Criticism

[JetLeg]

You cannot criticize the beliefs of others, because then it implies you are smarter than they are, and it is arrogant.

Is it true? Why / why not?

[Jono]

You can criticize the beliefs of others, because it implies that despite how smart you percieve yourself to be, your opinion/retort/offensive remark might not have been previously heard or coherently understood by the "criticizée".

Furthermore, why would an alleged, self-percieved intellectual advantage negate the criticism? You're inquiry makes little sense as it is.

[rjh01]

Another person might be able to see any flaws in the logic or the facts missed by the person who originally made by the comments. This says very little in isolation, about either person.

Providing valid evidence that you are smarter than another person is not evidence of arrogance. Providing invalid evidence that you are smarter than another person may be.

Plus what WhiteLion said. Are we arrogant?

[JetLeg]

You can criticize the beliefs of others, because it implies that despite how smart you percieve yourself to be, your opinion/retort/offensive remark might not have been previously heard or coherently understood by the "criticizée".

Furthermore, why would an alleged, self-percieved intellectual advantage negate the criticism? You're inquiry makes little sense as it is.

I did not understand this. Can you explain?

[PixyMisa]

You cannot criticize the beliefs of others, because then it implies you are smarter than they are, and it is arrogant.

Is it true? Why / why not?
Well, this is obviously false as stated:

Your beliefs are insufficiently cromulent.

To say that one should not criticise the beliefs of others, because it is blah blah blah, is extremely dubious. Many widely held beliefs can be actively harmful in certain circumstances, and should be addressed because doing so (at least potentially) benefits the believer.

[Tokenconservative]

You cannot criticize the beliefs of others, because then it implies you are smarter than they are, and it is arrogant.

Is it true? Why / why not?

How does this imply you are "arrogant"?

It MAY imply that, or it may simply imply that you disagree with their belief.

Some people like Miller beer. I believe it tastes like warm steer pee. Does that make me arrogant?

Tokie

[blutoski]

You cannot criticize the beliefs of others, because then it implies you are smarter than they are, and it is arrogant.

Is it true? Why / why not?

This is just an ad hominem attack.

The premise is False, for two reasons:

* Critique usually means providing information that may have been unavailable to the author of the claim, or to other readers. It is providing a more complete view. You may be adding only 1% of the information. This is not 'arrogant'. For example, my friend thought he would drive downtown over the Lions Gate Bridge. I heard on the radio that it was closed due to an accident. By critiqing his plan, I was not expressing arrogance.

* Secondly, the claimant has to show that there it is necessary for somebody who is arrogant to be silent. For example, my friend thought he would take 2000mg of Tylenol in a day. I stopped her, because this is a lethal dose. Even if she thought I was being arrogant, my decision to criticize her plan was appropriate, both morally and pragmatically.

If somebody thinks that my efforts to help them or observers get a complete view - with which they will be empowered to make informed choices - is a) arrogant and b) that arrogance is a reason for me to be silent, then this person has serious problems, and his opinions should be politely ignored.

[PixyMisa]

* Secondly, the claimant has to show that there it is necessary for somebody who is arrogant to be silent. For example, my friend thought he would take 2000mg of Tylenol in a day. I stopped her, because this is a lethal dose. Even if she thought I was being arrogant, my decision to criticize her plan was appropriate, both morally and pragmatically.
A good example, though 2000mg of Tylenol (which is paracetamol/acetaminophen, right?) in a day should be safe for adults. I know I've take that much. But paracetamol is indeed toxic at relatively small doses, and if someone believes otherwise, then it is a good idea to disabuse them of that.

[ingoa]

...
Some people like Miller beer. I believe it tastes like warm steer pee. Does that make me arrogant?

Tokie

To tell the truth is NEVER arrogant. :)

[Mashuna]

How does this imply you are "arrogant"?

It MAY imply that, or it may simply imply that you disagree with their belief.

Some people like Miller beer. I believe it tastes like warm steer pee. Does that make me arrogant?

Tokie

I think you're probably right, but I can't be sure until you've carried out a randomised taste test.

Actually, I'll just take your word on this one. :)

[JetLeg]

How does this imply you are "arrogant"?

It MAY imply that, or it may simply imply that you disagree with their belief.

Some people like Miller beer. I believe it tastes like warm steer pee. Does that make me arrogant?

Tokie


I meant not specific preferences like Miller beer.

I meant actual opinions about reality.

[JoeEllison]

I don't know why anyone would claim special protection from criticism for their beliefs... except the deep-down knowledge that their beliefs cannot stand up to rational scrutiny.

The only "arrogance" is in thinking that you can bully people into silence by claiming that they are bad people to speak up.

[hubbub2]

You cannot criticize the beliefs of others, because then it implies you are smarter than they are, and it is arrogant.

Is it true? Why / why not?

