Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2015, 02:45 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
Um. IIRC Dawkins specifically defined 7 on the scale as being *incapable* of being swayed by evidence. That's why he defined himself as 6.9.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
27-08-2015, 02:57 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(27-08-2015 02:45 PM)morondog Wrote:  Um. IIRC Dawkins specifically defined 7 on the scale as being *incapable* of being swayed by evidence. That's why he defined himself as 6.9.

Incapable with what evidence is currently available, sure. Because what's currently available is a big fat 0.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
27-08-2015, 02:59 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(27-08-2015 02:42 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 10:50 AM)Free Wrote:  Of course.

That's exactly my position. Speculatively, if any evidence is ever discovered I would adjust my position.

I simply feel that since there is currently no evidence at all to withhold validation of being a 7.0, then the most reasonable position to hold is a 7.0.

⇧ This
Move over, you’re crowding my position.

I have to say that you converted me to a 7 the last go round.

Me? nahhh ..

You already had it in you to begin with. After all, read my signature.

Bowing

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 03:08 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(27-08-2015 02:57 PM)Free Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 02:45 PM)morondog Wrote:  Um. IIRC Dawkins specifically defined 7 on the scale as being *incapable* of being swayed by evidence. That's why he defined himself as 6.9.

Incapable with what evidence is currently available, sure. Because what's currently available is a big fat 0.

Agreed on the evidence currently available, but again, my impression was that he was defining 7 as *irrationally* sure, to the point that *no* evidence would convince you.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(27-08-2015 03:08 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 02:57 PM)Free Wrote:  Incapable with what evidence is currently available, sure. Because what's currently available is a big fat 0.

Agreed on the evidence currently available, but again, my impression was that he was defining 7 as *irrationally* sure, to the point that *no* evidence would convince you.

Perhaps.

But I am simply going by what's written on the scale. Sure, if God suddenly made an appearance I might change my position ... if the bastard ever proved he was God ... and if he did ... I'd probably nail the fucker to the cross for all his crimes just like Pilate did to his supposed son.

You know ... like father like son?

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 03:38 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(27-08-2015 10:16 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Perhaps an interesting question could be, can someone be tentatively at 7 on the Dawkins scale? That is at 7 based on the available evidence, yet still being open to new information.

I think not. Being open to evidence says you're not a 7.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-08-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(27-08-2015 11:41 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Sure. To quote TBD:

There can be no evidence against the existence of something that doesn't exist.

Untrue. Proof of impossibility of its existence, if that proof exists, is that evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(27-08-2015 03:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 10:16 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Perhaps an interesting question could be, can someone be tentatively at 7 on the Dawkins scale? That is at 7 based on the available evidence, yet still being open to new information.

I think not. Being open to evidence says you're not a 7.

Here's the big question in response:

Why?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 03:52 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(27-08-2015 03:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 03:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  I think not. Being open to evidence says you're not a 7.

Here's the big question in response:

Why?

Because the scale is defined that way? I mean fuck, you can say that you're 10 on the Dawkins scale if you want to, but making up your own meanings for the numbers kinda screws up the point of having a scale in the first place.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
27-08-2015, 03:53 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(27-08-2015 03:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 03:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  I think not. Being open to evidence says you're not a 7.

Here's the big question in response:

Why?

Why what? Why be open to new evidence? Ask Professor Dawkins why he is not a 7.

A skeptic is open to new evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: