Big Bird and the Belief that All Beliefs are Equally Improbable

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, I'm quite clearly saying that people are believing in different gods.

Except it does. It also means that, at most, only one of us can be believing in the real Micheal D Higgins. However that is a separate issue to the tangent I'm discussing about belief in the same particular god.

I don't think it's a separate tangent at all. There's a clear difference between (a) believing in different things and (b) having differing beliefs about the same thing. You may believe that Donald Trump wears Man Tan Lurid Tartrazine no. 27; I may believe that he wears Clarins Jaundice Special Glow for Boys; regardless of which (if either) of us is correct, these are both beliefs that we hold about the same Donald Trump.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue is not whether the existenc of god is ordinary or extraordinary; it's whether the claim that god exists is extraordinary or ordinary.

If a being who is "a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe" is extraordinary, then any claims about their existence is also extraordinary, as they would require an otherwise ordinary human being in the position to determine that a being is truly " a unique god who is the creator... etc.".

Peregrinus wrote: »

Think about it; if god exists, then his existence is certainly ordinary - as in, it's part of the order of things.

If god exists then by being a "a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe" he is therefore unique, not part of the same order of things as we are (by virtue of being outside the universe) and singularly able to create our universe.


You seem to be trying to use a personal definition of extraordinary so obtuse that it would render the word unusable in any situation. Your usage would amount to saying that Jeff Bezo's isn't extraordinarily rich simply because his wealth exists.

looksee

lalababa wrote: »

Unless of course you live in a priest ridden conformist society hell bent(excuse the pun) on making anyones lives a misery if they don't conform. Ask any Irish parent why they pushed their kid to holy communion/confirmation and the answer will be..."ahh sure I wouldn't like em to stand out"
Or "where would they go to school??'
Thanks be ta f**k things are changing

Except of course this is nothing to do with believing in god, its all about just fitting in regardless, a pragmatic way of taking the easy route.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think it's a separate tangent at all. There's a clear difference between (a) believing in different things and (b) having differing beliefs about the same thing. You may believe that Donald Trump wears Man Tan Lurid Tartrazine no. 27; I may believe that he wears Clarins Jaundice Special Glow for Boys; regardless of which (if either) of us is correct, these are both beliefs that we hold about the same Donald Trump.

And in such a facetious example, I would agree.
But in an example where I believed that Bill says we should execute people for working heavy machinery before 7.30am and you believe that Joe says we celebrate such people for having a good work ethic, our two concepts of the the gods we believe in are so different that it makes no sense to try and claim we just have semantic differences about the same god.

karlitob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Antiskeptic was responding to Mr Fegelein's characterisation, in post #1 in this thread, of belief in God an as "extraordinary claim". He doesn't make any counterclaim that belief in God is ordinary; he just asks why it's extraordinary. Mr Fegelein doesn't respond, but Karlitobob does; he says that "it's self-evident" that belief in God is an extraordinary claim, and he has since repeated that but refused to elaborate on it.

So, the only claim advanced about this on either side is that belief in god is extraordinary and, despite request, the reasoning offered in support this claim so far is precisely nil, though the claim is repeated. Apparently we are supposed to take it on faith. Which is notable, in a thread which is supposed to be about the rationality of belief. Can you criticise the rationality of other people's beliefs if you can't or won't give a rational account of your own beliefs?

No I have elaborated.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It is an extraordinary claim that a god exists, it’s an extraordinary claim that water and winS turn into blood and human flesh. It is an extraordinary claim that humans can rise from the dead. These extraordinary claims require evidence that is extra-ordinary. If someone claims that they believe in zombies then I need more evidence than just in believe in it, so do loads of people for millennia, which’s makes it an Ordinary claim (And I don’t even provide any evidence) therefore it’s true to me.


So I have elaborated. Stop misrepresenting me.

And I and other atheists here don’t have a belief in god or gods so stop misrepresenting our position.

boardise

As we know,discussions on this theme go around in brain-boggling circles but at least provide a pretext for a mental workout of sorts....so many layers of analysis possible ...where the definitions of the key concepts we use are open to constant question and dispute.
Unsurprisingly I have no crashingly original insights to add but would endorse some points made by Peregrinus above because I spent some time studing Anthropology and the general view of the discipline was that 'religion' ( however variously defined) was a human cultural universal.
As to the original thread starter question , I remember a saying of a philopsopher from Roman times -
'Credo Quia Absurdum' i.e. I believe (in the religion I believe in) precisely because it is absurd. This apparent paradox makes sense.If we were to assume that flawed fallible human reasoning could capture the nature of a transcendant realm of existence ( with or without Gods))-then we're simply dealing with an outgrowth of human needs or desires -not something that by definition is taken to be ineffable and ultimately unknowable in this world.
Religion is understood by many as a mystery, approachable only by belief and not amenable to colloquial human discourse or understanding.
Perhaps it is arguable that it could be a reasonable stance for some people to accept an overlay of mystery as a coping mechanism.
For now -I throw in another resonant remark from ancient times - Primus in orbe ,deos fecit timor !

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, to some extent, whether you classify a religion as theist, atheist or capable of being either depends on your notion of “god”. If you think god has to be a person, possessed of intelligence, will, etc, then a lot of religions are atheist, or at least atheism-compatible. Whereas if you think a supernatural life-force or a transcendent reality that accounts for the material universe or something of the kind can be classed as “god”, then some of those religions become theist. So this is a fairly blurry line.

I think you'd struggle to find a broadly accepted definition for god that meets the above. Closest is possibly pantheism, but even there the belief is that reality and divinity are the same thing and hence any notional godhead is natural rather than supernatural.

But, secondly, this may not matter for the purpose of this thread. I suggested earlier that all human cultures consider religious questions and propose answers to them and that these answers are continually evolving/being developed. I’ll go further now and say that some of those answers will be theist in nature, no matter how you understand “theos”. Or, at any rate, we have no rational reason (to borrow a phrase from the thread header) to expect that ideas that can be classed as theistic will disappear from the range of ideas that this process generates.

Again, I'd disagree. If you look at naturalist philosophies such as Taoism you wont find any theistic answers to any fundamental questions. No shortage of mysticism and mythology, but all contained within the natural universe (i.e. the Tao). I don't think you'll find much in the way of theistic answers to the big questions in Buddhism either.

patnor1011

Can we agree that eastern and western religions are fundamentally different?
By that, I mean Buddhism and Taoism as eastern and Judeo Christianity and its Islam offshoot as western.

I think that religions for the most part were not created as a means to explain things which people could not understand at that moment but rather as a control mechanism or oppression tool. How else can we call the idea of rules set in stone which must be obeyed with the promise of reward after we die?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

No so. Instilling a belief in something is not comparable to not doing so. The former involves time and instruction, the latter does not

You seem to be supposing that children live in a bubble formed by the four walls you live in. You ask us to believe that your kid won't get to something like age 9 before the question of God/Santa/tooth fairy comes up?

Whar do you say? And is that not instruction when you, influential parent, state your position? Especially so when God is placed in the same category as the other two.

You certainly hear that here all the time but nah, no one was told that by their atheist parents.

Funny that 2 of the 6 kids knocking at my door say their parents told then God doesn't exist ( 1 being told that Santa and the Tooth Fairy don't either)

antiskeptic

boardise wrote: »

As we know,discussions on this theme go around in brain-boggling circles but at least provide a pretext for a mental workout of sorts....so many layers of analysis possible ...where the definitions of the key concepts we use are open to constant question and dispute.

Not here they're not. Some beliefs are assumed as self evident. Evidence, for example. If you can't prove it to someone else then you can't know something for want of being able to evidence it to others

Unsurprisingly I have no crashingly original insights to add but would endorse some points made by Peregrinus above because I spent some time studing Anthropology and the general view of the discipline was that 'religion' ( however variously defined) was a human cultural universal.
As to the original thread starter question , I remember a saying of a philopsopher from Roman times -
'Credo Quia Absurdum' i.e. I believe (in the religion I believe in) precisely because it is absurd. This apparent paradox makes sense.If we were to assume that flawed fallible human reasoning could capture the nature of a transcendant realm of existence ( with or without Gods))-then we're simply dealing with an outgrowth of human needs or desires -not something that by definition is taken to be ineffable and ultimately unknowable in this world.
Religion is understood by many as a mystery, approachable only by belief

If you witnessed something on your own, then you can't evidence it to others. Meaning its a belief .. that you saw a fox cross the road on your way into work at 5am??

antiskeptic

karlitob wrote: »

No I have elaborated.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It is an extraordinary claim that a god exists, it’s an extraordinary claim that water and winS turn into blood and human flesh.

But you haven't said what makes it extraordinary. Indeed, we cannot but suppose you have beliefs and those are probably minority beliefs compared to the ones you suppose extrordinary.

The shoe is very much on your foot.

You know the rules around here: if you can't evidence your claim to all and sundry then what you have going is a belief. You believe claiming God exists is extraordinary.

Argument without evidence??

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You know the rules around here: if you can't evidence your claim to all and sundry then what you have going is a belief.

Mod warning: Less of the back seat modding please. Any discussion on rules etc... to the feedback thread only. Thanks for your attention.

karlitob

antiskeptic wrote: »

But you haven't said what makes it extraordinary. Indeed, we cannot but suppose you have beliefs and those are probably minority beliefs compared to the ones you suppose extrordinary.

The shoe is very much on your foot.

You know the rules around here: if you can't evidence your claim to all and sundry then what you have going is a belief. You believe claiming God exists is extraordinary.

Argument without evidence??

Both shoes are on my foot. I’ve already explained why claiming a belief In a magical mystery man in the sky is extraordinary. You’ve yet to respond to that.

smacl

patnor1011 wrote: »

Can we agree that eastern and western religions are fundamentally different?
By that, I mean Buddhism and Taoism as eastern and Judeo Christianity and its Islam offshoot as western.

Agreed.

I think that religions for the most part were not created as a means to explain things which people could not understand at that moment but rather as a control mechanism or oppression tool. How else can we call the idea of rules set in stone which must be obeyed with the promise of reward after we die?

A bit of both here I think, proto-Christianity and early Christianity for example were very much populist looking to serve the best interests of the various groups involved. Once you get to the Nicene creed, a large part of it is asserting dominance of the stronger trinitarian Christianity over other Christian groups, something that carried on for centuries and is still present to some extent today.

In Eastern tradition, things work a little bit differently. In China for example, Confucianism would be the religion surrounding social and ethical behaviour where Taoism would have more to do with personal behaviour and aspirations. It is quite common for Chinese people to subscribe to more than one system of belief and use the different systems almost like a tool box. So for example when I was staying with some Chinese friends in Hong Kong some years back they were raised Catholic, you'd find statues to the Kitchen God and other household deities knocking around the house, they'd visit the Buddhist temple by times for guidance on certain matters, and they'd practice qigong, taiji and certain aspects of Chinese medicine that are essentially daoist / Taoist.

antiskeptic

karlitob wrote: »

Both shoes are on my foot. I’ve already explained why claiming a belief In a magical mystery man in the sky is extraordinary. You’ve yet to respond to that.

It has been pointed out to you that belief in God is quite ordinary. That is demonstrable by sheer weight of numbers of people making that claim.

Extraordinary (in the other sense: shocked, suprised and amazed: thats extraordinary!) would only apply to someone who didn't already know God exists. You for instance. Me, being quite used to God existing wouldn't count his existance in the shocked/surprised/amazed category anymore.

Whilst you are entitled to speak for yourself, you can't really impose your own view, as to the extrordinariness of the claim, on everyone else.

Especially since so many people make the claim. Indeed, the majority of the world's population do.

karlitob

antiskeptic wrote: »

It has been pointed out to you that belief in God is quite ordinary. That is demonstrable by sheer weight of numbers of people making that claim.

Extraordinary (in the other sense: shocked, suprised and amazed: thats extraordinary!) would only apply to someone who didn't already know God exists. You for instance. Me, being quite used to God existing wouldn't count his existance in the shocked/surprised/amazed category anymore.

Whilst you are entitled to speak for yourself, you can't really impose your own view, as to the extrordinariness of the claim, on everyone else.

Especially since so many people make the claim. Indeed, the majority of the world's population do.

Again you’ve yet to respond to the points I raised that you requested - twice.

Extra-ordinary means beyond ordinary.

You claim because lots of people believe in god it’s not an extraordinary claim. My point is that the claim that your god rose from the dead - just like similar claims of zombies - requires extraordinary evidence.


Your central point in the last thread was on your interpretation of the word evidence.

This thread seems to be your interpretation of the word extraordinary.

If I claimed that a magical pink unicorn created the world in 2 days by spouting the universe from its magical horn and then ate fairy dust for another 5. And that you have to make your children go to a state school where the patron is a priest of this religion and be taught that that’s how universe was created.

You’d say ‘well I know this unicorn lad has a few million followers - albeit because it was original developed by nomadic illiterate goat herders 2000 years ago and we only believe in it because we happen to be born here - but the creation of the universe from his mad horn is an extraordinary claim. I’m sure that there is ‘evidence’ - irrefutable extraordinary evidence - which should be more than the claims of so called believers - before I send my child to this school.

Instead of engaging on the evidence though, believers just say - well, what is extraordinary and besides, it’s a personal Relationship I have anyway.

smacl

karlitob wrote: »

Again you’ve yet to respond to the points I raised that you requested - twice.

Extra-ordinary means beyond ordinary.

You claim because lots of people believe in god it’s not an extraordinary claim. My point is that the claim that your god rose from the dead - just like similar claims of zombies - requires extraordinary evidence.


Your central point in the last thread was on your interpretation of the word evidence.

This thread seems to be your interpretation of the word extraordinary.

If I claimed that a magical pink unicorn created the world in 2 days by spouting the universe from its magical horn and then ate fairy dust for another 5. And that you have to make your children go to a state school where the patron is a priest of this religion and be taught that that’s how universe was created.

You’d say ‘well I know this unicorn lad has a few million followers - albeit because it was original developed by nomadic illiterate goat herders 2000 years ago and we only believe in it because we happen to be born here - but the creation of the universe from his mad horn is an extraordinary claim. I’m sure that there is ‘evidence’ - irrefutable extraordinary evidence - which should be more than the claims of so called believers - before I send my child to this school.

Instead of engaging on the evidence though, believers just say - well, what is extraordinary and besides, it’s a personal Relationship I have anyway.

The belief is ordinary, the claim is not. As time passes, certain aspects of the belief are however also becoming extraordinary. Bible stories that were once considered literally true by many are now considered analogies by most Christians and creationism is rapidly becoming and extraordinary belief.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

Bible stories that were once considered literally true by many are now considered analogies by most Christians [...]

"When something in religion is found to be false, it becomes a metaphor" was pointed out with some relish by Jerry Coyne during the knifejob of a debate he had in 2011 with US theologian, John Haught.

Coyne starts speaking at around 23:00 and it's easy to see why Haught refused for some while after the debate to authorize the release of the video (which seems to have vanished again from its original upload address). Here's a copy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEZaxwGl7gI

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Argument without evidence??

https://twitter.com/HistoryMuppet/status/1317179683260256256

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/HistoryMuppet/status/1317179683260256256

Mr. Rogers is a card-carrying empiricist, based on that outing.

Trouble for him though, is that unless he could produce a 7ft English speaking bird, nobody is going to believe he encountered one.

"Imaginary!" they would cry. And Mr. Rogers, assuming he wasn't smart enough to already know it, would learn that his philosophy is built on sand.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

"When something in religion is found to be false, it becomes a metaphor"

When something in science is found to be false it becomes yet another footnote in Science-ism's great march towards knowing everything about everything.

Until then, this transient assembly of parts is assumed to be the Final Truth: Somewhat, But By No Means Fatally, Veiled.

antiskeptic

karlitob wrote: »

Again you’ve yet to respond to the points I raised that you requested - twice.

You're not exactly a barrel of answers yourself

Extra-ordinary means beyond ordinary.

Okay

You claim because lots of people believe in god it’s not an extraordinary claim.

Its not extraordinary in the sense that lots of people make it. In that sense its an ordinary claim.

As to whether the claim is extraordinary in the other sense. Well, that would depend on whether you hold God exists or not. You don't and so it seems extraordinary to you (just like the existence of zombies would appear extraordinary to both of us).

Its the same as someone who believes in empiricism. To them empiricism is an ordinary belief. But to someone else it seems extraordinary. And the empiricist cannot evidence the truth if his belief (which is why someone might find it an extraordinary claim)

I think the place where you err is right there: the presumption that because you find the claim extraordinary, it is extraordinary. But its not for the bulk of the worlds population.

Oh, I know you'll say there are so many versions of God. That it's not as if the vast bulk of the world believes in one version of one God - which go some way to showing atheists are perhaps on the wrong track.

No matter: your belief system just tacks onto the myriad of belief systems, theistic and non theistic. And is as extraordinary to me as my belief system is to you.

Your central point in the last thread was on your interpretation of the word evidence.

You mean it didn't match your interpretation of the word evidence. Read Mr. Rogers above. If he can't produce Big Bird then encounter Big Bird he did not. In your view it seems.

This thread seems to be your interpretation of the word extraordinary.

Its always in the eye of the beholder. Take a smart phone back 100 years. Extraordinary - even without mobile data.

If I claimed that a magical pink unicorn created the world in 2 days by spouting the universe from its magical horn and then ate fairy dust for another 5. And that you have to make your children go to a state school where the patron is a priest of this religion and be taught that that’s how universe was created.

That would merely be a matter of who holds the power. The hand that rocks the cradle. Imagine living in a society that supposes the unborn a blob of cells that can be disposed of for whatever reason one choses. Extraordinary!

I'm sorry its not as simple as you make out. Your position relies on everyone aligning with what you and your beliefs find to be the case. When they don't, your argument is toast. Or rather, belief.

antiskeptic

@smacl.

Empiricism a belief system just as religion is a belief system.

Empiricism is the belief that all reality is to be apprehended through the senses. Robindch's Mr Rogers and Big Bird is a case in point. If you can touch it, taste it, see it .. then it is real. If not then it is imaginary. Whilst a simplified view, it nevertheless cuts to the chase.

Now that view isn't demonstrable.

You say the difference has been thoroughly addressed by posters. In my experience posters point to the wonders of scientific progress and ask do I use aspirin. They point to many gods. They point to dictionary definitions of evidence which a) don't demand that evidence need be empirical in order to be evidence b) if they do demand that evidence be empirical, don't say where that idea arose from. These aren't demonstrations of empiricism being other than a belief system.

Since their position, you say, has been so frequently laid out, you should be able to say what the main arguments are. What, in a nutshell are the things which differentiate belief in empiricism from belief in God?

Heck, give me even the main one..

You say I play the ball and not the man. That canard, supposing people who give signs of being empiricists (Robindch and his Big Bird video)not being allowed to be labelled such (whatever else they might believe in addition) is protectionism on your part.

I'm quite happy to hold off discussing with folk until such time as they lay out their philosophical beliefs, if that salves your concern. And when they do list their philosophical underpinnings I'll ask them to demonstrate the supremacy of their system such that it escapes the conclusion: belief.

Belief their philosophies remain, until such time as it can be demonstrated in non-circular reasoning fashion.

I think you conflate quantity with quality when it comes to these posters demonstrating anything.


A new thread has been created here to discuss, debate, dispute, deny... and stalemate if desired... all "Empiricism is a belief/ oh no it's not" posts. The first batch have been hived off from the Feedback thread where they absolutely did not belong. It will become the home for all future posts on this general topic.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

@smacl.

Empiricism a belief system just as religion is a belief system.

Empiricism is the belief that all reality is to be apprehended through the senses. Robindch's Mr Rogers and Big Bird is a case in point. If you can touch it, taste it, see it .. then it is real. If not then it is imaginary. Whilst a simplified view, it nevertheless cuts to the chase.

Now that view isn't demonstrable.

You say the difference has been thoroughly addressed by posters. In my experience posters point to the wonders of scientific progress and ask do I use aspirin. They point to many gods. They point to dictionary definitions of evidence which a) don't demand that evidence need be empirical in order to be evidence b) if they do demand that evidence be empirical, don't say where that idea arose from. These aren't demonstrations of empiricism being other than a belief system.

Since their position, you say, has been so frequently laid out, you should be able to say what the main arguments are. What, in a nutshell are the things which differentiate belief in empiricism from belief in God?

Heck, give me even the main one..

You say I play the ball and not the man. That canard, supposing people who give signs of being empiricists (Robindch and his Big Bird video)not being allowed to be labelled such (whatever else they might believe in addition) is protectionism on your part.

I'm quite happy to hold off discussing with folk until such time as they lay out their philosophical beliefs, if that salves your concern. And when they do list their philosophical underpinnings I'll ask them to demonstrate the supremacy of their system such that it escapes the conclusion: belief.

Belief their philosophies remain, until such time as it can be demonstrated in non-circular reasoning fashion.

I think you conflate quantity with quality when it comes to these posters demonstrating anything.

1) You stomp around declaring people here who engage you in discussion are empiricists (which some may be but unless they themselves declare it you have no basis for making that claim) and then extrapolate that this means all atheists are empiricists. This is nonsense.
2) Empiricism is a philosophical methodology for interrogating the world, existence, nature of reality etc etc, it is no better or worse than rationalism (considered it's opposite), or skepticism. Different philosophical strokes for different folks. What it is not is a Belief.
Now, it may be - for some folk - a means to help them form a belief, support a belief, or even dismiss a belief. It is not, however, a belief in and of itself, it is a methodology.
3) You are critical of how other posters deal with your statements, I put it to you that as someone who consistently attempts to shut down discussion by bringing threads to stalemate - in fact you have boasted about this being your aim - you are on shaky ground complaining here about others.

Synopsis: Empiricism - that word does not mean what you claim it means. Stop telling other people what they believe. You are in a glasshouse, put down that stone.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

. . . 2) Empiricism is a philosophical methodology for interrogating the world, existence, nature of reality etc etc, it is no better or worse than rationalism (considered it's opposite), or skepticism. Different philosophical strokes for different folks. What it is not is a Belief.
Now, it may be - for some folk - a means to help them form a belief, support a belief, or even dismiss a belief. It is not, however, a belief in and of itself, it is a methodology.

I agree. But, to be fair, you can hold that empiricism is a superior methodology to the alternatives, or that it is uniquely valid, or that an empirically-obtained understanding is in some way privileged over understandings arrives at by other methods, and those are beliefs. And beliefs of this kind are sometimes professed in this forum.

And in fact that is another sense of the word empiricism: "A doctrine or theory that emphasizes or privileges the role of experience in knowledge, esp. claiming that sense experience or direct observation rather than abstract reasoning is the foundation of all knowledge of reality".

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree. But, to be fair, you can hold that empiricism is a superior methodology to the alternatives, or that it is uniquely valid, or that an empirically-obtained understanding is in some way privileged over understandings arrives at by other methods, and those are beliefs. And beliefs of this kind are sometimes professed in this forum.

And in fact that is another sense of the word empiricism: "A doctrine or theory that emphasizes or privileges the role of experience in knowledge, esp. claiming that sense experience or direct observation rather than abstract reasoning is the foundation of all knowledge of reality".

Believing a particular methodology is superior to other methodologies is not the same as the methodology itself being a belief system - which is what antiskeptic claims. No matter how fervently one believes one's preferred methodology is the gosh darn bestest - it is still a means of interrogation not the end in itself.

He/She has also on numerous occasions extrapolated that because some posters may have expressed such belief in the superiority of empiricism as a methodology that all who disagree with him/her share that belief. This is patiently incorrect.
Antiskeptic quite rightly takes exception to being categorised as sharing the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church (although trying to get an answer as to what he/she actually believes is like pulling hen's teeth) but with clockwork regularity goes off on a "as an atheist you are an empiricist and therefore you believe..." lengthy tirade.

Antiskeptic has only two strings to their bow - i) claiming a thing is a belief, ascribing that alleged belief to whomever they are responding to, and then arguing that point. ii) Trying to shut down discussion.

There have been enough examples of both across multiple threads (plus warnings/sanctions to cease and desist) that continuing to play these two strings is most definitely in the soapboxing category and against the charter.

If antiskeptic wishes to mount a defence I would be interested to hear how, ITO, telling people what they believe and then arguing against that alleged belief and/or seeking to shut down discussion is arguing in good faith and not soapboxing.

nozzferrahhtoo

The users ongoing inability to stop telling people what they believe as a cover for not defending his own positions.... and the misconstrual of a methodology as a belief aside.... I would also find problems with the use of subjectivity alone to define whether a claim is "extraordinary" or not. Above that is exactly what happened, as whether a belief or claim is "extraordinary" or not was painted in the light of whether one believes that claim/belief. And as such it was suggested that what is "extraordinary" to one person might not be to the next.

I am not sure what use a completely subjective and individual definition of "extraordinary" would be therefore. I think a better methodology for defining the word is required.... lest everyone be talking at/past each other rather than WITH each other. Because the user involved is not offering a description of the claim at all... but a given individuals reaction to that claim.

I think looking at a claim that is NOT extraordinary helps to offer contrast. Instantly George Washington leading his troops across the Delaware jumps to mind. And I am not sure why. I have a funny feeling someone used exactly this example in exactly this discussion in the past, and so it is stuck in my sub-conscious. And a niggling tickle in the back of my brain suggests it was Sam Harris. But I can genuinely not recall. So apologies if I am stealing it from him/anyone.

If you break down that claim it is not all that extraordinary. Why? It involves leaders.... and we see many leaders. It involves troops. We see many troops. It involves a military manoeuvre. We see many military manoeuvres. And so on. The claim this event occurred, whether it did or not, is not "extraordinary" in that every constituent part of it is plausible, credible, comparable and can be isolated and evaluated. Even if no evidence for the event were available, or if evidence showing the claim to be positively false were found.... it would still remain a rather ordinary claim on it's own merits.

Now contrast this with the claim that a completely non-human intelligent and intentional agent exists that is responsible for the creation and/or ongoing maintenance of our universe and life within it. We do not even have a shred of evidence for non-human intelligence outside our planet even WITHIN our universe. Let alone extraneous to it or causally linked with it's creation. Aside from the existence of intentional intelligence at all (ours) there is no constituant part of the claim about the existence of a god that can be credibly isolated in the same way as an analysis of a historic military maneuver. So whether there is a god or not is irrelevant.... whether one believes the claim there is a god or not is irrelevant..... it stands as an extraordinary claim in and of itself on it's own merits. And even if 100% conclusive evidence were offered tomorrow that there is in fact a god... the claim itself is STILL an extraordinary one.

Definition: Extraordinary: "very unusual or remarkable."
Definition: remarkable: "worthy of attention; striking."
Definition: Striking: attracting attention by reason of being unusual, extreme, or prominent.

The dictionary definitions fit this conclusion too. But it would not be the first time that I suspected the user in question was A) using a dictionary entirely different to the one I use and that said dictionary was of his own authorship and invention.

In short though I think the users ongoing short answer to the thread "How do you convince people god exists?" remains "I can't and do not intend to try" and the thread "Is there a rational reason to believe in god?" remains "Not at this time and I do not intend to offer one".

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Trouble for him though, is that unless he could produce a 7ft English speaking bird, nobody is going to believe he encountered one.

Big Bird is actually a real puppet character known to, and loved by millions - just about all of whom, save possibly very, very young children, are fully aware that Big Bird is neither an actual "Big Bird", or a bird at all, but in fact, a guy dressed up in a yellow costume (whose name was Caroll Spinney and who, sadly, died in December last year).

You seem to be having a little trouble distinguishing reality from fiction.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

1) You stomp around declaring people here who engage you in discussion are empiricists (which some may be but unless they themselves declare it you have no basis for making that claim) and then extrapolate that this means all atheists are empiricists. This is nonsense.

I assume those who display evidence of being empircists are empiricists on the looks like a duck basis.

If you prefer I wait until they declare which philosophy to believe in I'll wait.

You are, I suggest, engaging in protectionism when its not exactly a secret that posters display their adherence to empiricism.

2) Empiricism is a philosophical methodology for interrogating the world, existence, nature of reality etc etc, it is no better or worse than rationalism (considered it's opposite), or skepticism. Different philosophical strokes for different folks. What it is not is a Belief.

Whether it is better or worse lies in the eye of the beholder. That it is better than a theistic approach to interrogating reality is assumed by those who congregate here.

But until such time as that can be demonstrated (without arguing in a circle) a belief about the superiority of empiricism over theism it remains.

Isn't that the position here? That you show your work. Otherwise the empiricists claim is just a claim as any other.

Now, it may be - for some folk - a means to help them form a belief, support a belief, or even dismiss a belief. It is not, however, a belief in and of itself, it is a methodology.

The belief is in the superiority of the method as a way of interogating reality. Indeed, the circular reasoning is that all reality is to be interrogated by the senses because thats all the reality being detected.

3) You are critical of how other posters deal with your statements, I put it to you that as someone who consistently attempts to shut down discussion by bringing threads to stalemate - in fact you have boasted about this being your aim - you are on shaky ground complaining here about others.

I suggest stalemate is the end we will arrive at. That nobody will be able to demonstrate the superiority of their empiricism method over alternatives.

That conclusion is not shutting down the discussion. If that conclusion then the discussion might move to the need for members of this forum to step down from their high horse. For instance.

Synopsis: Empiricism - that word does not mean what you claim it means. Stop telling other people what they believe. You are in a glasshouse, put down that stone.

Summary. Empiricism is a methodology. Supposing empiricism a superior way to approach and interogate reality is a belief.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Supposing empiricism a superior way to approach and interogate reality....

Superior to what? And measured how?