Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: The ACLU and The Judge Jones School of Law. In re 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch

    The ACLU and The Judge Jones School of Law. In re 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist

    This flash video is very funny.

    'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Wow, it's like two links of fail. The first is bitterness from being soundly trounced in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The judge was appointed by Bush, successfully ran as a Republican to the US House of Representatives, etc. Calling him a puppet for the ACLU is laughably absurd, as well as totally dishonest.

    The second link is about as not news as links come. I mean, one only need read Dawkin's book The God Delusion to see this:

    Another way to express that error is in terms of the burden of
    proof, and in this form it is pleasingly demonstrated by Bertrand
    Russell's parable of the celestial teapot.31

    Many orthodox people speak as though it were the
    business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather
    than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a
    mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and
    Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an
    elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my
    assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is
    too small to be revealed even by our most powerful
    telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my
    assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption
    on the part of human reason to doubt it, I
    should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however,
    the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in
    ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday,
    and instilled into the minds of children at school,
    hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark
    of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of
    the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor
    in an earlier time.
    We would not waste time saying so because nobody, so far as I
    know, worships teapots;* but, if pressed, we would not hesitate to
    declare our strong belief that there is positively no orbiting teapot.
    Yet strictly we should all be teapot agnostics: we cannot prove, for
    sure, that there is no celestial teapot. In practice, we move away
    from teapot agnosticism towards a-teapotisin.
    A friend, who was brought up a Jew and still observes the
    sabbath and other Jewish customs out of loyalty to his heritage,
    describes himself as a 'tooth fairy agnostic'. He regards God as no
    more probable than the tooth fairy. You can't disprove either
    hypothesis, and both are equally improbable. He is an a-theist to
    exactly the same large extent that he is an a-fairyist. And agnostic
    about both, to the same small extent.


    The point of all these way-out examples is that they are undisprovable,
    yet nobody thinks the hypothesis of their existence is
    on an even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence.
    Russell's point is that the burden of proof rests with the believers,
    not the non-believers. Mine is the related point that the odds in
    favour of the teapot (spaghetti monster / Esmerelda and Keith /
    unicorn etc.) are not equal to the odds against.
    The fact that orbiting teapots and tooth fairies are undisprovable
    is not felt, by any reasonable person, to be the kind of fact that
    settles any interesting argument. None of us feels an obligation to
    disprove any of the millions of far-fetched things that a fertile or
    facetious imagination might dream up. I have found it an amusing
    strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the
    questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon
    Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying
    Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.


    That you cannot prove God's nonexistence
    is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can
    never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters
    is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his
    existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable
    things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable
    things. There is no reason to regard God as immune from
    consideration along the spectrum of probabilities. And there is
    certainly no reason to suppose that, just because God can be neither
    proved nor disproved, his probability of existence is 50 per cent.
    On the contrary, as we shall see.
    Last edited by Tawnos; 02-24-2012 at 01:13 PM.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts