Jerry Shit - The Ultimate Collection

[selliedjoup]

Saturday wrote

The fact we're having this conversation is proof of the contrary. I'm on this forum, you're on here, you're disagreeing with me and many other people on here about various things. If I find you're right about something at the end of this conversation, I'll have learned something different. So apparently not. I don't weigh in on too many threads where atheists are jerking each other off. I look for the threads in which I disagree and make my points... like right now. If my points are cut down (they have been before over the years), I learn something new and I think you'll agree that was time well spent. If they are assailed and not overcome, then they are reaffirmed or fortified, also valuable.

No, this is an atheist forum, I'm a minority. This is a site for those who subscribe to your philosphy. Or are you saying philosophy is only atheistic? When Primus fans go to One Direction site and say why One Direction are shite do you think One Direction fans are convinced why Primus are so much better? Same thing, the pretense of portraying this site as otherwise is just that.

Edit* To put it succinctly, if religious people never came on this forum to argue or people who's views I always agree with dominated every thread, I would be gone quite quickly.

So?

If you're talking about opposing science as a sort of all encompassing worldview of which anything but, must be eradicated, then I agree. Science is only a process, a tool. What you choose to do with the tool is somewhat another matter. But if anyone were to make the claim that science isn't the most effective method for discovering natural truth that we currently have available, I think they would be hard pressed to support that.

Then the justification for your atheism lacks the same dependency on science as others here. "Natural truth" implies that which science has not falsified, depending on something which has not been dis-proven seems such has a bizarre foundation on. If you consider scientific knowledge will not change nor undergo any radical paradigm shifts, then it makes sense. Otherwise it's such an odd point to build your perspective on.

I really don't know what you mean by these sentences.

Science tells us what we consider to be true at this point in time, until we know what is true. It's unfalsified conjecture.

[Saturday]

selliedjoup wrote

No, this is an atheist forum, I'm a minority. This is a site for those who subscribe to your philosphy.

I visit religious forums as well.

selliedjoup wrote

When Primus fans go to One Direction site and say why One Direction are shite do you think One Direction fans are convinced why Primus are so much better? Same thing, the pretense of portraying this site as otherwise is just that.

Well which band is better is simply taste. On matters of reason and truth, it doesn't matter where the knowledge could be found. Each argument stands on it's own. If I went to a One Direction site and instead of making an opinion claim, I made a factual claim such as "Michael Penniman (Mika) has a greater vocal range in his studio albums than Niall Horan on their studio albums, that's something that I could easily convince people of by simply presenting the evidence. I indeed would be able to convince them unless they refuse to use reason.

selliedjoup wrote

Then the justification for your atheism lacks the same dependency on science as others here.

disbelief does not require justification. I don't have any justification for something I don't believe because that's not how belief works for a reasonable person.

*edit: I've mentioned this to you before but the language you use to describe atheism such as "justification" as you did above leads me to believe you haven't acknowledged the differences between weak atheism(myself) and strong atheism. I feel like you believe most people here are strong atheists that make the claim there is no god as opposed to weak atheists that simply don't make any claim.

Let me put it this way. Strong atheism asserts the negative position. Weak atheism asserts the null position or most accurately, the lack of position. Theism asserts the positive position. What I and most others I've seen here are asserting is that theists should not have a position but I feel like you're somehow seeing it as us asserting a negative position. 0 =/= - or +

Frankly if a strong atheist came on here, I would be pointing out where they're wrong just as easily as a theist.

selliedjoup wrote

"Natural truth" implies that which science has not falsified, depending on something which has not been dis-proven seems such has a bizarre foundation on. If you consider scientific knowledge will not change nor undergo any radical paradigm shifts, then it makes sense. Otherwise it's such an odd point to build your perspective on.

I don't see why it's odd when you have enough evidence. Do you have a better thing to base your beliefs on than available evidence? What do you believe?

selliedjoup wrote

Science tells us what we consider to be true at this point in time, until we know what is true. It's unfalsified conjecture.

Well you use the word "unfalsified conjecture" where most people use "scientific truth" or "natural truth". So that's simply a language difference between you and myself. So if by unfalsified conjecture, you simply mean, "the best possible explanation we have at the current time based on the available evidence" then yes, I completely agree. That is what scientific truth is and that seems to be the best we can do in this universe at this point. If you've got something more useful then please let me know.

I think it's interesting you added "until we know what is true". Do you believe you'll know absolute truth at some point?

[ILOVEJESUS]

selliedjoup wrote

Interesting that you think I'm ashamed. I'm not. As a teenager I was an atheist, to the point that I used the same ole' arguments as you guys. No doubt, you think I wasn't a real atheist. Meh.

At some point in my 20s I realised I have no foundation to promote atheism as a correct way to think. Despite you thinking otherwise this does not equate to me believing in any form of religion. I think your past with religion makes you think I'm trying too hard to oppose atheism. I don't oppose a lack of belief, I oppose promoting a correct way to think when everything is grey. I also dislike people parading their atheism as a banner and then claiming they're an individual to distance themselves from being part of collective group. It's bollocks.

You choose to think we must be able to assess the universe as it is. I choose not to. It's really that simple. Like you lack belief in religion, I lack belief in humanity's ability to analyse our own existence.

You have been handed your arse on this position many, many, many, many, times. I am not the moderator but I see no point in another thread of yours conveying exactly the same twaddle as all other threads you are in. Just because you like to call a turd a hat, doesn't lift you intellectually above the rest of us guys calling it a turd.

[Smellyoldgit]

We all know that the resident sheep-shagging fool is nothing more than a tediously dense, shit-stirring troll - yet some of you still choose to feed the jerk. Reap wot you sow.

[selliedjoup]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

You have been handed your arse on this position many, many, many, many, times. I am not the moderator but I see no point in another thread of yours conveying exactly the same twaddle as all other threads you are in. Just because you like to call a turd a hat, doesn't lift you intellectually above the rest of us guys calling it a turd.

That no one here can explain why you assume existence must be able to be assessed is your problem. That you reach a conclusion and dwell on it with religious zeal, well, call it what it is a belief which lacks foundation.

Why would you expect anyone to have any respect for a position which you put so much energy into and apparently disbelieve someone elses position.
You know this position is bollocks, you just don't want to admit your position is driven by personal experiences, not by applying a solid rationale.

[selliedjoup]

Saturday wrote

I visit religious forums as well.

So you're religious when you go there?

Well which band is better is simply taste. On matters of reason and truth, it doesn't matter where the knowledge could be found. Each argument stands on it's own. If I went to a One Direction site and instead of making an opinion claim, I made a factual claim such as "Michael Penniman (Mika) has a greater vocal range in his studio albums than Niall Horan on their studio albums, that's something that I could easily convince people of by simply presenting the evidence. I indeed would be able to convince them unless they refuse to use reason.

So you're either claiming that reason and truth which atheists apply is objective or you missed my point.

disbelief does not require justification. I don't have any justification for something I don't believe because that's not how belief works for a reasonable person.

Most people would justify why they disbelieve something. In this instance, I would expect you to promote another alternative, or just say you have no idea. The implication of "weak" atheism is just the attempt to be an atheist without having to justify it in any way. I don't believe either, but don't base my position on what I don't believe. I base my position on what I know with regard to existence. Hence the only honest position is an agnostic.

An atheist and theist are different sides of the same coin, who cares what either believes. Neither can outline why their position is sound.


*

edit: I've mentioned this to you before but the language you use to describe atheism such as "justification" as you did above leads me to believe you haven't acknowledged the differences between weak atheism(myself) and strong atheism. I feel like you believe most people here are strong atheists that make the claim there is no god as opposed to weak atheists that simply don't make any claim.

Let me put it this way. Strong atheism asserts the negative position. Weak atheism asserts the null position or most accurately, the lack of position. Theism asserts the positive position. What I and most others I've seen here are asserting is that theists should not have a position but I feel like you're somehow seeing it as us asserting a negative position. 0 =/= - or +

Frankly if a strong atheist came on here, I would be pointing out where they're wrong just as easily as a theist.

I see the difference as a semantics dodge by the weak atheist so they don't have to rationalize their position but still hold the "atheist" position and all it suggests.

I don't see why it's odd when you have enough evidence. Do you have a better thing to base your beliefs on than available evidence? What do you believe?

I believe we don't have sufficient reason to think we can assess existence as it is. We are byproducts of a system, and to think we can assess the entire system and it causes of it to account for the system and our own existence. By all means go ahead, assume away, just don't get all pissy when someone challenges you on it.

Well you use the word "unfalsified conjecture" where most people use "scientific truth" or "natural truth". So that's simply a language difference between you and myself. So if by unfalsified conjecture, you simply mean, "the best possible explanation we have at the current time based on the available evidence" then yes, I completely agree. That is what scientific truth is and that seems to be the best we can do in this universe at this point. If you've got something more useful then please let me know.

To pretend it's useful is the problem. It's useful for what it has withstood the scientific method, application beyond that is just that, beyond it.

I think it's interesting you added "until we know what is true". Do you believe you'll know absolute truth at some point?

No I don't. I don't extend science's capabilities that far, as although we like to pretend science is separate from mankind, science begins and ends with man. Why would I think otherwise?

[dogpet]

Jerry's point: science can't find any woo - boo-hoo

[Smellyoldgit]

[selliedjoup]

dogpet wrote

Jerry's point: science can't find any woo - boo-hoo

That's actually your focus, not mine. Happy it got through though.

[selliedjoup]

Smellyoldgit wrote

This Scientific Amurrikan piece seems to suggest so, but I'm no expert in the field.



*sigh* - where's Choobus when you need the fucker.

I would suggest in church. He realised what a bunch of douches you guys are and repented.

[dogpet]

Jerry wrote

That's actually your focus, not mine. Happy it got through though.

err,,,, black?

[Michael]

dogpet wrote

err,,,, black?

Nah, bet on 0, it pays out better.

[selliedjoup]

Michael wrote

Nah, bet on 0, it pays out better.

He did bet on nothing, but still manages to lose.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Smellyoldgit wrote

We all know that the resident sheep-shagging fool is nothing more than a tediously dense, shit-stirring troll - yet some of you still choose to feed the jerk. Reap wot you sow.

My point Smelly is that this is a thread being used only to ring out the same tired shite as is being spoken about in every other one. Can we not just mould it all into one Jerry land. Troll feeding can then be confined and enjoyed. My tuppence worth.

[dogpet]

Jerry wrote

An atheist and theist are different sides of the same coin, who cares what either believes. Neither can outline why their position is sound.

Bollox! One side has provided everything that needs to be known, right down to the finest excruciating explanatory detail.
The other 1000+ sides have done so too, except for one important thing, they are all planetary convincing to the unsophisticated.

Atheists in general are not even on the edge of your well worn coin.

*

It's not chocolate, honest injun.