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.
Reply
Old 26th March 2020, 01:45 PM   #1161
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,160
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm not playing "You have to guess what I'm saying" with a 3rd person now.
Wow, coming from someone who couldn't give a straight answer to "Which God?", that shows a stunning lack of self-awareness!

Quote:
Make a claim, or at least a point, or go away.
Given your inability to cope with this point,
Quote:
The reason I'm not discussing the dragon is because it's imaginary. And it's not a hypothesis for any observation. But mainly because it's imaginary.
that would seem like a wasted effort.

So No, No and... No.

__________________
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc 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 26th March 2020, 01:46 PM   #1162
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,760
The Dragon is no more imaginary then God. Try again.

"LOL dragon, that's silly. Giant invisible wizard in the sky, totally different" has already been argued in this thread.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 26th March 2020, 01:52 PM   #1163
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,771
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Why should I ask a person that never provides answers? ; )
Why should you browbeat an innocent bystander for answers that aren't his responsibility to give, just because the responsible party is unresponsive?
theprestige 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 26th March 2020, 02:03 PM   #1164
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,703
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why should you browbeat an innocent bystander for answers that aren't his responsibility to give, just because the responsible party is unresponsive?
Because every time I've asked the "innocent bystander" (that started this thread) a direct question, the response has never been a direct answer.

  • Psion started and has been very active in this thread, and therefore isn't an "innocent bystander".
  • A person that starts a thread has a responsibility to be active in that thread.
  • Part of psion's "argument" is that "god is possible" but "dragon is just silly".
  • It therefore IS psion's responsibility to answer the question I asked.
  • Psion has been very responsive, but not with direct answers.
  • Pointing out a truth about the person that started this thread and has been very active in it isn't "browbeating an innocent bystander for answers that aren't his responsibility to give".
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 26th March 2020 at 02:20 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 26th March 2020, 02:22 PM   #1165
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,847
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Is there an omnipresent god in my garage?

Is there an omnipresent dragon in my garage?
By definition, yes, since both are omnipresent.

But I hold little hope that you will receive any reasonable reply from our protagonists.

If, as claimed, god COULD be out there hiding behind some random star, then that god is NOT omnipresent. And thus an attribute of the god has been claimed.

There is no route out of claiming to know stuff about the god and it's attributes.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 26th March 2020, 03:38 PM   #1166
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,703
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
By definition, yes, since both are omnipresent.

But I hold little hope that you will receive any reasonable reply from our protagonists.

If, as claimed, god COULD be out there hiding behind some random star, then that god is NOT omnipresent. And thus an attribute of the god has been claimed.

There is no route out of claiming to know stuff about the god and it's attributes.
"Yes" by definition, but not by any known, or known to be possible, reality.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 26th March 2020 at 03:40 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 26th March 2020, 03:43 PM   #1167
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,658
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Why should I ask a person that never provides answers?

You got me there - however, I think the point was made, yes?
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
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 26th March 2020, 03:44 PM   #1168
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,658
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why should you browbeat an innocent bystander for answers that aren't his responsibility to give, just because the responsible party is unresponsive?
He's not browbeating me.

I think you're losing something in translation here.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
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 26th March 2020, 04:08 PM   #1169
RedStapler
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Wow, coming from someone who couldn't give a straight answer to "Which God?", that shows a stunning lack of self-awareness!



Given your inability to cope with this point,

that would seem like a wasted effort.

So No, No and... No.

__________________
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Last edited by zooterkin; 27th March 2020 at 06:14 AM.
RedStapler 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 26th March 2020, 05:07 PM   #1170
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,847
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
"Yes" by definition, but not by any known, or known to be possible, reality.
And therein lies the problem. The god botherers claim to know such things. And we are forbidden from asking how they know these things because "gawwwwwwwd".
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 26th March 2020, 05:52 PM   #1171
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,575
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If an adult friend of yours told you that they have an invisible friend who follows them everywhere they go, protects them from harm, and talks to them when there is no-one else around, and you could tell they are not fooling - they genuinely believe this to be true, would you be at all concerned for their mental health?
Nah. Because by that frame I'm bonkers. I spent many years of my life talking to that Imaginary Friend and then my "one to confide in that is no one at all." Talking to the "universe" and that sort of thing.

As for someone who is hallucinating the fairy friend following hir around. That's a matter of concern for hir health.
This was not the case for me when I was a Theist. Nor is it the case for a single Theist I know.

Why is it necessary to equate God belief with Schizophrenia?
Is it to insist upon Atheism with the most possible force?
Honestly, I don't believe in Atheism. I'm just not a Theist.

My Buddhist opinion is that Theism is not optimally mentally healthy, as it's maintained by a lack of whole awareness. It's a delusion equal to that of thinking our self-identities are substantial.

I want to repeat this: Metaphysical beliefs and positions (including my own that dismisses the metaphysical for an affirmation of the empirical) are finally matters of preference. To insist upon a metaphysical position as if it were a dogmatic, unassailable truth, is a flaw in integrity bolstered by a lack of self-awareness of one's own proclivities to believe something.

Again, what most people have said here: being an atheist is simply not believing in the theistic Gods.

Having once been I Theist, I'm aware of why I was and the proclivity for some people to be very taken by the idea there is one.
It's a venial sin. A common meme infection. Yes, a mental impairment, but not clinically so. A delusion of course.
A spiritual impairment, even.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown

Last edited by Apathia; 26th March 2020 at 05:58 PM.
Apathia 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 26th March 2020, 06:35 PM   #1172
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 66,010
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
Where did I misrepresent someone else's point? Because that's what a strawman is.
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
They only do it because the fear being punished in the afterlife.
You have constructed an artificial argument, by making an invalid generalisation. You're implying that all religious people do good things only out of fear. That is not true, it is not something any theist will claim, it is a false argument.

If you don't like the word "strawman", then I suggest perhaps "invalid generalisation" would probably cover the bases.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot 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 26th March 2020, 06:53 PM   #1173
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,981
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You have constructed an artificial argument, by making an invalid generalisation. You're implying that all religious people do good things only out of fear. That is not true, it is not something any theist will claim, it is a false argument.

If you don't like the word "strawman", then I suggest perhaps "invalid generalisation" would probably cover the bases.

I feel compelled to say something in support of RedStapler here. Although it may be somewhat over the top, to suggest that religious people only do good things out of fear, it certainly is up there as a significant motivator - that and being given goodies as well of course.

The point has been made by many more famous than I of course. The good done by someone who may not be cringing in fear of retribution, or relishing the thought of eternal reward, may be regarded as more wholesome. Well it is by me anyway.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 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 26th March 2020, 06:55 PM   #1174
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,760
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
Nah. Because by that frame I'm bonkers.
"If X is Y then I must be X and that would make me sad so therefore X can't be Y" isn't an overwhelming argument.

And this is just yet another "Atheist are being mean" argument.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 26th March 2020, 07:01 PM   #1175
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 66,010
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I feel compelled to say something in support of RedStapler here. Although it may be somewhat over the top, to suggest that religious people only do good things out of fear, it certainly is up there as a significant motivator - that and being given goodies as well of course.

The point has been made by many more famous than I of course. The good done by someone who may not be cringing in fear of retribution, or relishing the thought of eternal reward, may be regarded as more wholesome. Well it is by me anyway.
As I said, I believe that it is, at best, a secondary motivator for most religious people.

Being given goodies is definitely a motivator for those believers in the Prosperity Gospel, of course.

And of course the argument has been made by more famous people. All the arguments have. No-one since Dennett has come up with a new argument against religion.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot 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 26th March 2020, 07:15 PM   #1176
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,760
The motive of the person who says there is a dragon in the garage has zero effect on the actual existence of a dragon in the garage.

We have two discussions running in parallel here with people shifting back and forth between the two without focus. I will, for the moment, give everyone the benefit of the doubt that it is not being done intentionally.

Me just saying "There is no God" isn't some attack on your religious freedom.

A simple, direct "There is no God" statement, one not worded as "It is my opinion that there is no God" or "I believe there is no God" nor any other passive, groveling, or wishy-wishy way is not some direct personal attack on anyone's right to believe in God.

The fact that so many people can't differentiate between "Someone disagrees with me about God" and this idea that atheist are jackbooted thugs who are going take you to prison for praying in your own homes says more about them then it does about us.

The martyr thing is both cliched and annoying which its coming from the overwhemingly dominate social group in America. You're like straight white males complaining you're the real minority.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 26th March 2020, 07:36 PM   #1177
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,575
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"If X is Y then I must be X and that would make me sad so therefore X can't be Y" isn't an overwhelming argument.

And this is just yet another "Atheist are being mean" argument.
Did you read my entire post?

There are some Theists who would say I was being "mean" for saying that Theism is a "spiritual impairment."

No, atheists are not mean. That's a sweeping categorization.
I don't like sweeping categorizations.
Some people are "mean" sometimes. Some people resort to sweeping categorizations that belittle others. But let me repeat, that's what people do. That's not atheism. That's not even theism.

And being honest with your Christian friend that you see hir beliefs as fantasies is not being mean but caring to be yourself with hir.

I recently told a Theist friend the same thing i did above about being in integrity with beliefs: that they are after all preferential as opposed to knowledge. He actually agreed with me.

We all believe stuff. But in the end people are more important than such stuff.

I've never been clinically insane, not as a theist, not as an atheist.
But I have no disagreement with you that as a Theist I was deluded.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia 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 26th March 2020, 08:43 PM   #1178
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,903
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Indeed. The age-old issue of attempting to "prove a negative". A more sensible stance would be to assume goats can't fly unless and until you receive evidence they can. Sighting a herd of goats soaring majestically aloft would be best, although some weight would be given to goat-teeth bitemarks on the tops of skyscrapers, or goat hoofprints on orbiting satellites. The question isn't really "can goats fly" but "do you have any reason to suppose goats can fly?" The former can never really be truly certain, whereas the latter is tailored to the building of practical working knowledge.
Every now and then you get some pearls of wisdom in this thread. You can take the same stance with gods without getting your knickers in a twist whenever somebody doesn't share that stance.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 26th March 2020, 08:45 PM   #1179
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,903
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A distinction with no difference.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 26th March 2020 at 08:53 PM.
psionl0 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 26th March 2020, 08:59 PM   #1180
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,903
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Is an omnipresent god in my garage more possible than an omnipresent dragon in my garage?
It's no wonder you don't want my answer. You wouldn't like to have it pointed out that there is no such thing as "more possible". There is only "possible" or "impossible".

If you meant to ask which is more probable * then I would go with the god. We know that the inventor of the analogy doesn't believe it for a millisecond. It was created purely to convince others that gods are silly.

* Of course I don't have any numbers.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 26th March 2020, 09:14 PM   #1181
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 66,010
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
We know that the inventor of the analogy doesn't believe it for a millisecond. It was created purely to convince others that gods are silly.
No, again, it would help a lot if you would actually read the chapter of the book that introduces the analogy and explores it in great detail.

The analogy was created to explain the concept of falsifiability in science.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot 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 26th March 2020, 09:21 PM   #1182
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,903
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No, again, it would help a lot if you would actually read the chapter of the book that introduces the analogy and explores it in great detail.

The analogy was created to explain the concept of falsifiability in science.
I can't read Carl Sagan's mind but I am pretty sure that he never believed it was possible that a dragon actually existed. It is also likely that he chose the most unbelievable analogy he could find to illustrate falsifiability.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 26th March 2020, 09:37 PM   #1183
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 66,010
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I can't read Carl Sagan's mind but I am pretty sure that he never believed it was possible that a dragon actually existed. It is also likely that he chose the most unbelievable analogy he could find to illustrate falsifiability.
Which it does extremely well, as you would know if you had read the chapter in which it was introduced.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot 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 26th March 2020, 09:38 PM   #1184
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 66,010
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I can't read Carl Sagan's mind but I am pretty sure that he never believed it was possible that a dragon actually existed. It is also likely that he chose the most unbelievable analogy he could find to illustrate falsifiability.
And wait a minute. In what way is it necessary for Sagan to have believed in dragons in order for him to make an analogy to illustrate the idea of falsifiability?
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot 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 26th March 2020, 09:39 PM   #1185
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,711
I think he used a dragon to make it obvious it was a metaphor. Like how Russell used a teapot, only for you to go and say, “interesting concept but, clearly you can see it doesn’t look so much like he has a point if, instead of a teapot, it’s just a bit of space rock.” (not a direct quote.)

Last edited by Lithrael; 26th March 2020 at 09:40 PM.
Lithrael 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 26th March 2020, 10:27 PM   #1186
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,903
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
And wait a minute. In what way is it necessary for Sagan to have believed in dragons in order for him to make an analogy to illustrate the idea of falsifiability?
Did you not see the word "never"?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 26th March 2020, 10:30 PM   #1187
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,903
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
I think he used a dragon to make it obvious it was a metaphor. Like how Russell used a teapot, only for you to go and say, “interesting concept but, clearly you can see it doesn’t look so much like he has a point if, instead of a teapot, it’s just a bit of space rock.” (not a direct quote.)
Cloaked alien space ships would have served the illustration about ad-hoc revisions and falsifiability equally well. The difference is that they seem more plausible than invisible dragons in the garage.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 26th March 2020 at 10:41 PM.
psionl0 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 26th March 2020, 11:52 PM   #1188
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,658
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
And wait a minute. In what way is it necessary for Sagan to have believed in dragons in order for him to make an analogy to illustrate the idea of falsifiability?
Its necessary in order for PsionIO to build a suffciently large strawman so that he can tout a total irrelevancy as another distraction from what this thread is really all about, i.e. poisoning the well of arguments and analogies against the possible existence of gods!
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
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 27th March 2020, 12:06 AM   #1189
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,160
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I can't read Carl Sagan's mind but I am pretty sure that he never believed it was possible that a dragon actually existed. It is also likely that he chose the most unbelievable analogy he could find to illustrate falsifiability.
Arti didn't suggest you read Sagan's mind, he suggested you read Sagan's words. Sometimes that can give you an insight into what someone thinks.

Where does your surety come from? How do you reach your conclusion about what he never believed?
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc 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 27th March 2020, 12:13 AM   #1190
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,903
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
And wait a minute. In what way is it necessary for Sagan to have believed in dragons in order for him to make an analogy to illustrate the idea of falsifiability?
Did you not see the word "never"?
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
* Pretends response doesn't exist *
Its necessary in order for PsionIO to build a suffciently large strawman so that he can tout a total irrelevancy as another distraction from what this thread is really all about, i.e. poisoning the well of arguments and analogies against the possible existence of gods!
I don't know how you breathe with all of the straw you have created.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 27th March 2020, 12:18 AM   #1191
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,903
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Arti didn't suggest you read Sagan's mind, he suggested you read Sagan's words.
Arth's response to "We know that the inventor of the analogy doesn't believe it for a millisecond" was a resounding "NO".

Just because I say "I can't read Carl Sagan's mind" doesn't mean that Arth even hinted that I should read his mind.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 27th March 2020, 12:29 AM   #1192
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,160
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Arth's response to "We know that the inventor of the analogy doesn't believe it for a millisecond" was a resounding "NO".

Just because I say "I can't read Carl Sagan's mind" doesn't mean that Arth even hinted that I should read his mind.
Then your inability to read Sagan's mind is irrelevant.

Given your failure to explain why you're so sure about Sagan's lack of belief, I'll put that down to a lack of sceptical inquiry. I think you're wrong.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc 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 27th March 2020, 01:16 AM   #1193
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,903
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Then your inability to read Sagan's mind is irrelevant.
Maybe so but you can be sure that some nit-picker will accuse me of doing so if I don't include that rider.

Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Given your failure to explain why you're so sure about Sagan's lack of belief, . . . .
Look at that! A nit-picker!
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 27th March 2020, 06:57 AM   #1194
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,160
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Maybe so but you can be sure that some nit-picker will accuse me of doing so if I don't include that rider.


Look at that! A nit-picker!
No I picked Thor. Nits are still available if you want them.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc 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 27th March 2020, 07:34 AM   #1195
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,378
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Arti didn't suggest you read Sagan's mind, he suggested you read Sagan's words. Sometimes that can give you an insight into what someone thinks.
The chapter in question has quite a bit to say about the prima facie plausibility of cloaked alien ships. It does help to read the book.

Last edited by JayUtah; 27th March 2020 at 07:56 AM.
JayUtah 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 27th March 2020, 07:36 AM   #1196
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,378
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Its necessary in order for PsionIO to build a suffciently large strawman...
Indeed. It's a lot easier to pretend Carl Sagan was trying to ridicule religions believers. All you have to do is walk off in a huff. It's a lot harder to discuss the points Sagan actually brings up in the 95% of the chapter that isn't the expostulation of the analogy, but which springs from it.
JayUtah 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 27th March 2020, 02:09 PM   #1197
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,981
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
As I said, I believe that it is, at best, a secondary motivator for most religious people.
Just where do you get these beliefs from arth?

On the one hand we have the clergy, promising salvation and rescue from damnation if you do as they say. Sure the damnation part may not be stressed quite so vigorously by some these days, but the salvation angle is just as strong as ever.

On the other hand we have arth saying the believers are not really motivated by these promises and threats, because well ........ feelings.

Quote:
Being given goodies is definitely a motivator for those believers in the Prosperity Gospel, of course.
The goodies I am talking about are after death goodies. You know: Nice harp and grovelling for eternity. Who could resist.

Quote:
And of course the argument has been made by more famous people. All the arguments have. No-one since Dennett has come up with a new argument against religion.
I will think on it really, really, hard, and see if I can come up with a few more.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 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 27th March 2020, 02:18 PM   #1198
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,658
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The chapter in question has quite a bit to say about the prima facie plausibility of cloaked alien ships. It does help to read the book.
In certainly does.

It is easy to tell from what some of the people here are posting that they have never actually read it (or at least if they have, they didn't understand it).

The OP is one of them.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 27th March 2020 at 02:21 PM.
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 27th March 2020, 02:18 PM   #1199
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Just where do you get these beliefs from arth?

On the one hand we have the clergy, promising salvation and rescue from damnation if you do as they say. Sure the damnation part may not be stressed quite so vigorously by some these days, but the salvation angle is just as strong as ever.

On the other hand we have arth saying the believers are not really motivated by these promises and threats, because well ........ feelings.



The goodies I am talking about are after death goodies. You know: Nice harp and grovelling for eternity. Who could resist.



I will think on it really, really, hard, and see if I can come up with a few more.
So far I have not read any arguments against religion - what I have seen are attempts to stop theist arguments (lack of evidence, prime mover, first cause) . . . stop them cold in their tracks.
An example argument against religion is the existence of evil/suffering.
LarryS 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 27th March 2020, 02:41 PM   #1200
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,981
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
So far I have not read any arguments against religion - what I have seen are attempts to stop theist arguments (lack of evidence, prime mover, first cause) . . . stop them cold in their tracks.
An example argument against religion is the existence of evil/suffering.

Really? I am flabbergasted.

You haven't heard of all the bloodshed caused in the name of religion for example?

Oh! I have just thought of what be a new one. A new argument for arth that is:

In the shadow of the spread of coronavirus, some religious leaders are inspiring their flock to gather together, in defiance of common sense and directives from government authority.

I do wonder at the severity of the spread in Italy and Spain. Both strongly Catholic countries. Multiple finger dippings in holy water by the door, wafers being placed on tongues by priests, kissings of holy hands, ........
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 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
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 01:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.