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)