Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
What have we been talking about?
|
In these types of conversations it's difficult to tell sometimes.
Quote:
|
It sounds like you're arguing that because logic can't construct an answer to all our questions, it makes sense to forego their use whenever it suits us. I think this is stupid. At the very least, whenever contradictions can be logically built from our presuppositions, we should change our presuppositions.
|
No. All I was saying is that logic can't construct an answer to all of our questions, that it is naive to assume that it can. This has nothing to do with theism, I maintain that theism in a general sense can be completely logical.
Quote:
|
I agree that all manner of people believe all manner of things for no good reason and this also applies to atheism. That doesn't mean that it's not a reasonable position and I would argue that it is. I would also argue that theism is an unreasonable position or, at least, that no good argument has ever been set forth. Surprisingly, this actually strays from the topic of conversation where I entered but not necessarily from the topic of the thread...
|
I don't think you can claim that a position is reasonable without taking into account the basis for that position. Atheism is a reasonable position when it is held by someone who has a reasonable basis for holding it. It is not a reasonable position if it is held for unreasonable reasons.
All atheism is is the lack of a belief in a deity; any other qualities you give it are nothing more than projection.
And in any case, the question of whether theism is reasonable or not depends on your definition of reason. Show me a nontrivial/noncolloquial definition of "reason" which doesn't include theism in it.
Quote:
|
Actually, looking back on the thread, I was responding to roachboy and you were the one to rebut my response to him. It just so happens to be the same topic and that's whether atheism is the only reasonable stance and I assert that it is.
|
I could have sworn you quoted me in your response to roachboy. Even then, your particular justifications for your atheism still aren't germane.
Quote:
|
I don't think it's a red herring, either. If I had claimed oppression and abandoned my original claim of the unreasonable nature of theism, then I would agree that it was a red herring. Besides, that term is more properly used to describe narration rather than argument...
|
Well, you offered up a possibly contentious statement of questionable relevance. If you didn't mean it as a red herring, mea culpa.
Quote:
|
You say "I wasn't attacking a straw man, I was answering a question you asked" as if they were mutually exclusive acts. You were answering my question with a strawman argument. That you already mentioned that you don't actually know Dawkins' arguments doesn't change the fact that you were attacking strawmen, it's merely an admission of such.
|
It would be a straw man if you were PZ Myers, the person who wrote the courtesan's reply, or Dawkins and I happened to be arguing with you about it. But seeing as how you are not PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins, and I'm not trying to claim any sort of comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand, you don't really have a point. In fact, since you seem to be misstating the facts here and then using that misstatement of facts to call me out, the claim might be made that it is you who are employing straw men.
To be clear, anything involving the courtesan's reply is a footnote. I made an offhand remark about it seeming stupid, and then provided clarification about it when you asked, while admitting that I only had secondhand knowledge of it. It's not like I'm being deceptive here. Why do you need this to be a straw man so badly?
Quote:
|
I wasn't suggesting that you spend the kind of effort necessary to, say, read his book. You could just spend a couple of minutes watching a video of him. You have strong enough opinions of him that you must have some interest in his work...
|
I have seen a few videos of him. It doesn't make my opinion of him credible. It doesn't have anything to do with the courtesan's reply, or my dismissive opinion of it.
Quote:
My point is that, unlike your example here, it's not a statement of reality. I thought there was an understanding between us in this regard. It's not actually that great an example 'cause much of the reason why it doesn't describe reality is that it's a poorly defined term but the point is that it's not falsifiable and thus not a statement of reality, by my use of the term.
The current time is falsifiable while an opinion on a movie is not. Consequently, the current time is a statement of reality while an opinion on a movie is not...
|
How is an opinion on a movie not falsifiable? Everyone has criteria for what constitutes a good movie, it just isn't necessarily standardized. It might seem like it isn't falsifiable, but try this out:
Think of a movie you hate.
Consider the hypothesis: The movie is good.
Compare the qualities of the movie with the characteristics you use to define a good movie.
Either your hypothesis stands or it is falsified.
It is a pretty common procedure.
Right now my computer says it's 8:37. My microwave says it's 8:38. Who's right? Which statement is falsified?
You seem to be acting under the assumption that subjective statements aren't falsifiable. I think that's a mistake. When it comes down to it, there aren't necessarily any qualitative differences between statements of opinion and statements of fact. In fact, as far as I have been able to tell, opinion is of vital importance in most matters of fact; the data is what it is, but what it means is an altogether different thing, falsifiability be damned.