ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 9th November 2017, 05:34 PM   #321
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I've been told that this video is a "hand grenade" against having these stories taught in schools. The argument presented in the video is that these stories should not be taught in schools because they are ridiculous. That is exactly an argument from incredulity.

Some theists say that evolution is self-evidently ridiculous/incredulous and that it lacks credibility. It's a bad argument when they say such things. It doesn't become a good argument because it's Bible stories being called ridiculous rather than evolution. It doesn't become a good argument because you agree with what it's an argument for. That's the antithesis of critical thinking.

Indeed, which is why I remain curious as to why you brought them up in response to me.

I agree. What I disagree with is that my or anybody's belief that they are ridiculous is evidence that they are not true.

I didn't say it was.

I think all the ones I've seen on the video I think are ridiculous. But what I or anybody else thinks about how ridiculous they are or are not are not indicators of how true they are or are not. My belief that they are ridiculous is not evidence that they are not true. Dusty's belief that they are ridiculous is not evidence that they are not true, and his assertion that it is is an argument from incredulity. That's a bad argument, no matter who is making it what they're making it about, and what position they are trying to support by making it.
I don’t speak for Dusty but I would say that his knowledge that there isn’t a single piece of credible evidence to support the stories is what makes them ridiculous to him (and in reality). The stories aren’t ridiculous because there’s no evidence they aren’t true. They’re ridiculous because there's no evidence to support that they are true. Can you spot the difference? To believe they are true despite that fact is therefore even more ridiculous. Also all the knowledge we currently have concludes that the stories cannot possibly be true.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 9th November 2017 at 05:37 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 05:40 PM   #322
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
I donít speak for Dusty but I would say that his knowledge that there isnít a single piece of credible evidence to support the stories is what makes them ridiculous to him (and in reality). The stories arenít ridiculous because thereís no evidence they arenít true. Theyíre ridiculous because there's no evidence to support that they are true. Can you spot the difference? To believe they are true despite that fact is therefore even more ridiculous.
None of which are arguments made in the video. The argument made in the video is that because he believes they are ridiculous they are untrue. That is an argument from incredulity, which is a bad argument.

I'm not saying that Dusty is incapable of making a good argument for the non-existence of God, or that he couldn't make a good argument for the untruth of these videos. I'm criticising the actual argument he makes in this video. It's a bad argument, regardless of what other arguments could or could not be made.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 05:41 PM   #323
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
And, really, this is exactly what I've been talking about for the last week or so. I can't believe that here, on a forum dedicated to critical thinking, I'm having to explain to a bunch of atheists why an argument from incredulity - a formal logical fallacy - is not a good argument.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 05:56 PM   #324
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And, really, this is exactly what I've been talking about for the last week or so. I can't believe that here, on a forum dedicated to critical thinking, I'm having to explain to a bunch of atheists why an argument from incredulity - a formal logical fallacy - is not a good argument.
And I can't believe that here, on a forum dedicated to critical thinking, I'm having to explain to you (regardless whether or not youíre a self proclaimed clitical thinker or atheist) that an argument based on the fact that a story has no credulity is not an argument from incredulity. To parrot the point - The stories donít lack credulity because they lack disproof, they lack credulity because they completely, totally and utterly lack credible proof. Can you still not spot the difference?
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 9th November 2017 at 06:27 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 06:13 PM   #325
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
None of which are arguments made in the video. The argument made in the video is that because he believes they are ridiculous they are untrue. That is an argument from incredulity, which is a bad argument.

I'm not saying that Dusty is incapable of making a good argument for the non-existence of God, or that he couldn't make a good argument for the untruth of these videos. I'm criticising the actual argument he makes in this video. It's a bad argument, regardless of what other arguments could or could not be made.
Dusty knows the stories are ridiculous because he knows they haven't been proven to be true and they contradict all current knowledge of what is possible to be true. It's not an argument from incredulity therefore to reasonably conclude that they aren't true, and that a belief they are true is ridiculous. Even if one day magic and miracles become possible it doesn't change the fact that today they aren't known to be possible, or even possibly could be possible.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 9th November 2017 at 07:37 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 06:56 PM   #326
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I would say they come from valid evidence and sound reasoning. It's entirely possible to have valid evidence and come to an incorrect conclusion.
It’s infinitely more possible to come to an incorrect conclusion with mere belief and no valid evidence.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
A method of presentation of the reasoning, rather than the evidence. The arguments rely on the evidence.
Religious and other paranormal arguments rely entirely and completely on belief and faith (and silly often contradictory stories of magic and miracles). No credible evidence required.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I agree. But that's not the argument being presented in this video. The argument being presented in this video is that they are untrue because they are ridiculous. And that's a bad argument.
Why do you conclude/believe that stories that aren’t supported by any credible evidence, are impossible according to all current credible knowledge, and are based on magic and miracles, are not ridiculous?

It's not that "they are untrue because they are ridiculous". It's that they're ridiculous because they're claimed and believed to be true even though they aren't supported by a single piece of credible evidence to support they even could be true, and to be true they would have to contradict all currently known knowledge. Can you spot the difference?

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I can. And were that the argument this video made I would not be saying that it was a bad argument. But it is not the argument this video makes. The video makes a bad argument instead. It is not a good argument just because you and I agree with the conclusion it's being presented in support of.
The video makes that very argument by implication at the very least. It’s just not as sugarcoated as you would like.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 9th November 2017 at 07:33 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 07:05 PM   #327
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,903
DUSTY! Yee haw! His name is Dusty and his You Tubey site is called the "Cult of Dusty"

And his You Tubey page, on the very top says:

"LOGIC MOTHER **********"

Because people who use "logic" often call people "Mother **********."

The guy is either a spectacularly angry and incompetent anti-theist, or equally likely, a poe designed for the sole purpose of mocking atheists.

Either way, thanks for exposing all of us to this bozo.

When I think of atheists, I am going to think of Dusty, the redneck atheist.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.

Last edited by jsfisher; 14th November 2017 at 05:25 PM. Reason: Rule 10 issues repaired
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 07:39 PM   #328
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,063
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
DUSTY! Yee haw! His name is Dusty and his You Tubey site is called the "Cult of Dusty"

And his You Tubey page, on the very top says:

"LOGIC MOTHER **********"

Because people who use "logic" often call people "Mother **********."

The guy is either a spectacularly angry and incompetent anti-theist, or equally likely, a poe designed for the sole purpose of mocking atheists.

Either way, thanks for exposing all of us to this bozo.

When I think of atheists, I am going to think of Dusty, the redneck atheist.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Edited by jsfisher:  Moderated content redacted.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by jsfisher; 14th November 2017 at 05:26 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 07:51 PM   #329
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,609
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The argument in the video is that the stories in the Bible are silly and therefore are untrue.
You are getting the evidence, the argument, and the conclusion confused

The evidence (ascertainable from reading the bible) is that the stories therein exhibit a murderous god, willing to kill and maim to get what he wants. This includes slaughtering babies and snuffing out entire cities on a whim.

The argument is that such stories ought not be taught to impressionable young children.

The conclusion is that these stories are in fact totally ridiculous on their face anyway, and therefore untrue.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 08:22 PM   #330
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,004
Where in that video does he say that the stories' ridiculosity tells us that they are false, instead of just making fun of them?
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 08:43 PM   #331
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,903
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Where in that video does he say that the stories' ridiculosity tells us that they are false, instead of just making fun of them?
That sounds like a lose/lose for the atheist redneck fans.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 12:27 AM   #332
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,924
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
well, you see, this thread is about the "Redneck Atheist" and my humble suggestion is that you tuck into that video in the the OP so you can discuss the subject of the thread.

Did Bertrand Russell use the term "Sky Daddy" and "babble" too? Do you think he would be impressed with the Redneck Atheist and "babble"?
It seems to me that you have said that you don't know "the feelings of atheism" (sic) and I was intending to widen your outlook. I continue to recommend you Russell's book.

Anyway, "Sky Daddy" is an ironical expression. It is aimed to criticise the "minority of Humanity", that is to say, religion. I found it not very polite but accurately pointed. There is something of childish in the need of a Father in the heaven. Are you not able to walk alone in the world? Do you need a father that says you how to walk and punishes you if you take your own way? This sound as "Sky Daddy". Truly.

Last edited by David Mo; 10th November 2017 at 12:53 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 04:03 AM   #333
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
And I can't believe that here, on a forum dedicated to critical thinking, I'm having to explain to you (regardless whether or not youíre a self proclaimed clitical thinker or atheist) that an argument based on the fact that a story has no credulity is not an argument from incredulity. To parrot the point - The stories donít lack credulity because they lack disproof, they lack credulity because they completely, totally and utterly lack credible proof. Can you still not spot the difference?
Whatever the reason for him thinking the stories lack credibility is irrelevant because that's not the argument he makes in the video. The argument he makes in the video is that because he thinks they are ridiculous they are untrue.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 04:10 AM   #334
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,371
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post

I agree. But that's not the argument being presented in this video. The argument being presented in this video is that they are untrue because they are ridiculous. And that's a bad argument.
I don't agree. If an argument is true but ridiculous, one must conclude that the object is ridiculous. Thus the argument in the video is that religion is either untrue or ridiculous. But it is hard to imagine that a true religion could be ridiculous.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 04:16 AM   #335
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
It's not an argument from incredulity therefore to reasonably conclude that they aren't true, and that a belief they are true is ridiculous.
I'm not talking about what he has or has not concluded about the stories. I'm talking about the argument that he presents in the video. And that is an argument from incredulity.

You keep referring to things that are not in the video in order to justify saying that the argument in the video is a good one. I'm not talking about things which are not in the video. I'm talking about the video itself.

Let me give you two examples of what's going on, referring to something that everybody on this thread can agree on as being true - that the Earth orbits the sun.

So, argument 1:

A) Source A says the sun orbits the Earth
B) I think this is ridiculous
C) Therefore the Earth orbits the sun

Argument 2:

A) Source B says the Earth orbits the sun
B) I think this is ridiculous
C) Therefore the sun orbits the Earth

It doesn't matter that there is external evidence that supports the conclusion of argument 1, because that evidence is not part of argument 1. It's not mentioned. It's not referred to. It's not part of the argument. The argument itself is poor.

Both those arguments are the same as each other, and they're both the same as Dusty's argument in that video. All three of them are poor arguments, and anything outside of those arguments is irrelevant to whether or not they are good arguments in and of themselves. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the conclusion, they're still poor arguments. The conclusion is not supported by and does not logically follow from the preceding steps.

Perhaps the people making arguments 1 & 2 could make a good argument for step B in the arguments, just as Dusty may be able to make a good argument for why he thinks the Bible stories are ridiculous. But that's utterly irrelevant because that's not the argument he's making. You keep having to refer to things which are not the argument he's making. I'm talking about the argument he is actually making.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 04:22 AM   #336
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,371
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post

A) Source A says the sun orbits the Earth
B) I think this is ridiculous
C) Therefore the Earth orbits the sun
That is not the argument made in the video. The argument is that, based on scripture, God's behavior is irrational and ridiculous. And the suggested conclusion is that this is illogical and must be wrong.

You may of course disagree and conclude that God exists but IS indeed irrational and ridiculous. Or, you may conclude that the scripture is not representative of God (this is the position of a good many modern theists).

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

Last edited by MRC_Hans; 10th November 2017 at 04:23 AM.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 04:23 AM   #337
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
It’s infinitely more possible to come to an incorrect conclusion with mere belief and no valid evidence.
Okay. And?

Quote:
Religious and other paranormal arguments rely entirely and completely on belief and faith (and silly often contradictory stories of magic and miracles). No credible evidence required.
Okay. And?

Quote:
Why do you conclude/believe that stories that aren’t supported by any credible evidence, are impossible according to all current credible knowledge, and are based on magic and miracles, are not ridiculous?
Why do you conclude/believe that that is my position, despite my having said the exact opposite more than once?

Quote:
It's not that "they are untrue because they are ridiculous". It's that they're ridiculous because they're claimed and believed to be true even though they aren't supported by a single piece of credible evidence to support they even could be true, and to be true they would have to contradict all currently known knowledge. Can you spot the difference?
The difference, in relation to this thread, is that the former is the argument that Dusty is making in the video and the latter is not. I'm discussing the video.

Quote:
The video makes that very argument by implication at the very least. It’s just not as sugarcoated as you would like.
No. You're describing what you're bringing to the video because you agree with Dusty about the stories and on his conclusion. Your characterisation of "implication" is actually an admission that the video doesn't make that argument, but that it is instead something that you are reading in to the video.

This video has been characterised as something that is not just preaching to the choir. It's been characterised as something with persuasive power. Your argument of "implication" is an admission that it wouldn't be persuasive to someone who didn't already share Dusty's opinion of those Bible stories. Which, again, makes it a bad argument.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 04:32 AM   #338
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You are getting the evidence, the argument, and the conclusion confused

The evidence (ascertainable from reading the bible) is that the stories therein exhibit a murderous god, willing to kill and maim to get what he wants. This includes slaughtering babies and snuffing out entire cities on a whim.

The argument is that such stories ought not be taught to impressionable young children.

The conclusion is that these stories are in fact totally ridiculous on their face anyway, and therefore untrue.
The word "therefore" comes at the beginning of a conclusion, not in the middle. The conclusion also doesn't make up the bulk of the argument.

Also, at no point does Dusty mention the word "impressionable. That's an argument you've made up for him. I'm talking about what he actually says in this video.

This is the conclusion to the video:

Quote:
How can this be real life? It's been 2,000 years already. It's time for you Christians to accept the fact he ain't coming back. Get over it already. And if these aren't the primitive stories monkeys would tell each other, I don't know what is. Seriously, you people want to have this stuff taught in our schools to our children? No thanks, man.
The stories cannot be "real life". They are "primitive stories" as told by "monkeys". Therefore they should not be taught in schools.

That's the argument. It's an argument from incredulity. And that makes it a poor argument.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 04:37 AM   #339
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Where in that video does he say that the stories' ridiculosity tells us that they are false, instead of just making fun of them?
Firstly, see the last quote in my immediately previous post.

Secondly, I've been saying from the start that all the video is doing is making fun of the Bible, rather than being a proper argument against it or being a "hand-grenade" with "valid points" being deployed against the idea of the Bible being taught in schools. If you want to argue that the video is indeed just a preaching-to-the-choir rant presented for humorous effect, then I won't argue. That's what I think it is, too. But that's not what everybody else has been arguing it is. If you'd like, you could join me in making that argument against everybody else.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 04:41 AM   #340
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
I don't agree. If an argument is true but ridiculous, one must conclude that the object is ridiculous. Thus the argument in the video is that religion is either untrue or ridiculous. But it is hard to imagine that a true religion could be ridiculous.

Hans
How is the argument "I think evolution is ridiculous, therefore evolution is either untrue or ridiculous. It's hard to imagine that a true scientific fact could be ridiculous" substantively different from what you've just presented? And how is "it's hard to imagine that a true [x] could be ridiculous" not just another argument from incredulity?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 04:44 AM   #341
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
That is not the argument made in the video.
Yes it is.

Quote:
The argument is that, based on scripture, God's behavior is irrational and ridiculous.
"And if these aren't the primitive stories monkeys would tell each other, I don't know what is." That's what he says. It's not what you are characterising him as saying.

Quote:
And the suggested conclusion is that this is illogical and must be wrong.
...which is an argument from incredulity. Which is a poor argument.

Quote:
You may of course disagree and conclude that God exists but IS indeed irrational and ridiculous. Or, you may conclude that the scripture is not representative of God (this is the position of a good many modern theists).
There are also options other than these, like you may believe that whether or not any individual - including myself - thinks something is ridiculous is not any basis upon which to form an opinion about whether or not that thing is true.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 04:48 AM   #342
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Here's a challenge - can anybody formulate what they believe the argument in the video to actually be? Set it out, step by step. Do not refer to things which are not in the video. Do not add things to the premises, the reasoning, or the conclusion. Just using the words that Dusty himself uses, set out what you believe the argument to be, and explain why it's distinct from an argument from incredulity, or why the same argument could not be used to support a conclusion such as the one that evolution is untrue.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 04:52 AM   #343
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,371
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
How is the argument "I think evolution is ridiculous, therefore evolution is either untrue or ridiculous. It's hard to imagine that a true scientific fact could be ridiculous" substantively different from what you've just presented? And how is "it's hard to imagine that a true [x] could be ridiculous" not just another argument from incredulity?
Because "I think" is not an argument. "Evolution is ridiculous because ...." is an argument. It may be faulty, but it is an argument.

A true scientific fact is informative on reality. If we find such to be ridiculous, it says more about our perception than of reality.

The argument in the video is not "I think it is ridiculous", it is that the alleged behavior of God is illogical and irrational.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 05:20 AM   #344
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,004
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Firstly, see the last quote in my immediately previous post.
I don't see the same argument in there that you describe. I see two separate things, so I'll split the quote:

Originally Posted by Dusty
How can this be real life? It's been 2,000 years already. It's time for you Christians to accept the fact he ain't coming back. Get over it already.
In this one, he does indeed make an argument that this particular part of the overall story is untrue. But it's not because it just sounds/feels silly; it's because the story makes a prediction and the prediction didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Dusty
And if these aren't the primitive stories monkeys would tell each other, I don't know what is. Seriously, you people want to have this stuff taught in our schools to our children? No thanks, man.
In this one, I see no conclusion about the stories being untrue. He does say they shouldn't be told to children, but there can be other reasons for that (such as the same reasons why the Grimms' fairy tales have been modified from horrible endings to happy ones, or because you just don't want to look silly in front of the kids, or because you don't want to endorse or even accidentally imply an endorsement of the morality in the stories... he doesn't pick one in this quote).

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I've been saying from the start that all the video is doing is making fun of the Bible, rather than being a proper argument against it
You've said several times that it claims to disprove the Bible's stories. That's not the same as just mocking them. In your pair of ABC logical arguments a few posts ago, just mocking them is only AB without the C, but you've been saying that C is in there.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
If you want to argue that the video is indeed just a preaching-to-the-choir rant presented for humorous effect, then I won't argue. That's what I think it is, too. But that's not what everybody else has been arguing it is.
Ah, so the point is not the video creator making the silly=false argument, but other people misreading it into his video for him? I thought you were doing that yourself.

There is a third possibility, though. Instead of just entertainment for atheists or an argument that the stories are false for theists to be convinced by, it can also be meant to show theists how ridiculous and immoral the stories are, not as part of an argument based on that, but just to demonstrate the ridiculosity & immorality. Sometimes mockery, rather than a more formally sound argument, is what first shakes someone loose from ridiculous thinking (Dawkins has a story about himself having once been an example of that), and sometimes an illustration of the immorality of an alleged source of morality is what first shakes someone loose from claiming a moral code that they don't really follow and haven't even really looked at.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 06:07 AM   #345
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Because "I think" is not an argument. "Evolution is ridiculous because ...." is an argument. It may be faulty, but it is an argument.

A true scientific fact is informative on reality. If we find such to be ridiculous, it says more about our perception than of reality.
I agree with all of this.

Quote:
The argument in the video is not "I think it is ridiculous", it is that the alleged behavior of God is illogical and irrational.
At no point does he say that.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 06:17 AM   #346
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
I see two separate things, so I'll split the quote
On what basis are you separating his statement into two separate parts and concluding that there is not meant to be any connection between them?

Quote:
In this one, he does indeed make an argument that this particular part of the overall story is untrue. But it's not because it just sounds/feels silly; it's because the story makes a prediction and the prediction didn't happen.
I would imagine that almost every Christian on the planet would add the word "yet" to that.

Quote:
In this one, I see no conclusion about the stories being untrue.
What do you think he means by calling them the stories "primitive monkeys" would tell to each other, if not to say that to believe them you need limited intelligence?

Quote:
He does say they shouldn't be told to children, but there can be other reasons for that (such as the same reasons why the Grimms' fairy tales have been modified from horrible endings to happy ones, or because you just don't want to look silly in front of the kids, or because you don't want to endorse or even accidentally imply an endorsement of the morality in the stories... he doesn't pick one in this quote).
The reason is in the previous sentences - that the stories are not "real life" and that they are what "primitive monkeys" would tell each other. I am, again, talking about what's in the video itself, not what anybody might suppose could have been in the video if the video were different.

Quote:
You've said several times that it claims to disprove the Bible's stories.
I have said several times that other people have claimed that this is what the video is doing. I've been illustrating that if this is true, then the video is doing a very poor job at it.

Quote:
There is a third possibility, though. Instead of just entertainment for atheists or an argument that the stories are false for theists to be convinced by, it can also be meant to show theists how ridiculous and immoral the stories are, not as part of an argument based on that, but just to demonstrate the ridiculosity & immorality. Sometimes mockery, rather than a more formally sound argument, is what first shakes someone loose from ridiculous thinking (Dawkins has a story about himself having once been an example of that), and sometimes an illustration of the immorality of an alleged source of morality is what first shakes someone loose from claiming a moral code that they don't really follow and haven't even really looked at.
I don't really understand the distinction you're drawing between attempting to make an argument that the stories are untrue because they're ridiculous and attempting to make a video which illustrates that the stories are ridiculous in the hopes that it will convince theists that they are untrue.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 10th November 2017 at 07:59 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 08:51 AM   #347
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,058
The proposal: the bible should be taught in the public schools.

The counter-argument: the biblical god is either imaginary, or the biblical god is real but, (in addition to being undetectable by means of observation) behaves irrationally and cruelly almost beyond description.

The method of argumentation: observation. The much-maligned ridicule simply focuses attention on particular parts of the observed narrative.

The conclusion: most scientists, atheists, and agnostics find the bible useless and unsuitable for educational purposes, for the same reason it is not suitable to teach that the sun could begin to rise in the West, i.e., self-evident observation. (the position of the framers of the Constitution on this issue has long been settled, need not be further belabored, and was not further belabored)

The rebuttal to the counter-argument: that is not a good argument (stated repeatedly with extreme verbosity).

Well. As is customary, the muddies have been thoroughly watered. Now all that remains is days, possibly weeks, perhaps even months of futile, slogging exchanges of verbosity.

Class dismissed. School's out forever, bitches.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 10th November 2017 at 09:09 AM.
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:06 AM   #348
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,903
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
The proposal: the bible should be taught in the public schools.

The counter-argument: the biblical god is either imaginary, or the biblical god is real but, (in addition to being undetectable by means of observation) behaves irrationally and cruelly almost beyond description.

The method of argumentation: observation. The ridicule simply focuses attention on particular parts of the observed narrative.

The conclusion: most scientists, atheists, and agnostics find the bible useless and unsuitable for educational purposes, for the same reason it is not suitable to teach that the sun could begin to rise in the West, i.e., self-evident observation. (the position of the framers of the Constitution on this issue has long been settled, and need not be further belabored)

The rebuttal to the counter-argument: that is not a good argument (stated repeatedly with extreme verbosity).

Well. As is customary, the muddies have been thoroughly watered. Now all that remains is days, possibly weeks, perhaps even months of futile exchanges of verbosity.

Class dismissed. School's out forever, bitches.
I see we are not teaching logic at this hypothetical school.

"Class dismissed. School's out forever, bitches" is PRECISELY the type of "argument" one would expect from someone unfortunately exposed to too much Redneck Atheist and too little rhetoric.

I have to tell you, I was not a fan of teaching the Holy Bible in public school (because of the establishment clause) but seeing how dreadful the other arguments are in opposition to this, I am becoming convinced that we should install the Bible throughout the curriculum!

From language arts/poetry ("" 1 The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing.2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters,3 he refreshes my soul. He guides me along the right paths for his name’s sake. 4 Even though I walk through the darkest valley,I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. 5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. 6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever. ")

to mathematics (reconcile the measurements of the Great Ark with the circumference of a circle)

This truly is a day our Lord has made!
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 10th November 2017 at 09:19 AM. Reason: Psalms, yo!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:27 AM   #349
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
The proposal: the bible should be taught in the public schools.

The counter-argument: the biblical god is either imaginary, or the biblical god is real but, (in addition to being undetectable by means of observation) behaves irrationally and cruelly almost beyond description.

The method of argumentation: observation. The much-maligned ridicule simply focuses attention on particular parts of the observed narrative.

The conclusion: most scientists, atheists, and agnostics find the bible useless and unsuitable for educational purposes, for the same reason it is not suitable to teach that the sun could begin to rise in the West, i.e., self-evident observation. (the position of the framers of the Constitution on this issue has long been settled, need not be further belabored, and was not further belabored)

The rebuttal to the counter-argument: that is not a good argument (stated repeatedly with extreme verbosity).

Well. As is customary, the muddies have been thoroughly watered. Now all that remains is days, possibly weeks, perhaps even months of futile, slogging exchanges of verbosity.

Class dismissed. School's out forever, bitches.
Again, I'm talking about what's actually in the video, not things which are not.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:31 AM   #350
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,551
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
to mathematics (reconcile the measurements of the Great Ark with the circumference of a circle)
I don't know what the story of the flood has to say about mathematics, but I do know that the Bible characterises Pi as 3, so it's perhaps not the best teaching aid for maths.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:33 AM   #351
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,319
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
[snip]...I am becoming convinced that we should install the Bible throughout the curriculum!

... language arts/poetry: ("" 1 The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing.2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters,3 he refreshes my soul. He guides me along the right paths for his name’s sake. 4 Even though I walk through the darkest valley,I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. 5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. 6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever. ")

...
4th agreement with TBD since my joining forum: This is indeed beautiful.

Maybe we could have something like comparative religion.

Speaking honestly, if there is poetry as good as the best of King James old testament in other books -- writing that deep, that amazing -- in the Koran or the Mormon book, I'd like to know about it.

Or is it only a matter of translation?

If it were, you'd think there'd be a beautiful groovy liberal translation of the Koran that we would all know about by now. (Where we liberals agree that it has great writing and powerful images. It hasn't happened.)
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 10th November 2017 at 09:37 AM.
calebprime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:35 AM   #352
StackOverflow
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I see we are not teaching logic at this hypothetical school.

"Class dismissed. School's out forever, bitches" is PRECISELY the type of "argument" one would expect from someone unfortunately exposed to too much Redneck Atheist and too little rhetoric.

I have to tell you, I was not a fan of teaching the Holy Bible in public school (because of the establishment clause) but seeing how dreadful the other arguments are in opposition to this, I am becoming convinced that we should install the Bible throughout the curriculum!

From language arts/poetry ("" 1 The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing.2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters,3 he refreshes my soul. He guides me along the right paths for his nameís sake. 4 Even though I walk through the darkest valley,I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. 5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. 6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever. ")

to mathematics (reconcile the measurements of the Great Ark with the circumference of a circle)

This truly is a day our Lord has made!
Seems like our big ol' 9/11 debunker has severe problems with applying basic logic.

Very, very very sad.

Let me educate you: There is no evidence for the existence of any god. Beliefs and anecdotes don't count.

You're welcome.
StackOverflow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:43 AM   #353
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,903
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I don't know what the story of the flood has to say about mathematics, but I do know that the Bible characterises Pi as 3, so it's perhaps not the best teaching aid for maths.
Actually it does not, but using assumptions regarding the approximate size of the vessel one can perform calculations that suggest that the Bible suggests that it is 3. This is therefore useful in teaching "rounding" and in measuring physical shapes
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:44 AM   #354
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,886
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I don't know what the story of the flood has to say about mathematics, but I do know that the Bible characterises Pi as 3, so it's perhaps not the best teaching aid for maths.
Really? Loaves and fishes ring no bells? Oh, that was a miracle and in your view, we should all give that serious discussion.

How about talking burning bushes, or talking donkeys? Surely we should be debating those as well, right?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:48 AM   #355
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,371
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I agree with all of this.



At no point does he say that.
What? He says it many times. He says essentially, "why would god do this?"

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:53 AM   #356
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,903
Originally Posted by StackOverflow View Post
Seems like our big ol' 9/11 debunker has severe problems with applying basic logic.

Very, very very sad.

Let me educate you: There is no evidence for the existence of any god. Beliefs and anecdotes don't count.

You're welcome.
Well, let us "break that down." The question posed is not whether there is evidence of any god but rather whether the Bible should be taught in school.

Indeed to come to a logical conclusion regarding whether there is "evidence" of the Lord discussed in the Bible, one must understand the Bible. Indeed, to go further, one must understand what is evidence and what does evidence mean in the context of the Holy Word.

Indeed shall we insist on evidence of Beauty before we acknowledge the Beauty of the Lord's creation? For is 'There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion," yet it exists.

Lets explore this further:

Quote:
So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientations, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling; seen that. If I ask you about women, you'd probably give me a syllabus about your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy. You're a tough kid. And I'd ask you about war, you'd probably throw Shakespeare at me, right, "once more unto the breach dear friends." But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap, watch him gasp his last breath looking to you for help. I'd ask you about love, you'd probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on earth just for you. Who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever, through anything, through cancer. And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in the hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes, that the terms "visiting hours" don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss, 'cause it only occurs when you've loved something more than you love yourself. And I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much.
.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:54 AM   #357
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,371
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Actually it does not, but using assumptions regarding the approximate size of the vessel one can perform calculations that suggest that the Bible suggests that it is 3. This is therefore useful in teaching "rounding" and in measuring physical shapes
Quote:
1 Kings 7:23Ė7:23

23Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.
Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:54 AM   #358
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,319
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Really? Loaves and fishes ring no bells? Oh, that was a miracle and in your view, we should all give that serious discussion.

How about talking burning bushes, or talking donkeys? Surely we should be debating those as well, right?
you meant this directed at TBD, not SB, who is strangely miscast here as a believer you should broadly mock?

I mean, go after TBD, he can take it, he's used to it.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:56 AM   #359
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,319
The speech from Good Will Hunting is formally brought into evidence.

So recognized.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:58 AM   #360
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,903
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Hans
7:23Ė7:23 = 0

Good example!
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.