Skip to content
 
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.

(Lexington Herald Leader)   "This current brand of aggressive atheism is just another form of fundamentalism. These particular atheists are zealots on the subject of faith who see no shadings of gray, only black and white"   (kentucky.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, history of atheism, grey, Herald-Leader, circumstantial evidence, Christopher Hitchens, Trinity, other Christians, The God Delusion  
•       •       •

14655 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 12 Jun 2010 at 6:41 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



1880 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | » | Newest

 
2010-06-14 5:04:10 PM  

James F. Campbell: God darnit, abb3w, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.


Oh, I did omit that others have noted him having a peculiar interest in homoerotic imagery.

Then again, I really have no clue about what's going on in his head with that, or how it might fit in with the rest. Sex/power imagery confusion, OUTGROUP-based source derogation, an attempt at inducing PURITY/disgust aversion, projection of repressed impulses, or overt wanting more (varied) gratification/attention than he gets at home? I dunno. Perhaps I'll ask "Uncle" Ghastly about it if I notice him happening to pass through a thread where the inquiry wouldn't be a massive threadjack; Ghastly's super gay, and seems pretty insightful into human motivations. He might be able to make more sense of it, and if nothing else tends to be amusing.
 
2010-06-14 5:06:15 PM  

abb3w: True, you're relatively intelligent and moderately well-read. However, that's about all you have going for you. You appear to be incredibly bad at conveying your reasoning.


This perfectly describes you. I can't help feel as if your whole purpose here is to garner respect and adoration by reinforcing and offering pseudo-justification to the prevalent beliefs among Fark's more intelligent crowd. The problem, however, is twofold:

1. Granting that what you're saying is sensible and coherent the vast majority of your receptive audience is woefully under-equipped to understand and process your argument. You're preaching to a deaf and blind choir.
2. What you're saying isn't nearly coherent or sensible. Your conclusion isn't nearly necessitated and your beliefs about the repercussions of rejecting one of your premises are outright false and unjustifiable. You engage in constant obfuscation when the duty of any decent philosopher (I use that term loosely to characterize you) is to explain and elucidate his position; something which is quite probably impossible for you to adequately do.

As somebody who has taken numerous courses in the philosophy of mathematics and logic I can appreciate what you're trying to do, but the fact that you allow yourself to be taken seriously is, quite frankly, ridiculous and disgusting.
 
2010-06-14 5:15:31 PM  

cthellis: Frankly, "humanism" is a tad too speciesist for my tastes. ;-) I'm kind of intrigued with desirism, which is hard to grasp but seems more universally applicable, and I think would serve us better as the borders of could be considered "human" broaden and get challenged.


There's plenty of excellent literature on the variously varieties of utilitarianism, of which desire is one. In utilitarian terms I'd consider humanism a kind of interest utilitarian where the only interests considered are human interests. Human interest utilitarianism can possibly be characterized as speciesist, although I wouldn't do so because I take it to be in our best interest to act in the interests of beings other than ourselves. Utilitarianism is at once extremely flexible and meaninglessly vague in that fashion; there's an act, rule, desire, interest, or whatever other flavour of utilitarianism you can think of argument for almost anything/everything.
 
2010-06-14 5:17:01 PM  

zeph`: interest utilitarian


Utilitarianism. FTFM!
 
2010-06-14 5:20:27 PM  

zeph`: cthellis: Frankly, "humanism"


I should specify that I take interest utilitarianism as different from desire utilitarianism in that what's in our best interests isn't always what we desire and vice versa. I can't imagine what justification could be offered for attempting to maximize desire fulfilment rather than interest fulfilment, although I'd love to hear what you think.
 
2010-06-14 5:20:51 PM  

abb3w: 'm not claiming it a law "of nature" (in the sense of "that which produces experience"), but a theorem of mathematics (which includes more generalized relationships) about probability. It presumes the self-consistency of ZF, and that what is being discussed (EG: the cloture on production of experience aka "nature") has a "pattern" (formally: complexity recognized by an ordinal degree Turing hypercomputer). It's possible to take Refutation of one of the prerequisite axioms; however, that then leaves you with a variety of philosophically unpleasant conditions: lacking relations to connect propositions, lacking a consistent language, or lacking the ability to distinguish a hawk from a handsaw regardless of wind direction.

I think we're down to just The Usual Suspects who are probably familiar with this by now, but anyone else with questions on what all that means, feel free to ask.



really? so now it's a mathematical theorem? Do you distinguish boolean data from information? Or do you still think you can disprove Tarski from within a system?

All this time, and you can't admit one of the implications of the Strong-Church--Turing thesis is that the universe is not Turing computable.

So now you've moved to quantum hypercomputation using quantum-mechanically enhanced, "non-algorithmic" computation. Still think Kolmogorov complexity is a universal truth? Or that "truth" is boolean and non-trivial?

Still referring to anything other than your beliefs as "hypercomputational exceptions" regardless of how they're actually defined as philosophical implications?

Interesting. That doesn't really sound like Occam though. I'll agree the process for nondeterminism decision tables may be boolean, maybe not, but I don't think you'll applying that universally or eliminating multi-valued logic anytime soon. Last time I checked, you still haven't solved P=NP yet, or have you?

We have had a number of discussions where you ignored satisfaction, entailment, determinism, complex systems, complexity classes, NP complete, P=NP for all Rn, limits under a finite construct for a MDLI, weak vs. strong law of excluded middle in ZF¬C as ZFC, the fact that you think seem to think the ZF with the axiom of dependent choice = ZFC with the axiom of choice, nonlocality, multiple other criticisms of digital physics explaining why you merely have beliefs, and any and all of the philosophical implications that your continual hypotheses around digital physics could be wrong and frankly weren't (and aren't) mathematically "provable" from within the system regardless, and you merely have a belief.

I stopped trying to get through to you a couple years back when you introduced Chac the Mayan Rain God crapping diamonds as a scientific hypothesis. But I won't ignore you when you try to bullshiat people.

Again, you have your beliefs. Try not to be a sophist about them with laymen.
 
2010-06-14 5:30:18 PM  

Gunther: Actually, it doesn't, because there's no such thing as the supernatural.


uh-huh, and you have empirical evidence to support this? or you merely have a belief?

As I pointed out, part of the problem is anyone can claim incoherence. And you can create your own happy coherent theory of reality, even if it doesn't correspond to reality, but only your happy little corner of it.

Again, you should probably take this up with anyone who does not believe in Embodied Mind theory, or just make it simple and claim everything regardless of the limits of physicalism, materialism and logical positivism is "nature", but refuse to define "nature" coherently.
 
2010-06-14 5:30:36 PM  

cthellis: Would've taken less time to just use kirby's "dickbutt" reference. ;-)


Probably; but likely having less long-run influence.

Gunther: I feel like I should applaud or something.


No. As I suggested: consider it, and come to your own conclusions.

zeph`: This perfectly describes you.


Possibly. I've at least been able to convey some of my ideas.

zeph`: I can't help feel as if your whole purpose here is to garner respect and adoration by reinforcing and offering pseudo-justification to the prevalent beliefs among Fark's more intelligent crowd.


In part, although I'd dispute "pseudo-", and would suggest "refining" over "reinforcing".

Practice conveying my line of reasoning also enters into it, at which I don't seem to have been completely unsuccessful. Refining the reasoning is another part.

zeph`: Your conclusion isn't nearly necessitated and your beliefs about the repercussions of rejecting one of your premises are outright false and unjustifiable.


There are alternative approaches for logic and mathematics, but most major alternatives are able to model each other as isomorphisms.

As for distinguishing hawk from handsaw, if you think you can show how, either Refuting the assumption of pattern or independent of the premise, elucidate by all means.
 
2010-06-14 5:30:53 PM  

kerpal32: Because nothing defines a person or group's views and actions better than when they insist on defining what they are by what they're not. That's really one of the problems with atheism today. It doesn't really reflect or promote any positives as a doctrine by itself.


Isn't that exactly what all religion that relies on supernatural concepts does? The whole definition of "supernatural" is defined in terms of what it's not. So basically, "God" is a concept that insists on defining itself in terms of what it's not. It doesn't really reflect or promote any positives as a doctrine by itself. It seems to me that if you're going to try to make this criticism of atheism, you should at least apply it equally to theism.
 
2010-06-14 5:42:25 PM  

abb3w: Gunther: I feel like I should applaud or something.

No. As I suggested: consider it, and come to your own conclusions.


I agree. I feel like I should applaud or something.
 
2010-06-14 5:46:23 PM  

kerpal32: Gunther: Actually, it doesn't, because there's no such thing as the supernatural.

uh-huh, and you have empirical evidence to support this? or you merely have a belief?


So... you just ignored the rest of my post, then? Because I go on to explain what I meant by that fairly clearly. The word "supernatural" as you use it is either incoherent or a tautology. If you think I'm being unfair, give me your own personal definition.

kerpal32: refuse to define "nature" coherently


*sigh* I'm using "nature" in the dictionary-standard way: "the material world and its phenomena."
 
2010-06-14 5:57:18 PM  

Mnemia: kerpal32: Because nothing defines a person or group's views and actions better than when they insist on defining what they are by what they're not. That's really one of the problems with atheism today. It doesn't really reflect or promote any positives as a doctrine by itself.

Isn't that exactly what all religion that relies on supernatural concepts does? The whole definition of "supernatural" is defined in terms of what it's not. So basically, "God" is a concept that insists on defining itself in terms of what it's not. It doesn't really reflect or promote any positives as a doctrine by itself. It seems to me that if you're going to try to make this criticism of atheism, you should at least apply it equally to theism.


I see your point, and I agree with you, but what many atheists refuse to admit is we're discussing metaphysical beliefs outside of science on whether reality (all that exists whether it is observable or comprehensible) >= existence > "nature" (if you can provide a coherent definition of "nature"). Or whether "nature" (if you can define it coherently) and nature's laws are all there are.

That's not the same as what many atheists do when they claim they reject or merely have a lack of belief.

And frankly, there's nothing that says "God" or any "Deity" cannot be "part of nature". This is where many atheists get confused and scream "God of the Gaps!".

As I pointed out, they're ontological metaphysical beliefs, outside of science. But in the same respect, they result from many of the ontological implications upon which science is founded. So two people can look at reality and have different beliefs.

again, in case you missed it, here's Eugenie Scott explaining the differences between methodological and metaphysical naturalism and restating what I've been telling certain Farkers for years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu2A04fWfzU (pops)
 
2010-06-14 6:04:29 PM  

Gunther: So... you just ignored the rest of my post, then? Because I go on to explain what I meant by that fairly clearly. The word "supernatural" as you use it is either incoherent or a tautology. If you think I'm being unfair, give me your own personal definition.


I don't. As I've said, I believe nature is defined as the bounded evident observable physical universe and phenomena. I simply don't believe reality = nature at all boundaries as a set.

And I've pointed out why, provided multiple examples, and explained why you can simply discard any view that doesn't meet your own as incoherent. But because you have a philosophical view based on metaphysical naturalism, you cannot accept any other philosophical view. Well, actually you could. But you won't. Which takes us back to "fundies", and what your fundamentalist beliefs are based on.

"The problem of course is that in the standard modern picture, science is empirical, based on induction, and tends to favor a materialistic ontology, while mathematics is non-empirical, based on deduction, and tends to favor a Platonist/Pythagorean ontology... yet somehow they need each other! So, mathematics is not only the queen and handmaiden of the sciences - it's the secret mistress as well, a source of romantic fascination but also some embarrassment."
~John Baez (John's an atheist btw. But he's respectful of other's beliefs because he understands the foundation of his own)
 
2010-06-14 6:05:25 PM  

abb3w: In part, although I'd dispute "pseudo-",


It's pseudo-justification in that people are unjustified in their belief that what you say justifies their beliefs.

abb3w: and would suggest "refining"


You refine where you add understanding; I don't believe that that's what you're doing. What you're doing is emboldening by offering an incomplete argument packed as full as possible with obtuse concepts.

abb3w: There are alternative approaches for logic and mathematics


How many people here understand the "alternative approaches" to logic? I feel as if you're doing something disingenuous by authoritatively offering an argument that your audience cannot only not falsify but cannot fathom how it might be falsifiable. You're Joseph Smith with the golden plates.

You seem intelligent but I absolutely hate to see you distract from threads with vaguely related and completely useless digressions. Even if what you're saying ends up being completely sound and valid there's no reason for anybody here to care now, as this venue is completely inappropriate for the discussions and argumentation that you're so fond of engaging in. Explanation can only be as clear as the concepts invoked during said explanation; you can "refine" your argument all you'd like but you'd still be better served by eschewing the advanced concepts you rely upon and attempt to discuss these (incredibly interesting and important) topics in a manner that suits the forum.
 
2010-06-14 6:07:00 PM  

kerpal32: abb3w: Gunther: I feel like I should applaud or something.

No. As I suggested: consider it, and come to your own conclusions.

I agree. I feel like I should applaud or something.


He hit upon my main problem with you (well, apart from the shameless amount of abuse you heap on others): you're clearly intelligent, but you don't seem to want to explain your beliefs. You seem to deliberately make your arguments as impenetrable as possible in the hope it will deter people from arguing with you.

It makes me think there's nothing to them but sophistry.


kerpal32: again, in case you missed it, here's Eugenie Scott explaining the differences between methodological and metaphysical naturalism and restating what I've been telling certain Farkers for years.


And I disagree. Here's a good rebuttal to the claim that the supernatural is immune to scientific analysis.
 
2010-06-14 6:25:54 PM  

kerpal32: I see your point, and I agree with you, but what many atheists refuse to admit is we're discussing metaphysical beliefs outside of science on whether reality (all that exists whether it is observable or comprehensible) >= existence > "nature" (if you can provide a coherent definition of "nature"). Or whether "nature" (if you can define it coherently) and nature's laws are all there are.

That's not the same as what many atheists do when they claim they reject or merely have a lack of belief.


To be fair, there is absolutely zero evidence that there IS anything "outside of nature". And my point is that there is no real definition or "meat" to any of those supernatural concepts, because they're really just logical constructions based on things that we DO have evidence of. A "BOO God" is really just a logical construction based on things we do have actual evidence of. And it's a perfectly reasonable position to insist that there is no distinction between the physical and the "metaphysical".


And frankly, there's nothing that says "God" or any "Deity" cannot be "part of nature". This is where many atheists get confused and scream "God of the Gaps!".


If "nature" is defined in the normal way that most atheists would define it, then any deity that actually exists is part of nature, because nature encompasses everything that it's reasonable to discuss as a "real" entity. It's not that people get "confused": it's that "God of the Gaps" really is a goalpost-moving maneuver that theists have repeatedly used over the arc of history in order to defend their beliefs from the onslaught of advancing scientific knowledge. Before comparatively recently, people really DID believe things like thunder and the rising and setting sun were the work of the god(s). It's a legitimate criticism, because the metaphysical concept you're discussing is NOT what many theists conceive of as God.


As I pointed out, they're ontological metaphysical beliefs, outside of science. But in the same respect, they result from many of the ontological implications upon which science is founded. So two people can look at reality and have different beliefs.


You could make up any coherent "system" of metaphysics you want based on "belief", but there is nothing to anchor it to reality because it's just abstraction layered upon abstraction layered upon underlying assumptions and postulates. Science, on the other hand, doesn't need to make metaphysical claims in order to be "useful", since it's a fantastic tool for understanding and discovering the nature of reality, as far as we've seen over its track record. OTOH, and this is what many atheists believe, the fact that science has consistently made useful and reliable predictions about reality is strong evidence (not proof) that it actually is anchored to a metaphysical sense of "reality". Belief, on the other hand, has never been very good at increasing our understanding of nature or reality: just look at how many alternate systems of religious thought people have created once they free themselves from the need for empirical grounding. Looking at human psychology, it seems like a more parsimonious explanation to just guess that all religions are just philosophies made up by people rather than a reflection of anything "real".
 
2010-06-14 6:27:51 PM  

kerpal32: I don't. As I've said, I believe nature is defined as the bounded evident observable physical universe and phenomena.


OK, that's perfectly fine. Now what's your definition of supernatural? can the supernatural (however you define it) interact with anything in the natural universe?
 
2010-06-14 6:29:24 PM  

Mnemia: Belief, on the other hand, has never been very good at increasing our understanding of nature or reality


What does this mean? All "understanding" is believed ("belief").

Mnemia: Science, on the other hand, doesn't need to make metaphysical claims


Does science actually make no metaphysical claims/rest on any specific metaphysical foundation? I'm not sure how this could be the case.
 
2010-06-14 6:31:21 PM  

Gunther: Now what's your definition of supernatural?


The natural world is epiphenomenal to the supernatural world. Argue with that, biatch!

Now that I think about it, I should write a paper seriously defending that view. I'll get published for sure.
 
2010-06-14 6:37:40 PM  

Gunther: kerpal32: again, in case you missed it, here's Eugenie Scott explaining the differences between methodological and metaphysical naturalism and restating what I've been telling certain Farkers for years.

And I disagree. Here's a good rebuttal to the claim that the supernatural is immune to scientific analysis.


Suffice it to say that science can address some empiric claims made. But Coyne pitching out strawmen really doesn't address the points I've presented.

Here's Massimo's post which fueled the entire "war".

Suffice it to say I agree with he, Eugenie Scott, Penrose, and many others (as scientists and philosophers of science, both atheists and theists), even before Massimo Pigliucci stated it publicly, because our points ARE part of the philosophy of science, whereas Coyne's points are a lot of strawmen.

Here's a rebuttal by Ken Miller btw (who also opposes ID and creationsim) who thinks Coyne is incorrect in his assertions.

The argument your referencing has been going on with these gentlemen for years. All I can say is I have both atheists and theists in the sciences who define the philosophy of science in my corner, and you have a pack of "militant atheists" in yours. So I'd say mine is the more "pragmatic".

But at least your actually starting to cite people instead of saying "no it isn't" over and over.
 
2010-06-14 6:40:44 PM  

Gunther: He hit upon my main problem with you (well, apart from the shameless amount of abuse you heap on others): you're clearly intelligent, but you don't seem to want to explain your beliefs. You seem to deliberately make your arguments as impenetrable as possible in the hope it will deter people from arguing with you.


what you don't get is you're asking me to explain my "beliefs" from a completely naturalistic perspective that YOU find acceptable and you dogmatically reject anything that doesn't "mesh" with your own philosophical beliefs.

Sorry.
 
2010-06-14 6:48:33 PM  

kerpal32: The argument your referencing has been going on with these gentlemen for years.


Indeed, I've been following it with mild interest for some time.

kerpal32: All I can say is I have both atheists and theists in the sciences who define the philosophy of science in my corner, and you have a pack of "militant atheists" in yours. So I'd say mine is the more "pragmatic".


Well, that's a silly way to argue. The strength of their arguments should be the deciding factor, not whether you think the atheists on my side are militant or not (as a side note, they define themselves as "weak" atheists, not "strong" atheists. can a "weak" atheist be militant?)

The end point I'm trying to reach with you is this: assuming it exists, either the supernatural affects this universe in some way or it doesn't. If it does, then it's testable by science. If it doesn't, then it doesn't really resemble a definition of "supernatural" used by anyone other than you and a few philosophers. For most people, the term "supernatural" encompasses things like miracles, ghosts, psychics and so on.
 
2010-06-14 6:52:58 PM  

kerpal32: e.g. like giving Bill Maher the Dawkins award for his work "advocating increased scientific knowledge (o'really?)


To be fair, I remember that thread, and ninjakirby frowned mightily upon the Atheist Alliance International's shenanigans.

/More people should say things like "frown mightily."
 
2010-06-14 7:02:08 PM  

zeph`: What does this mean? All "understanding" is believed ("belief").


My "belief" that the world will continue to rotate on its axis tomorrow is stronger than the belief in souls, the afterlife, etc, can possibly be, because it has a track record of being correct. The theory that the Earth rotates on its axis has explanatory utility (it helps explain a wide variety of observed phenomena) and it has always predicted the future. It is informed by, and constantly informs, other theories. A religious "belief", on the other hand, can be anything, no matter how ungrounded from reality, because there is no future "check" on whether it was a successful theory. The two concepts have a wholly different character.

Does science actually make no metaphysical claims/rest on any specific metaphysical foundation? I'm not sure how this could be the case.

What I mean is that you don't have to believe that any of the theories we have come up with through the scientific process have any metaphysical "truth" to them, in order to be able to use them as working theories for the time being. This is a way how religious fundamentalists can reconcile their profoundly ungrounded beliefs with careers in science, the use of antibiotics, etc.
 
2010-06-14 7:08:03 PM  

Mnemia: To be fair, there is absolutely zero evidence that there IS anything "outside of nature".


to be fair, you need to define "evidence" (empirical evidence?) without reverting back to "physicalism" and materialism.

you may want to go back through this and past threads where we discussed mathematical realism, entities, existence, phenomenology and emergent phenomenon, and most recently the limits of coherentism. Particularly with regard to the limits of logical postivism, evidentialism and strict empiricism.

/will cover other points later if time.
 
2010-06-14 7:13:31 PM  

Gunther: Well, that's a silly way to argue.


you mean as opposed to you grasping for every possible straw from occam to Kuhn to coherentism and anything you can grasp for in between or simply saying "no it isn't"? I'd laugh but I'm eating.

Don't you kids ever get hungry?

totalleh.comView Full Size
 
2010-06-14 7:18:26 PM  

kerpal32: to be fair, you need to define "evidence" (empirical evidence?) without reverting back to "physicalism" and materialism.

you may want to go back through this and past threads where we discussed mathematical realism, entities, existence, phenomenology and emergent phenomenon, and most recently the limits of coherentism. Particularly with regard to the limits of logical postivism, evidentialism and strict empiricism.

/will cover other points later if time.


I'm aware of all this, and there is no point in arguing it with you when you're 100% convinced that you're right. I just think that scientific "evidence" has a better track record when it comes to predicting the future, explaining things, and being useful to humanity than any kind of religious, philosophical, or metaphysical belief. I feel VERY confident in making that statement. And I don't really care much whether there are some metaphysical concepts, that by definition, cannot be proven or disproven by scientific evidence, because if they can't be falsified they are a) completely irrelevant to my life, b) beyond my control, and c) completely based on supposition, and completely unknowable. In other words, I don't really care whether a deism-style god exists or not, because the answer to that question has no bearing on how I want to live my life and doesn't affect me in any way that I have control over. On the other hand, I do believe that virtually all organized religion does make statements that are testable by science, in principle, and many statements that have already been strongly falsified by scientific evidence (with the caveat that all scientific knowledge is provisional). For example, we "know" for a fact that the belief of some Christians in a global flood is false, about as far as we can "know" anything.
 
2010-06-14 7:20:39 PM  

GilRuiz1: kerpal32: e.g. like giving Bill Maher the Dawkins award for his work "advocating increased scientific knowledge (o'really?)

To be fair, I remember that thread, and ninjakirby frowned mightily upon the Atheist Alliance International's shenanigans.

/More people should say things like "frown mightily."


Everyone* hated that he got that award.

*He was probably pretty excited about it.
 
2010-06-14 7:26:02 PM  

kerpal32: u mean as opposed to you grasping for every possible straw from occam to Kuhn to coherentism and anything you can grasp for in between or simply saying "no it isn't"?


Tu Quoque, much?

Also If I was grasping for straws, I'd have to be thinking that I was losing an argument. For that to happen there would actually have to BE an argument, rather than just hurled abuse and sophistry.

For now, I just want you to clarify your goddamn views. You believe in the supernatural. What is your definition of
"supernatural", and why do you believe in it?

And don't say "Your dogmatic mind could never understand!".
 
2010-06-14 7:45:49 PM  

Gunther: For now, I just want you to clarify your goddamn views. You believe in the supernatural. What is your definition of
"supernatural", and why do you believe in it?


He knows that if he were to actually talk about what he believes, he opens the door to his beliefs being criticized, which is something his insecure and fragile mind simply cannot accept. So, he plays according to the "best defense is a good offense" mentality and refuses to let anyone know his beliefs so he doesn't have to defend them. Of course, consider he has nothing but paper-thin attacks against anyone else's belief system(s) it's clear he's not too good at going on the offensive, either.

Also, considering he has such a profound inferiority complex that he feels he has to get the last word in in every thread, there's no point arguing with him. It, however, used to be fun to simply b*tchslap him around like one of those blow-up clown punching bags. Up until he equated atheists posting on the internet to murdering people, anyway. He sort of peaked in terms of his prejudice, fundamentalism, and zealotry at that point.

Considering he went total psycho-stalker man-crush on Zamboro when he decided to ignore kerpal - and oh what a marvelous display of sadomasochistic lust that was - it's much more fun to just see him respond to people who ignore him now. He's such a willing participant in his own public degradation.
 
2010-06-14 7:47:40 PM  

zeph`: What you're doing is emboldening by offering an incomplete argument packed as full as possible with obtuse concepts.


While you regard the concepts as obtuse, I'd say they're ultimately fundamental to the various arguments. A simple way to render them less obscure is to introduce people to them repeatedly until they become familiar.

zeph`: How many people here understand the "alternative approaches" to logic?


That would be kerpal32, if anyone, as he brought up Heyting logic; possibly one or two others.

However, that's somewhat incidental. Most people are already implicitly relying on the prerequisite ideas I am using. The only reason the other approaches come up is in disclosure of what it takes to reject the premises when someone wants to do that.

zeph`: You seem intelligent but I absolutely hate to see you distract from threads with vaguely related and completely useless digressions.


"Use" implies selection of purpose, and thus an "ought" premise, which presupposes a bridge across.... =)

The digressions sometimes help people reconsider their preconceptions. Reconsidering preconceptions sometimes helps lead people to a better understanding of the truth. Sometimes, of course, they just go back to their old rut and start ignoring me instead.

zeph`: Even if what you're saying ends up being completely sound and valid there's no reason for anybody here to care now, as this venue is completely inappropriate for the discussions and argumentation that you're so fond of engaging in.


However, some people do seem to care enough to do it anyway. Rather like a bar argument, I suppose, except BYOB.

zeph`: you'd still be better served by eschewing the advanced concepts you rely upon and attempt to discuss these (incredibly interesting and important) topics in a manner that suits the forum


OK. Your opinion of what I ought to do is noted. I disagree. And, since my explaining why I disagree would require a discussion of advanced concepts, you can like it or lump it.

Happier now? =þ
 
2010-06-14 8:01:36 PM  

Gunther: If it does, then it's testable by science.


...provided you're using assumptions such that anything (EG: whether that's a hawk or a handsaw) at all is testable.

If you're taking Refutation on the assumption of pattern, there's no pattern to distinguish anything from anything else, including supernatural from natural.

Kome: He knows that if he were to actually talk about what he believes, he opens the door to his beliefs being criticized, which is something his insecure and fragile mind simply cannot accept.


"The leg of your chair has pinned my pants," I told her in Lottl.
[...]
"You used intrinsic your and 'my,' instead of extrinsic. As if your pants are part of you and my chair a part of me."
[...]
"I don't see the difference as being that important."
"It was important once," she said.



- from Niven's "Grammar Lesson"
 
2010-06-14 8:04:33 PM  

Kome: He knows that if he were to actually talk about what he believes, he opens the door to his beliefs being criticized, which is something his insecure and fragile mind simply cannot accept.


He does spend a lot of time talking about how his beliefs supposedly cannot be disproved, without giving us any reason to believe that they are true. These two things are not the same thing. That's the whole point of the FSM/cosmic teapot argument.

I honestly would like to hear ANY adherent to some sort of mainstream organized religion, like Christianity or Islam, explain to me WHY they believe what they do and think that I should, too. And the explanation needs to go a lot beyond "because it feels right to me", and include a lot of specific detail about whether and why they actually believe all the specific doctrines of their religion are true, before I'm even going to consider that they've thought about their own religious/philosophical views on the level that I have mine. "You just have to have faith" is not a reason: it's a circular argument.
 
2010-06-14 8:13:02 PM  

abb3w: Yes. I admit that at this point, I have decided to largely ignore your remarks.


Good man. I owe you a beer.
 
2010-06-14 8:47:42 PM  
kormon:

I would disagree the moment athiests start arguing against a god and slandering religions is the moment they open up this can of worms. There is nothing wrong with, "I don't belive in anything supernatural.", but there is something wrong with, "Your an idiot for believing in something supernatural."

Kome:

Some beliefs are truly worth the label of "idiotic." Does it make it the most polite way to talk to someone who holds those beliefs to call them an idiot from the get-go? No. Not at all. Does that make their idiotic beliefs any less idiotic? No. Not at all.

Kome:

When it comes down to it, you and I differ on very few fundamental assumptions. To simply take the largest, you assume the Bible is an inerrant and objective source of data. I do not. Taking that perspective, everything you believe flows naturally and (dare I say it) logically from that assumption. Whereas not holding that assumption, my beliefs flow naturally and (dare again) logically. There is a mass of internal consistency with both of our belief systems.

Presuppositions (if we are consistent) dictate conclusions. Intelligence may get us from A to B faster, or add some flavor, but it can not redeem a false presuppositon.
 
2010-06-14 8:52:07 PM  

Bevets:

Presuppositions (if we are consistent) dictate conclusions. Intelligence may get us from A to B faster, or add some flavor, but it can not redeem a false presuppositon.


Ironic words, coming from you.
 
2010-06-14 9:01:30 PM  

Bevets: Presuppositions (if we are consistent) dictate conclusions.


Depends. Some, like yours, do. You have to discount any data that contradicts the Bible because you presuppose the Bible to be inerrant. Mine, by contrast, limit the conclusions I can come to, they don't prescribe the conclusions I do come to. But at the very least I can admit the possibility of my error, admit when I am erroneous, and am willing to adjust my beliefs in light of evidence that demonstrates I previously held an incorrect idea to be true.
 
2010-06-14 9:10:37 PM  

Mnemia: Ironic words, coming from you.


Also ironic:

The rational individualist is not the enemy of benevolence or civility, but their truest exemplar. ~ David Kelley

Belief in a sky god is hardly "rational."
 
2010-06-14 9:14:10 PM  

cthellis: ninjakirby: Hav four or five articles in the barrel right now, but not had much time to fire any off.

Where's you put all the monkeys?


Yo.
 
2010-06-14 9:30:41 PM  
Kome:

I can admit the possibility of my error, admit when I am erroneous, and am willing to adjust my beliefs in light of evidence that demonstrates I previously held an incorrect idea to be true.

I invite you to show me the errors in my beliefs. I have found that a good way to test my beliefs is to participate in a forum where my beliefs are in the minority.

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. ~ John Stuart Mill

The wise man always throws himself on the side of his assailants. It is more his interest than it is theirs to find his weak point. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
 
2010-06-14 9:33:56 PM  

Bevets: I invite you to show me the errors in my beliefs. I have found that a good way to test my beliefs is to participate in a forum where my beliefs are in the minority.


Your error is assuming that your faith-based opinion is actual fact.

That's a hell of a mistake to make.
 
2010-06-14 9:55:21 PM  

Bevets: I invite you to show me the errors in my beliefs.


What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
 
2010-06-14 10:07:52 PM  

Bevets: I invite you to show me the errors in my beliefs. I have found that a good way to test my beliefs is to participate in a forum where my beliefs are in the minority.


Do you still "not accept in any way the JEPD hypothesis"?(paraphrasing)
 
2010-06-14 10:12:39 PM  
Cuervo!
 
2010-06-14 10:39:22 PM  

Bevets: Presuppositions (if we are consistent) dictate conclusions. Intelligence may get us from A to B faster, or add some flavor, but it can not redeem a false presuppositon.


Not from within the presupposition, unless it is held such that contradiction to another presupposition may become apparent. The question then is which presupposition should be preferred -- although one may merely endure contradiction if FALSE being the same thing as TRUE is of no concern.

Kome: Some, like yours, do.


So do mine. To wit, that (P OR Q) is equivalent to (Q OR P) together with (P OR (Q OR R)) being equivalent to ((P OR Q) OR R) dictates that (P OR (Q OR R)) is equivalent to ((Q OR P) OR R).

I suspect your premises make this similarly necessary.

Kome: You have to discount any data that contradicts the Bible because you presuppose the Bible to be inerrant.


As I understand it, it's more exact to say that under his premises, the concept of "data that contradicts the Bible" is an error at the grammatical/linguistic level. The data does not contradict the Bible; some interpretation of the data contradicts the Bible. Thus, the interpretation is grammatically incorrect. It's philosophically kin to a "circular square" in Euclidean geometry, or trying to have a sentence without a verb in the schoolhouse form of English your teachers despaired of beating into your thick skull. =)

Kome: Mine, by contrast, limit the conclusions I can come to, they don't prescribe the conclusions I do come to.


That is to say: the underlying language is general enough to give a (presumably self-consistent) model of any other self-consistent system -- although I suspect you also presume that the system underlying experience has pattern.

With such a general language, arbitrary experience can be described; the question is identifying which description is "best".

Bevets: I invite you to show me the errors in my beliefs.


Was that a general invitation? You've accepted the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction. Care to take at last an explicit position on the Associativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction?
 
2010-06-14 10:56:37 PM  
Bevets:

I invite you to show me the errors in my beliefs.

Kome:

What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

I dont think it is possible** for anyone to know this, but I will say the resurrection is essential to my belief.


**Atheists sometimes stack the deck and profess that they would convert if only God would appear in the clouds and drop a pot of gold at their door step. These conditions are probably never met, and yet atheists turn to God every day.
 
2010-06-14 10:57:47 PM  

abb3w: Kome: Some, like yours, do.

So do mine. To wit, that (P OR Q) is equivalent to (Q OR P) together with (P OR (Q OR R)) being equivalent to ((P OR Q) OR R) dictates that (P OR (Q OR R)) is equivalent to ((Q OR P) OR R).

I suspect your premises make this similarly necessary.


Yes, absolutely, but I was referring there only to the assumption I mentioned earlier that he and I disagree on: that the Bible is inerrant. My assumption that the Bible isn't inerrant merely limits the conclusions I can reach, but doesn't prescribe them.
 
2010-06-14 11:11:36 PM  

Bevets: I dont think it is possible** for anyone to know this, but I will say the resurrection is essential to my belief.


That doesn't answer my question. If you're actually open to considering the possibility you're wrong, answering the question should be easy.

**Atheists sometimes stack the deck and profess that they would convert if only God would appear in the clouds and drop a pot of gold at their door step. These conditions are probably never met, and yet atheists turn to God every day.

Yes, some atheists do say that. But not all of them do. I don't. I find that bar pretty silly, but that's another discussion. Also, some people do change their mind about what they consider acceptable evidence. So there's that, too.

Anyway, time to put your money where your mouth is: What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
 
2010-06-14 11:38:36 PM  
What is it about this thread that blew it to almost two-thousand comments anyway? I haven't seen that happen since the elections.
 
2010-06-14 11:50:59 PM  

Bevets: and yet atheists turn to God every day.


There is a far greater trend in the other direction.
 
Displayed 50 of 1880 comments


Oldest | « | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




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.