Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.
Island Man - "I learned about evolution from the viewpoint of the scientists and came to realize that Watchtower's arguments against evolution consisted of dishonesty, ignorance, and fallacies."
...most of which was just cribbed from other "worldy" creationist sources.
Once again, for the newbies, lurkers, and trolls...
...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.
When people justify their beliefs they tend to appeal to authority, appeal to evidence, invoke social proof, use rhetoric and persuasion and aesthetic arguments and so on. That sort of thing isn't it? Lots of different tactics and justifications for arriving at agreed truths. Could you spell out the point you are making?
Actually, slim, when it comes to defending beliefs, "appeal to evidence" is almost never used.
Ironic, really; you'd think that evidence would be the most popular source of support.
But then, when there is no evidence...
Thanks Vidiot. Part Deux:Justifying beliefs is what the irrationals, the religious and the feeler/perceivers do. I don't care a wit about anyone's belief, as they are almost always grounded in Emotions. That's why I try to never have any Beliefs.All we should consider when debating is the evidence presented and the findings or conclusions drawn from the evidence. That's it. Feelings, Beliefs, Thoughts, Personal Experiences, Observations and Anecdotal Accounts and Confirmationally Biased tripe mean nothing in debates - they are used to stir those driven or led by their emotions to action and keep them trapped in their belief system. They are debating tactics used by those on the losing side of an argument; they only succeed because we are a pathetic species.The argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert. Cofty has not claimed to be the authority; he is citing data from those who have obtained the evidence, all of whom appear to be experts in their field, so use of this term as a debating tactic is improper. The only proper use of this term in this OP is to present evidence showing that those scientists and researchers Cofty references are NOT experts. No one has yet to attempt this.Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four.Appealing to the evidence is rational and logical. It is the only legitimate debating strategy. One is free - even required - to evaluate the evidence presented, how and by whom it was obtained (are they experts, do they have axes to grind or personal gain to be made from findings, did they employ scientific methods in obtaining and evaluating the evidence, etc.) and any findings, conclusions, correlations, etc. made regarding the evidence.Cofty is presenting evidence; those who would seek to disprove him need to disprove the evidence, the manner in which it was obtained, or the findings or conclusions drawn from it in order to be an argument from ignorance (appeal to evidence) and meet SBF's use of the term. If you have other viable options as to the conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence cited by Cofty, please present them.
I think you are getting hung up on the word "belief". If we are talking about knowledge then in common academic discourse in philosophy then knowledge is defined as "justified true belief". Philosophers are not hung up about the word "belief". Belief is a part of knowledge, not to be distinguished from it as if they are opposites.
Also in everyday language "belief" tends to be used in a way that new atheists might find hard to tolerate. For example it makes everyday sense to say someone can believe something without it being true. It makes less to claim you can know something without believing it. Unless you've got an ideological commitment to stigmatising the word "belief", then such a statement tends to conjour some sort of mental gymnastic of thinking two contradictory things at once, or prompts some sort of metaphorical interpretation.
"I would never die for my beliefs, because I might be wrong." - Bertrand Russell
One of my all-time favorite quotes.
"I went out bicycling one afternoon, and suddenly, as I was riding along a country road, I realised that I no longer loved my wife." Another classic Bertrand Russell quote.
Slim I love your way of thinking to philosophic questions. If such thoughts didn't require deeper meaning, why would the mind think of them?
However will the problem of deeper meaning to questions ever be solved? My guess is never, because that would be putting concessions on our individual independent thinking.
So maybe there is no answer to any question, only deeper meaning, and wonderful minds in hyper space that pose the questions.
SBF: I will get to my point in a moment, first I want to understand your view on the matter.
On Rorty island, how *ought* people find out what is true? For instance in a trial?
Or is there no *ought*? i.e. is it all relative and any method is equally valid?
By "Rorty island" btw. I mean a place where everyone has agreed to act according to the maxims of Rortys philosophy as you understand it.