stories, you have to reach the truth by yourself.

It is funny, that. Jesus set out to destroy an organised religion, not create one. But people like to be told what to do. The biggest enemy of atheism is not Christianity or Islam - it's the human brain's propensity to believe in absolute drivel. If you ever doubt this is true, look into homeopathy, crystal healing, UFO cults, "Most Haunted", horoscopes, auras, the Bible Code, "The Celestine Prophecy", "Doctor" Gillian McKeith (who once claimed water has calories) and the ongoing search for the Loch Ness Monster. And so much more besides.

Tadzio
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 877
Location: Banned-4-Epilepsy, USA

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:20 pm Post subject: Hitler,autism,Reagan,Bush,Nixon

Ancalagon wrote:

While male circumcision is controversial, it is simply not on the same level as female genital mutilation or burning at the stake. Nor is it always performed for religious reasons,

Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Ancalagon wrote:

On the "does God have genitals" question: No, of course not. There are instances in the Bible where he is referred to in specifically female form (though these are much less common).

Hi Ancalagon,

I'm sorry that Hitler's religious views, with the whims of history, have made the word "Hitler", and references to the historical "Hitler", so frequent, as it is well known to be a historical irritant to today's references whenever Hitler's Christianity is included as part of the total of Chistianity.
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Hitler%2Cautism%2CReagan%2CBush%2CNixon&year_start=1900&year_end=2012&corpus=0&smoothing=3

By frequency of usage, "Jesus" is twelve-times "Godwin's Law" worse than "Hitler", while "Christ" is nine-times, and "God" tops out at 36-times worse than "Hitler" by "Godwin's Law":
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Hitler%2CJesus%2CReagan%2CBush%2CChrist&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Hitler%2CJesus%2CReagan%2CGod%2CChrist&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

You must have missed the word count fallacies referenced in a previous forum questioning functional utilities of the near nonsenses like "Godwin's Law" of word usages of the word "Hitler". "Godwin's Law" sounds of minor "Cloud Cuckoo Land" when the prior history has minimal connection, but a nill connection between religion, Christianity, and one of the World's most recently historical leaders,that was also a devout Christian? Word counts do connect various facets of history and most sciences, though using the most known history as an argument against considering the most known is absurd, unless only denial is sought, and given the nature of a previous forum including word count references, your alleged "jaw drop" here seems rather unlikely:

Tadzio wrote:

NeantHumain wrote:

Is there really a right to wank?

Hi NeantHumain,

"In Academe, wanking is a full-time job, and teaching others how to wank, a sign of intellectual respectability."
http://books.google.com/books?id=qe1c0BXw19UC&q=wank#v=snippet&q=wank&f=false

"Recycling Shakespeare" by Charles Marowitz (2000), page 73, Chapter 7.

It's just that most narrow minded and self-righteous prudes are against truly intellectual pursuits. The bigger & better universities have much larger libraries to promote such activities.

Tadzio

(on page 71, a mere two pages prior to your former "jaw dropless"), & again in another forum, the mere NOT mentioning the possible problems were taken as excuse for exoneration of circumcision barbarisms. "Hardly" by your reckoning, either of two possible ways, so you know what you wish not to acknowledge as you know what you claim not to know.

Your stance is the Classic response to concerns about apathy to Public ignorance being expressed as "Don't Know & Don't Care, But Everyone Listen To Chesterton" for token brownie points.

The Gods do have genitals. You don't know where many baby gods come from???

Tadzio

fraac
Tufted Titmouse
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 1865

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:52 pm Post subject:

Thom, if you want to redefine rationality as something that can be explained rather than just a process for understanding then you should probably use a different word. I could try to teach arithmetic to my dog but I doubt he would ever consider it rational.

Thom_Fuleri
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Posts: 802
Location: Leicestershire, UK

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:48 pm Post subject:

fraac wrote:

Thom, if you want to redefine rationality as something that can be explained rather than just a process for understanding then you should probably use a different word. I could try to teach arithmetic to my dog but I doubt he would ever consider it rational.

Oh dear. I'm not redefining anything. I already said I'm not committing either way on savant thought processes - so where do you take issue?

It's nothing to do with explaining it. A rational process is one that works though the problem step by step and deduces the answer from the evidence. An irrational process makes a "leap". Both can be wrong, the latter more often. There's a ton of rational processes I can't explain - like Microsoft Windows, which no one person really knows how it all works. It's too big for one mind to hold at once.

Irrational thinking is actually very useful. It's FAST. It may be wrong a lot of the time, but often not THAT wrong, and if you do something a lot you get better at it. Think of baking - a beginner will weigh out ingredients very carefully, because if they guess the quantities they'll end up with a big mess. Master bakers, though, often don't need scales. They have a sense of how much of everything they need, and they can adjust as they go. Their approach is irrational in that it doesn't work things out. But it still works, and it's faster.

ProfumoAffair
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 58

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:03 pm Post subject:

Vigilans wrote:

So... please provide disproof for Cronus chopping off Uranus' junk to free the Hetaconshires and Cyclopes

Hecatonshires? One hundred shires? Seems you decided to multiply the size of the UK.

fraac
Tufted Titmouse
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 1865

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:20 pm Post subject:

Thom_Fuleri wrote:

fraac wrote:

I've never heard anyone say bakers are irrational for knowing what a pound of flour looks like. You've redefined the word. And how do you know that Windows is rational if you can't understand it? Is that just a matter of faith for you? What's the difference between Microsoft Windows, deism, and teaching my dog arithmetic?

Thom_Fuleri
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Posts: 802
Location: Leicestershire, UK

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:09 pm Post subject:

fraac wrote:

I'm beginning to think "irrational" is continuing to try talking to you... It's not a difficult concept - logical, step by step analysis is rational. Taking an intuitive leap is irrational. Windows is rational, despite frequent evidence to the contrary, because it has those rational steps - there are just too many for us to take in at once. Baking by following a recipe is rational, because it's a logical sequence of steps. Baking by throwing rough quantities into a bowl is irrational as it skips the measuring step - the fact it can work is irrelevant.

Deism is irrational because it makes an intuitive assumption - that there is a deity of some form. There is no evidence to support this claim and no significant difference is made by this deity's existence or absence, so the rational approach is to assume there is none unless and until evidence is found. If we had to rationalise the non-existence of every fantasy we'd never get anything done. It's just as irrational to definitively state there is no deity when there is likewise no evidence to support this. The interesting thing is that one of these positions MUST be true - there either is a deity, or there isn't - but both are irrational viewpoints. The rational viewpoint is that, unless a deity has a measurable impact on our existence, there is no reason to think it exists.

Teaching your dog arithmetic is not necessarily irrational, just ridiculous.

Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Forums ©

Read more Articles on Wrong Planet

Wrong Planet is a Registered Trademark.
Copyright 2004-2013, Wrong Planet, LLC and Alex Plank. Alex does public speaking for Autism.

Advertise on Wrong Planet

Wrong Planet News Wrong Planet Forums