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)