(July 19, 2012 at 11:14 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 19, 2012 at 9:12 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: You say that one is justified in saying that there is only one medicine to cure a disease because it can be scientifically proven while mine faith cannot. You say also say, "your religion… cannot be verified, so it must not be believed in."

You seem to be saying that things which cannot be verified by the scientific method should not be believed in. However, this statement itself cannot be verified by the scientific method. Neither can things like the existence of the past, basic logic. And it doesn't follow that these things are irrational to believe in because they cannot be verified by the scientific method.

I went back and bolded the part that I felt was more important, while at the same time italicized the "passing thought". It wasn't his point, as far as I can tell, to say that only that which can be tested by the scientific method is real. Sure, he most definitely meant to say that the scientific method is worthy of use to the degree that it can determine truth, which I'm sure you don't disagree with; however, it was an afterthought by which to validate his analogy that he included the scinetific method at all.
The main point was only that which can be verified is allowed to flaunt itself as anything more than a daydream.
Oh, and you can't do that for your sky fairy. That was the point that went over your head.

It seemed to me that the underlined statement was the logic upon which his entire case must depend, whether he really recognized that or not. And according to the statement I underlined, I cannot accept the reality of the past or basic logical truths or the reliability of my sense perception because none of these can be verified without circular arguments.

Quote:Atheists don't generally take the position that "there is no God" due to the reprecussions of that position. We can, however, make fun of your God as a fairy tale and a fable, because despite the implication that that God is false, how can one be criticized for making fun of an unproven concept? Making fun a group that worships Santa would be a fair analogy: we can't see Santa, hear Santa, or feel him, but due to rationalizations by the group he is unfalsifiable. That doesn't make him any less worthy of scorn, does it?

I would not have said this because I knew I would get involved in an endless argument over what atheism is… however, I said it in this case because the logic he was using to conclude his point seemed to require it.

(July 19, 2012 at 11:45 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: It seemed to me that the underlined statement was the logic upon which his entire case must depend, whether he really recognized that or not. And according to the statement I underlined, I cannot accept the reality of the past or basic logical truths or the reliability of my sense perception because none of these can be verified without circular arguments.

Did you not even bother to read my post? I explained in detail why I felt that the use of the term "scientific method" was a tool in his analogy. He never said that the scientific method is the only way to truth, nor did he imply it in the statement he made.
In the case of things that can't be evidenced but are necessary for a fulfilling life, I assume them. Things that are necessary to live my life, like my sense perception and my existence, I assume. I do this because it is necessary to do so to live in this world.
Things that aren't necessary (99.999999999% of everything) I question vigorously. I require evidence for these claims.
Also: What do you mean when you say "basic logical truths"? I.e.?

Quote:I would not have said this because I knew I would get involved in an endless argument over what atheism is… however, I said it in this case because the logic he was using to conclude his point seemed to require it.

Did you even read the same post as me? How did you get that his logic necessitates the affirmative position that there is no God?
I await correction.

(July 19, 2012 at 1:15 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I was making conditional statements (indicated by the "if"), and as such not assuming Christianity was true, but for the sake of argument making no judgment either way, and so not committing myself to any burden of proof for theism. If I did not do this, people would accuse me (and rightly so) of arguing in a circle. If you require me to prove the existence of God in order to say, "If God exists, then Y," I think you are making a mistake.

No, of course I don't require you to prove the existence of God to make such a statement.

However, given the existence of religions other than Christianity, each with it's own path to salvation, in order to reasonably make a statement "there is only one way to God…", you do have a burden of proof to demonstrate why yours is the correct one, and the others are wrong.

Jeffonthenet Wrote:Faithnomore, I appreciate the time you took to give a reasoned response. However, I still disagree and let me tell you why. You say that one is justified in saying that there is only one medicine to cure a disease because it can be scientifically proven while mine faith cannot. You say also say, "your religion… cannot be verified, so it must not be believed in."

You seem to be saying that things which cannot be verified by the scientific method should not be believed in. However, this statement itself cannot be verified by the scientific method. Neither can things like the existence of the past, basic logic. And it doesn't follow that these things are irrational to believe in because they cannot be verified by the scientific method.

No problem, and you make an interesting point here that has also been brought up before in other threads. Since I am not educated in formal logic, I do not know how to formally prove my belief that the past is as my memory recalls, however, I personally believe in my memory's validity due to the fact that every time I have acted as if my memory is valid, I have received positive results. So, yes, it would be arrogant for me to claim for certain that my memory is valid, but I'm sure others are able to prove that formally.

Quote:You cannot prove that my God does not exist, so does it follow that atheists cannot "peddle" (using your word) the belief that there is no God?

Correct. I'm sure I have been guilty of this one in the past, but I try very hard to make sure I put the qualifier "I believe" in front of any such statements.

Hmm, work on my fault and hope for the best

if all hopes fails...move on?

(July 19, 2012 at 2:03 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 19, 2012 at 1:15 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I was making conditional statements (indicated by the "if"), and as such not assuming Christianity was true, but for the sake of argument making no judgment either way, and so not committing myself to any burden of proof for theism. If I did not do this, people would accuse me (and rightly so) of arguing in a circle. If you require me to prove the existence of God in order to say, "If God exists, then Y," I think you are making a mistake.

No, of course I don't require you to prove the existence of God to make such a statement.

However, given the existence of religions other than Christianity, each with it's own path to salvation, in order to reasonably make a statement "there is only one way to God…", you do have a burden of proof to demonstrate why yours is the correct one, and the others are wrong.

It seems to me possible in certain instances to know that one is correct but not be able to demonstrate that one is correct. For example, if I was alone dessert island except having one friend and an atomic watch. I look at the time, and shortly after, the watch breaks, but I remember the time that I saw on the watch just a minute earlier. I tell my friend it is around 5:00. However, he says it is around 6:00. There is no way to verify, in this example, that it is actually 5 rather than 6, but I still know it is 5:00 and am justified in telling my friend that it is actually 5 and not 6.

And he would not be incorrect to doubt you, as you have no way of demonstrating so.

(July 20, 2012 at 1:06 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: And he would not be incorrect to doubt you, as you have no way of demonstrating so.

If he knew I was an honest person he would be… but I get your point. I grant you fully that I do not expect people to simply believe me that there is a God based on my own experience of Him.

You ignore the possibility that you could simply be mistaken. Honesty doesn't guarantee that you are correct. No skeptic is going to take only your word for anything out of the ordinary, no matter how honest he believes you to be.

(July 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 19, 2012 at 11:45 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: It seemed to me that the underlined statement was the logic upon which his entire case must depend, whether he really recognized that or not. And according to the statement I underlined, I cannot accept the reality of the past or basic logical truths or the reliability of my sense perception because none of these can be verified without circular arguments.

Did you not even bother to read my post? I explained in detail why I felt that the use of the term "scientific method" was a tool in his analogy. He never said that the scientific method is the only way to truth, nor did he imply it in the statement he made.
In the case of things that can't be evidenced but are necessary for a fulfilling life, I assume them. Things that are necessary to live my life, like my sense perception and my existence, I assume. I do this because it is necessary to do so to live in this world.
Things that aren't necessary (99.999999999% of everything) I question vigorously. I require evidence for these claims.
Also: What do you mean when you say "basic logical truths"? I.e.?

I really read your post and tried to respond honestly. I am sorry if I overlooked something. I appreciate you taking the time to respond again, but I do not agree with you that you assume certain basic beliefs simply because you must do so to live your life. I think you accept these beliefs because you actually think they are true, not just because you think that they are practical to accept. Even if it is only .0000000001% of your beliefs that you accept as assumption, you must build upon this .000000001% just about every belief you hold, so it is quite significant. B

By basic logical truths I mean things like the law of non-contradiction--probably the most basic of all logical laws. It states that A cannot be both A and not-A in the same time and in the same sense. It seems to me, and I believe most all philosophers agree with me that logical laws like this law cannot be demonstrated without assuming it.

Quote:Did you even read the same post as me? How did you get that his logic necessitates the affirmative position that there is no God?
I await correction.

I read your post. Please stop accusing me. You keep claiming I am ignoring your points, and I am really trying to do the exact opposite, so I don't think discussing with you is really helpful for either of us so I cannot promise more responses to you.

---

(July 20, 2012 at 1:20 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You ignore the possibility that you could simply be mistaken. Honesty doesn't guarantee that you are correct. No skeptic is going to take only your word for anything out of the ordinary, no matter how honest he believes you to be.

If I had an atomic watch it was highly unlikely that I was mistaken. Likewise, it could be that one could have a bona-fide experience of God and with it would come the certainty similar to that of having an atomic watch. I cannot produce the experience and likewise I cannot produce the watch.