Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[DMC]

First, that's no different that you thinking atheism is the natural end to critical thinking on the god subject. Of course, I feel like I'm thinking correctly and so my conclusions would be the result of correct thinking by anyone. That's not really an issue.

Secondly, you haven't demonstrated any actual thought process. You just used an empiricist axiom. That took about as much thinking as posting a Commandment would have.

You just selected one of the many god beliefs and used it as a "might be" then called yourself theist. You just happened to select the most passive one, one that doesn't require you to define the god in any real way. I simply put all god beliefs to the same test and all have failed. It's therefore more correct for me to conclude that none of the exist than to arbitrarily choose one and set about defending it tooth and nail.


:rolleyes An actual ad homenim fallacy right there. Surprised you didn't point it out.

So we agree it's without merit. No reason to discuss it further.


Perhaps if you didn't split my response in half, you'd get why it's not circular.

But it is circular. Any time you say a group does something to identify with itself, that's circular.


It's not easier than finishing the process. It doesn't have the benefit of making a person feel smart.
It's easier.

It makes a person feel they have all the answers in one neat word "god" and as a bonus, the moral high ground.

The answer can be used for anything by even a child:

Why is the sky blue? Because god made it blue

How did that tree get there? God put it there

What causes cancer? God causes cancer

But cancer is bad. Not if God causes it.

[Chinook]

So you're discrediting my atheist views because you think I'm an arrogant jackass? :lol Isn't that ad hominem?

No. Is an ad homenim really such a hard concept to understand? I'm saying your attitude sucks. I'm not arguing that atheism sucks because your attitude sucks. There should be no reason why you haven't figured out what ad homenims are by now.

[xellos88330]

Up to this point in the debate, you have made the following concessions:

1. The Bible is full of contradictions.
2. The Bible's content is archaic and barbaric.
3. The Bible consists of outdated customs, rituals, and knowledge of an outdated culture.

Taken together, the fact that you acknowledge all this and still continue to hold the Bible up as a paragon of literature is beyond me. If the Almighty Creator of the Universe were truly to have written this book (or at least inspired the people who wrote it), I'm sure he could have done much better than write a book replete with errors and mutual contradictions.

How do you presume I made concessions? I have stated my thoughts exactly the same way throughout this debate. I have thoroughly answered all of your questions, yet you refuse to answer mine.

The Bible is indeed a paragon of literature. It is also one of the oldest recorded books in history. It is one of the most influential books in the history of mankind. How could you not look at it as a paragon of literature?

[Clipper Nation]

No. Is an ad homenim really such a hard concept to understand? I'm saying your attitude sucks. I'm not arguing that atheism sucks because your attitude sucks. There should be no reason why you haven't figured out what ad homenims are by now.

They must not have covered logical fallacies on the test he paid $30 for to be told he's one of the bestest and smartest :lol

[xellos88330]

To say the Bible teaches morality is to say the overall message of the Bible is a message of morality, not that you can find some bits and pieces of it that you feel are rooting in morality.

I go to school and open a World History textbook. Do I only learn about one country?

Since when does a small passage a whole book make?

[spurraider21]

So you're discrediting my atheist views because you think I'm an arrogant jackass? :lol Isn't that ad hominem?
where did chinook specifically discredit your atheist views?

[xellos88330]

We've already been through this. If the Bible teaches morality, then it does a horrible job at doing so. Any sane, rational person living in the 21st century (including you) can come up with a list of 10 commandments that immediately surprasses the quality of that which is found in the Bible.

Was the Bible written in the 21st century? In those times it could have possibly been one of the most moral books ever written. I cannot claim that for fact, but the possibility is very likely.

[rogues]

No. Is an ad homenim really such a hard concept to understand? I'm saying your attitude sucks. I'm not arguing that atheism sucks because your attitude sucks. There should be no reason why you haven't figured out what ad homenims are by now.
:lol The education in the Phillipines has to be baaaaaad..having interacted with pussy liberal art majors, majority being poly sci prelaw, those are some of the most retarded people I've ever come across..I can't imagine how much stupider a foreign poly sci student is..esssssspecially one from that third world island..

[Chinook]

You just selected one of the many god beliefs and used it as a "might be" then called yourself theist. You just happened to select the most passive one, one that doesn't require you to define the god in any real way. I simply put all god beliefs to the same test and all have failed. It's therefore more correct for me to conclude that none of the exist than to arbitrarily choose one and set about defending it tooth and nail.

Bro, we had an entire thread to hash out my constructive. Why you choose now to make an argument that ignores that is beyond me. But I don't aim to change your thought process, so whatevs. I will say that if you evaluate every "belief" about god the same way, you didn't use critical thinking.


So we agree it's without merit. No reason to discuss it further.

We agree you didn't really address it. We can let it flow through if you want.


But it is circular. Any time you say a group does something to identify with itself, that's circular.

Do individuals not do things to identify with their group? Pretty sure you had no problem asserting that when you were talking about the social constraints surrounding theism.


It's easier.

It makes a person feel they have all the answers in one neat word "god" and as a bonus, the moral high ground.

First, I mistyped. I meant to say that atheism is easier than finishing the process, not that it's not.

Secondly, it's just as easy to say, "because physical events led to that" as it is to say "because god." They're the same type of trivial answer that doesn't address the proximate mechanisms. But the former is still a true statement, at least one we agree on. We disagree on the latter. That's just an example of why theism isn't incompatible with science at all. A lack of critical thinking is incompatible with most epistemology, however.

[Uriel]

How do you presume I made concessions? I have stated my thoughts exactly the same way throughout this debate. I have thoroughly answered all of your questions, yet you refuse to answer mine.

The Bible is indeed a paragon of literature. It is also one of the oldest recorded books in history. It is one of the most influential books in the history of mankind. How could you not look at it as a paragon of literature?
You have not answered a single one of my questions. :lol

Previously, I had broken down your posts part by part and tried to answer each point you'd made exhaustively. I then went on to ask you questions--questions which you completely ignored, so you could bypass all the rebuttals I made and repeat the same point which I'd already refuted a million times. And then you proceed to accuse me of evading your points.

Just to recapitulate, here's a list of some among the many questions I'd asked you before:
1. If the Bible is divinely inspired, why is it so full of contradictions?
2. If the Bible is a reliable source of morality, why can you and I easily make up a list of 10 commandments better the ones contained in it?
3. Why are you privileging the Bible? Why not talk about the Q'uran and the Torah, and uphold those as paragons of literaure?
4. Why do you continue to insist that the doctrines of these holy books are compatible, when the civilizations that have adhered to them have spent centuries trying to foist their religion upon other people, while killing all those who disagree with them?

[spurraider21]

:lmao recapitulate

[Uriel]

Was the Bible written in the 21st century? In those times it could have possibly been one of the most moral books ever written. I cannot claim that for fact, but the possibility is very likely.
Excuse me? There is NO CENTURY IN HUMANITY that a book that sanctions slavery, subjugates women, abominizes homosexuality, and mercilessly commits genocide against warring factions can EVER be considered a moral book.

“If you think that it would be impossible to improve upon the Ten Commandments as a statement of morality, you really owe it to yourself to read some other scriptures. Once again, we need look no further than the Jains: Mahavira (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/7061021.Mahavira), the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: 'Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.' Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept. Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries, on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible.”
― Sam Harris (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/16593.Sam_Harris), Letter to a Christian Nation (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/563115)

[Uriel]

No. Is an ad homenim really such a hard concept to understand? I'm saying your attitude sucks. I'm not arguing that atheism sucks because your attitude sucks. There should be no reason why you haven't figured out what ad homenims are by now.
You're inclined to think my attitude sucks because you privilege religion, and construe any attack against is as a form of arrogance. I can't blame you; our culture insists that its taboo to criticize religious beliefs. All I'm doing is levying criticism on bad ideas without respect for these taboos. If you think that's arrogant, then fine, I honestly couldn't care less. I've never sought your approval.

[Clipper Nation]

:lmao recapitulate

:lol This is exactly what I mean when I say that Urinel tries too hard to sound smart.... instead of just saying "recap" like the entire rest of the English-speaking world, he just has to use the archaic longer version of the word....

Meanwhile, he can't grasp simple concepts like the "ad hominem" fallacy, proving that his "intellect" is superficial and forced....

[Chinook]

You're inclined to think my attitude sucks because you privilege religion, and construe any attack against is as a form of arrogance. I can't blame you; our culture insists that its taboo to criticize religious beliefs. All I'm doing is levying criticism on bad ideas without respect for these taboos. If you think that's arrogant, then fine, I honestly couldn't care less. I've never sought your approval.

That, my friend, is an actual ad homenim.

Plus, it's demonstrably baseless, since atheists in this thread have much even more critical of you than I have.

Again, your contentions haven't gone passed entry level. No one is floundering to keep up with your intellect.

[Uriel]

:lmao recapitulate
My use of big words is evidence of my superior verbal IQ, tbh.

[RD2191]

The Bible does not contradict itself. You are simply reading out of context or know nothing of the scriptures.

[Uriel]

That, my friend, is an actual ad homenim.

Plus, it's demonstrably baseless, since atheists in this thread have much even more critical of you than I have.

Again, your contentions haven't gone passed entry level. No one is floundering to keep up with your intellect.
What contentions have I made that haven't gotten past "entry-level?"

As I'd already stated previously, I never tried to argue for the nonexistence of God. It's impossible to prove a negative, and so the default position is to assume God doesn't exist. All I've been doing in this thread is criticising religion, something which has evidently upset you enough on a personal level to launch personal attacks like "arrogant" and "jackass."

[xellos88330]

You have not answered a single one of my questions. :lol

Previously, I had broken down your posts part by part and tried to answer each point you'd made exhaustively. I then went on to ask you questions--questions which you completely ignored, so you could bypass all the rebuttals I made and repeat the same point which I'd already refuted a million times. And then you proceed to accuse me of evading your points.

Just to recapitulate, here's a list of some among the many questions I'd asked you before:
1. If the Bible is divinely inspired, why is it so full of contradictions?
2. If the Bible is a reliable source of morality, why can you and I easily make up a list of 10 commandments better the ones contained in it?
3. Why are you privileging the Bible? Why not talk about the Q'uran and the Torah, and uphold those as paragons of literaure?
4. Why do you continue to insist that the doctrines of these holy books are compatible, when the civilizations that have adhered to them have spent centuries trying to foist their religion upon other people, while killing all those who disagree with them?

Here are my answers then.

1. I actually agreed from the beginning of the debate that I question its divinity. I did not concede it.
2. It has been thousands of years and yet 4 of the commandments (I do believe that I do not have to explain the importance of the 10 commandments within Christianity and Judaism) still hold true to this day. I would say that is reliable.
3. I have quoted the Quran and the Torah. They are not ignored by me. I do not have as much time researching those as the Bible, so I decline to use them out of respect to those who know more about them than myself. Those books are also some of the most influential books in history. How could they not be paragons.
4. It is one of the main points of the books that are strikingly similar. The belief in one true God is what is compatible. The main difference seems to be in the way the worship and understanding is applied.

Does this satisfy you?

[spurraider21]

My use of big words is evidence of my superior verbal IQ, tbh.

^ok seriously whose troll is this?

[Uriel]

^ok seriously whose troll is this?
Epic fail. :lol

[RD2191]

^ok seriously whose troll is this?
http://www.cringechannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/13648388940071.jpg

[spurraider21]

.
meh the fact that you posted one of these pics with a guy wearing a cross sort of discredits the whole joke :lol

[RD2191]

meh the fact that you posted one of these pics with a guy wearing a cross sort of discredits the whole joke :lol
:pctoss

[Chinook]

What contentions have I made that haven't gotten past "entry-level?"

As I'd already stated previously, I never tried to argue for the nonexistence of God. It's impossible to prove a negative, and so the default position is to assume God doesn't exist. All I've been doing in this thread is criticising religion, something which has evidently upset you enough on a personal level to launch personal attacks like "arrogant" and "jackass."

Again, ad homenim.

First, your OP is entry-level stuff. Second, looking for inconsistencies in the bible is entry-level. The constant strawmen you've used are entry-level. Your insistence on thinking I'm religious (for I'd have to be to disagree with you amirite?) is entry-level. You tossing out "fallacies" is entry-level.

Seriously, dude, it's grade-A vanilla stuff here. I'm not accusing you of being dumb or anything. But I do think you're incredibly inexperienced in this debate. You clearly haven't thought through both sides of the argument and taken them to beyond opening contentions. What's the point of being intellectual if you aren't going to actually analyze the issue before speaking on them?

[RD2191]

http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/

:cryBut but Christians are so evil and so is all religion.:cry

[spurraider21]

http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/

:cryBut but Christians are so evil and so is all religion.:cry
you're seriously a fly in this thread :lol

[RD2191]

Uriel, as someone who as gotten his ass handed to him on multiple debates on ST sometimes you just have to waive the white flag. :lol:yield

[RD2191]

you're seriously a fly in this thread :lol
Atheists are evil murderers. :wakeup

[spurraider21]

Atheists are evil murderers. :wakeup
they're communist too

[Clipper Nation]

My use of big words is evidence of my superior verbal IQ, tbh.

:lol No, it's just more evidence of your desperation to appear more enlightened and smarter than everyone else....

[Uriel]

Again, ad homenim.

First, your OP is entry-level stuff. Second, looking for inconsistencies in the bible is entry-level. The constant strawmen you've used are entry-level. Your insistence on thinking I'm religious (for I'd have to be to disagree with you amirite?) is entry-level. You tossing out "fallacies" is entry-level.

Seriously, dude, it's grade-A vanilla stuff here. I'm not accusing you of being dumb or anything. But I do think you're incredibly inexperienced in this debate. You clearly haven't thought through both sides of the argument and taken them to beyond opening contentions. What's the point of being intellectual if you aren't going to actually analyze the issue before speaking on them?
Then what do you want me to do? Toss out philosophical arguments against the existence of God? The problem of evil? The argument from inconsistent revelations? Russell's teapot? Next, I suppose you want me to refute the arguments for the existence of God? Ontological argument, argument from design, prime mover, etc. Yes, I'm familiar with them all. Yes, I can assure you I've done the necessary reading to be well-versed on both sides of the debate.

But that was never my intention when I started this thread; it just happened to develop that way. Just read the thread title and OP again. It says: "Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs." It's a social science thread, which was the angle with which I've approached this issue from the start. Not a philosophical one.

If you think that using social science instead of philosophy constitutes a less sophisticated form of argumentation, then that's your judgment. But I'm merely trying to provide a new angle to give a refreshing take on a topic that's already been discussed by countless people all over the world ad infinitum.

[Clipper Nation]

The Bible does not contradict itself. You are simply reading out of context or know nothing of the scriptures.

It contradicts itself all the time, even every other sentence at times, as it's a patchwork book cobbled together from four sources who all had different opinions of how the stories played out....

For example, just look at the part of the Bible where the slaves are freed from Egypt: one source claims that the Red Sea was parted to let the Israelites through, another source claims that the ground became muddy and the wheels of the Egyptians' chariots got stuck, and a third source claims that God whipped up a storm "from his nostrils" to drown the Egyptians....

[RD2191]

It contradicts itself all the time, even every other sentence at times, as it's a patchwork book cobbled together from four sources who all had different opinions of how the stories played out....
:reading

[spurraider21]

But that was never my intention when I started this thread; it just happened to develop that way. Just read the thread title and OP again. It says: "Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs." It's a social science thread, which was the angle with which I've approached this issue from the start. Not a philosophical one.
you say that but in the more recent pages you've been on a crusade against the bible, which has nothing to do with the social science perspective you claim to be more interested in

[Chinook]

Then what do you want me to do? Toss out philosophical arguments against the existence of God? The problem of evil? The argument from inconsistent revelations? Russell's teapot? Next, I suppose you want me to refute the arguments for the existence of God? Ontological argument, argument from design, prime mover, etc. Yes, I'm familiar with them all. Yes, I can assure you I've done the necessary reading to be well-versed on both sides of the debate.

Use whatever you want. But just make sure you really understand the arguments. Simple arguments can be just fine as long as a person really gets them. Again, the problem wasn't that your arguments were vanilla; it was that they were vanilla while you were trying to demonstrate your superiority.


But that was never my intention when I started this thread; it just happened to develop that way. Just read the thread title and OP again. It says: "Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs." It's a social science thread, which was the angle with which I've approached this issue from the start. Not a philosophical one.

If you think that using social science instead of philosophy constitutes a less sophisticated form of argumentation, then that's your judgment. But I'm merely trying to provide a new angle to give a refreshing take on a topic that's already been discussed by countless people all over the world ad infinitum.

You didn't even make a contention in your OP. You just posted an article and an emoticon. How did you direct the flow of the debate at all?

At best, you were saying, "lol atheists are smarter" while trying to hide behind a study. How that wasn't going to turn into a philosophical debate, I don't know.

[Uriel]

you say that but in the more recent pages you've been on a crusade against the bible, which has nothing to do with the social science perspective you claim to be more interested in
As I said before, that wasn't my intention. It just worked out that way. But if you're interested in the social science angle, I can show you a lot more studies that show interesting correlations between atheism, political liberalism, and a whole range of psycho-social-emotional traits.

[Uriel]

Use whatever you want. But just make sure you really understand the arguments. Simple arguments can be just fine as long as a person really gets them. Again, the problem wasn't that your arguments were vanilla; it was that they were vanilla while you were trying to demonstrate your superiority.



You didn't even make a contention in your OP. You just posted an article and an emoticon. How did you direct the flow of the debate at all?

At best, you were saying, "lol atheists are smarter" while trying to hide behind a study. How that wasn't going to turn into a philosophical debate, I don't know.
Well, I'm sorry for not realizing that it was my job to moderate the debate as the OP. :lol

And I know that this is going to upset you, but I was hardly trying to "hide" behind the study. I've been fronting it from the very start. It is true that multiple studies have shown that, on average, atheists are more intelligent. This isn't an arbitrary contention; there is overwhelming evidence from scholarly literature to support the fact. To give another example: According to a recent survey, 93% of the National Academy of Sciences self-identify as atheists. Another survey reveals 72.8% of philosophers leaning towards atheism, with only 14.6% identifying as theist.

In other words, the nation's intelligentsia leans towards atheism, while the "riff-raff" lead towards theism. This isn't a statement of opinion, it's a statement of fact, regardless of how arrogant you may think it is.

[Chinook]

Well, I'm sorry for not realizing that it was my job to moderate the debate as the OP. :lol

Nah. But if you don't want a thread to go a certain way, you should make some effort to steer it away from that. Instead, you jumped right into philosophy when responding to me on the first page. No, "I'm interested in the socio-political ramifications mostly," then.


And I know that this is going to upset you, but I was hardly trying to "hide" behind the study. I've been fronting it from the very start. It is true that multiple studies have shown that, on average, atheists are more intelligent. This isn't an arbitrary contention; there is overwhelming evidence from scholarly literature to support the fact. To give another example: According to a recent survey, 93% of the National Academy of Sciences self-identify as atheists. Another survey reveals 72.8% of philosophers leaning towards atheism, with only 14.6% identifying as theist.

Yeah, "fronting" a study is the same thing as "hiding behind" it. It's a, "Hey guys, it's not my opinion. It's what these scientists have come up with," stance. You appealing to their work to validate your view. Yes, if you're still keeping score, that's a fallacy.


In other words, the nation's intelligentsia leans towards atheism, while the "riff-raff" lead towards theism. This isn't a statement of opinion, it's a statement of fact, regardless of how arrogant you may think it is.

Lol, at calling below-average-IQ people "riff-raff". Yeah, personality of gold, right there.

By the by, did you actually read the study, or did you just read the article about the study?

[Chinook]

By the by, xellos88330 , how do you pronounce your screen name? Is it "zeal-ohs", "ecksell-oss", some combination or even some fancy foreign way like "Shay-os" (how it would be pronounced in Mexico)? I usually think my posts in my head as I'm typing, which is why I'm wondering.

[xellos88330]

I pronounce it zell-ose

[rogues]

:lol I remember one time when I wanted to pull a Urinel back in those academic days when it was understandable to be a liberal..then I remember how much of a pretentious piece of shit I'd be if I followed that route..thank god I chose to be a badass..

[rogues]

What's up with your username and sig Chinook?..Always wondered, tbh..

[Uriel]

Nah. But if you don't want a thread to go a certain way, you should make some effort to steer it away from that. Instead, you jumped right into philosophy when responding to me on the first page. No, "I'm interested in the socio-political ramifications mostly," then.
Okay fine, then let me make it clear: although I'm in interested in the philosophical angle of this debate, my primary interest lies in its socio-political ramifications. This is a fairly novel area which has not yet been discussed, and so this is the direction in which I now want to steer this debate.



Yeah, "fronting" a study is the same thing as "hiding behind" it. It's a, "Hey guys, it's not my opinion. It's what these scientists have come up with," stance. You appealing to their work to validate your view. Yes, if you're still keeping score, that's a fallacy.
Well, there isn't exactly a plethora of evidence that goes against that view. You yourself conceded this point in the first few pages of this thread when you admitted that "atheism appeals to intellectuals."



Lol, at calling below-average-IQ people "riff-raff". Yeah, personality of gold, right there.

By the by, did you actually read the study, or did you just read the article about the study?
Okay, so I'm elitist. I'm not going to apologize for it. There are too many ignorant people in this world (just look at the gigantic "Evolution...?" thread here in the club, what a joke) and I have no problem for calling them out on their ignorance.

And no, I did not read the study. I read the meta-analysis, of which the study was a constituent part.

[Chinook]

What's up with your username and sig Chinook (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=37557)?..Always wondered, tbh..

Actually wondering? Just picked it out of a hat basically. The pic is of a chinook salmon. Was into ichthyology when I was younger, probably would have gotten into fisheries had I gone to TAMU.

[rogues]

Actually wondering? Just picked it out of a hat basically. The pic is of a chinook salmon. Was into ichthyology when I was younger, probably would have gotten into fisheries had I gone to TAMU.
I thought you went to A&M, tbh..

[Chinook]

Okay fine, then let me make it clear: although I'm in interested in the philosophical angle of this debate, my primary interest lies in its socio-political ramifications. This is a fairly novel area which has not yet been discussed, and so this is the direction in which I now want to steer this debate.

Sure. Throw out some contentions then.


Well, there isn't exactly a plethora of evidence that goes against that view. You yourself conceded this point in the first few pages of this thread when you admitted that "atheism appeals to intellectuals."

Yeah, I explained why I thought the study would find those results. I haven't read the study (I don't even know what it's called), but I am taking it at face value and offering a socio-political argument. At that point, I was following your desired course.


Okay, so I'm elitist. I'm not going to apologize for it. There are too many ignorant people in this world (just look at the gigantic "Evolution...?" thread here in the club, what a joke) and I have no problem for calling them out on their ignorance.


We both agree about how many ignorant people there are. Hell, everyone in the thread probably agrees with that. But then you have to come correct in your arguments. You've done nothing to refute my original critique to your OP.

[Chinook]

I thought you went to A&M, tbh..

Nah. Went to school up in Philly. But they don't have my college on ST. A&M is who I rooted for as a kid, so I put them as my college. Plus, my school sucks at major sports.

[Uriel]

Nah. Went to school up in Philly. But they don't have my college on ST. A&M is who I rooted for as a kid, so I put them as my college. Plus, my school sucks at major sports.
UPenn?

[Chinook]

Also, Uriel is there a particular reason why you edited the article in the OP to remove the "sexual-exclusivity" angle? It was actually a prominent part of the study.

And that article was terrible. It was just a lot of evolutionary psychobabble. Even so, the researchers asserted that intellectuals were inclined toward atheism in order to fit in with there group.

[Chinook]

UPenn?

Yep.

[Uriel]

Also, Uriel (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=20048) is there a particular reason why you edited the article in the OP to remove the "sexual-exclusivity" angle? It was actually a prominent part of the study.

And that article was terrible. It was just a lot of evolutionary psychobabble. Even so, the researchers asserted that intellectuals were inclined toward atheism in order to fit in with there group.
The sexual-exclusivity part wasn't relevant to the topic I wanted to discuss.

I would hardly consider evolutionary psychology to be "psychobabble." In my view, it was actually one of the more interesting aspects of the article--the contention that people with high IQ's are drawn to novel ideas, like political liberalism and atheism, in contrast to conservatives and theists who merely stay the course.


Yep.
Wow. :tu What did you get in your SAT's? And what year did you take it?

[spurraider21]

inb4 SAT score pissing contest.

oh, wait...

[Uriel]

inb4 SAT score pissing contest.

oh, wait...
It was a sincere question. :lol I wanted to get an idea of how high one had to score to get into the Ivy League.

[rogues]

inb4 SAT score pissing contest.

oh, wait...
:lmao Predictable, tbh..

[Chinook]

The sexual-exclusivity part wasn't relevant to the topic I wanted to discuss.

I would hardly consider evolutionary psychology to be "psychobabble." In my view, it was actually one of the more interesting aspects of the article--the contention that people with high IQ's are drawn to novel ideas, like political liberalism and atheism, in contrast to conservatives and theists who merely stay the course.

Here's the study if you or anyone else wants to take a look at it: http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/spq/Mar10SPQFeature.pdf

Anyway, evolutionary psychology is certainly psychobabble. It's people trying to fit human behavior into biological trends. By it's silly, since most of human behavior is governed by memetics as least as much as genetics. There are actually a good deal of issues with the study, not the least of which is that she equates "not religious" to atheism.


Wow. :tu What did you get in your SAT's? And what year did you take it?

I took them back in 2007-2008. I think I got a 22-something. I don't remember. That kind of stuff really isn't important after you get into a school. Believe me, no one at Penn was bragging about their SAT.

[Chinook]

inb4 SAT score pissing contest.

oh, wait...

I got the second-highest score in my high school. Same for the PSAT. To the same person. I was pissed back then, especially because the person who beat me sounded like a Cali surfer girl when she talked.

Obviously, I don't care anymore. Not bitter at all...

[Chinook]

It was a sincere question. :lol I wanted to get an idea of how high one had to score to get into the Ivy League.

Along those lines, Penn didn't really have any cut-offs. They just looked at the whole package. I did well on tests, had a decent GPA, was the leader in four extra-curriculars and am a triple-minority. I pretty much had a scholarship wherever I wanted to go. Many people who were better than me in one or more of those things got rejected. It's just the way it goes sometimes.

[xellos88330]

Here's the study if you or anyone else wants to take a look at it: http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/spq/Mar10SPQFeature.pdf

Anyway, evolutionary psychology is certainly psychobabble. It's people trying to fit human behavior into biological trends. By it's silly, since most of human behavior is governed by memetics as least as much as genetics. There are actually a good deal of issues with the study, not the least of which is that she equates "not religious" to atheism.



I took them back in 2007-2008. I think I got a 22-something. I don't remember. That kind of stuff really isn't important after you get into a school. Believe me, no one at Penn was bragging about their SAT.

Holy crap that test has changed. When I took the SAT the maximum score was only 1600.

[Chinook]

Holy crap that test has changed. When I took the SAT the maximum score was only 1600.

Added a writing section. Max is 2400 now. I got around a 1500 on the old scale, I think. All that stuff seems like forever ago.

[xellos88330]

Added a writing section. Max is 2400 now. I got around a 1500 on the old scale, I think. All that stuff seems like forever ago.

I took it twice in high school because I fell asleep near the end. Lol! I wound up with only 1010. Second time I took it I got a 1480.

[Uriel]

Here's the study if you or anyone else wants to take a look at it: http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/spq/Mar10SPQFeature.pdf

Anyway, evolutionary psychology is certainly psychobabble. It's people trying to fit human behavior into biological trends. By it's silly, since most of human behavior is governed by memetics as least as much as genetics. There are actually a good deal of issues with the study, not the least of which is that she equates "not religious" to atheism.



I took them back in 2007-2008. I think I got a 22-something. I don't remember. That kind of stuff really isn't important after you get into a school. Believe me, no one at Penn was bragging about their SAT.
You can't dismiss an entire academic field simply on a whim like that. But I'm going to let that pass because of your impressive credentials.

[spurraider21]

You can't dismiss an entire academic field simply on a whim like that. But I'm going to let that pass because of your impressive credentials.
appeal to authority fallacy imo

:lol

[spurraider21]

Along those lines, Penn didn't really have any cut-offs. They just looked at the whole package. I did well on tests, had a decent GPA, was the leader in four extra-curriculars and am a triple-minority. I pretty much had a scholarship wherever I wanted to go. Many people who were better than me in one or more of those things got rejected. It's just the way it goes sometimes.
triple minority? gay black woman?

[Chinook]

triple minority? gay black woman?

They'd've made me president the school in that case. Black, Hispanic and Native American (uncle got us registered as Choctaws). Probably could have left the rest of the app blank, as Penn loves its "diversity".

[spurraider21]

They'd've made me president the school in that case. Black, Hispanic and Native American (uncle got us registered as Choctaws). Probably could have left the rest of the app blank, as Penn loves its "diversity".
i wish armenian counted as a minority, but the choice always says "White (European or Middle East/Caucus Region)"

i usually just put other. couldn't hurt

[Chinook]

i wish armenian counted as a minority, but the choice always says "White (European or Middle East/Caucus Region)"

i usually just put other. couldn't hurt

Blame the Kardashians, tbh.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here's the study if you or anyone else wants to take a look at it: http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/spq/Mar10SPQFeature.pdf

Anyway, evolutionary psychology is certainly psychobabble. It's people trying to fit human behavior into biological trends. By it's silly, since most of human behavior is governed by memetics as least as much as genetics. There are actually a good deal of issues with the study, not the least of which is that she equates "not religious" to atheism.



I took them back in 2007-2008. I think I got a 22-something. I don't remember. That kind of stuff really isn't important after you get into a school. Believe me, no one at Penn was bragging about their SAT.

I was competitive within my class although I wasn't top and I can recall most every exam score I got. Seeing the competitive nature of the situation it kinda works like that.

You use Freud to dismiss the motives of your opponent and then call someone else's argument psychobabble. You call people irrational and then refuse to defend your rationale. You categorize as 'entry level' and then blanket dismiss and other general intellectual cowardice. Accusing atheists of trying to feel better about themselves was a nice touch.

Now we get to enjoy reading you whack off to supposed academic achievements.

If I didn't know better, I would say you are xmas1997 because he does the same type of thing.

[Chinook]

You really lack reading comprehension.


I was competitive within my class although I wasn't top and I can recall most every exam score I got. Seeing the competitive nature of the situation it kinda works like that.

Cool. What you did in school doesn't matter anymore than what I or anyone else did in school. You just have to live your life. Test scores don't make you smart, and they don't help you in the real world past the first level.


You use Freud to dismiss the motives of your opponent and then call someone else's argument psychobabble.

First, I didn't use Freud to dismiss anyone's motives. I brought up his argument for atheism as an example of an argument that isn't dependent of atheism having superior reasoning. Brought up Marx for the same reason. I have no idea why you thought that was part of a rebuttal, since I wasn't even having a debate when I said it.

Second, you obviously haven't read Freud, or at least if you have, you've retained as much from him as you have from reading my posts. Freud was a pretty whack psychologist almost completely because he was a philosopher who tried to make his views fit psychology. That lead to his "psychobabble". His philosophical work is pretty solid, though it's relatively standard for German philosophy at the time. In that same way, Marx' philosophy is fine, but his socio-political arguments were out of whack.

Third, evolutionary psychology is psychobabble. It is psuedoscience in its purest form. It just attempts to make blanket assertions about the connection between evolution and human behavior. It doesn't back any of its claims up with actual science, just assumptions. The same is true for most retroactive explanations for adaptations. But evolutionary psychology is worse because human behavior is controlled by memetics, which are obviously not subject to primate evolution.

Finally, the reason why I criticized the article on those grounds is because that's where most of the impact phrases come in. They aren't from the data itself, but from the researcher's world-view (including saying that atheism does indeed make intellectuals feel better about themselves). If you haven't read the article (the link in the OP, not the quoted next), then do so before coloring my evaluation of it. A huge chunk of the article is about fidelity and how smart men are monogamous while smart women aren't any more monogamous than less-intelligent women. It's really just all over the place, and the study the article is based on isn't much better.


You call people irrational and then refuse to defend your rationale.

I had a thread full of defending my rationale. Sorry that you want another thread's worth of defense for yourself. It's not like I've deleted the posts. If you had a specific question about what I said, that would be one thing. But you just want me to go through the whole spiel again.


You categorize as 'entry level' and then blanket dismiss and other general intellectual cowardice.

Yes, I told Uriel that his arguments are basic and that they did not convey the level of intellectual complexity they were assuming they did. He wasn't levying them at me, so they weren't mine to refute. The actual point-by-point wasn't the basis of my critique of him. It was very obvious in my responses to him that I wasn't taking issue with his contention. I had already given my response to that early in the thread, as you note later on the this post.


Accusing atheists of trying to feel better about themselves was a nice touch.

Thanks. Been working on that one for years now. Glad it went off without a hitch.


Now we get to enjoy reading you whack off to supposed academic achievements.

Um... Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I know I keep saying that, but wow. I didn't volunteer my "credentials" until Uriel asked about them. If anything, I spent most of the latter half of this thread refuting the idea that any of us is more qualified to speak on this than anyone else. Of course I made a joke about how I was bitter about losing out of having the highest score, but that was me poking fun at myself. Uriel brought up the SAT first.


If I didn't know better, I would say you are xmas1997 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8600) because he does the same type of thing.

What does he do? More importantly, why should I care what he does?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You really lack reading comprehension.

Cool. What you did in school doesn't matter anymore than what I or anyone else did in school. You just have to live your life. Test scores don't make you smart, and they don't help you in the real world past the first level.

First, I didn't use Freud to dismiss anyone's motives. I brought up his argument for atheism as an example of an argument that isn't dependent of atheism having superior reasoning. Brought up Marx for the same reason. I have no idea why you thought that was part of a rebuttal, since I wasn't even having a debate when I said it.

Second, you obviously haven't read Freud, or at least if you have, you've retained as much from him as you have from reading my posts. Freud was a pretty whack psychologist almost completely because he was a philosopher who tried to make his views fit psychology. That lead to his "psychobabble". His philosophical work is pretty solid, though it's relatively standard for German philosophy at the time. In that same way, Marx' philosophy is fine, but his socio-political arguments were out of whack.

Third, evolutionary psychology is psychobabble. It is psuedoscience in its purest form. It just attempts to make blanket assertions about the connection between evolution and human behavior. It doesn't back any of its claims up with actual science, just assumptions. The same is true for most retroactive explanations for adaptations. But evolutionary psychology is worse because human behavior is controlled by memetics, which are obviously not subject to primate evolution.

Finally, the reason why I criticized the article on those grounds is because that's where most of the impact phrases come in. They aren't from the data itself, but from the researcher's world-view (including saying that atheism does indeed make intellectuals feel better about themselves). If you haven't read the article (the link in the OP, not the quoted next), then do so before coloring my evaluation of it. A huge chunk of the article is about fidelity and how smart men are monogamous while smart women aren't any more monogamous than less-intelligent women. It's really just all over the place, and the study the article is based on isn't much better.



I had a thread full of defending my rationale. Sorry that you want another thread's worth of defense for yourself. It's not like I've deleted the posts. If you had a specific question about what I said, that would be one thing. But you just want me to go through the whole spiel again.



Yes, I told Uriel that his arguments are basic and that they did not convey the level of intellectual complexity they were assuming they did. He wasn't levying them at me, so they weren't mine to refute. The actual point-by-point wasn't the basis of my critique of him. It was very obvious in my responses to him that I wasn't taking issue with his contention. I had already given my response to that early in the thread, as you note later on the this post.



Thanks. Been working on that one for years now. Glad it went off without a hitch.



Um... Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I know I keep saying that, but wow. I didn't volunteer my "credentials" until Uriel asked about them. If anything, I spent most of the latter half of this thread refuting the idea that any of us is more qualified to speak on this than anyone else. Of course I made a joke about how I was bitter about losing out of having the highest score, but that was me poking fun at myself. Uriel brought up the SAT first.



What does he do? More importantly, why should I care what he does?

Yup you are he.

Dissertation of basically saying that I cannot pin anything on you and similar dissembling. You categorize things and then use the categorical imperative as basis for belief over and over again.

Your begging the question regarding your academics was clumsy at best.

You are still rank coward for claiming that I am irrational and then refusing to defend your rational. I read your 'defense' before. When I called you on formal logic when you were taunting other people about not understanding formal logic was exactly the time you started this current routine of refusing to address my arguments.

You are not credible at all whatsoever but by all means keep asserting.

[Chinook]

Yup you are he.

:rolleyes


Dissertation of basically saying that I cannot pin anything on you and similar dissembling. You categorize things and then use the categorical imperative as basis for belief over and over again.

All right. So this is a troll attempt. Fine. The above literally had nothing to do with what I said, or hell, what anyone said.


Your begging the question regarding your academics was clumsy at best.

Again, nothing about what I said.


You are still rank coward for claiming that I am irrational and then refusing to defend your rational. I read your 'defense' before. When I called you on formal logic when you were taunting other people about not understanding formal logic was exactly the time you started this current routine of refusing to address my arguments.

I've never claimed you were irrational. I literally have done nothing but try to ignore you whenever you engage me. I do so not because I deem you irrational, but because you're not interesting.

You, on the other hand, do claim to be irrational. You claim you have no reason to believe in god but do anyway.


I'm not an atheist. Just because I reject the logical proofs on God and have no empirical basis for a diety doesn't mean that I don't believe. My state of mind is outside of belief
That is irrational.

Also, fallacies aren't part of formal logic. They are informal logic. You've never expressed anything to me about formal logic if I recall correctly. Hell, I don't even think you've said anything about informal logic, either. Again, that has nothing to do with what I said.


You are not credible at all whatsoever but by all means keep asserting.

Lame.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:rolleyes

All right. So this is a troll attempt. Fine. The above literally had nothing to do with what I said, or hell, what anyone said.

Again, nothing about what I said.

I've never claimed you were irrational. I literally have done nothing but try to ignore you whenever you engage me. I do so not because I deem you irrational, but because you're not interesting.

You, on the other hand, do claim to be irrational. You claim you have no reason to believe in god but do anyway.


That is irrational.

Also, fallacies aren't part of formal logic. They are informal logic. You've never expressed anything to me about formal logic if I recall correctly. Hell, I don't even think you've said anything about informal logic, either. Again, that has nothing to do with what I said.



Lame.

I never said I believed in a diety. Talk more of reading comprehension.

You can say I am not interesting but we both know that you are full of shit or you wouldn't take this much time writing these dissertations. You would rather carry on with this nonsense than revisit your natural law argument.

You don't seem to understand that categorizing something is an arbitrary distinction and that your categorical imperative is self assuming. You also do not seem to understand that just because someone does not agree with your rational construct does not mean it is irrational. As if your rationale are the only valid one. More self assuming nonsense.

Yay, now the I'm not the troll, you are troll rationale. Where have we seen this line of reasoning before?

[Chinook]

I never said I believed in a diety. Talk more of reading comprehension.

If you aren't atheistic, then you are theistic. There is not middle ground. If you neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity, then you are atheistic. Sorry to pop your bubble of neutrality.


You can say I am not interesting but we both know that you are full of shit or you wouldn't take this much time writing these dissertations. You would rather carry on with this nonsense than revisit your natural law argument.

You're not interesting, which is why my responses are so short. Also, it's almost six in the morning, and I still can't go to bed.


You don't seem to understand that categorizing something is an arbitrary distinction and that your categorical imperative is self assuming.

Bro, do you know what a categorical imperative is?


You also do not seem to understand that just because someone does not agree with your rational construct does not mean it is irrational. As if your rationale are the only valid one. More self assuming nonsense.

Thought you read my constructive in that other thread. You'd know that I make a huge deal about the subjectivity of rationale. I don't think you're rational, but I can at the same time feel that YOU think you are, and as a result that you're not irrational in a general sense. That's why I said early in this thread that atheists and I will think each other irrational, but that that was fine.


Yay, now the I'm not the troll, you are troll rationale. Where have we seen this line of reasoning before?

I'm assuming you're the troll because you're just throwing out philosophical terms in the wrong context and you're consistently misconstruing what I said. I neither made a categorical imperative nor did I beg the question when talking about academia. The terms just don't apply.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you aren't atheistic, then you are theistic. There is not middle ground. If you neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity, then you are atheistic. Sorry to pop your bubble of neutrality.



You're not interesting, which is why my responses are so short. Also, it's almost six in the morning, and I still can't go to bed.



Bro, do you know what a categorical imperative is?



Thought you read my constructive in that other thread. You'd know that I make a huge deal about the subjectivity of rationale. I don't think you're rational, but I can at the same time feel that YOU think you are, and as a result that you're not irrational in a general sense. That's why I said early in this thread that atheists and I will think each other irrational, but that that was fine.



I'm assuming you're the troll because you're just throwing out philosophical terms in the wrong context and you're consistently misconstruing what I said. I neither made a categorical imperative nor did I beg the question when talking about academia. The terms just don't apply.

Still dodging the natural law argument. No one who ever disagrees with you construes you correctly and they of course are the troll.

You define people as theists and atheists and then because you created said categories everything must fit in your box. Its categorically imperative due to how you have defined your categories. I invite you to read Beyond Good and Evil where Nietzsche ridicules your mode of thought quite extensively. He goes down a list of such dualist categorical imperatives such as -go figure- good and evil.

you can stamp your feet and insist that everything must fit into your two boxes but as with everything else you cannot prove without a doubt that everything must be that way. We can go back to open ended sets and proving a negative but I am betting that you will dissemble from that discussion once more. But, but, but "uni" means one. . . .


Actually wondering? Just picked it out of a hat basically. The pic is of a chinook salmon. Was into ichthyology when I was younger, probably would have gotten into fisheries had I gone to TAMU.

Yeah naming the school you didn't go to was obviously not begging the question. . . . But you don't really care about all that right?

What a douchebag.

You not being able to think of another way doesn't mean that your limited capacity defines all possible knowledge. Doesn't matter if it is in regards to natural law or your dumbed down binary take on reality.

[DMC]

Bro, we had an entire thread to hash out my constructive. Why you choose now to make an argument that ignores that is beyond me. But I don't aim to change your thought process, so whatevs. I will say that if you evaluate every "belief" about god the same way, you didn't use critical thinking.

Every god belief, not every belief. I've said as much.


Do individuals not do things to identify with their group? Pretty sure you had no problem asserting that when you were talking about the social constraints surrounding theism.

It's circular reasoning to say the reason a group does something is to identify with itself. The group is "intellectuals" and you didn't say an individual, you said "intellectuals".


First, I mistyped. I meant to say that atheism is easier than finishing the process, not that it's not.

Who's finished the process? Certainly not you nor any religion.


Secondly, it's just as easy to say, "because physical events led to that" as it is to say "because god." They're the same type of trivial answer that doesn't address the proximate mechanisms. But the former is still a true statement, at least one we agree on. We disagree on the latter. That's just an example of why theism isn't incompatible with science at all. A lack of critical thinking is incompatible with most epistemology, however.
But then you have to define what physical events led to something, and what caused the physical events. No where in the chain of causality can you say "but this magical being doesn't need to be caused, even though we established a rule that everything needs to be caused". With god, you just say "god did it" and when someone attempts to go deeper it's "dude, it's god, no one knows the mind of god". You thwart any further understanding after implying a god.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm still waiting for the necessity of a first cause and proof that the universe is finite. I also have yet to see how infinite regression does not prove the absurdity of the circumstance. If everything must have a cause then by extension no matter how far you go down the rabbit hole you still end up needing a new cause.

That is of course unless you make up a category that fits the criteria and insist that it must exist well because you can wave your hands at it a lot.

[RandomGuy]

People are fallible. Atheists are no different. A high IQ doesn't mean that you are always right or your opinion holds more weight than that of another.

Could belief in a deity be right? Of course it could. When looked at from a scientific viewpoint, it is impossible to deny that possibility. People cannot claim to know the depths and intricacies of the universe without actually exploring all of the possibilities it holds. Think about it logically. How in the hell are we supposed to know for FACT that there isn't something in the universe that is beyond our comprehension when we can't even find out how many different species of living creature are on our own damn planet? Humans haven't fully explored the depths of the oceans, or even the jungles of the Amazon and yet, we are supposed to know all the answers to the universe?

To me, denying the possibility of a being greater than my own understanding is very close-minded and arrogant. If you are indeed smarter.... give everyone the answers they seek with your proofs of infallibility. If you can't do it, then shut your trap about those who are searching for those same answers in their own way.

Ah, but there is a difference between saying "I believe there is no God" and "I don't believe YOUR claims about God". ("your" in this case isn't you personally, just a general reference to people who make claims)

I don't ever claim one doesn't exist, as the amount of proof required to make that statement is far beyond what we might have.

The only thing that makes one an atheist is simply the rejection of claims about god. It is NOT explicitly "there is no God".

Difference is subtle, but there.

[RandomGuy]

If you aren't atheistic, then you are theistic. There is not middle ground. If you neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity, then you are atheistic.

Correct.

There are huge shades within theism as to what that thing is, as there is a lot of difference of opinion among atheists as to the "no god" question.

It is a simple definitional matter, the details... that is where it gets complicated.

[RandomGuy]

I'm still waiting for the necessity of a first cause and proof that the universe is finite. I also have yet to see how infinite regression does not prove the absurdity of the circumstance. If everything must have a cause then by extension no matter how far you go down the rabbit hole you still end up needing a new cause.

That is of course unless you make up a category that fits the criteria and insist that it must exist well because you can wave your hands at it a lot.

Eyup.

Of course, causality requires time moving in a certain direction, which is arguably not evidenced either before the big bang.

Not only does "everything has to have a cause" bite the "god must be that cause" in the ass with the infinite regression, the statement is an unproven assumption in and of itself.

[RandomGuy]

The Bible does not contradict itself. You are simply reading out of context or know nothing of the scriptures.


14 “In case your son should ask you later on, ‘What does this mean?’ then you should say to him, ‘With a mighty hand Jehovah brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery.+ 15 When Phar′aoh stubbornly refused to send us away,+ Jehovah killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of man to the firstborn of beast.+ That is why I am sacrificing to Jehovah all the firstborn males,* and I redeem every firstborn of my sons.’
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/13/

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Did all the firstborn get killed by Jehovah or not?

What context am I missing here?

[baseline bum]

i wish armenian counted as a minority, but the choice always says "White (European or Middle East/Caucus Region)"

i usually just put other. couldn't hurt

LOL I put jap on my UCLA application. Then when I got there I realized it wasn't a minority. :lol

[Chinook]

Still dodging the natural law argument. No one who ever disagrees with you construes you correctly and they of course are the troll.

:rolleyes Don't try to excuse your lack of reading comprehension.


You define people as theists and atheists and then because you created said categories everything must fit in your box. Its categorically imperative due to how you have defined your categories. I invite you to read Beyond Good and Evil where Nietzsche ridicules your mode of thought quite extensively. He goes down a list of such dualist categorical imperatives such as -go figure- good and evil.

So your lack of reading comprehension extends to other people as well. Theist/atheist is a true dichotomy, because the words are direct antonyms. It's not like liberal/conservative. And dude, seriously read about the categorical imperative. It's not what you think it is.


you can stamp your feet and insist that everything must fit into your two boxes but as with everything else you cannot prove without a doubt that everything must be that way. We can go back to open ended sets and proving a negative but I am betting that you will dissemble from that discussion once more. But, but, but "uni" means one. . . .

That was a loser opinion by you then, just as it is now. I said that the people had to pick how they defined "universe" and stick with it. It has to either be a complete set of everything that exists or merely this thing that we believe started with the Big Bang. The fact that they might be the same thing doesn't justify considering them the same, as they have completely different definitions. Essentially, their intensionality is different, even if their extensionality is the same.


Yeah naming the school you didn't go to was obviously not begging the question. . . . But you don't really care about all that right?

No, it's not. Look up what the hell that term means.


What a douchebag.

Thanks. No, my school doesn't matter. All you have to do is actually go to an Ivy, and you'll see that people don't really seem to care. It's just another school, and I usually only bring up my time there to talk about Philadelphia, hence me calling it "my college up in Philly". But I'm not surprised you didn't understand that.


You not being able to think of another way doesn't mean that your limited capacity defines all possible knowledge. Doesn't matter if it is in regards to natural law or your dumbed down binary take on reality.

Ugh. No. I think I've thought this all through, so obviously I think people who disagree with me haven't. That's not just my approach; it's the approach of anyone who thinks they've reasoned something out. But my mind is open to being wrong and to other people disagreeing, hence why I said that it was fine for me to think others are being irrational and vice-versa.

[Chinook]

I'm still waiting for the necessity of a first cause and proof that the universe is finite.

If you're waiting for those, you didn't retain anything from my constructive. The first was bulk of, and the second is hardly my contention.


I also have yet to see how infinite regression does not prove the absurdity of the circumstance. If everything must have a cause then by extension no matter how far you go down the rabbit hole you still end up needing a new cause.

:rolleyes Of course you don't. The, "Well, who created god?" argument has always been weak, because it assumes god exists in the same way we do. But that's not possible, if god set existence into motion. Atheists and some theists like me believe in the causal chain, which essentially means that everything we know as existence is the result of effects occurring due to the interaction of elements. Existence is one gigantic domino chain. But the first domino likely cannot knock itself down. But whatever knocks it down cannot itself be a mere domino, or else you get infinite regression. So it has to be something different, something outside the causal chain altogether, something that didn't need a domino to affect it.


That is of course unless you make up a category that fits the criteria and insist that it must exist well because you can wave your hands at it a lot.

I think you misunderstand what the term "categorical" means. It doesn't mean "put in categories." It means overarching, unconditional.

[Chinook]

Every god belief, not every belief. I've said as much.

Is "god belief" not the same as "belief about god" in your book?


It's circular reasoning to say the reason a group does something is to identify with itself. The group is "intellectuals" and you didn't say an individual, you said "intellectuals".

I said two things on the matter. You only responded to one with a fallacy, and the other you're misconstruing. I said why I think intellectuals as a group lean toward atheism (essentially that empiricism helps people get passed religion, which makes people sort of sit in a godless state that they find so liberating that they stop thinking critically about the situation). Then I said why individuals who call themselves intellectuals lean toward atheism (that they want to seem smart and do what the other smart people are doing -- as many of their theist peers deny basic aspects of knowledge -- and that they stick with the empiricist train that led them out of religion far longer than they're supposed to).


Who's finished the process? Certainly not you nor any religion.

We disagree on that, obviously. I'm explaining why I think my reasoning is the best, so I would think contrary reasoning is lacking. You feel the same, so you shouldn't find it shocking.


But then you have to define what physical events led to something, and what caused the physical events. No where in the chain of causality can you say "but this magical being doesn't need to be caused, even though we established a rule that everything needs to be caused". With god, you just say "god did it" and when someone attempts to go deeper it's "dude, it's god, no one knows the mind of god". You thwart any further understanding after implying a god.

That's always been your misrepresentation of the situation. Lazy people will always cling to some authority instead of reason or investigation. You don't think there are atheists who don't know and don't care to know the first thing about how the beliefs they hold are justified? They just hide behind someone else's words like anyone else. Meanwhile, most early scientists were theists, who obviously didn't take their theism to mean there was no scientific investigation to be had. Your only response to that has been to claim that those thinkers were disguised atheists, but that merely begs the question. You're assuming what you're trying to demonstrate.

[Chinook]

Not only does "everything has to have a cause" bite the "god must be that cause" in the ass with the infinite regression

Eh, it only is an issue if people put god into the universe. If you assume that, then you've already got loads of problems with self-reference.


the statement is an unproven assumption in and of itself.

Of course it's unproven; otherwise, I'd believe my theism is a fact and wouldn't consider difference of opinion. But the assumption is undisputed, which is why it holds. Our entire pursuit of science depends on that assumption holding, so it's not just me who's riding on it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:rolleyes Don't try to excuse your lack of reading comprehension.

So your lack of reading comprehension extends to other people as well. Theist/atheist is a true dichotomy, because the words are direct antonyms. It's not like liberal/conservative. And dude, seriously read about the categorical imperative. It's not what you think it is.

That was a loser opinion by you then, just as it is now. I said that the people had to pick how they defined "universe" and stick with it. It has to either be a complete set of everything that exists or merely this thing that we believe started with the Big Bang. The fact that they might be the same thing doesn't justify considering them the same, as they have completely different definitions. Essentially, their intensionality is different, even if their extensionality is the same.



No, it's not. Look up what the hell that term means.



Thanks. No, my school doesn't matter. All you have to do is actually go to an Ivy, and you'll see that people don't really seem to care. It's just another school, and I usually only bring up my time there to talk about Philadelphia, hence me calling it "my college up in Philly". But I'm not surprised you didn't understand that.



Ugh. No. I think I've thought this all through, so obviously I think people who disagree with me haven't. That's not just my approach; it's the approach of anyone who thinks they've reasoned something out. But my mind is open to being wrong and to other people disagreeing, hence why I said that it was fine for me to think others are being irrational and vice-versa.

For someone that is supposedly trained in formal logic, you have a very poor understanding of zero and the null set as well as the mutability of dualities. Maybe the next time you repeat yourself it will start being valid. Wave those hands.

I called it a categorical imperative because the only proof of the reality of your duality is the dualistic terms you use to describe it. That doesn't make it true. That just makes it your rational construct. You don't seem to grasp the naunce.

I contend that the state of believing and not believing are not completely mutable like you try and force. It's lazy dumbed down thinking.

It is much the same as your attempts to shoehorn in 'universe' for what others consider reality. The absurdity of the technique is easy to see by trying to shoehorn such logic into quark theory or in comparison to other trinary logic conventions.

Your exchange with Uriel has been awesome. I especially liked the one where he said that you cannot just blanket dismiss like that but he would accept it because of your massive credentials. You don't care about it but he sure does, right? I imagine you guys think this is some new level of cleverness when it is really the same shit different day.

What it is, is the approach of someone that likes to act like they have all the answers when we know that not to be the case. You haven't even demonstrated that the universe is finite much less that a god exists in one. But by all means continue the bitchmode 'you don't understand' routine again.

[Chinook]

For someone that is supposedly trained in formal logic, you have a very poor understanding of zero and the null set as well as the mutability of dualities. Maybe the next time you repeat yourself it will start being valid. Wave those hands.

I don't think you have any idea what those mean. They don't apply here.


I called it a categorical imperative because the only proof of the reality of your duality is the dualistic terms you use to describe it. That doesn't make it true. That just makes it your rational construct. You don't seem to grasp the naunce.

That is not what a categorical imperative is. Seriously, look the term up and stop being stupid about it.


I contend that the state of believing and not believing are not completely mutable like you try and force. It's lazy dumbed down thinking.

No one cares what you contend. The words mean what they mean. Their extensions are complimentary sets: There is no crossover, and everything is in exactly one of the two categories. Theism means you believe that god exists. If that statement is not true for you, then you are atheistic.


It is much the same as your attempts to shoehorn in 'universe' for what others consider reality. The absurdity of the technique is easy to see by trying to shoehorn such logic into quark theory or in comparison to other trinary logic conventions.


Again, a whole bunch of terms that don't apply. You think 'reality' and 'universe' are different? How? By what you said, they necessarily enclose the same set, so they are the same.


Your exchange with Uriel (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=20048) has been awesome. I especially liked the one where he said that you cannot just blanket dismiss like that but he would accept it because of your massive credentials. You don't care about it but he sure does, right? I imagine you guys think this is some new level of cleverness when it is really the same shit different day.

Try reading a little bit. The whole point of my exchange with Uriel is that he was coming off like a jerk trying to flex his intellect in lieu of actually engaging people's points. It's like you don't even understand what you see, man, seriously.


What it is, is the approach of someone that likes to act like they have all the answers when we know that not to be the case.

Bro, you sound like an idiot. I've never claimed to have all the answers. I've said numerous times that I could be wrong. But I don't think I am, so I'm not going to pretend like it when discussing. You, on the other hand, can't read worth shit.


You haven't even demonstrated that the universe is finite

Never said it was. Said that this thing we've been calling the universe for scientific purposes is finite, which is true. That's the entire point of the Big Bang theory.


much less that a god exists in one.

Didn't say he did.


But by all means continue the bitchmode 'you don't understand' routine again.

Bro, just because I'm questioning your intelligence doesn't mean that I'm doing the same for everyone else. You've been obtuse and blatantly incorrect this whole time. No one's been agreeing with you because you're not making sense.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think you have any idea what those mean. They don't apply here.



That is not what a categorical imperative is. Seriously, look the term up and stop being stupid about it.



No one cares what you contend. The words mean what they mean. Their extensions are complimentary sets: There is no crossover, and everything is in exactly one of the two categories. Theism means you believe that god exists. If that statement is not true for you, then you are atheistic.



Again, a whole bunch of terms that don't apply. You think 'reality' and 'universe' are different? How? By what you said, they necessarily enclose the same set, so they are the same.



Try reading a little bit. The whole point of my exchange with Uriel is that he was coming off like a jerk trying to flex his intellect in lieu of actually engaging people's points. It's like you don't even understand what you see, man, seriously.



Bro, you sound like an idiot. I've never claimed to have all the answers. I've said numerous times that I could be wrong. But I don't think I am, so I'm not going to pretend like it when discussing. You, on the other hand, can't read worth shit.



Never said it was. Said that this thing we've been calling the universe for scientific purposes is finite, which is true. That's the entire point of the Big Bang theory.



Didn't say he did.



Bro, just because I'm questioning your intelligence doesn't mean that I'm doing the same for everyone else. You've been obtuse and blatantly incorrect this whole time. No one's been agreeing with you because you're not making sense.

Saying that the universe must enclose something no matter the semantics is still unsubstantiated self-assuming nonsense. For someone that is so obtuse, i have you pegged and waffling there still.

There is no objective reality to your rational construct. I get that you have your categorical imperative because of your use of a negation but what you don't get is the point I am making regarding that approach. Not everything fits in your box in a meaningful objective way because you can 'fit' everyone into your viewpoint. I still contend that there are multiple states that are distinct and have implications regarding the discussion at hand. Your dumbed down rational construct of the world as two groups of people remains nothing but that.

How about instead of saying i don't understand what a categorical imperative is, you demonstrate that you know what one is. You have zero credibility beyond bluster. But by all means continue trying to insult my intelligence as the core of your arguments, coward.

[Chinook]

Saying that the universe must enclose something no matter the semantics is still unsubstantiated self-assuming nonsense. For someone that is so obtuse, i have you pegged and waffling there still.

You said the universe was an infinite set. I said that what we've been calling the universe isn't. Stop being dumb.



There is no objective reality to your rational construct. I get that you have your categorical imperative because of your use of a negation but what you don't get is the point I am making regarding that approach. Not everything fits in your box in a meaningful objective way because you can 'fit' everyone into your viewpoint. I still contend that there are multiple states that are distinct and have implications regarding the discussion at hand. Your dumbed down rational construct of the world as two groups of people remains nothing but that.

Bruh...


How about instead of saying i don't understand what a categorical imperative is, you demonstrate that you know what one is. You have zero credibility beyond bluster. But by all means continue trying to insult my intelligence as the core of your arguments, coward.

A categorical imperative is an overriding moral obligation that has to be generalizable to every circumstance. It's actually such an unimportant concept that Kant (the dude who came up with it) said that only one can exist, and that was essentially just the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with categories.

Again, you come off as an idiot, especially since you've had ample opportunity to look up categorical imperative yourself by now. You also haven't demonstrated any knowledge of logical sets at all, or of any of the philosophical terms you've been using. Had you just left them out and made your argument in plain words, you'd have been much better off.

[RD2191]

Why don't we all just get some boxing gloves and settle this like men?:wakeup

[Chinook]

Why don't we all just get some boxing gloves and settle this like men?:wakeup

http://i.lvme.me/l4k39wh.jpg

[RD2191]

http://i.lvme.me/l4k39wh.jpg
:lmaoFuck it. Old school then.

[xmas1997]

Why don't we all just get some boxing gloves and settle this like men?:wakeup

Against the ST pseudo intellectual fuzzybumpkins?

Then we would also have a pseudo pugilist.

:lmao

[RD2191]

Against the ST pseudo intellectual fuzzybumpkins?

Then we would also have a pseudo pugilist.

:lmao
:lol

[DMC]

Is "god belief" not the same as "belief about god" in your book?

You seem to want to move freely in and out of being pedantically technical as it suits you. God belief is not the same as belief about god. It's the same as belief in a god, not about a god. Belief about a god already entails believing in a god.


I said two things on the matter. You only responded to one with a fallacy, and the other you're misconstruing. I said why I think intellectuals as a group lean toward atheism (essentially that empiricism helps people get passed religion, which makes people sort of sit in a godless state that they find so liberating that they stop thinking critically about the situation). Then I said why individuals who call themselves intellectuals lean toward atheism (that they want to seem smart and do what the other smart people are doing -- as many of their theist peers deny basic aspects of knowledge -- and that they stick with the empiricist train that led them out of religion far longer than they're supposed to).

How do you know what people think? How is concluding a god exists anything close to critical thinking? From what, it not empiricism, do you draw your conclusions? What do you mean "supposed to"? Who's the authority on that?


We disagree on that, obviously. I'm explaining why I think my reasoning is the best, so I would think contrary reasoning is lacking. You feel the same, so you shouldn't find it shocking.

Now you are telling me how I feel.


That's always been your misrepresentation of the situation. Lazy people will always cling to some authority instead of reason or investigation. You don't think there are atheists who don't know and don't care to know the first thing about how the beliefs they hold are justified? They just hide behind someone else's words like anyone else. Meanwhile, most early scientists were theists, who obviously didn't take their theism to mean there was no scientific investigation to be had. Your only response to that has been to claim that those thinkers were disguised atheists, but that merely begs the question. You're assuming what you're trying to demonstrate.
True atheists, those who are literally free from the bullshit of religion, actually don't know or care to know about how beliefs are justified. They see no reason to believe something that's obviously bullshit. That might sound simple, but it's just an economical way of saying what you're saying. You say you can fly, prove it. Can't prove it? Then you're full of shit. That's called common sense and you don't need a degree in philosophy to understand it.

[ohmwrecker]

DMC getting owned per par.

How would you know? Isn't most of this flying over your head?

[Chinook]

You seem to want to move freely in and out of being pedantically technical as it suits you. God belief is not the same as belief about god. It's the same as belief in a god, not about a god. Belief about a god already entails believing in a god.

I just like to be technical when it comes to clarifying something. I meant 'god belief' and not 'beliefs about god' then. I meant to ask about what you were saying, not about a different concept.


How do you know what people think? How is concluding a god exists anything close to critical thinking?

I gave my theories. If I knew what people thought for sure, I wouldn't be calling them theories.


From what, it not empiricism, do you draw your conclusions? What do you mean "supposed to"? Who's the authority on that?

Reason. That's where most metaphysical beliefs come from. In fact, you've been appealing to reason as much as I have. You've just been stuck on one argument.


Now you are telling me how I feel.

You have said numerous times that theists fail to think critically. Don't act like I'm putting words in your mouth.


True atheists, those who are literally free from the bullshit of religion, actually don't know or care to know about how beliefs are justified. They see no reason to believe something that's obviously bullshit. That might sound simple, but it's just an economical way of saying what you're saying. You say you can fly, prove it. Can't prove it? Then you're full of shit. That's called common sense and you don't need a degree in philosophy to understand it.

That's an ignorant statement. Science is a method to justify beliefs. Of course atheists should care about justifying their beliefs; that is how we progress intellectually.

There are people who sit there an just spout off things like "Big Bang" and "evolution" without having the slightest ideas about why they believe those theories. Those people aren't any better at critical thinking than people who take the bible literally. Anyone who simply leaves knowledge up to an authority is foolish, not matter what beliefs they hold.

[RD2191]

How would you know? Isn't most of this flying over your head?
:lol:nope

[xmas1997]

I just like to be technical when it comes to clarifying something. I meant 'god belief' and not 'beliefs about god' then. I meant to ask about what you were saying, not about a different concept.
I gave my theories. If I knew what people thought for sure, I wouldn't be calling them theories.
Reason. That's where most metaphysical beliefs come from. In fact, you've been appealing to reason as much as I have. You've just been stuck on one argument.
You have said numerous times that theists fail to think critically. Don't act like I'm putting words in your mouth.
That's an ignorant statement. Science is a method to justify beliefs. Of course atheists should care about justifying their beliefs; that is how we progress intellectually.

There are people who sit there an just spout off things like "Big Bang" and "evolution" without having the slightest ideas about why they believe those theories. Those people aren't any better at critical thinking than people who take the bible literally. Anyone who simply leaves knowledge up to an authority is foolish, not matter what beliefs they hold.

This is true, and SBM has made this statement many times on here yet others don't "get" it.
Go figure!

[DMC]

I just like to be technical when it comes to clarifying something. I meant 'god belief' and not 'beliefs about god' then. I meant to ask about what you were saying, not about a different concept.

Which is whenever you see an opening to be pedantic and wave your philosophy flag.


I gave my theories. If I knew what people thought for sure, I wouldn't be calling them theories.

What would you be calling them, laws?


Reason. That's where most metaphysical beliefs come from. In fact, you've been appealing to reason as much as I have. You've just been stuck on one argument.

It's just reason that's based on ego, laziness, wishful thinking and impatience. I could just shout out a number and say it's the answer and that I am just waiting for the question, which is what the god answer does. You don't even know the question yet you still have the answer.


You have said numerous times that theists fail to think critically. Don't act like I'm putting words in your mouth.

By default theists lack the ability to think critically. It's shown time and again in the leadership of theists in debates and in the general every day goings on in the world.


That's an ignorant statement. Science is a method to justify beliefs. Of course atheists should care about justifying their beliefs; that is how we progress intellectually.

Science is a method of discovery. Do you think discoveries of an accidental nature in science are about justifying beliefs? If not, did science fail? You seem to have spent more time discussing philosophy than science, which is odd because what we know in science we once discussed in philosophy, yet you somehow think science is overrated.


There are people who sit there an just spout off things like "Big Bang" and "evolution" without having the slightest ideas about why they believe those theories. Those people aren't any better at critical thinking than people who take the bible literally. Anyone who simply leaves knowledge up to an authority is foolish, not matter what beliefs they hold.
There are people who eat their own feces. Can we use those as an example?

[Chinook]

Which is whenever you see an opening to be pedantic and wave your philosophy flag.

Whatever.


What would you be calling them, laws?

Truth.


It's just reason that's based on ego, laziness, wishful thinking and impatience. I could just shout out a number and say it's the answer and that I am just waiting for the question, which is what the god answer does. You don't even know the question yet you still have the answer.

Sounds profound, but means nothing.


By default theists lack the ability to think critically. It's shown time and again in the leadership of theists in debates and in the general every day goings on in the world.

Yeah, never mind the theists scientists who formed the theory base on which you're all too happy to jump. How about the fact that people in general are not inclined to think critically once they reach a comfort zone?


Science is a method of discovery. Do you think discoveries of an accidental nature in science are about justifying beliefs? If not, did science fail? You seem to have spent more time discussing philosophy than science, which is odd because what we know in science we once discussed in philosophy, yet you somehow think science is overrated.

No, it's not. It's set up to test hypotheses. All that jargon you use about falsifiability and evidence comes from the scientific method, which only works after someone forms hypotheses to test. You need assertions to challenge first. Discoveries aren't scientific initially; they have to be tested with scientific methods before they can become part of generally accepted beliefs.


There are people who eat their own feces. Can we use those as an example?

Sure, if you were trying to argue that there weren't people who eat feces.

[DMC]

Science and scientific method is two different things, just as are religion and religious methods.

[DMC]

So in conclusion, Chinook, you were merely lashing out against atheism when you said intellectuals are atheists because it makes them feel better, as if it's a fad. I see deism as a fad that young people don't really even understand. I see your theism claim to be ragged at best since you've also claimed you don't necessarily believe a god exists, but that one might. That's not theism or even deism. Even still, the fact that you can form such a conclusion and call it the correct default position indicates your religious upbringing and your age, and that though you have taken many of the necessary steps mentally to recover from the brainwashing of religion, you haven't quite shaken it yet, but it's hanging by a thread. All it takes is for your god to suddenly be replaced by another fantasy and poof, gone.

[Chinook]

So in conclusion, Chinook, you were merely lashing out against atheism when you said intellectuals are atheists because it makes them feel better, as if it's a fad. I see deism as a fad that young people don't really even understand. I see your theism claim to be ragged at best since you've also claimed you don't necessarily believe a god exists, but that one might. That's not theism or even deism. Even still, the fact that you can form such a conclusion and call it the correct default position indicates your religious upbringing and your age, and that though you have taken many of the necessary steps mentally to recover from the brainwashing of religion, you haven't quite shaken it yet, but it's hanging by a thread. All it takes is for your god to suddenly be replaced by another fantasy and poof, gone.

Could have at least tagged me instead of just dropping this here unannounced. It seems you want to wind down this discussion, and I'm fine with that. You could have just said that directly, however. This attempt at a parting shot is really weak, and it comes from you giving up on every contention you had after they met only a little resistance. Man up and admit you didn't have a very good debate this time. You're a smart person, and you'll do better next time. You've definitely done better before.

[xmas1997]

Could have at least tagged me instead of just dropping this here unannounced. It seems you want to wind down this discussion, and I'm fine with that. You could have just said that directly, however. This attempt at a parting shot is really weak, and it comes from you giving up on every contention you had after they met only a little resistance. Man up and admit you didn't have a very good debate this time. You're a smart person, and you'll do better next time. You've definitely done better before.


Actually each attempt was pretty weak.
I am afraid you owned him every time, but he will never admit it.
It has to do with huge egos and small minds, kind of like another couple of small minded idiots who follow me around this forum.
One, or both, will probably be posting right after this, just watch.
:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You said the universe was an infinite set. I said that what we've been calling the universe isn't. Stop being dumb.




Bruh...



A categorical imperative is an overriding moral obligation that has to be generalizable to every circumstance. It's actually such an unimportant concept that Kant (the dude who came up with it) said that only one can exist, and that was essentially just the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with categories.

Again, you come off as an idiot, especially since you've had ample opportunity to look up categorical imperative yourself by now. You also haven't demonstrated any knowledge of logical sets at all, or of any of the philosophical terms you've been using. Had you just left them out and made your argument in plain words, you'd have been much better off.

We? Fuck off, hippy, you only get to speak for yourself. What we call something is independent of what something actually is. There is not a shred of evidence of platonic forms or ideals although you like to pretend that your rational constructs.

I have been talking about the whole of reality that are governed by natural laws as that was what your theistic argument is about. I haven't allowed myself to get mired in your shitty categories and semantics. I mock you for them repeatedly but you seem oblivious to the point I am making.

You are describing the imperative and you are not addressing the categorical process by which the imperative is derived.

It is right there in the phrase itself. An imperative based on categorization. He uses dualistic coupling of categories and draws conclusions based on them. Kant and other 19th century germans had a field day using the same logic you are using here making categorical imperatives of all manner of virtue. And again Nietzsche ridicules quite extensively such methodology in thus spakt and directly in beyond good and evil. Rawls rejected the dualistic construct formally as did Russell.

You are using the same baseless self assuming nonsense. You think that because you call everyone one of two things that it somehow becomes inherently true. It's hubris of the tallest order, frankly. No wonder you are dropping 'we.' Your arguments were refuted thoroughly 150 years ago.

And you can sit there and say that I don't understand logic but you continue to dodge my argument about logical proofs of a negation and open ended sets. You keep on claiming that I am misusing terms but outside of finally defining categorical imperative on an entry level basis, you have done nothing whatsoever to prove that. Well excuse me you have also made dubious claims as to SAT scores and Ivy League education.

And on a final note. Your position of god not being able to be proven empirically -assertion of a negation again- is one of the more cowardly positions I have ever seen.

[Chinook]

We? Fuck off, hippy, you only get to speak for yourself. What we call something is independent of what something actually is. There is not a shred of evidence of platonic forms or ideals although you like to pretend that your rational constructs.

I have been talking about the whole of reality that are governed by natural laws as that was what your theistic argument is about. I haven't allowed myself to get mired in your shitty categories and semantics. I mock you for them repeatedly but you seem oblivious to the point I am making.

You are describing the imperative and you are not addressing the categorical process by which the imperative is derived.

It is right there in the phrase itself. An imperative based on categorization. He uses dualistic coupling of categories and draws conclusions based on them. Kant and other 19th century germans had a field day using the same logic you are using here making categorical imperatives of all manner of virtue. And again Nietzsche ridicules quite extensively such methodology in thus spakt and directly in beyond good and evil. Rawls rejected the dualistic construct formally as did Russell.

You are using the same baseless self assuming nonsense. You think that because you call everyone one of two things that it somehow becomes inherently true. It's hubris of the tallest order, frankly. No wonder you are dropping 'we.' Your arguments were refuted thoroughly 150 years ago.

And you can sit there and say that I don't understand logic but you continue to dodge my argument about logical proofs of a negation and open ended sets. You keep on claiming that I am misusing terms but outside of finally defining categorical imperative on an entry level basis, you have done nothing whatsoever to prove that. Well excuse me you have also made dubious claims as to SAT scores and Ivy League education.

And on a final note. Your position of god not being able to be proven empirically -assertion of a negation again- is one of the more cowardly positions I have ever seen.

Bro, you haven't said anything, you've just regurgitated what other people said out of context and while demonstrating no ability to put the arguments into your own words. You sound like a guy who looked up "atheist arguments" on Google and copy-pasted them here.

You seriously just need to stop posting, really research the arguments you're trying to use, then try again.

For your benefit, here is a non-exhaustive list of things you should look up. Consider it your homework:

-Categorical imperative

-Begging the question

-Open sets

-Intensionality/extensionality

-Dualism

-Atheism

-Formal Logic

-Fallacies

Let me know when you've done those things, and I'll be willing to hear you. Until then, you should take your cue from DMC and just bow out. You've done nothing but undercut atheists with your posts.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bro, you haven't said anything, you've just regurgitated what other people said out of context and while demonstrating no ability to put the arguments into your own words. You sound like a guy who looked up "atheist arguments" on Google and copy-pasted them here.

You seriously just need to stop posting, really research the arguments you're trying to use, then try again.

For your benefit, here is a non-exhaustive list of things you should look up. Consider it your homework:

-Categorical imperative

-Begging the question

-Open sets

-Intensionality/extensionality

-Dualism

-Atheism

-Formal Logic

-Fallacies

Let me know when you've done those things, and I'll be willing to hear you. Until then, you should take your cue from DMC and just bow out. You've done nothing but undercut atheists with your posts.

Assertions without basis and then bluster, the way of the coward. DMC got bored. So have I.

Your prima causa and natural law arguments have been refuted and you have abandoned them completely. It's not bowing out when you win, coward.

[Chinook]

Assertions without basis and then bluster, the way of the coward. DMC got bored. So have I.

Your prima causa and natural law arguments have been refuted and you have abandoned them completely. It's not bowing out when you win, coward.

No way you're done with you're homework yet, bro. You seem like the guy who needs to read things a few times to understand them.

[xmas1997]

No way you're done with you're homework yet, bro. You seem like the guy who needs to read things a few times to understand them.

I could have warned you about him and his ignorant debate style, or others could have.

Honestly he has no style and resorts to cussing and invectives as if that strengthened his argument in some bizarre way.

This is why when he debated me he earned the reputation of "pseudo intellectual" which I labeled him a long time ago, and now I know better than to debate him.

It is very similar to chump and anahka in that they have nothing relevant to say or rarely do, chump does on a blue moon, but that is rare, so they have to resort to misquoting, quoting out of context, misrepresenting, and countless false statements that they attribute to people, it is where their distortions and twisting of the truth comes from.

If someone engages in a debate, they have to be man enough to admit when they are wrong and go from there, but such is not the case with flakes on here who have huge egos and very small minds.

Thus their competency is called into question since they have no conception of "truth", humor, sarcasm, irony, or dramatic suspenseful presentation i.e. creativity.

And left without any other recourse to competently argue a point, they resort to ridicule and lying to give themselves a fictitious sense of credibility.ons to him to help him get a better grasp

In fuzzybumpkins case I finally resorted to quoting dictionary definitions to him in order to help him get a better grasp of what I was telling him.

It is what it is.

Now I awiat their usual followups to my post with their usual derivel.

:lmao

[anakha]

:lmao old man rant
:lmao long-winded post about posters he supposedly ignores
:lmao more butthurt than his made-up ass-bleeding wife

[RD2191]

Fuzzy just posted a whole lot of shit and basically said nothing. :lol Amazing.

[Blake]

I could have warned you about him and his ignorant debate style, or others could have.

Honestly he has no style and resorts to cussing and invectives as if that strengthened his argument in some bizarre way.

This is why when he debated me he earned the reputation of "pseudo intellectual" which I labeled him a long time ago, and now I know better than to debate him.

It is very similar to chump and anahka in that they have nothing relevant to say or rarely do, chump does on a blue moon, but that is rare, so they have to resort to misquoting, quoting out of context, misrepresenting, and countless false statements that they attribute to people, it is where their distortions and twisting of the truth comes from.

If someone engages in a debate, they have to be man enough to admit when they are wrong and go from there, but such is not the case with flakes on here who have huge egos and very small minds.

Thus their competency is called into question since they have no conception of "truth", humor, sarcasm, irony, or dramatic suspenseful presentation i.e. creativity.

And left without any other recourse to competently argue a point, they resort to ridicule and lying to give themselves a fictitious sense of credibility.ons to him to help him get a better grasp

In fuzzybumpkins case I finally resorted to quoting dictionary definitions to him in order to help him get a better grasp of what I was telling him.

It is what it is.

Now I awiat their usual followups to my post with their usual derivel.

:lmao

Are you ever going to stay on any thread topic or you going to keep rambling on in every thread on about the people you are ignoring?

[xmas1997]

Fuzzy just posted a whole lot of shit and basically said nothing. :lol Amazing.

This is what he always does, it is his MO, very similar to the two headcases that follow me everywhere like the poster above you!

:lmao

[xmas1997]

Are you ever going to stay on any thread topic or you going to keep rambling on in every thread on about the people you are ignoring?

I don't know.

What do you think?

Tell me what you do "constructively" on here except whine and bitch and moan about other people?

:lmao

[anakha]

:lmao single old man making up an ass-bleeding wife for pity points and failing miserably
:lmao Incarnate Word dropout faking a Dartmouth education to impress an Internet forum and failing miserably
:lmao humiliated old man faking his death and threatening lawsuits to keep from getting shit on and failing miserably

[Blake]

I don't know.

What do you think?

Tell me what you do "constructively" on here except whine and bitch and moan about other people?

:lmao

I don't really do anything constructive here.

I do think you're mental.

[xmas1997]

I don't really do anything constructive here.

I do think you're mental.

You delude yourself to have the gall to "think" anything, it is your weakest quality.

:lmao

You troll, in your own words, so I am your Troll God.

If you are guilty, then you have no room to cast stones at anyone.



By the way, did anyone notice who "followed" my post with more ignorance, BS, and irrelevance?

Speak of the devil, I called it.

:lmao

[anakha]

:lmao single old man making up an ass-bleeding wife for pity points and failing miserably
:lmao Incarnate Word dropout faking a Dartmouth education to impress an Internet forum and failing miserably
:lmao humiliated old man faking his death and threatening lawsuits to keep from getting shit on and failing miserably

Deflect all you want, old man. Your made up shit is going to follow you around non-stop. :lol

[Blake]

You delude yourself to have the gall to "think" anything, it is your weakest quality.

:lmao

You troll, in your own words, so I am your Troll God.

If you are guilty, then you have no room to cast stones at anyone.



By the way, did anyone notice who "followed" my post with more ignorance, BS, and irrelevance?

Speak of the devil, I called it.

:lmao

Sure

[xmas1997]

Are you ever going to stay on any thread topic or you going to keep rambling on in every thread on about the people you are ignoring?



Also it is conspicuously obvious that you play sides when you have that criticism of me yet you turn a blind eye to the constant derailments by anagloser and the years of such by chumpuss.

Talk about hypocrisy, I could derail threads for months and never get close to their derailing!

Come back and talk to us when you have something "valid" to say and when you can be fair minded!

[Brazil]

So to sum up

Xmas1997 is dramatically looking for Chinook's attention... kinda cute tbh
Chinook not giving him any attention :depressed
Chinook point of view is called... truth :lol ... damn...
Bible is a book that teaches morality :lol (dat one is good)

[Blake]

Also it is conspicuously obvious that you play sides when you have that criticism of me yet you turn a blind eye to the constant derailments by anagloser and the years of such by chumpuss.

Talk about hypocrisy, I could derail threads for months and never get close to their derailing!

Come back and talk to us when you have something "valid" to say and when you can be fair minded!

lol "us"

[Chinook]

So to sum up
...

Chinook point of view is called... truth :lol ... damn...

Nah. It's just if I believe my view is the most rational view, then by default I must also think dissenting views are less rational. Otherwise, I wouldn't have my view in the first place. It wasn't supposed to be a dig at atheists, who are entitled to their views and with whom I tend to agree on almost everything else.

[Brazil]

Nah. It's just if I believe my view is the most rational view, then by default I must also think dissenting views are less rational. Otherwise, I wouldn't have my view in the first place. It wasn't supposed to be a dig at atheists, who are entitled to their views and with whom I tend to agree on almost everything else.

was just messing a bit with you... I just read in diagonal and saw you were calling what you were saying truth... I imagined it was not litteral. Only xmas would call his dumb pov truth

but then I learned in that thread that bible teaches morality so it was worth the quick reading

[DMC]

Could have at least tagged me instead of just dropping this here unannounced. It seems you want to wind down this discussion, and I'm fine with that. You could have just said that directly, however. This attempt at a parting shot is really weak, and it comes from you giving up on every contention you had after they met only a little resistance. Man up and admit you didn't have a very good debate this time. You're a smart person, and you'll do better next time. You've definitely done better before.
You admitted that your comment was ad hom. You haven't explained away how you know what other people think. You just claim they do. What else is there?

[RandomGuy]

Eh, it only is an issue if people put god into the universe. If you assume that, then you've already got loads of problems with self-reference.



Of course it's unproven; otherwise, I'd believe my theism is a fact and wouldn't consider difference of opinion. But the assumption is undisputed, which is why it holds. Our entire pursuit of science depends on that assumption holding, so it's not just me who's riding on it.

um... okaaay... Where would you put god, if not into the universe?

Secondly, The unproven assumption "everything has to have a cause" is disputed. It is very much disputed in this case, as it requires time.

One can't wave away this problem simply by saying "its undisputed".

[RandomGuy]

I was using those few commandments as an example because I was showing that the Bible does have some bearing on teaching morality in response to the claim Uriel presented. Whether or not you follow all of the commandments in their entirety is your personal choice. We all have free will whether it was bestowed by a supreme being or not. I do not put my stock into a single religion, but feel that they all have their high and low points. I do however make it a point to argue when I feel that one is claiming to be better than another simply because a study concluded with an assumption. I don't recall receiving an intelligence test on this subject.

Religion existed long before Christianity, Judaism etc. There was paganism before Christianity and they had their gods of peace such as Pax or Eirene. I am simply stating that ALL religions do help teach morality and basic guidelines regardless of the timeline. Religion has its uses, and no one can deny it.... God existing or not. Why argue the existence of a supreme being when there are good lessons to be learned to begin with regardless of a persons beliefs?

The bible teaches nothing about morality that we can't discover for ourselves.

The fact that religions all attempt to teach morality, does not mean that morality can only be had from religious thinking.

[DMC]

um... okaaay... Where would you put god, if not into the universe?

Secondly, The unproven assumption "everything has to have a cause" is disputed. It is very much disputed in this case, as it requires time.

One can't wave away this problem simply by saying "its undisputed".
It's disputed especially by theists who rely heavily on the notion that their god isn't contingent.

[RandomGuy]

Nah. It's just if I believe my view is the most rational view, then by default I must also think dissenting views are less rational. Otherwise, I wouldn't have my view in the first place.

+1

I believe mine is the most rational as well. One kind of has to.

That is the way all people work, and why we hash these things out.

[RandomGuy]

How would you know? Isn't most of this flying over your head?

Far, far, over his head.

https://sites.google.com/site/josblogspot/dunning-kruger-curve-640px.jpg

[DMC]

Are we to believe that a grit takes longer to cook in your kitchen than in any other kitchen in the world?

[RandomGuy]

To say the Bible teaches morality is to say the overall message of the Bible is a message of morality, not that you can find some bits and pieces of it that you feel are rooting in morality.

I would agree with Dilahunty in this case. The bible is not a moral system, it is merely a collection of moral pronouncements.

X is moral
Y is not moral

But it doesn't provide a system or set of general guidelines by which to determine things NOT in the book.

[RandomGuy]

Only a dummy would gamble spending an eternity burning.

Meh. More failed reasoning.

Which eternity of torture do I avoid? the hindu hell? the muslim hell? the X hell, the Y hell?

Further, wouldn't singing the praises of some narcissistic magic man for eternity be considered torture in and of itself?

What if you decide, some day 2 trillion years down the road, that you didn't WANT to sing the praises of this yutz that day? What if you wanted to leave this heaven place? Could you? Where would you go, if you could?

The way I see it, is that you are worried about just one less hell out of all the possibilities than I am.

Not much of a gamble now is it?

I know you don't spend time worrying about other hells, or do you?

[xmas1997]

+1

I believe mine is the most rational as well. One kind of has to.

That is the way all people work, and why we hash these things out.

This is true, very profound, despite what the ignoramuses say to the contrary.
:lol

[RandomGuy]

Are we to believe that a grit takes longer to cook in your kitchen than in any other kitchen in the world?

Ah shit... that's a movie quote, hmmm.

found it. hehehehehehehe

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0104952/quotes?qt=qt1653289

Surprisingly good movie. Pesci is the man.

[Chinook]

You admitted that your comment was ad hom. You haven't explained away how you know what other people think. You just claim they do. What else is there?

No. Your response was ad homenim. Your criticism of my point was based on your criticism of me, which is what the ad hom fallacy addresses.

[Chinook]

um... okaaay... Where would you put god, if not into the universe?

I don't think that makes a ton of sense to try to answer. If god made the universe, then he clearly wasn't there when he made it.


Secondly, The unproven assumption "everything has to have a cause" is disputed. It is very much disputed in this case, as it requires time.

I don't believe that's a valid criticism. Cause and effect do require sequence, but I don't think they have to have time in the way we experience it. It's like asking how an individual was born. Time as a perceptional concept doesn't exist to a person before they were born, but time as a physical concept does. In the same way, time as a physical concept depends on a universe, but time as a logical concept does not. Time is connected to the universe, but that doesn't help it move past a need for a first cause.


One can't wave away this problem simply by saying "its undisputed".

I think I can. Atheist want to argue about the null being that god doesn't exist. Essentially we shouldn't believe something interesting occurred unless we have enough evidence to think so with confidence. We have no evidence that things can happen without cause, so it doesn't make sense to assume they can. The universe is a giant Rube-Goldberg machine, and science depends on our ability to ascertain previous steps by looking at present conditions. The moment you start introducing causeless effects, things risk breaking down.

I've yet to see anyone show evidence of a state without a cause. That's why I say it's undisputed.

[Chinook]

It's disputed especially by theists who rely heavily on the notion that their god isn't contingent.

You mean my admittance that god might not exist? I've never gotten why you take issue with that. Any rational person concedes they may be wrong about their beliefs. I could be swayed to believe there is no god, but I'd need some good evidence to get off my need for a prime mover. I might even have enough doubt to move into the atheist camp if we found evidence "proving" that the universe is eternal/cyclical, though I'd still have my inclinations. But I'm not gonna hop on someone else's magic theory when mine makes more sense to me and wouldn't leave me with as many doubts.

[spurraider21]

Are we to believe that a grit takes longer to cook in your kitchen than in any other kitchen in the world?
did you buy your grits from the same guy that sold jack his beanstalk beans?

[RD2191]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/...tcmp=obnetwork (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/10/20/eyeless-swimmer-bizarre-primitive-animal-is-your-cousin/?intcmp=obmod_ffo&intcmp=obnetwork)

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/feeds/LiveScience/876/493/vetulicolians-Katrina-Kenny-101415.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
500-million-year-old swimming filter-feeders called vetulicolians have been a mystery since their discovery more than a century ago.

Newfound fossils may solve a century-long mystery over the identity of a bizarre 500-million-year-old animal.

Strange figure-8 shaped creatures from the Cambrian Period are actually very distant cousins of humans, according to a new study. These vetulicolians, as they are known, appear to have possessed a notochord, a hollow nerve structure just like modern vertebrates, including humans.










"It finally puts to rest the position of this weird-looking group of animals," study researcher Diego Garcia-Bellido, an invertebrate paleontologist at the University of Adelaide in Australia and an honorary research associate at the South Australian Museum, wrote in an email to Live Science. The findings also suggest that chordates, or creatures with notochords, were diverse and successful from the beginning of animal evolution, he said. [Gallery: See Images of the Bizarre Swimming Animals]

Weird life

Vetulicolians were truly bizarre: They lacked eyes, but had a wide mouth and a segmented tail. Like miniature whale sharks, these early animals swam through the oceans, filter-feeding off plankton and other microscopic tasties. Fourteen species have been found in the fossil record since 1911, including specimens from Greenland, southern China and western Canada.

Now, Garcia-Bellido's team has discovered a new species of this group on Kangaroo Island, Australia, a hotspot for Cambrian-age fossils with soft parts like musclesand guts preserved in stone. They dubbed their find Nesonektris aldridgei. "Nesonektris" is the Greek word for "island swimmer," while "aldridgei" honors late University of Leicester geologist Dick Aldridge, who studied vetulicolians extensively.

The most complete specimen of the new species measures about 4.9 inches long; most of the 150 or so fossils the researchers found were fragmented into tails and bodies, with tails usually measuring around 3.5 in. long. It was in these tails that the researchers noticed something very strange.

Running through the tails were long, rodlike structures. They might have been part of the gut, but they were unusually long and wide, the researchers reported in September in the journal BMC Evolutionary Biology. More mysteriously, the rods appeared segmented into strange block-shaped structures.

"This finding is inconsistent with it being a gut (which is a hollow tube), but consistent with the way a cartilage (notochord) would break, which allowed us to realize where the group might belong in the tree of life," Garcia-Bellido said.

Tied by a chord

Notochords are present in the embryos of all vertebrates, acting as a cartilaginous sort of skeletal support before the bones form. Some boneless invertebrates, including filter-feeding sea squirts, retain the notochord throughout life. All animals with notochords (vertebrates included) are called chordates.

By comparing the Kangaroo Island fossils with animals such as sea stars, sea squirts, jellyfishlike salps and vertebrates, the researchers were able to position the vetulicolians as close relatives of tunicates, a group made up of sea squirts and salps. This puts vetulicolians in the same chordate category as vertebrates, including humans not humans' direct ancestors, Garcia-Bellido said, but "cousins."

Paleontologists will need to re-evaluate other vetulicolian species in search of notochords, Garcia-Bellido said. The ultimate goal is to reconstruct the family tree of some of the first animals ever to evolve.

"On our part, we will continue to excavate the [Kangaroo Island] locality, searching for more clues about the oldest animals in the world," he said.

[RD2191]

http://i.imgur.com/0c4VdSS.gif

[spurraider21]

Papa...

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-10/15/13/enhanced/webdr07/anigif_enhanced-17579-1413394478-16.gif

[xmas1997]

http://i.imgur.com/0c4VdSS.gif

Owned by Rob, as usual.
:lmao

[Chinook]

Meh. More failed reasoning.

Which eternity of torture do I avoid? the hindu hell? the muslim hell? the X hell, the Y hell?

Further, wouldn't singing the praises of some narcissistic magic man for eternity be considered torture in and of itself?

What if you decide, some day 2 trillion years down the road, that you didn't WANT to sing the praises of this yutz that day? What if you wanted to leave this heaven place? Could you? Where would you go, if you could?

The way I see it, is that you are worried about just one less hell out of all the possibilities than I am.

Not much of a gamble now is it?

I know you don't spend time worrying about other hells, or do you?

Pascal's wager is still a decent argument. It's been refuted, but not defeated. I don't follow it, but that isn't because it's poorly done.

Even a marginal increase in possible benefit is enough to make a decision. Like if being christian gave a person a one-percent better chance of being saved than being an atheist, then it makes sense to be a christian, all other things equal. It's all about how much that one-percent increase is worth. Is it worth your reason or liberty? I don't think so. But some do.

[DMC]

Pascal's wager is still a decent argument. It's been refuted, but not defeated. I don't follow it, but that isn't because it's poorly done.

Even a marginal increase in possible benefit is enough to make a decision. Like if being christian gave a person a one-percent better chance of being saved than being an atheist, then it makes sense to be a christian, all other things equal. It's all about how much that one-percent increase is worth. Is it worth your reason or liberty? I don't think so. But some do.

But being a Christian doesn't entail chasing percentages. If that's your goal, you've already lost in Christianity. It's not even about self preservation, even if it's been morphed into that. So you spend your life thinking you're saved, going to church every Sunday, singing bullshit songs and all that, only to learn you're not and you end up in hell anyhow, vs the person who parties his ass off and ends up in the same place.

What does "all other things equal" mean? Is that your "I'm right" card? What other things?

Pascal's Wager has been destroyed. Get over it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The bible teaches nothing about morality that we can't discover for ourselves.

The fact that religions all attempt to teach morality, does not mean that morality can only be had from religious thinking.

He has given up the pima causa and natural law arguments. It's why I quit responding to him. He doesn't even defend them on merit.

I have actually been prepared for him to put out the arguments formally. I looked up Russell's proofs against them and was going to shove him in his face but I think he knew that and has been dissembling ever since.

He is a coward and I mean that very truly. He is a small man that thinks that winning every small battle is more important than winning the war and is unaware of the futility.

The of course there is xmas and mouse who chime in with assertions of affirmation and not much else.

[xmas1997]

He has given up the pima causa and natural law arguments. It's why I quit responding to him. He doesn't even defend them on merit.

I have actually been prepared for him to put out the arguments formally. I looked up Russell's proofs against them and was going to shove him in his face but I think he knew that and has been dissembling ever since.

He is a coward and I mean that very truly. He is a small man that thinks that winning every small battle is more important than winning the war and is unaware of the futility.

The of course there is xmas and mouse who chime in with assertions of affirmation and not much else.

No offense meant, but your arguments would carry more credibility and competence if you steered clear of the cussing, accusations, and invectives.
They do nothing to support your contention except make you look childish.

[TheSanityAnnex]

He has given up the pima causa and natural law arguments. It's why I quit responding to him. He doesn't even defend them on merit.

I have actually been prepared for him to put out the arguments formally. I looked up Russell's proofs against them and was going to shove him in his face but I think he knew that and has been dissembling ever since.

He is a coward and I mean that very truly. He is a small man that thinks that winning every small battle is more important than winning the war and is unaware of the futility.

:lmao get a fucking life :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pascal's wager is still a decent argument. It's been refuted, but not defeated. I don't follow it, but that isn't because it's poorly done.

Even a marginal increase in possible benefit is enough to make a decision. Like if being christian gave a person a one-percent better chance of being saved than being an atheist, then it makes sense to be a christian, all other things equal. It's all about how much that one-percent increase is worth. Is it worth your reason or liberty? I don't think so. But some do.

If it's been refuted and you have no response to the refutation then there is no reason to give it merit. You can characterize the disposition how you like but it is categorically unsubstantiated. There is a nice box for you to understand, box boy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao get a fucking life :lmao

You are really going to say that? You spam the political forum about two topics every day and try to drown out people that disagree with you.

But I need to evaluate how I spend my time? Introspection is important.

[rogues]

:lmao get a fucking life :lmao
:lol The faggot posts character after character not saying shit about anything..same old recycled googled retort by Spurstalk's number one psuedo-intellectual, tbh..

:cry "But but I know hydraulics and topology!" :cry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No offense meant, but your arguments would carry more credibility and competence if you steered clear of the cussing, accusations, and invectives.
They do nothing to support your contention except make you look childish.

To you. I don't really care about what you think though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol The faggot posts character after character not saying shit about anything..same old recycled googled retort by Spurstalk's number one psuedo-intellectual, tbh..

:cry "But but I know hydraulics and topology!" :cry

:lol You are going to complain about someone else posting useless drivel? Nice.

All I see when I get the "he is trying to be smart" are people's inferiority complex's responding. You keep on with the being dumb.

[rogues]

:lol You are going to complain about someone else posting useless drivel? Nice.

All I see when I get the "he is trying to be smart" are people's inferiority complex's responding. You keep on with the being dumb.
:lol BD's posts are much acclaimed, tbh..I'm the truest motherfucker on this forum..I don't front being tough or intellectual..it just flows naturally..as for my posts compared to yours..my posts are actually on point..meaning, they say something directly..you're posts are full of shit just like your pseudo intellectual schtick..the only other poster(s) who dare quote you in praise are libtard cuck pieces of shit..

Truth is you're a googling try-hard who has 10,000 posts of useless faggotry..you still think, after all these years, that you come off as impressive with your paragraph long responses about how someone has conceded an argument with a given take..your kind are garden variety, tbh..now go log back into your alt Th'Pusher to tell board conservatives how butthurt they are:lmao, it's the truest you'll ever be on here..

[TheSanityAnnex]

You are really going to say that?Yes, get a fucking life.


I have actually been prepared for him to put out the arguments formally. I looked up Russell's proofs against them and was going to shove him in his face but I think he knew that and has been dissembling ever since.Only a loser takes the time out of their day to prepare for an internet argument.


He is a coward and I mean that very truly. He is a small man that thinks that winning every small battle is more important than winning the war and is unaware of the futility.Only a loser sees the internet as a place where war is waged.



You spam the political forum about two topics every day and try to drown out people that disagree with you.I post in the political forum to counter the spread of misinformation by white guilt people such as yourself. You've been strangely absent from the two St. Louis shooting threads, wonder why.


But I need to evaluate how I spend my time? Introspection is important.I'm sure you could find more productive things to do with your time than preparing for an internet battle.

[mouse]

:lmao get a fucking life :lmao

oh $hit a TSA sighting nice! :toast

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, get a fucking life.

Only a loser takes the time out of their day to prepare for an internet argument.

Only a loser sees the internet as a place where war is waged.


I post in the political forum to counter the spread of misinformation by white guilt people such as yourself. You've been strangely absent from the two St. Louis shooting threads, wonder why.

I'm sure you could find more productive things to do with your time than preparing for an internet battle.

I have been absent from the political forum just like many others because it had devolved into you, boutons, and the nazi spamming every thread. You have done your job of driving people away. I have no desire to come to talk to you or them. I don't like anything about you. I think you are contemptible, frankly. There is no point in going there in stupid vindictive circles though. That is what is a waste of my time.

You post against white guilt people like myself? Calling me the loser after that is delicious.

To demonstrate the savory delectables let's compare and contrast to what I did. I reread sections of Bert Russell's A History of Western Philosophy and Fred Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.

We clearly value things differently. Have fun winning your race war.

[Chinook]

But being a Christian doesn't entail chasing percentages. If that's your goal, you've already lost in Christianity. It's not even about self preservation, even if it's been morphed into that. So you spend your life thinking you're saved, going to church every Sunday, singing bullshit songs and all that, only to learn you're not and you end up in hell anyhow, vs the person who parties his ass off and ends up in the same place.

I think you hit on what I was saying, but you were so keen to disagree that you didn't realize it. Essentially, assuming both that exactly one religion is right and that we don't know which one that is, it essentially becomes an Bizarro version of Russian Roulette. If you don't play, you're definitely going to hell (in this hypothetical), but if you play, there's a chance you'll go to heaven. Any chance is better than no chance, all things being equal.


What does "all other things equal" mean? Is that your "I'm right" card? What other things?

Thanks for the segue. If there were no difference in utility for picking a belief system (or picking atheism), then it is simple game theory, and any religion is better than none. However, I would argue that there's quite a difference in utility between being pious and self-denying and being hedonistic, between being closed-minded and scientific. I don't think the slight increase in chance at salvation is worth giving up all those things, so I wouldn't feel the need to play the wager. However, some people might, especially if they rationalize in their minds ways to give themselves extra utility through their religion.


Pascal's Wager has been destroyed. Get over it.

It's alive and well for anyone who knows game theory. The Argument of Inconsistent Revelations changes the game to where it becomes much more subjective, but it does not break it.

[Chinook]

If it's been refuted and you have no response to the refutation then there is no reason to give it merit. You can characterize the disposition how you like but it is categorically unsubstantiated. There is a nice box for you to understand, box boy.

Looks like you're showing promise if you're using 'categorically' correctly. What have you learned of the imperative and the other assignments in your homework?

[Chinook]

He has given up the pima causa and natural law arguments. It's why I quit responding to him. He doesn't even defend them on merit.

You do realize RG isn't talking about me, right? He's literally quoting someone else. No way you can be this terrible at reading.


I have actually been prepared for him to put out the arguments formally. I looked up Russell's proofs against them and was going to shove him in his face but I think he knew that and has been dissembling ever since.

1) I put out the constructive again about a page back. You were even quoted in it. Not surprised you didn't see it.

2) "Russell's proofs" are no more evidence to than the bible is. His arguments may be solid, but they have no power if you just quote them without understanding what they mean. It's a logical fallacy to appeal to him instead of your own reason.

3) Nice to hear you are doing homework. Maybe you won't be held back after all.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I have been absent from the political forum just like many others because it had devolved into you, boutons, and the nazi spamming every thread.I average 4 posts a day, I think you need to look up the definition of spamming.


You have done your job of driving people away.Name one


I have no desire to come to talk to you or them.You don't like talking to me because I mock you and call out your bullshit for what it is.


I don't like anything about you. I think you are contemptible, frankly.Here you are again taking the a message board seriously, get a fucking life.


There is no point in going there in stupid vindictive circles though. That is what is a waste of my time.And studying up for an internet battle isn't?


You post against white guilt people like myself? Calling me the loser after that is delicious.

To demonstrate the savory delectables let's compare and contrast to what I did. I reread sections of Bert Russell's A History of Western Philosophy and Fred Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.

We clearly value things differently. Have fun winning your race war.Race war? :lol

There is a huge difference between someone being tired of listening to the never ending liberal white guilt crowd and someone who is a racist. Make good use of your time and provide any proof of me saying anything racist on here or anywhere else on the internet.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Looks like you're showing promise if you're using 'categorically' correctly. What have you learned of the imperative and the other assignments in your homework?


No. Your response was ad homenim. Your criticism of my point was based on your criticism of me, which is what the ad hom fallacy addresses.

So you understand the uselessness of your approach. Yup you are a coward but you started this patronizing bluster after I said what? That is what must've gotten your ass chapped. Let's go see.


We? Fuck off, hippy, you only get to speak for yourself. What we call something is independent of what something actually is. There is not a shred of evidence of platonic forms or ideals although you like to pretend that your rational constructs.

I have been talking about the whole of reality that are governed by natural laws as that was what your theistic argument is about. I haven't allowed myself to get mired in your shitty categories and semantics. I mock you for them repeatedly but you seem oblivious to the point I am making.

You are describing the imperative and you are not addressing the categorical process by which the imperative is derived.

It is right there in the phrase itself. An imperative based on categorization. He uses dualistic coupling of categories and draws conclusions based on them. Kant and other 19th century germans had a field day using the same logic you are using here making categorical imperatives of all manner of virtue. And again Nietzsche ridicules quite extensively such methodology in thus spakt and directly in beyond good and evil. Rawls rejected the dualistic construct formally as did Russell.

You are using the same baseless self assuming nonsense. You think that because you call everyone one of two things that it somehow becomes inherently true. It's hubris of the tallest order, frankly. No wonder you are dropping 'we.' Your arguments were refuted thoroughly 150 years ago.

And you can sit there and say that I don't understand logic but you continue to dodge my argument about logical proofs of a negation and open ended sets. You keep on claiming that I am misusing terms but outside of finally defining categorical imperative on an entry level basis, you have done nothing whatsoever to prove that. Well excuse me you have also made dubious claims as to SAT scores and Ivy League education.

And on a final note. Your position of god not being able to be proven empirically -assertion of a negation again- is one of the more cowardly positions I have ever seen.

Enjoy the point where my argument which made you quit.

[Chinook]

So you understand the uselessness of your approach. Yup you are a coward but you started this patronizing bluster after I said what? That is what must've gotten your ass chapped. Let's go see.



Enjoy the point where my argument which made you quit.

I'm borderline concerned for you and the people around you. No way you can function correctly in society with your level of reading comprehension.

However, you did demonstrate that you have not yet gotten to the 'ad homenim' section of your homework, since you still don't actually know what that fallacy is.

What the hell were you doing when you were 'preparing' for my arguments?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I average 4 posts a day, I think you need to look up the definition of spamming.

Name one

You don't like talking to me because I mock you and call out your bullshit for what it is.

Here you are again taking the a message board seriously, get a fucking life.

And studying up for an internet battle isn't?

Race war? :lol

There is a huge difference between someone being tired of listening to the never ending liberal white guilt crowd and someone who is a racist. Make good use of your time and provide any proof of me saying anything racist on here or anywhere else on the internet.

Like I said, what we value is clearly different. You can try to throw barbs to hurt me but the conversation really isn't moving forward. You don't seem to have very good self control.

You think I am a loser because I read Nietzsche and Russell and I think you are a loser because you go out of your way to respond to white guilt repetitively. It is what it is and I can live with it.

I will also say that you are pretty dumb for not picking up on the 'loser' and 'war' play on words regarding your racism I was going for and instead taking the literal.

Now go drink some antifreeze.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Like I said, what we value is clearly different. You can try to throw barbs to hurt me but the conversation really isn't moving forward. You don't seem to have very good self control.

You think I am a loser because I read Nietzsche and Russell and I think you are a loser because you go out of your way to respond to white guilt repetitively. It is what it is and I can live with it.

I will also say that you are pretty dumb for not picking up on the 'loser' and 'war' play on words regarding your racism I was going for and instead taking the literal.

Now go drink some antifreeze.

More hand waving I see.

[xellos88330]

The bible teaches nothing about morality that we can't discover for ourselves.

The fact that religions all attempt to teach morality, does not mean that morality can only be had from religious thinking.

I didn't say that it can ONLY be had from religious thinking. I am saying that it can be had from religious thinking. I don't see why that is so bad.

[xmas1997]

"
Yes, get a fucking life.

Only a loser takes the time out of their day to prepare for an internet argument.

Only a loser sees the internet as a place where war is waged.


I post in the political forum to counter the spread of misinformation by white guilt people such as yourself. You've been strangely absent from the two St. Louis shooting threads, wonder why.

I'm sure you could find more productive things to do with your time than preparing for an internet battle.

Wow, truth bomb after truth bomb!

[xellos88330]

Ah, but there is a difference between saying "I believe there is no God" and "I don't believe YOUR claims about God". ("your" in this case isn't you personally, just a general reference to people who make claims)

I don't ever claim one doesn't exist, as the amount of proof required to make that statement is far beyond what we might have.

The only thing that makes one an atheist is simply the rejection of claims about god. It is NOT explicitly "there is no God".

Difference is subtle, but there.

You see. This really confuses the hell out of me. So an atheist rejects evidence of God, but doesn't reject the idea of God? Does this mean that an atheist can believe in God?

[DMC]

I think you hit on what I was saying, but you were so keen to disagree that you didn't realize it. Essentially, assuming both that exactly one religion is right and that we don't know which one that is, it essentially becomes an Bizarro version of Russian Roulette. If you don't play, you're definitely going to hell (in this hypothetical), but if you play, there's a chance you'll go to heaven. Any chance is better than no chance, all things being equal.

You obviously don't understand the grace aspect of Christianity. You cannot play yourself into heaven in Christianity. You don't "participate" in a religion.You either believe it and follow it or you follow it and don't believe it, or you do neither. So it's like this:

1. Believe and follow: Heaven through grace
2. Don't believe but follow out of "safer bet": no heaven
3. Don't believe and don't follow: no heaven

That's only for Christianity. Since 1 isn't something you can control through safer betting practices, you are left with 2 and 3 (you cannot simply believe something because you feel it might be the most profitable thing to do, and supposedly the Christian god knows your heart). So then for 2 and 3 you are in hell.

There's no safer bet there. The 1st one is a mirage, not real, cannot be faked.


Thanks for the segue. If there were no difference in utility for picking a belief system (or picking atheism), then it is simple game theory, and any religion is better than none. However, I would argue that there's quite a difference in utility between being pious and self-denying and being hedonistic, between being closed-minded and scientific. I don't think the slight increase in chance at salvation is worth giving up all those things, so I wouldn't feel the need to play the wager. However, some people might, especially if they rationalize in their minds ways to give themselves extra utility through their religion.

If we take the position that heaven and hell exist, then Pascal's Wager still doesn't work unless simply being exposed to the religion could lead to genuine belief and adherence to teachings. Even the Christian god might well favor the non-believer who was honest in his thoughts and claims, knowing the price of being wrong over the person who feigned belief in order to save his ass. You have to factor that into the equation.

What if there is a reward after life and it's based on not following any religion? You have to add that one as well as any other you could possibly concoct.


It's alive and well for anyone who knows game theory. The Argument of Inconsistent Revelations changes the game to where it becomes much more subjective, but it does not break it. Consider that Pascal wasn't referring to all and any possible religions, but Christianity. Don't you feel "what if you're wrong" is a false dichotomy? What if there is a god and Christians are wrong as well? Sure you can morph Pascal's Wager into whatever "all possible other outcomes besides what atheists think will happen" but that's dishonest and you know it. If an atheist lives as his mind and conscience tells him to live, without fear of eternal damnation for doing so, he's certainly not better off to feign a god belief in the hopes of fooling one of them.

[DMC]

You see. This really confuses the hell out of me. So an atheist rejects evidence of God, but doesn't reject the idea of God? Does this mean that an atheist can believe in God?

What you call evidence might not pass the falsifiability test that atheists insist upon. "My sister was healed by God". Your sister was ill and recovered, that much is not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is that a god did it. So where you see the healing as evidence, it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. Sometimes it doesn't need to. You cannot prove you love someone nor they you but you believe it enough that you live your life as if it's true. Most often it is.


There's an honesty about what you believe to be true. It's a difference between how two people define "belief". One considers it a notion while the other considers it just short of knowledge. It's the difference between "I believe someone's creeping around in my garage because my garage door is open" and "I believe there's someone creeping around my garage because I see the bastard in there". Even if you see the bastard in there, there's a slight chance you see something you mistook for a person and it's not a person at all. However, the open garage door led the other person to believe someone is in the garage through a series of "connect the dots" and often those draw preconceived notions pretty well.

[spurraider21]

You see. This really confuses the hell out of me. So an atheist rejects evidence of God, but doesn't reject the idea of God? Does this mean that an atheist can believe in God?
another problem is how different people will define atheism differently. some people define atheism as a claim that god does not exist, while theism is the claim that god does exist. while the theism definition is rarely really disputed, i consider atheism to be the lack of a claim altogether. to me its foolish for somebody to make a claim that "god does not exist." that's like saying "aliens don't exist." you can't really know that, and its almost never considered to be scientific to claim a negative.

[Chinook]

You obviously don't understand the grace aspect of Christianity. You cannot play yourself into heaven in Christianity. You don't "participate" in a religion.You either believe it and follow it or you follow it and don't believe it, or you do neither. So it's like this:

1. Believe and follow: Heaven through grace
2. Don't believe but follow out of "safer bet": no heaven
3. Don't believe and don't follow: no heaven

That's only for Christianity. Since 1 isn't something you can control through safer betting practices, you are left with 2 and 3 (you cannot simply believe something because you feel it might be the most profitable thing to do, and supposedly the Christian god knows your heart). So then for 2 and 3 you are in hell.

There's no safer bet there. The 1st one is a mirage, not real, cannot be faked.

Yes, that's the other common criticism of the wager (the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations being the first). It's definitely the more powerful one. But many religions seem fine "scaring" people into believing them. This isn't very different. As I said before, if left to its own devices, people will believe whatever they do independent of profit or ruin. But since beliefs come from a thought process, I do think that certain motivations can affect what beliefs are formed through discouraging certain intellectual pursuits. If people think science will make them go to hell, then they won't read about the research which would make them turn away from their religion.

I dunno if you or I could become persuaded by the wager and change our courses now. But a person like Avante well could use it as his justification to keep on ignoring science and reason.


If we take the position that heaven and hell exist, then Pascal's Wager still doesn't work unless simply being exposed to the religion could lead to genuine belief and adherence to teachings. Even the Christian god might well favor the non-believer who was honest in his thoughts and claims, knowing the price of being wrong over the person who feigned belief in order to save his ass. You have to factor that into the equation.

What if there is a reward after life and it's based on not following any religion? You have to add that one as well as any other you could possibly concoct.

I don't really take issue with this outside the objection I made in the last section. On a personal level, I can't see a heaven that values a specific religious group, since I don't think any religion is correct enough to be in a privileged position.


Consider that Pascal wasn't referring to all and any possible religions, but Christianity. Don't you feel "what if you're wrong" is a false dichotomy? What if there is a god and Christians are wrong as well? Sure you can morph Pascal's Wager into whatever "all possible other outcomes besides what atheists think will happen" but that's dishonest and you know it. If an atheist lives as his mind and conscience tells him to live, without fear of eternal damnation for doing so, he's certainly not better off to feign a god belief in the hopes of fooling one of them.

I think it's a true dichotomy, only instead of thinking about as christian and atheist, it should thought of as atheist and some type of religion. However, I do think that Pascal over-represented the odds of taking the christian side of the bet. You're right when you say that the slim chances of picking the right religion really shrinks the risk atheists and non-religious theists are taking. But it doesn't make all options equal. Because we don't know which religion would be right (if any) then the possible benefit of the right one would get distributed among the entire set, except for atheism.

So rather than thinking about the wager in terms of actual values (atheism-0, false religions-0, true religion-1), it should be thought of in game-theoretic terms (atheism-0, each religion-some fraction). And the wager holds. It's weaker, but it also gains the benefit of being generalizable. Or if we include the idea of non-religious heaven in the math, atheism gets a slight increase, but it has to share it with every religion.

[DMC]

Yes, that's the other common criticism of the wager (the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations being the first). It's definitely the more powerful one. But many religions seem fine "scaring" people into believing them. This isn't very different. As I said before, if left to its own devices, people will believe whatever they do independent of profit or ruin. But since beliefs come from a thought process, I do think that certain motivations can affect what beliefs are formed through discouraging certain intellectual pursuits. If people think science will make them go to hell, then they won't read about the research which would make them turn away from their religion.

I dunno if you or I could become persuaded by the wager and change our courses now. But a person like Avante well could use it as his justification to keep on ignoring science and reason.


You're saying it works. I've not argued that it doesn't. I've argued that it's not a winning proposition. I think you moved the goal posts here.


I don't really take issue with this outside the objection I made in the last section. On a personal level, I can't see a heaven that values a specific religious group, since I don't think any religion is correct enough to be in a privileged position.

So the wager isn't profitable, not even by a small percentage.


I think it's a true dichotomy, only instead of thinking about as christian and atheist, it should thought of as atheist and some type of religion. However, I do think that Pascal over-represented the odds of taking the christian side of the bet. You're right when you say that the slim chances of picking the right religion really shrinks the risk atheists and non-religious theists are taking. But it doesn't make all options equal. Because we don't know which religion would be right (if any) then the possible benefit of the right one would get distributed among the entire set, except for atheism.

All options don't need to be equal for the bet to be non-profitable. Atheism could be as right as any of them, as I illustrated, unless you exclude it to bias your example.


So rather than thinking about the wager in terms of actual values (atheism-0, false religions-0, true religion-1), it should be thought of in game-theoretic terms (atheism-0, each religion-some fraction). And the wager holds, is weaker, but also gains the benefit of being generalizable. Or if we include the idea of non-religious heaven in the math, atheism gets a slight increase, but it has to share it with every religion.
Not really. Atheism would only equal 0 if it was certain someone was right and there was no benefit to atheism. There could be an instance were atheism that represents truth is rewarded. In that case atheism doesn't equal 0, so there's no reason to artificially assign it zero value except, as I said, to bias your example. You can always construct an argument in your favor, but Pascal's Wager dealt with Christianity vs atheism and was a false dichotomy, and it's not a beneficial wager at all. If anything, it's condescending to atheists. It supposes their belief is just a whim they can change for profit.

[Chinook]

You're saying it works. I've not argued that it doesn't. I've argued that it's not a winning proposition. I think you moved the goal posts here.

I've never argued that I was a proposition I'd take. I argued that the wager was a reasonable argument.


So the wager isn't profitable, not even by a small percentage.

No. I don't feel so. Some do, though.


All options don't need to be equal for the bet to be non-profitable. Atheism could be as right as any of them, as I illustrated, unless you exclude it to bias your example.

No, I didn't exclude athesim. In that case, no one wins. But that wager is set up when you don't know who's right, so you get contingent benefits. Atheism will have a benefit of zero no matter what's true (unless it's the non-religious heaven that welcomes atheism like we talked about). All things equal, there's never a benefit to being atheist (as far as the wager goes specifically).


Not really. Atheism would only equal 0 if the outcome was known. There could be an instance were atheism that represents truth is rewarded. In that case atheism doesn't equal 0, so there's no reason to artificially assign it zero value except, as I said, to bias your example.

That would be weird. I guess it could be like some alien race has been watching humans and saves the brainwaves of those who were atheistic? Even so, such a scenario is just as plausible for every belief system, so as I said the benefit would distribute across the whole board. Atheists would no longer be at zero, but they would still be behind each religion.


You can always construct an argument in your favor, but Pascal's Wager dealt with Christianity vs atheism and was a false dichotomy, and it's not a beneficial wager at all. If anything, it's condescending to atheists. It supposes their belief is just a whim they can change for profit

We can agree to disagree on the dichotomy thing. As far as the benefit, that is and always has been subjective. I don't think it's beneficial, and you don't seem to. But others can if they place so much potential utility in being religious that it overrides their projected utility of being non-religious.

As far as the whole condescending thing, I don't think that was Pascal's intention. He seemed to have been fine with atheists who were critical thinkers and didn't like anyone who made blanket statements about metaphysics with no room for change. It seems like the wager is meant to be an element that an individual considers when deciding their belief system or lack of one; it doesn't have to try to stand as the determining factor.

[DMC]

ok

[DMC]

another problem is how different people will define atheism differently. some people define atheism as a claim that god does not exist, while theism is the claim that god does exist. while the theism definition is rarely really disputed, i consider atheism to be the lack of a claim altogether. to me its foolish for somebody to make a claim that "god does not exist." that's like saying "aliens don't exist." you can't really know that, and its almost never considered to be scientific to claim a negative.

I simply say there's no reason for me to believe a god exists or entertain the notion without evidence to support the claim. It's an interesting discussion because our society is based on the dichotomy of god/no god and people seem to think that atheists should not even discuss the concept at all. We probably wouldn't discuss it if it was a foreign concept, but since it's in our faces on a daily basis we discuss it. Oddly enough, atheists are often more educated regarding the Bible than the theist they are discussing it with. Not always the case, but most often. I think that's because you are theist as a child, you even believe in Santa Claus because you are given evidence and told it's real by people you consider to be all knowing entities who wouldn't lie to you. As you age, you start to see dishonesty and agenda in what people tell you and you start researching things for yourself. If you stick with theism because you're comfortable with it, it's possible you never do any research deeper than what the Bible itself has to offer and even then you take the pastor's exegesis as fact.

[spurraider21]

I simply say there's no reason for me to believe a god exists or entertain the notion without evidence to support the claim. It's an interesting discussion because our society is based on the dichotomy of god/no god and people seem to think that atheists should not even discuss the concept at all. We probably wouldn't discuss it if it was a foreign concept, but since it's in our faces on a daily basis we discuss it. Oddly enough, atheists are often more educated regarding the Bible than the theist they are discussing it with. Not always the case, but most often. I think that's because you are theist as a child, you even believe in Santa Claus because you are given evidence and told it's real by people you consider to be all knowing entities who wouldn't lie to you. As you age, you start to see dishonesty and agenda in what people tell you and you start researching things for yourself. If you stick with theism because you're comfortable with it, it's possible you never do any research deeper than what the Bible itself has to offer and even then you take the pastor's exegesis as fact.
yeah that's something i've felt as well. of course i'm speaking in generality, i'm sure there are plenty of theists who have studied the bible more than i have :lol...

but when it comes to the laypeople, i think its important to note that most atheists were raised theist, especially here in the states. so it's not like atheists are some outsiders who know nothing about religion and are just bashing on it, as opposed to people that don't grasp elementary physics yet attempt to refute the big bang theory. heck, i think i started turning towards atheism AS i learned more about the bible. the more i learned about it, the less sense it made

[Chinook]

ok

Mis-click. Fixed now.

[Chinook]

another problem is how different people will define atheism differently. some people define atheism as a claim that god does not exist, while theism is the claim that god does exist. while the theism definition is rarely really disputed, i consider atheism to be the lack of a claim altogether. to me its foolish for somebody to make a claim that "god does not exist." that's like saying "aliens don't exist." you can't really know that, and its almost never considered to be scientific to claim a negative.

In terms of argument, atheism is a negative concept. It's really hard and almost pointless to attack a negative, since it has almost infinite ground. So people try to make atheism a positive concept so it's easier to refute. I think most of us would have no problem tearing a person down who tried to claim that god does not exist. But if someone simply says they see no reason to accept that God does exist, there isn't much anyone can do but repeat why they think he does and be open to critique.

Fuzz for example is still trying to claim that he's not atheist, even though he's adamantly not a theist, according to his replies.

[spurraider21]

In terms of argument, atheism is a negative concept. It's really hard and almost pointless to attack a negative, since it has almost infinite ground. So people try to make atheism a positive concept so it's easier to refute. I think most of us would have no problem tearing a person down who tried to claim that god does not exist. But if someone simply says they see no reason to accept that God does exist, there isn't much anyone can do but repeat why they think he does and be open to critique.

Fuzz for example is still trying to claim that he's not atheist, even though he's adamantly not a theist, according to his replies.
i think you are lumping atheists and antitheists together. i would maintain that they hold different positions

[Chinook]

i think you are lumping atheists and antitheists together. i would maintain that they hold different positions

Sure. But I was just theorizing about why people would claim atheists are arguing there is definitely no god.

You can't really attack atheism based on its own merits. You can only defend theism. Antitheism can be attacked on its own merits, which is why people project it onto atheists.

[spurraider21]

Sure. But I was just theorizing about why people would claim atheists are arguing there is definitely no god.
because its always easier to argue when you distort the other side's disposition

[DMC]

I've never argued that I was a proposition I'd take. I argued that the wager was a reasonable argument.

Actually what you said was this:

"Pascal's wager is still a decent argument. It's been refuted, but not defeated. I don't follow it, but that isn't because it's poorly done."

So you moved the goalposts from "decent argument" to "rational".


No. I don't feel so. Some do, though.

How does that matter?


No, I didn't exclude athesim. In that case, no one wins. But that wager is set up when you don't know who's right, so you get contingent benefits. Atheism will have a benefit of zero no matter what's true (unless it's the non-religious heaven that welcomes atheism like we talked about). All things equal, there's never a benefit to being atheist (as far as the wager goes specifically).

Why do you keep using "all things being equal"? If all things are equal, there's no reason to wager. What you're doing is rationalizing Pascal's mindset when he made the wager. I don't think anyone disputes that. The wager itself is folly.


That would be weird. I guess it could be like some alien race has been watching humans and saves the brainwaves of those who were atheistic? Even so, such a scenario is just as plausible for every belief system, so as I said the benefit would distribute across the whole board. Atheists would no longer be at zero, but they would still be behind each religion.

It doesn't matter how. The point is these are all unknowns, and you're asked to choose the one with the biggest chance for reward while considering you lose nothing by leaving the other. How would atheists be behind each religion if they also have a heaven waiting for them in the afterlife?


We can agree to disagree on the dichotomy thing. As far as the benefit, that is and always has been subjective. I don't think it's beneficial, and you don't seem to. But others can if they place so much potential utility in being religious that it overrides their projected utility of being non-religious.
So now the wager is subjective to the individual? The wager should only take into account the choices, not the individual.


As far as the whole condescending thing, I don't think that was Pascal's intention. He seemed to have been fine with atheists who were critical thinkers and didn't like anyone who made blanket statements about metaphysics with no room for change. It seems like the wager is meant to be an element that an individual considers when deciding their belief system or lack of one; it doesn't have to try to stand as the determining factor.
You've missed the boat on almost every religion I've studied if you think weighing the benefits can come into the picture.

[Blake]

Pascal's wager is still a decent argument. It's been refuted, but not defeated. I don't follow it, but that isn't because it's poorly done.

no way. Pascal's wager fails miserably any number of different ways.

[Chinook]

Actually what you said was this:

"Pascal's wager is still a decent argument. It's been refuted, but not defeated. I don't follow it, but that isn't because it's poorly done."

So you moved the goalposts from "decent argument" to "rational".

I was originally going to use "logical" instead of rational, but I wanted to avoid opening up that can of worms. I was going to say that because you were saying "Pascal's Wager" as if it were the gambler's fallacy. The wager itself is still a decent argument; it's not a fallacy. So automatically labeling an argument "Pascal's Wager" doesn't delegitimize it.


How does that matter?

Because the wager is subjective. It's supposed to be for everyone to decide upon. Just because I don't think it's worth it to hop on any old religion doesn't mean someone else doesn't.


Why do you keep using "all things being equal"? If all things are equal, there's no reason to wager. What you're doing is rationalizing Pascal's mindset when he made the wager. I don't think anyone disputes that. The wager itself is folly.

I mean that if it there weren't present benefits and detriments to picking a religion or picking no religion. If the only thing that had any sort of utility was going to heaven or going to hell. In such a case, it's simple math, and it makes no sense to be atheist/non-religious. But because all things aren't equal, it makes the math a whole lot more complicated.


It doesn't matter how. The point is these are all unknowns, and you're asked to choose the one with the biggest chance for reward while considering you lose nothing by leaving the other. How would atheists be behind each religion if they also have a heaven waiting for them in the afterlife?

Because they have fewer chances to win. For every scenario in which atheists would be saved, a similar scenario can be made for ANY belief system. But religions would still have the benefit of being saved if their beliefs end up being true. Atheists/non-religious people don't get that benefit, because if there is indeed no afterlife, then they don't win just like everyone else. So if you were to do the probabilities, atheists would be behind every religion by at least one scenario.


So now the wager is subjective to the individual? The wager should only take into account the choices, not the individual.

Um, the wager has always been up to the individual. It's up to them to pick a side.


You've missed the boat on almost every religion I've studied if you think weighing the benefits can come into the picture.

I'm not going to claim to have studied a whole bunch of religions, but Pascal was clearly weighing benefits while being religious. As I said, he seemed to have been a fan of critical thinking more so than of faith. You seem to have the view that the two cannot exist together, but that's simply not a view many theists agree with.

[Blake]

Yes, get a fucking life.

Only a loser takes the time out of their day to prepare for an internet argument.

.......

I post in the political forum to counter the spread of misinformation by white guilt people such as yourself.


So you're saying you take time out of your day to prepare for an internet argument in the political forum.

[Blake]

Pascal's wager is neither logical nor rational.

[Blake]

Pascal's wager is still a decent argument. It's been refuted, but not defeated. I don't follow it, but that isn't because it's poorly done.

no way. Pascal's wager fails miserably any number of different ways.

[Chinook]

no way. Pascal's wager fails miserably any number of different ways.

Two main ones, which DMC and I went over. It overstates the odds of salvation, but the math still holds. In game theory, even the tiniest difference in utility is enough to drive results toward one side.

That all said, I don't use it to defend my own theism. As far as the wager is concerned, I'm in the atheist camp, since I don't have a religion to cling to.

[Blake]

Nope. Based on the number of religions in the history of the world, the math horribly fails too.

Especially when you factor in the probability that christianity is just a rip off of other older religions.

[Chinook]

Nope. Based on the number of religions in the history of the world, the math horribly fails too.

Especially when you factor in the probability that christianity is just a rip off of other older religions.

Increasing the number of religions in the scenario doesn't destroy the math. It just muddies the water.

It's like if you were in a room with a bunch of doors, only one of which led to the freedom. The others led to death. Someone told you they were going to kill you if you didn't pick a door. In such a scenario, it each door has a slight chance to being the right one, but refusing to pick has no chance of success. No matter how many doors are in the room, it doesn't make sense to not pick one. (And yes, DMC, I didn't forget your objections. They don't change the logic of this scenario; they just change the math a bit more.)

Of course, I think all religions are wrong the same way you seem to. I don't think the slight chance of success is worth giving up science and liberties. I don't have any problem not picking a door, since staying in the room seems all right with me. But some people have different reasons for not wanting the stay in the room.

[Blake]

Increasing the number of religions in the scenario doesn't destroy the math. It just muddies the water.

It's like if you were in a room with a bunch of doors, only one of which led to the freedom.

the math fails because you can't give an exact number of doors to choose from. And some of the doors may not offer anything better than not choosing a room.

Pascal himself dismissed other religions and left christianity/catholicism as the only option.

[Chinook]

the math fails because you can't give an exact number of doors to choose from. And some of the doors may not offer anything better than not choosing a room.

The number of doors doesn't matter. It reduces the probability of picking the right door and thus the expected utility. But it doesn't make picking no door any wiser.


Pascal himself dismissed other religions and left christianity/catholicism as the only option.

It seems written at a time where most Western philosophers did that. I do think that the wager is not a viable argument to pick christianity over other religions. But it's still viable for picking christianity (or any religion) over non-religion. That's why the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations changes the math to where it weakens the probability of success but makes the wager generalizable.

Of course an elephant in the room is that not all religions require belief. In Buddhism, the soul is reincarnated whether it is Buddhist or not, for example. There's a different type of reward system altogether for those faiths than just a heaven for believers and hell for non-believers.

[Blake]

The number of doors doesn't matter. It reduces the probability of picking the right door and thus the expected utility. But it doesn't make picking no door any wiser.


If you're going to open it up to other religions, and you have to, then in a universe where the possibilities are infinite, the number of doors then becomes infinite.

And if there is exactly zero evidence of an afterlife behind those doors, then really, there is nothing to gain by picking one.



It seems written at a time where most Western philosophers did that. I do think that the wager is not a viable argument to pick christianity over other religions. But it's still viable for picking christianity (or any religion) over non-religion. That's why the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations changes the math to where it weakens the probability of success but makes the wager generalizable.

Of course an elephant in the room is that not all religions require belief. In Buddhism, the soul is reincarnated whether it is Buddhist or not, for example. There's a different type of reward system altogether for those faiths than just a heaven for believers and hell for non-believers.

So there's no need to go through the buddhist door, but Pascal states the buddhist needs to still pick the Christian door.

[Chinook]

If you're going to open it up to other religions, and you have to, then in a universe where the possibilities are infinite, the number of doors then becomes infinite.

Infinity is a strange concept. There are different ways people define it depending on context. In this case, I wouldn't say that there are infinite possibilities (at least in a non-trivial sense), just a really large number of them. The utility of going through an individual door approaches zero, but it can never reach it. So it will never be a viable decision to not open a door.


And if there is exactly zero evidence of an afterlife behind those doors, then really, there is nothing to gain by picking one.

If there were evidence of an afterlife, everything would be different, and not just in this wager. It's all based on the probability of an afterlife existing, which is really small but still existent.


So there's no need to go through the buddhist door, but Pascal states the buddhist needs to still pick the Christian door.

As I said, there is some utility for being Buddhist. Supposedly, the type of religiosity a soul has determines the incarnation the soul gets. But there's no dire harm to any individual incarnation for not believing. We could always be Buddhists next time, even if we are incarnated as cockroaches.

But I do think that there is a rather large number or religions that don't make believing their dogma a bigger deal than living a virtuous life. Those religions are pretty agnostic to the wager. Again, though, that just alters the quantification of the math; it doesn't disrupt the logic of it.

[Blake]

So it will never be a viable decision to not open a door.


that's assuming that there are only two options behind all the doors: Eternal reward or nothingness.

It's a false assumption.

[silverblk mystix]

love to watch blind people arguing over "sight"




:rollin:rollin:rollin

[Blake]

love to watch blind people arguing over "sight"




:rollin:rollin:rollin

That's not what's happening here, but keep pretending like you have the universe all figured out, Tino.

[Chinook]

that's assuming that there are only two options behind all the doors: Eternal reward or nothingness.

It's a false assumption.

How so? I could nit-pick at the way that's framed, but that's not what I'm trying to do by asking. I'm actually curious as to what other options you see as possibly being there.

[RandomGuy]

Pascal's wager is still a decent argument. It's been refuted, but not defeated. I don't follow it, but that isn't because it's poorly done.

Even a marginal increase in possible benefit is enough to make a decision. Like if being christian gave a person a one-percent better chance of being saved than being an atheist, then it makes sense to be a christian, all other things equal. It's all about how much that one-percent increase is worth. Is it worth your reason or liberty? I don't think so. But some do.

Refuted is pretty much the same as defeated.

fZpJ7yUPwdU

It isn't one percent, it is much less so as to be meaningless and it gets worse.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't say that it can ONLY be had from religious thinking. I am saying that it can be had from religious thinking. I don't see why that is so bad.

Religious thinking is generally an abdication of reason, that is why it is a bad thing. It is ceding your judgement to that of some higher authority, generally, and there are lots of problems there.

Personally, I think it is really the act of thinking about morals and right and wrong that is the worthwhile pursuit. Generally I think religion inhibits rational consideration of such things.

[RandomGuy]

You see. This really confuses the hell out of me. So an atheist rejects evidence of God, but doesn't reject the idea of God? Does this mean that an atheist can believe in God?

I just don't think God claims have met their burden of proof.

I am not willing to make a positive claim that NO gods exist.

I will go so far as to claim that the God, as depicted in the Bible, Torah, and Q'uran that I have read doesn't exist. The claims made about God in those books are self-contradictory in so many places, and they have so many factual mistakes about the physical universe that it is easy to wave them away.

Here is a bit on burden of proof that might help:

KayBys8gaJY

[Chinook]

Refuted is pretty much the same as defeated.

Refuted in my book means that someone just made an argument against it. Defeated means that those arguments have made the claim nonviable. That's what I intended to say (that it's been argued against but not rendered nonviable), anyway, as to not make this a semantic thing.


It isn't one percent, it is much less so as to be meaningless and it gets worse.

"Meaningless" is subjective. Obviously, I am persuaded by your line of thinking on this issue. But the wager doesn't set up the math the same way I did in this thread, where picking the right religion has a utility of 1 and picking the wrong one or picking none has a utility of zero. I completely ignored hell in my interpretation. In Pascal's scenario, being correct on christianity is positive infinity, being wrong about christianity (by not believing) is negative infinity and there being no god is zero regardless of belief. So in that regard, the benefit of picking any individual religion is actually relatively neutral (positive infinity for the right answer, negative infinity for any wrong answer) while being non-religious is a guaranteed (in his mind) negative infinity.

That's why I said in another post that the wager doesn't work as a means to justify being christian. But it is still viable as a means to justify not being atheist (or non-religious -- I'm in the same boat as atheists here). There being a lower probability of success does not justify losing on purpose.

[RandomGuy]

Refuted in my book means that someone just made an argument against it. Defeated means that those arguments have made the claim nonviable. That's what I intended to say (that it's been argued against but not rendered nonviable), anyway, as to not make this a semantic thing.



"Meaningless" is subjective. Obviously, I am persuaded by your line of thinking on this issue. But the wager doesn't set up the math the same way I did in this thread, where picking the right religion has a utility of 1 and picking the wrong one or picking none has a utility of zero. I completely ignored hell in my interpretation. In Pascal's scenario, being correct on christianity is positive infinity, being wrong about christianity (by not believing) is negative infinity and there being no god is zero regardless of belief. So in that regard, the benefit of picking any individual religion is actually relatively neutral (positive infinity for the right answer, negative infinity for any wrong answer) while being non-religious is a guaranteed (in his mind) negative infinity.

That's why I said in another post that the wager doesn't work as a means to justify being christian. But it is still viable as a means to justify not being atheist (or non-religious -- I'm in the same boat as atheists here). There being a lower probability of success does not justify losing on purpose.

There are an infinite number of ways to get it wrong.

Divide 1 by infinity, and tell me that is larger than 0 by infinity, and by how much.

Meaningless and nonviable.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/...tcmp=obnetwork (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/10/20/eyeless-swimmer-bizarre-primitive-animal-is-your-cousin/?intcmp=obmod_ffo&intcmp=obnetwork)

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/feeds/LiveScience/876/493/vetulicolians-Katrina-Kenny-101415.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
500-million-year-old swimming filter-feeders called vetulicolians have been a mystery since their discovery more than a century ago.

Newfound fossils may solve a century-long mystery over the identity of a bizarre 500-million-year-old animal.

Strange figure-8 shaped creatures from the Cambrian Period are actually very distant cousins of humans, according to a new study. These vetulicolians, as they are known, appear to have possessed a notochord, a hollow nerve structure just like modern vertebrates, including humans.










"It finally puts to rest the position of this weird-looking group of animals," study researcher Diego Garcia-Bellido, an invertebrate paleontologist at the University of Adelaide in Australia and an honorary research associate at the South Australian Museum, wrote in an email to Live Science. The findings also suggest that chordates, or creatures with notochords, were diverse and successful from the beginning of animal evolution, he said. [Gallery: See Images of the Bizarre Swimming Animals]

Weird life

Vetulicolians were truly bizarre: They lacked eyes, but had a wide mouth and a segmented tail. Like miniature whale sharks, these early animals swam through the oceans, filter-feeding off plankton and other microscopic tasties. Fourteen species have been found in the fossil record since 1911, including specimens from Greenland, southern China and western Canada.

Now, Garcia-Bellido's team has discovered a new species of this group on Kangaroo Island, Australia, a hotspot for Cambrian-age fossils with soft parts like musclesand guts preserved in stone. They dubbed their find Nesonektris aldridgei. "Nesonektris" is the Greek word for "island swimmer," while "aldridgei" honors late University of Leicester geologist Dick Aldridge, who studied vetulicolians extensively.

The most complete specimen of the new species measures about 4.9 inches long; most of the 150 or so fossils the researchers found were fragmented into tails and bodies, with tails usually measuring around 3.5 in. long. It was in these tails that the researchers noticed something very strange.

Running through the tails were long, rodlike structures. They might have been part of the gut, but they were unusually long and wide, the researchers reported in September in the journal BMC Evolutionary Biology. More mysteriously, the rods appeared segmented into strange block-shaped structures.

"This finding is inconsistent with it being a gut (which is a hollow tube), but consistent with the way a cartilage (notochord) would break, which allowed us to realize where the group might belong in the tree of life," Garcia-Bellido said.

Tied by a chord

Notochords are present in the embryos of all vertebrates, acting as a cartilaginous sort of skeletal support before the bones form. Some boneless invertebrates, including filter-feeding sea squirts, retain the notochord throughout life. All animals with notochords (vertebrates included) are called chordates.

By comparing the Kangaroo Island fossils with animals such as sea stars, sea squirts, jellyfishlike salps and vertebrates, the researchers were able to position the vetulicolians as close relatives of tunicates, a group made up of sea squirts and salps. This puts vetulicolians in the same chordate category as vertebrates, including humans not humans' direct ancestors, Garcia-Bellido said, but "cousins."

Paleontologists will need to re-evaluate other vetulicolian species in search of notochords, Garcia-Bellido said. The ultimate goal is to reconstruct the family tree of some of the first animals ever to evolve.

"On our part, we will continue to excavate the [Kangaroo Island] locality, searching for more clues about the oldest animals in the world," he said.

Nifty. Thanks.

[Chinook]

There are an infinite number of ways to get it wrong.

Divide 1 by infinity, and tell me that is larger than 0 by infinity, and by how much.

Meaningless and nonviable.

Well the first thing is that infinity is not a number. You can't actually divide anything by it. Instead, you have to take the limit and yadda yadda... It's really not a practical thing to talk about nothing is really infinite.

Disregarding that for the moment, though. In Pascal's example, choosing the correct door has a benefit of infinity, while choosing atheism would have a detriment of negative infinity. So even if you did infinity/infinity, you'd still get a higher number than you would if you just get zero minus infinity. So the chances of salvation are tiny, but they're still better than no answer at all.

As far as the possibilities posited in that video, all of those apply to all religions as well. There is not a unique scenario in which having no religion is beneficial; they can all be co-opted. However, each religion has its own genus of scenarios which are unique to it. So no matter how many scenarios a person comes up with, religions will have more possibilities than non-religiosity.

[Blake]

How so? I could nit-pick at the way that's framed, but that's not what I'm trying to do by asking. I'm actually curious as to what other options you see as possibly being there.

god could be lying and instead of reward, it's eternal hell.

honestly, with limitless possibilities, it's not that hard to come up with other options.

[Chinook]

god could be lying and instead of reward, it's eternal hell.

honestly, with limitless possibilities, it's not that hard to come up with other options.

That's not a bad one, actually. It's much harder to deal with than most of the alternatives I've been hearing.

[silverblk mystix]

I love to watch sleeping people arguing over wakefulness.




:lmao:lmao:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzz for example is still trying to claim that he's not atheist, even though he's adamantly not a theist, according to his replies.

No what I am saying is that your categories of groups of people is a false dichotomy that you use to distinguish yourself from a group of people and does little else. It can be valid in your own mind but it has no reality independent of that. I reject your dumbed down categorical tyranny.

I think it incredibly simpleminded to think you can break all people into two groups based on that particular distinction and make judgements on everyone. this is doubly so considering all the various belief systems much less the people that do not order their reality on the basis of a choice you want them to make regarding any 'belief.'

You think of the world in binary terms. You scope is limited and watching you respond to myself and DMC it's obvious what your level is. You need your boxes and you can move in them quite nicely; its why I call you box boy. OTOH, the way the world works objectively is not inherently how you order them in your mind. You can insult my intelligence but one can evaluate your intellectual capacity quite clearly. As if your attempt at playing school teacher did anything but demonstrate where you were forced to draw the cognitive line.

Spectrum approach seems better to me considering the faith-doubt dynamic but even that is just a better approximation. I am interested in knowledge which is independent of all that.

I am not overly interested in unverifiable hypothesis. I am interested in semantics that have analogs to the real world and ideas like god and belief are not that. The inane semantic bullshit DMC has had to go through demonstrates that quite clearly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well the first thing is that infinity is not a number. You can't actually divide anything by it. Instead, you have to take the limit and yadda yadda... It's really not a practical thing to talk about nothing is really infinite.

This is ignorant. You should read some Euler who was the one that demonstrated convergence and infinite series in several groundbreaking proofs. That is the point of the limit. Just because it is inconvenient for you because you don't understand the process does not mean it is invalid. You can add, subtract, divide, multiply, and change the order of infinity. the proof that it works are called integration, differentiation, and transforms.

Moreso there are several forms of infinity but the bottom line is that there is no objective proof about the outer limits of several scales and you don't get to deduct the existence of God from all known possibilities.

[Chinook]

No what I am saying is that your categories of groups of people is a false dichotomy that you use to distinguish yourself from a group of people and does little else. It can be valid in your own mind but it has no reality independent of that. I reject your dumbed down categorical tyranny.

I think it incredibly simpleminded to think you can break all people into two groups based on that particular distinction and make judgements on everyone. this is doubly so considering all the various belief systems much less the people that do not order their reality on the basis of a choice you want them to make regarding any 'belief.'

You think of the world in binary terms. You scope is limited and watching you respond to myself and DMC it's obvious what your level is. You need your boxes and you can move in them quite nicely; its why I call you box boy. OTOH, the way the world works objectively is not inherently how you order them in your mind. You can insult my intelligence but one can evaluate your intellectual capacity quite clearly. As if your attempt at playing school teacher did anything but demonstrate where you were forced to draw the cognitive line.

Spectrum approach seems better to me considering the faith-doubt dynamic but even that is just a better approximation. I am interested in knowledge which is independent of all that.

I am not overly interested in unverifiable hypothesis. I am interested in semantics that have analogs to the real world and ideas like god and belief are not that. The inane semantic bullshit DMC has had to go through demonstrates that quite clearly.

Did you seriously try to use 'tranny' as an insult for a person who've never seen/met?

Well, go ahead and add it to the homework, then. I see you still haven't found a dictionary to look up 'atheism', since you think it's a gradient.

[Chinook]

This is ignorant. You should read some Euler who was the one that demonstrated convergence and infinite series in several groundbreaking proofs. That is the point of the limit. Just because it is inconvenient for you because you don't understand the process does not mean it is invalid. You can add, subtract, divide, multiply, and change the order of infinity. the proof that it works are called integration, differentiation, and transforms.

Moreso there are several forms of infinity but the bottom line is that there is no objective proof about the outer limits of several scales and you don't get to deduct the existence of God from all known possibilities.

Yeah, because me talking about needing limits to deal with infinity clearly shows I don't know that infinities are expressed with limits...

Look dude, you need to find a math teacher or something. Actually, probably an English teacher. Then, you'd understand that infinity isn't a number and that nothing can actually equal it (hence why the term 'limit' has to be used at all).

More importantly, you should read what people write better than that. I very much account for the non-existence of god. It's just that that is a loss across the board in Pascal's wager. It doesn't affect the logic of the math in any meaningful way.

[RandomGuy]

Well the first thing is that infinity is not a number. You can't actually divide anything by it. Instead, you have to take the limit and yadda yadda... It's really not a practical thing to talk about nothing is really infinite.

Disregarding that for the moment, though. In Pascal's example, choosing the correct door has a benefit of infinity, while choosing atheism would have a detriment of negative infinity. So even if you did infinity/infinity, you'd still get a higher number than you would if you just get zero minus infinity. So the chances of salvation are tiny, but they're still better than no answer at all.

As far as the possibilities posited in that video, all of those apply to all religions as well. There is not a unique scenario in which having no religion is beneficial; they can all be co-opted. However, each religion has its own genus of scenarios which are unique to it. So no matter how many scenarios a person comes up with, religions will have more possibilities than non-religiosity.

Infinity is a number, just not a rational one.

Again, life is finite. Picking a religion, and a wrong one, means placing belief in something incorrect for the limited amount of time you have to live.

Picking a door in an infinite hallway means that your chances of being right are so close to zero as to be zero for all practical purposes.

The difference here is, though, you can't even show there is a hallway to begin with.

[RandomGuy]

Sure. But I was just theorizing about why people would claim atheists are arguing there is definitely no god.

You can't really attack atheism based on its own merits. You can only defend theism. Antitheism can be attacked on its own merits, which is why people project it onto atheists.

Bingo.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think that makes a ton of sense to try to answer. If god made the universe, then he clearly wasn't there when he made it.



I don't believe that's a valid criticism. Cause and effect do require sequence, but I don't think they have to have time in the way we experience it. It's like asking how an individual was born. Time as a perceptional concept doesn't exist to a person before they were born, but time as a physical concept does. In the same way, time as a physical concept depends on a universe, but time as a logical concept does not. Time is connected to the universe, but that doesn't help it move past a need for a first cause.



I think I can. Atheist want to argue about the null being that god doesn't exist. Essentially we shouldn't believe something interesting occurred unless we have enough evidence to think so with confidence. We have no evidence that things can happen without cause, so it doesn't make sense to assume they can. The universe is a giant Rube-Goldberg machine, and science depends on our ability to ascertain previous steps by looking at present conditions. The moment you start introducing causeless effects, things risk breaking down.

I've yet to see anyone show evidence of a state without a cause. That's why I say it's undisputed.

Can you demonstrate that anything can exist outside the universe?

You are building in all sorts of unproven exceptions, and ending with special pleading.

"Everything we know of is in the universe, except for this one thing that isn't."


"Cause and effect do require sequence, but I don't think they have to have time in the way we experience it."

What does that even mean? Time is required for causality. Period. This, then that. We don't even know if time existed before the big bang.

Lastly, you have put in the assumption that the cause, even if the universe without time COULD have a cause, is some sentient actor. Off we go to the endless regression of what caused this sentient actor. Feel free to solve that problem any time.

All you are stuck with is what you want to be true, with some basic logical fallacies and unproven assumptions with deep inherent flaws.

[Chinook]

Infinity is a number, just not a rational one.

Well, we'll just disagree on that.


Again, life is finite. Picking a religion, and a wrong one, means placing belief in something incorrect for the limited amount of time you have to live.

Picking a door in an infinite hallway means that your chances of being right are so close to zero as to be zero for all practical purposes.

I don't know that there are an infinite (conceding that it's a number for sake of argument) number of religions -- just an infinite number of possible outcomes. Then, there are still fewer religions that require belief in them to avoid hell. At that point, you can come up with whatever justification you want to pick the religion to hitch your wagon to. Maybe go by number of followers, or ones whose practitioners seem the most able to connect their mythos to real events. Maybe the oldest.

You get into dishonest faith at that point, of course. So maybe you just stick with the first religion you experience.


The difference here is, though, you can't even show there is a hallway to begin with.

I think the idea of a hallway is pretty solid. It's just pointless. I think we all do come up with or stay locked into our own belief systems and thus choose a door. I just don't think it makes sense trying to pick something just because you want to avoid the extremely small chance of going to hell.

[Chinook]

Can you demonstrate that anything can exist outside the universe?

You are building in all sorts of unproven exceptions, and ending with special pleading.

"Everything we know of is in the universe, except for this one thing that isn't."

Again, before you get to an infinite regression, you have to deal with self-reference. If god made the universe, he couldn't have been in the universe, because it wasn't there for him to be in until he put it there. That's not a magical god exception -- it's just a reasonable line of thought. So it's not a matter of god "being somewhere else", since he'd have to have created that as well. He can't exist in space the way we're thinking of it, or at least he doesn't have to.


"Cause and effect do require sequence, but I don't think they have to have time in the way we experience it."

What does that even mean? Time is required for causality. Period. This, then that. We don't even know if time existed before the big bang.

I didn't dispute that sequence is required for causality ("this, then that"); I merely said that this physical thing we call time isn't necessary. Supposedly, spacetime is a feature of our universe, and if it is possible to create new universe, then those things carry their own spacetime with them. So in that universe, time began with its inception. Full stop. But for us, there was definitely time before that universe was created. That's why I said sequence is required, since time, even as a physical concept is subjective.


Lastly, you have put in the assumption that the cause, even if the universe without time COULD have a cause, is some sentient actor. Off we go to the endless regression of what caused this sentient actor. Feel free to solve that problem any time.

I do assume that god is sentient, but I don't think that's a necessary characteristic. The reason why I make that assumption is that our own sentience is the closet thing we can point to for the origin of causeless effects. Of course, we are still part of the causal chain, don't have true free will and all that. But I'm assuming that a different version of that is what would be necessary to be the prime mover, the ability to cause yourself to do something.

Anyway, as I said, infinite regression is pretty much a non-starter, since you run into self-reference before you even try to get past god. If god set up this sequence of causes, then he obviously isn't part of them himself. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been the one to set them up. It's a fallacy to expect god to be bound by the rules of the universe -- it's similar to the incompleteness theorem.


All you are stuck with is what you want to be true, with some basic logical fallacies and unproven assumptions with deep inherent flaws.

Well obviously, you think that since you disagree with me. I think the opposite. I think people have been so quick to assume a belief in god is irrational that they've grown lazy in their counterarguments. It's hard to blame them, since it's pretty much a stock-argument debate nowadays.

[DMC]

I was originally going to use "logical" instead of rational, but I wanted to avoid opening up that can of worms. I was going to say that because you were saying "Pascal's Wager" as if it were the gambler's fallacy. The wager itself is still a decent argument; it's not a fallacy. So automatically labeling an argument "Pascal's Wager" doesn't delegitimize it.



If it is Pascal's Wager, that's what it is. It's not a decent argument. You keep saying it is but not illustrating just how. Argument by repetition... again.


Because the wager is subjective. It's supposed to be for everyone to decide upon. Just because I don't think it's worth it to hop on any old religion doesn't mean someone else doesn't.


No it's not. Pascal made the wager objectively. He said if you do this, this is the outcome. He didn't include all religions and all beliefs other than atheism. You're doing that because it helps you produce an argument but it's just smoke and mirrors. If it's subjective then it's not a wager. Otherwise anyone could say they lost or won regardless the outcome.


I mean that if it there weren't present benefits and detriments to picking a religion or picking no religion. If the only thing that had any sort of utility was going to heaven or going to hell. In such a case, it's simple math, and it makes no sense to be atheist/non-religious. But because all things aren't equal, it makes the math a whole lot more complicated.

But that's not the case. The wager isn't "decent" just because you can apply a set of conditions to it and make it so. In reality, those conditions aren't known to exist. If they did exist, it's not a wager, it's a life preserver. All things aren't equal. You don't get to change the rules to make your argument seem decent.

This is at the heart of atheism vs theism. Atheist generally tend to stick to the rules of what is, and theists like to suppose what might be, and make rules for that as if it's reality, then argue from that position. Something either is or it is not.


Because they have fewer chances to win. For every scenario in which atheists would be saved, a similar scenario can be made for ANY belief system. But religions would still have the benefit of being saved if their beliefs end up being true. Atheists/non-religious people don't get that benefit, because if there is indeed no afterlife, then they don't win just like everyone else. So if you were to do the probabilities, atheists would be behind every religion by at least one scenario.

Atheists don't necessarily believe there's no afterlife. They believe there's no god. Again you are creating worlds that don't really exist. Argue from this one. In this world, atheists just don't believe a god exists. They might believe in afterlife however. They might hold a myriad of beliefs that, if true, could be heaven for them. If their beliefs are true, then they are in their heaven. If a Christian's beliefs are true, the Christian is in a preconstructed heaven with an overlord. As much as you might like to say it's all good by definition, the Christian depiction of heaven isn't that appealing where eternity is concerned, but they contrast it with hell which is even less appealing, so you have to consider that the Christian can also be in hell if their beliefs are true, not just heaven. Atheists cannot be in hell if their beliefs are true.


Um, the wager has always been up to the individual. It's up to them to pick a side.

Still a dichotomy. Pick a side, this or that, and that's the wager. It's not subjective to the individual. What is picked is subjective but the wager isn't.


I'm not going to claim to have studied a whole bunch of religions, but Pascal was clearly weighing benefits while being religious. As I said, he seemed to have been a fan of critical thinking more so than of faith. You seem to have the view that the two cannot exist together, but that's simply not a view many theists agree with.
Pascal then seemed to agree, since both he and you separate the two.

[Chinook]

If it is Pascal's Wager, that's what it is. It's not a decent argument. You keep saying it is but not illustrating just how. Argument by repetition... again.

This whole line of posts has been about Pascal's Wager and my arguments for its legitimacy. You may not agree with those arguments, but that's not the same thing as me not making them.


No it's not. Pascal made the wager objectively. He said if you do this, this is the outcome. He didn't include all religions and all beliefs other than atheism. You're doing that because it helps you produce an argument but it's just smoke and mirrors. If it's subjective then it's not a wager. Otherwise anyone could say they lost or won regardless the outcome.

At the end of the day (so the scenario goes) the truth will come out. There either is a god or not, and afterlife or not. The requirements for getting into the good afterlife (if it exists) will include some people and exclude others. In that way, there will be real winners and losers, and it won't be a simple matter of opinion. The wager is not based in what will actually happen, but in the projected utility of each position. Pascal does not quantify the utility of being atheist/non-christian, though he says there is some finite amount a person will receive by not making religious sacrifices. That's always been weighed against the benefit of god being real multiplied by the infinite reward of having followed him or the infinite detriment of having not followed him. The idea of the math has always been the same.

Pascal seems to have been into people being rational, so it stands to my reason that he would be into considering all options. I doubt he was actively excluding other religions into the math as much as he was just not concerned with talking about them. What was the point in 17th-century Europe?


But that's not the case. The wager isn't "decent" just because you can apply a set of conditions to it and make it so. In reality, those conditions aren't known to exist. If they did exist, it's not a wager, it's a life preserver. All things aren't equal. You don't get to change the rules to make your argument seem decent.

I'm sorry that I think that keeping the idea behind an argument and updating its premises is a legitimate thing to do for old philosophies. I'm not changing the heart of the wager at all; I'm just making it less resistant to petty attacks like, "OMG you didn't consider other religions even though it doesn't change the heart of the wager."


This is at the heart of atheism vs theism. Atheist generally tend to stick to the rules of what is, and theists like to suppose what might be, and make rules for that as if it's reality, then argue from that position. Something either is or it is not.

Ugh. Probability is not a theistic concept in the least. Decision theory and hypothetical arguments are used by both sides. Again, you seem to be missing the heart of science and how the scientific method works if you think it deals in reality and not beliefs.


Atheists don't necessarily believe there's no afterlife. They believe there's no god. Again you are creating worlds that don't really exist. Argue from this one. In this world, atheists just don't believe a god exists. They might believe in afterlife however. They might hold a myriad of beliefs that, if true, could be heaven for them. If their beliefs are true, then they are in their heaven.

It's not a matter in believing in an afterlife, nor it is a matter in believing in every scenario. What I am saying is that for every argument non-religious people come up with as to how atheistic beliefs could turn out to be beneficial to a potential afterlife, the same argument can be used for any religion. Atheists have no unique argument, no unique afterlife scenario to posit. The same is true for people in my position. That's why they don't have as many favorable scenarios as any given religion does.

Anyway, I love how you now want to agree atheists aren't monolithic in their beliefs, but when I said that before, you rejected it.


If a Christian's beliefs are true, the Christian is in a preconstructed heaven with an overlord. As much as you might like to say it's all good by definition, the Christian depiction of heaven isn't that appealing where eternity is concerned, but they contrast it with hell which is even less appealing, so you have to consider that the Christian can also be in hell if their beliefs are true, not just heaven. Atheists cannot be in hell if their beliefs are true.

Well, by your definition, atheists can believe in hell and go there when they die. I will say, in general, Pascal didn't say simply asserting that something was true made a person a christian. He said they also had to live the ideals laid out by christianity. So by picking that route, one cannot set themselves up for hell if their beliefs are true.


Still a dichotomy. Pick a side, this or that, and that's the wager. It's not subjective to the individual. What is picked is subjective but the wager isn't.

Again, the risk/reward is subjective, at least in the sense that each person puts their own value on the things they're wagering. If taking a bet cost you $5000 dollars, then the nature of the bet is different depending on how much you value that amount of money. Some rich and famous may not feel the need to risk damnation to have a free and open mind, while someone who doesn't get so much utility from other places might. In that same way, someone really poor may not want to risk damnation to only marginally improve their lives while someone better off might not care so much about the afterlife.


Pascal then seemed to agree, since both he and you separate the two.

Ignoring the barb, he didn't separate them. He clearly was trying to appeal to reason with his wager. He also seemed to think that only the people who came to faith through reason were most virtuous, and that those who considered it but couldn't bring themselves to believe were also pretty virtuous.

Of course, I don't agree with him on much of this. As I said and you seem to ignore, I get no benefit from the wager. Not in his scenario or mine is there a path to heaven specifically for non-religious theists.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, because me talking about needing limits to deal with infinity clearly shows I don't know that infinities are expressed with limits...

Look dude, you need to find a math teacher or something. Actually, probably an English teacher. Then, you'd understand that infinity isn't a number and that nothing can actually equal it (hence why the term 'limit' has to be used at all).

More importantly, you should read what people write better than that. I very much account for the non-existence of god. It's just that that is a loss across the board in Pascal's wager. It doesn't affect the logic of the math in any meaningful way.

I see you dumb down infinity too. There are several ways in which we know that something can be unbounded and they are not the same. For example the all manner of ratios of geometric shapes end up with irrational outcomes such as pi, this holds true if you use orders of prime numbers. It's why physicists get exited when ratios of phenomenon spit out prime numbers.

That speaks to the concept of divergence and how for example EM radiation behaves. Euler's proofs regarding infinite series started off as rational constructs but have been proven to be true empirically and exploited repeatedly. In short, your assertion that the notion of infinite or unbounded cannot be empirically demonstrated is false. You cannot prove that the universe as a whole does not exhibit similar behavior either.

You really suck at arguing. You give up on points and just surrender your initial premises. I guess that is a product of being full of shit.

Rather than tell me that I need to read what you write how about you actually address what I write. You can continue this routine and I will continue to take a shit on your takes specifically as anyone who can read can see that I do. WC does the same shit and it doesn't deter me in the slightest.

Pascal's wager is more self assuming nonsense with no empirical basis. I actually like the way Confucians and Buddhists phrase is with good life and virtue substituted for god and without the threats. Be good/virtuous for its own sake as opposed to believe this or else you christians go for.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Did you seriously try to use 'tranny' as an insult for a person who've never seen/met?

Well, go ahead and add it to the homework, then. I see you still haven't found a dictionary to look up 'atheism', since you think it's a gradient.

And you want to talk about reading comprehension. Tyranny. I see you ignore everything else I say. Like I keep saying you are obvious limited and just want to go around with the same platitudes.

You clearly do not understand how words are derived, what I am talking about categorization is going completely over your head and it's funny watching you try and tell me about the meanings of words, box boy. I get what you are trying to call things but you are not the arbiter of semantics for anyone but yourself. You would do yourself a favor in understanding that people do not look at things as you do particularly when it comes to things that do not have an analog in the real world.

Looking at how physical systems actually work, when I see a binary rationale behind something it is almost invariably a human talking out of their ass or people operating within human created institutions. With you its the former.

So do you have anything other than prima causa, natural law and pascal's threats?

[Chinook]

I see you dumb down infinity too. There are several ways in which we know that something can be unbounded and they are not the same. For example the all manner of ratios of geometric shapes end up with irrational outcomes such as pi, this holds true if you use orders of prime numbers. It's why physicists get exited when ratios of phenomenon spit out prime numbers.

I never disagreed with that. Doesn't make infinity a number, though.


That speaks to the concept of divergence and how for example EM radiation behaves. Euler's proofs regarding infinite series started off as rational constructs but have been proven to be true empirically and exploited repeatedly. In short, your assertion that the notion of infinite or unbounded cannot be empirically demonstrated is false. You cannot prove that the universe as a whole does not exhibit similar behavior either.

There's a difference between expressed and demonstrated. 1/0 is an expression for infinity, but it is not actually possible to divide by zero, so you have to take the limit... yadda yadda. That's why limits exist -- because the values they represent cannot actually be reached.


You really suck at arguing. You give up on points and just surrender your initial premises. I guess that is a product of being full of shit.

You're bad at reading, so you don't know what anyone's premises actually are. I already said infinity is expressed in limits before you brought them up, but for some reason, you think bringing up limits is a rebuttal of yours I have to defend.


Rather than tell me that I need to read what you write how about you actually address what I write. You can continue this routine and I will continue to take a shit on your takes specifically as anyone who can read can see that I do. WC does the same shit and it doesn't deter me in the slightest.

I tell you to read because your arguments don't address what people have said and they are out of context. Furthermore, you just toss them out without a hint of understanding. Then, you refuse to examine yourself, so you don't believe me when I tell you your arguments aren't relevant. I think you've finally realized that a categorical imperative is not what you thought it was. So I ask why do you think none of my other challenges are valid? Have you looked up atheism yet? You'd know that atheism/theism is a true dichotomy -- to be one is to not be the other. It's the same as infinite and finite. Once you realize that you're wrong for trying to make it a gradient, you'll see that your criticisms of me on those grounds are invalid, and your lame insults are also off base.

I tell you to look things up so that you don't have to trust me and my "lack of credibility". You can see you're wrong from other sources.


Pascal's wager is more self assuming nonsense with no empirical basis. I actually like the way Confucians and Buddhists phrase is with good life and virtue substituted for god and without the threats. Be good/virtuous for its own sake as opposed to believe this or else you christians go for.

The bolded is a perfect example of why I don't take your arguments serious and suggest you learn more first. I have never claimed to be a christian; in fact, I've said very clearly that I am non-religious. So saying that I am christian makes it clear you haven't really followed anything I've said. You'd also know that I don't find Pascal's Wager motivating enough to move off my non-religious stance if you've read this current exchange with DMC and RG.

Anyway, I agree with the idea that living a good life is way more important than buying dogma. I don't think religion is necessary for being moral, like Pascal sort of asserted. So I take no issue with that statement.

I will say, though, that the wager is not self-assuming. It isn't begging the question. An argument like Descartes' proof of god is self-assuming, because it uses two things to define each other. It also doesn't have to be based in empiricism. No logical arguments, good or bad, are. Russel's teapot isn't empirical, and that's not what it's trying to be. It's an argument to clarify where the burden of proof lies.

[xellos88330]

I just don't think God claims have met their burden of proof.

I am not willing to make a positive claim that NO gods exist.

I will go so far as to claim that the God, as depicted in the Bible, Torah, and Q'uran that I have read doesn't exist. The claims made about God in those books are self-contradictory in so many places, and they have so many factual mistakes about the physical universe that it is easy to wave them away.

Here is a bit on burden of proof that might help:

KayBys8gaJY

Ok, so why doesn't the claim that God of the Bible (or other religious text) does not exist carry a burden of proof itself? I understand that you will proceed to break down some of the contradictions and lack of science within the bible, but if there is a God, it would be an all powerful one. One that could defy nature itself. Could the writers of the Bible be witnessing the actions of that same God, yet have no idea on how to explain the order of events in which he revealed his power?

[Chinook]

And you want to talk about reading comprehension. Tyranny.

Indeed. That seems to have been a mistake on my part.


You clearly do not understand how words are derived, what I am talking about categorization is going completely over your head and it's funny watching you try and tell me about the meanings of words, box boy. I get what you are trying to call things but you are not the arbiter of semantics for anyone but yourself. You would do yourself a favor in understanding that people do not look at things as you do particularly when it comes to things that do not have an analog in the real world.

No. I refuted that argument when you first said it, and you've just been regurgitating it. Atheism and theism are opposites. They cannot both exist in the same individual. It's not a continuum like you keep trying to argue it is. If you had looked up the words in a dictionary, you'd know that. The rest of what you said was a silly ad homenim. "Box boy" is a silly insult. Your only justification for labeling me that is based on your own lack of understanding for what atheism is.


Looking at how physical systems actually work, when I see a binary rationale behind something it is almost invariably a human talking out of their ass or people operating within human created institutions. With you its the former.

On this note, you've given no argument against me being binary (which I'm not, but who cares right now). You've simply said that Nietzsche disagreed with that view. All you did was appeal to his authority to do your argumentative work for you. That is a fallacy called "appeal to authority," which you should look up, since that's what's been plaguing you the most.


So do you have anything other than prima causa, natural law and pascal's threats?

Ignoring you not realizing that Pascal is not an argument for my side, I'll say you have yet to actually refute my constructive, especially in a way that wasn't you just appealing to authority. You should be able to explain to me in your own words why "prima causa" is invalid. I didn't argue for "natural law" in the way you may think I did. Even so, I haven't seen you argue against it for yourself. If you truly understand why those arguments are wrong, you should be able to explain as much without relying on other people "credibility". Random Guy can do that just fine, as can DMC.

[Blake]

Ok, so why doesn't the claim that God of the Bible (or other religious text) does not exist carry a burden of proof itself?

ok the burden of proof is also now on you to show that zeus does not exist.


Or a flying spaghetti monster......

[Chinook]

Ok, so why doesn't the claim that God of the Bible (or other religious text) does not exist carry a burden of proof itself? I understand that you will proceed to break down some of the contradictions and lack of science within the bible, but if there is a God, it would be an all powerful one. One that could defy nature itself. Could the writers of the Bible be witnessing the actions of that same God, yet have no idea on how to explain the order of events in which he revealed his power?

I'll take this one since I'm here. Atheists don't have to and usually don't try to claim that (any) god does not exist. They simply have to say that they see no evidence to believe a claim that he does. If they do take a hard stance that god does not exist, then they actually do leave themselves open to criticism. However, it's not even a burden of proof thing. You can never make a definitive claim of a negative. Any claim that does so is completely unprovable and should be disregarded immediately.

[Blake]

Indeed. That seems to have been a mistake on my part.


Ohhhhh shit that's hilarious.

:lol

Reminds me of when i was playing that game apples to apples with some family and my cousin asked "who is Brian Surgeon"

[xellos88330]

I'll take this one since I'm here. Atheists don't have to and usually don't try to claim that (any) god does not exist. They simply have to say that they see no evidence to believe a claim that he does. If they do take a hard stance that god does not exist, then they actually do leave themselves open to criticism. However, it's not even a burden of proof thing. You can never make a definitive claim of a negative. Any claim that does so is completely unprovable and should be disregarded immediately.

So an atheist is the same as an agnostic?

[Chinook]

So an atheist is the same as an agnostic?

Eh, if you ask me, I don't really think agnosticism is tenable. But atheists feel that claims about god's existence ican be rejected. Agnostics aren't as critical.

[DMC]

Ok, so why doesn't the claim that God of the Bible (or other religious text) does not exist carry a burden of proof itself? I understand that you will proceed to break down some of the contradictions and lack of science within the bible, but if there is a God, it would be an all powerful one. One that could defy nature itself. Could the writers of the Bible be witnessing the actions of that same God, yet have no idea on how to explain the order of events in which he revealed his power?

Because you cannot prove something doesn't exist except conceptually (squared circles and such). To prove something doesn't exist you first need to have that something clearly defined. When the Christian god is clearly defined it becomes evident that it's a paradox. Omniscient, knows all, yet still provides (provides) free will. Knows the future, but you still have a choice. Those two are incompatible and using "uh uh because god can do anything" isn't a get out of jail free card.

So if someone says no gods exist, they can define their own version of what it is that doesn't exist, but if you define it, they can show you how it's incompatible traits are, well, incompatible.

[silverblk mystix]

two blind fools still bashing each other over something they have never seen...




:lmao:lmao:lmao

[DMC]

two blind fools still bashing each other over something they have never seen...




:lmao:lmao:lmao

Sounds like you and Avante arguing about your feet.

[DMC]

Ohhhhh shit that's hilarious.

:lol

Reminds me of when i was playing that game apples to apples with some family and my cousin asked "who is Brian Surgeon"
Or this girl I saw at while I was getting my boat registered, talking on a phone to her friend "yeah I'm at the boat tilting place... don't know where that is"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never disagreed with that. Doesn't make infinity a number, though.

There's a difference between expressed and demonstrated. 1/0 is an expression for infinity, but it is not actually possible to divide by zero, so you have to take the limit... yadda yadda. That's why limits exist -- because the values they represent cannot actually be reached.

You're bad at reading, so you don't know what anyone's premises actually are. I already said infinity is expressed in limits before you brought them up, but for some reason, you think bringing up limits is a rebuttal of yours I have to defend.

I tell you to read because your arguments don't address what people have said and they are out of context. Furthermore, you just toss them out without a hint of understanding. Then, you refuse to examine yourself, so you don't believe me when I tell you your arguments aren't relevant. I think you've finally realized that a categorical imperative is not what you thought it was. So I ask why do you think none of my other challenges are valid? Have you looked up atheism yet? You'd know that atheism/theism is a true dichotomy -- to be one is to not be the other. It's the same as infinite and finite. Once you realize that you're wrong for trying to make it a gradient, you'll see that your criticisms of me on those grounds are invalid, and your lame insults are also off base.

I tell you to look things up so that you don't have to trust me and my "lack of credibility". You can see you're wrong from other sources.

The bolded is a perfect example of why I don't take your arguments serious and suggest you learn more first. I have never claimed to be a christian; in fact, I've said very clearly that I am non-religious. So saying that I am christian makes it clear you haven't really followed anything I've said. You'd also know that I don't find Pascal's Wager motivating enough to move off my non-religious stance if you've read this current exchange with DMC and RG.

Anyway, I agree with the idea that living a good life is way more important than buying dogma. I don't think religion is necessary for being moral, like Pascal sort of asserted. So I take no issue with that statement.

I will say, though, that the wager is not self-assuming. It isn't begging the question. An argument like Descartes' proof of god is self-assuming, because it uses two things to define each other. It also doesn't have to be based in empiricism. No logical arguments, good or bad, are. Russel's teapot isn't empirical, and that's not what it's trying to be. It's an argument to clarify where the burden of proof lies.

Russell had more formalized proofs than that. He used the teapot argument for the layman. That is really besides the point because you have not put forth a single formal argument at any point.

As for the categorical imperative, you wikied the definition and posted it. The wrote entry about moral obligation. My response which you ignored was that you are describing the conclusion as used by Kant found from google where as I was talking about the process by which the conclusion was drawn. I have been trying to talk about categories that don't have basis in the objective world as meaningless for inferring characteristics to anything else. It comes to the very crux of the a priori debate; you cannot even acknowledge it yet I am clueless?

I have cited Nietzshes arguments here but let Fred speak for himself; its like he is speaking through time to you:


"HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own—in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the 'Thing-in-itself—THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!"—This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this "belief" of theirs, they exert themselves for their "knowledge," for something that is in the end solemnly christened "the Truth." The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, "DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM." For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their seal, are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some corner, perhaps from below—"frog perspectives," as it were, to borrow an expression current among painters. . In spite of all the value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to pretence, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity. It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things—perhaps even in being essentially identical with them. Perhaps! But who wishes to concern himself with such dangerous "Perhapses"! For that investigation one must await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalent—philosophers of the dangerous "Perhaps" in every sense of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers beginning to appear.

What is the antithesis of a theist? What he says about things need to "have truth within themselves" and not of what we make of them goes directly to what I have been talking about objective semantics. All you do is make up words without meaning: your boxes, boxboy.

You don't even argue this you just say that I don't know what I am talking about or that I cannot read or other flailing. You are a coward.

If you don't want to reveal your religion that is fine but as long as you continue to cite your two proofs on god and the the threat made by christian philosophers then it is pretty obvious what is what.

As for infinity you can continue to handwave at notation like a shitty teacher all you like but I spoke of much more than that. Again I am not interested in getting caught up in your bullshit. I get your arguments and they are at best described as superficial. You need a box or you get confused though; i get it. Read the stuff about convergence, infinite series, geometric ratios, and infintesimals and try again. Then perhaps you can try and tell me what I don't know about again.

What I will say in the mean time is that there are physical manifestations of the infinite in geometric ratios, physics, Euler's work and all other manner of thing. There is very good reason to believe that some things are infinite. You just ignore that and talk about notation from precalculus. There are many forms of infinite that have nothing to do with what you are talking about as I said before.

As for the pascal threat I get that you don't stand by any argument you make; that is besides the point of my message.

[xellos88330]

Omniscient, knows all, yet still provides (provides) free will. Knows the future, but you still have a choice. Those two are incompatible and using "uh uh because god can do anything" isn't a get out of jail free card.

Why create something when you already know the result? It is the same as a person creating a robot. We already know what it is going to do, so why create it in the first place? If we were to create a robot with free will, it would be among one of mans greatest creations. Isn't that the same as the explanation given by the Bible since we are his favored creation?

[RD2191]

Because you cannot prove something doesn't exist except conceptually (squared circles and such). To prove something doesn't exist you first need to have that something clearly defined. When the Christian god is clearly defined it becomes evident that it's a paradox. Omniscient, knows all, yet still provides (provides) free will. Knows the future, but you still have a choice. Those two are incompatible and using "uh uh because god can do anything" isn't a get out of jail free card.

So if someone says no gods exist, they can define their own version of what it is that doesn't exist, but if you define it, they can show you how it's incompatible traits are, well, incompatible.
This is covered in the scriptures. If you ever pick up a Bible you might know that.

[spurraider21]

This is covered in the scriptures. If you ever pick up a Bible you might know that.
:lol


:bobo

[RD2191]

:lol


:bobo
:bobo

[Blake]

Why create something when you already know the result? It is the same as a person creating a robot. We already know what it is going to do, so why create it in the first place? If we were to create a robot with free will, it would be among one of mans greatest creations. Isn't that the same as the explanation given by the Bible since we are his favored creation?

Man can't see the future, so no, not the same.

[DMC]

Why create something when you already know the result? It is the same as a person creating a robot. We already know what it is going to do, so why create it in the first place? If we were to create a robot with free will, it would be among one of mans greatest creations. Isn't that the same as the explanation given by the Bible since we are his favored creation?

So how does that jive with omniscience?

[xellos88330]

Man can't see the future, so no, not the same.

Man can see the future. Not very accurately, but I am sure there are times even you predicted something.

[xellos88330]

So how does that jive with omniscience?

I tend to believe that God uses omniscience inherently. He can choose what he wants to know and when he wants to know it.

[DMC]

I tend to believe that God uses omniscience inherently. He can choose what he wants to know and when he wants to know it.
How can you choose what you want to know without first knowing what you are not choosing?

If the future is known, then everything is known. If the future isn't known, then prophets are bullshit and revelation is non-existent since you cannot reveal to someone something you don't know.

You're using special pleading, by the way.

[DMC]

Man can see the future. Not very accurately, but I am sure there are times even you predicted something.

Guessing isn't the same as seeing.

[xellos88330]

How can you choose what you want to know without first knowing what you are not choosing?

If the future is known, then everything is known. If the future isn't known, then prophets are bullshit and revelation is non-existent since you cannot reveal to someone something you don't know.

You're using special pleading, by the way.

It is simple. Choose to know the destiny of mankind, or not to choose the destiny of mankind. That is the choice.

The future is known to God should he choose it. You may know if your child were to run across the street that he/she could be hit by a car. You don't know for certain whether or not the child will choose to do so, but you warn them anyways to mitigate the risk.

[xellos88330]

Guessing isn't the same as seeing.

I know that if I call my wife a bitch, she will get pissed. Is that not seeing the future should I call her a bitch?

[Blake]

It is simple. Choose to know the destiny of mankind, or not to choose the destiny of mankind. That is the choice.

The future is known to God should he choose it. You may know if your child were to run across the street that he/she could be hit by a car. You don't know for certain whether or not the child will choose to do so, but you warn them anyways to mitigate the risk.

Bible says God is omniscient. Bible also talks about predestiny. Bible clearly shows God chooses to know mankind's destiny.

[xellos88330]

Bible says God is omniscient. Bible also talks about predestiny. Bible clearly shows God chooses to know mankind's destiny.

Or is he showing one of many destinies?