A non-atheist CAN be a skeptic. [Archive]

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 04:30 PM

In the same sense that a scientist can be an astrologer, or at least give astrology some credibility.

Given the evidence for the claims (which is none), hypocrisy and being misinformed appear to be the only two likely possibilites. It's possible that you can have knowledge no one else does, but not likely.

There is as much evidence of a god's existence as there is gnomes, elves, dwarves, astrology, homeopathy, and less obvious facts that people may believe in but are actually unsupported, such as the validity of lie detector tests.

We all make mistakes. And it is up to others to help them realize their mistakes. ;)

In Bidlack's commentary, there is something I take issue with:

Can a person be both a skeptic and a person of faith?

The answer is, Mr. Randi and I agree, a resounding YES.

Now, I would have to disagree with both of you if "skeptic" means a rational and critical thinker.

Faith is the exact opposite of critical thinking-- it's accepting something without evidence, fact, observation, or any rational basis despite the lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary.

While a critical thinking skeptic can be a nonatheist, a "true" skeptic cannot be a person with faith-- faith is the opposite of skepticism.

arcticpenguin

9th May 2003, 04:35 PM

And yet there are things you could probably agree on with some of these "skeptical theists", such as that Penta water, homeopathy, psychic readings, telekinesis, abduction by little green men, etc. are a drag on society, and educating people about them is a good thing.

I hope.

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 04:37 PM

In short, the misinformed skeptic who is a theist is no more a skeptic than the atheist skeptic.

However, if they have the same information and come to a different conclusion, then either the information is too vague, one's life experiences keep them conceeding for whatever reason, or one simply isn't as much of a skeptic as the other.

A skeptic can believe in homeopathy... but if you keep on showing them how that homeopathy has not been showed to have an effect time and time again, pointing out the research, and they still insist and hold out, then their thinking is flawed.

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
And yet there are things you could probably agree on with some of these "skeptical theists", such as that Penta water, homeopathy, psychic readings, telekinesis, abduction by little green men, etc. are a drag on society, and educating people about them is a good thing.

I hope.

Of course.

The issue of God is, however, an issue that belongs in that list-- it's a claim believed in by people but is not necessary needed to explain things (Occam's razor comes to mind) and no evidence supports it.

arcticpenguin

9th May 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

A skeptic can believe in homeopathy... but if you keep on showing them how that homeopathy has not been showed to have an effect time and time again, pointing out the research, and they still insist and hold out, then their thinking is flawed.
A key point here being that homeopathy is a testable claim.

LucyR

9th May 2003, 04:40 PM

I think you underestimate the human capacity to compartmentalize attitudes and beliefs. I mean I'm an atheist, but I'm sure I could find a Christian person who is less likely than me to fall for the banter of a used-car salesman. For example. Or when people tell me I'm witty, intelligent and attractive, I'm inclined to believe it, but I don't see any evidence for the existence of God.

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

A key point here being that homeopathy is a testable claim.

You're right, I admit that.

If a claim is not testable, that does not make it more valid, however.

An unfalsifiable theory is actually what it is...

But neither have evidence, and neither are needed to explain things.

NoZed Avenger

9th May 2003, 04:43 PM

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by LucyR
I think you underestimate the human capacity to compartmentalize attitudes and beliefs. I mean I'm an atheist, but I'm sure I could find a Christian person who is less likely than me to fall for the banter of a used-car salesman. For example. Or when people tell me I'm witty, intelligent and attractive, I'm inclined to believe it, but I don't see any evidence for the existence of God.

That is why you ask for evidence for the claims of the used-car salesman, and when they claim your intelligent, attractive, and witty, they should provide evidence too (not that hard-- comparisons are all you need for that).

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

I hope you a gentle with Mr. Randi when you kick him out of his foundation and set it on the one, true and correct path.

. . . After you're grounding ends, I mean.

NA

I didn't quite understand that.

arcticpenguin

9th May 2003, 04:44 PM

DC,

There's a concept called "the fervor of the convert" that perhaps you could look into.

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
DC,

There's a concept called "the fervor of the convert" that perhaps you could look into.

Given all the information I/we have (or don't have as the case is with unsupported claims), there is only one possible rational conclusion, I believe.

The issue isn't necessarily atheism-- the only reason that's touchy is because religion has been a "big thing" with people for a long, long time.

The claim of God's existence is similar to that of other unfounded claims, except it's not falsifiable... but then again, I don't think ANYTHING truly is. You can add any unlikely factor. You could say that the existence of, say, Piltdown can be (and was) falsified, which is technically true, but one could invent a scenario where where all attempts to disprove it were contaminated by gnomes, replaced by aliens, or anything even more bizarre. That's why we use Occam's razor for that and similar ideas. I could be wrong on that point, however-- do point it out if I am.

I hope I made sense-- I didn't express myself very good on that.

Torment

9th May 2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Now, I would have to disagree with both of you if "skeptic" means a rational and critical thinker.

Faith is the exact opposite of critical thinking-- it's accepting something without evidence, fact, observation, or any rational basis despite the lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary.

While a critical thinking skeptic can be a nonatheist, a "true" skeptic cannot be a person with faith-- faith is the opposite of skepticism.

Many theists do think that there is infact evidence, observation, and rational basis for God though. They also don't think there is evidence to the contrarty either. (Quite frankly they are right in the last part, there is no evidence against a God, because like you said it is an undisprovable claim)

As far as I'm concerned their reasoning is flawed, but can't you say the same is true for many skeptics who aren't thiests? There is no definite written method of reasoning, and many times "evidence" for one thing or another has been disproven despite being accepted by many of the scientific community as true prior to that point.

What I'm trying to say is theists can be skeptics, they just happen to be wrong in one case.

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 04:59 PM

If we would be discussing gnomes who could fade out of reality whenever something would observe them and then fade in elsewhere that was safe, that would be unfalsifiable, would that not?

Let's use these gnomes in the similar God-sense.

These gnomes are used to explain where underpants, pocket change, and the TV remote disappear too. If they re-appear, then the magical gnomes put them back, or perhaps lead you to find them in the couch cushions and you didn't realize it.

No informed, rational person would believe such a thing. And I believe God is quite similar to such a scenario. The continued belief of God is simply a product of society in general believing in it-- humans do appear to have a herd mentality in some cases.

It's not because it's religion. It's because it's plain ol' irrationality.

arcticpenguin

9th May 2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

The issue isn't necessarily atheism-- the only reason that's touchy is because religion has been a "big thing" with people for a long, long time.

It certainly is a big thing for you recently. But it is not the only thing.

DC, I think you know by now that I am an atheist also, but all things have a time and a place. You don't show up at someone's wedding and start showing embarrassing pictures of them (OK, not unless you really, really hate them).

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 05:03 PM

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

It certainly is a big thing for you recently. But it is not the only thing.

DC, I think you know by now that I am an atheist also, but all things have a time and a place. You don't show up at someone's wedding and start showing embarrassing pictures of them (OK, not unless you really, really hate them).

Religion is supposed to be respected in society, even though it deserves none. People treat it as if it is important, but it hold no water. If people thought of healing crystals the same way their do their dogmas, then the targets would be equal.

Checkmite

9th May 2003, 05:18 PM

The JREF is based on the principle of proving questionable claims false through scientific means, primarily testing.

Since the God hypothesis is untestable, the JREF does not care if you believe in God - which is one of the reasons the organization is so cool. To be succinct - God doesn't matter here. Let the philosophers debate such things; we'll stick to scientific issues.

9th May 2003, 05:21 PM

Dear all,

Is Martin Gardner a skeptic, or not? I'd certainly say yes.

Sincerely,

S. H.

LucyR

9th May 2003, 05:22 PM

It's very naive to deny the importance of religion in human society. As a critical thinker this is unworthy of you. Religion, in its various guises, is apparently very useful, if not essential, for maintaining societal cohesion.

Nyarlathotep

9th May 2003, 05:24 PM

I can see how one could, in theory have a non-atheist skeptic (or a non-skeptical atheist for that matter though I think that is a lot more rare), however in MOST people (and this is purely my opinion here) the line of reasoning that leadsone to either skepticismor atheism is the same so ther will be a tremendous amount of overlap between the two groups.

Luke T.

9th May 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

However, if they hold on to their "evidence" even if it is argued against and shot down, then we most likely do not have a rational thinker on our hands.

:D

Checkmite

9th May 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I can see how one could, in theory have a non-atheist skeptic (or a non-skeptical atheist for that matter though I think that is a lot more rare),

I wouldn't be so sure. While I was in high school, certain - shall we say, cliques - tended to claim atheism, but typically only because they wanted to be like their friends.

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

:D

...implying that that somehow fits me?

If so, how?

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

I wouldn't be so sure. While I was in high school, certain - shall we say, cliques - tended to claim atheism, but typically only because they wanted to be like their friends.

Actually, those types are what I call "ignorant atheists"-- there are atheists, but do not have much valid justification of their beliefs.

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The JREF is based on the principle of proving questionable claims false through scientific means, primarily testing.

Since the God hypothesis is untestable, the JREF does not care if you believe in God - which is one of the reasons the organization is so cool. To be succinct - God doesn't matter here. Let the philosophers debate such things; we'll stick to scientific issues.

True, but the discussion here is about skeptics and religion, not the JREF and religion.

RandFan

9th May 2003, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Yes. But if they hold on to a belief despite what I mentioned before, are they really skeptics? So what do you think of Hal?

Luke T.

9th May 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

...implying that that somehow fits me?

If so, how?

If you don't get it, you never will.

Dub

9th May 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Torment

Many theists do think that there is infact evidence, observation, and rational basis for God though. They also don't think there is evidence to the contrarty either. (Quite frankly they are right in the last part, there is no evidence against a God, because like you said it is an undisprovable claim)

'thinking' that there is evidence is quite different from there actually being evidence. I may 'think' that the pen infront of me is an anti-Tiger device. 'It must be, and its works - there are no Tigers in my room'. I have never seen, heard or read of any objective evidence presented for the existence of a God. It usually either specious reasoning (as above), misinterpretation, or just down right ignorance. Also, 'they' are not right in saying that there is no evidence against God. However, the evidence can only, obviously, be against a specific definition of God. When people are free to define a God any way they want - without any constraints, and also being allowed to change definitions to suit new circumstances, it's imposible to provide eivdence against it. Like it said though, specific definitions - and they are ALOT of them, even within the same religion, can be disproven. For exmaple, it once thought that God made the Earth the center of the universe, and the Sun revoled around us. This was how God made it. We now know this to be wrong. Therefore, the this specific definition of God has been proved false.

What I'm trying to say is theists can be skeptics, they just happen to be wrong in one case.

Of course a theist can be skeptic about other things, just like someone who believes in fairies can be skeptical of other things. Would you still consider someone who believes in fairies a skeptic? What about other unfalsifiable beliefs, such as life after death, re-incarnation etc; can people that believe in these be skeptics? I personally believe that, while a person can be skeptical to almost everything, if they believe in something, such as a mytical man iin the sky, they are not, by my definition a 'skeptic'. The problem with theism is that its so deeply ingrained in society people dont see it in the same light as other beliefs. It's only when religious nutters appears (like the Waco lot) that people call them irrational. I'm stunned by the sheer hypocrisy of theists who say that these people are irrational /wrong /stupid /insane etc. On what grounds do they doubt that Dave Koresh was the son of God, and yet still believe that Jesus was? Perhaps he really was the son of God and now we're all screwed. :)

darling

9th May 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
While a critical thinking skeptic can be a nonatheist, a "true" skeptic cannot be a person with faith-- faith is the opposite of skepticism. That depends I suppose on your definitions.

Some people believe in God
I believe Southampton will win the FA cup next week.

If neither of us have any evidence for our claims, don't pretend to, and realize the limitations of such a position, what's the difference?

Checkmite

9th May 2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

True, but the discussion here is about skeptics and religion, not the JREF and religion.

Perhaps someone can fervently apply skepticism in matters scientific, yet simply not care enough about philisophical matters like religion (or perhaps doesn't consider such matters important enough) to apply any deep thought to them.

I consider "skeptic" to be a term relative to particular issues. One can be a scientific "skeptic", yet not a philisophical one; one can examine claims related to medicine with the most extreme skepticism, yet will trust his wife when she says the car accident wasn't her fault. I believe the person who is an all-encompassing "skeptic" in every possible way is the true rarity.

Interesting Ian

9th May 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by LucyR
I think you underestimate the human capacity to compartmentalize attitudes and beliefs. I mean I'm an atheist, but I'm sure I could find a Christian person who is less likely than me to fall for the banter of a used-car salesman. For example. Or when people tell me I'm witty, intelligent and attractive, I'm inclined to believe it, but I don't see any evidence for the existence of God.

What about the fact that the physical realm can be described by physical laws written in the language of mathematics?

Interesting Ian

9th May 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

There is as much evidence of a god's existence as there is gnomes, elves, dwarves, astrology, homeopathy,

It's no good, I'm going to have to nominate this statement for the BillHoyt illogic prize.

RSLancastr

9th May 2003, 06:23 PM

First off DC - an excellent thread, and you are keeping it on track nicely, and not allowing the personal references others are throwing into the mix to sidetrack you. Nicely done, sir.

To your question...

In my experience, there are very few people who do NOT consider themselves to be skeptics, or at least skeptical.

I doubt there is such a thing as a "pure skeptic". Everyone has things they accept without thoroughly examining the evidence for them. Are you skeptical that there will be tides tomorrow? That drinking molten lava is a bad idea?

Of course, it all depends on how you define "skeptic". There are a wide variety of dictionary definitions of the term. Here are a few, from various dictionaries (all found at www.dictionary.com):

- One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

- One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

- One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

- (Theol.) Doubting or denying the truth of revelation, or the sacred Scriptures.

- someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs.

The definitions vary so widely, just about anyone can claim to be a skeptic, based on at least one of the definitions.

Conversely, there are definitions there which would mean that any SANE person could NOT be a skeptic. For example, the last one. It's believed pretty widely that a poke in the eye with a sharp stick will hurt. Does someone have to habitually doubt that to be a "skeptic?"

What happens at this board (and I have been guilty of it myself) is to mock/denegrate someone who calls himself/herself a skeptic, but is not skeptical in the same way(s) that the majority of the herd here is. And it can be hard to see someone post "I'm a skeptic, but I believe that John Edward is talking with the dead."

So, there you have it: everyone is a skeptic, and nobody is a skeptic.

So much for labels.

So, can a person have religious beliefs and still be considered a skeptic? I say yes. Mainly because the label is so vague as to be nearly meaningless.

Iconoclast

9th May 2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
There is as much evidence of a god's existence as there is gnomes, elves, dwarves, astrology, homeopathy, and less obvious blah blah....
Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It's no good, I'm going to have to nominate this statement for the BillHoyt illogic prize.

I knew you were going to come in here with that crap.

Please, Ian-- what definition of "God" has more evidence to support it than what I listed? I do realize that the things I listed are tangible things, but they can be contructed to be intangible to humans.

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

Why do peeeeple haf to fiiight? Why don't they know what the cheeldren knoooow....

heh. Never heard the song he sung or saw that TV show, but I did see him in a Rumplestiltskin thing...

9th May 2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

We all make mistakes. And it is up to others to help them realize their mistakes. ;)

In Bidlack's commentary, there is something I take issue with:

Now, I would have to disagree with both of you if "skeptic" means a rational and critical thinker.

Faith is the exact opposite of critical thinking-- it's accepting something without evidence, fact, observation, or any rational basis despite the lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary.

While a critical thinking skeptic can be a nonatheist, a "true" skeptic cannot be a person with faith-- faith is the opposite of skepticism.

Maybe It is not a mistake.

I don`t want to speculate here, but maybe this is only a business, if I am wrong, please Hal can clarify this.

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
First off DC - an excellent thread, and you are keeping it on track nicely, and not allowing the personal references others are throwing into the mix to sidetrack you. Nicely done, sir.

To your question...

In my experience, there are very few people who do NOT consider themselves to be skeptics, or at least skeptical.

Of course, we all are skeptical in certain matters, but the term skeptical is usually applied, at least by us, to be skeptical of claims without evidence.

I do recognize that all I know could be one large set-up, a "The DarkCobra Show" of sorts. It's unlikely, of course, but a skeptic is more of a person to question what they hear first, instead of just accepting it when they hear it.

I doubt there is such a thing as a "pure skeptic". Everyone has things they accept without thoroughly examining the evidence for them. Are you skeptical that there will be tides tomorrow? That drinking molten lava is a bad idea?

If what I know is correct, then there WILL be tides tomorrow-- the moon pulls the tides. If I am wrong, I have been misinformed. If someone (or even I) discover that this is untrue and is able to argue their point with facts, logic, and truth, then that is science correcting itself in action.

If I am wrong, show me I am wrong, and I will admit to it.

Of course, it all depends on how you define "skeptic". There are a wide variety of dictionary definitions of the term. Here are a few, from various dictionaries (all found at www.dictionary.com):

The definitions vary so widely, just about anyone can claim to be a skeptic, based on at least one of the definitions.

When people say skeptic in the sense of what "we are", they usually mean the same thing: Someone who is skeptical of claims which "violate" Occam's razor and in general uses scientific principles to learn new things, correct themselves, and analyze what they know, in general.

Conversely, there are definitions there which would mean that any SANE person could NOT be a skeptic. For example, the last one. It's believed pretty widely that a poke in the eye with a sharp stick will hurt. Does someone have to habitually doubt that to be a "skeptic?"

But us, as skeptics, follow a definition in which we are generally skeptical about anything; we hold nothing sacred or as an unquestionable truth. At least, we shouldn't. But that doesn't mean we can't think certain ideas are silly. However, if those ideas get scientific evidence to back them up, then they become more valid.

What happens at this board (and I have been guilty of it myself) is to mock/denegrate someone who calls himself/herself a skeptic, but is not skeptical in the same way(s) that the majority of the herd here is. And it can be hard to see someone post "I'm a skeptic, but I believe that John Edward is talking with the dead."

I am guilty of that myself. Usually they aren't really a skeptic, but they think they are (Franko, anyone?)

It's probably better to give them the facts, and answer their questions and see what conclusion they come up to.

Both claims cannot be equally valid.

So, there you have it: everyone is a skeptic, and nobody is a skeptic.

So much for labels.

So, can a person have religious beliefs and still be considered a skeptic? I say yes. Mainly because the label is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. [/B]

Again, using skeptic in the sense I have put it is what we usually mean by "skeptic".

Sorry I'm not very clear right now. Perhaps someone can define "skeptic" with more clarity than I did?

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

If you don't get it, you never will.

Woman logic? ;) :D

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
So what do you think of Hal?

I don't know, I don't really know why he thinks what he does.

I'm going to go out and speculate (I'm not meaning to offend or insult him in the slightest) but his reasons are more of the heard mentality of humans. Sometimes I can feel the pull of the heard mentality myself, but I do my best to resist it.

I say this because Hal isn't a Christian, but he prays. He's half-and-half. He's stuck in the middle. How very odd, to do what is more exclusive to the Islam-Christian-Judaism(sp?) religions when you are a deist?! He seems bordering on theism-deism, not having a real specific God but feeling the need, for whatever reason, to pray to it.

I'm sure if meditating replaced praying, he would be doing that instead. Or perhaps casting spells like those silly Wiccans.

What is is doing, basically, is applying a common (Christian) concept to a vague God. Not only is there no evidence to support God (shut up Interesting Ian, If I'm wrong, correct me, and don't be vague about it either), but there certainly isn't any evidence or indication that this deity is:

1) Paying attention

2) Cares

3) Answers prayers

4) Or even exists

The concept or possible concepts on what could be called a god, especially when it comes to deism, gets more and more vague when you dig deeper in it.

RandFan

9th May 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
I am guilty of that myself. Usually they aren't really a skeptic, but they think they are (Franko, anyone?) So, I am honestly curious, does Hal fit this definition or do you lack the balls to say, you know Hal, your a nice guy and all but you are no skeptic?

RandFan

9th May 2003, 07:13 PM

I Just missed the reply. Sorry and thank for your honesty.

Edited to add: damn, that's gonna leave a mark.

9th May 2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

In Bidlack's commentary, there is something I take issue with:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a person be both a skeptic and a person of faith?

The answer is, Mr. Randi and I agree, a resounding YES.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Hal and specially Randi say so , then you all must say in chorus:
Amen !!!

Thanks,
S&S

Edited to put "chorus"

9th May 2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by S&S

If Hal and specially Randi say so , then you all must say in chorus:
Amen !!!

Thanks,
S&S

Edited to put "chorus"

Padre nuestro que estàs en Florida
:confused:

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by S&S

If Hal and specially Randi say so , then you all must say in chorus:
Amen !!!

Thanks,
S&S

Edited to put "chorus"

Which explains perfectly why I specifically said that I disagree.

The only thing I can see possibly paranormal about you, S&S, is how something with such a small brain produce such a large amount of annoyance? Maybe you do have a claim for the million dollar prize now! You can think and produce fairly coherent sentence with a brain the size of a thumb tack!

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 07:24 PM

Carlos, perhaps I can explain it better to you in your native tongue. I hope this is correct:

Tu eres muy tonto!

9th May 2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Which explains perfectly why I specifically said that I disagree.

The only thing I can see possibly paranormal about you, S&S, is how something with such a small brain produce such a large amount of annoyance? Maybe you do have a claim for the million dollar prize now! You can think and produce fairly coherent sentence with a brain the size of a thumb tack!

It doesn't matter the size of the brain.

The alligator has a brain size of a peanut. And the alligator can eat you , no matter how bigger your brain you "think" it is.

Thanks,
S&S

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by S&S

It doesn't matter the size of the brain.

The alligator has a brain size of a peanut. And the alligator can eat you , no matter how bigger your brain you "think" it is.

Thanks,
S&S

Do alligators stand up to atom bombs?

Intelligence rules in the end.

9th May 2003, 07:32 PM

9th May 2003, 07:35 PM

Question to Dark Cobra:

Are you going to join the "half-and-half" prayers club?

:eek:

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by ex-latin
Question to Dark Cobra:

Are you going to join the "half-and-half" prayers club?

:eek:

Question to middle age spanish-speaking man who can't find a job so he and his friend need to scheme for money somehow:

Are you ever going to shut up and leave the board alone because of a certain someone's incompetence to follow the rules of the million dollar challenge?

You can post here, however insults towards certain posters because of a grudge IS OLD AND TIRESOME.

Where's latininjuredanus when you need him?

9th May 2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Do alligators stand up to atom bombs?

Intelligence rules in the end.

Cockroaches stand up your "intelligent" bomb.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a person be both a skeptic and a person of faith?

The answer is, Mr. Randi and I agree, a resounding YES.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just say and join the chorus : Amen Hal !!!!! Amen Randi !!!!!!, before this thread is moved and locked.

Or you will also be put in the black list, "intelligent" man. But in the "intelligent" section.

Thanks,
S&S

9th May 2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Where's latininjuredanus when you need him?

Maybe he is praying.....I don`t know....you can send him a PM.

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Cockroaches stand up your "intelligent" bomb.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a person be both a skeptic and a person of faith?

The answer is, Mr. Randi and I agree, a resounding YES.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just say and join the chorus : Amen Hal !!!!! Amen Randi !!!!!!, before this thread is moved and locked.

Or you will also be put in the black list, "intelligent" man. But in the "intelligent" section.

Thanks,
S&S

They sure don't stand up well to my foot.

Also, a roach in the direct vicinity of the blast, I can guarentee you, will not survive.

Also, note this, Ecuadorian pillory: There is a difference between "disagreeing" and "disagreeing with an idiot who blames and insults others for his own stupidity and incompetence."

LucyR

9th May 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Cockroaches stand up your "intelligent" bomb.

Not at ground zero. Not unless they can withstand a combination of several Mbar and several million degrees.

You're probably thinking of their relatively high resistance to ionizing radiation.

Edited to say: the malcontented serpent beat me to it.

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by LucyR

Not at ground zero. Not unless they can withstand a combination of several Mbar and several million degrees.

You're probably thinking of their relatively high resistance to ionizing radiation.

:eek: S&S??? :eek:

LucyR

9th May 2003, 08:10 PM

DC,

It's always best to humour mental defectives.

Julia

9th May 2003, 08:11 PM

Could someone explain what "heard mentality" means?

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Julia
Could someone explain what "heard mentality" means?

It's similar to the thinking behind "If everyone else thinks it, then it must be true."

This can be observed in the way people act. Take your average teenager: Wears a cap backwards, acts tough, plays sports, etc. Basically when people hang around and talk to each other they start to think the same.

It's also where the notions (at least partly, I believe some morality/ethics is instinctual) of morality or ethics come from, what is "beautiful", what is rude...

LucyR

9th May 2003, 08:21 PM

I think she's trying to draw attention to your misspelling of the word 'herd'.

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by LucyR
I think she's trying to draw attention to your misspelling of the word 'herd'.

Oh, yes, I see. Once again Julia unmasks herself and shows her true intent; to nitpick my posts and to try to anger me.

I will not allow her to bait me again.

UnrepentantSinner

9th May 2003, 08:24 PM

As someone who uses an on-line persona "UnrepentantSinnerAtheist" I think I'm able to state without bias that theists can be skeptics too. One of my closest friends is a very devout Eastern Orthodox. He's even a deacon at his church and his skepticism would put many of us to shame. I remember the first time I watched my Kent Hovind video I was thinking "urp.. that's going to need some investigation" (this was before I knew about Talk.Origins) but when my buddy watched it, his comments were largly limited to rolled eyes and out and out guffaws. In hindsight it's funny that he as the Christian was more skeptical of the outrageous claims of Hovind than I the atheist was.

Julia

9th May 2003, 08:30 PM

There is that old expression used to describe certain people. "They march to the beat of a different drummer".

I have often wondered why some are more inclined to be a free thinker, someone who seems to break the mold.

It certainly isn't something that only applies to teenagers, though I see why it would be easy for you to use them as an example. Their sheep-type behavorior is more seen in manner of dress, etc.

Too bad there isn't a sure way to encourage children to think for themselves. It seems they would be open to much richer and full lives as adults.

By the way D.C., I may be wrong, but wouldn't it be 'herd mentality', as in sheep?

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Julia
There is that old expression used to describe certain people. "They march to the beat of a different drummer".

I have often wondered why some are more inclined to be a free thinker, someone who seems to break the mold.

It certainly isn't something that only applies to teenagers, though I see why it would be easy for you to use them as an example. Their sheep-type behavorior is more seen in manner of dress, etc.

Too bad there isn't a sure way to encourage children to think for themselves. It seems they would be open to much richer and full lives as adults.

By the way D.C., I may be wrong, but wouldn't it be 'herd mentality', as in sheep?

I used "herd mentality" on the first page. I have a habit of accidentally typing a homophone instead of the correct word on occasion, so...

Julia

9th May 2003, 08:47 PM

I am finding out more and more as I am on this forum that people use words and expressions that I am unfamiliar with. At
times I jumped to conclusions and was wrong. It sounded a bit like it could have been used as parody.

Anyway. I am curious about how much is environmental and how much is something we are born with. I always felt that the sheep mentality was something some were born with, just like types of depression, etc. I'm curious if it is something most people start to have integrated into their personality as early as grade school. But then again, why do a few rebel?

Lord Kenneth

9th May 2003, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Julia
I am finding out more and more as I am on this forum that people use words and expressions that I am unfamiliar with. At
times I jumped to conclusions and was wrong. It sounded a bit like it could have been used as parody.

Anyway. I am curious about how much is environmental and how much is something we are born with. I always felt that the sheep mentality was something some were born with, just like types of depression, etc. I'm curious if it is something most people start to have integrated into their personality as early as grade school. But then again, why do a few rebel?

I too am curious as to how much is innate and how much is learned.

Rebelling is easily explained-- because try to be unique for whatever motivation or reason, they want to have characteristics that stand out. So, they do what the norm doesn't... and then people copy them and they become the anti-conformity conformity.

9th May 2003, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
As someone who uses an on-line persona "UnrepentantSinnerAtheist" I think I'm able to state without bias that theists can be skeptics too. One of my closest friends is a very devout Eastern Orthodox. He's even a deacon at his church and his skepticism would put many of us to shame. I remember the first time I watched my Kent Hovind video I was thinking "urp.. that's going to need some investigation" (this was before I knew about Talk.Origins) but when my buddy watched it, his comments were largly limited to rolled eyes and out and out guffaws. In hindsight it's funny that he as the Christian was more skeptical of the outrageous claims of Hovind than I the atheist was.

Amen !!!!

Thanks,
S&S

Interesting Ian

10th May 2003, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
It's no good, I'm going to have to nominate this statement for the BillHoyt illogic prize.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I knew you were going to come in here with that crap.

Are you describing BillHoyts illogic prize as crap? If so I won't bother nominating you.

Please, Ian-- what definition of "God" has more evidence to support it than what I listed? I do realize that the things I listed are tangible things, but they can be contructed to be intangible to humans.

Ok, I'm going to start a new thread in R&P addressing this later on today.

Interesting Ian

10th May 2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
[B]

I don't know, I don't really know why he thinks what he does.

I'm going to go out and speculate (I'm not meaning to offend or insult him in the slightest) but his reasons are more of the heard mentality of humans. Sometimes I can feel the pull of the heard mentality myself, but I do my best to resist it.

I say this because Hal isn't a Christian, but he prays. He's half-and-half. He's stuck in the middle.

What if you're neither a Christian, nor pray, yet believe in a "God", and also are specifically a theist rather than a deist? That describes me.

Interesting Ian

10th May 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

What is is doing, basically, is applying a common (Christian) concept to a vague God. Not only is there no evidence to support God (shut up Interesting Ian, If I'm wrong, correct me, and don't be vague about it either),

No I won't be vague. Indeed I'm going into quite some detail. Check out R&P later on today after I've started a new thread regarding this subject.

10th May 2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
In the same sense that a scientist can be an astrologer, or at least give astrology some credibility.

Given the evidence for the claims (which is none), hypocrisy and being misinformed appear to be the only two likely possibilites. It's possible that you can have knowledge no one else does, but not likely.

There is as much evidence of a god's existence as there is gnomes, elves, dwarves, astrology, homeopathy, and less obvious facts that people may believe in but are actually unsupported, such as the validity of lie detector tests.

We all make mistakes. And it is up to others to help them realize their mistakes. ;)

In Bidlack's commentary, there is something I take issue with:

Now, I would have to disagree with both of you if "skeptic" means a rational and critical thinker.

Faith is the exact opposite of critical thinking-- it's accepting something without evidence, fact, observation, or any rational basis despite the lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary.

While a critical thinking skeptic can be a nonatheist, a "true" skeptic cannot be a person with faith-- faith is the opposite of skepticism.

I agree with the majority of the points of Dark Cobra, I want to know the opinion of other posters that are members of other group of skeptics, for example NYSA, like Jeff Corey and CF Larsen.

I hope they can join the debate.

I make this question:

Is it possible?
Or it is only a evolution of the skpeticism?

Interesting Ian

10th May 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Julia
[B]There is that old expression used to describe certain people. "They march to the beat of a different drummer".

I certainly think that I do! I always have from my very earliest recollections, and I'm quite sure I always will. I'm special like that. :)

Interesting Ian

10th May 2003, 07:24 AM

Dymanic

10th May 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by LucyR
It's very naive to deny the importance of religion in human
society. As a critical thinker this is unworthy of
you. Religion, in its various guises, is apparently
very useful, if not essential, for maintaining
societal cohesion.
The 'argument from adverse consequences': "We must continue to cling to these primitive superstitious beliefs because abandoning them would cause our society to unravel".

Let's look at "societal cohesion".

The earliest human societies were small kin groups. Cohesion was not a problem as long as the group stayed below a certain size--there is a minimum number of individuals required to sustain survival in harsh environments, and everybody is closely related anyway.

But the advent of agriculture permitted much larger group sizes, and the outcome of a struggle between such large groups might well depend on which group had more 'cohesion'; that is, which group could field the largest and most motivated army. Religion then, becomes a useful tool of war--it helps in recruiting troops, and in persuading them that it is a good idea to lay down their lives in the interest of a cause (though the real cause be nothing more noble than the rulers lining their coffers with gold from someone else's treasury).

What 'societal cohesion' ends up really meaning then, is a convenient way of distinguishing between the us's and the thems.

Religion serves this purpose well, but it is now an obstacle to our reaching a state of cohesion in our now world-wide society.

Interesting Ian

10th May 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
What is is doing, basically, is applying a common (Christian) concept to a vague God. Not only is there no evidence to support God (shut up Interesting Ian, If I'm wrong, correct me, and don't be vague about it either),

Ok, have done so in new thread in R&P.

Luke T.

10th May 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

I don't know, I don't really know why he thinks what he does.

I'm going to go out and speculate (I'm not meaning to offend or insult him in the slightest) but his reasons are more of the heard mentality of humans. Sometimes I can feel the pull of the heard mentality myself, but I do my best to resist it.

I say this because Hal isn't a Christian, but he prays. He's half-and-half. He's stuck in the middle. How very odd, to do what is more exclusive to the Islam-Christian-Judaism(sp?) religions when you are a deist?! He seems bordering on theism-deism, not having a real specific God but feeling the need, for whatever reason, to pray to it.

I'm sure if meditating replaced praying, he would be doing that instead. Or perhaps casting spells like those silly Wiccans.

What is is doing, basically, is applying a common (Christian) concept to a vague God. Not only is there no evidence to support God (shut up Interesting Ian, If I'm wrong, correct me, and don't be vague about it either), but there certainly isn't any evidence or indication that this deity is:

1) Paying attention

2) Cares

3) Answers prayers

4) Or even exists

The concept or possible concepts on what could be called a god, especially when it comes to deism, gets more and more vague when you dig deeper in it.

Hal defined himself as a "deist" in the commentary, not a "theist." Although he did say he prays, which is a theist thing to do.

I, too, am a deist. For a deist, options 1, 2, and 3 do not apply, DC. All that applies is your option 4.

A deist does not believe in an interventionist God. Looking around the web, I found this interesting thing:

You might be a Deist if:

You believe in God but are not accepting of the authoritarian creeds of any particular religion.

You believe that God's word is the universe (nature), not human-written holy books.

You like to reason or speculate what God might be like rather than be taught about it.

You think that religious ideas should reconcile with and not contradict science.

You believe God can be best found outside rather than inside a church building.

You enjoy the freedom of seeking spirituality on your own.

You are morally guided by ethics and conscience rather than by scriptures.

You are an individual thinker whose religious beliefs are not formed from tradition or authority.

You like to call yourself rational or spiritual before you call yourself religious.

You believe that religion and government (church and state) should be separate.

I find that is pretty much in line with my way of looking at things.

I didn't read the rest of the document, but you can read it here. (http://www.positivedeism.com/deistdoc.html)

My jabs at you earlier in this topic are because you have demonstrated irrationality a number of times on here. Your attitude toward women in general, for example. And love.

My point is that none of us are machines.

To believe in nothing unless one has empirical evidence is to cripple oneself. It is a long explanation why that is, but I think you are smart enough to figure it out.

As for this reference to Occam's Razor you keep mentioning, I would like to ask you to please elaborate and give us an application of it to the deist's point of view of how the universe came to be.

It basically boils down to "something from nothing" or "something from God." Something from nothing has no explanation, and neither does the origin of God. So we are at an impasse.

An atheist can marvel at the way the universe works. A deist marvels at the same things and the brilliance of the Mind behind it.

As to why we feel the necessity of a Mind behind the creation of the laws of the universe, that's a tough one. For me personally, I had my own empirical moment of proof. Unfortunately, it was a one-time thing. It is not repeatable.

And this may outrage your sensibilities, but to me, the idea of a Mind behind the laws of the universe just "feels right."

I, too, pray. Even though I am a deist. But my prayers are not requests that my wishes and desires and hopes be granted like some Christmas list to Santa. My prayers are in the form of meditation and attempts to align myself with the "will of God." To come to some kind of knowledge of what it is I am supposed to do and why things are the way they are. I can't explain to you what comfort these kinds of prayer bring to me.

In closing, I will tell of someone I also consider to be a "skeptic" even though he believes in ADC, and that is RC. If you had told me when I first met him on here that I would one day consider him to be one of the best skeptics we have here, I would have busted my sides open laughing. So there you go. Take it for whatever you think it is worth.

If you read this in an angry mood toward me, I hope you can come back later with a more objective state of mind in the spirit of a true skeptic and read it again. Because if there is one thing a good skeptic must be able to do is to understand another point of view, even though he/she may disagree with it.

tim

10th May 2003, 11:07 AM

First, I want to congratulate DC on the way he has conducted himself in this debate. He has maintained his composure, argued each point as it arises intelligently and well.

DC, I was wrong when I condemned you when you first arrived here. You are proving to be an asset to the forum. I salute you.

I don't believe in god or gods. But there have been times in my life when I've prayed to any deity that might listen. Believe me when I say that if you are lying on an operating table about to undergo a proceedure that you are not statistically likely to survive, and if you are lucky enough to do so the probability is you are going to be paralysed and brain damaged - you pray.

I don't know if there's a god and there's no way I can know this side of the grave. For this reason I do not debate the possibility. Believers "know" they are right. So do non-believers. Nothing I say will change the belief of either one. Nontheless I am prepared to respect those beliefs or non-beliefs, either way.

I happen to believe the Judeo-Christian ethical system is a good one. It works.

Interesting Ian

10th May 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
You might be a Deist if:

You believe in God but are not accepting of the authoritarian creeds of any particular religion.

You believe that God's word is the universe (nature), not human-written holy books.

You like to reason or speculate what God might be like rather than be taught about it.

You think that religious ideas should reconcile with and not contradict science.

You believe God can be best found outside rather than inside a church building.

You enjoy the freedom of seeking spirituality on your own.

You are morally guided by ethics and conscience rather than by scriptures.

You are an individual thinker whose religious beliefs are not formed from tradition or authority.

You like to call yourself rational or spiritual before you call yourself religious.

You believe that religion and government (church and state) should be separate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur with all those points. Yet I am a theist not a deist.

Lord Kenneth

10th May 2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Hal defined himself as a "deist" in the commentary, not a "theist." Although he did say he prays, which is a theist thing to do.

He is attributing traits that are not needed to define "God". Therefore, he steps towards theism if he adds more complexity to this God.

Where do we draw the line? What if the God is omnipotent (all that is required to be a God?) and apparently decides to call himself Bob? Or instead of being named Bob he has a hobby, and manifests himself as a human to play ping-pong
with mortals? Does a God need a name to become a specific God?

Those are adding unneeded specifics towards what a "God" is, and thus steps towards theism.

I, too, am a deist. For a deist, options 1, 2, and 3 do not apply, DC. All that applies is your option 4.

A deist does not believe in an interventionist God. Looking around the web, I found this interesting thing:

A deist, technically, believes that there is a God, but to remain a deist they must not add anything else to what this God does and must only accept that God is what is defined by "God".

I find that is pretty much in line with my way of looking at things.

I didn't read the rest of the document, but you can read it here. (http://www.positivedeism.com/deistdoc.html)

There is no evidence that a God started the big bang.

I don't know much about the "start" of the big bang, but ANY speculation towards what "started it" is unfounded and should not be believed until there is scientific basis for it.

My jabs at you earlier in this topic are because you have demonstrated irrationality a number of times on here. Your attitude toward women in general, for example. And love.

Oh, please. Great way to be vague. Be specific.

And "woman"? That is incorrect. I am harsh to PEOPLE if I feel they so deserve my harshness. Gender matters little. And I have my own basis for feeling the way I do about love.

Emotions cannot be really considered "rational" or "irrational", as there is an unconcious reason for them; the brain forms them for reasons!

My point is that none of us are machines.

To believe in nothing unless one has empirical evidence is to cripple oneself. It is a long explanation why that is, but I think you are smart enough to figure it out.

Not believing in this you or someone else pulled out of their ass is not crippling.

As for this reference to Occam's Razor you keep mentioning, I would like to ask you to please elaborate and give us an application of it to the deist's point of view of how the universe came to be.

It basically boils down to "something from nothing" or "something from God." Something from nothing has no explanation, and neither does the origin of God. So we are at an impasse.

False dilemma. There very well could have been "something", but evidence is needed to believe in something specific.

If my understanding is right, we don't know how exactly it started. Perhaps nothing needed to start it, time is a part of the universe, it is not a "concept". Time did not exist before the big bang.

An atheist can marvel at the way the universe works. A deist marvels at the same things and the brilliance of the Mind behind it.

A Mind creating the universe is an additional entity, and one with no evidence supporting it. The atheist marvels at the universe-- only one entity -- and we have well enough evidence for its existence and the existence of physical processes.

As to why we feel the necessity of a Mind behind the creation of the laws of the universe, that's a tough one. For me personally, I had my own empirical moment of proof. Unfortunately, it was a one-time thing. It is not repeatable.

Possible delusion? When I was a theist an Easter celebration "convinced" me that God exist. Fortunantly, this hiccup of rationality was short-lived, but it did give me insights to how some irrationality works.

And this may outrage your sensibilities, but to me, the idea of a Mind behind the laws of the universe just "feels right."

One that is not needed to explain the universe?

I, too, pray. Even though I am a deist. But my prayers are not requests that my wishes and desires and hopes be granted like some Christmas list to Santa. My prayers are in the form of meditation and attempts to align myself with the "will of God." To come to some kind of knowledge of what it is I am supposed to do and why things are the way they are. I can't explain to you what comfort these kinds of prayer bring to me.

Seems like delusion to me... emotions coming from irrational thought. Also, you have no evidence that this god has a "will" (the fact that this God created the universe adds slightly extra complexity) and that you can align yourself with it.

In closing, I will tell of someone I also consider to be a "skeptic" even though he believes in ADC, and that is RC. If you had told me when I first met him on here that I would one day consider him to be one of the best skeptics we have here, I would have busted my sides open laughing. So there you go. Take it for whatever you think it is worth.

If you read this in an angry mood toward me, I hope you can come back later with a more objective state of mind in the spirit of a true skeptic and read it again. Because if there is one thing a good skeptic must be able to do is to understand another point of view, even though he/she may disagree with it. [/B]

I think I have a fair grasp of your viewpoint.

10th May 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
One of my closest friends is a very devout Eastern Orthodox. He's even a deacon at his church and his skepticism would put many of us to shame.

In hindsight it's funny that he as the Christian was more skeptical of the outrageous claims of Hovind than I the atheist was.

Is your friend a woo woo?

10th May 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Hal defined himself as a "deist" in the commentary, not a "theist." Although he did say he prays, which is a theist thing to do.

Hal didn`t defined himself like a "deist"...he said that he is not an atheist. It is not the same.

Does Hal pray?

It is his "own" problem, if he like to do it why are you worry about him.

I am an atheist and I don`t pray.....this is the first rule to be a skeptic. It is logical.

10th May 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by ex-latin

Is your friend a woo woo?

Ex Latin :

I respect your own beleifs or non beleifs.

Personally I am sick and tired how this bunch (not all the members ) of how fanatics use those terms "woo woo , troll , trolling , stupid , as*hole , etc. ", when they don't have an argument to support their claims.

Please don't use those terms , and respect Hal's beleifs.

One thing is the man , other thing is the administrator.
One stuff is being Skeptic or sceptic , other stuff is being fanatic.

I created a thread about ths topic in The R&P section.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869902508#post1869902508

Please stay cool.

Thanks,
S&S

Lord Kenneth

10th May 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Personally I am sick and tired how this bunch (not all the members ) of how fanatics use those terms "woo woo , troll , trolling , stupid , as*hole , etc. ", when they don't have an argument to support their claims.

Someone's become quite the Franko, haven't they?

Woo-woo: Someone who indulges, advocates, and/or usually attempts to explain paranormal behavior, sometimes with pseudoscience.

Troll: Someone who posts to get people angry, does not add real content when posting. The action of posting simply to annoy or anger someone is trolling.

Stupid: See a**hole.

a**hole: Middle-aged man in Ecuador who whines about "unfair treatment" despite the fact that he cannot follow the rules. Attempts to make a million dollars off of a flying bird.

Please don't use those terms , and respect Hal's beleifs.

One thing is the man , other thing is the administrator.
One stuff is being Skeptic or sceptic , other stuff is being fanatic.

I created a thread about ths topic in The R&P section.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869902508#post1869902508

Please stay cool.

Thanks,
S&S [/B]

Has Franko possessed you?

10th May 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

a**hole: Middle-aged man in Ecuador who whines about "unfair treatment" despite the fact that he cannot follow the rules.

Has Franko possessed you?

DC.

I am not sure about your personal love or hate dreams with Franko. Is your problem.

You always followed this "specials and dedicated rules" of the board and you were supported by Hal , the moderators , and fanatics. So be happy .

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dark Cobra
I told Jesus I loved him once.

He smiled at me, stroked his hand though my hair, and looked into my eyes.

I wrapped my arms around him, and then we... we... we kissed.

One thing led to another and before I knew it we started having sex.

He was rough, for my first time. I told him to be gentle but he wouldn't! I bled for five days after that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you also received supports from the moderators and fanatics like you , the same JREF members who gets angry when somebody like me just show your double speech.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Now go see your favorite tv cartoon, or your favorite virtual game.

c4ts

10th May 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Someone's become quite the Franko, haven't they?

Woo-woo: Someone who indulges, advocates, and/or usually attempts to explain paranormal behavior, sometimes with pseudoscience.

Troll: Someone who posts to get people angry, does not add real content when posting. The action of posting simply to annoy or anger someone is trolling.

Stupid: See a**hole.

a**hole: Middle-aged man in Ecuador who whines about "unfair treatment" despite the fact that he cannot follow the rules. Attempts to make a million dollars off of a flying bird.

Has Franko possessed you?

I've seen him use the word A-theist a couple times, but he's never repeated the magic syllogism.

10th May 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

I've seen him use the word A-theist a couple times, but he's never repeated the magic syllogism.

Just say Amen !!! , fanatic.

Thanks,
S&S

Luke T.

10th May 2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by ex-latin

Hal didn`t defined himself like a "deist"...he said that he is not an atheist. It is not the same.

Does Hal pray?

It is his "own" problem, if he like to do it why are you worry about him.

I am an atheist and I don`t pray.....this is the first rule to be a skeptic. It is logical.

ex-latin, Hal did indeed define himself as a deist. He even put it in quotes like you did. Read the commentary again. Here is the relevant part:

And yet, there is one area in which we are in profound disagreement, the issue of faith. Mr. Randi is an atheist, and I am not. I am not a Christian, but I pray, I believe in God, and would generally fall in the category "deist."

10th May 2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

ex-latin, Hal did indeed define himself as a deist. He even put it in quotes like you did. Read the commentary again. Here is the relevant part:

Some amazon tribes are deists too.

The name of the religion is not the main point . Is the beleif in Faith as the principle approach to God. And Hal is in that category with the aprooval of Randi. And with the support of you.

Thanks,
S&S

Luke T.

10th May 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

He is attributing traits that are not needed to define "God". Therefore, he steps towards theism if he adds more complexity to this God.

A deist does attribute traits to God. Opinions may vary on what those attributes are.

Where do we draw the line? What if the God is omnipotent (all that is required to be a God?) and apparently decides to call himself Bob? Or instead of being named Bob he has a hobby, and manifests himself as a human to play ping-pong with mortals? Does a God need a name to become a specific God?

Those are adding unneeded specifics towards what a "God" is, and thus steps towards theism.

Your guess is as good as anyone else's. :D

A deist, technically, believes that there is a God, but to remain a deist they must not add anything else to what this God does and must only accept that God is what is defined by "God".

A deist most certainly must decide what attributes God has. Just by believing that God is non-interventionist, for example, is an attribute of God.

There is no evidence that a God started the big bang.

There is no evidence of anything that started the big bang.

I don't know much about the "start" of the big bang, but ANY speculation towards what "started it" is unfounded and should not be believed until there is scientific basis for it.

Speculation is not unscientific. It is step one of the scientific method.

Oh, please. Great way to be vague. Be specific.

And "woman"? That is incorrect. I am harsh to PEOPLE if I feel they so deserve my harshness. Gender matters little. And I have my own basis for feeling the way I do about love.

I am too tired right now to link to your diatribes against the female gender, DC. I'd rather concede the point to you than go on about it, especially since it isn't really relevant. I hope you can understand that no one is rational about everything.

Emotions cannot be really considered "rational" or "irrational", as there is an unconcious reason for them; the brain forms them for reasons!

A person who takes up an ax and chops off your head for not giving him some spare change is irrationally angry, yes?

Not believing in this you or someone else pulled out of their ass is not crippling.

Well, I said I thought you would be smart enough to understand what I was saying, but I guess I was wrong.

Let's try again. "My point is that none of us are machines.

To believe in nothing unless one has empirical evidence is to cripple oneself. It is a long explanation why that is, but I think you are smart enough to figure it out."

The expression "to believe in nothing" is not a reference to not believing in God. Read it again. Maybe you will understand what I meant. Someone made an analogy about a stick in your eye or something like that. You don't need to have a stick actually stuck in your eye to actually believe it would hurt. If you refused to believe that a stick in your eye wouldn't hurt until you empirically proved it to yourself by sticking it in your eye, you would literally be crippled. But there are many figurative ways you can cripple yourself with this attitude.

False dilemma. There very well could have been "something", but evidence is needed to believe in something specific.

And what would that something be that created the big bang our of nothingness? An entity of some sort, obviously. Whether it is a force or a God.

If my understanding is right, we don't know how exactly it started. Perhaps nothing needed to start it, time is a part of the universe, it is not a "concept". Time did not exist before the big bang.

I gather this disjointed phrasing is a demonstration of the totality of your understanding of the big bang.

A Mind creating the universe is an additional entity, and one with no evidence supporting it. The atheist marvels at the universe-- only one entity -- and we have well enough evidence for its existence and the existence of physical processes.

The universe needed some kind of "entity" to create it, as I mentioned above.

Possible delusion? When I was a theist an Easter celebration "convinced" me that God exist. Fortunantly, this hiccup of rationality was short-lived, but it did give me insights to how some irrationality works.

Nothing as simple as that convinced me that God exists.

One that is not needed to explain the universe?

We are getting circular with our "entities." Thus, as I said, an impasse.

Seems like delusion to me... emotions coming from irrational thought. Also, you have no evidence that this god has a "will" (the fact that this God created the universe adds slightly extra complexity) and that you can align yourself with it.

It's like this, DC. I can try to swim upstream against a current far more stronger than me, or I can swim downstream with it.

I think I have a fair grasp of your viewpoint.

I'm afraid you fell prey to your emotions, exactly as I thought you might. You do not grasp my viewpoint. You are not trying to understand it before you refute it. Part of this may be your ignorance of the ideas to support your own position, and your ignorance of the ideas behind mine.

woodguard

10th May 2003, 07:01 PM

Being new to being a skeptic, I have a question.

Faith is the belief in something you cannot prove?

I have faith god exists but I have no prove.

An atheist has faith god does not exists but have no prove.

You cannot prove something does not exists.

It is like saying all paranormal stuff is wrong. But you cannot prove it. You have to do what Randi does, take each clam and disprove it until you find you cannot.

When we know everything in the cosmos and beyond, and find no God would that be proof ?

Lord Kenneth

10th May 2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

A deist does attribute traits to God. Opinions may vary on what those attributes are.

But if the traits are not NEEDED to be called god, then you have a specific God.

A deist most certainly must decide what attributes God has. Just by believing that God is non-interventionist, for example, is an attribute of God.

Apparently there are two main definitions of deist, one mentions non-interventionist and the other doesn't.

My source is http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deist

Answer this: Where do you draw the line between specific God and just "God"?

There is no evidence of anything that started the big bang.

In that case, there is no reason to believe that anything in particular started the big bang, is there?

Speculation is not unscientific. It is step one of the scientific method.

Speculating the possibilites, of course. But no one actually believes in blind speculation, especially when it's not needed to explain something.

Also, I'm glad you brought up the scientific method. Shall be discuss unfalsifiable theories?

I am too tired right now to link to your diatribes against the female gender, DC. I'd rather concede the point to you than go on about it, especially since it isn't really relevant. I hope you can understand that no one is rational about everything.

I can admit when I am wrong; that is being rational.

I have insulted some females using certain offensive "anti-female" words, but that does not make me anti woman in the slightest, if anything I was "anti-person-I-was-angry-at".

A person who takes up an ax and chops off your head for not giving him some spare change is irrationally angry, yes?

Interesting scenario. I wonder how much of that is actual thought process and how much is influenced by emotion... so I cannot say either way.

Well, I said I thought you would be smart enough to understand what I was saying, but I guess I was wrong.

What? This already become partly a deism debate. What, you think I'm going to let some arguments slide because your post had one main argument?

Let's try again. "My point is that none of us are machines.

One could consider us biological machines, and they would not be wrong.

To believe in nothing unless one has empirical evidence is to cripple oneself. It is a long explanation why that is, but I think you are smart enough to figure it out."

The expression "to believe in nothing" is not a reference to not believing in God. Read it again. Maybe you will understand what I meant. Someone made an analogy about a stick in your eye or something like that. You don't need to have a stick actually stuck in your eye to actually believe it would hurt. If you refused to believe that a stick in your eye wouldn't hurt until you empirically proved it to yourself by sticking it in your eye, you would literally be crippled. But there are many figurative ways you can cripple yourself with this attitude.

Yes, but that's not blind speculation like saying a "God" created something.

And what would that something be that created the big bang our of nothingness? An entity of some sort, obviously. Whether it is a force or a God.

Ah, the vagueness of deism. You meditate to try to align yourself with "God's will", yet now you admit it very well could be something as silly as Underpants Gnomes? Those would be an entity of some sort. Of course, it's silly to consider them, and it's silly to consider a God unless God is NEEDED to explain the event-- and even then later on it could be shown that God is not needed when we get more data.

I gather this disjointed phrasing is a demonstration of the totality of your understanding of the big bang.

I am not completely educated in the field of the big bang, and I highly doubt you are, either.

My point was that since time isn't absolute, although it seems hard to comprehend, then something like the univese needing to be started may well be similar in nature.

The universe needed some kind of "entity" to create it, as I mentioned above.

Oh? Evidence, please

Nothing as simple as that convinced me that God exists.

I remember when Ruby was acting the same way... being sort of cryptic on why she believed in God. When she finally revealed why, it was in fact a long story about her being possessed by demons. Do you have something as equally interesting to tell us?

We are getting circular with our "entities." Thus, as I said, an impasse.

God is not exclusively needed to explain how the universe came about, unless you want to call anything that could have created the universe "God", whether it be omnipotent or the Underpants Gnomes.

It's like this, DC. I can try to swim upstream against a current far more stronger than me, or I can swim downstream with it.

Like in those cartoons where the character tries to swim away from the waterfall so they don't fall down it?

I'm afraid you fell prey to your emotions, exactly as I thought you might. You do not grasp my viewpoint. You are not trying to understand it before you refute it. Part of this may be your ignorance of the ideas to support your own position, and your ignorance of the ideas behind mine.

Sure, it's my fault that deism is so damn vague and inconsistent from person to person.

A theist believes in a god (or gods if they are polytheistic). An atheist does not have a belief in a god or does not think there is one. A deist believes... that God could be the underpants gnomes, god could be omnipotent, or that whatever created the universe *IS* God... that doesn't seem to match the atheist and theist definition, or seem to come close.

Interesting Ian

10th May 2003, 07:19 PM

{YAWNS}

Right I'm going to bed.

Lord Kenneth

10th May 2003, 07:20 PM

Also, I see you completely ignored the article I linked to.

Lord Kenneth

10th May 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by woodguard
Being new to being a skeptic, I have a question.

Faith is the belief in something you cannot prove?

I have faith god exists but I have no prove.

An atheist has faith god does not exists but have no prove.

You cannot prove something does not exists.

It is like saying all paranormal stuff is wrong. But you cannot prove it. You have to do what Randi does, take each clam and disprove it until you find you cannot.

When we know everything in the cosmos and beyond, and find no God would that be proof ?

As Mark Twain put it, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Faith is not believing in what cannot be proven, not at all. Nothing can truly be proven, except for things of mathematical nature.

Rather, faith is believing in something that has no evidence. It's like coming up with a new theory off the top of your head on "what started the big bang", and taking it as truth.

The belief is not justified until the theory can be tested and evidence supports it.

You cannot "disprove things", you must disprove the evidence offered to show these things exist. Take dowsing... you cannot go out and disprove it, because already there is no known connection between the dowsing rod and the object they look for-- you can only dispute the evidence they offer to explain how, why, and if it works.

11th May 2003, 12:35 PM

So, some skeptics here are not-atheist, have faith in something that can not give a real proof, and pray for it.

Is that correct for a skeptic?

woodguard

11th May 2003, 01:08 PM

So, some skeptics here are atheist, have faith in something that is not given a real proof.

Is that correct for a skeptic ?

You cannot give proof God exists or give proof God does not exists.

It is an unanswerable question, at the present time.

A true skeptic would say nothing until there was evidences!:eek:

11th May 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by woodguard
So, some skeptics here are atheist, have faith in something that is not given a real proof.

Is that correct for a skeptic ?

You cannot give proof God exists or give proof God does not exists.

It is an unanswerable question, at the present time.

A true skeptic would say nothing until there was evidences!:eek:

No, woodguard.

The "thing" is worse.

SOme "amazing skeptics" are NOT-ATHEIST, they have faith and pray !!!!!!!!!!!

Is true-skpetics=true believers?

Sorry for my english.

woodguard

11th May 2003, 02:25 PM

To me, a skeptic is someone who question everything.

I can be a believer in God, and I can question it but I have no answer.

I don’t think an atheist is wrong, I don’t think I am right.

Wrong would be, believing something you have evidence against.
There is no evidence.

I will pray to God but I will not be surprised if nothing happens.
But I know if I don’t pray, nothing will happen.

I think the big question is what is God?:confused:

Peter Jenkins

11th May 2003, 02:30 PM

At my last work place, there was a atheist, who had little time for our one evangelical christian colleague. However he went to an acupuncturist for a problem with back pain.
Atheist does not equal skeptic
Skepticism is the ability to be able to use judgement and logic to seperate claim from truth. People don't always apply this to religion and that is their perogative. It's still possible to be a Skeptic and not an atheist.
I don't see that there are any 'rules' that you have to be one to be the other.
Peter

11th May 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Some amazon tribes are deists too.

The name of the religion is not the main point . Is the beleif in Faith as the principle approach to God. And Hal is in that category with the aprooval of Randi. And with the support of you.

Thanks,
S&S

Can somebody rebate this?

No matter the name of the religion.
Somebody that believe in faith is trying to approach to a kind of God, no matter if there are not proofs of his/her/its existence.

THIS IS A FACT

woodguard

11th May 2003, 03:13 PM

I believe in God for the same reason I run Seti@home, HOPE.

LucyR

11th May 2003, 03:15 PM

You mean you hope he exists?

11th May 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by woodguard
I believe in God for the same reason I run Seti@home, HOPE.

Do you believe in superstition?

Are you a true believer?

:) ex-harold :)

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
At my last work place, there was a atheist, who had little time for our one evangelical christian colleague. However he went to an acupuncturist for a problem with back pain.
Atheist does not equal skeptic
Skepticism is the ability to be able to use judgement and logic to seperate claim from truth. People don't always apply this to religion and that is their perogative. It's still possible to be a Skeptic and not an atheist.
I don't see that there are any 'rules' that you have to be one to be the other.
Peter

Of course.

Nobody has said otherwise.

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by woodguard
I believe in God for the same reason I run Seti@home, HOPE.

Sounds like woo-woo type justification to me.

Seelie

11th May 2003, 06:33 PM

Here's my take on it ...

Titles and labels mean very little other than as some sort of vague descriptor. A person is what s/he is regardless of what title they place upon themselves. Or has placed upon them. I am who and what I am, and I behave in the same manner, regardless of whether or not any given number of people call me a skeptic, a free-thinker, a deist, a theist, who what-have-you.

As far as what "true" skeptics are or are not, that is attempting to place a valuation measurement on a state of being. Very difficult to do, though possible ... as long as all are in agreement on what the steps of valuation are. I'll re-create a conversation below, that I'd be fairly safe is assuming many on this board would scoff at:

Person A: I'm more religious than you. I pray every day and tithe every holy day.
Person B: Well, I'm more religious than you. I pray every day, tithe every holy day, and I'm about to go on a mission to a 3rd world country.
Person C: Well, I'm more religious than you ALL. I pray every hour, tithe every day, fast 3 weeks a month, and the Supreme Being speaks to me once a day.

You can easily twist that conversation around into skepticism:

Person A: I'm more skeptical than you. I don't believe in any kind of god.
Person B: I'm more skeptical than you. I don't believe in any kind of god, I question all things that sound illogical, and I research all things before I form an opnion.
Person C : I'm more skeptical than you ALL. I don't believe in any kind of god, I question all things, research all things, and I never believe in anything unless I've experimented with it myself, because accepting scientifc proofs as truth without experimentation myself is just them arguing from authority, which we ALL know is illogical.

And yeh, the convoluted analogy is somewhat ridiculous ... I meant it to be that way.

You either think in a critical fashion, or you do not. Now, certainly, there are times when it is for more expedient, realistic, and efficient, to accept some things as true.

The average mean of folks in the world either ~cannot~ wrap their thought processes around certain concepts or ~choose~ not to due to time / difficulty constraints. These are subconscious, sometimes conscious prioritizations. And there are many concepts and ideas that we will simply accept as true just because it takes too much time and/or effort to parse through. This is normal. We all cannot be specialists in everything, and there isn't enough time in one's life to explore and personally research every concept that comes down the road.

Now, it completely depends on how one makes those "I'll take it as fact" judgement calls that is important. For example .. those who are said to be critical thinkers will at least take the little bit of time necessary to compare different viewpoints and see if they coincide, what sounds more logical in comparison to what one already knows, etc.

Others, the average mean of folks, will just swallow it and go on their merry way. Simply for the fact that it is easier for them to do so. Easier meaning easier intellectually, or emotionally, or what have you. Another recreation below:

Authority figure / Respected figure / large group: "Blue and green make yellow."
Average person: "Ok." and then go on merry way.
Those who think critically: "Ok. Why and how? Is there a simple way to test this myself?"

A belief in a god or a lack thereof does not a critical thinker make or break. Generally, for those who think critically, it's just one of those phenomena that is filed away as either not important or interesting enough to fully investigate. There's no satisfactory, simple way to "test" it all out for oneself, nor do all the possible sources out there agree in a satisfactory or logical fashion. Ergo, it becomes a non-issue ...

Throughout the day, I take a few moments of my time for introspection. I analyze my thoughts and why I think them. I analyze my actions and why I did them. I think about other possibilities and whether or not they are valid, in relation to the current environmental variables involved. Some call this prayer, some, meditation .... ~shrug~ ... I just call it thinking.

I, personally, have little care on whether or not am considered a "true" skeptic, an atheist, a deist ... or a soft pantheistic with a twist of paganistic and shamanistic theist naturalistic determinst ... with chocolate sprinkles on top ... Simply for the fact that it's a non-issue for me. What people term me is not necessarily what I ~am~ or define what it is I think about or how I think it.

At any rate, enough of my slightly incoherent rambling ... just felt like putting in my one cent's worth in ... It is, as always, my own thougts in my own world ... Others' thoughts in other worlds will assuredly differ ....

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Seelie
Here's my take on it ...

Titles and labels mean very little other than as some sort of vague descriptor. A person is what s/he is regardless of what title they place upon themselves. Or has placed upon them. I am who and what I am, and I behave in the same manner, regardless of whether or not any given number of people call me a skeptic, a free-thinker, a deist, a theist, who what-have-you.

As far as what "true" skeptics are or are not, that is attempting to place a valuation measurement on a state of being. Very difficult to do, though possible ... as long as all are in agreement on what the steps of valuation are. I'll re-create a conversation below, that I'd be fairly safe is assuming many on this board would scoff at:

Person A: I'm more religious than you. I pray every day and tithe every holy day.
Person B: Well, I'm more religious than you. I pray every day, tithe every holy day, and I'm about to go on a mission to a 3rd world country.
Person C: Well, I'm more religious than you ALL. I pray every hour, tithe every day, fast 3 weeks a month, and the Supreme Being speaks to me once a day.

You can easily twist that conversation around into skepticism:

Person A: I'm more skeptical than you. I don't believe in any kind of god.
Person B: I'm more skeptical than you. I don't believe in any kind of god, I question all things that sound illogical, and I research all things before I form an opnion.
Person C : I'm more skeptical than you ALL. I don't believe in any kind of god, I question all things, research all things, and I never believe in anything unless I've experimented with it myself, because accepting scientifc proofs as truth without experimentation myself is just them arguing from authority, which we ALL know is illogical.

And yeh, the convoluted analogy is somewhat ridiculous ... I meant it to be that way.

You either think in a critical fashion, or you do not. Now, certainly, there are times when it is for more expedient, realistic, and efficient, to accept some things as true.

The average mean of folks in the world either ~cannot~ wrap their thought processes around certain concepts or ~choose~ not to due to time / difficulty constraints. These are subconscious, sometimes conscious prioritizations. And there are many concepts and ideas that we will simply accept as true just because it takes too much time and/or effort to parse through. This is normal. We all cannot be specialists in everything, and there isn't enough time in one's life to explore and personally research every concept that comes down the road.

Now, it completely depends on how one makes those "I'll take it as fact" judgement calls that is important. For example .. those who are said to be critical thinkers will at least take the little bit of time necessary to compare different viewpoints and see if they coincide, what sounds more logical in comparison to what one already knows, etc.

Others, the average mean of folks, will just swallow it and go on their merry way. Simply for the fact that it is easier for them to do so. Easier meaning easier intellectually, or emotionally, or what have you. Another recreation below:

Authority figure / Respected figure / large group: "Blue and green make yellow."
Average person: "Ok." and then go on merry way.
Those who think critically: "Ok. Why and how? Is there a simple way to test this myself?"

A belief in a god or a lack thereof does not a critical thinker make or break. Generally, for those who think critically, it's just one of those phenomena that is filed away as either not important or interesting enough to fully investigate. There's no satisfactory, simple way to "test" it all out for oneself, nor do all the possible sources out there agree in a satisfactory or logical fashion. Ergo, it becomes a non-issue ...

Throughout the day, I take a few moments of my time for introspection. I analyze my thoughts and why I think them. I analyze my actions and why I did them. I think about other possibilities and whether or not they are valid, in relation to the current environmental variables involved. Some call this prayer, some, meditation .... ~shrug~ ... I just call it thinking.

I, personally, have little care on whether or not am considered a "true" skeptic, an atheist, a deist ... or a soft pantheistic with a twist of paganistic and shamanistic theist naturalistic determinst ... with chocolate sprinkles on top ... Simply for the fact that it's a non-issue for me. What people term me is not necessarily what I ~am~ or define what it is I think about or how I think it.

