Joshua Ryan Dellinger: Blackmailing, dishonesty, and stalking (what else ya got?)

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger: Blackmailing, dishonesty, and stalking (what else ya got?)

Joshua Ryan Dellinger is a blackmailer a liar and a stalker? A Christian defender who claims to agree with RRS? A philosophy student that's a product of a Christian Southern education?

If you're a Christian who's happy to see Joshua Ryan Dillinger willing to do whatever it takes, including lie, to stand up for Jesus, you should also know that Joshua has attacked Republicans for attacking gay marriage. (story here)

 

Over the last 24 hours, Kelly, myself, and all of you have been under threat from Joshua Ryan Dellinger a soon to be graduate of UNCC who has said...

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
I am documenting every last letter I send (one daily until you either formally decline for legitimate reasons - i.e., you're scared - or until we have secured an agreement) and will continue to post public exposes of your lack of fortitude. I consider your lack of response (and complete lack of rationality) to be one of the more blatant though still mildly entertaining ironies your organization has provided me.

So here it is, the public response on behalf of our radio show. I will waste 30 minutes of my time succumbing to your blackmail threat, you win, harraser. In order to do so I will be posting Kelly's response to you so as to save me time. Kelly wasted 30 minutes last night responding to you, and I refuse to double up with more wasted time over a simple blackmail threat. The following is the private message she sent to you through nowpublic.com, I am posting the content of your letter only because it's so similar to what you posted in public and because you've threatened us.

[edit in after the fact, I did in fact waste about an hour on this. Consider your blackmail/ultimatum effective, ya fucking asshole!]

Before I go on, you should know that if you had actual stones you and your powerful would arrange a text debate here with the community in which some of the radio co-hosts would be likely to weigh in. We'd probably even give you a thread to just go crazy in without rules, seeing as how there's no fucking way you'd be able to function within the rules. Or better yet, you and your team would just start a thread in athest vs theist like the rest of the people with a fucking clue.

 

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"Let me begin by saying I don't expect you to respond. RRS has a way of disregarding its more equipped and capable challengers. I have written before only to be flatly overlooked. This fact signifies only cowardice on the part of RRS. Taking someone like Dawkins (who has perpetually declined to debate more intelligent adversaries) as an exemplar, I don't suppose I should be surprised."

Kelly says...

Well, I have no idea who you are, and who exactly has disregarded you, but I am certainly not personally responsible for that. I do not intend to defend Dawkins, but just since I'm here, you're not accurately representing his position. He does take debates (although I don't feel it is his strong suit), just not with creationists. Frankly, it is intellectually vacuous and doesn't deserve his time.

 

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"I have observed the RRS for some time, taking note of the various fallacies that are routinely decried and then mercenarily employed."

Kelly says...

Such as?

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"My question is this: do you really want to help others be freed from the grip of religion? If so, it would seem that you (and others) should be a leading example. As such, you are constrained to operate solely within the strictures of logical, coherent, legitimate argumentation. I do not see this taking place, and this is most likely why RRS is the laughing stock of most erudite circles. Yes, you have Dennett and Dawkins. Neither are taken very seriously by even budding students of philosophy and/or anthropology."

Kelly says...

Yes; and no, I'm not. I'm constrained to operate solely in the way that I determine, and you are free to criticize it as you see fit. I know many in the "erudite" circles who respect us and realize that our purpose is not necessarily the same as theirs, and that our audience is not the same, either. It takes all types to appeal to a varied populace.
As far as Dennett and Dawkins, they are widely regarded as excellent in their respective fields except in religious circles, so I'm assuming that by "budding students of philosophy and/or anthropology" you mean dilettantes who don't know their names.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"If you wanted to appeal through authority or popularity to young, impressionable types, why not employ the assistance of Quentin Smith? Quite simply put, I believe he would remain parsecs away from this site and all its stated goals, most chiefly owing to the extremely poor argumentation (rank ad hominems abounding) and sub-par presentation."

Kelly says...

I have no idea who that is, either. I cannot make any statement on your opinion of his potential reaction to us as a group. I also would like to remind you that an insult is not necessarily an ad hom. I can critique an argument and then insult somebody as long as the insult isn't taking the place of a valid counterpoint. In case you need an example:
1: Yahweh exists.
2: Prove it. I have seen no evidence and besides, he's logically incoherent.
1: I just know it. I've seen people change and I feel him in my heart.
2: That's not evidence. You're a moron. (not an ad hom--just an insult)

1. Yahweh exists.
2. Well, you're a moron. (ad hom)

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"Would you engage in argumentation with William Lane Craig? No, I do not think so."

Kelly says...

I certainly would. He refuses to debate anybody without a doctorate. Bitch at him.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"Browbeating teenagers and lesser minds into conformity with your own agendas is not only vile - it is the very practice which you deprecate."

Kelly says...

Well, that's not what we do, so I don't get your point. I have no "agenda" and I can't "indoctrinate" somebody into not believing in god. I can't scare them with the fear of hell and eternal punishment or a sadistic voyeur watching my every move. Not the same.
I also think that men like Ergun Caner and Matt Slick would find it amusing that they are considered either teenagers or our mental inferiors.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"I would presume that since you are so secure in your current belief that you have answered all the questions that standardly assail the theologian, the philosopher, and the armchair enquirer. I include among these all cosmological arguments, all crucial matters of epistemology and metaphysics, and a comprehensive certainty concerning the methods of science. Your positivist positions notwithstanding, I ask you: what is your response to the Kalam cosmological argument? If you are unfamiliar with this, I should say I am shocked. One who not only eschews a particular position but vehemently seeks its destruction should certainly be expected to be familiar with it."

Kelly says...

I have no belief, but anyway...I have answered all the questions that pertain to the necessity of belief in a god that I have encountered to my satisfaction. Does that mean I know everything or think that I do? No. That is patently ridiculous. Nevertheless, one is forced to make a decision based on the evidence that one has at the time, and if one is honest, one will remain open to new evidence as it appears.


The Kalaam cosmological argument is just a sophisticated reworking of parts of Aquinas' cosmological argument. It is practically the same, just clothed in jargon and terminology designed to impress people who don't know better. His whole impossibility of an actual infinity is the best thing he has going, but that is not from a mathematical standpoint--it is solely because we have trouble wrapping our minds around that concept.


BTW, you can save the arrogance for somebody else. The first rebuttal I ever wrote was 4 years ago in response to my former pastor and largely dealing with that argument. I wrote about ten pages on it.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"I do agree with the RRS position...I should clarify: I simply do not agree with the adolescent and laughable methods which - you should and most likely do know - are completely and rightfully ignored in academic circles. No self-respecting scientist (who at best can provide explanations and descriptions) would ever pretend to the position of prescriptive moral arguments (I suppose you've solved Hume's is-ought problem as well?)."

Kelly says...

We don't need to convince those in academia--they already know. We are aiming for a different target. The fact that we are the number one atheist website in the world seems to indicate that we've hit it.
Also, point me to one instance of me personally employing the naturalistic fallacy or using a prescriptive moral argument.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"If you and your ilk can maturely and intrepidly accept a mutually beneficial, constructive, and - yes, even necessary - discourse, I invite you cordially to attend several online discussions on the existence of God, the role of religion, and the issue of Islam. Be warned: we are not simple Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort types."

Kelly says...

I have no time, nor the desire, to do so. You have not fooled me into believing that you are an atheist, or even close to one, so your attempt at subterfuge has failed.


Just FYI--I find Islam to be a disgusting barbaric religion that is ATM an even bigger threat than christianity.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"If you accept our challenge (re: if your positions are developed, defensible, and justified) then I expect your rational (toss in mature as well) response. If not, then I am sorry to say I am not the least bit surprised. Dawkins et al have misrepresented doxastic beliefs concerning religion as merely the outmoded and irrational trademark of the uncritical and credulous masses. Pity that intellectualism (I am being quite generous with the term) of today has become alienated from its better half - integrity."

Kelly says...

I am not a participant in your pedantic nonsense peppered with rhetoric, therefore I will neither be participating or forfeiting. You can take your proposition, complete with its condescending and self-aggrandizing nonsense to somebody else. Perhaps they have nothing better to do.

Kelly

NOTICE: This communication may not be reprinted unless in its entirety.
Creative Commons License Non-Commercial Non-derivative Attribution

 

HERE'S MY BRIEF RESPONSE...

Through the last two years I have grown numb to theistic argument with people who I know to be dishonest and seem to embrace the character of the conman. I will take public debates from conmen, like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron because they are very visible. The name Joshua Ryan Dellinger doesn't come to mind when I think of conmen worthy of wasting time on. At this point, our radio show has not held a recorded interview since September of '07. None have been recorded with atheists or theists, and this is due to a sound problem we can't seem to resolve.

We've been too busy on other areas of importance to even focus on it, so put that in your pipe and smoke it a bit when you go slander our name and tell others we refused to debate you. As for this refusal... to be honest, if we had recording capability we may have accepted, Kelly loves ripping the heads off of people like you... me personally I'm tired of your ilk. The dishonesty, arrogance, and ignorance seethes off of your post. The holier than thou attitude, the whining about the rules you think we break on our forum as you systematically break almost all of them. (sock-puppet on an anonymous name, not debating the points merely launcing an attack to debate points, trolling, bullying (blackmailer!), and the slander/libel is bound to come if you haven't already crossed that line. I'd rather know nothing about you until we get on the phone, and find out who you are in real time... if I knew ahead of time (and in this case, I do) I would want to cancel you in my area and anywhere in my vicinity.

At this point for me personally, I am interested in talking to theists I know nothing about, or at least don't dislike yet. (I know too much about you already, that I already want to spit on your face, and I don't like that feeling, nor do I seek to purposefully subject myself to it). Or I like speaking to people who seem to have a modicum of personal honesty, the type of person that can say "hey, you're right about that."

Those theists are hard to come by, but the conversations are more enjoyable, I don't feel like smashing my face into a brick when they're over, and there's a chance I might actually smile. When the show is back to recording interviews, I will continue to seek those people out. Don't worry though, don't burn your bridge, and count yourself out... Rook and Kelly love picking on know it alls who don't know it all. You have a chance with them, calling me out (on your crimes) will only make me give them a weird look when they ask me to book you. The blackmail/ultimatum will only make Rook and Kelly want to smash your face with a brick, so flip the attitude, and maybe you'll have a chance, twerp.

 

 

 

HERE ARE THE COMMENTS JOSHUA RYAN DELLINGER MADE IN OTHER THREADS NOT PERTAINING TO THIS.

THIS IS NOW THE THREAD THAT JOSHUA RYAN DELLINGER CAN COMMENT IN WITHOUT REGISTERING FOR AN ACCOUNT. THEY REMAIN UNCHALLENGED FOR OUR MEMBERS TO LAUGH AT (or respond to) IN ALL THEIR GLORY. I've put my thoughts [in red].

 

This comment left in a thread about our appearance on Tombcast Podcast:

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

Brian,

I understand that you do not debate within e-mail correspondence. I also understand that
1. Slander/Libel [You bordered on this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
2. Clear intent to not argue a position, but to merely attack a person [You bordered on this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
3. Trolling [You did this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
4. Abuse [You did this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
5. Bullying [You did this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]

[you also posted twice under two different names:sockpuppet against rules]
are categorically disallowed. I am attempting to inquire, then, in exactly what form you will allow an official debate between you, other colleagues of your choosing, myself, and one friend. I have written many times to no avail, and am beginning to wonder if the RRS is actually capable of responding to those who have more to do than merely stroke your egos. This is no vicious attack - this is a serious challenge.

Sincerely (again),

Joshua Ryan Dellinger

P.S. Additionally, let me add that I believe the RRS to be guilty of every last practice they forbid. Such tyranny should not be. PLEASE NOTE that I am not baiting you - I am simply supplying criticism (mild at that) and one again inviting you, as a worthy opponent, to a more challenging debate. I am no teenager nor philosophical freshman.[You're only four years older than a philosophical freshman fwiw, but that has absolutely nothing to do with why you've turned us off so much, you do act like a child. But so do many Pastors.] Please accept and retain your honor. [Dipshit, a debate with you is not what retains our honor, now how bout proving you're worth any honor at all, and start posting in our atheist vs theist section, within the rules?

Let's assume for a minute that we do break all of the above rules. You realize that there are dozens of others who also break all of those rules? That to be hypocrites we'd have to ban the others but leave ourselves? Since Kelly, Rook, Hamby, and I have taken more control over who gets banned only one person has been banned. One person, spamming off topic views named Euthymius was recently banned, and that's the only one I know of in a month or so. He was previously banned under a different name, a major no-no.

 

This comment left in a thread about my suit with Uri Geller:

 

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Submitted by Is This One Free? (not verified) on February 17, 2008 - 6:59pm.

Dear "Sapient"

Arrogant? Most assuredly. "Wise"? Perhaps "sophomoric" is more apt. But lest I dip into the "anals" (your word for annals, I believe? Please don't try to pass it off as a witty intention) of all ad hominems, and thus reduce myself to the RRS level, I would like to formally apprise you of both my identity and my offer.

I have written several times to both you and Kelly. Each time I have congenially extended a challenge to you and her. This would consist in a mannerly and mature debate on the existence of God[start acting mature, and then I might believe that] (proofs for the necessary existence of a creator being), the role of religion in society today, and other topics which we may or may not address given your consent and preferences.

I am well aware of the practices and methodologies of the RRS. [But not well aware enough to know that we haven't recorded a show for 5 months, and mention it in almost every webcam appearance we make. You also aren't familiar enough to know that the proper way to attain this debate would be to take it to our community and provide such good argumentation that our community would force us to have you on our show or face their own wrath/suspicions.] They include not only genetic fallacies, misattribution of causality, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, ad hominems, ad populums, appeals to authority (and even a few argumentum ad baculi), and a dozen other faulty and ignoble acts. [for the record... comedy isn't a logical fallacy. Jon Stewart is not ad hom-ing Bush. Our ridicule and humor at your imaginary friend's expense doesn't = fallacy] I agree with your critics who claim that you are "philosophical dilettantes". I have witnessed nothing worth commendation nor even toleration[Mindcore: your turn] , yet I have tallied a grand litany of offenses.

You should know that I am not a religious person[right, you're a "Christian" we've heard that one before]. I agree that religion is, overall, deleterious in effect. However, I am most certainly a principles debater who will not stoop to the contemptible methods that you and your associates seem to espouse. Therefore recognize, if you will, that I am not merely some "religious quack"[you're right, I'd say you're about par for the course. Falwell and Phelps, those are quacks. You're more of the typical "I know I'm right, and everyone else is being rude and using logical fallacies" type.] seeking your destruction, but rather a concerned logician who is appalled by the rank poorness of your arguments. [a logician who claims to be well aware of how we work yet hasn't the slightest clue that we aren't recording shows right now and haven't for 5 months.... some logician]

You, Dawkins, et al have made theistic beliefs the province of fools, backwards bumpkins, and the undereducated. This shameful misrepresentation is a foul vice on your part, and worthy of nothing but execration. Should you accept an actual challenge - that is - a debate with others who are not only your equals [there isn't a theist in the world that enters the scale of equal to us in the logic category, sorry]but quite possibly your logical superiors, perhaps you may earn something of a position of respect. As of yet, you have only earned laughable scorn.

I do, therefore, officially invite you (once again) to a constructive debate to be held between your crowd (specifically, you and whomever you choose) and my own. I think you'll find that we are not easy victories such as Ray Comfort and a handful of laypersons. We are, rather, philosophy students of diligent study, and just the sort to dispatch your pitifully irrational positions. [You're invited to have that debate on our Atheist Vs. Theist forum, but I won't be holding your hand like I am now.]

You should know that RRS is not the venerable social liberator you may hold it to be, but is rather scoffed at and derided (and the butt of several jokes within intellectual circles) by those actually disciplined in logic and argumentation.[Let's hear who they are and what their arguments are, ad hom, I mean Joshua Ryan Dillinger] You are not philosophers, mind you, nor admirable positivists. You are sophists, pseudo-intellectual bullies, and self-glorifying, swaggering blowhards.

Please do accept the challenge. I am documenting every last letter I send (one daily until you either formally decline for legitimate reasons - i.e., you're scared - or until we have secured an agreement) and will continue to post public exposes of your lack of fortitude. I consider your lack of response (and complete lack of rationality) to be one of the more blatant though still mildly entertaining ironies your organization has provided me.[emphasis on blackmail paragraph is mine]

Sincerely,

Joshua Ryan Dellinger

P.S. If you do in fact wish to condemn amenable adolescents' souls to immortal hellfire or, alternatively, instantly liberate their consciousnesses for the rest of their physical persistence, you might first do a little research into exactly what "blasphemy" consists of. Here, I'll spare you the effort:[Thanks Pastor]

Jesus mentions a sin that is unforgivable in Matt. 12:31-32 and calls it blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. But what exactly is this unforgivable sin? For that, we need to look at the context.

Matt. 12:22-32 says, "Then there was brought to Him a demon-possessed man who was blind and dumb, and He healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. 23And all the multitudes were amazed, and began to say, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?" 24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons." 25And knowing their thoughts He said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself shall not stand. 26"And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand? 27"And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Consequently they shall be your judges. 28"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29"Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come," (All Scripture quotes are from the NASB).

Let me review this section briefly. In verse 22, Jesus healed a blind and dumb man. The Pharisees accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the power of "Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons" (v. 24). Jesus responds by saying that a kingdom divided will fall (vv. 25-28) and how the devil must first be bound before you can plunder his house (v. 29). In verses 31-32, He states that blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come.
By simply looking at the context it becomes apparent that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is saying that Jesus did His miracles by the power of the devil. This is unforgivable. But why? We can find a clue by looking at when Jesus began His ministry.


Jesus stated that His baptism was to "fulfill all righteousness," (Matt. 3:15). The word "fulfill" should cause us to think of the Old Testament. Basically, Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the Old Testament requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:21; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest. According to the Old Testament, in order for a priest to be consecrated as a priest, He had to be washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:15) and anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16). Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. Additionally, He may have needed to be 30 years old - (Num. 4:3).


The oil is representative of the Holy Spirit who descended upon Jesus at His baptism (Matt. 3:16). It was after His baptism that He began His ministry and started performing miracles. He did His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit who had come upon Him at His baptism. The Pharisees - who knew that Jesus' miracles validated His words and ministry (see John 11:45-48) - were attempting to discredit Jesus' Messiahship by saying that His works were by the devil and not by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan, they were blaspheming the Holy Spirit by whom Jesus performed His miracles. This is unforgivable because it struck at the very heart of the redemptive work of God in Christ. It struck at the very nature of Jesus’ ministry of redemption, testimony, and teaching. Jesus was ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit Himself, fulfilling the divine plan of God to provide a sacrifice for our sins (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). The Pharisees were attributing this to demonic activity. This is a great blasphemy.

As for your very typical Christian attack on the Blasphemy Challenge... how ironic considering you did one of those typical dishonest Christian tactics of pretending to be on our side. As if we're fucking morons and are going to change everything about who we are because some Christian infiltrates, tells us to be nice to Christians, and pretends to be on our side the whole time. We're not idiots Joshua, find an idiot to debate, seems more your size.

Here was your quote ""I do agree with the RRS position...I should clarify: I simply do not agree with the adolescent and laughable methods which - you should and most likely do know - are completely and rightfully ignored in academic circles."

Agree with the RRS position, yet have picked apart the bible exactly as a Pastor would? Interesting.

Here is a response video on that issue for you to pray on, I mean think on... I mean prey on.

 


Mazid the Raider
Rational VIP!Science Freak
Mazid the Raider's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to explain this

I'm going to explain this using simple words so you can understand, fucktard of the month. In fact, I'll use an analogy! You should like that! 

Imagine - if that isn't too tough, you fucking troll, that you're sitting at a stop sign at a T intersection with traffic backed up behind you. You can go either left or right, but you have to make a choice. Sitting at the stop sign is a bad idea, because sooner or later people who go left AND right are going to start calling you out for being a fence sitting pussy. This is not agnosticism, it's avoiding having to make a difficult choice. You may not be sure which way you should go, BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS TURN AROUND.

Either you believe in god, or you don't, or you're too shitless to think about it. It is incorrect to posit agnosticism as a third and distinct option. Now crawl back into your little troll den and shut the ever loving fuck up. 

I'm through trying with you. Any post from me to you in this thread will be nothing more than insults. I'm sure, in fact I KNOW that you will take this as some kind of victory, like your crappy little scribblings changed my mind or something, but we ALL know you're trying to cover your wounds.

Incidentally, you've claimed a few times to speak for Academia... what academia, where? Who agrees with you? Send them here, see if they have better luck than you. If someone else were to post, reasonably politely and completely honestly (as you have not) we would be delighted to have an open and friendly conversation. You've blown your chance. Well? What do you say? Bring another living, breathing person - and not a sockpuppet - to the conversation and maybe they'll have better luck than you.

 

Oh, yeah. I'd like to see your video response to the Blasphemy Challenge. That'd clear up a few things. 

"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling

Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm not reading the

I'm not reading the majority of your posts.

The thing is Joshua that I am seriously starting to question if you aren't just a Baptist that is misrepresenting his own beliefs.

