Um, where is....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-12-2014, 01:10 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(29-12-2014 12:29 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  I just stumbled upon this and couldn't help but think of Baba. It is the answers to all of his questions. Could somebody not on his ignore list do him the kindness of reposting this? The entire video is excellent but from 6:40 onward the similarities get outright spooky.




Certainly.




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 03:54 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(25-12-2014 01:28 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(25-12-2014 01:04 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Could you please summarize this guys main thesis in a few sentences? This will help me understand if you know what my thesis is. Thanks.

If it turns out his thesis is the same as mine, that's fine no problem, could you please summarize your arguments against his thesis?

Could you show how those arguments have been responded to and debunked with careful reason, and not just the flood of emotion driven nothing that is clogging my threads?

What I'm seeing from here is that some of you wish to assert my points are boring and obviously wrong etc, but you don't seem to be able to do anything other than assert that.

Prove me wrong please, thanks!

At 3:25am on Boxing Day?

No.

I can't.

I'm barely conscious enough to find the damn condoms I packed in that place I knew would be the easiest place to find them when I needed them.

Angry

Ha ha!

You check the TTA posts before you have sex?

Blimey!Please tell me it isn't true!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
29-12-2014, 03:55 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(28-12-2014 04:40 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  At some point the person hears about the god proposal. And then they reject that proposal based on their human reasoning.

Their rejection of one faith (religion) is based upon a competing faith in the infinite power of human reason to answer all questions. One person says god is all powerful, the next person says human reason is all powerful.

Are you not already committed to reason when you take part in conversations and form arguments? Are you engaged in reason right now?

If you are committed to reason, how can you justify it's reliability in the case of your own arguments? If you intend to provide reasons for your view, I would like to know how you justify those reasons.

Is it your view that disbelief in gods is the only position based in reason? If a person accepts the god proposal, are they also engaged in reason?

Could you give me an example of an Atheist or an Atheistic argument that claims reason is omnipotent?

(28-12-2014 04:40 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  You have to prove that the ability to observe is sufficient that you could see a god if there was one. Until you prove that, the fact that you can't observe a god says nothing at all about it's existence or non-existence.

Isn't it the case that in order to prove the ability to see god, I would need to understand the nature of god?

Is it really your view that I be called upon to understand the nature of what has not yet been proven to exist in order to know if it is possible to prove it in the first place?

(28-12-2014 04:40 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  The god proposal is unique, as it makes a claim about the fundamental nature of everything. And we don't even know what the word "everything" refers to. Thus, atheism is a claim to know what doesn't exist, in an arena we can't define.

Is reason a reliable means of determining anything? Please explain to me how you can justify your reason on all subjects other than god.

(28-12-2014 04:40 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Could you or I have come up with Einstein's space/time discoveries on our own? Probably not, right? That is, we easily recognize and admit there is a limit to our personal human reasoning ability. And we found this limit to our reasoning ability, using reason.

We all do this all the time. Could I have made it through med school? No way, don't have the brain for it. Could I be an astronaut? No way, not enough smarts. Could I get elected President? Nope, not savvy enough? All these limits of my reason, discovered with reason.

Is "reasoning ability" equivalent to "reason"?

When you make the claim that Atheism is founded upon faith in "reason" do you mean it is founded upon faith in the personal reasoning ability of the individual Atheist?

(28-12-2014 04:40 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  The atheist does the very same thing. They start with the absolutely true fact that human reason is useful for very many things, and then they make an unwarranted leap to the completely unproven assertion that human reason is therefore a credible authority on EVERYTHING.

Could you give me an example of something which reason is not useful for?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dark Phoenix's post
29-12-2014, 03:57 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(25-12-2014 01:33 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(25-12-2014 11:45 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  My posts will stop offering the same challenge when somebody meets that challenge by proving that your chosen authority, human reason, is qualified for the job at hand.

I'll give it one more try...

You are arguing against something that isn't being claimed. Reason can't prove reason and can't prove that there are no questions that reason can't answer. Big whoop. That's pretty much a given.

We use reason because it has proven itself to be a reliable way to determine what is real. That does NOT mean we expect that it can be used to answer any question. It means that it is the best tool we have discovered so far. We recognize that it is built on axioms and that it can be misapplied so all conclusions are tentative. We don't abandon reason as a tool because it can't be shown to be perfect. There aren't many perfect tools.

I doubt many people here would claim that answers found by reason are absolute or can't be overturned by new evidence. I doubt many would say that if a better method were found for determining "truth" (either in general or in a specific case) that they would not adopt that method. No such method has been found yet. The only real alternatives offered are faith which can be shown to prove anything at all which means it is useless or a zen-like refusal to even consider the question which ultimately leads nowhere.

When it comes to god claims, there is a reason that just about every reply you've gotten on the subject says that the person doesn't believe or doesn't accept that claim but that they also don't claim to know that god doesn't exist. That statement is based on the knowledge that the evidence is incomplete and that our reasoning can be fallible or that things have been set up (intentionally or not) to deceive us. We do the best we can with the tools we have. That means using reason and evidence and, for me anyway, that leads to not believing god claims.

You seem to be arguing for a Huxley-style agnosticism; that we can't KNOW the answer to the god question so we have to just leave it at "I don't know". If that works for you, go for it. I don't think that is an invalid position to take. I'm curious to find out if we CAN find any evidence to support the claim so I'm evaluating whatever the theists throw at me using the only tool I have that I have any confidence (not faith) in: reason. That doesn't mean I'm not aware of the limitations of reason in general and my ability to apply it specifically. Where I end up on the question is "I don't know" which seems to be what you want me to conclude in the first place. The only difference is that I add "I haven't found any reason to accept the claim, nor have I found any proof that it is false".

For me, and I think for most atheists, the statement "I do not believe X" is just another way of saying "I do not accept the claim that X is true". It is not the same as "I accept the claim that X is not true"; if I wanted to say that I'd say "I believe not-X". On the god claims I use reason to evaluate specific claims because that is what I have to work with. I fully understand and accept that reason may never be able to determine the answer one way or the other.

If you want to call that having faith in reason well bless your little heart. I have trust in reason based on experience; I have confidence in reason based on empirical evidence that it usually works; I do understand the limitations and I do not have unwarranted or unrealistic expectations of what it can do given limited evidence and human fallibility.

As an aside, my confidence level that you are actually a theist troll continues to edge upwards. Only somebody who lives by faith is likely to be so blind to the difference between faith and trust.

"There aren't many perfect tools."
What about Gordon?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
29-12-2014, 04:16 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(28-12-2014 08:32 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  The true reasonist surrenders to a process, and allows that process to take him/her where ever it leads. And so too it is with the faithful, an act of surrender.

What is a "true reasonist"?

(28-12-2014 08:32 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  What is that rejection built from? If I publicly reject your claim based on what my ouija board says, I then face the burden of demonstrating the qualifications of my ouija board.

If a person privately rejects a claim, then they aren't making a counter claim, and bear no burden. It's their business.

You recognize and state as your view that rejecting a claim is not also a counter claim and thus requires no burden. Why is the hypothetical case of the ouija board an exception to this view?

Why have you chosen to require a justification for the rejection which is not based in the content of the claim?

(28-12-2014 08:32 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Here we reach the question of whether religious and anti-religious beliefs are built of reason, and can thus be edited by reason. I'm not claiming there is a black/white answer here, but guess we probably significantly over estimate the influence of reason in such decisions. Evidence, all the emotional content on forums that discuss such issues.

To the degree one is not very sincere, the challenging process is pretty easily hijacked by ego and emotion etc.

Except for me of course, because I am the greatest Baba of all time, no ego here at all, completely devoid of ego, making me the most important person in all of human history. :-)

You originally cited such a challenge as an illogical waste of time, time which would be better spent challenging one's own beliefs. We now agree that a challenger of the beliefs of others with the "ideal" attitude is testing his own view as much as his opponent's. Do you still consider challenges illogical wastes of time?

