Atheism=Religion=Pointless

[wiscgadfly]

Riiiiight. Yig makes a grandiose exit and you pop up with a new account a few posts later to rally to his defense.

Forgive me if you don't believe you, but I don't.
Well, you can't just create an account and then start to use it the next minute. I would have had to plan this like 24 or 48 hours ago when I registered, because it takes that long for this forum to verify or add you or whatever they do. I got an email this morning telling me I was in, so I started reading and posting. Again, even if I knew Yig, it changes nothing. Second, I don't believe I'm arguing along the same line as Yig or even agree with him. I've already announced I'm a believer. I have to admit, I didn't read all of the 14 pages of comments already made over the last week prior to commenting, so maybe Yig did argue along these lines.

[Foster Zygote]

You have to think about the purpose of the author of the book.

I think you mean the purposes of the authors of the books.

[elbe]

There are people trained to do so. If some moron off the street tries to genetically engineer a better crop species, he'll screw it up. No different with the Bible. It takes training, understanding, contemplation, thought, critical thinking, etc. Just like any other field. Assuming that anyone can do it is where people immediately go astray.

The experts on scripture are those that can read the original greek and hebrew texts and can accurately translate them. Then there are the experts who know the history of the various scriptures, including knowing which parts of the bible came from other cultures that the Hebrews absorbed into their own.

Do you think knowing that the story of jesus is a far older story that originated in other societies (the Egyptians, for one, if I remember correctly) it gives them a stronger belief in the bible's truth?

From my experience, people who are most familiar with the bible aren't christians. It seems actually reading the stupid thing is a useful method of deconverting them.

[wiscgadfly]

The existence of an immaterial god isn't something that scientists even pretend is within the realm of the scientific method to investigate. Such claims are not, however, immune to logic. Occam's Razor still applies. In essence, you are still falling back on the "You can't prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting a planet in the Andromeda galaxy".
There's nothing illogical about the existence of God. Ockham's Razor says nothing about this claim. In fact, Ockham was a Catholic arriving on the scene shortly after Aquinas, so if his claims destroyed God, then shouldn't he have known it? Plus, Ockham's Razor isn't absolute either. It's just a good tool to use in science.

[Foster Zygote]

There are people trained to do so. If some moron off the street tries to genetically engineer a better crop species, he'll screw it up. No different with the Bible. It takes training, understanding, contemplation, thought, critical thinking, etc. Just like any other field. Assuming that anyone can do it is where people immediately go astray.

That's a convenient out for you (and a great many other theists): "If you don't confirm my interpretation then you just aren't doing it correctly."

[laca]

I know what you said. I just wanted to point out that repeatable wasn't necessary, which is what I did. I didn't claim you said it was necessary, just that I'm claiming it isn't.


What for? Nobody said it was necessary. Nobody even implied it was necessary. Nobody said anything that would lead you to believe he/she thought it was necessary.


Also, observations don't have to be repeatable to be true either.


Do you like repeating what others said in the reply in such a way it seems you were the one who said it? It makes you look silly.


I'm a social scientist that uses the scientific method in my research. Again, proof I have no problem with it when used properly. All tools/methods should be used in the right ways. An ax works great for chopping down a tree, but not that great for heart surgery.

Yes, that is what I said. Science deals with reality. If you claim your god is real, then it can be tested. A god that is in no way testable is as much use as an invisible, incorporeal dragon breathing heatless fire in my garage. That is why most atheists lack belief in gods.

[Foster Zygote]

No, because it shows the consequences of misapplying the scientific method. It should convince you not to use it on everything.
But you stated that solipsism was the end result of your rejection of scientific axioms, not of the scientific method.

[laca]

No, I've been told that the event was observable.


Sigh. Not the event, its effects are observable. Please point to the post where someone said that the event itself was observable.

[Foster Zygote]

No, I'm not, but at least I know why you don't understand these things. You're starting with the wrong assumptions about theology.

By assuming that theology is subject to logical scrutiny?

[laca]

Look up First Cause, Uncaused Cause, or Unmoved Mover.

Rubbish... Rubbish... And... wait for it... Yep, rubbish.

ETA: to be more verbose: begging the question, special pleading and plain wrong.

[Resume]

Not really. Not all of them. Not the important ones.

If a miracle takes place once 2,000 years ago, it's not repeatable (i.e. goes against the definition of a miracle), it's not observable today (i.e. it doesn't matter how big your telescope is, you still can't see whether it happened), it's improbable (which is why people call it a miracle; otherwise, they'd call it an everyday occurrence and no one would care), etc. However, if a real child was born 2,000 years ago, it's not observable or repeatable either. Granted, another child can be born, but that same child can't be born at the same time and place as before. Thus, it's not repeatable.

I don't know what else to say. Making claims that things in the Bible aren't all testable isn't really adding anything to the debate. Of course you can't test them.

The biblical god is alleged to have destroyed the earth with an all-consuming flood; there is no geological evidence for such an intervention.

[laca]

There are people trained to do so.


Trained by who exactly? Unless you claim it's your god, you haven't answered the question. If you claim your god is the trainer then that means it interacts with this universe hence it's testable.

[Achán hiNidráne]

There are people trained to do so.

Are these the same geniuses who try to find moral justification for the slaughter of the non-Hebrew peoples who got in Moses and Joshua's way or that the "Song of Solomon" was about "Christ's love for the church" and not Babylonian porn?

(See the YouTube video I posted above.)

If some moron off the street tries to genetically engineer a better crop species, he'll screw it up.No different with the Bible.

Genetic engineering is a product of observation and experimentation. If you insert one type of gene into a genome under the proper conditions, you're going to get the same result every time.

What is the proper procedure to test if a Biblical verse is being properly interpreted? What formula do you use? What is your lab apparatus? Hypothesis? Theory? Results? Peer Review?

It takes training, understanding, contemplation, thought, critical thinking, etc. Just like any other field. (Emphasis mine)

Excuse me...

:dl:

Right, "critical thinking" from a book implies that the very act of thinking critically about Yahweh and its dicates is a sure fire way to displease that allegedly omnibenevolent being!

Assuming that anyone can do it is where people immediately go astray.

Yet millions of Christians, with no training what so ever, are expected by their denomination's to accept their church's official interpretation of scripture without question.

[tsig]

There's a four thousand page book you should read full of arguments/evidence for the existence of God and His attributes: Summa Theologica


Summary of the Summa.


Everything that exists has a cause.

It is impossible to have an infinite series of causes.

Therefore god.

More quibbles

Then Jesus.

[elbe]

Summary of the Summa.


Everything that exists has a cause.

It is impossible to have an infinite series of causes.

Therefore god.

More quibbles

Then Jesus.

It took 4000 pages to reach that stupid argument?

[Gawdzilla]

I've never been to Heaven, so I don't KNOW there's no God. But I've been to Santa Claus, Indiana, and guess what?

[Mister Agenda]

Well, you can't just create an account and then start to use it the next minute. I would have had to plan this like 24 or 48 hours ago when I registered, because it takes that long for this forum to verify or add you or whatever they do. I got an email this morning telling me I was in, so I started reading and posting. Again, even if I knew Yig, it changes nothing. Second, I don't believe I'm arguing along the same line as Yig or even agree with him. I've already announced I'm a believer. I have to admit, I didn't read all of the 14 pages of comments already made over the last week prior to commenting, so maybe Yig did argue along these lines.

I believe you, you don't 'sound' like Yig to me.

[wiscgadfly]

First, a simple argument.

1. If X is true, then X is observable.
2. X is not observable.
C. Therefore, X is false. (modus tollens)

The first premise is undeniable. Is X true? If so, then it observable. To argue against this would necessitate that X is false, which would mean your conceding the conclusion anyways.
Premise two must also be true. X is not itself a material thing. It has no physical makeup. It reflects no light and produces no sound. So there are no observations to be made here. Furthermore, if you are arguing that the unobserved can be discarded, then I will discard X until you can share the observation of it.
And that leaves us with our conclusion.

Well, though I'm glad you agree with some of this, I don't agree with your claim here. Why is the first premise undeniable? For example, Descartes posited "I think, therefore I am." Was this observable? He proved his existence without assuming any material whatsoever. No one had to observe his thinking for him to exist. Also, 5+3=8 whether it's observed or not. This is a true calculation unaided by observation. I can think of five and three and get eight without observing anything. Thus, you first premise is false and the rest falls apart from there.

Second, it's foolish to treat science as something that "trumps" philosophy. If you are going to argue that the scientific method is a valid method of discovering truth, then I will ask you, What is the rational basis for this methodology? This leaves you with three options:

1. There is no rational basis.
This is obviously ridiculous. With this path, then science is just as valid as palm readings.

