next »

[rear_view_mirror]

The Amish are no more indoctrinated than anyone else.  Everyone gets indoctrinated in some belief system.

Including children of atheists.

[spyzowin]

Someone missed the last line of my post which stated "without trying to impose those beliefs on others". I agree that there some dumb religious ideas out there, but I am less concerned by groups, like the Amish, who show respect for others than I am about the examples in al-wallace's or angela's post, where there is no mutual respect.

I didn't miss it at all.  You'll note that in my white power example I specifically noted that they would live separate without attempting to spread their hate to others.

Even if they live deep underground and are never heard of again, it still doesn't provoke anything even remotely close to respect.

Religion is stupid. People should stop making excuses for it.

And here you are spreading your hate for religion.  The world would be better off if people live separately and did not try to impose their views on others.   I don't want you anywhere near where I live.

The Amish are no more indoctrinated than anyone else.  Everyone gets indoctrinated in some belief system.

Wait. Tell me exactly how religion isn't stupid?  All religions share an irrational belief in one or more wholly imaginary beings which are credited with control over everything from simple probability to the very laws of physics. What could possibly be any more stupid than that?

[plunkett]

And God is currently engaged in a sexual affair with Sarah Silverman, so he's not particularly reliable anyway.

[canuckois]

Wait. Tell me exactly how religion isn't stupid?  All religions share an irrational belief in one or more wholly imaginary beings which are credited with control over everything from simple probability to the very laws of physics. What could possibly be any more stupid than that?

How about believing that your personal opinion is more valid or credible than any other?

In fact, that pretty much puts you in the same boat as all the religious apologists out there.  Ahh, sweet irony.

[spyzowin]

Wait. Tell me exactly how religion isn't stupid?  All religions share an irrational belief in one or more wholly imaginary beings which are credited with control over everything from simple probability to the very laws of physics. What could possibly be any more stupid than that?

How about believing that your personal opinion is more valid or credible than any other?

In fact, that pretty much puts you in the same boat as all the religious apologists out there.  Ahh, sweet irony.

The non-existence of supernatural deities is not a matter of personal opinion.  They do not exist.  Try making your argument using "chemtrails" or "sasquatch" or "Atlantis" or any other patently fraudulent belief.

[navydad]

“Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” James Schlesinger. 

[canuckois]

The non-existence of supernatural deities is not a matter of personal opinion.  They do not exist. 

Evidence, please.

I'm not a religious person, but if a student wrote this in a paper, they'd earn themselves a big, fat F -- not because they would be wrong, necessarily, but because unsubstantiated claims are anathema to reasoned discourse and critical thinking.

Of course, that assumes that you care about these things.  I'm guessing you don't.

[navydad]

The non-existence of supernatural deities is not a matter of personal opinion.  They do not exist. 

Evidence, please.

I'm not a religious person, but if a student wrote this in a paper, they'd earn themselves a big, fat F -- not because they would be wrong, necessarily, but because unsubstantiated claims are anathema to reasoned discourse and critical thinking.

Of course, that assumes that you care about these things.  I'm guessing you don't.

Obviously, one cannot provide evidence for the non-existence of anything. If we are talking about critical thinking, then the onus to provide evidence is on those who posit the existence of phenomena that contradict all known physical processes, e.g., supernatural beings. Would you require a student to provide evidence of the non-existence of tooth fairies, talking snakes, or the Loch Ness monster?

[kaysixteen]

"The fool saith in his heart, there is No God."
        ---God

[spyzowin]

The non-existence of supernatural deities is not a matter of personal opinion.  They do not exist. 

Evidence, please.

I'm not a religious person, but if a student wrote this in a paper, they'd earn themselves a big, fat F -- not because they would be wrong, necessarily, but because unsubstantiated claims are anathema to reasoned discourse and critical thinking.

Of course, that assumes that you care about these things.  I'm guessing you don't.

I'm guessing you probably don't teach logic because if you did, you'd know that you were going to lose that grade appeal in record time.

[european]

Obviously, one cannot provide evidence for the non-existence of anything.

If one cannot provide evidence for the non-existence of anything, one also cannot provide evidence for laws of nature, for the two are logically equivalent. Any negative existential statement is equivalent to a positive universal statement, and vice versa.

[plunkett]

Uh oh.  God is rushing over this way, and boy, is she pissed!!!!

[spyzowin]

Obviously, one cannot provide evidence for the non-existence of anything.

If one cannot provide evidence for the non-existence of anything, one also cannot provide evidence for laws of nature, for the two are logically equivalent. Any negative existential statement is equivalent to a positive universal statement, and vice versa.

So, Aristotle, what have you got against experimentation?

[european]

I don't have any problem with it, but then again, I didn't say there could be no evidence for negative existential statements. This isn't something that can be disputed, by the way. ~∃x~Px is the same thing as ∀xPx, and ~∃xPx is the same thing as ∀x~Px.

[canuckois]

Obviously, one cannot provide evidence for the non-existence of anything.

Uh, yeah.  Exactly.  My point is that those who base their "arguments" (I use the word loosely) on claims that can't be proved exhibit an inability to think critically.  And yes, that includes religious apologists who argue a priori from the existence of God.

If we are talking about critical thinking, then the onus to provide evidence is on those who posit the existence of phenomena that contradict all known physical processes, e.g., supernatural beings.

No.  The onus to provide evidence lies on anyone articulating what they claim is a legitimate argument.  Unless you teach your students that only some arguments require evidence, and others don't?

Blanket statements like the crap Amnirov produces all the time irritate me.  It doesn't require intellectual finesse (nor, really, any thought at all) to be an opinionated a$$hat, and I'd be equally irritated by similar a$$hattery from my students, too.  But really, I should know better.  DNFTT.