(28-12-2014 08:32 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  The failure to find such knowledge could be a clue that knowledge is not what we should be looking for. Maybe knowledge is not a means that can be used to reach the very human desired ends we seek?

Could you give me an example of a "very human desired end" which is not and does not require knowledge?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dark Phoenix's post
29-12-2014, 04:17 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(26-12-2014 06:25 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(26-12-2014 04:34 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Atheists, both gnostic and agnostic, more commonly have to endure a real sense of loss when losing their faith....

I think you are on to something useful here, thank you.

Yes, many inhabitants of atheist forums are former theists. And like you say, they may have suffered a real loss when their religious faith fell away. I agree this is not a small matter for some people, and that this suffering should be recognized and respected.

Imagine such a sincere person has overcome that loss and finally become comfortable in accepting a new ideology called atheism, and then....

Some dickhead with a stupid name like Baba Bozo comes along, and tries to take away the atheist faith too. Such a dickhead is asking a lot, probably way too much.

The part of my dickheadedness that I really do sincerely question sometimes is whether I should be in the business of fucking around with people's faith, even if they adamantly and repeatedly state they are very interested in doing reason. Why do I insist on believing them despite the readily available evidence to the contrary?

I'm probably a victim of my own wishful thinking, hearing what I want to hear, seeing what I want to see, my own considerable ego needs, and my own seemingly incurable desire to rip things apart so I can see how they work.

The real deal probably is that most of you guys have a strong need to feel you are very different from, and thus superior to, theists. You have a right to that, and I should probably mind my own business and leave you to it in peace.

Just like on theist forums, a small number of you probably are truly sincere about pursuing an inquiry where ever it will lead, whatever the cost to whatever personal identity you've created out of your ideology.

It would be better if I was wise enough to know how to identify such folks among the throngs of those who merely claim to be such. I am not so wise, and so tend to aim reasoned rhetorical weapons of mass ego destruction in all directions hoping I might somehow hit an appropriate target.

I'm pretty sure humans take on theist and/or atheist beliefs for emotional reasons, not intellectual reasons, and thus those views are highly unlikely to be edited with reasoned arguments.

This is true of me too. I insist with great sincerity that "nobody knows" even though I couldn't possibly know such a thing. I see it, but I do it anyway, another prisoner of emotion apparently.

If one's views on such things can not be edited with logic, I am being illogical by trying to address the situation with logic. I'm most likely being illogical by trying to address the situation at all.

I should probably just stick to trying to win the dickhead contest, something I'm actually qualified to do.

You guys suck! Give me bad rep points you stingy bastards!! :-)

Re "I'm pretty sure humans take on theist and/or atheist beliefs for emotional reasons, not intellectual reasons,"

Oops. Gross generalisation.

Re "You guys suck! Give me bad rep points you stingy bastards!!"

Oops. Who are "you guys?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
29-12-2014, 04:38 AM
RE: Um, where is....
Regarding 'true reasonists', I think he meant pure logic. And Gordon would be wrong about it being like faith, as faith starts with a conclusion being correct and finds things to affirm it, while logic/reason starts from premises and works it way up from there. Faith didn't invent the telephone, give us modern medicine that improves quality of life and longevity, create computers, and so on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 04:43 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(29-12-2014 04:38 AM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Faith didn't invent the telephone, give us modern medicine that improves quality of life and longevity, create computers, and so on.

That's what *you* say but really what happened is that the Mother Church made all those inventions and the Devil worshippers called scientists claimed them for their own.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 05:05 AM
RE: Um, where is....
I just read a Facebook post where a fundamentalist homophobe gave God credit for Turing's achievements. Poe's law is strong here.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 05:09 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(29-12-2014 04:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:38 AM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Faith didn't invent the telephone, give us modern medicine that improves quality of life and longevity, create computers, and so on.

That's what *you* say but really what happened is that the Mother Church made all those inventions and the Devil worshippers called scientists claimed them for their own.

PRAISE JIBBERS!

[Image: NwRpns2.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: