(April 21, 2018 at 2:39 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(April 21, 2018 at 2:33 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't have any reason to believe that fire breathing dragons exist.  But I'm not making any statements on the probability that they do exist or spend a lot of time on internet sites arguing that they don't exist either.

So what if you're not making statements about it? You don't think their probability is unknown or 50/50, you think they're improbable, or you're an idiot.

Quote:If you think that my assessment is incorrect.... then why.   It seems to me, that you are wanting to make a claim, and not support it (which is what started this thing), and then hide behind skepticism.

I have said repeatedly that I'm not claiming anything, hence why you are misrepresenting me. I'm just saying that theism is improbable for the same reason that fire-breathing dragons are. You believe literally all the other gods are improbable, especially the mythological ones such as Zeus. There are many things that lack evidence that you consider highly improbable, so you're being disingenuous.

Quote:   This would be pseudo-skepticism.  The fact that you think I making a straw man, says to me, that you are making an argument thus a claim, and thus cannot hide behind skepticism.

What nonsense. I'm thinking you're making a strawman because you are misrepresenting my position.

Quote:  Hence, I would say that pseudo-skepticism is not a (so called "straw man"), but an accurate description.

If I'm guilty of "pseudo skepticism" so are you about fire-breathing dragons and literally all Gods you don't believe in. Who cares what you say is improbable or not, there are many things you believe to be improbable without saying it. So you are simply disingenuous.

It's highly rational to expect there to be evidence for something highly absurd before you believe in it. The absurd is improbable without evidence: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Absence of evidence isn't evidence that something definitely doesn't exist, but when evidence is to be expected for something to be far above 0% probable, then you're simply being irrational by pretending the probability of firebreathing dragons or God is 50/50.

Who cares what anyone claims, the point is that some things are more rational to believe in than others, and some things are more probable than others. You can't claim that I'm making an argument from ignorance if you haven't even defined the God you are claiming I am denying.

You seem to be making a lot of claims about the subject.... hence pseudo skeptic. I don’t think that pretending you don’t know what we are talking about at the end helps either.

RR, All this boils down to is a PR war. If and when theistic belief drops (and stays) below 10%, people like Us will stop interacting with people like you.

(April 22, 2018 at 8:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You seem to be making a lot of claims about the subject.... hence pseudo skeptic.  I don’t think that pretending you don’t know what we are talking about at the end helps either.

All you seem to be doing is repeatedly dodging my point that you take exactly the same stance with fire-breathing dragons: You believe they're improbable because they're absurd and require evidence to rationally believe in.

(April 22, 2018 at 9:03 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 8:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You seem to be making a lot of claims about the subject.... hence pseudo skeptic.  I don’t think that pretending you don’t know what we are talking about at the end helps either.

All you seem to be doing is repeatedly dodging my point that you take exactly the same stance with fire-breathing dragons: You believe they're improbable because they're absurd and require evidence to rationally believe in.

The problem is that you keep thinking that we are saying the same thing, but you seem to be saying a lot more. All I said, was thet I don’t believe in fire breathing dragons. The rest you added.

(April 22, 2018 at 9:05 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 9:03 pm)Hammy Wrote: All you seem to be doing is repeatedly dodging my point that you take exactly the same stance with fire-breathing dragons: You believe they're improbable because they're absurd and require evidence to rationally believe in.

The problem is that you keep thinking that we are saying the same thing, but you seem to be saying a lot more. All I said, was thet I don’t believe in fire breathing dragons. The rest you added.

Because you keep ignoring me. I asked you: Do you not believe that fire-breathing dragons are improbable?

(April 22, 2018 at 9:09 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 9:05 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The problem is that you keep thinking that we are saying the same thing, but you seem to be saying a lot more. All I said, was thet I don’t believe in fire breathing dragons. The rest you added.

Because you keep ignoring me. I asked you: Do you not believe that fire-breathing dragons are improbable?

If by improbable, you mean that I have an a priori bias, which leads me to ignore any evidence or reason for such things, then no... I wouldn’t agree.

I do disagree however; with the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence crap you keep repeating. There is no epistemic reason for such a statement, or to shift the goal posts in such a way.

---

In case it’s unclear; I wouldn’t say that fire breathing dragons are improbable. I don’t think that would be the correct word, or could lead people to be confused by what I meant. I just stick with I do not have sufficient reason, testimony or other evidence to believe that they exists.

There is probably a reason that I find no one saying that there is.

(April 22, 2018 at 9:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 9:09 pm)Hammy Wrote: Because you keep ignoring me. I asked you: Do you not believe that fire-breathing dragons are improbable?

If by improbable, you mean that I have an a priori bias, which leads me to ignore any evidence or reason for such things, then no... I wouldn’t agree.

I do disagree however; with the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence crap you keep repeating. There is no epistemic reason for such a statement, or to shift the goal posts in such a way.

---

In case it’s unclear; I wouldn’t say that fire breathing dragons are improbable. I don’t think that would be the correct word, or could lead people to be confused by what I meant.   I just stick with I do not have sufficient reason, testimony or other evidence to believe that they exists.

There is probably a reason that I find no one saying that there is.

What's wrong with the belief in the existence of fairies, then?  People, after all, have seen them, or so they say?  While we're at it, how about alien abductions?  Do you believe in those, also?  If not, why not?

(April 22, 2018 at 10:53 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 9:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If by improbable, you mean that I have an a priori bias, which leads me to ignore any evidence or reason for such things, then no... I wouldn’t agree.

I do disagree however; with the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence crap you keep repeating. There is no epistemic reason for such a statement, or to shift the goal posts in such a way.

---

In case it’s unclear; I wouldn’t say that fire breathing dragons are improbable. I don’t think that would be the correct word, or could lead people to be confused by what I meant.   I just stick with I do not have sufficient reason, testimony or other evidence to believe that they exists.

There is probably a reason that I find no one saying that there is.

What's wrong with the belief in the existence of fairies, then?  People, after all, have seen them, or so they say?  While we're at it, how about alien abductions?  Do you believe in those, also?  If not, why not?

So then, are you saying that we can just dismiss anything because of this?

I tried to figure out where did this topic about Hawking sidetracked to for the last ten pages, but can't quite poke my finger at. Is it that some members are having a problem because Hawking declared there is no God? That is perfectly logical move by Hawking since some theologians, and especially William Craig, made a fortune misinterpreting Hawking's scientific work for decades to "prove" there is God.

(April 22, 2018 at 11:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 10:53 pm)Jehanne Wrote: What's wrong with the belief in the existence of fairies, then?  People, after all, have seen them, or so they say?  While we're at it, how about alien abductions?  Do you believe in those, also?  If not, why not?

So then, are you saying that we can just dismiss anything because of this?

If there is no evidence for "it", then, yes.  For instance, I think that it is probable that ET exists, but if a systematic survey of the sky was conducted and no evidence for ET was found, then, yes, I would conclude that ET may simply not exist, even though ET is completely a natural phenomenon.  If god exists, what expectations can we have for the existence of such a being (or, beings)?  You are of the mindset that there can be no expectations whatsoever, and for you, that's okay, but for me, it's not.  I cannot see how your belief in god is any different than believing in fairies.