[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2014, 06:59 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 05:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  "Hobbyist atheists"? I call intellectual arrogance, with more than a soupçon of religious bigotry, on that.

So you don't think there are hobbyist atheists here?

(06-01-2014 05:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  People are welcome to view the world any way they want, but requiring evidence is not "epistemological imperialism".

If you tell someone you demand evidence before you'll let them believe what they believe, yes, I would call them epistemological imperialism. If they're not coming after you are trying to convince you of anything, why not just leave them alone?

(06-01-2014 05:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  Someone's internal states are not objective evidence.

Must everyone have and be able to surrender objective evidence, in your mind, for every belief or conception of reality to which they subscribe personally and privately?

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:00 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(05-01-2014 10:35 PM)Chippy Wrote:  ...
If subjectivity were an adequate means of learning about the world then there would be no need for experimentation and instrumentation.

... and our legal systems and policy-making systems would be knocked back to less enlightened times.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:05 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:34 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 06:15 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  You would know... Angel

Up yours, prophet.

Big Grin

In yours, Dog. 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
06-01-2014, 07:14 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:59 AM)maklelan Wrote:  So you don't think there are hobbyist atheists here?

Could you define what hobbyist atheists means?

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:17 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(05-01-2014 10:48 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  Hobbyist? Please don't condescend.

First, I'll be happy to reciprocate when I am no longer condescended to on this website, but we all know that's never going to happen. I have to constantly be on my guard here, and perhaps that's going to make me come across as curt in many instances. For that I apologize in advance, but this is not my first rodeo, and not everyone here has honorable or coherent intentions. Second, certainly you can concede that there are indeed hobbyist atheists here, yes? There are demonstrably many hobbyist students of religion.

(05-01-2014 10:48 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  Sure, believers can base their worldview on personal revelation if they like. But since it isn't falsifiable or independently corroborated and since their core beliefs contradict evidence-based facts (and of course the competing claims of thousands of other religions) they need not include these as the basis of any apologetic.

That's perfectly fair, but that's not what I'm addressing here.

(05-01-2014 10:48 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  Of course ultimately experience is all they have.

I don't think anyone on this website has anything apart from experience. Do you?

(05-01-2014 10:48 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  My read of the D&C is that it is quite satisfied with considering these experiences as valid 'evidence' of the fantastic and bazaar claims of Mormonism.

*bizarre

That's the D&C's take, not mine.

(05-01-2014 10:48 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  It's disappointing that you choose not to offer the reasons for your own belief in Mormon teaching,

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I have my reasons.

(05-01-2014 10:48 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  since you appear to acknowledge that its books are in error and its most revered prophets racist.

Not the most revered prophets, but certainly some revered prophets.

(05-01-2014 10:48 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  I respect your privacy, but do you care to elaborate on your reticence?

It's a rhetorical rabbit hole in which I'm not interested in investing my time. The incentive is illusory.

(05-01-2014 10:48 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  I've always been very curious about how intelligent people come to believe in Mormonism in particular, since it significantly ups the ante on credulity as compared with even Christianity.

I disagree. There are not degrees of impossibility, nor does Mormonism have to deal with things like inerrancy, which is foundational for many, many Christians. You've been conditioned by a lifetime of exposure to Christian dogmas, so while you certainly don't believe them, they don't strike you as quite as bizarre.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:20 AM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 07:30 AM by houseofcantor.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:57 AM)maklelan Wrote:  He called it an inexplicable miracle (in Spanish).

Without a testable mechanism behind faith healing, any effect is the placebo effect. (I've researched this - it may be electromagnetics. Big Grin But mostly it seems to be conformation bias. Angry )

(06-01-2014 06:57 AM)maklelan Wrote:  So no one should ever say they're in love, since that's not really testable in any truly objective way.

There's things like studies into pupil dilation and oxytocin, and there's people who would testify "I can see the love" in regards to my Gwynnie portraits. Big Grin

[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
06-01-2014, 07:22 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:14 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Could you define what hobbyist atheists means?

I would call someone who bases the substance of their discussions and arguments with theists, whether in person or online, on non-vocational research into science and religion (primarily mediated through others and their websites) a hobbyist atheist. Someone with a career, or at least formal education, in a relevant field of study would not be a hobbyist, in my opinion. I also use that characterization for hobbyist students of religion, which are even more ubiquitous, and tend to do more to undermine the goals of the field vis-à-vis the public square.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:26 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:20 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Without a testable mechanism behind faith healing, amy effect is the placebo effect.

The placebo effect on a person in a coma?

(06-01-2014 07:20 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  (I've researched this - it may be electromagnetics. Big Grin But mostly it seems to be conformation bias. Angry )

There's things like studies into pupil dilation and oxytocin, and there's people who would testify "I can see the love" in regards to my Gwynnie portraits. Big Grin

Well, that's a different story . . .

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:30 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:26 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 07:20 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Without a testable mechanism behind faith healing, amy effect is the placebo effect.

The placebo effect on a person in a coma?

Amy. Big Grin

Did you forget the "it may be electromagnetics" part? As a prophet, I have an investment in faith healing; as an atheist, I trust in science.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:36 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:59 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 05:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  "Hobbyist atheists"? I call intellectual arrogance, with more than a soupçon of religious bigotry, on that.

So you don't think there are hobbyist atheists here?

I wouldn't know since you haven't defined it. You seemingly intended it as an insult.

Quote:
(06-01-2014 05:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  People are welcome to view the world any way they want, but requiring evidence is not "epistemological imperialism".

If you tell someone you demand evidence before you'll let them believe what they believe, yes, I would call them epistemological imperialism. If they're not coming after you are trying to convince you of anything, why not just leave them alone?

No, I require evidence when someone is attempting to convince me to believe something.
As I said above, you are welcome to believe anything you want, but without evidence beliefs are not facts.

Quote:
(06-01-2014 05:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  Someone's internal states are not objective evidence.

Must everyone have and be able to surrender objective evidence, in your mind, for every belief or conception of reality to which they subscribe personally and privately?

No, I never said such a thing.

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: