|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 08/16/2004 : 13:28:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ricky:
It is anecdotal evidence because its based upon hearsay. There is no way to verify if the person was delusion or just flat out lying, or tricked into believing it was gods voice.
Or that it was gods voice...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 15:31:02 [Permalink]
|
I refuse to be drawn into the 'semantics ritual' seen all to often in these kinds of debates. However, I think my position of atheist can be summed up as follows:
The lack of any evidence for a god, of any religion, leads me to conclude that (s)he just aint there!
Btw, if I turn the news on tomorrow and a report showed a big bearded fellow standing on some clouds with bolts of lightening sticking out of his arse, knocked the Great Wall of China down with a trumpet then maybe, just maybe, I'd review my position.
As Carl Sagan once said (I'm pararphrasing) 'If I lead 1,000,000 reindeer to a rooftop and push each and every one off and none fly.' It's safe to conclude that they can't.
Please don't correct my grandma, I'm a little pissed at the moment!!! |
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 16:58:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
There is overwhelming evidence there are no god(s)' influence in any religion.
You can only come to this conclusion by looking into every religion that ever existed, something which I doubt any human in the history of the World has done. You also fail to see the possibility for a god to exist that is not in any religion that we have to date.
Pure sophistry. There is zero reason to presume any entity capable of abrogating natural law. There is zero reason to presume a supernatural, nor is there a protocol set capable of deriving knowledge about such a realm were it to exist.
quote:
The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible.
-- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism by Doctor Barbara Forrest
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2004 : 02:26:35 [Permalink]
|
Point of clarification, Ricky, multicelled animals do have a temperature limit of about 45C. We can survive short periods above that but the limit is somewhere near there. Single celled animals can live in temps much higher but also have a limit. If life is discovered that isn't protein based, then it's a whole new ballgame.
At the risk of just going around and around here, there are certain things which there is not only 'no evidence for', but 'evidence against'. The god question is often left open because the concept of looking for evidence against the existence of gods is usually seen in a limited way. "Well you can't prove it" kind of arguments.
I say phooey, you can too. You can treat a god theory just like you can treat any other theory. We know creation is not how life evolved. So are you all leaving open the idea creation may replace evolution theory in the future? Or have you decided there is sufficient evidence against such a theory?
There is overwhelming evidence against the existence of gods. Plain and simple. If you can find one religion that has evidence for a god, I'll be happy to look at it. I am satisfied the evidence isn't there.
The Universe is a wonderful and mysterious place. There is an infinite amount of things we don't yet know about it. But as we learn about that Universe, there is no reason to distrust everything. There are some things that have overwhelming evidence and many things that do not.
Recently, we found the limits of life were greater than had been believed. Life doesn't need sunlight, and temperature extremes are greater than had been previously known and so on. Certainly we may find life on other planets that stretches that limit even further. But fire breathing dragons and gods were not imagined because there was some reason or bit of evidence, they were strictly fantasized by people, and we have evidence they were created from fantasy, not real experiences. So I have no reason to add those things to my reality.
Beyond that I can't explain my position. I know what I mean but I'm not sure everyone else understands why I make these distinctions between totally made up ideas and stretching the imagination in interpreting evidence around us. While in the past it might have been correct to imagine a god was a potential explanation for some evidence humans encountered, it no longer is a potential explanation, just as Creation no longer is an explanation for evolution.
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2004 : 03:54:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
But what we are talking about is leaving the door open for the extremes.
Science views all knowledge as tentative.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Absence of evidence can turn into evidence of absence, as well as you can dismiss a claim without evidence, but you can never say anything with 100% certainty.
Are you certain?
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 08/17/2004 06:03:46 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2004 : 08:11:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ricky
Absence of evidence can turn into evidence of absence, as well as you can dismiss a claim without evidence, but you can never say anything with 100% certainty.
Are you certain?
Almost.
quote:
I say phooey, you can too. You can treat a god theory just like you can treat any other theory. We know creation is not how life evolved. So are you all leaving open the idea creation may replace evolution theory in the future? Or have you decided there is sufficient evidence against such a theory?
I can not with a sound mind say that anything is 100% correct or 100% false. I do say that evolution is a fact, but the facts have been known to change (although in the past not too much).
quote:
But fire breathing dragons and gods were not imagined because there was some reason or bit of evidence, they were strictly fantasized by people, and we have evidence they were created from fantasy, not real experiences. So I have no reason to add those things to my reality.
Whether they are observed or just random claims made by woo-woo's, there is a possibility that they may be true.
quote:
Beyond that I can't explain my position. I know what I mean but I'm not sure everyone else understands why I make these distinctions between totally made up ideas and stretching the imagination in interpreting evidence around us. While in the past it might have been correct to imagine a god was a potential explanation for some evidence humans encountered, it no longer is a potential explanation, just as Creation no longer is an explanation for evolution.
What it seems to me is that you consider the improbable as impossible, or at least nearly impossible. This is just the general feeling that I get, and its partially due to the fact that I don't think anything is impossible. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2004 : 10:55:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
... I don't think anything is impossible.
Sure you do. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2004 : 14:41:22 [Permalink]
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, beskeptigal, but it seems as if your stance on claims goes something like this...
A person makes a claim. As of this point, the claim hasn't been evaluated and so no pronouncement as yet can be made.
The person presents evidence to support his claim. This evidence is then evaluated, producing one of three results: 1) the claim is confirmed 2) refuted 3) or the evidence is deemed inconclusive.
I think what beskeptigal is basically saying is that if the claims are 2) refuted, you don't get to move onto 3) inconclusive. Refuted evidence become evidence against a claim. Debunked evidence doesn't allow you to go back to square one and say, "Well, this claim needs to be looked at some more."
In the case of religion, he feels the claims have been adequately examined and refuted. Thus, this "negative evidence" closes the book on this particular issue.
Other claims in his opinion (it would seem, not trying to put words in his mouth), simply have yet to be examined. Those are the ones that should be properly labeled "inconclusive." The example he gives is life on other planets, as our space exploration has been far too limited to make a pronouncement. Does that make sense? Is that about right?
I would, however, add that I feel some claims mentioned have been adequately explained or explored. For instance, confusion concerning the origin of narwhale horn seem to cover claims of unicorns, dinosaur bones for dragons, elephant skulls for cyclops, and sleep paralysis and hypnotic confabulation for alien abductions. I consider these claims to be "refuted." The only way to reopen the book on said matters would be to provide truly new evidence. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/17/2004 14:44:32 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2004 : 23:33:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Point of clarification, Ricky, multicelled animals do have a temperature limit of about 45C. We can survive short periods above that but the limit is somewhere near there.
I watched some TV show several months ago (damn if I can find any link to it or even a reference now) that was a top 10 style thing about badass life forms. There was some bug, very small, that can live through a forest fire. Might have been Discovery channel or something... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 03:38:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Correct me if I'm wrong, beskeptigal, but it seems as if your stance on claims goes something like this...
A person makes a claim. As of this point, the claim hasn't been evaluated and so no pronouncement as yet can be made.
The person presents evidence to support his claim. This evidence is then evaluated, producing one of three results: 1) the claim is confirmed 2) refuted 3) or the evidence is deemed inconclusive.
I think what beskeptigal is basically saying is that if the claims are 2) refuted, you don't get to move onto 3) inconclusive. Refuted evidence become evidence against a claim. Debunked evidence doesn't allow you to go back to square one and say, "Well, this claim needs to be looked at some more."
In the case of religion, he feels the claims have been adequately examined and refuted. Thus, this "negative evidence" closes the book on this particular issue.
Other claims in his opinion (it would seem, not trying to put words in his mouth), simply have yet to be examined. Those are the ones that should be properly labeled "inconclusive." The example he gives is life on other planets, as our space exploration has been far too limited to make a pronouncement. Does that make sense? Is that about right?
I would, however, add that I feel some claims mentioned have been adequately explained or explored. For instance, confusion concerning the origin of narwhale horn seem to cover claims of unicorns, dinosaur bones for dragons, elephant skulls for cyclops, and sleep paralysis and hypnotic confabulation for alien abductions. I consider these claims to be "refuted." The only way to reopen the book on said matters would be to provide truly new evidence.
You would be paraphrasing me correctly except for one thing.
As for those who choose the path of everything should remain in the realm of possible, I don't think you are wrong. I just prefer to operate on a more practical level. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 04:03:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Point of clarification, Ricky, multicelled animals do have a temperature limit of about 45C. We can survive short periods above that but the limit is somewhere near there.
I watched some TV show several months ago (damn if I can find any link to it or even a reference now) that was a top 10 style thing about badass life forms. There was some bug, very small, that can live through a forest fire. Might have been Discovery channel or something...
That would have to be through some type of sheltering either by burrowing underground or in a tree trunk or if it had a protective non-living exoskeleton. Proteins denature at temperatures of forest combustion.
I thought about it a bit more and I believe the 45C was a reference to humans so there may be some creatures who tolerate higher temps, but there is still a limit because proteins denature at some point.
I couldn't find a reference for larger animals but here are two articles on thermophiles.
hyperthermophiles
quote:
Microbes that reproduce and grow at very high temperatures, in the range 60 to 113°C (140 to 235°F). The first to be identified, Sulfolobus acidocaldarius, which is both a hyperthermophile and an acidophile, was found in the late 1960s in a hot, acidic spring in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Since then, more than 50 hyperthermophiles have been isolated. The majority are archaea, although some cyanobacteria and anaerobic photosynthetic bacteria grow well at 70 to 75°C (158 to 167°F). The most heat-resistant of all known hyperthermophiles are the anaerobic archaea, including members of the genuses Pyrolobus, Pyrodictium, and Pyrococcus. For example, Pyrolobus fumarii, of the Crenarchaeota, a nitrate-reducing chemolithotroph (an organism that derives energy from minerals), grows on the walls of marine hydrothermal vents ("smokers"). It multiplies best at about 105°C (221°F), can reproduce at up to 113°C (235°F) and stops growing in "cooler" environments below 90°C (194°F). Another hyperthermophile that lives in deep-sea vents, Methanopyrus, is of special interest because of its ancient genetic make-up. Analysis of its genes suggests that it may have been among the earliest organisms on Earth. Further study of it may help shed light on how the first cells survived (see life, origin of).
The upper temperature limit of terrestrial life has yet to be determined. But, although the search is on for "super-hyperthermophiles", it would be surprising to find microbes thriving at 150°C (302°F) or more. At this temperature, current understanding suggests that no biological strategy could prevent the breakdown of chemical bonds that hold DNA and other vital molecules together. See extremophiles.
extremophiles
quote:
Organisms that thrive in what, for most terrestrial life-forms, are intolerably hostile environments.1 The majority of known extremophiles are varieties of archaea and bacteria. They are classified, according to the conditions in which they exist, as thermophiles, hyperthermophiles, psychrophiles, halophiles, acidophiles, alkaliphiles, barophiles, and endoliths. These categories are not mutually exclusive, so that, for example, some endoliths are also thermophiles.
The link has a nice chart.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/18/2004 04:04:32 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 06:55:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
As for those who choose the path of everything should remain in the realm of possible, I don't think you are wrong. I just prefer to operate on a more practical level.
Then again, those who maintain that "everything should remain in the realm of possible" must accept that it is "possible" that we live in a natural world which operates in an ordered, consistent, and generalizable manner that precludes the possibility of certain events and processes: a world in which cheetos cannot be transformed into gold earrings by chanting a phrase from Isaiah, a world in which mosquitos cannot be transformed into rhinos by praying to Ba'al, a world in which sunflowers cannot walk over to the cat dish and slurp up the milk when they're thirsty, a world in which turtles cannot levitate and penguins cannot recite E. E. Cummins, a world in which fig rees cannot be cursed to death and pigs cannot be infested with demons, i.e., an ordered system in which a seemingly unending list of conjectures are impossible.
You cannot believe that all things are possible without entertaining such a world. You cannot entertain such a world and simultaneously believe that all things are possible. The assertion that all things are possible is irrational.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
