KC, you're a twit.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2012, 09:13 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
Maybe I'll start identifying as a Dennettist. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 09:36 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(26-11-2012 09:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe I'll start identifying as a Dennettist. Drinking Beverage

That comes a little too close to dentist for.my liking.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like lucradis's post
26-11-2012, 10:56 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(26-11-2012 06:34 PM)lucradis Wrote:  the common misunderstanding of the title. By atheists and theists alike.
If enough people misunderstand, then that becomes the true definition...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
26-11-2012, 11:54 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(26-11-2012 10:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-11-2012 06:34 PM)lucradis Wrote:  the common misunderstanding of the title. By atheists and theists alike.
If enough people misunderstand, then that becomes the true definition...

True, however as of yet that hasn't happened. When it does happen I will still not declare myself fully as atheist. Unless something happens that proves to me without a shadow of a doubt that there is a god. Any god. Fuckin Thor would be pretty choice. Or that Hindu god with all the arms and swords. Thug life.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 12:49 AM
KC, you're a twit.
Pussy

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 08:10 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(26-11-2012 06:25 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(26-11-2012 05:34 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I fail to see what is so constricting about atheism.


Not atheism in specific, no.

But any very tight definition of a person becomes a sort of jail. Every defining adjective one attach to oneself confines. It becomes a part of identity and selfperception. It separates from countless other people who don't fit that adjective. Eventually it sets a boundary one becomes hesitant to cross.

That is part of the problem with religion and indoctrination. The Christian sees it as his part of his identity, and a very large part of it. That is why gieving occurs when one loses someone as well as when one loses faith. Part of the identity is gone. Someone or something who/that was such a big part of your life that it was part of your identity is now gone. It's a huge hole. Since it defined you, you are at a total loss.

Now, I don't anticipate changing my thinking regarding a god, but I also don't want the word Atheist to define me. I like freethinker a lot better, it fits my personality.
But "Free Thinking" does not encompass the entirety of your beliefs and worldviews either. Drinking Beverage I always role my eyes when I ask a person's theological view, and they tell me they are a humanist. Yeah? And? So? That means nothing to me, as the definition does not require the belief or disbelief in a God. Labels are important, and there is always one for nearly every serious viewpoint. You are an atheist if you do not believe in any form of deity, so call yourself one. Rolleyes

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 12:45 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(26-11-2012 09:25 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(26-11-2012 05:52 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Except that I'm also agnostic on the issue of multiple universes, that is to say I have no knowledge either for or against. I am neither, more or less agnostic about it, I have the same knowledge of both. Also, the idea that a hypothesis progresses no further through the scientific hierarchy until there is evidence to support it, is not right. Hypotheses are the basis on which experiments are based, it is these experiments that derive the evidence, these experiments are ongoing in multiple fields of science as we speak. I am sure none of the scientists would consider it just a funny little idea and rather understand that the experimental work involved in progressing a hypothesis through experimental evidence to a working theory can be the work of a life time or life times.

Hypotheses are the set of predictions and principles laden by the observer. These ideas are correct or incorrect based on what is discovered during the experiment. It is a hypothesis that multiple universes exist because we are yet unable to test said hypothesis. You can note that by looking at current String Theory's criticisms.



(26-11-2012 05:52 AM)Humakt Wrote:  There is a description of the scientific method:

Formulate -> Hypothesis -> Prediction -> Test -> Analysis : Replicate - Publish - Disseminate.

You've formulated a question and made a hypothesis, a false one has it happens. You have made no prediction as such, I however have looked at your hypothesis seen that your predictions are not in accord with the facts, I have tested my assumption against a published source citing the scientific method and I am happy with my predictions and that they refute yours, or at the very least show them to be a simplistic misunderstanding of the process. In analysis, your comments are opinionated bluster. Anyone, can and indeed should rather than simply take my word for it, replicate the 10 seconds "work" it took me to type scientific method into google, which I did to provide a source against which the assertions I made could be compared. This post, is the step where I publish my findings for peer review, it will be disseminated further, if anyone feels the need to quote or comment upon it.

I am quite aware of the scientific method and its multiple steps it requires to properly create an assessment concerning the observations of reality.

(26-11-2012 05:52 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Further, as published in the Scientific American, the musings by a proper scientist, on the actual published work of another proper scientist, both far better qualified to talk on the subject than myself, and I'll assume your not a scientist working in the field, you. I again invite everyone to read the entire article and see that it is a brief description of the idea of multiple universe and how the entire body of the scientific method has and is being applied to it.

I am quite aware of the components and lack of evidence for String Theory, which encompasses M-Theory, and has made the most progress in its quest for theoretical mathematics.

(26-11-2012 05:52 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Your statement and view point from previous posts is classic example of, and I quote directly from the article:

1) Omnivision assumption: physical reality must be such that at least one observer can in principle observe all of it.

and to my mind also

2) Pedagogical reality assumption: physical reality must be such that
all reasonably informed human observers feel they intuitively understand
it.

which are refuted, again quoted directly from the article:

(1) and (2) appear to be motivated by little more than human hubris. The
omnivision assumption effectively redefines the word "exists'' to be
synonymous with what is observable to us humans, akin to an ostrich with
its head in the sand. Those who insist on the pedagogical reality
assumption will typically have rejected comfortingly familiar childhood
notions like Santa Claus, local realism, the Tooth Fairy, and creationism—but
have they really worked hard enough to free themselves from
comfortingly familiar notions that are more deeply rooted? In my
personal opinion, our job as scientists is to try to figure out how the
world works, not to tell it how to work based on our philosophical
preconceptions.

1) I do not believe that one observer is required to view the entirety of reality.

2) Again, you insist on making inaccurate assumptions about how I operate. I do not require that every reasonably educated individual should be able to fully or adequately understand specific components about reality.

You have made assertions, failed ones at that.

(26-11-2012 05:52 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Lastly, it is important to note that in the case of the multiverse theory such work is possible, but as the youtube ( http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid209014 ) by AronRa clearly states as I posted above, such work is not possible with a deity, and I paraphrase here, because a deity would be if it in fact existed a supernatural entity outwith our ability to perceive or measure and therefore outwith the scientific method to examine or comment on.

In short, what I've said and been saying. Now if you have something to add, beyond your usual ad hominems and just saying your wrong, I look forward to reading it.


Currently, no experiments are possible concerning M-theory or String Theory, and it relies completely on theoretical mathematics. It is unknown whether it is possible to do so. Because there is no evidence supporting String Theory, I view it as a possibility, but not reality until proven otherwise. The same could be said about a deity.

Concerning AronRa's statement regarding the implied mutual exclusiveness of science and theology, he would be correct if said deity did not intervene with reality. One must first establish what qualities the deity has. If we are discussing the idea of a deistic deity, we'd have very little to debate about. I'd remain an agnostic atheist. For theistic deities, it is safe to be gnostic atheist.

I have yet to throw a single ad hominem at you, but if you like I can start.
First of all, sorry for the delay in responding Ive had an eventful weekend and been to busy.

"I am quite aware of the scientific method and its multiple steps it
requires to properly create an assessment concerning the observations of
reality."

And yet you state quite clearly, that work into multiverse theory hasn't progressed beyond hypothesis, which it clearly has.

"I am quite aware of the components and lack of evidence for String
Theory, which encompasses M-Theory, and has made the most progress in
its quest for theoretical mathematics."

I'm not sure why you've moved the goal posts to string theory, by quite aware am I to take it you are a qualified scientist working in the field, I'm again assuming given the vague nature of the statement that your not.

"1) I do not believe that one observer is required to view the entirety of reality.

2)
Again, you insist on making inaccurate assumptions about how I operate.
I do not require that every reasonably educated individual should be
able to fully or adequately understand specific components about
reality.

You have made assertions, failed ones at that."

If you do not believe that at least one person must be able to observe all of reality how do you defend the statement, evidence or your fairy tales don't exist. If you do in fact believe that a portion of reality could remain unobservable to all, you could not say this.

You've replaced the word intuitively with adequately, and I still assume you're views on God are based on intuition as they cant possibly be based on evidence.

"You have made assertions, failed ones at that."

Quite probable, I'm often wrong - I at least have the grace to acknowledge it.

"Currently, no experiments are possible concerning M-theory or String
Theory, and it relies completely on theoretical mathematics. It is
unknown whether it is possible to do so. Because there is no evidence
supporting String Theory, I view it as a possibility, but not reality
until proven otherwise. The same could be said about a deity."

All reasonable, excepting that your general tone on the the existence of a deity, is either dismissive, derogatory or cited as proof that anyone who does not reject it out of hand is delusional. But, if you are saying that the case for a deity is possible, but that evidence may never be provided and that experiments into its nature may be impossible, the we agree.
Of course, you are vague in saying you could say this, the question is really weather you would say this.

"Concerning AronRa's statement regarding the implied mutual exclusiveness
of science and theology, he would be correct if said deity did not
intervene with reality. One must first establish what qualities the
deity has. If we are discussing the idea of a deistic deity, we'd have
very little to debate about. I'd remain an agnostic atheist. For
theistic deities, it is safe to be gnostic atheist."

As to establishing the qualities of a deity, hows about all powerful, holds faith to be the most important thing, professes that proof denies faith, in this case a theistic deity who could and would be highly motivated to confound any attempt to gain evidence of it.

We've batted this around before, but if your an agnostic atheist, you admit having no knowledge and yet hold a conclusion - opinions are fine and faith is your affair. As to gnostic atheism being safe in the case of a theistic deity, what exactly is the knowledge you allude to be being gnostic of exactly.

"I have yet to throw a single ad hominem at you, but if you like I can start."

Maybe I'm confusing your general manner with specific phrases.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 12:50 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(27-11-2012 08:10 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(26-11-2012 06:25 PM)Dom Wrote:  Not atheism in specific, no.

But any very tight definition of a person becomes a sort of jail. Every defining adjective one attach to oneself confines. It becomes a part of identity and selfperception. It separates from countless other people who don't fit that adjective. Eventually it sets a boundary one becomes hesitant to cross.

That is part of the problem with religion and indoctrination. The Christian sees it as his part of his identity, and a very large part of it. That is why gieving occurs when one loses someone as well as when one loses faith. Part of the identity is gone. Someone or something who/that was such a big part of your life that it was part of your identity is now gone. It's a huge hole. Since it defined you, you are at a total loss.

Now, I don't anticipate changing my thinking regarding a god, but I also don't want the word Atheist to define me. I like freethinker a lot better, it fits my personality.

But "Free Thinking" does not encompass the entirety of your beliefs and worldviews either. Drinking Beverage I always role my eyes when I ask a person's theological view, and they tell me they are a humanist. Yeah? And? So? That means nothing to me, as the definition does not require the belief or disbelief in a God. Labels are important, and there is always one for nearly every serious viewpoint. You are an atheist if you do not believe in any form of deity, so call yourself one. Rolleyes


Freethought, in a nutshell, is:

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 12:53 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(26-11-2012 09:48 AM)lucradis Wrote:  Why is it that there exists this subsection of forum members that seem to get really annoyed when someone refuses to abandon the agnostic stance? This is literally why I just call myself an atheist here unless someone asks. To avoid the constant attempt at conversion. You guys are fucking crazy, and a little creepy. I always get this fundie vibe off of those who get so adamant about the atheist title.

You crazy creepy mother fuckers.
I can see your point, personally I dont really care if someones agnostic, atheist or religious that is for them to decide. I stick with agnostic, because I feel I can't support atheism anymore and for much the same reasons that I cant support a religious view point.

As to the fundie issue, yeah I get that feeling to. But to be fair, crazy, creepy mother fuckers is maybe a little strong, think I'll stick with meh. Smile

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 01:02 PM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(27-11-2012 12:50 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(27-11-2012 08:10 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  But "Free Thinking" does not encompass the entirety of your beliefs and worldviews either. Drinking Beverage I always role my eyes when I ask a person's theological view, and they tell me they are a humanist. Yeah? And? So? That means nothing to me, as the definition does not require the belief or disbelief in a God. Labels are important, and there is always one for nearly every serious viewpoint. You are an atheist if you do not believe in any form of deity, so call yourself one. Rolleyes


Freethought, in a nutshell, is:

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
Seems like your placing a limitation on free thought there, if your not free to believe what has insufficient evidence your no free. I think what your definition describes is an empiricist, but meh Smile

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: