|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ground Rules | |||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Onifre,
I know this means little on a forum, but i got you back on this. This guy is out of line. He never addressed anything on the other thread. I am only be a half-breed hispanic and I have no idea how a full anglo or even a full hispanic would respond to an attack like this, but in my mind it is time to kick some ass. Since I can't do that. Give him hell and I will follow upo with another salvo behind you. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
InGodITrust responds to Phage0070:
quote: That isn't an answer. You were asked if it were possible that you were wrong. Scientists clearly think that our current models are accurate, though they can give you dozens of reasons how they might be proven wrong. While they can show you all the ways which justify why we think we know what we know, that doesn't stop them from considering the possibility that they're wrong. Is it possible that you're wrong about your beliefs? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
InGodITrust writes:
quote: How does that equate to atheism? Are you saying that the only possible way for god to exist is to have god be the creator of life? Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phage0070 writes:
quote: Sorta. Science also seeks to remove people from the equation. Clearly, people exist, but the point of science is to find out how things happen on their own. If I take two moles of hydrogen gas and one mole of oxygen gas and mix them at STP, it does me no good to leave it unobserved while I go to lunch and then come back astounded to find that the canister now has water in it, never bothering to ask my assistant, "Did you do something to the canister?" The denial of other people isn't a claim that they don't exist. It's that other people are capricious and fickle and we cannot rely upon their actions. The idea is not to find out what happens to the gases when we let somebody we can't control play with them. The idea is to find out what happens to the gases when they are left to their own devices. As you say, "There is no malice involved, scientists look only in the natural world because it is the only place they can objectively look." It isn't a question of "no evidence." It's that they are deliberately avoiding actions beyond thost that happen on their own. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Theodoric,
I know this means little on a forum, but i got you back on this. Gracias, bro.
I am only be a half-breed hispanic and I have no idea how a full anglo or even a full hispanic would respond to an attack like this, but in my mind it is time to kick some ass. Since I can't do that. Give him hell and I will follow up with another salvo behind you.
The reason he mouths off like that is because he can hide behind his computer...where I figure he's sitting there, in the nude, alternating between posting on this forum and masturbating to beastiality porn - like the closet freak that I'm sure he is. Like I said in the other thread, face to face, punks like these don't speak up. But thanks for the back up, it's much appreciated. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given. If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~George Carlin
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3401 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
So if there is no evidence against it I should therefore believe in everything and anything? No, no, of course not. That's the point. The religious think that their beliefs should be respected, even though they cannot back them up with evidence. They would object as you sensibly did if one suggested that they believe in other unevidenced things. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of that behaviour and that they are unjustifiably demanding special status for their beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
gdhfsdgsd  Suspended Member (Idle past 5410 days) Posts: 3 Joined: |
Hello, Do you want brant shoes or fashion handbag, glasses,clothing and so on ? Welcome to our website: Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas We can supply Nike air max shoes dsquard shoes ,air force shoes,nike Dunk shoes, Air jordan shoes,jordan fusion shoes ,Nike James shoes,KOB shoes,ADIDAS shoes,nike rift shoes,Timbland,prada shoes,puma shoes,bape shoes,gucci shoes,football shoes,slipper ,hat, Lv,gucci bag,channel bag,fendi bag,Bapehoodies,jeans(Evisu-jeans,Diesel-jeans,Rock republic-jeans,Bape-jeans,Red,monkey-jeans),T-shirts(lacoste T-shirt,polo T-shirt,EVISU T-shirt,bape T-shirt,NBA sport clothing), autumn coat ,wallet and watches, price:all goods prices are wholesale price.quality: very good quality. deliver time: about 5 work days to arrive your address. We are insisting on our company principle "Best Service and Highest Quality",and willing to build mutual benefits and long term business relationships with all customers.we hope that our products and service will fit your interest and we sincerely to look forward to be your reliable partner . So we sincerely wish to cooperate with you and to make mutual benefit! trust we will have a good business in the future,and u will love to do the business with me,and then we will benefit. I suggest that you can sell our products and make some money. Welcome to our website for more details. Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas if you want buy what, Please Email meour email : alanshoestrader@gmail.com our msn : alanshoestrader@hotmail.com Our telephone : 086-594-2857798 Best regards! Thank you ! The new products has already appear on market Brand bag (Coach,LV,GUCCI,Chanel,Chole,ED): http://www.bag-trader.comD&G shoes : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Locaste shoes : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Puma shoes : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Dsquard shoes : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Nike max : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas(MAN)_1.htm Nike shox : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas(MAN)_1.htm UGG boots : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Ed Hardy shoes : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas AIR (MENS): Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Ed Hardy woman hoodie: Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas(MAN)_1.htm D&G shoes: Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Coogi jeans: Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Suit: Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Jordan 2009 shoes: Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Obama Shoes: Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Dunk SB Shoes: Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas AF1 Shoes: Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Gucci Shoes: Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Converse shoes : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Niu Barents shoes : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Bape shoes : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Timberland shoes : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Kid shoes : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Puma shoes : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Nike Jordan rings : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Brand Glasses : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Sandal shoes : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas NBA,NFL,MLB,NHL Jersey, Jordan hoody : Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideas Welcome to our website for more details. Party Ideas Archives - Partyxyz- Get Awesome Party Ideasif you want buy what, Please Email me our email : alanshoestrader@gmail.com our msn : alanshoestrader@hotmail.com Best regards! Thank you ! Edited by Admin, : Hide spam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes:
I don't agree, at least not in the specific manner you stated that science wants to avoid people in particular. When scientists seek to understand a specific process it is important that unknown and *known* factors are eliminated to the best of their ability. In the same way that your assistant is prevented from messing with the container, you also prevent squirrels from peeing in it, or it simply being rained on. Science also seeks to remove people from the equation. Clearly, people exist, but the point of science is to find out how things happen on their own. Note that rain would be something that happens on its own; the key is isolation of a particular process, not some bias against intent. After all, experimentation involves a fair bit of intent!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phage0070 responds to me:
quote: Well, no. Not, "in particular." Science wants to remove uncontrolled capriciousness in order to examine what happens when things happen on their own.
quote: Exactly. The reason that I mention people specifically is that it personalizes the point. The claim is that science wants to "remove god" as if science has some sort of vendetta against god. Well, no. Science also wants to remove you from the equation, too, and it isn't out of some sort of malice against you or claim that you don't exist. It's that if the reason why something happened is because you did it, that doesn't really tell us anything. Suppose we want to examine how small, short cylindrical, metal tokens interact with various surfaces or, in more colloquial terms, what happens when you toss a handful of coins on the floor. So, I'll want to actually release them and let them interact with the floor on their own, no interference from me. It doesn't teach us anything if I come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously place the coins on the floor. I need to remove myself from the equation in order to learn about how the objects behave on their own. And of course, as you point out, you put in other controls. If I have a giant fan blowing that tosses the coins up against the wall, that complicates things. My point is in response to the argument that science's refusal to consider the work of god on something is taken as some sort of attack upon god and a claim that god doesn't exist. Well, science also does the same thing to you and me. Surely that isn't an indication that science thinks you and I don't exist. It's simply that science wants to find out what happens when you and I aren't forcing things. That, of course, leads to the question that nobody ever answers: Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything? When I toss the coins on the floor, do they wind up in their final positions all on their own or does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously place them? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4760 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
My question went over his head, and he got pissed. He never did figure out atheists like himself and you BELIEVE many things you have no evidence for. Never notice it in yourselves, but you sure do like to point it out in people who have religious beliefs,and belittle them. You are talking about evidence for a world view, versus evidence of things in ordinary life. We don't go round examining the evidence for things in everyday life in the same way as we need to critically examine evidence for a world view. Nobody does that, nor should we expect people to. What has your point got to do with the world view question? Nothing at all. Your behaviour in respect of Onifre is highly offensive and this weakens your credibility even further. Be ashamed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
He never did figure out atheists like himself and you BELIEVE many things you have no evidence for. Such as. What do I believe in that has no evidence? There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Phage0070
I keep meaning to come back to this, and I thought this might be a good opportunity to get back to the topic:
Actually I was asking that if {A} is believed by someone who does not believe themselves to be infallible, is this sufficient cause to consider belief in {B} (which is mutually exclusive to {A}) a valid viewpoint? It took me a while to parse this out, hence the delay in response: {A} is tentatively believed, according to your ground rules, and {A} contradicts {B}, can one that believes {A} then consider {B} a valid viewpoint? I'd have to say yes - the tentativity would demand an open mind to contradictory possibilities.
In any case the overall point is that fallibility is, or should be, already part of our thought processes. This too is logical, as there are no self-evident truths, no a priori knowledge, thus at some point we are dependent on agreed assumptions. We agree that what we live in is called reality, and yet it all could be illusion.
This means that our ability to make absolute conclusions is not compromised because of the possibility of being wrong. I'm fairly sure that I like green and that 2+2=4 in an integer number system with a base ≥ 4, and would be rather surprised to wake up one morning to find I like pink and 2+2=3.
For instance, a Gnostic ... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I though gnostic was still a religious\spiritual belief system:
quote: Who were persecuted by other christians and had their texts burned by those christians. Hence agnostic is a-gnostic is not-gnostic.
... might conclude that because we lack complete information we cannot make a decision regarding the existence or non-existence of gods. However, the Gnostic will necessarily admit that they are fallible and thus it is possible that their logical process to reach Gnosticism was flawed, and thus they cannot be sure that they cannot make such a decision. Except saying that there is not enough information to make a decision (with certainty), is the same as saying there is not enough information to make a decision (with certainty) that there is not enough information to make a decision (with certainty).
The entire thought process leads to a non-functional loop because uncertainty is already a part of the thought process and does *not* prevent conclusions being made, and so applying it in specific circumstances is special pleading. I don't see how you get there. We can certainly make decisions, based on the information we have, with the caveat of your ground rules that we must recognize that there is tentativity in any conclusion reached. If you say you are an atheist, having reached the decision that there is no logical or evidential cause to believe in the possibility of god/s, then according to your ground rules you must be agnostic, as the necessary tentativity demands that you consider that the contrary point of view can be valid. Likewise, if I say I am a deist, having reached the conclusion that there is no logical or evidential cause to not believe in the possibility of god/s, then according to your ground rules I must be agnostic, as the necessary tentativity demands that I consider that the contrary point of view can be valid.
In other words, you recognize that agnostic is the logical conclusion,... And I am back where we started. Perhaps a better word would be skeptical, rather than agnostic, as agnostic is still referential to religious thought, and we are talking about the approach to any topic, such as gravity etc, and skeptical would cover the same necessary tentativity of any conclusion reached, no matter how solid the evidence and experience. Thus we end up with a skeptical open-minded approach to any topic. We can make decisions based on how we think things work, but we cannot eliminate the possibility that we could be wrong. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Rahvin,
Here we go again.
Sorry Woodsy, but this is a fallacy:
What fallacy, specifically, RAZD? And we will keep going at it until you guys realize it. True, a person who holds one arbitrary unsupported belief is not compelled to hold all other arbitrary beliefs, ... Exactly: you knew what the fallacy was. Thus a person who believes in {A} does not need to believe in all of {B}.
... but holding one and not others despite equivalent levels of evidence (ie, none) is inconsistent. It's special pleading - which is a logical fallacy. Which is irrelevant and does not keep the other from being a logical fallacy. Faith is illogical, by definition, ergo pointing out that it is illogical is just stating the definition. Too bad you equivocated there, plus tried begging the question by referring only to "arbitrary unsupported belief" when in fact belief is not arbitrary, nor is belief entirely unsupported - it just doesn't have sufficient support to meet your personal criteria. Let's look at some examples from just this thread (apologies to InGodITrust if this liberty is unwarranted):
Message 21quote: and Message 26quote: This faith is not arbitrary, it is not unsupported, and you can tap any person who believes and get similar responses. It is belief. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Woodsy.
The religious think that their beliefs should be respected, even though they cannot back them up with evidence. They would object as you sensibly did if one suggested that they believe in other unevidenced things. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of that behaviour and that they are unjustifiably demanding special status for their beliefs. So it's okay for you to state what you believe, and to rail against all religious people with a broad brush, but hypocrisy for me to just state what I believe? And here I thought that the "ground rules" in this thread did not allow for absolute decrees ... Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
It took me a while to parse this out, hence the delay in response: {A} is tentatively believed, according to your ground rules, and {A} contradicts {B}, can one that believes {A} then consider {B} a valid viewpoint? I'd have to say yes - the tentativity would demand an open mind to contradictory possibilities. Doesn't this force us to view all viewpoints to be equally valid? If we hold that all of our knowledge is tentative pending additional information, and that tentativity forces us to consider even those views that directly contradict our tentative knowledge as valid, then must we not consider any and all viewpoints to be valid? Doesn't it make more sense to consider the validity of a viewpoint only by the amount of evidence supporting it? The Theory of Evolution, for example, has mountains of evidence supporting its accuracy. Despite the fact that this view is tentative pending evidence that contradicts evolution, would we not generally consider the viewpoint that all life was created three hours ago by a giant fish to be generally invalid, because there is no evidence supporting such a view and plenty of evidence against it? I'd suggest that all viewpoints are equally invalid until they are supported by evidence, and that their validity resembles an asymptote where our certitude increases with the amount of supporting evidence, approaching but never actually reaching absolute certainty (and similarly our certitude that a viewpoint is completely false increases with the lack of positive evidence and the existence of contrary evidence, approaching but never quite actually reaching absolute certainty that the viewpoint is absolutely false). In this way I would consider the theory of Evolution to have very high validity, supported by the weight of evidence, while Creationism is almost certainly false, because of the weight of contradictory evidence and the dearth of any evidence supporting such a viewpoint. To parse it out as you did: If {A} and {B} are contradictory, but neither {A} nor {B} are supported or contradicted by evidence, then neither {A} nor {B} is valid. If {A} and {B} are contradictory, and {A} is based on objective evidence, then {A} is tentatively valid (with the tentativity decreasing as evidence increases) and {B} is tentatively invalid (with tentativity decreasing as evidence for {A} increases). I'd also be pretty comfortable with saying that the theory of Evolution is a valid viewpoint, where Creationism is not. By your standard above, I should tentatively side with Evolution while constantly acknowledging that Creationism is still a valid possibility. Do you consider Last Thursdayism to be a valid possibility due to the tentativity of human knowledge? Ghosts? Fairies? Your dreaded Intangible Pink Unicorn? Are all of these viewpoints "valid" because our knowledge of their nonexistence is tentative, despite the fact that there is absolutely no objective evidence supporting any of them whatsoever? Atheism, to use another example, would be the recognition that the existence of a deity {A} is invalid because there is no evidence supporting {A}. If one proposed contradictory deity (or deities) {B} without supporting evidence, there would be no validity to either {A} nor {B}. Belief in vaguely-defined deity {C} which could actually be deity {A} or {B} or any number of other deities, also without supporting evidence, would also have no validity. Belief in {A}, {B}, or {C} would be a matter of subjective personal preference (on the level with choosing a favorite color), with no objective validity whatsoever, and could logically be placed in the same category as all other unsupported beliefs that have no validity.
This too is logical, as there are no self-evident truths, no a priori knowledge, thus at some point we are dependent on agreed assumptions. We agree that what we live in is called reality, and yet it all could be illusion. Depending, of course, on how one defines reality. Given that all of our sensory inputs (and therefore all of our information) seems to come from the physical world, I'd certainly consider the physical world "real" even if it actually turns out to be a computer simulation like the Matrix. It's certainly real for all practical purposes, and what else matters?
If you say you are an atheist, having reached the decision that there is no logical or evidential cause to believe in the possibility of god/s, then according to your ground rules you must be agnostic, as the necessary tentativity demands that you consider that the contrary point of view can be valid. Likewise, if I say I am a deist, having reached the conclusion that there is no logical or evidential cause to not believe in the possibility of god/s, then according to your ground rules I must be agnostic, as the necessary tentativity demands that I consider that the contrary point of view can be valid. This is true, except that tentativity need not be an absolute, binary consideration. I tentatively hold the Theory of Evolution to be an accurate representation of a real-world process. I tentatively hold that my computer will not randomly shut off in five minutes, but with much less certainty. I am far more tentative regarding the possibilities of a sudden random shutdown than I am in the Theory of Evolution being incorrect. From your words (and forgive me if this isn't what you actually mean) I should consider Creationism (contradictory to evolution) and the likelihood of a power outage in five minutes time to be equally valid viewpoints because of the absolute presence of tentativity in my beliefs. I think that the degree of tentativity should also be included.
Perhaps a better word would be skeptical, rather than agnostic, as agnostic is still referential to religious thought, and we are talking about the approach to any topic, such as gravity etc, and skeptical would cover the same necessary tentativity of any conclusion reached, no matter how solid the evidence and experience. Thus we end up with a skeptical open-minded approach to any topic. We can make decisions based on how we think things work, but we cannot eliminate the possibility that we could be wrong. I think that one can include degrees of tentativity without losing open-mindedness. I agree, however, that absolutism is a poor basis for thought, and that tentativity, even when that tentativity is extremely minor, confidence is high and evidence is strong, should still be acknowledged.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024