So that's it for the election. - Page 13

Hitchens · #**121** 10-17-2012, 09:23 PM

The fact that Franklin was in regular correspondence with other people working in the field?

Alarti0001 · #**122** 10-17-2012, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The fact that Franklin was in regular correspondence with other people working in the field?

Not even just that, but scientific progression can only be stopped by mass destruction of knowledge, see the dark ages. Even during the dark ages scientific progression was progressing rapidly(for the time) in the middle east and far east (they just didnt have the internet for rapid transmission of ideas)

Hitchens · #**123** 10-17-2012, 09:27 PM

I think the stress of his awful IRC bet is starting to take its toll.

Frieza_Prexus · #**124** 10-17-2012, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No its not reasonable, you need testable evidence to develop a proper conclusion. Belief isn't reasonable.

Testable evidence. Hmm, such as the scenario which I presented? Again, it is rational to form a belief based upon examination of evidences. Even in the context of belief in God.

I suspect that you are conflating rationality with your own beliefs regarding universal truth.

bizzum · #**125** 10-17-2012, 09:46 PM

Benjamin Franklin's corpse 2012.

Hitchens · #**126** 10-17-2012, 09:49 PM

Frieza is correct, one does not necessarily have to be correct to be rational. In his scenario, the man wasn't being irrational, he was just wrong.

Alarti0001 · #**127** 10-17-2012, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Frieza is correct, one does not necessarily have to be correct to be rational. In his scenario, the man wasn't being irrational, he was just wrong.

Which is what I amended my statement to reason

Alarti0001 · #**128** 10-17-2012, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Testable evidence. Hmm, such as the scenario which I presented? Again, it is rational to form a belief based upon examination of evidences. Even in the context of belief in God.

I suspect that you are conflating rationality with your own beliefs regarding universal truth.

You actually didn't present testable evidence.

Lucky · #**129** 10-17-2012, 10:19 PM

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Frieza_Prexus · #**130** 10-17-2012, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Which is what I amended my statement to reason

My statement dealt strictly about rationality. Yet, you respond with a statement about reasonableness and not rationality. You're telling me that they mean two completely different things here, and you're switching the game up mid stroke. Hide the ball doesn't work here. Please, elaborate on the difference, and why you would respond with that. Was it meant to say that all religion is wrong? If so, the debate is not about the correctness of it; it's about the rationality of belief under a given set of circumstances. From my point of view, this change-up (if it was indeed intentional) appears to be nothing more than obfuscation.

Further, I did present a scenario which contained evidence. Circumstantial though it may be, predictive and prophetic writings, historical substantiations physical and locational, and historic accounts can all be viewed in an evidentiary light.

Now follow me here, at no point did I say that such evidence was correct or appealing to the discriminating palate. I simply used a hypothetical to illustrate a point where one can make a rational decision after weighing relevant factors.