[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2014, 09:53 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(02-01-2014 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sophomoric in what way? Calling out LDS theology as absurd and the founding of it an obvious fraud is simply stating the facts. The LDS worldview is absurd.

Well, to begin, the "conman" rhetoric derives from a rather outdated and inaccurate claim about a putative 1828 conviction of Joseph Smith. You either know the argument and buy into the inaccurate claim, or just like the sound of the rhetoric and so have used it without understanding the background. You don't know anything about Smith's motives or personal convictions, you're just asserting based on how it fits into your own worldview.

(02-01-2014 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Science is only being 'deified' in your mind, no one here is doing so. Science works, revelation does not.

So why do you capitalize a generic noun? Also, you didn't answer my question. Have you read Midgley on this? Given the way you're objecting, and your ignoring of my question, I would have to say no. I would also say you should do more research before just reflexively barking answers and objections.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 10:13 AM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2014 10:18 AM by Chas.)
RE: Ask a Theist!
(02-01-2014 09:53 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sophomoric in what way? Calling out LDS theology as absurd and the founding of it an obvious fraud is simply stating the facts. The LDS worldview is absurd.

Well, to begin, the "conman" rhetoric derives from a rather outdated and inaccurate claim about a putative 1828 conviction of Joseph Smith. You either know the argument and buy into the inaccurate claim, or just like the sound of the rhetoric and so have used it without understanding the background. You don't know anything about Smith's motives or personal convictions, you're just asserting based on how it fits into your own worldview.

I made no reference to Smith's criminal past, you are making an assumption.
The whole story of the gold plates and subsequent revelations is absurd at every level.

My worldview is that evidence is required for assertions. It appears to be yours, too, except when it comes to LDS nonsense.

Quote:
(02-01-2014 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Science is only being 'deified' in your mind, no one here is doing so. Science works, revelation does not.

So why do you capitalize a generic noun? Also, you didn't answer my question. Have you read Midgley on this? Given the way you're objecting, and your ignoring of my question, I would have to say no. I would also say you should do more research before just reflexively barking answers and objections.

Science is capitalized as the first word of those sentences, obviously. Dodgy

You asked me no question, so I didn't answer one.

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
02-01-2014, 10:58 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(02-01-2014 09:53 AM)maklelan Wrote:  So why do you capitalize a generic noun?

That was Rev, not Chas. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
02-01-2014, 11:07 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(02-01-2014 10:58 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 09:53 AM)maklelan Wrote:  So why do you capitalize a generic noun?

That was Rev, not Chas. Tongue

Yup and I did it cause it is a bad habit of mine when I type to capitalise for emphasis and I missed it when I went over the post for grammar and spelling. Nothing to do with deifying anything, just bad editing.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 11:13 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(02-01-2014 10:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  I made no reference to Smith's criminal past, you are making an assumption.

No, I'm arriving at an informed conclusion that certainly may be wrong. This isn't my first rodeo. The "conman" charge comes from a specific rhetorical arena (it's usually "convicted conman"), and if you knowingly draw the accusation from somewhere other than that particular arena, what is it? Are you just broadly accusing him of being a conman because he led a church, or is it because of polygamy? It certainly wasn't money. He was broke throughout his life and spent everything he had on lawyers, since he was in and out of jails all his adult life (he was even murdered in a jail cell). Power and influence? His power was challenged and rejected at every turn, and his congregations were shrinking more than they were growing. His closest friends abandoned him on several occasions. If he was a conman, he was the worst conman I've ever heard of. So if you're not just burping up an accusation that you just heard and that sounded good to you, and you're not appealing to the one historical event most commonly acting as antecedent for your accusation, then whence the claim?

(02-01-2014 10:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  The whole story of the gold plates and subsequent revelations is absurd at every level.

Certainly not at every level, although I grant that they are at certain levels, given your presuppositions.

(02-01-2014 10:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  My worldview is that evidence is required for assertions.

Then you can evidence the assertion that Smith was a conman.

(02-01-2014 10:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  It appears to be yours, too, except when it comes to LDS nonsense.

My worldview is not so binary and naive. You accept stuff without evidence every day (it's an inevitability of our cognitive makeup), you just don't realize it unless there's a rhetorical incentive or cue for doing so.

(02-01-2014 10:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  Science is capitalized as the first word of those sentences, obviously. Dodgy

That wasn't the post to which I referred, but I apologize, as I didn't realize you weren't the one who wrote the following:

Quote:God is unknowable is usually the first red herring tossed out, and then the longer the conversation follows the further their god flees from being the single greatest thing in the universe to being so far away and untouchable that Science can never find him, for now.

Now, I apologize for confusing you with that poster, but since you have deigned to speak on behalf of everyone here, perhaps you can account for that capitalization.

(02-01-2014 10:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  You asked me no question, so I didn't answer one.

A result, again, of my mistake regarding your identity. I apologize, but since you were responding directly to a post aimed at a specific person, I reflexively thought you were that person. My mistake.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 11:23 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(02-01-2014 11:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 10:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  I made no reference to Smith's criminal past, you are making an assumption.

No, I'm arriving at an informed conclusion that certainly may be wrong. This isn't my first rodeo. The "conman" charge comes from a specific rhetorical arena (it's usually "convicted conman"), and if you knowingly draw the accusation from somewhere other than that particular arena, what is it? Are you just broadly accusing him of being a conman because he led a church, or is it because of polygamy? It certainly wasn't money. He was broke throughout his life and spent everything he had on lawyers, since he was in and out of jails all his adult life (he was even murdered in a jail cell). Power and influence? His power was challenged and rejected at every turn, and his congregations were shrinking more than they were growing. His closest friends abandoned him on several occasions. If he was a conman, he was the worst conman I've ever heard of. So if you're not just burping up an accusation that you just heard and that sounded good to you, and you're not appealing to the one historical event most commonly acting as antecedent for your accusation, then whence the claim?

Please show where I even used the word 'conman' let alone made any such assertion. Try reading what I actually wrote instead of listening to your paranoid delusions.

Quote:
(02-01-2014 10:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  The whole story of the gold plates and subsequent revelations is absurd at every level.

Certainly not at every level, although I grant that they are at certain levels, given your presuppositions.

My only 'presupposition' is in requiring evidence, which is equivalent to not accepting revelation as a source of truth.

Quote:
(02-01-2014 10:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  My worldview is that evidence is required for assertions.

Then you can evidence the assertion that Smith was a conman.

Please show where I even used the word 'conman' let alone made any such assertion.

Quote:
(02-01-2014 10:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  It appears to be yours, too, except when it comes to LDS nonsense.

My worldview is not so binary and naive. You accept stuff without evidence every day (it's an inevitability of our cognitive makeup), you just don't realize it unless there's a rhetorical incentive or cue for doing so.

It is not naive to require evidence, nor binary to reject claims that lack evidence.
It is your acceptance of fantasy as fact that is naive.

I suggest you apply the same rigorous standards to your own beliefs that you apply to Ralph Ellis's. His are no less absurd than yours.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
02-01-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(02-01-2014 11:07 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yup and I did it cause it is a bad habit of mine when I type to capitalise for emphasis and I missed it when I went over the post for grammar and spelling. Nothing to do with deifying anything, just bad editing.

Fair enough, but I'll maintain the claim for the sake of argument (and not only because a quick search turns up multiple instances of you capitalizing "Science" in what, as near as I can tell, are non-emphatic contexts). Do you believe that science has the capacity to account for all potential phenomena occurring within the universe? Do you ever anthropomorphize science, attributing human characteristics and traits to it? Do you ever attribute agency to it? Do you ever conceptualize science as a character in a narrative? Do you attribute univocality, or a single perspective, to it? A search of your posts show you do all these things, although I'll grant that you're more careful than most. Whether you do it consciously or not, your brain makes you conceptualize of science the same way it makes the people you denigrate---since the beginning of the homo genus---conceptualize of deities. Here's an example of where some more research into the psychology of religion might open up some eyes a bit more.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(02-01-2014 11:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please show where I even used the word 'conman' let alone made any such assertion. Try reading what I actually wrote instead of listening to your paranoid delusions.

I'll thank you not to pretend I suffer from paranoid delusions. I'm perfectly happy to be called naive, ignorant, stupid, or things like that, but don't attribute pathologies to me when you know it's not true. As I explained, you advocated for Rev's post, defending his claims from my charge of sophomoric rhetoric. One of his primary claims was the Smith was a "known conman," and I pointed that out. I mistook you for Rev, and I apologized for that. It was an honest mistake. But now you can either hold up your defense of his accusation that Smith was a "known conman" or you can retract it. Which would you like to do?

(02-01-2014 11:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  My only 'presupposition' is in requiring evidence, which is equivalent to not accepting revelation as a source of truth.

No one is pointing to revelation, but you are knowingly not being honest in insisting your only presupposition is "in requiring evidence." I could present pretty strong evidence for the reality of Smith's gold plates (for instance, the several grown men who saw and held them, and swore to their reality to their dying day, despite rejecting their associations with Smith and even trying to imprison and kill him), and you would not be able to do much to account for it besides insist that they're existence is impossible. That would constitute a presupposition beyond just "requiring evidence." You are welcome to prove me wrong, though.

(02-01-2014 11:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please show where I even used the word 'conman' let alone made any such assertion.

You defended the assertion from my accusation of being sophomoric and naive. Are you now backing off of that defense, or would you like to support it?

(02-01-2014 11:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is not naive to require evidence,

It is naive to insist that nothing can exist without evidence.

(02-01-2014 11:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  nor binary to reject claims that lack evidence.

If all claims that lacked evidence were rejected, we would have abandoned string theory long ago, wouldn't we have?

(02-01-2014 11:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is your acceptance of fantasy as fact that is naive.

You have no clue what I accept as fact.

(02-01-2014 11:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  I suggest you apply the same rigorous standards to your own beliefs that you apply to Ralph Ellis's. His are no less absurd than yours.

But you don't know what my beliefs are. You can only assume based on your own etic and antagonistic understanding of what Mormonism should and shouldn't be.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 12:04 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(02-01-2014 11:49 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 11:07 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yup and I did it cause it is a bad habit of mine when I type to capitalise for emphasis and I missed it when I went over the post for grammar and spelling. Nothing to do with deifying anything, just bad editing.

Fair enough, but I'll maintain the claim for the sake of argument (and not only because a quick search turns up multiple instances of you capitalizing "Science" in what, as near as I can tell, are non-emphatic contexts). Do you believe that science has the capacity to account for all potential phenomena occurring within the universe? Do you ever anthropomorphize science, attributing human characteristics and traits to it? Do you ever attribute agency to it? Do you ever conceptualize science as a character in a narrative? Do you attribute univocality, or a single perspective, to it? A search of your posts show you do all these things, although I'll grant that you're more careful than most. Whether you do it consciously or not, your brain makes you conceptualize of science the same way it makes the people you denigrate---since the beginning of the homo genus---conceptualize of deities. Here's an example of where some more research into the psychology of religion might open up some eyes a bit more.

How about some evidence to support those assertions? Drinking Beverage

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
02-01-2014, 12:12 PM
[split] Ask a Theist!
(02-01-2014 11:49 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 11:07 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yup and I did it cause it is a bad habit of mine when I type to capitalise for emphasis and I missed it when I went over the post for grammar and spelling. Nothing to do with deifying anything, just bad editing.

Fair enough, but I'll maintain the claim for the sake of argument (and not only because a quick search turns up multiple instances of you capitalizing "Science" in what, as near as I can tell, are non-emphatic contexts). Do you believe that science has the capacity to account for all potential phenomena occurring within the universe? Do you ever anthropomorphize science, attributing human characteristics and traits to it? Do you ever attribute agency to it? Do you ever conceptualize science as a character in a narrative? Do you attribute univocality, or a single perspective, to it? A search of your posts show you do all these things, although I'll grant that you're more careful than most. Whether you do it consciously or not, your brain makes you conceptualize of science the same way it makes the people you denigrate---since the beginning of the homo genus---conceptualize of deities. Here's an example of where some more research into the psychology of religion might open up some eyes a bit more.

Science is a method for gaining consistent results and explanations for those results. It relies on a few assumptions (such as there is a manifest universe and it is testable) but for the most part has proven to be rather trustworthy as it self corrects as new information replaces older faultier models. I have done as you say from time to time but then I don't claim to be without flaws. Right now I tend to accept that most of what is taught is probably true but some future discoveries might fundamentally change what we know about the universe and how it works.

I don't know if there will ever be a grand unified theory of everything but I would not bet against it. I also know there are some things which have not been yet explained or the explanations are vague and uncertain but I know the worst explanation for anything is to proclaim it to be unknowable or "Magic". How did the universe form before the big bang? Will we ever find that out? Who can say, but given that we have discovered so much of the universe I tend to be optimistic about future discoveries.

I think the area I have added the most anthropomorphism to the universe is in explaining Evolutionary Theory. I sometimes assign agency to something that I know has none for ease of explanation. Our brains have evolved in such a way as to see cause and effect, and we tend to err on the side of caution since it is evolutionarily beneficial to assume that the tall grass moving is a lion and not the breeze. Most of the time however it is the breeze, so to me that explains why we see Cosmic Guidance where there is none. We did not evolve to fly to the moon we evolved to not be eaten by lions and hyenas, the fact that we can send a robot to Mars is nearly unbelievable when put into this context. So yes I do tend to put some faith in science and technology (terms I sometimes use interchangeably) because it has shown real world results. Millions of prayers could not save Europe from the Black Death but we have a cure for it now, thanks to a method for testing ideas and technology derived from said method.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: