Issuing a Challenge to Atheists and Unbelievers

by The wanderer 149 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  diamondblue1974

  I couldn't agree more. Want some popcorn?

  ~orders a job lot of Jello and told that it should be arriving shortly in a barrow~

  DB74
• 

  skeptic2

  LittleToe said:
  
  Skeptic2:
  And yet I offered it to you as a specific piece of evidence pertaining to my own understanding of such concepts, which I (not you) presented. I guess you could take that on faith, accepting that I might have half a clue as to what I'm talking about, else you could remain skeptical to the end. Do you need to see a copy of my transcript before you'd believe that I've taken a course in Psychology, too? Even that wouldn't tell you how much, or what topics, I comprehend. Would you need to personally conduct a scientific experiment to determine and accept my level of competency?

  No, I was making a simple point that the logic implied in your initial bullet-pointed list, and the second comment you make, are non-sequiturs. That's it. That simple. I thought you would want to know that, because, until I read about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in an issue of Skeptical Inquirer, I believed that the kind of argument you made was not a non-sequitur, i.e. that someone who possesses the ability to think critically cannot fail to employ the ability. I just thought it was an interesting thing to point out.
  
  People make statements every day, that you can either accept or disbelieve, especially on a webboard. How far do you go down the hole, Alice, before you accept that something can be reasonably compelling without iron-fast evidence? Do you need to personally know the person, or be confident of the judgement of a mutual acquaintence, before you would accept it?
  
  So finally we get around to my point, which I made kind of circuitously. Most people have a level at which they become convinced, even in the absence of empirical evidence. That which is presented might be an absolute objective fact, but each will determine at which point they accept their subjective interpretation of the evidence presented to them.
  
  Even rational people have to work in such a manner. In your own case, if the example you've presented of your own reasoning in this thread is consistent to the way you act in everyday life, second guessing everything your senses present to you must be a pretty debilitating way of proceeding

  Thats exactly where "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" comes in.

  For example, I'm putting the milk back in the fridge, and as I do so I catch a fleeting sight of the use-by date on it and notice it is out of date. By the time I have realised this it is in the fridge, out of sight. Now the probability of it being out of date is quite high. Milk goes out of date all the time, it's to be expected. Therefore the evidence for it being out of date does not need to be particularly compellling in order for me to assume that the milk is indeed out of date. So without taking another look, I go with the assumption it is out of date, and plan to buy some more later that day.

  Now another example, I get up in the night to go to the bathroom and see a man standing at the foot of my bed. In the blink of an eye he disappears, a ghost! The probability that there was an indeed a ghost standing at the end of my bed is extremely low. It is more likely for instance that I experienced a hypnagogic hallucination. In order for me to accept that there was a ghost, the probability that I did not really see a ghost in this case needs to be less than the probability of ghosts in general. To put it more cogently, the possibility of the evidence of a miracle being wrong has to be more miraculous than the miracle itself, in order for us to accept the miracle. Because ghosts are so unlikely, merely seeing one does not provide compelling enough evidence for their existence, because there are many other explanations that are more likely and therefore suit our far from compelling evidence of having 'seen it'.

  beardo said:
  
  @ Skeptic2
  
  What about feeling something tangible as well as seeing something - witnessed and experienced by more than one person on odd occasions?
  
  That is the kind of event I'm talking about. Heat changes, movement of air, electric devices switching on and off, things moving involuntarily and actual apparitions?
  
  Not some whacked out mushroom trip.
  
  3 of my mates (the one autistic - just to ease the mind of the guys here who believe that people who witness odd events are clearly unbalanced one way or the other) saw a UFO three weeks ago. Also witnessed by other folk in the area. Three unsual lights suspended in midair, floating above a house, without a perceivable sound. Too low to be a plane or copter and no apparent mass beyond the orbs of light. This object has also been seen down south in the UK and after speaking to some guys on another forum, stateside as well. I'm not saying what it is or isn't, but I have enough faith in my mates to believe the tale I was told. No clear explanation. When reported on a local radio station, the DJ " took the piss " .... a typical close-minded response by one of the secular atheist "sheeple" ...
  
  This cold rational response to reality has its limits.

  Yes it does have it's limits, it's designed to. Without a skeptical approach we are free floating in an infinite number of hypotheses, with no guide as to what might be truthful.

  What you describe sounds very interesting, but right now for everyone but you and your friends it is only a story. It is anecdotal evidence, and unfortunately "anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all".

  But were you to have some kind of corroborating data, photos, video, etc. then the matter could be investigated. On the basis of your description it could be anything from ball lightning to misperceiving airplane foglights to UFOs, so more evidence is needed to begin to narrow down the possibilities.

  A skeptical approach does not preclude amazing and wonderful things happening in the world, it merely assists us to avoid being deceived and to avoid deceiving ourselves.
• 

  LittleToe

  Although I've used a personal example, I've not taken it personally, though I'm starting to suspect that you might have. I'm also starting to feel like I'm repeating myself...
• 

  Beardo

  But were you to have some kind of corroborating data, photos, video, etc. then the matter could be investigated. On the basis of your description it could be anything from ball lightning to misperceiving airplane foglights to UFOs, so more evidence is needed to begin to narrow down the possibilities.

  @ skeptic2

  The evidence is there - you aren't looking hard enough. We have the library of Alexandria at our fingertips - there are no longer any excuses.

  There is NO WAY what my friends saw were either ball lightening or foglights

  "corroborating data"

  As I said - there are 'many' people who have witnessed similar forms - or are we to discount every testimony as the babbling of madmen?

  I will be back later when I have dug out my Colin Wilson book and scanned in a few paragraphs to squash the ideas projected about his research.
• 

  Beardo

  My, my, beardo. You certainly come up with some compelling arguments.

  Yes Alan - quite the argument wasn't it. But Satan himself could appear in your room and you'd probably stick a 'Gauss meter' up his arse
• 

  LittleToe

  Beardo:Part of the problem here is the use of terminology.

  While I have a belief in certain aspects of what some call the supernatural I am also acutely aware that there is no scientific evidence to support the notion. This is also the case with UFO sightings, wherein folks are convinced of what they saw but have no proof other than their own subjective experience, even where there's a corrulation between individuals. Likewise, I beleive in a Deity due to my own personal experiences, but regardless od how compelling my explanations I can't prove it to another individual.

  Basically it's not worth getting upset over. Your friends saw what they saw and you're all convinced of your interpretation of it. Let the scientists either catch up, ignore, or disprove it.
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  LOL at this thread, esp. the wanderer. he asked for feedback then got very pissy when he got all sorts of different views back, kept harping on "KEEP AN OPEN MIND" but obviously he only wanted people to agree with his viewpoint, not have any views of their own.

  What kills me is why it even matters. I mean, who cares what you and I think? If this "god" you speak of can do anything and everything, why can't he step down from his heavenly crapper and show himself? It shouldn't have to be up to us to figure out, he needs to show up. And not in vague, personal ways that are only apparent to a precious few, special people.

  And that brings me to my point... I think people want to believe in God because they need to feel like they have a higher purpose, like they are sort of gods themselves. Somehow special. I figure we're special, all right. We are animals who can speak and type and make things with opposable thumbs. That's about it.
• 

  LittleToe

  What kills me is why it even matters. I mean, who cares what you and I think? If this "god" you speak of can do anything and everything, why can't he step down from his heavenly crapper and show himself?

  Do you see the irony in this?

  You don't care and wonder why any one else cares, but you expect a transcendant deity to care...
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  why are you always so mean to me, LT?
• 

  Beardo

  Basically it's not worth getting upset over. Your friends saw what they saw and you're all convinced of your interpretation of it. Let the scientists either catch up, ignore, or disprove it.

  Tee hee Littletoe - please believe me, I'm not upset, just having a little fun here and doing a bit of straight talking. No need to pussyfoot around these topics.

  This age of rational thought has lead us nowhere; accept up the garden path, and the pomposity of this institutionalized thinking projected at us through the towers of academia will one day crumble into dust.

  To repeat myself - rational thought has its limits, although it wears fine tailored clothing through its choice of language and the beguiling conceptual forms projected there within.