10 commandments for atheists, agnostics and freethinkers

[thomastwo]

Davin wrote

Well this is [...]good work keep [...] up your [...]honesty

Thanks.

[thomastwo]

duplicate post

[Davin]

Yep, keep up your dishonesty

Clearly you can't engage me honestly because of your inferiority, so resort to taking things out of context.

[thomastwo]

Now come on. I was just following your rules.

You gutted my argument and only chose the pieces to which you wanted to respond. That's no way to proceed. I'm still waiting for you to respond to my whole point.

But you are right that the first post was not a misquote as I said. The second post was actually a misquote though.

[Davin]

thomastwo wrote

Now come on. I was just following your rules.

They are not my rules.

thomastwo wrote

You gutted my argument and only chose the pieces to which you wanted to respond. That's no way to proceed.

As you have done to me various times throughout our discussions, except that I don't misrepresent your argument, I just restate your argument to show you the silliness of it.

thomastwo wrote

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my whole point.

Really? Let's try it then:

thomastwo wrote

This is a kind of circular argument. If you are defining science as "a field of knowledge"then any field of knowledge is science by definition.

Pointing out that you're wrong is not a circular argument.

1) You said that math and logic are not science.
2) Maths and logic are science.
3) I pointed out that you were wrong.

No circular argument.

thomastwo wrote

But that doesn't really get us very far because it is saying precisely nothing to say a field of knowledge is the only source of knowledge.

I wasn't addressing this anywhere, I was just showing you that you were wrong.

1) You state that science is not the only source of knowledge.
2) Irreligious challenged you present another source of knowledge.
3) You presented two fields of science as being a separate source of knowledge than science.

No where in that series of events does anyone mention at all that, "a field of knowledge is the only source of knowledge." As far as the history of this dicsussion goes, you're the only one to say anything like that.

thomastwo wrote

If you mean by science. empirical natural science and specifically the scientific method, then math and logic would be excluded.

This is just completely wrong and I already addressed this and you already avoided it.

thomastwo wrote

I was assuming that those of you who claimed that science was the only source of knowledge were referring to natural science.

A few problems with this statement:
1) You admit to assuming something, and your assumption is incorrect.
2) I have never claimed that science is the only source of knowledge.
3) Science is The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural universe, so by definition, science is natural science. Since maths and logic are science, they are natural sciences.

thomastwo wrote

But perhaps I was wrong and in fact you were meaning to create a circular argument? Please clarify.

I was not meaning to create a circular argument and I did not make a circular argument.

thomastwo wrote

But you are right that the first post was not a misquote as I said. The second post was actually a misquote though.

Not so much a misquote as satire. The only thing that wasn't accurate in my paraphrasing, was that you did not admit to your error. Now most people would see that as good misrepresentation, but if you want me to depict you as ignorant as you really are, then I will.

Now I will expect you to address every thing I say, just as you want me to address every thing you say.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

I have not sought to divorce logic and mathematics from the process of scientific inquiry and discovery. At any point.

Of course, you have or you wouldn't keep referring to the scientific method as empiricism. If you know anything about the scientific method, you have to know that it wouldn't work without the application of logic or, in many cases, without the application of mathematics. They're both intrinsic parts of the scientific method.

I keep saying it over and over again, but you keep ignoring that fact. Why?

thomastwo wrote

Here's one. We only know about the big bang because of theoretical physics based on mathematics. That proof (note proof, not theory) starts from some falsifiable scientific theories and works from them. But, we could never know about the big bang using the scientific method as we can not verifiably observe the past. Only through mathematics.

So, how is what you've just described not an example of employing the scientific method? It still sounds like you're claiming that application of the scientific method is limited only to what can be directly observed.

Anyway, we're starting to run far afield of my basic knowledge of science, but surely you are not suggesting that only mathematics was used in the formulation of the Big Bang theory, without the incorporation of physics and other scientific disciplines? As far as I understand, the Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and not strictly a mathematical one.

thomastwo wrote

Sure. I know as a fact that if some first proposition is true and some second proposition is identical to the first proposition that the second proposition is also true.

And the "truth" of that first proposition (your premise) was arrived at how? Divine inspiration? Logically, it would have to be grounded in the reality of something observeable and/or demonstrable in order for you to know that it's "true," and not a false premise, no?

thomastwo wrote

It's a little ironic that you are trying to use rational argument to show that rationalism does not generate knowledge. I would have thought that each and every one of your arguments would provide empirical evidence to the standard of the scientific method. After all you think that's the only way to acquire knowledge.

I'm not seeing the irony, since rationalism, by itself, can't generate knowledge any more than an unpowered lawnmower can mow grass. The application of logic is, undeniably, an extremely important component in the process of discovering new information, but it can be misused if it's not grounded in something that is observeably and/or demonstrably real.

If, for example, one accepts as a premise, that only a powerful sentient entity could be responsible for triggering the eruption of a volcano, it's not necessarily an illogical leap to assume that the alleged powerful entity could be appeased or mollified by a human sacrifice. But before one winds up in that predicament, it's probably a good idea to first examine the premise for logical consistency. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen with the premises we humans blindly accept as being factual, rendering the subjective rational, while the objective is ignored.

thomastwo wrote

First, I'm glad you implicitly acknowledge in your question that we know that 2+2 =4 in the abstract sense. Of course we do. I don't know why you continue to attempt to deny it.

When did I attempt to deny that 2 + 2 = 4? Was it before or after I implicity acknowledged it as a fact?

What I thought I was doing was asking you to explain to me the value of that simple equation if it's not otherwise going to be connected to something real, observeable, demonstrable and/or measureable? As an abstract thing, unconnected to human reality, what else does it tell us?

thomastwo wrote

Whether that leads to additional knowledge or has practical application is irrelevant. 2 + 2 = 4 is still a piece of knowledge in itself.

OK. So is knowing the name Marilyn Monroe a piece of knowledge. But what is the value of that name if it's not otherwise connected to a person, place or thing?

thomastwo wrote

But it does have a practical application. If you and I are faced with the task of adding up the already verified number of bananas in two crates I will be able to use rationalism to generate the piece of knowledge that the sum of the number of bananas is the correct answer. You on the other hand who deny math as a source of knowledge other than as part of the scientific method are going to have to get a friend and count them one by one in order to get a verified objective count. Good luck with that.

What, counting is not a part of the scientific method? Is that activity too simple to be a bonafide part of the rigors of scientific inquiry?

As often happens with you, this conversation is getting way too messy and unfocused. I must ask you: What has any of this got to do with your original claim about one being able to have blind faith in the scientific method? Can one, in your opinion, also have blind faith in mathematics and logic as distinct from other scientific applications?

thomastwo wrote

I didn't forget. But what does your answer have to do with my questions? Can the scientific method prove that 2 + 2 = 4? And if it can't how do we know that 2 + 2 = 4?

Since mathematics are an intrinsic part of the scientific method, I guess the answer would have to be yes, the scientific method, broadly speaking, can and does prove that 2 plus 2 are 4. The scientific method is, of course, a process that can involve application of a range disciplines, depending on the course of inquiry. As part of that process, it doesn't necessarily exclude arithmetic, which is the specific process that proves that 2 plus 2 are 4.

thomastwo wrote

No, I haven't divorced math and logic from the scientific method.

Fine. So neither have I, as you can plainly see from my answers to your queries above.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

You misunderstand the point. The point is not that the scientific method is unreliable. It's clearly reliable. There is no reason that a theist would need to argue that point. It's not like science belongs or is a credit to atheism. It's a shared human acheivement. Certainly the mere act of having no belief in a god says nothing about science.

But there are two points. The first is the idea that science is the only way of generating knowledge. It's patently untrue but is clung to by many atheists, including you. I understand why. It allows you to close down many possibilities for ways of thinking about what is a reasonable belief. Unfortunately for you it is an unwarranted short cut.

The second point is that there is a very little, reasonable, leap of faith required for the scientific method to work. That is, that the laws of the universe are unchanging past, present and future. Many atheists want to deny that their worldview involves any aspect of faith, but that is not true.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding the ruse that some Christians seek to employ when they're devaluing the scientific method. Atheists are not usually the ones employing that tactic.

If there is no reason for a theist to dispute the reliability of the scientific method, why are you, specifically, working so hard at that endeavor? And please don't tell me you're not doing that when you have been actively seeking to strip the process of access to logic, mathematics and, even arithmetic. What's next, taking the beakers and Bunsen burners out the science labs?

As, for your contention that "the mere act of having no belief in a god says nothing about science", I've made that point more than 100 times on this forum, only to have some drive-by theist accuse me and other atheists of being "science worshippers," or indulging "blind faith in science."

Why do they do that, if these theists genuinely believe that the discoveries made by the scientific community over a millennia are a shared human endeavor? Why attempt to use that fact as an indictment against atheists, which has been done by theists time and again here?

And other than mathematics and logic (which are scientific applications that you keep insisting are, otherwise, distinct ways of generating knowledge), do you contend that there are additional methods of acquiring fact-based information? At this point, I'm dying to hear what they might be. I fully expect, at some point, for you to try and argue that divine revelation is one.

And I'd like to inform you here and now, that as an atheist, I may not share your faith in a god and the assertions made in the Bible, but I do not, in general, eschew faith. I wouldn't be human if I did. I employ faith every day of my life, but I'm aware of what it is when I do. I don't seek to impose my personal faith on other people. I don't think that would be reasonable or fair, since my faith, like other people's, is not fact-based. It's built on hope, as faith tends to be.

And you should also know that I am not compelled to share a set of beliefs with other atheists. The only common denominator amongst us all is a lack of credulity in assertions of a god or gods. Few theists want to believe that, but we're not part of a religion (organized or otherwise), so we have no shared tenets that we're required to follow.

Other than a worldview that excludes the existence of a god or gods, we atheists do not share a worldview. Politically, I share more in common with progressive Christians than I do with atheists who claim to be libertarians or anarchists, for instance.

[Kate]

Thomas is Tanked

[lostsheep]

Kate that is just wrong! I did laugh though.

[Smellyoldgit]

Laugh? - don't tell Kate, but I pissed myself just at the accent!

[dogpet]

thomastwo wrote

You need to work on your reading comprehension Davin. Try again.

Your cries for mercy areabit sad loser.

[roylac]

Here's an experiment for you. On Spam Removed you can vote on what the new ten commandments should be. Pick and choose your own commandments or add new commandments on the site.

Link removed by Professor Chaos.

[Professor Chaos]

Fuck off, spammer.