XPost: alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.christnet
From: always@ask.questions
On 27/12/2012 11:04 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> In alt.atheism TheInquirer wrote:
>> On 27/12/2012 8:49 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>> this assumes there is something to be shifted. my approach, as an
>>>> independent inquirer, is different.
>>>
>>> And incorrect.
>>
>> just because people say so?
>
> That's generally how it works, yes. Because the people who say so have put a
> lot of thought and reasoning behind it.
and so what?
You can pick up any book on critical
> thinking to understand the reasons why.
> Yes, because it puts the burden of proof where it belongs: with the person
who
> asserts something.
this presumes there is another person to argue with.
[ you may want to pick holes at my buying mobile phone analogy, but it
doesn't prove anything, since all analogies break down anyway. trivial
observation. ]
and what if i'm debating with myself? which position shall i take as
the default position? should it even be a binary choice?
>> does this help humans to be less bigoted?
>
> A bigoted person doesn't follow critical thinking rules,
whose rules are you talking about?
one well-known set of rules is
True ==> True (valid argument)
True ==> False (invalid argument)
False ==> True (valid argument)
False ==> False (valid argument)
note
True ==> True (valid argument)
False ==> True (valid argument)
if person1 asserts propsition A and person2 asserts propsition not(A),
but i don't know who is correct, why should i assume anyone of them
is correct as the default?
> Is synthesis necessarily a good thing thing, if one of the views is
> demonstrably incorrect?
assuming one view is demonstrably incorrect?
if you're referring to the view that "God exists." is demonstrably
incorrect, without defining what "God" means, that's crap isn't it?
maybe you'd have an easier time with demonstrating that the view "a
benevolent God exists" is incorrect (just look at the carnage around the
world), but that begs the question: what does "benevolent" mean?
Isn't helping humans understanding approach reality
> more important?
is there a way for people to avoid dogma without themselves falling into
dogma?
> How can you tell if the theists have a better argument until you ask both
> parties?
prima facie, both sides seem to be bigoted, like the blind men
describing the elephant.
> The one that theists give us. Many times, theists do not precisely define
> their God(s),
because they use an apophatic approach?
or define them in such a way as to make any investigation into
> their God(s) impossible *by definition*.
wouldn't this, plus the labelling of "theist" versus "atheist" be even a
waste of time?
"agnostic" sounds wishy-washy, but, properly used means "i don't know".
but i have a question: what if what we "know" are just beliefs?
i heard recently there's a philosopher challenging the notion of
"knowledge" as "justified true belief"
do many people use the term "ignostic"?
"unaffiliated" seems to be the best term i have heard so far: it doesn't
say there is no God or gods of any sort, nor does it say there is -- it
merely says you're not part of any organised group or stick to a
formulated creed. it can cover people who believe in an
Einstein-Spinoza kind of God, can't it?
>> * is there a real distinction between "natural" and "supernatural"?
>
> Again, it's the theist that asserts the supernatural. So far, there's been
no
> evidence of what the theist asserts is "the supernatural" existing.
where's the boundary?
--
I ask, becos I'm curious.
Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't
presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
business. I ask, you answer. If you think I am stupid,
you have already proven that you are stupid, not me. If
you don't know the answer, can you please "pass" to other
people to answer? thanks.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