Not true! I CAN criticize the beliefs of others, because I AM smarter than they are.

This is not arrogance, because arrogance, like conceit, is a fault.

And I have no faults.

(Well, other than being very, very humble.):cool:

[JetLeg]

How does this imply you are "arrogant"?

It MAY imply that, or it may simply imply that you disagree with their belief.

Some people like Miller beer. I believe it tastes like warm steer pee. Does that make me arrogant?

Tokie

I phrased my question as a general one, but I can restate it more specifically :

Is criticizing religion arrogant?
(Reason : Many people think that it is, and by criticising you imply you are smarter than they all.

Additional reason :
Many smart people think that it is, and by criticising you imply you are smarter than they all.

[Fnord]

Certainly, you can criticize the beliefs of others.

Criticizing the person for having those beliefs is what makes the critic seem arrogant and putting on superior airs.

[Tokenconservative]

I phrased my question as a general one, but I can restate it more specifically :

Is criticizing religion arrogant?
(Reason : Many people think that it is, and by criticising you imply you are smarter than they all.

Additional reason :
Many smart people think that it is, and by criticising you imply you are smarter than they all.

Ah. Well, I suppose it depends to some extent on what you mean by "arrogant." As long as it is not a bigoted criticism (you simply hate XYZ religion, and so you say it is "dumb"), and is, rather, criticism based in some specific argument against some part or all of the faith.

It's easy to criticize Scientology in this way, as an example. If you read the sci fi book that Scientologists accept as their "bible" with anything approaching a critical, objective view, you nearly fall out of your chair laughing. But if you read the Book of Mormon (and worse, it's history--upon which L. Ron based some of his own fantasy) you also find yourself chuckling at the very least.

I only find it "arrogant" when someone criticizes religions from the basis of "I am an atheist, and you are stupid/ignorant to hold to such superstitious beliefs!"

Perhaps they are right...but when put that way, it's arrogant, indeed.

Tokie

[Gregory]

I can't criticize religion because there are smart religious people and it would be arrogant to claim that I'm smarter than they are? That's the argument you want input on?

It's complete garbage. Just because somebody is smart, it doesn't mean that he or she is going to be right on any given issue. The idea that by telling someone he's wrong on any given issue (which I only do regarding religion if someone asks for my opinion, incidentally), I'm claiming to be more intelligent than him in general is pretty silly.

[bruto]

I phrased my question as a general one, but I can restate it more specifically :

Is criticizing religion arrogant?
(Reason : Many people think that it is, and by criticising you imply you are smarter than they all.

Additional reason :
Many smart people think that it is, and by criticising you imply you are smarter than they all.

Why does religion differ from any other idea, belief or opinion? If you are insecure about yourself or your beliefs, you will be sensitive to criticism no matter what the subject. If you cannot defend your belief against criticism, either through effective argument or simple confidence in it, it's nobody's fault but your own. When you make an argument, you must do it on its own merits, not on its implications or the perceived offenses to those who cannot stand up to it.

The idea that criticism should be suppressed because of some attitude like that would stifle not just religious discussion, but political dissent, and, of course, the moral suasion of religious as well as non-religious persons in opposition to war, oppression, slavery, and just about anything else.

[rjh01]

IF you say something is wrong then you should be able to back that up with reasons.

However in most cases it is better to ask questions. That is best if the person is in any way an 'expert' on the subject. Get them to admit they are wrong. If they fault you for asking questions that is their arrogance. (unless you ask the same question 10 times or something!)

Edit - When asking questions try to keep your own opinions to yourself.

[lionking]

I can't criticize religion because there are smart religious people and it would be arrogant to claim that I'm smarter than they are? That's the argument you want input on?

It's complete garbage. Just because somebody is smart, it doesn't mean that he or she is going to be right on any given issue. The idea that by telling someone he's wrong on any given issue (which I only do regarding religion if someone asks for my opinion, incidentally), I'm claiming to be more intelligent than him in general is pretty silly.
Seconded. What Jetlag is arguing is that all believers in religions (all of them?) should be immune from any criticism because someone from that religion may be "smarter" (whatever that means) than the criticiser. This may have been the position in the middle ages, but purleese.....

[JetLeg]

Edit - When asking questions try to keep your own opinions to yourself.

Why?

[JetLeg]

Seconded. What Jetlag is arguing is that all believers in religions (all of them?) should be immune from any criticism because someone from that religion may be "smarter" (whatever that means) than the criticiser. This may have been the position in the middle ages, but purleese.....

Well, why is this position wrong?


If you criticize a large group of people, you imply that you are smarter than them -> arrogance.

If you criticize a genius person, that implies you are smarter than him -> arrogance.

[Tokenconservative]

I can't criticize religion because there are smart religious people and it would be arrogant to claim that I'm smarter than they are? That's the argument you want input on?

It's complete garbage. Just because somebody is smart, it doesn't mean that he or she is going to be right on any given issue. The idea that by telling someone he's wrong on any given issue (which I only do regarding religion if someone asks for my opinion, incidentally), I'm claiming to be more intelligent than him in general is pretty silly.


I can't agree more with this. Some of the smartest people I've ever known have been Ph.D college profs...and some of the dumbest people, too.

Sometimes, the same person.

I find it simply discourteous to ridicule someone who holds a strong faith so long as this person does not enter into the "my faith trumps your non-faith" debate (ID/Creationism vs. evolution, for example) and opens themself up to it. Some of those I most greatly admire--regardless of intellect--are those who say "yeah...I know. But I still believe."

I wish I had that sort of inner strength. These may not be the most book-larned folk in the world...but I always marvel at their (typical) serenity.

Now, those who run around claiming that the Bible talks of men walking with dinosaurs and what-not...hey, fair game.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

IF you say something is wrong then you should be able to back that up with reasons.

However in most cases it is better to ask questions. That is best if the person is in any way an 'expert' on the subject. Get them to admit they are wrong. If they fault you for asking questions that is their arrogance. (unless you ask the same question 10 times or something!)

Edit - When asking questions try to keep your own opinions to yourself.


Hmmm...okay: I am sure you believe that prejudice is wrong: back it up with "reasons."

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well, why is this position wrong?


If you criticize a large group of people, you imply that you are smarter than them -> arrogance.

If you criticize a genius person, that implies you are smarter than him -> arrogance.

You seem to be misusing--on purpose or not, I can't say--the language.

To "criticize" does not mean "nenner, neeener! I'm smarter'n you!!!"

I am a huge critic of say, William Jefferson Clinton. Intellectually, I doubt I can carry the man's lunch. I criticize the left in this country constantly; I know lots of socialists who are much smarter than I.

Just because someone is a verifiable "genius" does not mean his/her ideas are closed to criticism.

Where on earth did you get this idea?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Why?

I would guess you took an ad hom shot at someone in the question. Now, I will say that it's apparently okay in here for such shots to be taken at SOME posters, but not at others. That's irritating, but this is not your (or my) forum, so we just have to live by their rules, no matter how arbitrary they may be.

It is, by the way, ever thus in "free speech" forums. This one is about middling in that regard.

Tokie

[JetLeg]

Sometimes, the same person.



Tokie

Huh?

[rjh01]

If you ask questions designed to bring out information from someone, one of several things will happen:-

1. They will explain why they are right and you will be able to see their point of view. You will learn. You win.

2. They will find holes in their own point of view. So they will then change their point of view to something more reasonable (maybe to your point of view, which you have not even mentioned?). What your own point of view is irrelevant so no need to mention it. You win.

3. You expose their prejudices. You win.

In short, if you can keep your own opinion to yourself then it is difficult to lose.

The above is a simplification of reality.

I would reply also to Tokie, if I could work out what he was trying to say. But bed time for me.

[lionking]

Well, why is this position wrong?


If you criticize a large group of people, you imply that you are smarter than them -> arrogance.

If you criticize a genius person, that implies you are smarter than him -> arrogance.
Do I really have to spell this out? Let's assume that Jim Jones or the leaders of the Heavens Gate sect were "smarter" than me. After all both convinced many people to follow them. Because they truely believed, I would be prevented from criticising them? Garbage.
If in fact more people in authority (regardless of their "smartness") had criticised these people, followers may have listened and lives may have been saved

[JetLeg]

If you ask questions designed to bring out information from someone, one of several things will happen:-

1. They will explain why they are right and you will be able to see their point of view. You will learn. You win.

2. They will find holes in their own point of view. So they will then change their point of view to something more reasonable (maybe to your point of view, which you have not even mentioned?). What your own point of view is irrelevant so no need to mention it. You win.

3. You expose their prejudices. You win.

In short, if you can keep your own opinion to yourself then it is difficult to lose.

The above is a simplification of reality.

I would reply also to Tokie, if I could work out what he was trying to say. But bed time for me.

After bed, can you please compare it with

arguing with them

and also compare with

asserting your own point of view

?


By the way, when someone is saying something you disagree with, isn't it more natural to say

" I don't think so. And I don't think so because... " - rather than ask questions?

[JetLeg]

Do I really have to spell this out? Let's assume that Jim Jones or the leaders of the Heavens Gate sect were "smarter" than me. After all both convinced many people to follow them. Because they truely believed, I would be prevented from criticising them? Garbage.
If in fact more people in authority (regardless of their "smartness") had criticised these people, followers may have listened and lives may have been saved

Well, Jim Jones was not so intellectualy smart, simply charismatic

[bruto]

Well, Jim Jones was not so intellectualy smart, simply charismaticWell, to start with, are you sure Jim Jones was not so intellectually smart? On what do you base that opinion? I don't know myself, but for all I know, he could have been much smarter than I am. This does not mean that he was not also crazy. But according to your ideas, it seems he should have been immune from criticism anyway because of the implication that any critic was arrogant, right? If not, what are you actually trying to say in this thread?

Many people I've known have taken any argument or criticism to be automatically ad hominem, but this really is their own problem. It is a failing of the person involved, not of the idea that ideas should be open to argument.

I think you are quite wrong in your assumption that argument about an idea, a belief or an opinion must imply an overall assumption of superiority. That is the recipe for stifling of intelligent argument and dissent, and differs in no substantial way from the arguments of tyrants and warmongers when met with opposition. An idea is either right or wrong, and must stand on its own.

The implication of your thread here seems to be that people who disagree with an expressed opinion or belief should keep their disagreement to themselves at the risk of being declared arrogant. I wholly disagree with this (call me arrogant if you wish!). You have it backwards. It is arrogant to put forward an idea in the first place if you cannot stand to see it challenged. It is not the duty of the rest of the world to pussyfoot around your insecurities.

[Fnord]

This is from "Swift," August 5, 2005 (http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html#14):

I’ve said it before: there are two sorts of atheists. One sort claims that there is no deity, the other claims that there is no evidence that proves the existence of a deity; I belong to the latter group, because if I were to claim that no god exists, I would have to produce evidence to establish that claim, and I cannot. Religious persons have by far the easier position; they say they believe in a deity because that’s their preference, and they’ve read it in a book. That’s their right.

The JREF has a stance against any claim for which no evidence is offered, and that must of course include religious claims. However, if any when anyone claims they have proof of any religious miracle or fact, we ask that it be presented, accepting such a claim in the same way that we accept any other. Religious claims are supernatural claims. If they are offered for examination, discussion, or consideration, or as possible applicants for the JREF prize, they must go through the regular procedure, with no special allowances or exceptions.


Seems simple enough. If you claim that God is real or not, then you must back up your claims with the same facts and reasoning as any other claim.

What do I believe? I believe I'll have another beer.

[Tokenconservative]

By the way, when someone is saying something you disagree with, isn't it more natural to say

" I don't think so. And I don't think so because... " - rather than ask questions?

Depends. In this case, some clarification is needed, and therefore the questions should be asked.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

This is from "Swift," August 5, 2005 (http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html#14):

Seems simple enough. If you claim that God is real or not, then you must back up your claims with the same facts and reasoning as any other claim.

What do I believe? I believe I'll have another beer.


Um...no, actually. This is the same argument IDers and Creationists use: Prove there is no God!

First, you cannot prove a negative, nor in rational discourse are you required to. The religious are the ones making the extraordinary claim: the supernatural exists. It's up to them to prove it does, not up to someone else to prove it doesn't. All someone on the other side of this argument can do is rebut the assertions of those on the "belief" side.

Second, since this demand is always aimed at "science": it is not the job of science to prove OR disprove the superatural. That's not what science does, whether that means a belief in a bearded guy in the sky or say....something like the zealous, anti-evidentiary (scientific) belief that humans are causing (or even CAN cause) the planet to heat up.


Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

But according to your ideas, it seems he should have been immune from criticism anyway because of the implication that any critic was arrogant, right? If not, what are you actually trying to say in this thread?

Many people I've known have taken any argument or criticism to be automatically ad hominem, but this really is their own problem. It is a failing of the person involved, not of the idea that ideas should be open to argument.

I think you are quite wrong in your assumption that argument about an idea, a belief or an opinion must imply an overall assumption of superiority. That is the recipe for stifling of intelligent argument and dissent, and differs in no substantial way from the arguments of tyrants and warmongers when met with opposition. An idea is either right or wrong, and must stand on its own.

The implication of your thread here seems to be that people who disagree with an expressed opinion or belief should keep their disagreement to themselves at the risk of being declared arrogant. I wholly disagree with this (call me arrogant if you wish!). You have it backwards. It is arrogant to put forward an idea in the first place if you cannot stand to see it challenged. It is not the duty of the rest of the world to pussyfoot around your insecurities.

I've truncated some of the above.

Indeed. Same goes with shrieking "RAAACCCIIISTTTT!" at anyone not intersted in throwing open the borders of their nation to all-comers.

This notion that any disagreement demonstrats "arrogance" on the part of the one expressing disagreement, comes from those afraid to engage in discourse. Many hold that such disagreements are "rude." Hence the long-time admonition not to discuss "sex, politics or religion."

How on earth are we to discuss abortion, without discussing sex, the next president without discussing politics or the war on terror without discussing the religion that is its cause?

And if we are not permitted to discuss these things lest we be seen as "rude" or in this case, "arrogant," two things (only) can happen: those who ARE willing to discuss them take the high (strategic, not moral, etc.) ground and we allow them to rule.

For example, this is what Republicans and other conservatives in America lived by for years: turn the other cheek! Just ignore a bully! Don't sink to their level! Sounds like the sorts of thing our mothers might've told us. None of them worked for us on the playground but these milquetoast "conservatives" thought they'd work in the political arena against an agressive, winner-teke-all opponent like international socialism?

Clearly it has not worked and in America, the pustulent, bleeding chasm between right and left is greater than it every has been and is at a point of acrimony and, frankly, open hatred, that nothing, including time will heal.

Tokie

[JoeEllison]

For example, this is what Republicans and other conservatives in America lived by for years: turn the other cheek! Just ignore a bully! Don't sink to their level! Sounds like the sorts of thing our mothers might've told us. None of them worked for us on the playground but these milquetoast "conservatives" thought they'd work in the political arena against an agressive, winner-teke-all opponent like international socialism?

Clearly it has not worked and in America, the pustulent, bleeding chasm between right and left is greater than it every has been and is at a point of acrimony and, frankly, open hatred, that nothing, including time will heal.

TokieSee, here's a good example. Tokenconservative is completely wrong, and nothing he's posted here as any relation to reality. It is a total fantasy. Now, is it arrogant of me to point this out? No, of course not. I have not called him stupid or dishonest either. He's just close to as wrong as any sane person can possibly be.
The biggest insult I could possibly suggest is that he has never taken an honest and open look at reality, and has trusted the wrong people to help form his viewpoint... which isn't a dig at him as much as it is as the lying ****weasels who have been lying to him for all these years.:D

[Fnord]

Um...no, actually. This is the same argument IDers and Creationists use: Prove there is no God!


So, either James Randi uses the same argument that IDers and Creationists use, or his own assertion that "if I were to claim that no god exists, I would have to produce evidence to establish that claim" is in error. Which is it?

Whoa! I made an "Appeal to Authority" AND "False Dilemma" in one shot!

Oh look! A red herring!

[Tokenconservative]

So, either James Randi uses the same argument that IDers and Creationists use, or his own assertion that "if I were to claim that no god exists, I would have to produce evidence to establish that claim" is in error. Which is it?

Whoa! I made an "Appeal to Authority" AND "False Dilemma" in one shot!

Oh look! A red herring!

I believe your quote is taken out of context here.

It's not up to the modern (key term) scientist (as opposed to magister or alchemist) to prove that God exists. Science is not interested in the supernatural. If Mr. Randi believes that's what science is for then yes, he's mistaken.

I don't know the man, but I'd be pretty surprised to learn that he either is, or believes himself to be, infallible.

And if he is making this statement in exactly the context you present it here, then yes...he's mistaken. There is, to date, no evidence that God/god exists.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

See, here's a good example. Tokenconservative is completely wrong, and nothing he's posted here as any relation to reality. It is a total fantasy. Now, is it arrogant of me to point this out? No, of course not. I have not called him stupid or dishonest either. He's just close to as wrong as any sane person can possibly be.
The biggest insult I could possibly suggest is that he has never taken an honest and open look at reality, and has trusted the wrong people to help form his viewpoint... which isn't a dig at him as much as it is as the lying ****weasels who have been lying to him for all these years.:D

And on top of that...they killed Kenny!

The b#@%!&s!

Tokie

[Fnord]

I believe your quote is taken out of context here.

The full context of the quote can be found HERE (http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html#14). Please read it in its entirety.

Believe me, I was taken aback when I read that Mr. Randi Himself would say that he would have to prove non-existance of God if he were to make such a claim.

[rjh01]

After bed, can you please compare it with

arguing with them

and also compare with

asserting your own point of view

?


By the way, when someone is saying something you disagree with, isn't it more natural to say

" I don't think so. And I don't think so because... " - rather than ask questions?

The difference between arguing with someone and asserting your own point of view is that with the former BOTH parties have put their point of view and are attempting to prove themselves right and the other wrong. This means that one party must lose. Asserting your own point of view could include arguing, but it could also mean that the other person has not put their point of view across. They are trying to examine your point of view.

What is natural and what is right are two different things. What are you trying to do? Convince the other person he is wrong? In which case your point of view is not relevant. Or that you are right? In which case first you must prove the other person wrong.

The above is a gross simplification.

[Gregory]

Believe me, I was taken aback when I read that Mr. Randi Himself would say that he would have to prove non-existance of God if he were to make such a claim.

I don't know why; it sounds like an expression of weak atheism. I think that's Dawkin's position as well.

[Fnord]

I don't know why; it sounds like an expression of weak atheism. I think that's Dawkin's position as well.


So, IF both Mr. Randi AND Mr. Dawkins have "weak" or "incorrect" Atheism, then it seems fair to ask, "What part of their reasoning is weak?" and "What part of their teachings is incorrect?"

Peer group review, anyone?

[drkitten]

So, IF both Mr. Randi AND Mr. Dawkins have "weak" or "incorrect" Atheism, then it seems fair to ask, "What part of their reasoning is weak?" and "What part of their teachings is incorrect?"

I think you can add Carl Sagan to that list of weak atheists, too.

I don't see anything incorrect about "weak" atheism, nor do I see anything "weak" about the reasoning that leads to it. "Weak" refers to the strength of the conclusions drawn, not to the strength of the argument.

I -- and most "weak atheists," I suspect -- think that the argument for "strong" atheism is actually a "weak" argument, since it goes beyond what the evidence can prove (and therefore needs to be bolostered by unprovable assumptions).

[Loss Leader]

You cannot criticize the beliefs of others, because then it implies you are smarter than they are, and it is arrogant.

Is it true? Why / why not?


Jetleg, you keep starting threads trying to get everybody to conceed that something can be true just because you ardently believe it.

You are wrong.

A thing is true regardless of whether you believe it. The only truth your beliefs reveal is that such are truely your beliefs.

[Fnord]

I don't see anything incorrect about "weak" atheism...(snip)

It's not up to the modern (key term) scientist (as opposed to magister or alchemist) to prove that God exists. Science is not interested in the supernatural. If Mr. Randi believes that's what science is for then yes, he's mistaken.


Maybe I'm equivocating, but it would seem that DrKitten and "Toke" are in disagreement.

Maybe a definition of terms is in order?

[Tokenconservative]

The full context of the quote can be found HERE (http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html#14). Please read it in its entirety.

Believe me, I was taken aback when I read that Mr. Randi Himself would say that he would have to prove non-existance of God if he were to make such a claim.


Yeah...I'm not going to read through all of that.

Why not just cut 'n paste the relevant parts here?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Maybe I'm equivocating, but it would seem that DrKitten and "Toke" are in disagreement.

Maybe a definition of terms is in order?

Define like the wind.

I guess we need to know what these are:

Science

Atheism

Weak Atheism.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Jetleg, you keep starting threads trying to get everybody to conceed that something can be true just because you ardently believe it.

You are wrong.

A thing is true regardless of whether you believe it. The only truth your beliefs reveal is that such are truely your beliefs.

Hmmm...not to get to existential on you here, but if this is the case, um...what happened to the ether?

Tokie

[Mashuna]

Define like the wind.

I guess we need to know what these are:

Science

Atheism

Weak Atheism.

Tokie

Well, I could take a stab at defining some of those, but I've got no idea what a Tokie is.

[Tokenconservative]

Well, I could take a stab at defining some of those, but I've got no idea what a Tokie is.

Tokie is a dimiutive form of my full SN: Tokenconservative.

It was granted me by some anonymous poster in some other forum years ago, and I use it for the sake of brevity, and because someone will get around to sticking it on me eventually, anyway.

Tokie

[JetLeg]

The difference between arguing with someone and asserting your own point of view is that with the former BOTH parties have put their point of view and are attempting to prove themselves right and the other wrong. This means that one party must lose. Asserting your own point of view could include arguing, but it could also mean that the other person has not put their point of view across. They are trying to examine your point of view.

What is natural and what is right are two different things. What are you trying to do? Convince the other person he is wrong? In which case your point of view is not relevant. Or that you are right? In which case first you must prove the other person wrong.

The above is a gross simplification.

Well, when a person asserts something I disagree with, I have a tendency of saying "It is wrong, and ...... is the reason". So it turns out to be both saying why he is wrong, and saying why am I right. I prove my case, which is the opposite from his case. Is it different with you?

[Mashuna]

Tokie is a dimiutive form of my full SN: Tokenconservative.

It was granted me by some anonymous poster in some other forum years ago, and I use it for the sake of brevity, and because someone will get around to sticking it on me eventually, anyway.

Tokie

Ok, so, my stab at the definitions;

Science - a methodology for testing observable evidence, designed to minimise the effect of all types of bias.
Atheism - a lack of belief in God
Weak atheism - a lack of belief in God, with the acceptance of the philosopical point that, in this case, it is not possible to prove a negative (i.e. that God does not exist). However, in practical terms, there is no positive evidence for God so we should behave as though he doesn't exist.
Tokie - A firm believer in the existence of the phenomenon of man-made global warming, and a bit of a bleeding-heart socialist (I hear). Definately not an eeeeeeeeevvvvilllll raaaaaaccccissssssttttt though. :p

Some of the above descriptions may be more accurate than others.

[Tokenconservative]

Ok, so, my stab at the definitions;

Science - a methodology for testing observable evidence, designed to minimise the effect of all types of bias.
Atheism - a lack of belief in God
Weak atheism - a lack of belief in God, with the acceptance of the philosopical point that, in this case, it is not possible to prove a negative (i.e. that God does not exist). However, in practical terms, there is no positive evidence for God so we should behave as though he doesn't exist.
Tokie - A firm believer in the existence of the phenomenon of man-made global warming, and a bit of a bleeding-heart socialist (I hear). Definately not an eeeeeeeeevvvvilllll raaaaaaccccissssssttttt though. :p

Some of the above descriptions may be more accurate than others.

Meh.

What's a little inaccuracy 'mongst fiends? Er...friends?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well, when a person asserts something I disagree with, I have a tendency of saying "It is wrong, and ...... is the reason". So it turns out to be both saying why he is wrong, and saying why am I right. I prove my case, which is the opposite from his case. Is it different with you?

Butting in (cuz I can):

Without using circular reasoning, how do you do this if you believe in God?

Tokie

[JetLeg]

Tokie,

Huh?

[Tokenconservative]

Tokie,

Huh?

How do you prove in any objective way, the existence of "God" or god, without using circular reasoning?

Tokie

[Loss Leader]

Hmmm...not to get to existential on you here, but if this is the case, um...what happened to the ether?

Tokie



Five bucks to the first person who can tell me what TC is talking about here.*


*Offer does not apply. To anyone. Ever.

[quixotecoyote]

Five bucks to the first person who can tell me what TC is talking about here.*


*Offer does not apply. To anyone. Ever.


The ether was a theoretical ubiquitous substance hypothesized as a medium to explain how light could travel in space. Einstein pretty much debunked it in 1905. It's still pretty hot on the woo circuit.

[Loss Leader]

The ether was a theoretical ubiquitous substance hypothesized as a medium to explain how light could travel in space. Einstein pretty much debunked it in 1905. It's still pretty hot on the woo circuit.


Yes, but what does that have to do with what I was talking about? I told JetLeg that the intensity of his feelings about a subject bears no relation to the truth or falsity of the claim. TK responded about ether. I don't know why.

[JetLeg]

the intensity of his feelings about a subject bears no relation to the truth or falsity of the claim.

That is a claim in epistemology. Agreed?

How do you prove that?

[Loss Leader]

That is a claim in epistemology. Agreed?

How do you prove that?




Why don't you give me one single example where the strength of your feelings actually provides any information about the truth or falsity of any claim other than a claim about your feelings?

[bruto]

That is a claim in epistemology. Agreed?

How do you prove that?

By screaming it at the top of our lungs.

[JetLeg]

Why don't you give me one single example where the strength of your feelings actually provides any information about the truth or falsity of any claim other than a claim about your feelings?

First, the burden of proof is on you, it was your claim about the relationship of evidence and feelings. Agreed?

But, I can try. The case with God. And, the case with the Dalai Lama. (Granted that I can reinterpret the evidence when it contradicts my feelings).

[JetLeg]

By screaming it at the top of our lungs.

Come on.

[JetLeg]

By screaming it at the top of our lungs.

Honestly, I am a bit confused. If you were to reply to me "Prove that screaming at the top of our lungs is not valid in epistemology", I wouldn't know how to prove that. It sounds strange, but I don't know how to prove it is wrong. With relationship to unfalsifiables at least. I might be confused about the whole concept of "proof", I think.

It is perfectly consistent with my logic to say

By screaming at the top of our lungs we can prove unfalsifiable beings exist.
There is no way to disprove the above assertion.
Therefore there is no way to show it is not a valid epistemological criteria.

It sounds really weird, but when reasoning, I should follow the logic, and not what sounds strange to me - right?

[drkitten]

How do you prove that?

It's an empirical claim, so it can't be proven in the strong sense. If you simply want to demonstrate it beyond rational doubt, the easiest way is to attend a stage magic show and see where you "feel" the sponge ball is.

If you feel really brave, there's a three-card monte game going on in the alley behind the theater. Where do you "feel" the queen is?

[JetLeg]

It's an empirical claim, so it can't be proven in the strong sense. If you simply want to demonstrate it beyond rational doubt, the easiest way is to attend a stage magic show and see where you "feel" the sponge ball is.

If you feel really brave, there's a three-card monte game going on in the alley behind the theater. Where do you "feel" the queen is?

I am bad at monte. But this is a different type of feelings.

[Complexity]

You cannot criticize the beliefs of others, because then it implies you are smarter than they are, and it is arrogant.

Is it true? Why / why not?


False.

I can and often do criticize the beliefs of others.

Smartness doesn't have much to do with the correctness of one's beliefs.

I am smarter than most others.

It isn't arrogant - it is a statement of fact (that I am smarter than most others) and opinion (that I think your beliefs are superstitious and woo).

[Complexity]

I phrased my question as a general one, but I can restate it more specifically :

Is criticizing religion arrogant?
(Reason : Many people think that it is, and by criticising you imply you are smarter than they all.

Additional reason :
Many smart people think that it is, and by criticising you imply you are smarter than they all.


Criticizing religion is not arrogant - it is a moral imperative.

Being smart is not the same as being right.

I am more correct regarding the nature of religion than any believers are.

I am smarter than most believers are.

I suspect that I am both more correct, in general, and smarter than you.

[Loss Leader]

First, the burden of proof is on you, it was your claim about the relationship of evidence and feelings. Agreed?



No, I do not agree.

You are making the positive statement: The strength of one's feelings on a subject can give information about the truthfulness of the proposition.

I am making the negative statement: No, the strength of one's feelings has no relationship to the truthfulness of the proposition.

I do not have to and, in fact, cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you. Do you have any evidence that how strongly one feels about something bears any relationship to how likely that thing is to be true?

We are, of course, leaving out any proposition regarding one's feelings. in such a case, one's feelings would be the only evidence of one's feelings.

[Fnord]

Why not just cut 'n paste the relevant parts here?

1) It might seem like "Cherry-Picking" to some.

2) I read through it, you can to.

3) It's all relevant.

[JetLeg]

I am smarter than most others.


Well, I consider saying that as arrogant. What is your definition of arrogance?

[JetLeg]

No, I do not agree.

You are making the positive statement: The strength of one's feelings on a subject can give information about the truthfulness of the proposition.

I am making the negative statement: No, the strength of one's feelings has no relationship to the truthfulness of the proposition.

I do not have to and, in fact, cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you. Do you have any evidence that how strongly one feels about something bears any relationship to how likely that thing is to be true?

We are, of course, leaving out any proposition regarding one's feelings. in such a case, one's feelings would be the only evidence of one's feelings.

Are you sure that all negatives cannot be proven? For example : There is no elephant in this room. There are no square circles. There is no king in the USA. There are no WMD in Iraq.

But your statement is not a statement about the existance of something. It is about the lack of relationship between two things -> my feelings and the truthfulness of my proposition. There should be a way to demonstrate such statements. For example - there is no relationship between the skin color of someone, and his level of intelligence. There is no relationship between the size of a person's nose, and his intelligence. It is not that these statements are as probable as their opposite.


To your question - I feel very strongly about god. In the case of god, my feelings indeed are successful to show his existance.

[JetLeg]

No, I do not agree.

You are making the positive statement: The strength of one's feelings on a subject can give information about the truthfulness of the proposition.

I am making the negative statement: No, the strength of one's feelings has no relationship to the truthfulness of the proposition.

I do not have to and, in fact, cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you. Do you have any evidence that how strongly one feels about something bears any relationship to how likely that thing is to be true?

We are, of course, leaving out any proposition regarding one's feelings. in such a case, one's feelings would be the only evidence of one's feelings.



Additionaly, you need to have some useful criteria in epistemology to sort the bad epistemology from the good one. If I propose a certain way of thinking, and you think it is a bad one, don't you have any strong way of showing that it is a bad one, for example, by showing that it leads to contradictions?

[JetLeg]

So, either James Randi uses the same argument that IDers and Creationists use, or his own assertion that "if I were to claim that no god exists, I would have to produce evidence to establish that claim" is in error. Which is it?

Whoa! I made an "Appeal to Authority" AND "False Dilemma" in one shot!

Oh look! A red herring!

By the way, do you think that saying "This is a fact, because god said so" an appeal to a false authority?

[Mashuna]

By the way, do you think that saying "This is a fact, because god said so" an appeal to a false authority?

As long as you have established that God exists, what form God takes (i.e. is omniscient, or as close as possible) and that you have good evidence that God actually said such a thing, you'd probably be ok with that one.

[JetLeg]

I guess then that quoting the scipture would not be enough for you.


What possible criteria would satisfy you that god is omniscient? Strictly speaking, even if he were correct on all the questions you answered him, it would be hard to know that there is something small left on which he is ignorant.

And what criteria would satisfy you that god is infallible?

[Tokenconservative]

1) It might seem like "Cherry-Picking" to some.

2) I read through it, you can to.

3) It's all relevant.

Sorry...I am an old guy, and getting older every day. I like the old-fashioned means of debate: you present your argument as such...YOUR argument, you don't simply post a link and shriek "go read this and figure out what I am saying!!!!"

I guess they don't teach logical discourse the way I larned it, anymore.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

That is a claim in epistemology. Agreed?

How do you prove that?

Which is what this discussion boils down to: belief. You can offer up "evidence" from great thinkers from science, theology, psychology, sociology and Hollywood, but this is entirely a discusson based in personal opinion and can be nothing else.

Tokie