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, 13:16   #561
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


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 offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 13:27   #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.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 13:34   #563
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,488


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.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 02-12-2013 at 08:05..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 13:35   #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.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 16:22   #565
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


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 offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 16:23   #566
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


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 offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 16:49   #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, 17:24   #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 17:28..
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 18:04   #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, 19:18   #570
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,266
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 19:26..
void * is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 20:39   #571
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,798
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, 20:41   #572
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,798
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, 20:42   #573
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,798
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, 20:49   #574
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,798
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, 21:08   #575
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


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 offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 21:14   #576
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Do you know if you believe in the existence of deities?
Sure, it's possible that one did exist, it's possible that one has never existed. It's clear to me.

I find it odd that causes some people such discomfort.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 21:26   #577
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
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.
Steel box? What steel box?

I'm glad you at least admitted what the obvious intent of Geko45 was. You've been a big help.

If I choose not to play true/false digital thinking games, so what?
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 21:27   #578
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
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.
You're not worried that our dictionaries can't properly define our language in a way that is consistent with etymology? I guess you're ok with the dumbing down of our culture. That would make you part of the problem rather than the solution.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 21:35   #579
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
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.

2 possibilities, life was made, or happened by natural phenomena. You're loading your questions too.

Why do you limit yourself? If life was created, that would be the nature of things, and not supernatural.

Do you think if man ever creates life, would that prove abiogenesis is correct, or intelligent design is correct? Or neither?
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 21:38   #580
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
You're not worried that our dictionaries can't properly define our language in a way that is consistent with etymology? I guess you're ok with the dumbing down of our culture. That would make you part of the problem rather than the solution.
I happen to agree with that definition. You don't. It's OK.

Have you contacted Merriam Webster with your complaints yet? Would you share any response you get?
Cavalry Doc is offline  

 
  
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 19:55.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,293
388 Members
905 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31