U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-15-2011, 01:35 PM
 
608 posts, read 531,058 times
Reputation: 33

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
My dear Ryurge, I quite agree that the debate goes on. What each and every one of us has to do is look at the arguments for and against and make up their own minds.

I assert that logic and evidence will lead one to conclude that Theism has not made a sound case.

Theists will argue that it has.

As I suggest I am willing to discuss the arguments for (and against) - preferably in the religion section.

The relevance to Russell is that the logical position means that you have to persuade me into god - belief. I don't have to persuade you out of it. Logically, the burden of proof is on you to 'prove' God. I don't need to 'disprove' God. Where the evidence comes in that it is up to the one who believes in the existence of the teapot or alien space-ship or a god to produce the evidence to support that belief. It not logically correct to demand that others disprove it.

Dear Areq, we will talk about evidence by direct messages, let us concentrate now on Russell's teapot.


The way I see it, Russell's article commissioned but never published by Illustrated Magazine in 1952, is on the question "Is There a God?" (See complete text of the article in IS THERE A GOD? - BERTRAND RUSSELL - ATHENAEUM LIBRARY OF PHILOSOPHY.)

He goes through the standard routine arguments already well known to people following atheists on why there is no God.

But -- and correct me if I am wrong, he seems to have produced some kind of a new approach with the introduction of what I consider essentially a figure of speech, with his teapot in outer space orbit.

A china (porcelain) teapot orbiting in outer space, which is to human experience and knowledge most improbable of existing, everyone knows that.

But of course if one would be argumentative one can insist that the nay sayers (there is no teapot orbiting in outer space) should prove from evidence that they have already been to outer space everywhere in time and in place in particular to the spots where Russell appeared to have specified where such a teapot is to be located, and they have found no such teapot.

My point is that to be blunt, Russell was into a trick, and he succeeded very well, so that nowadays atheists cannot resist using that trick to make fun of God and make fun of the issue God or no God, and inventing similar tricks, imitations of Russell's teapot but more ridiculous, like flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn.

That is why in all honesty I say time and again, all arguments of atheists against God's existence are instances of mockery, parody, and misdirection.




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-15-2011, 01:52 PM
 
608 posts, read 531,058 times
Reputation: 33
Default Thanks for your participation, and I will take your thoughts into account, but no comments to you at present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CannedAdvice View Post
You have a cunning knack for missing the point. I'll not get distracted by your ridiculous argument that we should "look for the teapot" (hey, we've sent Hubble up, we've had hundreds of space missions, etc.). Instead, I'll maintain what others have maintained: The purpose of the teapot metaphor is not to send people out searching for the teapot. It's a manner of illustrating what EVERYONE on earth does, every single day, in their routine lives: Demand that assertions be proven before a positive is accepted as absolute truth.

You claimed I killed someone? Make your case, burden is on the prosecution.
You wanna return this random pair of pants we've never seen before? We need a receipt, burden's on the purchaser.
You charged my credit card? Prove we had an agreement for payment, it's not my job to prove we didn't.
You're saying my car needs a new air filter? Show me the filter, I don't believe you since I just bought one 2,000 miles ago.
You want $5,000 for a car? Prove to me it exists and is worth $5,000 by showing me the car.

In EVERY other aspect of life, theists and atheists alike demand some kind of evidentiary support before we accept assertions.

Somehow, though, the theists believe we should all be on board and make one big exception for the most compelling question of all. They think we should suspend our "god-given" logic by believing in an incredibly fantastic, logic-defying story without any basis to believe it whatsoever.

You really think so? Okay, send me $5,000, I've got a car that I will deliver to you after I get the cash. (And please make sure it's cash. What, you can't raise the money? Pass the plate at church! Tell them a celestial car awaits you if you have $5 grand cash.)


Thanks for your participation, and I will take your thoughts into account, but no comments to you at present.



Regards,

Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 01:58 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,945 posts, read 4,749,564 times
Reputation: 1333
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I might like to chat about that sometime. I think there is more than one logical solution to that particular problem. In fact, I think agnosticism might be one of them.
Let it be known then, that the infinate regression argument for the fundamental truth of agnosticism was first given by me (about 6 months before this post), a man from Southern Florida whom uses "LuminousTruth" as an avatar in the C-D forum. And that so, any inspiration of a better argument for Agnosticism, hereto found by the work of AREQUIPA and/or any readers of these posts by LT, shall be given due credit to me (LuminousTruth), at least as a Preface or Thankyou note within any such work.

Last edited by LuminousTruth; 08-15-2011 at 02:11 PM.. Reason: to post time frame for IR argument in favor of Agnosticism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 02:23 PM
 
608 posts, read 531,058 times
Reputation: 33
Default Apropos of infinite regression, if I may, is there evidence for infinite regression any instance of?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
Let it be known then, that the infinate regression argument for the fundamental truth of agnosticism was first given by me (about 6 months before this post), a man from Southern Florida whom uses "LuminousTruth" as an avatar in the C-D forum. And that so, any inspiration of a better argument for Agnosticism, hereto found by the work of AREQUIPA and/or any readers of these posts by LT, shall be given due credit to me (LuminousTruth), at least as a Preface or Thankyou note within any such work.


Apropos of infinite regression, if I may, is there evidence for infinite regression any instance of in reality?

Or is infinite regression worse than the teapot of Russell.



Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 02:30 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,945 posts, read 4,749,564 times
Reputation: 1333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Apropos of infinite regression, if I may, is there evidence for infinite regression any instance of in reality?

Or is infinite regression worse than the teapot of Russell.



Ryrge
Most scholarly Philosophers currently consider infinate regression arguments to be worse than unsubstantiated claims. But I'd say they are about the same. The scholarly philosophers do this because infinate regressions are currently considered illogical while unsubstantiated claims (when they are logical) are not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 03:28 PM
 
608 posts, read 531,058 times
Reputation: 33
Default Why is the article of Russell on Is There a God, commissioned but never published by Illustrated Magazine in 1952?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Dear Areq, we will talk about evidence by direct messages, let us concentrate now on Russell's teapot.


The way I see it, Russell's article commissioned but never published by Illustrated Magazine in 1952, is on the question "Is There a God?" (See complete text of the article in IS THERE A GOD? - BERTRAND RUSSELL - ATHENAEUM LIBRARY OF PHILOSOPHY.)

He goes through the standard routine arguments already well known to people following atheists on why there is no God.

But -- and correct me if I am wrong, he seems to have produced some kind of a new approach with the introduction of what I consider essentially a figure of speech, with his teapot in outer space orbit.

A china (porcelain) teapot orbiting in outer space, which is to human experience and knowledge most improbable of existing, everyone knows that.

But of course if one would be argumentative one can insist that the nay sayers (there is no teapot orbiting in outer space) should prove from evidence that they have already been to outer space everywhere in time and in place in particular to the spots where Russell appeared to have specified where such a teapot is to be located, and they have found no such teapot.

My point is that to be blunt, Russell was into a trick, and he succeeded very well, so that nowadays atheists cannot resist using that trick to make fun of God and make fun of the issue God or no God, and inventing similar tricks, imitations of Russell's teapot but more ridiculous, like flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn.

That is why in all honesty I say time and again, all arguments of atheists against God's existence are instances of mockery, parody, and misdirection.

Why is the article of Russell on "Is There a God," commissioned but never published by Illustrated Magazine in 1952?

Because he Russell does not say anything at all new from his own thinking that has not been said already more than 2,000 years ago.


In addition he brought in what is essentially a trick, and that could be the reason why the magazine editors decided not to publish it, although they commissioned him to write the article, entitled by I guess by Russell himself as "Is There a God?"

Editors who value the sound reputation of their magazine will not engage in trick arguments in order to avoid giving themselves the notoriety of a tabloid publication.


Did Illustrated Magazine pay Russell for his writing that article which they did not publish ever?

In my own thinking, no, because publishers of periodical literature I would believe always impose the condition that if a commissioned article is not published on the discretion of the owners of the publication although commissioning it, the author can get back his manuscript but no payment, sorry.

See this review of a very thorough and critical biography of Bertrand Russell, by Ray Monk:* http://web.mac.com/cranetim/Tims_web...l%20Review.pdf (reviewed by Tim Crane
University College London).

Quote:

[...]

‘Poor Bertie’ Beatrice Webb wrote after receiving a visit from Bertrand Russell in 1931, ‘he has made a mess of his life and he knows it’. In the 1931 version of his Autobiography, Russell himself seemed to share Webb’s estimate of his achievements. Emotionally, intellectually and politically, he wrote, his life had been a failure.

[...]

Russell ... was in later years unable to find permanent academic employment in Britain, ... was reduced to giving non specialist lectures at a foundation established by the Philadelphia philanthropist Albert C. Barnes. Eventually in 1944 he returned to Cambridge, but by then the philosophical world was in the grip of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ideas, and Russell was largely ignored.

[...]

Russell’s period of great achievement in philosophy was all but over by 1921. This was partly a result of the intellectual exhaustion he felt after completing, with A.N. Whitehead, the massive Principia Mathematica in 1913, and partly a result of the devastating criticisms his work had
received from Wittgenstein, his former student.

[...]

It is arguable that the best book he wrote after 1921 was his Autobiography. Russell did not make a habit of abandoning books he was preparing for publication. In the forty-nine years covered here, he published almost fifty books (and a vast number of articles) on moral, historical and political subjects. As Monk remarks, most of this work is of poor quality. Russell had strong opinions and a fluent literary style, but little skill in political or historical analysis. His political works are marred by his preference for broad, a priori generalisations about human behaviour and a striking lack of concern for the messy empirical details of political reality (somewhat ironic in the century’s greatest empiricist). Russell wanted to change the world, but his proposals for changing it were vague and impractical. Monk wryly comments, ‘saying “War should be abolished” is not a contribution, either to the theory of war or to its abolition; nor is saying “people should be more reasonable” a large step in making them so’.

[...]



Tim Crane
University College London



Ryrge

*Bertrand Russell 1921-1970: The Ghost of Madness
Ray Monk
London: Jonathan Cape 2000
Xv+574pp.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 04:24 PM
 
39,225 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5098
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, Ryurge.

The principle of the burden of proof being on the claimant is correct quite apart from what Russel had to say about it. Our pal granpa here pointed out that the teapot analogy had some cracks in it and the analogy of an alien civilization or spacecraft was better.

Einstein himself in later life after his Deist - based rejection of Quantum was really a failure, but that doesn't detract from the value of his work on relativity and Newton wasted time on Astrology, Alchemy and Daniel's prophecies.

The thread was about whether Russell was being an ass talking about the orbiting teapot. He wasn't. It is a good enough explanation. Having a go at his career doesn't alter that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 05:33 PM
 
608 posts, read 531,058 times
Reputation: 33
Default I appreciate that you get my thought about Russell's gambit, correctly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, Ryurge.

The principle of the burden of proof being on the claimant is correct quite apart from what Russel had to say about it. Our pal granpa here pointed out that the teapot analogy had some cracks in it and the analogy of an alien civilization or spacecraft was better.

Einstein himself in later life after his Deist - based rejection of Quantum was really a failure, but that doesn't detract from the value of his work on relativity and Newton wasted time on Astrology, Alchemy and Daniel's prophecies.

The thread was about whether Russell was being an ass talking about the orbiting teapot. He wasn't. It is a good enough explanation. Having a go at his career doesn't alter that.


I appreciate that you get my thought about Russell's gambit, correctly.


Russell is not ass you brought in that word not me.

But he is not above criticism on his tricks.


About burden of proof and also you cannot prove a negative, no one among theists is disputing that, not in their intrinsic logic.


The fact that atheists keep on insisting on those two items is really beyond the point in the issue of God or no God, and I fear atheists think that they are into arguments by merely accusing Christians of not bearing the burden of proof and insisting that atheists don’t have to prove no God exists.

The burden of proof is with the one presenting an idea, yes; but the denier has the duty to listen if he is going to really and constructively engage in exchange of thoughts with the presenter of the idea.

As regards one cannot prove a negative, that has to be qualified in regard to time and space, namely, you cannot prove a negative if it is not qualified in regard to where and when the negative is supposed to be not present in, but you can prove a negative if the time and space of the negative's presence is specified and it is within human resources to reach the time and space circumstances of the negative.


That insistence almost frenetically at that, that theists must bear the burden of the proof, and also that atheists need not prove a negative, that is a glaring example of atheists missing totally the issue of God or no God: for no one but no one among Christians who do engage seriouisly with atheists on the issue of God or no God is disregarding those two principles binding to all parties involved in the exchange of thoughts.




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 01:43 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
15,310 posts, read 10,358,344 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
....but Christians want you to accept their contention that they have proofs and evidence for God.
...but they don't have any. If they did have proof or evidence for their god then they wouldn't be demanding that belief must be based on FAITH. The good thing about proof or evidence is that it does away with the need for FAITH.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 02:03 AM
 
39,225 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
I appreciate that you get my thought about Russell's gambit, correctly.


Russell is not ass you brought in that word not me.

But he is not above criticism on his tricks.


About burden of proof and also you cannot prove a negative, no one among theists is disputing that, not in their intrinsic logic.


The fact that atheists keep on insisting on those two items is really beyond the point in the issue of God or no God, and I fear atheists think that they are into arguments by merely accusing Christians of not bearing the burden of proof and insisting that atheists don’t have to prove no God exists.

The burden of proof is with the one presenting an idea, yes; but the denier has the duty to listen if he is going to really and constructively engage in exchange of thoughts with the presenter of the idea.

As regards one cannot prove a negative, that has to be qualified in regard to time and space, namely, you cannot prove a negative if it is not qualified in regard to where and when the negative is supposed to be not present in, but you can prove a negative if the time and space of the negative's presence is specified and it is within human resources to reach the time and space circumstances of the negative.


That insistence almost frenetically at that, that theists must bear the burden of the proof, and also that atheists need not prove a negative, that is a glaring example of atheists missing totally the issue of God or no God: for no one but no one among Christians who do engage seriouisly with atheists on the issue of God or no God is disregarding those two principles binding to all parties involved in the exchange of thoughts.




Ryrge
Look, mate, you are rightly concerned about staying on topic, so let's do that. This thread is not about listening to arguments about God or not God, or even the problems of proving a negative, but about Russell's analogy. The principle is a sound one, even if Russell's analogy isn't the best ever.

So the thread's done so far as I can see.

Of course the 'denier' (Fallacy of the poisoned well, (1) old chum) should listen to arguments. I can't say I follow this idea "prove a negative if the time and space of the negative's presence is specified and it is within human resources to reach the time and space circumstances of the negative" but I'm willing to listen to an explanation.

(1) Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army in order to diminish the invading army's strength. (Wiki)

Ryurge's use of the term 'denier' suggests that Ryurge's argument is right before the matter has even been discussed and that the other side is wrongly 'denying' it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top