Originally posted by DoctorScribbles"To err is human."
To err is human. To fail to revise is lazy. To taunt the Wolfpack is just asking for it.
Absolutely.
"To fail to revise is lazy."
Absolutely.
"To taunt the Wolfpack is just asking for it."
So you admit that there IS a "Wolfpack"?
I'll be back tomorrow to continue this discussion. And if there is such a "Wolfpack", what is it's purpose on these forums?
Originally posted by lioyank"it's" should be "its"
"To err is human."
Absolutely.
"To fail to revise is lazy."
Absolutely.
"To taunt the Wolfpack is just asking for it."
So you admit that there IS a "Wolfpack"?
I'll be back tomorrow to continue this discussion. And if there is such a "Wolfpack", what is it's purpose on these forums?
Maybe now the Doctor will see where I'm going with this.
3 edits
Originally posted by lioyankThere would be no use in denying it. That would be like a Catholic denying that he thinks most Jews go to hell.
So you admit that there IS a "Wolfpack"?
I'll be back tomorrow to continue this discussion. And if there is such a "Wolfpack", what is it's purpose on these forums?
The purpose of the Wolfpack is to squash the subversive movement against logic and reason, which we carry out primarily through intimidation and humilliation of the Sheeppack, and secondarily through role modeling.
4 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDr.S: " That would be like a Catholic denying that he thinks most Jews go to hell."
There would be no use in denying it. That would be like a Catholic denying that he thinks most Jews go to hell.
The purpose of the Wolfpack is to squash the subversive movement against logic and reason, which we carry out primarily through intimidation and humilliation of the Sheeppack, and secondarily through role modeling.
Your formal logic is impeccable but your premises ànd conclusions leave a lot to be desired as I have explained to you before.
So, what does logic do for you ? It makes your conclusions look good and acceptable to a gullible and willing crowd.
Say hi to Ali G !
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFirst, the question of sufficient evidence is not a subjective standard. It is an individual standard in that each person has a (possibly) unique criteria; but it is not something the person can decide for himself. So, persistent skepticism is not a defence.
Good observation. If a lack of belief due to a lack of sufficient evidence characterizes the weak atheist, then all weak atheists escape culpability in this matter, by definition.
LH says that only a small minority of Jews have both failed to convert and have been confronted with sufficient evidence to make them believe in Jesus, and thus they ...[text shortened]... elieve (see the habit, fear and social factors clauses).
I sense some equivocation coming on.
Second, the exonerating factors I mentioned are not absolute vetos over damnation. What I mean is that the mere existence of habit, or fear, is not enough to "get out of jail free". The nature and intensity of the habit or fear also come into play. Simple fear of ridicule on this forum by other weak atheists is just an excuse; a pathological or uncontrollable fear could be exonerating.
All of this is just common sense.
EDIT: I see you've used the word "equivocation" again. If you're committed to rational debate, then you must respect its boundaries. If you're not, then at least stop implying that the religiously inclined are the only ones who don't.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDr. S: " ... which we carry out primarily through intimidation and humilliation of the Sheeppack, .....
There would be no use in denying it. That would be like a Catholic denying that he thinks most Jews go to hell.
The purpose of the Wolfpack is to squash the subversive movement against logic and reason, which we carry out primarily through intimidation and humilliation of the Sheeppack, and secondarily through role modeling.
You say it in jest, very funny, very funny indeed, I admit. It is also very clever. However, the sad part of your statement is, that it is true. The proof of this can be found all over the forums for those who are willing to see it.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy are the criteria secret, unknown even to the person to whom each applies?
It is an individual standard in that each person has a (possibly) unique criteria; but it is not something the person can decide for himself.
The weak atheist finds that to the best of his knowledge of what the proper criteria for belief are that the evidence for God does not satisfy them. Where is the weak atheist's error? In failing to to know what the proper criteria are?
None of this is common sense. It's quite contrary to common sense.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesJust to make sure we're clear here - the criteria for a Jew are going to be different from that for a weak atheist. The Jew has already accepted the existence of God - it would take very specific arguments to convince him that Jesus was the Messiah.
Why are the criteria secret, unknown even to the person to whom each applies?
The weak atheist finds that to the best of his knowledge of what the proper criteria for belief are that the evidence for God does not satisfy them. Where is the weak atheist's error? In failing to to know what the proper criteria are?
None of this is common sense. It's quite contrary to common sense.
Why are the criteria secret, unknown even to the person to whom each applies?
They aren't secret - I think each person can discover them with a bit of reflection. So, for instance, a Jew might find that the criteria involves showing that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies (I could be stereotyping here).
The weak atheist finds that to the best of his knowledge of what the proper criteria for belief are that the evidence for God does not satisfy them. Where is the weak atheist's error? In failing to to know what the proper criteria are?
No. You provided part of the answer yourself in a previous post about the weak atheist's belief principle and the example of the three coloured balls in the bag. With a little reflection, the weak atheist will see that his subjective criteria for belief in God are such that, if applied consistently in all aspects of his life, would lead to his holding evidently false beliefs. Clearly he does not do that.
None of this is common sense. It's quite contrary to common sense.
The common sense reference was to your previous "get out of jail" post for weak atheists.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI recall seeing this demonstrated only for cases that have the form of the lottery paradox, in which the subject of potential belief is such that the possible states of affairs are logically partitioned into classes each of which the weak atheist must deny due to a probability being less than .5.
With a little reflection, the weak atheist will see that his subjective criteria for belief in God are such that, if applied consistently in all aspects of his life, would lead to his holding evidently false beliefs.
The existence of God is not such a problem. The possibles states are that God exists or God does not exist. The weak atheist determines the latter to be more likely. He is not logically guaranteeing that one of his beliefs is wrong.
Compare this to the lottery problem, in which he is logically guaranteeing that one of his beliefs is wrong.
In summary, as long as the weak atheist avoids assessing his beliefs about lottery problems, your claim is false.
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWould it be your contention that bbarr hasn't engaged in the necessary bit of reflection to ascertain the epistemological criteria in question, hence his lingering weak atheism based on false criteria?
They aren't secret - I think each person can discover them with a bit of reflection.
If not, how else could you explain his weak atheism, for if he has engaged in the necessary bit of reflection then he would have ascertained the proper criteria.