tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post7001903444827020272..comments2023-10-31T05:14:08.945+13:00Comments on Undeniably Atheist: Unfalsifiable BeliefsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post-88848138502033502542011-06-23T13:39:59.702+12:002011-06-23T13:39:59.702+12:00Ah yes, I did forget to mention Occam's razor ...Ah yes, I did forget to mention Occam's razor in the post, thanks for that Infidel. You also bring up a point that I often find myself staring at theists with my jaw on the floor over, regarding claims being defined. Last month I wrote a post about how the whole concept of supernatural is utterly incoherent, and all ideas of supernatural things convey absolutely no meaning. I called it <a href="http://undeniably-atheist.blogspot.com/2011/05/supernaturally-incoherent.html" rel="nofollow">Supernaturally Incoherent</a>.KJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10817974804323066290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post-78962854021037369642011-06-22T22:44:36.979+12:002011-06-22T22:44:36.979+12:00This is why we apply Occam's razor and the con...This is why we apply Occam's razor and the concept of burden of proof. Evidence can't disprove <i>any</i> claim which is carefully defined in such a way as to be immune from testing. Phenomena like wind and lightning, which have been fully explained by science, <i>might</i> also be influenced by mystical factors -- as long as those factors are defined so as to be undetectable, they can't be definitively refuted. But if there's no evidence for such complications, there's no reason to spend any time thinking about them.<br /><br />It's not enough to say something outlandish and then demand a refutation. The burden of proof should be on the person making the claim.<br /><br />At the very least, the claim should be clearly defined. I've never heard anyone who believed in a "soul" or other mystical element to the mind, who could coherently explain what they were claiming to believe in.Infidel753https://www.blogger.com/profile/10965786814334886696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post-25509886342062654232011-06-22T12:28:47.263+12:002011-06-22T12:28:47.263+12:00Ah nice, thanks for that. I've just been readi...Ah nice, thanks for that. I've just been reading about string theory actually, I'm onto the last chapter of 'The Grand Design'. =DKJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10817974804323066290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post-47734021413163732602011-06-22T11:56:41.404+12:002011-06-22T11:56:41.404+12:00It is technically called the Black Cat Theory of E...It is technically called the Black Cat Theory of Entropy. The only problem with it is that it doesn't even have a phalange of a toe of a foot of a leg to stand on. At least something like string theory lies somewhat in reality.curious cuberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05843349568654480331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post-63752050626082358072011-06-22T11:40:15.771+12:002011-06-22T11:40:15.771+12:00Perhaps I have, but I wasn't given anything el...Perhaps I have, but I wasn't given anything else to go on. If I said something like "Stimulus to the physical brain has an effect on the mind", I would get a reply along the lines of "But that doesn't prove that there isn't a disembodied mind".KJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10817974804323066290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7498388463767378455.post-73333633896930017962011-06-22T00:50:55.212+12:002011-06-22T00:50:55.212+12:00Are you sure you've actually understood their ...Are you sure you've actually understood their position? Just because they think that doesn't rule it out, that doesn't mean they think that "it hasn't been ruled out" is an argument in its favour. Perhaps they have other reasons for believing (somewhat) in dualism?Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149167562994929432noreply@blogger.com