You aren’t admitting to trolling, are you? You just meant to be gratuitously insulting, right?
Yes, you’ve said that a lot. But it doesn’t deal with the issue we were discussing.
Which can involve reconciling contradictory beliefs. So you are admitting that some religious teachings contradict others?
The feeling is moochal, but you keep retreating to these comments whenever people try to debate a point you’ve made.
You talk an awful lot about “them,” but so far you’ve only bestowed this title on FinnAgain (to annoy him) and Der Trihs. Can you name some others? I think you’ve pitted your idea of what these people are like, but I don’t know how many people are actually like this.
It would be less of an issue if you didn’t keep dodging questions.
Why so defensive? I think we’re having a discussion here, and despite what you say, your views are an issue. You started this thing, for crying out loud.
You think everything is telling. You rarely say what it’s telling or why, but everything’s telling. Of course this thing turned around to your views. You started the Pitting, why wouldn’t people respond to you and ask you what you think or why you’ve posted it? You have to understand this: you don’t own this topic.
I’m a sensitive guy and a good listener, or so I’m told. This is a criticism?
Also : if you intend to be a jerk, and have no qualm admitting you’re one, maybe you should refrain from pitting other people.
Well, all the quotes he started this from were from me save one from NinjaChick. I don’t know where he got the idea that I’m one of a horde.
Also, as others have said, getting angry because I ( or anyone ) argue for what I believe in a forum dedicated to debate is foolish. That’s what it’s for.
Actually, no. The Aztec sacrificees were believers in the same religious tradition as the sacrificers.
“All paths are equally valid” sounds nice in theory, but real-world religions make contradictory claims about the nature of the universe. Some religions may be true and some religions may be false. Or maybe all of them are false. But it’s logically impossible for all of them to be true.
(And UU isn’t a get-out-of-jail free card in this respect. Most religions reject the idea that “all paths are valid”. Maybe the UUs are right and the other religions are wrong, but that brings us right back to square one: it’s impossible for all religions to be true.)
The question then is “Which religions are false”? We know logically that some of them are. This is not an insignificant question. According to some religions picking incorrectly can result in an eternity of pain and suffering. If those religions are correct about how the universe works then its very, very important that we recognize them as being true.
But how are we to decide which religions are true and which are false? Followers of different beliefs seem equally committed to the truth of their particular claims. The Muslims say one thing. The Christians another. The Hindus another. All of them with great conviction. Clearly the strength of a theist’s faith cannot be a good guide to whether or not his claims about the nature of the universe are correct.
Usually in situations where people have contradictory hypotheses we turn to empirical evidence to resolve the discrepency. Unfortunately, in the case of religion, there is none. We have no objective means to discover whether the Christians are correct and the Muslims wrong, or vice versa.
(This lack of evidence is kind of odd when you think about it. Most theists believe in an active deity or deities that respond to prayers and intercede in the world on a daily basis. You would think that we would be able to detect physical evidence of so pervasive a presence. Maybe the religions that propose an active god are among the false ones?)
Dude, you started this thread! If you don’t want to debate belief vs. nonbelief don’t start threads bashing atheists!
Maybe somewhere there’s an atheist haranging people on a street corner, but mostly what you call “evangelical atheism” seems to be non-believers RESPONDING to believers. If you don’t want me to get all atheist on your ass, keep your religion to yourself!
Just wanted to apologize to the decent folks in this thread for losing my cool and lowering the tone of the rebuttal by doing so. I shouldn’t have let myself get baited and I’m sure that one of the results of ‘having my chain pulled’ is that our OP will now claim that I’m an exemplar of the ‘angry atheist’ who is just out and out determined to crush all theists everywhere.
I think I’ll refrain from posting to this thread for a lil’ while.
If God is an active part of the universe, then he’s also an active part of our minds/brains. Surely the man knows how to cover his tracks and gloss over his interferences with things like “science” or “insanity.” Not that I necessarily think this, but I’ve always thought that the “you can’t see him” proof of the existence of God was a little wonky. Pervasive means pervasive.
Finally we can call an end to this stupid thread. You have now shown why atheists would be hesitant to send their kids to Sunday school.
I would respond to this, but I suspect that reasoning with people like you would be as fruitful as persuading John Wayne Gacy not to fuck and kill little boys.
I didn’t pick that particular comparison to insult you; nope. It’s just an attempt to make you understand that I don’t think discourse with you would be rewarding. Really.
What non-material entity would you prefer we use as examples in our arguments? Do you find Thor insulting? Ahura Mazda? Marduk? Quetzlcoatl? Baron Samedi? Mithra? Thoth? Are any of these acceptable?
Well, yes, now you’re getting it.
Sorry, but you can’t open the box. That’s tough shit for both of us: the guy claiming there’s a spoon, and you the guy claiming there isn’t. BOTH of our claims are unproven and thus useless.
It’s true that that sort of goal-changing excuse is pretty stupid and lazy. Unfortunately, it’s not strictly illogical. It’s not either true or untrue.
So, prior to the knowledge of there being such things as quantum states, was the claim that there were… false? That seems pretty wacky.
I know: pretty pussyshit isn’t it? Unfortunately, that’s not an excuse for going too far and jumping to conclusions yourself.
Try empirical skepticism. It puts you in exactly the same position, only without the nasty overreaching.
Bingo!
No, I’m well within my rights to say “I don’t believe it.” Making statements about truth or falsity of my own incurrs my own burden of proof. And frankly, I don’t really want to waste my time testing your car for tortured souls. So I use the burden of proof to throw the claim back on you. I DON’T shoulder my own burden of proof to have to prove you wrong.
Correct. And “God does not exist” or “it is false that god exists” is a claim. With it’s own burden of proof. Why go there?
Where the hell did you get this crazy idea? Again, please get this into your head: the falsity of a statement is itself a claim. Every claim has a negation. And every counter claim also has a negation. Negative claims aren’t special “burden of proof immune” statements.
I can either claim that the box contains a spoon or claim that the box is without a spoon. The second claim isn’t immune from the burden of proof just because it’s a negation of the first claim.
ANYONE that makes a statement, yes. You aren’t exempt just because you tihnk you’re a kickass guy.
I don’t know what reserving judgement is all about. You simply needn’t believe it. End of story. Not run around claiming that it is false. If there’s no evidence for it then there’s no point in considering it’s truth value because the point is moot. If you want to make statements about it’s truth value (whether true or false) then you incurr a burden of proof. Sorry.
That’s statistics, not logic, sorry.
Nope. The physical world is due to physical processes? Right, and locomotives run on “elan locomotiff!” Very helpful.
The most basic point of ontology is that it’s a bunch of meaningless masturbatory nonsense that no one understands.
If that’s how you define the universe, I guess, but that’s a pretty useless definition. And most physcists discussing multiverses would disagree.
This is about as instructive as someone trying to explain what the trinity is or how Jesus’ sacrifice somehow forgives all humans.
Extrordinary claims do require strong evidence. But that doesn’t mean that counter-claims require NO evidence, as you seem to be arguing for.
Well yes: that’s the basic premise of non-cognitivism. And it is commonly a major problem with theist claims. But not all, and that’s not what we are talking about here: we’re talking about unprovable statements, not unintelligible ones.
Discussions of truth don’t have H[sub]0[/sub]s. The default position is universal skepticism: i.e. not accepting the truth or falsity of any claim. Empiricism work UPWARDS from there (alternatively, ontology claims to work DOWNWARDS from there, which is part of the reason it’s generally such a waste of hot air).
Aww gee thanks mister.
Bull, followed by shit.
Physics works quite well.
To borrow a phrase you use later: get it through your head that I am not making a claim, simply stating the null hypothesis.
Null hypothesis.
“Gorillas control the weather through psychic powers.”
H[sub]0[/sub]= the weather is influenced solely by physical means and gorillas do nothing.
It isn’t an argument.
It’s the null hypothesis.
You don’t say, you don’t have to shoulder a burden of proof to prove me wrong, and the entire burden of proof rests on me, eh? You don’t even need to test my claim, eh? 
So what’s the null hypothesis there? That the car runs via physical causes?(which by the way is not a contradiction as you’d like to claim. A physical car running on an internal combustion engine isn’t exactly a paradox.)
Or is the null hypothesis that “well, maybe it does run on the tortured souls of the damned, and darnit, we just can’t be sure?”
This, of couse ignores the fact that ‘souls’, ‘damned’ and ‘torured souls’ are undefined and undefineable. The null hypothesis is that these bits of mere semantic noise not only are meaningless but, as such, do not refer to anything in Reality. As such, H[sub]0[/sub]= the car does not run on the tortured souls of the damned.
As was already pointed out by another Doper, it’s not a ‘claim’, it’s the null hypothesis. H[sub]0[/sub] = “the drug works the same as a placebo” is not a statement which has a burden of proof or must be defended, it is the null hypothesis which must be disproven before alternate hypotheses may be advanced.
Into my head? My head is protected!
The null hypothesis must be refuted by those advancing a positive claim, it does not have to be defended.
It’s the null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis does not have a burden of proof attatched to it.
It’s the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis must be disproven before you can accept the positive hypothesis. The null hypothesis does not need to be defended as is merely the ‘default’ position before inquiry is conducted.
Blarg.
I do not need to prove H[sub]0[/sub] = “The actions of the drug are the same as a placebo.”
The person advancing a contrary claim must, instead, disprove H[sub]0[/sub] and provide proof for their alternate claim.
Do we normally not believe true things, or false things? Is the assumption that a claim made which is not true… is false? If it it meaningless it’s not even a claim, just noise. As such it not only has no meaning, it can’t possibly be true. So then not only is it safe to say “there is no God” (as the H[sub]0[/sub]) but also “the idea of God is meaningless and mere noise.”
We don’t need to test meaningless phrases for a truth value. They can’t be true or false, they’re just babbling. So one doesn’t even need to disprove them, as there’s nothing disprove, or to prove, for that matter.
Your apology is unnecessary, as you’re wrong 
If it’s meaningless not only is there no evidence, there’s no real statement, just noise. I am not obligated to disprove that there are “colorless green dreams which sleep furiously.” We simply assume that it’s a nonsense phrase that doesn’t refer to anything in Reality. Much like “there is a God.”
“That’s water, not wet.”
Isn’t it though?
My car runs on internal combustion. Light bulbs run on electricity. Sound is carried through the air via waves. A bullet is propelled from the gun via a chemical reaction.
Physical events, due to physical properties.
I ask again, what H[sub]0[/sub] would you use for the physical world?
I have no idea why you added the last four words.
Do you think it’s possible to ‘understand’ “meaningless masturbatory nonsense”? Are we obligated to disprove the meaningless masturbatory nonsense", or do we just assume that it doesn’t refer to anything in Reality?
Oh? I generally make sure to stay up on physics and I’ve read nothing to support your interpretation. If there are multiverses then they are all conatined in Universe. Universe simply becomes the sum-total of Multiverse. There’s still no possibility of anything which is ‘outside’ of the Totality.
Nope.
Try to explain the concept of ‘burning’ without relying on the physcial concept of ‘oxidation’. You’ll have trouble doing so unless you claim there are invisible Fire Demons or something of the sort.
I’m all for good debate, but honestly, it seems that you’re arguing simply for the sake of argument. If physical laws do not govern physical phenomena, what do?
Null hypothesis.
It doesn’t have to be proven, it has to be disproven. And H[sub]0[/sub] is not assumed to be ‘true’ in the same way a claim is, it is simply the default assumption which must be disproven.
They’re often the same thing. Except, of course, meaningless statements aren’t just ‘unprovable’, they’re, as the word suggests, meaningless. They don’t refer to anything in Reality. They’re just noise.
I am no more obligated to refute or consider as a possibility the phrases “colorless green dreams sleep furiously” or “there is a God” then I must for “Bow wow woof woof.”
Yes, they do.
Nope.
If we’ve already done the research and we know how a lightbulb works, I can safely discount the statement “Wuzzarbs cause fluzzigitz to cubbartazg in the bulb, causing light.” Not only is it meaningless it attempts to contradict what we already know.
The Baron says he’s cool with you using any of those others, but to please leave him out of this.
I was going to let this slide, but… naw.
Are you honestly unable to see the difference between attacking a person, and disagreeing with a belief?
Nobody here, to my knowledge, has even said that theists are stupid, irrational, or incapable of seeing the logic of the a-theists arguments. Simply that one belief that the theists hold doesn’t have any more supporting evidence than pixies, elves, the Green Man, Thor, etc…
The fact that you react to a challenge of your beliefs by going ballistic is… intersting.
And I’ll ask you again, but I’m not sure you’ll answer:
Why is the concept of “God” any different than pixies, elves, the Green Man, Horus, Odin, Zeus, Ahriman, etc… ? Can you answer without getting flecks of foam all over the place? You discount other religions as ‘fairy tailes’ (oooh, are you attacking people personally or their ideas? You bad bad man you!), but you hold yours as a sacred cow. Can you honestly not understand why to someone who doesn’t have your faith, there is no substantive difference between any religion or old religions which are now termed “myths” and “fairy tails”?
You accuse others of not wanting to get into an honest discussion, and yet you take criticism of a belief personally and demand that yours be taken, as a given, to have a firm ontological footing, in the same breath as you belittle the beliefs of some neo-pagans.
You demand that, in a debate, people place your unfounded, untestable, unrefutable, meaningless claims on the same level as proof as things we actually know about, as a given. As if tossing around words like ‘sublime’ and ‘transcendent’ could replace a coherent logical position. And you claim that if those who you’re debating view your ideas in the context of other unfounded, untestable, unrefutable, meaningless claims then they’re personally attacking you.
And you still don’t have a logical justification, just anger.