Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Road crosses ruled unconstitutional. Chicken inconsolable   (cnn.com) divider line 641
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

19680 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2010 at 8:15 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



641 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-19 07:15:16 PM  
Kazan: ace in your face: 1. I have an education. I just don't believe what you do. Typical militant atheist to think "well this person just isn't as smart as me".

actually i don't seriously believe that assertion, it was merely an example of how assertions like the one you made and i made in reply are stupid meaningless bullshiat that distract from the topic at hand.

you've been going on about "militant atheists" all thread. that's a smear that we've been ignoring.

you're committing the fallacy of poisoning the well.

ace in your face: 2.No. You have assigned me that premise because it fits with your strawman.

no, i have deduced that premise from your statements as it is the most accurate premise to describe your assertion that "it's a dick move to tell someone they're wrong".

ace in your face: 3.Religion has nothing to do with logic or critical thinking. Neither does atheism. They are BOTH entirely feelings based. Apparently that hurts yours.

right, wrong, wrong, wrong.

that would be:
religion has nothing to do with logic or critical thinking: True
neither does atheism: false
They are BOTH entirely feelings based: false
Apparently that hurt yours: false.


There is no equivalency between "I believe X, without evidence" and "I do not believe X, because there is no evidence for it".

I've been being very patient, and very nice up to this point. and i'm tired of hand holding. I'm going to call you on every logical fallacy you commit. Right here you're constructing a false equivalence, an appeal to emotion, and an argument from false premises. You've been committing poisoning the well from the Boobies you made (that's a form of argument ad hominem).

If you would like to start discussing this in an adult manner, please do so. Otherwise you're wasting our time.


You are going back to the position of agnostic atheism which is "there is no evidence so I don't believe it" rather than pay attention to the fact I am arguing against militant atheism which is "god does not exist". If you want to be childish and throw logical fallacies at eachother then you better be prepared for your own, strawman.

/Ad hominem, Ad hominem tu quoque/appeal to authority/appeal to common practice/appeal to popularity/appeal to ridicule/Red herring/ etc seriously need I go on?
 
2010-08-19 07:16:32 PM  
flyarmy: Kazan: erg. there is an even larger difference between intolerance and disagreement.

I am totally cool with disagreement, we are on the same page there and that is not my issue.

My issue is with the evangelical atheists spouting hate at those who don't agree with them. I love pleasant debate. I don't like people putting down the beliefs of others because they think everything they believe is the supreme truth (only because they themselves believe it). That is the kind of attitude that fuels religious wars, it's just that atheists don't have a church at which to rally them and all their unnecessary contempt towards those who believe different than them.


Good effin lord this.
 
2010-08-19 07:24:55 PM  
flyarmy: g4lt: Seriously, how are atheists militant? Did they invite you to be Guest of Honor at an _Auto da Fe_? Compared to xtians, atheists have MAJOR way to go to be called militant. Xtians have hundreds of wars to their credit, including three with actual combat today alone. When's the last war you heard of for atheism? Xtians are the militant ones, not atheists.

Obviously you've never argued with an evangelical atheist (not on the premise that Christianity is true, just that they can't prove it isn't). They are just as militant as extremist Christians. Their smug arrogance and inability to do anything other than tell you your wrong and that they have facts that they can't articulate into anything more than repeatedly saying that the Bible is fiction and saying you believe in leprechauns (which makes less sense than real Christianity) will overwhelm them into an ignorance induced violent rage.


Just as obviously, I've never argued with an inquisitor or crusader. I'm still alive, and people that argue with them don't live. Show me ONE xtian tortured and burned to death by an atheist.
 
2010-08-19 07:28:31 PM  
pwhp_67: Porgi: One doesn't believe in a god, the other does.


One doesn't make laws regulating your behavior based on what someone thought was moral 10,000 years ago, the other does.

If there's an atheist movement now ("in your face" or not) it's because laws regarding civil rights for gays, minorities, and women as well as laws that prohibit behavior (such as sodomy laws) and many other things are based on one particular religion. And we've had enough of it.

We've gotten to the point now where politicians have to feign a belief in god or they can't run for office. The last presidential election had four or five Republican candidates who publicly stated during a televised debate that they don't believe in evolution because they were scared shiatless of losing the Bible Belt and the South. We have schools trying to "teach the controversy" without a shred of science to back up their claims. We have school districts with insane levels of AIDS and teen pregnancies that can't teach sex education because it offends Christians.

