01-28-2011, 08:38 AM
|
#436
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
|
Quote:
nkb wrote
What makes your alternative any more viable than any of the ones that have been suggested here?
|
His belief in his disbelief of the Quarbles, dontchaknow.
a‧the‧ist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
|
|
|
01-28-2011, 01:32 PM
|
#437
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 813
|
Quote:
nkb wrote
What makes your alternative any more viable than any of the ones that have been suggested here?
|
Quote:
anthonyjfuchs wrote
His belief in his disbelief of the Quarbles, dontchaknow.
|
I think he's just playing the coquette...........
Professor Plum - In the Dinning Room - with the Lead Pipe...
|
|
|
01-28-2011, 04:53 PM
|
#438
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
Sol wrote
I think he's just playing the coquette...........
|
Pounding balls and wickets with a mallet?
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
01-29-2011, 12:39 PM
|
#439
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 813
|
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Pounding balls and wickets with a mallet?
|
Only if it involves, that particular make of lithe figure, skipping forever out of reach, a soft breeze gently tousling auburn tresses.
A soft lilting giggle caught in the summer air with coy smile played on the lips, Skirts, with slow movement lifting. To reveal a tantalizing glimpse of come hither stocking top…….
Yup…a coquette with a mallet.
Professor Plum - In the Dinning Room - with the Lead Pipe...
|
|
|
01-30-2011, 12:31 AM
|
#440
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
Quote:
Jimble wrote
So? Do you believe in the plutonian society of Pluto? No? Why? Because you lack evidence for it, despite knowing it may or may not exist.
All we do is apply the same standards of evidence and belief to God and religion claims as everyone else does to everything else that they deal with.
|
Why? Are you convinced that you must be able to know it if it does exist.
Quote:
You're my new favourite poster! I nearly cried laughing at this. Like there's another way to work and know the universe?
|
Happy to amuse. I find your arrogance and assuredness of being able to find an 'answer' funny.
Quote:
No, it's not. You must be convinced that it is knowable to believe, however.
Disbelief is simply not being persuaded yet. Why is "not being persuaded yet" incompatible with 'not having all the answers yet'? What? It's not? Indeed.
|
So why identify with atheism where, generally, atheists negate the existence of a god. Surely it be a more accurate reflection of your apparent non-belief as a agnostic?
It's like saying i have no view towards black people but have joined the KKK.
Quote:
Unlike the 'valid' alternative of a giant anthromorphic human male in the sky who watches everything you do. That's much more likely, right?
What is it that makes you think a God is a valid hypothesis? Please answer, i'm dying to know how you justify yourself.
|
I never said it, so why would I justify something Inever stated. Maybe you could have a go at it?
Quote:
Using science does limit what you believe. Checking how much I weigh limits my beliefs of my weight, too. Is that a bad thing? I like the truth Even when it disappoints me. It allows me to act to change the disappointing truth. Unlike comforting lies.
|
You're assuming too much.
Quote:
Also, you do not choose to believe. Did you choose to believe your age? Your gender? No, you accept the evidence and can't help what you believe. Belief falls into place after evidence is given.
Yay! First cause argument, that's new.
Infinite First Causer before the universe/Infinite universe> lack of evidence either way> Occam's razor>Infinite Universe.. Next claim please
|
Yeah brilliant. Try actually thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating some fruitless conclusion.
[/quote]
|
|
|
01-30-2011, 12:56 AM
|
#441
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
Yes, you are required to present evidence to support your claim. Otherwise, there is no logical way to ascertain the veracity of your assertion.
|
I'm only required from a perspective which (supposedly)admits it doesn't know whether evidence can be obtained. So why would I be required if I can't produce it, yet this lack of evidence doesn't (supposedly) discount it?
I really hope you've identified this loop by now. Why ask for evidence if you agree not all facts are obtainable?
You just choose to limit your perspective. Your position only makes sense to the converted.
Quote:
And FYI: The fact that I require supporting evidence to judge whether or not your claim is true in no way suggests that I must also possess knowledge of the unknowable.
|
If you don't consider what is unknowable then your position is flawed.
Quote:
Because we can only know that which is knowable. Your claim that your allegation (whatever it's supposed to be, because you still haven't said) may reside in an unknowable realm is a tacit admission that even you don't know what the hell it is that you're going on about. Hence, you are wasting our time with nonsense.
|
I don't expect you to understand or agree.What I find fascinating is you're incapable of considering options outside of your belief set. I undertstand yours. It's very simple. Yet you're convinced I don't get it on the basis that I do't agree. Are you really serious or just refuse to entertain any notion outside of your views?
Quote:
That is the prudent course to take when one is not given any information to acknowledge. And make no mistake, we are all aware that you're not giving us anything that we can acknowledge beyond a word that you refuse to define for us.
|
Yeah you're not saying naything new here. I never defined it beyong being a first cause and possibily beyond our comprehension. You can choose to disregard it, but this only lends itself to showing you beleive man must be capable of obtaining an answer, otherwise why would you endorse it in the way you do?
Quote:
And you must be stupid if you think you're offering a coherent argument that any reasonable can respond to with this nonsense statement of yours above. Somehow, I don't think you're quite that dumb, though you may be stupid enough to think it's an effective obfuscating technique for the bulk of us here. It's not. I can tell it's bullshit.
|
You can't tell anything. You're just trying to keep up appearances.
Quote:
You believe it may exist? Even though you, yourself, don't even claim to know what it is? That's just plain dumb, and you know it.
|
So considering that something may (note not did) be a first cause and be beyond our comphrehension is dumb? I'd love to hear this.
What else would invisible mean but imperceptible to human sight? In your retarded world, does invisible mean something else?
You offered the example, you state how it can be blue and invisible. It baffles me.
|
|
|
01-30-2011, 12:59 AM
|
#442
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
Quote:
anthonyjfuchs wrote
I
didn't say that you implied it. You actually said it. Allow me to quote the relevant passage:
Have we really reached the point in the conversation where you have to be reminded of your own words? You can't really complain about having to go back and review past posts if you can't keep up with your own points.
Highlighting mine, since you did not stipulate that condition previously.
Perhaps you should include all provisos the first time you make a statement.
Percentage of what?
If something is known, then it's known. If it's not known, then it's not known.
If you state that there could be an NM[M], then an NM[M] becomes a valid alternative? If your NM[M] is a valid alternative just because you state that it could exist, then an infinite or eternal universe is just as much a valid alternative.
So we agree that you describe your NM[M] as a "he."
Actually, you'll note that it was I who began putting the M in brackets.
I know. We've covered that. You lack belief in the NM[M], just as I do.
My question now is: how do you describe this lack of belief? How do you describe this believe that you call "non-existent"? I ask because you insist on describing my lack of belief as a "belief in my disbelief," so I naturally wondered how you describe your lack of belief. Do you believe in your disbelief in the NM[M]?
I agree. Therefore, I do not postulate on things we do not know.
I didn't. I considered your use of the male pronoun "he" as an admission that you considered your hypothetical first cause to be male.
You really ought to be more careful in your use of language.
I don't prefer the term "he." I wouldn't consider a pandimensional superbeing to be male.
You used the term, not me.
I don't fail to see that at all. What I fail to see is how applying logic (there is no "your form" or "my form") somehow negates the point. Are you not applying logic simply in positing the potential existence of a thing that may or may not be a thing that may or may not exist, even if you may or may not ever know?
Do you have to believe in something in order to understand it?
I don't believe in unicorns, but I understand the basic premise of what they allegedly are.
We can't negate what we can't know. And none of us here is trying to negate this non-thing that you may or may not have posited. We're trying to understand what your purpose is in positing that a thing that may or may not be a thing may or may not exist.
No one is negating your NM[M]. No one.
I don't. Never have.
Why do you assign to me assumptions that I've never expressed?
Who suggested that it should? When did religious misuse of power enter into the conversation?
Some people dismiss "god(s)" as illogical (and therefore useless) postulations, not because human beings abuse power. What was it you said about twains meeting?
Yes, browbeating.
I can take your pitiful excuse for browbeating all day long.
I'm not complaining about it, just calling it what it is.
Please continue browbeating us. The soft breeze is refreshing.
|
I've already said I used the word "he" in error and in a generic sense. If you need to bolster your case by using it, even though I've stated this. Just continue on your merry way.
|
|
|
01-30-2011, 01:01 AM
|
#443
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
When material is getting farther from us faster than the speed of light, it no longer can be said to have any reality; its last thread of connection to the universe has been broken. The existence of such material becomes totally irrelevant to any considerations within the universe. It has actually as well as practically become unreal.
You have Hubble to thank for this sad fact. It is sad because, in the long term, everything will have receded beyond the light horizon and nothing will be left, that is nothing about the universe will be real any more. The universe is of finite duration.
So, an afterlife, if it is real, will not actually last forever.
|
The sad thing is that you're serious.
|
|
|
01-30-2011, 01:24 AM
|
#444
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 368
|
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
Why? Are you convinced that you must be able to know it if it does exist.
|
You're still not getting it. I'm not saying we will ever truly know if Pluto is inhabited or not. (though we might) But you do not need absolute evidence to hold a belief. Some people require very little evidence at all.
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
Happy to amuse. I find your arrogance and assuredness of being able to find an 'answer' funny.
|
Cool.
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
So why identify with atheism where, generally, atheists negate the existence of a god. Surely it be a more accurate reflection of your apparent non-belief as a agnostic?
|
I'm both. But theists are what most people identify as, or rather a specific type of theist, not some nebulous non-god-disbeliever like yourself.
- Many people are confused about the term agnostic.
- And because of my self labelling as atheist I sometimes meet people with similar views, and have made friends with some I might not have known were like me.
- I dislike the actions taken "in the name" of religion.
- It implies an interest in science and skepticism.
This is why I identify as an atheist. Do you get it now?
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
It's like saying I have no view towards black people but have joined the KKK.
|
It's really not.
It's like identifying as having a nut allergy when people ask what your favourite type of nut is.
Or are you referring to this forum now? In which case it's like going to the secular meeting when 90% of the world is busy at the unicorn convention.
When you don't believe in the unicorn, it can be hard to take hardcore unicornists seriously, even on other matters.
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
I never said it, so why would I justify something I never stated. Maybe you could have a go at it?
|
Okay so which God are you lacking a belief and lacking disbelief in exactly? Thor? You think Thor exists? Zeus maybe? Most of the God ideas imply a giant anthropomorphic representation, usually above us and usually male. So go on, which God is it you think might exist? Or is it all of them? If so, why not the Plutonians, the Unicorn and Ghoul's Leprechauns?
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
You're assuming too much.
|
Okay, care to tell me what it is you think i'm assuming, and what's wrong with that?
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
Yeah brilliant. Try actually thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating some fruitless conclusion.
|
I do think for myself. But since turning 16 and taking philosophy class that stuff you said just looks so obviously flawed, it almost feels a waste of time typing out why it is wrong.
The conclusion is, when you're guessing, the simpler guess is more likely to be right.
If there MUST be a first cause, why also assume it has magic powers, is one of a kind but has a gender, has human emotions, cares what people do, and a bunch of other nonsense. And if your idea of a God doesn't have all this stuff, why call it a God at all?
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
|
Back atcha buddy.
You don't have the right not to be offended.
|
|
|
01-30-2011, 01:27 AM
|
#445
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 368
|
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
The sad thing is that you're serious.
|
The sad thing is you don't seem to understand what he's saying. What's your problem with it?
You don't have the right not to be offended.
|
|
|
01-30-2011, 01:32 AM
|
#446
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
Quote:
nkb wrote
Maybe I missed it, but when did you show that your NM[M] is a viable alternative?
What makes your alternative any more viable than any of the ones that have been suggested here?
|
If you can't offer a viable alternative, considering something beyond our comprehension as possibly exsiting is a logical solution to take.
Your refusual is only based on your personal bias.
My alternative lacks contradictory traits and/or resulting from the latest musings of a random scientist.
|
|
|
01-30-2011, 01:34 AM
|
#447
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 368
|
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
My alternative lacks contradictory traits and/or resulting from the latest musings of a random scientist.
|
Wait, you're a scientist?
You don't have the right not to be offended.
|
|
|
01-30-2011, 01:37 AM
|
#448
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
[quote=anthonyjfuchs;627549]
Quote:
Are you suggesting that no amount of evidence is sufficient to support any claim if we don't know all there is to know?
Don't forget: you admit that you also lack belief in your own NM[M].
|
How is admiting it may exist a lack of belief? In your world do I have to state it does exist for me to hold a belief on it?
Quote:
And also don't forget: lacking belief is not the same as asserting nonexistence. Belief is in on way a reflection of reality or a claim of existence. Saying that I believe something is not the same as saying that it's true, and saying that I don't believe something is not the same as saying that it's false.
So, yes: we require evidence, admit that we don't know everything, and have no beliefs towards things we don't or can't know. Explain why that's a problem.
|
And again, you're working on the basis that it may as well be knowable as the conclusion would be the same whether it is or isn't knowable.
Quote:
Nor should it.
That which is unknowable, by definition, has absolutely no discernable effect on the world we experience. If it did have an effect, it would, through that effect, be knowable in some way.
|
So stating a first cause may exist would have no discernable effect on the world is like saying to a waiter I ordered eggs and you have only given me eggs.
Quote:
Are you suggesting that we should take into consideration potentialities that in no way effect us? Explain how that would be anything but an utterly pointless endeavor.
|
It's not a matter of what you view to be pointless.
Quote:
As pointless as positing that we may or may not ever know whether a thing that may or may not be a thing may or may not exist?
Frankly, you've got the market cornered on pointlessness.
Then why have you previously said repeatedly that you have no beliefs towards it?
Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Both, perhaps?
|
I don't believe it does or doesn't exist, I beleive it may exist. Not the same thing.
Quote:
I gave you a valid alternative. Your refusal to accept it as valid in no way damages its validity.
|
Valid in what sense, that you offered it?
Quote:
Perhaps you mean to say that there are no other alternatives that you, personally, believe.
Who offered a multiverse? I offered an eternal, cyclical universe.
|
Pretty much the same thing.
Quote:
You haven't shown that anything beyond the universe is required.
|
And conversely you haven't shown that anything beyond the universe is not required.
Therefore, we do not have to consider anything on the sole basis of your insistence that it's required.
You have no basis to consider it not required apart from your insistence that it 's not.
Quote:
Why do you expect him to define his terms when you refuse to define yours?
So, in short, we all fucking agree that we don't fucking known everthing there is to fucking know. You contentious, belligerent, piece of fucking dogshit. Drop this stupid fucking point already, you illiterate sister-raping asshole.
|
To drop it, just ignore it.
|
|
|
01-30-2011, 01:40 AM
|
#449
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
Quote:
Jimble wrote
Wait, you're a scientist?
|
Sorry I'm not going to take the time to respond to your posts as they don't offer much in the way of indivudal thought or new ideas.
I've alread addressed all your points in this thread and can't see any point in responding as you just bore me. Even your attempt at humour is pretty weak.
You could replace nkb if you're not careful.
|
|
|
01-30-2011, 01:46 AM
|
#450
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 368
|
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
Sorry I'm not going to take the time to respond to your posts as they don't offer much in the way of indivudal thought or new ideas.
I've alread addressed all your points in this thread and can't see any point in responding as you just bore me. Even your attempt at humour is pretty weak.
You could replace nkb if you're not careful.
|
I doubt you've answered all my questions.
But it's K.
Enjoy dodging and bucking the others.
You don't have the right not to be offended.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:43 PM.
|