Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Religion and logic Religion and logic

05-14-2017 , 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
Sorry, I was a bit drunk with that last post. The tone and language was off. I apologise.
np we're on the same team
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
So, your argument is reduced to "they all do it"?
Nope. That's an assertion about reality.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
So actually, what psychology has taught us about humans is that most of them are susceptible to cognitive biases and logical fallacies. As you have just pointed out. So, thanks.

So, are we now just debating whether the religious ones are more susceptible. Well, I suppose they would be, because they already have to suspend their critical thinking faculties to believe in god.
No. It teaches us that ALL humans are susceptible to cognitive biases and logical fallacies.

In particular, your statements throughout this thread simply indicate just how susceptible YOU are to these things.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
Aaron -

Another poster asked you about belief in unicorns etc. You said, I believe, that "based on your personal experience", you found belief in god more reasonable than belief in unicorns. Can you explain why? What experience is this, other, than, of course, being brainwashed from a young age and not having the intellectual courage to break free?
* The cultural concept of a unicorn more or less precludes its existence.
* I have had no experiences to the contrary.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamite22
I think you're painting with too broad a brush here. Not everyone does this and some people do this in more domains than others.
It's true that the domains in which people do this are not the same, and that different people do it to a different extent. But EVERYONE does this.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
When your personal beliefs reach a critical mass of supporters to vote in democratically elected representatives who can enact legislation (or act in any other way) which affects my life, your beliefs become very much my business, and I am going to ask you to justify them.
So... you hate democracy?
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
* The cultural concept of a unicorn more or less precludes its existence.
* I have had no experiences to the contrary.
OP checking out. QED.

TTHRIC?

Last edited by d2_e4; 05-14-2017 at 01:57 PM. Reason: Ok, guess not quite checking out yet, then
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
I can't speak for the poster to whom you responded, but I am definitely arguing this very point, yes.

As to your point about intellectual engagement - you are right in that it's none of my business what you *personally* choose to believe. When your personal beliefs reach a critical mass of supporters to vote in democratically elected representatives who can enact legislation (or act in any other way) which affects my life, your beliefs become very much my business, and I am going to ask you to justify them.
I'm being too complicated. My claim is that arguments about who has a burden of proof with regards to their beliefs about god in philosophical conversations are using a bad analogy to make a pointless argument. The reasons why we have to specify who has the burden of proof in the courtroom do not apply to philosophy.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
So... you hate democracy?
I love democracy; an integral part of it is to challenge people on their objectively nonsensical views. Usually, I wouldn't bother, and let them get run over by a car because they don't believe in "objective reality" or something. Unfortunately, now, there are way too many of them, and not enough cars.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
I'm being too complicated. My claim is that arguments about who has a burden of proof with regards to their beliefs about god in philosophical conversations are using a bad analogy to make a pointless argument. The reasons why we have to specify who has the burden of proof in the courtroom do not apply to philosophy.
When you're debating "burden of proof" with someone who asserts that "all propositions are a priori 50/50", I think it's actually a decent analogy.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
I love democracy; an integral part of it is to challenge people on their objectively nonsensical views. Usually, I wouldn't bother, and let them get run over by a car because they don't believe in "objective reality" or something. Unfortunately, now, there are way too many of them, and not enough cars.
So you love democracy unless you're losing?
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
TTHRIC?
This happened quite a while ago. You keep trying to stop, but you can't help yourself. Both your professed and demonstrated willful ignorance are driving you to come back and do more and more to humiliate yourself.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Shifting the burden of proof is often considered to be a logical fallacy. Specifically, this means shifting the burden from the one making the claim (the burden to demonstrate the claim) to others (the burden to disprove the claim).
It genuinely amazes me that you understand this, yet continue to take the position that you do.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 03:42 PM
Aaron, you're not coming off great in your latter responses. Maybe tone down the personal insults?
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
This happened quite a while ago. You keep trying to stop, but you can't help yourself.
True

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Both your professed and demonstrated willful ignorance are driving you to come back and do more and more to humiliate yourself.
False.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
So you love democracy unless you're losing?
You keep using that word. I'm not sure it means what you think it means.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
Aaron, you're not coming off great in your latter responses. Maybe tone down the personal insults?
Meh. I'm mirroring you at this point. If you want the nonsense toned down, then tone down your nonsense. It's not complicated.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
It genuinely amazes me that you understand this, yet continue to take the position that you do.
Why? Because I happen to reach a different conclusion than you do?

Your genuine amazement is nothing that should surprise anybody. Basically, it's an artifact of the original thesis you put forward. As soon as you release that thesis, things make a whole lot more sense. But as long as you hold onto your emotional reaction to the entire conversation, you're going to be stuck where you're at.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
You keep using that word. I'm not sure it means what you think it means.
Your lack of confidence doesn't bother me.

I'm very confident that you would have no problem with it if the mindless masses were on your side, based on the utter lack of intellectual honesty you've exhibited in this thread in order to defend your thesis. So it's not that these people have "objectively nonsensical views" but that there are more of them that disagree with you than agree with you.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Your lack of confidence doesn't bother me.

I'm very confident that you would have no problem with it if the mindless masses were on your side, based on the utter lack of intellectual honesty you've exhibited in this thread in order to defend your thesis. So it's not that these people have "objectively nonsensical views" but that there are more of them that disagree with you than agree with you.
Unfortunately, you are probably right. This is just a sad testament (no pun intended) to the educational system in your country, and in particular, the "red" states.

And, no, I don't think popularity implies correctness. In fact - quite the opposite: look at a bell curve your spare time.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Your lack of confidence doesn't bother me.

I'm very confident that you would have no problem with it if the mindless masses were on your side, based on the utter lack of intellectual honesty you've exhibited in this thread in order to defend your thesis. So it's not that these people have "objectively nonsensical views" but that there are more of them that disagree with you than agree with you.
Please tell me you're no older than 23. If you are, WAAF.
Religion and logic Quote
05-14-2017 , 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
And, no, I don't think popularity implies correctness.
You don't think reality implies it, either. What other reason would you have to deny factual information?

Quote:
In fact - quite the opposite: look at a bell curve your spare time.
Right. I'll add this to the list of things that you probably don't understand.
Religion and logic Quote
05-15-2017 , 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Good one, did you post this so I could refer you to the "abuse" section. We obviously aren't going to agree on what is the null hypothesis here, so ignoring that we could ask that both sides provide evidence. I asked a page ago for that.
Religion and logic Quote
05-15-2017 , 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeccross
Good one, did you post this so I could refer you to the "abuse" section. We obviously aren't going to agree on what is the null hypothesis here, so ignoring that we could ask that both sides provide evidence. I asked a page ago for that.
Considering that Aaron's position on the burden of proof appears to be "every proposition is 50/50, either it's true or it isn't", this is a damn fine idea.
Religion and logic Quote
05-15-2017 , 07:56 AM
I'll even get us started.

Evidence against the existence of god:

- An omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipotent being is incompatible with all known laws of physics.

Evidence for the existence of god:

-

.
Religion and logic Quote

      
m