(March 16, 2010 at 12:39 am)tackattack Wrote: Ok question for you then ace. Using your first example of the softball. Is the default assertion you make based off of your original visual observance of the softball that it's real and you seek another sense to confirm it? Or could it be that you are assuming it is a delusion and seek further proof? I've found this is the basic differences between some theists and atheists is the skeptical view point of assuming that null is non-existant and first observation is assumed delusional until seconded by another source. Where as my standpoint is to assume it's real and if (for instance it's too far away) no other sensory input is possible to leave it at that.
Quote:Ok question for you then ace. Using your first example of the softball. Is the default assertion you make based off of your original visual observance of the softball that it's real and you seek another sense to confirm it? Or could it be that you are assuming it is a delusion and seek further proof?The more sources pointing to the same conclusion increases the probablility of it. More sources the greater the likely hood.
Say I heard a sound in an old house. The conclusion I'd reach would be that there is something making that noise. However I could be imagining it so I go to investigate. Once I've located the source of the noise through vision then delusion becomes far less likely. Two sources of incoming data that points to the same conclusion. It's not knowing but a conclusion based on evidence.
Religion which is devoid of evidence means I come to one conclusion for it. Dismissal/rejection.
Quote:Where as my standpoint is to assume it's real and if (for instance it's too far away) no other sensory input is possible to leave it at that.I have always been curious how theists conclude the existance of something without evidence to do so. I wouldn't assume anything is real unless there is some kind of evidence for it. Even a little.
For all I know you are probably a computer AI responding to my post. But I don't conclude that because I have never incountered an AI computer as advanced as this that is able to respond to such a degree. So with reason I conclude you are a real person.
The question I'm faced with is, how do you conclude god exists?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
