Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-08-2015, 04:56 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2015 06:20 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Quote:It can only be a reasonable expectation if you imagine that I'm trying to convince you of this, which is nothing but a fools errand. My interest is only in what others folks believe. They don't need to convince me to believe the same thing, that part I'm more comfortable working out on my own, and there are plenty of better sources for that, like the variety of works written by atheists philosophers, and scientist.

Yet just this morning it was shown that you are not capable of interpreting what some physicists call "accidents". So apparently you shouldn't be all that comfortable.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-08-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 03:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 03:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know about Chad, but I was quite clear that I make no assumption of intentionality because there is no evidence of intentionality.
That is not the same as assuming unintentionality. You don't seem to get that.

You're not being entirely clear. Do you agree with Free:

"We do not claim unintentionally. We say, "we don't know."

Do you believe that we're the product of unintentional, non-deliberate forces? Or would you say you lack a belief here, that you "don't know", as Free seems to imply?

On a personal note, just one question:

Do you have a cunt?

Just curious, and if so, please don't have a rack attack.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free's post
06-08-2015, 05:45 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 03:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 03:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know about Chad, but I was quite clear that I make no assumption of intentionality because there is no evidence of intentionality.
That is not the same as assuming unintentionality. You don't seem to get that.

You're not being entirely clear. Do you agree with Free:

"We do not claim unintentionally. We say, "we don't know."

Do you believe that we're the product of unintentional, non-deliberate forces? Or would you say you lack a belief here, that you "don't know", as Free seems to imply?

I don't know, but there is no evidence of intentionality. The evidence points to purely natural causes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
06-08-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 05:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Do you have a cunt?
Drinking Beverage

I laughed so loud my boss, a very proper nurse, came into my office to see what was so funny.

You are evil.

Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-08-2015, 09:42 PM
Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 05:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know, but there is no evidence of intentionality. The evidence points to purely natural causes.

Ah okay, so your sword cuts both ways, that there's no evidence of intentional and unintentional forces, deliberate or non-deliberate forces.

That your criticism would apply to myself, as well as to any atheist that might argue for unintentionality?

That both parties need to concede that they don't know, and lack the sort of evidence to believe one way or the other?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 09:44 PM
Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 05:10 PM)Free Wrote:  On a personal note, just one question:

Do you have a cunt?

That you can borrow? No.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 06:11 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 09:42 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 05:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know, but there is no evidence of intentionality. The evidence points to purely natural causes.

Ah okay, so your sword cuts both ways, that there's no evidence of intentional and unintentional forces, deliberate or non-deliberate forces.

That your criticism would apply to myself, as well as to any atheist that might argue for unintentionality?

That both parties need to concede that they don't know, and lack the sort of evidence to believe one way or the other?

No, I didn't say that and I don't see how you conclude that.

Since there is no evidence of intentionality, the working hypothesis would be that there isn't any.

Just as there is no evidence for pixies determining quantum events, the working hypothesis is that there are no pixies determining quantum events.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 06:22 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(07-08-2015 06:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  Since there is no evidence of intentionality, the working hypothesis would be that there isn't any.

So you think that if there is no evidence of intentionality, we should assume unintentionality, at least as a working hypothesis?

Why would I assume on the observation of any event, that it was intentional or unintentional, without any real evidence one way or the other?

I would assume you should start with a you don't know one way or the other, or can't hypothesize one way or the other.

On the basis of your logic, it would be just as reasonable to start with a working hypothesis that it was intentional, rather than unintentional.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 06:34 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(07-08-2015 06:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 06:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  Since there is no evidence of intentionality, the working hypothesis would be that there isn't any.

So you think that if there is no evidence of intentionality, we should assume unintentionality, at least as a working hypothesis?

Why would I assume on the observation of any event, that it was intentional or unintentional, without any real evidence one way or the other?

I would assume you should start with a you don't know one way or the other, or can't hypothesize one way or the other.

On the basis of your logic, it would be just as reasonable to start with a working hypothesis that it was intentional, rather than unintentional.

You are not understanding how claims work.

It is not reasonable to start with the hypothesis of something that has no evidence of existence.
Do you think it is just as reasonable to assume pixies as not?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 06:43 AM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2015 06:46 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(07-08-2015 06:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 06:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So you think that if there is no evidence of intentionality, we should assume unintentionality, at least as a working hypothesis?

Why would I assume on the observation of any event, that it was intentional or unintentional, without any real evidence one way or the other?

I would assume you should start with a you don't know one way or the other, or can't hypothesize one way or the other.

On the basis of your logic, it would be just as reasonable to start with a working hypothesis that it was intentional, rather than unintentional.

You are not understanding how claims work.

It is not reasonable to start with the hypothesis of something that has no evidence of existence.
Do you think it is just as reasonable to assume pixies as not?

I don't subscribe to the lack of belief motto. I believe pixies do not exist. It's not a working hypothesis, it's something I believe quite strongly. That all the evidence point to pixies merely being characters in fictional works, etc...

The only time in which I would say that I lack a belief, is if I couldn't decide one way or the other. I lack a belief in if you own a Japanese car, I have no reason to believe one way or the other, no basis to hypothesis one way or the other.

So please tell me why in an observation of an event, absent of evidence one way or the other, why I should default to a working hypothesis of unintentionality, rather than just acknowledging that I don't know, or lack the data to start with one working hypothesis over the other?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: