quote:They are using their personal judgement to choose to believe that relativity is a liberal plot. All their chosen authorities tell them this is the case, and it matches their reason and evidence.
So, what exactly, if anything, are they doing wrong?
The mistake they are making is confusing "what they judge to be true" with "what they wish to be true" or "what needs to be true in order form them to avoid admitting they were wrong."
You don't get to choose what your judgement says - your judgement says whatever it says. If you want it to be sunny, but you look outside and see that it looks like a storm is coming, your judgement is telling you rain is coming whether you like it or not. If you want to trust Glenn Beck, but you begin to see that everything he says is false, then your judgement is telling you not to trust him as an authority, whether you like it or not.
Some people take this mistake a step further, and expose themselves only to certain pieces of information, to trick their own judgement so they can believe what they want to believe. It is definitely possible to do that, but it is a mistake.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are using their personal judgement to choose to believe that relativity is a liberal plot. All their chosen authorities tell them this is the case, and it matches their reason and evidence.
So, what exactly, if anything, are they doing wrong?
The mistake they are making is confusing "what they judge to be true" with "what they wish to be true" or "what needs to be true in order form them to avoid admitting they were wrong."
Why is "judging" necessarily different from "wishing"? Isn't "judging" based on prior beliefs that can come from anywhere (like your belief that your soul and mind are separate, which you admit has no objective evidence), and authorities whose validity you obviously can't figure out how to determine?
I'm not seeing the difference. Plenty of war supporters judged that Saddam was directly invovled in 9/11. How does this support your argument again?
How are these conservapedia types supposed to change their mind if, like you argue people ought to, they trust their authorities, reject claims which disagree with what they already believe, and rely on their judgmenet as the final arbiter of their beliefs? You think that their authorities and beliefs are wrong. How are they supposed to figure that out, based on their authorities and beliefs?
My answer, of course is "Forget beliefs and authorities, believe only what the reason and evidence supports", but that can't be your answer, so what does that leave you?
quote:You don't get to choose what your judgement says - your judgement says whatever it says. If you want it to be sunny, but you look outside and see that it looks like a storm is coming, your judgement is telling you rain is coming whether you like it or not.
Likewise, everyone who comes to Vegas with a "system" for winning eventually judges that their system is bogus before spending their life savings gambling. No one fools themself that the system will win big for them on the next play.
Oh wait, that's not what life is like at all. People's judgments are catastrophicly wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence all the time.
Do you really know nothing about psychology at all? Are you really so ignorant about how your own mind works?
If you were right, then not a single person would die from a treatable disease while taking "alternative medicine", because their judgment would tell them that what they were doing was not making them better.
Read about alternative medicine on a skeptic's board, like Orac's. These people get sicker and sicker, sometimes from the very "treatment" that is supposed to help them, but they stick with it, because it is their honest judgement that it is the right thing to do, maybe because an authority they trust told them to. And their poor judgment kills them, or their children.
quote:Some people take this mistake a step further, and expose themselves only to certain pieces of information, to trick their own judgement so they can believe what they want to believe. It is definitely possible to do that, but it is a mistake.
Okay, so the inquisitor claims that your soul is in mortal jeopardy, you think you are fine. Is he tricking himself, or are you tricking yourself thinking you are fine?
How do you determine if you are tricking yourself, if your trickable judgment is the final arbiter of your beliefs?
I know what my answer is, mine is to hold my beliefs to things which could have failed reality-testing, but pass it. But that can't be your answer.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
What, we're not talking about what scientific evidence is clear about anymore?
------
MightyCow,
quote:What is intellectually dishonest is to claim that people somehow know that my claim is false and at the same time somehow know that their own supernatural claims, such as the existence of their deity of choice, are true.
I'm really not sure why you keep claiming intellectual dishonesty. We watched you make up the joke. Now, perhaps, if you had arrived at Hatrack a complete blank slate and posted about Brain Leprechauns, you would have some credibility, and the folks criticizing you while being religious themselves might be intellectually dishonest. But that's not what actually happened. We know you don't actually believe in leprechauns, not just because it's a fairy tale, but because you are the one who said it. As well believe me when I say, "I just love Rush Limbaugh to pieces and listen to his program religiously."
That's one reason. The other reason is that people who believe their own religious beliefs are true generally have evidence directly experienced by themselves to believe it. They don't just believe it because someone, such as the Pope, told them to. I realize it's appealing to an evangelical atheist outlook to think this way, since it means folks who don't come into the light are just deluded sheep. But it's just not true.
If you would move on to disputing the evidence that religious people use as a foundation in their lives instead of pretending it doesn't exist at all, you might get somewhere.
quote: It is baffling that people are actually trying to claim that real belief or lots of people believing something makes it more likely to be true. You'll notice that nobody is suddenly on the leprechaun bandwagon after seeing my website links.
That's not what people are actually claiming. Some people are claiming that people are more likely to believe things that are true than are not true, not that the number of believers somehow confers truth.
quote:It's dishonest to pretend that the reason is anything other than cultural norms and personal choice in belief.
The dishonesty is continuing to insist that this is the reason, this is why people have faith. Does it play a role? Certainly! But you go several steps beyond that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a very religious Christian for 20 years. It isn't as though I'm operating from ignorance.
Lots of smart people used to think the sun went around the earth too. There's no shame in ignorance, especially when you're brought up in it, and when society encourages it. Doesn't mean I shouldn't work against it though.
Nobody's willing to address my leprechaun websites. Those people all believe in Leprechauns and faeries.
Should we give their claim extra credibility since lots of them sincerely believe it?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobody's willing to address my leprechaun websites. Those people all believe in Leprechauns and faeries.
Should we give their claim extra credibility since lots of them sincerely believe it?
I think nobody is willing to address your links because they respond to a point that hasn't been made. Or, who does think that the number of believers has an actual impact on the truth of any given statement? I, at least, certainly don't, and it'd be just great if you'd stop speaking as though I do.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How are these conservapedia types supposed to change their mind if, like you argue people ought to, they trust their authorities, reject claims which disagree with what they already believe, and rely on their judgmenet as the final arbiter of their beliefs? You think that their authorities and beliefs are wrong. How are they supposed to figure that out, based on their authorities and beliefs?
My answer, of course is "Forget beliefs and authorities, believe only what the reason and evidence supports", but that can't be your answer, so what does that leave you?
You've suggested we need to go out and find evidence to determine the answers to our questions. If that's the case then go out and gather evidence on this question: Do people who attempt to base their beliefs solely on evidence and reason end up with fewer false beliefs?
All of my own experiences with people have led me to believe that it doesn't make a difference. Everyone ends up with mistaken beliefs of some sort. Atheists do as much as theists. People who try to base their beliefs on evidence end up fooling themselves in the same way that people who based their beliefs on authorities do. And, as some of the posts on this thread supporting atheism show, people who attempt to ground all their beliefs solely in a strict definition evidence/reason are just as susceptible to becoming dogmatically stuck in a set of beliefs as any other person. In the same way that you ask about conservapedia believers, you could also ask: what would happen if King of Men was wrong about God? Unless God handed down some overwhelming evidence he could see with his own eyes, how would King of Men ever change his mind using his strict definition of evidence?
The answer to that question, and to your question, really has nothing to do with the difference between evidence or authorities. The answer is that it is entirely possible that many people will get stuck in a set of beliefs that they'll never escape from, whether it is because of misleading evidence, misleading authorities, or misleading reasoning. But the reason they will get stuck is because they stop asking questions of the things they believe. If an authority lies to you and you never question that authority any further, then you will get stuck. If a piece of material evidence leads you to believe something untrue and you never examine it further, then you will get stuck. If you misinterpret something you see and never stop to question your original interpretation, then you will get stuck. All of these happen all the time - and the solution is to keep examining the things you know, keep questioning your assumptions, and keep looking for new information, new evidence, and new authorities. If someone at some point concludes "the Bible is infallible" and then never examines that belief further, then he's in trouble if that turns out to not be true. If someone at some point concludes "a reasonable person bases all their beliefs purely on evidence and reason" and never questions that conclusion any further, then he's in trouble if that turns out to not be true. And so on, for every belief.
But that's entirely up to the person holding the beliefs. They have to WANT to question their beliefs; I can't make a conservapedia believer do it. Conservapedia is an excellent example because it is one case where its been clearly demonstrated that even rock-solid evidence cannot force a believer to change his mind if he chooses not to open it to that possibility. It's up to him. But once he chooses to ask those questions, he doesn't necessarily need a fossil to change his mind - listening to the authority of a bunch of scientsts might work just as well.
quote:Oh wait, that's not what life is like at all. People's judgments are catastrophicly wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence all the time.
I agree that people are sometimes catastrophicly wrong. I believe that is unavoidable, no matter how you come to your beliefs. I believe that the best we can do is to try to keep our eyes open to see our own catastropic mistakes, and be willing to correct them when they happen before its too late. I think that if we do that, we may not end up with perfect beliefs, but we'll end up doing the best we can.
quote:I think nobody is willing to address your links because they respond to a point that hasn't been made. Or, who does think that the number of believers has an actual impact on the truth of any given statement? I, at least, certainly don't, and it'd be just great if you'd stop speaking as though I do.
I think the number of believers is a piece of evidence in favor of a belief, so I'll address this point: If it were the ONLY piece of information I had about them then I'd probably believe in leprechauns. However, leprechauns also violate many beliefs I have about the world, like my belief that rainbows don't have an "end" and thus can't have pots of gold at their end, or my belief that if leprechauns existed then they'd have been documented more clearly by now. In addition, you weren't talking about leprechauns of the sort described by those who believe in them. Your leprechauns were "Brain Leprechauns" which somehow stop cobras, and you are the only person I've ever heard talk about such a thing.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "rainbow's end" is a metaphor, and Brain Leprechauns are a clan of standard leprechauns who protect people, like guardian angels. They don't specifically target cobras, that was just a single case.
More believable now?
I'm just curious, if I can give you a plausable explanation for all your concerns, how soon you'll admit that it is more likely than not that leprechauns are real.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you giving plausable explanations would make it much more likely, because you still seem to be making it all up. You are neither an authority nor a random person - you are someone who has a good reason to make up a story like this to prove a point, and so far that's what appears to be going on.
But I really don't think you could come up with enough convincing explanations regardless, without turning the leprechaun into something that no longer has the properties of the leprechauns discussed in your links.
quote: If someone at some point concludes "a reasonable person bases all their beliefs purely on evidence and reason" and never questions that conclusion any further, then he's in trouble if that turns out to not be true.
This sounds like you're going for a really radical externalism about justification. According to a view like this, "truth tracking" performance determines whether a particular set of epistemic norms is correct.
Such a view would seem to require that if the Cartesian skeptic is correct, we're all really bad epistemic agents -- not just unlucky, but somehow to blame for our bad luck.
My own view is, if we live a universe where the best evidence constantly leads us to falsehood, we're just out of luck. It doesn't mean we should start thinking in unreasonable ways that happen to accord better with the hidden reality. The best we can do is to believe in accord with the evidence.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have now way to know if the writers of the Bible (Koran, Book of Mormon, what have you) were any more believable than my leprechaun story. The only thing that is different is that these religious books have generations of history, so we are completely unable to judge the honesty, believeability, or authority of the sources.
It all comes down to cultural acceptability. If you believe in angels, it's OK, because that's part of a major religion. If you believe in faeries, you're a kook. If you believe prayer produces tangible results, that's faith, even if it is counter to evidence. If you believe sacrificing a fatted calf will bring rain, you're a backward primitive who doesn't understand weather.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: We have now way to know if the writers of the Bible (Koran, Book of Mormon, what have you) were any more believable than my leprechaun story.
Not so. We have no way to know if their writings are any more true. We have clear evidence that your story is less believable, in that so far no one believes it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the people at the time of the Bible didn't believe it either. If I tried as hard as the apostles, for years, I'm certain I could get a couple hundred followers.
See modern cults for comparison-most of us see that they're odd, but they get dozens/hundreds who are willing to die for them.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of the people at the time of the Bible didn't believe it either. If I tried as hard as the apostles, for years, I'm certain I could get a couple hundred followers.
Yeah, because just anyone can do that sort of thing, right? People who try hard enough never fail, after all.
quote:See modern cults for comparison-most of us see that they're odd, but they get dozens/hundreds who are willing to die for them.
And, what, you think those that do don't have some skill or quality (or anti-quality, I suppose, depending on who you're talking about?) that you might not possess? I have a sneaking suspicion you would reject out of hand this sort of 'comparison' if it didn't suit your own rhetoric.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: I get that you're trying to insult me, so kudos for that, but you are entirely missing the point.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. He didn't specify particularly noteworthy followers, after all. It's not hard to get followers.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this crazy hag can get thousands of followers, anyone can. I dated a girl who was into her teachings -- a smart person, too. It's all too easy to get caught up in crazy shite.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's something to MightyCow's argument here. Think about how L Ron Hubbard will be remembered by Scientologists in decades to come. People will say (and believe) that the man performed miracles. And this is in an age when it's possible to actually document how false that notion is.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have now way to know if the writers of the Bible (Koran, Book of Mormon, what have you) were any more believable than my leprechaun story. The only thing that is different is that these religious books have generations of history, so we are completely unable to judge the honesty, believeability, or authority of the sources.
It all comes down to cultural acceptability. If you believe in angels, it's OK, because that's part of a major religion.
You are overlooking all the differences in the details of these different stories. The Bible is different from your leprechaun story because it is written by a different author (or authors), it contains different details, it entails accepting different conclusions about the world, and so on. The details can make all the difference in whether something is believable or isn't. What you are arguing is essentially like saying that if I believe my history textbook is true then I should also believe Ender's Game is true, since both are books by some author and since I couldn't really verify either. But the details matter - I can easily judge that my history book is intended as truth, whereas Ender's Game is fiction, based on the details of what I know about each.
Consider the fact that I consider the New Testament to be a more accurate account of history than the Old Testament. Both books are "culturally acceptable". Both entail miracles. Both are written by people whose honesty, believeability, and authority I can't directly verify. So why does one seem more believable to me than the other? The answer lies in the details - many of the stories of the Old Testament would have been difficult or impossible for someone to observe and then write down, many of the stories appear to be parables designed more to express an idea than tell historical fact, in some cases the morals are not consistent with what I've found to be true. All those details come together to make it seem less likely to be true in my judgement.
In the same way, you can't just say that because I don't believe your leprechaun story then I shouldn't believe the Bible either. They are entirely different stories, told by entirely different people, entailing entirely different things, and differing greatly in the degree to which other people and other evidence seems to me to back them up.
quote:This sounds like you're going for a really radical externalism about justification. According to a view like this, "truth tracking" performance determines whether a particular set of epistemic norms is correct.
It doesn't determine what is correct. What is correct simply is what is true! And it doesn't determine what is justified either - what is justified is what you can conclude based on everything you have access to at the moment you are making the belief. Instead, I'm just pointing out that in situations where you aren't justified in claiming to be certain of a given belief, it is wise to be open to and gather new information that you didn't have before.
So, someone in the Descartes demon's world would be justified in believing his world is real, since all the evidence points to that. But he wouldn't be justified in saying he's 100% certain the world is real - and thus he'd be wise to be open to any new information that might alter his conclusion. I think that's the best way to avoid getting stuck in a dead end of reasoning where misleading evidence points you into a set of assumptions you can't escape from. As Descartes' situation shows, enough bad evidence might make it virtually impossible to escape that dead end regardless of how much you look for new information - but most situations are not that extreme.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It doesn't determine what is correct. What is correct simply is what is true! And it doesn't determine what is justified either - what is justified is what you can conclude based on everything you have access to at the moment you are making the belief.
I was using "correct" as synonymous with "justified" at that point.
quote:Instead, I'm just pointing out that in situations where you aren't justified in claiming to be certain of a given belief, it is wise to be open to and gather new information that you didn't have before.
This doesn't follow at all. If you're justified in being 99% certain of P, it might be a very bad use of your time to seek out evidence against P when you know such evidence is unlikely to appear. To return to the example, it would be unwise for someone who doesn't have a very strong independent interest in epistemology to seek out evidence about whether the external world is real.
Our policy should be to seek out evidence that we justifiably believe is likely to surprise us. There's only so much time and only so much processing power in your head.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Tres, let me re-quote what you said and check whether you're rescinding this earlier claim...
quote:If someone at some point concludes "a reasonable person bases all their beliefs purely on evidence and reason" and never questions that conclusion any further, then he's in trouble if that turns out to not be true.
Do you really believe this? Do you think it's possible that our justification for the claim "a reasonable person bases all their beliefs purely on the evidence for or against them" can be undermined?
I don't think it can, even by examples like the Cartesian demon. Basing your beliefs on evidence is the definition of being reasonable, even if you're in one of the unlucky situations where being reasonable leads to false beliefs. That's what I was trying to say above.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you're justified in being 99% certain of P, it might be a very bad use of your time to seek out evidence against P when you know such evidence is unlikely to appear. To return to the example, it would be unwise for someone who doesn't have a very strong independent interest in epistemology to seek out evidence about whether the external world is real.
The degree to which you'd actively go out and seek new information is probably going to depend on how certain you are of your belief and how important you think that belief is. But being open to new information is not necessarily the same as actively seeking it - even a person 99% confident of an relatively unimportant belief may benefit from being open to new information should it happen to appear.
quote:Do you really believe this? Do you think it's possible that our justification for the claim "a reasonable person bases all their beliefs purely on the evidence for or against them" can be undermined?
I don't think it can, even by examples like the Cartesian demon. Basing your beliefs on evidence is the definition of being reasonable, even if you're in one of the unlucky situations where being reasonable leads to false beliefs.
It could be undermined if you were mistaken about that being the definition of "reasonable". If by evidence one means only material scientific evidence, then I don't think that is the definition of reasonable.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you're justified in being 99% certain of P, it might be a very bad use of your time to seek out evidence against P when you know such evidence is unlikely to appear. To return to the example, it would be unwise for someone who doesn't have a very strong independent interest in epistemology to seek out evidence about whether the external world is real.
The degree to which you'd actively go out and seek new information is probably going to depend on how certain you are of your belief and how important you think that belief is.
So in your scheme, since the shaman is certain that his prayers work, he will never look for disconfirming evidence.
Scientists, on the other hand, make a point to look for falsifying evidence. And they find it sometimes, and alter their conclusions accordingly.
Which mindset are you claiming leads to better medical outcomes?
Do you really think that that difference in mindset isn't an integral part of the difference?
quote:But being open to new information is not necessarily the same as actively seeking it - even a person 99% confident of an relatively unimportant belief may benefit from being open to new information should it happen to appear.
But human beings being what they are, even if falsifying information falls right in their lap, they often won't accept it. How many people lose their faith when Jesus fails to heal their loved one? How many people die in the course of alternative "medicine" while their symptoms are obviously getting worse? How many people lose their savings to a "system" that was supposed to beat Vegas?
Does it comfort you as the torturer is pulling your spouses' fingernails out that he really is "open" to new information? What's the quote..."It's very hard to get a man to understand a thing when his job depends on him not understanding it"
They all have their authorities. They all have their judgement. You keep saying that these are the ultimate guides to good decision making. You can't bring yourself to say "If the reason and evidence don't support judgment, go with the evidence". So if you can't argue it, why should the person dying on homeopathic treatment do it?
quote:
quote:Basing your beliefs on evidence is the definition of being reasonable, even if you're in one of the unlucky situations where being reasonable leads to false beliefs.
It could be undermined if you were mistaken about that being the definition of "reasonable".
Okay, so by your definition, is the torturer, who has no evidence to support his belief, but only the word of his authorities and his personal judgment, being reasonable?
Most people would say that the common definition of the word precludes that, but if you are redefining yet another word, like you previously redefined "faith" and "evidence", then you should openly and honestly say so.
Well, the really honest thing to do would be to stop redefining words to engage in fallacies, but obvious that's not going to happen.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh: I get that you're trying to insult me, so kudos for that, but you are entirely missing the point.
If it's insulting to suggest it might be unlikely you're one of the quite rare people able to motivate others to actually live and die for you, then yes, I was definitely insulting you.
As for the point, what was the point? It seems the point is, with respect to you and swbarnes at least, that 'evidence' has two entirely different standards when it comes to religion and...well, everything else. For religion, it must be completely overwhelming in order to even be considered, and when it's not - and of course it never is - it's all reduced to absolute laughability. But for secular matters, such as what science 'clearly says' about homosexuality, well, the bar gets an awful lot lower.
Or for the claim that 'we can look to current people for an example of how hard it is'. If I were to say, "Look at the number of people there are who believe in God," you would say immediately, "That's not evidence of anything!" And you'd be right to do so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was disappointed to see that this thread was still going on, since I figured it would just be a repeat of the same old arguments... but then I saw that Destineer was posting! It's cool to see you around again. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Religion doesn't need overwhelming evidence - any highly unlikely claim needs overwhelming evidence. Religion happens to make many highly unlikely claims, none of which, it turns out, have much if any evidence.
If we don't believe that evil spirits caused the black plague, why should we believe that Jesus's spit cured blindness? If we don't believe that Aztec human sacrifices were necessary to insure rain, why should we believe that Jesus's human sacrifice was necessary for salvation.
I'm not the one who has different standards for different claims. It's the religious people who believe their own books claims while disregarding parallel claims made by other traditions.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Also, Tres, let me re-quote what you said and check whether you're rescinding this earlier claim...
quote:If someone at some point concludes "a reasonable person bases all their beliefs purely on evidence and reason" and never questions that conclusion any further, then he's in trouble if that turns out to not be true.
Do you really believe this? Do you think it's possible that our justification for the claim "a reasonable person bases all their beliefs purely on the evidence for or against them" can be undermined?
I haven't followed this full discussion and so I don't claim I have any idea what point Tres was trying to make. I do however have serious concerns about the claim that ""a reasonable person bases all their beliefs purely on evidence and reason".
First, there are many many occasions in life where reason and evidence are insufficient to choose between two or more alternatives. Many of those instances demand that a person make a choice. Those instances can be as simple as deciding whether or not you want dessert or as complex as choosing between two job offers or whether or not to have a child. It simply isn't possible to lead a life based solely on reason and evidence. Most choices ultimately involve not only reason and evidence, but values that are personal and subjective and guesses about future events that no one can accurately predict.
Second, there is a growing body evidence that humans have two parallel decisions making systems. A very fast emotional system, and a much slower rational system. Most of the time, people form their opinions quickly and emotionally and then search for reasons and evidence to back up that initial judgment. It is possible for the rational system to override the initial emotional response but its uncommon. Both systems are necessary to be a functional human being. People who have brain damage to the part of the brain responsible for the rapid emotional response, are still able to handle moral reasoning perfectly in the abstract, but in real life situations these people perform disastrously. They are indecisive, show poor judgement, and make irrational choices. The research suggests that anyone under the opinion that all their beliefs are based purely on evidence and reasoning, is deceiving themselves.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I was disappointed to see that this thread was still going on, since I figured it would just be a repeat of the same old arguments... but then I saw that Destineer was posting! It's cool to see you around again.
Hey man!
I've been around a bit lately, now that the semester's over. Always good, and surprising, to see someone with a lower Member Number than me (besides Tom).
quote: First, there are many many occasions in life where reason and evidence are insufficient to choose between two or more alternatives. Many of those instances demand that a person make a choice. Those instances can be as simple as deciding whether or not you want dessert or as complex as choosing between two job offers or whether or not to have a child. It simply isn't possible to lead a life based solely on reason and evidence. Most choices ultimately involve not only reason and evidence, but values that are personal and subjective and guesses about future events that no one can accurately predict.
Rabbit, decisions aren't the same as beliefs. I agree that choices about what to do must often be made in the absence of evidence. In those cases, I'd say we act from ignorance. And that's fine, it's sometimes the best we can do.
If I'm running from my enemy, and forced to choose an unfamiliar door as my escape route, that might be the best choice even though my evidence doesn't tell me the door is safe. But it would be mistaken for me to form the belief that the door is a safe escape route. It would be a mistake to go in expecting to live. All I need in order to act is the belief that for all I know it's the best available option.
So yes, decisions and actions can be rational without evidence. Beliefs, not so much.
quote:So in your scheme, since the shaman is certain that his prayers work, he will never look for disconfirming evidence.
Scientists, on the other hand, make a point to look for falsifying evidence. And they find it sometimes, and alter their conclusions accordingly.
Which mindset are you claiming leads to better medical outcomes?
Do you really think that that difference in mindset isn't an integral part of the difference?
sw, Tres was quoting me here, and I agree with him -- if you really justifiably believe something is overwhelmingly likely, there's not usually much point in seeking out contrary evidence. That's what justifies KoM's dismissive attitude about religion, which Tres was criticizing above.
quote:It could be undermined if you were mistaken about that being the definition of "reasonable". If by evidence one means only material scientific evidence, then I don't think that is the definition of reasonable.
OK, I agree with this, but it's a pretty limited claim compared to what you were saying before. You were suggesting that whatever method actually leads us to the truth, even if it involves disregarding evidence, is rational.
If all you're saying is that there's some a priori knowledge that doesn't come from experiments, I doubt anyone who's thought it through would disagree. But there's no way to get from there to your criticism of King of Men.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: sw, Tres was quoting me here, and I agree with him -- if you really justifiably believe something is overwhelmingly likely, there's not usually much point in seeking out contrary evidence. That's what justifies KoM's dismissive attitude about religion, which Tres was criticizing above.
But there's that "justifiably".
Is the torturer "justified" in his belief that torturing Tres's spouse will save their soul? My answer is no, because there's no reason and evidenc supporting that conclusion. But the torturer has his authorities and his personal judgment, so I don't see how Tres can say that they aren't, without the bald "He's wrong becuase I don't like his conclusion".
Tres won't answer. Tres keeps insisting that one's personal judgment, is all the justification one needs. Or reliance on authorites, but Tres can't explain how he picks those either. Oh, he's quite sure that Muslims aren't authorities on the divinity of Jesus, but he won't explain how he came to that conclusion.
quote:OK, I agree with this, but it's a pretty limited claim compared to what you were saying before. You were suggesting that whatever method actually leads us to the truth, even if it involves disregarding evidence, is rational.
How will you recognise the truth? This is circular. Tres's judgment tells him what he wants to be true, like that his brain and his mind are separate. Evidence contradicts this, but it's okay for Tres to disregard that in favor of his strong feelings, because those feelings are leading him to the "truth" that he believed in advance.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:They all have their authorities. They all have their judgement.
They all have their evidence too. If you find some flat-earthers, I'm sure they could explain what they believe to be their evidence that the earth is flat.
quote:You can't bring yourself to say "If the reason and evidence don't support judgment, go with the evidence". So if you can't argue it, why should the person dying on homeopathic treatment do it?
If a doctor is telling you that you need surgery to cure a cancer or you'll die, but you have personally tried homeopathic treatment and have come to believe it works, I recommend trusting the authority of the doctor over your limited evidence that homeopathic treatment works. So sometimes an authority can trump certain evidence. While other times, the evidence may be more convincing than the authority.
quote:Tres's judgment tells him what he wants to be true, like that his brain and his mind are separate. Evidence contradicts this, but it's okay for Tres to disregard that in favor of his strong feelings, because those feelings are leading him to the "truth" that he believed in advance.
A side note on this: The thing I believed in advance is the opposite of what I believe now, on that topic. I originally believed, mostly because authorities told me, that brain = mind. Evidence and reason later led me to believe otherwise. So this particular example doesn't really help your case....
Destineer,
quote:So yes, decisions and actions can be rational without evidence. Beliefs, not so much.
Aren't decisions a type of belief though? If I choose A over B, doesn't my choice imply a belief that "A is the better option"? Unless I am choosing randomly... but even in that case I think that'd entail a belief that "A and B are equally good options, as far as I know."
quote:OK, I agree with this, but it's a pretty limited claim compared to what you were saying before. You were suggesting that whatever method actually leads us to the truth, even if it involves disregarding evidence, is rational.
I wouldn't say that ANY method that leads us to the truth is rational. Just guessing and happening to be right every time is not rational, for instance.
I would say that rationality entails a measuring of all information available to you - including not just evidence and logic, but also less reliable information including things authorities have told you and beliefs you've already come to in the past. (I would call all of that "evidence", from scientific studies to astrology to what my neighbor told me, but several objected to my using the term that way.) My view of reason is that we put all of that on a mental scale (judgement) which then tells us which answer is most likely to be true.
The trouble with this is that different scales can give different answers, given the same input. I'm actually okay with that. I think two people can be rational and look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. (Although it is important to note there is only one truly best answer given the evidence, just like there is only one amount you actually weigh, even though scales may differ slightly in what they tell you.) But then that leaves me with the situation of a crazy person whose scale/judgement weighs the evidence all wrong - is that person rational? That's why I was making those comments about being open to new evidence even after having a justified belief. You have to continually check your scale to make sure you've weighed everything correctly, and then make adjustments as you find your mistakes. I think that's a part of rationality too, because otherwise the crazy person would be rational to keep acting crazy despite his conclusions repeatedly not working out.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aren't decisions a type of belief though? If I choose A over B, doesn't my choice imply a belief that "A is the better option"? Unless I am choosing randomly... but even in that case I think that'd entail a belief that "A and B are equally good options, as far as I know."
No. If you're trying to kick your meth addiction, but succumb to weak will and decide to take the drug anyway, that doesn't mean you believe taking the drug is the better option. You might believe it's a bad option, but simply be unable to resist your strong desire to take it.
quote:I would say that rationality entails a measuring of all information available to you - including not just evidence and logic, but also less reliable information including things authorities have told you and beliefs you've already come to in the past. (I would call all of that "evidence", from scientific studies to astrology to what my neighbor told me, but several objected to my using the term that way.)
I'd tend to agree with your usage. Although someone who believes astrology works, or that his layperson neighbor is a reliable source of information on religious questions, has almost certainly been irrational in the past. It's hard to see how someone could reach these conclusions without mis-weighing the evidence.
That's why irrationality is so insidious. At a young age we reach mistaken impressions about the reliability of "experts" by a very natural train of thought (my mom must know what's morally right and wrong, since she always knew when I was being a bad child; everybody listens to this clergyman, so he must be very knowledgeable). Then we develop critical thinking skills at a later age, but are left with a rotten foundation of "knowledge" to build on.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should add that decisions do involve some belief, but only for very trivial reasons. For example, the decision to take meth is accompanied by the belief "I am going to take meth." But the justification of that belief has nothing to do with the justification of the decision.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They all have their authorities. They all have their judgement.
They all have their evidence too. If you find some flat-earthers, I'm sure they could explain what they believe to be their evidence that the earth is flat.
What evidence do you claim flat earthers have that is inconsistant with a very large spherical world? And no, their strong feelings are not evidence, nor is refering to authority.
quote:
quote:You can't bring yourself to say "If the reason and evidence don't support judgment, go with the evidence". So if you can't argue it, why should the person dying on homeopathic treatment do it?
If a doctor is telling you that you need surgery to cure a cancer or you'll die, but you have personally tried homeopathic treatment and have come to believe it works, I recommend trusting the authority of the doctor over your limited evidence that homeopathic treatment works.
But if the shaman offers to cut a hole in your brain to let the bad spirits out, then you shouldn't trust their authority, right?
So what are you claiming is the difference between the doctor and the shaman if not the fact that the doctor has the evidence on his side, and the shaman doesn't? And no, "I just don't believe in faith healers" isn't an intelligent answer.
quote:So sometimes an authority can trump certain evidence. While other times, the evidence may be more convincing than the authority.
How do you decide which is which, other than chosing to believe authorities which agree with you, and believing the "evidence" when it agrees with you?
For instance, (for the millionth time) how did you decide whether Muslim religious leaders are authorities on the divinty of Jesus?
quote:
quote:Tres's judgment tells him what he wants to be true, like that his brain and his mind are separate. Evidence contradicts this, but it's okay for Tres to disregard that in favor of his strong feelings, because those feelings are leading him to the "truth" that he believed in advance.
A side note on this: The thing I believed in advance is the opposite of what I believe now, on that topic. I originally believed, mostly because authorities told me, that brain = mind. Evidence and reason later led me to believe otherwise. So this particular example doesn't really help your case....
Yes it does, because you admitted previously that your "evidence" isn't evidence at all, it's just your feelings. And you have demonstrated that you are unable to apply your reasoning to any of the straightforward questions I've asked you over and over again, so I can't think much of what you call "reason", either.
quote:I would say that rationality entails a measuring of all information available to you - including not just evidence and logic, but also less reliable information including things authorities have told you and beliefs you've already come to in the past. (I would call all of that "evidence", from scientific studies to astrology to what my neighbor told me, but several objected to my using the term that way.)
Again, do you not understand that using a term in a completely different way than everyone else uses it is dishonest? It's marignally less dishonest to overtly admit you are being dishonest, but it's still dishonest.
The reason everyone else says that evidence is reliable is because we are defining unreliable things as not evidence. So when you say that you have "evidence" supporting you, and you are including all kinds of unreliable things, you are deliberately warping the definition of evidence. It's the fallacy of equivocation.
quote:My view of reason is that we put all of that on a mental scale (judgement) which then tells us which answer is most likely to be true.
That's just what the torturer does. His mental scale puts his religous belief that your spouse is a vile heretic on the scale, with his trust in his religious authorities that tell him that he is right, and the end result is his judgment tells him to pull your spouse apart on the rack. In fact, he even has his "strong evidence". It's exactly as convincing to him as your feelings that your mind and brain are separate are to you.
And though you disagree with the conclusion, you apparently find no fault with his method of drawing that conclusion?
As opposed to the method of "Geez, there's no evidence about the state of anyone's soul, no evidence that pulling out anyone's fingernails is going to change anything about that soul, if it even exists, no evidence that any God wants any of this, if God even exists, so why would I torture anyone"?
quote:But then that leaves me with the situation of a crazy person whose scale/judgement weighs the evidence all wrong - is that person rational? That's why I was making those comments about being open to new evidence even after having a justified belief. You have to continually check your scale to make sure you've weighed everything correctly, and then make adjustments as you find your mistakes.
How do you check the scale to know if you are weighing your feelings about your mind and brain are accurate?
If the torturer is constantly praying for guidance, or the dying subject of the faith healer is constantly praying for guidance, and both people's prayers confirm that they are on the right path, does that make their conclusions rational? They are checking their scales as best they can, right?
Really, this is a simple yes-no. I can answer it quite easily in a sentence, but why can't you?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. If you're trying to kick your meth addiction, but succumb to weak will and decide to take the drug anyway, that doesn't mean you believe taking the drug is the better option. You might believe it's a bad option, but simply be unable to resist your strong desire to take it.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I'd think there is still a belief implied, if a decision was made to do it.... although the belief might be something like "I know this is a bad idea but its worth it to escape the pain of withdrawal." It's possible some things are just automatic, like breathing or yelling when in pain, but I wouldn't exactly call those decisions either.
quote:That's why irrationality is so insidious. At a young age we reach mistaken impressions about the reliability of "experts" by a very natural train of thought (my mom must know what's morally right and wrong, since she always knew when I was being a bad child; everybody listens to this clergyman, so he must be very knowledgeable). Then we develop critical thinking skills at a later age, but are left with a rotten foundation of "knowledge" to build on.
I agree. This is the heart of the problem - but I wouldn't really call people irrational just for having a rotten foundation, unless they don't care how rotten the foundation is or don't do anything to fix it. (This is in part because I suspect everyone has a somewhat rotten foundation...)
swbarnes2,
"What evidence do you claim flat earthers have that is inconsistant with a very large spherical world?" Check the Flat Earth Society website. "But if the shaman offers to cut a hole in your brain to let the bad spirits out, then you shouldn't trust their authority, right?" I think you shouldn't. "So what are you claiming is the difference between the doctor and the shaman if not the fact that the doctor has the evidence on his side, and the shaman doesn't?" The difference is that everything I've seen leads me to believe doctors are trustworthy authorities, which is not true for shamans. "How do you decide which is which, other than chosing to believe authorities which agree with you, and believing the "evidence" when it agrees with you?" I use my best judgement based on all the information available to me. "For instance, (for the millionth time) how did you decide whether Muslim religious leaders are authorities on the divinty of Jesus?" I used my best judgement based on the information I have about them, particularly the fact that their teachings conflict with many other of my beliefs and the fact that they base their conclusions on authorities I haven't accepted. "Again, do you not understand that using a term in a completely different way than everyone else uses it is dishonest?" I don't consider it dishonest if you explain carefully how you use the term and if you are using it in the way you believe is correct, but since people complained, I have been using the term your way in this thread anyway for the sake of clarity. "And though you disagree with the conclusion, you apparently find no fault with his method of drawing that conclusion?" If by "his method" you mean "using authorities along with evidence and reasoning to derive your beliefs" then yes, I find no fault in his method even though I believe his conclusion is totally wrong. "How do you check the scale to know if you are weighing your feelings about your mind and brain are accurate?" Keep asking questions, keep being skeptical, and keep comparing your beliefs against new information. "If the torturer is constantly praying for guidance, or the dying subject of the faith healer is constantly praying for guidance, and both people's prayers confirm that they are on the right path, does that make their conclusions rational?" No.
"Really, this is a simple yes-no. I can answer it quite easily in a sentence, but why can't you?" I can answer all these questions in a sentence, like I did above, but I'm thinking you probably want to know WHY I answer them the way I do and how my answers fit together. It takes more than a sentence to explain that. It's also difficult to do if your break my post into tiny pieces.
posted
It seems to me that much of the problem with Tres' argument, and perhaps that of many people, is that they do not have an accurate or reliable method to determine what constitutes good evidence.
Lots of people read a horoscope, or get a cold reading by a "psychic" or take a holistic medicine and feel a placebo effect (or selectively recall the positive trials and ignore the negative) and incorrectly conclude that they have solid evidence on their side.
Tres' reasoning seems a little wonky, but not completely out of line, except when you realize that his "evidence" is nothing of the sort. It is actually a special category of belief, which has undergone minimal testing, and then been decided to be True, hereafter to be believed without question.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you say and what is true seem to have some level of disconnect, which is where the problem arises. I'm not accusing you of lying, but rather of having an inaccurate view of your process for deciding Truth.
It certainly doesn't look like you've actually reviewed any of your beliefs in the last dozen pages, while several people are trying to explain to you why some of them are based on completely illogical and self-contradictory reasoning.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure I agree with that. I'd think there is still a belief implied, if a decision was made to do it.... although the belief might be something like "I know this is a bad idea but its worth it to escape the pain of withdrawal." It's possible some things are just automatic, like breathing or yelling when in pain, but I wouldn't exactly call those decisions either.
What can I say? Read your Aristotle, then read your Michael Smith. It's completely possible to intentionally do something while believing that it's in no way the best thing for you to do.
quote:What you say and what is true seem to have some level of disconnect, which is where the problem arises. I'm not accusing you of lying, but rather of having an inaccurate view of your process for deciding Truth.
Okay, then can you tell me what specifically in this thread made it seem to you to be true that I support believing something without question?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying that you believe without question, but that you're asking bad questions, and don't seem interested in asking good ones, because they lead to answers you (and others, this isn't a personal attack) don't want to hear.
Nobody is answering my questions for example about why we disbelieve spirits causing disease, but believe that Jesus can cure blindness with his spit, or why human sacrifices to bring rain are barbaric and backward, but human sacrifice to appease a vengeful God is perfectly reasonable.
Most religions are based on beliefs that we would call crazy nonsense in a different setting. What makes them logical or believable, besides cultural acceptance and appeal to authority?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
MightyCow, Whether you believe it or not, there are some fairly significant differences between your story and commonly accepted religious beliefs. There is a large amount of scholar work looking at new religious movements and the qualities that make them believable. You should at least look at what's been done in the area before you start making claims. That is, after, the scientific approach.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: MightyCow, Whether you believe it or not, there are some fairly significant differences between your story and commonly accepted religious beliefs. There is a large amount of scholar work looking at new religious movements and the qualities that make them believable. You should at least look at what's been done in the area before you start making claims. That is, after, the scientific approach.
Can you give some examples of these significant differences that don't boil down to cultural acceptance or appeal to authority?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobody is answering my questions for example about why we disbelieve spirits causing disease, but believe that Jesus can cure blindness with his spit, or why human sacrifices to bring rain are barbaric and backward, but human sacrifice to appease a vengeful God is perfectly reasonable.
Most religions are based on beliefs that we would call crazy nonsense in a different setting. What makes them logical or believable, besides cultural acceptance and appeal to authority?
Instead of "cultural acceptance" it should be prior justified beliefs. If you have a prior belief, which you believe is already supported by other justification, that Jesus is the physical incarnation of an all-powerful diety, then that prior belief makes it seem a lot more possible that Jesus performed miracles. That prior belief must be weighed against your other prior beliefs, such as your belief that spit is phsyically unable to cure blindless. Conflict with these prior beliefs is what makes a given thing seem crazy - and is why it might seem crazy to one person, but not to another person who approaches it having been raised in a way that led them to accept a different set of prior beliefs.
But there really isn't anything other than consistency with prior beliefs and appeal to authority that differentiates between one miracle and another. If trusted authorities hadn't said Jesus cured blindness, it would not make sense to believe it. If you want an answer giving some sort of evidence other than that, I can't give you one - not because I'm uninterested in it, but because it would be a lie to say there's some other reason.
---
But it is being unfair to religion to suggest this phenomenon is unique to religions. It's also true in other areas of life. Quantum mechanics seems just as crazy to me as religious miracles do (in fact, maybe more crazy... if someone told me Jesus had turned an ocean wave into a particle of ocean, and that it was actually both at the same time, I'd have a hard time even imagining it), yet I believe it because (1) scientists say so, (2) my prior beliefs suggest that if it weren't true then science would have found it to be false. To say I have some evidence of quantum mechanics other than appeal to authority and its consistency with certain other prior beliefs I hold would be a lie.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To say I have some evidence of quantum mechanics other than appeal to authority and its consistency with certain other prior beliefs I hold would be a lie.
You may not have it in front of you, but it exists, and can be provided to you. I don't think your clergy can do the same.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: MightyCow, Whether you believe it or not, there are some fairly significant differences between your story and commonly accepted religious beliefs. There is a large amount of scholar work looking at new religious movements and the qualities that make them believable. You should at least look at what's been done in the area before you start making claims. That is, after, the scientific approach.
Can you give some examples of these significant differences that don't boil down to cultural acceptance or appeal to authority?
Since I'm referring to the scholarly study of new religious movements, none of the factors are closely related to cultural acceptance or appeal to authority.
Its a pretty complicated question that I can't really do justice to. My very short and inadequate answer is this, religion isn't solely or even primarily about the mythology. Religious practices, rituals and theology are far more important than what it says about supernatural beings or creation. Religions thrive for two key reasons that have little to do with their underlying mythology. First, they encourage practices (like fasting, meditation, prayer, and other rituals) that stimulate the areas of the brain which create a sense of well being and altruism. Second, they offer compelling visions about how an individual relates to community and universe.
If the subject interests you, you should study it because a lot scholarly research has been done in the area. I have a general beef about people who make strident claims (in any area whether be it climate change, civil war history, or religion) without bothering first to learn what others have already discovered. I find it most ironic when its done by new atheists claiming to promote objectivism and reason.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nobody is answering my questions for example about why we disbelieve spirits causing disease, but believe that Jesus can cure blindness with his spit, or why human sacrifices to bring rain are barbaric and backward, but human sacrifice to appease a vengeful God is perfectly reasonable.
Show of hands, please: who actually believes the last part of this statement and considers themselves a Christian?
Yeah, I thought so. MightyCow, your constant protestations of the superiority of actual evidence and rationality would be a lot more persuasive if you would, y'know, actually speak to the beliefs people hold instead of putting words in their mouths and ideas in their heads and crowing about how ridiculous they are.
Surely empiricism and rationality are strong enough weapons not to need any help, right? The funny thing is, they are, really, but you seem either unwilling or unable to use them without props.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really Rabbit, you want to bring your "ha, ha, stupid atheist" garbage here too, as you bring up red herrings instead of actually answering the questions? Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, so you can't actually answer the substance of the question, so all you have is complaining about my characterization of the scripture.
I'll reword it and see if you have an answer:
Why is it horrible and horiffic to believe that human sacrifices were necessary to change the weather, but it is beautiful and awesome to believe that Jesus's sacrifice on the cross was a vital step in the reconciliation of humanity and it's supernatural creator?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, so you can't actually answer the substance of the question, so all you have is complaining about my characterization of the scripture.
I did answer the substance of your question by pointing out it was fundamentally flawed. If you want an answer to a question, you should start by asking a clear and legitimate question. So far you have largely failed to do so, particularly in your earlier (mis)characterization of what Christians actually believe.
I really don't understand why it is objectionable to you to have people taking issue when you put ideas in their heads that aren't there. If you want to criticize someone's beliefs, that's fine, it's a discussion board. But have a clear, accurate idea what those beliefs are first. Just because you think, "This is what Christians believe," does not make it so, no more than when a Christian says, "The reason he's an agnostic or atheist is because Satan has claimed his soul."
quote: Why is it horrible and horiffic to believe that human sacrifices were necessary to change the weather, but it is beautiful and awesome to believe that Jesus's sacrifice on the cross was a vital step in the reconciliation of humanity and it's supernatural creator?
Well, one big, obvious answer to that question is to point out how you're, according to Christian belief at least, partially comparing apples and oranges. Jesus being God and all raises the question: why is the death and resurrection of Jesus being compared to a human sacrifice? Or, in other words, it's beautiful and awesome to Christians because it is believed that God loved us human beings so much that God was willing to endure great pain, suffering, and even death, for our sakes. I'm putting that in very broad terms to apply to as many Christians as possible.
Christians believe the sacrifice of Jesus was in order to obtain a much greater reward than improvement in weather, is another very obvious answer.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Really Rabbit, you want to bring your "ha, ha, stupid atheist" garbage here too, as you bring up red herrings instead of actually answering the questions?
I made a very specific focused criticism against a particular type of argument you are making. Perhaps rather than rolling your eyes, you could address my arguments.
If you have followed my posting here at hatrack, you would have noticed that I'm pretty consistent in my complaints about people who shoot their mouths off without bothering to check the facts. Conservatives and theists have received a lot more of my criticism on that front than atheists. If you aren't guilty, demonstrate it. If you are guilty, fix it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
