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 08-16-2011, 07:03 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,938,841 times
Reputation: 1804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
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.
Yeah, those tricky atheists demanding people be consistent with logic and reason. How dare they? Everyone knows god is so impotent that it needs to have "special" rules of logic just to make it slightly not-impossible. Of course pointing out that if you apply those special rules to anything else you must accept all sorts of crazy things such as those on your list. Don't do that - special pleading is only allowed for god because she's in the remedial philosophy class and her self esteem is more important than truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-16-2011, 07:10 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,938,841 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Why is the article of Russell on "Is There a God," commissioned but never published by Illustrated Magazine in 1952?
Can you try this again, except in English this time?

Looks like we've moved on to the point in the thread where the poster resorts to irrelevant personal attacks against a subject they don't understand. Character assassination might be acceptable to people who claim to believe in god, but I find it off-putting. If you had a point, falling back on antics like this would certainly detract from it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 05:13 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,487 times
Reputation: 33
Default For folks too busy to think for themselves on faith yes, but reason alone can and does lead to God's existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
....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.

For folks too busy to think for themselves on faith yes, but reason alone can and does lead to God's existence.


You will not accept that Christians have rational proofs and plenty of evidence from science for the existence of God?

Well, google the words God evidence, and God proof.


About folks believing in God's existence on faith, yes they do, but they can and they do come to God's existence also from reason, even though at the start they were guided by faith.

In the Christian religion, God is known in two ways, first from reason, and second from faith.

Specially from faith in matters which reason alone cannot arrive at, for example that there are three persons in one God, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity -- namely God is one in substance and in nature, but three in persons.

Other examples usually having to do with morality: abortion is sinful, and you may not marry your siblings and also not your father or your mother.

Other examples of a doctrinal orientation: Jesus Christ is the Son of God (second person of the Holy Trinity) who took up human existence to save mankind, there is judgment for every human being.




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,883 posts, read 31,769,092 times
Reputation: 12628
You know there is no evidence for any gods Ryrge, not even for the one you worship. If there were we would have seen it long ago....Morality also has nothing whatever to do with religion...It is more of a product of our evolution. In any case this forum is hardly the place to prove god is it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 07:05 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,487 times
Reputation: 33
Default Here is how you can prove a negative if you specify the time and space and other circumstances of the negative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
I appreciate that you get my thought about Russell's gambit, correctly.


Russell is not an 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 donít 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.

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.


You asks,

Quote:
"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.

The example of Russell about "a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit," which he implies there is none: yes, that in practice dispenses him from having to prove that there is none, because it is impossible to prove a negative, under the circumstances humanly impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge supposedly for emphasis as a quote box
By the way this thread is not yet over, because I still have thoughts I want to exchange with you Areq and other atheists, with the hope you will get my ideas correctly on the issue God or no God, from the perspective of Russell's china teapot orbiting in outer space -- please don't move for its closure.
But if Russell were to say that within a cubic kilometer of the space between in a straight line earth and the moon at 2:00 AM on the full moon night of October 2011, then he can prove that there is no teapot in that specified cubic kilometer of space, if he can command a space ship and navigate that volume of space and report back that he and his crew have not located any china teapot.

Another example, you can prove that there is no zebra in your basement by bringing people to come with you to your basement to search thoroughly your basement.


You get the idea now?




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 07:13 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,487 times
Reputation: 33
Default Dear KC, I have read your two posts, and I have no comments for you except about the background of a writer.

Dear KC, I have read your two posts, and I have no comments for you except about the background of Bertrand Russell.


Even before a publicly renowned opinion-maker passed into history, it is everyone's right and even obligation to the rest of mankind to contribute his (everyone's) analysis from the renowned personality's background why he does patronize the thoughts he does patronize and why.

That will enable mankind to understand his actuations by which understanding mankind can be guided more constructively in the conduct of each man's personal affairs as also the common affairs of mankind.



Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 07:19 PM
 
16,098 posts, read 17,899,425 times
Reputation: 15891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Dear KC, I have read your two posts, and I have no comments for you except about the background of Bertrand Russell.


Even before a publicly renowned opinion-maker passed into history, it is everyone's right and even obligation to the rest of mankind to contribute his (everyone's) analysis from the renowned personality's background why he does patronize the thoughts he does patronize and why.

That will enable mankind to understand his actuations by which understanding mankind can be guided more constructively in the conduct of each man's personal affairs as also the common affairs of mankind.



Ryrge
This is a most confusing post. How does one *patronize* thoughts. What do you mean by actuations in this post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 04:07 AM
 
39,091 posts, read 10,842,814 times
Reputation: 5087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
You asks,




The example of Russell about "a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit," which he implies there is none: yes, that in practice dispenses him from having to prove that there is none, because it is impossible to prove a negative, under the circumstances humanly impossible.



But if Russell were to say that within a cubic kilometer of the space between in a straight line earth and the moon at 2:00 AM on the full moon night of October 2011, then he can prove that there is no teapot in that specified cubic kilometer of space, if he can command a space ship and navigate that volume of space and report back that he and his crew have not located any china teapot.

Another example, you can prove that there is no zebra in your basement by bringing people to come with you to your basement to search thoroughly your basement.


You get the idea now?




Ryrge
Yes I do. Russell saw this with the proviso that the object was too small to be detected by telescope. Certainly if one can prove ...well, I covered this in my 'Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence' remark. That is that one can look and check.

That is why archaeology showing no evidence that a tribe was living in a particular place is evidence they were not there - even if the Bible said they were there. A Theist archaeologist tried to argue that the evidence had been removed. This is the problem. This is like arguing that the spacecraft is invisible or disguised as an asteroid. Or more accurately it was there but is now gone. It is impossible to disprove the negative. One can never prove that it was never there. But it is logically false to believe that proves that it was there, or even gives a valid reason to postulate that it was ever there.

I agree that if you can explore that area you can pretty much prove there is nothing there. In which case the believer argues that the invisible space craft must be in the next star - system.

In that way you get to the 'Have you looked (for God) everywhere in the universe?' argument. The point is that we are concerned with a god here with us and there is absence of any sound or reliable evidence that there is any such thing.

Absence of any good evidence of a god is evidence of absence of a god.

The burden of proof is on the god - claimant to adduce the evidence. Not for others to disprove it, but in fact, there is evidence of disproof of certain concepts of god.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 05:54 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,938,841 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Dear KC, I have read your two posts, and I have no comments for you except about the background of Bertrand Russell.
It's telling you can't comment on the more concrete criticisms of your writing, but everyone will draw their own conclusions from your lack of effort and/or ability in that area.

Quote:
Even before a publicly renowned opinion-maker passed into history, it is everyone's right and even obligation to the rest of mankind to contribute his (everyone's) analysis from the renowned personality's background why he does patronize the thoughts he does patronize and why.
That will enable mankind to understand his actuations by which understanding mankind can be guided more constructively in the conduct of each man's personal affairs as also the common affairs of mankind.
Ryrge
No one said you don't have the right to comment on his work. My point was that you're doing a terrible job of it by focusing on his personal life rather than actually reading, understanding and criticizing the work itself.

But if you think that's an appropriate way to evaluate writing, please post a full autobiography so we can understand why you post what you do. Fair's fair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 06:24 AM
 
39,091 posts, read 10,842,814 times
Reputation: 5087
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
It's telling you can't comment on the more concrete criticisms of your writing, but everyone will draw their own conclusions from your lack of effort and/or ability in that area.



No one said you don't have the right to comment on his work. My point was that you're doing a terrible job of it by focusing on his personal life rather than actually reading, understanding and criticizing the work itself.

But if you think that's an appropriate way to evaluate writing, please post a full autobiography so we can understand why you post what you do. Fair's fair.

"Russell also continued to write about philosophy. He wrote a foreword to Words and Things by Ernest Gellner which was highly critical of the later thought of Ludwig Wittgenstein and of Ordinary language philosophy. Gilbert Ryle refused to have the book reviewed in the philosophical journal Mind which caused Russell to respond via the Times. The results was a month-long correspondence in the Times, between the supporters and detractors of Ordinary language philosophy which was only ended when the Times published an editorial about the matter, which was critical of both sides but agreeing with the opponents of Ordinary language philosophy (effectively supporting Russell- Arq)
In the King's Birthday Honours of 9 June 1949, Russell was awarded the Order of Merit,[48] and the following year he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.[Wiki]

While I might not always agree with Russell's views or stances (though I must say that as time goes on I agree with him more and more) his competence in his field is hardly in question and Ryurge's criticism on his life and work not only seems irrelevant but unfair.
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