igtheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2014, 04:41 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 03:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 03:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Still waiting to hear about this academy of which you speak. Drinking Beverage

Do not hold your breath.

Yeah, I didn't really expect to get a clear answer, but this refusal shows how dishonest you are.

Why are you even here? Consider

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
17-05-2014, 05:50 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 04:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 03:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Do not hold your breath.

Yeah, I didn't really expect to get a clear answer, but this refusal shows how dishonest you are.

Why are you even here? Consider

I like to be here. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 05:52 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 05:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 04:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yeah, I didn't really expect to get a clear answer, but this refusal shows how dishonest you are.

Why are you even here? Consider

I like to be here. Drinking Beverage

Good. We needed a replacement for PleaseJesus.

After all, you can't tell where rock bottom is until you see someone get there and start digging.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
17-05-2014, 05:55 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 03:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So no I would recommend you not label yourself as an igtheist because in doing so, you would be aligning yourself with a self-refuting position that has been abandoned by those in the academy for half a century.

Thumbsup

Still waiting to hear about this academy of which you speak. Drinking Beverage

I was reading up on LP and came across this
"The Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle propounded logical positivism starting in the late 1920s." Could this be Jeremy's academy?

I don't know if this applies to anyone else when they read JEW's posts but they all sound like he's saying something but not quite. They are unclear, unecessarily so. Either he is brilliant beyond my grasp Rolleyes or he speaks in pseudo-gibberish.

Mostly I get the impression that he simply cuts and pastes to make it sound like the ideas are his but he doesn't quite pull it off. The thoughts don't flow well together, the references are veiled or unexplained. I'm all for being clear, concise and to the point and I don't get that from J.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 05:55 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 03:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Still waiting to hear about this academy of which you speak. Drinking Beverage

I was reading up on LP and came across this
"The Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle propounded logical positivism starting in the late 1920s." Could this be Jeremy's academy?

I don't know if this applies to anyone else when they read JEW's posts but they all sound like he's saying something but not quite. They are unclear, unecessarily so. Either he is brilliant beyond my grasp Rolleyes or he speaks in pseudo-gibberish.

Mostly I get the impression that he simply cuts and pastes to make it sound like the ideas are his but he doesn't quite pull it off. The thoughts don't flow well together, the references are veiled or unexplained. I'm all for being clear, concise and to the point and I don't get that from J.

I googled the word academy.

Evidently this was too hard or required too much typing for anyone here to do it.

This is what I got.

2. a society or institution of distinguished scholars, artists, or scientists, that aims to promote and maintain standards in its particular field.

"the National Academy of Sciences"

-the community of scholars; academe.

"a writing and publishing world outside the academy"
synonyms: academia, academe, the academic world
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 06:59 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 07:17 AM)John Wrote:  Indulge me.

In a chapter of his 1936 book Language, Truth, and Logic, A. J. Ayer argued that one could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical.

This reasoning was based on the "verification principle" espoused by logical positivists in the early twentieth century.

Logical positivists' verifiability principle—that only statements about the world that are empirically verifiable or logically necessary are cognitively meaningful—cast theology, metaphysics, and evaluative judgements, such as ethics and aesthetics, as cognitively meaningless "pseudostatements" that were but emotively meaningful.[1] The verificationist program's fundamental suppositions had varying formulations, which evolved from the 1920s to 1950s into the milder version logical empiricism.[2] Yet all three of verificationism's shared basic suppositions—verifiability criterion, analytic/synthetic gap, and observation/theory gap[3]—were by the 1960s found irreparably untenable, signaling the demise of verificationism and, with it, of the entire movement launched by logical positivism.

So no I would recommend you not label yourself as an igtheist because in doing so, you would be aligning yourself with a self-refuting position that has been abandoned by those in the academy for half a century.

Thumbsup

One teensy weensy problem.
No one agreed with your presuppositionalist nonsense they taught you, or that anything is based on a "verificationist program". There are countless other good reasons why igtheism makes more sense than any other position. The first is, that there is no coherent definition of a "god", (quite apart from the fact there is no evidence for any). If we need any advice on what to call ourselves, Preacher Man, we'll be sure and ask. Did it ever even cross your mind to *ask* why people here call themselves that ? Are you like 12 ?

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
17-05-2014, 07:22 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 06:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  In a chapter of his 1936 book Language, Truth, and Logic, A. J. Ayer argued that one could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical.

This reasoning was based on the "verification principle" espoused by logical positivists in the early twentieth century.

Logical positivists' verifiability principle—that only statements about the world that are empirically verifiable or logically necessary are cognitively meaningful—cast theology, metaphysics, and evaluative judgements, such as ethics and aesthetics, as cognitively meaningless "pseudostatements" that were but emotively meaningful.[1] The verificationist program's fundamental suppositions had varying formulations, which evolved from the 1920s to 1950s into the milder version logical empiricism.[2] Yet all three of verificationism's shared basic suppositions—verifiability criterion, analytic/synthetic gap, and observation/theory gap[3]—were by the 1960s found irreparably untenable, signaling the demise of verificationism and, with it, of the entire movement launched by logical positivism.

So no I would recommend you not label yourself as an igtheist because in doing so, you would be aligning yourself with a self-refuting position that has been abandoned by those in the academy for half a century.

Thumbsup

One teensy weensy problem.
No one agreed with your presuppositionalist nonsense they taught you, or that anything is based on a "verificationist program". There are countless other good reasons why igtheism makes more sense than any other position. The first is, that there is no coherent definition of a "god", (quite apart from the fact there is no evidence for any). If we need any advice on what to call ourselves, Preacher Man, we'll be sure and ask. Did it ever even cross your mind to *ask* why people here call themselves that ? Are you like 12 ?

igtheism is a view that is based on a self-refuting premise.

Claim it as your own if you wish. Personally, I just told the man why I did not think he should label himself as such.

anyway, all I would need to do is give him a definition of "God" when speaking with him and he would no longer be an igtheist, unless he reverted to claiming it violated the principle of verification which itself is self-refuting.

So I really do not see the point.Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 07:31 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2014 05:58 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 07:22 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 06:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  One teensy weensy problem.
No one agreed with your presuppositionalist nonsense they taught you, or that anything is based on a "verificationist program". There are countless other good reasons why igtheism makes more sense than any other position. The first is, that there is no coherent definition of a "god", (quite apart from the fact there is no evidence for any). If we need any advice on what to call ourselves, Preacher Man, we'll be sure and ask. Did it ever even cross your mind to *ask* why people here call themselves that ? Are you like 12 ?

igtheism is a view that is based on a self-refuting premise.

Claim it as your own if you wish. Personally, I just told the man why I did not think he should label himself as such.

anyway, all I would need to do is give him a definition of "God" when speaking with him and he would no longer be an igtheist, unless he reverted to claiming it violated the principle of verification which itself is self-refuting.

So I really do not see the point.Drinking Beverage

Unless, your definition is :
a. incoherent
b. he doesn't agree that the definition you give him means anything to him
c. he doesn't agree with you.

When you get all big and grown up, maybe you'll learn the definitions Biola taught you are worthless in the real world. You really should ask for your money back.
What you declare to be the truth, your holiness, is meaningful only to you.

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
17-05-2014, 07:37 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 07:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 07:22 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  igtheism is a view that is based on a self-refuting premise.

Claim it as your own if you wish. Personally, I just told the man why I did not think he should label himself as such.

anyway, all I would need to do is give him a definition of "God" when speaking with him and he would no longer be an igtheist, unless he reverted to claiming it violated the principle of verification which itself is self-refuting.

So I really do not see the point.Drinking Beverage

Unless, your definition is :
a. incoherent
b. he doesn't agree that the definition you give him means anything to him
c. he doesn't agree with you.

When you get all big and grown up, maybe you'll learn the definitions Biola taught you are worthless in the real world. You really should as for your money back.
What you declare to be the truth, your holiness, is meaningful only to you.

Strange how only you take issue with the definitions of God taught at Biola.

Did you request to go there and get denied or something? Seems you have a personal vendetta against them.... Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 07:41 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 07:37 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 07:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Unless, your definition is :
a. incoherent
b. he doesn't agree that the definition you give him means anything to him
c. he doesn't agree with you.

When you get all big and grown up, maybe you'll learn the definitions Biola taught you are worthless in the real world. You really should as for your money back.
What you declare to be the truth, your holiness, is meaningful only to you.

Strange how only you take issue with the definitions of God taught at Biola.

Did you request to go there and get denied or something? Seems you have a personal vendetta against them.... Weeping

Hahahaha. Nice try at evasion. I KNEW that's where you went.
Listen dearie, do you have any idea what % they accept ? Like 85 ?
I go to real schools. So, you can't define the word "god", then, and as usual won't.
And BTW so you just magically polled all the igtheists and discovered what they think about Biola's crap definitions.
Why would anyone have a vendetta against Biola. The entire planet knows it's the worst school in the country.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: