|
Author
|
Topic: Who won the Collins-Dawkins Debate?
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
So if I experience that chocolate is tastey, it's not true that it's tastey to me?
Sure, but that's subjective to you only. Your own personal, individual truth is different from some kind of revealed, general "truth", right? You weren't talking about you own, personal subjective truth, are you?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by mike the wiz, posted 01-16-2007 6:49 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 185 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
mike the wiz writes: So if I experience that chocolate is tastey, it's not true that it's tastey to me? The exact opposiste. As I have said, a scientific methodology can reveal that you believe (and subjectively to you it is true) the taste of chocolate is yummy and that you want more. You seem to infer that my position on this question is reveresed.
mike the wiz writes: Yet let's pretend that 100% of the time, the person's eyes work fine and s/he doesn't hallucinate? In this hypothetical state of affairs you are correct. However, and this is so important to get straight: Our sensory system is incredibly error prone. So you cannot rely on it. It is also mediated by cognition and experience. These are fundemental biases that can and must be controlled for. By science.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by mike the wiz, posted 01-16-2007 6:49 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
Message 78 of 279 (377572)
01-17-2007 2:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by nator
01-16-2007 10:54 PM
|
|
If you think chocolate tastes good, that's only your subjective feelings about chocolate. It says nothing at all factual about chocolate as a substance. It doesn't have to, to be true. It is factual that chocolate is tastey to me. That IS true. It's not a matter of subjectivity or objectivity. It fulfills both. Who would actually be so silly as to say that chocolate being tastey to me, isn't true? Why on earth would I disbelieve reality? Trying to undermine this for peace of mind, by pretending it's a subjective irrelevance, won't make it any less true than a scientific fact. Talk about cognitive dissonance. It is logically true and real, that chocolate is tastey to me. Get over it guys. Any attempted refutation of these facts can only be met with derision. All that matters is that it's true, because of experience alone. At this stage I must claim that I am irrefutably unrefuted, and that you and Larni aren't willing to learn from the Master of irrefutability. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by nator, posted 01-16-2007 10:54 PM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 79 by Kader, posted 01-17-2007 3:21 PM | | mike the wiz has replied | | | Message 82 by nator, posted 01-17-2007 11:12 PM | | mike the wiz has replied |
|
Kader
Member (Idle past 3748 days) Posts: 156 Joined: 12-20-2006
|
It is logically true and real, that chocolate is tastey to me. Get over it guys. Any attempted refutation of these facts can only be met with derision. All that matters is that it's true, because of experience alone. But scientific methode does not at any point exclude the fact that you might find chocolate tasty or not. So your point is that with experience alone you can come up with a personal truth. (I agree) But personal experience doesn't shape the world around us. If your colorblind, and you see the sky as green. Is it true ?
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
|
Message 80 of 279 (377632)
01-17-2007 6:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by Kader
01-17-2007 3:21 PM
|
|
But personal experience doesn't shape the world around us.
If your colorblind, and you see the sky as green. Is it true ? You're quite correct. That's why I don't claim that experience shapes the world around us. My only point is that if an experience CAN reveal truth, then science isn't the only thing that can reveal truth. So then if you said; Only science is the authority on truth. That would be incorrect. It's all very complicated. To show how omplicated it is, science will uncover truth potentially, but also, theories can be false. Experiences can reveal truth, and experience can produce falsehood. It is still my opinion, (as I said earlier), that science is the best, so far, at revealing truth. At best, at very, very most, I am suggesting that there is a very small possibility that a faith experience might reveal truth about God, and to therefore try and find that truth about God, through science, might be totally misplaced. Such as a chocolate bar. My example. There is no way to reveal the truth about the taste of a chocolate bar, except the experience. Like trying to explain colour to a blind man. Would he prefer an explanation of what colour is, or would he prefer to see. Then heed my wisdom, I request.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by Kader, posted 01-17-2007 3:21 PM | | Kader has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 83 by nator, posted 01-17-2007 11:14 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: 09-08-2003
|
|
|
Message 81 of 279 (377642)
01-17-2007 6:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Modulous
01-11-2007 3:13 PM
|
|
Dawkins Quote
Dawkins writes: If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed. Where can I order a large poster of the Sombrero Galaxy with that quote underneath? This statement is profound and full of wisdom and reverence. Most religions debase God by trying to reduce God down into terms they can understand - even to the point where they believe in fairy tales and tribal legends of a warrior alpha-male god. Most religious people think they are honoring God by very stridently and "faithfully" believing in this smallish view of God when in fact they are committing (in my view) blasphemy. Scientist like Dawkins and others are the true religious leaders of today, while the religion-centric theologians are not much more than sophisticated superstitious witch doctors.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2007 3:13 PM | | Modulous has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
It is factual that chocolate is tastey to me. That IS true. It's not a matter of subjectivity or objectivity. It fulfills both.
Taste is subjective. Something cannot be subjective and objective at the same time, hon!
quote:
Who would actually be so silly as to say that chocolate being tastey to me, isn't true? Why on earth would I disbelieve reality?
It is a truth, but it is a subjective truth only. It makes no sense at all to speak of my objective sense of your subjective experience. I have no way of verifying your subjective experience. Therefore, is cannot be objective.
quote:
All that matters is that it's true, because of experience alone.
Right. Your subjective experience. It is true that you, subjectively, believe chocolate tasty. It is true that you, subjectively, believe God exists. So what? What does anyone other than you know through your experiences? What "truth" does anyone other than you derive through your experiences?
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
Experiences can reveal truth, and experience can produce falsehood.
How do you come to the conclusioon that the falsehoods are, indeed, false?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by mike the wiz, posted 01-17-2007 6:17 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 84 of 279 (377688)
01-17-2007 11:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by nator
01-16-2007 11:47 AM
|
|
Re: Absurd to the Extreme
Your an interesting lot Schraf... You were no doubt reveling in my demise and being banned. Why? Before you answer, let me remind you that you asked in another thread 'what I was doing here?'. And you and others have said that my approach is ineffective. That I am just stirring the pot... Well, I as much as admitted that is true, and I did a thorough going job (IMHO) of explaining why. Are you suggesting that I should become a kindler and gentler preacher? Like the one that wrote this post: http:// EvC Forum: The significance and symbolism of the sea. --> EvC Forum: The significance and symbolism of the sea. Or like the one who was banned for being off topic, because I connected the topics to their related Biblical expositions? There is no winning with lot's like yourself. So don't pretend that I did anything scandulous, when you make your intentions clear when you said: I never once read your e-mails. I just blocked your address. Tell me why anyone should respect you. They won't! Not unless I tell them what they want to hear. And I will not! So... there is more absolutism to go round than may would like to admit. Why should anyone respect any of us?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by nator, posted 01-16-2007 11:47 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 86 by nator, posted 01-18-2007 8:57 AM | | Rob has replied |
|
Clark
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 85 of 279 (377689)
01-17-2007 11:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by iceage
01-17-2007 6:54 PM
|
|
Re: Dawkins Quote
Heh, you can get it here: <---
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by iceage, posted 01-17-2007 6:54 PM | | iceage has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 86 of 279 (377755)
01-18-2007 8:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by Rob
01-17-2007 11:20 PM
|
|
Re: Absurd to the Extreme
quote:
You were no doubt reveling in my demise and being banned. Why?
No, not at all. I certainly didn't "revel", although I certainly was relieved. I think it's sad, actually, that someone is so wrapped up in their own self-righteousness that they can't manage to follow the basic rules of politeness and reasonableness on an internet debate board.
quote:
There is no winning with lot's like yourself.
Sure there is. Just follow the forum guidelines. Very simple.
I never once read your e-mails. I just blocked your address. Tell me why anyone should respect you. quote:
They won't! Not unless I tell them what they want to hear.
Dude, we don't respect you because you spammed us!. It has nothing to do with the content of what you were saying. You were incredibly rude. You DO realize that spamming rude and intrusive, don't you, especially continuing to do so after being told to stop? The reason you preached to me by sending me spam e-mails was because you didn't want to abide by the forum rules. The reason I like to debate on the forum is because the rules exist and are enforced. You were just as annoying to me as a telemarketer, or as the many e-mails I get telling me how I can increase the size of my penis. You are exactly in the same class of annoyance. Also, you left out the most damning part of my last message, in a clear misrepresentation of what I wrote; a misquote. I wrote:
But no, instead you used an alias, hid who you were, and denied it when asked. Tell me why anyone should respect you? Why should anyone respect anybody else, you ask? Because they don't act like you have acted, rob. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by Rob, posted 01-17-2007 11:20 PM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 88 by Rob, posted 01-18-2007 9:55 AM | | nator has replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 1.9
|
|
|
Message 87 of 279 (377759)
01-18-2007 9:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by Rob
01-13-2007 9:41 PM
|
|
Internet Security
Hi Rob, I'm going to merge your Rob account with your scottness account and make Rob the primary alias. You can change it back to scottness if you like through your Profile page (leftmost link near the top of most pages). Most people on the Internet are normal people, but some are crazy. Some of the crazies only do relatively harmless (though very annoying) things like spamming, but others can be far worse. It's probably not a good idea to reveal any personal information on the Internet, such as your name or phone number. I recommend you edit your Message 39 where you revealed your real name. People who do not use their real name on the Internet are not being dishonest, only prudent.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by Rob, posted 01-13-2007 9:41 PM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 89 by Rob, posted 01-18-2007 9:58 AM | | Admin has not replied | | | Message 111 by Rob, posted 01-18-2007 10:07 PM | | Admin has not replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 88 of 279 (377765)
01-18-2007 9:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by nator
01-18-2007 8:57 AM
|
|
Re: Absurd to the Extreme
But no, instead you used an alias, hid who you were, and denied it when asked. When asked, I did not deny it. I was very keen in the way I avoided it. Wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove. When jar asked if this was just Rob once again, I said, 'whoever Rob is, he must have told you these things before'. A true statement. In fact, as DrJones became more adament that it was I... I was the one who volunteered. I said, 'it is Robert Scott Lockett to be exact'. And I then said, "Why didn't someone just come out and ask me, 'Are you Rob?'" It is not always wise to let it be known who you are. Especially if they are trying to kill you (in the internal sense). Was Jesus lying here, or do loose lips sink ships?: Luke 4:41 Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ. Now, I am obviously not the Christ (I'll leave that for the New Agers), but I was also not lying... And to exagerate, I was only '1' of about '1' persons on this forum who doesn't use an alias. Ok, maybe their are 6 total. The rest of you use aliases to avoid the light of day. Certainly your name is not Schrafinator. Your anonymity is for your own protection. So you are a liar too?
The reason I like to debate on the forum is because the rules exist and are enforced. [b]Oh I know... Believe me I know.../b That's the whole nature of the PC rules of men... that's the whole nature of man made law.... To keep yourself protected in your little bubble, and safe from any real challenge in a real arena of ideas. Look at the way the corrupt business men hide behind their Lawyers. It is far easier to live by rules than in truth. You demand one for others, and another for yourself. Do you obet the rules of men? No, you hate men... And now you condemn me by rules created by men? 'Piss off' Schraffinator... I am a free man! Free to tell the truth in fear of no one but God. Your illusions will be shattered Schraf. They are doomed. All who profit by them like Dawkins will morn and cry 'Oh woe! Oh great city'! All of the mysterious contradictions that any of us have ever put our hope in, will be removed by the shear force of reality playing Himself out for the cause of justice and real mercy and peace. And He is no kitten... He is no respecter of men... He is not just a lamb... He is the lion of Judah. Whether you call it spam or not.
Revelation 18:7 Give her as much torture and grief as the glory and luxury she gave herself. In her heart she boasts, 'I sit as queen; I am not a widow, and I will never mourn.' 8 Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her: death, mourning and famine. She will be consumed by fire, for mighty is the Lord God who judges her. 9 "When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will weep and mourn over her. 10 Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry: "'Woe! Woe, O great city, O Babylon, city of power! In one hour your doom has come!' 11 "The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more-- 12 cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; 13 cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and bodies and souls of men. 14 "They will say, 'The fruit you longed for is gone from you. All your riches and splendor have vanished, never to be recovered.' 15 The merchants who sold these things and gained their wealth from her will stand far off, terrified at her torment. They will weep and mourn 16 and cry out: "'Woe! Woe, O great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls! 17 In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!' "Every sea captain, and all who travel by ship, the sailors, and all who earn their living from the sea, will stand far off. 18 When they see the smoke of her burning, they will exclaim, 'Was there ever a city like this great city?' 19 They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out: "'Woe! Woe, O great city, where all who had ships on the sea became rich through her wealth! In one hour she has been brought to ruin! 20 Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you.'" 21 Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said: "With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again. 22 The music of harpists and musicians, flute players and trumpeters, will never be heard in you again. No workman of any trade will ever be found in you again. The sound of a millstone will never be heard in you again. 23 The light of a lamp will never shine in you again. The voice of bridegroom and bride will never be heard in you again. Your merchants were the world's great men. By your magic spell all the nations were led astray. 24 In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth." If you folks think Jesus was a passive and meek feminized man, you have not read the Bible. He was gracious to the humble, but spoke with fire against the proud. And I do my best to emulate Him so as to wake the dead.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by nator, posted 01-18-2007 8:57 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 91 by nator, posted 01-18-2007 10:25 AM | | Rob has replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 89 of 279 (377766)
01-18-2007 9:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by Admin
01-18-2007 9:20 AM
|
|
Re: Internet Security
People who do not use their real name on the Internet are not being dishonest, only prudent. Isn't it ironic... I was just making that point to Schraf. I don't fear being public. Any harm to me will only further the cause of Christ. What ever I said that has been ignored and is effective for the purpose of the Gospel would become widely read. I am going to die anyway someday... No need to fear it! Didn't any of you see Braveheart? 'They may take our lives, but they will never take our FREEDOM.' Luke 12:4 "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Dawkins is just a man... Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by Admin, posted 01-18-2007 9:20 AM | | Admin has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 99 by nator, posted 01-18-2007 12:49 PM | | Rob has not replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
Message 90 of 279 (377769)
01-18-2007 10:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by nator
01-17-2007 11:12 PM
|
|
God's lawyer strikes irrefutabley forth
Taste is subjective. Something cannot be subjective and objective at the same time, hon! Something subjective can be verified objectively. That's what I meant.
It is a truth, but it is a subjective truth only "Only" implies that there is less worth in one truth, over another truth. There isn't. Something is either true or false according to the law of the excluded middle, unless there are exceptional mitigating circumstances that render the argument an exception to bivalence. (Such as the famous ship example; "in exactly twenty years a yellow and pink ship will sink in the Mersey". -- Neither true nor false, at this stage) So I can understand true, false or neither, but I can't understand something being less true, or of less worth that another truth. It simply is, or is not. I know you want to undermine this as something less than a scientific truth. That is not so. I refer to "truth" in a logical capacity, wherein there are no bias circumstances.
Therefore, is cannot be objective. It can be objectively verified, that I have sensations when I taste, according to Larn's earlier explanations of those biological effects.
It is true that you, subjectively, believe chocolate tasty. It is true that you, subjectively, believe God exists. The difference is that it IS TRUE that to me, chocolate is tastey, because that's a reality, whereas I only believe God exists. It's a truism, that foods are tastey. It is not a truism that God exists. In that sense, I take the agnostic position, because I don't know if God exists. God is also an exception to bivalence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by nator, posted 01-17-2007 11:12 PM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 92 by nator, posted 01-18-2007 10:29 AM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2