2. Science is the rational basis for science.
Obviously circular. You wouldn't accept someone claiming that "The Bible proves itself," would you?

3. There is a non-scientific basis.
Now you're using philosophy.

This, I agree with.

After all, lots of things that theists argue can be falsified without any use of science whatsoever. What if a Christian were to argue the simple first cause argument?

1. All things that exist have a cause.
2. The universe exists.
C. The universe has a cause. (God)

We can show why this is wrong, simply because the conclusion posits that God exists, and per the argument's reasoning, he also has a cause, which also exists, which also has a cause, and so on, ad infinitum. We know this is wrong, and we have made no observations.

Though I'm glad you brought this up, you're wrong. Everything that exists in the physical realm needs a cause. That's why philosophers knew the universe wasn't eternal/infinite long before scientists, because they knew this fact. The reason you think God needs a cause is because you're assuming that the laws of physics apply to God. The laws of physics (i.e. time, causation, etc.) apply to a physical realm. That's why everything in the universe needs a cause. How do you get a first cause if everything material requires a cause? Your first cause has to be immaterial and outside of this universe. This is exactly what the Bible claims. God had to become flesh, no? God had to create the universe from nothing, no? If He was material and in time, then He'd also need a cause. Since He is immaterial and outside of time and this universe, He requires no cause.

Thus, you don't know this is wrong with or without observations.

[elbe]

I've never been to Heaven, so I don't KNOW there's no God. But I've been to Santa Claus, Indiana, and guess what?

Whoa they tell you you were born there but you really don't remember?

[Mister Agenda]

From my experience, people who are most familiar with the bible aren't christians. It seems actually reading the stupid thing is a useful method of deconverting them.

It worked on me.

[tsig]

There are people trained to do so. If some moron off the street tries to genetically engineer a better crop species, he'll screw it up. No different with the Bible. It takes training, understanding, contemplation, thought, critical thinking, etc. Just like any other field. Assuming that anyone can do it is where people immediately go astray.

It also takes self-delusion.

[wiscgadfly]

I believe you, you don't 'sound' like Yig to me.
It only took all day to achieve this.:)

[roger]

Good, we agree, we can't observe the actual event.

As for the rest of your point, I disagree with little or nothing. I agree with you that the best data we have points at the Big Bang. I think there might be a bit of misunderstanding here as if I'm anti-science or that I don't believe in the Big Bang just because we can't see the first event. No, this is not the case. I am pro-science and believe in the Big Bang. I don't think the first event has to be observable for the event to have taken place or for us to believe in it. This is the point. Not everything has to be observable or even possibly observable to be true.It is not observable because in the early stages matter was to dense (it was opaque), and, I think, before that photons did not yet exist. But, we can observe up to that point, observe after that point, and everything matches up. So, we know we could be wrong about those earliest stages, but we know we are right about the subsequent events. Our knowledge is based on observation, and limited by supposition about nonobservable things.

[Hokulele]

Though I'm glad you brought this up, you're wrong. Everything that exists in the physical realm needs a cause. That's why philosophers knew the universe wasn't eternal/infinite long before scientists, because they knew this fact. The reason you think God needs a cause is because you're assuming that the laws of physics apply to God. The laws of physics (i.e. time, causation, etc.) apply to a physical realm. That's why everything in the universe needs a cause. How do you get a first cause if everything material requires a cause? Your first cause has to be immaterial and outside of this universe. This is exactly what the Bible claims. God had to become flesh, no? God had to create the universe from nothing, no? If He was material and in time, then He'd also need a cause. Since He is immaterial and outside of time and this universe, He requires no cause.

Thus, you don't know this is wrong with or without observations.


But the philosophical premise is that everything physical has a physical cause, as you seem to accept in the bolded portion. Not that physical things can have physical or metaphysical causes. Once you place God into the realm of causality, he/she/it is bound by that realm. The problem then becomes, if God can pop in and out of causality, why can't the universe do so as well? That eliminates an unneeded entity.

[Gawdzilla]

Whoa they tell you you were born there but you really don't remember?

I was actually quite young when I was born. And in an embarrassingly ignorant state of being to boot. I couldn't read, write or do maff. (Two out of three have changed.) I sincerely believe this is the result of being confined in a very small place for about 270 days. I never once set foot outside that space during the time in question, and when I did I couldn't stand up and no control of my bowels.

I'm considering legal action.

[tsig]

No, I'm not, but at least I know why you don't understand these things. You're starting with the wrong assumptions about theology.

Like the first assumption that there's a theo to be logy about.

[wiscgadfly]

Well, sorry to disappoint, :D but I have to go. I've used up too much of everyone's time. I've enjoyed the discussion, but I don't think anyone is getting anywhere. I'd like to counter some of the straw men tossed up (Bible isn't good for teaching how to live; rape; incest; ghost's rape of virgin; etc.), but I haven't the time. I think these are the easy outs to escape from the Bible. They have nothing to do with what it actually says.

I tried my best not to misrepresent any of you, but I obviously stumbled a few times. I apologize.

Have a great weekend!

[Gawdzilla]

Well, sorry to disappoint, :D but I have to go. I've used up too much of everyone's time. I've enjoyed the discussion, but I don't think anyone is getting anywhere. I'd like to counter some of the straw men tossed up (Bible isn't good for teaching how to live; rape; incest; ghost's rape of virgin; etc.), but I haven't the time. I think these are the easy outs to escape from the Bible. They have nothing to do with what it actually says.


http://evilbible.com

[Sonny2]

i was actually quite young when i was born. And in an embarrassingly ignorant state of being to boot. I couldn't read, write or do maff. (two out of three have changed.) i sincerely believe this is the result of being confined in a very small place for about 270 days. I never once set foot outside that space during the time in question, and when i did i couldn't stand up and no control of my bowels.

I'm considering legal action.

nominated

[tsig]

It took 4000 pages to reach that stupid argument?


Well he did have five arguments for the existence of god but that one gets the most mileage and is seen in many forms. Many pages are used to show why you have to have a church and why that church has to be just like the one that TA was a priest of.

Also since he wrote in a Pro/Con style The Summa has been called by some "The Summa of Heresy"

[elbe]

Well he did have five arguments for the existence of god but that one gets the most mileage and is seen in many forms. Many pages are used to show why you have to have a church and why that church has to be just like the one that TA was a priest of.

Also since he wrote in a Pro/Con style The Summa has been called by some "The Summa of Heresy"

What does it mean when the atheists use the source material while the christians have to rely on secondary/tertiary material to back their own claims of what's in the source material?

[tsig]

I was actually quite young when I was born. And in an embarrassingly ignorant state of being to boot. I couldn't read, write or do maff. (Two out of three have changed.) I sincerely believe this is the result of being confined in a very small place for about 270 days. I never once set foot outside that space during the time in question, and when I did I couldn't stand up and no control of my bowels.

I'm considering legal action.

So's your mother. :)

[Weak Kitten]

Well, sorry to disappoint, :D but I have to go. I've used up too much of everyone's time. I've enjoyed the discussion, but I don't think anyone is getting anywhere. I'd like to counter some of the straw men tossed up (Bible isn't good for teaching how to live; rape; incest; ghost's rape of virgin; etc.), but I haven't the time. I think these are the easy outs to escape from the Bible. They have nothing to do with what it actually says.

I tried my best not to misrepresent any of you, but I obviously stumbled a few times. I apologize.

Have a great weekend!

So, I'm not going to get an answer to my question about how you know which passages in the Bible are valid and which aren't? Was I not being polite enough? I'd really like to have some sort of answer I can understand.

[tsig]

Well, sorry to disappoint, :D but I have to go. I've used up too much of everyone's time. I've enjoyed the discussion, but I don't think anyone is getting anywhere. I'd like to counter some of the straw men tossed up (Bible isn't good for teaching how to live; rape; incest; ghost's rape of virgin; etc.), but I haven't the time. I think these are the easy outs to escape from the Bible. They have nothing to do with what it actually says.

I tried my best not to misrepresent any of you, but I obviously stumbled a few times. I apologize.

Have a great weekend!

What the Bible says has nothing to do with what the Bible says?:eye-poppi

[Gawdzilla]

So's your mother. :)

That's stretching it a bit. :D

[Resume]

So, I'm not going to get an answer to my question about how you know which passages in the Bible are valid and which aren't? Was I not being polite enough? I'd really like to have some sort of answer I can understand.

"Cuz the bible tells yuh so."

[laca]

So, I'm not going to get an answer to my question about how you know which passages in the Bible are valid and which aren't? Was I not being polite enough? I'd really like to have some sort of answer I can understand.

Been there, done that... :D

There are people trained to do so. If some moron off the street tries to genetically engineer a better crop species, he'll screw it up. No different with the Bible. It takes training, understanding, contemplation, thought, critical thinking, etc. Just like any other field. Assuming that anyone can do it is where people immediately go astray.

Trained by who exactly? Unless you claim it's your god, you haven't answered the question. If you claim your god is the trainer then that means it interacts with this universe hence it's testable.

Still not likely to be getting that answer though...

[tsig]

What does it mean when the atheists use the source material while the christians have to rely on secondary/tertiary material to back their own claims of what's in the source material?

The Bible is the clear, easily-understood word of god but you need an inspired preacher or theologian to really explain it to you./Christian mode off

[tsig]

That's stretching it a bit. :D

Bet it left marks.

[Weak Kitten]

Been there, done that... :D

Did I miss it? What was the answer?

[laca]

Did I miss it? What was the answer?

I quoted it.

[Gawdzilla]

Bet it left marks.

An a trauma I didn't get over for years. (It was nearly 15 years for I went anywhere near another ... Um, banhammer alarm going off.)

[Weak Kitten]

I quoted it.

Oh, I see. So it was the next question that we didn't get an answer to. The one about how those interpreters are accredited and how to tell if they are correct or not.

It seems that many interpreters of the Bible disagree violently with each other. The next time I get a self confessed True Christian in here I will have to ask them how you tell which interpreter is correct.

[dafydd]

Oh, I see. So it was the next question that we didn't get an answer to. The one about how those interpreters are accredited and how to tell if they are correct or not.

It seems that many interpreters of the Bible disagree violently with each other. The next time I get a self confessed True Christian in here I will have to ask them how you tell which interpreter is correct.

Careful,the believers have killed each other over such matters in the past.

[Foster Zygote]

I'd like to counter some of the straw men tossed up (Bible isn't good for teaching how to live; rape; incest; ghost's rape of virgin; etc.), but I haven't the time.

Well there's yet one more person who cannot explain to me how Exodus chapter 21 doesn't really tell us how to purchase, sell and care for our slaves.

By the way, it isn't a "strawman" if the Bible really says it, and the Bible says some pretty horrific things. I'm sorry if that is difficult for you to reconcile with your desires regarding what you want God to be.

[Yig]

Missed this one. A theory cannot contain unverifiable claims. That's kinda the point of a theory: that it puts forwards claims that can be tested, that it makes predictions of things we can observe. That's why religion fails, every testable prediction or claim it makes fails. Pray to God and your prayer will be answered? Failed. The world is flat with a dome over it? Failed. There was a great flood that covered the whole world? Failed. Etc, etc.
I knew you were just pretending not to see the connection between belief and theory and how it relates to religion.

[Yig]

If I'm addressing a specific someone, I either quote him/her or specify the name. As I recall I was talking about multiple posters, all recent subscribers (Dec. 2010, one or two posts total) just joining in, first posts in this exact thread and all defending the fleeing Yig...

If you feel the post was inappropriate, report it. That's why we have moderators.
I wasn't fleeing, I just went to bed. Don't you people sleep?

That said, I am getting tired of beating my head against this brick wall. So I don't suspect I'll be around much more.

[Gawdzilla]

I wasn't fleeing I just went to bed. Don't you people sleep?
With a world-wide membership we offer you the chance to look totally silly 24/7. How may we serve you? I recommend over-easy.

[Sledge]

Apologetics have, in all honesty, a very good answer. Man wrote it, "with divine inspiration", but man is fallible and capable of making mistakes (and I think we can all agree to that last part). I guess one might ask why god hasn't had a "divine editor" go over it, but I guess it could be argued that there have been hundreds (probably thousands) of people who have tried to "edit" the bible to be "correct". And the god of the bible is kind of a douche who doesn't seem to care about humans, so it's not really surprising he'd leave crappy instructions.
That's an answer, but I don't see how it's a very good one. An all-seeing, all-powerful god would have no problems correcting those errors as they occur. For that matter, such a god would not let those errors occur. If you subscribe to my view that God is basically evil and enjoys screwing with people, that apologetic answer makes sense. Not so much for the god Christians claim to worship.
I never once set foot outside that space during the time in question, and when I did I couldn't stand up and no control of my bowels.
I think I attented a pub lock-in on New Year's Eve like that once.
I knew you were just pretending not to see the connection between belief and theory and how it relates to religion.
That doesn't make any sense. What are you talking about?

[bikerdruid]

That said, I am getting tired of beating my head against this brick wall. So I don't suspect I'll be around much more.

subtext:
since you have made the thesis of my argument look silly, i'm going to run away...soon.

[Gawdzilla]

subtext:
since you have made the thesis of my argument look silly, i'm going to run away...soon.


Just one more service we offer.

[MontagK505]

This again? Do you really think the question of an intelligent designer is in the same realm as the question of whether or not the holocaust happened?

The holocaust has far more evidence than intelligent design or the Tooth Faerie. So the questions aren't in the same realm at all. A point you keep ignoring.

[normdoering]

Explain.

Atheism is to religion as health is to diseases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zahFKGVpQGg

[laca]

I wasn't fleeing, I just went to bed. Don't you people sleep?


Oh, sorry, must have been confused by this:

Well this has been fun, but I think I've said everything I feel like saying.

Later.


That said, I am getting tired of beating my head against this brick wall. So I don't suspect I'll be around much more.

I guess you're "not fleeing" again... Got it.

[devnull]

Im constantly amazed with the mental gymnastics people will go to in order to believe nonsense.

It reminds me of George Costanza - all that mental effort just to avoid mental effort :)

[elbe]

Im constantly amazed with the mental gymnastics people will go to in order to believe nonsense.

It reminds me of George Costanza - all that mental effort just to avoid mental effort :)

It's probably easier to jump through hoops to rationalize things away than deal with the emotions that even entertaining the idea that what you want to be true may not be.

[SumDood]

Well, before this stupid thread merge, Trent and I were having a fairly decent dialog. And now his last response is 10 pages back, but I want to respond anyway.


Really? You honestly think when asked "is there a God?" someone would answer "my boss is God"? And I don't mean a joke like "my boss is God of the Jerks".
Yes ..... and a perfect example is the group one of my ex wives .... (ahum) ..... attended in her church for several years. One of their common topics was "who is really your god" .... and often times people would confess that money was their god, or their own self image, or their view on authorities, etc and so forth. The goal of those believers was to eliminate the "false worship" of material gods and refocus it on the supernatural entity.

So yes ... I think some might say, "my boss is my god" if they believe that about themselves. It might sound ridiculous to a non believer, but to a believer who is trying so hard to not sin, etc and so forth .... they want to eliminate the obstacles that are standing in their way of haivng a more "perfect faith".

I say that falls into the same category of 'by Boss is god of the jerks'. They are saying that they treat their boss, money, porn, whatever LIKE a god and put those things before their true god. And thats fine in that context. But this first came up with you complaining about the ambiguity of the word "God". When someone asks "Is there a God?" they are not asking "are there things in your life that you treat as if they are god?". They are asking "Do believe in some sort of supernatural being that created the universe and watches over us?"



Why on earth would anyone need or want to prove whether or not they believe something?
Seriously?

To earn trust, command respect, self-assurance, etc and so forth. Just to name a few.

The average voter wants to know what their candidates believe ... and they want to see proof.
Excellent point. I was thinking more along the lines of why try to prove one believes something when its not really possible.

I believe it's fairly important to skeptics and believers who believes what ... and they are always looking at each other for proof. I think this question you just asked is self evident by the existence of this forum ....We ask for proof of claims, not proof that people actually believe what they claim.

[Foster Zygote]

It's probably easier to jump through hoops to rationalize things away than deal with the emotions that even entertaining the idea that what you want to be true may not be.

Looking back at my own move away from supernatural religion I can say that this was certainly the case with me. For a time I simply didn't want to admit what I'd come to know.

[tsig]

Oh, sorry, must have been confused by this:





I guess you're "not fleeing" again... Got it.

Well since believing something is exactly the same as not believing it we can say that fleeing and not fleeing are the same.

You see fleeing involves running away while not fleeing involves not running away but since both phrases have the word "running" in them they are equivalent.

[I Am The Scum]

I wasn't fleeing, I just went to bed. Don't you people sleep?

That said, I am getting tired of beating my head against this brick wall. So I don't suspect I'll be around much more.

Hey man, the universe is gonna be the exact same way whether or not you believe this conversation is pointless, so what's the point, right?

[gambling_cruiser]

If wiscgadfly is representative for a social scientist, then we should abandon social science faculties immediately!

[Trent Wray]

Well, before this stupid thread merge, Trent and I were having a fairly decent dialog. And now his last response is 10 pages back, but I want to respond anyway.



I say that falls into the same category of 'by Boss is god of the jerks'. They are saying that they treat their boss, money, porn, whatever LIKE a god and put those things before their true god. And thats fine in that context. But this first came up with you complaining about the ambiguity of the word "God". When someone asks "Is there a God?" they are not asking "are there things in your life that you treat as if they are god?". They are asking "Do believe in some sort of supernatural being that created the universe and watches over us?"


Excellent point. I was thinking more along the lines of why try to prove one believes something when its not really possible.

We ask for proof of claims, not proof that people actually believe what they claim. Glad I still checked back on this thread ... lol

Okay, I see your points about what most people mean when they are referring to a god and the definition of one. However, I'm still saying the definition is ambiguous. To some, "nature" as a whole is god. Not a supernatural entity, but a natural construct that gets anthropomorphized. And since we have the ambiguity ... one might say, "My name is Steve, and I treat money as though it were my god, but I still believe in Jehovah," .... while another might say, "According to my definition, Steve treats money as though it were more powerful than Jehovah, and therefore money has trumped Jehovah in Steve's world." And this is a better example of the ambiguity and philosophical confusion (amongst believers) because money itself is almost given a godlike status by Jesus in the gospels, etc and so forth. Some believers actually believe there is a "money spirit" one ends up worshipping by fearing money more than fearing god, yada yada (Mammon I believe is the name of the spirit within certain circles).

So while to you and I this is a semantic and philosophical issue perhaps, to those believers it is a very real aspect of their lives. Money is the boogeyman they are afraid of accidentally bowing down at the invisible feet of. Hence, those pockets of cults which ban motorized transport for example. Creature comforts of technology are driven by spirits which end up being worshipped and served as gods ... etc and so forth.

So when it comes to issues of belief .... the issue of belief itself is a confusing one. Especially if we are going to claim to believe in things which have no evidence for their existence anyway lol :).

That's somewhat why I've said, over and over again, that for a person to claim they believe or disbelieve something 100% isn't really possible ... because how could they know they believe or disbelieve in something 100% without a concrete form of indisputable evidence to backup that claim? All we really have are outward actions and verbal claims to go by, which are not indisputable evidence.

And whilst it's nice in theory that skeptics only have an interest in proof of claims, and not proof that the one making claims actually believe what they are claiming .... people do not operate on such absolute and objective levels. People are still people :). So there are obviously skeptics on this board who will care about who believes what, and will galvanize to certain posters and stay away from others depending on their like or dislike for them, etc and so forth. No different than any other type of person in any other group, clique, society, whatever. You will look for the traits in a person which seem to align themselves with your idea of what they should be doing based on their claims. Personal preferences for whom people want to associate with and whom they want to shun, whom they want to defend and agree with or whom they will never agree with regardless of what truths are spoken .... will still play a part in how we communicate with each other .... and that goes here the same as in any church, or school playground, or office, or government, or family .... whatever.

And so yes .... to some it's important that a person "prove they are an atheist" or a skeptic, or a believer. And that proof changes depending on the variety of Scotsman who is indirectly judging the person in question. To use an example .... if one of the more "woo filled" posters started to speak with a skeptic's voice, they would probably be met with skepticism at first (no pun intended) until their actions and words met the approval of whomever wasn't trusting what they were now saying. Whether they were speaking truths based on facts would be irrelevant ..... but their character would still be in question and be important to the Scotsman out there waiting to give their thumbs up of approval. And of course I'm speaking in generalizations. Every group has it's variety of peeps.

So even though we might philosophically understand that "proof of belief" isn't possible, we still irrationally seek it out in others and ourselves, for whatever our reasons are. Hence .... a form of faith :). Ultimately, we "hope" we are correct about our own opinions. And the comparisons to "hoping we are correct that 1+1=2" are somewhat legitimate comparisons, and somewhat not. I think it is as a legitimate comparison as saying that atheism is a faith based concept lol :) :) :). Or that rocks dislike cigarettes because they don't smoke. Apples and oranges are both fruit, but different fruit.

And so I still say it's important to people whether or not others can actually prove that they believe what they claim they believe. The mafia, government, military, medical field, the popular girls at school, the JREF, the mosque on the corner .... whatever. And since the "proof" is always changing, and the nature of belief itself is open to debate .... I still think it's a matter of FAITH that a person can claim they either lack or have complete and total belief in something.

It would be like saying a person is "awesome" 100% of the time, or they completely lack any and all awesomeness. It's all subjective, philosophical fluff.

[tsig]

Glad I still checked back on this thread ... lol

Okay, I see your points about what most people mean when they are referring to a god and the definition of one. However, I'm still saying the definition is ambiguous. To some, "nature" as a whole is god. Not a supernatural entity, but a natural construct that gets anthropomorphized. And since we have the ambiguity ... one might say, "My name is Steve, and I treat money as though it were my god, but I still believe in Jehovah," .... while another might say, "According to my definition, Steve treats money as though it were more powerful than Jehovah, and therefore money has trumped Jehovah in Steve's world." And this is a better example of the ambiguity and philosophical confusion (amongst believers) because money itself is almost given a godlike status by Jesus in the gospels, etc and so forth. Some believers actually believe there is a "money spirit" one ends up worshipping by fearing money more than fearing god, yada yada (Mammon I believe is the name of the spirit within certain circles).

So while to you and I this is a semantic and philosophical issue perhaps, to those believers it is a very real aspect of their lives. Money is the boogeyman they are afraid of accidentally bowing down at the invisible feet of. Hence, those pockets of cults which ban motorized transport for example. Creature comforts of technology are driven by spirits which end up being worshipped and served as gods ... etc and so forth.

So when it comes to issues of belief .... the issue of belief itself is a confusing one. Especially if we are going to claim to believe in things which have no evidence for their existence anyway lol :).

That's somewhat why I've said, over and over again, that for a person to claim they believe or disbelieve something 100% isn't really possible ... because how could they know they believe or disbelieve in something 100% without a concrete form of indisputable evidence to backup that claim? All we really have are outward actions and verbal claims to go by, which are not indisputable evidence.

And whilst it's nice in theory that skeptics only have an interest in proof of claims, and not proof that the one making claims actually believe what they are claiming .... people do not operate on such absolute and objective levels. People are still people :). So there are obviously skeptics on this board who will care about who believes what, and will galvanize to certain posters and stay away from others depending on their like or dislike for them, etc and so forth. No different than any other type of person in any other group, clique, society, whatever. You will look for the traits in a person which seem to align themselves with your idea of what they should be doing based on their claims. Personal preferences for whom people want to associate with and whom they want to shun, whom they want to defend and agree with or whom they will never agree with regardless of what truths are spoken .... will still play a part in how we communicate with each other .... and that goes here the same as in any church, or school playground, or office, or government, or family .... whatever.

And so yes .... to some it's important that a person "prove they are an atheist" or a skeptic, or a believer. And that proof changes depending on the variety of Scotsman who is indirectly judging the person in question. To use an example .... if one of the more "woo filled" posters started to speak with a skeptic's voice, they would probably be met with skepticism at first (no pun intended) until their actions and words met the approval of whomever wasn't trusting what they were now saying. Whether they were speaking truths based on facts would be irrelevant ..... but their character would still be in question and be important to the Scotsman out there waiting to give their thumbs up of approval. And of course I'm speaking in generalizations. Every group has it's variety of peeps.

So even though we might philosophically understand that "proof of belief" isn't possible, we still irrationally seek it out in others and ourselves, for whatever our reasons are. Hence .... a form of faith :). Ultimately, we "hope" we are correct about our own opinions. And the comparisons to "hoping we are correct that 1+1=2" are somewhat legitimate comparisons, and somewhat not. I think it is as a legitimate comparison as saying that atheism is a faith based concept lol :) :) :). Or that rocks dislike cigarettes because they don't smoke. Apples and oranges are both fruit, but different fruit.

And so I still say it's important to people whether or not others can actually prove that they believe what they claim they believe. The mafia, government, military, medical field, the popular girls at school, the JREF, the mosque on the corner .... whatever. And since the "proof" is always changing, and the nature of belief itself is open to debate .... I still think it's a matter of FAITH that a person can claim they either lack or have complete and total belief in something.

It would be like saying a person is "awesome" 100% of the time, or they completely lack any and all awesomeness. It's all subjective, philosophical fluff.

So we should give up and go in the backyard and eat worms?

[Weak Kitten]

It would be like saying a person is "awesome" 100% of the time, or they completely lack any and all awesomeness. It's all subjective, philosophical fluff.

Ur, um....that was really long. I'm sure you had a lot to say but...I kinda lost the thread.


I'm....going to go chase butterflies now.

[Trent Wray]

So we should give up and go in the backyard and eat worms?'Sup tsig :) I haven't exchanged with you in a long time :)

A serious response: giving up on something should be the right of a person. Lot's of POV's are based on giving up, whilst others involve trying again despite failure :)

Ur, um....that was really long. I'm sure you had a lot to say but...I kinda lost the thread.


I'm....going to go chase butterflies now. I type fast and saying a lot with a little isn't one of my strengths .... and I guess I should respond to you in a similar fashion:

Um .... you took the time to post to me about what I wrote, telling me you didn't read it. Do you tell everyone whose posts you don't read that you didn't read them? I'm sure there was a point .... but I kinda lost it ;)

I'm going to go tend to my butterfly garden now ..... lol

[SumDood]

That's somewhat why I've said, over and over again, that for a person to claim they believe or disbelieve something 100% isn't really possible ... because how could they know they believe or disbelieve in something 100% without a concrete form of indisputable evidence to backup that claim? All we really have are outward actions and verbal claims to go by, which are not indisputable evidence.

But in normal everyday conversation, one should be able to say "i believe X" without someone saying "well, how do you know you believe that? how do you know your not delusional? How do you know your not a brain in a vat?" When one says "i believe X", it means "to the best of my ability, assuming i'm not insane and/or delusional, and that i am a real human in a real existing universe, i believe X." To have to quantify everything one says with those criteria would be asinine. Its understood. Otherwise we couldn't have a rational conversation about anything.


And whilst it's nice in theory that skeptics only have an interest in proof of claims, and not proof that the one making claims actually believe what they are claiming .... people do not operate on such absolute and objective levels. People are still people :). So there are obviously skeptics on this board who will care about who believes what, and will galvanize to certain posters and stay away from others depending on their like or dislike for them, etc and so forth. No different than any other type of person in any other group, clique, society, whatever. You will look for the traits in a person which seem to align themselves with your idea of what they should be doing based on their claims. Personal preferences for whom people want to associate with and whom they want to shun, whom they want to defend and agree with or whom they will never agree with regardless of what truths are spoken .... will still play a part in how we communicate with each other .... and that goes here the same as in any church, or school playground, or office, or government, or family .... whatever.
Usually its Christians who don't think atheists believe what they believe. Some think we secretly believe in god but just pretend so we can sin.

And so yes .... to some it's important that a person "prove they are an atheist" or a skeptic, or a believer. And that proof changes depending on the variety of Scotsman who is indirectly judging the person in question. To use an example .... if one of the more "woo filled" posters started to speak with a skeptic's voice, they would probably be met with skepticism at first (no pun intended) until their actions and words met the approval of whomever wasn't trusting what they were now saying. Whether they were speaking truths based on facts would be irrelevant ..... but their character would still be in question and be important to the Scotsman out there waiting to give their thumbs up of approval. And of course I'm speaking in generalizations. Every group has it's variety of peeps.

So even though we might philosophically understand that "proof of belief" isn't possible, we still irrationally seek it out in others and ourselves, for whatever our reasons are. Hence .... a form of faith :). Ultimately, we "hope" we are correct about our own opinions. And the comparisons to "hoping we are correct that 1+1=2" are somewhat legitimate comparisons, and somewhat not. I think it is as a legitimate comparison as saying that atheism is a faith based concept lol :) :) :). Or that rocks dislike cigarettes because they don't smoke. Apples and oranges are both fruit, but different fruit.

And so I still say it's important to people whether or not others can actually prove that they believe what they claim they believe. The mafia, government, military, medical field, the popular girls at school, the JREF, the mosque on the corner .... whatever. And since the "proof" is always changing, and the nature of belief itself is open to debate .... I still think it's a matter of FAITH that a person can claim they either lack or have complete and total belief in something.

It would be like saying a person is "awesome" 100% of the time, or they completely lack any and all awesomeness. It's all subjective, philosophical fluff.

Again, I can't speak for anyone else, but I ask for proof of the claim, not proof of belief of the claim. One can argue a point of view without believing in it. Its a handy debate tactic. Form an argument from the other side to sharpen your responses.

But I completely concede that there is no way of know 100% what we or anyone else actually thinks. That all belief takes 'faith', using your definition of it. And I still don't see how this relates to this debate or anything else. Now can we have a decent discussion regarding the 'claims' (whatever those were) and not devolve into if people actually believe them?

[Trent Wray]

But in normal everyday conversation, one should be able to say "i believe X" without someone saying "well, how do you know you believe that? how do you know your not delusional? How do you know your not a brain in a vat?" When one says "i believe X", it means "to the best of my ability, assuming i'm not insane and/or delusional, and that i am a real human in a real existing universe, i believe X." To have to quantify everything one says with those criteria would be asinine. Its understood. Otherwise we couldn't have a rational conversation about anything. EXACTLY.

So why does the skeptic often take the opposite approach with the believer?

Usually its Christians who don't think atheists believe what they believe. Some think we secretly believe in god but just pretend so we can sin. Excellent point.

Now, if a Xtian tells you that they don't believe this about you or take this stance, yet their words and actions seem to indicate otherwise .... will you take them at their word as you want others to take you at your word? Or will you assume they ACTUALLY believe something other than what they say they believe?

See ..... when like minded people are talking to each other, it's much easier to assume everyone is attempting to be intellectually and emotionally honest about what they are saying and their motives (of course).... however when people of opposing POV's and beliefs interact, you'll probably acknowledge that qualifiers are necessary, and a person's words don't always reflect what is really going on within them mentally and emotionally.

Walk into a church on Sunday morning and get greeted by someone who welcomes you and says,"Welcome brother .... experience the love in our congregation," and then goes into the pulpit to preach about sinners and how horrible homosexuals are or something, and I'll bet that belief the preacher has of how loving he is will likely be put into question by you, who has a completley different take on what love actually is.

So when do we drop the qualifiers? At what point in everyday conversation do we not challenge whether someone is delusional or not .... especially when it concerns such subjecitve matters as belief, love, etc? The believer thinks the atheist secretly believe in god but prefers sin ... the atheist thinks the believer is delusional. Both think they are correct.

When are the qualifiers appropriate and when are they not? What is the threshold? On one extreme of the threshold, we find we can't really even prove that solpsism isn't truth and that you are just a brain in a vat. On the other extreme we have people flying planes into buildings or drinking poisoned kool-aide. Now, several people have pointed out the pointlessness of me claiming that a person can't prove, even to themselves, what they believe 100% ..... yet, we take advantage of this idea all the time when dealing with others who think radically different from ourselves. Skeptics think believers are delusional because their beliefs are based on faith and not evidence ..... whilst both have to utilize some level of faith to even believe they are not a brain in a vat, and that they are even capable of recognizing their own opinions accurately. It's a ridiculous extreme to point out .... but it's there nonetheless. And I'm pointing it out mostly to show the common thread at the root between both the atheist and the believer.

Again, I can't speak for anyone else, but I ask for proof of the claim, not proof of belief of the claim. One can argue a point of view without believing in it. Its a handy debate tactic. Form an argument from the other side to sharpen your responses. I do this all the time :). But I don't do it to sharpen my responses or to debate .... I do it to learn for myself what it's like to walk in the shoes of others, as much as I'm willing and able to.

But I completely concede that there is no way of know 100% what we or anyone else actually thinks. That all belief takes 'faith', using your definition of it. And I still don't see how this relates to this debate or anything else. Now can we have a decent discussion regarding the 'claims' (whatever those were) and not devolve into if people actually believe them? Well thank you for conceding to my point lol :). And although you might not see how it relates to anything else, I think it's more of a "common root" thing that is worth remembering when talking to others who are radically different in POV from us. If a Jehovah's Witness would realize that his blood isn't more special than mine, then when he came into an ER I'm working in we could more effectively save his life if it depended upon blood products. If an atheist realized that ultimately he couldn't prove he wasn't a brain in a vat 100% and that he utilized the much abhored "faith" to even the smallest degree, then perhaps he/she could understand the large degree of faith a believer used in boogeymonsters and gods, and be more effective in communicating and gaining/giving trust.

Taking for granted some of the common roots that connect us ... even the philosophical ones ... **** things up lol :)

Now back on track ... what exactly were the claims again? :p

[John Jones]

EXACTLY.

So why does the skeptic often take the opposite approach with the believer?

Excellent point.

Now, if a Xtian tells you that they don't believe this about you or take this stance, yet their words and actions seem to indicate otherwise ....

[...]


Now back on track ... what exactly were the claims again? :p

Thanks for the white space!

[SumDood]

Skeptics think believers are delusional because their beliefs are based on faith and not evidence ..... whilst both have to utilize some level of faith to even believe they are not a brain in a vat, and that they are even capable of recognizing their own opinions accurately. It's a ridiculous extreme to point out .... but it's there nonetheless. And I'm pointing it out mostly to show the common thread at the root between both the atheist and the believer.
That (and the beers I've been drinking tonight) sorta clarifies your point a bit.

I do this all the time :). But I don't do it to sharpen my responses or to debate .... I do it to learn for myself what it's like to walk in the shoes of others, as much as I'm willing and able to.
Exactly. I've had to rethink some positions myself while doing this.


Well thank you for conceding to my point lol :). And although you might not see how it relates to anything else, I think it's more of a "common root" thing that is worth remembering when talking to others who are radically different in POV from us. If a Jehovah's Witness would realize that his blood isn't more special than mine, then when he came into an ER I'm working in we could more effectively save his life if it depended upon blood products. If an atheist realized that ultimately he couldn't prove he wasn't a brain in a vat 100% and that he utilized the much abhored "faith" to even the smallest degree, then perhaps he/she could understand the large degree of faith a believer used in boogeymonsters and gods, and be more effective in communicating and gaining/giving trust.
I still say it takes a good bit more 'faith' to believe in supernatural beings that it does to believe one is not a brain in a vat, but I concede it is faith regardless. And by that definition, I don't think any atheists or skeptics would disagree with you.

Taking for granted some of the common roots that connect us ... even the philosophical ones ... **** things up lol :)

Now back on track ... what exactly were the claims again? :p

Who knows.:confused:

[devnull]

I am not a brain in a vat, therefore God?

And I thought Id heard it all...... :)

[Trent Wray]

Thanks for the white space! Still going for the public putdowns for no reason whatsoever?

Do you ever physically back up your completely unobjective and scared-animal attitude or do you just hide behind a computer screen and throw your web feces around instead? Feel free to step up to the plate outside of the online world anytime .... coward :)

I am not a brain in a vat, therefore God?

And I thought Id heard it all...... :) You said it, not me ;)

Although in all (somewhat ---- maybe ----- I've been drinking also) seriousness: if a person can claim to lack belief in something 100% that can't be proven and that is considered evidence in and of itself ... then God might as well exist without evidence for anyone who claims he/she/it does. Because the lack of evidence is evidence lol :)

There ... I'm trying to help make sure you've heard it all :)

[devnull]

There ... I'm trying to help make sure you've heard it all :)

A lack of evidence is evidence for the existence of something?

NOW Ive heard it all :D

[Trent Wray]

A lack of evidence is evidence for the existence of something?

NOW Ive heard it all :D Glad I could help lol ;)

I almost wish that would be added right under your David Henson quote ...... :)

[edge]

Well if you were God would you hide from the likes of us?
We nailed him to a peice of wood?
There's something out there for each of us.:D

[joobz]

We nailed him to a peice of wood?
Speak for yourself. I take no responsibility for the supposed actions of people 2000 years ago.

[Gawdzilla]

Speak for yourself. I take no responsibility for the supposed actions of people 2000 years ago.

Original sin. :D

[Foster Zygote]

Well if you were God would you hide from the likes of us?
We nailed him to a peice of wood?
There's something out there for each of us.:D

Kind of a pathetic god, eh?

[edge]

Kind of a pathetic god, eh?

No not really, depends on how you look at it.

If you knew you would have to die for some one ahead of time what would you do?
Would you dodge the bullet or take it?

[edge]

Speak for yourself. I take no responsibility for the supposed actions of people 2000 years ago.

I'm not talking about our perspective.

The point is you are not responsible.

[laca]

Well if you were God would you hide from the likes of us?


No. Are you hiding from the pottery you made?


We nailed him to a peice of wood?


No. We didn't. They did. Some dude. Whatever...


There's something out there for each of us.:D

Yeah. Are you looking for it with your dowsing rod? :rolleyes:

[edge]

I find everything I look for.

[laca]

If you knew you would have to die for some one ahead of time what would you do?
Would you dodge the bullet or take it?

Depends. For my kids? I'd probably take it. For you? Definitely not.

[Tricky]

I find everything I look for.
LOL. Except the targets in James Randi's office (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html).

[Foster Zygote]

I find everything I look for.

Unless it's in James Randi's office.

[Gawdzilla]

I find everything I look for.

Even an parking place near the entrance to the Mall?

[laca]

I find everything I look for.

LOL. Except the targets in James Randi's office (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html).

Unless it's in James Randi's office.

Busted! :D

[tsig]

Original sin. :D

Never seen one yet.

[elbe]

No not really, depends on how you look at it.

If you knew you would have to die for some one ahead of time what would you do?
Would you dodge the bullet or take it?

There have been many martyrs over time, and most of them accepted that they aren't gods who get a "get out of death free card". Seems a hell of a lot braver than anything jesus did.

[Gawdzilla]

Never seen one yet.

Come party with me some time. :D

[tsig]

I'm not talking about our perspective.

.

You're speaking from god's perspective?

[The Norseman]

No. Are you hiding from the pottery you made?


I am. That one over there has a glazed look in its eye.

[Foster Zygote]

No not really, depends on how you look at it.
Well, the way you looked at it was to suggest that God does not make his presence knowable because he is afraid of humanity.

If you knew you would have to die for some one ahead of time what would you do?
Would you dodge the bullet or take it?
But this is not what you were suggesting. Again, to the comments regarding the lack of evidence for any god, you suggested that the Christian god was hiding from "us" because "we" were mean to him 2000 years ago.

As for Jesus' life sacrifice, it's more like Jesus gave up a weekend for our sins. If he'd gone to Hell for eternity or simply ceased to exist to redeem our "debt" it would seem like a far more generous sacrifice.

[gph]

LOL. Except the targets in James Randi's office (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html).

Off topic but I got a well drilled 15 years ago. The guy showed up with a top of the line 8 wheel drive rig and the first thing he did was pull 2 bent welding rods out of the cab. I'd never heard of it before so I asked him what they were for. He told me and said "you try it". I walked around, they moved, he sprayed an X on the spot and said "I'll drill here".

Wells aren't cheap and you pay for every foot, water or no water. Needless to say I was a little anxious. He assured me that I had the "gift". He drilled for a couple of days and hit lots of good water at 120 feet.

I wondered about it for a few years until I found out I'm sitting near the middle of an aquifer that's thousands of square miles in size. Hitting water is unavoidable. You'd have to think the guy knew this. I now think he just does this to see the faces on his customers when he uses their "witching" powers to spent their money.

[devnull]

OMG, Edge is the "gold lettering" guy?

I never made the connection :)

[edge]

That's why I found that test so odd?
I find it fascinating like the test that the rules change even for moderators in here when the can legally drive the OP off topic?

When I do it they delete my posts, and like the test the goal posts are changed.

What I was picking up was behind the book case behind the wall it happened when a sizable printer was turned on, later the florescent lights above in the library was turned on, then all my spots where the containers were placed by me were moved each time I left the library, (something I didn’t know till recently), when the target was moved, each cup also was moved, so supposedly I wouldn’t get clues.
So why even have me place them in neutral spots? Why move them back onto interferences?

So on that slab with the steel in the concrete if you move any of them a couple of inches you would be on a piece of steel that probably crossed each other every six inches, it’s probably pig wire.

Unless you build slabs or structures you wouldn’t understand.

I have devised a test with the best protocol but now they will never ever test me again.

This is why they moved those target cups.
This is the link if you want to talk about this subject.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5001463#post5001463

[Tricky]

I mentioned it only in line with your claim; " I find everything I look for". That statement has now been demonstrated as a lie. Now that everyone can see that lie, I will drop the subject.

[devnull]

I have devised a test with the best protocol but now they will never ever test me again.

As far as I am aware you can be retested after 12 months or so?

Unless you are accusing them of cheating, in which case theyve probably lost patience with you.

[zooterkin]

As far as I am aware you can be retested after 12 months or so?

Unless you are accusing them of cheating, in which case theyve probably lost patience with you.

The qualifications for acceptance changed, you now need some sort of media presence (though that's a fairly easy hurdle for most, I would say). There was plenty of time before that rule came in for a retest, though, but I think the difficulty was in getting a protocol agreed (from my memory of the MDC threads I browsed occasionally, it was pretty clear where the difficulties were).

[Weak Kitten]

I type fast and saying a lot with a little isn't one of my strengths .... and I guess I should respond to you in a similar fashion:

Um .... you took the time to post to me about what I wrote, telling me you didn't read it. Do you tell everyone whose posts you don't read that you didn't read them? I'm sure there was a point .... but I kinda lost it ;)

I'm going to go tend to my butterfly garden now ..... lol

Nah, I just try to get people to rephrase what they were trying to say in a more concise manner. Being dyslexic means that I have trouble wrestling meaning out of long paragraphs sometimes.

Oh, butterfly garden...yay!

[edge]

I mentioned it only in line with your claim; " I find everything I look for". That statement has now been demonstrated as a lie. Now that everyone can see that lie, I will drop the subject.

I said that in passing and I was thinking something totally different.

That is the only time I had a problem and I proved it to a few witnesses and myself and in the field several years later.

[Trent Wray]

Nah, I just try to get people to rephrase what they were trying to say in a more concise manner. Being dyslexic means that I have trouble wrestling meaning out of long paragraphs sometimes.

Oh, butterfly garden...yay! No worries ....

Concise version:

Atheism itself isn't faith based, but the claims of the atheist about themselves and their own stance are. And a perfect example, is an atheist who consistently says something like,"my belief is based on evidence only," yet is always bringing up personal anecdotes and subjective opinions to defend their stance .... or they are adding to the defintion of "true atheism" all the time without admitting it intellectually or seeing it impartially in their motives.

In other words, you have to have a sort of faith that the person actually means what they say they mean ... even though they are exhibiting behavior which says otherwise. And in that same line of thought .... the atheist has to have faith even in themselves ... that they are actually juding themselves acurately.

To some this might seem ridiculous ... whilst to others it is more obvious. People all the time confuse their own motives and thoughts and don't understand the nature of their own psyche. People are always claiming one thing, but actually thinking and feeling another. Sometimes it's outright lying ... sometimes it's wishful thinking. Sometimes it's a matter of not "knowing thyself" deeply enough. Etc and so forth. The point is ..... a person has to have faith even in their own ability to accurately represent their own beliefs. I don't see how claiming to be an atheist who lacks 100% belief there is a god is any different.

Is that better? Even I dislike my own long-windedness sometimes :(

[John Jones]

I said that in passing and I was thinking something totally different.

That is the only time I had a problem and I proved it to a few witnesses and myself and in the field several years later.


:rolleyes:

[edge]

As far as I am aware you can be retested after 12 months or so?

Unless you are accusing them of cheating, in which case theyve probably lost patience with you.

I would accuse them of not knowing all there is to know about it and how to get total optimization for a protocol where then there would be no doubt what so ever and no wriggle room for anyone involved.

It could still happen.
I don't know if the stress of doing that in a test for so long is worth it?
It depleats me like being grounded out, that's the best way I can discribe it, after hours of doing that.

[John Jones]

No worries ....

Concise version:

Atheism itself isn't faith based, but the claims of the atheist about themselves and their own stance are. And a perfect example, is an atheist who consistently says something like,"my belief is based on evidence only," yet is always bringing up personal anecdotes and subjective opinions to defend their stance .... or they are adding to the defintion of "true atheism" all the time without admitting it intellectually or seeing it impartially in their motives.

In other words, you have to have a sort of faith that the person actually means what they say they mean ... even though they are exhibiting behavior which says otherwise. And in that same line of thought .... the atheist has to have faith even in themselves ... that they are actually juding themselves acurately.

To some this might seem ridiculous ... whilst to others it is more obvious. People all the time confuse their own motives and thoughts and don't understand the nature of their own psyche. People are always claiming one thing, but actually thinking and feeling another. Sometimes it's outright lying ... sometimes it's wishful thinking. Sometimes it's a matter of not "knowing thyself" deeply enough. Etc and so forth. The point is ..... a person has to have faith even in their own ability to accurately represent their own beliefs. I don't see how claiming to be an atheist who lacks 100% belief there is a god is any different.

Is that better? Even I dislike my own long-windedness sometimes :(

When do we get to your concise version, home-boy?

[edge]

No worries ....

Concise version:

Atheism itself isn't faith based, but the claims of the atheist about themselves and their own stance are. And a perfect example, is an atheist who consistently says something like,"my belief is based on evidence only," yet is always bringing up personal anecdotes and subjective opinions to defend their stance .... or they are adding to the defintion of "true atheism" all the time without admitting it intellectually or seeing it impartially in their motives.

In other words, you have to have a sort of faith that the person actually means what they say they mean ... even though they are exhibiting behavior which says otherwise. And in that same line of thought .... the atheist has to have faith even in themselves ... that they are actually juding themselves acurately.

To some this might seem ridiculous ... whilst to others it is more obvious. People all the time confuse their own motives and thoughts and don't understand the nature of their own psyche. People are always claiming one thing, but actually thinking and feeling another. Sometimes it's outright lying ... sometimes it's wishful thinking. Sometimes it's a matter of not "knowing thyself" deeply enough. Etc and so forth. The point is ..... a person has to have faith even in their own ability to accurately represent their own beliefs. I don't see how claiming to be an atheist who lacks 100% belief there is a god is any different.

Is that better? Even I dislike my own long-windedness sometimes :(

I would say that it's more like 99.9% of a belief in themselves.
There's always a way out of a belief.
Then something comes along that just blows your mind, that would be the only way that will sometimes change a belief.

Weird things, things that just can't be explaned.

[Weak Kitten]

No worries ....

Concise version:

Atheism itself isn't faith based, but the claims of the atheist about themselves and their own stance are. And a perfect example, is an atheist who consistently says something like,"my belief is based on evidence only," yet is always bringing up personal anecdotes and subjective opinions to defend their stance .... or they are adding to the defintion of "true atheism" all the time without admitting it intellectually or seeing it impartially in their motives.

The point is ..... a person has to have faith even in their own ability to accurately represent their own beliefs. I don't see how claiming to be an atheist who lacks 100% belief there is a god is any different.

Is that better? Even I dislike my own long-windedness sometimes :(

Oh, I see. So what you are arguing is that what we might call "Gnostic Atheism" is a form of faith. That is, a form of Atheism where the proponent claims not only that they do not believe in deities but that they KNOW there are no deities.

Your point makes sense. To claim actual knowledge of the non-existence of deities IS a point of faith. As many here would admit, you cannot prove a negative and therefor must simply believe in the non-existence of something.

However, I'm not certain if there are any Gnostic Atheists here. Most people here seem to really be Agnostic Atheists or Ignostic Atheists. If you gave them solid proof of a deity they would accept it but baring that their default position is to act as if deities do not exist.

See, we can all be long winded now and then. I just get confused sometimes and need to ask for clarification. And butterflies, I like pretty butterflies.

[wellwhatif]

I will be materialistic
Will kill the animals
Eat whatever.
Do Whatever.
Not answer to anyone.
Whoever thinks atheists are all Apathetic MF's no sense of good or wrong, need to look in the mirror and see a big fat hippo ( Hypocrite)!

[Halfcentaur]

I am an atheist because I am unable to reconcile with the idea that a god and an afterlife are products of wishful thinking. When one looks at the many gods people have concocted in history, the many ways we've attempted at explaining the universe and how things work, it becomes undeniably clear to me that it's just too convenient compared to how inconvenient everything else is in reality. It's so hard for some to resist believing what they want to believe, but it seems a danger to me immediately that sets off all my personal alarms, if I desire or wish to think something.

Even after admitting this to myself in my early teens, I was an agnostic for many years, as it seemed brash to me to actually affirm the notion that there was no doubt in my mind. Every little coincidence in my life seemed to affirm that "something" was going on. Things just seemed to "work out" too much. But over time I've come to see the cherry picking, how many times things don't just work out. I can't blame people for throwing themselves head long into this idea they want to believe. That they are special, that there is something with a purpose for them, that something has them in mind and is guiding them. It's exactly what we're wired to seek out with our social behavior, it's the all time grand prize of biology, from the moment we leave the womb. I just wish these people and their desires didn't leak into the policies of society.

[BadBoy]

No worries ....

Concise version:

Atheism itself isn't faith based, but the claims of the atheist about themselves and their own stance are. And a perfect example, is an atheist who consistently says something like,"my belief is based on evidence only," yet is always bringing up personal anecdotes and subjective opinions to defend their stance .... or they are adding to the defintion of "true atheism" all the time without admitting it intellectually or seeing it impartially in their motives.

In other words, you have to have a sort of faith that the person actually means what they say they mean ... even though they are exhibiting behavior which says otherwise. And in that same line of thought .... the atheist has to have faith even in themselves ... that they are actually juding themselves acurately.

To some this might seem ridiculous ... whilst to others it is more obvious. People all the time confuse their own motives and thoughts and don't understand the nature of their own psyche. People are always claiming one thing, but actually thinking and feeling another. Sometimes it's outright lying ... sometimes it's wishful thinking. Sometimes it's a matter of not "knowing thyself" deeply enough. Etc and so forth. The point is ..... a person has to have faith even in their own ability to accurately represent their own beliefs. I don't see how claiming to be an atheist who lacks 100% belief there is a god is any different.(

What a load of bunk. I discount the notion/proposition that Gods exists because I see no evidence for them. End of story. I discount the notion that there exists a world underground full of elves and drawfs aswell until someone provides me with evidence otherwise.

What you are really attempting to do here is undermined the credibility of all or any Atheist by making a general statement that could be applied to anyone, but not applying it to anyone. Thats not an argument at all. Its a straw man. Provide an example of an individual that has exhibited such behaviour on this forum before making such sweeping statements.

Not only that, but within a room of Atheists and God believers you could apply you statement to all on both sides of the fence arbitrarily, making the statement worthless.

Anyone can say in an argument, "your wrong because you dont understand", but that doesnt help win the argument. For the sake of an objective discussion you always have to assume they understand and know what they are talking about, otherwise theres no point discussing anything.

[BadBoy]

Atheism is like a filter.

To live my life in the real world I have to discount/ignore claims that are made all the time by people/media/Politian’s etc etc. I do this by discounting stuff I hear that I am sceptical about.

If the point being made interests me (and by that I mean not "hmm that’s interesting", I mean "that could have an effect on the way I think about things") I will try to research the subject objectively. When I do this it mostly ends up getting debunked quite quickly.

If it doesn’t interest me, but I’m still sceptical, I'll maybe file it in my brain, but will not accept the claim until if/when I research it further.

A couple of examples:

1. AGW deniers. I read an article in a free rag on the train that implied that AGW (global warming) was a myth and the science is all wrong. This was the first time I had heard that some people didnt go along with the predominant scientific view of AGW. I spend some time talking to others and researching it and came to the conclusion that outright deniers of AGW are flat wrong.

2. Political Correctness. In my opinion there is a general trend in the rightwing news media to bash political correctness. Its a buzz word that has certain connotations the media can use to label stuff they dont like (or rather know their readers wont like). Often though the articles are straw men or urban myths. An example was the story that junior schools were to ban bah-bah-black-sheep.

I was Sceptical about the story and investigated. If I hadnt, I would still have been sceptical unless I had been provided with good evidence to the contrary.

wiki

A controversy emerged over changing the language of 'Baa Baa Black Sheep' in Britain from 1986, because, it was alleged in the popular press, it was seen as racially dubious. This was, as Curran, Pently and Gaber indicate, based only on a rewriting of the rhyme in one private nursery as an exercise for the children there and not on any local government policy.[4] A similar controversy emerged in 1999 when reservations about the rhyme were submitted to Birmingham City Council by a working group on racism in children's resources, which were never approved or implemented.[5] Two private nurseries in Oxfordshire in 2006 altered the song to "Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep", with black being replaced with a variety of other adjectives, like "happy, sad, hopping" and "pink".[6] Commentators have asserted that these controversies have been exaggerated or distorted by some elements of the press as part of a more general campaign for political correctness.[4]

So as far as God goes for me, my atheism filters that nonsense out. I have done some research into claims of healings etc and always found out thats its nonsense.

[KoihimeNakamura]

What a load of bunk. I discount the notion/proposition that Gods exists because I see no evidence for them. End of story. I discount the notion that there exists a world underground full of elves and drawfs aswell until someone provides me with evidence otherwise.

What you are really attempting to do here is undermined the credibility of all or any Atheist by making a general statement that could be applied to anyone, but not applying it to anyone. Thats not an argument at all. Its a straw man. Provide an example of an individual that has exhibited such behaviour on this forum before making such sweeping statements.

Not only that, but within a room of Atheists and God believers you could apply you statement to all on both sides of the fence arbitrarily, making the statement worthless.

Anyone can say in an argument, "your wrong because you dont understand", but that doesnt help win the argument. For the sake of an objective discussion you always have to assume they understand and know what they are talking about, otherwise theres no point discussing anything.

What is Argument from Ignorance for $400, Alez?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[JAStewart]

if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Can someone explain to me why silence is not just another kind of noise?
Dry is just another kind of wet, you know.
Cheers you three, you just made me look a bit stupid by having me laugh out loud THREE times while obviously distracting myself at work

:D

[Gawdzilla]

Cheers you three, you just made me look a bit stupid by having me laugh out loud THREE times while obviously distracting myself at work

:D

Just one of the many services we offer!

[Mister Agenda]

No worries ....

Concise version:

Atheism itself isn't faith based, but the claims of the atheist about themselves and their own stance are. And a perfect example, is an atheist who consistently says something like,"my belief is based on evidence only," yet is always bringing up personal anecdotes and subjective opinions to defend their stance .... or they are adding to the defintion of "true atheism" all the time without admitting it intellectually or seeing it impartially in their motives.

In other words, you have to have a sort of faith that the person actually means what they say they mean ... even though they are exhibiting behavior which says otherwise. And in that same line of thought .... the atheist has to have faith even in themselves ... that they are actually juding themselves acurately.

To some this might seem ridiculous ... whilst to others it is more obvious. People all the time confuse their own motives and thoughts and don't understand the nature of their own psyche. People are always claiming one thing, but actually thinking and feeling another. Sometimes it's outright lying ... sometimes it's wishful thinking. Sometimes it's a matter of not "knowing thyself" deeply enough. Etc and so forth. The point is ..... a person has to have faith even in their own ability to accurately represent their own beliefs. I don't see how claiming to be an atheist who lacks 100% belief there is a god is any different.

Is that better? Even I dislike my own long-windedness sometimes :(

I had a little trouble following that. It seems to me that you're using the word 'faith' in multiple senses in one paragraph.

[jcampbell]

I had a little trouble following that. It seems to me that you're using the word 'faith' in multiple senses in one paragraph.

I would agree. Faith has multiple meanings. Religious faith, that is, what must be uncritically accepted without relying on evidence, is entirely different from the 'faith' in oneself. Faith in oneself is more like confidence, not truly dependent on whether they believe a positive outcome will result from their wellwishing but a hope that it does or can. I can have faith in my abilities to produce a desirable result for a given goal. I can also lose that faith in the face of failure. While there are similarities, the context is really important. I think in the case of what constitutes 'faith' we are relying on the limitations of our language, in this case a word that does not make a distinction between two different contexts, to define the course of the argument. Equivocation?

[Gawdzilla]

I would agree. Faith has multiple meanings. Religious faith, that is, what must be uncritically accepted without relying on evidence, is entirely different from the 'faith' in oneself. Faith in oneself is more like confidence, not truly dependent on whether they believe a positive outcome will result from their wellwishing but a hope that it does or can. I can have faith in my abilities to produce a desirable result for a given goal. I can also lose that faith in the face of failure. While there are similarities, the context is really important. I think in the case of what constitutes 'faith' we are relying on the limitations of our language, in this case a word that does not make a distinction between two different contexts, to define the course of the argument. Equivocation?

Good summary. The god-botherers jump on anything remotely like what they want to hear us say and claim they've made their point. "You just believe in something different from what I believe, but you DO believe." First, that's a nonsense statement, they haven't proven anything. Second, they want "belief" to have one and only one meaning. "Belief" to them, means "to accept the spiritual power of something greater than myself" or some such. I usually reply "Everybody's got to believe something. I believe I'll have another beer."

[jcampbell]

Good summary. The god-botherers jump on anything remotely like what they want to hear us say and claim they've made their point. "You just believe in something different from what I believe, but you DO believe." First, that's a nonsense statement, they haven't proven anything. Second, they want "belief" to have one and only one meaning. "Belief" to them, means "to accept the spiritual power of something greater than myself" or some such. I usually reply "Everybody's got to believe something. I believe I'll have another beer."

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that they think using equivocation with words like "faith" and "belief" is an honest approach, but pointing out the various instances in the Bible where God commands or condones genocides, child murder, and slavery is dickish out of ignoring some context... as if there were any reasonable context for any of that. So we have situations where there is reasonable context that is purposely ignored and situations where there couldn't possibly be reasonable context that is being excused for context!:boggled:

[Gawdzilla]

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that they think using equivocation with words like "faith" and "belief" is an honest approach, but pointing out the various instances in the Bible where God commands or condones genocides, child murder, and slavery is dickish out of ignoring some context... as if there were any reasonable context for any of that. So we have situations where there is reasonable context that is purposely ignored and situations where there couldn't possibly be reasonable context that is being excused for context!:boggled:

And pointing this out means you're acting like a dick, of course.