At any rate, enough of my slightly incoherent rambling ... just felt like putting in my one cent's worth in ... It is, as always, my own thougts in my own world ... Others' thoughts in other worlds will adduredly differ ....

It's already been established that a skeptic can be a hypocrite.

It really doesn't matter how much "more" skeptical you are, it's how much "less".

One who holds on to an irrational idea and does not give it up is less skeptical than one who gives up their irrational ideas.

woodguard

11th May 2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Sounds like woo-woo type justification to me.

What is "woo-woo" is it something real cool ?:cool:

BANG BANG BANG, the sound of beating a dead horse.

ImpyTimpy

11th May 2003, 07:44 PM

Hold on, that doesn't make sense. How much more and how much less skeptical a person is means the same thing. So if you say it doesn't matter how much more skeptical you are, it's how much less you're contradicting yourself. Just changing your proof by example around (yet maintaining the meaning), we get:

"One who gives up their irrational idea is more skeptical than one who holds onto their irrational ideas and does not give them up."

Let's take the belief in God. Is it an irrational belief? No.

Let's take the belief that there is no God. Is it an irrational belief? No.

:D

Why? Because none of the above can be proven/disproven. Like others have pointed out it is an untestable claim. You can say I see no evidence for God but others might say they do. You can't build a testable claim with God because how do you define "God"... God isn't like claims of paranormal. We can't say, we'll give you 1,000,000 if you appear before us. What would God do with money anyway? :)

God as an existing entity or concept is simply beyond proof. The very word suggests something beyond human comprehension.

For skeptics everywhere God becomes a matter of belief. Some of us believe God may exist, others believe God does not exist. Neither skeptic is any less or more skeptical for having a belief in place which can not be tested.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

It's already been established that a skeptic can be a hypocrite.

It really doesn't matter how much "more" skeptical you are, it's how much "less".

One who holds on to an irrational idea and does not give it up is less skeptical than one who gives up their irrational ideas.

Doubt

11th May 2003, 07:46 PM

A personal opinion that I would like to see picked apart:

Skepticism is not an absolute. It is a mater of degree. If you look closely, most people have some sort of belief that they cannot justify based on fact or reason. It is not always about religion. How many people here can claim that they know for sure that all of their views are completely rational? How many of us have had all their ideas picked apart by others?

To the best of my knowledge, I have never met a person who is free from bias or prejudice. Bias and prejudice do not support critical thinking or skepticism.

We do live in a world filled with woo-woos. The problem is that woo-woo is a pejorative term. We would be better off if we did not lump them all together, since that does not recognize that “woo-woo” thinking is no more an absolute then skepticism.

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Hold on, that doesn't make sense. How much more and how much less skeptical a person is means the same thing. So if you say it doesn't matter how much more skeptical you are, it's how much less you're contradicting yourself. Just changing your proof by example around (yet maintaining the meaning), we get:

It's harder to define what would classify being "more" skeptical. It's easier to point out what is "less" skeptical, or, irrational.

"One who gives up their irrational idea is more skeptical than one who holds onto their irrational ideas and does not give them up."

Let's take the belief in God. Is it an irrational belief? No.

You are a stupid, stupid person, not just because of this stupid statement, but because of the other statements of yours in the past. When I see you post, along with that stupid user name, I get the impression that there is a 10 year old behind your computer.

Why believing in God is irrational has already been stated, here and elsewhere.

Let's take the belief that there is no God. Is it an irrational belief? No.

It can have irrational justifications.

Why? Because none of the above can be proven/disproven. Like others have pointed out it is an untestable claim. You can say I see no evidence for God but others might say they do. You can't build a testable claim with God because how do you define "God"... God isn't like claims of paranormal. We can't say, we'll give you 1,000,000 if you appear before us. What would God do with money anyway? :)

You are STUPID, you useless cretin! NOTHING CAN TRULY BE PROVEN/DISPROVEN! I can say I have evidence for the existence of gnomes, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

Basis for belief or knowledge are based on EVIDENCE, not whether it's "PROVED" (because nothing can be proved with 100% certainity, unless for some mathematical concepts)

God is a supernatural being, so yes, it is paranormal!

I don't even think you know how the JREF challenge works, either.

God as an existing entity or concept is simply beyond proof. The very word suggests something beyond human comprehension.

Oh, good. So there cannot be ANY justification behind believing in it. Thanks.

For skeptics everywhere God becomes a matter of belief. Some of us believe God may exist, others believe God does not exist. Neither skeptic is any less or more skeptical for having a belief in place which can not be tested.

You are an idiot (well, that's been established already) if you think that believing in something is more justified if belief of the thing in question cannot have evidence of it obtained.

EDIT, to clarify the above: Believing in something isn't irrational if what they belief in cannot get evidence to support it is a stupid notion.

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Doubt
A personal opinion that I would like to see picked apart:

Skepticism is not an absolute. It is a mater of degree. If you look closely, most people have some sort of belief that they cannot justify based on fact or reason. It is not always about religion. How many people here can claim that they know for sure that all of their views are completely rational? How many of us have had all their ideas picked apart by others?

To the best of my knowledge, I have never met a person who is free from bias or prejudice. Bias and prejudice do not support critical thinking or skepticism.

We do live in a world filled with woo-woos. The problem is that woo-woo is a pejorative term. We would be better off if we did not lump them all together, since that does not recognize that “woo-woo” thinking is no more an absolute then skepticism.

The way I see it is, if a person is confronted about their irrational ideas, and shown how and why it is irrational, they must change their opinion.

It isn't a person's fault if an idea is placed in their head and they never thought to question it. But to hold on to it-- that's irrationality.

Seelie

11th May 2003, 08:19 PM

An interesting scenario I'll present out of curiosity ... just poking about for thoughts ... I'll preface that there really isn't a right or wrong answer, but when you come up with an answer, think about why you answered what you did ;)

John believes blue and yellow make green. He is an artist, and he has witnessed when he mixes together blue and yellow paint, that green paint is produced. One day, Kate comes along and explains that it is actually blue and green mixed together that produces yellow. She performs a handy dandy quick-test of licking her finger, placing it on a computer screen over a yellow block, and only red, blue, and green pixels are seen. She then demonstrates to John with an RGB mixer ... jacking Red down to 0%, and Blue and Green to 100%, that a bright yellow is produced. She also points to all the scientific evidence, and explains to John how this could be. She then starts explaining about the differences between color and tint, and what makes them so.

John's eyes roll up in his head, not quite able to wrap his mind around the whole thing, and continues to insist that blue and yellow make green ... It's the only thing he knows, and simply cannot understand the other.

OR

John understands, but still chooses to believe that blue and yellow make green, understanding that its an irrational belief, but one that makes him feel more comfortable, emotionally.

OR

John says, "Ok. If you say so."

OR

John thinks about it, ponders it over, does the testing himself, and then chooses to adopt the new belief.

OR

John considers it all, decides that his belief or non belief in this one item really affects little in his universe, since he still has to mix blue paint and yellow paint to get green, regardless of the scientific theory behind it and just tells Kate whatever it is she wants to hear to get her out of his face.

Which of the 4 presented resolutions to the scenario exhibits the "most" or "least" skeptical way of going about things?

Checkmite

11th May 2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

The way I see it is, if a person is confronted about their irrational ideas, and shown how and why it is irrational, they must change their opinion.

It isn't a person's fault if an idea is placed in their head and they never thought to question it. But to hold on to it-- that's irrationality.

What if they disagree on what constitutes irrationality? In that case, you've wasted your breath trying to show them anything. Franko cajoled for months about how atheism was "irrational".

Your breath has been wasted to an even greater extent if you exert so much effort to get someone to agree that "X" is true or not, when how a person feels about "X" has absolutely no effect whatsoever on his views or attitudes regarding anything else.

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Seelie
An interesting scenario I'll present out of curiosity ... just poking about for thoughts ... I'll preface that there really isn't a right or wrong answer, but when you come up with an answer, think about why you answered what you did ;)

John believes blue and yellow make green. He is an artist, and he has witnessed when he mixes together blue and yellow paint, that green paint is produced. One day, Kate comes along and explains that it is actually blue and green mixed together that produces yellow. She performs a handy dandy quick-test of licking her finger, placing it on a computer screen over a yellow block, and only red, blue, and green pixels are seen. She then demonstrates to John with an RGB mixer ... jacking Red down to 0%, and Blue and Green to 100%, that a bright yellow is produced. She also points to all the scientific evidence, and explains to John how this could be. She then starts explaining about the differences between color and tint, and what makes them so.

John's eyes roll up in his head, not quite able to wrap his mind around the whole thing, and continues to insist that blue and yellow make green ... It's the only thing he knows, and simply cannot understand the other.

OR

John understands, but still chooses to believe that blue and yellow make green, understanding that its an irrational belief, but one that makes him feel more comfortable, emotionally.

OR

John says, "Ok. If you say so."

OR

John thinks about it, ponders it over, does the testing himself, and then chooses to adopt the new belief.

OR

John considers it all, decides that his belief or non belief in this one item really affects little in his universe, since he still has to mix blue paint and yellow paint to get green, regardless of the scientific theory behind it and just tells Kate whatever it is she wants to hear to get her out of his face.

Which of the 4 presented resolutions to the scenario exhibits the "most" or "least" skeptical way of going about things?

Apples and Oranges, if my understanding of the physics behind the two are correct.

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

What if they disagree on what constitutes irrationality? In that case, you've wasted your breath trying to show them anything. Franko cajoled for months about how atheism was "irrational".

Your breath has been wasted to an even greater extent if you exert so much effort to get someone to agree that "X" is true or not, when how a person feels about "X" has absolutely no effect whatsoever on his views or attitudes regarding anything else.

Please note I did not use a speech-to-text program.

If they can't understand what rationality is, then they are most likely irrational.

Also, if someone remains irrational in one thing, then very likely the door is open for more irrationality to seep through, the same door that allowed the irrationality on one subject to seep through-- they just might be more irrational!

Also, almost everything effects something else in the sense of ideas; believing in a higher power certainly influences other ideas.

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 08:33 PM

However, at some point it may be best to give up on a person, such as Franko.

Checkmite

11th May 2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

If they can't understand what rationality is, then they are most likely irrational.

....which is exactly what Franko kept telling us.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Also, if someone remains irrational in one thing, then very likely the door is open for more irrationality to seep through, the same door that allowed the irrationality on one subject to seep through-- they just might be more irrational!

Here is where you are wrong, because you are making a beautiful assumption. I think that if someone remains irrational in only one thing, they're doing a pretty good job. In all my years of living, it's never been evident that "being irrational about one thing makes it very likely" that one will be irrational about other things; sure, there are cases, but you seem to be confusing correlation and causation.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Also, almost everything effects something else in the sense of ideas; believing in a higher power certainly influences other ideas.

Another unsupportable statement. How would "believing in a higher power" necessarily influence anything?

Doubt

11th May 2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

The way I see it is, if a person is confronted about their irrational ideas, and shown how and why it is irrational, they must change their opinion.

It isn't a person's fault if an idea is placed in their head and they never thought to question it. But to hold on to it-- that's irrationality.

It takes work to reconsider a worldview. Most people will reject information that does not match their view of reality. The more preconceptions we have about how the universe works, the harder it is to change.

If someone came up to me and presented what appears to be a perfectly rational explanation for why I am wrong about something, I should not automatically accept it. I have to look over the information and compare it to other information.

Good explanations should not be taken at face value without hard thinking. But most people don’t have the mental tool set to evaluate the information in the first place. There is no “must” when it comes to accepting ideas from others.

Seelie

11th May 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Apples and Oranges, if my understanding of the physics behind the two are correct.

They are ... But that wasn't really the question ;) The question was more of an exploration of of the various thought processes behind each of the possible resolutions, and how they would be "rated". In the scenario, Kate does explain how both could be true .. something I presented implicitly with the phrase of "She also points to all the scientific evidence, and explains to John how this could be. She then starts explaining about the differences between color and tint, and what makes them so." ... though I wasn't explicit with it.

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

....which is exactly what Franko kept telling us.

Irrational people usually think they are rational.

However, those who are truly rational come to the more justified conclusions, and can adequatly defend them.

Here is where you are wrong, because you are making a beautiful assumption. I think that if someone remains irrational in only one thing, they're doing a pretty good job. In all my years of living, it's never been evident that "being irrational about one thing makes it very likely" that one will be irrational about other things; sure, there are cases, but you seem to be confusing correlation and causation.

If a person is confronted with their irrationality and still refuses to change, then they are irrational. Some nuts ARE harder to crack, but some are impossible (and thus irrational). Even if they only remain that way on one idea, the potential is still there.

Perhaps I'm underestimating how people compartmentalize things; however I doubt it.

Another unsupportable statement. How would "believing in a higher power" necessarily influence anything? [/B]

Easy. What is a "higher power" usually used to explain? Start of the universe? That's two things, right there: A deity and not some other, non-God thing or process started it.

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Doubt

It takes work to reconsider a worldview. Most people will reject information that does not match their view of reality. The more preconceptions we have about how the universe works, the harder it is to change.

If someone came up to me and presented what appears to be a perfectly rational explanation for why I am wrong about something, I should not automatically accept it. I have to look over the information and compare it to other information.

Good explanations should not be taken at face value without hard thinking. But most people don’t have the mental tool set to evaluate the information in the first place. There is no “must” when it comes to accepting ideas from others.

Of course!

In this war, however, when one finally runs out of ammo they need to just surrender. The rational do, the irrational don't.

However, one should be open to the fact that a new ammo cache may be found and they can switch sides to fight for their original cause.

Checkmite

11th May 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

If a person is confronted with their irrationality and still refuses to change, then they are irrational. Some nuts ARE harder to crack, but some are impossible (and thus irrational). Even if they only remain that way on one idea, the potential is still there.

Perhaps I'm underestimating how people compartmentalize things; however I doubt it.

That wasn't the point...the point was, you can't judge a person's worth or intelligence based on the fact that they have a couple of inconsequential "irrationalities" - you simply can't group people that way if you hope to accomplish anything. The potential may still be there to believe in something else irrational, but it's only about as relevant as the potential to commit murder, for instance.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Easy. What is a "higher power" usually used to explain? Start of the universe? That's two things, right there: A deity and not some other, non-God thing or process started it.

Well, what you're doing here is justifying your generalization by using a specific instance, albiet a common instance. That's why you used the word "usually". What about the "unusual" instances? What if a person simply uses the term "God" the way I do; that is, as a way of saying "Whatever caused the universe, in whatever form it exists or had existed" without typing all that out? Tell me how thinking the universe was caused has any sort of effect on my critical thinking ability. To the best of my knowledge and experience, everything is caused. Some theoretical constructs involve acausal events; I've never experienced one. How is my belief then irrational? If someone comes up to me and says, "Well I've read in a magazine somewhere that a particle appeared out of nothing", would it necessarily be wise to say "OK, I must've been mistaken" and completely abandon my earlier line of thinking?

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Well, what you're doing here is justifying your generalization by using a specific instance, albiet a common instance. That's why you used the word "usually". What about the "unusual" instances? What if a person simply uses the term "God" the way I do; that is, as a way of saying "Whatever caused the universe, in whatever form it exists or had existed" without typing all that out?

That does not match mine or the standard definition for "God".

Tell me how thinking the universe was caused has any sort of effect on my critical thinking ability. To the best of my knowledge and experience, everything is caused. Some theoretical constructs involve acausal events; I've never experienced one. How is my belief then irrational? If someone comes up to me and says, "Well I've read in a magazine somewhere that a particle appeared out of nothing", would it necessarily be wise to say "OK, I must've been mistaken" and completely abandon my earlier line of thinking?

This part falls apart with my above comment and is now meaningless.

I was referring to "God" as the standard definition.

Ahh.. the ever-vague, ever changing deist version of "God...

I have to go to sleep soon... I'm tired, which explains my decreasing coherency, but debates prevent me from sleeping... :(

Checkmite

11th May 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

That does not match mine or the standard definition for "God".

This part falls apart with my above comment and is now meaningless.

I was referring to "God" as the standard definition.

Ahh.. the ever-vague, ever changing deist version of "God...

I have to go to sleep soon... I'm tired, which explains my decreasing coherency, but debates prevent me from sleeping... :(

So, when a concept of "God" emerges that you cannot tackle - that doesn't fit that definition of God you've become adept at smacking down, you laugh it off..."Ohh, those silly deists". The fact remains, one of Deism's fine points is that it bases its concept of God on what is observed about the universe. Naturally, then, one shouldn't find many "Deistic" concepts of God that can be dismissed as incompatible with science and rational thought. Though your method of essentially throwing the debate is somewhat different than most, it's still throwing the debate.

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

So, when a concept of "God" emerges that you cannot tackle, you laugh it off..."Ohh, those silly deists". The fact remains, one of Deism's fine points is that it bases its concept of God on what is observed about the universe. Naturally, then, one shouldn't find many "Deistic" concepts of God that can be dismissed as incompatible with science and rational thought. Though your method of essentially throwing the debate is somewhat different than most, it's still throwing the debate.

I have already discussed in this thread how vague that the deist definition of "God" can be.

I mostly use the definition "conciousness of what is omnipotent"--that is what is implied--although sometimes I bend it depending on the discussion and points made, but not often. The "concious" part can also be debated, because... does omnipotency need or require conciousness? However, such is another discussion...

Checkmite

11th May 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

I have already discussed in this thread how vague that the deist definition of "God" can be.

Then I expect you will have realized how pointless trying to argue against Deism is. Whether you convince the Deist that the universe is acausal or not - the two of you will still agree about the Big Bang, still agree about the laws of physics, still agree about the approximate age of the universe, still agree about practically every other established scientific school of thought. So, then....

Lord Kenneth

11th May 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Then I expect you will have realized how pointless trying to argue against Deism is. Whether you convince the Deist that the universe is acausal or not - the two of you will still agree about the Big Bang, still agree about the laws of physics, still agree about practically every other established scientific school of thought. So, then....

Apparently, what deists believe ranges quite a bit-- from "what caused the universe", "an un-specific God", or "or an unspecified God with certain specific qualities not required to be called "God", or sometimes somehow all three, depending on their mood. :confused:

Or.. have I missed one? :rolleyes:

Checkmite

11th May 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Apparently, what deists believe ranges quite a bit-- from "what caused the universe", "an un-specific God", or "or an unspecified God with certain specific qualities not required to be called "God", or sometimes somehow all three, depending on their mood. :confused:

Or.. have I missed one? :rolleyes:

Well, there's absolutely no difference at all in the first two instances - the third instance involves speculation belonging more to philosophy than science. And philosophy is an entirely different game.

ImpyTimpy

11th May 2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

It's harder to define what would classify being "more" skeptical. It's easier to point out what is "less" skeptical, or, irrational.

No matter how you look at it, you wrote a self contradiction. :) Sorry, I wanted to rattle your cage a bit with some humour. I think it went over your head though.

You are a stupid, stupid person, not just because of this stupid statement, but because of the other statements of yours in the past. When I see you post, along with that stupid user name, I get the impression that there is a 10 year old behind your computer.

How is my statement stupid? I'd for once would like to see you offer a proper argument for some of your rants, not more rants.

Why believing in God is irrational has already been stated, here and elsewhere.

I think your hatred towards your mother is shining through here... How exactly is believing in God irrational?

It can have irrational justifications.

That's contradictory then...

Either belief in God is irrational, therefore belief in No God isn't, or belief in God is rational and belief in No God isn't (using your statements)

You are STUPID, you useless cretin! NOTHING CAN TRULY BE PROVEN/DISPROVEN! I can say I have evidence for the existence of gnomes, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

Looks like things went over your head again. We're talking about testable claims here. Rant on...

Basis for belief or knowledge are based on EVIDENCE, not whether it's "PROVED" (because nothing can be proved with 100% certainity, unless for some mathematical concepts)

It's proven, not proved. :D You got it right the first time but I think your kook-brain kicked in the second time round. Science is based on the following:

Making an observation.
Creating a theory about observation
Testing of theory
Proving or disproving the theory.

Evidence comes into play in the last stage, when the theory can be proven or disproven. Hope you're learning something at school because thinking science just works on evidence is very limited thinking. Our knowledge comes primarily from observations and theories on the observations...

God is a supernatural being, so yes, it is paranormal!

I don't even think you know how the JREF challenge works, either.

It tests claims. The claim of whether God exists or doesn't exist, is untestable. Do you finally understand?

Oh, good. So there cannot be ANY justification behind believing in it. Thanks.

You are an idiot (well, that's been established already) if you think that believing in something is more justified if belief of the thing in question cannot have evidence of it obtained.

EDIT, to clarify the above: Believing in something isn't irrational if what they belief in cannot get evidence to support it is a stupid notion.
You established I'm an idiot the same way you established all teenagers are idiots right? You just "know" they are because well, you just do. Nobody besides you is champion of intellectual conversations... :rolleyes:

Now, I never claimed what you just said. What I was trying to point out was that the belief can't be labelled irrational when it can not be tested. Please try and read what I said correctly without resorting to strawmen.

Well, I fully expect to see more rants and one liners in response to my post. After all, I am now one of the "idiots" and you're the only bright boy in history of humans persecuted by hordes of the uneducated.

:rolleyes:

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

No matter how you look at it, you wrote a self contradiction. :) Sorry, I wanted to rattle your cage a bit with some humour. I think it went over your head though.

Is it easier to tell the difference between hot and cold, or between cold and colder? That's my point.

How is my statement stupid? I'd for once would like to see you offer a proper argument for some of your rants, not more rants.

Just like I previously mentioned, why believing in God is irrational has more than been discussed here and elsewhere.

I'm not going to type it up again just to have you not understand what points I'm making.

I think your hatred towards your mother is shining through here... How exactly is believing in God irrational?

Discussed to death! And given your other points (about believing in the unproven, you are too stupid to understand them anyways... if you want to know, look on R&P)

That's contradictory then...

There can be irrational reason for being an atheist.

Either belief in God is irrational, therefore belief in No God isn't, or belief in God is rational and belief in No God isn't (using your statements)

Or not, if you're intelligent enough to understand them.

Looks like things went over your head again. We're talking about testable claims here. Rant on...

Thus we imploy Occam's razor to see which solution is simpler.

It's proven, not proved. :D You got it right the first time but I think your kook-brain kicked in the second time round. Science is based on the following:

What, exactly, are you bringing this up? It's almost irrelevant, you probably didn't understand my point.

Making an observation.
Creating a theory about observation
Testing of theory
Proving or disproving the theory.

Where does hypothesis fit in? And how can a theory be proven?

:rolleyes:

Evidence comes into play in the last stage, when the theory can be proven or disproven. Hope you're learning something at school because thinking science just works on evidence is very limited thinking. Our knowledge comes primarily from observations and theories on the observations...

You don't even understand what "evidence" means... you say I'm wrong but go on to agree with me by using different words...

Explain to me how a theory can be proven-- and also, fully disproven, as well. I'd like to hear it.

It tests claims. The claim of whether God exists or doesn't exist, is untestable. Do you finally understand?

Of course it's untestable, but you aren't making any points...

You established I'm an idiot the same way you established all teenagers are idiots right? You just "know" they are because well, you just do. Nobody besides you is champion of intellectual conversations... :rolleyes:

Two strawmans in a row!

Now, I never claimed what you just said. What I was trying to point out was that the belief can't be labelled irrational when it can not be tested. Please try and read what I said correctly without resorting to strawmen.

Look's who's talking!

A belief can very well be labeled irrational if it can't be tested-- We use Occam's razor.

Well, I fully expect to see more rants and one liners in response to my post. After all, I am now one of the "idiots" and you're the only bright boy in history of humans persecuted by hordes of the uneducated.

:rolleyes:

Another strawman, to be expected from such a useless imbecile...

Darat

12th May 2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Is it easier to tell the difference between hot and cold, or between cold and colder? That's my point.

...snip...

The difference between cold and colder is the same as the difference between hot and cold. ;)

"Hot" is just any temperature above absolute zero!

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Darat

The difference between cold and colder is the same as the difference between hot and cold. ;)

"Hot" is just any temperature above absolute zero!

Yes, of course, I know that!

However, some things are considered hot and cold due to what our bodies can handle. It's harder to tell the difference between 0 and -32F than it is between 0 and 32F, isn't it?

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 05:14 AM

Anyways, it's easier to find what is "less" skeptical than "more" skeptical because irrationality is easier to spot than miniscule degrees of rationality, most of which could be debates anyways (is researching every little fact "rational"?, for example)

Interesting Ian

12th May 2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Seelie

John considers it all, decides that his belief or non belief in this one item really affects little in his universe, since he still has to mix blue paint and yellow paint to get green, regardless of the scientific theory behind it and just tells Kate whatever it is she wants to hear to get her out of his face.

[/B]

LMAO!!! Now yes, that should be John's attitude. :)

BillHoyt

12th May 2003, 06:55 AM

Evidence comes into play in the last stage, when the theory can be proven or disproven. Hope you're learning something at school because thinking science just works on evidence is very limited thinking. Our knowledge comes primarily from observations and theories on the observations...
ImpyTimpy,

Do you have any notion of how far off the mark these statements are? You are confusing theory with hypothesis. You also have some confusion regarding the difference between observation and experimentation.

Cheers,

12th May 2003, 07:07 AM

Nobody wnat to discuse this:
The real fact is this:
No matter the name of the cult,somebody that believe in faith is trying to approach to a kind of God, no matter if there are not proofs of his/her/its existence.

Skeptics can not pray and have faith in something that not exists.

RSLancastr

12th May 2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by ex-latin
Can somebody rebate this?Only if you send in proof of purchase.

roger

12th May 2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Julia
Anyway. I am curious about how much is environmental and how much is something we are born with. I always felt that the sheep mentality was something some were born with, just like types of depression, etc. I'm curious if it is something most people start to have integrated into their personality as early as grade school. But then again, why do a few rebel?

I find this interesting as well. I often wonder about what my beliefs would be in the middle ages. I was raised to believe, but slowly discarded my beliefs around junior high. If I had been born in the middle ages as the son of a blacksmith, say, without access to ideas such as scepticism, the scientific method, etc, I would like to think I'd still end up atheist, but question that. I am pretty independently minded, but it's hard to look outside and reject an entire culture, especially if you are not aware of alternatives.

RandFan

12th May 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Also, if someone remains irrational in one thing, then very likely the door is open for more irrationality to seep through, the same door that allowed the irrationality on one subject to seep through-- they just might be more irrational!

Also, almost everything effects something else in the sense of ideas; believing in a higher power certainly influences other ideas. So, if I understand you right, a judgment can be made as to a person's rationality based solely on whether one holds any view that is deemed irrational?

Would you intentionally disassociate yourself from such a person?

Do you think that the JREF is ill-served by having a diest like Hal Bidlack write the commentary?

Would it perhaps be in JREF's best interest to consider disassociating themselves from those who do not renounce the possibility or belief in the possibility of likelihood of the existence of god?

ImpyTimpy

12th May 2003, 04:09 PM

Feel free to enlighten me then. This is how I was taught science operated, sorry if I used the wrong terms but feel free to show me the error of my ways. I'm always open to learning :)

Originally posted by BillHoyt

ImpyTimpy,

Do you have any notion of how far off the mark these statements are? You are confusing theory with hypothesis. You also have some confusion regarding the difference between observation and experimentation.

Cheers,

ImpyTimpy

12th May 2003, 04:29 PM

Strawman means I supply you with a position you never took up and proceed to build an argument against it. I don't see me using strawmen here.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Is it easier to tell the difference between hot and cold, or between cold and colder? That's my point.

Someone already told you it's both the same. Hot and cold, cold and colder are interchangable.

Just like I previously mentioned, why believing in God is irrational has more than been discussed here and elsewhere.

I'm not going to type it up again just to have you not understand what points I'm making.

You never addressed why a belief in God is irrational. I remember discussions about religion in R&P but not about the possibility of existence of God. Also most of your arguments are just juvenile remarks, so excuse me for not remembering the full body of your enlightening discussion.

Discussed to death! And given your other points (about believing in the unproven, you are too stupid to understand them anyways... if you want to know, look on R&P)

Never said I believe in unproven. That is an actual strawman. I am stating it is incorrect to label a belief irrational when there is no evidence for it either way. For example, assuming possible existence of God is not irrational because the claim is untestable. Assuming existence of after life is irrational so far because all evidence points to it's non-existance. Understand now?

There can be irrational reason for being an atheist.

Care to explain that?

Or not, if you're intelligent enough to understand them.

Thus we imploy Occam's razor to see which solution is simpler.

Both statement can be considered simple (going with a deist belief here):

Universe started itself or
God started the universe.

And to show you how occam's razor is not the best idea...

The lights in the sky (at night) are holes through which light of the sun shines.

The stars above are minature suns, glowing because of fusion reaction inside them, their light often travelling many many light years before reaching the earth.

Occam's razor would favour first position since it's simpler, yet very wrong.

What, exactly, are you bringing this up? It's almost irrelevant, you probably didn't understand my point.

Where does hypothesis fit in? And how can a theory be proven?

:rolleyes:

You're 100% right, I used the terms incorrectly. I was thinking of hypothesis when using theory. In that sense a hypothesis can be proven or disproven... My bad.

You don't even understand what "evidence" means... you say I'm wrong but go on to agree with me by using different words...

Explain to me how a theory can be proven-- and also, fully disproven, as well. I'd like to hear it.

Alright, let's take the theory that atoms are the smallest particles in the universe. This theory was proven by using experimentation. However, it was later disproven when it was found atoms contain electrons, protons and neutrons. New theory was formed saying atoms are made up of electrons floating around the protons and neutrons packed together... you get the idea...

Of course it's untestable, but you aren't making any points...

I thought that was the whole point?

Two strawmans in a row!

Care to show me how I was making strawmen? If you do I will apologise immediately, but right now I can't see it.

Look's who's talking!

A belief can very well be labeled irrational if it can't be tested-- We use Occam's razor.

And I already showed you how Occam's razor is faulty. Say we go back in time a little bit and we tell people who believe that stars are lights in the sky, that in fact stars are massive balls of gas compressed so much that they are under constant fusion, creating the light. We can't prove either belief because we have no means of doing so. Using occam's we'd say that the fusion idea is irrational.

Another strawman, to be expected from such a useless imbecile...
Please show me how I made a strawman.

12th May 2003, 04:41 PM

Dear Mr. Korosi,

When it comes down to it, I'd say that a good majority of scoffers would consider deists irrational nitwit woo-woo non-skeptic believers because they believe in something that there is no evidence for. That would go for you, Bidlack, and even Martin Gardner.

Sincerely,

S. H.

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Anyways, it's easier to find what is "less" skeptical than "more" skeptical because irrationality is easier to spot than miniscule degrees of rationality, most of which could be debates anyways (is researching every little fact "rational"?, for example)

After further thought, what I previous said in relation to this doesn't really make any sense. I wonder what I was thinking.

However, my train of thought wasn't all bad. It's not whether an actionor idea is more or less rational, it's if it is rational or irrational-- and the more irrational statementsin the idea, the more unsupported statements, etc..The more irrational it is.

That's why theism is more irrational that deism (definition: belief in no specific God) because it is adding more irrational ideas into the fray.

A person is more rational by being more consistent and critical.

RandFan

12th May 2003, 05:26 PM

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Strawman means I supply you with a position you never took up and proceed to build an argument against it. I don't see me using strawmen here.

But you did! Go back and read it!

Someone already told you it's both the same. Hot and cold, cold and colder are interchangable.

I was using "hot" and "cold" by what the body feels. Nevermind this anyways, it was a flawed point.

You never addressed why a belief in God is irrational. I remember discussions about religion in R&P but not about the possibility of existence of God. Also most of your arguments are just juvenile remarks, so excuse me for not remembering the full body of your enlightening discussion.

None of my "arguments" are juvenile remarks.

I HAVE addressed it before, and so has just about everyone else at least some time in R&P...

There is no evidence of God's existence, and it is not required to explain something. Thus, it is as irrational as believing in gnomes.

Never said I believe in unproven. That is an actual strawman. I am stating it is incorrect to label a belief irrational when there is no evidence for it either way. For example, assuming possible existence of God is not irrational because the claim is untestable. Assuming existence of after life is irrational so far because all evidence points to it's non-existance. Understand now?

That's not a strawman, go look at your first sentence up there, that's the correct definition. Sheesh.

No evidence either way? Honestly, that's the worst argument I see. How old are you? God damn, you have a child mentality.

No evidence of the existence of something IMPLIES that you don't believe it exists! How OBVIOUS! But, you have already shown yourself to be an ignoramus, it's nothing new.

And where did you get this "Believing in an untestable claim is irrational" BS? Don't you even know what Occam's razor is?

Care to explain that?

"If God exists, why did September 11 happen?" That is one of the many flawed points some people use to defend their atheism.

Both statement can be considered simple (going with a deist belief here):

Universe started itself or
God started the universe.

That's a false dilemma, the universe may have "just started" but that doesn't mean it "started itself". Also, unless God is a variable to stand in for whatever started the universe, there are many other possible reasons as well.

Anyways, The first one (Universe) already requires on entity, and that one is a known one. The second one requires two, the universe (known) and God (UNKNOWN). While none should be assumed, thinking a God did it is certainly irrational, and remaining neutral on the subject is the best path to go (this means not assuming a God, or anything else, did it. You can hypothesize, and test it out from there, however, but that's not enough for a solid belief.).

And to show you how occam's razor is not the best idea...

The lights in the sky (at night) are holes through which light of the sun shines.

The stars above are minature suns, glowing because of fusion reaction inside them, their light often travelling many many light years before reaching the earth.

Occam's razor would favour first position since it's simpler, yet very wrong.

You don't even understand what is used by the terminology "simpler".

We know of suns, fusion reaction, light, speed of light, etc, but we don't know of anything that would cause "holes in the sky", and that is not needed to explain how stars come about.

You're 100% right, I used the terms incorrectly. I was thinking of hypothesis when using theory. In that sense a hypothesis can be proven or disproven... My bad.

You were just talking out of your ass.

Alright, let's take the theory that atoms are the smallest particles in the universe. This theory was proven by using experimentation. However, it was later disproven when it was found atoms contain electrons, protons and neutrons. New theory was formed saying atoms are made up of electrons floating around the protons and neutrons packed together... you get the idea...

And we know, without a doubt, that the scientists weren't playing a joke, or all somehow made the same mistakes in observations?

Granted, it's not likely, but it's not 100% certain, and therefore not "proved".

Care to show me how I was making strawmen? If you do I will apologise immediately, but right now I can't see it.

1. You said I claimed that each and every teenager is stupid (despite the fact that I am one myself).

2. "Nobody besides you is champion of intellectual conversations..."
You imply that I stated something along those lines, which is untrue.

And I already showed you how Occam's razor is faulty. Say we go back in time a little bit and we tell people who believe that stars are lights in the sky, that in fact stars are massive balls of gas compressed so much that they are under constant fusion, creating the light. We can't prove either belief because we have no means of doing so. Using occam's we'd say that the fusion idea is irrational.

Occam's razor is does not lead us to the correct answer for certain, but it helps us to the answer that is most likely given what we currently know.

Please show me how I made a strawman.

You referred to me as the only "bright boy" in human history as if I implied or said it.

ImpyTimpy

12th May 2003, 05:34 PM

Thought I'd define my position better.

When I say belief in God is not irrational I am describing a belief in God as a being that may exist which started the big bang, but does not influence anything else (untestable hypothesis).

I would call a belief in a all powerful God which will help me and others irrational since no evidence so far has been presented for a deity which helps suffering people (testable hypothesis - people suffering).

I would also say a belief that there is an evil God which enjoys making humans suffer a rational belief, since evidence seems to support that belief (testable again - people suffer everywhere for no reason, murders, rapes, child abuse etc).

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Would you be willing to answer my questions?

Would you intentionally disassociate yourself from such a person (nitwit woo-woo non-skeptic believer)?

Do you think that the JREF is ill-served by having a diest like Hal Bidlack write the commentary?

Would it perhaps be in JREF's best interest to consider disassociating themselves from those who do not renounce the possibility or belief in the possibility of likelihood of the existence of god?

Actually, I've heard that Holmes is actually Whodini, but I don't know for certain. Clear this up for us, Holmes...

Anyways, I believe it MAY have been a sarcastic appeal-to-authority type remark...

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Thought I'd define my position better.

When I say belief in God is not irrational I am describing a belief in God as a being that may exist which started the big bang, but does not influence anything else (untestable hypothesis).

Still irrational. You have no evidence to base such a claim on.

I would call a belief in a all powerful God which will help me and others irrational since no evidence so far has been presented for a deity which helps suffering people (testable hypothesis - people suffering).

One could say that worse things would have happened if this God had interfered; or, it happened for the best.

I would also say a belief that there is an evil God which enjoys making humans suffer a rational belief, since evidence seems to support that belief (testable again - people suffer everywhere for no reason, murders, rapes, child abuse etc).

Given your logic above, wouldn't the kind acts of humanity counteract that?

:rolleyes:

12th May 2003, 05:54 PM

Maybe they want another target of donators.

ImpyTimpy

12th May 2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

But you did! Go back and read it!

I was using "hot" and "cold" by what the body feels. Nevermind this anyways, it was a flawed point.

Alright, let's move on.

None of my "arguments" are juvenile remarks.

I beg to differ here. Ad hominem's do not make for a mature conversation.

I HAVE addressed it before, and so has just about everyone else at least some time in R&P...

There is no evidence of God's existence, and it is not required to explain something. Thus, it is as irrational as believing in gnomes.

Actually, I can prove God exists, but the God is evil. My proof is the unnecessary suffering and starvation around the world ;)

That's not a strawman, go look at your first sentence up there, that's the correct definition. Sheesh.

No evidence either way? Honestly, that's the worst argument I see. How old are you? God damn, you have a child mentality.

I realise your and my idea of God (not that I have an idea about a God, but I'm using God as a starter of universe idea) differs.

Big bang happened, something caused it (or it just happened?). Say the something was God. Here ends God's influence. Can't test it, I don't believe it but I can't argue about it's irrationality with someone and will not - because it is possible and untestable.

No evidence of the existence of something IMPLIES that you don't believe it exists! How OBVIOUS!

Well, no evidence for something's existence implies we don't know whether it exists or doesn't I would think. To make a statement either way creates a belief.

But my after-life idea comes from the fact that we have evidence against it, not that we have no evidence for or against.

That's what I was trying to say.

But, you have already shown yourself to be an ignoramus, it's nothing new.

And where did you get this "Believing in an untestable claim is irrational" BS? Don't you even know what Occam's razor is?

"If God exists, why did September 11 happen?" That is one of the many flawed points some people use to defend their atheism.

1 - Believing in untestable claims is NOT irrational, because having an opinion on something which can not be tested is a belief.
2 - Well, why did 9/11 happen if all loving God exists? Maybe because God is actually evil and we have proof of existence of evil God. :D

That's a false dilemma, the universe may have "just started" but that doesn't mean it "started itself". Also, unless God is a variable to stand in for whatever started the universe, there are many other possible reasons as well.

So what started the universe, if universe didn't start itself?

Anyways, The first one (Universe) already requires on entity, and that one is a known one. The second one requires two, the universe (known) and God (UNKNOWN). While none should be assumed, thinking a God did it is certainly irrational, and remaining neutral on the subject is the best path to go (this means not assuming a God, or anything else, did it. You can hypothesize, and test it out from there, however, but that's not enough for a solid belief.).

Ahh, I think you just fell into your own trap here. By remaining neutral you can neither assume God exists, NOR assume God does not exist (that started the universe). Since you assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that God never existed which started the universe, your belief, by your own statement becomes irrational.

You don't even understand what is used by the terminology "simpler".

Ok... Glad we got that sorted out...

:p

We know of suns, fusion reaction, light, speed of light, etc, but we don't know of anything that would cause "holes in the sky", and that is not needed to explain how stars come about.

You missed my point completely about Occam's razor. Read over it again... It has nothing to do with WHAT put holes in the sky, but with which is the simpler explanation to someone who doesn't know about fusion.

You were just talking out of your ass.

I made a mistake and admitted it.

And we know, without a doubt, that the scientists weren't playing a joke, or all somehow made the same mistakes in observations?

Granted, it's not likely, but it's not 100% certain, and therefore not "proved".

Now that's just stupid. You asked me how theories can be disproved, I gave you an example and you come back with this?

1. You said I claimed that each and every teenager is stupid (despite the fact that I am one myself).

Sorry, cheap shot, this was from some of your other posts about how teenagers are nothing but stereotypes...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19054

2. "Nobody besides you is champion of intellectual conversations..."
You imply that I stated something along those lines, which is untrue.

Well, your other posts certainly seem to ooze with an air of arrogance. I do apologise if I am wrong however.

Occam's razor is does not lead us to the correct answer for certain, but it helps us to the answer that is most likely given what we currently know.

Which like you said is not a correct answer for certain... Glad you realise how Occam's razor is not anything but a philosophical tool.

You referred to me as the only "bright boy" in human history as if I implied or said it.
Look at my apology above.

ImpyTimpy

12th May 2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Still irrational. You have no evidence to base such a claim on.

Nor have you evidence to say otherwise. There is no evidence either way, it's untestable, to claim either way is a belief. Your belief that this God doesn't/didn't exist is irrational by your own logic.

One could say that worse things would have happened if this God had interfered; or, it happened for the best.

Given your logic above, wouldn't the kind acts of humanity counteract that?

:rolleyes:
How so? The amount of suffering in the world is staggering, with innocent children dying from diseases and other terrors. How can limited acts of kindness end the starvation and oppression of many people around the world? Why if humans are so kind, do we have people living in poverty, or people begging on the streets? Why is there so much hatred amongst people? Sure, we have the occassional do-gooders, but the amount of evil seems to outweigh the amount of good, therefore, we must assume the world is ruled by an evil God. :)

12th May 2003, 06:08 PM

So, what is the problem with Hal Bidlack.

He is only a man and he is also free to choice to believe in a kind of god, an also to pray.

Is he guilty of that?

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

Alright, let's move on.

I beg to differ here. Ad hominem's do not make for a mature conversation.

What ad hominem, fool?

Actually, I can prove God exists, but the God is evil. My proof is the unnecessary suffering and starvation around the world ;)

Riiiiiight.

I realise your and my idea of God (not that I have an idea about a God, but I'm using God as a starter of universe idea) differs.

So your idea of God is one you don't have, and it differs from mine? Huh?!

Big bang happened, something caused it (or it just happened?). Say the something was God. Here ends God's influence. Can't test it, I don't believe it but I can't argue about it's irrationality with someone and will not - because it is possible and untestable.

OCCAM'S RAZOR.

If no evidence can be gathered for a certian claim, then no justification for believing it can be obtained, either, unless it is an absolute necessity needed to explain something, which is rare... and even then, it should only be considered as a possibility, or maybe just a little more...

Well, no evidence for something's existence implies we don't know whether it exists or doesn't I would think. To make a statement either way creates a belief.

OCCAM'S RAZOR.

But my after-life idea comes from the fact that we have evidence against it, not that we have no evidence for or against.

That's what I was trying to say.

Some things are unfalsifiable and can not have evidence against it. There is still no rationality in believing it!

1 - Believing in untestable claims is NOT irrational, because having an opinion on something which can not be tested is a belief.
2 - Well, why did 9/11 happen if all loving God exists? Maybe because God is actually evil and we have proof of existence of evil God. :D

1- Your lack of scientific understanding is HORRIBLE. Belief means "something you think is true". It doesn't matter if it can be tested or not.

2- Perhaps 9-11 was a necessity that this God had happen to prevent a worse tragedy in the best way it could see fit without interfering too much?

[/B]
So what started the universe, if universe didn't start itself?
[/B]
Ahh, I think you just fell into your own trap here. By remaining neutral you can neither assume God exists, NOR assume God does not exist (that started the universe). Since you assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that God never existed which started the universe, your belief, by your own statement becomes irrational.
[/B]
Ok... Glad we got that sorted out...

Not so fast.

I don't think God exists because

1) It is not needed to explain how the universe came about (which also nullifies your point about assuming God does or does not exist),

2) No evidence is provided.

Other people could have more "scientific" ideas, but without evidence, I won't believe in those, either.

[/B]
You missed my point completely about Occam's razor. Read over it again... It has nothing to do with WHAT put holes in the sky, but with which is the simpler explanation to someone who doesn't know about fusion.

I know that. Gah! RE-READ WHAT I WROTE, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

Now that's just stupid. You asked me how theories can be disproved, I gave you an example and you come back with this?

Since an explanation is unlikely, we just throw it out because it is unlikely, right? No, it's still a possiblity, although a very, very unlikely one. You are an imbecile...!

Sorry, cheap shot, this was from some of your other posts about how teenagers are nothing but stereotypes...

STRAAAAWMAAAAAAN again, most teenagers are, this is based on my observations.

Well, your other posts certainly seem to ooze with an air of arrogance. I do apologise if I am wrong however.

:rolleyes: You ARE wrong.

Which like you said is not a correct answer for certain... Glad you realise how Occam's razor is not anything but a philosophical tool.

YOU IDIOT! Occam's razor is very much a scientific tool, and one you use on a day-to-day basis, as well.

Your sandwich has a bite in it! Did your brother eat it, or aliens, or monsters....

Thus, we use Occam's razor to sort out the most likely.

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Nor have you evidence to say otherwise. There is no evidence either way, it's untestable, to claim either way is a belief. Your belief that this God doesn't/didn't exist is irrational by your own logic.

Fool. Just be glad that no one else has decided to jump in the fray or they would help me eat you alive. Looks like I gotta devour your body all by myself... :sad:

If there is no evidence for the existence of something, that automatically implies non-belief in it! You can't provide anti-evidence for a claim that is beyond what we currently know... thus Occam's razor!

How so? The amount of suffering in the world is staggering, with innocent children dying from diseases and other terrors. How can limited acts of kindness end the starvation and oppression of many people around the world? Why if humans are so kind, do we have people living in poverty, or people begging on the streets? Why is there so much hatred amongst people? Sure, we have the occassional do-gooders, but the amount of evil seems to outweigh the amount of good, therefore, we must assume the world is ruled by an evil God. :)

Perhaps, in each case, the God is trying to lead them away from a worse fate in the way it sees fit.

ImpyTimpy

12th May 2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Fool. Just be glad that no one else has decided to jump in the fray or they would help me eat you alive. Looks like I gotta devour your body all by myself... :sad:

If there is no evidence for the existence of something, that automatically implies non-belief in it! You can't provide anti-evidence for a claim that is beyond what we currently know... thus Occam's razor!

You are absolutely right in this case. I have given it more thought and introducing God into the universe does carry with it additional metaphysical or divine concepts...

However, I beg to question how either case implies irrationality. I mean does a simpler explanation automatically become rational, while a more complex one is not?

Perhaps, in each case, the God is trying to lead them away from a worse fate in the way it sees fit.
Then how is murder by torture leading someone away from a worse fate? We're stuck with the concept of evil God.

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

You are absolutely right in this case. I have given it more thought and introducing God into the universe does carry with it additional metaphysical or divine concepts...

However, I beg to question how either case implies irrationality. I mean does a simpler explanation automatically become rational, while a more complex one is not?

Because given what we know, the more simpler one is most often right, and it's the option which has justification behind it, as well. Such as my sandwich scenario. It would be irrational to assume aliens came and ate it, but not to assume your little brother might have ate it if he's the only other person home.

Then how is murder by torture leading someone away from a worse fate? We're stuck with the concept of evil God. [/B]

It's a possibility. Either way, belief in a deity is irrational.

ImpyTimpy

12th May 2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

What ad hominem, fool?

That one?

Riiiiiight.

So your idea of God is one you don't have, and it differs from mine? Huh?!

OCCAM'S RAZOR.

If no evidence can be gathered for a certian claim, then no justification for believing it can be obtained, either, unless it is an absolute necessity needed to explain something, which is rare... and even then, it should only be considered as a possibility, or maybe just a little more...

OCCAM'S RAZOR.

Some things are unfalsifiable and can not have evidence against it. There is still no rationality in believing it!

How so? Give me an example for irrational belief which is unfalsifiable/untestable and why the said belief is irrational...

1- Your lack of scientific understanding is HORRIBLE. Belief means "something you think is true". It doesn't matter if it can be tested or not.

Wrong.

I believe the sun is a lightbulb... It can be tested and falsified.

2- Perhaps 9-11 was a necessity that this God had happen to prevent a worse tragedy in the best way it could see fit without interfering too much?

How is the killing of thousands a prevention of a larger tragedy? How is a child with untreatable cancer, while some dictator gets richer by the minute prevention of anything? Face it, if anything, we have proof of an evil God.

Not so fast.

I don't think God exists because

1) It is not needed to explain how the universe came about (which also nullifies your point about assuming God does or does not exist),

2) No evidence is provided.

Other people could have more "scientific" ideas, but without evidence, I won't believe in those, either.

And that's rational... So what is wrong with someone who says "I believe in
'starter' God because it explains the big bang creation of the universe". How is that statement irrational?

I know that. Gah! RE-READ WHAT I WROTE, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

Ok....

Since an explanation is unlikely, we just throw it out because it is unlikely, right? No, it's still a possiblity, although a very, very unlikely one. You are an imbecile...!

First you advocate occam's razor, now it's not to be used... Make up your mind.

STRAAAAWMAAAAAAN again, most teenagers are, this is based on my observations.

Ok, so now it's MOST teenagers... Sorry for using ALL before...

:rolleyes: You ARE wrong.

Ok then I apologise. However, I must insist that many of your posts do come accross as juvenile and arrogant, even if that is not your intent.

YOU IDIOT! Occam's razor is very much a scientific tool, and one you use on a day-to-day basis, as well.

Your sandwich has a bite in it! Did your brother eat it, or aliens, or monsters....

Thus, we use Occam's razor to sort out the most likely.
I agree, I concede this point. While not ALWAYS correct, Occam's is indeed useful.

I would assume my brother (if I had one) took a bite out of the sandwich.

12th May 2003, 06:44 PM

A lot of words but nobody here can told us this:

How a "skeptic" pray?

ImpyTimpy

12th May 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Because given what we know, the more simpler one is most often right, and it's the option which has justification behind it, as well. Such as my sandwich scenario. It would be irrational to assume aliens came and ate it, but not to assume your little brother might have ate it if he's the only other person home.

This is where we disagree on irrationality. Your sandwich scenario is easily testable, hence to assume other scenarios which are not testable would be irrational.

On the other hand, if nobody was in the house, you find a bite out of the sandwich, any assumption would be rational - because you just don't know. In fact you could probably send the self-eating sandwich for the million dollar prize.

The starter God scenario is like the self eating sandwich. It has no alternative testable scenarios and neither is itself testable. Hence to me belief either way is still rational.

It's a possibility. Either way, belief in a deity is irrational.
That's where my problem comes into play... Given the above evidence, it would seem evil God is in fact in charge of the world as we know it, so how is it irrational? :)

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

[QUOTE]
That one?

An insult is not an ad hominem. I already went over this with you.

How so? Give me an example for irrational belief which is unfalsifiable/untestable and why the said belief is irrational...

God. No evidence to show that one exists, and violates Occam's razor, because it is not needed to explain something and it itself is not explained.

Wrong.

I believe the sun is a lightbulb... It can be tested and falsified.

Your point is...?

How is the killing of thousands a prevention of a larger tragedy? How is a child with untreatable cancer, while some dictator gets richer by the minute prevention of anything? Face it, if anything, we have proof of an evil God.

It's a possibility... unlikely, but one that should be considered.

And that's rational... So what is wrong with someone who says "I believe in
'starter' God because it explains the big bang creation of the universe". How is that statement irrational?

Because "God" is not required for the universe to start.

First you advocate occam's razor, now it's not to be used... Make up your mind.

No.

You said "proved", as in, "100% certainity". That's what prove means in general.

However, I have thought of a possibility which takes away absolute certainity. It's unlikely, and to assume all the scientists were mistaken would actually violate Occam's razor. The point was not Occam's razor, this time, it was about things being truly proven or disproven.

Ok, so now it's MOST teenagers... Sorry for using ALL before...
[/B]
Ok then I apologise. However, I must insist that many of your posts do come accross as juvenile and arrogant, even if that is not your intent.

I agree, I concede this point. While not ALWAYS correct, Occam's is indeed useful.

I would assume my brother (if I had one) took a bite out of the sandwich.

Good, you understand the sandwich bit. Now, compare that to God and the universe, and see with what you come up with.

Either the universe started through "natural" means", started by "itself", or a supernatural being somehow did it (even with time not existing prior).

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

This is where we disagree on irrationality. Your sandwich scenario is easily testable, hence to assume other scenarios which are not testable would be irrational.

You can, much like God, continually add things to make it untestable.

"The neighbor saw the boy eat it? Well, the aliens implanted false memories in their head."

"Brother's fingerprints near food? Aliens put it there, too..."

And so on, and so on, and so on.

That is why we use Occam's razor, going on something that requires less to explain.

On the other hand, if nobody was in the house, you find a bite out of the sandwich, any assumption would be rational - because you just don't know. In fact you could probably send the self-eating sandwich for the million dollar prize.

You are simply crazy. I'm done trying to explain Occam's razor to you. If you like, you can ask people on Banter or R&P for a critique of my arguments or for additional information, but dealing with you is a waste of my time.

The starter God scenario is like the self eating sandwich. It has no alternative testable scenarios and neither is itself testable. Hence to me belief either way is still rational.

You're wrong.

That's where my problem comes into play... Given the above evidence, it would seem evil God is in fact in charge of the world as we know it, so how is it irrational? :) [/B]

Anyways, evil is subjective, so such distinctions are meaningless anyways.

12th May 2003, 06:59 PM

Hi Guys:

Can you answer this question?

How a skeptic pray?

I have a bid doubt about it.

Thank you

ImpyTimpy

12th May 2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

An insult is not an ad hominem. I already went over this with you.

Actually, we did... and I admit argument ad hominem is not a flame or personal attack itself, but ad hominem is (here's the thread, I think you should check it again).

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18878

God. No evidence to show that one exists, and violates Occam's razor, because it is not needed to explain something and it itself is not explained.

Violating occam's razor is not evidence of irrational beliefs. Occam's razor by itself can lead to irrational beliefs. I am still arguing the 'starter' God idea by the way, not Christian God. I can say evidence to show starter God existed (may still exist) is complex evolution and big bang. God was the first cause.

Your point is...?

Just showing you where you were wrong. :)

It's a possibility... unlikely, but one that should be considered.

Because "God" is not required for the universe to start.

Then I could ask what is.

No.

You said "proved", as in, "100% certainity". That's what prove means in general.

However, I have thought of a possibility which takes away absolute certainity. It's unlikely, and to assume all the scientists were mistaken would actually violate Occam's razor. The point was not Occam's razor, this time, it was about things being truly proven or disproven.

Yes, things can be proven to 100% certainty, because by proving something it means it behaves 100% accordingly to the observed facts and knowledge about it. So things can in fact be truly proven and disproven given our current understanding and knowledge. As it changes, proven things may become unproven, but for now they remain proven. For example, are you not 100% certain that gravity affects you?

Good, you understand the sandwich bit. Now, compare that to God and the universe, and see with what you come up with.

Either the universe started through "natural" means", started by "itself", or a supernatural being somehow did it (even with time not existing prior).
Did in my other reply. :)

ImpyTimpy

12th May 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

You can, much like God, continually add things to make it untestable.

"The neighbor saw the boy eat it? Well, the aliens implanted false memories in their head."

"Brother's fingerprints near food? Aliens put it there, too..."

And so on, and so on, and so on.

That is why we use Occam's razor, going on something that requires less to explain.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said... But yes, we are still in agreement on that point...

You are simply crazy. I'm done trying to explain Occam's razor to you. If you like, you can ask people on Banter or R&P for a critique of my arguments or for additional information, but dealing with you is a waste of my time.

:rolleyes:

Ok, you are right about one thing.. Debating with you is like talking to a brick wall. You're always right and you never respond with anything new or intelligent. So yes, this is a waste of time. For all your answers I just need to go over some of your old posts.. You give exactly the same responses everytime.

You're wrong.

Anyways, evil is subjective, so such distinctions are meaningless anyways.
Brick wall response noted.

Checkmite

12th May 2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear Mr. Korosi,

When it comes down to it, I'd say that a good majority of scoffers would consider deists irrational nitwit woo-woo non-skeptic believers because they believe in something that there is no evidence for. That would go for you, Bidlack, and even Martin Gardner.

Sincerely,

S. H.

I agree. But considering this, I find a sort of evil humor in the situation when someone who completely agrees with me (or otherwise finds me consistently "skeptical") about things of a scientific nature finally brings up the matter of "God" (I rarely raise the issue myself) and suddenly finds out I, in fact, believe in a god. In every single instance so far, the person has been surprised by the revelation, but at this point, one of three things happens:

The person summarily dismisses me as irrational, delusional, or just plain stupid - even though there isn't a single other item we've disagreed about; or

The "Franko" response - the person declares that I must be lying and cannot possibly really believe in God; or

The person, though surprised, doesn't press the issue (either because they are tolerant, or Deists themselves, though usually it's the former).

Interestingly, all the reactions I've received seem spread out evenly among these three possibilities - there isn't one that happens more often than another.

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The person summarily dismisses me as irrational, delusional, or just plain stupid - even though there isn't a single other item we've disagreed about;

Well, if you have an irrational idea you hang on to, what should they expect?

12th May 2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

I, in fact, believe in a god. In every single instance so far, the person has been surprised by the revelation, but at this point, one of three things happens:

The person summarily dismisses me as irrational, delusional, or just plain stupid - even though there isn't a single other item we've disagreed about; or

The "Franko" response - the person declares that I must be lying and cannot possibly really believe in God; or

The person, though surprised, doesn't press the issue (either because they are tolerant, or Deists themselves, though usually it's the former).

Interestingly, all the reactions I've received seem spread out evenly among these three possibilities - there isn't one that happens more often than another.

Hello Joshua, if you believe in God can you tell the reasons to believe in he/she/it?

But my big doubt is still with no answer:

How some skeptics pray to a God?

WHat includes in their prays?

Thank you Joshua.
I am sure you can resolve my doubt.

Checkmite

12th May 2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Well, if you have an irrational idea you hang on to, what should they expect?

How many people here have dismissed you as stupid or deluded because of your (known) single particular irrationality?

Lord Kenneth

12th May 2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

How many people here have dismissed you as stupid or deluded because of your (known) single particular irrationality?

And which one is that?

Checkmite

12th May 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by ex-latin

Hello Joshua, if you believe in God can you tell the reasons to believe in he/she/it?

No. I can tell you why I believe, and you can decide for yourself whether those reasons are good enough - some do, some don't. If you do, that's fine. If you don't, that's fine too. I'm not out to convince or convert. Even when I was Christian, I was never so bold as to declare that anybody "should" believe or not believe in this or that god, for any reason. Perhaps that means I wasn't a very good Christian.

Originally posted by ex-latin
But my big doubt is still with no answer:

How some skeptics pray to a God?

WHat includes in their prays?

Well, the way I hear it, if a Deist chooses to pray, it's to express gratitude. "In case You can hear or care," such a prayer might go, "I think the universe is absolutely beautiful. Thank you." Compare this with theistic prayer, which usually involves some element of a religion's particular dogma: "Please forgive me," "Please keep me out of Hell," "Please help me," "Please save my life," "Please lead us to victory," "Please tell me how to serve you better."

Of course, some Deists choose not to pray.

Originally posted by ex-latin
Thank you Joshua.
I am sure you can resolve my doubt.

I'm not - however, all I can do is try.

Checkmite

12th May 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

And which one is that?

I do not wish to derail the topic, but I refer here to your social anxiety, and your "hatred" of love (I consider them related). Considering how important social interaction is, or will be (in your case) in our current day and age, it is irrational to "avoid" or feel angst when dealing with people.

You may say "that's different - that involves my personal attitude, and not something of scientific import". That's true, but I tend to think the same thing about the God issue - it's personal philosophy that (in my case) has absolutely no bearing on how I view the physical universe. Of course, some concepts of God do have such bearing - and of course those need to be addressed (and you do an admittedly fine job of it, at least as good a job as many others in this forum). However, my particular concept does not; so someone dismissing me as "stupid" because of my philosophy regarding God has as much depth as one who dismisses me as stupid because I am "liberal" or "conservative", "communistic" or "capitalistic", "Freudian" or "Jungian", and et cetera.

Lord Kenneth

13th May 2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

I do not wish to derail the topic, but I refer here to your social anxiety, and your "hatred" of love (I consider them related). Considering how important social interaction is, or will be (in your case) in our current day and age, it is irrational to "avoid" or feel angst when dealing with people.

My social anxiety is not an idea, and I am not in concious control of it, so it's not irrational. It's emotion, and not an idea.

My dislike of love is not irrational, given who I am it is not likely I will fall in love with anyone (actually, my instincts might force me to start feeling it, but I've discovered that my intellect has the upper hand and I can control if I act on it. I will not allow myself to act on it and thus minimize the emotion) and I am not capable of being loved.

You may say "that's different - that involves my personal attitude, and not something of scientific import". That's true, but I tend to think the same thing about the God issue - it's personal philosophy that (in my case) has absolutely no bearing on how I view the physical universe. Of course, some concepts of God do have such bearing - and of course those need to be addressed (and you do an admittedly fine job of it, at least as good a job as many others in this forum). However, my particular concept does not; so someone dismissing me as "stupid" because of my philosophy regarding God has as much depth as one who dismisses me as stupid because I am "liberal" or "conservative", "communistic" or "capitalistic", "Freudian" or "Jungian", and et cetera. [/B]

The last options you mention are mostly opinion, although they can be associated with rational or irrational ideas. Politics is mostly opinion, opinions which may have irrational basis but are still opinions. I've discovered that politics is mostly people feeling some things are more important than others.... take the war in Iraq, some people care more about peace, others care more about our safety (although their basis may or may not be legit).

However, believing in God does have you assume that the universe was created (by most likely a being with intelligence), which makes little sense to flat-out assume without evidence.

Seelie

13th May 2003, 04:49 AM

*raises eyebrow and ponders*

I am not capable of being loved.

If that statement is to be taken as a fact to be believed, where is evidence for such, or the logical reasoning behind the statement? As it is made as a statement of fact that you believe, I'm curious as to the logical proofs behind it.

Not flaming or attacking the statement mind you, just curious as to the basis of it ... Insomuch as the statement depends upon the observable actions and behaviors of others to be proven true ... once it can actually be determined what love is or isn't.

To say "I am not capable of holding my breath for more than 5 minutes." is something demonstrable and observable. To say that "I am not capable of driving a car" is demonstrable and observable. To say "I am not capable of being loved" is not a demonstrable and observable thing. Unless, of course, the statement of "Love does not exist" is assumed or proven to be true. Or, if the concept of "love" can be acceptably defined as a set of very specific observable behaviors.

At any rate ... simply musing ... and simply curious.

padakr

13th May 2003, 05:05 AM

My social anxiety is not an idea, and I am not in concious control of it, so it's not irrational. It's emotion, and not an idea. Meaning: Emotion is not controlable.My dislike of love is not irrational, given who I am it is not likely I will fall in love with anyone (actually, my instincts might force me to start feeling it, but I've discovered that my intellect has the upper hand and I can control if I act on it. I will not allow myself to act on it and thus minimize the emotion) and I am not capable of being loved. Meaning: Intellect can control emotion.

Which is it :confused::confused:

RandFan

13th May 2003, 07:20 AM

RandFan
Would you be willing to answer my questions?

Would you intentionally disassociate yourself from such a person (nitwit woo-woo non-skeptic believer)?

Do you think that the JREF is ill-served by having a deist like Hal Bidlack write the commentary?

Would it perhaps be in JREF's best interest to consider disassociating themselves from those who do not renounce the possibility or belief in the possibility of likelihood of the existence of god?

Dark Cobra
Actually, I've heard that Holmes is actually Whodini, but I don't know for certain. Clear this up for us, Holmes...

Anyways, I believe it MAY have been a sarcastic appeal-to-authority type remark... Actually the question was originally directed at you DC and NO it is NOT an appeal to authority. My questions are sincere and relevant.

Lord Kenneth

13th May 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Would you intentionally disassociate yourself from such a person (nitwit woo-woo non-skeptic believer)?

Yes.

Do you think that the JREF is ill-served by having a deist like Hal Bidlack write the commentary?

Not really, but anyone who looks at the issue rationally cannot possibly come to the conclusion of deism, otherwise we can't stop anywhere and must find believing in dowsing, homeopathy, and astrology to be acceptable as well. They are on the same level, evidence-wise, as deism and theism. There is no evidence for either of them, and they are not needed to explain something.

Would it perhaps be in JREF's best interest to consider disassociating themselves from those who do not renounce the possibility or belief in the possibility of likelihood of the existence of god?

Of course not. This is an education organization, even if they don't reach out to someone on, say, homeopathy, they can reach out to them on astrology....

Lord Kenneth

13th May 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by padakr
Meaning: Emotion is not controlable. Meaning: Intellect can control emotion.

Which is it :confused::confused:

You cannot control emotion.

However, in some cases you can fence in your emotions and try to prevent them from growing larger or from putting yourself in a place that would trigger them.

Lord Kenneth

13th May 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Seelie
*raises eyebrow and ponders*

If that statement is to be taken as a fact to be believed, where is evidence for such, or the logical reasoning behind the statement? As it is made as a statement of fact that you believe, I'm curious as to the logical proofs behind it.

Excluding family bonds, I am not and will not be in a position where anyone would be able to fall for me romantically.

Seelie

13th May 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

You cannot control emotion.

However, in some cases you can fence in your emotions and try to prevent them from growing larger or from putting yourself in a place that would trigger them.

Fencing in emotions, compartmentalizing them, manipulating self to acieve a certain passioned or emotionless state ... All forms of control ...

The following ~defines~ control:

To hold in restraint; check
To reduce or prevent the spread of
To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over

Seelie

13th May 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Excluding family bonds, I am not and will not be in a position where anyone would be able to fall for me romantically.

Again, the logical proof for that? You communicate and socialize on the internet, therefore others have a chance to interact with you. Whether or not others will or will not ever form an overabiding affection or love for you is besides the point. The ~capability~ is still there.

Lord Kenneth

13th May 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Seelie

Fencing in emotions, compartmentalizing them, manipulating self to acieve a certain passioned or emotionless state ... All forms of control ...

The following ~defines~ control:

To hold in restraint; check
To reduce or prevent the spread of
To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over

You cannot induce an emotion just by thinking about it.

Also, you cannot stop an emotion just by thinking about it, however, you can use some techniques to try to-- such as counting to ten when you are angry. This is very similar.

Lord Kenneth

13th May 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Seelie

Again, the logical proof for that? You communicate and socialize on the internet, therefore others have a chance to interact with you. Whether or not others will or will not ever form an overabiding affection or love for you is besides the point. The ~capability~ is still there.

Sure, the capability may be there, but the likelihood is extremely low. I wouldn't even consider it. I am not meant to be loved, and I won't find anyone I would want to love.

13th May 2003, 03:51 PM

Only thing I have to say is that the existance of dog is not amenable to the scientific method.

One can say that it all happened this way, or that dog set it up to look that way and let it roll on. The premise is untestable.

As long as the idea that "dog did it" does not extend forward to claiming that things that happen don't, vice versa, etc, there is no conflict between the atheist and the theist skeptic.

Lord Kenneth

13th May 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by jj
Only thing I have to say is that the existance of dog is not amenable to the scientific method.

One can say that it all happened this way, or that dog set it up to look that way and let it roll on. The premise is untestable.

As long as the idea that "dog did it" does not extend forward to claiming that things that happen don't, vice versa, etc, there is no conflict between the atheist and the theist skeptic.

Occam's razor is a scientific principle.

Seelie

13th May 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

You cannot induce an emotion just by thinking about it.

Also, you cannot stop an emotion just by thinking about it, however, you can use some techniques to try to-- such as counting to ten when you are angry. This is very similar.

So, perhaps the better statement to say then, is "You cannot control emotion, but you can control the behavior that emotion causes."

I am not meant to be loved, and I won't find anyone I would want to love.

The first portion of the statement implies that there is some sort of other meaning to your existence other than simply existing, i.e. that you / I / anyone are "meant" for certain things. The second portion implies that based upon x, you can safely predict the likelihood of something in the future. Again, logical proofs or observable evidence of the above statement? (And yes, before you ask, I am being willfully obtuse for a reason ;) )

Lord Kenneth

13th May 2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Seelie

The first portion of the statement implies that there is some sort of other meaning to your existence other than simply existing, i.e. that you / I / anyone are "meant" for certain things. The second portion implies that based upon x, you can safely predict the likelihood of something in the future. Again, logical proofs or observable evidence of the above statement? (And yes, before you ask, I am being willfully obtuse for a reason ;) )

I am "not supposed" to be loved because of the fact that I am ugly (don't tell me I'm not, it won't comfort me, and I already know I am), weak, not sociable, and not very interesting-- the opposite of what human nature usually dictates as attractive qualities.

While it COULD happen, it is very, very, very unlikely given the odds. And if someone fell in love with me (just thinking about it is laughable), it is unlikely I would feel the same about them given my judgemental and intellectual elitest attitude (which I see of as neither negative nor hindering).

Seelie

13th May 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

I am "not supposed" to be loved because of the fact that I am ugly (don't tell me I'm not, it won't comfort me, and I already know I am), weak, not sociable, and not very interesting-- the opposite of what human nature usually dictates as attractive qualities.

While it COULD happen, it is very, very, very unlikely given the odds. And if someone fell in love with me (just thinking about it is laughable), it is unlikely I would feel the same about them given my judgemental and intellectual elitest attitude (which I see of as neither negative nor hindering).

I am not, by nature, a cheerleader type, so the purpose behind my line of questioning is not to sway your feelings on your love-a-ble-ness, attractiveness, or lack thereof. ;) What I am attempting to do, however, is to perhaps show how there might be a better choice of wordage to express any given thought process .. at least in this case.

Having a logical thought process is only one part of the equation of "being rational". Being able to communicate and express it in a logical manner is another. So, in this situation, perhaps the better statement will be "I do not anticipate being in a loving relationship, excluding any familial bonds I might have." rather than "I am not capable of being loved". The second statement implies a certain irrational, perhaps emotional bias. The first implies that it was something that was actually thought through.

Certainly, it is very possible and likely that you or I or anyone else doesn't give a rat's how other's perceive our communicative efforts. ~We~ know we are rational and logical, and that's all that matters, neh? ;)

However, (and looping this back into the original topic) if a given person is to be seen as ~less~ rational than another for one irrationality in their process ... then, too, there are other factors that may make a given person less rational than others. And how do we rate those, if at all?

13th May 2003, 05:08 PM

I asked you this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ex-latin

Hello Joshua, if you believe in God can you tell the reasons to believe in he/she/it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your answer:

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

No. I can tell you why I believe, and you can decide for yourself whether those reasons are good enough - some do, some don't. If you do, that's fine. If you don't, that's fine too. I'm not out to convince or convert. Even when I was Christian, I was never so bold as to declare that anybody "should" believe or not believe in this or that god, for any reason. Perhaps that means I wasn't a very good Christian.

No reasons....only ALELUYAS.

Can you share your reasons to believe in a kind of god?

13th May 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Occam's razor is a scientific principle.

It's often applied as a metalogical principle, but no, it's not part of falsification, confirmation, repetition, etc.

Lord Kenneth

13th May 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by jj

It's often applied as a metalogical principle, but no, it's not part of falsification, confirmation, repetition, etc.

This looks relevant:

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/simplicity/

13th May 2003, 05:44 PM

Why the "intelligent" moderators don`t give an opinion on this thread or they are non-atheist and pray too...

Who knows?

13th May 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

This looks relevant:

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/simplicity/

Indeed, you've proven my point. It is not a basic principle of science, rather a common tool.

Lord Kenneth

13th May 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by jj

Indeed, you've proven my point. It is not a basic principle of science, rather a common tool. '

Well, yeah, I see, but it is used in science...

When saying a "God" did something... that brings up other unexplained questions, such as:

"How did God do it?" "How does God exist?" "What, exactly, is God?"

In this case, we really need to know what God is and how it created the universe before we can say God did it.

Thus piles on how complex it is.

Such a being is not required to create the universe-- you don't need a God to have a universe, because other possibilities can be thought up. In this case, belief in whatever caused the universe to come should be put on hold until science uncovers some evidence and promising possibilities.

13th May 2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

In this case, we really need to know what God is and how it created the universe before we can say God did it.

Thus piles on how complex it is.

Oh, yes, I agree. I see no reason to posit a god, since there is absolutely no evidence for. But as long as this unnecessary assumption does not affect the skeptic's belief, it's irrelevant. The skeptic can still be a skeptic as long as god doesn't DO anything in the skeptic's universe at this time.

Such a being is not required to create the universe-- you don't need a God to have a universe, because other possibilities can be thought up. In this case, belief in whatever caused the universe to come should be put on hold until science uncovers some evidence and promising possibilities.
But even though I conclude that there is no reason to conclude that a deity of any sort exists, there has been to this time no proof one way or the other. :) :) :)

Lord Kenneth

13th May 2003, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by jj

But even though I conclude that there is no reason to conclude that a deity of any sort exists, there has been to this time no proof one way or the other. :) :) :)

But it does do something.

A belief, without any evidence, in something, also used to explain something. It can't be refuted because there is not yet apparently any counter-evidence (evidence that something else started it) or evidence in the claim itself to dispute.

You can have the same for psychics, astrology, etc. God is no exception. Society views religion as somehow "special". I don't. No matter how much people hold it to heart, it is still an irrational idea.

I think it's okay to trust doctors, weathermen, etc, but not with complete certainity (obviously). But when someone disputes something they say and provides evidence, then you should look at it, debate, and possibility reconsider if their evidence is adequate enough to come to a new conclusion.

Lord Kenneth

13th May 2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by jj

But even though I conclude that there is no reason to conclude that a deity of any sort exists, there has been to this time no proof one way or the other. :) :) :)

You can't "disprove" God. You can, however, disprove the "evidence" provided to support the position.

And there is none to disprove.

If you think God created the universe, provide evidence.

13th May 2003, 08:18 PM

Dear Mr. Dark Cobra,

My social anxiety is not an idea, and I am not in concious control of it, so it's not irrational.

Sitting in front of a computer is a thing you can control.

Sincerely,

S. H.

13th May 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

But it does do something.

A belief, without any evidence, in something, also used to explain something. It can't be refuted because there is not yet apparently any counter-evidence (evidence that something else started it) or evidence in the claim itself to dispute.

Now, DC, don't be a Jedi and take things out of context.

Consider the limiting remarks surrounding my comments, i.e. any such "thing" can do nothing and be consistent with the evidence.

13th May 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

You can't "disprove" God. You can, however, disprove the "evidence" provided to support the position.

And there is none to disprove.

If you think God created the universe, provide evidence.

Were you talking to me, sonny-boy?

I do recall saying "I conclude there is no such thing". Did you forget that? It was, after all, in the article you're replying to.

13th May 2003, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear Mr. Dark Cobra,

Sitting in front of a computer is a thing you can control.

Sincerely,

S. H. [/B]

Even when the people who are most like him in thought are sitting at other computers?

Yes, he can control it, but to what end, beyond survival, advancement and health?

JeffR

13th May 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
My social anxiety is not an idea, and I am not in concious control of it, so it's not irrational. It's emotion, and not an idea.I know I'm off topic and that there's another thread where this would be more appropriate, but I'm going to post this here anyway.

Social anxiety may be an emotion but it's triggered by thoughts (ideas) that are irrational. You may not be able to consciously control it now, but you can learn to do so by recognizing these thoughts and countering them. It's hard but it can be done.

You might want to read up on the subject. Here's some books to get you started. The first two helped me improve my SA, and I have heard good things about the last one from other people. Two are workbook format. You might consider working through one of these with your therapist (assuming you are still going).

The Hidden Face Of Shyness (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380783991/qid=1052884005/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-4410100-1674310?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
Overcoming Shyness and Social Phobia (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765701200/qid=1052884089/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/104-4410100-1674310)
The Shyness & Social Anxiety Workbook (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1572242167/qid%3D1052884199/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-4410100-1674310)

I'll go away now.

Checkmite

13th May 2003, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

However, believing in God does have you assume that the universe was created (by most likely a being with intelligence), which makes little sense to flat-out assume without evidence.

It's still just an opinion. As is all philosophy. And there is no "evidence" in philosophy, only subjective interpretation.

14th May 2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by JeffR
Social anxiety may be an emotion but it's triggered by thoughts (ideas) that are irrational.

Um, don't forget the feedback part, and the part about situational reactions.

JeffR

14th May 2003, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by jj
Um, don't forget the feedback part, and the part about situational reactions. Not sure what you mean by the feedback part.

The books I suggest all deal with the situational reactions. Of course you can't just read them and expect much, you have to actually do the exercises they recommend. It also takes some objective self-examination to begin to recognize the irrationality of you own anxiety triggering thoughts, something that's easier with help from a therapist. Is that the kind of feedback you are talking about?

On the other hand when you can't seem to get started at all, just reading the books without doing the exercises at least gives you an idea of what you need to go through in order to get better.

14th May 2003, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by JeffR
I know I'm off topic and that there's another thread where this would be more appropriate, but I'm going to post this here anyway.

Social anxiety.............

All of you are off topic because the doubts of the kid are still with not a rational answer.

Maybe the majority of you have the social anxiety because you don`t give any argument of how a skeptic can believe in a God and pray for he/she/it.

Maybe the moderators can help DC with their opinions, or if they not I am going to think that they are believers in God too and pray a lot.

P.S; Joshua....I am still waiting your reasons.

NoZed Avenger

14th May 2003, 07:37 AM

Is anyone else sorely tempted to start a sock puppet named "ex-lax"?

NA

. . . Or is it just me?

Lord Kenneth

14th May 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

It's still just an opinion. As is all philosophy. And there is no "evidence" in philosophy, only subjective interpretation.

Evidence is the only real justification for having a belief.

14th May 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by JeffR
Not sure what you mean by the feedback part.

The adrenaline -> fear reaction -> adrenaline feedback.

...
On the other hand when you can't seem to get started at all, just reading the books without doing the exercises at least gives you an idea of what you need to go through in order to get better.

Indeed. What I'm suggesting, though, here, is that DC may find college a much better place to be, BUT he has to drop some of that bitterness sometime, no matter if it's justified or not.

14th May 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Evidence is the only real justification for having a belief.

DC, I am not being flip here.

If you have evidence, is this a "belief" or a "conclusion"?

I'm quite serious. I think you make conclusions, not have beliefs. This is not any form of criticism, mind you, not at all.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd say you don't believe much.

I know this feeling, personally.:cool:

Lord Kenneth

14th May 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by jj

DC, I am not being flip here.

If you have evidence, is this a "belief" or a "conclusion"?

I'm quite serious. I think you make conclusions, not have beliefs. This is not any form of criticism, mind you, not at all.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd say you don't believe much.

I know this feeling, personally.:cool:

I define believing as "thinking that something is true, or most likely true, for whatever reason, be it from evidence or because somebody said so".

Not necessarily faith.

Interesting Ian

14th May 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by jj

But even though I conclude that there is no reason to conclude that a deity of any sort exists, there has been to this time no proof one way or the other. :) :) :)

There's no proof an object will fall next time you release it.

14th May 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

There's no proof an object will fall next time you release it.

But you CAN try the experiment, Ian, so stop being misleading.

Praying to god isn't testable, because it's not supposed to work, it's just supposed to work anyhow.

Interesting Ian

14th May 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by jj

But you CAN try the experiment, Ian, so stop being misleading.

Praying to god isn't testable, because it's not supposed to work, it's just supposed to work anyhow.

You don't understand much about philosophy do you jj?

Checkmite

14th May 2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Evidence is the only real justification for having a belief.

Then, as I said before, there would be no justification for being "liberal" or "conservative" regarding an issue, etc. Positions on abortion, birth control, immigration law, and the like are all based on whim, more or less: subjective interpretation. What evidence is your position on abortion based on, for example?

14th May 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

You don't understand much about philosophy do you jj?

Prove it or retract it.

P.S. Here's your easiest, most accurate way out, Ian:

"JJ, I'm sorry, I should never have made that misleading professional accusation, which is completely unjustified and without any truth whatsoever. I am profoundly sorry, and will now hang my head in shame."

Can you do it? Let's see if you can, abuser.

Interesting Ian

14th May 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by jj

Prove it or retract it.

P.S. Here's your easiest, most accurate way out, Ian:

"JJ, I'm sorry, I should never have made that misleading professional accusation, which is completely unjustified and without any truth whatsoever. I am profoundly sorry, and will now hang my head in shame."

Can you do it? Let's see if you can, abuser.

So you do have a good fundamental understanding of philosophy? I'm pleased to hear it. Ok, should be quite easy for you to outline the problem in the implicit presumption that the future will resemble the past.

14th May 2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

So you do have a good fundamental understanding of philosophy? I'm pleased to hear it. Ok, should be quite easy for you to outline the problem in the implicit presumption that the future will resemble the past.

Ill-defined, and built to allow you semantic wiggle-room.

14th May 2003, 05:32 PM

Dear Mr. Interesting Ian,

I wouldn't put down jj. He knows everything about all types of sciences and all types of philosophies. :rolleyes:

Sincerely,

S. H.

Lord Kenneth

14th May 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Then, as I said before, there would be no justification for being "liberal" or "conservative" regarding an issue, etc. Positions on abortion, birth control, immigration law, and the like are all based on whim, more or less: subjective interpretation. What evidence is your position on abortion based on, for example?

Forming opinions (note, I usually use opinion to mean "idea with no right or wrong answer", that and "believing in something" are DIFFERENT things!) is a part of human nature, and it differs from something where there is an actual "correct" answer.

However, the reasons behind an opinion can usually be refuted/disputed.

Lord Kenneth

14th May 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

You don't understand much about philosophy do you jj?

"If you don't believe what I believe in, you don't know anything about philosophy."

That seems to be one of your sentiments...

Interesting Ian

14th May 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear Mr. Interesting Ian,

I wouldn't put down jj. He knows everything about all types of sciences and all types of philosophies. :rolleyes:

Sincerely,

S. H.

Yes, I am mortified that I ever suggested otherwise!

14th May 2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

"If you don't believe what I believe in, you don't know anything about philosophy."

That seems to be one of your sentiments...

Y'all got him cold there, DC.

14th May 2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Yes, I am mortified that I ever suggested otherwise!

I notice you content yourself with a circle-admiration society with Sherlock instead of actually cleaning up the rottenly phrased question you tried to entrap with.

Coward.:mad:

Checkmite

14th May 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Forming opinions (note, I usually use opinion to mean "idea with no right or wrong answer", that and "believing in something" are DIFFERENT things!) is a part of human nature, and it differs from something where there is an actual "correct" answer.

However, the reasons behind an opinion can usually be refuted/disputed.

Human nature is an iffy thing, and I must admit this is the first time I've seen such a fiercely Logical-Positivistic person invoke it.

However, given that there's absolutely no way of obtaining said "correct" answer (regarding the origin of the universe), arguing that there even is a correct answer is pointless, which is why I call it a matter of opinion. Certainly, the universe didn't need to be "created" or caused, but the universe doesn't need to be acausal either. And since we're dealing with extra-universal influences (that is, beyond the scope of science), the requirements of empiricism and even old Occam - so necessary to scientific inquiry - become simply a matter of personal discretion.

On matters relating to physical reality and science, I employ skepticism and demand evidence exclusively. On matters not thus related, I see no problem with employing a sense of wonder or subjectivity. Doing such hasn't had the slightest negative effect on my understanding of nature and the universe, or even my Humanistic attitude.

Interesting Ian

14th May 2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by jj

I notice you content yourself with a circle-admiration society with Sherlock instead of actually cleaning up the rottenly phrased question you tried to entrap with.

Coward.:mad:

Ah well, circle admiration societies are wonderful things! :D
Ummm. . . perhaps I could elaborate on my question tomorrow, but crashing out now. Cream crackered.

Night!

Lord Kenneth

14th May 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Human nature is an iffy thing, and I must admit this is the first time I've seen such a fiercely Logical-Positivistic person invoke it.

However, given that there's absolutely no way of obtaining said "correct" answer (regarding the origin of the universe), arguing that there even is a correct answer is pointless, which is why I call it a matter of opinion. Certainly, the universe didn't need to be "created" or caused, but the universe doesn't need to be acausal either. And since we're dealing with extra-universal influences (that is, beyond the scope of science), the requirements of empiricism and even old Occam - so necessary to scientific inquiry - become simply a matter of personal discretion.

No way of obtaining the correct answer? That's doubtful, due to science discovering more and more things, and advancing so quickly.

Even if you are correct, then assuming how the universe came about is still unjustified, and will be forever. There is apparently only one correct answer now, and that is, as Yahzi put it, "We don't know.".

We may even find out the universe is not what we think it is.

On matters relating to physical reality and science, I employ skepticism and demand evidence exclusively. On matters not thus related, I see no problem with employing a sense of wonder or subjectivity. Doing such hasn't had the slightest negative effect on my understanding of nature and the universe, or even my Humanistic attitude. [/B]

It's fine to speculate or hypothesize, but not to believe in it-- there is no justification. You can recognize the possibility, sure-- but not having a solid belief in it.

The universe is still physical reality-- and "what caused" the universe (if there was indeed a cause) is probably so as well.

Checkmite

14th May 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

No way of obtaining the correct answer? That's doubtful, due to science discovering more and more things, and advancing so quickly.

No, actually, it's the reverse - science ever being able to see outside the boundaries of the universe is doubtful, since no information from such a region can be obtained. Of course, the universe is big enough that science would be hard pressed to run out of things to learn.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Even if you are correct, then assuming how the universe came about is still unjustified, and will be forever. There is apparently only one correct answer now, and that is, as Yahzi put it, "We don't know.".

We may even find out the universe is not what we think it is.

It's true...but it doesn't stop people (including some of the greatest minds of our time) from speculating. It's fun and distracting. And in any case, I'm certainly not asserting the existence of anything.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
It's fine to speculate or hypothesize, but not to believe in it-- there is no justification. You can recognize the possibility, sure-- but not having a solid belief in it.

Sure there is justification - probability. Experience tells me that everything around me has been created by something else (with the exception of a few theoretical constructs which belong to the realm of quantum physics). But even conceding that - given that most things are caused or created, I'm simply playing the odds.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
The universe is still physical reality-- and "what caused" the universe (if there was indeed a cause) is probably so as well.

Well, possibly so, anyway.

14th May 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

However, given that there's absolutely no way of obtaining said "correct" answer (regarding the origin of the universe), arguing that there even is a correct answer is pointless, which is why I call it a matter of opinion. Certainly, the universe didn't need to be "created" or caused, but the universe doesn't need to be acausal either. And since we're dealing with extra-universal influences (that is, beyond the scope of science), the requirements of empiricism and even old Occam - so necessary to scientific inquiry - become simply a matter of personal discretion.

Is the best way to obtain the correct answer to a skeptic is to believe in an unknown God and pray?

I am still waiting your reasons....and to the intelligent moderators too.

Checkmite

14th May 2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by ex-latin

Is the best way to obtain the correct answer to a skeptic is to believe in an unknown God and pray?

I am still waiting your reasons....and to the intelligent moderators too.

I can't speak for any of the moderators. Why don't you email them and ask them?

Lord Kenneth

14th May 2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

No, actually, it's the reverse - science ever being able to see outside the boundaries of the universe is doubtful, since no information from such a region can be obtained. Of course, the universe is big enough that science would be hard pressed to run out of things to learn.

It may very well be possible to obtain such information. Look at multiverse theory, and the nature of it-- apparently, it is testable, as well.

It's true...but it doesn't stop people (including some of the greatest minds of our time) from speculating. It's fun and distracting. And in any case, I'm certainly not asserting the existence of anything.

Hey, wait a minute, that last line was just added in... :D

You said "God", that tends to mean an entity of some sort, one with an intelligence.

If you say "God", I will continue to mean "God", as well-- not just whatever caused the universe.

Sure there is justification - probability. Experience tells me that everything around me has been created by something else (with the exception of a few theoretical constructs which belong to the realm of quantum physics). But even conceding that - given that most things are caused or created, I'm simply playing the odds.

Given that everything that we know as being caused is within the universe, the universe itself being caused MAY not apply.

I have no problem with thinking that the universe was most likely caused-- I do have a problem with thinking anything specific did it without actual evidence.

Well, possibly so, anyway. [/B]

Of course.

14th May 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

I can't speak for any of the moderators. Why don't you email them and ask them?

Maybe I can ask them if they are blind....or if they agree with "special" skeptics that are belivers on God with the aproval of Randi and that also pray. I said blind because they read this thread and they can not give an opinion about it.

I know that you can not speak for the moderators...I also see that you can not speak for yourself because you don`t give me an answer to this question:(or I must need to send you by email)

Is the best way to obtain the correct answer to a skeptic is to believe in an unknown God and pray?

Is that your best way Joshua and others?

Checkmite

14th May 2003, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

It may very well be possible to obtain such information. Look at multiverse theory, and the nature of it-- apparently, it is testable, as well.

Multiverse theory is interesting - however, I'm not as certain that it's testable. If it was, I'd be interested in learning how - but alas, that's a topic for a different thread. Perhaps you could start it? I do recall seeing something about the "multiple universes" theory on the cover of the latest issue of Scientific American at the bookstore.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Hey, wait a minute, that last line was just added in... :D

Mea culpa. It occurred to me after I posted that I should throw that in there, so as to head off any "burden of proof" arguments.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
You said "God", that tends to mean an entity of some sort, one with an intelligence.

If you say "God", I will continue to mean "God", as well-- not just whatever caused the universe.

There's the problem. You can't argue with a Muslim by highlighting Christian Biblical contradictions. In other words, if you're arguing against my concept of God, you must use my concept of God. I don't care how irrational or contradictory the Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Bah'ai, or Zoroastrian concepts of God are. But you raise a valid point, which I'll get to later.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Given that everything that we know as being caused is within the universe, the universe itself being caused MAY not apply.

That's true - but that argument also applies toward the rules of empiricism as well, so now both of our positions have been neutralized (or equalized, at the very least).

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
I have no problem with thinking that the universe was most likely caused-- I do have a problem with thinking anything specific did it without actual evidence.

But that's all I'm claiming - that the universe is caused. I am equally loathe to attribute anything specific to the cause. Your hang-up (and everyone else's as well) seems to be my use of the word "God". To be fair, I must finally admit that the word probably carries traditional connotations which cloud my arguments in the minds of others. I suppose it seems contradictory to some that I use the word "God" while insisting that I'm not asserting any specific property, because most people think of a bearded guy in a long robe when the word "God" is mentioned. I've been trying to destroy this image - rebel that I am - by insisting on a definition of "God" as "that which created the universe". I've been trying off and on for a year, but it doesn't seem to have worked.

No matter - it's a term of convenience, and I have no qualms about using the term "First Cause" if it will avoid these types of misunderstandings.

Lord Kenneth

14th May 2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Multiverse theory is interesting - however, I'm not as certain that it's testable. If it was, I'd be interested in learning how - but alas, that's a topic for a different thread. Perhaps you could start it? I do recall seeing something about the "multiple universes" theory on the cover of the latest issue of Scientific American at the bookstore.

I said apparently because I've read it has, but I don't recall how so (I specifically asked in another thread if it was testable and the answer was yes)-- I don't know for certain, I will check it out later.

Mea culpa. It occurred to me after I posted that I should throw that in there, so as to head off any "burden of proof" arguments.

I was going to say that there is nothing wrong with speculation, but believing your speculations without evidence is.

There's the problem. You can't argue with a Muslim by highlighting Christian Biblical contradictions. In other words, if you're arguing against my concept of God, you must use my concept of God. I don't care how irrational or contradictory the Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Bah'ai, or Zoroastrian concepts of God are. But you raise a valid point, which I'll get to later.

<snip>

But that's all I'm claiming - that the universe is caused. I am equally loathe to attribute anything specific to the cause. Your hang-up (and everyone else's as well) seems to be my use of the word "God". To be fair, I must finally admit that the word probably carries traditional connotations which cloud my arguments in the minds of others. I suppose it seems contradictory to some that I use the word "God" while insisting that I'm not asserting any specific property, because most people think of a bearded guy in a long robe when the word "God" is mentioned. I've been trying to destroy this image - rebel that I am - by insisting on a definition of "God" as "that which created the universe". I've been trying off and on for a year, but it doesn't seem to have worked.

No matter - it's a term of convenience, and I have no qualms about using the term "First Cause" if it will avoid these types of misunderstandings.

My definition of God is fairly broad. There are actually two:

1) Omnipotent or just omnicient Intelligence

2) Being with supernatural powers, which usually belong to a domain of some sort (Zeus, Hades, Poseidon, for example)

Your definition is does not cover either of those two definitions, which are what the vast majority mean by "God". Perhaps you should not use such terminology, especially when whatever caused the universe is actually unlikely to have intelligence of any sort.

You're probably an atheist who likes the term "God" and doesn't want to call themself an atheist for whatever reason, and prefer "Deist". An atheist does not believe in a God, but can believe the universe was caused, produced, or came to be from some other actions.

Checkmite

14th May 2003, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by ex-latin

Maybe I can ask them if they are blind....or if they agree with "special" skeptics that are belivers on God with the aproval of Randi and that also pray. I said blind because they read this thread and they can not give an opinion about it.

What's all this about "approval"? The way I read, Randi doesn't care whether you believe in God or not. In fact, that was the whole point of the beginning of Hal's commentary.

Originally posted by ex-latin
I know that you can not speak for the moderators...I also see that you can not speak for yourself because you don`t give me an answer to this question:(or I must need to send you by email)

Is the best way to obtain the correct answer to a skeptic is to believe in an unknown God and pray?

Is that your best way Joshua and others?

If you had bothered to read my first post to you regarding Deism, you would have learned that Deists don't tend to ask anything with praying, but only give praise or thanks - and that's if they pray. I haven't prayed in a long, long time.

Secondly, since a huge number of skeptics don't even believe in God, it obviously wouldn't be the best way to obtain any kind of answer for those skeptics, would it?

Now here's a question for you:

Is the best way to obtain the correct answer to YOU is to be be purposefully obtuse and intentionally bothersome?

Checkmite

14th May 2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

You're probably an atheist who likes the term "God" and doesn't want to call themself an atheist for whatever reason, and prefer "Deist". An atheist does not believe in a God, but can believe the universe was caused, produced, or came to be from some other actions.

No...because I'm distinctly and pointedly open to the possibility that whatever caused the universe could very well fit with your given definitions for "God".

Lord Kenneth

14th May 2003, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

No...because I'm distinctly and pointedly open to the possibility that whatever caused the universe could very well fit with your given definitions for "God".

Uh... most atheists recognize that as a possibility as well, but we don't believe in one because there isn't any evidence toward the existence of God and it isn't needed to explain something.

It's possible, but highly doubtful, especially since the claim is supernatural.

It's the hard atheists who hold the position that God does not (with absolute certainity) that God does not exist. Their basis is that God is a logical contradiction. Soft atheists believe what I stated above this paragraph.

15th May 2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

What's all this about "approval"? The way I read, Randi doesn't care whether you believe in God or not. In fact, that was the whole point of the beginning of Hal's commentary.

Yes he cares if you believe in God or not. He is a skeptic. He suppost to debunk things without proofs, not to support prayers.

If you had bothered to read my first post to you regarding Deism, you would have learned that Deists don't tend to ask anything with praying, but only give praise or thanks - and that's if they pray. I haven't prayed in a long, long time.

Say "thank you" is not the same as pray. You don`t pray for long time, but others skeptics leaders still do it.

Secondly, since a huge number of skeptics don't even believe in God, it obviously wouldn't be the best way to obtain any kind of answer for those skeptics, would it?

Remember that you said about the way....not the real skpetics and I. Yout told before about that...read again Joshua.

Now here's a question for you:

Is the best way to obtain the correct answer to YOU is to be be purposefully obtuse and intentionally bothersome?

Obtuse?? no Joshua...It is only a debate
Bothersome?? no Joshua....only pseudoskeptics feel that.

Ex-latin

Checkmite

15th May 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Uh... most atheists recognize that as a possibility as well, but we don't believe in one because there isn't any evidence toward the existence of God and it isn't needed to explain something.

It's possible, but highly doubtful, especially since the claim is supernatural.

It's the hard atheists who hold the position that God does not (with absolute certainity) that God does not exist. Their basis is that God is a logical contradiction. Soft atheists believe what I stated above this paragraph.

I'm partial to the notion that there could be intelligence at work. Of course, I won't assert it, because I don't have a leg to stand on empirically. But that doesn't keep me from being partial to it.

Checkmite

15th May 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by ex-latin

Yes he cares if you believe in God or not. He is a skeptic. He suppost to debunk things without proofs, not to support prayers.

The commentary indicates that Randi is only interested in claims of a scientific nature. God is a philisophical construct, therefore, Randi doesn't care about it.

Originally posted by ex-latin
Say "thank you" is not the same as pray. You don`t pray for long time, but others skeptics leaders still do it.

Maybe for you it's not the same. Have you ever heard people pray before eating a meal? They're typically giving "thanks" for the food. Are you saying they're not praying?

I think the definitions as to what constitutes prayer should be left up to the individual.

Originally posted by ex-latin
Remember that you said about the way....not the real skpetics and I. Yout told before about that...read again Joshua.

I can't understand what you're saying here. Please rephrase.

Originally posted by ex-latin
Obtuse?? no Joshua...It is only a debate
Bothersome?? no Joshua....only pseudoskeptics feel that.

Yes, you are being obtuse - pretending not to understand something simply for the purpose of arguing. You find out that Hal believes in God, and possibly a couple of other skeptics, so you ask something unintelligent like "Is praying to God the best way for skeptics to get answers?" when you know that many (or even most) skeptics here don't believe in God. You then manufacture some line of nonsense about skeptics who do believe in God needing or receiving "approval" from Randi.

Look, the skeptics who come here support Randi's efforts to expose scientific fraudulence that is exposable. If you conduct a poll, you will doubtless find that many of the members were skeptics before even learning who Randi is. He's accomplishing goals that these people see as worth accomplishing, so they help. Are you a member of any interest groups? An organization dedicated to assisting the homeless, or finding a cure for cancer? Maybe trying to secure a particular personal freedom? If you joined such an organization, would you really care if the leadership or membership believe in God? Is belief in God necessary to hand out food to the hungry?

Belief in God (or the lack of such belief) is not necessary to expose the fraudulent claims the JREF is dedicated to exposing. Therefore, it doesn't matter to the JREF.

15th May 2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

The commentary indicates that Randi is only interested in claims of a scientific nature. God is a philisophical construct, therefore, Randi doesn't care about it.

Not only that my friend...he also have interested in religion and made mockery with God`s believers......find it in his week`s commentaries.

Maybe for you it's not the same. Have you ever heard people pray before eating a meal? They're typically giving "thanks" for the food. Are you saying they're not praying?

Wrong example Joshua,,,,tipically they give thanks to God. to give them the possibility to eat a food......or you are a food believer too?

I think the definitions as to what constitutes prayer should be left up to the individual.

Prayer is somebody who prays with faith and believe in something unknown to everybody.....or maybe read a dictionary.

I can't understand what you're saying here. Please rephrase.

Joshua said:However, given that there's absolutely no way of obtaining said "correct" answer (regarding the origin of the universe), arguing that there even is a correct answer is pointless, which is why I call it a matter of opinion. Certainly, the universe didn't need to be "created" or caused, but the universe doesn't need to be acausal either. And since we're dealing with extra-universal influences (that is, beyond the scope of science), the requirements of empiricism and even old Occam - so necessary to scientific inquiry - become simply a matter of personal discretion.

Latin: According to your words....is the easy way believe in a God a pray?

I am busy know....the second part wait it tomorrow.

Checkmite

15th May 2003, 07:10 PM

Not only that my friend...he also have interested in religion and made mockery with God`s believers......find it in his week`s commentaries.

No, again you're wrong. He only mentions the actions of particular believers when their claims contradict scientific fact. He mocks their particular claims, which are often laughable. But he doesn't mock them because they believe in God.

Wrong example Joshua,,,,tipically they give thanks to God. to give them the possibility to eat a food......or you are a food believer too?

Yes, they give thanks to God. They aren't asking for anything. They are giving thanks - but according to you, that's not prayer. What is it, then?

Prayer is somebody who prays with faith and believe in something unknown to everybody.....or maybe read a dictionary.

Prayer is talking to God. That's it. Don't believe me? The American Heritage Dictionary (you did ask me to read a dictionary) gives this definition (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/48/p0504800.html): 1a. A reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship. b. The act of making a reverent petition to God, a god, or another object of worship. Yes, that's right - prayer is just talking to God. I can't believe I'm expending this effort talking to you.

Joshua said:However, given that there's absolutely no way of obtaining said "correct" answer (regarding the origin of the universe), arguing that there even is a correct answer is pointless, which is why I call it a matter of opinion. Certainly, the universe didn't need to be "created" or caused, but the universe doesn't need to be acausal either. And since we're dealing with extra-universal influences (that is, beyond the scope of science), the requirements of empiricism and even old Occam - so necessary to scientific inquiry - become simply a matter of personal discretion.

Latin: According to your words....is the easy way believe in a God a pray?

The easy way for what?

16th May 2003, 07:12 AM

I will continue the debate tonite.

I want to know the opinion of the moderators too.

16th May 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by ex-latin
I will continue the debate tonite.

I want to know the opinion of the moderators too.

I have an opinion of the moderators:

They're way, way, way too nice to you. You drove in here with a deliberate, malicious highjacking of this thread, demanding that people answer questions that they may not even have interest in, simply because of your illicit pogrom against this entire site and the people debunked the nonsense you worship.

If you have something to say about THIS subject, not about the moderators, do it.

16th May 2003, 05:22 PM

Our history on this thread:

Joshua Korosi
I, in fact, believe in a god. In every single instance so far,the person has been surprised by the revelation.

Dark Cobra
Evidence is the only real justification for having a belief.

ex-latin
Hello Joshua, if you believe in God can you tell the reasons to believe in he/she/it?

Joshua Korosi
No. I can tell you why I believe, and you can decide for yourself whether those reasonsare good enough - some do, some don't. If you do, that's fine. If you don't, that's fine too.
I'm not out to convince or convert. Even when I was Christian, I was never so bold as to declare that anybody "should" believe or not believe in this or that god, for any reason.
Perhaps that means I wasn't a very good Christian.

ex-latin
No reasons....only ALELUYAS.
Can you share your reasons to believe in a kind of god?

Joshua Korosi
However, given that there's absolutely no way of obtaining said "correct" answer (regarding the origin of the universe),
arguing that there even is a correct answer is pointless, which is why I call it a matter of opinion. Certainly, the universe didn't need to be "created" or caused, but the universe doesn't need to be acausal either. And since we're dealing with extra-universal
influences (that is, beyond the scope of science), the requirements of empiricism and even old Occam - so necessary to scientific inquiry - become simply a matter of personal discretion.

ex-latin
Is the best way to obtain the correct answer to a skeptic is to believe in an unknown God and pray?
I am still waiting your reasons....and to the intelligent moderators too.

Joshua Korosi
I can't speak for any of the moderators. Why don't you email them and ask them?

ex-latin
Maybe I can ask them if they are blind....or if they agree with "special" skeptics that are believers
on God with the aproval of Randi and that also pray. I said blind because they read this thread and they can not give an opinion about it.
I know that you can not speak for the moderators...I also see that you can not speak for yourself because you don`t give me an answer to this question or I must need to send you by email.
Is the best way to obtain the correct answer to a skeptic is to believe in an unknown God and pray?

Joshua Korosi
What's all this about "approval"? The way I read, Randi doesn't care whether you believe in God or not. In fact, that was the whole point of the beginning of Hal's commentary.
If you had bothered to read my first post to you regarding Deism, you would have learned that Deists don't tend to ask anything with praying, but only give praise or thanks - and that's if they pray. I haven't prayed in a long, long time.
Secondly, since a huge number of skeptics don't even believe in God, it obviously wouldn't be the best way to obtain any kind of answer for those skeptics, would it?
Now here's a question for you:
Is the best way to obtain the correct answer to YOU is to be be purposefully obtuse and intentionally bothersome?

ex-latin
Yes he cares if you believe in God or not. He is a skeptic. He suppost to debunk things without proofs, not to support prayers.
Say "thank you" is not the same as pray. You don`t pray for long time, but others skeptics leaders still do it.
Remember that you said about the way....not the real skeptics and I. Yout told before about that...read again Joshua.
Obtuse?? no Joshua...It is only a debate
Bothersome?? no Joshua....only pseudoskeptics feel that.

ex-latin
But my big doubt is still with no answer:
How some skeptics pray to a God?

Joshua Korosi
Well, the way I hear it, if a Deist chooses to pray, it's to express gratitude."In case You can hear or care," such a prayer might go, "I think the universe is absolutely beautiful. Thank you." Compare this with theistic prayer, which usually involves some element of a religion's particular dogma: "Please forgive me," "Please keep me out of Hell," "Please help me," "Please save my life," "Please lead us to victory," "Please tell me how to serve you better." Of course, some Deists choose not to pray.

Hal Bidlack: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869909473#post1869909473
Simply put, I readily, immediately, and completely agree that my deism is irrational, illogical, and unscientific. It is also untestable, which is why I reject the "if he's a deist, it's only a short trip down the slippery slope to astrology and UFOs" Those things *are* testable.

end of part one...refreshing your memory my friend Joshua

Checkmite

16th May 2003, 07:13 PM

I love the cut-and-paste spin, latin. Are you sure you aren't one of those movie studio employees that cuts out three-word snippets of critics' reviews, to make it look like they're raving about the film? I seriously think that if it wasn't for your density, Carlos might still be taken at least somewhat seriously around here.

Nevertheless, I can see you won't quit bothering me, and I'm not going to start making fun of somebody when he doesn't understand he's being made fun of.

Buried way back in my conversation with Dark Cobra, you'll find a little tidbit that goes something like this:

Originally posted by me

Sure there is justification - probability. Experience tells me that everything around me has been created by something else (with the exception of a few theoretical constructs which belong to the realm of quantum physics). But even conceding that - given that most things are caused or created, I'm simply playing the odds.

That's my reason for believing. You've managed miraculously to quote text that immediately surrounded or referred to that statement without catching it, so I've reposted it here for you.

Is the best way for Skeptics to get answers believing in "God" and praying? No. I seriously doubt God (if he's even intelligent) would drop everything just to help someone get a good grade on a test. But that may not even matter, since (for the third - or is it fourth? - time) most skeptics here don't even believe in God. Randi doesn't, Tricky doesn't, De_Bunk doesn't - there's plenty of "doesn'ts".

So will you tell me the point of all this?

Lord Kenneth

16th May 2003, 08:09 PM

I have read that Carl Sagan has said:

"We may disagree with Randi on specific points but we ignore him at our peril."

Skeptics do not agree with each other all the time, and we certainly don't agree because another skeptic things something. That's anti-skepticism.

16th May 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I love the cut-and-paste spin, latin. Are you sure you aren't one of those movie studio employees that cuts out three-word snippets of critics' reviews, to make it look like they're raving about the film? I seriously think that if it wasn't for your density, Carlos might still be taken at least somewhat seriously around here.

If you doubt of me...you can review. Your debate isn`t seriously because I find a few of contradictions in your post. This comment about me doesn`t make a contribution to this thread, or maybe you are not able to make a reply with some sence. I still think that you are honest in your belief and that is important....you are not hiden and that is good. No matter if your comments show the JREF goals like own goals.

Nevertheless, I can see you won't quit bothering me, and I'm not going to start making fun of somebody when he doesn't understand he's being made fun of.

Believe me....I am not bothering you....don`t feel that please....remember I have a lot of personality to feel bad of stupids commentaries.

Buried way back in my conversation with Dark Cobra, you'll find a little tidbit that goes something like this:Sure there is justification - probability. Experience tells me that everything around me has been created by something else (with the exception of a few theoretical constructs which belong to the realm of quantum physics). But even conceding that - given that most things are caused or created, I'm simply playing the odds.

That's my reason for believing. You've managed miraculously to quote text that immediately surrounded or referred to that statement without catching it, so I've reposted it here for you.
Sure there is justification - probability. Experience tells me that everything around me has been created by something else (with the exception of a few theoretical constructs which belong to the realm of quantum physics). But even conceding that - given that most things are caused or created, I'm simply playing the odds.

It looks like you are playing in a casino

Is the best way for Skeptics to get answers believing in "God" and praying? No. I seriously doubt God (if he's even intelligent) would drop everything just to help someone get a good grade on a test. But that may not even matter, since (for the third - or is it fourth? - time) most skeptics here don't even believe in God. Randi doesn't, Tricky doesn't, De_Bunk doesn't - there's plenty of "doesn'ts".

But that is the way that some skeptics leaders choose.What is the origin of your dobts??????????

Thank you for your time.....we can make a good example of debate...no matter if some "gentleamen and ladies" are in silence.

So will you tell me the point of all this?

ex-latin

Checkmite

16th May 2003, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by ex-latin
If you doubt of me...you can review. Your debate isn`t seriously because I find a few of contradictions in your post. This comment about me doesn`t make a contribution to this thread, or maybe you are not able to make a reply with some sence. I still think that you are honest in your belief and that is important....you are not hiden and that is good. No matter if your comments show the JREF goals like own goals.

Hey, I support the JREF's mission to expose potentially dangerous frauds. But that doesn't mean I can't have my own personal opinions about other things - and the JREF doesn't dictate those opinions, nor are they responsible for them. I call them like I see them.

Originally posted by ex-latin
It looks like you are playing in a casino

I know.

Originally posted by ex-latin
But that is the way that some skeptics leaders choose.What is the origin of your dobts??????????

You're asking me why some skeptics choose to believe in God and some don't - and I can't answer that question, because I'm not them. Like I said before, I can tell you why I choose the way I do - and I have done that. If you want to know why some other skeptic does or does not believe in God, ask those skeptics.

As for the origin of my doubts....I'm guessing that you mean my doubts about things like "Faith Healing, UFOs, Psychic powers", and the like.

I am very much a student of science, I've loved it since I was small. I feel that learning as much as we can about the universe is important to our survival as a species, and I do my best to ensure that my life and beliefs remain compatible with what we know. That's the reason I'm a Deist - because the Deist concept of creation predicts exactly the sort of universe we live in now - with the same laws, boundaries, and forces. I do not have to invent any "new" laws or rules, or "supernatural forces" because my concept of God is not interventionist and is seperate from the universe.

I rejected my Christian upbringing because it was not thusly compatible. However, I know that many theists believe very strongly, and many theist authority figures - ministers and the like - share the same beliefs and only wish to help others. That's fine - I may not agree with their belief system, but there are no victims in this situation. Some theist authority figures, however, do take advantage of those they're supposed to be helping, in many different ways. Many try to force their beliefs on others, or dictate how other people should live or think. Such people are threats to myself or those I love, and so I feel compelled to take action.

Likewise, Faith healing, psychic powers, and astrology also do not comply with what we know now about the universe. I am very strong in my conviction that many "faith healers", "astrologers", and similar people also do not truly believe in what they practice - but they have found ways to exploit other peoples' willingness to believe. They take advantage of the disadvantaged, and that is something which conflicts with my principles.

That's why I support the JREF.