An attempt at logic.

[Michael]

Awesome. So I've got a few new fun things to look up.

I'd be the first to admit that my legal knowledge is extremely limited. To be honest I wasn't even 100% sure i was using a correct analogy with the legal thing. Sounds like I was pretty close, so that's good.

Victus wrote

Contradicts what you wrote above. Which is it?

Was meant to be a re-iteration of the first statement, which I wrote wrong. Should've been "I don't think there are many in the civilized world that would argue that is not a correct and accurate way of approaching a legal situation."

Victus wrote

Why weighted equally? Is all evidence of equal quality/validity? Of course not.

No, not all evidence is equal. It was meant more along the lines of following all lines of evidence rather than picking the one piece that fits your chosen conclusion. For instance, picking the one case where a person's healing co-incided with a visit to a faith healer and ignoring the 100 other people who visited that faith healer that day but weren't healed. You need to look at all of them as evidence towards the conclusion, not just the one that was healed. If I need to write this again I shall definately attempt to re-word that.

Victus wrote

Or you could take a less binary, Bayesian approach; start with a prior probability of some claim being true based on your prior knowledge. Update your probability based as new evidence rolls in. It's not perfect, but I think it's a pretty good descriptor of what most people actually do.

Cool. I'll look into it.

Victus wrote

Skipped a bunch after this due to lack of content.

Yeah, I ran out of steam towards the end. No point denying it.

Victus wrote

Yep, this is basically the (or a) premise behind skepticism, as has been argued on the forums about a hundred times. Cool.

I'm still learning skepticism, but I think without a doubt it's the best way of doing things. As far as it being argued here a hundred times before, it probably has, but those 100 times don't help me as much as this did. Plus it never hurts to have skeptical thinking fresh on people's minds, right?

Thankyou for your response, it's been very helpful.

Erik wrote

And the reasons are obvious: a criminal conviction has very serious consequences for the defendant, and the higher burden of proof is also a check on the power of the state.

I would argue that there are serious consequences regarding your theological choices also. Not as serious as being thrown in jail, maybe, but there are definate consequences.

Take what is hopefully an average churchgoer (note: I've never been to church myself so I can't say for certain, this is based on my experiences of other people's church activities) -

Let's say that preparing, travelling to and from, and attending church takes a total of 5 hours every Sunday. That's around 240 hours a year taken way from a person due to their religious choice.
Assuming that they attend church every week for 50 years, that's 12,000 hours, or a 500 day sentence taken from their life, week by week in small chunks of time.

I know it's a flawed argument in a lot of ways, but my point is that there's a lot of time there taken from your life that could've been spent not in servitude to a creator god that most probably isn't there. If that's not of a "very serious consequence" (plus the other aspects that go with religion), then what is?


Thanks everyone. I much appreciate it.

[Kinich Ahau]

I like this thread. The reason is that I know Fakey would love to insert his dogmatic apologetics right in the middle of this but he can't because he's been quarantined and any attempt will be quickly fobbed off. At least you can have this discussion in peace without stepping in Fakey's shit every few posts.

[Stargazer]

Kinich Ahau wrote

I like this thread. The reason is that I know Fakey would love to insert his dogmatic apologetics right in the middle of this but he can't because he's been quarantined and any attempt will be quickly fobbed off. At least you can have this discussion in peace without stepping in Fakey's shit every few posts.

Actually, he was one of the first to respond, but his post was redirected to his thread! I noticed it at the time and said as much.

Edited to put in the post number on Ex's thread where his reply to this thread went: 2317

[psychodiva]

[Michael]

Sucks to be him then, I imagine.

[Stargazer]

Michael wrote

Sucks to be him then, I imagine.

I knew you were feeling despondent, as if Ex had ignored your post, so I wanted to be sure you knew he did respond.

Feeling better now?

[Erik]

Stevil wrote

They are not offering a lower standard of proof...
Their belief does not rely on proof so if you debunk their excuse it won't alter their belief.

You and Michael are replying based on a typical theistic response, which is, of course, the one you will encounter most of the time.

I have met deists before; people who believe that a prime mover existed to kick-start the universe but shows no sign of currently existing and which (they claim) has no effect on their approach to the affairs of human beings. If this is strictly true, then I don't really have an argument with them about the notion that their burden of proof for the statement "the prime mover started the universe" and my burden of proof for the proposition that "the universe needed no prime mover" are the same.

Whether the actual evidence really points to one or other proposition being true is a separate topic. Obviously, I think the prime mover idea has no merit. The point is that in a criminal case the state's standard of proof is different from the defense's for a reason. So if you're going to apply different standards to the deist than you apply to yourself, you need a reason. In the criminal context, the reason is that the consequences of the outcome are great. If the consequences for the deist's notion are not that great, then I see no reason to impose a higher standard.

But when someone wants to offer the prime mover as an argument in favor of the god of Abraham, I do think the burden of proof needs to be pushed up a notch or two. That is because it is being offered ultimately for the purpose of dictating to humanity how they should live, including the use of the power of the state. The consequences are dire.

Let's take a different subject so I can try to make myself clearer. Say that you are debating with a Buddhist over the historicity of Jesus v Socrates. The Buddhist's position is that the evidence of Jesus's divinity and miracles are all a bunch of bunk, but the weight of the evidence suggests there was a real historical person. All we have about Socrates at or near the time of his life are the writings of Plato, and even these might be brought into question. You on the other hand argue that at least Plato was arguably a real witness to the life of Socrates, while there is simply no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus. Because the Buddhist isn't saying that you should subject your intellect and laws to the New Testament and its followers, you can and should apply the same standard of proof to his arguments as you apply to your own. Ultimately there is little consequence and at best you have an interesting discussion about the reliability of ancient documents.

But of course if you are arguing with a Bible thumper over the same issue, you should insist on a higher standard because you know where that argument is ultimately going.

I could come around to a different view, however. I argued previously that all supernatural explanations should be trashed until we have a real example of one, because the record of naturalistic vs. supernatural explanations is about a gajillion to none. This indicates to me that the atheistic explanation should be presumptive. But whether the presumption can be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt – I am not convinced that the latter is the proper standard.

[Stargazer]

Erik wrote

Say that you are debating with a Buddhist over the historicity of Jesus v Socrates. The Buddhist's position is that the evidence of Jesus's divinity and miracles are all a bunch of bunk, but the weight of the evidence suggests there was a real historical person. All we have about Socrates at or near the time of his life are the writings of Plato, and even these might be brought into question. You on the other hand argue that at least Plato was arguably a real witness to the life of Socrates, while there is simply no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus. Because the Buddhist isn't saying that you should subject your intellect and laws to the New Testament and its followers, you can and should apply the same standard of proof to his arguments as you apply to your own. Ultimately there is little consequence and at best you have an interesting discussion about the reliability of ancient documents.

But of course if you are arguing with a Bible thumper over the same issue, you should insist on a higher standard because you know where that argument is ultimately going.

A couple more things about these two conversations. In general, your conversation with the Buddhist will be rational, orderly, and civilized/respectful. But this is not the case, the majority of the time, versus the Bible thumper. Here you will encounter, as you say, a conversation where the thumper will attempt to direct you toward his conclusion, will give the appearance of listening, while in actuality simply waiting for his turn to talk, will play fast and loose with the definitions of words, and will present long, convoluted "premises" which make use ad nauseam of logical fallacies including, but not limited to, the ones listed here:

http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/0...s-used-by.html

So, instead of having an honest intellectual discussion, you are subjected to a dishonest conversion attempt, and, failing that, are treated to some choice threats and character assassination. There is a great deal of emotionalism involved on the thumper's part rendering him incapable of of a two way discussion.

The higher standard requirement you refer to is not just the in the quality of the proof/evidence, but also in the honesty of the presentation and in the standards of behavior that should be adhered to.

[Erik]

Stargazer wrote

The higher standard requirement you refer to is not just the in the quality of the proof/evidence, but also in the honesty of the presentation and in the standards of behavior that should be adhered to.

I'm not quite following you here. Logical fallacies and dishonest arguments are used all the time, but the fact that someone uses a logical fallacy or a dishonest argument doesn't in and of itself justify increasing the burden of proof or shifting the burden of proof from you to him.

[Stargazer]

Erik wrote

I'm not quite following you here. Logical fallacies and dishonest arguments are used all the time, but the fact that someone uses a logical fallacy or a dishonest argument doesn't in and of itself justify increasing the burden of proof or shifting the burden of proof from you to him.

Oh, no, the burden of proof always lies with the one making the assertion. I would say that is the Buddhist made a tiny error in logic in the course of his discussion, it would be an honest error and could be forgiven, especially if the intent was not to deceive, but just the Buddhists imperfect understanding of logic. However, the bulk of the logical errors made by thumpers are intentional, intending to hoodwink you into accepting their point of view. Like with buying a car, the guy with the really bad credit score has to make higher monthly payments (higher interest) than the guy with the good credit score.

Repeated intentional dishonesty has a price.

[Michael]

I do have to agree to a point where lower standards of evidence may be required for different articles, even in regards to non-religious claims.

"The Sky is blue" requires a far lower level of evidence than "there is a god", for instance (however I might argue that if someone were to tell me "the sky is green with polka dots" it would require a higher level of proof than the claim "there is a god" - because for one I've seen the sky before, I know it's blue, and two, it's possible for me to see the sky again and verify it).

As far as supernatural claims go for me personally, I lump them mostly in the same category, and require the same level of proof for all should I wish to look into them. I would argue it's how deeply we look into the matter that changes, not the evidence required - a christian theologist would push you further on the matter than a buddhist would, requiring you to examine the evidence further, whereas a buddhist would allow you brush off the claim without investigating.
However, if I were investigating the subject for my own purposes, absent someone else's intent, I would not allow a lower standard of evidence for a buddhist claim than I would a christian one merely because the christian one asks more of me.

[Stargazer]

Michael wrote

However, if I were investigating the subject for my own purposes, absent someone else's intent, I would not allow a lower standard of evidence for a buddhist claim than I would a christian one merely because the christian one asks more of me.

Sure, if you're not dealing with another person, it makes things a lot easier!

[Michael]

Stargazer wrote

Sure, if you're not dealing with another person, it makes things a lot easier!

New policy: Slap all theists in the face. They'll go away (maybe. Hopefully), and you'll be able to go about your day.

[Stargazer]

Michael wrote

New policy: Slap all theists in the face. They'll go away (maybe. Hopefully), and you'll be able to go about your day.

Won't work. They only go away temporarily.

Poke holes in the premises, and they cry, yell, stamp their feet, call names, and then come up with another one, just as flawed. You have to at least say they're persistent.

If only they would study logic, spelling, what's actually in the Bible, grammar and dialectic.