Poll: If you are an atheist, how do you define atheist?
1) Gods do not exist.
2) No gods exist.
3) Do not accept the claims that gods exist.
4) Do not accept the claims that gods exist due to lack of evidence.
[Show Results]
 
What do you mean by "Atheist"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2015, 11:39 AM
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 11:18 AM)qqq Wrote:  Glue sniffers here at Non-Thinkin Atheist or Theist, appear to encourage unholy fuck practices, due to their inferiority complex.

The glue sniffers are like the 50's sci-fi movie where the towns people shoot the aliens first and never attempt rational, logical common sense communication with the aliens/extraterrestrials.

A hole-in-one-fuck is what glue sniffer apparrently like to do to them selves based on many of the post Ive come across here. Other of their posts alluding to non-consensual fuck practice's.

Sad lack of moral and intellectual integrity are words they do not understand, just any words they do not want to hear they attempt their witch doctor magic cursing onto the person they want to fuck.

{W}holey fuck can be either a local special-case wholeness fuck or a cosmic totality fuck.

The male matursbation, hole-less fuck, tho very common is one graphic the glue sniffers have yet to produce. Give them time. Nothing is sacred to them, least of all rational, logical intellect and moral integrity. imho

Heart q3 Drinking Beverage

(29-08-2015 06:41 AM)qqq Wrote:  I think you may mean hole-in-one fuck.
Holy fuck may be related to only those that are consentual.
{W}holy fuck is a totality differrent scenario, all-together
A hole-less fuck is male masturbation tho a hole is enesscapably a part of the scenario, alltho only as an after-word, or after-verse, or after-thought. imho
Drinking Beverage q3 Heart

[Image: laughter.gif]

"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
29-08-2015, 12:35 PM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2015 12:40 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 10:37 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I find the notion of it all being a fluke (and by fluke I mean "it operates by the universal laws of physics and nothing else") to be the only viable explanation. I think any other explanation borders on the insane. I am not half-in/half-out, because to me half-out is fucking insane. Try a little harder not to confuse "I admit to the possibility that we are are all inside the Matrix" with "I think we might be inside the Matrix".

I think you're confusing what I was referring to you being half in half out about. It was about the fluke explanation, and not deism.

If we fixed the analogy of the Matrix, with this in mind it would be this: “I admit that the only viable explanation is we’re are all inside the matrix, with “I think we might be inside the Matrix”. As you can see in the corrected analogy, it’s one and the same.

The half in half out part, is the part where you find the fluke explanation to be the only viable explanation, the “only compelling argument”, and yet it’s not compelling enough, or viable enough for you to believe it’s a fluke.

You seem to be saying, it’s the only viable explanation, the only compelling argument, yet I don’t believe it.

Quote:Well, as I originally pointed out, you can test to see if they're your parents, but you choose not to, so it's a different situation. You can falsify the statement, "These two people are my biological parents" by conducting genetic tests. I, however, cannot test to see if there was a Prime Mover outside of space-time. It's unfalsifiable.

So is the position that it’s a fluke. Is your reluctance to believe it’s a fluke, based on a reluctance to hold unfalsiable beliefs?


Quote:Well, as I originally pointed out, you can test to see if they're your parents, but you choose not to, so it's a different situation. You can falsify the statement, "These two people are my biological parents" by conducting genetic tests. I, however, cannot test to see if there was a Prime Mover outside of space-time. It's unfalsifiable.....There are a nearly-infinite number of concepts which are unfalsifiable. We reject all of them.

Most Darwinian explanations are unfalsifiable, and I doubt you reject them as a result. You likely accept them because they are plausible.

Richard Dawkins concedes that much in this interview:

“IC: One problem with these Darwinian explanations, however convincing they are, is that they aren’t really falsifiable.

RD: That is a very common criticism, and it’s probably a valid one. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, of course. I think from my point of view—I won’t say it doesn’t matter whether they’re right or wrong, it’s just sufficient in some cases, for me, to be able to say, Well, at least it’s not totally implausible from a Darwinian point of view.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11533...op-atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 12:46 PM
What do you mean by "Atheist"?
[Image: b012da8ff0c3747f9d46c4ae59ef2791.jpg]

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
29-08-2015, 12:48 PM
What do you mean by "Atheist"?
[Image: 1efd92b7de2892e7ebb502899366079b.jpg]

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
29-08-2015, 12:51 PM
What do you mean by "Atheist"?
[Image: 26efe6248bfb40bbbe91f083535cd47b.jpg]

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
29-08-2015, 01:06 PM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2015 01:10 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 12:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 10:37 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I find the notion of it all being a fluke (and by fluke I mean "it operates by the universal laws of physics and nothing else") to be the only viable explanation. I think any other explanation borders on the insane. I am not half-in/half-out, because to me half-out is fucking insane. Try a little harder not to confuse "I admit to the possibility that we are are all inside the Matrix" with "I think we might be inside the Matrix".

I think you're confusing what I was referring to you being half in half out about. It was about the fluke explanation, and not deism.

If we fixed the analogy of the Matrix, with this in mind it would be this: “I admit that the only viable explanation is we’re are all inside the matrix, with “I think we might be inside the Matrix”. As you can see in the corrected analogy, it’s one and the same.

You're projecting again. The universe works by natural rules, which you choose to call a "fluke", and I've decided to accept this weird definition because it does not inherent harm to describe it that way, except when imaginary concepts are layered on top of what we actually know. I am not the one layering imaginary concepts on top of known science.

We cannot observe outside our universe. Cannot. We can only mathematically surmise about the moment of the Big Bang, though we can get very, very close to that instant. Within the universe we can observe, things operate by physical laws. We used to think it was magic; now we know better. No magic in the universe.

People who used to think it was magic now propose a new magic, outside the areas we can observe. I think it is pretty fucking clear by now that there's no magic. Just because you moved the magic from the (now) testable world back into a region where we cannot see to test does not mean it is real. I cannot be any clearer about this. Because I cannot falsify something I cannot observe/measure, I cannot declare it falsified. I cannot falsify the Matrix idea, that the whole universe is just a computer simulation, because there is no way from our vantage point to gather such data to falsify it; that said, it's patently ridiculous, and clearly a made-up story. Just like your religion.

The difference is you get to walk around talking about your delusional story about magic, and gain social acceptance, whereas if you walked up to people and said we all live in the Matrix, they would back away slowly. My contention is that the two are the exact same thing, if people really stopped to think about it.

(29-08-2015 12:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The half in half out part, is the part where you find the fluke explanation to be the only viable explanation, the “only compelling argument”, and yet it’s not compelling enough, or viable enough for you to believe it’s a fluke.

You seem to be saying, it’s the only viable explanation, the only compelling argument, yet I don’t believe it.

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm not "seeming" to say anything, other than your psychological projection problem. I'm saying that I don't need to formulate imaginary beliefs; I can see for my damned self how things work, more than clearly enough to recognize the way the universe operates, and we have long passed the level of understanding (even though there are still many things we don't yet fully understand) it takes to convince me fully of the natural order of the universe.

I'm talking the laws of physics. You're talking magic. You can call it God, even the Desist version, but it's still magic. Magic is not a viable explanation anymore, it is insanity. We just give religious-magic insanity a pass out of cultural tradition.

And I don't give a fuck if you believe that I believe the universe works the way it works.

(29-08-2015 12:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Well, as I originally pointed out, you can test to see if they're your parents, but you choose not to, so it's a different situation. You can falsify the statement, "These two people are my biological parents" by conducting genetic tests. I, however, cannot test to see if there was a Prime Mover outside of space-time. It's unfalsifiable.

So is the position that it’s a fluke. Is your reluctance to believe it’s a fluke, based on a reluctance to hold unfalsiable beliefs?

What does this mean? This makes no sense. Reword.

(29-08-2015 12:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Well, as I originally pointed out, you can test to see if they're your parents, but you choose not to, so it's a different situation. You can falsify the statement, "These two people are my biological parents" by conducting genetic tests. I, however, cannot test to see if there was a Prime Mover outside of space-time. It's unfalsifiable.....There are a nearly-infinite number of concepts which are unfalsifiable. We reject all of them.

Most Darwinian explanations are unfalsifiable, and I doubt you reject them as a result. You likely accept them because they are plausible.

Richard Dawkins concedes that much in this interview:

“IC: One problem with these Darwinian explanations, however convincing they are, is that they aren’t really falsifiable.

RD: That is a very common criticism, and it’s probably a valid one. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, of course. I think from my point of view—I won’t say it doesn’t matter whether they’re right or wrong, it’s just sufficient in some cases, for me, to be able to say, Well, at least it’s not totally implausible from a Darwinian point of view.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11533...op-atheism

Fuck, have we already reached the quote-mining phase of this discussion? *sigh*

Okay, back in context:

Isaac Chotiner: Your book The Selfish Gene talks a lot about Darwinian altruism: How the promulgation of the species causes us to act in generous ways. Some people have said that altruism is something distinct—when you go out of your way to do something nice that’s not about the promulgation of your tribe.

Richard Dawkins: People who criticize
The Selfish Gene like that often haven’t read it. The selfish gene accounts for altruism toward kin and individuals who might be in a position to reciprocate your altruism.

Now, there is another kind of altruism that seems to go beyond that, a kind of super-altruism, which humans appear to have. And I think that does need a Darwinian explanation. I would offer something like this: We, in our ancestral past, lived in small bands or clans, which fostered kin altruism and reciprocal altruism, because in these small bands, each individual was most likely to be surrounded by relatives and individuals who he was going to meet again and again in his life. And so the rule of thumb based into the brain by natural selection would not have been, Be nice to your kin and be nice to potential reciprocators. It would have been, Be nice to everybody, because everybody would have been included.

It’s just like sexual lust. We have sexual lust even though we know perfectly well that, because we’re using contraception, it is not going to result in the propagation of our genes. That doesn’t matter, because the lust was built into our brains at a time when there was no contraception.

IC: One problem with these Darwinian explanations, however convincing they are, is that they aren’t really falsifiable.

RD: That is a very common criticism, and it’s probably a valid one. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, of course. I think from my point of view—I won’t say it doesn’t matter whether they’re right or wrong, it’s just sufficient in some cases, for me, to be able to say, Well, at least it’s not totally implausible from a Darwinian point of view.

"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
29-08-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
"RD: That is a very common criticism, and it’s probably a valid one. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, of course. I think from my point of view—I won’t say it doesn’t matter whether they’re right or wrong, it’s just sufficient in some cases, for me, to be able to say, Well, at least it’s not totally implausible from a Darwinian point of view."

Evolution is falsifiable. The explanation of his "super-altruism" is testable by looking at other species as well. And sure enough, we see other species that exhibit altruism towards more than just kin but also towards those within their small communities. And sure enough, if you look at the tendency for altruistic behavior, it tends to be concentrated towards individuals who reciprocate these altruistic tendencies.

Is this particular explanation within the context of evolution falsifiable? It is as falsifiable as any other explanation derived from within an evolutionary framework.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
29-08-2015, 02:13 PM
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 02:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "RD: That is a very common criticism, and it’s probably a valid one. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, of course. I think from my point of view—I won’t say it doesn’t matter whether they’re right or wrong, it’s just sufficient in some cases, for me, to be able to say, Well, at least it’s not totally implausible from a Darwinian point of view."

Evolution is falsifiable. The explanation of his "super-altruism" is testable by looking at other species as well. And sure enough, we see other species that exhibit altruism towards more than just kin but also towards those within their small communities. And sure enough, if you look at the tendency for altruistic behavior, it tends to be concentrated towards individuals who reciprocate these altruistic tendencies.

Is this particular explanation within the context of evolution falsifiable? It is as falsifiable as any other explanation derived from within an evolutionary framework.

Right. I was just amazed to see that quote "mined" in order to try to make it sound like he was "admitting" that "most" of evolutionary theory is itself unfalsifiable, when he's referring to a specific question. That's so dishonest it amazes me.

They're like ambush predators, sitting at the water's edge, waiting for a quote to float by that they can take out of context to make it say what they wanted to be true all along. Except it never does. Poor things.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
29-08-2015, 02:46 PM
What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 02:13 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 02:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "RD: That is a very common criticism, and it’s probably a valid one. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, of course. I think from my point of view—I won’t say it doesn’t matter whether they’re right or wrong, it’s just sufficient in some cases, for me, to be able to say, Well, at least it’s not totally implausible from a Darwinian point of view."

Evolution is falsifiable. The explanation of his "super-altruism" is testable by looking at other species as well. And sure enough, we see other species that exhibit altruism towards more than just kin but also towards those within their small communities. And sure enough, if you look at the tendency for altruistic behavior, it tends to be concentrated towards individuals who reciprocate these altruistic tendencies.

Is this particular explanation within the context of evolution falsifiable? It is as falsifiable as any other explanation derived from within an evolutionary framework.

Right. I was just amazed to see that quote "mined" in order to try to make it sound like he was "admitting" that "most" of evolutionary theory is itself unfalsifiable, when he's referring to a specific question. That's so dishonest it amazes me.

They're like ambush predators, sitting at the water's edge, waiting for a quote to float by that they can take out of context to make it say what they wanted to be true all along. Except it never does. Poor things.

It isn't the first time Tomasia has been blatantly dishonest on the forum. I've caught him retroactively altering his own posts.

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
29-08-2015, 03:13 PM
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 02:13 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Right. I was just amazed to see that quote "mined" in order to try to make it sound like he was "admitting" that "most" of evolutionary theory is itself unfalsifiable, when he's referring to a specific question. That's so dishonest it amazes me.

They're like ambush predators, sitting at the water's edge, waiting for a quote to float by that they can take out of context to make it say what they wanted to be true all along. Except it never does. Poor things.

That's my fault. I had read the quote in another article that cited it, that I assumed naively was in context, without reading the full interview myself. This is the original article:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view...rd_dawkins

I clicked on original article, and cited that when I posted it here. Thought I think unfalsifiable explanations extend to a variety of similar explanations as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: