GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-11-2013, 10:18   #551
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It was made or just occurred. Those are the two most likely scenarios.
Incorrect again. The two most likely scenarios are that it occurred naturally, or it was introduced by a foreign body like a comet during the heavy bombardment.

A creator is the least likely or least probable because there simply is zero evidence of such a being.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:25   #552
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Your devout atheism biases your opinion on the possibility that intelligent design is possible. I'm just not encumbered in that way with an inflexible bias.
I have no bias. Perhaps you've missed it but I don't identify with any group whatsoever. I'm not Atheist, Agnostic, Gnostic, or any of the above. I simply dismiss all religious claims as baseless and move on from there. I don't believe in anything with regards to a deity or creator. We aren't talking whether a creator is POSSIBLE... you are attempting to change the discussion again. Nearly anything can be argued as possible. we've been through this Cav. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is POSSIBLE.

I am asking you which you think is more likely or probable? I think you are perhaps unaware there is a difference between possible and probable.

Quote:
I've looked at the evidence, heard arguments from both sides, neither was convincing. That's about all there is to it.
So are you saying you dismiss factual knowledge in order to equate actual science with mythology? Or are you just unaware that Abiogenesis is supported by evidence and creationism is not. It is not possible to equate them as equally probable when one is factually more likely than the other. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. You can have the opinion that a fact is not so. But that opinion would be based in willful ignorance.

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 02-11-2013 at 10:26..
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:39   #553
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,337


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Try not to confuse my not submitting to your beliefs as not answering directly what my opinion is.
Here, allow me to demostrate. I will pose to you three true/false questions. They will be legitimately phrased as such without any attempt to conceal a more complicated question as if it could be simply answered. I am proposing that you will be unwilling to respond and will instead attempt to reframe the debate to avoid answering. All you have to do to prove me wrong is answer each question with either true or false based on your own personal opinion. There is no right or wrong answer.

Proposition 1:

There is scientifically acquired empirical evidence (although it may be weak and ultimately not definitive) in support of the theories of Lambda-CDM (aka "Big Bang" theory), abiogenesis and evolution.

Is this statement true or false?

Proposition 2:

There is no scientifically acquired empirical evidence in support of the biblical account of creation and/or the associated proposition of intelligent design.

Is this statement true or false?

Proposition 3:

I (CavDoc) personally believe that the mutually exclusive possibilities of Lambda-CDM followed by abiogenisis and evolution and the competing proposals of biblical creationism / intelligent design are both equally likely (i.e. equally supported by the available evidence or lack thereof).

Is this statement true or false?

Again, in summary, I propose that you will be unwilling to answer these three questions with simple true or false responses. Rather, you will attempt to divert, distract and possibly even substitute entirely different questions that you find easier to answer. Perhaps you will include some personal aspersion about my "belief system" to aid in your obfuscation. Again, all you have to do to prove me wrong is put a true or false next to each question.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 02-11-2013 at 10:47..
Geko45 is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:42   #554
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,132


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
I have no bias. Perhaps you've missed it but I don't identify with any group whatsoever. I'm not Atheist, Agnostic, Gnostic, or any of the above. I simply dismiss all religious claims as baseless and move on from there. I don't believe in anything with regards to a deity or creator. We aren't talking whether a creator is POSSIBLE... you are attempting to change the discussion again. Nearly anything can be argued as possible. we've been through this Cav. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is POSSIBLE.

I am asking you which you think is more likely or probable? I think you are perhaps unaware there is a difference between possible and probable.



So are you saying you dismiss factual knowledge in order to equate actual science with mythology? Or are you just unaware that Abiogenesis is supported by evidence and creationism is not. It is not possible to equate them as equally probable when one is factually more likely than the other. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. You can have the opinion that a fact is not so. But that opinion would be based in willful ignorance.


I believe you, you are convinced. I get that. I do not begrudge you your beliefs. We're different that way.

As we get closer and may someday actually create life in a lab, it opens the possibility that life was made here too. It was long ago enough for me to not get too worked up and emotional about someone having different opinion. You imply you don't care or bias, but the way you say it seems to suggest differently. Just another opinion.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:49   #555
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,132


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Here, allow me to demostrate. I will pose to you three true/false questions. They will be legitimately phrased as such without any attempt to conceal a more complicated question as if it could be simply answered. I am proposing that you will be unwilling to respond and will instead attempt to reframe the debate to avoid answering. All you have to do to prove me wrong is answer each question with either true or false based on your own personal opinion. There is no right or wrong answer.

Proposition 1:

There is scientifically acquired empirical evidence (although it may be weak and ultimately not definitive) in support of the theories of Lambda-CDM (aka "Big Bang" theory), abiogenesis and evolution.

Is this statement true or false?

Proposition 2:

There is no scientifically acquired empirical evidence in support of the biblical account of creation and/or the associated proposition of intelligent design.

Is this statement true or false?

Proposition 3:

I (CavDoc) personally believe that the mutually exclusive possibilities of Lambda-CDM followed by abiogenisis and evolution and the competing proposals of biblical creationism / intelligent design are both equally likely (i.e. equally supported by the available evidence or lack thereof).

Is this statement true or false?

Again, in summary, I propose that you will be unwilling to answer these three questions with simple true or false responses. Rather, you will attempt to divert, distract and possibly even substitute entirely different questions that you find easier to answer. Perhaps you will include some personal apersion about my "belief system" to aid in your obfuscation. Again, all you have to do to prove me wrong is put a true or false next to each question.

Not everything is answered appropriately by a true or false. On occasion, fill in the blank questions will give you better insight.

Hope you didn't work to long on that.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:51   #556
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,337


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Not everything is answered appropriately by a true or false. On occasion, fill in the blank questions will give you better insight.

Hope you didn't work to long on that.


That was quicker than I thought! You didn't even feign a legitimate response. But don't worry, it didn't take me very long at all. Some of us just work a bit faster than others I guess. It's ok, we're different that way.

Thanks for playing!

__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 02-11-2013 at 10:52..
Geko45 is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:55   #557
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I believe you, you are convinced. I get that. I do not begrudge you your beliefs. We're different that way.
We're different in that I will honestly discuss a topic with people and not attempt to put words in their mouth, misrepresent their statements, or change the nature of the discussion. I have no beliefs when it comes to religion.

Quote:
As we get closer and may someday actually create life in a lab, it opens the possibility that life was made here too.
By a supernatural being?

Quote:
It was long ago enough for me to not get too worked up and emotional about someone having different opinion. You imply you don't care or bias, but the way you say it seems to suggest differently. Just another opinion.
If your answer was that you didn't care one way or the other then that would be just fine. But that's not what you're saying. You've said you give them both 50/50 equal credence. I'm asking how can an intelligent person do that when one is a work of fiction and the other backed by factual evidence.

understand I don't really care what your opinion is. But you need to understand that you are equating make believe with reality.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:59   #558
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 19,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism ->



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism



As I said: atheism is whether or not you believe. Agnosticism is whether or not you hold you can prove (in the sense of a mathematical proof - if you can prove something, you know it. If it's not provable, it's unknowable).

The terms I used, as I used them, were used within the context of accepted and valid definitions of both the terms atheism and agnosticism.

If you don't want to recognize that, for whatever reason, or you want to hold people to other definitions that they have not claimed to use and have specifically disclaimed using, how do you expect to have a sane conversation about it?

I mean, from my perspective - I self identify as atheist - in the specific sense of, I do not believe. I am also an agnostic, in the specific sense of, I do not think it is a provable posit. Many other self-described atheists also frame it in those terms, they are commonly used that way, and it is *very* clear what is meant.

So why do you want to claim that I'm not using valid definitions when I am? It just gets in the way.

Or, it allows you to bucket people up and label them all one way in a manner that is not necessarily actually true, given that many self-identified atheists do not frame it in those terms. Perhaps the ability to do so is why you want to claim that you used an "official" (official how? Dictionaries document usage, they do not authoritatively mandate meaning) definition?
You misused the word atheist. It should not have been used with the context indicated. Atheism is a positive denial in the existence of deities. You should simply say you are strongly agnostic. One cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic. One or the other. Or the third alternative... a believer.

The definitions in dictionaries are the standards of our language. How can a word be properly used if it's definition isn't definite and can be altered to fit the whim of the user?

As I said, if you have a problem with how our education system sets the standards for grammar, spelling, and learning, file a protest. Tell them the definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias are flawed.
Hell we have Wikipedia, why not Wikitionary?

__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein
Blast is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:07   #559
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,132


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post


That was quicker than I thought! You didn't even feign a legitimate response. But don't worry, it didn't take me very long at all. Some of us just work a bit faster than others I guess. It's ok, we're different that way.

Thanks for playing!


If it's a game, you lose. plurium interrogationum.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 12:10   #560
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,132


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
We're different in that I will honestly discuss a topic with people and not attempt to put words in their mouth, misrepresent their statements, or change the nature of the discussion. I have no beliefs when it comes to religion.
Really?
Quote:

By a supernatural being?
Nope. We've covered that. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

Quote:

If your answer was that you didn't care one way or the other then that would be just fine. But that's not what you're saying. You've said you give them both 50/50 equal credence. I'm asking how can an intelligent person do that when one is a work of fiction and the other backed by factual evidence.
Odd that you think it's mutually exclusive to believe something that happened hundreds of millions of years ago can't be equally possible and yet not all that important today.
Quote:

understand I don't really care what your opinion is. But you need to understand that you are equating make believe with reality.
You seem to be quite accusatory and apt to use ad Homs a lot for something you care so little about.

Both options might as well be make believe right now. Neither option has convincing proof. If there were irrefutable proof one way or the other, you could simply present it and the matter would be settled.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 12:16   #561
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,132


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
You misused the word atheist. It should not have been used with the context indicated. Atheism is a positive denial in the existence of deities. You should simply say you are strongly agnostic. One cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic. One or the other. Or the third alternative... a believer.

The definitions in dictionaries are the standards of our language. How can a word be properly used if it's definition isn't definite and can be altered to fit the whim of the user?

As I said, if you have a problem with how our education system sets the standards for grammar, spelling, and learning, file a protest. Tell them the definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias are flawed.
Hell we have Wikipedia, why not Wikitionary?

By the way, by definition an atheist is a believer.

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity


Atheist > atheistic agnostic > Agnostic < theistic agnostic < Theist.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 12:27   #562
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Really?
Yeah.

Quote:
Nope. We've covered that. Don't try to put words in my mouth.
It was a question. Not a assertion of your position. Stop being dishonest. So are you saying it isn't possible that the creator could be supernatural? If you're not implying a supernatural creator then you are implying a natural one? An Alien being?


Quote:
Odd that you think it's mutually exclusive to believe something that happened hundreds of millions of years ago can't be equally possible and yet not all that important today.
This statement makes no sense. Please elaborate.


Quote:
You seem to be quite accusatory and apt to use ad Homs a lot for something you care so little about.
And you, dishonest and agenda based at every turn.

Quote:
Both options might as well be make believe right now.
No, you are wrong. I'm sorry that you cannot seem to understand why you're wrong. Many of us have tried to explain it to you and you seem to think that your opinion trumps reality. It does not. You are of course free to remain ignorant and proclaim both are equatable. But that's really no different than that Broun guy claiming Evolution (something that is reality based and factual) is a lie straight from the pit of Hell (a place that is fictional and non reality based).


Quote:
Neither option has convincing proof. If there were irrefutable proof one way or the other, you could simply present it and the matter would be settled.
Again you are wrong. And the evidence has been presented many times in this place. You, and the Theists simply dismiss it in favor of your various fictions.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 12:34   #563
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,337


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
If it's a game, you lose. plurium interrogationum.
You can't even get your fallacies right. A plurium interrogationum (or complex question) is a question that forces you to accept one or more proposition(s) regardless of the answer you give. For instance, "Are you still beating your wife?" assumes that you are married and that you are/were abusive towards her and any answer you give confirms those two assumptions. You choosing false to any or all of my questions does not force you to accept any implied proposition. It does however force you to reveal the internal inconsistency in your own worldview as stated.

There are at least two sets of responses to my three questions that would at least be internally consistent (even if not equally valid). However, as we both know, you won't answer those three questions in the same post because your position is not internally consistent. You are simply trying to avoid dealing with the cognitive dissonance brought about by your contradictory statements.

You have previously stated that you find the "big bang", abiogensis and evolution plausible, but not necessarily definitive. You have also stated that you think creationism and intelligent design are plausible, but also not necessarily definitive. Finally, you have then stated that the two competing propositions are at least equally unknowable and that there isn't really evidence favoring either.

Quote:
Both options might as well be make believe right now. Neither option has convincing proof. If there were irrefutable proof one way or the other, you could simply present it and the matter would be settled.
But the facts (and there are relevant facts available on the topic) don't allow a rational person to conclude such. There is at least some evidence available and that evidence can not support both equally. One option must be more well supported than the other and in fact one is supported by the available facts and one is not. That you refuse to acknowledge this is the internal inconsistency and cognitive disssonance to which you desperately cling.

You will now put together some obfuscating post that either substitutes a strawman for one or more of my propositions and/or redirects the argument back on me and my "beliefs" even though you have never been honest to anyone here ever about what your "beliefs" really are.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 02-12-2013 at 07:05..
Geko45 is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 12:35   #564
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
By the way, by definition an atheist is a believer.

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity


Atheist > atheistic agnostic > Agnostic < theistic agnostic < Theist.
It is an incorrect definition if you look at the word...

A-theism. (A, meaning without or not having) (theism meaning a belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world)

So LITERALLY Atheism is Without or not having a belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Seems the Dictionary contradicts itself on this and does not adhere to traditional etymology.

Funny how the definition of Asymmetry is Lack of equality or equivalence between parts or aspects of something; lack of symmetry.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 15:22   #565
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,132


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
You can't even get your fallacies right. A plurium interrogationum (or complex question) is a question that forces you to accept one or more proposition(s) regardless of the answer you give. For instance, "Are you still beating your wife?" assumes that you are married and that you are/were abusive towards her and any answer you give confirms those two assumptions. You choosing false to any or all of my questions does not force you to accept any implied proposition. It does however force you to reveal the internal inconsistency in your own worldview as stated.

There are at least two sets of responses to my three questions that would at least be internally consistent (even if not equally valid). However, as we both know, you won't answer those three questions in the same post because your position is not internally consistent. You are simply trying to avoid dealing with the cognitive dissonance brought about by your contradictory statements.

You have previously stated that you find the "big bang", abiogensis and evolution plausible, but not necessarily definitive. You have also stated that you think creationism and intelligent design are plausible, but also not necessarily definitive. Finally, you have then stated that the two competing propositions are at least equally unknowable and that there isn't really evidence favoring either.



But the facts (and there are relevant facts available on the topic) don't allow a rational person to conclude such. There is at least some evidence available and that evidence can not support both equally. One option must be more well supported than the other and in fact one is supported by the available facts and one is not. That you refuse to acknowledge this is the internal inconsistency and cognistive disssonance that you desperately cling to.

You will now put together some obfuscating post that either substitutes a strawman for one or more of my propositions and/or redirects the argument back on me and my "beliefs" even though you have never been honest to anyone here ever about what your "beliefs" really are.
You loaded your questions with presuppositions and asked for digital answers that were specifically framed to make it impossible for me to give you the honest answer, but one you would like instead. I know what my beliefs really are, I've explained them repeatedly to you, they are different from yours, and I don't have a problem with that.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 15:23   #566
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,132


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
It is an incorrect definition if you look at the word...

A-theism. (A, meaning without or not having) (theism meaning a belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world)

So LITERALLY Atheism is Without or not having a belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Seems the Dictionary contradicts itself on this and does not adhere to traditional etymology.

Funny how the definition of Asymmetry is Lack of equality or equivalence between parts or aspects of something; lack of symmetry.
It's the definition. It's not for either of us to worry about, after all, neither one of us are atheists.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 15:49   #567
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
By the way, by definition an atheist is a believer.

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity


Atheist > atheistic agnostic > Agnostic < theistic agnostic < Theist.
Your definition is incorrect as has been pointed out to you before (at least a few dozen times by numerous members). Can you explain why the prefix "A" means "without or "lacking" in every other word where it's used as it is in "atheism" but then that prefix doesn't mean the same thing when used in the word "atheism"? More of that inconsistency that you've been accused of (at least a few dozen times by numerous members).
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 16:24   #568
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You loaded your questions with presuppositions and asked for digital answers that were specifically framed to make it impossible for me to give you the honest answer, but one you would like instead. I know what my beliefs really are, I've explained them repeatedly to you, they are different from yours, and I don't have a problem with that.
That's absolute horse****! Gecko welded you up in a steel box with this one and you just refuse to admit it. Impossible for you to answer without looking like a fool perhaps, but you backed yourself into this corner.

First question;

"There is scientifically acquired empirical evidence (although it may be weak and ultimately not definitive) in support of the theories of Lambda-CDM (aka "Big Bang" theory), abiogenesis and evolution.

Is this statement true or false?"

Why can't you answer true or false to this? It's a simple question and he even gave you an out "(although it may be weak and ultimately not definitive)" to prevent you from making any claims that it was an actual plurium interrogationum. Of course that didn't stop you.

Second question;

"There is no scientifically acquired empirical evidence in support of the biblical account of creation and/or the associated proposition of intelligent design.

Is this statement true or false?"

No trickery there either. He's just asking you if you agree with that statement or not. If you disagree then you only need provide what you consider scientifically acquired evidence of creation or intelligent design.

Third question,

"I (CavDoc) personally believe that the mutually exclusive possibilities of Lambda-CDM followed by abiogenisis and evolution and the competing proposals of biblical creationism / intelligent design are both equally likely (i.e. equally supported by the available evidence or lack thereof).

Is this statement true or false?"

Do you agree or not? No loaded questions here. You simply refuse to answer because you know where this is going and you really don't want it to go there. You already know you've lost this one and you're in denial.

Last edited by Gunhaver; 02-11-2013 at 16:28..
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 17:04   #569
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Steve, it's not working. I do not believe in the supernatural, as has been explained repeatedly.
Then you don't believe in science either since you give them both a 50/50 shot at being right.

What was that someone said about your being inconsistent?

Just to recap, 2 possibilities. Either life was created by supernatural intelligence or it was not. Aliens seeding the earth with life were either created supernaturally or they evolved naturally so that's not a third option.
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 18:18   #570
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
One cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic.
Yes, one can - and plenty of philosophers define the terms in such a manner. In fact, many of the people who initially used the term agnostic defined the terms in such a manner.

That you want to ignore that is a bit telling, don't you think? I mean, I'm trying to use the definitions of the terms that allow the most accurate description of my position. "I do not believe" and "I do not think it is knowable" is about as accurate as it gets. The 'theist/agnostic/atheist' model leaves a lot to be desired as far as accurate description of the position held.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-11-2013 at 18:26..
void * is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 19:39   #571
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's the definition. It's not for either of us to worry about, after all, neither one of us are atheists.
It's A definition, and not a particularly good one, for reasons that have been thoroughly explained.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 19:41   #572
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I know what my beliefs really are...
Do you know if you believe in the existence of deities?
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 19:42   #573
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
By the way, by definition an atheist is a believer.

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity


Atheist > atheistic agnostic > Agnostic < theistic agnostic < Theist.
A bad definition, sure.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 19:49   #574
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
You misused the word atheist. It should not have been used with the context indicated. Atheism is a positive denial in the existence of deities. You should simply say you are strongly agnostic. One cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic. One or the other. Or the third alternative... a believer.

The definitions in dictionaries are the standards of our language. How can a word be properly used if it's definition isn't definite and can be altered to fit the whim of the user?

As I said, if you have a problem with how our education system sets the standards for grammar, spelling, and learning, file a protest. Tell them the definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias are flawed.
Hell we have Wikipedia, why not Wikitionary?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t

a·the·ist
[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

What do you suppose the "or disbelieves" part means?
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 20:08   #575
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,132


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t

a·the·ist
[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

What do you suppose the "or disbelieves" part means?


It's an active thing, not passive. That's all.


Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Date: 1672
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:10.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,227
402 Members
825 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42