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.

(Calgary Herald)   "Born-again atheists are as irritating as born-again religious persons"   (calgaryherald.com) divider line 660
    More: Interesting, born-again  
•       •       •

9316 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2012 at 10:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



660 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-10 07:00:16 PM
"fark 'em if they can't take a joke"
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

Greatest "religious" quote of all time, and it sums up this thread (and indeed these arguments in general) as far as I am concerned.
 
2012-05-10 07:07:02 PM

Diogenes The Cynic: Yup yup, I'm aware. Still doesn't prevent people in the community from thinking pretty stupid things.

I mentioned phrenology, but there are other examples. I once tried to look up how many Native Americans were in the Americas at the time of Metacoms war, but the more research I did, the less I could figure out. I finally asked an Anthropologist in my synagogue, and he said that its basically guesswork.


If you're a troll, I want you to know that you're very good at it.
 
2012-05-10 07:29:17 PM

Farking Canuck: For me the rules are simple: You claim something exists and want me to accept your claim then present evidence. No evidence? Come back when you have some. Discussion over.


Liar.

Like most religious people, you likely don't know the first thing about your faith.

See, you're a believer in scientism -- a particularly stupid belief held by people not smart enough to be real scientists, and by particularly stupid scientists.

You hold numerous beliefs without evidence. In fact, a great number of your beliefs are held on teh basis of a set of metaphysical assumptions that you also don't understand.

Just an example: You very likely believe that the mind is a product of the brain. Here's what you don't know -- that belief isn't based on careful examination of the evidence -- All we can say from the evidence is that there is some relationship between the mind and the brain.

With no evidence what-so-ever, your physicalist ideology allows you to come to no other conclusion than the mind is a product of the brain. It may very well be true, but it's certainly not an evidence-based belief.

If you want to claim that it's true, it's up to you to provide sufficient evidence -- and the only appeal you can make is to your own metaphysical assumptions!

Some other fun examples come from popular scientific myths, often the result of poor science reporting.

Of course, the worst sins are from a poor understand of science -- both the process and its scope.

Typically, you'll hear perfectly ridiculous definitions for simple terms like "theory" and hypothesis from the dogmatic atheists that are so far from correct that I can't even conceive how a group so dedicated to "science" could become so horribly misinformed. (Matt Dillahunty barfs up his oft-repeated yet total nonsense definitions almost every week on The Atheist Experience. He's the worst offender on that front.)

Other times you hear pure speculation repeated with qualifiers like "science has proven that ..." (An fun example I see all the time is that the tunnel effect that people experience during an NDE has been explained. Of course, what they don't realize is that it's not based on actual research, but some pure speculation Susan Blackmore offered during an interview! She'll stated in several subsequent interviews that she made it up on the spot. That is, there is no evidence what-so-ever to support the assertion.)

The dumbest belief held by people like you, however, has got to be the idea that science progresses iteratively toward the truth. Science does no such thing! This absurdity finds it's way into all sorts of nonsense statements prefixed with "Science has proven ..."

Here's the meat: The instant a statement is deemed to be beyond question it stops being science. Full stop. Discussion over.

Not only are "Born-again" atheists as irritating as "Born-again" religious people, they're just as dangerous. They're a danger to the whole scientific enterprise. Their rampant ignorance and evangelical efforts have done more to damage science and the public understanding of science than Kent Hovind and his ilk could ever dream of doing.
 
2012-05-10 07:35:34 PM
Somebody, up above on this thread:

"So please...if you are an honest person, please stop it with your tired, ignorant claims that atheists are just as irrational or dogmatic as believers. It's a lie, and a stupid lie, and it makes you look like a big fat horse's ass."

It has been some years since I was in a college logic class, but is not still a fact that one cannot prove, and the active word is PROVE, that a supreme being, or God cannot exist?

My only argument contained within several postings is that I am an agnostic, and I think that my agnosticism, my claim that I do not know, is a more intellectually honest position than taking the word, "Atheism," and saying that it has a new definition. I would like to defuse the whole controversy of whether a supreme being exists, or not. I do not know, and I cannot prove it one way or another.

I find that my position, a neutral position, ends up with me being insulted by Bible-thumpers, and atheists, alike. There is a guy up on this thread, quoting a dictionary person, about the relativity of the definitions in the dictionary that she helped to write! I think that most people speaking English, when they hear or read the word "atheist," most likely think of a person who denies the existence of a supreme being. That just comes with the baggage of the word.

I do not give a damn! I despise the bible-thumping revivalists, and the Sam Harris professional atheists. They are all in a money game. Call me a proud horse's ass kind of a guy, because I am a humble human being, that could not care less about your beliefs. It is also true that I do not believe that churches, and donations to churches should get a tax deduction. I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state.

Fundamentalist Christians get a tax deduction for contributing to Christian schools, which are really indoctrination centers for stupidity. What is so difficult for an atheist to admit, that he or she, does not have enough information to proclaim what he or she cannot prove? You can kiss my horse's ass face, and if you deny the viably of all dictionaries in your attempt to disprove a point, I have little to put into writing. Good on you!
 
2012-05-10 07:39:37 PM

180IQ: See, you're a believer in scientism



I predict "nu-uh, that word was invented by religious people to attack science because they hate it."

i361.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-10 07:48:17 PM

180IQ: Farking Canuck: For me the rules are simple: You claim something exists and want me to accept your claim then present evidence. No evidence? Come back when you have some. Discussion over.

Liar.

Like most religious people, you likely don't know the first thing about your faith.

Derp

Derp

Derp


Please come back when you are old enough to argue without incorrectly restating your opponents position.

Easy to argue against strawmen that you set up. You are so smart ... S M R T.
 
2012-05-10 07:52:18 PM

porkloin: It has been some years since I was in a college logic class, but is not still a fact that one cannot prove, and the active word is PROVE, that a supreme being, or God cannot exist?


Please point out one person in this thread that made the claim that god cannot exist. Just one.

If not please obey your own religion and stop "bearing false witness". It is intellectually dishonest and pathetic.

/I don't count the link to the guy in Indonesia ... he is not here making an argument
 
2012-05-10 08:00:25 PM

Farking Canuck: Please come back when you are old enough to argue without incorrectly restating your opponents position.


Lol, okay. What claim about your position did I make that was incorrect?
 
2012-05-10 08:01:46 PM

Farking Canuck: I have no interest in the convoluted philosophical arguments that occasionally pop up around this subject.


Then you have no interest in this subject, period. Scientism is not the only valid means of describing the world.
 
2012-05-10 08:03:01 PM
Sigh. Missed this thread.

Short late answer before I wade back through: by all tested objective sociological metrics, no. See Hunsberger and Altemeyer's Atheists:A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers.
 
2012-05-10 08:06:57 PM

nvmac: You're not helping.


Am I supposed to be? Is there a rule I missed somewhere, on how one is supposed to treat a mental invalid?

Diogenes The Cynic: Egoy3k: Diogenes The Cynic: Philosophers>Scientists

My point was that in the same post that you challenged us to behave properly and 'learn to make an argument' you used the term "drooling retarded step-brothers". You are a hypocrite.

I challenged the Atheists to learn to make arguments. Atheists and scientists are not synonymous.


True, although, the two do bear a relation, in that many people arrive at one by using the other. When someone like Bevets tries to flout science and scientific practices in an effort to flout atheism, enough of a correlation is made to warrant discussion of both as anti-religious.

I'm only strictly anti-religious when people attack the basics of reason and science to "prove" their religion, or that science is a religion, as are most supposedly "militant" or "zealot" atheists.

The lumping together of two similar entities does serve to fight against even more preposterous categorization.
 
2012-05-10 08:10:55 PM
But only half of them are correct.
 
2012-05-10 08:11:48 PM

180IQ: Farking Canuck: Please come back when you are old enough to argue without incorrectly restating your opponents position.

Lol, okay. What claim about your position did I make that was incorrect?


OK:

- you called me a liar - pure speculation on your part

- you claimed "you're a believer in scientism" when you don't even know me. My statements this far were based on logic ... not the scientific method

- you stated as fact "You hold numerous beliefs without evidence. In fact, a great number of your beliefs are held on teh basis of a set of metaphysical assumptions that you also don't understand." when you only know of one belief that I lack.

- you stated "You very likely believe that the mind is a product of the brain.". You then went on a rant about how I am such a terrible person for this belief even though it may be true. I, of course, have never made this claim on Fark

- you accuse me of making statements that start with "science has proven ..." when I have never made a statement like that. I know that nothing is 100% in science ... the whole "you cannot prove 100%" are weasel-words used by the anti-science crowd.

To summarize:

You called me a liar, produced a bunch of speculation, attacked that speculation and then rested on your laurels as if you'd contributed something intelligent.

The only thing you know about me is the words I've posted. You can proceed like an adult and argue those words or you can continue with your wild speculation and unstable rants. Your choice.

/I certainly have learned a lot about you from your words.
 
2012-05-10 08:12:38 PM

TsukasaK: Farking Canuck: I have no interest in the convoluted philosophical arguments that occasionally pop up around this subject.

Then you have no interest in this subject, period. Scientism is not the only valid means of describing the world.


I am not trying to understand the world. I am explaining why I do not accept the religious' claim that gods exist.
 
2012-05-10 08:14:50 PM

omeganuepsilon: as are most supposedly "militant" or "zealot" atheists.


Why the scare quotes? It's a real thing.

Put simply:

Militant Christian: Thinks you're stupid for not believing in god.
Christian: Believes in god.
Atheist: Does not believe in god
Militant Atheist: Thinks you're stupid for believing in god.

The first and last people are usually not at all enjoyable to be around.
 
2012-05-10 08:15:43 PM

TsukasaK: Farking Canuck: I have no interest in the convoluted philosophical arguments that occasionally pop up around this subject.

Then you have no interest in this subject, period. Scientism is not the only valid means of describing the world.


No, but is is the least confusing and the most efficient. Science is not colored by emotion or morals, and is not interpretive as is poetry, 2000 year old books, or paintings. It is also the most comprehensive means to understanding the world, not just describing it.

Of course, that depends on how you really mean scientism. Kooky religion(A very Bevets like definition) vs People that know science is essentially functional.

After all
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-05-10 08:16:15 PM

Farking Canuck: I am explaining why I do not accept the religious' claim that gods exist.


Then disclaiming an entire set of arguments as "I am not interested in ...." is pretty silly.
 
2012-05-10 08:17:36 PM

omeganuepsilon: Of course, that depends on how you really mean scientism.


I've always defined it as: "If I can't prove it exist, then it doesn't exist". I.e. people who have no belief system other than empiricism.
 
2012-05-10 08:32:28 PM

TsukasaK: Farking Canuck: I am explaining why I do not accept the religious' claim that gods exist.

Then disclaiming an entire set of arguments as "I am not interested in ...." is pretty silly.


I've read them ... many from you. It is pretty clear to me that they are designed to justify a position that being a believer is not completely ridiculous. An argument derived from a pre-concieved conclusion.

Cling to them if it helps you sleep at night.

I accept that there are many answers that I will never know. The bigger the questions the more likely they will not be answered in my lifetime. I am not arrogant enough to think I deserve answers or that I am special to the universe.
 
2012-05-10 08:36:17 PM

TsukasaK: omeganuepsilon: Of course, that depends on how you really mean scientism.

I've always defined it as: "If I can't prove it exist, then it doesn't exist". I.e. people who have no belief system other than empiricism.


Science: those things we've proven, but should contradicting and convincing and verifiable evidence contradict what we're thinking, we'll have another look. And those other things, well we don't know yet, but we're looking.

Religion: because god, shut up.
 
2012-05-10 08:38:25 PM

TsukasaK: omeganuepsilon: Of course, that depends on how you really mean scientism.

I've always defined it as: "If I can't prove it exist, then it doesn't exist". I.e. people who have no belief system other than empiricism.


Who are these people that say "If I can't prove it exist, then it doesn't exist". I have never known one. Have you met any here on Fark??

If you are referring to my rejection of the religious' claim that gods exist then you are clearly misstating my position and that of most atheists. We do not need to prove anything ourselves ... we only wish to know the evidence behind any claim so that we can weigh it ourselves and make our own decision.

When zero evidence is presented the decision is easy.
 
2012-05-10 08:38:36 PM

TsukasaK: omeganuepsilon: as are most supposedly "militant" or "zealot" atheists.

Why the scare quotes? It's a real thing.

Put simply:

Militant Christian: Thinks you're stupid for not believing in god.
Christian: Believes in god.
Atheist: Does not believe in god
Militant Atheist: Thinks you're stupid for believing in god.

The first and last people are usually not at all enjoyable to be around.


Not so much. If you really want to break it down:

Militant theist: Bombs abortion clinics(follows te tenets of below theist sub-groups)
Loud militant internet theist: voices opinion on the internet, sometimes without provocation, but often contradicts science, reason, and social rights
Christian, believes,, may or may not attend rallies and protests to infringe on the rights of others
Quiet theist, Believes, keeps quiet about it, still votes to infringe on the rights of others
Quiet Atheist, does not believe, but may speak out about religions activities in public that interfere with civil rights, votes to protect individual rights of ALL.
Atheist, does not believe, may or may not attend rallies and protests.
Loud Internet atheist, does not believe voices opinions on the internet, sometimes without provocation, but usually is relevant to the discussion.
Militant Atheist: Existence is unproven. In theory, they would do all of the above atheist things, but also something similar to Militant Christians.


Or something along those lines anyhow. The point is, the two sides of the argument are no where near as balanced or as simple as you try to make them out to be.
I put them in quotes, since you asked, because many quiet atheists are dubbed militant, zealotic, or a handful of other nonsense labels to make them appear as some fringe wingnut group. Now, a lot of internet christians, or whatever religion, attempt to flout actual sciences, as I noted in an above post, and force others to live up to their made up rules. These behaviors have little to no parallel in atheists, and really is what tips the scales. That and the bombings, those are always a no-no, except to the wingnuts obviously.
 
2012-05-10 08:38:46 PM

180IQ: Just an example: You very likely believe that the mind is a product of the brain. Here's what you don't know -- that belief isn't based on careful examination of the evidence -- All we can say from the evidence is that there is some relationship between the mind and the brain.

With no evidence what-so-ever, your physicalist ideology allows you to come to no other conclusion than the mind is a product of the brain. It may very well be true, but it's certainly not an evidence-based belief.

If you want to claim that it's true, it's up to you to provide sufficient evidence -- and the only appeal you can make is to your own metaphysical assumptions!


Eh, if you don't assume physicalism - or at least, if you don't assume that the particular phenomena that you're studying are purely physical - then no scientific belief holds. Gravity? That's just intelligent falling. The only way you can even begin to apply the scientific method unless you assume that the process you're looking at is purely physical.

As for the metaphysical assumption itself, the predictive power of scientific theories speaks for itself. The modern world is filled with devices that work because the scientific theories which they are based around are excellent predictors of how the real world behaves. Your GPS can tell you where you are because modern physics provides an accurate description of the world. No non-physical entities requires. Satellite telephones work - telepathy does not. Given the excellent track record of physicalism and the dismal record of other metaphysics, why shouldn't we assume physicalism is true?

As for the mind-brain thing; neuropsychology started by studying people who suffered some physical damage to the brain. A man gets a railroad spike driven through his head and survives, but his personality and mental processes undergo a radical change. Now, without assuming physicalism, we have two possibilities. Either the mind is a product of the brain, in which case the physical damage to the brain caused a change in the man's mind, or the mind is some separate ethereal substance and, by sheer coincidence that substance underwent some change at the precise moment that a railroad spike happened to have been driven through the brain. Your name doesn't have to be William of Ockham to know which explanation is preferable. The evidence out there justifies a far stronger claim that "there is some relationship between the mind and the brain".
 
2012-05-10 08:47:08 PM

Farking Canuck: You called me a liar, produced a bunch of speculation, attacked that speculation and then rested on your laurels as if you'd contributed something intelligent.


Lol! All that nonsense and you still didn't answer my question. What did I assert about your position that was incorrect?

I'm going to assume "nothing". Thanks for playing.
 
2012-05-10 08:49:55 PM

Farking Canuck: When zero evidence is presented the decision is easy.


You know what a conclusion for without evidence is? A wild guess.

What they don't get, is that we see no reason for god to come into any equation that we deal with, but is the "answer" to so many of their questions. They simply don't like independent learning and progression, it's a threat. So entwined into the religion itself that the religion is self sustaining to a point, that they encourage stagnancy.

An all encompassing vague answer of "god" allows for intellectual laziness, and limits potential greatly, in the believer. Sure, it's GREAT for the religious leader. That's power, having limited followers, typically uneducated. For the common man and society? Not so much, not any religion we have.

Hell, bickering about civil rights(ie gay marriage).... that should be obvious to one with any ability of empathy(allow it, it doesn't hurt a fly) as a waste of time and effort, but it needs to be fought, or we lose even more ground.
 
2012-05-10 09:01:06 PM

Bad_Seed: The only way you can even begin to apply the scientific method unless you assume that the process you're looking at is purely physical.


That's phrased badly, imo. We know things are physical, there's no assumption there, unless you're one of those "life is a dream and nothing is real" sorts. We've heard about the supposed metaphysical, but never seen or experienced it(telepathy, levitation, etc), so for now it's a fairytale, something to tell kids to get them to behave, or to offer entertainment. Nothing wrong with pretend, until pretend becomes the answer for questions about the physical.

If I've an orange in my hand, and say, "I am only holding an orange", it's not an assumption. It's accurate enough for all intents and purposes. Sure, there is air but we've already got a theory on how air works, that is, as you say, predictable and testable, so that need not be mentioned.

Religion has no equivalent to the "air" in that scenerio. Nothing that is testable, observable, or tangible at all, pure unsubstantiated rumor. To exclude the guess from the calculation, is not assumptive, it's recognizing that the existence of the margin of the page is irrelevant, imaginary or otherwise.
 
2012-05-10 09:01:37 PM

180IQ: Farking Canuck: You called me a liar, produced a bunch of speculation, attacked that speculation and then rested on your laurels as if you'd contributed something intelligent.

Lol! All that nonsense and you still didn't answer my question. What did I assert about your position that was incorrect?

I'm going to assume "nothing". Thanks for playing.


Ooookay ... I guess I will spell it out for you in small words. I'll type slowly so you can keep up.

All the things I pointed out as assumptions in your post were bad assumptions ... I listed them.

I'll list them again for you ... I will be more explicit as you appear to have comprehension issues:

- I am not a liar
- I do not believe in scientism
- I do not speculate on the mechanisms of consciousness ... it is not my field
- I do not claim that science proves things ... only that it is a collection of scientific theories and the evidence collected which supports or contradicts them.

All things you claimed without evidence and then attacked.

I suspect you are simply a troll but the effort you put into that first directionless rant led me to believe you were serious.
 
2012-05-10 09:06:25 PM

Farking Canuck: All the things I pointed out as assumptions in your post were bad assumptions ... I listed them.


Is that the question I asked? (Hint: the answer is "no")

You claimed that I misrepresented your position, not that I didn't have enough information about your position to accurately state it.

So I'll ask again -- I'll type slowly so you can keep up -- Which one of my assumptions about your position was incorrect?
 
2012-05-10 09:12:48 PM

180IQ: Farking Canuck: All the things I pointed out as assumptions in your post were bad assumptions ... I listed them.

Is that the question I asked? (Hint: the answer is "no")

You claimed that I misrepresented your position, not that I didn't have enough information about your position to accurately state it.

So I'll ask again -- I'll type slowly so you can keep up -- Which one of my assumptions about your position was incorrect?


I've listed them twice. You are obviously just a troll.
 
2012-05-10 09:16:06 PM

omeganuepsilon: Bad_Seed: The only way you can even begin to apply the scientific method unless you assume that the process you're looking at is purely physical.

That's phrased badly, imo. We know things are physical, there's no assumption there, unless you're one of those "life is a dream and nothing is real" sorts. We've heard about the supposed metaphysical, but never seen or experienced it(telepathy, levitation, etc), so for now it's a fairytale, something to tell kids to get them to behave, or to offer entertainment. Nothing wrong with pretend, until pretend becomes the answer for questions about the physical.

If I've an orange in my hand, and say, "I am only holding an orange", it's not an assumption. It's accurate enough for all intents and purposes. Sure, there is air but we've already got a theory on how air works, that is, as you say, predictable and testable, so that need not be mentioned.

Religion has no equivalent to the "air" in that scenerio. Nothing that is testable, observable, or tangible at all, pure unsubstantiated rumor. To exclude the guess from the calculation, is not assumptive, it's recognizing that the existence of the margin of the page is irrelevant, imaginary or otherwise.


That's bad editing on my part. I meant to say, that "you cannot begin to apply the scientific method unless you assume that a process is purely physical". With emphasis on the purely part. If you believe that a process is directed by god, then science is a non-starter. That's why the evolution vs intelligent design debate consists largely of people talking past each other. Evolutionists describe the physical process, intelligent designers don't disagree with the physical part, but they claim that there is a being that directs that process because he's omnipotent and he can. Purely scientific arguments have trouble attacking that claim because they only deal with the physical world, and assume that the non-physical world doesn't exist or is irrelevant. But if you insist that the non-physical world does exist then you can always claim that there's some being controlling things and that science doesn't "prove" anything.

Metaphysical, by the way doesn't mean "non physical". Saying that only the physical world exists is a metaphysical position. Saying that there's also a non-physical world, of god, souls, astral planes or whatever is a different metaphysical position.
 
2012-05-10 09:27:02 PM

180IQ: Farking Canuck: You called me a liar, produced a bunch of speculation, attacked that speculation and then rested on your laurels as if you'd contributed something intelligent.

Lol! All that nonsense and you still didn't answer my question. What did I assert about your position that was incorrect?

I'm going to assume "nothing". Thanks for playing.


Ok junior, I'll play. What are your assertations?
 
2012-05-10 09:44:52 PM

Bad_Seed: That's bad editing on my part.


I think the operative fault is "assume". Lends to the argument I stated above. Maybe "one has to presume that an event has an explanation, that can be quantified by testing" or something along those lines.

Disregarding god as a part of anything is not assumption. Assuming there is no god, is, after all, what we're accused of doing.

And the appropriate response is that god is not granted as a known thing except to those indoctrinated.

In a sufficient apocalyptic event, religion and science would be born again eventually(barring total wipe out mind you). But science is virtually guaranteed to take the exact same path. Religion not so much, that much is evident in today's variable fables, shared parts and contradictions.

Science, as a concept, is older than religion. Monkeys perform it now, as do a bunch of other animals. This is displayed in convoluted food dispensers. If I do X, Y is the result. That's it, in a limited nutshell. Religion has no place in such a study, nor in contradicting strong theory, it is entirely irrelevant.

Now that science is breaking into they why's and wherefores of things like emotion, bonding, and creation of life itself, religion becomes more shaky, and no one likes being wrong. Instead of slowly backing away so that they don't look like assholes(like the rational religious / agnostics), they fight against it futilely, shaking tiny fists and trying to scare it off by being loud.

A poor decision in what chooses fight or flight. Eventually, Darwin will consume the lemmings.
 
2012-05-10 10:10:28 PM

Bad_Seed: A man gets a railroad spike driven through his head and survives, but his personality and mental processes undergo a radical change.


You're thinking of Phineas Gage.

. Now, without assuming physicalism, we have two possibilities. Either the mind is a product of the brain, in which case the physical damage to the brain caused a change in the man's mind, or the mind is some separate ethereal substance

That's a false dichotomy. Those are undoubtedly not the only two options.

Remember physicalism is a relatively new idea that has, for the most part, replaced the now untenable materialism.

There's another point here about the the misapplication of science -- in this case, we don't have enough information to draw a scientific conclusion. The best we can legitimately say is that there is a strong relationship between the mind and the brain.

As for the metaphysical assumption itself, the predictive power of scientific theories speaks for itself. The modern world is filled with devices that work because the scientific theories which they are based around are excellent predictors of how the real world behaves.

I'm not attacking science in any way. The problem people like me run in to when we try to talk about these sorts of problems is that we get accused of promoting mysticism or of being anti-science when we're not.

I agree that you do need a set of metaphysical assumptions before you can being any process of scientific inquery -- how could I disagree? There is a danger, however, that you mistake those assumptions for reality. Newton himself struggled with gravity because, from his perspective, it was a non-physical "force" (a term that, in Newtons day, carried with it mystical implications) To borrow a phrase, gravity was to Newton "spooky action at a distance".

Anyhow, the point I intended to make was that the fellow I was replying to very likely held what he believed to be a scientific belief without any evidence. In that case, I assumed that he accepted emergentism, as it's the most common view point. Noting that it is not the only monist position, there is insufficient evidence to hold that belief if you demand, as the other guy does, that all of your beliefs require evidence.

What he really means is that all his beliefs must be subject to empirical investigation -- it doesn't matter if he has evidence, merely being able to posit a natural explanation is sufficient (and that any natural explanation, right or wrong, is preferable to no explanation.) This is why I accused him of Scientism.

Science is wonderful -- if you do it right. Science is too important to me to allow it to be misused and misapplied. The "Born-again" atheist crowd is doing nothing but harm when they spread their nonsense -- far more harm to science than the religious zealots could ever hope to do.
 
2012-05-10 10:24:10 PM

Diogenes The Cynic: 1. My point still stands. I don't know what yours was.


Then you're not very bright.

Diogenes The Cynic: 2. Philosophy makes things make sense.


No, it doesn't. Establishing the difference between true things and false things makes things make sense. Philosophy only establishes some mental constructs as separate from other mental constructs.

Diogenes The Cynic: 3. I don't care what other peolpe do, generally. No one is out to get you either.


Except when you do. You don't exist in a solipsistic vacuum.

Diogenes The Cynic: 4. Nope


Yes. You disregard Russel's arguments as ad hominem by calling the people who make them stupid, which is the epitome of the ad hominem fallacy. Apparently your GED in the history of philosophy didn't cover irony.

Diogenes The Cynic: 5. Without philosophy, we wouldn't have a good reason to have a government the way we do, a court system the way we do, a society that disapproves of slavery, torture, and other nasty things because we wouldn't coherently think of why things are optimal one way and not another.


Tell me, which great philosophers explained why slavery, torture, and other nasty things were wrong, and what makes their opinions more or less valid than the ones who said that slavery, torture, and other nasty things were right?

Diogenes The Cynic: 6.That might be true of Islam or Christianity, but mine started when G-d took the Jewish nation out of Egypt.


Except that never happened, and you can't demonstrate that it did. The Hebrew religions grew out of the ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions. You didn't even get your GED in this, did you?

Diogenes The Cynic: 7. Kid, start reading.


What, are you 12? You're just a big ol' ball of denial and ignorance, aren't you?
 
2012-05-10 10:26:19 PM
Farking Canuck: I've listed them twice. You are obviously just a troll.

Well, you never told me which assumptions I got wrong -- you only asserted that I didn't have enough information upon which to base my assumptions.

Replying to you the second time was probably trolling -- I had a pretty good idea that I was spot-on after your Weeners.

This post is defiantly trolling, as I now know how rattled you when I reply to you with simple questions that I know you can't answer.
 
2012-05-10 10:29:15 PM

180IQ: Farking Canuck: I've listed them twice. You are obviously just a troll.

Well, you never told me which assumptions I got wrong -- you only asserted that I didn't have enough information upon which to base my assumptions.

Replying to you the second time was probably trolling -- I had a pretty good idea that I was spot-on after your Weeners.

This post is defiantly trolling, as I now know how rattled you when I reply to you with simple questions that I know you can't answer.


How was that post defiantly trolling?
 
2012-05-10 10:33:55 PM
mgshamster: How was that post defiantly trolling?

Because I made it only to elicit an inflammatory response. I expect that I'll be successful despite admitting my intentions twice.
 
2012-05-10 10:34:06 PM

GilRuiz1: Keep in mind Richard Feynman also said: "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."


Hi, Gil.

I think that this is true, but there needs to be some work done to show that something is a nonscientific matter. You can no more claim that "God led the Jews out of Egypt" than you can "God made me pancakes this morning" unless you first put in a bit of work to show that there were in fact pancakes. If there weren't any pancakes, then it's pretty well useless to talk about the divine properties of them.

I do think this lends itself to shoving God into an irrelevant corner of do-nothing-ness, though. I think you might agree that these conversations trend toward discussing God as some sort of fuzzy blob of doesn't-give-a-shiat, since the particulars of divine works tend not to bear out under examination.
 
2012-05-10 10:38:52 PM

mgshamster: 180IQ: Farking Canuck: I've listed them twice. You are obviously just a troll.

Well, you never told me which assumptions I got wrong -- you only asserted that I didn't have enough information upon which to base my assumptions.

Replying to you the second time was probably trolling -- I had a pretty good idea that I was spot-on after your Weeners.

This post is defiantly trolling, as I now know how rattled you when I reply to you with simple questions that I know you can't answer.

How was that post defiantly trolling?


Heh ... good point. Probably it was the way he said it out loud while he was typing it. All forceful and angry ... startled his mother all the way up in the kitchen.

I'm pretty sure that he slipped a decimal point in his name. Possibly a typo though as 18 still seems a bit high.

/write him off ... he's got nothing interesting or even coherent to say
 
2012-05-10 10:40:10 PM

180IQ: Bad_Seed: A man gets a railroad spike driven through his head and survives, but his personality and mental processes undergo a radical change.

You're thinking of Phineas Gage.

. Now, without assuming physicalism, we have two possibilities. Either the mind is a product of the brain, in which case the physical damage to the brain caused a change in the man's mind, or the mind is some separate ethereal substance

That's a false dichotomy. Those are undoubtedly not the only two options.

Remember physicalism is a relatively new idea that has, for the most part, replaced the now untenable materialism.

There's another point here about the the misapplication of science -- in this case, we don't have enough information to draw a scientific conclusion. The best we can legitimately say is that there is a strong relationship between the mind and the brain.

As for the metaphysical assumption itself, the predictive power of scientific theories speaks for itself. The modern world is filled with devices that work because the scientific theories which they are based around are excellent predictors of how the real world behaves.

I'm not attacking science in any way. The problem people like me run in to when we try to talk about these sorts of problems is that we get accused of promoting mysticism or of being anti-science when we're not.

I agree that you do need a set of metaphysical assumptions before you can being any process of scientific inquery -- how could I disagree? There is a danger, however, that you mistake those assumptions for reality. Newton himself struggled with gravity because, from his perspective, it was a non-physical "force" (a term that, in Newtons day, carried with it mystical implications) To borrow a phrase, gravity was to Newton "spooky action at a distance".

Anyhow, the point I intended to make was that the fellow I was replying to very likely held what he believed to be a scientific belief without any evidence. In that case, I assumed that he ...


You think that the mind changing because the brain was damaged is a misapplication of science that "born-again atheists" use to attack people and spread nonsense? What? Nothing you've said makes any damn sense.

mgshamster: 180IQ: Farking Canuck: I've listed them twice. You are obviously just a troll.

Well, you never told me which assumptions I got wrong -- you only asserted that I didn't have enough information upon which to base my assumptions.

Replying to you the second time was probably trolling -- I had a pretty good idea that I was spot-on after your Weeners.

This post is defiantly trolling, as I now know how rattled you when I reply to you with simple questions that I know you can't answer.

How was that post defiantly trolling?


Because 180IQ is trolling. Farking Canuck answered his questions, but 180IQ ignored it and went off on another tangent in order to trick and trap him or something.
 
2012-05-10 10:40:43 PM

180IQ: mgshamster: How was that post defiantly trolling?

Because I made it only to elicit an inflammatory response. I expect that I'll be successful despite admitting my intentions twice.


I understand the trolling part. I just don't understand how it was defiant. It's not like Farcking Canuck is a prominent authority figure to which one can show defiance.
 
2012-05-10 10:42:57 PM

mgshamster: It's not like Farcking Canuck is a prominent authority figure to which one can show defiance.


Hey! Kneel before Zod me!!
 
2012-05-10 10:45:26 PM

Diogenes The Cynic: mine started when G-d took the Jewish nation out of Egypt.


That actually never happened. There's simply no factual evidence that Jews ever were held in bondage in Egypt, and then traipsed off; and one would think this alleged event on which several religions are based on, and over 2,000 years of archeology would have turned up some proof of it by now.
 
2012-05-10 10:45:49 PM

Farking Canuck: mgshamster: It's not like Farcking Canuck is a prominent authority figure to which one can show defiance.

Hey! Kneel before Zod me!!


robot6.comicbookresources.com
/hot
 
2012-05-10 10:59:44 PM

Epicedion: Diogenes The Cynic: 5. Without philosophy, we wouldn't have a good reason to have a government the way we do, a court system the way we do, a society that disapproves of slavery, torture, and other nasty things because we wouldn't coherently think of why things are optimal one way and not another.

Tell me, which great philosophers explained why slavery, torture, and other nasty things were wrong, and what makes their opinions more or less valid than the ones who said that slavery, torture, and other nasty things were right?


I missed that one. I love that faulty theory, though is usually subbed with religion / morals causing government.

I'll simplify the "good reason" to have government, laws, and rules. Survival.

A smart being recognizes the fact that an injustice on another could just as well have happened to him instead under different circumstances. Ergo he attempts to structure society to safeguard himself(and others). civil rights are a byproduct of intelligence protecting itself at the basest levels.

No morals, philosophy, or religion needed.
 
2012-05-10 11:02:40 PM

Farking Canuck: /write him off ... he's got nothing interesting or even coherent to say


Big yawn.

It's not my fault you can't answer a simple question. No, your standard "You can't say that because you don't know me" answer doesn't count.

So, come one, which one of my assumptions about your position did I get wrong? You don't believe that the mind is a product of the brain? What a weird thing for someone who pretends to be ration to admit!
 
2012-05-10 11:15:55 PM
As a Catholic I always thought the whole Jesus Christ lesson was you don't have to be a god to be good or not be a overall asshole. Of course, he had to use his god powers because of some stubborn skeptics. But that's how I saw it. In the end, they killed him for it because well, fundies are dangerous man.

Whether it was meant to be a literal story or not, I think the moral stuck. DOn't be a dick, and don't bother with fundies.

In my misguided fresh from college mind way back, I thought that if Jesus Christ were alive today, Fox and the Christian fundies news would call him a communist. The South Park Da Vinci Code pretty much got it right, even faced with Jesus himself, the fundies take the core of what they believe in and twist it that it's hardly a shell of what it was and it would all about them.

In conclusion, fundies, no matter which side they come from, are dicks and overall assholes. So don't be like them.
 
2012-05-10 11:16:57 PM
omeganuepsilon:A smart being recognizes the fact that an injustice on another could just as well have happened to him instead under different circumstances. Ergo he attempts to structure society to safeguard himself(and others).

No morals, philosophy, or religion needed.

So ... how do we know what is and is not just? Oh, philosophy.

So ... how do we know what is and is not ethical? Oh, philosophy.

civil rights are a byproduct of intelligence protecting itself at the basest levels.

How do we know what rights are and ought to be? Oh, philosophy.

As a side note: If what you're saying is true, why do people in power so often act to restrict the rights of others?

What's your beef with philosophy anyway? Philosophy gave us science, mathematics, logic, and democracy. If you need something more modern, it put a quick end to computationalist approaches to strong AI -- saving billions of dollars -- and funding more productive avenues of research.

Philosophy isn't idle speculation, you know .-- Wait, you clearly don't know!
 
2012-05-10 11:24:31 PM

180IQ: omeganuepsilon:A smart being recognizes the fact that an injustice on another could just as well have happened to him instead under different circumstances. Ergo he attempts to structure society to safeguard himself(and others).

No morals, philosophy, or religion needed.

So ... how do we know what is and is not just? Oh, philosophy.

So ... how do we know what is and is not ethical? Oh, philosophy.

civil rights are a byproduct of intelligence protecting itself at the basest levels.

How do we know what rights are and ought to be? Oh, philosophy.

As a side note: If what you're saying is true, why do people in power so often act to restrict the rights of others?

What's your beef with philosophy anyway? Philosophy gave us science, mathematics, logic, and democracy. If you need something more modern, it put a quick end to computationalist approaches to strong AI -- saving billions of dollars -- and funding more productive avenues of research.

Philosophy isn't idle speculation, you know .-- Wait, you clearly don't know!


So, what set you off on your tirade for the defense of philosophy? I don't think anyone here said anything about it, positive or negative. You're not making a good light of yourself or what you believe with the way you're acting.
 
2012-05-10 11:32:40 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: 180IQ: omeganuepsilon:A smart being recognizes the fact that an injustice on another could just as well have happened to him instead under different circumstances. Ergo he attempts to structure society to safeguard himself(and others).

No morals, philosophy, or religion needed.

So ... how do we know what is and is not just? Oh, philosophy.

So ... how do we know what is and is not ethical? Oh, philosophy.

civil rights are a byproduct of intelligence protecting itself at the basest levels.

How do we know what rights are and ought to be? Oh, philosophy.

As a side note: If what you're saying is true, why do people in power so often act to restrict the rights of others?

What's your beef with philosophy anyway? Philosophy gave us science, mathematics, logic, and democracy. If you need something more modern, it put a quick end to computationalist approaches to strong AI -- saving billions of dollars -- and funding more productive avenues of research.

Philosophy isn't idle speculation, you know .-- Wait, you clearly don't know!

So, what set you off on your tirade for the defense of philosophy? I don't think anyone here said anything about it, positive or negative. You're not making a good light of yourself or what you believe with the way you're acting.


`
Keizer, if you look at his previous posts you might notice this little AW is much more interested in the sound of his own voice than actual debate or dialog.
/kinda sad actually
 
Displayed 50 of 660 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report