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 02-18-2013, 05:09   #726
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Nope. You assert roughly equivalent probabilities between intelligent design and evolution. There is abundant evidence for evolution, and none at all for intelligent design. Evolution is a well-documented fact. Intelligent design is an unsupported assertion. There's a difference between facts and unsupported assertions.

......
ksg, I am not arguing against your general argument but evolution is not a well documented fact but a theory supported by a huge number of facts and refuted by none. The fact that the theory of evolution seems effectively unassailable does not make it a fact. Facts are just things like the variations of the beaks of finches from one island of the Galapagos to another.

If we are having these discussions we need to keep our terminology precise since there is more than enough confusion without terminological inexactitude.

English
English is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 06:55   #727
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,373


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
You dodged both questions again. Why do you refuse to answer?
The 3rd and 4th section of my post (#721) were direct responses to your questions. What didn't you like about them?

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-18-2013 at 06:56..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-18-2013, 07:07   #728
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,373


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Exactly.

Now, if you *don't* believe something because it *doesn't* fit at all with what you have observed yourself (as well as not being supported by things that you likewise reasonably believe because it fits reasonably well with what you have observed yourself) - why do you consider that to be religious? Why can't it just be a natural extension of that, where, hey, if someone happens to find evidence, you'll change your mind, but until then, you see no reason to believe it?
Well, because some belief is based on faith. We simply don't know whether or not a deity has ever existed. For atheism to be the correct belief system, abiogenesis through natural processes MUST be true. If life were made by a deity, atheism falls apart as a system of belief. For Christians, life MUST have been made by god. Otherwise their belief in a personally interested single omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity as described in the bible falls apart. For an uncommitted agnostic, whether life was made or not is a very interesting question, that I don't think we have the answer too. If it were made by an intelligence, we would need to know more about that intelligence. If it occurred through abiogenesis, maybe a deity created the universe knowing that on some planets life would occur, but had to take no other action than lighting the fuse on the Big Bang. Abiogenesis vs. ID is a wedge issue between many religions, and many have strong belief one way or the other, because it fits very well with their other beliefs.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-18-2013 at 08:01..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:18   #729
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Well, because some belief is based on faith.
Yes, and so what? That has *zero* to do with the people who in fact reject the posit without basing the rejection on faith.

Why is your criteria for determining the character of a person's belief dependent on what some other random people believe?

If there happened to be a cult that worshiped otters, would you claim that anyone who believed in otters was religious because some people had religious beliefs in otters?

Or would you reasonably admit that someone saying 'Hey, otters exist, I know this because I've seen them, or I've seen reasonable evidence of them' was not, in fact, an otter-cultist?

Does your belief that cows exist suddenly become a religion because some people hold cows to be sacred?

I happen to believe that the Easter island statues were carved and placed by people, based on evidence that this is actually true and the fact that I have seen no evidence that it was otherwise, and people actually exist, making the "people did it" explanation currently the most probable (at least, in my evaluation). Is that belief suddenly a religion because some people believe they were put there by aliens?

Quote:
For atheism to be the correct belief system, abiogenesis through natural processes MUST be true.
Sure. That doesn't mean that saying 'I've seen a lot of natural processes, I've never seen a deity, I'm going to provisionally believe it was natural processes, based on natural processes having a far higher probability (as evaluated right now) due to the fact that we've actually observed various natural processes, unless and until there's evidence otherwise' is faith based. Sure, i may not know what the natural process was with specificity - but I've actually seen natural processes in other contexts. Probability assessments can change with new data. So what's the problem?

When nobody knew the physical processes behind lightning, would you have considered someone's rejection of a belief in Thor as a religion?
__________________
"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 *; 02-18-2013 at 08:41..
void * is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:37   #730
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
ksg, I am not arguing against your general argument but evolution is not a well documented fact but a theory supported by a huge number of facts and refuted by none. The fact that the theory of evolution seems effectively unassailable does not make it a fact. Facts are just things like the variations of the beaks of finches from one island of the Galapagos to another.

If we are having these discussions we need to keep our terminology precise since there is more than enough confusion without terminological inexactitude.

English
Speciation has been repeatedly observed. It is a fact, and the theory explains the fact. As far as I can tell, the controversy arises from not having observed every single speciation event, particularly the event giving rise to homo sapiens.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:43   #731
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The 3rd and 4th section of my post (#721) were direct responses to your questions. What didn't you like about them?
The 3rd section, you didn't say whether you believed deities exist; you said you believe it's possible, which doesn't answer my question. You never will, so I wasn't surprised.

The 4th section, you didn't say whether you concede agnosticism is a religion, you said you've no problem at all if I want to think that. Again, not an answer to the question I asked, but not unexpected.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:53   #732
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,373


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
The 3rd section, you didn't say whether you believed deities exist; you said you believe it's possible, which doesn't answer my question. You never will, so I wasn't surprised.
I said: Yes I know what I believe about deities. I believe that it is possible that one or more have existed, and it's possible that none have existed. It's possible, I haven't made up my mind yet either way. That's an honest answer. What don't you like about it?


Quote:
The 4th section, you didn't say whether you concede agnosticism is a religion, you said you've no problem at all if I want to think that. Again, not an answer to the question I asked, but not unexpected.
I'll concede that I did not answer that question, let me fix that. No, I don't think about agnosticism as a religion. I'm not sure how it would fit into the definition of religion. But it's perfectly alright if you would like to think of it as a religion, or for that matter, if everyone on the planet did. It's just not a big deal.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-18-2013, 11:32   #733
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,373


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Well, because some belief is based on faith. We simply don't know whether or not a deity has ever existed. For atheism to be the correct belief system, abiogenesis through natural processes MUST be true. If life were made by a deity, atheism falls apart as a system of belief. For Christians, life MUST have been made by god. Otherwise their belief in a personally interested single omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity as described in the bible falls apart. For an uncommitted agnostic, whether life was made or not is a very interesting question, that I don't think we have the answer too. If it were made by an intelligence, we would need to know more about that intelligence. If it occurred through abiogenesis, maybe a deity created the universe knowing that on some planets life would occur, but had to take no other action than lighting the fuse on the Big Bang. Abiogenesis vs. ID is a wedge issue between many religions, and many have strong belief one way or the other, because it fits very well with their other beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Yes, and so what? That has *zero* to do with the people who in fact reject the posit without basing the rejection on faith.

Why is your criteria for determining the character of a person's belief dependent on what some other random people believe?

If there happened to be a cult that worshiped otters, would you claim that anyone who believed in otters was religious because some people had religious beliefs in otters?

Or would you reasonably admit that someone saying 'Hey, otters exist, I know this because I've seen them, or I've seen reasonable evidence of them' was not, in fact, an otter-cultist?

Does your belief that cows exist suddenly become a religion because some people hold cows to be sacred?

I happen to believe that the Easter island statues were carved and placed by people, based on evidence that this is actually true and the fact that I have seen no evidence that it was otherwise, and people actually exist, making the "people did it" explanation currently the most probable (at least, in my evaluation). Is that belief suddenly a religion because some people believe they were put there by aliens?



Sure. That doesn't mean that saying 'I've seen a lot of natural processes, I've never seen a deity, I'm going to provisionally believe it was natural processes, based on natural processes having a far higher probability (as evaluated right now) due to the fact that we've actually observed various natural processes, unless and until there's evidence otherwise' is faith based. Sure, i may not know what the natural process was with specificity - but I've actually seen natural processes in other contexts. Probability assessments can change with new data. So what's the problem?

When nobody knew the physical processes behind lightning, would you have considered someone's rejection of a belief in Thor as a religion?
I think you are missing the points of demarcation. Cows and otters aside, there are some passive non-believers, and some true believers. I believe that those that believe no deity exists or has existed, beyond a reasonable doubt, have crossed the line of demarcation from passive non-belief to a belief based on faith, a religious belief if held to with ardor. Even within that group, you have gradients, some really believe there is no deity, and largely ignore the subject, and some others seemed consumed by it.

Evangelical Atheism exists, I didn't create it. What would you have me do about it?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-18-2013, 11:45   #734
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I believe that those that believe no deity exists or has existed, beyond a reasonable doubt, have crossed the line of demarcation from passive non-belief to a belief based on faith, a religious belief if held to with ardor.
Sure. How does that justify applying the label 'religion' to an entire group when that entire group has not crossed that line of demarcation, and in fact (in my experience, at least) *most* of the group has not?

What you are doing is quite a bit like saying "Retired Majors are crazy" just because there happen to be a few crazy retired Majors here and there.

Or claiming that because some people who are religious are Catholic, religion is catholicism.
Or claiming that because some dogs are white, dogs are white.

I didn't make ups the existence of crazy people who happen to be retired majors.
I didn't make up the existence of religious people who are Catholic.
I didn't make up the existence of white dogs.

That doesn't justify stating "Retired majors are crazy", "Religion is catholic", or "dogs are white", either, so why do you think it is valid to say that the mere existence of some atheists who believe that no god exists "with ardor or faith" means that you get to say "atheism is a religion", in the face of the existence of atheists who believe that no god exists without ardor or faith?

Look up the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of hasty generalization. Read them. Understand them. Realize you've committed at least one of them.
__________________
"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 *; 02-18-2013 at 12:04..
void * is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 12:01   #735
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,600
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
ksg, I am not arguing against your general argument but evolution is not a well documented fact but a theory supported by a huge number of facts and refuted by none. The fact that the theory of evolution seems effectively unassailable does not make it a fact. Facts are just things like the variations of the beaks of finches from one island of the Galapagos to another.

If we are having these discussions we need to keep our terminology precise since there is more than enough confusion without terminological inexactitude.

English
Given that at their core, facts are observations -- e.g. an apple when released from a tree falls to the earth is a fact.

In the same manner I believe that at the most basic level "live evolved" (simple organisms to more complex) is a fact. Evolution by natural selection remains a falsifiable theory explaining how "life evolved", and it is supported by a metric arse load of facts from fossils to DNA to embryology.

I like Stephen J. Gould's quote regarding facts, "In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 14:32   #736
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,373


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Sure. How does that justify applying the label 'religion' to an entire group when that entire group has not crossed that line of demarcation, and in fact (in my experience, at least) *most* of the group has not?

What you are doing is quite a bit like saying "Retired Majors are crazy" just because there happen to be a few crazy retired Majors here and there.

Or claiming that because some people who are religious are Catholic, religion is catholicism.
Or claiming that because some dogs are white, dogs are white.

I didn't make ups the existence of crazy people who happen to be retired majors.
I didn't make up the existence of religious people who are Catholic.
I didn't make up the existence of white dogs.

That doesn't justify stating "Retired majors are crazy", "Religion is catholic", or "dogs are white", either, so why do you think it is valid to say that the mere existence of some atheists who believe that no god exists "with ardor or faith" means that you get to say "atheism is a religion", in the face of the existence of atheists who believe that no god exists without ardor or faith?

Look up the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of hasty generalization. Read them. Understand them. Realize you've committed at least one of them.
And it's that emotional level of response that leads me to believe that some may not have realized just how deeply they believe. It's an example of lashing out when something important to you is threatened.

Do you believe there is at least a reasonable possibility that a deity has ever existed?

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-18-2013 at 15:18..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-18-2013, 14:51   #737
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
And it's that emotional level of response that leads me to believe that leads me to believe that some may not have realized just how deeply they believe. It's an example of lashing out when something important to you is threatened.

Do you believe there is at least a reasonable possibility that a deity has ever existed?
I don't see any bold text or exclamation points, why do you assume there is emotion there? Maybe there is, but I read it without any emotion at all.
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.
Do lot Do so sinh Ban buon quan ao Chup anh cho be
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...

Last edited by Syclone538; 02-19-2013 at 01:53..
Syclone538 is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 15:38   #738
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,419


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
And it's that emotional level of response that leads me to believe that some may not have realized just how deeply they believe. It's an example of lashing out when something important to you is threatened.
To who's "emotional level of response" are you referring? Certainly not Void's as I see no emotional plea there, just a rational explanation as to where your logic has failed.

__________________
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."
Geko45 is online now  
Old 02-18-2013, 15:57   #739
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Given that at their core, facts are observations -- e.g. an apple when released from a tree falls to the earth is a fact.

In the same manner I believe that at the most basic level "live evolved" (simple organisms to more complex) is a fact. Evolution by natural selection remains a falsifiable theory explaining how "life evolved", and it is supported by a metric arse load of facts from fossils to DNA to embryology.

I like Stephen J. Gould's quote regarding facts, "In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

-ArtificialGrape
Although I believe "life evolved" is true beyond all reasonable doubt, I find it hard to accept that it is a fact since the connection between similar species is theoretical. We can observe and count apples falling from trees and observe that none fall other than down. We can't do the same with life evolving because the process is too slow.

"Life evolved" is an entirely believable hypothesis and I cannot think of any other believable idea that explains the facts of the observable relationships of organisms within the taxonomic system and of components of organisms such as mammalian inner ear bones and fish and reptile jaw bones and the observable intermediate forms. But that does not make "life evolved" fact. We can say that taxonomy demonstrates the fact that many species are closely similar and can sensibly be put into related groups. We can go on and say that such groups can also be seen to be related to other groups which allows us to create supper group and so on. These things we can claim as facts, but making the step from that to the idea that one species can give rise to distinct "daughter" species is strictly theory. It is an explanation of how taxonomic relatedness comes about and hence how all life is probably related. Natural selection is the icing on that particular cake and genetic analysis removes the "probably".

The problem is that the language is not well adapted to this particular task. People want truth, proof and certainty when those concepts are inapplicable. They neglect the fact that even within a court of law the jury is asked only to find whether the charge is true beyond all reasonable doubt and to declare the case not proven, in one terminology or another, otherwise. People want theories they approve of or believe in to be facts, but theories (or hypotheses, explanations or ideas) and facts are two distinct logical entities.

Within this conceptual framework, falsifiable theories, hypotheses, and explanations are logically indistinguishable. I am, how ever, unsure of the nature of laws as in the case of the gas laws. The gas laws explain the relationship of the pressure, volume and temperature of gases in simple mathematical terms and so have the characteristics of theory. At the same time that behaviour can be demonstrated as simple observable fact given suitable equipment with very minor theoretical allowance for the impossibility of maintaining a completely closed system. Of course, we cannot be certain that someday an experiment will show the gas laws to be false, but that is virtually inconceivable. Here is the interesting thing! We could make the same argument about evolution. Its principles are so simple and its evidence so completely consistent that it is inconceivable that it is false and therefore it becomes as close to fact as the gas laws.

English
English is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 16:10   #740
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
......

Do you believe there is at least a reasonable possibility that a deity has ever existed?
You keep asking this question as though it has great meaning. You have asked it of me, you now ask it of void and you have asked it of others. All of us have the same answer. There is an unreasonable possibility that a deity has existed. That is, all ideas are possible until proven false and this particular idea is non falsifiable so can never be proven false. It is an idea outside the realm of truth and falsehood! Hence there is some room for an ever so small possibility that there has been a deity.

English
English is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 17:01   #741
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
And it's that emotional level of response that leads me to believe that some may not have realized just how deeply they believe. It's an example of lashing out when something important to you is threatened.
Well, first, you're attributing far more emotion than is actually justifiable. Second, even if the amount of emotion you're attributing were justifiable, how precisely would you determine that it were due to "deep belief" rather than other alternatives?

You couldn't. Someone could just be frustrated with your method of argumentation, for instance. Someone could be having a bad day for reasons completely unrelated to the argument, and have that come through in what they wrote. Someone could have just dropped a hot iron on their foot. There are multiple possible reasons for any apparent emotional response.

Quote:
Do you believe there is at least a reasonable possibility that a deity has ever existed?
There's a possibility. I've not seen evidence that would lead me to what I would consider a reasonable belief that it actually occurred. English worded it well.

So, now that we've got that wrapped up, please describe how it's valid to claim "Numbers are prime" simply on the basis that there are some prime numbers, given that your argument that atheistm is a religion boils down to "some atheists believe there is no god with faith and ardor".

"Some x are y, therefore all x are y" is just not at all a valid argument without showing that all x are actually y in the first place (or showing that there's some reason all x /have to be/ y, as in an inductive mathematical proof). Any single x that does not meet condition y pitches the argument out the window, and you've been presented with people who do not believe a deity exists, but do not do so with ardor and faith.

If you really don't get why "well, some are" is not a valid argument for your position, I feel sorry for you, just a little bit. However, given that your response wasn't actually directed at whether or not you've committed one of the two fallacies I've presented, I strongly suspect you do in fact realize your argument is fallacious, and your response was just an attempt to avoid the point I made.
__________________
"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 *; 02-18-2013 at 17:32..
void * is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 17:47   #742
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,373


Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
You keep asking this question as though it has great meaning. You have asked it of me, you now ask it of void and you have asked it of others. All of us have the same answer. There is an unreasonable possibility that a deity has existed. That is, all ideas are possible until proven false and this particular idea is non falsifiable so can never be proven false. It is an idea outside the realm of truth and falsehood! Hence there is some room for an ever so small possibility that there has been a deity.

English
Belief beyond a reasonable doubt is a strong indicator. It's strong enough that if you can get 12 people to agree, you can be convicted of a crime, not that any belief is a crime or anything like that.

That's all. It has meaning, but only what its meaning is meant to mean.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-18-2013, 17:53   #743
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,373


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Well, first, you're attributing far more emotion than is actually justifiable. Second, even if the amount of emotion you're attributing were justifiable, how precisely would you determine that it were due to "deep belief" rather than other alternatives?

You couldn't. Someone could just be frustrated with your method of argumentation, for instance. Someone could be having a bad day for reasons completely unrelated to the argument, and have that come through in what they wrote. Someone could have just dropped a hot iron on their foot. There are multiple possible reasons for any apparent emotional response.



There's a possibility. I've not seen evidence that would lead me to what I would consider a reasonable belief that it actually occurred. English worded it well.

So, now that we've got that wrapped up, please describe how it's valid to claim "Numbers are prime" simply on the basis that there are some prime numbers, given that your argument that atheistm is a religion boils down to "some atheists believe there is no god with faith and ardor".

"Some x are y, therefore all x are y" is just not at all a valid argument without showing that all x are actually y in the first place (or showing that there's some reason all x /have to be/ y, as in an inductive mathematical proof). Any single x that does not meet condition y pitches the argument out the window, and you've been presented with people who do not believe a deity exists, but do not do so with ardor and faith.

If you really don't get why "well, some are" is not a valid argument for your position, I feel sorry for you, just a little bit. However, given that your response wasn't actually directed at whether or not you've committed one of the two fallacies I've presented, I strongly suspect you do in fact realize your argument is fallacious, and your response was just an attempt to avoid the point I made.
We've been talking for a couple of years now, no?

I've noticed a pattern, maybe you haven't noticed it, or maybe I'm wrong, and there is no pattern.

But it seems to me that your belief that their is no deity, and belief in the supporting tenets (Abiogenesis & Uninvolved beginning to the Big Bang) seem to suggest a firm belief. You seem energetically vigorous in your belief. But that's just my impression.

It's no big deal, it's just my opinion derived from my own perspective, which is fairly unique. You are exactly the same person (or close enough) that you were yesterday, regardless of what I think.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-18-2013, 17:58   #744
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,373


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
To who's "emotional level of response" are you referring? Certainly not Void's as I see no emotional plea there, just a rational explanation as to where your logic has failed.

sure. Whatever.

If there were atheist friars, I'd nominate you for the position. Scourge, really? Blatant religious intolerance of other beliefs. That's all.

Evangelical atheism happens. It happened long before I became interested in it, and much longer before I ever posted on GT.

Not my fault, I'm just the messenger.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-18-2013, 18:18   #745
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
We've been talking for a couple of years now, no?

I've noticed a pattern, maybe you haven't noticed it, or maybe I'm wrong, and there is no pattern.

But it seems to me that your belief that their is no deity, and belief in the supporting tenets (Abiogenesis & Uninvolved beginning to the Big Bang) seem to suggest a firm belief. You seem energetically vigorous in your belief. But that's just my impression.
If you have that impression, I figure it's quite likely to be because you *want* to have that impression. If you think there's a pattern, I submit that you're ignoring evidence that goes against that pattern (for instance - have you read the "Creationism is Child Abuse" trhead? Do my responses fit your "pattern"? If I'm threatened by religion, as you have claimed, why would I argue that freedom of thought requires that we not treat merely telling a child something is false as child abuse? Why would I be perfectly fine with a child bringing a Bible to school to read as long as she did so of her own will and not because of pressure from the school? Or do you even remember the threads like that?).

Quote:
You are exactly the same person (or close enough) that you were yesterday, regardless of what I think.
Certainly. However, you're still avoiding the point.

Do you consider the statement "Some numbers are prime, therefore numbers are prime" to be logically valid proof that numbers are prime?
__________________
"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 *; 02-18-2013 at 18:20..
void * is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 18:23   #746
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,373


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post


.....

Do you consider the statement "Some numbers are prime, therefore numbers are prime" to be logically valid proof that numbers are prime?
Some numbers are prime. Therefore, some numbers are prime. True?


It is what it is.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-18-2013, 20:15   #747
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Belief beyond a reasonable doubt
...
You've still got it wrong though. It's not the belief in the lack of gods beyond a reasonable doubt, it's, with no reason to believe that gods exist (other then other people believe because of what their parents* told them) it is unreasonable to believe they do.
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.
Do lot Do so sinh Ban buon quan ao Chup anh cho be
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...

Last edited by Syclone538; 02-19-2013 at 01:54..
Syclone538 is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 20:39   #748
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,419


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
sure. Whatever.

If there were atheist friars, I'd nominate you for the position. Scourge, really? Blatant religious intolerance of other beliefs. That's all.

Evangelical atheism happens. It happened long before I became interested in it, and much longer before I ever posted on GT.

Not my fault, I'm just the messenger.
Ah, now it's about me, right? Anything to shift the conversation away from the point you were called on, got it. Really, it makes no difference to me if you want to cling to ignorance with ardor and faith. I'm ok with it.
__________________
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."
Geko45 is online now  
Old 02-18-2013, 20:41   #749
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Ah, now it's about me, right? Anything to shift the conversation away from the point you were called on, got it. Really, it makes no difference to me if you want to cling to ignorance with ardor and faith. I'm ok with it.
Seems to think if he believes in trolling with ardor and faith its a religion and belongs here.

Randy
steveksux is offline  
Old 02-18-2013, 20:49   #750
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Belief beyond a reasonable doubt is a strong indicator. It's strong enough that if you can get 12 people to agree, you can be convicted of a crime, not that any belief is a crime or anything like that.

That's all. It has meaning, but only what its meaning is meant to mean.
And just like that, a verdict becomes a religion.

And absurdity becomes an art form.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-18-2013 at 20:51..
steveksux 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 14:02.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,259
359 Members
900 Guests

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