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 17th March 2020, 09:03 AM   #401
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,625
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Denying an Abrahamic God or Zeus is fair play. But in your opinion, is categorically denying a prime mover out of hand covered by the same argument? Honest question, not bait.
What's a "prime mover" sincerely asking as I can't work it out from the context.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 17th March 2020, 09:06 AM   #402
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,625
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
The Invisible Dragon argument seems to demonstrate that one untestable/unprovable premise should not be privileged. But a prime mover would by its nature untestable, so it would seem that the Dragon is not a valid analogy. Yet many atheists champion this particular argument as a slam dunk against any form of entity beyond spacetime (it's own creation, which I would think it would logically not be found within).
Why would it be untestable? Sounds like you are defining it as being untestable, which is akin to an ontological argument.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 17th March 2020, 09:06 AM   #403
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,625
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Not really a wild ass guess. Casualty is a thing. 'Everything was always there' is not much more persuasive than prime mover.
Is there stuff here, right now?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 17th March 2020, 09:24 AM   #404
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,942
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Not really a wild ass guess. Casualty is a thing. 'Everything was always there' is not much more persuasive than prime mover.
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Pushing the question back to where did the prime mover come from, thanks causality. The prime mover is ‘everything was always there’ with more steps.
Religious persons tend to suggest that God has always existed and he created everything. Because their logic requires that some being created the matter.

Me, I believe that the total of all the matter/energy has always existed. I see no reason to believe otherwise. Everything I know about physics and chemistry demonstrates how matter and energy transforms into other forms of matter and energy.

Now I cannot say with 100 percent certainty there wasn't such a being/prime mover. There may have been. Although I doubt it. It seems that just complicates the question. It also seems as if the idea was pulled out of one's ass.

You see WE KNOW that matter and energy exist. That some kind of natural phenomenon was the force behind ignition of the Big Bang while very interesting doesn't require an extraordinary extraneous complex being that seems forever hidden. A being who's existence requires of course, the necessity of explaining it's existence.

But the real mystery to me is how anyone can say with a straight face that THEY KNOW said being exists and that he has a plan for our lives.

And that plan requires that we live in a certain manner. That we praise this imaginary being non-stop, that we cut off pieces of our bits and pieces, that we wear or don't wear certain clothes, how we tend to our crops, who we have sex with and and in what position and who we should give offerings to.

Well. I am sorry, I don't believe them.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 17th March 2020, 09:43 AM   #405
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,814
Yeah, the idea of a prime mover where that’s all it does/is, is less silly on its face than a god who cares what you do with your willy. But it’s still an idea without any weight over any other until there’s some way to test it, and it introduces all the completely opaque problems of what it is and where it came from and why it does anything.

If you imagine the universe as something that happened on purpose, and try to guess what the purpose was, wouldn’t you end up guessing ‘stars’ as that’s what it’s got in spades? Or something like that? My garden happened on purpose and the goal was ‘plants’ not ‘slugs.’ Though I don’t mind the slugs.

Last edited by Lithrael; 17th March 2020 at 09:51 AM.
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 17th March 2020, 09:45 AM   #406
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 55,320
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Is there stuff here, right now?
How would you know if there were stuff here right now or not?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 17th March 2020, 09:49 AM   #407
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,942
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No way! None of the atheists in this thread are saying "meh". They are vehemently denying the existence of all gods.
Here's the thing Psion. It's not that I can say with 100 percent certainty that there is no god. But can say with 100 percent certainty there is no reason to believe there is one.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 17th March 2020, 09:52 AM   #408
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,814
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Here's the thing Psion. It's not that I can say with 100 percent certainty that there is no god. But can say with 100 percent certainty there is no reason to believe there is one.
Hilites and underlines!!
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 17th March 2020, 09:57 AM   #409
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,989
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
For the sake of a discussion thread, I prefer not to argue by proxy. The OP seems to ask if any/all gods are logically disproved by the Dragon. I think not. I think the analogy describes an atheists position neatly, but simply does not accept the premise of [any type of] prime mover. Hence, the Invisible Dragon is not usefully as a proof, which is what I think the OP is getting at.
Much of this thread has tried to clarify for the Opening Poster what the Invisible Dragon In My Garage (IDIMG) is meant to show and what is is not meant to show. There are really two elements of it.

The Sagan segment is that as the logical consequences of proposing a specific god are each demonstrated to not occur, thus disproving that god's existence, theists invent new properties to slide out from the disproof. Sagan writes that this is no different from proposing an IDIMG and countering each argument the same way. "Wouldn't you detect the heat? Oh no, my IDIMG has an ice cube in his fire breathing mouth...."

But the second part of the IDIMG analogy is a broader consequence of the argument: one has no more reason to believe in a god than to believe in an IDIMG. If you think me proposing an IDIMG is silly than how can you say that you proposing a god is not just as silly? They are equally unprovable and both created strictly from imagination.

No the IDIMG does not disprove the existence of a god or of gods. It is not intended to, and this has been stated by the atheists here. It simply states that believing in a god is no different from believing in an IDIMG. Instead of accepting peaceful coexistence of both beliefs, for some reason that really annoys some theists...

Last edited by Giordano; 17th March 2020 at 11:57 AM.
Giordano 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 17th March 2020, 10:05 AM   #410
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,989
In many ways the invisible dragon argument parallels the observation that atheists are not that different from many theists. Many theists believe in their own particular god and reject the hundreds of gods proposed by all the other religions throughout time; atheists simply believe in one less god that that.
Giordano 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 17th March 2020, 10:07 AM   #411
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,989
Damn it - stop the discussion. I just found the invisible dragon in my garage. He was eating a sock from my clothes drier.

Finally I understand why I have so many unpaired socks in my drawer.
Giordano 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 17th March 2020, 10:11 AM   #412
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 55,320
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No way! None of the atheists in this thread are saying "meh". They are vehemently denying the existence of all gods.
Actually, I'm saying "meh". I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in any particular deities hitherto conjectured by humans. If there were something deity-like I believe it would necessarily be totally incomprehensible to humans, therefore we can't even conceive of it. Which means it wouldn't matter to us whether it existed or not. We'd be literally incapable of knowing it. Therefore no action we could ever take and no thought we could ever have would be impacted by the deity-thing's existence. Which makes its existence or non-existence functionally identical to us.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 17th March 2020, 10:31 AM   #413
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,300
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Everybody should regard untestable claims as silly, and not make them.

Everybody should regard claims that become untestable through ad hoc revision as silly, and not indulge in ad hoc revision to avoid tests of their claims.

Speculating about the untestable is fine, in my opinion. Also in my opinion, the analogy is not about speculation, but about claims. Would you agree that speculating about untestable things is not silly, but claiming they exist is silly?
I would go along with that. Considering something that is untestable is not necessarily silly in itself (unless it's an invisible dragon) but presenting it as a fact is.

I'm not so convinced about the "ad hoc revision" though. Even if an idea is untestable, it is likely that in the process of consideration some aspects may prove inconsistent with other knowledge. Revising the aspects in some cases may be just as valid as totally discarding the core.
__________________
"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 17th March 2020, 10:31 AM   #414
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,625
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Actually, I'm saying "meh". I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in any particular deities hitherto conjectured by humans. If there were something deity-like I believe it would necessarily be totally incomprehensible to humans, therefore we can't even conceive of it. Which means it wouldn't matter to us whether it existed or not. We'd be literally incapable of knowing it. Therefore no action we could ever take and no thought we could ever have would be impacted by the deity-thing's existence. Which makes its existence or non-existence functionally identical to us.
Well put.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 17th March 2020, 10:32 AM   #415
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,625
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
How would you know if there were stuff here right now or not?
I look, I touch, I hear



I get arrested..
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 17th March 2020 at 10:34 AM. Reason: .
Darat 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 17th March 2020, 10:34 AM   #416
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,300
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Actually, I'm saying "meh". I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in any particular deities hitherto conjectured by humans. If there were something deity-like I believe it would necessarily be totally incomprehensible to humans, therefore we can't even conceive of it. Which means it wouldn't matter to us whether it existed or not. We'd be literally incapable of knowing it. Therefore no action we could ever take and no thought we could ever have would be impacted by the deity-thing's existence. Which makes its existence or non-existence functionally identical to us.
I should have anticipated that if I started a sentence with "none of the atheists . . ." that an exception would come along that proves the rule.

You appear to be more level headed than some in this thread and I should give due recognition of that.
__________________
"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 17th March 2020, 10:36 AM   #417
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,625
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I should have anticipated that if I started a sentence with "none of the atheists . . ." that an exception would come along that proves the rule.

You appear to be more level headed than some in this thread and I should give due recognition of that.
Out of sheer curiosity, since you are not labelling yourself as an atheist which god do you believe?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 17th March 2020, 11:02 AM   #418
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,654
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Depends.

If you are proposing the existence of life from outside our planet or dark matter or some unknown phenomenon that might be testable at some future time. Then no.
A hypothesis about a testable property that could potentially be tested at a later date is not the same thing as a claim that an untestable property exists.

I think this discussion depends very much on everyone being clear about the difference between speculation, proposals, and claims.
theprestige 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 17th March 2020, 11:09 AM   #419
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,197
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not really. Dictionaries only give a rough outline for example:

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2.

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. "a moon god"

As you can see the dictionary definition refers you to the religion for the specific definition.
Okay, I disagree with your characterisation of the definitions given as a rough outline and as referring on to the religion for a specific definition. Clearly we're not using language in the same way, so I'll call a halt here.
__________________
"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 17th March 2020, 11:10 AM   #420
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,654
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I would go along with that. Considering something that is untestable is not necessarily silly in itself (unless it's an invisible dragon) but presenting it as a fact is.

I'm not so convinced about the "ad hoc revision" though. Even if an idea is untestable, it is likely that in the process of consideration some aspects may prove inconsistent with other knowledge. Revising the aspects in some cases may be just as valid as totally discarding the core.
Ad hoc revisions in the context of this discussion are revisions made not on the basis of experiment and evidence, but in order to persist in a claim of existence, in the face of contrary evidence.

"Here is a god."

"I don't see it."

"It's an invisible god."

"I don't hear it."

"It's a silent god."

"What about the miracles?"

"The god works in mysterious ways. You can't see the miracles."

Revising one's predictions of phenomena, based on experimentation and evidence, is science. Revising one's claim of existence ad hoc, to dismiss clear evidentiary problems with the original claim, is silliness. In the above exchange, the scientific conclusion is that the god probably doesn't exist, based on iterative revision from new evidence. The unscientific silliness is the persistence of the claim, through ad hoc revision of the expectation of evidence.

Last edited by theprestige; 17th March 2020 at 11:12 AM.
theprestige 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 17th March 2020, 11:15 AM   #421
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,345
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I would go along with that. Considering something that is untestable is not necessarily silly in itself (unless it's an invisible dragon) but presenting it as a fact is.

I'm not so convinced about the "ad hoc revision" though. Even if an idea is untestable, it is likely that in the process of consideration some aspects may prove inconsistent with other knowledge. Revising the aspects in some cases may be just as valid as totally discarding the core.
An invisible dragon is silly, but an invisible god is not silly? Can you justify that assertion?

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I should have anticipated that if I started a sentence with "none of the atheists . . ." that an exception would come along that proves the rule.

You appear to be more level headed than some in this thread and I should give due recognition of that.
"the exception proves the rule" intends "prove" in it's original sense of "tests".

Surely you know that? Apparently not.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
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 17th March 2020, 11:18 AM   #422
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,913
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
An invisible dragon is silly, but an invisible god is not silly? Can you justify that assertion?
I love how we're now in a second thread about this and we still haven't got an answer.

Psion essentially started a call-out thread about a question he still hasn't answered.

Psion. The question ask in the title of this thread is "Are Gods like Invisible Dragons in the Garage."

I've got a great idea. Why don't you tell us how they are different? If you can't, you have your answer.

An answer you will not accept to a question that you will pretend was never asked, and keep going forward but still...
__________________
- "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 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 17th March 2020, 11:18 AM   #423
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,133
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I should have anticipated that if I started a sentence with "none of the atheists . . ." that an exception would come along that proves the rule.
Except that every single poster who responded to you is an "exception", proving instead that your rule is bunk.

Did you not read those responses or are you deliberately misrepresenting your critics?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 17th March 2020, 01:28 PM   #424
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,942
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A hypothesis about a testable property that could potentially be tested at a later date is not the same thing as a claim that an untestable property exists.

I think this discussion depends very much on everyone being clear about the difference between speculation, proposals, and claims.
The thing about the god proposition is that theists almost universally make the definition of their god or gods untestable. He's timeless, he exists outside of time and space. If something exists for no time and and occupies no space, what the hell is that?

And when you give something a property like that, you're not really saying what it is but what it isn't. This is hardly helpful.

What annoyed me the most about the religion I was raised and baptized in was the insistence that God is not to be tested and mocking the the desire for evidence. Such as doubting Thomas
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 17th March 2020, 01:41 PM   #425
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,345
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Such as doubting Thomas
Sure, Thomas is denigrated, but became blessed once evidence was provided to him. It says so in the magic book. Bout why has no evidence been provided since then (assuming the account is vaguely accurate)

"Finger in the wound" was required for Thomas. "Damascus Road" was required for Saul. And then god........stopped for some reason?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
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 17th March 2020, 02:00 PM   #426
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,654
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The thing about the god proposition is that theists almost universally make the definition of their god or gods untestable. He's timeless, he exists outside of time and space. If something exists for no time and and occupies no space, what the hell is that?

And when you give something a property like that, you're not really saying what it is but what it isn't. This is hardly helpful.

What annoyed me the most about the religion I was raised and baptized in was the insistence that God is not to be tested and mocking the the desire for evidence. Such as doubting Thomas
In the context of this discussion, I don't care about any of that. If you have a specific example of a specific god claim that's relevant to the invisible dragon rebuttal, feel free to bring it up here. If you're going to reply to my posts with generalized anti-theist rants, I'd rather you didn't.
theprestige 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 17th March 2020, 02:01 PM   #427
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,189
Well levitation was common in the past it seems and I suppose God had a hand in this. Some 200 or so saints are on record as levitators in the past. One of the most famous and recent was St. Joseph of Cupertino, only 400 years ago, who used to fly down the road to get lunch for himself and his fellow monks.

I suppose we should be thankful levitators are not around any more. They would give air traffic controllers a headache I imagine.
__________________
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 17th March 2020, 02:16 PM   #428
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,832
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Ball's in your court . . .
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You can play chicken and egg if you like but it doesn't change the fact that the silliness of any notion of gods is not proven by the silliness of the analogy and it doesn't change the fact that other, less silly, analogies could just as easily illustrated the futility of trying to test for the presence or absence of gods.
Silly me, obviously the ball is never in your court because you’re never actually on the court or even playing the game. You’re merely standing on the sideline shouting at those that are on the court playing the game that they’re doing it all wrong and aren’t following your DIY rules that no one else applies to the game.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural 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; 17th March 2020 at 02:21 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 17th March 2020, 02:25 PM   #429
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,345
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
In the context of this discussion, I don't care about any of that. If you have a specific example of a specific god claim that's relevant to the invisible dragon rebuttal, feel free to bring it up here. If you're going to reply to my posts with generalized anti-theist rants, I'd rather you didn't.
That's the problem. Psion is claiming the possibility of a god with no definition AT ALL. What is one to do with that kind of claim? Furthermore, psion claims attributes for this potential god and then denies doing so. What is one to do with those claims?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
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 17th March 2020, 02:27 PM   #430
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,832
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
That's the problem. Psion is claiming the possibility of a god with no definition AT ALL. What is one to do with that kind of claim? Furthermore, psion claims attributes for this potential god and then denies doing so. What is one to do with those claims?
Ignore them, and those like psionl0 that make them?

Edited by zooterkin: 
Fixed member's name. Please be careful when addressing other members; if in doubt about the spelling, use cut & paste.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural 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 zooterkin; 19th March 2020 at 11:14 AM.
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 17th March 2020, 02:34 PM   #431
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,654
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
That's the problem. Psion is claiming the possibility of a god with no definition AT ALL. What is one to do with that kind of claim? Furthermore, psion claims attributes for this potential god and then denies doing so. What is one to do with those claims?
Not spiral off into generalized anti-theist rants would be a good start, IMO.
theprestige 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 17th March 2020, 02:35 PM   #432
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,942
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
In the context of this discussion, I don't care about any of that. If you have a specific example of a specific god claim that's relevant to the invisible dragon rebuttal, feel free to bring it up here. If you're going to reply to my posts with generalized anti-theist rants, I'd rather you didn't.
Huh? You do get that the invisible dragon is a placeholder/analogy/metaphor for the theistic god claims? That the Abrahamic God is as untestable and unfalsifiable as the invisible dragon. Or do you disagree?
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.


There's a principle in business. It's called "due diligence". I'm sure you are familiar with it. I bet you have performed the process. What's wrong with requiring it on something as foundational as religion? Is it really wrong to want and need evidence? Do you really believe that the faith of babes is more valuable than skepticism and critical thinking skills of an intellectual?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by zooterkin; 19th March 2020 at 11:10 AM.
acbytesla 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 17th March 2020, 02:43 PM   #433
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,832
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not spiral off into generalized anti-theist rants would be a good start, IMO.
Being anti-theism isn't necessarily being anti-theist. But don't let that stop you from talking it all so personally. Emotionally held beliefs tend to be emotionally defended.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
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 17th March 2020, 02:44 PM   #434
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 55,320
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure, Thomas is denigrated, but became blessed once evidence was provided to him. It says so in the magic book. Bout why has no evidence been provided since then (assuming the account is vaguely accurate)

"Finger in the wound" was required for Thomas.
It's a universal truth in every religion that you get special treatment if you give your god a good fingering. Hell, it's true in most corporations, too.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 17th March 2020, 02:47 PM   #435
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,832
Gods are like dragons because there’s no evidence or sane reason to believe or conclude either actually exist.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural 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; 17th March 2020 at 02:49 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 17th March 2020, 02:52 PM   #436
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 55,320
Smile

Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Gods are like dragons because there’s no evidence or sane reason to believe or conclude either actually exist.
You suuuuure?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg komododragon.jpg (57.0 KB, 3 views)
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 17th March 2020, 02:57 PM   #437
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,832
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You suuuuure?
Yes! That's not an invisible, undetectable dragon. Try again . . .
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
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 17th March 2020, 02:59 PM   #438
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,654
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Huh? You do get that the invisible dragon is a placeholder/analogy/metaphor for the theistic god claims?
I don't get that at all. The way I see it, the dragon is a rebuttal to specific claims that evolve into untestability through ad hoc revision. This includes specific claims about specific gods, as well as other kinds of woo claims.

I don't see the point of a generalized anti-theism rant. If you're not bringing a specific example to examine against the dragon, or addressing psion's quibbles about the dragon rebuttal itself, why post them?

Quote:
That the Abrahamic God is as untestable and unfalsifiable as the invisible dragon. Or do you disagree?
It's been a while since I've looked at the claimed properties of the Abrahamic God. Certainly nobody in this thread has made any such claim. So why bring it up?

Quote:
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
I've been here all along. Don't mistake me pushing back on your generalized rants for some defense of theism. I'm just not interested in them, is all. There's a lot of stuff I'm opposed to, without wanting my day to be filled up with people ranting about them. Sometimes it's nice to leave that animosity at the door, and have a more focused discussion of some aspect of rational thought.

Quote:
There's a principle in business. It's called "due diligence". I'm sure you are familiar with it. I bet you have performed the process. What's wrong with requiring it on something as foundational as religion? Is it really wrong to want and need evidence? Do you really believe that the faith of babes is more valuable than skepticism and critical thinking skills of an intellectual?
This is why I don't like generalized rants intruding into focused discussion. None of this has anything to do with what we're talking about. You're inventing a whole position for me that I don't actually hold, have never expressed, and which isn't even relevant to the conversation we've been having.

Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Being anti-theism isn't necessarily being anti-theist. But don't let that stop you from talking it all so personally. Emotionally held beliefs tend to be emotionally defended.
Your nitpick is noted. I'm not taking it personally, though. Are you sure you understand the nature of my objection? Or are you actually (and ironically) trying to make this about me personally?

Last edited by zooterkin; 19th March 2020 at 11:11 AM.
theprestige 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 17th March 2020, 03:00 PM   #439
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,654
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Gods are like dragons because there’s no evidence or sane reason to believe or conclude either actually exist.
This is too broad. The dragon rebuttal is directed at specific claims, not general hand-waving.
theprestige 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 17th March 2020, 03:10 PM   #440
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,832
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This is too broad. The dragon rebuttal is directed at specific claims, not general hand-waving.
Rubbish! The "specific claims" of the "dragon rebuttal" are that all claimed god properties apply equally to dragons.

Given "there’s no evidence or sane reason to believe or conclude either actually exist", it's all merely brain-wanking (hand-waving if you prefer).
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural 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; 17th March 2020 at 03:12 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
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 08:32 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.