10 Things We Should Know About Atheists

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
Sstavix wrote:You sound like my wife.

But it is an answer. Not a very satisfactory answer, but an answer nonetheless....
It's technically an answer to a question, but it's no purpose/cause/meaning for the universe.
Sstavix wrote:And other people have presented the evidence that has convinced them about various things. It just hasn't been satisfactory to convince you, by your own standards. I'm not saying that you need to relax your own standards or accept the things they believe - but if they have their own evidence to believe things and are convinced of it, then why bother?
Why bother discussing the point?
There's lot to learn from challenging view points, and sometimes, poorly supported positions can be harmful. Sometimes it's important to convince parents that the vaccines are important for their kids, and the kids around them.
Sometimes, though, I just don't care and I won't engage. And there are some people I don't.
Sstavix wrote:Here's a completely fictional example - I've never been to Bangladesh. I've never met anyone who lived there, or has even visited there. I have never had any personal experience whatsoever with Bangladesh. As a result, why should I believe in Bangladesh? In fact, I could go as far as to say that Bangladesh doesn't actually exist, and that all those people who have claimed to live there are delusional. Those pictures of it? Doctored. Its name on the map? Again, part of some sort of grand delusion to convince people of a place that doesn't actually exist. Should I go there to learn about it myself? Why should I? I've already convinced myself that it doesn't exist, so there wouldn't be anything to go to!
There's sufficient evidence to believe in Bangladesh and the chance it's fabricated is very slim. Other more dubious positions aren't given that luxury. You know, I don't think Shangri-la exists, at least not in it's mythical form.
Sstavix wrote:Is it possible to obtain the knowledge through non-scientific means, though? In other words, use a different tool for the answers you seek?
It seems that you and Arctic use reason and science interchangeably sometimes when talking with me, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean about by "scientific." No?
You can use math. Or historical sources. There are some other methods than the scientific method, but reason encapsulates them all. Observations need to fit in line with others.
selderane wrote:ArchAngel,

Did you read my rather lengthy post about my experiences with the demonic? Just curious because it was in the thread where we all bared our souls to one another and I never saw you reply to what I wrote.
I did, and I think I'm supposed to get back to you on that. I apologize for dropping the ball, but I think I'm going to have to drop it just a little more.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2950
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.
Contact:
ArchAngel wrote:
Sstavix wrote:Here's a completely fictional example - I've never been to Bangladesh. I've never met anyone who lived there, or has even visited there. I have never had any personal experience whatsoever with Bangladesh. As a result, why should I believe in Bangladesh? In fact, I could go as far as to say that Bangladesh doesn't actually exist, and that all those people who have claimed to live there are delusional. Those pictures of it? Doctored. Its name on the map? Again, part of some sort of grand delusion to convince people of a place that doesn't actually exist. Should I go there to learn about it myself? Why should I? I've already convinced myself that it doesn't exist, so there wouldn't be anything to go to!
There's sufficient evidence to believe in Bangladesh and the chance it's fabricated is very slim. Other more dubious positions aren't given that luxury. You know, I don't think Shangri-la exists, at least not in it's mythical form.
So you agree with me that the argument I presented is pretty much nonsensical? Especially the portions where I deliberately avoid or dismiss anything that may contradict my preconceived opinions?
ArchAngel wrote:
Sstavix wrote:Is it possible to obtain the knowledge through non-scientific means, though? In other words, use a different tool for the answers you seek?
It seems that you and Arctic use reason and science interchangeably sometimes when talking with me, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean about by "scientific." No?
You can use math. Or historical sources. There are some other methods than the scientific method, but reason encapsulates them all. Observations need to fit in line with others.
It could be because "reason" and "science" tends to be used as synonyms so often in modern life. Let's rephrase the question - do you think it's possible to obtain knowledge through means that don't involve testing and/or research?
User avatar
selderane
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:30 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:
ArchAngel wrote:
selderane wrote:ArchAngel,

Did you read my rather lengthy post about my experiences with the demonic? Just curious because it was in the thread where we all bared our souls to one another and I never saw you reply to what I wrote.
I did, and I think I'm supposed to get back to you on that. I apologize for dropping the ball, but I think I'm going to have to drop it just a little more.
I went digging for the thread just now and I saw your reply. I missed it because, and you noted in your post, you took awhile to get back, and it was moved to a different forum. By then I'd stopped actively looking for an update and never noticed the entire thread disappeared!
Everything above this sentence is opinion and worth precisely what was paid for it.
Everything below this sentence is indisputable fact as verified by scientists, philosophers, scholars, clergy, and David Bowie.

If Star Wars: Destiny is a CCG, X-Wing is an LCG.
User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3289
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne
Contact:
What if there are dozens - or hundreds - of people who have claimed to have seen the unicorn, and you're the only one who hasn't? Does eyewitness testimony or personal experiences count as evidence?
Well, this is an entirely fictional scenario, so bringing it back to the real world situation: I would not be the only person who hasn't seen it. It is the fallacy of numbers, as well: thousands of people who REALLY REALLY believe in something arguing for it based on the fact that thousands of thrm believe it does not make it true.

Also, eyewitness accounts are literally the worst form of evidence (and are regarded as such in courtrooms IIRC) and anecdotal evidence is not the basis for rational debate.

To answer your earlier question, I believe in the supernatural to a limited extent, so I guess that would mean science can't answer every question IMO. However, we learn every day what it CAN answer, and while we shouldn't only use a hammer on everything, we most often find that what we thought was a screw was actually a nail all along. Epilepsy =/= demonic possession, for example, and (not surprisingly) antiepileptic medication demonstrates greater efficacy than an exorcism.

More later. Falling asleep atm :P
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested
User avatar
selderane
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:30 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:
ChickenSoup wrote:
What if there are dozens - or hundreds - of people who have claimed to have seen the unicorn, and you're the only one who hasn't? Does eyewitness testimony or personal experiences count as evidence?
Well, this is an entirely fictional scenario, so bringing it back to the real world situation: I would not be the only person who hasn't seen it. It is the fallacy of numbers, as well: thousands of people who REALLY REALLY believe in something arguing for it based on the fact that thousands of thrm believe it does not make it true.
He didn't say they believed they saw it. He said they're saying they saw it. What they're expressing isn't an article of faith but a statement of fact. So you're not really addressing his argument, you're changing it then addressing that.
ChickenSoup wrote:Also, eyewitness accounts are literally the worst form of evidence (and are regarded as such in courtrooms IIRC) and anecdotal evidence is not the basis for rational debate.
Which is why courts typically get testimony from multiple witnesses. One guy says he saw X, that could be a problem. 12 people say they saw X as well? A hundred? That's a different animal. Making the best the enemy of the good doesn't invalidate the good. Because the simple fact of the matter is witness testimony determines most cases.
Everything above this sentence is opinion and worth precisely what was paid for it.
Everything below this sentence is indisputable fact as verified by scientists, philosophers, scholars, clergy, and David Bowie.

If Star Wars: Destiny is a CCG, X-Wing is an LCG.
User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2950
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.
Contact:
selderane wrote: Which is why courts typically get testimony from multiple witnesses. One guy says he saw X, that could be a problem. 12 people say they saw X as well? A hundred? That's a different animal. Making the best the enemy of the good doesn't invalidate the good. Because the simple fact of the matter is witness testimony determines most cases.
That's a very good point. Suppose we have a murder mystery on our hands. We can learn the identity of the victim, how he was killed (gunshot wound to the chest), determine where the shooter was standing, find the murder weapon that matches the bullet, find the registered owner of the gun (if it was, indeed, registered), and so forth. Lots of evidence to be obtained from the crime scene.

But the police will still question witnesses that were in the area to try and determine what happened. If a couple people actually saw the person who fired the shot, it would go a long way in convicting the killer (e.g. "what was the person doing? Did you recognize him? Did he say anything?")
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
It's interesting that we are often tempted to dismiss witness testimony because human memory can be an unreliable thing... But what we often see is people who really will dismiss the testimony of hundreds, using the logic that if one of them can be wrong, they all can be.

This isn't an argument for an ad populum fallacy, but rather a point about the reliability of consistent testimony from multiple observers. We all have our biases, and we can see it in action when discussing things like the overwhelming number of people who have had similar paranormal experiences. It's always "well they're just deluded somehow" and the inconvenient witness testimony is cast aside.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3289
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne
Contact:
selderane wrote:
ChickenSoup wrote:
What if there are dozens - or hundreds - of people who have claimed to have seen the unicorn, and you're the only one who hasn't? Does eyewitness testimony or personal experiences count as evidence?
Well, this is an entirely fictional scenario, so bringing it back to the real world situation: I would not be the only person who hasn't seen it. It is the fallacy of numbers, as well: thousands of people who REALLY REALLY believe in something arguing for it based on the fact that thousands of thrm believe it does not make it true.
He didn't say they believed they saw it. He said they're saying they saw it. What they're expressing isn't an article of faith but a statement of fact. So you're not really addressing his argument, you're changing it then addressing that.
No, you're just arguing semantics. They saw Y, they believe in X because they saw Y, whatever.
ChickenSoup wrote:Also, eyewitness accounts are literally the worst form of evidence (and are regarded as such in courtrooms IIRC) and anecdotal evidence is not the basis for rational debate.
Which is why courts typically get testimony from multiple witnesses. One guy says he saw X, that could be a problem. 12 people say they saw X as well? A hundred? That's a different animal. Making the best the enemy of the good doesn't invalidate the good. Because the simple fact of the matter is witness testimony determines most cases.
It doesn't invalidate it, and I'm not throwing out eyewitness testimony. What I'm arguing is that eyewitness testimony is terrible as a sole piece of evidence. 12 people say they saw John Doe murdered by Jim Bob? All right, that's a start. Now we investigate Jim Bob--turns out, Jim was recorded by a traffic camera running a red light 200 miles away. Well, I guess 12 people were wrong about Jim Bob. Thank God we didn't convict on eyewitness testimony alone.

(OR, maybe we find out that Jim Bob was in the area, AND possesses a knife that matches the stab wounds in John. NOW we're getting somewhere!)
Sstavix wrote:
selderane wrote: Which is why courts typically get testimony from multiple witnesses. One guy says he saw X, that could be a problem. 12 people say they saw X as well? A hundred? That's a different animal. Making the best the enemy of the good doesn't invalidate the good. Because the simple fact of the matter is witness testimony determines most cases.
That's a very good point. Suppose we have a murder mystery on our hands. We can learn the identity of the victim, how he was killed (gunshot wound to the chest), determine where the shooter was standing, find the murder weapon that matches the bullet, find the registered owner of the gun (if it was, indeed, registered), and so forth. Lots of evidence to be obtained from the crime scene.

But the police will still question witnesses that were in the area to try and determine what happened. If a couple people actually saw the person who fired the shot, it would go a long way in convicting the killer (e.g. "what was the person doing? Did you recognize him? Did he say anything?")
Ah yes, but that eyewitness testimony is a guide, not the sole determinant of truth. If all 12 witnesses say without a shadow of a doubt that Jim Bob killed John Doe, you investigate Jim Bob. You don't pat yourself on the back and call it a day, you pursue the investigation on a more objective level.
ArcticFox wrote:It's interesting that we are often tempted to dismiss witness testimony because human memory can be an unreliable thing... But what we often see is people who really will dismiss the testimony of hundreds, using the logic that if one of them can be wrong, they all can be.
I'm not dismissing it, though. I'm saying that it is, at best, a guide toward the truth and should never be used alone as evidence of some claim. It is too easy for the eyewitness testimony to be corrupted.

Taking it a step further, eyewitness testimony of something only a few people have seen and trying to extrapolate a scientific (or religious) explanation is kind of lazy investigation. For example, thousands of sailors were witness to the phenomenon known as St. Elmo's Fire, which is certainly an observable and known phenomenon. Were the eyewitnesses wrong? No--they really did see an eerie ball of light atop masts of ships! Does that mean something supernatural was at work--that the gods/goddesses of the fire or the sea or that the patron saint of sailors was actually present on their ship? No, it means that coronal discharge on a pointed object in an electric field formed a luminous discharge. It's certainly an amazing phenomenon, but it doesn't mean that it's some supernatural event meant to be interpreted as a good or bad omen. That's just sensationalist.
This isn't an argument for an ad populum fallacy, but rather a point about the reliability of consistent testimony from multiple observers. We all have our biases, and we can see it in action when discussing things like the overwhelming number of people who have had similar paranormal experiences. It's always "well they're just deluded somehow" and the inconvenient witness testimony is cast aside.
"Overwhelming"? I mean, maybe? If there was an overwhelming number of supernatural occurrences, I'd be really surprised to know of so many atheists. :P

But seriously, I'm not saying they're deluded, and once again, I'm not casting aside eyewitness testimony. I'm saying that you can use eyewitness testimony alone to draw either scientific or religious conclusions. Like I said before--many, many people over centuries have witnessed St. Elmo's Fire, and I'm pretty sure you can even find videos of it happening on the wings of planes. That doesn't mean that the conclusions people draw about their observations is accurate or valid. And, like you said, we all have our individual biases, and these get even worse when eyewitnesses talk about their experiences in a group (the reason why police separate them--because emotionally charged events, already prone to corrupted memory, produce even worse validity after a large group of people chat amongst themselves about what just happened). If you want to get into individual vs group bias and how those dynamics influence memory and recall, we can, but I think that point is clear enough.

Frankly, I'm not sure why you guys trust eyewitness testimony so much. And remember, before you respond--I'm NOT disregarding it entirely. I'm arguing the following points:

1) Memory is pretty dang corruptible--add emotionally charged events, degradation of memory/recall over time, individual bias, confirmation bias in post-event research, group dynamics and the influence of that on recall, and you have a pretty poor source of evidence, regardless of whether 1 person saw something or 1,000 people saw it.

2) Following point 1, eyewitness testimony should never, ever, ever be used as the sole evidence in determining truth. 1,000 people saw something? 1,000 people can be wrong. Yes, they saw something, but that doesn't mean that it is what they thought it was. You cannot extrapolate further facts and draw conclusions from that alone.

3) HOWEVER, eyewitness testimony can be a good guide toward further investigation. 1,000 people saw a strange flying object in the skies above Chicago? That doesn't mean UFO's not only exist but also frequent crappy American cities--it means that 1,000 people saw a strange flying object in the skies above Chicago. We conduct more thorough research from that point.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
At the end of the day, I reject the "it's just so mind-blowingly silly/absurd/preposterous that it's not worth considering" argument because it's begging the question.

It's absurd because it can't be true
It can't be true because it's so absurd.

Circular. This isn't reason, it's opinion and bias.

If someone came up to me right now and told me a flying pink unicorn was vomiting rainbows outside on the quad, I'd think that was absurd and wouldn't believe it. However, it's important to note here that this isn't a scientific or reasoned approach on any level. It's my own experience and personal bias that draw me to that conclusion, not any kind of formula.

And that's the point. It's opinion. It's a premise leading to its own conclusion.

"I don't believe in ghosts because they don't exist, therefore they aren't real."
"How do you know that?"
"Because it's too absurd to believe. YAY SCIENCE!"

Yeah, no.

Getting back to vomiting unicorns... The simplest way to prove or disprove there's one on the quad would be to get up and look. But, I can draw some reasoned conclusions ahead of time:

-Unicorns aren't known to exist, so it is highly unlikely. However, it's also possible that it's simply a horse with some kind of prosthetic.
-Pink is not a natural color for any mammalian hair, but someone could have dyed the horse.
-Horses can't fly, and winged horses aren't known to exist, so this is difficult in itself
-A rainbow is refracted light, and therefore can't be vomited up, but it may be some other phenomenon being observed.

So there we have some preliminary analyses, but here's the thing: This is why it is NOT too absurd to consider, because the act of considering it, however silly, is useful.

But you never know. A quick hop over to the window could yield surprising results...
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3289
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne
Contact:
I wasn't making any arguments about absurdity, so I'm not sure who you are addressing here. I wasn't saying "omg absrud, cant b tr00," I was saying that you should get more than an eyewitness account if you want any kind of credible evidence
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
Sstavix wrote:So you agree with me that the argument I presented is pretty much nonsensical? Especially the portions where I deliberately avoid or dismiss anything that may contradict my preconceived opinions?
Yes, the argument that Bangladesh doesn't exist is poorly formed and the probability of it's truth hasn't been properly established.
Sstavix wrote:It could be because "reason" and "science" tends to be used as synonyms so often in modern life. Let's rephrase the question - do you think it's possible to obtain knowledge through means that don't involve testing and/or research?
I've already answered this question several times. The answer was literally in the segment you quoted from me.
No. Scientific experimentation isn't the only way to know something.

And I haven't used science and reason as synonyms, because they aren't. I refer to science when I want to talk about the scientific method and the body of knowledge accumulated by it, and I use reason when referring to a broader sense of the practice of logic and evidence to form consistent and supported claims.
selderane wrote:I went digging for the thread just now and I saw your reply. I missed it because, and you noted in your post, you took awhile to get back, and it was moved to a different forum. By then I'd stopped actively looking for an update and never noticed the entire thread disappeared!
Thanks for doing the legwork and looking that up. It's been difficult for me to keep track of the discussions and I know I have a couple more I still need to reply to. I've also noticed some threads, especially old ones, disappearing. I might have to ask CCGR about that.
ArcticFox wrote:At the end of the day, I reject the "it's just so mind-blowingly silly/absurd/preposterous that it's not worth considering" argument because it's begging the question.

It's absurd because it can't be true
It can't be true because it's so absurd.

Circular. This isn't reason, it's opinion and bias.
And that is not what I'm doing. At all.

More than once I have said if someone will bring new and compelling evidence, I'll reconsider the issue. "Oh, I had an experience" isn't compelling evidence. Ghosts are a pretty extraordinary claim, and it seems that the people who believe in it don't really accept the gravitas of it. That would be a revolutionary concept for science, especially psychology. Our very conceptions of consciousness would be overturned and would herald a new age of neurology and post-human technologies. I think one could make quite the sci-fi novel over this.
Funny how the ghost crowd seems only to care about the fear and appeasing spirits.

The concepts of ghosts is absurd because I've looked at it's plausibility and it's been found wanting.
How many times do I need keep checking the closet before I stop considering that Narnia is on the other side?
ChickenSoup wrote:I wasn't making any arguments about absurdity, so I'm not sure who you are addressing here. I wasn't saying "omg absrud, cant b tr00," I was saying that you should get more than an eyewitness account if you want any kind of credible evidence
It's for me.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 34700
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:
sorry guys, disabled pruning in the debates, it wasn't enabled on the prayer requests or spiritual matters but was for debates. My apologies
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
ArchAngel wrote:More than once I have said if someone will bring new and compelling evidence, I'll reconsider the issue.
Except that some of your statements earlier seemed to preemptively shoot down new evidence. Maybe they weren't meant that way, but that's how it comes across.
ArchAngel wrote: "Oh, I had an experience" isn't compelling evidence. Ghosts are a pretty extraordinary claim, and it seems that the people who believe in it don't really accept the gravitas of it.
Why do you say that?
ArchAngel wrote: Funny how the ghost crowd seems only to care about the fear and appeasing spirits.
Buh?
ArchAngel wrote: The concepts of ghosts is absurd because I've looked at it's plausibility and it's been found wanting.
And yet you still choose words like "absurd" as opposed to simply that you think it's false. Typically, people use words like that to express disdain, not simple disagreement. When people have disdain for a subject, they ain't exactly open to it.
ArchAngel wrote: How many times do I need keep checking the closet before I stop considering that Narnia is on the other side?
UNTIL YOU FIND IT, OF COURSE
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2950
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.
Contact:
ChickenSoup wrote: It doesn't invalidate it, and I'm not throwing out eyewitness testimony. What I'm arguing is that eyewitness testimony is terrible as a sole piece of evidence. 12 people say they saw John Doe murdered by Jim Bob? All right, that's a start. Now we investigate Jim Bob--turns out, Jim was recorded by a traffic camera running a red light 200 miles away. Well, I guess 12 people were wrong about Jim Bob. Thank God we didn't convict on eyewitness testimony alone.
But what if it was Jim Bob's twin in that car, or a friend that disguised himself as Jim Bob? Evidence can be tampered with, too. ;)
ChickenSoup wrote: Frankly, I'm not sure why you guys trust eyewitness testimony so much. And remember, before you respond--I'm NOT disregarding it entirely. I'm arguing the following points:

1) Memory is pretty dang corruptible--add emotionally charged events, degradation of memory/recall over time, individual bias, confirmation bias in post-event research, group dynamics and the influence of that on recall, and you have a pretty poor source of evidence, regardless of whether 1 person saw something or 1,000 people saw it.

2) Following point 1, eyewitness testimony should never, ever, ever be used as the sole evidence in determining truth. 1,000 people saw something? 1,000 people can be wrong. Yes, they saw something, but that doesn't mean that it is what they thought it was. You cannot extrapolate further facts and draw conclusions from that alone.

3) HOWEVER, eyewitness testimony can be a good guide toward further investigation. 1,000 people saw a strange flying object in the skies above Chicago? That doesn't mean UFO's not only exist but also frequent crappy American cities--it means that 1,000 people saw a strange flying object in the skies above Chicago. We conduct more thorough research from that point.
A big part of it might be because of our faith. We take it on faith that the witnesses who wrote their accounts in the Bible were honest in their experiences (and with AF and myself being LDS, we take it even further into the foundations of our church as well). In fact, you could look at history as eyewitness accounts, too.

For example, look at George Washington. I've never met George Washington. Have you ever met George Washington? Have you ever met someone who has claimed to have met George Washington? No? Neither have I. So who knows if George Washington actually existed? Sure, there are history books, but those are merely attempts to perpetuate the falsehoods of George Washington - they can't be real. It's like the Goldstein character in "1984." George wrote things? Nope - someone else writing under a pen name. Maybe that Thomas Jefferson fellow... he was smart enough to pull a con like this. No, George Washington never existed, and anyone who says otherwise is lying!

It's like my ludicrous argument about Bangladesh. Basically, if you're willing to ignore any evidence proving that you're wrong, then you can convince yourself of pretty much anything.
ArcticFox wrote: -Unicorns aren't known to exist, so it is highly unlikely. However, it's also possible that it's simply a horse with some kind of prosthetic.
-Pink is not a natural color for any mammalian hair, but someone could have dyed the horse.
-Horses can't fly, and winged horses aren't known to exist, so this is difficult in itself
-A rainbow is refracted light, and therefore can't be vomited up, but it may be some other phenomenon being observed.
Someone force-fed the horse a ton of Skittles, then fired it out of a catapult. YAY, SCIENCE!
ArchAngel wrote:
Sstavix wrote:So you agree with me that the argument I presented is pretty much nonsensical? Especially the portions where I deliberately avoid or dismiss anything that may contradict my preconceived opinions?
Yes, the argument that Bangladesh doesn't exist is poorly formed and the probability of it's truth hasn't been properly established.
So if you substitute "Bangladesh" with any other phenomenon (e.g. aliens/God/honest politicians/global warming/whatever) can you see the fallacies with that approach? By deliberately ignoring certain evidence solely because it might oppose your preconceived opinions, are you actually, honestly, applying reason?
ArchAngel wrote: More than once I have said if someone will bring new and compelling evidence, I'll reconsider the issue. "Oh, I had an experience" isn't compelling evidence. Ghosts are a pretty extraordinary claim, and it seems that the people who believe in it don't really accept the gravitas of it. That would be a revolutionary concept for science, especially psychology. Our very conceptions of consciousness would be overturned and would herald a new age of neurology and post-human technologies. I think one could make quite the sci-fi novel over this.
That would make for an interesting novel. /files the idea for later.

So pretty much the only way you'd believe in supernatural things - be it God or ghosts - is if you actually experienced it for yourself?
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
ArcticFox wrote:Except that some of your statements earlier seemed to preemptively shoot down new evidence. Maybe they weren't meant that way, but that's how it comes across.
"Evidence."
I have yet to see actual evidence. I'm leaving the whole eyewitness part of the debate to C$ as he seems to hold his own, but anecdotal evidence is notoriously bad, as in, sometimes referred to "not evidence."
ArcticFox wrote:
ArchAngel wrote:Funny how the ghost crowd seems only to care about the fear and appeasing spirits.
Buh?
As in the people who advocate the existence of ghosts. What are they always on about? Besides making really poor night-vision TV where they wet their pants when they hear a noise.
ArcticFox wrote:And yet you still choose words like "absurd" as opposed to simply that you think it's false. Typically, people use words like that to express disdain, not simple disagreement. When people have disdain for a subject, they ain't exactly open to it.
Absolutely do I disdain the subject, when pricks and cons like John Edwards take money from grieving parents so he can lie in their ears. It's been demonstrated time and time again these people are cold reading their audience, but people still soak it up. They spread misinformation and superstition for a couple cheap bucks off the clueless and gullible. In case of John Edwards, he's conned quite a lot of money.
Apart from that, it usually just warrants an eye roll for me.

And you know what, I wouldn't say I'm open to it. I'm fairly certain ghosts don't exist. This isn't to say I'd never reconsider the subject, but I'd need some pretty awesome evidence convince me otherwise. You know, like scientific studies. I haven't made resolutions in anything, with maybe a few exceptions, to completely close myself off to concepts. I just don't have to give the baseless ones credence as if they were a supported idea.
Sstavix wrote:So if you substitute "Bangladesh" with any other phenomenon (e.g. aliens/God/honest politicians/global warming/whatever) can you see the fallacies with that approach? By deliberately ignoring certain evidence solely because it might oppose your preconceived opinions, are you actually, honestly, applying reason?
Nope. Bad analogy. You can't just slip different objects in a out and act like they have the same base of evidence.

And I'm not deliberately ignoring certain evidence solely because it opposed my position. Nor are these opinions. Vanilla is still the king of ice cream flavors is an opinion; this is a position on a claim. I have facts and knowledge to back this up. I never do any of you the disservice of calling your religious beliefs an opinion. Beliefs are not synonymous with opinions. They have differing definitions and that's important. Opinions refers to a very particular type of view or judgement that's not based on fact or evidence. It's baseless by definition, which works for such things as favorite ice cream.
Actually, that might be a bad example. Vanilla is factually the king of ice cream.

This is almost getting to the level where it's insulting, and I don't how many times I need reclarify myself in order that you stop insisting this. I dismiss claims of spectral and ghostly experiences not because I think ghosts don't exist, but because they have been across the board bad. None of it lines up with reality. I don't have to pretend just because someone claims they seen or experienced something, that it's automatically valid.
Sstavix wrote:So pretty much the only way you'd believe in supernatural things - be it God or ghosts - is if you actually experienced it for yourself?
I would like to think I'd have to the good sense to take that "experience" with the same level of scrutiny and skepticism I'd give everyone else. Anecdotal experience is awful and almost always needs to be corroborated by other evidences, such as basal plausibility. If C$ told me he went to the store, that's a pretty common action, so I find that rather likely. If he told me he just got back from Arrakis via a tesseract, you know, I'm not quite so sure. I mean, I'd WANT to, but it's unlikely. The human mind is shocking susceptible. That, research has shown.

To believe in the supernatural, I'd probably have to see either evidenced reason or, yeah, research. If we're recognizing brain wave patterns matching deceased individuals in some persistent energy-matrix-anomaly and so on and so forth, I might just be singing a different tune.
Sstavix wrote:That would make for an interesting novel. /files the idea for later.
Oy Oy, hands off! That's my novel idea! :P
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 21 guests