In article <web.47e71f29bd0847b42acdbf730@news.povray.org>, 
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> oh, come on!  You were calling all believers stupid and ignorant, no matt
er how
> open they are to the scientific method.  "Oh, you have all this evidence 
of how
> things work and still believes in a almight being behind all?!  Loser!"
> 
Do I think you are likely wrong and that all the evidence points that 
way? Yes. Does that mean I think everyone that believes this stuff is 
stupid? No. Some are misled, others never bother to examine their views 
closely enough, still others don't want to, and a fair number, you 
included, for some reason I just don't comprehend, place the odds of god 
existing way higher than I find valid or reasonable. That's not stupid. 
It annoying as hell, especially when someone with that view is trying to 
argue that my refusal to accept the view is persecution (and a lot of 
them do just that), but hardly stupid. I am sorry if I stated something 
in a way that implied to you otherwise, and my last comment in the prior 
post was definitely uncalled for.

Now, I will say that stupid is presuming that having an opinion 
automatically entitles one to respect, not just tolerance. Respect 
implies a whole layer of things, including the implication that one 
shouldn't challenge the view, which simple tolerance doesn't. When ID 
people use it, it often also means, "You have to respect everything I 
say, so shut up. However, you're fair game." And I know damn well you 
see this happen.

> Basically, unless someone drops to your side of the fence because of all
> scientific evidence says so, they are stupid and ignorant and don't know 
any
> better.  I don't agree with that.
> 
Fine. Then don't agree. But before you start crowing victory, lets be 
clear on something. I presume you would accept these premises:

1. Personal experience can't speak for anything but *your* experience, 
so can't be a valid criteria for "proving" the supernatural. Otherwise, 
we would have to accept *everyone's* experience as valid, including the 
people whose views contradict yours, and there is no valid criteria to 
judge which one is right.

2. Popularity isn't a valid option. Astrology is quite popular still, 
and its totally useless. So have a great many other things been. 
Further, one can't argue that religion is useful, since again, the 
people that *believe* in astrology are also 100% convinced that *it* is 
useful. Worse, simple, "Well, most people believe in God.", isn't worth 
much if 99% of the people grow up being told its real, and the most 
popular God right not isn't yours. Well, ok, you might make that 
argument, but then you are stuck trying to explain what yours is, and 
why it *really* differs from everyone else's, or how you *know* the 
popular view is wrong. This is kind of a nonstarter.

3. You can't argue that you have evidence, unless you can show it.

4. You can't argue that you know its true, even if the evidence says 
otherwise, since that is just a cop out to #1.

Presuming you accept the above, precisely what does that leave you with 
for grounds to figure out if something of the sort is real?

And, just to be clear, you *did* misread me. I stated, perhaps less 
clearly than I should have, than non-belief is a conclusion, not a 
belief. Conclusions can be changed, if evidence is presented that would 
imply it needs to be. As one atheist a while back stated it: he was 
agnostic about gods, but atheist about every god humanity ever invented.

Atheists who are honest in following the tenets of rational thought can 
only say that gods are, according to the evidence, incredibly unlikely 
(though the odds given vary a lot, which is why you still get people 
calling themselves agnostic, who otherwise are 100% in agreement). One 
must be agnostic about the existence of what one cannot detect, but not 
so agnostic as to waste time hunting for unicorns, on the basis that 
someone thinks unicorns exist, and thus some higher odds than 0.0000001% 
should be placed on it. But, one can reasonably argue, from evidence, 
that all gods, as described by human civilizations, are made up 
gibberish.

You want to believe in something out there, fine. Most of us think its a 
bit batty, if you don't have better than personal need for believing in 
it, and have yet to see an argument, on any other basis, that makes much 
sense when examined, but its not something that effects how you or I, 
for the most part, are likely to deal with everything else in our lives. 
But, this isn't about how science does things. Its about how people do 
thing, right up to the moment where you bring religion into it. The 
moment you cross that threshold, the level of required evidence goes 
from, "show me how big the fish really is", to, "Well, I believe you 
when you say it was six feet long", or some variation. Give me some 
reason that doesn't rely on logical fallacy to support it, and I would 
be happy to consider it, just don't expect me, or anyone else, 
**including** the believers that post on places like Pharyngula 
regularly, to cut you any slack if you try to make one, and its *not* 
logically consistent.

The believers at PZs place are honest and admit they don't have facts, 
evidence or sound reasons to believe. One can tolerate that. In fact, 
while I will continue to disagree with it vehemently, I can even respect 
the "person" making such a statement. For most of them, its not about 
respecting them at all though, its about respecting, and thus 
supporting, what they are not even honest enough to admit they can't 
prove (or try to, with stuff that is just not credible, even when its 
not based on wrong facts, wrong history, or failed logic).

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message