Bad pop-pseudo-philo blather, chrisd. Your hallmark. And using a lot of superfluous, obnoxious exclamation points doesn't make you any more right.
Occam's Razor isn't actually the primary principle here. (I don't know if sinewav even intended to convey that, of if he was just tagging it at the end.) You do display an apparent misunderstanding of the principle, nonetheless. But that aside....
Rather, the main thrust of sinewav's post, and the uncredited quote from Bertrand Russell
, is that of basic logic. The burden of proof is always on the one positing a positive claim. "You can't prove a negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Right, but given a lack of evidence, empirical and rational, especially when combined with more verifiable evidence and/or reasonable explanations to the contrary, it is quite reasonable to rule out a claim, and one can take that to 99% certitude (while also acknowledging the inherent provisionality of science). This is #*@$ing basic.
In this same vein, absence of belief is not
equivalent to affirmative belief. Period. Likewise, absence of naturalistic explanation is not proof of supernatural explanation. Likewise, saying "I don't know" is not equivalent to "I do know." Once more, this is all #*@$ing basic. Those who want to argue otherwise want only to erect a false position of equal credibility in order to advance an ideological agenda. The stork is not a co-equally credible explanation for reproduction.
Your comment about freedom of speech made no goddamn sense. All I can derive is perhaps some postmodernistic, solipsistic viewpoint ("if I believe something, my truth is no less valid than your truth, because I believe it"), which, as far as I'm concerned, holds no water in a rational conversation. May as well bring up magic crystals and spiritual planes.
On your argument about "objective truth"—more nonsense. First, who brought up "objective truth
?" Oh, you. Straw man. Few of a so-called "materialistic" (I'll assume you mean naturalistic, scientific) position would speak of a capital-T metaphysical Truth. An objective reality/nature that exists independent of the mind, which can can be observed, measured, and described intersubjectively through the scientific method? Yes. And guess what, buddy, that's by far the best we have.
Second, "This objective truth would have to exist in the imperfect hardware of the human brain." Oxymoronic, meaningless statement with nothing to back it up.
I've been getting the impression that you do, indeed, subscribe to some sort of solipsism and/or postmodernism. Cogito ergo es
. Yeah, no. Muddleheaded claptrap taken to the extreme, and lacking in any intellectual credibility. Again, worthless.
[Incidentally, for the record, I don't give a shit what Liz/vogue says, and am not directly defending her statements, or at least the phrasing thereof; only responding to yours. I doubt even the sincerity of much of hers. It seems to me that most of her "views" are largely formulated from an "oh yeah, well **** you" level of contemplation. More snotty, sass-imbued faux-rebellion resulting from apparent ASPD. "In what way can I interject that will piss off the greatest number of people, thus giving me pleasure?"]
Word wrote:Ever heard of Christian humility?
Heard about it, sure. Witnessed it? Not so much. (Get it? Witnessed
) And understand that there is a significant, substantive difference between genuine humility, and having an everpresent cloud of inferiority, indignity, belittlement, debasement, shame, and a persecution complex hanging over your head. Humility is not contingent upon acquiescence, subjugation, and subservience to a deity—any deity, even a wonderfully benevolent one, but especially a cruel and vengeful one—and the religion that promotes it. Holding a belief to the contrary is not humility, it is an assault on human dignity.
sinewav wrote: Phytotron wrote:
Word wrote:@sine: Buddha didn't die for our sins, did he?
Neither did a certain bearded, Semitic demi-god that was shamelessly purloined, plagiarised even, from preceding demi-gods die for a fictional, at best metaphorical, concept.
Beat me too it, Phytotron. And while I'm not here to defend or promote a buddha....
And of course, Buddha isn't the only source.* Jesus was derived from several godmen preceding his supposed birth by thousands of years, and including those within polytheistic religions. Indeed, most all religions feature some similar saviour/resurrection figure. For those with a spiritual bent, this might be characterised as the "many paths" view of religions. But here we come back to that, "better, more reasonable explanation with evidence to the contrary" principle: Comparative religion (that they all basically ripped off one another) combined with human universals
Gotta add, I don't get the focus on criticising monotheism. What about polytheism, pantheism, animism, or whatever other sort of theism or spiritualism? What about the Goa'uld?!
* Although, as you're apparently aware, though others here may not be, some suggest a strong connection
. Including, by the way, ya know, Buddhism still has a sort of hell. Plus, from the Eight and Ten Precepts: Abstain from singing, dancing, playing music, attending entertainment performances.
<Buddhist Footloose joke>