Then why do you not apply that same concern for logical fallacies to your own arguments?
You continue to raise analogies that are logically fallacious, despite being advised of their fallacious nature (e.g. brain/mind = car/driver etc).
Intelligent debate between Theists and Atheists is Impossible on Sciforums
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
You continue to raise analogies that are logically fallacious, despite being advised of their fallacious nature (e.g. brain/mind = car/driver etc).
People who "believe" the Big Bang as 100% truth are irrational, only less so than a Higher Power.
Firstly, the BB is a theory. It is not a truth, not a fact, not a Law - but a theory - that happens to fit the vast majority of observations (but I'm not sure if it fits all).
Secondly, believing in a Higher Power fails any test of Occam's Razor - as it introduces an unknown / unknowable that is beyond testing.
There is a certain level of irrationality in taking a more complex but viable "theory" over a far simpler one (i.e. not abiding by Occam's Razor between two valid theories) - but a far greater level of irrationality when one doesn't even go with a viable "theory" but with an untestable, unverifiable idea.
But don't confuse irrationality with being wrong.
It is quite often the case that you can be irrational and get the right answer. But you would still have been irrational in your thought process.
Not so ambitious to get rid of it - hopeful that the standard of civil discussion (which can acommodate the occassional and forgivable slip into fallacy) gets re-established would be more accurate
As Prince James has pointed out, dualism is documented in even western philosophy -
Its not clear why you are saying it is fallacious, when all that you have evidenced is that it contradicts your value system (ie you prefer to accept something perhaps you could call pluralistic materialism instead of metaphysical emergent dualism)
Such philosophical premises of dualism also find their application in neurology eg - Karl Pribram
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1204150&postcount=75
People like to talk about religion the same way they talk about politics: with appeals to emotion, and from an ideological perspective. There is not so much a focus on finding the truth, or understanding those who differ, as there is an insistence on convincing one's opponent to adopt one's own views and agenda[1]. And failing that, since it is a goal not often achieved, the resultant hopelessness and frustration lead to name-calling and indignant counter-name-calling, ad infinitum.
It is my contention that this -- the intent of the members in engaging in discussion, which is inherently disrespectful -- is precisely the reason why an intelligent debate cannot be sustained here.
1. Note the underlying assumption here that the opponent's beliefs are of no intrinsic value, but are only there to be manipulated in order to further a certain goal. This, one might argue, is rather immoral, as it dehumanizes the opponent.
It is my contention that this -- the intent of the members in engaging in discussion, which is inherently disrespectful -- is precisely the reason why an intelligent debate cannot be sustained here.
1. Note the underlying assumption here that the opponent's beliefs are of no intrinsic value, but are only there to be manipulated in order to further a certain goal. This, one might argue, is rather immoral, as it dehumanizes the opponent.
I have no issue with the idea of dualism, or its usefulness etc.
I do have issues with dualism when the dual concepts are claimed as truth - rather than merely as a useful philosophical tool.
Yes, it is useful in many cases to see the personality as separate from the material brain - but to actually then claim that this is the truth - as you do, and especially if based on nothing but the usefulness of the philosophical concept - is where my issue lies.
So please stop introducing red herrings - which is a logical fallacy, just in case you missed it.
(and to which I refer you back to my post).
Then why do you talk of the self/body being a monistic truth?I have no issue with the idea of dualism, or its usefulness etc.
I do have issues with dualism when the dual concepts are claimed as truth - rather than merely as a useful philosophical tool.
Yes, it is useful in many cases to see the personality as separate from the material brain - but to actually then claim that this is the truth - as you do, and especially if based on nothing but the usefulness of the philosophical concept - is where my issue lies.
So please stop introducing red herrings - which is a logical fallacy, just in case you missed it.
(and to which I refer you back to my post).
I don't - I claim there is no evidence to suggest otherwise - which is very different indeed.
It seems that the premise, at least from the theists point of view, is that the atheist makes the claim that the foundations of theism are groundless - this leads to an automatic defense of principles.
A theist however may not contend the foundations of science (they may contend what those foundations are capable of indicating - like for instance a theist may state the origins of the human mind and the universal creation are beyond the purview of empiricism)
This is evidenced by a theist having the opportunity to work within science, but the atheist doesn't have the opportunity to work within religion.
In other words the theist has the tendency to be automatically dehumanized by atheists
"Intelligent debate between Theists and Atheists is Impossible on Sciforums"
Yes it is!
You cant debate intelligently with people who cling to pre intellectual reasoning, no matter how they try to dress it up with pseudointellectual superfluousness.
Yes it is!
You cant debate intelligently with people who cling to pre intellectual reasoning, no matter how they try to dress it up with pseudointellectual superfluousness.
Last edited:
Dualism is a very basic concept. Children are tuned to it more than adults, it seems the natural way we are evolved in that we simply don't need to know how complex things work in order to see it's value.
In the movie where the dad and son change bodies is a concept everyone can understand because of dualism. But it is obviously impossible since the neural network in both brains remains the same after the change. To accomodate both personalities and unique brain functions, there would obviously need to be a dramatic rework of each brain, not a soul.
In the movie where the dad and son change bodies is a concept everyone can understand because of dualism. But it is obviously impossible since the neural network in both brains remains the same after the change. To accomodate both personalities and unique brain functions, there would obviously need to be a dramatic rework of each brain, not a soul.
LG, the problem is not that atheist or theist lack the intelligence to debate without ad-hom, the relaxed attitude of this forum allows to some extent all the ad-hom, and minor flame war to flare up time to time, it's something that works on both sides releasing frustration on one another, do to the anonimity of the forum, and the relaxed attitude ad-hom is usual around this site, sciforums is not a formal debate website.
If you would like to debate your beliefs in a atheist forum which has very stric rules and formal debates subforums I would suggest to go here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php
Other then that don't bitch or will lose the priviledge of calling an idiot, an idiot! when it's warranted
If you would like to debate your beliefs in a atheist forum which has very stric rules and formal debates subforums I would suggest to go here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php
Other then that don't bitch or will lose the priviledge of calling an idiot, an idiot! when it's warranted
Science is a process for finding out how things work. What process is there in religion? If a process exists, why do religions disagree with one another? How does one "work within religion?"
The reason for the nonexistence of a decent debate is really simple:
Both group have different standards. One uses facts, science and history, the other uses superstition, faith, myth.
So obviously, there can not be a decent debate until they start to use the same standards....
Both group have different standards. One uses facts, science and history, the other uses superstition, faith, myth.
So obviously, there can not be a decent debate until they start to use the same standards....
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Excellent post, i entirely agree, alot of the time all you can really do is atempt to deconstruct each others axioms, and probe why someone assumes/believes xyandz.
Evidence as much as we like to band it around most of the time objectively doesnt count for anything, all we can do is argue over why something counts as evidence according to our internal systems of logic.
I.e. i might say theres enough evidence to suspect that evolution is the actual process by which complex life has imerged.
However someone whos heavily into creationism might point to litterally one flaw in the theory of evolution and because of that flaw abandon the theory altogether on the grounds that the evidence simply isnt substantial enough for them yet.
Very hard to argue against!
You mean like a scientist saying evolution is false? Or like when there are several hypothesis for something lacking in evidence?
Maybe, but you don't need to get a PHD to be a scientist - Go conduct experiments in your back garden. Scientists are more rock 'n' roll if they are 'self taught'.
I see. So there is this meme floating around sci-forums that is promoting fallacy (ad-hom specifically). Why do you think it's so infectious and what's your strategy to handle it?