Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2015, 10:01 AM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2015 11:20 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 08:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It implies the consciousness is plausible.

You've never shown me the evidence for your conclusion that it is plausible that there is something that can have intent with respect to the cosmos.

Deliver or admit you've no fucking clue what you're talking about and are merely preaching your theistic bullshit instead of being here to actually converse (like you claim). Drinking Beverage I'll wait.

The problem has become apparent here, which is primary semantical.

You seem to have no issue with the term "cosmic accident", or "fluke", but you take use with word "unintentional " being used synonymously. Why? Because for you the term unintentional, requires a conscious entity, where as an accident, or fluke does not require it, but can include it.

Where as I would state that the term unintentional, being that the dictionary defines it as synonymous with accident, flukes, doesn't require a conscious entity, anymore so than flukes, or accidents do.

But given your temperamental state you'll not be able to acknowledge this semantic dilemma we find ourself in, and will just throw a tantrum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 11:30 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
I'll say it one more time, since you seem to have missed what I was saying.

The issue is not just the use of the term "intentionality" vs "unintentionality" (as 'properties', giving the discussion not only rhetorical equivalence but an added element of Woo), but the fact that you keep referring to them as equally plausible ideas.

They are not equally-plausible ideas, and for us to start the discussion as if they are hands you an unearned and invalid rhetorical equivalence. No debater in his right mind would allow that. When you kept insisting that we do so, we began to see you as simply trolling us, and that's when the insults come out on this forum.

Everything we observe, good and bad (by our view) is neither good nor bad in reality because it "just happens", without universal intention. For you to propose a new concept into this observation, that it's not naturally-occurring but in fact the result of some invisible, intelligent being's purpose/plan, you have a lot of basis to build up.

All that was ever posted, to "build this up" was a combination of "God of the gaps" (aka "golly this suuuure looks complicated", the argument used once to defend Thor the God Of Thunder) and various arguments from personal incredulity of that sort, and a lot of presuppositional nonsense like "It looks as if it is", which it looks like no such thing, and we have no reason to agree with your "looks like" arguments because we (and most of the rational minds on the planet) see no such thing, nor a single reason to suspect that any other universal force will suddenly be different from the other 99% we do know about, now.

If you want to bring pre-scientific Woo back into the modern age, you're going to need a lot more than "looks like", or else you're going to get mocked. That's just the way it is. I would get mocked even without the "looks like god" woo, if I went onstage at a science conference and made baseless claims founded nothing on my own ideas, without rooting them in the observation and testing of the scientific method. If I said, "well it looks like the ants are communicating by telepathy because of how they wave their antennae and stop in front of one another", I'm going to be laughed/booed off the stage.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
12-08-2015, 01:34 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 11:30 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'll say it one more time, since you seem to have missed what I was saying.

The issue is not just the use of the term "intentionality" vs "unintentionality" (as 'properties', giving the discussion not only rhetorical equivalence but an added element of Woo), but the fact that you keep referring to them as equally plausible ideas.

The issue is the use of the term “intentionality” vs “unintentionality”, an argument that has been carried over several threads, several posts, over several weeks, in fact it has in early iterations extended to the use of terms like “accident” and “fluke”.

I have not said anything about plausibility, or claimed that they were “equally plausible ideas”. But if I were to say something about plausibility for the moment, since you mentioned it. I don’t think they are equal, in fact I think the claims of “unintentionality”, of us being a cosmic accident, a fluke, are absurd. An absurdity that can only be sustained by staring at one corner of wall, or by continually appealing to one’s lack of belief.

When today’s atheists are more comfortable describing themselves as lacking a belief in God, rather than believing God doesn’t exist, it just suggests to me they are not all that convinced by an unintentional universe either. When atheists here complain about using the term fluke, accident, unintentional in relationship to the universe, it suggests to me, that unlike you, there are not particularly convinced that we’re a fluke, or a cosmic accident. They find it to be an inappropriate thing to say of our universe and existence.

In fact I commend you for being the only one here, after several weeks of this semantical non-sense, that without any reservations could state: “It is a fluke. It's clear that it's a fluke. This is the term used by men like Hawking and Krauss and Feynman and Einstein....We are a cosmic accident.” But don’t make the mistake of thinking that other’s here are on the same page as you.

Quote:If you want to bring pre-scientific Woo back into the modern age, you're going to need a lot more than "looks like", or else you're going to get mocked. That's just the way it is.

Sorry, I can't say internet mockery bothers me all that much. On most occasions, it reveals more about the person doing the mocking, than the person being mocked.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 01:46 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 10:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 08:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It implies the consciousness is plausible.

You've never shown me the evidence for your conclusion that it is plausible that there is something that can have intent with respect to the cosmos.

Deliver or admit you've no fucking clue what you're talking about and are merely preaching your theistic bullshit instead of being here to actually converse (like you claim). Drinking Beverage I'll wait.

The problem has become apparent here, which is primary semantical.

You seem to have no issue with the term "cosmic accident", or "fluke", but you take use with word "unintentional " being used synonymously. Why? Because for you the term unintentional, requires a conscious entity, where as an accident, or fluke does not require it, but can include it.

Where as I would state that the term unintentional, being that the dictionary defines it as synonymous with accident, flukes, doesn't require a conscious entity, anymore so than flukes, or accidents do.

But given your temperamental state you'll not be able to acknowledge this semantic dilemma we find ourself in, and will just throw a tantrum.

I am just waiting on you to prove the possibility that there is something capable of having intent with respect to the cosmos.

The issue here isn't semantics, it is your bias and your dishonesty. But you can't even admit that the reason you use the language you do, is because of your religious bias.

Now, about that intent with respect to the cosmos.

Also, you never proved my rock's unintentions. Hell, you couldn't even give me any evidence that shows the rock had unintent. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 01:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 11:30 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'll say it one more time, since you seem to have missed what I was saying.

The issue is not just the use of the term "intentionality" vs "unintentionality" (as 'properties', giving the discussion not only rhetorical equivalence but an added element of Woo), but the fact that you keep referring to them as equally plausible ideas.

The issue is the use of the term “intentionality” vs “unintentionality”, an argument that has been carried over several threads, several posts, over several weeks, in fact it has in early iterations extended to the use of terms like “accident” and “fluke”.

I have not said anything about plausibility, or claimed that they were “equally plausible ideas”. But if I were to say something about plausibility for the moment, since you mentioned it. I don’t think they are equal, in fact I think the claims of “unintentionality”, of us being a cosmic accident, a fluke, are absurd. An absurdity that can only be sustained by staring at one corner of wall, or by continually appealing to one’s lack of belief.

When today’s atheists are more comfortable describing themselves as lacking a belief in God, rather than believing God doesn’t exist, it just suggests to me they are not all that convinced by an unintentional universe either. When atheists here complain about using the term fluke, accident, unintentional in relationship to the universe, it suggests to me, that unlike you, there are not particularly convinced that we’re a fluke, or a cosmic accident. They find it to be an inappropriate thing to say of our universe and existence.

In fact I commend you for being the only one here, after several weeks of this semantical non-sense, that without any reservations could state: “It is a fluke. It's clear that it's a fluke. This is the term used by men like Hawking and Krauss and Feynman and Einstein....We are a cosmic accident.” But don’t make the mistake of thinking that other’s here are on the same page as you.

Quote:If you want to bring pre-scientific Woo back into the modern age, you're going to need a lot more than "looks like", or else you're going to get mocked. That's just the way it is.

Sorry, I can't say internet mockery bothers me all that much. On most occasions, it reveals more about the person doing the mocking, than the person being mocked.

Fuck you're dumb and a hypocrite. On this very thread even. Facepalm

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 01:49 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Hrm, perhaps that was my fault for not using bold font:
Quote:The issue is not just the use of the term "intentionality" vs "unintentionality" (as 'properties', giving the discussion not only rhetorical equivalence but an added element of Woo), but the fact that you keep referring to them as equally plausible ideas.

In other words, they are both issues. Lots of things that are "accidents or flukes" happen all the time, and there's nothing even strange about it.

1) We observe that everything we thoroughly investigate can be explained by natural phenomena, quantified by mathematics that are reproducible wherever you wish to do the math on it.

2) We have not finished observing everything, or there would be no further need for scientists, only teachers. Science professors are typically research scientists who also serve in the role of teacher for the things we do know, so they can teach others the methods we used to investigate what we know.

3) You are the one who is posing a magical solution, as in olden days when we thought the gods created everything too big to fully understand, like thunder and lightning, for the next "gap", the origins of life and the universe.

The degree of hubris in claiming that it is we naturalists who have something more to explain, in order to reject your sky-god-magic, is in the words of CinemaSins, "Astounding hubris is astounding."

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
12-08-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 01:46 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 10:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The problem has become apparent here, which is primary semantical.

You seem to have no issue with the term "cosmic accident", or "fluke", but you take use with word "unintentional " being used synonymously. Why? Because for you the term unintentional, requires a conscious entity, where as an accident, or fluke does not require it, but can include it.

Where as I would state that the term unintentional, being that the dictionary defines it as synonymous with accident, flukes, doesn't require a conscious entity, anymore so than flukes, or accidents do.

But given your temperamental state you'll not be able to acknowledge this semantic dilemma we find ourself in, and will just throw a tantrum.

I am just waiting on you to prove the possibility that there is something capable of having intent with respect to the cosmos.

The issue here isn't semantics, it is your bias and your dishonesty. But you can't even admit that the reason you use the language you do, is because of your religious bias.

Now, about that intent with respect to the cosmos.

Also, you never proved my rock's unintentions. Hell, you couldn't even give me any evidence that shows the rock had unintent. Drinking Beverage

If he could just show that the rock intended to do something other than crush the guy, then unintentionally killing him is plausible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
12-08-2015, 02:05 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 01:46 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The issue here isn't semantics, it is your bias and your dishonesty. But you can't even admit that the reason you use the language you do, is because of your religious bias.

If you're arguing about whether the term "unintentional" requires a conscious entity, as opposed to terms like "fluke" or "accident", then yes the argument is semantical.

If I was speaking of the universe as unintentional, it would be in a similar way that RocketSurgeon expressed it: "It is a fluke. It's clear that it's a fluke. This is the term used by men like Hawking and Krauss and Feynman and Einstein....We are a cosmic accident.”

If your argument is not that I can't use the term "unintentional" to express this, then what is it? Let's see if you can show some honesty for once, and actually answer that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:03 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 01:46 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I am just waiting on you to prove the possibility that there is something capable of having intent with respect to the cosmos.

The issue here isn't semantics, it is your bias and your dishonesty. But you can't even admit that the reason you use the language you do, is because of your religious bias.

Now, about that intent with respect to the cosmos.

Also, you never proved my rock's unintentions. Hell, you couldn't even give me any evidence that shows the rock had unintent. Drinking Beverage

If he could just show that the rock intended to do something other than crush the guy, then unintentionally killing him is plausible.

That rock is an innocent non-conscious entity that should be allowed to roll free!!!!!

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 02:08 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 02:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 01:46 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The issue here isn't semantics, it is your bias and your dishonesty. But you can't even admit that the reason you use the language you do, is because of your religious bias.

If you're arguing about whether the term "unintentional" requires a conscious entity, as opposed to terms like "fluke" or "accidents", then yes the argument is semantical.

If I was speaking of the universe as unintentional, it would be in a similar way that RocketSurgeon expressed it: "It is a fluke. It's clear that it's a fluke. This is the term used by men like Hawking and Krauss and Feynman and Einstein....We are a cosmic accident.”

If your argument is not that I can't use the term "unintentional" to express this, then what is it? Let's see if you can show some honesty for once, and actually answer that?

You don't understand the use of the word "intent" or "random" or "fluke" or "accident" with respect to the existence of the universe as described scientifically.

Your attempts to use language to promote your bias, is as plain as day, but you seem to think you're hiding it well. I am trying to point out to you, that you don't have people fooled and that you are clearly not as clever as you think you are.

Now, put up or shut-up http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...smic-event

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: