Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

[Belz...]

This, I think, is what we're talking about. Not, "could it be true?", but rather, "do we have any reason to believe it's true?"
That's what evidence is. A reason to believe. You could say, "well, we don't need a reason to believe." But you do. You obviously have one. there are too many possible beliefs, there has to be a way to distinguish between them. Pulling one from a hat at random is a possibility. As is believing the one that is the most attractive.

I prefer believing the one that I judge most likely to be correct. And the only way to do that is to weigh the available evidence.

 

[Belz...]

And, since when does one begin to equate a rock with a fish? ... unless of course it were a rock fish.

That doesn't make sense. As usual.

Yes, I am claiming that I very much do have the capacity to know.

That's not what I said, and you know it. I said:

"No, you'r claiming to KNOW something, Iacchus. Not just that we don't know everything. "

You claim, not to have the ability to know, but to actually KNOW. That's completely different. How could you possibly know ?

Yes, we all could very well be living in The Matrix.

Again, that's not what I said and you know it. I said our perceptions are unreliable. This does not relate, in any way, to the nature of the universe. Rather, to the nature of consciousness. This means your "dreams" are unreliable too.

 

[ruach1]

Belz

Because otherwise, skeptics would be required to proove that there is no pink unicorn, anywhere, or that light therapy DOESN'T work, etc. Millions of claims would have to be carefully debunked, and as many have stated, disproving a negative absolutely is impossible: there's always a cop-out the believer can use.

Bingo. This, among others, is the job of science today whereas it used to be the job of the Catholic Church years ago. "They" have done just this for hundreds of years now, and, IMO, they're doing a great job of it.

Cop-out? What is the issue here? Winning over or defeating the "other" side--or the truth? Let each side lay down their cards. If some say the winner is "science" let them believe so. If others say it is theism, so be it. If still others say there is no winner but different paradigms (one aspect of postmodernism) offering different worldviews which cannot cancel the other out (unlike one aspect of modernism--holding there is only one truth and we're going to fight tooth and nail to make sure its ours) then so be it.

Believing that "we" must win and soundly defeat (if not get totally bent out of shape over) any claim, idea, or proposition that differs from ours is, IMO, contrary to the overiding search for the truth which is one of our time tested Western ideals. (see Richard Tarnas' The Passion of the Western Mind avbl at Amazon.com)

 

[Iacchus]

That doesn't make sense. As usual.

You are equating a flat earth with the non-existence of God, which are obviously not one and the same.

That's not what I said, and you know it. I said:

"No, you'r claiming to KNOW something, Iacchus. Not just that we don't know everything. "

You claim, not to have the ability to know, but to actually KNOW. That's completely different. How could you possibly know ?

And I'm stressing that it seems to be inherent within our nature to know things.

Again, that's not what I said and you know it. I said our perceptions are unreliable. This does not relate, in any way, to the nature of the universe. Rather, to the nature of consciousness. This means your "dreams" are unreliable too.

Yes, we do for a fact not know we are living in The Matrix. How would we know, if what we perceive does not tell us otherwise?

 

[Tricky]

Cop-out? What is the issue here? Winning over or defeating the "other" side--or the truth? Let each side lay down their cards. If some say the winner is "science" let them believe so. If others say it is theism, so be it. If still others say there is no winner but different paradigms (one aspect of postmodernism) offering different worldviews which cannot cancel the other out (unlike one aspect of modernism--holding there is only one truth and we're going to fight tooth and nail to make sure its ours) then so be it.

As you say, this isn't about winning and losing. It is about finding truth, or truths. And in order to sift down to truths, we must have a way of validating claims for truth or else the search would forever be following usless claims. How can a paradigm that seeks truth include a provision that the truth need not be verified?

Believing that "we" must win and soundly defeat (if not get totally bent out of shape over) any claim, idea, or proposition that differs from ours is, IMO, contrary to the overiding search for the truth which is one of our time tested Western ideals.

It is natural for us to defend what we believe to be true. With religion, however, there is no way to do this. If each claim of truth is allowed equal footing because all claims are equal, just different from ours, then where does that leave us in our search for truth?

What then can we use to sort between wise and foolish claims of truth? I vote for evidence. Scientists don't reject claims because "they are different from ours". They reject (or more correctly, "disregard") them because they have poor or no evidence. How do you sort between wise and foolish claims? Do you even agree that there are such things as foolish claims?

 

[Belz...]

Bingo. This, among others, is the job of science today whereas it used to be the job of the Catholic Church years ago. "They" have done just this for hundreds of years now, and, IMO, they're doing a great job of it.

Not sure where you're going with this. Science is there to understand the world around us, not satisfy every woo's fancy.

Cop-out? What is the issue here?

How about : "Oh, I DO have psychic powers, but the presence of skeptics inhibits them! Really!!"

Winning over or defeating the "other" side--or the truth? Let each side lay down their cards. If some say the winner is "science" let them believe so. If others say it is theism, so be it. If still others say there is no winner but different paradigms (one aspect of postmodernism) offering different worldviews which cannot cancel the other out (unlike one aspect of modernism--holding there is only one truth and we're going to fight tooth and nail to make sure its ours) then so be it.

I care about the truth. Ignorance is humanity's greatest foe.

So, no, I can't simply let everyone believe what they will, because ultimately they seek to impose that belief on others. Let's find out the truth, and THEN we can spread it far and wide.

 

[Belz...]

You are equating a flat earth with the non-existence of God, which are obviously not one and the same.

I was making an analogy: popularity does not mean credibility.

And I'm stressing that it seems to be inherent within our nature to know things.

To believe we know, yes. You're yet to understand that belief, which is a form of knowledge (or the other way around, I guess,) can be faulty.

Yes, we do for a fact not know we are living in The Matrix. How would we know, if what we perceive does not tell us otherwise?

Please stop saying "yes, " and then proceed to say something that completely disagrees with what you quote. I said your perceptions are unreliable. That tells us NOTHING about beign in the matrix OR NOT.

 

[Huntster]

...In the absence of better information, this evidence is sufficient to provisionally reject God and Christianity.

Than do so and live with the consequences.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I do not hold evidence in distain. I love evidence.

I just don't proclaim that if there is no evidence, than it just isn't so.

That is the same assertion again. I repeat: Provide evidence.

Provide evidence that I love evidence?

Or provide evidence that if there is no evidence, that it may still be so?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Than do so and live with the consequences.

What consequences? Is there any evidence that there any consequences besides suddenly having one's Sunday morning's avilable?

 

[Iacchus]

But offering us no reason to believe that you actually do.

There's very little about our existence that does not require us to know something.

So? In what way was that a response to what Belz said?

Belz is saying that we can't rely on our perception, and I'm saying that when you get right down to it, this is all we have. And, while science may be able to determine a sense of consistency about it (if we were living in The Matrix), we are still subject to its dictates and, more importantly, who programmed it.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Sure is.

I guess you and I ain't makin' it, huh?

Too bad for us.

What a ridiculous way of thinking. Why do you even believe in that immoral, evil god then ?

The immoral, evil god portrayed in your avatar?

Why do you believe in him?

 

[Complexity]

Huntster - I'm so happy to have grown up and repudiated your 'god'.

What a pity that you'll never learn the extent to which you are wrong.

Go and be miserable and nasty somewhere else.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Than do so and live with the consequences.

What consequences?...

Whatever consequences that come.

Do you deny that all we do or not do have consequences?

... Is there any evidence that there any consequences besides suddenly having one's Sunday morning's avilable?

None that you will accept.

 

[Huntster]

Huntster - I'm so happy to have grown up and repudiated your 'god'......

I have not repudiated God.

I have repudiated Belz' and your god.

...What a pity that you'll never learn the extent to which you are wrong....

Do you have any evidence regarding my future, scientist-man?

...Go and be miserable and nasty somewhere else...

I'm not miserable at all. I'm quite happy!

And I'd like to be nasty right here amongst enemies, where my nastiness has the proper effect.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Whatever consequences that come.

Do you deny that all we do or not do have consequences?

Not believing an imaginary sky chief does have consequences. Mostly for the better.

None that you will accept.

Try me. If there's any actual evidence, than it's subject to review.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Nope. I learned that here, from y'all.

Your first few posts seemed condescending to me, Huntster. I think you had already learnt that from somewhere else.

Perhaps, but it is presently being perfected here.

I wouldn't know. Like I said, I'm not the teacher. These ain't my rules. I'm learning the hard way.

Learning ? How ? There's no lesson at all......

I'm learning by living. There are lessons in everything.

Even in exchanging barbs with a fool like yourself.

There's evidence. You just don't accept it.

There is ? Could you provide a single example ?

Been there, done that. That's why I noted that you wouldn't accept it. You just want to ride the merry-go-round again.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Young man, I prefer not to get on the merry-go-round. Been there, done that.

Circular rides makes my stomach feel ill.

I guess you don't. Still running away I see. Some crusader.

Some battles arent' worth fighting, especially when the enemy is killing himself.

Patience is a virtue.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I wouldn't know. I'm not God.
Maybe He likes the way he set things up, and doesn't feel the need to rearrange it to please you.

Maybe he's a little green elf living in my left ear. Just because you can think it up doesn't make it likely.

More like a little red elf living and whispering in your left ear. He's got a forked tail, horns, and............

Hey! He might look just like your avatar!

Imagine that!

Indeed, that's among the most basic tenets of my own religion, and I believe that completely.

You mean, blindly.

Nope.

Completely.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Huntster - I'm so happy to have grown up and repudiated your 'god'.

What a pity that you'll never learn the extent to which you are wrong.

Go and be miserable and nasty somewhere else.

Or do as I did, and add to your ignore list. *shrug*

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Whatever consequences that come.

Do you deny that all we do or not do have consequences?


Not believing an imaginary sky chief does have consequences. Mostly for the better.

Sky Chief? I've known several.

I see you've never been involved with the Air Force.

None that you will accept.

Try me.....

No, thanks.

I have no desire to play word games with boys.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Sky Chief? I've known several.

I see you've never been involved with the Air Force.

Equivocation can be the basis for humour, but leave humour to the experts.

No, thanks.

I have no desire to play word games with boys.

It's not a word game (thanks for the ad hom by the way, way to show off your True Christian(tm) morals!), provide evidence. Put up, Hunster.