Rational Thought
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2016, 12:57 PM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2016 01:03 PM by Deesse23.)
RE: Rational Thought
Quote:You cannot get outside of your own brain/senses – therefore you cannot empirically validate whether or not the tool you are using (ie your brain) is correctly calibrated

I take you are a presuppositionalist? Try and google the debate of Dillahunty vs Bruggencate. By the way: we might not able to account for anything in the end, but so are you. But unlike you, our worldview (critical thinking and the scientific method being a common denominator) at least is internally consistent.

Quote:then you need to posit an infinite number of past events, in a universe that demonstrates time and entropy
That part does not make any sense to me. Please explain. But be careful 90% of all theists using the term "entropy" dont know what they are talking about, demonstrably so. So i hope you do. We will find out.

Quote: first cause
This fallacy is called "special pleading". Please look it up.

Quote: the GOD entity just “is”
Please explain how someting/body can "be" outside of space and time. Being necessitates time the last time i checked.

Quote: In a universe where the laws of physics show cause and effect, equal and opposite reaction etc, then surely the only sane assumption has to be that the first cause MUST have been from outside of this time-bound universe after some fashion
Ever heared of "big bang"? At ca. 10^-34s after the big bang (looking back in time), space-time bresks down and we are spatially already in quantum ballpark. So cause and effect already dont exist anymore. No god needed here.
Please elaborate how sometinh can be outside of space-time. Again: without using words related to space and time. Saying "is" would not be an intellectual honest answer after my explanations of space-time.

Quote:At least with a deity there is the evidence of the religious texts which actually exist.
A (any) deity may produce religious texts. Please demonstrate that yours did.

Quote:rational creator
Please define/elaborate on what that is supposed to be.

Quote:I disagree with you that faith is the opposite of reason
Then you are wrong, sorry. Doesnt matter if you think you are right.

Quote:I think it is highly irrational for beings who do not know the tiniest fraction of one percent about even our own universe to even begin to postulate on whether or not there might be powers higher and above of our own plane of existence.
Yet you claim to believe in a god. Thats intellectual dishonest.

Quote: It is also phenomenally arrogant.
So you are arrogant by your own definition. Dont blame us!

Quote:Of course it could be applied to my worldview too, except that I’m happy to accept I take everything in life on faith.
That makes you a gullible person. Have fun, we wont hinder you. We dont want to be gullible in here thou. So please refrain from looking down on us from your perceived high horse.

Quote:The gospels about Christ claim to be eye-witness testimony. That is historical evidence. You can (and no doubt do) reject this evidence for whatever reasons you may have, but the evidence exists – like it or not!
This is one of my favourites. Are you serious???? I am serious with this quesiton, because this is the most paramount demonstration of your faith (gullibility) and ignorance. This is the result of applying your version of epistemology (= faith).
So what are the names of those witnesses? You do know that the gospels were written decades after the alleged crucifiction, right? And, again, why trying to present evidence. 2 sentences earlier you stated that all you have is faith. You cant have it both ways.

Well....this is getting boring, ill stop right there.

But i need somethin to add in general about your way to present yourself in here:

You were complaining about the attitude of the posters here on this forum. Yet you -dishonestly- were hiding your belief for 8 pages in this thread. Its not like every theist would be crucified in this forum, only the stupid and/or dishonest ones.

Its also dishonest to argue for solipsism, a belief you actually dont hold at all. If Solipsism is so convincing to you, why are you believing in a god? Why arent you a solipsist then?

To me its also disrespectful and dishonest to use the computer to try and discredit the scientific method. Its this method what gave you the comuter and almost anything else you are using to make your life worth living.

Its also disrespectful to compare science with religion on the basis of "its both faith". I dont know if is dishonesty or stupidity, but you should know that science produces results, whereas your religion hasnt produced anything worthwile, at least nothing that couldnt be achieved without the unsubstantiated belief in a invisible tyrant in the sky. Science provided us probes that are currently about to leave the solar system and increase that "smaller than one percent knowledge" of the universe. What does your religion and "just faith" do to gain knowledge to man?

Its also dishonest to discredit critical thinking for its requiring of evidence before anything is accepted, while trying to provide evidence to substantiate your belief. Either you are a critical thinker and require evidence or you just have faith. But please dont pretend to despise a method while using this very method it to argue your position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Deesse23's post
03-04-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  If your brain is just a product of this universe, then however you “define” or “derive” whatever code of logic you are following, you are necessarily reliant on your own brain to have worked that out for you in the first place. You cannot get outside of your own brain/senses – therefore you cannot empirically validate whether or not the tool you are using (ie your brain) is correctly calibrated. That is my point.

And this is a pointless, incoherent statement. That is our point, and one that you have repeatedly ignored.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  If the universe “just is” – then you need to posit an infinite number of past events

No, you don't.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  1. You posit that your brain is ultimately just a passionless result of the causality (or whatever) of this universe.

No. We conclude.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  3. You 100% rely on you own brain to have come up with the proposition, to gather the evidence, to conclude on the evidence, and indeed to set the parameters of what you consider to be logically valid or not in how you choose to base your conclusion!

We do not "100% rely on [our] own brain" to determine what is logically valid, any more than we do so to determine what the answer to a math problem is. Both math and logic have defined rules; the fact that these rules were defined by humans is irrelevant. We have defined "logical" such that it is applied to arguments and statements possessing certain properties.

This is not circular. Logic is reliant on semantics, not the other way around. The fact that both semantics and logic are operated by a human brain is irrelevant.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  4. You 100% cannot prove that your own brain is a reliable tool in the first place

Yes, actually. We can. It is trivial to do so.

We experience something. What we experience is consistent with the behaviors expected of an external universe.

What we experience is irrelevant; so long as repetition occurs, what repeats does not matter. We can still construct accurate representations of the universe around us.

I would get into why, but this is more detailed semantics. If you are interested in the nitty-gritty, let me know, but this post is already quite long.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  -My worldview suggests we are created in the image of a rational creator, which if true would make me a rational being by definition.

That is not what "rational" means.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  I disagree with you that faith is the opposite of reason.

And you are wrong.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Oh, and also there is no evidence for your own worldview

The complete lack of evidence for yours suffices.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  2) Say you repeat an experiment thousands of times over the course of your life, and always get the same result, has that proved the matter beyond ALL doubt then? Say the laws of physics are contingent on some invisible flux in the universe we cannot currently detect, and one day our planet will pass just outside of this flux such that all of the laws completely changed, then all that repeatability isn’t worth a damn is it?

And if wizards exist, everything we know about the universe is wrong. But they don't, so who cares?

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  We observe that carbon decay appears regular over a few decades, and assume that not only has the rate of decay always been regular but also that time has run at a constant rate for aeons. But we have utterly no proof of that whatsoever

Yes, we do.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  (if anything the law of relativity ought to imply the opposite

No, it shouldn't.

I don't think you understand the science you are trying to talk about.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  You have it backwards if you think I have no evidence for what I believe. The gospels about Christ claim to be eye-witness testimony. That is historical evidence.

No, it isn't. It is a claim. Claims are not evidence.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  If your consciousness were just the thoughts of the Red King, then why the insistence on empiricism?

Because empiricism - or, rather, rationality - still demonstrably works, even if the world is just a dream.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  I think you don’t like this line of debate around solipsism because you have no rational logic for choosing to be an atheist, rather than an agnostic.

Those two prospects are unrelated. And I do not dislike talking about solipsism. I find philosophy in all its forms to be quite fascinating. I just see no reason to treat blatant idiocy as anything but.

As for why I am an atheist rather than an agnostic, that is getting still further off-topic, and this post is already long enough.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  And if atheists here are saying that they CAN trust their own brain in reaching their conclusions, then on what basis do those same atheists say that theists are irrational in reaching a conclusion about a deity using their brains as well.

Because the arguments they present are demonstrably irrational.

I really don't think you understand what "rational" means. This is not an attack or a dig. I honestly do not think you understand what rationality or logic actually are, and this is resulting in you presenting incoherent arguments that make no sense.

Have you ever taken a course in formal logic or philosophy?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Unbeliever's post
03-04-2016, 03:07 PM
RE: Rational Thought
If the reality that we inhabit is not an illusion of some form then our senses and reason have evolved to provide us with a more or less accurate picture of it. This is necessary for such basic survival traits as finding food, attracting mates, not being devoured horribly and not walking into walls.

Any single mind could be mistaken/deluded/deranged, but careful and systematic cross-checking between a large group of minds reduces the probability that we are all suffering some natural mental lapse to effectively nil and even irons out the worst of the cognitive biases.

By contrast, presuppositionalism lacks any error correction and even encourages errors that promote its world view. It starts with "The Truth", ignores the facts, distorts the facts to conform to its aggenda or invokes supernatural intervention to get around the facts. It fails to ever examine the facts, requiring that you not question. Unsurprisingly it never arrives at any answers that it didn't start with.

If, on the other hand, our "reality" is one grand illusion of some form then our senses and reason have been pre-programmed to provide us with information according to the design of the illusion and are unreliable. We will never be able to demonstrate that this is not the case since co-opted rational faculties would prevent us from ever spotting the flaws. The point is moot because as we are unable to ever obtain evidence that reality is illusory it simply makes sense to behave as if it were not. Our senses and reason will operate within the laws of the illusion and at least provide us with consistent information about the illusion. In a best case scenario this may one day reveal the illusion for what it is and permit our escape.

By contrast, presuppositionalism is still ignoring its senses and distorting its reason, both of which have been already compromised by the nature of the illusion. Worse, all of these distortions are based upon an illusory set of beliefs programmed into the illusion for reasons unknown. Lacking any error correction at all, presup will continue to reinforce the beliefs that the illusion has fed it. It will in fact defend the illusion with a zeal that skips across the border of sanity and frollicks in the lands of madness. It stacks illusory belief on top of illusory reality and refuses to admit that either could ever be wrong.

Thus, presuppositionalism fails to be of any utility in either an actual reality or an illusory one, failing to provide useful information about either.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Paleophyte's post
03-04-2016, 03:11 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(03-04-2016 03:07 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  By contrast, presuppositionalism is still ignoring its senses and distorting its reason, both of which have been already compromised by the nature of the illusion. Worse, all of these distortions are based upon an illusory set of beliefs programmed into the illusion for reasons unknown. Lacking any error correction at all, presup will continue to reinforce the beliefs that the illusion has fed it. It will in fact defend the illusion with a zeal that skips across the border of sanity and frollicks in the lands of madness. It stacks illusory belief on top of illusory reality and refuses to admit that either could ever be wrong.

Thus, presuppositionalism fails to be of any utility in either an actual reality or an illusory one, failing to provide useful information about either.

That is probably the most concise and accurate assessment of the whole presup nonsense that I have ever seen.
Bowing

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
03-04-2016, 03:28 PM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2016 09:42 PM by Paleophyte.)
RE: Rational Thought
Question for you DiverseSynergy. Assuming for the sake of discussion that our senses and reason provide a reasonably accurate representation of the reality we inhabit, how would you ever know that your beliefs were not compromised?

You begin with "The Truth", but what if this "Truth" is not true?

What if, and yes I am being deliberately silly here, Christianity were a carefully engineered system of belief designed to weaken the Roman Empire and all its successors and used to keep the lower classes in their place. How would you ever know that you were not merely a pawn of the Disciples of Ba'al?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2016, 03:30 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(03-04-2016 03:11 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 03:07 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  By contrast, presuppositionalism is still ignoring its senses and distorting its reason, both of which have been already compromised by the nature of the illusion. Worse, all of these distortions are based upon an illusory set of beliefs programmed into the illusion for reasons unknown. Lacking any error correction at all, presup will continue to reinforce the beliefs that the illusion has fed it. It will in fact defend the illusion with a zeal that skips across the border of sanity and frollicks in the lands of madness. It stacks illusory belief on top of illusory reality and refuses to admit that either could ever be wrong.

Thus, presuppositionalism fails to be of any utility in either an actual reality or an illusory one, failing to provide useful information about either.

That is probably the most concise and accurate assessment of the whole presup nonsense that I have ever seen.
Bowing

Thanks. Blush Glad you enjoyed it.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2016, 04:39 PM
RE: Rational Thought
So what would be a definition for a rational creator? If you start with said rational creator being outside of space and time and then believe that He made man in his own image. Then we learn that He prohibits killing, but countless times demands that His Chosen people go out and kill, kill kill. That to you is rational? Not to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DerFish's post
03-04-2016, 04:44 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Take radiometric carbon dating for but one simplified example. We observe that carbon decay appears regular over a few decades, and assume that not only has the rate of decay always been regular but also that time has run at a constant rate for aeons. But we have utterly no proof of that whatsoever (if anything the law of relativity ought to imply the opposite, but hey ho – it’s only an assumption after all!) What is the margin of error of extrapolating 6 decades of semi-reliable data back say 5 million years? Oh, I’m sure it’s tiny…

Where to begin...

(1) Ignore Carbon dating. A simple rule of thumb is that no radiometric dating system is useful for more than about ten times the half-life of the isotope in question. So with a half-life of 5730 years, 14-C only stretches back to about 60,000 years. You can get a bit more out of it with good detectors but your accuracy goes to hell. For geologically meaningful timescales let's talk U-Pb, Th-Pb, K-Ar, Sm-Nd and Re-Os systematics instead.

(2) Radioactive decay is governed by the interaction of the electromagnetic and nuclear forces within an atom's nucleus. Basically, the mutual repulsion of the positively charged protons tries to rip the nucleus apart while the nuclear forces try to hold it together. How well those forces are balanced determines whether an atom is radioactive and what its decay rate is. Muck with those and truly horrific things happen. For a start, previously stable atoms become radioactive with truly unpleasant consequences for anybody made of them. This would result in isotopic shifts such as those seen in the natural nuclear reactors in Oklo, Gabon. Those simply aren't observed. Oh, and we'd all be dead. The sun would have exploded. Along with all the other stars in the universe. Kindly do not alter fundamental constants.

(3) Radioactive decay produces heat. It's what powers Curiosity, the Voyager probes and provides roughly half of Earth's thermal energy. No, not just the stuff they tap in Iceland, the stuff that keeps the planet's molten core bubbling along at 4000 to 6000 C. Ramp up radioactive decay too much and the resulting heat melts the crust, boils the oceans and crispy fries the inhabitants.

(4) Radioactive decay rates are established independantly by measurements in the lab but produce ages that can be cross-checked with one another in geological materials. This is done quite commonly to establish the pressure-temperature-time (P-T-t) paths of metamorphic rocks and used to examine mountain building and such. If there were any tinkering with decay rates then none of the different systems should produce even vaguely similar ages.

(5) The Earth has no short-lived radioisotopes except for those like 14-C that are produced by spallation processes in the upper atmosphere (cosmogenic isotopes). Everything with a half-life of less than 100 million years has burnt out. That's true of both the primordial material produced in the supernova ~4.57 billion years ago and the radioactive waste produced by the Oklo natural reactors . These short-lived isotopes ought to have been produced and detection of minute traces of 244-Pu, which has a half-life of 80.8 million years, shows that they were. They've just all decayed and that requires billions of years.

(6) Uranium and Thorium do not decay directly to Lead, but decay via a series of short-lived isotopes. Over a few million years, these short-lived isotopes reach an equilibrium between the rate of production and the rate of decay. That secular equilibrium is handy for geologists who want to demonstrate that their radioactmetric clock hasn't been recently perturbed. Or has been recently perturbed. Or are measuring relatively short-lived processes. It's impossible to establish in less than a few million years, yet there it is.

So yes, we really, really do know that these decay rates have held constant and are valid tools for measuring times on geological scales.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like Paleophyte's post
03-04-2016, 09:25 PM
RE: Rational Thought
Presuppositionalsim: It's like solipsism, but even dumber because it employs special pleading and unwarranted (and self defeating) assumptions.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-04-2016, 02:07 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  WhiskeyDebates - Nice repeated use of the F word. Have you considered using wider sources to expand your lexicon – maybe a thesaurus? Or perhaps you feel the need to add weight to your argument through vulgarity for some reason? It serves only to undermine your point in my mind, but I will try and work with it.
Few points:
1.) Swearing doesn't undermine any points, it doesn't have that power. If fuck is every 3rd word in a sentence and that sentience still contains a point the point is whole and undisturbed. The fact you got your cunt in a twist over "bad words" doesn't undermine my point nor does it add or reduce weight to the argument, the argument stands on it's own merits. If you need safe space from bad words maybe the internet is not the right choice you twat.
2.) I speak 4 languages fluently and another 3 well enough to converse casually in. I also read and/or write another 3ish fairly well (IMO), and English was the 3rd language I learned and I learned it while learning 2 others at the same time. I have forgotten more about language then you will likely ever know as it's one of my great passions.
3.) You dedicate an entire paragraph to whining about words you don't like and having read your response multiple times I see you entirely failed to answer my question on if you have ANY evidence of solipsism that would require me to entertain it at all. Which is such a common Christian tactic I've been able to predict it in the past.
You have asserted an argument without evidence for "god or solipsism" and I can completely reject it without any evidence. I'm not interested in a bunch of boorish "what if" jerking off.
4.)
(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Have you considered using wider sources to expand your lexicon – maybe a thesaurus?
Ahem.
(03-04-2016 11:04 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  haha - yes, quite right. You'd think being British, I ought to get a nautical term correct...
Maybe you need to buy a thesaurus. Bitch.Drinking Beverage

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Of course it could be applied to my worldview too, except that I’m happy to accept I take everything in life on faith. I think you do too.
And you are wrong, simple as that. My views, my opinions, and my beliefs are demonstrably accurate. Yours are not.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  You have to, because you cannot prove your own senses are reliable.
I can and have many times, the fact that you don't want to accept that there are people who don't live their lives based on blind faith in shitty books is irrelevant. How did we get a man to the moon if our own senses, technology, and math are so unreliable? If the scientific method was unreliable it would not give us constant results and we would not be able to make predictions. However it does and we can so your just fuckin' wrong mate.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Perhaps you don’t like debating topics around solipsism, because you know you have no proof to refute it.
Ya thanks for showing you have no damn idea how the burden of proof works. I'm not required to present evidence to refute an assertion that has no evidence proving it or even supporting it. It's up to you to prove your assertion, not me to prove it wrong. That's Logic 101 you amateur.
A accurate, demonstrable, and proven methodology doesn't become "faith" cause some random jack off comes around and makes a bunch of bald faced assertions with no evidence.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  You have it backwards if you think I have no evidence for what I believe. The gospels about Christ claim to be eye-witness testimony. That is historical evidence.
I guess I can add "what constitutes evidence" and "historical analysis of the bible" to the list of things you know nothing about. The gospels claims to be eye-witness testimony......and then they spectacularly fail to support or substantiate that claim. Claims are not evidence of the thing they are claiming. Not only that but it's recognized by all but the most fundamentalist of biblical scholars that none of the books in the bible were written by people alive when Christ is claimed to have died. There is no corroborating evidence, the gospels get multiple things flatly wrong (most prominent to my mind is the description of Pontius Pilate as reluctant to kill a Jew which is just laughably inaccurate.), and no contemporary writer of the times supports the account of the gospels.
They are fiction of varying degrees from start to finish.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  You can (and no doubt do) reject this evidence for whatever reasons you may have, but the evidence exists – like it or not!
I reject it as evidence because BY FUCKING DEFINITION it's not evidence. Unsupported claims/assertions are not evidence. I'm not rejecting your evidence, what you have presented as evidence is not even evidence. I can't reject your evidence, because you don't bloody have any. Fanciful stories that don't accurately reflect reality are not evidence, they are myth and you're just gullible.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  You on the other hand have no evidence for what you believe.
I do actually, and this has been demonstrated multiple times. Your bald faced assertions don't change that, no matter how hard you bitch and moan.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  You think the scientific method gives you some solid justification for interpretation...
No I think the scientific method gives clear, demonstrable, falsifiable, testable, and predictable results and I think that cause it bloody does. If it was not reliable we could produce anything we produce because it all REQUIRES the scientific method to be accurate. The computer you are ignorantly running your mouth on REQUIRES the scientific method be reliable and accurate.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  but it fails to the 3 closing points I put to True Scotsman above.
Your 3 points are ignorant and have no supporting evidence and as such can be completely dismissed without contemplation. The scientific method doesn't fail anything because you have pulled some unsupported bullshit out of your ass and tried to argue as if it was legitimate. The scientific method works and it's the only one that does, and your crybaby assertions don't change that.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  But say you are not really here on Earth at all – then all of your empiricism is a total waste of time.
And you have been asked and failed to supply any evidence that that might be the case. Your failure to support your assertions means I'm entirely justified in dismissing them as the drivel they are. The scientific method produces accurate results, faith produces uneducated asshats who due untold harm to our species.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Tell me, out of 100 trillion, approximately what number do you reckon humanity has reached in terms of the proportion of understanding about our own universe using the scientific method (if 100 trillion is total knowledge)?
It could be 80 trillion or one and it would still have a better track record than faith which has offered 0 understanding of the universe.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Your position is one of pure arrogance and condescension.
Said the guy who thinks the creator of the universe cares about him personally and made the universe with him in mind. Go fuck yourself, hypocrite.Drinking Beverage

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  I implied that rather than welcoming a rational debate from somebody with a different worldview
Your world view is not rational as it's built on unsupported assertions. I'll also point out that you kicked in our door and immediately tried telling us what we are and what we believe instead of asking us so fuck you and your fake humility.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  And the gospels about Christ, someone imagined all that did they?
The story with zombie hordes, men walking on water, and demon pig possession? Yes, quite obviously.. Well more than one person but yes is Jewish fan-fiction.Drinking Beverage

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  I think you don’t like this line of debate around solipsism because you have no rational logic for choosing to be an atheist, rather than an agnostic.
Thank you for demonstrating you don't know the relation between atheism and agnosticism. Is their any part of this conversation you actually know what your talking about?

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  To clarify, I don’t advocate solipsism. I don’t invoke it here.
You presented a false dichotomy of "god or solipsism" to try and paint a whole bunch of people who base their lives around fact, evidence, and reason with the fucktarded brush of "faith". You did this because your ENTIRE argument requires you to assert that every view that's not your own requires the same amount of faith, every argument and every defense you have presented requires this as it's foundation. Your agenda of "If Christianity and science both require faith then both are rational and equal" is a strawman of the highest order and just laughably wrong. I require no faith, as what I believe can be thoroughly demonstrated, and your bullshit assertions don't change that.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Evolutionkills – nope, whatever you might consider to be “evidence” fails to the 3 points I closed with in my response to TrueScotsman above.
Again your 3 points can be dismissed without consideration as they are entirely lacking in support and evidence. We don't have to entertain every unsupported assertion that is thrown our way.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  I can already see some people think the question is irrelevant and don’t want to even debate it (hardly very “scientific” though).
Actually rejecting hypothesis that have no explanative power, evidence, and aren't even internally consistent is a core part of the scientific method. Something you would know if you had the slightest education on the subject.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  And if atheists here are saying that they CAN trust their own brain in reaching their conclusions, then on what basis do those same atheists say that theists are irrational in reaching a conclusion about a deity using their brains as well.
Our conclusions are demonstrable, falsifiable, testable, and repeatable outside our individual brains. They can be compared and contrasted with each other and with empirical models to be shown to be accurate.
Yours can not, and it is that simple. That is why you use faith, the excuse given by people in support of an assertion that is either without or against good reason.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  See my closing 3 points to Truescotsman about why I don't think this panacea of testability and repeatability of scientific empiricism are actually as concrete as many people might believe them to be.
And you are just wrong, there is not much more to say about it, you are just wrong. If it was not reliable it would give mutually different results to each individual but it does not, because it is reliable and demonstrable. Your faith, your ignorance, is not equal to our science, it's beneath it and in the process of being stamped out of existence with each new generation of humans and rightfully so.



(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Despite what you may think, I have come here in good faith to learn.
Which is why instead of asking us what we believe and how we justify it you kicked open the door and started declaring TO US what we believe and how we can't support it. Fuck you mate, you might be fooling yourself with your false humility but we have seen enough of your dime a dozen kind to know how utterly fabricated your humility actually is.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: