6
   

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

 
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:45 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

I wasn't at the point of addressing the creator, just chuckling about the current state of psychology. But somehow I don't think you'll be receptive to arguments contrary to your beliefs at any point.


Not fallacious ones, no. And not faith-based ones, either. You've either got evidence or you don't. So far, looks like you don't. If you can put together a series of evidence-based syllogisms that passes the test of logical validity, you'll get better results.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 06:54 am
@FBM,
Quote:
Leadfoot wrote:
"I wasn't at the point of addressing the creator, just chuckling about the current state of psychology. But somehow I don't think you'll be receptive to arguments contrary to your beliefs at any point."


Not fallacious ones, no. And not faith-based ones, either. You've either got evidence or you don't. So far, looks like you don't. If you can put together a series of evidence-based syllogisms that passes the test of logical validity, you'll get better results.
I wish that were true but now I'm in doubt.

As we discussed, any evidence of God would have to be the effect he had on the 'life of the mind' in individual people. I don't see that as a concession on anyone's 'side'. Unless you are looking for evidence of 'miracles' which would be nothing more than cheap parlor tricks for a God, what other evidence would even matter?

By its nature, acceptance of evidence of this nature fully depends on first establishing trust between the people. It doesn't end there of course. Those 'mental effects' of a God would also have to pass the test of logic and reason, but first there would have to be the trust that both parties were intellectually honest with each other.

I'm not sure that you and I can establish that trust.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 07:09 am
@Leadfoot,
Mmm. I kinda doubt it, too, because I think I have good reason to doubt the objectivity of those reporting the anecdotes. Back when I was dyed-in-the-wool about it, I had all sorts of very convincing anecdotes that I was 100% convinced proved that there was a benevolent god acting in my life. I wasn't consciously distorting or cherry picking; I was actually wearing the god-filter. Then I discovered critical thinking/reasoning and that just kinda knocked the filter off.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 07:09 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
...first there would have to be the trust that both parties were intellectually honest with each other. I'm not sure that you and I can establish that trust
.

So you're sayin ya don't trust FBM's intellectual integrity, Leddy!?

OK, yeah, I can see that.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 07:14 am
@layman,
evidence is evidence. It should not require "conditions" of reality to be imposed in order for the posing side to claim that its evidence is even a fact.
LF seems to be proposing and escalating such conditions for FBM to "accept" otherwise hes being (according to LF) disingenuous.

Cmon, Marcus of Queensvillage Rules please!/
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 07:18 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
.. otherwise hes being (according to LF) disingenuous.


I don't know if Leddy is sayin that, Farmer. But I might. But it wouldn't be for that reason.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 07:21 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
evidence is evidence. It should not require "conditions" of reality to be imposed in order for the posing side to claim that its evidence is even a fact


Leddy said:

Quote:
As we discussed, any evidence of God would have to be the effect he had on the 'life of the mind' in individual people.


Could there be any facts about the minds of individual people, Farmer?

Or would them just be pseudo-facts?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 07:24 am
@layman,
thats an imposed condition to the basis of the argument which actually includes acceptance of that premise.
ITS KINDA like doing A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GEOLOGY OF THE MOON
"But first we all agree that its made of green cheese"

I call a bullshit flag.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 07:27 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
thats an imposed condition...


What is?

What's "that" in your sentence refer to?
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 07:39 am
@farmerman,
Kind of like proposing a rule that my line of scrimmage is always one yard away from your end zone, and so is yours.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 07:52 am
@FBM,
I didnt mean to bust in uninvited but Ive been reading all these "rules of engagement" pile up and agreed to between layman and LF and they are all seemingly (at least to my aged mind) conferred with some supernatural agenda that doesnt include science or even logic.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 07:58 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
all seemingly (at least to my aged mind) conferred with some supernatural agenda that doesnt include science or even logic.


What? Why?

I asked you a couple questions, Farmer, which you haven't answered. I really don't even know why you're sayin what you're sayin.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 07:58 am
@farmerman,
I do appreciate your input. You're a lot better trained than I am regarding what's legit evidence and what's not. And, yeah, it's hard not to conclude that LF and the other theists here are starting with their preferred conclusion and trying to work backwards to find anything that fits their narrative. That's what I used to do when I was a believer. I got over it, though.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 08:01 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
. ..all these "rules of engagement" pile up and agreed to between layman and LF...


If it matters, I don't recall agreeing to any "rules of engagement" with anyone.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 08:08 am
@layman,
Quote:
I asked you a couple questions, Farmer, which you haven't answered. I really don't even know why you're sayin what you're sayin


"Calling bullshit" aint nuthin if ya can't say what it is.

I can walk around town all day, screaming "BULLSHIT" at the top of my lungs, but it won't have any impact on anyone.

Well, I mean besides them calling the police to report a disturbance, anyway.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 08:38 am
@layman,
I ran into a skinhead once. He challenged me to show him evidence that blacks weren't inferior to whites.

I said: Before I start, are you willing to consider, just for the sake of the argument, the possibility that blacks aren't inferior?

He said: Hell no! You can't expect to consider anything that isn't a known fact. I know for a fact that blacks are stupid, that they want to rape my wife, than they're born lazy-ass criminals, and a whole lot worse. Are you going to try to tell me that's not "inferior?"

I just said: Later, chump.

If he was a little bit smarter, he might have told me that I was trying to set conditions on what "facts" can be considered, eh?

Then, again, I suppose I could tell him the same, so that might not work.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 08:42 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
LF seems to be proposing and escalating such conditions for FBM to "accept" otherwise hes being (according to LF) disingenuous.
Like I said, I don't see anything I've said as asking either 'side' for exceptions or unusual conditions. I haven't heard anyone give specifics otherwise. What are you getting at?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 08:52 am
@Leadfoot,
your "requirements" involved in displaying what you want to call valid evidence. Remember, there are two sides to a debate and ,(as an interested observer in this "topic"), I thing FBM has bee quite fair in hi understandings nd acceptqnce of your conditions. (Id just call em conditions Id only consider, were I just trying to be nice .

Ill be back later, wve got to unload a couple wagons of hay and its raining
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 08:57 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
What are you getting at?


Best I can tell, Leddy, he could be sayin something like this:

If it's not something material, if it's not an object which you can put on the table and measure it's height, length, depth, weight, etc., than there can be no "facts" about it.

At least if he does says that, then he does NOT "require "conditions" of reality to be imposed in order for the posing side to claim that its evidence is even a fact," see?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 09:10 am
@FBM,
Quote:
I had all sorts of very convincing anecdotes that I was 100% convinced proved that there was a benevolent god acting in my life. I wasn't consciously distorting or cherry picking; I was actually wearing the god-filter. Then I discovered critical thinking/reasoning and that just kinda knocked the filter off.
I can't know the details of your 'life of the mind' of course but it is possible you gave up looking for the logic behind the God inspired events in your life too easily. How do you know that it wasn't God who lead you to critical thinking?

I too came to a point where the logic of those events escaped me, but I refused to give up logic (correctly so). There was a period where I hated God or the idea there was a God. But I couldn't accept the idea that the logic and events I had followed for so long had lead me to that dead end. It almost killed me but I eventually found where I had lost the thread and picked it up. Reason, logic and God had not failed, it was all me. It was the best education one could ask for.
 

Related Topics

Does Dawkins believe in aliens? - Question by Smoke34
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/11/2021 at 10:58:18