In fairness to Carl Sagan, as far as I'm aware his aphorism "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" was never uttered in the context if religious metaphysical claims. I could be mistaken but If I recall correctly, the phrase originates in the book version of 'Cosmos', and was employed in the context of claims that UFO stories and footage are evidence of extraterrestrial spacecraft.
He argued that although extraterrestrial life was very likely indeed to exist ...
II. ...*somewhere* in the universe (and somewhere in the course of this is where I seem to remember him coining his aphorism) he nonetheless argued that there was not a shred of legitimate evidence that we were being or had ever been visited by extraterrestrials, and that furthermore the complete absence of such evidence was indeed good reason to seriously doubt that such visitations had ever taken place.
Sagan when discussing religion was very tactful (and magnificently eloquent)...
... and though he used to infuriate me with what my teenage self saw as far too many qualifications like "I wonder if" and "it seems to me", speaking strictly in terms of his epistemology he gave no quarter.
Oh, and Gould was simply a buffoon. The more I learn about that irenic invertebrate the less I respect him. Rationalism lost considerably less than nothing at his passing.
Let's see. Sam Harris would be Pestilence (sometimes "Conquest"), since the bow was associated with Apollo and Diana, who rule over diseases. Hitchens, of course, would be War. Dawkins is Famine, since the scale measures foodstuffs. Dennett is Death, with the pitchfork but usually a scythe, and the bony arms. They got the horses' colors wrong, though. Awesome picture.
Unfortunate title of the book doesn't spoil its content.
As a non-god-botherer I have no intention of wasting my life proving or disproving the existence of an invisible, all-powerful(?) celestial puppeteer, who exclusively represents the interests of one particular (chosen) group of people be it Jews,Christians,Muslims,Mormons or Scientologists.
History of our civilisation clearly demonstrates that every new,man-made religion is merely a pathetic, usually eclectic parody of its predecessors.
aTheism just rejects theistic claims. The only thing that is new is now more aTheists speak out more often, and it is becoming more mainsteam. Would Bertand Russel count as a ' new' aTheist? There is nothing new in what aTheism ,claims now. Nothing new, but still true.... probably:-))
@SOAS007 I find the prefix acutely irritating, if only because it more or less clearly contains the implication that one must furnish an indefinite supply of fresh reasons to reject ancient middle eastern creation myths, but that the myths themselves really need supply none at all.
This may sound like a straw man, but a skillful cross-examination will almost always reveal that this *is* the position of almost any person who uses "new atheists" in the pejorative.
I might be wrong, but I was reading the transcript of his debate with Fr. Copleston and He considered himself agnostic.
"C: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?
R: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic."
@HELLawaitsall59 I am an atheist, because I reject all theistic claims. And an agnostic too. There are things I do not know. It is perfectly usual to be agnostic AND atheist. Not too unusual to be agnostic and theist. They are not esclusive ideas. BTW I would like to know how you can prove her existance philosphically. that is an unsubstantiated claim.
I.
In fairness to Carl Sagan, as far as I'm aware his aphorism "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" was never uttered in the context if religious metaphysical claims. I could be mistaken but If I recall correctly, the phrase originates in the book version of 'Cosmos', and was employed in the context of claims that UFO stories and footage are evidence of extraterrestrial spacecraft.
He argued that although extraterrestrial life was very likely indeed to exist ...
polymath7 1 year ago
II. ...*somewhere* in the universe (and somewhere in the course of this is where I seem to remember him coining his aphorism) he nonetheless argued that there was not a shred of legitimate evidence that we were being or had ever been visited by extraterrestrials, and that furthermore the complete absence of such evidence was indeed good reason to seriously doubt that such visitations had ever taken place.
Sagan when discussing religion was very tactful (and magnificently eloquent)...
polymath7 1 year ago
III.
... and though he used to infuriate me with what my teenage self saw as far too many qualifications like "I wonder if" and "it seems to me", speaking strictly in terms of his epistemology he gave no quarter.
Oh, and Gould was simply a buffoon. The more I learn about that irenic invertebrate the less I respect him. Rationalism lost considerably less than nothing at his passing.
polymath7 1 year ago
@polymath7
"irenic" would
seem somewhat
erronic in this context
serenitatismare 1 year ago
Let's see. Sam Harris would be Pestilence (sometimes "Conquest"), since the bow was associated with Apollo and Diana, who rule over diseases. Hitchens, of course, would be War. Dawkins is Famine, since the scale measures foodstuffs. Dennett is Death, with the pitchfork but usually a scythe, and the bony arms. They got the horses' colors wrong, though. Awesome picture.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
Unfortunate title of the book doesn't spoil its content.
As a non-god-botherer I have no intention of wasting my life proving or disproving the existence of an invisible, all-powerful(?) celestial puppeteer, who exclusively represents the interests of one particular (chosen) group of people be it Jews,Christians,Muslims,Mormons or Scientologists.
History of our civilisation clearly demonstrates that every new,man-made religion is merely a pathetic, usually eclectic parody of its predecessors.
mironowak 1 year ago 5
I read his book "God: The failed hypothesis"
It's very good. I recommend it.
Foreverclever87 1 year ago
Victor Stenger sounds like he's on a handful of Oxycontin right now.
Still a good talk.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
I don't like this"new" prefix...
aTheism just rejects theistic claims. The only thing that is new is now more aTheists speak out more often, and it is becoming more mainsteam. Would Bertand Russel count as a ' new' aTheist? There is nothing new in what aTheism ,claims now. Nothing new, but still true.... probably:-))
SOAS007 1 year ago 13
@SOAS007 I find the prefix acutely irritating, if only because it more or less clearly contains the implication that one must furnish an indefinite supply of fresh reasons to reject ancient middle eastern creation myths, but that the myths themselves really need supply none at all.
This may sound like a straw man, but a skillful cross-examination will almost always reveal that this *is* the position of almost any person who uses "new atheists" in the pejorative.
polymath7 1 year ago
@SOAS007
I might be wrong, but I was reading the transcript of his debate with Fr. Copleston and He considered himself agnostic.
"C: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?
R: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic."
HELLawaitsall59 2 months ago in playlist New Atheism
@HELLawaitsall59 I am an atheist, because I reject all theistic claims. And an agnostic too. There are things I do not know. It is perfectly usual to be agnostic AND atheist. Not too unusual to be agnostic and theist. They are not esclusive ideas. BTW I would like to know how you can prove her existance philosphically. that is an unsubstantiated claim.
SOAS007 2 months ago
: ) That's a rad picture of the 4 of them!
anetchi 1 year ago
@anetchi Hitchens has the sword, I love it!
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago