Intelligent debate between Theists and Atheists is Impossible on Sciforums

KennyJC
The parts of my reply you put in bold, how are they not relevant to people who proclaim as truth things which can not be observed, like celestial teapots ? A belief in the celestial teapot is stupid, quite simply.
Click to expand...
I guess the difference between you and Bertrand Russel (the originator of the celestial teapot argument) is that he explained it more eloquently
On superstition, proclaimers can't be expected to receive the respectful opposition they would in matters of reality such as politics, where at least you can respect a persons political beliefs so long as they are not absurd. Superstitions, pseudoscience, religion, astrology, and magical thinking in general, should never be accorded any degree of respect. This is an essential part of society which magical thinkers fail to see, and without it, intelligent design would be in our science classes as we speak.

Now, why should I respect anyones belief in the irrational?
Click to expand...
Bertrand Russel could at least work within the medium of civil discourse - it contributed to his success
 
heliocentric said:
Well i dont really know LG well enough to be fully aware of his style of debating, what i will say is if someone isnt prepared to verify their version of reality via empiricalism you can only take them at their word, or at the very least entertain their subjective ideas. If youre not prepared to entertain his ideas, simply state as such and move onto something else would be my advice.
Going by any other means i honestly believe youd be wasting your own time.
Click to expand...
Actually I put supe on the ignore list because of - you guessed it - ad homs.
 
lightgigantic said:
Why do you suppose debate on this thread sinks down to ad hom quite rapidly, even from persons acting in the facility as moderators?

Looking at the various circumstances and mediums for the xpression of ideas, there are numerous eg's of debate between these parties that doesn't fall into such a state of affairs ...... of course there are numerous eg's of situations where it does too.

The inability of sciforums to lift itself out of the latter indicates that it must share something in common with those circumstances that dictate how the latter develops.

Is it simply something intrinsic to internet discussion (perhaps a lack of non-verbal signifiers which communicate over 70% of information in discourses? Or maybe its the spontaneous expression common to threads, that you can let rip with an opinion in 10 seconds without thinking first)
Click to expand...

An even more important question is why do you care?
 
Roman said:
Abuse of power is perfectly rational.
Click to expand...

Its interesting how those who preach on the dogmatic nature of theists and its deleterious effects on progress and equality, themselves behave as dictators in positions of power - all the while proclaiming the virtues of secular humanism. They fail to see how they themselves contradict their own opinions about theists :)
 
samcdkey said:
Its interesting how those who preach on the dogmatic nature of theists and its deleterious effects on progress and equality, themselves behave as dictators in positions of power - all the while proclaiming the virtues of secular humanism. They fail to see how they themselves contradict their own opinions about theists :)
Click to expand...

Ah shit, people behaving like people, regardless of beliefs? I'll be....

Anyway, it's just the internet, babe. James R isn't about to go blow up an Israeli cafe. Hell, the man can't even stomach beef.
 
Roman said:
Ah shit, people behaving like people, regardless of beliefs? I'll be....

Anyway, it's just the internet, babe. James R isn't about to go blow up an Israeli cafe. Hell, the man can't even stomach beef.
Click to expand...

Hmm so its the trolls who are the smart ones here.

As for James R, no telling what people will do, given the right incentives
 
I don't think it's possible to avoid having any axioms at all.
I don't know how to justify one's chosen axioms, because any justification is based on some other axiom... maybe some meta-axioms are required?

Try these.
Metaxioms:
  • Axioms should be useful
  • Axioms should be minimal
Taken together, I think these form the essence of Ockham's razor at a fundamental level. If someone implicitly uses some different set of meta-axioms, then I don't think it's possible to argue that they're wrong... all one can do is disagree.

Based on those meta-axioms, I like the following axioms:
  1. Objective reality exists
  2. My senses give a generally reliable impression of reality
  3. Past experience is a generally reliable indicator of future occurences (inductive reasoning is valid)
Again if someone chooses not to accept those axioms, I can't argue that they're wrong.

I don't know if that list is sufficient, but I don't think it could be reduced any further.
I think that the principle of falsifiability follows from (3).
 
Okay can someone explain to me how believing in a Higher Power is any more irrational than believing the Big Bang. We don't have hard proof of either, just conjecture.
 
I believe that the thesis of this thread requires clarification.

"Intelligent debate outside of Physics & Math is Impossible on Sciforums, and Intelligent debate inside Physics & Math is very difficult on Sciforums" ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top