Um, where is....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-12-2014, 11:34 PM
RE: Um, where is....
(26-12-2014 04:42 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  .... Without first demonstrating that reason is qualified to answer god questions.

Okay... if reason isn't qualified to answer the god question... What is?

(26-12-2014 04:42 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  You seem to be proposing that because reason is indeed excellent for evaluating many claims,

I think it has been pointed out else where that reason has done a bang up job so far of doing a heck of a lot of things.

(26-12-2014 04:42 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  ... It is therefore qualified to evaluate all claims, even the biggest claims about the most ultimate fundamental questions. It's the same old unproven leap.

Again... what would you suggests then to us instead of reason?

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 01:27 AM
RE: Um, where is....
The "god question".....

Bobo, you keep asserting that we need to prove that reason is adequate enough to approach "the god question".

Can you even define the god question? Can you tell us what it is we are suppose to be questioning in terms that would even allow us to use our limited reasoning abilities in order to discern what relevancy that question or answer might have for us?

If you can't, then your quest is meaningless and your time here or anywhere else is wasted.

I have a pretty strong hunch that what you are after is something that you haven't the faintest clue as to what it really is. That's okay, a lot of us have been after the same thing for quite a while. Some of us are quite satisfied to let it fall where it may if the answer doesn't turn up.

I don't know.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 07:27 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(25-12-2014 08:26 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  .... the Real Life Debate With Atheists section?
Fundamentalist Agnostic,

..what...the..fuck is a fundamentalist agnostic? Shocking


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
27-12-2014, 07:49 AM
RE: Um, where is....
Hi Earthling, thanks for your reply. I am from the planet Bozonia, take me to your leader. :-)

(26-12-2014 11:20 PM)earthling Wrote:  Listen Bozo, YES, the typical back-and-forth on the topic of God-meme has something to do with needing proof, but it's those who present an idea who are required to provide proof!

If you should read the following carefully and honestly, (no need to acknowledge anything publicly) you will see that I agree with you, more than you agree with yourself.

What members here don't grasp is that there are two groups of people making competing claims.

All I'm doing in my way too many posts is holding BOTH these groups of people to THE VERY SAME STANDARD that you just articulated, and that we both agree on.

That is, the need for those who assert to provide proof. This holding of all claimants to the same standard is called "intellectual honesty."

----------------

1) THEISTS assert that holy books are the best qualified authority on the subject of gods.

But they can't prove it. They try sometimes, but it always fall short. Even most of them agree with this, which is why most theists will acknowledge that in the end their position is built from faith.

----------------

1) ATHEISTS assert that human reason is the best qualified authority on the subject of gods. But they can't prove it. Perhaps because many don't even realize they are asserting it?

In fact, most of the time they won't even attempt to prove their claim, because they have such a deep unexamined faith in the infinite power of human reason, that they take it's qualifications to address the god question as an obvious given, not an assertion requiring proof.

----------------

So, most theists realize they are using faith, while most atheists appear to not realize they are using faith.

This is actually not that surprising, given that theism has been an organized enterprise for thousands of years, whereas atheism has been mostly a private personal matter until recent centuries, or maybe even just decades.

Thus, very generally speaking, the theism community is, on average, more sophisticated about these matters. Not because they're smarter, only because they have a much longer more developed cultural history to draw upon.

SUMMARY:

1) Two groups of people.

2) Each making a competing claim.

3) Neither of which has been proven.

Thus, while it's entirely reasonable for members to not accept theist claims due to a lack of proof of the qualifications of theist authorities....

.... the very same thing applies to atheist claims for the very same reason.

What you're seeing in my posts is that I'm actually a better atheist than most of the members here. I am applying entirely valid atheist principles TO ALL CLAIMS... BY ALL PARTIES.

I'm not just cherry picking only the people I wish to debunk, and then challenging only their chosen authorities, as most members here are doing.

The name for that process of cherry picking is called "intellectual dishonesty". That process of intellectual dishonesty is NOT reason, whatever other members may claim or however hysterically they may claim it. That process of intellectual dishonesty is merely ideology.

And we will NEVER win an ideological battle with theists, because they have been the world reigning champions at ideology for thousands of years. This is utterly proven by the fact that to this day, even in the modern science era, they still have billions of followers in every corner of the world.

The only way to prevail over theism is to sell reason, and NOT a competing blind faith ideology, as is being done all across this forum and the other atheist forums as well.

All that challenging complete, I should finally add that it's reasonable that most members here don't YET grasp any of this, as I suspect most of them are still in their twenties.

It wouldn't be logical or fair to expect anyone whose just been an adult a few years to have answered all these questions which have perplexed the best minds humanity can offer for thousands of years, even if such youngsters should be absolutely sure that nobody can teach them anything, because they already know everything. :-)

For these last two paragraphs I DEMAND that some of you stingy bastards cough more of the negative rep points I need to one day become the most notorious bozo bastard ever to land on these pages. You read those paragraphs didn't you, so pay up you lazy fuckers!!! :-) He he....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 08:07 AM
RE: Um, where is....
Ok, perhaps it will help to offer a tangible example of intellectual honesty.

As a Fundamentalist Agnostic :-) my deeply held position is that "nobody knows".

Joking clever word play aside, I truly do sincerely believe that"nobody knows", and like a good fundamentalist I shout it rudely from the roof tops at every opportunity. Sorry, my wife won't let me grow a Taliban beard, or I'd upload the photo as further proof. Rats!

Ok, so let's examine my claim that I am in a position to know that "nobody knows". In order for that to be true....

1) I would have to know everybody and....

2) I would have to know what The Answer is not.

#2 is especially hilarious, given that while I'm claiming that "nobody knows" I'm at the same time claiming to know what The Answer is not. Pretty funny, eh? :-)

But watch. Watch carefully. Knowing all this, and being willing to admit it publicly, doesn't edit my position. I still believe "nobody knows" with the same earnestness.

You are right to call this ridiculous nonsense, and I agree.

What you can learn from this is that ridiculous nonsense is not the theist condition. Ridiculous nonsense is not the atheist condition. Ridiculous nonsense is not the fundamentalist agnostic condition.

Ridiculous nonsense is the HUMAN condition.

Birds fly, fish swim, and humans know stuff. That's how we survive. The need to know is so strong, so deep, so primal, that when we come to something we can't possibly know, we make shit up.

No, not just those people over there.

You're human, right? You too.

Scientists are human, them too.

Me too.

Everybody.

Only when readers grasp that making shit up is the human condition, and not just something limited to those stoooopid people over there, will they be mature enough to take their inquiry to a new level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 10:40 AM (This post was last modified: 27-12-2014 10:45 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Um, where is....
(26-12-2014 04:42 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
Quote:So let's consider what approach one might take in assessing new claims as they come in. Should we accept ordinary claims based on ordinary evidence? Well, we might as well. It isn't harmful to accept your claim of what you ate for breakfast. It isn't harmful to accept your claim of the route you take to work. However if some important decision rests upon the claim, especially if the claims has a low "prior probability" we would tend to expect the claim to be backed by a standard of evidence consistent with its impact and with its extraordinary nature.

...
You seem to be proposing that because reason is indeed excellent for evaluating many claims, it is therefore qualified to evaluate all claims, even the biggest claims about the most ultimate fundamental questions. It's the same old unproven leap.

A proof that would require: Reason.

So your premise is: You can't use reason because that would cause infinite regress.

Prove it.

Look, let's keep this simple shall we? My reason and my intellect is me. I exist as a system that processes external inputs to produce output. If we can't agree on that much then there is little point continuing the conversation.

The processes within the system labelled "me" exist. The inputs to that system exist. Wherever you draw the system boundary "me" must reasonably contain my "reason". The system boundary whatever that boundary may be (brain in a vat, or otherwise) must include my reasoning processes. So it is meaningless to dismiss my reason. It is meaningless to propose to disarm me of my internal processes. My internal processes are. Cogito ergo sum.

So let's forget reason and focus on what we are really talking about. My internal processes. Why do my internal processes product a "false" output for the proposition "do you hold a doxastic attitude that the probability of Thor existing as a deity is greater than 0.5"? It is because no corresponding belief exists within my system boundary. Does the absence of that belief within my system boundary correspond to a property of the real world? Am I "correct" in my disbelief of Thor as a deity? That's not the question here. It is possible I am incorrect. It is possible that my model of the world within my system boundary would be in closer correspondence with the world outside my system boundary if such a belief was installed within me. Yet independent of whether Thor exists as a deity I am a Thor-atheist. I do not hold the belief. That is the state of the system called "me".

The belief must be either installed within my system boundary or not installed within my system boundary. I can either hold that belief within my system boundary or not hold that belief within my system boundary. I propose to you again that if you want to install that belief you must do so as an input to me as a system. You must supply an input that changes my internal state such that the belief is installed. You must interact with my internal processes via the inputs that exist to those processes. My internal processes codify the knowledge that false inputs exist. My internal processes have codified means of assessing whether to install a new belief based on the input provided.

If you are unable to provide an input to my internal processes that successfully install the new belief, the belief is not installed. Again this is basic. I'm sure you can understand it. I'm sure you can understand then what it means to be an atheist.

An atheist in the sense I mean it is a system that is capable of accepting god claims as input and performing processing on the god claims but after doing so contains no installed god belief.

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
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
27-12-2014, 10:47 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(27-12-2014 10:40 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So your premise is: You can't use reason because that would cause infinite regress.

Apologies, no, that has nothing to do with my premise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 11:23 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(27-12-2014 07:27 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(25-12-2014 08:26 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  .... the Real Life Debate With Atheists section?
Fundamentalist Agnostic,

..what...the..fuck is a fundamentalist agnostic? Shocking

Baba Bozo isn't a fundamentalist agnostic which is a horrid mix of contradictory terms. What he purports to be is more accurately described as a militant ignostic. An ignostic theist or deist is as much of a garble as a fundamentalist agnostic though so he's either going the route of blind faith, irrationality or he's blowing smoke up your ass.

My vote is on the smoke up your ass. His actions to date demonstrate that he's well to the believing side of the theist-atheist spectrum. He's also made some fairly telling comments that demonstrate that he believes that he has some answers, which is direct contradiction to all his talk of 'nobody can know anything about god.' That makes it pretty obvious that it's a load of dishonest horseshit.

---
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
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
27-12-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(27-12-2014 10:47 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  .... That has nothing to do with my premise.

*Holds up hand*

Can I ask for a working, legible explanation of your premise please?


Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 11:37 AM
RE: Um, where is....
(27-12-2014 11:27 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Can I ask for a working, legible explanation of your premise please?

Sure, go for it. Read some of my posts, and see if you can boil my main points down in to the kind of concise summary you seem to be seeking.

This exercise will help you understand how interested you actually are in this investigation, and it might help me understand how well I'm expressing myself.

If you wind up putting some real work in to this, who knows, I might do so too. Anything could happen! :-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: