View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Scepcop » 10 Jun 2010, 17:49

caniswalensis wrote:Hi All

I was reading this article today: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Presen ... sm_Psi.htm

One thing really caught my eye. It is the first section that describes the different types pf skeptics.
A. Open-minded skeptics

- Typical traits: honest doubt, inquiry and investigation of both sides, considers evidence on all sides and seeing their good/bad points, asking exploratory questions, acceptance of evidence, good common sense, nonjudgmental


B. Closed-minded skeptics (also known as pseudoskeptics, debunkers, hard core materialists, scoffers, atheists)

- Typical traits: Automatic dismissal of all paranormal claims, predisposed to discredit all testimonials of a paranormal nature, denial of any and all evidence, scoffing, giving off an air of superior rationality, judgmental about things they know nothing about, quick to draw conclusions without evidence, using philosophical semantics to win arguments and invalidate paranormal or spiritual experiences


In General, I find the listed characteristics to be somewhat subjective in nature. They leave some room for personal interpretation I think.

I was especially surprised though, to see Atheists listed as another name for "close-minded skeptics." I personally do not see this as being appropriate or accurate. While it is clear that many skeptics are atheists, and some of those are undoubtedly close-minded, There are also many Athiests that are not really skeptics. Remember, athieism is simply a disbelief in the existence of a dieity. I personaly do not see a direct connection between that and skepticism of any sort.

I actually know quite a few athiests, and many of them are believers in things like Bigfoot, UFOs, PSI and similar topics. I do not consider them to be skeptical, really.

So, I would be interested in hearing others opinions on these points, and of course I would love to get the author’s thoughts, too. Please keep in mind, I do not mean this as an attack or an insult. I just see this as being good fodder for discussion.

Regards, Canis


Those are general patterns, not absolutes. If you take them as general guidelines, there is nothing to dispute or discuss, is there?

I've seen all those traits in James Randi and Michael Shermer, for example. They do exist.

That page you refer to was an outline for a presentation I did long ago. It's just that, an outline. Not an indepth examination. For that, you go to the treatise at the link above.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Scepcop » 10 Jun 2010, 17:55

Craig Browning wrote:Firstly... thank you ciscop for your compliments on the magic side... I'll ignore your opinion about the other simply because my life experiences have taught me in ways far different from your own... that's how such should be seen.

As to "getting to the point"... I honestly don't know what you mean. I think I do fair when it comes to clarifying things for folks, especially when I write (sadly, I don't think so well on my feet these days). I do my best to offer insights on a heavily misrepresented topic (from both sides) in as down to earth manner as I can, my goals always being to trim as much fat from things as possible, offering as "logical" an explanation as I can muster (one that frequently ticks off the believers as much as it does the skeptics :oops: )

Believers hate me because I'm robbing them of their fantasy around spirituality, smashing the rose tinted glasses into the ground and telling them to actually SEE what's in front of them.

Skeptics hate me because my philosophy lends the idea of legitimacy to certain aspects of the psychic/paranormal element. Fortunately, most who know me know that I'm not really that far over the great horizon however... :lol: There is a motive to my madness, as they say.

Now maybe it's because I'm part Libra and born on the Cusps of Virgo & Libra, but I'm a big one for "balance" and finding the point of agreement with most all things in life, I've always been that way. That is why it's so important to me to hold to the points of view I tend to express and in so doing, attempt to express them in as clear a manner as possible... especially when I'm doing talks, workshops or shows... I'd loose them all if I couldn't keep things clear to them there :o

Anywho... ciscop, let's put the hatchets away ;)


Oh you're into astrology too? That is one of the most ridiculed subjects of the paranormal.

But many rational people do find useful patterns in it.

The critics of astrology cannot explain why 50 percent of the people I meet tend to be Aries, and why I tend to get along with Cancers and Geminis, and sometimes I can recognize a Cancer by his/her personality and vibe without knowing their birthdate!

That the skeptics CANNOT debunk or explain away :)

So I am safe there. hahaha

That being said, check out this show where Michael Shermer was debunked by an astrologer on his own show.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby really? » 10 Jun 2010, 18:26

Scepcop wrote:
Craig Browning wrote:Firstly... thank you ciscop for your compliments on the magic side... I'll ignore your opinion about the other simply because my life experiences have taught me in ways far different from your own... that's how such should be seen.

As to "getting to the point"... I honestly don't know what you mean. I think I do fair when it comes to clarifying things for folks, especially when I write (sadly, I don't think so well on my feet these days). I do my best to offer insights on a heavily misrepresented topic (from both sides) in as down to earth manner as I can, my goals always being to trim as much fat from things as possible, offering as "logical" an explanation as I can muster (one that frequently ticks off the believers as much as it does the skeptics :oops: )

Believers hate me because I'm robbing them of their fantasy around spirituality, smashing the rose tinted glasses into the ground and telling them to actually SEE what's in front of them.

Skeptics hate me because my philosophy lends the idea of legitimacy to certain aspects of the psychic/paranormal element. Fortunately, most who know me know that I'm not really that far over the great horizon however... :lol: There is a motive to my madness, as they say.

Now maybe it's because I'm part Libra and born on the Cusps of Virgo & Libra, but I'm a big one for "balance" and finding the point of agreement with most all things in life, I've always been that way. That is why it's so important to me to hold to the points of view I tend to express and in so doing, attempt to express them in as clear a manner as possible... especially when I'm doing talks, workshops or shows... I'd loose them all if I couldn't keep things clear to them there :o

Anywho... ciscop, let's put the hatchets away ;)


Oh you're into astrology too? That is one of the most ridiculed subjects of the paranormal.

But many rational people do find useful patterns in it.

The critics of astrology cannot explain why 50 percent of the people I meet tend to be Aries, and why I tend to get along with Cancers and Geminis, and sometimes I can recognize a Cancer by his/her personality and vibe without knowing their birthdate!

That the skeptics CANNOT debunk or explain away :)

So I am safe there. hahaha

That being said, check out this show where Michael Shermer was debunked by an astrologer on his own show.



In terms of physics only explain the underlying mechanism or mechanisms by which celestial objects millions and billions of miles away can exert an influence.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Craig Browning » 10 Jun 2010, 21:02

Just a quick correction of sorts... I know very little about Astrology itself. To me it's akin to Card Tricks and magicians... every psychic makes it important and a thing of primary support so I've more or less avoided it over the years except for some cursory study here and there. ;)

In terms of physics only explain the underlying mechanism or mechanisms by which celestial objects millions and billions of miles away can exert an influence.


I'm not a physicist but I do understand how science has proven how very subtle and barely measurable forms of energy affect us "indirectly". That is to say that we don't feel a deliberate "push" or "pull" and yet any gyroscopic energy can have that affect on us from a considerable distance. While that and most energy dissipates by distance it does not change the fact that a ripple is there (think of stones tossed into water).

It takes very little energy to make certain things move, mold, become imprinted upon, etc. such influences can come from an amazing distance and the "energy" involved, negligible. Yet manifestations happen.

When it comes to Astrology, Numerology, and Palmistry there have been some very interesting "discoveries" made over the past couple of decades that links these three together as part of a quasi-cosmic software programming system; We're all familiar more or less with purported Astrological influences but how many realize that the primary lines of the palm form on the hand of the fetus towards the end of the first trimester, before the hand can fold or move and even has fingers? For mellennia it has been understood by the learned (village wise ones, etc) that the karma we are born with from our previous life can be seen in the palm of a new born child (up til roughly two years in age).

What's this got to do with Astrology? you ask.

Because the lines of the hand offer an almost mirror reflection to one's Natal Chart configuration. So the big question should be, if Astrology is pure bunk, how could this sort of physical manifestation come about?

I was watching the new series on the Science Channel last night (Through the Wormhole) and a couple of interesting theories were offered up about "God" and the Theory of Everything... the one that is an echo of some very ancient teachings but modernized placed us into an existence comparable to the SIMS virtual world. In other words, we are but players in a computer game being played by something we see as being "God". It is a theory supported by technological evolution of our present and the fact that we will have "lap top" type computer power that surpasses the abilities of the human brain in under 5 decades... in other words, we will have developed our own sentient consciousness...a synthetic psyche that could be set into just such a virtual real created by US... US AS THE CREATOR

There are two important things to weigh here; a.) the fact that the creator would have to have some way of not just automating aspects of this simulation (a sub-program for character management... let's call it KARMA) as well as a means by which to automatically install data that this controller feels to be appropriate to the entity's next incarnation... a virtual clock (astrology), vibratory frequency (numerology) and physical inspection points (palmistry). b.)MATRIX/PIXELS... the fact that everything we see in the Virtual world is composed of small components that, as technology has evolved, become smaller and smaller... more and more fine and thus, approaching photographic realism. Everything in our physical universe as we know it is likewise made up of smaller and smaller "dots" that create larger dots, which not only evolve into more sophisticated modes of matter or energy, it all vibrates... resonates at an assigned frequency... exactly like a computer/video game.

It is this kind of God Theory that best demonstrates what Metaphysicians have at least theorized for centuries and come quite close to "proving" in the past generational period. The jury is still out to some degree but the culmination of things suggest strongly that these three most ancient oracular systems are part of a very logical equation... the mathematical formula of individuality.

Given the plethora of research that's been done over the years around Astrology and the fact that those sharing the same general astrological factors live out a similar life-path with accomplishments and set-backs happening within similar cycles, etc. I would think it safe to say that science will eventually find measurable influence via the stars, planets, etc. that is a bit more subtle than those forces that already affect the earth, its moon and each neighbor we have in this particular system... last I checked all of that movement out there affects everything within the solar system and possibly beyond... so why is it so preposterous to believe that a related influence could be applied to all things that exist?

Of course there is that "Urban Legend" (right) in which the CSICOP group got caught red handed changing data that proved out a huge factor of influence associated with Astrology... but that's just a rumor... right? :twisted:
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby caniswalensis » 10 Jun 2010, 22:16

Scepcop wrote:
caniswalensis wrote:Hi All

I was reading this article today: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Presen ... sm_Psi.htm

One thing really caught my eye. It is the first section that describes the different types pf skeptics.
A. Open-minded skeptics

- Typical traits: honest doubt, inquiry and investigation of both sides, considers evidence on all sides and seeing their good/bad points, asking exploratory questions, acceptance of evidence, good common sense, nonjudgmental


B. Closed-minded skeptics (also known as pseudoskeptics, debunkers, hard core materialists, scoffers, atheists)

- Typical traits: Automatic dismissal of all paranormal claims, predisposed to discredit all testimonials of a paranormal nature, denial of any and all evidence, scoffing, giving off an air of superior rationality, judgmental about things they know nothing about, quick to draw conclusions without evidence, using philosophical semantics to win arguments and invalidate paranormal or spiritual experiences


In General, I find the listed characteristics to be somewhat subjective in nature. They leave some room for personal interpretation I think.

I was especially surprised though, to see Atheists listed as another name for "close-minded skeptics." I personally do not see this as being appropriate or accurate. While it is clear that many skeptics are atheists, and some of those are undoubtedly close-minded, There are also many Athiests that are not really skeptics. Remember, athieism is simply a disbelief in the existence of a dieity. I personaly do not see a direct connection between that and skepticism of any sort.

I actually know quite a few athiests, and many of them are believers in things like Bigfoot, UFOs, PSI and similar topics. I do not consider them to be skeptical, really.

So, I would be interested in hearing others opinions on these points, and of course I would love to get the author’s thoughts, too. Please keep in mind, I do not mean this as an attack or an insult. I just see this as being good fodder for discussion.

Regards, Canis


Those are general patterns, not absolutes. If you take them as general guidelines, there is nothing to dispute or discuss, is there?

I've seen all those traits in James Randi and Michael Shermer, for example. They do exist.

That page you refer to was an outline for a presentation I did long ago. It's just that, an outline. Not an indepth examination. For that, you go to the treatise at the link above.

Hi Scepcop

Fair enough, I should have noticed it was a presentation.

While some psuedoskeptics may be athieists, it does not follow that all athiests are pseudoskeptics.
I still feel it is absolutely wrong to paint athieists as psuedoskeptics, but i guess it is a moot point.

I will check out your treatise, thanks for the tip. :)

Regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby really? » 11 Jun 2010, 04:46

Craig Browning wrote:Just a quick correction of sorts... I know very little about Astrology itself. To me it's akin to Card Tricks and magicians... every psychic makes it important and a thing of primary support so I've more or less avoided it over the years except for some cursory study here and there. ;)

In terms of physics only explain the underlying mechanism or mechanisms by which celestial objects millions and billions of miles away can exert an influence.


I'm not a physicist but I do understand how science has proven how very subtle and barely measurable forms of energy affect us "indirectly". That is to say that we don't feel a deliberate "push" or "pull" and yet any gyroscopic energy can have that affect on us from a considerable distance. While that and most energy dissipates by distance it does not change the fact that a ripple is there (think of stones tossed into water).

It takes very little energy to make certain things move, mold, become imprinted upon, etc. such influences can come from an amazing distance and the "energy" involved, negligible. Yet manifestations happen.


If you don't know something don't make up an explanation. All energy dissipates it's called the Inverse Square Law.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Craig Browning » 11 Jun 2010, 21:24

I'm not making anything up... hate to burst your bubble.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Indigo Child » 14 Jun 2010, 06:19

I agree with you Canis that it unfair to tarr atheists with the same
brush as being pseudoskeptics. At the same time I agree with Winston's
statement that these are general characteristics of the pseudoskeptics, not
an absolute statement that all atheists are pseudoskeptics.

However, at the risk of sounding controversial, and this point is mirrored
in our debate in the "God!" thread as well, even an atheist is a pseudoskeptic
when it comes to the issues of god. They have not critically formulated this
judgement, but rather have elected to believe it. I find like with any pseudoskeptic,
when atheists are subjected to critical scrutiny, none of their arguments prove valid.
Now a common rejoinder to this argument is that the proof of the non-existence of something
is impossible. There is no way for you to prove that Santa Claus does not live in the North
pole. However, it is not your burden of proof to disprove Santa Claus does not exist, it is the
burden of proof of those who claim he exists. The same is not true of god however, because
there is plenty of evidence he exists, but an ontological god not a religious god. An atheist does
not consider this evidence, and therefore he is by definition a pseudoskeptic, who simply believes
in his non-existence. Therefore all atheists are pseudoskeptics.

Now, this is unfair if we consider some paranormal investigators may be atheists. Here we can say
that they are true skeptics when it comes to the paranormal, but guilty of pseudoskepticism when it
comes to god. This does not mean that I reject their research in the paranormal, as long as their inquiry
is genuinely skeptical, it is acceptable. However, when it comes to their judgements on god, one must
reject them because it is not true skepticism.

Nobody is absolutely either a skeptic, pseudoskeptic or believer. We are all guilty of being pseudoskeptical
to some things and belieiving in others. The term skeptic, pseudoskeptic and believer is therefore not being
used in the absolutest sense, but it is used in the colliqual sense to designate general characteristics.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Indigo Child » 14 Jun 2010, 06:31

Regarding Winston's treatise.

I have read over it several times now and have found nothing
that is logically invalid. He shows using proper logical reasoning
why certain arguments are most assuredly fallacies. However,
if one is going to dispute any of his refutations of these common
pseudoskeptical fallacies, they will have to demonstrate it. Not
simply state it.

My tip to skeptics read through Winston's treatise again and again,
because in all likeliness, you are most using many of these
fallacies. So next time you use it, you will be aware this time what
fallacy it is, and can make a better argument. It will make you a better
skeptic. You need to learn what the "believers" arguments are, and what
reasons they give, if you want to refute them. If you fail to engage our
points, you are not willing to discuss and this shows how tenuous your
position is to any objective person.
Last edited by Indigo Child on 14 Jun 2010, 06:35, edited 1 time in total.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby caniswalensis » 14 Jun 2010, 06:32

Indigo Child wrote:I agree with you Canis that it unfair to tarr atheists with the same
brush as being pseudoskeptics. At the same time I agree with Winston's
statement that these are general characteristics of the pseudoskeptics, not
an absolute statement that all atheists are pseudoskeptics.

However, at the risk of sounding controversial, and this point is mirrored
in our debate in the "God!" thread as well, even an atheist is a pseudoskeptic
when it comes to the issues of god. They have not critically formulated this
judgement, but rather have elected to believe it. I find like with any pseudoskeptic,
when atheists are subjected to critical scrutiny, none of their arguments prove valid.
Now a common rejoinder to this argument is that the proof of the non-existence of something
is impossible. There is no way for you to prove that Santa Claus does not live in the North
pole. However, it is not your burden of proof to disprove Santa Claus does not exist, it is the
burden of proof of those who claim he exists. The same is not true of god however, because
there is plenty of evidence he exists, but an ontological god not a religious god. An atheist does
not consider this evidence, and therefore he is by definition a pseudoskeptic, who simply believes
in his non-existence. Therefore all atheists are pseudoskeptics.

Now, this is unfair if we consider some paranormal investigators may be atheists. Here we can say
that they are true skeptics when it comes to the paranormal, but guilty of pseudoskepticism when it
comes to god. This does not mean that I reject their research in the paranormal, as long as their inquiry
is genuinely skeptical, it is acceptable. However, when it comes to their judgements on god, one must
reject them because it is not true skepticism.

Nobody is absolutely either a skeptic, pseudoskeptic or believer. We are all guilty of being pseudoskeptical
to some things and belieiving in others. The term skeptic, pseudoskeptic and believer is therefore not being
used in the absolutest sense, but it is used in the colliqual sense to designate general characteristics.


Hello IC,
…another interesting post from you. 

I think if I am going to be able to comment on your ideas, I need to clarify something .
Is the ontological god you refer to an actual diety with an intelligence, or is it something more like a concept that comes from humans? Is it an objective thing, or subjective?

I would like to hear more about an ontological god and what that means, please.

Regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Indigo Child » 14 Jun 2010, 06:59

Dear Canis,

The ontological god is the concept of god in philosophy, as designated by the intrinsic attributes,
a absolute being that is eternal, infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect and which is the supreme cause
of creation. This god is a rational concept that is introduced in order to explain certain things, such as
creation by the unmoved mover(Aristotle) or beigness as the ultimate being in which all beings share(Aquinas)
or the actual existence of a perfect being because of the sheer fact that one can conceive of it(St Aslem, Descartes)
This is a god that is concluded on the thrust of logical arguments.

The religious god is a concept of god in a particular religion, which is personified usually as a deity, with a name,
form and a mythology(He created the world in 7 days). To illustrate Eastern concepts of god like Brahman, Tao and Dharma
are examples of ontological god, whereas Abrahamic concept of god like Yaweah, Jesus, Allah are examples of religious god.

I hope that clarifies the difference.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby caniswalensis » 14 Jun 2010, 07:11

Indigo Child wrote:Dear Canis,

The ontological god is the concept of god in philosophy, as designated by the intrinsic attributes,
a absolute being that is eternal, infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect and which is the supreme cause
of creation. This god is a rational concept that is introduced in order to explain certain things, such as
creation by the unmoved mover(Aristotle) or beigness as the ultimate being in which all beings share(Aquinas)
or the actual existence of a perfect being because of the sheer fact that one can conceive of it(St Aslem, Descartes)
This is a god that is concluded on the thrust of logical arguments.

The religious god is a concept of god in a particular religion, which is personified usually as a deity, with a name,
form and a mythology(He created the world in 7 days). To illustrate Eastern concepts of god like Brahman, Tao and Dharma
are examples of ontological god, whereas Abrahamic concept of god like Yaweah, Jesus, Allah are examples of religious god.

I hope that clarifies the difference.


Yes, it does, thank you. :)

You say there is plenty of evidence for the existence of the ontological god. Can you elaborate on that?

I confess that I am struggling with how disbelief in a religious god can be valid, while disbelief in an ontological god is not.

Regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Indigo Child » 14 Jun 2010, 08:07

The reason that disbelief in a religious god is valid, because it is not based
on rational evidence. How does one know the name of god, and that he created
the world in 7 days, and he is Jesus's father? This is all based on just the testimony
given in the bible, written by human authors. One can only accept this testimony based
on faith alone and not reason.

On the other hand, disbelief in an ontological god is not valid, because it is based on
rational evidence. There can be no creation without a creator, something is required
to bring creation into manifestation from the original nothingness, otherwise we would have
an infinite regress that creation would never be possible, because there would be no first
cause.

The second argument is the existence of such states of being such as love, joy and happiness
must have an origin somewhere, just as the world does. However, as love, joy and happiness
are not actual physical objects their origin can only be sought in a another substance, which is
non physical. Life. As life is not reducile to any physical thing, life has its own existence.

The third argument is that nothing actually has any being in the world, for everything is a temporal,
it manifests, exists for a while, and then ceases to be. There is nothing in the world that is not like this,
even what we regard to be ourselves, is a ceaseless changing process of sensations and thoughts. Then
what is it that is actually the "self" that is observing this world? If there is no observer, then no world
is possible. Therefore we are borrowing being from another self or observer. God.

The fourth argument follows neatly from the third, and that is that life and intelligence actually precedes us,
there is already a vital principle that is predisposed to unfolding life in nature. It is predisposed to actualising
higher and higher states of life, and this continues in the form of the human who is always seeking something
more than what they have. In other words the universe from the very start knew what it wanted, and the human
being experiences ignorance, sorrow and the feeling of limitation, because its actual being is of the nature of
knowledge, joy and freedom. Finally, life does indeed precede us, because before we are conscious of the world
and of ourselves the condition of life must be first present. Our view of seeing ourselves as separate actors in
the world is logically invalid, because we are ultimately the same universe. We are not outside the universe, but
in it. The idea of the universe being made up a multiplicity of things is our own creation, owing to how our senses
perceive it by dividing it up into 5 perceptual categories.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby caniswalensis » 14 Jun 2010, 11:13

Thanks for the detailed explanation. :)
I am going to throw out a few thoughts below, just so you know where I am coming from.

Indigo Child wrote:The reason that disbelief in a religious god is valid, because it is not based
on rational evidence. How does one know the name of god, and that he created
the world in 7 days, and he is Jesus's father? This is all based on just the testimony
given in the bible, written by human authors. One can only accept this testimony based
on faith alone and not reason.

We pretty much see eye to eye on this.

Indigo Child wrote:On the other hand, disbelief in an ontological god is not valid, because it is based on
rational evidence. There can be no creation without a creator, something is required
to bring creation into manifestation from the original nothingness, otherwise we would have
an infinite regress that creation would never be possible, because there would be no first
cause.

When you say it is based on rational evidence, are you speaking of observable empirical evidence?

I think the assertion that "There can be no creation without a creator" is sound, but then where is the proof that the universe was created? Is it possible to know such a thing objectively? How can we say with sureuty that there was an "original nothingness?" It is true that there may have been a first cause, but how can we know that it was a creator?

I am not saying that what you have said is neccesarily wrong but I question whether there is no objective, empirical evidence for it.

Indigo Child wrote:The second argument is the existence of such states of being such as love, joy and happiness
must have an origin somewhere, just as the world does. However, as love, joy and happiness
are not actual physical objects their origin can only be sought in a another substance, which is
non physical. Life. As life is not reducile to any physical thing, life has its own existence.

Emotions & moods are mysterious things, we do not understand them well, and there are a couple competing theories on how they work. There is evidence that they are at least partly physical. Seeing as how they are not understood very well, I do not see how we could be positive that they are not physical, natural processes.

Indigo Child wrote:The third argument is that nothing actually has any being in the world, for everything is a temporal,
it manifests, exists for a while, and then ceases to be. There is nothing in the world that is not like this,
even what we regard to be ourselves, is a ceaseless changing process of sensations and thoughts. Then
what is it that is actually the "self" that is observing this world? If there is no observer, then no world
is possible. Therefore we are borrowing being from another self or observer. God.

Hmmm.... This is too philisophical for me. :) I agree with your intitial statement that everything is temporal, but I also know the law of conservation says that matter & energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed. For example, when I cease to be, my energy will be disapated in the form of escaping heat and nutrients as I cool and then decompose.

Speaking of observation, I do not know of any objective data that shows the self can exist independent of the physical body. It may very well be able to, but I think it is valid to question it.

Will I outlast my physical body. I don't know. I have not seen objective evidence for it.

Indigo Child wrote:The fourth argument follows neatly from the third, and that is that life and intelligence actually precedes us,
there is already a vital principle that is predisposed to unfolding life in nature. It is predisposed to actualising
higher and higher states of life, and this continues in the form of the human who is always seeking something
more than what they have. In other words the universe from the very start knew what it wanted, and the human
being experiences ignorance, sorrow and the feeling of limitation, because its actual being is of the nature of
knowledge, joy and freedom. Finally, life does indeed precede us, because before we are conscious of the world
and of ourselves the condition of life must be first present. Our view of seeing ourselves as separate actors in
the world is logically invalid, because we are ultimately the same universe. We are not outside the universe, but
in it. The idea of the universe being made up a multiplicity of things is our own creation, owing to how our senses
perceive it by dividing it up into 5 perceptual categories.


Also a bit too philisophical for my tastes. I am not exactly sure of what you mean by some of this. maybe you would be willing to explain a little further?

So, why am I commenting on all this? Well I am not trying to argue with you, that is for sure. I guess I am defending atheism as a valid view.

I disagree with your earlier statement that all atheists are pseudoskeptics.

Regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Nostradamus » 14 Jun 2010, 12:19

Oh you're into astrology too? That is one of the most ridiculed subjects of the paranormal.

But many rational people do find useful patterns in it.


It's called apophenia.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests