Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ten Crippled Men on an Island

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 4:48:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men...

Okay, I've got one for you. And you have to play because I've responded :)

You're standing by a railroad track. The switch is within reaching distance. There is a train coming at full speed. On the track that the train is headed towards 100 people are trapped and cannot be rescued before the train hits them and kills them. On the other track one person is trapped and will die if they are hit. What do you do? Do you switch the track so that only one dies or do you just leave it to fate and watch 100 die?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 5:02:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men...

Okay, second scenario.

You're standing on a bridge over a train track. A train is coming at full speed. 100 people are trapped further up on the track and the train is going to hit them unless you do something. There's a very very large man in a wheelchair on the bridge with you. You know for sure that if you push him off the bridge that the train will hit him instead and that his chair and body will create enough drag to stop the train before it kills the 100 people. Would you do it?

;) You have to play.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 5:08:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

This is easily refuted. There is no supernatural claim here, nothing that stretches the limits of credulity. The man was in the tree for the specific purpose of being a look-out. It would be absurd to think that the others would disbelieve him when they had sent him up there for this one specific purpose. Also, unlike the parable there is no mention of this man having a history of crying "wolf".

The man falling out of the tree is clearly irrelevant. Whether he called out from atop the tree or after he fell down and hurt himself, does not alter the scenario of belief/disbelief at all.

Lastly, there is the issue of risk versus reward. What did the others have to lose by believing him? On the one hand they faced imminent and certain death. On the other hand, they may have lost the kindling for their signal fire and have had to regather wood. That equation clearly favours action rather than inaction. Logic would prevail.

Now a theist is probably going to pounce on the above and raise Pascal's Wager. I'm aware of it and it was probably the intent of the OP. Go ahead and I'll be happy to address why the comparison fails.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 5:17:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 5:08:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

This is easily refuted. There is no supernatural claim here, nothing that stretches the limits of credulity. The man was in the tree for the specific purpose of being a look-out. It would be absurd to think that the others would disbelieve him when they had sent him up there for this one specific purpose. Also, unlike the parable there is no mention of this man having a history of crying "wolf".

The man falling out of the tree is clearly irrelevant. Whether he called out from atop the tree or after he fell down and hurt himself, does not alter the scenario of belief/disbelief at all.

Lastly, there is the issue of risk versus reward. What did the others have to lose by believing him? On the one hand they faced imminent and certain death. On the other hand, they may have lost the kindling for their signal fire and have had to regather wood. That equation clearly favours action rather than inaction. Logic would prevail.

Now a theist is probably going to pounce on the above and raise Pascal's Wager. I'm aware of it and it was probably the intent of the OP. Go ahead and I'll be happy to address why the comparison fails.

I was trying to change the subject before it happened.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 5:24:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 5:02:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men...

Okay, second scenario.

You're standing on a bridge over a train track. A train is coming at full speed. 100 people are trapped further up on the track and the train is going to hit them unless you do something. There's a very very large man in a wheelchair on the bridge with you. You know for sure that if you push him off the bridge that the train will hit him instead and that his chair and body will create enough drag to stop the train before it kills the 100 people. Would you do it?

;) You have to play.

Jonah Lehrer's "How We Decide"?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 5:29:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Lol.

The "New Atheists" self-refuting statements, hypocrisy, and fallacies are always hilarious.

Yeah, they have no BOP or claim, other than the claimants claiming that the claim is false, for no claimed reason, logic, or empirical data for support. This is pseudo-skepticism, in which answers are not sought, but rather the answers not liked by the person are attempted to be obscured in order to keep the issue ambiguous and giving self the freedom to decide the correct answer arbitrarily based on whims.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:11:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 5:17:17 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:08:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

This is easily refuted. There is no supernatural claim here, nothing that stretches the limits of credulity. The man was in the tree for the specific purpose of being a look-out. It would be absurd to think that the others would disbelieve him when they had sent him up there for this one specific purpose. Also, unlike the parable there is no mention of this man having a history of crying "wolf".

The man falling out of the tree is clearly irrelevant. Whether he called out from atop the tree or after he fell down and hurt himself, does not alter the scenario of belief/disbelief at all.

Lastly, there is the issue of risk versus reward. What did the others have to lose by believing him? On the one hand they faced imminent and certain death. On the other hand, they may have lost the kindling for their signal fire and have had to regather wood. That equation clearly favours action rather than inaction. Logic would prevail.

Now a theist is probably going to pounce on the above and raise Pascal's Wager. I'm aware of it and it was probably the intent of the OP. Go ahead and I'll be happy to address why the comparison fails.

I was trying to change the subject before it happened.

It's rather obvious, isn't it? But I am unperturbed. Bring on Pascal's Wager one more time because it hasn't been flogged to death yet. :-)
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:18:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

Do you actually consider this an analogy for religious beliefs and salvation? Seriously?

There's nothing extraordinary or supernatural about a ship sailing by an island. The men have absolutely no reason to believe that the lookout would lie, nor do they have any reason to claim that they need evidence to believe that a ship would be sighted sailing nearby. In fact, a ship sailing by would be exactly what they would expect.

Also, if you were stranded on an island you would know the danger you were in. You would be completely aware that if nothing changed, you would die on that island. In typical, everyday situations in regular life, where is this obvious understanding of danger? Where's the sense of impending doom? There isn't any.

This is akin to approaching me in my driveway and telling me my house is on fire and I need to call 911 if I want to save my house. All I'd have to do is turn around and look to see that there was no fire whatsoever. If I wanted to play it safe I could actually walk around and through my house, looking and smelling for smoke, feeling for heat, then I'd check my fire alarms and then conclude that there was no fire at all. You're offering me salvation from a danger that I have absolutely no reason to believe exists.

Let me fix your analogy for you...

I'm living a comfortable life in Hawaii, and you come up to me and tell me that I'm crippled and starving. You tell me that if I don't want to be tortured forever after I die, I need to get on your friend's boat to escape the island. Out of curiosity I ask where your friend and his boat is, and you tell me that they're invisible and I just need to have faith they exist. All I have to do is ask to be taken on board and I'll have a spot on the boat when the world ends.

I make further inquiries... You explain that you have a collection of ancient books written over a thousand years ago by anonymous authors that says your friend and his boat are real. You tell me that I deserve to be tortured after I die because I'm crippled and starving, but I don't have to. All I have to do is believe in your invisible friend and his boat. The real kicker is that you tell me that the guy who made the boat also made me. In fact, he's the one who made me crippled and starving in the first place, and he's the one who's going to have me tortured for being crippled and starving, unless I accept his offer.

So I ask you, "So let me get this straight, the boat maker is offering me a ride on his boat to save me from being tortured because I'm crippled and starving, even though he's the one that made me crippled and starving, just to save me from a torture chamber that he built in the first place."

"Yes," you say with zeal, thinking that you've gotten through to me and secured another soul for your friend's boat, "all you have to do is believe! If you don't believe, you can't get on the boat, and since my friend can't be in the presence of cripples and starving people, you have to go to the torture chamber."

At this point I decide to look for signs of intoxication and when I find none, I determine that you are either brainwashed or mentally unstable and politely say, "Well, thanks for the offer, but I should get going..." I then slowly walk away not turning my back on you until I feel safely out of range.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:22:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 5:08:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

This is easily refuted. There is no supernatural claim here, nothing that stretches the limits of credulity. The man was in the tree for the specific purpose of being a look-out. It would be absurd to think that the others would disbelieve him when they had sent him up there for this one specific purpose. Also, unlike the parable there is no mention of this man having a history of crying "wolf".

Okay, let's say that the man was a compulsive liar.

The man falling out of the tree is clearly irrelevant. Whether he called out from atop the tree or after he fell down and hurt himself, does not alter the scenario of belief/disbelief at all.

Lastly, there is the issue of risk versus reward. What did the others have to lose by believing him? On the one hand they faced imminent and certain death. On the other hand, they may have lost the kindling for their signal fire and have had to regather wood. That equation clearly favours action rather than inaction. Logic would prevail.

Let's say that if he was lying and they lit the signal fire they'd have to spend another 5 hours collecting firewood.

Now a theist is probably going to pounce on the above and raise Pascal's Wager. I'm aware of it and it was probably the intent of the OP. Go ahead and I'll be happy to address why the comparison fails.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:23:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:18:37 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

Do you actually consider this an analogy for religious beliefs and salvation? Seriously?

There's nothing extraordinary or supernatural about a ship sailing by an island. The men have absolutely no reason to believe that the lookout would lie, nor do they have any reason to claim that they need evidence to believe that a ship would be sighted sailing nearby. In fact, a ship sailing by would be exactly what they would expect.

Also, if you were stranded on an island you would know the danger you were in. You would be completely aware that if nothing changed, you would die on that island. In typical, everyday situations in regular life, where is this obvious understanding of danger? Where's the sense of impending doom? There isn't any.

This is akin to approaching me in my driveway and telling me my house is on fire and I need to call 911 if I want to save my house. All I'd have to do is turn around and look to see that there was no fire whatsoever. If I wanted to play it safe I could actually walk around and through my house, looking and smelling for smoke, feeling for heat, then I'd check my fire alarms and then conclude that there was no fire at all. You're offering me salvation from a danger that I have absolutely no reason to believe exists.

Let me fix your analogy for you...

I'm living a comfortable life in Hawaii, and you come up to me and tell me that I'm crippled and starving. You tell me that if I don't want to be tortured forever after I die, I need to get on your friend's boat to escape the island. Out of curiosity I ask where your friend and his boat is, and you tell me that they're invisible and I just need to have faith they exist. All I have to do is ask to be taken on board and I'll have a spot on the boat when the world ends.

I make further inquiries... You explain that you have a collection of ancient books written over a thousand years ago by anonymous authors that says your friend and his boat are real. You tell me that I deserve to be tortured after I die because I'm crippled and starving, but I don't have to. All I have to do is believe in your invisible friend and his boat. The real kicker is that you tell me that the guy who made the boat also made me. In fact, he's the one who made me crippled and starving in the first place, and he's the one who's going to have me tortured for being crippled and starving, unless I accept his offer.

So I ask you, "So let me get this straight, the boat maker is offering me a ride on his boat to save me from being tortured because I'm crippled and starving, even though he's the one that made me crippled and starving, just to save me from a torture chamber that he built in the first place."

"Yes," you say with zeal, thinking that you've gotten through to me and secured another soul for your friend's boat, "all you have to do is believe! If you don't believe, you can't get on the boat, and since my friend can't be in the presence of cripples and starving people, you have to go to the torture chamber."

At this point I decide to look for signs of intoxication and when I find none, I determine that you are either brainwashed or mentally unstable and politely say, "Well, thanks for the offer, but I should get going..." I then slowly walk away not turning my back on you until I feel safely out of range.

The point was to raise a scenario where zero evidence for his claim could be found, yet it was true regardless, and there were consequences for not believing him.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:36:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:22:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:08:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

This is easily refuted. There is no supernatural claim here, nothing that stretches the limits of credulity. The man was in the tree for the specific purpose of being a look-out. It would be absurd to think that the others would disbelieve him when they had sent him up there for this one specific purpose. Also, unlike the parable there is no mention of this man having a history of crying "wolf".

Okay, let's say that the man was a compulsive liar.

Now you've changed the story. They would be fools to send up a compulsive liar, wouldn't they?

The man falling out of the tree is clearly irrelevant. Whether he called out from atop the tree or after he fell down and hurt himself, does not alter the scenario of belief/disbelief at all.

Lastly, there is the issue of risk versus reward. What did the others have to lose by believing him? On the one hand they faced imminent and certain death. On the other hand, they may have lost the kindling for their signal fire and have had to regather wood. That equation clearly favours action rather than inaction. Logic would prevail.

Let's say that if he was lying and they lit the signal fire they'd have to spend another 5 hours collecting firewood.

Still worth the reward (rescue and survival) for such a small risk (having possibly 5 hours of unnecessary work).

Even with these changes to the story, nothing has really changed. If the man is a liar, is your analogy then based on religionists being liars? I don't know where you are going with this.

Now a theist is probably going to pounce on the above and raise Pascal's Wager. I'm aware of it and it was probably the intent of the OP. Go ahead and I'll be happy to address why the comparison fails.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:38:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:36:45 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:22:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:08:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

This is easily refuted. There is no supernatural claim here, nothing that stretches the limits of credulity. The man was in the tree for the specific purpose of being a look-out. It would be absurd to think that the others would disbelieve him when they had sent him up there for this one specific purpose. Also, unlike the parable there is no mention of this man having a history of crying "wolf".

Okay, let's say that the man was a compulsive liar.

Now you've changed the story. They would be fools to send up a compulsive liar, wouldn't they?

The man falling out of the tree is clearly irrelevant. Whether he called out from atop the tree or after he fell down and hurt himself, does not alter the scenario of belief/disbelief at all.

Lastly, there is the issue of risk versus reward. What did the others have to lose by believing him? On the one hand they faced imminent and certain death. On the other hand, they may have lost the kindling for their signal fire and have had to regather wood. That equation clearly favours action rather than inaction. Logic would prevail.

Let's say that if he was lying and they lit the signal fire they'd have to spend another 5 hours collecting firewood.

Still worth the reward (rescue and survival) for such a small risk (having possibly 5 hours of unnecessary work).

Even with these changes to the story, nothing has really changed. If the man is a liar, is your analogy then based on religionists being liars? I don't know where you are going with this.

Now a theist is probably going to pounce on the above and raise Pascal's Wager. I'm aware of it and it was probably the intent of the OP. Go ahead and I'll be happy to address why the comparison fails.

I am raising a scenario where there is 0% proof to back up the man's claim. However, if he is telling the truth, then the reward for taking heed to his claim makes the difference between life and death.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:52:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:38:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:36:45 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:22:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:08:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

This is easily refuted. There is no supernatural claim here, nothing that stretches the limits of credulity. The man was in the tree for the specific purpose of being a look-out. It would be absurd to think that the others would disbelieve him when they had sent him up there for this one specific purpose. Also, unlike the parable there is no mention of this man having a history of crying "wolf".

Okay, let's say that the man was a compulsive liar.

Now you've changed the story. They would be fools to send up a compulsive liar, wouldn't they?

The man falling out of the tree is clearly irrelevant. Whether he called out from atop the tree or after he fell down and hurt himself, does not alter the scenario of belief/disbelief at all.

Lastly, there is the issue of risk versus reward. What did the others have to lose by believing him? On the one hand they faced imminent and certain death. On the other hand, they may have lost the kindling for their signal fire and have had to regather wood. That equation clearly favours action rather than inaction. Logic would prevail.

Let's say that if he was lying and they lit the signal fire they'd have to spend another 5 hours collecting firewood.

Still worth the reward (rescue and survival) for such a small risk (having possibly 5 hours of unnecessary work).

Even with these changes to the story, nothing has really changed. If the man is a liar, is your analogy then based on religionists being liars? I don't know where you are going with this.

Now a theist is probably going to pounce on the above and raise Pascal's Wager. I'm aware of it and it was probably the intent of the OP. Go ahead and I'll be happy to address why the comparison fails.

I am raising a scenario where there is 0% proof to back up the man's claim. However, if he is telling the truth, then the reward for taking heed to his claim makes the difference between life and death.

The scenario would never play out that way. The man in the tree sees the ship. The 9 others are as desperate as he is to be saved. They light the fire and hopefully the ship sees the distress signal and they are rescued. The end.

Point: No one can be saved unless they want to be.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:58:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:38:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:36:45 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:22:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:08:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

This is easily refuted. There is no supernatural claim here, nothing that stretches the limits of credulity. The man was in the tree for the specific purpose of being a look-out. It would be absurd to think that the others would disbelieve him when they had sent him up there for this one specific purpose. Also, unlike the parable there is no mention of this man having a history of crying "wolf".

Okay, let's say that the man was a compulsive liar.

Now you've changed the story. They would be fools to send up a compulsive liar, wouldn't they?

The man falling out of the tree is clearly irrelevant. Whether he called out from atop the tree or after he fell down and hurt himself, does not alter the scenario of belief/disbelief at all.

Lastly, there is the issue of risk versus reward. What did the others have to lose by believing him? On the one hand they faced imminent and certain death. On the other hand, they may have lost the kindling for their signal fire and have had to regather wood. That equation clearly favours action rather than inaction. Logic would prevail.

Let's say that if he was lying and they lit the signal fire they'd have to spend another 5 hours collecting firewood.

Still worth the reward (rescue and survival) for such a small risk (having possibly 5 hours of unnecessary work).

Even with these changes to the story, nothing has really changed. If the man is a liar, is your analogy then based on religionists being liars? I don't know where you are going with this.

Now a theist is probably going to pounce on the above and raise Pascal's Wager. I'm aware of it and it was probably the intent of the OP. Go ahead and I'll be happy to address why the comparison fails.

I am raising a scenario where there is 0% proof to back up the man's claim. However, if he is telling the truth, then the reward for taking heed to his claim makes the difference between life and death.

You need to understand that the claim the man was making is relatively mundane in the context of your story. Skeptics don't require evidence for mundane claims, especially when there are high stakes in play. The man calling out "I see a ship" is not just a simple claim, it was hopefully anticipated by the others below. Extraordinary claims on the other hand require extraordinary evidence. If the man had called out "I see a man walking on the water towards us" then skepticism would have prevailed. Do you see the difference? The scenario you have painted would never happen in real life because of this distinction. I'm sure you know that.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:59:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:52:36 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:38:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:36:45 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:22:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:08:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

This is easily refuted. There is no supernatural claim here, nothing that stretches the limits of credulity. The man was in the tree for the specific purpose of being a look-out. It would be absurd to think that the others would disbelieve him when they had sent him up there for this one specific purpose. Also, unlike the parable there is no mention of this man having a history of crying "wolf".

Okay, let's say that the man was a compulsive liar.

Now you've changed the story. They would be fools to send up a compulsive liar, wouldn't they?

The man falling out of the tree is clearly irrelevant. Whether he called out from atop the tree or after he fell down and hurt himself, does not alter the scenario of belief/disbelief at all.

Lastly, there is the issue of risk versus reward. What did the others have to lose by believing him? On the one hand they faced imminent and certain death. On the other hand, they may have lost the kindling for their signal fire and have had to regather wood. That equation clearly favours action rather than inaction. Logic would prevail.

Let's say that if he was lying and they lit the signal fire they'd have to spend another 5 hours collecting firewood.

Still worth the reward (rescue and survival) for such a small risk (having possibly 5 hours of unnecessary work).

Even with these changes to the story, nothing has really changed. If the man is a liar, is your analogy then based on religionists being liars? I don't know where you are going with this.

Now a theist is probably going to pounce on the above and raise Pascal's Wager. I'm aware of it and it was probably the intent of the OP. Go ahead and I'll be happy to address why the comparison fails.

I am raising a scenario where there is 0% proof to back up the man's claim. However, if he is telling the truth, then the reward for taking heed to his claim makes the difference between life and death.

The scenario would never play out that way. The man in the tree sees the ship. The 9 others are as desperate as he is to be saved. They light the fire and hopefully the ship sees the distress signal and they are rescued. The end.

Point: No one can be saved unless they want to be.

The only difference between the island and the people of the world today is that on the island one can clearly recognize the need for someone to save them.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 9:13:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:59:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:52:36 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:38:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:36:45 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:22:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:08:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

This is easily refuted. There is no supernatural claim here, nothing that stretches the limits of credulity. The man was in the tree for the specific purpose of being a look-out. It would be absurd to think that the others would disbelieve him when they had sent him up there for this one specific purpose. Also, unlike the parable there is no mention of this man having a history of crying "wolf".

Okay, let's say that the man was a compulsive liar.

Now you've changed the story. They would be fools to send up a compulsive liar, wouldn't they?

The man falling out of the tree is clearly irrelevant. Whether he called out from atop the tree or after he fell down and hurt himself, does not alter the scenario of belief/disbelief at all.

Lastly, there is the issue of risk versus reward. What did the others have to lose by believing him? On the one hand they faced imminent and certain death. On the other hand, they may have lost the kindling for their signal fire and have had to regather wood. That equation clearly favours action rather than inaction. Logic would prevail.

Let's say that if he was lying and they lit the signal fire they'd have to spend another 5 hours collecting firewood.

Still worth the reward (rescue and survival) for such a small risk (having possibly 5 hours of unnecessary work).

Even with these changes to the story, nothing has really changed. If the man is a liar, is your analogy then based on religionists being liars? I don't know where you are going with this.

Now a theist is probably going to pounce on the above and raise Pascal's Wager. I'm aware of it and it was probably the intent of the OP. Go ahead and I'll be happy to address why the comparison fails.

I am raising a scenario where there is 0% proof to back up the man's claim. However, if he is telling the truth, then the reward for taking heed to his claim makes the difference between life and death.

The scenario would never play out that way. The man in the tree sees the ship. The 9 others are as desperate as he is to be saved. They light the fire and hopefully the ship sees the distress signal and they are rescued. The end.

Point: No one can be saved unless they want to be.

The only difference between the island and the people of the world today is that on the island one can clearly recognize the need for someone to save them.

I understand what you are saying. However, people must be desperate enough or simply want to reach out and light a signal that would welcome someone to help them. The 9 men were obviously not desperate enough. Maybe they already had what they needed to survive. But the one man did not.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 9:31:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree that the scenario is not a good analog for belief in God.

- Instead of climbing the tree, the man should meditate in a cave where he can't see out to the ocean or sky.

- Instead of a ship he should claim to see a giant flying camel headed toward the island.

- And he should implore the other men to kill a sacrificial seal on the beach, wash themselves in fish blood, and open their hearts to the flying camel as a means of securing rescue.

Now you have a parallel to religion.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 9:47:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 9:31:58 PM, Beastt wrote:
I agree that the scenario is not a good analog for belief in God.

- Instead of climbing the tree, the man should meditate in a cave where he can't see out to the ocean or sky.

- Instead of a ship he should claim to see a giant flying camel headed toward the island.

- And he should implore the other men to kill a sacrificial seal on the beach, wash themselves in fish blood, and open their hearts to the flying camel as a means of securing rescue.

Now you have a parallel to religion.

Amen.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 9:53:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 4:48:01 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men...

Okay, I've got one for you. And you have to play because I've responded :)

You're standing by a railroad track. The switch is within reaching distance. There is a train coming at full speed. On the track that the train is headed towards 100 people are trapped and cannot be rescued before the train hits them and kills them. On the other track one person is trapped and will die if they are hit. What do you do? Do you switch the track so that only one dies or do you just leave it to fate and watch 100 die?

Switch it.

Unless I know the one guy, then maybe not.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 10:00:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 5:02:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men...

Okay, second scenario.

You're standing on a bridge over a train track. A train is coming at full speed. 100 people are trapped further up on the track and the train is going to hit them unless you do something. There's a very very large man in a wheelchair on the bridge with you. You know for sure that if you push him off the bridge that the train will hit him instead and that his chair and body will create enough drag to stop the train before it kills the 100 people. Would you do it?

;) You have to play.

lol, the reality of the situation would be that if the guy would stop the train other things might....

but yeah, if it was a sure thing, and the only possible thing, maybe I'd push the guy If I didn't know him.

Also, it would depend... if it was a kid in a wheelchair, I probably wouldn't do it
For more Selfish reasons.. It's sucky to think about a whole bunch of people dying, but throwing the kid in the wheelchair in front of the train is rather not a nice thing to have to think about... I might be more likely to jump myself than throw the kid... But It's definitely possible that I'd just do neither of those things, and Without the possibility that other actions would stop the train, the train would hit the people. :/
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 10:03:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 10:00:23 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:02:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men...

Okay, second scenario.

You're standing on a bridge over a train track. A train is coming at full speed. 100 people are trapped further up on the track and the train is going to hit them unless you do something. There's a very very large man in a wheelchair on the bridge with you. You know for sure that if you push him off the bridge that the train will hit him instead and that his chair and body will create enough drag to stop the train before it kills the 100 people. Would you do it?

;) You have to play.

lol, the reality of the situation would be that if the guy would stop the train other things might....

but yeah, if it was a sure thing, and the only possible thing, maybe I'd push the guy If I didn't know him.

Also, it would depend... if it was a kid in a wheelchair, I probably wouldn't do it
For more Selfish reasons.. It's sucky to think about a whole bunch of people dying, but throwing the kid in the wheelchair in front of the train is rather not a nice thing to have to think about... I might be more likely to jump myself than throw the kid... But It's definitely possible that I'd just do neither of those things, and Without the possibility that other actions would stop the train, the train would hit the people. :/

It's good to know you aren't a psychopath =)
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 10:14:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 4:48:01 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men...

Okay, I've got one for you. And you have to play because I've responded :)

You're standing by a railroad track. The switch is within reaching distance. There is a train coming at full speed. On the track that the train is headed towards 100 people are trapped and cannot be rescued before the train hits them and kills them. On the other track one person is trapped and will die if they are hit. What do you do? Do you switch the track so that only one dies or do you just leave it to fate and watch 100 die?

Leave it to fate? It's not fate if it can be changed. And in the immortal words of Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or in this case the one." I'm sure someone else said it before him, but he added "or in this case the one," which is a perfect fit. :)
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 10:18:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 5:02:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men...

Okay, second scenario.

You're standing on a bridge over a train track. A train is coming at full speed. 100 people are trapped further up on the track and the train is going to hit them unless you do something. There's a very very large man in a wheelchair on the bridge with you. You know for sure that if you push him off the bridge that the train will hit him instead and that his chair and body will create enough drag to stop the train before it kills the 100 people. Would you do it?

;) You have to play.

You should ask this question to Jack Bauer, lol. The truth is that if they were all strangers the average person might push the crippled man over, but if the crippled man was their father or something then it wouldn't even enter their mind. Thought-games are challenging on paper, but reality often leaves little room for thought.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 10:20:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 10:14:16 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:48:01 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men...

Okay, I've got one for you. And you have to play because I've responded :)

You're standing by a railroad track. The switch is within reaching distance. There is a train coming at full speed. On the track that the train is headed towards 100 people are trapped and cannot be rescued before the train hits them and kills them. On the other track one person is trapped and will die if they are hit. What do you do? Do you switch the track so that only one dies or do you just leave it to fate and watch 100 die?

Leave it to fate? It's not fate if it can be changed. And in the immortal words of Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or in this case the one." I'm sure someone else said it before him, but he added "or in this case the one," which is a perfect fit. :)

I would switch it. And then feel rotten for the rest of my life and hope that one person wasn't going to find the cure to cancer and that I didn't just ruin it for everyone.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
UchihaMadara
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 10:23:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

That analogy has its flaws, but it was still pretty damn hilarious XD
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 10:25:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:11:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:17:17 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:08:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

This is easily refuted. There is no supernatural claim here, nothing that stretches the limits of credulity. The man was in the tree for the specific purpose of being a look-out. It would be absurd to think that the others would disbelieve him when they had sent him up there for this one specific purpose. Also, unlike the parable there is no mention of this man having a history of crying "wolf".

Sure there would be. Who trusts strangers without question? And if there was only enough wood for one fire you would want to be sure he hadn't seen a whale or something, right?

The man falling out of the tree is clearly irrelevant. Whether he called out from atop the tree or after he fell down and hurt himself, does not alter the scenario of belief/disbelief at all.

It's not irrelevant. If he were still in the tree you could ask him to look again, and again, likely for several times. If he had fallen out you would have to trust on a single glimpse which would likely cause in him an excited state, and we tend to question excited people.

Lastly, there is the issue of risk versus reward. What did the others have to lose by believing him? On the one hand they faced imminent and certain death. On the other hand, they may have lost the kindling for their signal fire and have had to regather wood. That equation clearly favours action rather than inaction. Logic would prevail.

Now a theist is probably going to pounce on the above and raise Pascal's Wager. I'm aware of it and it was probably the intent of the OP. Go ahead and I'll be happy to address why the comparison fails.

I was trying to change the subject before it happened.

It's rather obvious, isn't it? But I am unperturbed. Bring on Pascal's Wager one more time because it hasn't been flogged to death yet. :-)

I don't see where it's necessary to invoke Pascal's wager. It's just what it is.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 10:27:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 10:20:01 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 10:14:16 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:48:01 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men...

Okay, I've got one for you. And you have to play because I've responded :)

You're standing by a railroad track. The switch is within reaching distance. There is a train coming at full speed. On the track that the train is headed towards 100 people are trapped and cannot be rescued before the train hits them and kills them. On the other track one person is trapped and will die if they are hit. What do you do? Do you switch the track so that only one dies or do you just leave it to fate and watch 100 die?

Leave it to fate? It's not fate if it can be changed. And in the immortal words of Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or in this case the one." I'm sure someone else said it before him, but he added "or in this case the one," which is a perfect fit. :)

I would switch it. And then feel rotten for the rest of my life and hope that one person wasn't going to find the cure to cancer and that I didn't just ruin it for everyone.

Me, too. :P
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 12:27:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:23:51 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:18:37 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

Do you actually consider this an analogy for religious beliefs and salvation? Seriously?

There's nothing extraordinary or supernatural about a ship sailing by an island. The men have absolutely no reason to believe that the lookout would lie, nor do they have any reason to claim that they need evidence to believe that a ship would be sighted sailing nearby. In fact, a ship sailing by would be exactly what they would expect.

Also, if you were stranded on an island you would know the danger you were in. You would be completely aware that if nothing changed, you would die on that island. In typical, everyday situations in regular life, where is this obvious understanding of danger? Where's the sense of impending doom? There isn't any.

This is akin to approaching me in my driveway and telling me my house is on fire and I need to call 911 if I want to save my house. All I'd have to do is turn around and look to see that there was no fire whatsoever. If I wanted to play it safe I could actually walk around and through my house, looking and smelling for smoke, feeling for heat, then I'd check my fire alarms and then conclude that there was no fire at all. You're offering me salvation from a danger that I have absolutely no reason to believe exists.

Let me fix your analogy for you...

I'm living a comfortable life in Hawaii, and you come up to me and tell me that I'm crippled and starving. You tell me that if I don't want to be tortured forever after I die, I need to get on your friend's boat to escape the island. Out of curiosity I ask where your friend and his boat is, and you tell me that they're invisible and I just need to have faith they exist. All I have to do is ask to be taken on board and I'll have a spot on the boat when the world ends.

I make further inquiries... You explain that you have a collection of ancient books written over a thousand years ago by anonymous authors that says your friend and his boat are real. You tell me that I deserve to be tortured after I die because I'm crippled and starving, but I don't have to. All I have to do is believe in your invisible friend and his boat. The real kicker is that you tell me that the guy who made the boat also made me. In fact, he's the one who made me crippled and starving in the first place, and he's the one who's going to have me tortured for being crippled and starving, unless I accept his offer.

So I ask you, "So let me get this straight, the boat maker is offering me a ride on his boat to save me from being tortured because I'm crippled and starving, even though he's the one that made me crippled and starving, just to save me from a torture chamber that he built in the first place."

"Yes," you say with zeal, thinking that you've gotten through to me and secured another soul for your friend's boat, "all you have to do is believe! If you don't believe, you can't get on the boat, and since my friend can't be in the presence of cripples and starving people, you have to go to the torture chamber."

At this point I decide to look for signs of intoxication and when I find none, I determine that you are either brainwashed or mentally unstable and politely say, "Well, thanks for the offer, but I should get going..." I then slowly walk away not turning my back on you until I feel safely out of range.

The point was to raise a scenario where zero evidence for his claim could be found, yet it was true regardless, and there were consequences for not believing him.

Well, thanks for responding to what I said. But let's get to the heart of the matter here... Can something still be true even if the claimant can't provide evidence? Sure. Just because you can't prove something exists doesn't mean it doesn't. That's why most atheists are agnostic.

But if there is no evidence whatsoever, and on top of that the claim is extraordinary and goes completely against everything we know about the world, then it makes perfect sense to reject the claim.

You're basically saying, "Hey it could be true! You don't know everything!" and then folding your arms like that should make us rethink our positions.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 4:16:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 10:25:54 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:11:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:17:17 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:08:48 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Ten men were trapped on an island. They took shifts where one guy would be up in a tree and serve as a lookout for incoming ships, so that they may find one and have the ship rescue them.
One day, the man saw a ship. Losing his balance because his legs were weak, he fell out of the tree.
"There's a ship!" He announced. "Let's start a signal fire so that they'll see it and investigate!"
"Prove it," they said.
"I can't," the cripple said. "By the time one of you can get into the tree to confirm what I've said, the ship will be long gone. If we head on down to the beach to confirm what I've said, by the way we get there, the ship will be gone. You guys just have to take my word for it and start the signal fire!"
"Sorry man," one of them said. "Because of a lack of empirical evidence for your claim, in which the BOP is clearly on you and not me, for I'm simply questioning your claim, there's no reason to believe you and therefore we will not believe you."

Thus, they failed to be rescued and they all died of thirst.

This is easily refuted. There is no supernatural claim here, nothing that stretches the limits of credulity. The man was in the tree for the specific purpose of being a look-out. It would be absurd to think that the others would disbelieve him when they had sent him up there for this one specific purpose. Also, unlike the parable there is no mention of this man having a history of crying "wolf".

Sure there would be. Who trusts strangers without question? And if there was only enough wood for one fire you would want to be sure he hadn't seen a whale or something, right?

Where in the story does it say they are strangers? Also, V-V has already verified that there is more wood.

The man falling out of the tree is clearly irrelevant. Whether he called out from atop the tree or after he fell down and hurt himself, does not alter the scenario of belief/disbelief at all.

It's not irrelevant. If he were still in the tree you could ask him to look again, and again, likely for several times. If he had fallen out you would have to trust on a single glimpse which would likely cause in him an excited state, and we tend to question excited people.

Well, you may havd a point there but if they were (in the original version) asking him to prove he had seen a ship, simply repeating that he sees a ship doesn't constitute proof that would satisfy them.

Lastly, there is the issue of risk versus reward. What did the others have to lose by believing him? On the one hand they faced imminent and certain death. On the other hand, they may have lost the kindling for their signal fire and have had to regather wood. That equation clearly favours action rather than inaction. Logic would prevail.

Now a theist is probably going to pounce on the above and raise Pascal's Wager. I'm aware of it and it was probably the intent of the OP. Go ahead and I'll be happy to address why the comparison fails.

I was trying to change the subject before it happened.

It's rather obvious, isn't it? But I am unperturbed. Bring on Pascal's Wager one more time because it hasn't been flogged to death yet. :-)

I don't see where it's necessary to invoke Pascal's wager. It's just what it is.

He already has, implicitly.