I'm inclined to think that you didn't actually read what I wrote.Or have a blind spot for the idea that you don't have to demonstrate (let's leave 'proof' out of this) that a thing doesn't exist, in the absence of evidence that it does. If reasoning did work that way, you would believe by default in the existence of everything imaginable, and only be able to understand the world by painstakingly thinning down the infinite ranks of absurd imaginary things one at a time until you get to those few things that actually do exist.
(,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:30,
archived)
No, using his logic you would be agnostic about everything until evidence swung you one way or the other.
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:32,
archived)
Pedantichrist's.Unless I've misunderstood him.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:34,
archived)
Right. OK.Let's consider, I don't know, some random thing you (or he) don't believe in. Sentient trees, say. (Please don't say you believe in these, or I'll have to come up with something else.) What is the evidence that you claim you required before you stopped being agnostic about their non-existence and were actually convinced?
I think the problem in debates about atheism is usually epistemology, specifically a failure to grasp objectivism. That's why I complained about the use of the word "proof" earlier. We need the common ground of the idea of edging slowly towards a distant, unknowable objective truth, rather than the idea of anything being finally "proven" or anybody ever being completely convinced. I suspect Manley here is objecting to the straw man of a Dawkins who wants to secure your final, permanent conviction that God doesn't exist, but of course we never have that about anything, and proof is just a figure of speech, and in a manner of speaking yes we are always agnostics about everything - even after there is evidence.
(,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:40,
archived)
I think the problem in debates about atheism is usually epistemology, specifically a failure to grasp objectivism. That's why I complained about the use of the word "proof" earlier. We need the common ground of the idea of edging slowly towards a distant, unknowable objective truth, rather than the idea of anything being finally "proven" or anybody ever being completely convinced. I suspect Manley here is objecting to the straw man of a Dawkins who wants to secure your final, permanent conviction that God doesn't exist, but of course we never have that about anything, and proof is just a figure of speech, and in a manner of speaking yes we are always agnostics about everything - even after there is evidence.
I'm merely standing up for the Scientists view that nothing is ever certain.It's good scientific practise to have no preconceptions about anything until you have some evidence.
Much as I'm not arguing there is any evidence for the existence of God, I've studied a few arguments for it and they've all been awful,
but there is no way you can say once and for all 'there is no God'. I couldn't justify being atheistic rather than agnostic.
(Much as I'm not arguing there is any evidence for the existence of God, I've studied a few arguments for it and they've all been awful,
but there is no way you can say once and for all 'there is no God'. I couldn't justify being atheistic rather than agnostic.
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:46,
archived)
Yes, that's it.This is a semantic problem. If I say "there is no celestial teapot" you don't accuse me of being dogmatic about it, because as you said, the scientific stance to take is that nothing is ever certain. You know I'm merely using a shorthand for "I think the celestial teapot is overwhelmingly likely not to exist, and no of no good arguments for it". Yet if I say "there is no god", or rather if Dawkins says it, people are liable to accuse him of attaching a "once and for all" to his words, of giving up on the scientific "nothing is ever certain". But of course he isn't doing that, why should you assume he is? This straw man gets created, for some reason, the idea that atheists cease being objectivists when they talk about God. Why imagine that they're saying something of that kind? It's out of character for any rationalist. They shouldn't be required to say "well there might be a God or there might not" just to prove they're being rational about it, any more than they should be required to say "there might be a celestial teapot or there might not".
(,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:53,
archived)
If you say that there is no celestial teapot,That anyone who believes that there is a celestial teapot is clinically insane and that they should be forced to stop believing in a celestial teapot, then you are not saying "I think the celestial teapot is overwhelmingly likely not to exist, and know of no good arguments for it", are you now?
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:00,
archived)
Depends what you mean by "forced".If you mean "ridiculed relentlessly", that's compatible with my attitude that the said teapot might just minutely possibly exist. I don't believe in torture camps for people who disagree with me, though, no, and neither does Dawkins. And I'm not entirely sure what "clinically insane" means and generally dislike the term. I'd say that the belief is likely to be an ingrained irrationality (or, less likely, a simple mistake) - and that it needn't reflect on the person as a whole, who might be very smart in many other ways.
(,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:06,
archived)
But, for a person to whom the existence of God is obvious, your denial of it is equally insane.Can you not see that it is only the side of the argument which you are on which drives you. Neither side has a stronger case for ridiculing the other.
Clinically insane is Dawkin's term.
(Clinically insane is Dawkin's term.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:12,
archived)
That's relativismso I'm coming up against the problem of
differing notions of epistemology again. I tell
you that's at the root of these discussions
really, not religion at all.
The problem with relativism is that you can
apply it to all arguments, and then you
discover that nothing is apparently true and
that you no longer have a point of view. What
appears to be true "for a person" is not the
question; I'm trying to establish (as best I
can) what is true, because I'm an
objectivist and believe in a single (unknown)
objective truth. The fact that other people's
belief in opinions is just as strong as
my belief in the opposite is irrelevant; what
matters is how strong their arguments
are.
I don't know where you got "clinically insane"
from, but "insane" only appears three times in
The God Delusion, and twice he is quoting other
people, and the other time he is talking about
Stalin and Hitler.
It is not from the book, it is from a live 'debate'.I agree, I am an I hold objectivism very dear.
That is why I do not set out to ridicule those who hold differing opinions.
I am interested in their arguments and, where appropriate, I offer my own.
How good their arguments are effects whether or not I embrace their ideas.
It does not effect the fact that I do not know anything and, as such, I cannot in good faith ridicule them.
(That is why I do not set out to ridicule those who hold differing opinions.
I am interested in their arguments and, where appropriate, I offer my own.
How good their arguments are effects whether or not I embrace their ideas.
It does not effect the fact that I do not know anything and, as such, I cannot in good faith ridicule them.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:23,
archived)
I'm not sure what I mean by "ridicule" any more,or what you think it involves.
I suppose the main point is not to bother
saying "you might be right" when the person has
presented no argument (even implicitly) any
stronger that "I feel it in my bones". Saying
"you might be right, it's a valid point of
view" in such circumstances just encourages
poor argument style, I think - because they
aren't being rigourous, and you're letting them
get away with it.
But Dawkins does not refrain from saying 'you might be right'He actively says 'You are wrong'.
In my opinion he cannot know this and so is not in a position to say anything more than 'I believe that you might be wrong'.
(In my opinion he cannot know this and so is not in a position to say anything more than 'I believe that you might be wrong'.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:54,
archived)
I do not believe in sentient treesbut, were there a group of people who did, I would not set out to berate them, call them clinically insane or stand on a stage and tell them that they were wrong.
Yes, I would think that they were wrong, that is what belief is about, but if I wanted to go to them and tell them that they were wrong then the burden of proof would be upon me to prove that they were wrong.
If they are happy believing in sentient trees and are not trying to force me to accept that there are sentient trees then there is absolutely no burden of proof on them whatsoever.
To be honest, to the extent that I do not know that plants do not have a form of sentience and am not qualified to categorise the boundaries between plant and animal life, I would say that I must admint to being, to an extent, agnostic on the subject.
(Yes, I would think that they were wrong, that is what belief is about, but if I wanted to go to them and tell them that they were wrong then the burden of proof would be upon me to prove that they were wrong.
If they are happy believing in sentient trees and are not trying to force me to accept that there are sentient trees then there is absolutely no burden of proof on them whatsoever.
To be honest, to the extent that I do not know that plants do not have a form of sentience and am not qualified to categorise the boundaries between plant and animal life, I would say that I must admint to being, to an extent, agnostic on the subject.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:47,
archived)
No, the burden of proof depends on the substance of what's being argued,not just the fact of which party started the argument. How could you go about demonstrating that sentient trees don't exist? You could always be defeated by the argument that you haven't looked in the right place.
(,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:00,
archived)
No.If I told you that your childhood friend never existed and that those memories were only the result of last night's dream, I would need to provide proof.
If I told you that the person you dreamed about last night was a real person that you had known when young then I would need to provide proof.
If Dawkins wants to convince people that they are wrong then he needs to bring some evidence to the table.
(If I told you that the person you dreamed about last night was a real person that you had known when young then I would need to provide proof.
If Dawkins wants to convince people that they are wrong then he needs to bring some evidence to the table.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:09,
archived)
It's likely that I can, if I try, track down evidence for the childhood friend having existed.If for bizarre reasons there is no form of record that they ever existed at all (I don't know, something to do with growing up alone together in remote Siberia until this person drowned in a lake), I can still at least make a convincing argument that they might have existed based on the existence of childhood friends in general, and the fact that I was in circumstances where I might have had a childhood friend without any trace being left - not even any repercussions on my life, no bit of knowledge given to me by this person, nothing. You would, however, be able to place reasonable doubt in my mind that it might just be a false memory. They sound like a bit of a nonentity.
There is no argument for the existence of gods in general.
(,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:29,
archived)
There is no argument for the existence of gods in general.
You do not accept the arguments for Gods.That is not the same as there being none.
The fact that most people believe that there is one suggests that it is not reasonable to say that there is no compelling argument for Gods.
Plenty of people have been compelled.
(The fact that most people believe that there is one suggests that it is not reasonable to say that there is no compelling argument for Gods.
Plenty of people have been compelled.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:41,
archived)
I actually agree with all those statements, taken literally.What I disagree with is the implication
that it is at all likely that there is a God,
or that "plenty of people have been compelled"
makes it significantly more likely. We agree,
surely, that it's very easy for plenty of
people to believe in a thing which is not
remotely true.
I'm even prepared to accept that a large number
of people believing in a thing has some
effect on the probability that they were
convinced for valid reasons. It's not true to
say "X number of people can't be wrong,"
because they always can, but it should
certainly give you pause for thought if a large
number of people believe in a thing.
I did this pausing for thought already, though,
quite a large number of years ago.
I am not suggesting that there is a valid argument that there is a God.I am suggesting that there is a valid argument not to go around telling everyone that there is no God.
I also believe that there is a valid argument not to go around telling everyone that there is one.
Basiacally, if you don't know then you only have an opinion and condemning the opinions of others seems somewhat abhorrant to me.
(I also believe that there is a valid argument not to go around telling everyone that there is one.
Basiacally, if you don't know then you only have an opinion and condemning the opinions of others seems somewhat abhorrant to me.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 1:01,
archived)
The absence of evidence that there is not a God is precisely as compelling as the absence of evidence that there is a God.The arguments for Atheism are no more or less backed by proof than those for religion.
The more important thing here is not what is real, but why you think that someone has to prove to you that what they believe is real.
If Dawkins wants people to embrace atheism, as he says he does, then the onus of proof is on him, just as it is on any religious nutter who is recruiting.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I remain unable to conclusively dtate that there is no God and, as such, am in no position to tell anyone who believes one theory over another that they are wrong.
Dawkins has no greater insight into, for example, what happens to our sense of self after we die, than I have or a rabbi has. For him to decide that his opinion is more valid than that of others, without any supporting data, is not reasonable.
I also find his 'you believe in fairy stories, nah-nah-nah' style of debate to be banal and show him up somewhat.
(The more important thing here is not what is real, but why you think that someone has to prove to you that what they believe is real.
If Dawkins wants people to embrace atheism, as he says he does, then the onus of proof is on him, just as it is on any religious nutter who is recruiting.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I remain unable to conclusively dtate that there is no God and, as such, am in no position to tell anyone who believes one theory over another that they are wrong.
Dawkins has no greater insight into, for example, what happens to our sense of self after we die, than I have or a rabbi has. For him to decide that his opinion is more valid than that of others, without any supporting data, is not reasonable.
I also find his 'you believe in fairy stories, nah-nah-nah' style of debate to be banal and show him up somewhat.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:39,
archived)
I find the idea that people deserve respect for believing in fairy storiesjust because these stories fall under the banner of religion, and the idea that we ought to pussyfoot around and treat these fairy stories as valid points of view, just because they are somehow labeled as more special than other fairy stories, repellent. I think the religious absolutely deserve to be mocked and have got away without being mocked for far too long, and the point of view that this will ruin the credibility of atheists, alienate potential converts to atheism, or is poor debating style, is incorrect. We have to call garbage what it is, and to be respectful about garbage is misguided.
(,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:45,
archived)
They don't deserve respect for their beliefs,but you should respect the fact that they have those beliefs.
So long as their beliefs don't hurt you, at least.
I appreciate there are occasions when religious beliefs do hurt people, but there have been plenty of occasions where Science has hurt people.
It's not a reason to discard everyone who believes in it.
(So long as their beliefs don't hurt you, at least.
I appreciate there are occasions when religious beliefs do hurt people, but there have been plenty of occasions where Science has hurt people.
It's not a reason to discard everyone who believes in it.
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:49,
archived)
It is also illegal in the UKAfter all, one cannot decide what one believes, any more than one can decide whether one likes chocolate or not.
I find people who will not question what they believe to be difficult, whether they believe that there is a God or that there is not, but I find people who tell me what I have to believe to be intolerable.
(I find people who will not question what they believe to be difficult, whether they believe that there is a God or that there is not, but I find people who tell me what I have to believe to be intolerable.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:52,
archived)
If you want to call it garbage then you will have to prove that it is garbagewhich, since this is never going to happen, is your downfall.
Just as a Bishop cannot mock atheists without incurring my wrath, so an atheist cannot mock a bishop.
You are no better than any fundamentalist when you say 'what I believe is right and, regardless of my ability to demonstrate this, I declare anyone of a different opinion to be wrong'.
I don't like to say this, but that level of intolerance borders on evil.
(Just as a Bishop cannot mock atheists without incurring my wrath, so an atheist cannot mock a bishop.
You are no better than any fundamentalist when you say 'what I believe is right and, regardless of my ability to demonstrate this, I declare anyone of a different opinion to be wrong'.
I don't like to say this, but that level of intolerance borders on evil.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:51,
archived)
So, you'd never call anything garbage?Or does this principle only apply to religion?
(,
Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:56,
archived)
This principle applies to everything.If I do not have sufficient evidence to be certain about something, within the realms that we are discussing it, then I will not dismiss someone for believing it.
Indeed I will call to task those who do.
(Indeed I will call to task those who do.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:02,
archived)
I questionwhat kind of evidence it takes to make you certain any particular ludicrous thing doesn't exist.
(,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:12,
archived)
I am not certain about anything.That is why I do not feel it is appropriate for me to mercilessly ridicule people.
You should not be certain about something for which you have not got conclusive evidence either. If you are then you are making the kind of assumptions which you seem to feel are worthy of ridicule.
(You should not be certain about something for which you have not got conclusive evidence either. If you are then you are making the kind of assumptions which you seem to feel are worthy of ridicule.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:14,
archived)
Aha, so you agree that "assumptions which I seem to feel are worthy of ridicule"are at least a class of assumptions, assumptions of a kind that you can identify (without having to ask me what I think). You know what type of assumptions I'm talking about, then. You just don't want to call these assumptions "ridiculous"
Fair enough, I'm not fussy about terminology. If I'm no longer allowed to ridicule people, I will have to make do with accusing them of holding "assumptions of the kind which I previously thought were worthy of ridicule" instead. Comes to the same thing.
...by which I mean that you agree with me really, and find certain ideas that you encounter ridiculous, and just don't want to appear harsh by saying so, or something.
(,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:38,
archived)
Fair enough, I'm not fussy about terminology. If I'm no longer allowed to ridicule people, I will have to make do with accusing them of holding "assumptions of the kind which I previously thought were worthy of ridicule" instead. Comes to the same thing.
...by which I mean that you agree with me really, and find certain ideas that you encounter ridiculous, and just don't want to appear harsh by saying so, or something.
No, you are wrong.There are ideas I consider ridiculous, but the major point here is that I do not ridicule them, not because I do not wish to be harsh, but because I accept that my opinion of these ideas is subjective.
I do not ridicule them because I do not know that they are wrong, I am merely bound by my own prejudices.
It is unlikely to encourage you to agree with me, and I genuinely do not believe that it affects this argument, but you might be interested to learn that I have attended a CofE church this very evening.
(I do not ridicule them because I do not know that they are wrong, I am merely bound by my own prejudices.
It is unlikely to encourage you to agree with me, and I genuinely do not believe that it affects this argument, but you might be interested to learn that I have attended a CofE church this very evening.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:45,
archived)
Also, it is time for bed.I have enjoyed argueing with you.
Feel free to Gaz me.
(Feel free to Gaz me.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 1:04,
archived)
OK, I'm losing coherence due to tiredness too.Night chap.
...it's about time we had an argument about this really, though, been brewing for a while.
(,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 1:07,
archived)
...it's about time we had an argument about this really, though, been brewing for a while.
Dawkins expresses fondness for the C of E. (More so than I do.)I'm not sure what we mean by "ridicule", I
think the problem might be that we have
different ideas of what it means. I just mean
telling people "you're wrong" when I think
they're extremely unlikely to be right and have
weak arguments. I could point out that I'm
replying to a post which begins "no, you are
wrong". Oh, and continuing with "your arguments
are extremely weak" and perhaps comparing them
to other weak arguments, e.g. "you might as
well say you believe in fairies," is also part
of ridicule. There's nothing dogmatic in this,
you understand. I don't see why you shouldn't
say that sort of thing too.
Hmm,You can be wrong about something without it being subjective.
As a hypothetical example:
I believe that there are kittens in the woodpile. You believe that they are crabs.
I should not say 'You are wrong, they are kitten', but, if you say that I don't believe that there are kittens, then I am perfectly entitled to say 'you are wrong - I do believe that there are kittens'.
(As a hypothetical example:
I believe that there are kittens in the woodpile. You believe that they are crabs.
I should not say 'You are wrong, they are kitten', but, if you say that I don't believe that there are kittens, then I am perfectly entitled to say 'you are wrong - I do believe that there are kittens'.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 9:15,
archived)
Even that isn't strictly true,it's possible to be mistaken about one's own
experiences. Every opinion is subject to
fallibility, even my own opinions about what I
myself think (and actually I quite often misjudge
my own mental processes when I try to describe
them, e.g. try describing retrospectively how you
arrived at a preference, and see how watertight
your description is - probably not very).
This is what it all boils down to for me.I'm a big fan of giving respect to get respect. Dawkins gives no respect therefore I don't respect his opinions.
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:13,
archived)
Look at us, all hanging around in a long dead thread ;) LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:16,
archived)