tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6636820156269912647..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Debunking the Defeasibility TestVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger124125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2112243287334860572020-02-25T16:25:58.005-07:002020-02-25T16:25:58.005-07:00I agree. I am in his class sat here googling why h...I agree. I am in his class sat here googling why his book is bullshit cuz I pick up on it all the timeAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16210960762472446533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28396089649992888152016-12-17T14:32:00.472-07:002016-12-17T14:32:00.472-07:00I've posted my response to Reppert's ideas...I've posted my response to Reppert's ideas (with a link to this page) at: The Rights and Wrongs of Reppert on Defeasibility.<br /><br />https://atheistkit.wordpress.com/2016/12/17/the-rights-and-wrongs-of-reppert-on-defeasibility/<br /><br />I invite anyone who can to submit any possible spiritual experience, or evidence of any kind (even imaginary evidence) which could be explained ONLY by their God belief, and not have a million other possible explanations, too.<br /><br />At the same time, I give two points to Reppert for being right about a couple things, along with the two points on which he is wrong.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11724851914652606227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49665972630825323022013-11-07T10:19:05.893-07:002013-11-07T10:19:05.893-07:00Matt: I am wondering what could convince you that ...Matt: I am wondering what could convince you that 2+2 does not equal 4. Hypothetically. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91386690141162618092012-10-07T20:01:00.683-07:002012-10-07T20:01:00.683-07:00I’ve read the original post here and I’ve read the...I’ve read the original post here and I’ve read the provocative thread following. I’m puzzled. As I understand it, the defeasibility test is a simple matter. It’s not about converting anyone to atheism. It’s about whether or not the people engaged in a disagreement about God both meet the minimal requirements for being rational agents. The question is simple, and it applies to both parties: Is there any evidence, real or hypothetical, that could possibly disuade you of the view you currently hold? Could there possibly be any considerations that might lead you to change your mind? I take it as obvious that if someone’s answer is “no,” then he does not meet the minimal requirements for rationality and further discussion is pointless. I’ve read and reread the original post and I honestly don’t see any real objection to the defeasibility test. I see some topic changing, and some open, rhetorical questions. But I don’t see any reason to doubt that the defeasibility question is a fair question, and to be honest, it would appear that for many of the people defending theism here the answer is “no.” <br /><br />On that note, notice that if someone says, “I have had a profound, direct experience of God, and nothing, even in principle could convince me that it was anything except God,” they are giving the “no” answer. We can certainly allow that people have profound, moving experiences and we can allow, at least in principle, that those count as a kind of experience. But when that experience is alleged to be self-authenticating in this fashion—as William Lane Craig often says—and the experiencer insists that there can be no possibility of that experience being inauthentic, then the rest of us have to conclude that he has left the rationality playing field. There are far too many examples of reasonable, thoughtful people losing their way and getting caught up in some mistaken scheme to be ignored. You’re assuring yourself and the rest of us that you’re special and that your special moment with God, unlike billions of other similar cases in history, is utterly beyond reproach just won’t cut it. <br /><br />Thanks for discussing this, all. <br /><br />Matt McCormick<br />www.provingthenegative.comMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83042413476282973762012-09-29T08:32:04.615-07:002012-09-29T08:32:04.615-07:00Cole,
I'm familiar with Max Freedom Long. Bac...<b>Cole</b>,<br /><br />I'm familiar with Max Freedom Long. Back when I studied the occult I got my hands on as many of his books as I could, along with anything else on Huna. I would advise your friend to stop as soon as possible!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14690581632680318932012-09-29T07:03:39.306-07:002012-09-29T07:03:39.306-07:00"If anyone wants to know the truth, let them ..."If anyone wants to know the truth, let them pray and ask God, in earnest, as I suggested upthread. None of us can "prove" God to you and any attempt to do so is to take Satan's bait."<br /><br />Awesome! cl has discovered a perfectly reliable way to learn stuff.<br /><br />cl, I have a 47 digit number on a piece of paper in my desk drawer. Pray about that to learn what it is.<br /><br />Didn't work? Wow, what a surprise. Another great example of the epistemic failure of the religious mind.BeingItselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13196126096999779200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73483712662628476642012-09-28T21:13:30.602-07:002012-09-28T21:13:30.602-07:00cl,
My friend prays all the time. This is one of ...cl,<br /><br />My friend prays all the time. This is one of the times he can hear the spirits speak to him. He thinks "A Course in Miracles" book is the way to go. He layed his hand on it one time and felt energy shoot out the top of his head like a fountain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16269454242756418232012-09-28T20:50:00.722-07:002012-09-28T20:50:00.722-07:00If anyone wants to know the truth, let them pray a...If anyone wants to know the truth, let them pray and ask God, in earnest, as I suggested upthread. None of us can "prove" God to you and any attempt to do so is to take Satan's bait.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91436342749335111422012-09-28T19:57:58.801-07:002012-09-28T19:57:58.801-07:00Syllabus: "(all of which was written in a ton...Syllabus: <i>"(all of which was written in a tone that had all sorts of connotations that were less than respectful)"</i><br /><br />Matt: <i>"In philosophical circles, we make a big fuss about "charity". Instead of reading a tone in my writing (whatever the hell that means), perhaps you should just read what I write without assuming implicatures or intonations that simply aren't in the text."</i><br /><br />Reading tone and assuming implicatures and intonations are predicated on our natural predisposition for teleological intentionality. We read agency and intention everywhere, indiscriminately. Even in a simple sentence we are prone to read things into it, whether it is there or not. We read agency and intention where there quite possibly are none [as in the case above of Syllabus reading Matt 'between the line']. Our mind is an agency detection machine, a genetic mechanism that was a beneficial product of human evolution for increasing the chance of species survival. There is little doubt on the research in this area. Teleology has a propensity towards rampancy if left unchecked and disciplined.<br /><br />The purloining of teleology into the religious impulse is a post-survival cultural development, a consequence of social and cultural changes that occurred when the clear and present danger of living on the African savannah became less and less of a problematic life-and-death issue. Religious belief is fundamentally based on teleology, ascribing purpose and design into nature and natural things, whether warranted or otherwise. Religion is the anthropomorphising or personifying of the natural world and the universe at a time when there were no alternative explanations regardless of whether believers object to the fact. <br /><br />Whereas religion attributes life and existence to an ineffable and amorphous 'god', since the Enlightenment Science has offered an alternative framework that explains life and existence through the empiricism of basic observation and testable research. The definition of teleology, and the explanation of purpose, from the scientific perspective is founded on research and investigation of cause-and-effect relationships that are demonstrable and open to falsifiability. The definition of teleology from a theistic perspective is the fundamental premise around which theistic claims are built. Purpose and design in theology are unfounded premises.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41077032796215929352012-09-28T19:31:45.493-07:002012-09-28T19:31:45.493-07:00"the argument cannot be settled without deter..."the argument cannot be settled without determining the contents of B"<br /><br />Exactly! And we know a hell of a lot about B. For example, Joe Nickell's lifetime of work, along with James Randi's million dollar challenge.<br /><br />The background information is that whenever alleged paranormal phenomena are systematically investigated, a mundane explanation is almost always found.<br /><br />Things are not looking good for you creduloids.<br />BeingItselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13196126096999779200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75005469354300811682012-09-28T16:25:56.961-07:002012-09-28T16:25:56.961-07:00"What is more likely: a stack of video games ..."What is more likely: a stack of video games was teleported across the room by a poltergeist, or cl is just mistaken or lying?"<br /><br />What the hell, I'll feed the troll:<br /><br />Pr (H | E & B), where H is the hypothesis of cl's, E is cl's testimony and B is background information, will completely depend upon the content of B. Therefore, the argument cannot be settled without determining the contents of B. <br /><br />Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22061286649135274752012-09-28T16:17:23.565-07:002012-09-28T16:17:23.565-07:00What is more likely: a stack of video games was te...What is more likely: a stack of video games was teleported across the room by a poltergeist, or cl is just mistaken or lying?BeingItselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13196126096999779200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59618770927735077502012-09-28T16:12:44.114-07:002012-09-28T16:12:44.114-07:00"You don't think that people are more emo..."You don't think that people are more emotional about their religion than their favorite football team?"<br /><br />The two are coterminous, in many people I know. And it depends upon the person. I'm far less emotional when I take Eucharist than when I watched the Dutch lose to the Spanish in 2010, and that doesn't reflect upon the sincerity of either my passion for the Oranj or for communion, only upon the nature of the two being different<br /><br />"Instead of reading a tone in my writing (whatever the hell that means), perhaps you should just read what I write without assuming implicatures or intonations that simply aren't in the text."<br /><br />Look, I'll stop going on about this if you like, but using language like "free pass to eternal bliss" and "a belief as emotional as Christianity" is very easily read as, like Ben put it, cheap psychoanalysis. As evidenced by the fact that multiple people read it as more or less the same thing. So, yeah. That's all I'll say on that.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33245160214448234532012-09-28T15:39:40.209-07:002012-09-28T15:39:40.209-07:00I don't care if Matt was being "condescen...I don't care if Matt was being "condescending" but his words taken at face value seemed psycho-analyzing. <br /><br />Try to work on that please.<br /><br /><br />Thank you.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24825019340793541692012-09-28T15:37:45.889-07:002012-09-28T15:37:45.889-07:00im-skeptical,
"I offered a plausible and rea...<b>im-skeptical</b>,<br /><br /><i>"I offered a plausible and reasonable explanation for your event. I don't know if that's really what occurred, but you should at least examine the possibility, given that you claim to "think critically and examine all the options"."</i><br /><br />No, you didn't. You just pulled something out of your behind because the cognitive dissonance is too strong. If my account is correct, your beliefs are under strong fire, if not falsified outright. So, instead of deal with that, you just made up whatever you could think of.<br /><br />You are correct to notice a bit of emotion in my response. That's because I was a bit pissed off that I let another skeptic pull my chain again. You're all the same: "gimme gimme gimme, I need some more." It's a shell game and I ain't playin'.<br /><br />What you suggest is impossible and mockworthy. Nobody ever left the room. All three of us, at the same time, "witnessed" the event. I use scare quotes because the change in position was instantaneous as I described. Nobody really "saw" it. As soon as it happened, all three of us looked at each other and said, "we all just saw that, right?" By "saw" there, I mean "saw" that the games were on the TV one second, then at the leg of the table the next, not that we actually saw the movement, because we didn't.<br /><br />I know, I know, the cat did it, or some neighbor with a high-tech tool we haven't heard of, or....<br /><br />What does it matter? Nothing can change your mind. It's a schtick, just like I said in the beginning. Your atheism / skepticism is indefeasible.<br /><br />Kudos on one thing, though: earlier I proffered that maybe you could come up with a more creative denial, and that you did. I've never heard one as ludicrous as yours yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78446028252792778682012-09-28T15:29:44.551-07:002012-09-28T15:29:44.551-07:00Matt,
"cl presented some video games flying ...<b>Matt</b>,<br /><br /><i>"cl presented some video games flying about a room as "proof" of an event breaking the laws of physics. Sorry, that's not going to cut it anymore than seeing Mary in a piece of toast is going to convince me."</i><br /><br />This just proves that your skepticism is of a fundamentally irrational nature. You, Matt, are an ex-fundie who is now a blind skeptic. That you actually attempt to equate my experience with a pattern on some toast exposes the lack of critical thinking going on in your head. <br /><br />This is seriously, seriously depressing. Gnu atheism is literally ruining people's ability to think critically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24690872857498928992012-09-28T15:00:14.097-07:002012-09-28T15:00:14.097-07:00(all of which was written in a tone that had all s...<i> (all of which was written in a tone that had all sorts of connotations that were less than respectful)</i><br /><br />In philosophical circles, we make a big fuss about "charity". Instead of reading a tone in my writing (whatever the hell that means), perhaps you should just read what I write without assuming implicatures or intonations that simply aren't in the text. <br /><br />You don't think that people are more emotional about their religion than their favorite football team? Matt DeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18896823544873623052012-09-28T14:27:57.174-07:002012-09-28T14:27:57.174-07:00>he fact that you and I agree on something prov...>he fact that you and I agree on something proves there is a God. :-)<br /><br />ROTFLOL!!!<br /><br />God be with you big guy.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61226545193359898482012-09-28T14:24:22.242-07:002012-09-28T14:24:22.242-07:00"There was nothing inflammatory about what I ..."There was nothing inflammatory about what I wrote, unless you disagree that Christianity is a belief that invokes a strong sense of emotional attachment."<br /><br />If you would have distilled it down and said THAT, or said something like what Walter said right off the bat, instead of talking about how Christians are more emotional about their religion than American football fans are about American football, and how this emotional attachment skews their view of reality, and makes them think that "mundane, personally explicable" (all of which was written in a tone that had all sorts of connotations that were less than respectful), then I might be inclined to agree with the statement that you wrote nothing inflammatory. Again, had an explanation accompanied it, I and the other theists here would likely have had no problem with it. But all of us detected a level of condescension or cheap pop-psychological analysis, so, y'know.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49180898883039993002012-09-28T14:18:29.939-07:002012-09-28T14:18:29.939-07:00I agree with Walter too.
It had to happen...
The...<i>I agree with Walter too.<br /><br />It had to happen...</i><br /><br />The fact that you and I agree on something proves there is a God. :-)Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13565853650833943872012-09-28T14:15:26.048-07:002012-09-28T14:15:26.048-07:00cl,
"Like I said, heads sketpics win, tails ...cl,<br /><br />"Like I said, heads sketpics win, tails cl loses."<br /><br />I offered a plausible and reasonable explanation for your event. I don't know if that's really what occurred, but you should at least examine the possibility, given that you claim to "think critically and examine all the options". Instead you responded with an emotional rant:<br /><br />"Utterly ridiculous, as in, not even reasonable and not even worth being taken seriously. What you suggest is humanly impossible. In fact, what you suggest is more “miraculous” than the straightforward alternative. So, yeah… thanks for proving my point. Like most every other “skeptic” out there, when you say “show me something that violates the laws of physics and I’ll believe,” it’s just a facade."<br /><br />So who's really committed to indefeasibility?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86360012474898772802012-09-28T14:03:35.764-07:002012-09-28T14:03:35.764-07:00I agree with Walter too.
It had to happen, but he...I agree with Walter too.<br /><br />It had to happen, but he & I agree God is not a human person or unequivocally comparable to one.<br /><br />But we do disagree on the implications for that but that is another topic for another thread.<br /><br />Cheers.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48410884557821116172012-09-28T13:27:53.737-07:002012-09-28T13:27:53.737-07:00Walter,
Everyone is biased, doesn't matter if...Walter,<br /><br /><i>Everyone is biased, doesn't matter if you're an atheist, theist, or agnostic, and we all seek out confirming evidence which supports our position, while tending to eschew or ignore evidence that tends to disconfirm what we currently believe. It's a human flaw that we all should try to overcome.</i><br /><br />Thank you, that's what I am driving at. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33141460460797017902012-09-28T13:15:22.377-07:002012-09-28T13:15:22.377-07:00If this is what you're saying, then I agree wi...<i>If this is what you're saying, then I agree with you. However, the way that you put it in the above quote was a lot more combative and had much more of a "Because of your emotions, you can't be trusted, and you're going to be strongly inclined to be credulous" tone to it than you seem to realize. So, sure, if all you mean is that one needs to acknowledge one's biases to work past them, then that's obviously true. What you said above, though, was more condescending and dismissive than that. So it would probably contribute better to civil conversation to either not use language like that or to accompany it with a clarification.</i><br /><br />There was nothing inflammatory about what I wrote, unless you disagree that Christianity is a belief that invokes a strong sense of emotional attachment.Matt DeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51252047856867034252012-09-28T13:01:49.913-07:002012-09-28T13:01:49.913-07:00" I was pointing out that confirmation bias t..." I was pointing out that confirmation bias tends to work in over-drive for beliefs that we feel passionately about."<br /><br />If this is what you're saying, then I agree with you. However, the way that you put it in the above quote was a lot more combative and had much more of a "Because of your emotions, you can't be trusted, and you're going to be strongly inclined to be credulous" tone to it than you seem to realize. So, sure, if all you mean is that one needs to acknowledge one's biases to work past them, then that's obviously true. What you said above, though, was more condescending and dismissive than that. So it would probably contribute better to civil conversation to either not use language like that or to accompany it with a clarification.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.com