Calico Site (California, +/- 200K Ago)

[JSteen]

Ishtar, I don't know if the fact that we are calling you on your fallacies is making you irritable or what but please don't condescend to me. I'm respectful, I think you should be the same.

I don't know what propositions you personally want to make, I don't know anything about you and I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about logic. A person who makes a proposition bears the burden of it - not the person who doesn't. A person who argues for the existence of a supernatural entity bears the burden of proof for it, not the person who doesn't. A person who argues any proposition of any sort, a scientific theory or anything else, is the one who must prove it. One doesn't set out to prove a negative, one has no need to - the onus is on the one who makes the positive statement.

How can you say that science hasn't explored religion? It's spent thousands of years doing it. Science was owned by religion until the enlightenment - and even then in large part until the 20th century. Angels dancing on the head of a pin.

[Digit]

A person who makes a proposition bears the burden of it - not the person who doesn't.

Yep.

Roy.

[uniface]

Nope.

The angels on the pin debate was a pretty sophisticated examination of extention vs. substance. Mechanics of reality stuff.

[Minimalist]

A person who makes a proposition bears the burden of it - not the person who doesn't.

Yet, you'd be surprised how often the theists respond to the observation that "there is no evidence for your god" by screeching "PROVE THERE IS NO GOD." It's called shifting the burden and they try it almost every time.

[Ishtar]

A person who makes a proposition bears the burden of it - not the person who doesn't.

Yet, you'd be surprised how often the theists respond to the observation that "there is no evidence for your god" by screeching "PROVE THERE IS NO GOD." It's called shifting the burden and they try it almost every time.

But I'm not saying that and I'm not a Deist.

[Ishtar]

I spend an awful lot of time on atheist boards which are eternally beset with xtian (and other) clowns who seek to drop in, sprinkle a little jesus dust, and convince us that we are "wrong." As a group, we have only one basic tenet.
We do not believe in gods. Any of them. Including your spirits.

First of all Min, I don't believe in spirits. I have a practical and tangible experience of them, as tangible as drinking a cup of coffee.

But anyway, it's not the point. I asked you why you thought it was more rational to have faith that there is no God than it was to have faith that there is a God. Both are positions of faith, and further than that, I'm not trying to persuade you.

The world would be so much better off it it didn't waste its time praying to the non-existent for help that isn't coming.

That's your personal experience, and you're entitled to it and even more, I respect you for it, just as I hope you respect me for mine. But that's all it is. An opinion based on personal experience. It is no different to my personal experience of the spirits. We both have our different experiences. But neither is any more rational or scientific than the other, because science cannot even begin to get to first base with this 'problem'.

And so for science to bully Virginia over her religion is just that ... bullying. Her religion is her own affair, just as your atheisim is yours. It's a matter of personal opinion. It is not a matter of science. You are not any more or less rational than Virginia or myself in your beliefs .... and that is the ONLY point that I'm trying to make.

[Ishtar]

JSteen

I'm not the least bit irritable.

In fact, I think I'm being exceedingly polite to someone who is not engaging with my actual argument but still taking it upon themselves to tell me what I should and should not do.

You seem to forget .. I don’t follow your belief system which conflates atheism with science and, therefore, I don’t have to obey your commandments.

Conflation

Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, become confused until there seems to be only a single identity — the differences appear to become lost.[1] In logic, the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one does often produce error or misunderstanding — but not always — as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.[2]

Now, do you want to burn me at the stake right away .. or shall we leave that for later?





OK, sorry ..

I'll do three Hail Darwins and wash my mouth out.

Judica me, Dawkins, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab Intelligent Design iniquo et doloso erue me.

Quia tu es, De, fortitudo mea: quare me repulisti, et quare tristis incedo, dum affligit me Creationists?

Emitte lucem tuam et veritatem tuam: ipsa me deduxerunt et adduxerunt in The God Delusion tuum, et in Clear Thinking Oasis tua.

Et introibo ad altare Darwin: ad Dawkins qui laetificat juventutem meam.

Confitebor tibi in cithara, Darwin, Dawkins meus: quare tristis es anima mea, et quare conturbas me.

Spera in Dawkins quoniam adhuc confitebor illi: salutare vultus mei, et Dawkins meus.

Gloria in Excel Spreadsheet et the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit.

Sicut erat in principo, et nunc, et semper: et in saecula saeculorum .... Amen.

[Ishtar]

A person who makes a proposition bears the burden of it - not the person who doesn't.

Yep.

Roy.

Ah! So as Min is proposing that it is more rational to believe that there is no God (if not insisting on it!) he bears the burden of proving it.

Thanks for making that so clear, Roy.

[Digit]

Thanks for making that so clear, Roy.

Apparently I didn't!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Her religion is her own affair,

Then she should keep it separate from her science and she'll get into less trouble.

[Minimalist]

So as Min is proposing that it is more rational to believe that there is no God (if not insisting on it!) he bears the burden of proving it.

No...Min is saying that there is no evidence for any fucking gods (or spirits) so don't go trying to move the goal posts.

[Rokcet Scientist]

So as Min is proposing that it is more rational to believe that there is no God (if not insisting on it!) he bears the burden of proving it.

No...Min is saying that there is no evidence for any fucking gods (or spirits) so don't go trying to move the goal posts.

Amen!

[Ishtar]

Min

Shouting and swearing at fundies might go down well on an atheists' board, but it doesn't have any place on a science-related board.

You're coming across like John Cleese shouting at Manuel from Barcelona in Fawlty Towers ~ as if his yelling and arm waving will penetrate the language barrier. I thought we Brits were the only ones who did that.

Look up the word 'atheism'. It means a disbelief in God. Therefore, your so-called rational premise is starting from a matter of faith.

If you look up the word 'agnostic', here's what you'll find. "Gnostic' as you know, means 'knowledge' and the Greeks used this word for what eventually became the Latin 'science' (which at the time of the Greeks, had not yet become separated from philosophy.)

The "A" bit has been used since Vedic times to denote the negative.

So A-GNOSTIC means "I don't know" Surely this is a more neutral premise to be starting out from than one based on an already pre-formed belief about what you will find, which would surely prejudice any open minded scientific inquiry, as demonstrated by my earlier posts about Dawkins shutting down the debate?

And finally, I hate to see you making an idiot of yourself by openly persecuting, on this forum, such a great archaeologist as Virginia Steen-McIntyre for her religious beliefs.Whatever she said in that interview when she was taken off guard, Virginia does keep her work separate to her religion. It's only you that is conflating the two. And it only you that is conflating atheism with science. I'm not moving any goalposts. I'm just pointing out that the goalposts are of your own making.

[Minimalist]

Ish, until you can present actual evidence for your spirits I simply can afford them no more credence than Arch's bits of lunacy.

In the meanwhile, when you try to put words in my mouth, expect to hear about it loud and clear. You've known me that long.

[uniface]

Objection, Your Honor. The witness is hallucinating. Again.

There is no "evidence" for spirits/gods.

Neither is there any evidence disproving the existence of spirits/gods.

Evidence is a null issue.

Stating his personal belief, and alleging that since "proof" doesn't overturn it, it's "right" carries no more weight than does stating a personal belief in spirits and insisting that since there is no "proof" to overturn it, it's "right."

Both of these are examples of projecting the model of something in the head onto the world outside it and insisting that the two are the same.

They're not.

It's also a power-and-control ploy. E,g,:

First Believer : "God himself spoke to me last night in a dream."

Second Believer : "I did no such thing !"