At some point we are going to have to make a choice regarding what role religion plays in this society and how much influence it is going to be allowed to have.

This isn't intolerance as ace thinks it is; though it is intolerance to willful ignorance...


Well, at least things are now more geared to a discussion. I think Ace is relieved...

In some sense, I do agree with your statement. We have come to realize that religions have made numerous mistakes over time. But I want to caution that these mistakes reflect upon what we know as a society now versus what society knew in the past. You indicated that one religion in particular and their theories have led people to prevent changing what should be considered right. You mentioned the civil rights movement for gays, etc. And I think you are stating that it is religion that is at fault for this, and I disagree there. Religion may have had some infulence, but it was people, from all different religions, some without religions, who have prevented this evolution that you crave now. Politicians do sometimes feign what they believe in for gain, this is true. But that is certainly not religion's fault. That is the person who exploits the issue.

There are other problems that deal with the religion's ideology, such as the teenage sex issue like you mentioned. But that doesn't mean that the religion as a whole should be attacked. Just because there is controversy between problems of ideological issues, does not mean that believing in a god should be criticized. Even if we all turned atheist right now, we would still have many problems.
 
2010-08-19 07:31:48 PM  
g4lt: flyarmy: g4lt: Seriously, how are atheists militant? Did they invite you to be Guest of Honor at an _Auto da Fe_? Compared to xtians, atheists have MAJOR way to go to be called militant. Xtians have hundreds of wars to their credit, including three with actual combat today alone. When's the last war you heard of for atheism? Xtians are the militant ones, not atheists.

Obviously you've never argued with an evangelical atheist (not on the premise that Christianity is true, just that they can't prove it isn't). They are just as militant as extremist Christians. Their smug arrogance and inability to do anything other than tell you your wrong and that they have facts that they can't articulate into anything more than repeatedly saying that the Bible is fiction and saying you believe in leprechauns (which makes less sense than real Christianity) will overwhelm them into an ignorance induced violent rage.

Just as obviously, I've never argued with an inquisitor or crusader. I'm still alive, and people that argue with them don't live. Show me ONE xtian tortured and burned to death by an atheist.


A militant Christian would simply tell you "every aborted baby". Seriously. Both crazy atheists who think Christianity=crusaders and crazy christians who believe atheists are evil can play that game. Both sides are retarded. But like Flyarmy said, at least one side will eventually just write you off as going to hell.
 
2010-08-19 07:36:14 PM  
g4lt: flyarmy: g4lt: Seriously, how are atheists militant? Did they invite you to be Guest of Honor at an _Auto da Fe_? Compared to xtians, atheists have MAJOR way to go to be called militant. Xtians have hundreds of wars to their credit, including three with actual combat today alone. When's the last war you heard of for atheism? Xtians are the militant ones, not atheists.

Obviously you've never argued with an evangelical atheist (not on the premise that Christianity is true, just that they can't prove it isn't). They are just as militant as extremist Christians. Their smug arrogance and inability to do anything other than tell you your wrong and that they have facts that they can't articulate into anything more than repeatedly saying that the Bible is fiction and saying you believe in leprechauns (which makes less sense than real Christianity) will overwhelm them into an ignorance induced violent rage.

Just as obviously, I've never argued with an inquisitor or crusader. I'm still alive, and people that argue with them don't live. Show me ONE xtian tortured and burned to death by an atheist.


Ps. Lenin Marx and Mao have killed millions of people. Does it mean all atheists do it? Of course not. But all theists don't bomb abortion clinics and start crusades either.
 
2010-08-19 07:37:01 PM  
Because Christians were physically violent a long time ago somehow negates the arrogant militant proselytizing harassment done by evangelical atheists everyday in America? Trying to prove one side is more wrong doesn't negate the fact that they are both wrong and unacceptable. Your argument has the feel of a 4 year old saying "But he's more wrong" or "But he started it". It seems as though you may have missed the whole point of what I am saying and are continuing with the same rhetoric.
 
2010-08-19 07:38:31 PM  
ace in your face you are fighting a losing battle. Anytime you make a reasonable comment you will be met with "you believe in magic, everything you say is per se invalid" or "help we are oppressed.jpg" or any other variation. I hear the same baseless arguments from /b/tards over and over again. It's always "I don't believe in anything, I know because science has proven that God doesn't exist" and other statements used in refutation when ordinary logic fails.

Trolls will be trolls.

If you want rational discourse on theism or other intellectual topics, I suggest refraining from using Fark as a conduit to these discussions. It only leads to more migraines.
 
2010-08-19 08:24:58 PM  
ace in your face: I am arguing against militant atheism which is "god does not exist".

Do you understand the meaning of the word "militant?" Here's a cartoon to help:

t1.gstatic.com

The word "militant" is applied to outspoken atheists in order to categorize them as irrational and violent. From the wiki:

The term militant atheist is often used pejoratively by theists to describe people believed to campaign actively or outspokenly for atheism and against religion. Catherine Fahringer of the Freedom From Religion Foundation suggested that the label militant was often routinely applied to atheist for no good reason-"very much as was the adjective 'damn' attached to the noun 'Yankee' during the Civil War."[7]
The linguist Larry Trask suggests that the word militant "is used all too freely in the feebler sense of 'holding or expressing views which are unpopular or which I don't like'." He notes that Richard Dawkins is "accused by tabloid newspapers and other commentators of being a 'militant atheist'", although, according to Trask, the adjective is never used of Christian activity. Trask concludes, "if you find yourself writing this word, stop and think whether it has any clear meaning, or whether you are just using it as a swearword." [8]
 
2010-08-19 08:27:05 PM  
Just face it, you non-xtians, America doesn't want you around. We cover the landscape with crosses to make you uncomfortable. Wait until we arrest you. Before we let you speak in court, we're gonna shove our bible right up your nose and make you swear you love it. Giggity. Oh, and you atheists, you're not even supposed to be using our money. Read it sometime.
 
2010-08-19 08:29:26 PM  
Epicedion: Do you understand the meaning of the word "militant?"

Basically, ask yourself the following question next time you want to describe someone as militant: is the person using force of arms to convey their opinion, or are they merely expressing their opinion in a way that you find unpopular? If they are using a gun, then they are militant. If they are using words, they are exactly the opposite of militant.

In other words, stop using the farking word. It's hard to take you seriously while you're accusing everyone of being violent nutjobs.
 
2010-08-19 08:53:49 PM  
miscreant: LegalHeaven: I know this ruling is probably limited to only those crosses put up by the Highway Patrol (haven't read the opinion, but I would venture a guess the ruling is based on separation of church and state), but how will it affect private parties who do it when they lose a child, etc?

It won't. The issue was the fact that a) these were huge and b) they had the state seal on them.

If they hadn't put the seal on them, I'm not sure they would have lost.


They would have. I have no issue of shrinking them, but they -were- for the UHWP. It's like putting a cross up for one with the Local Sheriff's seal, because a sheriff died there.
 
2010-08-19 08:56:38 PM  
Kazan: nope

Then which "stages"?

ace in your face: I may think that someone who claims to have seen a leprechaun is crazy, but I don't need to outright call them a liar and convince them they don't see leprechauns, because doing so is a dick move.
Kazan: no it's not. thus excessively PC "Everyone's opinion is equally valid" bullshiat is a dick move.

Or, alternatively (and with marginally less negative affect source derogation), a foolish form of not merely OUGHT/moral relativism, but IS/objective relativism.

ace in your face: Simply believing in fairies isn't cause to think someone needs anything but for you to ignore them.

"Need" implicitly requires an OUGHT-based evaluation.

ace in your face: You would be making a statement that you couldn't prove anymore than they could.

Again: that depends on what sense of the word "prove" you have in mind.

a.imageshack.us


ace in your face: Now if someone comes in and says the moon landing is false you can feel free to call them a liar.

By what general principle may the two categories be distinguished?

ace in your face: 1. Prove either.

From the beginning? Well, will you agree to the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction-- that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P) such that either may be inferred from the other?

Kazan: you cannot prove a negative

That depends what sense of the word "prove" you have in mind.

Kazan: you're asserting that "There is no truth".; therefore, there is no truth in your claims; therefore You are wrong.

FTFY.

Porgi: It's worthless to attack what someone believes, because both present questions that can't be answered.

On the one hand "worth" is an OUGHT proposition, requiring an IS-OUGHT bridge be objectively accepted; on the other, you confuse an querent's inability to accept the answer with an impossibility for the answer to exist.

g4lt: Seriously, how are atheists militant?

In some very limited senses and in degrees varying within Atheism (with median degree tending below Theists), perhaps; see the Hunsberger-Altemeyer study, ISBN 1-591-02413-7.

flyarmy: They are just as militant as extremist Christians.

To the extent measurement has been attempted, that claim so far beyond the limits of statistical confidence as to constitute absurdity. Again, see the Hunsberger-Altemeyer study, ISBN 1-591-02413-7.

ace in your face: They are BOTH entirely feelings based.

Only if held as metaphysical certainty or philosophical premise without acknowledged prior, rather than probabilistic inference.

AKA: "no, you appear to be projecting, assuming other humans must strongly resemble yourself."

Or in short: "no".

flyarmy: BTW, its obvious you don't know what atheism is and you're not one yourself if you are channeling and talking to the dead.

The existence of God and afterlife are independent propositions.

flyarmy: I don't like people putting down the beliefs of others because they think everything they believe is the supreme truth

imgs.xkcd.com


ace in your face: You are going back to the position of agnostic atheism which is "there is no evidence so I don't believe it" rather than pay attention to the fact I am arguing against militant atheism which is "god does not exist".

While you seem to miss that even Richard Dawkins, whipping boy of the anti-"militants" tone brigade, is an agnostic atheist; which rather leaves your argument appearing to have a few straws loose.

Porgi: But that doesn't mean that the religion as a whole should be attacked.

However, if the religion is sociologically inculcated to treat an attack on any part as an attack on the whole, a determination to attack the part will necessarily be decried as an attack on the whole.

ace in your face: Both sides are retarded.

Both sides include some who probably qualify; however, the proportions are not equal.

Studson: Anytime you make a reasonable comment you will be met with "you believe in magic, everything you say is per se invalid"

Actually, the rebuttals mostly been specific to each argument, rather than categoric dismissal of the presenter.

On the other hand, even Atheists are human enough to resort to source derogation.

On the gripping hand, is it source derogation to say the emperor has no clothes, when the emperor has no clothes?
 
2010-08-19 09:00:39 PM  
Epicedion: Epicedion: Do you understand the meaning of the word "militant?"

Basically, ask yourself the following question next time you want to describe someone as militant: is the person using force of arms to convey their opinion, or are they merely expressing their opinion in a way that you find unpopular? If they are using a gun, then they are militant. If they are using words, they are exactly the opposite of militant.

In other words, stop using the farking word. It's hard to take you seriously while you're accusing everyone of being violent nutjobs.


But "using force of arms to convey their opinion" isn't what militant means. So...your post doesn't make any sense.
 
2010-08-19 09:09:51 PM  
Of course they shouldn't be allowed on public land.

/How many times do we have to have this discussion?
//Erect your frigging crosses on your own land.
///Be frigging happy that your churches are tax-exempted in many ways.
////STFU.
 
2010-08-19 09:31:11 PM  
keypusher: But "using force of arms to convey their opinion" isn't what militant means. So...your post doesn't make any sense.

From the wiki:
The various movements that seek to apply militancy as a solution, or who use militancy to rationalize their solutions for issues in the modern world seldom share common tactics. The characteristics of a militant who is aggressive and violent to promote a political philosophy in the name of a movement (and sometimes have an extreme solution for their goal) include the following shared traits:
employing force or violence directly, either in offense or in defense
justifying the use of force using the ideological rhetoric of their particular group
Persons described as militants - either individuals or groups (composed of multiple individuals) - have usually enrolled and trained to serve in a particular cause. Militants may fill their ranks either by volunteering, enlistment or by conscription.

The mass media often uses the term "militant" in the context of terrorism.[1] Journalists often apply the term militant to movements using terrorism as a tactic. The mass media also has used the term militant groups or radical militants for terrorist organizations.[1][20][21][22] The terms serve to avoid usage of the term terrorists.

Newspapers, magazines, and other information sources may deem militant a neutral term,[23] whereas terrorist[24] or guerrilla[25] conventionally indicates disapproval of the behavior of the individual or organization so labeled, regardless of the motivations for such behavior. Militant, at other times, can refer to any non-military individual engaged in warfare or combat, or generally serving as a combatant.
 
2010-08-19 10:33:23 PM  
abb3w: On the gripping hand, is it source derogation to say the emperor has no clothes, when the emperor has no clothes?

That's precisely what I am talking about. You state it as a fact rather than your belief. "It's not my fault that you believe in magic, am I not supposed to say it even if it's true?" If that's what you want to believe then fine but don't state it as incontrovertibly true and don't state it unless you intend to be an ass. If you do intend to be an ass then we have no need for discussion.
 
2010-08-19 10:58:27 PM  
abb3w: Then which "stages"?

brain development. cognitive ability.. farked if i remember the model's name though.

abb3w: That depends what sense of the word "prove" you have in mind.

here's a hunt:

metaphysics is meaningless bullshiat

Studson: abb3w: On the gripping hand, is it source derogation to say the emperor has no clothes, when the emperor has no clothes?

That's precisely what I am talking about. You state it as a fact rather than your belief. "It's not my fault that you believe in magic, am I not supposed to say it even if it's true?" If that's what you want to believe then fine but don't state it as incontrovertibly true and don't state it unless you intend to be an ass. If you do intend to be an ass then we have no need for discussion.


in the absence of evidence for the existence of ANY deity (let alone anything supernatural) the only rational position is non belief. everything else is irrational.

that's simply a formal, and polite way of saying:

if you believe in god you're believing in MAGIC!!!


/yes.. i'm such a "militant atheist".. i try to be polite even to people like ace who make my brain hurt with their obstinate and disingenuous method of "arguing"
 
2010-08-19 11:16:07 PM  
Kazan: in the absence of evidence for the existence of ANY deity

I look around this planet and see absolute evidence of a deific being by virtue of its creation. We could argue abiogenesis here but it would all boil done to faith in something and really be a waste of time and energy on Fark.

Either way, troll on.
 
2010-08-19 11:25:08 PM  
Studson: I look around this planet and see absolute evidence of a deific being by virtue of its creation

then you fail at understanding what constitutes evidence.

Studson: Either way, troll on.

so since i disagree with you then i'm a troll?

how mature
 
2010-08-19 11:34:48 PM  
Kazan: then you fail at understanding what constitutes evidence.

In law, anything that tends to support a proposed fact as true is evidence. Creation is evidence of a divine being if used to support the argument that this planet was created rather than spontaneously forming from nothing and then slowly developing into something with life on it. You fail at seeing the big picture or interpreting my statements.

I called you a troll because you are an ass. I'm calling you an ass based on prior posts where you have shown your requisite maturity.

I do not wish to get into a debate with you, not because we differ in opinions, but because we differ in how to have rational discourse. Good night.
 
2010-08-19 11:47:45 PM  
rabble rabble rabble rabble, no one ever wins in a Fark debate, the only real winner is the most successful troll. When it comes to belief, whether in science or in religion, there are no right answers.

We won't know who's right until we are dead. I fully believe the quest for knowledge is vital, but along the way everyone always thinks they found it. I believe most if not all of you are still in Plato's cave.


/I'm on a soapbox dammit!
 
2010-08-19 11:49:11 PM  
Studson: Kazan: in the absence of evidence for the existence of ANY deity

I look around this planet and see absolute evidence of a deific being by virtue of its creation. We could argue abiogenesis here but it would all boil done to faith in something and really be a waste of time and energy on Fark.

Either way, troll on.


you appear to be confusing evidence with subjective inference. Just because you think it would be neat if things are the way they are because of a deity, does not make your hope any more valid.

Things are the way they are, makes more sense than, things are the way they are - because of a god for which there is no evidence.
 
2010-08-20 12:22:41 AM  
Studson: You state it as a fact rather than your belief.

Look again; that was an inquiry, first, and second you fail to distinguish inference from fact.

Studson: If that's what you want to believe then fine but don't state it as incontrovertibly true and don't state it unless you intend to be an ass. If you do intend to be an ass then we have no need for discussion.

Contrariwise, you in turn should not present the point as controvertible unless you are willing to give discussion that will controvert the assertion.

From first premises.

So, will you agree to the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction-- that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P) such that either may be inferred from the other?

Kazan: brain development. cognitive ability.. farked if i remember the model's name though.

Well, stop wasting time on Fark and start re-reading your blibbering textbook! Dolt.

Kazan: metaphysics is meaningless bullshiat

Foam at the mouth and fall over backwards. Is he foaming at the mouth to fall over backwards or falling over backwards to foam at the mouth? Tonight's 'Spectrum' examines the whole question of frothing and falling, coughing and calling, screaming and bawling, walling and stalling, brawling and mauling, falling and hauling, trawling and squalling, and zalling. Zalling. It isn't even a word zalling. If it is what does it mean? If it isn't what does it mean? Perhaps both, maybe neither. What do I mean by the word 'mean'? What do I mean by the word 'word'? What do I mean by 'what do I mean'? What do I mean by 'do' and what do I do by 'mean'? And what do I do by do by do and what do I mean by wasting your time like this? Good night.

It depends which sense of the word "metaphysics" you have in mind.

    I. Philosophical and related uses.

    1. a. The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things or reality, including questions about being, substance, time and space, causation, change, and identity (which are presupposed in the special sciences but do not belong to any one of them); theoretical philosophy as the ultimate science of being and knowing. Also fig.
Formerly usually preceded by the (cf. MATHEMATICS n. 1).

    †b. The study of phenomena beyond the scope of scientific inquiry; spec. = PNEUMATOLOGY n. 1. Obs.

    c. Questions of metaphysics as they relate to a specified subject or phenomenon; the underlying concepts or first principles on which a particular branch of knowledge is based. Usu. with of.

    d. Philos. Used by logical positivists and some other linguistic philosophers for: any proposition or set of propositions of a speculative nature, considered to be meaningless because not empirically verifiable.

    2. Any abstruse, confusing, or (deliberately) deceptive form of reasoning or discussion; abstract talk with no basis in or relevance to reality.

    †II. Other uses.

    3. Marlowe's name for: occult or magical lore. Cf. METAPHYSICAL adj. 4c. Obs.


Kazan: in the absence of evidence for the existence of ANY deity (let alone anything supernatural) the only rational position is non belief. everything else is irrational.

This presupposes a definition of "rational".

Also, in the usual framework such position can only be held probabilistically, as it is always potentially subject to revision in the light of the arrival of some new evidence.

Furthermore, there is the additional complication that there IS evidence of deities, with the drawback that what evidence exists seems to have alternate explanations that do NOT involve deities and are more probable by the most reducible premises that allow inferring distinction between a hawk and a handsaw. Which, from the lay viewpoint is much the same as "no evidence", but not quite, being closer to "no evidence sufficient to objectively support explanations of affirmation over refutation".

Studson: I look around this planet and see absolute evidence of a deific being by virtue of its creation.

Existence of experience is evidence, but does not necessarily give absolute support to the cause you attribute.

Studson: We could argue abiogenesis here but it would all boil done to faith in something and really be a waste of time and energy on Fark.

It's been done before, and a few people have learned from the discussions; not a complete waste in my book. But then, waste" is an OUGHT-based assessment; surely we should begin by trying to establish grounds for an IS-based assessment.

Kazan: then you fail at understanding what constitutes evidence.

All experience is evidence; however, from experience not all categories of evidence have equal uncertainty.

Studson: Creation is evidence of a divine being if used to support the argument that this planet was created rather than spontaneously forming from nothing and then slowly developing into something with life on it.

Correct. Contrariwise, a self-consistent description that way does not necessarily mean that the description is more probably correct than alternative self-consistent descriptions.

Studson: I called you a troll because you are an ass. I'm calling you an ass based on prior posts where you have shown your requisite maturity.

I do not wish to get into a debate with you, not because we differ in opinions, but because we differ in how to have rational discourse. Good night.


Ah; source derogation and selective exposure, possibly with notes of negative affect.

img825.imageshack.us
 
2010-08-20 12:28:02 AM  
Small Hands Make It Look Bigger: When it comes to belief, whether in science or in religion, there are no right answers.

Therefore, trying to distinguish you from a cauliflower is not the right answer. So, you're a cabbage.

www.naturehills.com


Dreadskull: Things are the way they are, makes more sense than, things are the way they are - because of a god for which there is no evidence.

The rigorous math is a little more complicated, although it comes to much the same end.
 
2010-08-20 12:46:01 AM  
Not sure if this has been brought up...

Why would a Texas atheist group give a fark about stuff in Utah?

Are there no atheist groups in Utah?
 
2010-08-20 01:58:59 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

Yeah, it's so far down it's almost pointless, but thank you. Thank you for expressing precisely what more than a handful of those close to me have fought with me for saying. I usually use the "I cant expect to be allowed to go to the hospital room my grandfather died in and hang a cross..."

Of course, I've also normally been drinking during those arguments, so I then segue into my "It's not a tragedy every time someone dies..." routine.
 
2010-08-20 02:20:27 AM  
frenchcheesemuseum: Oh for f*cks sake there are so many other humanitarian issues that people can put their energy into. I've always thought highway crosses serve a valuable purpose. THEY REMIND PEOPLE TO SLOW THE F*CK DOWN AND PAY ATTENTION WHILE DRIVING.

Well in France, they use black silhouette cutouts. _Crosses_ are not a necessity.

OG.
 
2010-08-20 02:58:54 AM  
ace in your face: pYou can look under your bed and see that there are no monsters.

It's an *invisible* monster, duh.

OG.
 
2010-08-20 03:28:16 AM  
ace in your face:
3.Religion has nothing to do with logic or critical thinking.


Correct.

Neither does atheism. They are BOTH entirely feelings based.

Complete fail.
 
2010-08-20 03:44:07 AM  
Porgi: One who says, "You can't prove this, and therefore I am right," usually means that they can't prove their own assertions, and therefore have to attack yours.

ie. religion.


Athiest or Diest, both are the same. Both believe in something. One doesn't believe in a god, the other does. It's worthless to attack what someone believes, because both present questions that can't be answered.

How is belief in something despite complete lack of evidence even remotely similar to not believing until there is some evidence?

There's an infinite number of things with complete lack of evidence for their existence. Why is Christianity more believable than reading chicken entrails to make decisions?

Should we base national policy on readings of chicken entrails? It makes as much sense to do that as basing it on Christianity - both have exactly the same amount of evidence to back them up.

If your beliefs can't stand up to scrutiny then maybe it's your beliefs which are defective, not the scrutiny.
 
2010-08-20 08:03:04 AM  
abb3w: ...

when it comes to anal retentiveness in word usage you make me look reasonable :D

metaphysics def 2 is highly accurate ... aka "this definition of metaphhsics is the usage which indicates all other usages are bullshiat :D"

and there is absolutely no evidence for deities. just because some people try to use something to support the existence of a deity doesn't make that evidence for the deity, it just is a demonstration of their own flawed understanding of evidence.

"The sun rose, therefore god" is not evidence for god, it's evidence for the fact that the earth rotates.
"I was born, therefore god" is not evidence for god, it's evidence that your parents had sex.
etc
 
2010-08-20 09:03:38 AM  
Trolls seem to have come out overnight.

On the bright side, there are still only 3 or 4 people who don't get what we're trying to patiently explain to them. Out of hundreds of posters and lurkers, that's not all that bad a ratio.

And of course, like Smails said- "The world needs ditch-diggers too." It's unreasonable to assume that everyone would understand a logical discussion...

If any of you trolls post your addresses I'll send you each a shiny new shovel.
 
2010-08-20 09:54:17 AM  
Kazan: when it comes to anal retentiveness in word usage you make me look reasonable :D

Sometimes a math-heavy background contributes to that effect.

Kazan: metaphysics def 2 is highly accurate ... aka "this definition of metaphhsics is the usage which indicates all other usages are bullshiat :D"

Some abstract pure math may fall under that definition; therefore, I'm afraid I disagree.

Also, the more usual uses are under 1 (a,c, and d), especially in this sort of discussion. You probably should consider alternative phrasing; otherwise, it looks like a not-necessarily-intentional fallacy of equivocation, dismissing all of 1 under the banner of 2.

Kazan: and there is absolutely no evidence for deities. just because some people try to use something to support the existence of a deity doesn't make that evidence for the deity, it just is a demonstration of their own flawed understanding of evidence.

This gets into the nature of what "evidence for" means; you're presuming that not only must the evidence be interpretable to point in the direction, but the interpretation must be "correct". This ignores that philosophically, all evidence is intrinsically ambiguous evidence (for anything save the A→A existence of the evidence itself).

The usage you're trying to portray seems less likely to convince people. Saying "the Bible isn't evidence" rather than saying "well, yes, the Bible IS evidence for God, but there are alternative explanations for that evidence that do not involve God, and which alternatives under independent examination are more likely" is not merely sloppy, but more likely to kick up instant and dogmatic resistance.

Not that the latter doesn't kick up a lot of resistance, too....
 
2010-08-20 10:33:29 AM  
abb3w

metaphysics has no pertinence to reality - aka it isn't describing or affecting it. therefore it is irrelevant and meaningless.

evidence is only evidence for something if that "something" is plausibly connected to it.

"the object falls, therefore god" is not a plausible connection.

the correct one is "the object falls, therefore a force must be acting upon it to make it accelerate in that direction. This force seems to be essentially constant over the surface of the earth. We'll call this gravity. It appears that other bodies in 'the heavens' exert this on each other was well, perhaps this force is universal and has to do with mass?"


so what i'm saying is that i'm into discrete math :D :P j/k
 
2010-08-20 12:27:48 PM  
Kazan: metaphysics has no pertinence to reality - aka it isn't describing or affecting it. therefore it is irrelevant and meaningless.

Pure mathematics does not "affect" reality. Further, while some pure mathematics may happen to describe reality, it is not so limited; mathematics describes unreality equally well as reality, because pure mathematics is able to give abstract description of essentially anything. Thus, pure mathematics may be considered a branch of metaphysics.

However, mathematics is hardly meaningless; in fact, it may be argued as inherently underlying all questions of meaning. Furthermore, since the question of WHICH pure mathematics best describes reality is itself one subject to phrasing in mathematical terms, it is quite relevant to questions about the nature of reality.

Kazan: evidence is only evidence for something if that "something" is plausibly connected to it.

But by what criteria is "plausibly connected" defined?

Kazan: "the object falls, therefore god" is not a plausible connection.

However, "The Bible is inerrant; the Bible describes God; therefore, God exists, and the Bible is evidence for God" is -- provided the initial premise is taken as "plausible". And, of course, if conforming to Biblical Inerrancy is taken as the defining criterion of what determines sensibility and plausibility (as, say, Ken Ham seems to), then of course the initial premise must be plausible.

More abstractly and closer to your example, "the object falls; one of the attributes of God is causing objects to fall; therefore, God" is a more plausible connection, if to a rather non-standard deity. Still, in an abstract sense there's little difference between rain-gods and gravity-gods.

So, you need to first examine the underlying nature of what it means for a description of evidence to be "plausible" (and probably get into what formally constitutes a "description of evidence").

Kazan: "the object falls, therefore a force must be acting upon it to make it accelerate in that direction. This force seems to be essentially constant over the surface of the earth. We'll call this gravity. It appears that other bodies in 'the heavens' exert this on each other was well, perhaps this force is universal and has to do with mass?"

You're oversimplifying again; for one thing, the force is proportional to the mass of the object, and for another, when you get to "other bodies" you start also having to deal with the force relation to distances between them.

For another, you neglect to consider how one chooses as to whether Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity gives a description that is more plausible/good/likely -- skipping steps, as it were.
 
2010-08-20 12:56:01 PM  
abb3w: Thus, pure mathematics may be considered a branch of metaphysics.

only with a VEEERRY broad definition of metaphysics, i would not describe it as such.

abb3w: But by what criteria is "plausibly connected" defined?

something that actually explains the evidence collected. something from which predictions can be made. "God" neither explains not grants predictive power.

abb3w: You're oversimplifying again; for one thing, the force is proportional to the mass of the object, and for another, when you get to "other bodies" you start also having to deal with the force relation to distances between them.

For another, you neglect to consider how one chooses as to whether Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity gives a description that is more plausible/good/likely -- skipping steps, as it were.


no shiat, because the complexity of gravity when examined in detail was IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.
 
2010-08-20 02:43:59 PM  
Kazan: only with a VEEERRY broad definition of metaphysics, i would not describe it as such.

However, it seems to meet the criteria given. Thus, while you would not think to describe it that way, the attribute arguably remains.

Kazan: something that actually explains the evidence collected. something from which predictions can be made.

So, perhaps like a computer program, that can be given some input data as to general character ("rock, unsupported above lunar surface, position at t=0 is +100m from surface, initial velocity at t=0 is 0"), and can in turn give as output the full description of the evidence ("position at times t={1,2,3,4,5}s are...")?

Kazan: "God" neither explains not grants predictive power.

Actually, it does explain, and does grant predictive power. The main problem is that many of the predictions are incorrect; EG, the prediction that belief in Christ will grant immunity to poisoning.

There's also some philosophical problems at the nature of "predict". Say I give you a mathematical formula for computing the weather tomorrow, based on conditions today, but due to the complexity of the calculation, it will take you thirty-one years to do the math. Is it still "prediction" when using the algorithm to produce the prediction (howsoever accurate) will be slower than sitting back to watch?

Kazan: no shiat, because the complexity of gravity when examined in detail was IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

The planetary motion, perhaps; it's more aesthetic complaint. If you're going to try and present science, I would hope you would do a better job.

The need to identify means to choose between competing descriptions (such as Einsteinian vs Newtonian), however, is essential to the discussion.
 
2010-08-20 02:57:31 PM  
best headline ever
 
2010-08-22 06:05:14 PM  
webimages.stephen-wright.net

What kind of road side marker do you get for folks who believe in nothing?
 
2010-08-22 07:08:49 PM  
wslush

What kind of road side marker do you get for folks who believe in nothing?


A news reporter humping the leg of some random politician.
 
Displayed 41 of 641 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report