Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2014, 07:25 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 06:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 06:41 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  That's why you won't read evidence that contradicts your beliefs, or view videos that contradict your beliefs?

of course I will, and do.

I have spent the better part of my free time for the past year doing just that.

I would be willing to wager, if I were a wagering man, that I know more about atheism than you do.

Then why are you referring to atheism as if it were a complex system of beliefs that need to be "understood"?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
22-05-2014, 07:25 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 07:22 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 07:15 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So debate me. The invite is open and has been.

Since as you say, you are an educated Englishman, it should be easy to crush me with your intellectual prowess.

Ohmy

You can't even answer a simple question. You're a waste of time. A snake oil salesman. ... 'debate you'? Grow up you ego centric cunt. I marked your card bang on when I said you were here to fuel your own ego. Debates involve straight talking and an openness and honesty that you are incapable of. You're like a fucking 6 year old. ... The only good thing you have brought to this forum is your threads full of disgraceful behaviour. Next time someone on the fence visits here, they might see something in your posts that repulses them. ... I'm wasting my breath here you trolling cunt.

Flex

Case closed.

Hug
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 07:25 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 07:24 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 07:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  That statement is its own contradiction. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. That's it.

If you have spent a year and not learned that, there is little hope for you.

the definiendum "atheism" has several definiens Chas, not just the one you think.

Present them.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 07:27 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 07:10 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 07:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  First of all she is no "brilliant intellectual". (Well, maybe compared to you she is). Your comment is completely off topic. I said NOTHING about others in history or anywhere else. IF their main subject of expertise is not one that I listed above, they are not experts in the applicable fields. You are STILL trying to get us to swallow your correlation and fallacy of Authority bullshit. You have never once answered ONE of my statements about the Bible. You have never even once tried. ANd here you are calling "me" ignorant. Everyone here sees whi is and who is not, Mr. - 40-and-dropping-fast. (BTW you think you are just *so superior* with that sex comment don't you, Church Lady? )

Bahh...

She only has a PhD in English Literature and is a professor...

Heck....what does she know?....

Right......


Facepalm

You have zero credentials. ZERO.

And since you think a person must have expertise in an applicable field to be considered an expert in said field, then I hope you recognize that many scientists (which you set you hope and trust and faith in) today are sticking their nose where it does not belong when they make statements about matters they have no experience in. (Dawkins and his evangelical dogmatic atheism comes to mind).

Would you seek medical advice from her just because she call herself doctor?

If I had a question about literature I might listen to what she had to say.

At least Dawkins has a degree in evolutionary biology I think he's qualified to speak on that topic, but I wouldn't bother asking him why my elbow hurts either. At the same time she cannot peer review a paper Dawkins' written because she's not a peer of his.

The reverse applies as well.

Just because she knows something doesn't mean I have to accept everything she says on any topic.

I can't stand Dawkins when he speaks about religion. Sorry...there I've said it. Gasp

I can listen to him speak about evolution. He's fascinating.

Shoo fly!


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
22-05-2014, 07:27 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 07:25 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 06:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  of course I will, and do.

I have spent the better part of my free time for the past year doing just that.

I would be willing to wager, if I were a wagering man, that I know more about atheism than you do.

Then why are you referring to atheism as if it were a complex system of beliefs that need to be "understood"?

the definiendum "atheism" has several definiens, not just the one you think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 07:28 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
Jermy.


Your desperation is showing.


That is all.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 07:28 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 07:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 07:22 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  You can't even answer a simple question. You're a waste of time. A snake oil salesman. ... 'debate you'? Grow up you ego centric cunt. I marked your card bang on when I said you were here to fuel your own ego. Debates involve straight talking and an openness and honesty that you are incapable of. You're like a fucking 6 year old. ... The only good thing you have brought to this forum is your threads full of disgraceful behaviour. Next time someone on the fence visits here, they might see something in your posts that repulses them. ... I'm wasting my breath here you trolling cunt.

Flex

Case closed.

Hug

I agree. I think he made his case that you are a cunt quite well. I'm glad you can admit it, that's healthy.Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
22-05-2014, 07:31 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 07:25 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 07:24 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  the definiendum "atheism" has several definiens Chas, not just the one you think.

Present them.

Definitions and distinctions


A diagram showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism.
Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement.
Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in blue on the right) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement.
Implicit weak/negative atheists (in blue on the left) would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief.
(Sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population.)
Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[27] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34] and has also been contrasted with it.[35][36][37] A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism.

Range
Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of God and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities. Gradually, this view fell into disfavor as theism came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.[38]

With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Taoism.[39]

Implicit vs. explicit
Main article: Implicit and explicit atheism
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[40] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[41] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".[42]

Positive vs. negative
Main article: Negative and positive atheism
Philosophers such as Antony Flew[43] and Michael Martin[38] have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist. The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[43] and in Catholic apologetics.[44] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.

While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[31] many agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism,[45][46] which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[45] The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[47][48] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[49] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[50] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[51] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".[52]

Definition as impossible or impermanent
Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatism—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.[53]

There is also a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes".[54] There have however been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes".[55]

Some atheists have doubted the very need for the term "atheism". In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.[56] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Def...stinctions
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 07:31 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 07:27 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 07:25 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Then why are you referring to atheism as if it were a complex system of beliefs that need to be "understood"?

the definiendum "atheism" has several definiens, not just the one you think.

You've said that twice, yet you don't seem to know what they are.

Edit: Oh, I see after claiming to have superior knowledge, you copy-pasted an entire Wikipedia article with no commentary.

Hooray.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
22-05-2014, 07:34 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 06:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 06:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are a neurotic dolt who is missing the only life he will ever have.

In your mind:

missing only life I will ever have = abstaining from sex.


UnsureBlushDodgy

Will you stop that!!! You are hurting me with laughter!!!

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Germans are coming's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: