|
|
Post by turoldus on Jan 26, 2009 19:14:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Jan 27, 2009 20:56:48 GMT
To the point. Russell's Teapot analogy was written as an article for a magazine, that as far as I am aware, never published it. However, since it's appearance on the internet it has been absolutely done to death. It's time it was left to orbit in peace in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by travis on Jan 28, 2009 23:46:47 GMT
Apparently Douthat’s post rattled a few cages. andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/in-defense-of-1.htmlMy problem with Russell’s Teapot has always been the implicit assertion that any belief that can’t be disproven must be disbelieved, which in itself can’t be disproven. It’s explicit assertion that there’s just as much evidence for Christianity as there is for any other seemingly arbitrary, unfalsifiable belief would also be roundly criticized by any sincere believer, as every Christian should be able to make rational grounds for their belief in God. |
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Jan 29, 2009 12:09:00 GMT
My problem with Russell’s Teapot has always been the implicit assertion that any belief that can’t be disproven must be disbelieved, which in itself can’t be disproven. I think you are right, but then this should hold also for the multiverse and a naturalistic origin of the universe. |
|
|
|
Post by travis on Jan 30, 2009 0:26:29 GMT
Which isn't to say the multiverse is false, so much as it implies Russell's teapot is a terrible arguement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Jan 30, 2009 9:13:00 GMT
Which isn't to say the multiverse is false, so much as it implies Russell's teapot is a terrible arguement. Exactly. It just shows that logic and "clear thinking" isn't most atheists' strong suit. Running around and loudly proclaiming to be "rational" and "clear thinking" doesn't necessarily make it so. |
|
