Zone1 Atheism as a subset of Skepticism

[Dante]

Interesting.​

I've recently stumbled across some guy named Matt Dillahunty. Quite the odd fellow. Not sure if I like him. But there is no denying he is an interesting guy.

At the 2014 American Atheists convention in Salt Lake City, he gave a workshop that outlined some key ideas in effective debating: "Take the opponent seriously: 'The audience has to sense that I can perfectly understand their views, and have rejected them.' Use logic: 'I tell them that I can write a better book than the Bible. Simple: I copy it word for word, except the parts about slavery.' And don't forget emotion: 'It is theater. That is my advantage with a Baptist background over someone like Richard Dawkins, although he knows more about science.'"[32] He has also stated that he is willing to say "I don't know" in a debate, a "scary concept" to some of his audience. -

as if Dawkins and others never say "I don't know?" I smell a blowhard the equivalent of a Trump. Doesn't go to what he suggests that is based on fact and sound reason, but he is an irritating, self-promoter

Gumball analogy​

Dillahunty's explanation of the philosophical burden of proof is often illustrated through the 'gumball' analogy, conceived by then co-host Tracie Harris: if a hypothetical jar is filled with an unknown quantity of gumballs, any positive claim regarding there being an odd, or even, number of gumballs has to be logically regarded as highly suspect in the absence of supporting evidence. Following this, if one does not believe the unsubstantiated claim that "the number of gumballs is even", it does not automatically mean (or even imply) that one 'must' believe that the number is odd. Similarly, unbelief in the unsupported claim "There is a god" does not automatically mean that one 'must' believe that there is no god. This line of reasoning is intended to demonstrate that there is a neutral position. The common retort, "What is your proof that there is no god?" therefore is a strawman fallacy when applied to those who have the neutral position (as well as potentially being a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof)

The Gumball Analogy » Answers In Reason

In this article I take a look at the gumball analogy. Looking at what it intends to show, and where many atheists overreach with the argument.

www.answers-in-reason.com

Burden of proof (philosophy)​

 

[Votto]

Interesting.​

I've recently stumbled across some guy named Matt Dillahunty. Quite the odd fellow. Not sure if I like him. But there is no denying he is an interesting guy.

At the 2014 American Atheists convention in Salt Lake City, he gave a workshop that outlined some key ideas in effective debating: "Take the opponent seriously: 'The audience has to sense that I can perfectly understand their views, and have rejected them.' Use logic: 'I tell them that I can write a better book than the Bible. Simple: I copy it word for word, except the parts about slavery.' And don't forget emotion: 'It is theater. That is my advantage with a Baptist background over someone like Richard Dawkins, although he knows more about science.'"[32] He has also stated that he is willing to say "I don't know" in a debate, a "scary concept" to some of his audience. -

as if Dawkins and others never say "I don't know?" I smell a blowhard the equivalent of a Trump. Doesn't go to what he suggests that is based on fact and sound reason, but he is an irritating, self-promoter

Gumball analogy​

Dillahunty's explanation of the philosophical burden of proof is often illustrated through the 'gumball' analogy, conceived by then co-host Tracie Harris: if a hypothetical jar is filled with an unknown quantity of gumballs, any positive claim regarding there being an odd, or even, number of gumballs has to be logically regarded as highly suspect in the absence of supporting evidence. Following this, if one does not believe the unsubstantiated claim that "the number of gumballs is even", it does not automatically mean (or even imply) that one 'must' believe that the number is odd. Similarly, unbelief in the unsupported claim "There is a god" does not automatically mean that one 'must' believe that there is no god. This line of reasoning is intended to demonstrate that there is a neutral position. The common retort, "What is your proof that there is no god?" therefore is a strawman fallacy when applied to those who have the neutral position (as well as potentially being a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof)

The Gumball Analogy » Answers In Reason

In this article I take a look at the gumball analogy. Looking at what it intends to show, and where many atheists overreach with the argument.

www.answers-in-reason.com

Burden of proof (philosophy)​

While you are counting gumballs the vast majority of the world believes that God exists.

You do realize that, right?

 

[Dante]

While you are counting gumballs the vast majority of the world believes that God exists.

You do realize that, right?

Go away you silly little lightweight Troll

 

[Dante]

the vast majority of the world believes that God exists.

The same god?

The same beliefs?

get a grip you little Maryologist

 

[BULLDOG]

While you are counting gumballs the vast majority of the world believes that God exists.

You do realize that, right?

The vast majority once thought the world was flat, too. Seem the vast majority is sometimes wrong.

 

[Dante]

The vast majority once thought the world was flat, too. Seem the vast majority is sometimes wrong.

Sometimes?



thank you

 

[alang1216]

While you are counting gumballs the vast majority of the world believes that God exists.

You do realize that, right?

True, but there is no majority view of the scripture and nature of God. It occurred to me as youngster that if most of the world was wrong about God/religion, it was likely that everyone was wrong. Have yet to change my mind.

 

[BreezeWood]

While you are counting gumballs the vast majority of the world believes that God exists.

the vast majority of the world are desert dwellers having nothing to do with the heavens - votto.

 

[Votto]

The vast majority once thought the world was flat, too. Seem the vast majority is sometimes wrong.

Genesis 6-8 describes a global flood in which all the high hills under the entire heaven were covered (Genesis 7:19). Of course, you cannot have a global flood without a globe. If the earth were flat, the water would run off the sides unless there were a rim around the edge – which would constitute a hill that is not covered with water, contrary to Genesis 7:19.

 

[Votto]

The same god?

The same beliefs?

get a grip you little Maryologist

Gumballs, keep counting gumballs.......................

 

[BULLDOG]

Genesis 6-8 describes a global flood in which all the high hills under the entire heaven were covered (Genesis 7:19). Of course, you cannot have a global flood without a globe. If the earth were flat, the water would run off the sides unless there were a rim around the edge – which would constitute a hill that is not covered with water, contrary to Genesis 7:19.

Genisis 6-8 is full of shit too.

 

[Votto]

Genisis 6-8 is full of shit too.

There was a flood. You do realize that, right? To even know what a flood is, one has to experience one.

The only question is, how big?

There are also other flood stories in other cultures around that region, cementing the fact that a devastating flood hit the region.

 

[BULLDOG]

There was a flood. You do realize that, right? To even know what a flood is, one has to experience one.

The only question is, how big?

There are also other flood stories in other cultures around that region, cementing the fact that a devastating flood hit the region.

As you said, Genisis 6-8 described a global flood. I live in Texas on the Gulf coast. Yes, I have experienced floods.

 

[Votto]

As you said, Genisis 6-8 described a global flood. I live in Texas on the Gulf coast. Yes, I have experienced floods.

If it was not global, if you had experienced that flood, you may well have assumed it was global. At least, the world you knew was flooded.

The better question remains, how did they know the world was round?

 

[BULLDOG]

If it was not global, if you had experienced that flood, you may well have assumed it was global. At least, the world you knew was flooded.

The better question remains, how did they know the world was round?

Eratosthenes. look it up.

 

[Votto]

Eratosthenes. look it up.

Eratosthenes(c. 275–194 bc), Greek scholar, geographer, and astronomer.

You do realize that Moses wrote Genesis and walked the earth from 1391–1271 BCE

Do you think maybe Era got it from Moses?

Try again.

How did a nomadic people come up with the revelation that the earth was round?

 

[BreezeWood]

Genesis 6-8 describes a global flood

liar - no such nomenclature existed at that time ...

 

[Votto]

liar - no such nomenclature existed at that time ...

Point being, these people knew things they could not possible know on their own, something that is lost on you.

This is but one example. There are lots more such as shunning drinking of raw blood and avoid eating raw fat which is bad for you.

In fact, the Mosaic cleanliness laws helped save the Jews from the Black Plague in the 1300's.

Europeans saw that the Jews were not dying from the Black Plague like they were, so they killed them stating they were responsible for the plague.

 

[Dante]

the vast majority of the world are desert dwellers having nothing to do with the heavens - votto.

too funny

right on

 

[Dante]

Point being...

really?

anyway, the Thread Killer strikes again

thank you Votto