Out of curiosity, why are you posting here? What do you expect to get out of it? You have avoided responding to claims that you just are an attention seeker looking for an argument which makes me wonder why I should assume anything less.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Will you take a logical reasoning exam if I pay the fee?

Yes, as will Kelly and Rook.  Let's see what test and company you propose.

 

Quote:
I will, you know.

Good I'll be holding you to that, and ridiculing you again publicly as a liar if you don't.

 

Quote:
I'll personally bet 500 bucks of my own meager subsistence that it won't be instated.

You bet $500 that we wont even take the test or that we're not gonna meet your standards?

I'd put my entire life worth on the fact that EVERY SINGLE PERSON at our site with a "high level mod" badge or higher would beat whatever score you receive.

 

Oh... how about you submit this thread to http://thenonsequitur.com to ask them to analyze who holds the logic high ground here.  We were going to, but we think it'll look biased considering we've exposed just how fucking dumb you are over and over.  You should do it though.  I double dog dare you and if you don't I'll send you an email about it everyday for the rest of your life.  Idiot.

 

So go ahead fess up... you're the Josh Dellinger from the UNCC area that keeps popping up with your name attached to all sorts of Christian functions, aren't you?  

 


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
"I'm not reading the

"I'm not reading the majority of your posts."

--That's right! Just close your eyes and it will all go away. You can still be absolutely logical, correct, and intelligent. You are golden, my son.

"The thing is Joshua that I am seriously starting to question if you aren't just a Baptist that is misrepresenting his own beliefs."

--No, I'm sorry. Just a skeptical bastard who completely spanked your fucking stupid ass. Publicly.

Out of curiosity, why are you posting here? What do you expect to get out of it? You have avoided responding to claims that you just are an attention seeker looking for an argument which makes me wonder why I should assume anything less.

--I have gotten several things out of it. Firstly, I have demonstrated that the RRS is a bungling mass of twits, children, and fools who can't even respond to the most basic of theistic arguments. Secondly, I have improved my own understanding of both agnosticism and skepticism by being forced to articulate my views. Thirdly, I have had fun. Fourthly, you shouldn't say that not responding to claims means that you may continue in your assumption. You are the one covering your eyes here...not me. I have read everything you've said and delivered blistering critiques that evince your logical inconsistency, poor reasoning abilities, and absolute incoherence. You have already admitted defeat on several grounds, whether you will re-admit it or not. I think I've gained at least a little ground for the skeptical crowd here, by undermining and completely refuting your position on theism/atheism. This, along with other gains, have made this quite fruitful. That Sapient relegates this to a confined corner is no surprise - those pejoratively mislabeled at "upstarts/trolls/fractious" are generally ignored within a greater community, despite the fact that they may have more cogent points, better arguments, and more justified positions. Not reading what I post or confining it to one thread will not make any difference. Publicly, the debate has been documented and the foundations of the RRS have been not only called into question, but weakened and possibly even dissolved. I should like to point out this came an accidental consequence of confronting blowhards and blustering sophomores. But all's well and all that.

The fact that you have to continuously doubt my MOTIVES means that, at best, RRS (of which you are a representative, mind you) can resort to ad hominems (motives are included...reference the evidence I supplied for this claim), tu quoques (a species of ad hominem argument), and other fallacies. You can't deal with the actual arguments, but instead only question my motives for supplying them in order to dodge the issue at hand. For shame.

So overall I've both strengthened my confidence (although I really shouldn't feel adept by being able to expose charlatans...this was actually quite easy) and become more solid on my personal positions. And along the way I drew out contradictions in your logic, a total lack of justified foundation for your cause, and flagrant inabilities to both comprehend my positions and defend your own. You have been properly spanked. You're welcome. Smiling


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Oh, Brian, Brian, Brian.

Oh, Brian, Brian, Brian. The fallacies just continue to roll, don't they? It should not matter one bit WHO I am, only the arguments I have provided. But all you can do is say I THINK I KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU GO TO SCHOOL! How silly of you. I did in fact provide all this information in a link, didn't I? I have used my full name several times. I openly engaged you with your disclosed identity and requited with my own. I don't see why this continues to be an issue for you. This does not address my arguments and is the most blatant ad hominem I have ever seen, because you still, STILL have to question only WHO has these arguments and not WHAT the arguments contain.

I'll talk to my professors and see if I can't obtain a few logic exams so that we can all take them for free. I don't mind paying, of course, but what's the point if I can acquire the goods gratis? Additionally, I'm not familiar with the link you provided and would prefer to know the credentials of the person(s) who evaluate(s) this debate. Forgive me for being paranoid, but I find it hard to believe you would actually elect an objective source. The very process itself is difficult because I have been singularly tasked with responding to several arguments, although I don't mind so much. This complicates issues as no dialectic can be determined precisely. Whose arguments are going to be evaluated? Are you also represented by Mr. Atheist? I think at this point, much to his chagrin, you would most assuredly say NO! You may wish to maintain the theist/atheist dichotomy, whereas he has already amended it. Additionally, there is the greater problem of "poisoning the well". Many times I have simply been railroaded instead of given good opportunity to respond. But again - predicted.

So in Joshua Ryan Dellinger versus the Rational Response Squad, who exactly is represented here? If Mr. Atheist is included, then I have already exposed his blatant blunders. Do you doubt this? I should like to include every response on this thread as subject to logical scrutiny. The problem is that you have already sort of...ummm...well let's just say the debate degraded into abject and disgraceful vituperation and posting (on your part) of tasteless imagery. I don't think many accredited and respectable institutions would gladly evaluate this given these facts.

In me versus you, Joshua versus Sapient, I will accept a review of the logical fallacies which is subject to appeal and challenge by both you and me. I don't know any definitive, absolute authority on the subject, but I do think they could help you distinguish between logical inference and straw men. Many times I have perhaps misunderstood your position (probably because you only deny one after the other instead of actually professing one hard and fast definition) and worked from the logical implications therein. Denouncing it as a straw man and thereby refusing to debate the topic I initially proposed, which you still haven't, by the way, thus has provided us no progress.

I am glad you seem to be...ummm...more cooperative? But I still have a genuine question. That is: have you even read through the kalam cosmological argument yet? I have a copy I can send you if you really, really are interested in defending your position. But all I have seen is that you wish to point out flaws (and I'm sure there are some) in my comprehension of your purpose here. In effect, I asked for your response to a very standard objection to atheism. You instead niggled over what exactly your atheism entailed. But you never once personally addressed the argument. You labeled me as a theist, drew comparisons with fundamentalists, and questioned my motives - all tu quoques and ad hominems. What exactly do you suppose any objective committee would conclude upon reviewing your side of this argument? Surely you cannot doubt that you have done these things. You even blatantly provide a faulty definition for what constitutes and ad hominem fallacy, stating that it only consists of insulting the person instead of addressing the argument. Again, that's cute. All of you, very cute people. I hope you do well in life in order to support your families and whatever else. But you painfully have no concept of the fallacies you throw around (we won't even get into the proposed straw men, which I concede to be the product of partially misunderstanding your position, which still remains quite incoherent).

Concerning that last parenthetical, let me say this: the stated goals of the RRS include the elimination of theism, on the grounds that it has no evidence. The RRS does not recognize a large bulk of philosophy, then, and is calling for much more than it realizes. As a student of the practice, I cannot allow this (notice how we're into motives now? This is what happens when you argue off campus). There are very intelligent and elaborate and convincing arguments for the existence of a first cause, Brian. These do not depend on empirical "evidence", just as logic itself does not, as well as the tenet of free will. These things - reason, first cause, free will - cannot be held to the same standards as scientific inquiries. That you want to do away with whatever cannot be proven scientifically (tenet of Mr. Atheism and, by association and inclusion, I am presuming of RRS) means that many, many things will fall into this.

Perhaps you are really concerned that creationism is being pushed. I agree that it is not a scientific theory. I don't really care for ID (gets the cart before the horse, impossible to prove, evidence to the contrary, etc.) but we have never once discussed this matter. Creation is not the same as a first cause. I have submitted metaphysical arguments which you have personally failed to address and many others have only ignored ("quit reading after they saw it didn't rely on evidence"). My point is that much of what we make use of, including mathematics, has categorically no evidence in the natural world. If you had cared to study the foundations of science or perhaps the philosophy of science, you'd be well aware that this is a very crippling problem. We synthesize analytic systems of abstract concepts (mathematics, for example) with empirical evidence in order to conduct science. The positivist position explicated by Mr. Atheist does not even allow for mathematics and thus not for science. Logic must also be included into the method. I hope it will be clear what follows next.

The Kalam cosmological argument, which you have already admitted you are entirely unfamiliar with (misattributing it as Craig's creation is very telling) is indeed not an argument of science. It is, however, a very logical, rational, and legitimate one. For pete's sake, man...you have to admit (perhaps I should be addressing Mr. Atheist here) that many things science makes use of (the aforementioned mathematics, for one) cannot be proven in the natural world through empirical investigation and falsifiable experiments. 2+2=4 is an analytic proposition (despite what Kant says) and can never be discovered in the natural world. You may here be tempted to advance common objections but please investigate the matter before posing any armchair objections. By recognizing that logic is as valid as empirical evidence, you admit that arguments of pure reason are valid. You surely do not reject the discipline of logic or mathematics. Try to prove double negation in the natural world (Wittgenstein). Try to prove division. Godel has already demonstrated the limits of analytic investigation, and many others have demonstrated the limits of empirical investigation. Their fusion into science does not repair or negate their individual limitations. Science simply cannot account for many things you yourself hold to be true, including your free will and your belief in mathematics, logic, reason, etc. Cosmological arguments for the existence of a first cause are legitimate and must be addressed, and therefore, if theistic in nature, should not be wantonly eliminated from all concern. You claim that you also wish to eliminate the notion that science is dogmatic. Then you allow comments from Mr. Atheist that "it isn't based on evidence, so I just ignored it" to represent your organization. This is nothing short of positivist fascism and narrow-mindedness.

TAKE NOTE: I fully believe in science and promote it thoroughly! My personal area of interest is pharmacology and epidemiology. I thoroughly support medicine (with a pragmatic stance, which even the best doctors and theories will admit) as improved through the methods of science. I, however, unlike Mr. Atheist and the Hanarooki Code, recognize the limits of the scientific enterprise. You cannot empirically prove that you opened your front door this morning, unless you have a recording of it. We have no record of the origin of the universe, only evidence of the conditions now, and must reason (LOOK AT THAT! REASON) antichronologically. This is not poor logic and impermissible speculation, as Mr. Atheist and the Hanarooki Code suggest. It is rather the only option we have, and a perfectly legitimate one at that.

Metaphysics takes into account three things, as I've already mentioned: the state of affairs at present, the conditions, principles, and operations/nature of the universe, and pure reason. You cannot lop off any of the aforementioned and ably preserve metaphysics, which, as we have proven, is a sound and legitimate enterprise. The positivist attitude presented by Hanarooki and Mr. Atheist is invalid.

Sorry this post is so long, but there was much that needed to be said. I don't expect you to address any of the arguments I advanced, but rather only to quote me on this current sentence and then call me a few names at the end. You have this very ugly way of ignoring all arguments and instead only vitiating the dispensable and passable linguistic glue between them. I should have communicated in the style of:

1) Kalam cosmological argument: personal response?

as that would have neatly avoided most of your artful deflection. But, please, continue to speculate about my origins, my current location, my name, my matriculation, my goals, my motivations, and my belief state. All of this is very rational and pertinent, isn't it? (No, but rather only a litany of ad hominems - you have yet to address the first argument I posed, let alone the dozen others that have cropped up the past few days) All of this is the sort of behavior that any self-respecting arguer would love to invite objective evaluation of by an impartial committee, right? Honestly, you have no shame.

So here: ignore everything up there if you like and try these:

1) Do you agree with Mr. Atheist that skepticism is a valid and acceptable position? (don't worry about the ramifications to your cause, just answer the question honestly)
2) Have you even read through a full treatment of the kalam cosmological argument?
3) If the answer to 2) is in the affirmative, have you a response or, even more, a refutation? The one you linked to was very poor indeed and I have already addressed it. I have a meeting with some friends tomorrow night and I'm sure one of them or myself will happily articulate its flaws if you like.
4) Do you have a response to the charge of RRS' position on atheism/theism making use of etymological fallacies?
5) Do you actually hold positivist positions?

That's enough for now. In the case of 5, though, you might take a gander at the downfall of logical positivism. Popper's falsification didn't exactly salvage as much as most positivists/scientists would like to believe, and I'm sure that with a moment's research, you could see why.


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Oh, Brian, Brian, Brian.

Oh, Brian, Brian, Brian. The fallacies just continue to roll, don't they? It should not matter one bit WHO I am, only the arguments I have provided. But all you can do is say I THINK I KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU GO TO SCHOOL! How silly of you. I did in fact provide all this information in a link, didn't I? I have used my full name several times. I openly engaged you with your disclosed identity and requited with my own. I don't see why this continues to be an issue for you. This does not address my arguments and is the most blatant ad hominem I have ever seen, because you still, STILL have to question only WHO has these arguments and not WHAT the arguments contain.

I'll talk to my professors and see if I can't obtain a few logic exams so that we can all take them for free. I don't mind paying, of course, but what's the point if I can acquire the goods gratis? Additionally, I'm not familiar with the link you provided and would prefer to know the credentials of the person(s) who evaluate(s) this debate. Forgive me for being paranoid, but I find it hard to believe you would actually elect an objective source. The very process itself is difficult because I have been singularly tasked with responding to several arguments, although I don't mind so much. This complicates issues as no dialectic can be determined precisely. Whose arguments are going to be evaluated? Are you also represented by Mr. Atheist? I think at this point, much to his chagrin, you would most assuredly say NO! You may wish to maintain the theist/atheist dichotomy, whereas he has already amended it. Additionally, there is the greater problem of "poisoning the well". Many times I have simply been railroaded instead of given good opportunity to respond. But again - predicted.

So in Joshua Ryan Dellinger versus the Rational Response Squad, who exactly is represented here? If Mr. Atheist is included, then I have already exposed his blatant blunders. Do you doubt this? I should like to include every response on this thread as subject to logical scrutiny. The problem is that you have already sort of...ummm...well let's just say the debate degraded into abject and disgraceful vituperation and posting (on your part) of tasteless imagery. I don't think many accredited and respectable institutions would gladly evaluate this given these facts.

In me versus you, Joshua versus Sapient, I will accept a review of the logical fallacies which is subject to appeal and challenge by both you and me. I don't know any definitive, absolute authority on the subject, but I do think they could help you distinguish between logical inference and straw men. Many times I have perhaps misunderstood your position (probably because you only deny one after the other instead of actually professing one hard and fast definition) and worked from the logical implications therein. Denouncing it as a straw man and thereby refusing to debate the topic I initially proposed, which you still haven't, by the way, thus has provided us no progress.

I am glad you seem to be...ummm...more cooperative? But I still have a genuine question. That is: have you even read through the kalam cosmological argument yet? I have a copy I can send you if you really, really are interested in defending your position. But all I have seen is that you wish to point out flaws (and I'm sure there are some) in my comprehension of your purpose here. In effect, I asked for your response to a very standard objection to atheism. You instead niggled over what exactly your atheism entailed. But you never once personally addressed the argument. You labeled me as a theist, drew comparisons with fundamentalists, and questioned my motives - all tu quoques and ad hominems. What exactly do you suppose any objective committee would conclude upon reviewing your side of this argument? Surely you cannot doubt that you have done these things. You even blatantly provide a faulty definition for what constitutes and ad hominem fallacy, stating that it only consists of insulting the person instead of addressing the argument. Again, that's cute. All of you, very cute people. I hope you do well in life in order to support your families and whatever else. But you painfully have no concept of the fallacies you throw around (we won't even get into the proposed straw men, which I concede to be the product of partially misunderstanding your position, which still remains quite incoherent).

Concerning that last parenthetical, let me say this: the stated goals of the RRS include the elimination of theism, on the grounds that it has no evidence. The RRS does not recognize a large bulk of philosophy, then, and is calling for much more than it realizes. As a student of the practice, I cannot allow this (notice how we're into motives now? This is what happens when you argue off campus). There are very intelligent and elaborate and convincing arguments for the existence of a first cause, Brian. These do not depend on empirical "evidence", just as logic itself does not, as well as the tenet of free will. These things - reason, first cause, free will - cannot be held to the same standards as scientific inquiries. That you want to do away with whatever cannot be proven scientifically (tenet of Mr. Atheism and, by association and inclusion, I am presuming of RRS) means that many, many things will fall into this.

Perhaps you are really concerned that creationism is being pushed. I agree that it is not a scientific theory. I don't really care for ID (gets the cart before the horse, impossible to prove, evidence to the contrary, etc.) but we have never once discussed this matter. Creation is not the same as a first cause. I have submitted metaphysical arguments which you have personally failed to address and many others have only ignored ("quit reading after they saw it didn't rely on evidence"). My point is that much of what we make use of, including mathematics, has categorically no evidence in the natural world. If you had cared to study the foundations of science or perhaps the philosophy of science, you'd be well aware that this is a very crippling problem. We synthesize analytic systems of abstract concepts (mathematics, for example) with empirical evidence in order to conduct science. The positivist position explicated by Mr. Atheist does not even allow for mathematics and thus not for science. Logic must also be included into the method. I hope it will be clear what follows next.

The Kalam cosmological argument, which you have already admitted you are entirely unfamiliar with (misattributing it as Craig's creation is very telling) is indeed not an argument of science. It is, however, a very logical, rational, and legitimate one. For pete's sake, man...you have to admit (perhaps I should be addressing Mr. Atheist here) that many things science makes use of (the aforementioned mathematics, for one) cannot be proven in the natural world through empirical investigation and falsifiable experiments. 2+2=4 is an analytic proposition (despite what Kant says) and can never be discovered in the natural world. You may here be tempted to advance common objections but please investigate the matter before posing any armchair objections. By recognizing that logic is as valid as empirical evidence, you admit that arguments of pure reason are valid. You surely do not reject the discipline of logic or mathematics. Try to prove double negation in the natural world (Wittgenstein). Try to prove division. Godel has already demonstrated the limits of analytic investigation, and many others have demonstrated the limits of empirical investigation. Their fusion into science does not repair or negate their individual limitations. Science simply cannot account for many things you yourself hold to be true, including your free will and your belief in mathematics, logic, reason, etc. Cosmological arguments for the existence of a first cause are legitimate and must be addressed, and therefore, if theistic in nature, should not be wantonly eliminated from all concern. You claim that you also wish to eliminate the notion that science is dogmatic. Then you allow comments from Mr. Atheist that "it isn't based on evidence, so I just ignored it" to represent your organization. This is nothing short of positivist fascism and narrow-mindedness.

TAKE NOTE: I fully believe in science and promote it thoroughly! My personal area of interest is pharmacology and epidemiology. I thoroughly support medicine (with a pragmatic stance, which even the best doctors and theories will admit) as improved through the methods of science. I, however, unlike Mr. Atheist and the Hanarooki Code, recognize the limits of the scientific enterprise. You cannot empirically prove that you opened your front door this morning, unless you have a recording of it. We have no record of the origin of the universe, only evidence of the conditions now, and must reason (LOOK AT THAT! REASON) antichronologically. This is not poor logic and impermissible speculation, as Mr. Atheist and the Hanarooki Code suggest. It is rather the only option we have, and a perfectly legitimate one at that.

Metaphysics takes into account three things, as I've already mentioned: the state of affairs at present, the conditions, principles, and operations/nature of the universe, and pure reason. You cannot lop off any of the aforementioned and ably preserve metaphysics, which, as we have proven, is a sound and legitimate enterprise. The positivist attitude presented by Hanarooki and Mr. Atheist is invalid.

Sorry this post is so long, but there was much that needed to be said. I don't expect you to address any of the arguments I advanced, but rather only to quote me on this current sentence and then call me a few names at the end. You have this very ugly way of ignoring all arguments and instead only vitiating the dispensable and passable linguistic glue between them. I should have communicated in the style of:

1) Kalam cosmological argument: personal response?

as that would have neatly avoided most of your artful deflection. But, please, continue to speculate about my origins, my current location, my name, my matriculation, my goals, my motivations, and my belief state. All of this is very rational and pertinent, isn't it? (No, but rather only a litany of ad hominems - you have yet to address the first argument I posed, let alone the dozen others that have cropped up the past few days) All of this is the sort of behavior that any self-respecting arguer would love to invite objective evaluation of by an impartial committee, right? Honestly, you have no shame.

So here: ignore everything up there if you like and try these:

1) Do you agree with Mr. Atheist that skepticism is a valid and acceptable position? (don't worry about the ramifications to your cause, just answer the question honestly)
2) Have you even read through a full treatment of the kalam cosmological argument?
3) If the answer to 2) is in the affirmative, have you a response or, even more, a refutation? The one you linked to was very poor indeed and I have already addressed it. I have a meeting with some friends tomorrow night and I'm sure one of them or myself will happily articulate its flaws if you like.
4) Do you have a response to the charge of RRS' position on atheism/theism making use of etymological fallacies?
5) Do you actually hold positivist positions?

That's enough for now. In the case of 5, though, you might take a gander at the downfall of logical positivism. Popper's falsification didn't exactly salvage as much as most positivists/scientists would like to believe, and I'm sure that with a moment's research, you could see why.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I tried reading this

I tried reading this thread, but every paragraph begins with mind-numbing bluster. Not worth the trouble.

What's the threat? Is this another Irish Farmer/Mykey-esque debate challenge from a random, for lack of a more appropriate term, nobody?


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
That last post was submitted

That last post was submitted twice do to a lag in the network and a need to refresh the page. Sorry.

This is nice:
"So go ahead fess up...you're the Josh Dellinger from the UNCC area that keeps popping up with your name attached to all sorts of Christian functions, aren't you?"

Firstly my name is Joshua, Bri. Joshua. Is that too hard? Secondly you seem to be implying that by proclaiming certain information I would be "confessing". I don't see what exactly is a "confession" at all. I don't necessarily think all christians are criminals for their beliefs. Perhaps you were just speaking in some vulgar vernacular. That's fine...but some of my colleagues are christian and some of them are atheist. None of them have to "fess up" to their positions as if they were some secret, contemptible shame. Lastly, I again ask you what difference it would make if I were a christian or if I did attend christian functions? If you continue to ask irrelevant questions that could only become relevant through fallacious reasoning (genetic fallacy, ho!), I don't think any exam will be necessary. You are repeatedly confirming what little grasp of pertinence and proper argumentation you hold.

Brian, you have a child. I bet you had that child by accident. I bet really you didn't expect it and even thought about abortion. I bet your "mistake" changed the course of your life and caused you to do what you're doing now. I bet in reality you don't have sole custody of your child. This is all your personal information and I, unlike you, see that it is entirely irrelevant. Dawkins was molested by a priest, yes? That is not something I would ever think of when refuting his claims. You, however, persist in asking about PERSONAL matters, as if they have any bearing on metaphysics, semantics, science, atheism, or the other issues I thought you were interested in. What a joke you are.


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
More brick walls of

More brick walls of text...did he admit that he's a lieing christian antagonist yet?


Mazid the Raider
Rational VIP!Science Freak
Mazid the Raider's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
No, Magilum, I think

No, Magilum, I think calling him a nobody is fairly appropriate - certainly more of a compliment than other names we should probably be using.

 And Joshua, again so you don't have to strain your brain trying to come up with what we might call you: you are a saliva dribbling, pathetic, moaning simpleton with all the innate lovability of a burst anal polyp and about as much intelligence as is generally found in what football players scrape from between their toes.

Fortunately, though, calling you a nobody is much more concise.

"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling

Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
"Rational".

"Rational".


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"Rational".

Deception 


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Well thank you for that very

Well thank you for that very elaborate and faulty analogy on the matter of forced choice where there is none. I'm very glad you have supplied this, as it essentially the most common form of false dichotomy characterization one could ever concoct. I'm very thankful to you, for now whenever I encounter that stop sign at the roads of thought, I will know that I need to turn on my blinker of thought, gently release the clutch of thought, and apply the accelerator of thought towards a directed vector.

Here's a neat one: "...you're sitting at a stop sign at a T intersection with traffic backed up behind you. You can go either left or right, but you have to make a choice. Sitting at the stop sign is a bad idea, because sooner or later people who go left AND right are going to start calling you out for being a fence sitting pussy. This is not agnosticism, it's avoiding having to make a difficult choice. You may not be sure which way you should go, BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS TURN AROUND.

Well if it's really a T intersection then I could always pull a three-point road turn and go back in the direction I came from without having to go left or right. Wow. Even your metaphor is internally flawed. Of course you might now say 'NO NO STUPID IT'S A ONE LANE ROAD!' You are darling. Can I give you a little peck? Just on one cheek? You pick the cheek. BUT YOU MUST PICK THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT.

And, by the way, who exactly is going to "call me out for being a fence-sitting pussy"? This sounds more like YHVH than anything else, doesn't it? BE NOT LUKEWARM JOSHUA. HOW DARE YOU. THUS SAYETH RRS. I thought you guys were better than that? But no, you're just as fascist; you're only driving in the opposite direction. Do my personal beliefs really matter so much that other people are going to start shouting at me if I don't make a decision right now? Are my immaterial and unextended beliefs really "crowding" anything? Are they preventing anyone else's motility? No, not at all. It's impossible for what is immaterial, unextended, and private to be obstructive to anyone else. My, you're cute.

There seems to be an internal dispute here, though. I have already accepted your definition of agnosticism. But Mr. Atheist has already agreed that skepticism, which is neither agnostic/gnostic or theist/atheist is a valid option. You might want to have a meeting so you guys can get clear on your beliefs before militating them.

HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

I know you guys enjoy Wikipedia.

Honestly, Sapient, why do you even allow these fools to speak? They only further discredit your organization by continuing to spew solely irrational, emotive, philosophically vacuous rancor. And when pinned into a corner against their own dyslogic and nonsense, they simply close their eyes and blindly cast aspersions. Some pedigree!


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
My mistake. It was not Mr.

My mistake. It was not Mr. Atheist who claimed skepticism is a valid option. It was Mazid the Raider (MTR). In any event, all arguments remain essentially unchanged, and, mutatis mutandis, I'm sure Sapient et al are now distancing themselves from this one.

Here is another golden bullion, though:

"An organization seeking to help humanity abandon its primitive beliefs that can now easily be proven false. Belief in a god is primitive, irrational, and unreasonable. Most people who don't believe in god simply lack belief, like the day we were all born. Most nonbelievers (or atheists) are agnostics as well... as are the founders of The Rational Response Squad." (taken from the official Facebook group with Kelly and Brian as members, thus sanctioned)

Contrast that with this:

"Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

...you cannot prove (am.) nor disprove god...

Who said we can? None of us. Stop pretending we say shit like that. See that? Right there you set up a Straw Man. THAT's right, reread through your own slobbering mess. You just used a logical fallacy, plain as day."

Additionally, Sapient has claimed that he is agnostic, that there may be a god but there remains no proof and thus he doesn't believe in one now. Alrighty. He has also maintained that theism should be eliminated (supporting Hanarooki's Code as official RRS agenda). This is interesting, given that the RRS has elsewhere (Facebook) stated that beliefs in god can be "easily proven false". I see you've tackled ID. That's fine. You haven't dealt with cosmology, but HEY we'll overlook that one too, friend! Let me then ask this penultimate question: how do you disprove a belief? Most likely you cannot. I believe I will have fun tomorrow night. Disprove it right now! What's the difference, here? Well, what you are actually disproving is a theory. In philosophy we have propositions and propositional attitudes and doxastic states. You seek to eliminate doxastic states and propositional attitudes of a certain sort, but that is not your place...unless you're into fascism.

Perhaps you seek to eliminate these "beliefs" (or, more properly, theories) by disproving the propositions contained within. Alright, well, let's investigate that option. How exactly does one "disprove" any proposition? Well, if it is analytic (we'll stay pre-Kripke here), then we deal with logic. If it is synthetic, then we appeal to empiricism. But what if the object of inquiry is inscrutable? If this entity is ultimately historically inaccessible, immaterial, and not subject to observation, then how can it be disproven? Being inscrutable is not being disproven, you must admit.

I would like to know how one disproves this entity. You may at best persuade others with logical argumentation. I have said before that if you should like to observe Ockham (whom you probably haven't even read) you may choose not to multiply entities beyond necessity. I think that is an excellent principle. But it doesn't "disprove" anything.

In order to be disproven, a proposition must be falsifiable, yes? The whole reason science has yet to definitively disprove this entire theistic matter is that the object of inquiry is, for the last time, inscrutable, ergo unfalsifiable. All the scientific theory in the world doesn't, and will never be able to, disprove god.

This of course doesn't prove god either. Naturally theists who claim they can prove god are wrong, and atheists who claim they can disprove god (like you) are wrong. You may say you don't claim this. Uhhh...review your public profiles.

Add to that: "theistic beliefs are primitive, irrational, an unreasonable". Well let's investigate this: is metaphysics, which was historically as "primitive" as religion, irrational? No, in fact it is erected upon only rationality. Is it "unreasonable"? No, not at all. I think I have demonstrated that at least a handful of atheists on this site are incapable of dealing with metaphysical theistic arguments, let alone understanding them. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away, and they are not refuted by decrying organized religion, the bible (or any holy book), or drawing false dichotomies and issuing ad hominems. Look: there is a reason why theistic beliefs haven't completely died out amongst the erudite. That being, metaphysically, there is some substance (no pun intended!) to them. RRS is at best metaphysically ignorant, and fatuously assured of themselves.

So:

1) Please tell me how to disprove an inscrutable entity. You claim to be able to do so. I want to know how.
2) Please explain why metaphysical beliefs are "irrational, primitive, and unreasonable". Don't just make the claim again. Tell me why.
3) I know Kelly said there are intelligent people who believe in god. That is inconsistent with the position of RRS ("theistic beliefs are irrational, primitive, and unreasonable"). It is not the mark of an intelligent mind to be "irrational, primitive, and unreasonable", is it? We'll ignore that part about compartmentalization. I haven't memorized the whole show, sorry.
4) Please try to keep all matters distinct and separate. The figure of Jesus is central to christian belief and not theism in general. Theistic tenets in general are likewise not all related to metaphysical arguments. So all questions other than the matter of metaphysics were, from the very beginning, irrelevant. I don't expect you to ever actually respond.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

3) I know Kelly said there are intelligent people who believe in god. That is inconsistent with the position of RRS

Wow, just wow.

Josh, do yourself a favor, crack your head open with a brick.   


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
It's like... all the

It's like... all the arguments I've ever seen before... all at once.

 


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Well since this was posted

Well since this was posted twice, I'll deal with it again.

"As for your very typical Christian attack on the Blasphemy Challenge... how ironic considering you did one of those typical dishonest Christian tactics of pretending to be on our side. As if we're fucking morons and are going to change everything about who we are because some Christian infiltrates, tells us to be nice to Christians, and pretends to be on our side the whole time. We're not idiots Joshua, find an idiot to debate, seems more your size."

--Misattribution of belief, genetic fallacy, etc. You imply (yes, you do, no straw man here) that because the attack is christian this matters - that because the attack is from a christian stance this is of logical significance. It isn't, and it also ISN'T a "christian" attack. It simply involves being able to read, I think.
z
"The Kalaam cosmological argument is just a sophisticated reworking of parts of Aquinas' cosmological argument. It is practically the same, just clothed in jargon and terminology designed to impress people who don't know better. His whole impossibility of an actual infinity is the best thing he has going, but that is not from a mathematical standpoint--it is solely because we have trouble wrapping our minds around that concept."

--This is one of the main reasons you people need to be reproven. Firstly, the Kalam argument is NOT just a "reworking" of Aquinas. I don't need to address the "jargon and terminology" remark, as it is logically insignificant...if Kelly has a problem with the language, so what? Notice I said "if". Whatever she means by "not from a mathematical standpoint", she obviously has not studied critiques of Cantorian set theory, which generates absurdities when applied rex natura. I would like to know how her very Kantian argument "it is solely because we have trouble wrapping our minds around that concept" is justified. Let's say I tell you it is impossible to do x. You remark that "no, it's only impossible for you to conceive of x". You have thus taken the same turn Kant did, by making a metaphysical argument an epistemological one. You now have the same difficulty he had. Prove it. Prove that it is only impossible epistemologically instead of metaphysically. When you say "it's impossible for us to wrap our heads around actual infinity", how do you know this is only due to the capacity of our understanding? In order to say such things, you would first have to have reference to something greater than our understanding in order to draw the comparison, would you not? Otherwise, how can it be known that there is a comprehension greater than our own? This is of course implied by stating that "it's impossible to wrap our heads around actual infinity". It may just be that set theory, like many things, cannot be translated into physical reality without producing absurdities and unintelligible claims.

"I have no time, nor the desire, to do so. You have not fooled me into believing that you are an atheist, or even close to one, so your attempt at subterfuge has failed."

--Errr...I never claimed to be an atheist, I don't believe.

"We don't need to convince those in academia--they already know."

--Well no one I have encountered (student or faculty) has both heard of you (more than half of them don't know you) or thinks your argumentation is sound (that's the other half). I'm sorry, but you're just really not that effective. But I'm only being viciously contentious.

That's another point I think I could address in relation to this "atheism necessarily includes skepticism since you're not all-in". As I have pointed out earlier, this is due to a misunderstanding of what "atheism" means in its current use. Of course one is free to redefine words as they choose, but of course others are also at liberty to reject those definitions and criticize them as unsatisfactory. Your conception (RRS' conception) of atheism is afoul of overextension. If we take the word "vicious", this term originally meant "acting out of vice". For one who does not hold virtue ethics, this word "vicious" would not apply. But certainly it is applied to mean much more than simply "possessing the quality of vice", and certainly is employed by those who do not hold virtue ethics. Similarly, "atheism" should not be understood through some linguistic fallacy of composition. (What is that...number five for you guys?) 'A' and 'theist' or 'theism' conjoined may mean (and, everywhere else in the world, does mean) something much more than simply "not theist" or "without theism". It's a clever, artful tact, but fallacious nonetheless.

Of course, like we all know, you are free to define your own terms. But when others do not accept your definitions, you cannot pin them to a wall and say 'AH BUT YOU MUST BE ATHEIST SINCE YOU DON'T HOLD THEISTIC BELIEFS!!!'. This is a further gross overstep of your militant attitude. Certainly you do not hold the absolute, impeccable (there's another word that has gone through semantic widening) dictionary, nor even a decent grasp of the language and how it functions. Elsewhere I have already demonstrated the untenable nature of the dichotomy you draw, as it too leads to absurdities. So drop it already.

"I have no idea who that is, either. I cannot make any statement on your opinion of his potential reaction to us as a group. I also would like to remind you that an insult is not necessarily an ad hom. I can critique an argument and then insult somebody as long as the insult isn't taking the place of a valid counterpoint. In case you need an example:
1: Yahweh exists.
2: Prove it. I have seen no evidence and besides, he's logically incoherent.
1: I just know it. I've seen people change and I feel him in my heart.
2: That's not evidence. You're a moron. (not an ad hom--just an insult)

1. Yahweh exists.
2. Well, you're a moron. (ad hom)"

--I wonder how you define ad hominem. Certainly it is true that not every insult is an ad hominem, but we have seen elsewhere that your group (Sapient, et al) believes that only insults are ad hominems. He might call this a straw man and commit the Sapient Fallacy. It is, however, strictly in accordance with reality and a faithful reading of this debate that it was in fact said that ad hominems are defined as insults. The very title of this thread, the procedure Sapient elected, and all the questions/concerns/accusations he and others continue to make are nothing more than rank ad hominems, though not insults. But this has been sufficiently dealt with elsewhere.

"As far as Dennett and Dawkins, they are widely regarded as excellent in their respective fields except in religious circles, so I'm assuming that by "budding students of philosophy and/or anthropology" you mean dilettantes who don't know their names."

--Awww...how cute of you! No, Dennett is laughed at (I've already been over this) because he maintains an epiphenomenalist position. Maybe that's not really subject for laughter in its own right, but still, anyone who denies free will is going to be generally disregarded. He's also kind of a dick, from what I hear. Dawkins is just a joke. Seriously. Taking on only those who are intellectually inferior and refusing to debate those who have open invitations extended to him, as well as making wild anthropological and biological/genetic claims while holding no professional background in these fields has him completely derided by anyone who knows anything, really. Jonathan Marks has a nice critique of him, as does any biology sophomore.

The point is that all this pop-biology/philosophy is generally not taken seriously for good reasons. The RRS is just another net meme (maybe Dawkins could help here) that is suitable for humor and absurdity, but nothing more. Honestly, not to sound overly elitist (I'm sure you wouldn't mind), it really depends on who you're writing to. Dawkins writes to laypersons, as does Dennett (although I have enjoyed some of his scholarly contributions). Concerning those texts, they're not really respectable. Concerning this message board, ditto.

"The first rebuttal I ever wrote was 4 years ago in response to my former pastor and largely dealing with that argument. I wrote about ten pages on it."

--So cute! Ten pages. Wow. Ten pages. Do you mean to say that - as a professional, here - your "rebuttal" to Aquinas, which was sufficient enough for you to leave metaphysics altogether, was thoroughly explicated in the space of a mere ten pages? Again, forgive me if I remain doubtful of the veracity of this claim. I would really like to read this. In all honesty, though, you may have been incredibly precise and you may have completely demonstrated that modality, motion, quality, design, and causality are all irrelevant and insufficient for metaphysical proofs of god. So I shouldn't say anything, really. Sorry.

"Also, point me to one instance of me personally employing the naturalistic fallacy or using a prescriptive moral argument."

--I'm sorry, I thought you held positivist positions. It was my impression that propositions can only be verified through science for you, or - more accurately - that only propositions/theories which have evidence that can be scrutinized and experimentally verified were valid. Is this not the reason you reject theistic positions? If not, please elucidate.

I won't say anything like "k thnx", but I will say "that's all for now".


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Heh. What a fucking hack

Heh. What a fucking hack you are.

Finish the sentence, dingbat. From one end of your dipshit Janus head you claim "there are intelligent people who hold theistic beliefs" then from the other you say "theistic beliefs are irrational, primitive, and unreasonable". Tell me how those two are compatible, LOGIC MASTER.

You are so full of shit, and it's been shown.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Finish the sentence, dingbat.

No, the rest was irrelevant, dishonest, and bullshit.

 

 

 


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I hope my new inspiration

I hope my new inspiration will not reproach me (nor be offended or displeased) for including this video, but I am in full agreement with his points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmI92oSAQms

So, taking his points with mine:

1) You misuse (he says "abuse" - I think him more accurate) several terms in your quest to eliminate theism. These include "atheism" and "proof", amongst others. Your rational, pertinent response, please?

2) You misuse (or possibly abuse) principles of proper argumentation and yet demand that others not violate these same principles. It is perhaps the case that you are incapable of recognizing your own error. It would be easier for me to believe this had I not explicitly directed your attention to several supplied instances of such behavior.

3) You routinely refuse to address arguments, accusations, and crucial rebuttals.

4) You thrust all beliefs, evidence, proof, argumentation, analysis, investigation, and theorization onto a procrustean bed of positivism. In even further ignominy, you are obdurately ignorant and dismissive of the flaws inherent in this behavior and framework.

5) I am now convinced that the more intelligent approaches against you are shamefully only ignored. I will waste no further time on this unless you address the specific arguments and faults I have posed to and against you.


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
If you want people to

If you want people to respond to you in a serious manner you shouldn't act like a total asshole before you even step in the door.  It also helps if you are honest if you want people to invest time into responding to you.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
I hope my new inspiration will not reproach me (nor be offended or displeased) for including this video, but I am in full agreement with his points. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmI92oSAQms

Your "inspiration" is someone who was deemed by members of our moderator staff as not worthy of time due to the impuissance of his arguments. The major difference between he and you is that he didn't threaten to stalk us until we responded.


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
http://www.thereignofchrist.c

http://www.thereignofchrist.com/index.php?option=com_seyret&task=videodirectlink&id=35

Brian's Brilliant Argumentation Skills:

1) (1:48) Making a claim with no support. "Googling" it later is not support. Being "sure" that you can "Google search it" later only makes your argument unsupported, speculative, specious, and laughable.
2) Alleging a straw-man when there isn't one (2:35). This is Brians' bread and butter, apparently. Although at that point Brian remarks "I never said what you want me to say", he fails to notice that Todd never claimed Brian said anything. Watch the video up to this point. Where did Todd restate Brian's claim? He never did. He simply responded to Brian's questions and topics. Brian did in fact make the claim without being able to supply any support. Good thing Brian always has the Sapient Fallacy to fall back on (accusing fallacies, especially straw-men, where their aren't any. And the Google Fallacy as well!
3) (1:30) Brian makes the claim that women aren't able to get an abortion when it will save their life.
4) (1:57) Brian says he's "not talking about late-term abortions", rather, he is "talking about abortions". Makes sense. Don't worry, we know you meant to say "I'm not only talking about late-term abortions, I'm talking about abortions in general".
5) (Todd:
6) (2:07) Brian says he doesn't "keep womens' names like that". That's right. He poses arguments and elects not to keep references (i.e., proof) on hand. Good tactic!
7) (2:54) Brian, when responding to Todd's remark that no evidence has been provided that women are dying due to no abortions being provided, remarks "you don't (have evidence)...and I don't have that woman's name right now". Again...brilliant, impeccable skills, "Sapient".
8*) (3:28) Changes subject instead of having to be engaged on a topic he doesn't know (Mexico abortions instead of in the U.S.) His original claim, if you'll recall from the video at 1:18, was that in this country, women have their "reproductive rights" -- then amended to abortion rights -- taken away. This isn't Mexico, Brian. But you are really fucking stupid.
9) (3:49) Brian misrepresents (straw-man, ho!) Todd's point, which also conveniently shirks the topic which was already in progress (i.e., more fetuses aborted in a day than women dying from improperabortions in an entire year).
10) (3:58) Brian poses a question to Todd: "Do you think that if it will save a woman's life to have an abortion that she should be able to do that?" Todd says: "Here's how I would phrase it: a doctor should make every effort to save both lives and if in the process of doing so the child is lost, then we weep over that". Notice that Todd completely addressed Brian's question. Not wanting to lose momentum (I suppose), Brian moves right along to pose a second question: "Do you think that laws should be created so that the woman would die and the baby would die?". Notice here again that this was a) a very incoherent, unspecific, unqualified question and b) only a rephrasing in legislative terms of Brian's initial question, which Todd already answered thoroughly. Quite properly, Todd responds with "I don't even know what that means, dude.". Exactly. Instead of clarifying, Brian moves on to say "Well that's the law". I'm sorry, Brian - what is the law, exactly?
11) (4:25) Another person interjects to admonish the duo for getting off topic. Brian makes a big deal about this for some odd reason. He then curses at Todd while a child looks onward (maybe his...who knows) and then menacingly points his finger inches from Todd's person (4:40) and accuses him of being a fraud and a liar.

Additionally Brian interrupts and becomes quite hostile. Not exactly fallacies, but the sort of adolescent, testosterone-soaked behavior that will only get you ignored by calm, logical circles. If you can't reason correctly you can at least behave.

Congratulations, Brian. An official fallacy is being submitted for approval, care of your own distinct brand of dyslogic.

Just quit while you're still...well...nah, go ahead. It's fun to watch.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Kelly said she is tired of

Kelly said she is tired of this retard posting as he arrogantly and obnoxiously thinks his arguments hold weight.

She's spent the last hour or two compiling her solitary post in response to Josh Dellinger.  We will be inserting it into the first post when she is complete.  Her piece will be sourced and will destroy the crux of the fallacious irrational stupidity that Josh has presented over and over.

 For me, Josh presents too huge a task.  To properly refute him I need a paragraph for each of his sentences, and he has shown that even if you write that paragraph he will repeat the same arguments that have been refuted, or worse, he'll tell us what our position is even though we've told him otherwise several times.  

 Anywho... just wanted you to be on the lookout for Kelly's insertion of Josh Dellinger having his ass handed to him coming in the top post of every page soon.  

 


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Hey Sapient, I noticed that

Hey Sapient,

I noticed that in this thread there are a lot of white walls of text with shit smeared all over them.  From a website perspective I think this is not a good style.  You should fire the designer.


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Heh. Well I suppose Kelly

Heh.

Well I suppose Kelly has magic powers. Somehow she will be able to explain how "intelligent" people hold "irrational, primitive" beliefs. I suppose she'll also be able to justify false dichotomies and etymological fallacies. And let's not forget the inherent flaws in positivist claims against theological argument. Or with positivism in general (problem of induction, self-reference, etc.). But she won't have to address these. Much like your much-hated president, she is free to simply ignore all critique. Such is your way, apparently.

I suppose as well she'll be able to thoroughly explain why RRS has the authority to strip people of their private beliefs. You're not only calling for an end to churches, my dear Stalin, so don't give me the line about "well if theistic beliefs were only private...". You're calling for the eradication of theism. Theism, even as you define it, is a belief which may even be held privately. My my...they do breed fascists right here in PA, don't they? You know, the hanbali nation of Saudi Arabia has something very close to thought police...perhaps you'd like to lease an island for your utopia to flourish?

This as I see it is the central flaw of RRS dogma: once you "respond" to opposing views, you consider them "refuted". But perhaps your "response" was not peremptory, perhaps it has its own flaws. As we've seen, your biggest problem, Sapient, is some constitutional inability to admit where you're wrong, even when you clearly perform as only a bungling, plodding fool on camera. Of course, being the egotistical shit you are, you won't allow that one through the post, will you? How it must stick in you like a canker.

RRS does not debate or dialogue. RRS instead only dismisses all opposing arguments as fallacious or unfounded, questioning the dispositions of the arguers (ad hominems) and slandering them as dishonest. RRS' (or at least the members who have dealt with me) is only capable of red herrings, diversions, and overlooking. When presented with decent arguments and serious critiques of your foundational assumptions, rationale, and methodologies, you refuse to cooperatively defend yourself in proper argumentative fashion. RRS is a pugnacious, puerile teenager who prides itself on belligerence, personal attack, confusing quarreling with logical argumentation, and apparently getting angry, as this helps them "think better". As we've clearly seen, however, a pissed off Sapient is still much, much too dumb to handle himself effectively. And none of us will be surprised when that first stroke hits, either.

Have a problem with the word "fascist"? Well, how about "dogmatist"? You chumps have all the making of each: doctrinaire tenets, dogmatic conceptions of conclusive inquiries (not ID theory, mind you, but positivism...you know...empirical evidence as necessary requirement for theory?), and belligerent, irrational attitudes and actions against those with contrary views.

Also, ten points for not posting my latest entry, which of course held irrefutable and indubitable evidence of your idiocy and completely pathetic lack of logic.

I'm not surprised you had to ask Kelly to do it for you. As we've seen, this is nothing new. She supplies the half-assed thought, you supply the...ummm...meathead sweat?

Still, I happily await Kelly's magical post. And if she has a hard time, she can always just ask me to "google it". That logical band-aid usually solves everything, am I right? I am quite sure she will not address the more substantive critiques of RRS (positivist attitudes and flaws therein, including my aforementioned inability to make moral judgments, etymological fallacies, false dichotomies, smear campaign tactics, ignoring arguments posed, failing to supply evidence in debate and believing it to be acceptable argumentative method, etc.). This, of course, is why RRS persists. Much like religion, it ignores everything contrary to itself and hostilely assails its detractors with flawed logic and bullying postures. Stalin would be proud.

Approve my last post. Be fair, you stupid, stupid fuck...or are you still too embarrassed to admit reality? I have documented all submissions with screen shots, so it only looks much worse that you have denied the post's display. But, either way, we're all fairly convinced that RRS is a toothless, thoughtless abyss of dyslogic and twits. And all we had to do was pay attention to you!


Mr. Atheist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Don't see any posts that

Don't see any posts that weren't approved for you.

And just a note...you sure have gotten snippy since it was re-suggested that you're a Christian.  Your posts are too long to read though to find out if you have admitted it yet.


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I had planned on not

I had planned on not responding to you, seen as how I already opted out of this never-ending argument which ultimately comes down to fundamental philosophical differences, as well as arbitrary differences of opinion. Fortunate for the sake of your continued enjoyment, I feel compelled to respond since you've dragged me and practically everybody I know into this circle-jerk.

Quote:
(To Brian: ) I think by that very fact alone you should not be able to claim atheistic positions. You have not earned them and your beliefs are no more the result of logical inquiry than any of the pietists you pity.


This is an absurd statement. Essentially, what you're saying is that nobody can hold a position on anything until all possible arguments have been thoroughly researched by them personally to YOUR satisfaction. I certainly hope you don't have a stance on car manufacturers since you likely don't understand the mechanics of a reciprocating piston engine. Not to mention the thousands of other issues on which one can have a position. If a person is lacking necessary information, and you have it, then certainly, enlightening them is helpful. However, attempting to make your standards the sole arbiter of the "right" of a person to hold a position/stance/opinion on any subject is egregiously arrogant.
Also, your attempt at omniscience is laughable, as you cannot possibly know what "logical inquiry" in which any person other than yourself has engaged.

Quote:

Sadly, it seems public school and whatever community college you flunked out of have failed you lamentably.


I thought we were the rude ones? Not that I need to justify myself to you, but I guarantee that the schools I have attended and will be attending soon are of a higher caliber than UNCC. Not to mention that I maintain a 4.0 in the Honors Program in an accelerated Master's program. Sorry--I don't tend to brag about such things, but you brought it upon yourself.

Quote:
So, in closing, while you and your internet buddies might enjoy a laugh over this, those in academia (re: those with qualifications and decent grasp of material who have earned their right to debate instead of just paying for an internet domain) will continue to utilize your points to evince fallacies, arrogance, and unjustified belief states.
To those of us in academia? Well...let's just say there's a reason most scholars won't debate you. (Craig, et al)


I was unaware that almost having a bachelor's degree made you a member of the academic elite. If this is the result, I'll gladly opt out. Not to mention the asinine assertion that people such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens are not in this "academia" of which you speak. You may disagree with them, but you certainly can't contest their credentials and educational histories.

Quote:
Belief in the existence of God is not the same as the position that we can have knowledge of God. The former is a doxastic state, the latter an epistemological. These are being conflated here, which is simply illogical.


Nobody is conflating the two:In fact, you were told multiple times that we consider them to be two completely separate, but complementary, concepts. A/Theism deals with belief--A/Gnosticism deals with the nature of knowledge and one's ability to acquire it. It can't get any more simple.

Quote:
Agnosticism "suspends judgment". Is that clear?


No. Is that clear?

Quote:
Ask me if The Smiths are a good band. Tell me I have to say "yes" or "no", and that "I don't know" implies "no". Is this valid? Not at all.


Do you have any experience with The Smiths? If so, you should be able to formulate an opinion, or maybe you don't care either way. An opinion on a band is slightly different than making a determination on your belief in a deity, though. I think that's a false analogy.

Quote:
One is allowed to "suspend judgment" if one adopts the agnostic/skeptical view. This is utilized in science all the time, is it not? One, observing Ockham, does now wish to posit entities beyond necessity. However, being modest, one does not also wish to completely rule them out. Thus one says "I suspend judgment", "I'm not sure", etc


True, which is the weak/negative atheist position. Skepticism is slightly different in that the very nature of reasoning faculties is questioned and it is possible that there is no truth that can be ascertained. Science certainly doesn't follow that epistemology as they do believe that the conclusions drawn from valid science are likely accurate. Essentially, if you are suspending judgment, you are living in practicality as if there is no god until such time that you can make a decision, if ever. So, functionally, you're still an atheist.

Quote:
I find it completely predictable and telling that you didn't address a SINGLE CRITIQUE that was supplied against the anti-Kalam article. Of course you couldn't. That was my strict goal, and that has, again, been fully realized. You claim to be an atheist, but in the absence of any capability to refute theistic arguments concerning cosmology, where is the justification for your beliefs? I have dealt with these arguments - have you? I have thus earned my doxastic position - you have not.


Not everybody has the time or desire to address every argument from every person. I believe it was also pointed out to you that the reason we are a group and not an individual is because everybody has separate areas of interest/expertise. Mike was typically the science geek, but he is busy studying cell membranes and getting lots of accolades in his field with a recently published study. I guess he's a dumbass as well, though, considering his affiliation with RRS.

Quote:
...So, back to Mary. She is not born an atheist. Why? Because beliefs are about something, and she has no concept (a mental "about something" ) to apply beliefs to. You may not get this. I won't be surprised. Ignore that snarky comment and think hard. Again. Now if Mary is not born an atheist (because she cannot apply beliefs to a lack of a doxastic object) this means that the lack of being a theist does not imply atheism. And thus your definition is clearly inadequate and flawed...Even IF "atheism" only ever meant "not-theism", which is dubious, it does not mean that today. The semantic value of the word "atheism" is not simply "without theism", for then a skeptic could be both an atheist and theist, and so could an ambivalent person, and so could a confused person, etc. And we have already seen that an infant would be neither atheistic nor theistic. The semantic value of "atheist" is best understood through the definitions that were provided by outside sources which contradict the very peculiar definitions this site makes use of. I am not saying this to "escape labels", so take your speculative ad hominem and keep it to your fallacious self. I say this because it's the goddamn linguistic fact.


Atheism is the default position--the natural state of one without theism. You can argue semantics all day, but I have people on my team regarding that issue such as George H. Smith, Austin Cline (very impressive credentials and an occasional site visitor, BTW), Antony Flew before dementia, Russell Blackford (whose credentials include completing a second PhD thesis,  Adjunct Professor School of Philosophy and Bioethics, Monash University, Fellow with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies,  Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Evolution and Technology and has recently asked me to contribute to his next collaboration of atheist essays to be included in a book), Dan Barker, Michael Martin (who doesn't press the issue of the complementariness of the two, but rather equates negative/weak atheism with agnosticism, and is a Philosophy Professor at Boston University), among many others whose credentials aren't in question.
The people that you mention as "skeptics" would in fact be defined as "peculiar reasoners" in doxastic logic. Hey--I didn't make up the label.

Quote:
When binary choices are forced upon agents where there exist more than two choices, one has committed a false dichotomy. You say "there is only atheism and theism and all non-theism is atheism". Well, that's nice. But you are looking at the word itself instead of the concept it implies. This, again, is a form of etymological fallacy. You might say that the etymological fallacy only contrasts what the word originally meant versus what it now means. This is not accurate, and I'm sure if you look into it, if you actually care to, you'll see why. Hey...you like wikipedia, right?


You have already been pointed to the Oxford English Dictionary for the respective definitions, thus proving that there is no etymological fallacy occurring here, considering the fact that they are the standard authority on the English language.
I would argue that you haven't earned the position to determine for us what the criteria for qualification to hold a position is.

Quote:
Now then. Respond to what matters. Oh, that's right - you can't! You're philosophically impotent and completely worthless concerning any actual debate.


More rudeness and immaturity. You want to see it done differently? Great. GO DO IT.

Quote:
Brian, despite your best efforts, you've only proven that you are incapable of confuting arguments that you are required to should you be considered to hold "justified true beliefs". That is the very definition of "knowledge", mind you (crack a book on epistemology one day). Having none, it seems YOU are the agnostic, not an atheist...
Not based on authority, pal...it's based on the principle of justified true beliefs. Virtually all philosophers already hold this position. Justified philosophical belief concerning creation and justified scientific belief on the same matter is not the liberal privilege. You have to earn it.


He is required to do nothing, particularly not by you. You may have a certain philosophical position on "justified true beliefs", but we are not bound to the standards of a methodology that we have not espoused or adopted. Go impose your criteria on those of like-mind in that regard. Your extreme version of reliabilism is littered with its own host of problems. Knowledge as a JTB necessarily implies "knowing" a proposition to be true--of which we have none other than the existence of god has not been sufficiently proven. It also means that said proposition MUST be true for it to be knowledge. Why then your defense of theism? One cannot know a false proposition (ie "God exists" ) and therefore, no religious people would have a JTB in your view either. And what's your solution to the Gettier problem, which demonstrates that the tripartate method of JTB has been shown to be insufficient? Furthermore, what about the subjectivity of exactly what endeavors must be undertaken to arrive at a JTB? It must only be something arrived at through the cognitive faculties.
Technically, lack of god belief is a priori justified as a dispositional belief because without any kind of experience, one has no god belief, and if you ask any person (likely a child) who has never heard of god if such a being exists, they will find the concept absurd. The argument for god would necessarily have to be an a posteriori conclusion after one has the experience of being introduced to said concept.
And Brian is an agnostic atheist, AKA negative/weak atheist. A person with no god belief based on a lack of knowledge of said entity. Your whole argument here that one must refute theistic theories before claiming "atheism" is therefore absurd given that we up front are basing our lack of belief on a lack of knowledge.

Quote:
...that no one is entitled to any belief unless they have reviewed the opposing views and come to at least some response. Why, you might ask, do I hold this? Well, I cannot very well believe in whatever I should happen to like. In the face of evidence to the contrary, I am required to suspend my beliefs and simply deal with the argument. Notice the methodology here: I am to suspend my beliefs. Why? So that I do not color my conclusions.


First of all, I feel that everybody is entitled to whatever belief they choose based on the available evidence. Available is the key here. Even Descartes, who held that nothing could truly be known with certitude besides Cogito ergo sum recognized the impracticality of that position and acknowledged the necessity of operating with the resources available to one at the time. That doesn't mean that one must have no opinion during the discovery period, as the discovery period for scientific endeavors will continue forever. You can never rule out the possibility of future discoveries or lack thereof. Avoiding confirmation bias is a worthy endeavor, but one in which you are accountable only to yourself.

Quote:

 It is already been demonstrated that this is the true method of science, which is so exalted here, yet still there are detractors and antagonists who claim that one must either be an atheist or a theist. This is beyond stupid. If one has not reached the end of their inquiry, it is only violence and tyranny to impose the choice upon another. That RRS countenances this practice is objectionable beyond repair...Concerning the veracity of the hypothesis, he suspends judgment.


The "true method of science" only requires that one "suspend belief" in the sense that you do not allow your own preference to color the results. In fact, hypothesis development requires that one predict the outcome of the study using deductive reasoning before experimentation. In reality, if one has already formulated an opinion, even one with little evidence, like a hunch, it will be there. You must realize that it is there in order to not even subconsciously taint the results.
As far as forcing somebody to take a position, anybody can change their stance at any point--the question is typically about the presence or lack thereof of belief at the time. You don't have to write it in stone or anything, and changing your mind isn't punishable by death or anything. *rolls eyes*

Quote:
What applies in one area of ontological investigation or causal explanation applies in all. That scientists, researchers, etc. suspend judgment is proof that theologians/philosophers/etc. may as well. This is an answer to your question and a refutation (again) of Brian's position. I do not know if he has studied philosophy, so I'm not sure where he is qualified to comment on it.


Theology/philosophy is different from other sciences dependent on empirical evidence and reasoning. Theology be definition means the "study of god". Please explain how that is an "ontological investigation." I happen to be a noncognitivist positivist, so any statement about god is factually meaningless and only the presence of actual evidence should be considered, so I guess as you are holding me to your personal doxastic stance on epistemology, I can hold you to mine.
Also, are you claiming that autodidactic people do not exist and the only way to acquire knowledge is through an accredited university? If so, I'm sorry that you want to live in that world. I find it is the bastion of insecure people with moderate intelligence.

Quote:
I do not expect Brian to know all the facts. I expect him to know the necessary refutations of arguments which are most strongly against his own. I consider this an essential requirement, just as any chemist should understand solutions and valency. That he has not personally addressed (or is perhaps incapable of addressing) a stock cosmological argument I take as sufficient evidence that he is unjustified in his position, and, moreover, that he has certainly no right to found an organization and parade himself as an overlord of the movement (RRS). A fool with no knowledge of economics should probably not lead the next revolution against laissez-faire capitalism, right?
He has demonstrated that he does not care to address arguments that are opposed to his position (nor, having no background in Cantorian set theory, an adequate understanding of equipollence, metaphysics, and cosmology, could he). Again, this isn't MY say-so. This is the judgment in the face of philosophical rigor...Brian has to refute an argument that is different from the arguments he has been dealing with, which typically are only ID theories.


The necessity of such knowledge is your OPINION, not to mention the fact that by your own standards, your belief that Brian does not have said knowledge is not a JTB. Therefore, you have not earned that doxastic position since it is not necessarily TRUE or based on anything other than speculation. How do you like that one?
Also, there are different theories regarding what qualifies as justification, so yours is not necessarily TRUE either, making it not a JTB as well.

Quote:
Brian is a militant atheist. He should at least know the most standard arguments against his positions and have ready refutations of them that HE HIMSELF has constructed..Linking me to a page where someone else responded is, by the way, not a response, since you had nothing to do with the study and formulation of reply.


So, a person is unable to refer somebody to a source that is better/more concise/more accurate than what they have produced? How absurd. I guess professors should never use text books, then. Hell, we might as well do away with referencing and sourcing altogether.

Quote:
The stated purpose of the RRS is eradication of religious faith (amongst other abhorred practices) from the planet. Is this not so? Militant atheism. Is this consistent with the very modest position Brian promotes now? ("Don't believe in god now, but would if there were reason to" )


We would like to see religion end, yes. We find it to be dangerous, divisive, and harmful. I could care less what a person's individual beliefs are as long as they don't interfere in public policy and the legislation of their morality. We all feel that if sufficient evidence came to light, we would necessarily be compelled to believe it. At the same time, we also feel that Yahweh definitely does not exist along with any other god concepts with which we are acquainted. (Yes, I have actual reasons for that, as well.)

Quote:
anything which points to the arguer and not the argument is an ad hominem


Not necessarily true. It is only an ad hom if the insult is intended to detract from the argument either through distraction or discreditation. Some insults are just insults. Like, you're an asshat. I'm still dealing with your arguments, though, so it's not an ad hom. Not to mention that you do your fair share of insulting.

Quote:
And no, Kelly, you cannot refute metaphysical causality problems in a five-page paper. (seriously, say that at any philosophy conference and be laughed out of the room) Is this all clear?...
I have dealt with Aquinas' Five Ways (was that a page per way, Kelly?)


LOLZ! You're so clever and funny! I never said I did, first of all (that would be a straw-man)--I said I wrote a ten-page refutation on the Kalam argument once to a former pastor when I first deconverted. You asked if I was familiar with the argument, and I responded. No more; no less. So, save your laughter for yourself because all you have shown to be clear is that you are so desperate to bolster your argument dishonestly that you are resorting to ridicule. Keep it up. It's motivating me.

Quote:
Sapient and everyone involved in the blasphemy challenge are only laughed at by theists because they can't even blaspheme right. And, by the way, that's not a theistic principle - it's simply understanding a goddamned text. No wonder the radio sound has been out for months...I wouldn't trust these goons to replace a watch battery.


How exactly do you properly blaspheme an entity in which you do not believe? You are leading me to believe that your reliance on formal learning has left you with the inability to infer the actual point of the blasphemy challenge. We don't believe in god or hell, so blaspheming would be pointless. It was about giving atheists a voice, a presence, and making a point that we are not afraid of their hell. The actual definition of blasphemy, which does include simple "denial", is absolutely irrelevant. Plus, more pleasantries. Such a delightful demeanor!

Quote:
Do you believe in your free will? That is, do you believe that you are capable of moving your arm to respond to me right now should you like to? Yes? Where is the evidence for this? Quite simply, you will never find any. The notion of "will" is entirely inscrutable to empirical investigation or "evidence", if we use your terminology. So "will" is something you must toss out as well, right? But don't you believe you are free to do what you like? Why is that? Show me the evidence that you are a freely acting agent? You can't. So drop the belief, Mr. Physicalist. (If you are actually a determinist, then I feel sorry for whomever loves you, for they will have to accept that your feelings are the result of only chemical and material causality. Happy Valentine's Day!)


Actually, I am primarily a determinist, although I still struggle with some aspects of it. I believe that an infinite number of unknown causes lead to any actual event. Moving my arm right now may be my choice, but the ability to move my arm is not. My belief in determinism is based on my belief in the truth of scientific materialism. If materialism is true, then all events can be reduced to physical processes and the "will" as an object exists only as a metaphor for the decisions that you are predisposed to make based on your brain structure/chemistry, just like every other behavior you exhibit.I also feel that love is a physical process--the resulting emotion experienced due to the release of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and oxytocin. Brian and I share that belief, and we're both entirely accepting and cognizant of that fact. So, we are careful to ensure frequent oxytocin/dopamine release by having frequent sex and other skin to skin contact. (Look up the studies yourself. I'm about done instructing you.)

Quote:
I've got a challenge for you! Will you take a logical reasoning exam if I pay the fee? I will, you know. In fact I think everyone on the board should...but it must be an official, mutually agreed-upon exam that addresses deductive symbolic logic, inference patterns and rules, assumption recognition, and critical reasoning. I'll personally bet 500 bucks of my own meager subsistence that it won't be instated. Rationality is categorically absent from this abyss, and is certainly no requirement to join.


Still interested? Ready to put your money where your mouth is?

Quote:
Publicly, the debate has been documented and the foundations of the RRS have been not only called into question, but weakened and possibly even dissolved. I should like to point out this came an accidental consequence of confronting blowhards and blustering sophomores.


ROFLMMFAO! That's all I can say to that one.

Quote:
Honestly, Sapient, why do you even allow these fools to speak? They only further discredit your organization by continuing to spew solely irrational, emotive, philosophically vacuous rancor. And when pinned into a corner against their own dyslogic and nonsense, they simply close their eyes and blindly cast aspersions. Some pedigree!


Project much?

Quote:
Let me then ask this penultimate question: how do you disprove a belief? Most likely you cannot. I believe I will have fun tomorrow night. Disprove it right now! What's the difference, here? Well, what you are actually disproving is a theory. In philosophy we have propositions and propositional attitudes and doxastic states. You seek to eliminate doxastic states and propositional attitudes of a certain sort, but that is not your place...unless you're into fascism.


You are, once again, wrong--and missing the point. A belief is only justified if it is supported by actual evidence. You yourself adhere to the principle of justified true beliefs, right? Or was that just something you read that you thought you could use against us? Also, refer back to my earlier answer on the eradication of religion.
You could look at it from a deontic perspective that it is immoral to hold any belief for which there is insufficient evidence and thus you are obliged to hold only supported beliefs, but I dislike the introduction of a sense of duty or dogmatic adherence. I feel that people should strive to be as rational as possible in these matters, but I would not attempt to force it upon them.
BTW - You do know that "penultimate" means "next to last" or "the one before the end", right? Try to limit yourself to words that you understand or the fact that you're trying too hard becomes glaringly apparent.

Quote:
Perhaps you seek to eliminate these "beliefs" (or, more properly, theories) by disproving the propositions contained within. Alright, well, let's investigate that option. How exactly does one "disprove" any proposition? Well, if it is analytic (we'll stay pre-Kripke here), then we deal with logic. If it is synthetic, then we appeal to empiricism. But what if the object of inquiry is inscrutable? If this entity is ultimately historically inaccessible, immaterial, and not subject to observation, then how can it be disproven? Being inscrutable is not being disproven, you must admit.


First of all, you should know that nothing can be empirically disproven except by way of proving the counter-position. Come on now. Logically, though...
Michael Martin makes a revised version of the Scriven Principle in Atheism: A Philosophical Justification:
    A person is justified in believing that X does not exist if (1) all the available evidence used to support the view that X exists is shown to be inadequate; and (2) X is the sort of entity that, if X existed, there would be available evidence that would be adequate to support the view that X exists; and (3) the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined; and (4) there are no acceptable beneficial reasons to believe that X exists. (p 282)
To my knowledge, there has been no evidence sufficient to prove said being's existence and all arguments are contested and there is no general consensus from an unbiased source. Assuming this deity has the attributes given the Abrahamic god, there should be evidence, and in fact, the bible claims that this fact is self-evident. The earth is where said evidence should appear, considering it is our habitat that was supposedly created specifically for us, and it has been "comprehensively examined". There are no acceptable beneficial reasons to believe in this deity as arguments like Pascal's Wager present a false dichotomy, and the danger of holding this belief in spite of the penury of evidence outweighs any other potential benefits.

From a Bayesian probabilistic perspective, this holds true as well. Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence; therefore, one can be justified in the stance that the probability of the existence of any supernatural being is extraordinarily low.

Quote:
I would like to know how one disproves this entity. You may at best persuade others with logical argumentation. I have said before that if you should like to observe Ockham (whom you probably haven't even read) you may choose not to multiply entities beyond necessity. I think that is an excellent principle. But it doesn't "disprove" anything.


NO!! REALLY?!?!?! I am also familiar with old William of Ockham, progenitor of Occam's Razor. Can you remove your arrogant head from your anus now?

Quote:
In order to be disproven, a proposition must be falsifiable, yes? The whole reason science has yet to definitively disprove this entire theistic matter is that the object of inquiry is, for the last time, inscrutable, ergo unfalsifiable. All the scientific theory in the world doesn't, and will never be able to, disprove god.


Assuming you go with the Popperian philosophy of science, yes. Nobody disagreed with this point. Are you arguing with yourself again?

Quote:
I know Kelly said there are intelligent people who believe in god. That is inconsistent with the position of RRS ("theistic beliefs are irrational, primitive, and unreasonable" ). It is not the mark of an intelligent mind to be "irrational, primitive, and unreasonable", is it? We'll ignore that part about compartmentalization. I haven't memorized the whole show, sorry.


So, you can't see the distinction between the person being stupid or irrational and the belief being irrational? As far as compartmentalization goes, it is the process by which ordinarily rational people maintain irrational beliefs. Should I excoriate you for your obvious lack of psychological study now and proclaim you my inferior? Besides, if you haven't thoroughly examined every facet of our work, how can you be sure that you are justified in your belief that we are as you claim? I propose that you have not earned the right to that belief given your apparent lack of knowledge.

Quote:
Well no one I have encountered (student or faculty) has both heard of you (more than half of them don't know you) or thinks your argumentation is sound (that's the other half). I'm sorry, but you're just really not that effective. But I'm only being viciously contentious.


And that proves what exactly? I can't imagine you find that sample to be statistically valid. Your limited experience with people in your particular circle hardly warrants the claim that we aren't effective across the board. I have tons of proof that states otherwise. And don't pretend like everybody who has communicated with us or come to our site in the past two years is a fan. Your proposition is unjustified and presumptuous.

Quote:
Awww..how cute of you! No, Dennett is laughed at (I've already been over this) because he maintains an epiphenomenalist position. Maybe that's not really subject for laughter in its own right, but still, anyone who denies free will is going to be generally disregarded. He's also kind of a dick, from what I hear. Dawkins is just a joke. Seriously. Taking on only those who are intellectually inferior and refusing to debate those who have open invitations extended to him, as well as making wild anthropological and biological/genetic claims while holding no professional background in these fields has him completely derided by anyone who knows anything, really. Jonathan Marks has a nice critique of him, as does any biology sophomore.


I really don't care that much what people think of Dennett or Dawkins, and I REALLY don't when, again, the sample is only representative of your own acquaintances. Somebody you know, likely a professor that you worship, dislikes Dennett or Dawkins and so you accept that as a blanket statement on their validity or accuracy. Typical of the pseudo-academic.
What would Dennett's demeanor have to do with his arguments, Mr. Philosophy? Hmmm...nothing? I have found him to be quite pleasant, personally. Of course, you know so much more about him than I, though, even if I have actually had conversations with him.
Are you getting the point that what your buddies down there at UNCC think of anybody has no bearing on their work whatsoever? I would say that for someone as dedicated to precision as yourself, you must admit that claiming that "any biology sophomore" or "anybody who knows anything" would be broad, unsubstantiated generalizations. You're getting sloppy.

Quote:
So cute! Ten pages. Wow. Ten pages. Do you mean to say that - as a professional, here - your "rebuttal" to Aquinas, which was sufficient enough for you to leave metaphysics altogether, was thoroughly explicated in the space of a mere ten pages? Again, forgive me if I remain doubtful of the veracity of this claim. I would really like to read this. In all honesty, though, you may have been incredibly precise and you may have completely demonstrated that modality, motion, quality, design, and causality are all irrelevant and insufficient for metaphysical proofs of god. So I shouldn't say anything, really. Sorry.


Here we go again with the straw-men. Never said any of the above, so save your condescending and sanctimonious bullshit for somebody who gives a fuck what you think, because I don't.

Quote:
Quote:
"Also, point me to one instance of me personally employing the naturalistic fallacy or using a prescriptive moral argument."


--I'm sorry, I thought you held positivist positions. It was my impression that propositions can only be verified through science for you, or - more accurately - that only propositions/theories which have evidence that can be scrutinized and experimentally verified were valid. Is this not the reason you reject theistic positions? If not, please elucidate.


I do hold positivist positions, but that doesn't mean tht I have committed the naturalistic fallacy (assuming that "is" equals "ought", in case you forgot) or have appealed to a code of ethics or morals to which everybody must adhere. If anybody has done this, it has been you with your subjective determination of what must be studied before one can hold any position.

[insert diatribe defending Todd Friel, professional con-man]

Your entire rant here was silly and lacking the necessary background to understand the hostility. Again, you clearly don't have sufficient knowledge of the situation to be justified in holding any position with a degree of certitude.

Quote:

1) Kalam cosmological argument: personal response?


First of all, your friend was wrong. It did not originate with Muslim scholars; it was merely refined by them. Secondly, I suppose that the "reworking of Aquinas" statement was an opinion of mine. The major difference between the two was that Aquinas doubted the creation of the universe as it relates to temporal notions and was more focused on the sustainment of the universe. Other than minor variations, most cosmological arguments can be broken down to the same core components, which all can be reduced to an argumentum ad ignorantium. How I respond to this particular one is of little consequence. At best, it does nothing more than prove that something created the universe. Craig seems to indicate that it is ex nihilo, but that is unsubstantiated, as well as the assumption that it was not just one deity, but HIS deity. The possibility of acquiring new knowledge always exists within science, and just so I don't have to answer this question again, I really hope that it can explain "creation".
Just FYI, I have no "problem" with the jargon or terminology employed by Craig. I was merely stating that he was dressing up an old argument.
As far as the possibility of an actual infinity, I never said it was impossible, nor do I feel you can. Also, this is another example of you using straw-men--maybe you should start to look at your work objectively. I never said anything about it being "impossible" to conceive of anything; just difficult. And while the existence of actual infinities would be metaphysical, this is something that will never be witnessed or experienced and thus remains an exercise that will occur solely within the mind. There are possible ways to make it work, thus casting doubt on his claim that it de facto cannot exist.

Quote:
Honestly, you have no shame.


Apparently, neither do you.

Quote:
1) Do you agree with Mr. Atheist that skepticism is a valid and acceptable position? (don't worry about the ramifications to your cause, just answer the question honestly)


I think that the popular usage of the word is not the same as the philosophical concept, and I do not think that Mr. Atheist believes that nothing can be known of reality.

Quote:
2) Have you even read through a full treatment of the kalam cosmological argument?


Yes. From both sides.

Quote:
3) If the answer to 2) is in the affirmative, have you a response or, even more, a refutation? The one you linked to was very poor indeed and I have already addressed it. I have a meeting with some friends tomorrow night and I'm sure one of them or myself will happily articulate its flaws if you like.


But that wouldn't be an argument since you didn't come up with it or construct it yourself. Hypocrite. Where's your refutation?

Quote:
4) Do you have a response to the charge of RRS' position on atheism/theism making use of etymological fallacies?


I believe I have given it to you.

Quote:
5) Do you actually hold positivist positions?


Yes. Now kindly fuck off. I will not waste one more second of my life dealing with your immature nonsense that has become increasingly vitriolic. Attack the position, you hypocrite. You sure seem rational, you hypocrite. Any more personal attacks or baseless assertions and I will never read another one of your posts, much less respond. It's certainly not because I am afraid of your oh-so-powerful argumentation. Rather, I don't want to waste time reading your novels full of condescending rhetoric. So why don't you just go back to your friends and whine about how stupid and mean we are, k?
 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Atheist wrote:Don't see

Mr. Atheist wrote:

Don't see any posts that weren't approved for you.

And just a note...you sure have gotten snippy since it was re-suggested that you're a Christian.  Your posts are too long to read though to find out if you have admitted it yet.

 

None of his posts were ever deleted of course, as he's managed to keep them all in this thread.  Many people want to ban him, I'm a man of my word, I said he can post in this thread forever.  I don't even read his posts when I see them... I auto approve them.  Once again, this asshat is unjustified in his doxastic position that we were not posting his comments. He clearly hadn't thoroughly examined all the evidence.


Mazid the Raider
Rational VIP!Science Freak
Mazid the Raider's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
trying to win Randi's $1,000,000

Okay, I'm going to try to win James Randi's $1,000,000 by proving that I am, in fact, psychic. Ready? check this out.

I predict, using my awesome psychics skillz, that Joshua is going to largely ignore Kelly's thorough, intelligent, and (largely) polite post. I predict that he's going to ignore the fact that he just got owned in the face - again. I predict that he is going to keep on with his sloppy thinking, and use childish tactics to try to bait Brian some more.

So I win the prize. It's just a matter of time...

"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling

Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Funny

Does this guy actually claim Dennett is disregarded in philosophical academia and then reference William Lane Craig's Kalam argument as if it is respected? Now that's funny.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote:Does this guy

Vessel wrote:

Does this guy actually claim Dennett is disregarded in philosophical academia and then reference William Lane Craig's Kalam argument as if it is respected? Now that's funny.

 

Don't forget Professor Dawkins of Oxford is not part of academia, and Joshua Ryan Dellinger is definitely not a Christian, that would be "PERSONAL."


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
This is going to be ad hominem

 In the specific sense of the phrase ad hominem, I think it might be justified, considering Mr. Dellinger can change the rules and facts whenever he wants. (Dawkins isn't a professor and Dennett isn't respected? What?) The nature of the man himself seems to destroy his credibility. It's unusual to consider an ad hominem argument valid, but when someone seems to be speaking from a straight jacket, what else is there?

I mean, the Kalam cosmological argument? Seriously? Dawkins and Dennett are hacks, but we should really check out the Kalam cosmological argument? This has to be some kind of joke.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Mazid the Raider
Rational VIP!Science Freak
Mazid the Raider's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
That's what we've been

That's what we've been saying, Willness. I'm pretty sure he's just a christian troll, trying to waste as much of our time as he can so we'll stop poking holes in his precious religion.

"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling

Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Even sadder

Sapient wrote:

Vessel wrote:

Does this guy actually claim Dennett is disregarded in philosophical academia and then reference William Lane Craig's Kalam argument as if it is respected? Now that's funny.

 

Don't forget Professor Dawkins of Oxford is not part of academia, and Joshua Ryan Dellinger is definitely not a Christian, that would be "PERSONAL."

 

He doesn't even know the positions of the people he insults. He claims Dennett is an epiphenomenalist but if he had bothered to actually read Dennett he would know that Dennett refers to epiphenomenalism as nonsense. In Consciousness Explained Dennett says "... if anyone claims to uphold a variety of epiphenomenalism try to be polite, but ask, "What are you talking about?" he goes on to say "If qualia are epiphenomenal in the standard philosophical sense their occurrence can't explain the way things happen (in the material world) since, by definition things would happen exactly the same without them. There could not be an empirical reason, then, for believing in epiphenomena. Could there be another reason for asserting their existence? What sort of reason? An a priori reason, presumably. But what? No one has ever offered one - good, bad or indifferent - that I have seen." (Consciousness Explained pg. 403)

Doesn't sound like an epiphenomenalist to me.

 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
True, which is the

True, which is the weak/negative atheist position. Skepticism is slightly different in that the very nature of reasoning faculties is questioned and it is possible that there is no truth that can be ascertained. Science certainly doesn't follow that epistemology as they do believe that the conclusions drawn from valid science are likely accurate. Essentially, if you are suspending judgment, you are living in practicality as if there is no god until such time that you can make a decision, if ever. So, functionally, you're still an atheist.

--First you have defined atheism as referencing beliefs. A person is an atheist if they do not hold theist beliefs "all in", necessarily. Here now you say that a person is an atheist as well if they merely function as one. But, you see, I do not function as an atheist at all. I, for example, would never participate in any matter which sought either to affirm or eliminate theistic practices, discussion, etc. or atheistic. Essentially, given that theism involves the positing of a new entity, so long as there is theism, there will be atheism. So by maintaining theism we will always include atheism, and the elimination of the latter seems impossible, as you cannot eliminate doubt concerning any entity (except the obvious Cartesian problems). Eliminating theism, however, which is the stated goal of the RRS, would as well eliminate atheism, given that you are proposing the removal of the speculation concerning an entity unobservable. "Atheism", then, would become even more empty a term than it is (here at RRS) already. By standing mute on the issue, you see, about whether there is a god or not one, I do not take a stance on either side. So no, I do not "function" as an atheist, because I instead do not "function" in the realm of theistic/atheistic dichotomy altogether. Skepticism is a valid third option, as some members of this cult of yours already admit. What is your stance on punctuated equilibrium? Or perhaps, on superstring theory (this has yet to be addressed)? Scientists (if they're good ones) do not take a position right away and then function under any assumption, but rather "suspend judgment" on a matter until sufficient evidence has been provided. Given that no sufficient evidence has ever been provided for the case of god, I continue to suspend judgment.

Also, it's dangerous to speak of "proof", as you well know. We should instead only speak of "validation". The very nature of the proposed entity precludes all scrutiny, and therefore where you observe Ockham and refrain from positing it, I observe skepticism (and some modesty) and say "I don't know". If you maintain that this is the same as skepticism (which my agnosticism is closely related to), then I suppose we are at an impasse...not that this would be anything new. Skepticism is very simply different from atheism, and this is the only time I've ever heard otherwise.

You also clearly misunderstand skepticism, although probably because you have accepted or given it a different definition. "Skepticism", with the definition I provided, does not require that we question only the "nature of reasoning faculties", which I suppose here you mean the Humean component of Kant's thought (noumenal realm/Truth with a big T remains unknown) or some sort of relavitity concerning truth (subjectivist/anthropic principle/etc.). This wasn't what I proposed either. I do in fact function very much in the manner that you characterize as absurd, most likely because there's nothing so very absurd about it. I don't take a stance on issues of which I recognize I have no qualifications to do so. I proposed metaphysics here, and that was what I wanted addressed. More specifically, I wanted only one argument addressed, because I feel I'm capable of dealing with that one. I have a stance on it, that is to say.

My slams against Dawkin and Dennett were mostly in defense of the late Gould. I honestly didn't think anyone would take them seriously, but since you have, I can advise you that they were fully in jest. Concerning Dennett's position on epiphenomenalism: within the article "Who's On First", Dennett does in fact propose an epiphenomenalist model of consciousness. I did hear last night in dialogue with some friends that Dennett does not "exactly" hold to determinism either. If I've misunderstood his position from what I've read, which does not include the material referenced in which he trounces epiphenomenalism, then of course I yield that position. But do take a stroll through the article I referenced. If I'm not mistaken there again, he does propose epiphenomenalist consciousness. In fact, come on...Dennett is an epiphenomenalist. But of course Dawkins and Dennett are both very well respected and provide compelling arguments.

Also I think I have already admitted publicly that my methods to bait RRS into responding are certainly not commendable. I was willing to resort to "trolling" in order to get a response after having been ignored several times by presenting these sorts of arguments. I e-mailed for the past few months, then came to be under the impression that RRS only likes contention. So I obliged. But certainly I wasn't "willing to do whatever it takes, even lie, to stand up for Jesus". Seriously, Brian...you're cute. I see why Kelly likes you. But if we can be mature about things that is surely best, I agree. I have not seen RRS behave in this manner (reference the video, numerous threads, the very design of the site...although recently amended...etc.) ergo I did not think you would mind so much. I mean, the net memes abounding on this site (perhaps hat-tipping to Dawkins) alone is enough to make a person feel that s/he is only conversing with frat boys, by which I mean to say, it doesn't seem very professional. If you're not addressed seriously or maturely or even courteously, you may consider why this is. In the video I provided, we can clearly see Brian being quite hostile and immature (flying spaghetti monster, although a cute meme, is really, really scurrilous and certainly no matter of intellectual debate...you referenced belief in god as no more valid than belief in the FSM on ABC, I believe). If one seeks to act in such ways, don't be so shocked or offended when another acts in the same. Although if we can agree to stop kicking each other in the pants, I should like to.

Atheism is the default position--the natural state of one without theism. You can argue semantics all day, but I have people on my team regarding that issue such as George H. Smith, Austin Cline (very impressive credentials and an occasional site visitor, BTW), Antony Flew before dementia, Russell Blackford (whose credentials include completing a second PhD thesis, Adjunct Professor School of Philosophy and Bioethics, Monash University, Fellow with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Evolution and Technology and has recently asked me to contribute to his next collaboration of atheist essays to be included in a book), Dan Barker, Michael Martin (who doesn't press the issue of the complementariness of the two, but rather equates negative/weak atheism with agnosticism, and is a Philosophy Professor at Boston University), among many others whose credentials aren't in question.
The people that you mention as "skeptics" would in fact be defined as "peculiar reasoners" in doxastic logic. Hey--I didn't make up the label.

--So your position on atheism is valid by association? I notice that you argue for this position by restating your definition and then referencing others who belief with you and their attendant credentials. That's cute. But not an argument, per se. If you want me to list very accomplished people who believe the same as me, I can. If I list more than you, does that make me right?

You have already been pointed to the Oxford English Dictionary for the respective definitions, thus proving that there is no etymological fallacy occurring here, considering the fact that they are the standard authority on the English language.
I would argue that you haven't earned the position to determine for us what the criteria for qualification to hold a position is.

--Oxford English Dictionary, you say? And what were those definitions provided, again? The purported definitions are oddly absent from the link.

Concerning this, though: "atheism" understood as a lack of belief may in fact, in your definition, which I hold to be far too broad and sweeping, include skepticism. But skepticism is also a lack of belief or commitment to atheism. Given that skepticism does not adopt a belief position at all, it can hardly be equated with agnosticism, especially given that the one involves belief and the other involves knowledge. So we know that I am agnostic. This means that, on issues of which there can be no knowledge, I do not pass judgment. [This actually doesn't hold up since I believe in free will and that will absolutely never be proven. By the way, what is your response to this, all pesky substance interactionalist dualism aside?] Let me then rephrase by saying where you default to atheism, I default to a suspension of belief on the matter altogether, which is simply not the same as atheism. I have already admitted that with your definition it might be, but let's examine the product of that specific definition. It means that although you and I do not believe anything close to one another, we're both "atheists". Does that sound like a good definition to you? If you're a "weak atheist" who doesn't believe in god until you're given any evidence of it and I'm a "weak atheist" who doesn't think it proper to not believe, should we really be given the same designation? I would like a response to this question. Perhaps I should clarify: you think it is best to disbelieve (this, despite positions I've encountered by others on this site, is in fact an active belief) god in light of a total lack of evidence. Empirical evidence, mind you. I think that even going so far as to doubt the existence is too far. Despite my falling into your category, we are absolutely not the same, and thus I maintain my position that your definition is far too broad and all-inclusive.

The "true method of science" only requires that one "suspend belief" in the sense that you do not allow your own preference to color the results.

--So, "functionally", you're a skeptic. So you're still a skeptic. Your logic, not mine.

I do not think that Mr. Atheist believes that nothing can be known of reality.

--This isn't the sort of skepticism that is being discussed here, the radical skepticism of Diogenes. I mentioned him prior to Hume only in order to illustrate the very polysemiotic nature of the term. I believe I have aligned myself with the quote I provided, which I believe showed that "suspension of judgment" is allowable, and it is very important to question why a person suspends this judgment. All reference to the Diogenic skepticism provided only for contrast is irrelevant.

This brings up an interesting point, though. If I'm a skeptic then, by your terms, then I'm a weak atheist. Are these terms equivalent? If so, is it more the case that I am actually an atheist or that "weak atheism" is actually just skepticism? I think you'll find the definitions of skepticism more in line with "weak atheism" than "atheism" itself. Skepticism is best understood as an unwillingness to commit or even permit of any judgment or belief on a particular matter. I certainly do not think you are a skeptic, because it does seem you have come to a judgment. Formerly you said you have no belief. If that is the entire extent of the matter - that you have no belief - then your lack of belief is even farther than I am willing to go, you see? I should not like to say, for it is completely not the case, that I have a lack of belief or that I have any on the matter. This is skepticism, and it is clearly not "weak atheism". But your responses, please. The Smiths example was meant to show the disparity between a lack of intentional object and belief which I believe RRS completely discounts. True, one does not have a belief about god before one has heard about the matter. But if you are willing to admit this then you cannot say that you do not have a belief. It is an active disbelief. I want to pursue this more below, if you will grant me the time.

First the claim is made that atheism is "default". This would mean that a lack of belief is tantamount to a lack of intentional object. Mary has no belief because she doesn't even know what that would mean. So you claim this lack of belief is "atheistic". But, one day Mary learns about this concept (intentional object) of god. If Mary then decides that she does not "believe" in god, this cannot be compatible with the former model. In the first, belief has no intentional object. In the second, it does. So you are admitting a very, very broad and possibly contradictory notion of "belief". The claim is also made that "atheism" means simply a lack of belief, and that this belief is the same as what Mary would hold at birth. I have already shown how this is flawed. So the questions are then:

1) Does atheism qua lack of belief necessarily involve an intentional object? (This unfortunately does have only two options: yes or no)
2) If atheism qua lack of belief doesn't involve an intentional object, then how is this compatible with atheism qua belief understood as involving an intentional object?
2) A) If one must be familiar with the concept of god in order to have a belief about it, how can one have a belief before they are familiar with the concept of god?
2) B) If the belief is possible before the intentional object, what is the belief of? If it is likewise possible after the intentional object, how is this the same sort of belief?
3) Elsewhere it has been said that atheism is not a positive belief, i.e. not the assertion of the nonexistence of something. But all beliefs, observing intentionality, must be about something. If an atheist has no belief, then surely they have no belief concerning the intentional object, i.e. god, which is posited as an entity. For an atheist to then not believe, this is categorically not the same as not holding a belief owing to a lack of familiarity with the intentional object. A child is an a-everything. A child does not have beliefs about anything because they are not familiar with anything, either conceptually (as in the case of god, reason, logic, other conceptual matters) or empirically (ice cream, television, taxes). That a child is an atheist in your terms is no more compelling than that a child also does not believe in evolution. I don't think this analogy can really hold, and I don't see why it is so doggedly defended.
4) If we want to pursue the child analogy, however, we have to take note that a lack of intentional object and thus belief is simply not the same as a belief towards an intentional object. Please address this issue.

But that wouldn't be an argument since you didn't come up with it or construct it yourself. Hypocrite. Where's your refutation?

--Oh, come on now. I never said collaboration isn't acceptable. What I decry is passing me off to someone else when you claim to be able to prove against the argument's claim*. All of you claim you can prove theism is false. Yes, on positivist grounds. No, on everything else. I never once mentioned ID theory, and have expressed that such a thing (like creationism concerning humans) is entirely ludicrous. Cosmology is another matter. *You didn't do this, Sapient did. Personally, your responses are the only ones I've found "rational" at all. For this, I thank you.

I do hold positivist positions, but that doesn't mean tht I have committed the naturalistic fallacy (assuming that "is" equals "ought", in case you forgot) or have appealed to a code of ethics or morals to which everybody must adhere. If anybody has done this, it has been you with your subjective determination of what must be studied before one can hold any position.

--Positivism holds that only what can be empirically verified through science is authentic knowledge, in case you forgot. Moral statements (oughts) must then be explained based on descriptive, scientific understandings (the is). All "oughts" would thereby be reduced to some manner of "is", i.e. we are driven by our genes to propagate and preserve them (sex and conatus). You might respond in this way: how can a positivist provide justification for the moral statement "we should ignore our desires to rape". Descriptively, scientifically, we may only say "the urge is there, and these are the attendant physical conditions, e.g. biochemicals, participants, etc. Perhaps you are employing some compartmentalization of your own if you believe that there can be prescriptive statements within positivist boundaries.

Specifically I am referring to G.E. Moore's admonition that the "good" cannot be explained in terms of anything else, not being reducible to the way things are empirically, which is all positivism can be concerned with, qua positivism. So I'm not clear on how a positivist can speak of anything other than what can be empirically tested and verified. But surely you believe in free will and the good (pursuit of science in itself), and thus you are employing positions that are not positivist.

You might here say a word or two about emotivism, but I don't know how very far that would get you, given that it is a metaethical theory and will not do much in the way of normative concerns. I'm not sure how a positivist can really hold normative positions in the first place. Perhaps as a positivist you can elucidate this?

How exactly do you properly blaspheme an entity in which you do not believe? You are leading me to believe that your reliance on formal learning has left you with the inability to infer the actual point of the blasphemy challenge. We don't believe in god or hell, so blaspheming would be pointless. It was about giving atheists a voice, a presence, and making a point that we are not afraid of their hell. The actual definition of blasphemy, which does include simple "denial", is absolutely irrelevant. Plus, more pleasantries. Such a delightful demeanor!

--You're not laughed at for "blaspheming" improperly. You're laughed at for your inability to comprehend and interpret texts. I certainly don't think taking the challenge is going to send you to hell. But imagine if I were to being a public "pledge" espousing, say, Spinoza for claiming that it is impossible to hate. Naturally this would rightfully elicit only laughter, since Spinoza means something quite differently than what appears prima facie. A person advocating love of one's neighbor based on the Ethics can be said to have only completely misunderstood the Ethics. So it's not that you placed an ironic twist on a traditionally grave "sin", undermining it. I know you don't believe in god. Sort of hard to miss, isn't it? It's that you didn't even understand what the term "blasphemy" meant in the very context you were drawing it from, and therefore you couldn't even mock it right.

Actually, I am primarily a determinist, although I still struggle with some aspects of it. I believe that an infinite number of unknown causes lead to any actual event. Moving my arm right now may be my choice, but the ability to move my arm is not. My belief in determinism is based on my belief in the truth of scientific materialism. If materialism is true, then all events can be reduced to physical processes and the "will" as an object exists only as a metaphor for the decisions that you are predisposed to make based on your brain structure/chemistry, just like every other behavior you exhibit.I also feel that love is a physical process--the resulting emotion experienced due to the release of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and oxytocin. Brian and I share that belief, and we're both entirely accepting and cognizant of that fact. So, we are careful to ensure frequent oxytocin/dopamine release by having frequent sex and other skin to skin contact. (Look up the studies yourself. I'm about done instructing you.)

--I know all this stuff. You didn't instruct me in any way whatsoever here. Also anandamide...don't leave that one out.

If by "struggle" you mean "be entirely inconsistent", then way to go. Let me ask you this: why do you accept one logical proposition over another? When you point out a "straw man" argument, it's not because it makes more logical sense, but only because you are determined to do so. When you accept modus ponens and commutation as valid inference rules, it's not because there's something more to them, really, that they're logical or rational, but rather because you were determined to. Logic, after all, being immaterial, could in no way influence your activities, could it? And why be against people believing in theism? They are determined to do so. Sort of hard to hold that against them, isn't it? And you know all the moral problems. So if positivism didn't get rid of your normative abilities, certainly this combined with positivism did. So let's not be too upset about those back-alley abortions and honor killings now - those people had no choice.

But seriously, what do you find so logical about logic? It's immaterial, and therefore causally inert. But you champion logic here, it seems. But why take any one proposition over another? It's not because it's logical, as that's inconsistent with your materialist positions. What was that about compartmentalization?

Statements you make such as "I feel that people should strive to be as rational as possible in these matters, but I would not attempt to force it upon them." are rendered completely incoherent knowing your other positions. Rationality has nothing to do with causal sequences. Certainly we understand causality rationally, but you're going to do what you do deterministically - rational or not.

Anyways enough of that.

Not necessarily true. It is only an ad hom if the insult is intended to detract from the argument either through distraction or discreditation. Some insults are just insults. Like, you're an asshat. I'm still dealing with your arguments, though, so it's not an ad hom. Not to mention that you do your fair share of insulting.

--No. That's incorrect, sorry. Addressing anything about "the man" is an ad hominem. This includes insults but also motivations, incentives, practices, habits, etc. I really, really don't see the point in arguing material fallacies with you, especially since we're not given to observe them. I suppose you have the added excuse of not understanding them. Please: do me the favor of looking up ad hominem arguments again. Anything directed at the person, including your common objections that things "sound or seem christian" are ad hominems. I don't need to debate this.

I see your point though. Insults can be lodged so long as you do not intend for them to be argumentatively significant. That's fine. I guess I shouldn't hold them against you, especially since you maybe didn't even choose to do them. But certainly RRS, if not you, makes extensive use, even in the opening post on this thread, of ad hominems, and your chemically-determined mate as well thinks they only consist of insults. But I think I've shown him the error (that is, determined movement) of his reasoning. Now through his understanding of proper logic (immaterial) his actions will change (material). Magic.

We would like to see religion end, yes.

--Yes, along with theism. So you'd do way with beliefs, not just organized religion sanctioned, subsidized, and incorporated by state governments. Eliminating beliefs, huh? Oh, you beautiful fascist, you. (Reread Hanarooki's Code. Also, definition of "theism").

So, a person is unable to refer somebody to a source that is better/more concise/more accurate than what they have produced? How absurd. I guess professors should never use text books, then. Hell, we might as well do away with referencing and sourcing altogether.

--STRAW MAN. OOOOH STRAW MAN. No, my point is not what you present, but I don't off with your head. I understand the need for collaboration. But I wanted HIS response, not his friend's. I have referenced others here; you know full well I'm not against sourcing or pedagogy. I am, however, against taking a militant stance on an issue if you haven't dealt with the most common and pressing oppositions to it. Call me silly, but I think a person in a position of leadership and figurehead should be, well, knowledgeable about such matters? Having a friend who is knowledgeable doesn't count.

Also, are you claiming that autodidactic people do not exist and the only way to acquire knowledge is through an accredited university?

--No, not at all. Elsewhere I referenced the importance of autodidactic practices.

BTW - You do know that "penultimate" means "next to last" or "the one before the end", right? Try to limit yourself to words that you understand or the fact that you're trying too hard becomes glaringly apparent.

--Ummm, yes. That's why there was only one more question in that paragraph. Reread.

From a Bayesian probabilistic perspective, this holds true as well. Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence; therefore, one can be justified in the stance that the probability of the existence of any supernatural being is extraordinarily low.

--You say the cutest things. So because we cannot naturally observe the supernatural or materially observe the immaterial it is absent altogether? This would be akin to saying that because we cannot logically prove the beauty of a painting the beauty does not exist, or that since we cannot empirically prove a double negation it is not valid. But again, I don't know if this matters, since you're a positivist and not a logical positivist.

(2) X is the sort of entity that, if X existed, there would be available evidence that would be adequate to support the view that X exists

--Well certainly this is true for christianity and other providential religions, but absolutely not for, perhaps, mystical or deistic religions. But you're not only after those religions which propose interaction from the deity, you're after all belief in any deity. This is a very silly principle, and does not apply to many conceptions of god, as I'm sure you're aware, and so I reject on very good grounds this principle. If, after all, something is both supernatural and non-intervening (deistic first causes would not be considered interventional as concerns human affairs) then there is absolutely no reason to accept this principle as inconsistent with theism.

Also, none of this addresses pantheism or panentheism, which of course would include all the material world. But let's get rid of those too, right? You guys seem very antichristian in your stances, but certainly not antitheistic, given that you don't deal with any other version of theism that could be permitted by the arguments I've suggested. If, again, the material is only one manifestation of the same god or that all the material is constitutive (but not exhaustively so) of god, then all the materialism in the world does not stand against god's existence, and may in a way go to affirm it (by not denying the reality of material). So, let's try not to focus on creation stories of the bible and instead on deism, pantheism, and panentheism.

First of all, you should know that nothing can be empirically disproven except by way of proving the counter-position.

--Fine, I think I accept that. I'm wondering how it is that you've empirically disproven (i.e. proven the contrary position) that god has in fact spoken to certain people or that certain people have "communed" with god. Certainly you might ask for empirical evidence. Certainly I might ask for empirical evidence that you are thinking right now, that you have a belief about the taste of vanilla pudding, that you have a preference for this or that genre of film, that you are content in your choice of career, etc. None of these are quantifiable nor public, I don't believe, which would make them inscrutable, which is exactly the point I had hoped you would address but didn't. I think you already admitted the weakness of your enterprise's militant stance by pointing out the arbitrariness of your elected position (especially since you were determined to do it). Fundamentally, you maintain positivism, but this is as arbitrary as anything else one might choose (or in your case, do), as the principle of positivism itself cannot be proven. It's quite effective and has great predictive power, but ultimately, it's a results-based justification, which I suppose makes you more of a pragmatist. Nothing against pragmatism, though. But if positivism is justified through its results, then we cannot in principle rule out anything else that is instrumental or beneficial. For many, theism has only positive consequences. Certainly, it can be misunderstood and abused, just as Spencer and others have abused much of scientific and genetic tenets. But if it is only pacific and beneficial, and does not interfere with the progress of science, what exactly is so objectionable about it?

The failure of the RRS to distinguish between brutal, violent, and inhumane treatments of religion and those which are peaceful, benign, and localized is an ignominious pratfall and gross error. The obtuseness of this judgment is wholly objectionable, and I see no reason why it should be limited to religion. You as well, being mostly deterministic, might note the even greater threats a deterministic view of human behavior could hold. Believing that we will go to hell if we're not good (since you like to war against christianity so much and not the other theisms which I should like to adduce) is certainly less dangerous a belief than that all actions are inevitable and that nothing I do is within the province of my autonomy.

Another question: if you think free will is as well misguided, then why not add it to Hanarooki's Code as well? Is it because of your personal struggles with it? I'm not being contentious here. I don't see why free will should be admitted into a materialistic worldview if theism is to be abolished. I don't think you're being very consistent here.

Other points: thanks for bringing up Gettier. I, like most people, have no solution to it. My use of the common philosophical vernacular should perhaps be replaced with only "justified beliefs" or perhaps, even more accurately, "earned beliefs". I wouldn't say that a person can believe just whatever they want. They must first investigate the matter. This is all I meant, and I'm well aware of the problems with justified true beliefs.

Also, you didn't address the most centrally crippling critique of positivism: namely, self-referential justification. Not even logical positivism could escape this, which is already willing to allow much more than you. I believe, in reality, though, you are actually a logical positivist and not merely a positivist, given your affinity for logic and other non-empirical principles/faculties. So then, you might consider amending your position. So let me ask you: problem of induction, how does science get around it? Problem of the positivist principle itself not being subject to verification? How is that dealt with?


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I don't think Dennett is

I don't think Dennett is rejecting epiphenomenalism here. I think instead he is rejecting the idea that epiphenomenalism can include qualia, as a "variety" of epiphenomenalism. This is possibly a critique of Jackson who at first believed in both qualia and epiphenomenalism, but later rejected the latter owing to the causal effects of the first. Perhaps Dennett is more of an eliminative materialist? I admit I never know what to do with those who deny qualia altogether.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Mazid the Raider

Mazid the Raider wrote:

That's what we've been saying, Willness. I'm pretty sure he's just a christian troll, trying to waste as much of our time as he can so we'll stop poking holes in his precious religion.

It's just so unbelievable, that's all. I guess I was posting out of shock. A friend of mine is reading a book about a writer who suffers neurological damage and loses the ability to read, but retains the ability to write. Alexia without agraphia.

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

I think that's what we have here. Just to recap:

"I have an invisible friend. Why don't you entertain the possibility that that's true?"

"Because it's silly. You don't have any proof."

"What about the universe? It exists. QED."

"What?"

So in a briefer form, it would be sketch comedy. Unfortunately, it's so long-winded at this point that it's frankly unreadable.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
So many words for so little content

teddyvamp wrote:
Here we go, guys: Belief in the existence of God is not the same as the position that we can have knowledge of God. The former is a doxastic state, the latter an epistemological. These are being conflated here, which is simply illogical.

But it's really the content of the statements that's more disturbing: belief in the existence of wood nymphs isn't the same as the position that we can have knowledge of wood nymphs. It's absurd well before you start arguing how to mentally manipulate the unmeasurable creature of choice.

teddyvamp wrote:
An agnostic is, then, more in line with a skeptic, who answers "I don't know". This is NOT the same as "yes" or "no". To conflate agnosticism and atheism is only foolish and inaccurate, and strictly incoherent. A suspension of judgment (agnosticism) says very directly that no position is taken on the matter of God's existence.

Why pick one unmeasurable creature and call it God, then? If you're saying that you don't know that one of an infinite number of possible imaginary creatures exists, what's your point?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Still unbelievable

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
1) Please tell me how to disprove an inscrutable entity. You claim to be able to do so. I want to know how.

Maybe that was a bad choice of words. It's my understanding (and I am no representative of anyone else) that athists actualy disbelieve inscrutable entities. It's difficult for a person who prefers to be rational to believe something that is inscrutable. Evidence and all that.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
2) Please explain why metaphysical beliefs are "irrational, primitive, and unreasonable". Don't just make the claim again. Tell me why.

Well, belief without evidence is irrational, beliefs are probably primitive, and reason isn't involved in the creation of such beliefs, thus "unreasonable."

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
3) I know Kelly said there are intelligent people who believe in god. That is inconsistent with the position of RRS ("theistic beliefs are irrational, primitive, and unreasonable" ). It is not the mark of an intelligent mind to be "irrational, primitive, and unreasonable", is it?

Intelligence is noted in many irrational, primitive and unreasonable people. Not sure what your point is there.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
4) Please try to keep all matters distinct and separate. The figure of Jesus is central to christian belief and not theism in general. Theistic tenets in general are likewise not all related to metaphysical arguments. So all questions other than the matter of metaphysics were, from the very beginning, irrelevant. I don't expect you to ever actually respond.

Well I just did. You can talk to me. Why are you talking about the figure of Jesus?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Mazid the Raider
Rational VIP!Science Freak
Mazid the Raider's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
You blew it from the get-go.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
I was willing to resort to "trolling" in order to get a response after having been ignored several times by presenting these sorts of arguments. I e-mailed for the past few months, then came to be under the impression that RRS only likes contention. So I obliged.

So, you knew that what you had to say was so important that it justified threats and trolling. So we asked for it. We made you do it. Get over yourself.

Instead of, say, joining the forum and posting a legitimate thread which would have likely garnered nearly as much attention (it seems none of us can resist putting an idiot in his/her place) you thought it was a better idea to pester Sapient for a personal debate through email. After being justifiably ignored (you are, after all, a nobody) you were "willing" to start threatening him. Nice one, you smegma munching imbecile. (For the record, that was a pure insult, not an Ad Hominem attack. Everyone else knows that, but you don't seem to be very good at pattern recognition.)

If we succeed in getting rid of theism and religion - which I don't consider to be possible in our life span - then there will be nothing special about being an atheist. There will be no more point to this website than hanging out - if we still feel like it. I am fine with that. I am so okay with it that it doesn't even make me pause.

This is all I'm going to bother with. You still haven't learned to be succinct, though I note with pleasure that you have at least ceased with pointless post scripts. Just a suggestion: create an outline when you have an inclination to write such a long post. Address each main point in a summarizing sentence or two, and clarify in following posts when required. We won't run out of internet before you can get back, and you aren't going to be blocked from posting in this thread. We don't care enough about what you have to say to read your 5,320 word magnum opus, especially considering the lack of thought put into previous posts. If you had started some other way we might have been a little more inclined to read it, but you blew it from the start.

"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling

Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Questions

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

1) Does atheism qua lack of belief necessarily involve an intentional object?

Nope. It's still the default postion to not believe in something that isn't there

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
2) If atheism qua lack of belief doesn't involve an intentional object, then how is this compatible with atheism qua belief understood as involving an intentional object?

Not following you here. You realize the only reason you end up with the word "atheist" is because people have believed in gods and other superstitious nonsense for a long time, right? I mean, the word shows historically that we get labelled ass-backwards.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
2) A) If one must be familiar with the concept of god in order to have a belief about it, how can one have a belief before they are familiar with the concept of god?

They can't. That's why atheism is the default position, and babies are atheists.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
2) B) If the belief is possible before the intentional object, what is the belief of? If it is likewise possible after the intentional object, how is this the same sort of belief?

It's not. It's possible that the source of our need for a large, caring deity is based on our infantile conception of our parents, but that's just a hypothesis.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
3) Elsewhere it has been said that atheism is not a positive belief, i.e. not the assertion of the nonexistence of something. But all beliefs, observing intentionality, must be about something. If an atheist has no belief, then surely they have no belief concerning the intentional object, i.e. god, which is posited as an entity.

Yeah, no belief concerning the intentional object. That's right. 

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
For an atheist to then not believe, this is categorically not the same as not holding a belief owing to a lack of familiarity with the intentional object.

If you're talking about the original case, sure. But you imply that familiarity of the intentional object would clear things up. That would be true if it weren't nonsense.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
A child is an a-everything. A child does not have beliefs about anything because they are not familiar with anything, either conceptually (as in the case of god, reason, logic, other conceptual matters) or empirically (ice cream, television, taxes).That a child is an atheist in your terms is no more compelling than that a child also does not believe in evolution. I don't think this analogy can really hold, and I don't see why it is so doggedly defended.

Let's hand it to you (in anticipation of the second part of the argument) that ignorance of something goes hand in hand with the lack of belief in something. I'll give you that.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
4) If we want to pursue the child analogy, however, we have to take note that a lack of intentional object and thus belief is simply not the same as a belief towards an intentional object. Please address this issue.

Sorry, what? You're right, a lack of a belief in an intentional object isn't the same as a belief towards an intentional object. They look like opposites. Nothing to address.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Broad Response To Everything

"Maybe that was a bad choice of words. It's my understanding (and I am no representative of anyone else) that athists actualy disbelieve inscrutable entities. It's difficult for a person who prefers to be rational to believe something that is inscrutable. Evidence and all that."

--Alright.  Well disbelief is no grounds for the "elimination" of the contrary belief, is it?  If you want to say a belief is misguided, you will most likely have to provide evidence that this is the case, which I suppose could only be achieved through .  This, as I've noted, can be easily accomplished by refuting ID theory...but that only gets rid of ID theory, doesn't it?  There's still the problem of pantheism, deism, panentheism, and other alternative forms of theism which do not hold claims of ID.

Secondly, it's statements like this "It's difficult for a person who prefers to be rational to believe something that is inscrutable. Evidence and all that." that really bother me as a rational agent myself.  If you had bothered to read elsewhere in this long chain, you might see that there are several matters that are "inscrutable" of which positive belief is held to be wholly rational.  I think I adduced free will (and Kelly may be unfamiliar with Davidson's anomalous monism) as an example.  If you believe you're free - that is, that your consciousness had some causal role in this exchange here - then I ask you to provide evidence for it empirically.  I think much of this argument could be resolved immediately if more scientists read Hume and Kant, and as well became familiar with the downfall of positivism within the philosophical community.  Philosophers by trade tend to be more scrutinous and rigorous than most other fields, which is why philosophy holds a very dear place as a second-order discipline.  The problems of induction, of a lack of self-referential verification and falsification for scientific principles, as well as the fusion of abstract entities (numbers, mathematical operations, logic, reason) with empirical means from the very inception points that science does not remain consistent.  By employing systems, the aforementioned entities, and methods/principles that are themselves not verifiable nor empirical, science sins against itself (figure of speech).  But maybe you just wanted to sound like a snarky smartass rather than contribute anything to an already convoluted discourse.

 

Additionally, my argument has somewhat modified since the beginning of this, and the original transaction posted by Sapient is, at this point, nearly irrelevant.  If you wish to remain relevant, please observe the most recent exchange between Kelly and I.


"Well, belief without evidence is irrational, beliefs are probably primitive, and reason isn't involved in the creation of such beliefs, thus "unreasonable."

--Look, my point here was to show not that "intelligent people can hold irrational beliefs" but that these beliefs themselves are not irrational.  If one is a positivist, then they are functioning out of principles which can be considered operationally functional, but no more "rational" than anything else.  Occam's Razor is not so much a "rational" principle as it is, as Ockham himself stated, a principle of parsimony.  The idea of avoiding overdeterminism causally speaking is a principle which I agree with, but there's no reason other than parsimony to say that it is justified. 

Secondly, metaphysical arguments, up until the time of Kant, who - if you don't by his own metaphysical statements concerning the categories of understanding and the noumenal realm, possibly his critique of cosmological arguments dissolves - demonstrated the impossibility of the <i>knowledge</i> of many, many things, such as: "proof" of any god's existence and free will.  But they weren't "irrational", not in the least.  They made use of pure logic and empirical state of affair synthetically.  Kant deals with this, but Kelly has answered in a certain manner - not what I wanted, but it's been addressed, so at least RRS has one person who is capable of dealing with necessary responses.  Back to the point, though: Is belief in free will irrational?  What about belief in the beauty of a certain poem?  Show me the evidence for these affairs (volition, aesthetics), please.  But certainly you don't hold them to be "irrational".  What then of the recognition of the limits of pure reason?  Is this scientific, based on empirical evidence?  No, not at all.  That science has its limits as a meaningful way of speaking and explaining certain aspects of the world and human life is not a result of scientific inquiry.  It is rather the recognition of the scientific purview as comprehended by reason.  Scientists do not have to function solely within the bounds of the scientific method.  Positivists do.  This is exactly one reason why positivism fails.  It attempts to imperially extend and mandate its territory beyond the scope of what it may actually account for.  This province of science does not include metaphysics, aesthetics, language, volition (not in determinist's incoherent case), semantics, pragmatics, economics, etc.  None of these fields can be explained through science.  Science does of course provide data for each of these areas, but positivism is impotent with regard to explanation.

<i>I think what we have here is a confusion of terms, at bottom.</I>.  RRS claims that believes of the just-now-mentioned order are "irrational".  Well, no, they're not...they're <b>unscientific</b>.  That doesn't make them "irrational".  If by "scientific" one means "is employed in science", then I suppose we will throw out that empiricist principle.  After all, I again request that one <i>empirically</i> prove double negation, or modus ponens, or any other sort of deductive reasoning.  If by "scientific" we mean "is empirically falsifiable", then we cannot speak "scientifically" of many, many aspects of our world that, despite this fact, remain very true and present.

<i>Look, deductive logic is itself unscientific.  Is it irrational?  Of course not - it is what directs science.  And we have already seen that induction, the very powerhouse and method of science, is not logically sound (begs the question).  So what's with all this delusional belief that science is so immune to fallacy and above reproach?  Again I request that you actually study science rather than simply adhere to it.</I>

Several of Kelly's critiques are in line with my own.  Even if we could reason to the necessary existence of god, we could certainly not say that being was any one doctrine's deity.  But all this stupid shit RRS uses towards disproving theism is pointless.  So you disprove Jesus of Nazareth as a historical entity (which, by the way, makes use of the same principles that cosmological proofs are not supposed to employ - namely, proof of existence through antichronological reasoning).  What exactly does this do against theism, given that christianity is but one of many theistic faiths?  Even if one were somehow able to "prove" materialism, this doesn't exactly destroy theism.  RRS essentially argues against christianity, and therein, against ID theory and creationism, not <i>theism</i>...at least not from what I've seen.  Look - evolution is accepted by a fact from many, many theists.  Disproving creationism only dispatches the lowest rung of arguments against atheism. 

Personally, I don't see what RRS has against Gould's principle of "non-overlapping magisteria".  Religion has its place, and science its, and the two should never meet.  Creationists are of course equally guilty here, but to claim that such matters as metaphysical arguments are "irrational" is - quite frankly - fucking absurd.  I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the practice before denouncing it.

By the way I haven't even brought in modal logic yet - mainly because I'm a novice with it - but that introduces a whole new system of metaphysics which finds room for very logical principles of a necessary being.  Go tell Kripke he's not rational.  See what happens.

 

"Why are you talking about the figure of Jesus?"

--Because RRS thinks that he's relevant, of course, to theistic beliefs.  And he certainly is to one breed, I guess.  But RRS certainly likes to pick only the easiest fights, and therefore attacks issues that are completely removed from "theism" itself.  By the way, Brian, it's only a "straw man" if:

1)  I misconstrue your argument into something different than it is, and then
2)  Refute the contrived argument and claim to thereby have refuted your argument.

So given your affinity for attacking christianity instead of "theism" in its more general form, amongst many other offenses to logic, RRS is rife with these fallacies, and in many cases we have the blackest of all pots issuing allegations.  Ultimately, this entire project is ridiculous, because you simply cannot prove universal negations.  Aristotle knew this, why don't you?  Perhaps you might claim (as it often is said) that RRS simply "does not believe" until there is evidence.  Well I certainly suppose that no one here at RRS - being good rational responders, that is - believes in free will.  Or aesthetics.  Or morality.  None of these can be empirically proven, but certainly they are facts of our existence (even if you discount free will and morality, you still have aesthetics).  And these aren't even the biggest flaws with positivism.  But if you say you aren't out to <i>prove the nonexistence of deities</I>, or, if you like, <i>disprove the existence of deities</I>, then how exactly is theism irrational, given that what constitutes acceptable beliefs for the RRS are only those beliefs which have evidence?

Look - RRS is patently schizophrenic, in the Buckleyian sense of the term.  First RRS wants to claim that it allows for belief, so long as this is "private".  Well, show me a belief that isn't "private".  Just because people with similar private beliefs come together, that doesn't make them any less private, you see.  Each member of RRS has a private belief in positivism, and as positivists, they flock together, just like any other goddamned herd.  This, of course, is a guaranteed right of this nation's constitutional clauses, and so while they at one instance piss on these privileges, they do so only through the liberties endowed by those selfsame privileges.  Legally speaking, I don't see how RRS even begins its war against theistic beliefs legitimately.  In point of fact, it can't.

But let us examine the very principles of RRS disregarding all principally "American" statutes.  Are your beliefs anymore justified than a theist who also accepts positivism?  My point is that faith-based beliefs do not have to be based on empirical proof, obviously, and if they occur alongside these beliefs (Spinoza, Einstein, et al) then RRS can say nothing against them.  RRS seeks to thrust all human thought onto the aforementioned procrustean bed and chide others for holding any degree of belief in anything other than that which can be empirically tested and proven on the grounds that these beliefs are "irrational".  Not only is this another fascist "ism", it's not even a very good one, especially since it can't justify itself by its own principles (induction, empiricism, etc.).  Please do show me how the principle of positivism is itself a matter of "rationality" and not instead instrumentalism, parsimony, and predictability.  These are informed by rationality, but they're not the exclusive owners.

<i>Attempting to define the world in positivist framings tends to leave very, very much out, as Wittgenstein and others have already noted.  Science can speak of what is and how it happens.  Now let's use science for literary criticism.  Let's use science to explain economics.  Let's use science to speak about poetry.  Get off your fucking tyrannical kick already.</i>  Science does not hold claim to sole explanatory or meaningful power.  Positivism is an unserviceable and untenable position that is ultimately abandoned by those very individuals who hold it as soon as they find a particular poem, novel, or film they enjoy.  Or when their currency experiences inflation.  Even Dawkins notes through one of his more laudable models (of hierarchical reductionism) that you cannot explain economics based on lower levels.  I'm not entirely sure if his model is compatible with supervenience or emergentist models, but certainly any good positivist cannot be taken seriously by any good economist if the former should think themselves capable of explaining the latter's line of work.

And by the way, Brian, any existentialist atheist would say that a person who becomes pregnant has no right to an abortion, and that has nothing to do with masculinist hegemony, religious fervor, or backwoods beliefs.  Sartre certainly didn't believe in any deity, and his stance on responsibility/owning the consequence of one's own actions still holds.  But we really, really don't need to get into the abortion topic and I won't address anything mentioned thereof.

I never in my life thought I would sound like a republican, but I'm sure RRS recognizes where it is located.  If you think you will ever gain any traction in America by violating inalienable rights, good luck.  No, this isn't a "christian nation" and never was.  But everyone, much to your fucking stupid chagrin, is guaranteed the right to believe in any theism they choose.  But, as we've already seen, you're much more in line with fascism than you are with any liberal democracy.  Great.  Just what we needed.

 

P.S. If you don't believe yourselves to be fascist, dogmatic, or tyrannical, I do heartfully implore you to take a stroll through your all-hallowed Oxford English Dictionary.

 

P.S.S.  Don't let the sporadic, touch-and-go nature of this post throw you.  I know you guys love your systematic, banal explanations, but I've tried those as well, and they're only ignored.  So I've taken a new tact.  Enjoy.


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Will,No offense, but

Will,

No offense, but statements like this:

"Nope. It's still the default postion to not believe in something that isn't there"

really only prove that you are completely unfamiliar with the matter of intentionality.  I don't see any point in arguing with someone I will first have to instruct.  But what the hell?  Honestly, I don't know what to make of such a vacuous folk statement as "It's the default position to not believe in something that isn't there".  If by "isn't there", you mean "is no intentional object", then you maintain that infants are atheists.  That's fine - we'll see how that's one option in a bit.  If, however, you mean by "isn't there" as nonexistent, then of course you are making an existential claim based on an epistemological one.  I don't think you're doing this, so let's see what happens when atheism is both the default belief and the belief that you have now:

First off, a person is capable of being an atheist with an intentional object and without.  So we have

1)  X has no belief B about intentional object O
2)  X has no belief B owing to no reference to familiarity with intentional object O

in the first case we have

1)  X = ~O -> ~B

where X has no object of intention and therefore no belief.  In the second option we have

2)  X = O -> ~B

where X has an object and therefore no belief.  Using that outlawed logic, we have the following formulation

(~O -> ~B) & (O -> ~B)

where both cases 1) and 2) are taken as sufficiently sound.  Plugging in truth values for O and B, where O and B are both taken to be true, we have this formulation:

(~T -> ~T) & (T -> ~T)

which yeilds

(F -> F) & (T -> F)

which yields

(T)&(F)

which of course yields false, but we don't need to go quite this far.  Using the option of disjunction inclusively, where either 1) or 2) are sufficient for belief (having an intentional object or not having an intentional object), we still have the understanding that one formulation provides a true case and the other a false - i.e., that these formulations are not equivalent.  If you would like to challenge the formulation I welcome that, but the logic is valid.  Obviously, as is shown above, belief in both sufficient lack of belief through a presence of an intentional object and a lack generates absurdities.  Perhaps you're okay with that.


"If you're talking about the original case, sure. But you imply that familiarity of the intentional object would clear things up. That would be true if it weren't nonsense."

--No, I don't.  I imply merely that either a child is an atheist owing to a lack of intentional object, e.g. the concept of god, or Sapient, Kelly, and you are atheists owing to a lack of belief about an intentional object, e.g. the concept of god.  I have demonstrated how both cannot be the case.  The "concept of god" is certainly not "nonsense", unless you're speaking in Tractatus-type language.  If so, I agree that it is "nonsense".  But I'm sure you're not.  You would have to then of course define what makes the concept "nonsense".  Simply saying it is, well...to put it nicely, insufficient.

Furthermore, "familiarity of the intentional object" doesn't have to "clear things up", but rather only provide the condition for the possibility of a belief.  RRS simply cannot account for "belief" in the way they have defined it, as, given the above formulation, an absurdity is generated through first an intentional object being required and then no intentional object being required.  It is my position that all beliefs are about something, and therefore intentional.  Thus where there is no intentional object, one is without belief.  Where there is an intentional object, one is never capable of returning to "without belief", but rather must pass a judgment as relates to that object.  Thus Sapient, denying any "belief" in god, does not return to being an infant, being wholly unfamiliar with the intentional object, but rather passes judgment on the issue (unless he should like to be a skeptic, which he doesn't, obviously, since that isn't allowed).  Having the intentional object, unless he has experienced amnesia or somehow put it out of his head (he hasn't), he must have a belief about it.  To say he has no belief in the way a child has not would be to say that he has no intentional object - yet he irrevocably does.  When he then moves on to say "I do not believe in god", this is a statement of <i>judgment</I>, not an assertion of no intentional object.  If this is not clear then may Moloch help you.

<b>Please note:</b> I am not claiming, as RRS does, that all persons must have a belief about every intentional object.  There is, of course, the third option out of the very false dichotomy which suspends judgment and belief (skepticism).  A skepticist, as I have argued, is not an atheist, because they are not exactly "without belief".  Instead, they recognize that they have no right to either claim belief or disbelief - that is, to align themselves as with or without any belief.  I think it would help here if we spoke about what "belief" means for RRS.  I don't think that definition has been provided, but we can contextually extract the meaning in the next section.

Given that "belief" is utilized in such phrases as "being without belief in god is atheism", we can see that "belief" for the RRS is closely related (if not identical to) the notion of "holding affirmation or opinion of".  RRS goes on to claim that one who "doesn't disbelieve" is a theist, through double negation.  Ignoring that positivism cannot justify DN, this adds weight to our contextual interpretation here.  So if belief depends upon "affirming", "judging", or "holding an opinion of", then one must have that object in order to have that belief.  One can certainly not "affirm" or "hold an opinion of" what is not present in thought.  So again I say: either children are atheists or adults are atheist - the two are not equivalent.  Children have no belief not because they doubt (Descartes showed us that doubting is active) but because they have no condition of the possibility of belief.  They cannot "affirm" or "agree with" (or "have faith in" or "hold opinions of" or whatever other definition for "belief" you may elect) something that is not there in thought.  So to say that a person is "without belief", if this is to be significant and not a merely empty or ridiculous statement (rocks are atheist, doorknobs are atheists, dolphins are atheist) then we must mean "has formed a judgment or opinion concerning an intentional object, in this case 'god'".  This is quite obviously not synonymous with "is without a belief", as I have already stated this lattermost definition is so vast as to become worthless and empty. 

By the way we all know that Mother Teresa had "doubts" as to whether god existed (doubt is equated with atheism on the RRS page).   I don't think we could call her an atheist.  A "doubter" is someone who consistently fails to hold a belief.  A skeptic is someone who does not ever form beliefs or judgments (either negatively or positively) on the grounds that they are in no position to.  An atheist is one who is without any belief whatsoever, consistently.  A theist is one who is with belief, consistently.  It is a false characterization to claim that a person who experiences occasional doubt is an atheist.  If it helps, you may consider a skeptic a person who, although an atheist, becomes a theist as soon as you ask him to accept that he is an atheist, or vice versa.  That a skeptic feels rationally unwarranted in either believe is WHY (as Hume remarks we must ask) they do not align themselves with either atheism or theism camps.

 

BY THE WAY: I think RRS has misdefined themselves in another way.  You people are not "atheists" alone, but are better understood as "antitheists".  So even if "skeptics" are "atheists" with your loose, whorishly-accepting definition, certainly they would still resist any association with your militance.  RRS is quite assured of its position as without a belief in god to the point where it advocates - quite rapidly and forcefully - the elimination of the counterposition.  This is obviously not the action of a person who "doubts" anything at all.  So I ask that RRS take some of its own advice and be honest.  Admit that you are not "atheists" but rather "antitheists".  It remains entirely incoherent how one who is unsure of the existence of god is so hostile to beliefs in it. 

I have already shown (via Facebook) that RRS claims to be able to disprove beliefs in god ("help humanity abandon its primitive beliefs that can now easily be proven false&quotEye-wink.  Elsewhere (on this site) Sapient and Kelly and others claim that they are agnostic atheists.  I suppose I should elucidate how this is incoherent since they haven't already facilely grasped it.  I'm sure this will be futile.  But anyways...if RRS is referring to ID beliefs, then yes, these can be "proven" false.  If RRS is referring to pantheist beliefs (theist beliefs), then no, nothing they provide could ever "prove" this false.  If RRS is referring to someone's belief in a "higher power" that doesn't interact with the physical realm, then no, RRS could never "prove" this false.  If someone believes in an entity that is outside the material sphere and RRS only advocates the use of materialist methodologies and evidence, please, please, please explain to me how they can DISPROVE those beliefs.  And don't reference ID theory or the historical jesus, please - that has nothing to do with my point here.  It's quite easy to disprove the bible - but you've a long, long way to go to disprove all theistic beliefs.


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I forgot to address two

I forgot to address two later points Will makes.

 

"Let's hand it to you (in anticipation of the second part of the argument) that ignorance of something goes hand in hand with the lack of belief in something. I'll give you that."

--Well, if "ignorance" counts for "atheism", then does "ignorance" of government count for "anarchist"?  You might say this is a faulty analogy, because "anarchy" is a belief against government.  I could then say "no, a person is only strongly anarchist in that way".  But this is making nonsense of language.  All children would then be "immoral, illiterate, irrational, and anarchist".  Is this what RRS wants, to return to some state of "innocence" without the impression of others?  No, of course not - so what can be gained of referencing the unimpressed upon state of infancy is beyond me.  Yes, we're born ignorant of god.  We're also born ignorant of wiping our own assess.  And it's not as thought these religious beliefs just dropped out of the sky according to atheists.  Naturally, they came from somewhere.  That they were developed and adopted later is no case against theism anymore than it is a case against literacy.  But, this is off topic (maybe).  I think referencing children is only problematic - that said, we can move on.

I recognize that ignorance necessarily entails a "lack of belief", if you mean that the person who has no intentional object can have no belief at all.  I think this is what you do in fact mean.  But then, as I've shown before, once a person has that intentional object, they will ultimately (unless they are skeptical) have a belief about it.  My point is that while infants are incapable of belief altogether, since they lack any intentional objects, adults are of a different category, in that they have intentional objects.  There may be parallel predicates of the two sets - infants do not concern themselves with god and neither does an atheist - but not only are they "not the same", <i>which is already against the position of RRS</i>, but it is simply not the case that an adult, fully aware of the concept of god, doubting it, is "without belief".  The adult has come to a very definite opinion concerning the matter of god: they do not buy it.  Is this the same as saying they are "without belief"?  No, not at all.

The polysemy and vagueness of the term "belief" is probably what is most problematic here.  If an atheist is truly without belief in god in the same way an infant is, they wouldn't join RRS - they wouldn't know what "atheism" meant and wouldn't feel any resonance with the site/group.  But surely adult atheists who know what this word means are not simply "without belief" - they have come to a very specific judgment; that being, they do not believe in god (owing to a lack of evidence, perhaps).  This is a judgment on the matter of god that an infant cannot sensibly make.  But we can drop all this "baby talk".  Saying that one is "agnostic" immediately means they have formed a judgment about god - namely, that god is beyond knowledge.  This doesn't sound like a "lack of belief" to me, as one has already gone so far as to define a characteristic of god.  Therefore one has an opinion of god.  Brian and Kelly both say they are "agnostic atheists".  So, therefore, they both believe knowledge of god cannot be had but they also both supposedly "lack belief" about god.  Notice the contradiction?  If by their "atheism", they actually mean the <i>traditional</i> intention, which is that they do not believe god exists, then I can understand how one cannot have knowledge of god - although the "agnostic" modifier then seems only superfluous and confusing.  But if by their "atheism" they mean only "lack of belief", yet claim to know at least one thing about this matter of god, i.e. that knowledge of god cannot be had, they have already begun to formulate beliefs.  Again, if "belief" is the problematic term here, let us replace it with "opinion" or "judgment" or "sense".  Both Brian and Kelly are fully aware of some "sense" of god.  As such, they have come to form an opinion or judgment on it.  When they then say they are "without belief", do they mean they are without any notion of god or sense or decision/opinion on the matter altogether?  NO.  What they in fact mean (whether they know it or not) is that they do not accept the concept of god as "rational, reasonable, and civilized" (contrary characterization).  But certainly they have a judgment about the concept and are sure of it.  As such, they are not atheists in the sense of "lacking belief", but rather have very specific, clearly-defined beliefs...just as any adult confronted with the concept (and no skeptic) would.

 

Kelly and Sapient and others maintain they "have no belief".  This is simply not the case.  They have a very certain belief concerning god - that is, that god is not currently known to them, that god is not present in their lives right now, that god cannot be known (they classify themselves as agnostic), etc.  So they are not "without belief" concerning god - they have all sorts of beliefs predicated of the intentional object.  Unless one is a skeptic (or perhaps entirely indifferent, as I am to Justin Timberlake), one cannot say they have absolutely no beliefs directed towards the intentional object whatsoever.  So perhaps it is best to say that Brian, Kelly, other RRS members do not actually have a "lack of belief" but rather "doubt the existence of" god.  They do not want to commit to this definition, of course, but I think it is the only tenable option.  Additionally, Brian and Kelly and RRS in general, in vehemently denouncing theism, seem to be quite secure in their doubt.  They claim to be able to pan all theism as "irrational, primitive, etc.".  I don't think this sounds like someone who readily admits that they might be completely wrong. 

Please note that when I cite examples (RRS, Brian, Kelly) I am not harping on them - I am providing counterexamples to your points.

 

"Sorry, what? You're right, a lack of a belief in an intentional object isn't the same as a belief towards an intentional object. They look like opposites. Nothing to address."

--I'm glad you've admitted this.  It logically follows that either infants are atheists or adults are atheists.  Why?  Because if infants are without intentional objects and thus atheists, then adults who have intentional objects (the opposite) cannot be atheists <i>in the same sense</I> as infants.  Again: I recognize that "lack of belief" applies for you as extensionally and intensionally as "ignorant".  But the two are simply not synonymous.  I think when most atheists say they are "without belief", they mean they do not believe (disbelieve) in the existence of god.  To call such beliefs "primitive and irrational" is a dead giveaway.  Alternatively, one might say that by "lack of belief", an atheist says they "hold no judgment".  This is more in line with skepticism than atheism, as it is commonly understood, given that one thereby "suspends belief".  They're not "without" it, so to speak, but rather just "suspended".  Indeed, this notion of "suspension" is difficult, but we could here reference Hegel's aufhebung.  I could ask whether red or yellow is more a color, or whether being or non-being is more "becoming", but this won't get us very far, will it?  I mention this only because - just as "becoming" preserves and sublates both "being" and "non-being", so "suspension" preserves and sublates both "belief" and "lack of belief".  To put it in any other terms is a vicious mischaracterization. 

But let's not get lost in my defense of skepticism.  Let us say someone, as a third option, means by "lack of belief" that they are unconvinced concerning the concept of god.  This seems closest to RRS' position (there could be a god, but we don't know it, and therefore we have a "lack of belief&quotEye-wink.  By "lack of belief" they mean "remain unconvinced and unwilling to accept the existence of".  This is hardly "lack of belief" at all.  As Kelly has already referenced in whatever Scriven claptrap was provided, evidence for god's existence would make for a believable god.  Therefore some belief - specifically, a conditional (if god provides evidence then belief may be justified) has been concocted. 

What has all of this proven, then?  Well, for starters, when the atheists at RRS say they have a "lack of belief", they don't really mean quite what they may think they do.  Secondly, we have seen that an intentional object is fundamental ground for the possibility of belief - without an intentional object, there is no possibility of belief.  Ergo, if infants in fact "have a lack of belief", then adults cannot have this same "lack of belief" owing to the introduction of the intentional object.  You admit that a lack of belief is not the same as a belief towards an intentional object.  "Doubting" involves belief towards an intentional object - being a child without any IO does not.  Given that these are different by your own admission, then either an adult with doubt is an atheist, or a child with no IO is an atheist.  Both cannot be instances of a "lack of belief", especially since we have seen that no adult atheist truly "lacks belief" in the sense that they are ignorant of the IO of god.  Rather, they do in fact hold very specific opinions, beliefs, and/or judgments on the IO, proving that they are not atheists owing to a "lack of belief" in the way a child is claimed to be.

If you don't follow then...well...whatever...but there is certainly something to address here...although I think I've wasted a good portion of my own time by your ready admittance:

2) If atheism qua lack of belief doesn't involve an intentional object, then how is this compatible with atheism qua belief understood as involving an intentional object?

"Not following you here."

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Philosophy and ice cream

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
You say the cutest things. So because we cannot naturally observe the supernatural or materially observe the immaterial it is absent altogether?

This is utter nonsense. As we exist in the natural world, anything beyond the natural world is not part of our world. It is, in effect, removed from us. And of course we can materially observe the immaterial. We do that by observing the effects of the immaterial: we see wars fought in the name of ideas, we feel our skin peel because of solar radiation, we observe magnets cling together ass-to-cheek as opposite poles attract.

Anything, whether within our natural universe or not, that leaves no mark upon the universe essentially does not exist in our natural world. And, until there is a logical reason to believe there is some other world beyond our natural world, it's the only world we have.

As for beauty, we observe a painting, or hear music, or are given a wonderful idea. The beauty of these things is not intrinsic to these things: it is an evoked response, like love or hate or frustration. Beauty exists within us only as a reaction to observation. Now, if you were to suggest that God is simply a personal reaction to the immensity and grandeur of the universe, I would agree.

This does not make him real.

As for the first cause arguments, including Kalam: this is merely philosophical masturbation. Like Xeno's paradox, the only problem is in the phrasing of the problem. From a cosmological standpoint, there are dozens of hypothesis concerning the genesis of the universe, none of which contain the concept of God. As we push the veil of creation back farther and farther, down to the first few nanoseconds of the universe, we discover more beautiful, natural things about the universe. (Like how I stuck beauty in there? I did that for you, Joshua.)  As it stands, the concept of "first cause" exists only in a continuum with a forward-moving arrow of time. As time and space gets a little hinkey (technical physics jargon) as you asymtotically approach the "big bang," the whole first-cause argument falls apart. In fact, we may not have the framework to seriously consider the creation of the universe-- not because it requires a first cause, but because the universe was so weird in the first few picoseconds, what with space and  time coming into being and all. So, Craig's assertion that everything must have a cause is an assumption that is valid only once time comes into being. Kalam falls apart on its very first assumption.

As we discover more, some of the origin hypothesis may become obsolete. Eventually, we may come down to the final hypothesis, the one that best describes our knowledge of the universe.

Or maybe not.

Ultimately, knowledge concerning the origin of the universe is not essential, though physicists would like to know. It's one of those things that might remain a mystery, like why Ben & Jerry's Oatmeal Cookie Dough ice cream tastes so damned good. Using ignorance to propogate intellectually-bankrupt ideas such as the God of the Gaps is just plain evil. (I refer to the Oxford English Dictionary for my definition of evil: "Fucking someone over for your own gain.&quotEye-wink

"Intellectually bankrupt?" you may respond.

Yes, I say. "Intellectually bankrupt." I tell you two times. "Intellectually bankrupt." There is nothing to support the idea of a God that is either outside the natural world, as in the traditions of Christianity and Islam and many others, or of the natural world, like the panentheists believe. As much as I respect both Einstein and Spong, there's nothing to indicate there is anything unusual about the universe, other than its very existence. (And we cannot know if that is unusual, can we?) To base our lives upon something that is both unprovable and unnecessary is the essence of superstition.

The closest thing to a provable God might be Seth Lloyd's concept of the universe as a vast quantum computer that is constantly in the process of calculating itself. This hypothesis is at least grounded in reality, in that it has repercussions that both affect us in the real world, and are testable (though not by us right now).

So, in summary: if it is unable to affect the natural universe, it effectively doesn't exist. Kalam needs no refutation, as its primary axiom is incorrect. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. B&J's Oatmeal Cookie ice cream is delicious. And though masturbation is pleasurable, you should do it quietly, at home, with the window shades drawn.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Well thank you for that

Well thank you for that armchair exposition of astrophysical cosmology.  I never claimed that matter was able to operate (cause) outside of time -- in fact, I claimed the two are inseparable, and time is best understood as motion.  But to speak of a "time" before "time" is to invoke the very matter of time already, is it not?  Time seems to be a condition of matter, although matter does not seem to be a condition of time.  But this isn't my area although my colleague is writing his thesis on the metaphysics of time...taking into account dilation and other interesting things.  So maybe I'll ask him to respond. 

 

Other business:

1)  Your arguments that the supernatural must manifest within the natural are unfounded.  Why, exactly?  Because you say so?
2)  The immaterial, according to physics, cannot affect the material.  That would be "magic".  This is why Kelly et al are materialist, and why, qua materialists, they must be determinists.  Still, as Graham notes, they must have "the conviction of freedom" in order to function as a person.  I suppose evolution would explain that, too...somehow.
3)  Energy is not immaterial in the sense of ideas or beliefs.  Energy is quite physical in both nature and effect.  Don't think "physical" as in "I can rest my beer on it".  Think "physical" as in "part of physical account of the nature of the world".
4)  "So, in summary: if it is unable to affect the natural universe, it effectively doesn't exist."  --Interesting principle.  Is this yours?  "Effectively" not existing and "not existing" are two very, very different things.  How silly of you to equate them.
5)  "As for beauty, we observe a painting, or hear music, or are given a wonderful idea. The beauty of these things is not intrinsic to these things: it is an evoked response, like love or hate or frustration. Beauty exists within us only as a reaction to observation."  --I would say beauty supervenes on these things, though.  Certainly if the physical particles of the painting were to change, the beauty would be lost (degradation).  No, the beauty is not "intrinsic", of course, as "man is the measure of all things" (don't take that too literally).  Certainly "beauty" exists only because man is present to experience it.  I never claimed otherwise, I don't believe...but if that was your stab at aesthetics, then please pause for a round of applause from the peanut gallery.  My point about aesthetics - which I believe is not only compatible with but buttressed by your claims - was that "beauty" is not reducible to material, could very well be considered "immaterial"/"nonphysical", and yet motivates action/is causally effective.  So if we are to allow beauty into the causal chain we have no reason not to add a great deal more.  Or maybe I just like this painting because it allows me to propagate my genes, ensures survival, or is genetically/evolutionarily relevant in some way.

I think from here on out I will only respond to comments at least as motivating/challenging/worthy as Kelly's.  These other points about wholly impertinent topics are not advancing this discourse any further.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
You cut me to the quick, Sir!

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

Well thank you for that armchair exposition of astrophysical cosmology.  I never claimed that matter was able to operate (cause) outside of time -- in fact, I claimed the two are inseparable, and time is best understood as motion.  But to speak of a "time" before "time" is to invoke the very matter of time already, is it not?  Time seems to be a condition of matter, although matter does not seem to be a condition of time.  But this isn't my area although my colleague is writing his thesis on the metaphysics of time...taking into account dilation and other interesting things.  So maybe I'll ask him to respond. 

Excellent. I like nothing more than metaphysicists discussing physics. It's so... quaint.

As far as time goes: As soon as you produced the Kalam argument, you brought up time, and first cause. And time isn't a condition of matter. It's a condition of state, of information. The point is, time is not tied to matter. It is tied to state. The Kalam argument invokes time as its first axiom, without reference to any other entity. In fact, the only entity invoked is God, and that is in the first conclusion, which is somehow excluded from the first axiom. Really, though, for some unspecified eternal being to provoke the start of the universe, they must've caused it (that is, affected its state) in some way. However, since time didn't even exist, how is that possible, as cause and effect are time-domain constrained?

Are you unaware of the fundamentals of the arguments you present?

The Kalam argument is self-defeating. Its primary axiom is fallacious, as I presented before. Your support of it merely exhibits your ignorance, fancy philosophical footwork notwithstanding. Your arguments go against fundamental physics. Since physics is observable, and the results of philosophical footwork is not, I'll go with physics, thanks very much.

And-- thanks for responding to the arguments against it. It is clear you are my intellectual superior.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

Other business:

1)  Your arguments that the supernatural must manifest within the natural are unfounded.  Why, exactly?  Because you say so?

No-- because of definitions. Once something occurs within the natural world, no matter the source, it is part of the natural world. Duh.

That makes it observable. That means its effects are quantifiable. The natural world has rules, is defined by those rules. As soon as something outside the natural world ("supernatural," in case I lost you) affects the natural world, those effects would be observable as an imposition.

The only caveat: we'd have to observe the effects. There is always the possibility that some outside force is able to determine what will and will not be observed, and operate on the unobserved portion.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

2)  The immaterial, according to physics, cannot affect the material.  That would be "magic".  This is why Kelly et al are materialist, and why, qua materialists, they must be determinists.  Still, as Graham notes, they must have "the conviction of freedom" in order to function as a person.  I suppose evolution would explain that, too...somehow.

Again, philosophical masturbation. The sound of your own voice pleases you, doesn't it?

Information is immaterial, yet it affects the material. This is the entire basis of evolution. Information is transcribed via the material, but the material is merely a representation of the information. In the case of genetics, the information is transcribed into the genotype via DNA, which is expressed as a phenotype. However, although it is the phenotype that is selected, and not the genotype, it is the  genotype that is propagated. That is: it is the information, which is immaterial, that produces the individual, which is the phenotypic expression of the information.. It is the information that drives evolution, through its expression.

So, here we have a case of the immaterial affecting the material. Satisfied?

Probably not, as you most likely don't understand the nuances of information theory vis-a-vis the physical biology of information propagation. If you did, you wouldn't've brought up point 2.

However, as another, plainer example, I'll simply refer you to, well, basically the whole of quantum physics, in which information theory plays a large part. The uncertainty principle will be a good starting point, in case you are actually interested. If you need it explained in monosyllabic words, I'm available.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

3)  Energy is not immaterial in the sense of ideas or beliefs.  Energy is quite physical in both nature and effect.  Don't think "physical" as in "I can rest my beer on it".  Think "physical" as in "part of physical account of the nature of the world".

I rather believe I understand physics. At least a little. Having studied it and all. That is why I mentioned "ideas" as part of the argument. I was a bit unsure of exactly how nuanced you wished the argument to be, so I tried varied examples. Too bad you missed that. I'd hoped for better from you. But I guess I'm not surprised, as you cherry-pick your arguments for your ability to use canned responses from your philosophy texts.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

4)  "So, in summary: if it is unable to affect the natural universe, it effectively doesn't exist."  --Interesting principle.  Is this yours?  "Effectively" not existing and "not existing" are two very, very different things.  How silly of you to equate them.

Really? In what way are they different?

This is merely a restatement of the reflexive axiom. I hadn't thought it might even be controversial. Do expound. I'd love to hear your ideas on this.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

5)  "As for beauty, we observe a painting, or hear music, or are given a wonderful idea. The beauty of these things is not intrinsic to these things: it is an evoked response, like love or hate or frustration. Beauty exists within us only as a reaction to observation." 

--I would say beauty supervenes on these things, though.  Certainly if the physical particles of the painting were to change, the beauty would be lost (degradation).  No, the beauty is not "intrinsic", of course, as "man is the measure of all things" (don't take that too literally).  Certainly "beauty" exists only because man is present to experience it.  I never claimed otherwise, I don't believe...but if that was your stab at aesthetics, then please pause for a round of applause from the peanut gallery.  My point about aesthetics - which I believe is not only compatible with but buttressed by your claims - was that "beauty" is not reducible to material, could very well be considered "immaterial"/"nonphysical", and yet motivates action/is causally effective.  So if we are to allow beauty into the causal chain we have no reason not to add a great deal more.  Or maybe I just like this painting because it allows me to propagate my genes, ensures survival, or is genetically/evolutionarily relevant in some way.

Hmm. You say beauty might be lost. Perhaps; but some might think that beauty is enhanced by those same alterations. In the end, it is the response that defines beauty, not the object. There may exist properties that are more likely to evoke a beauty response from the typical human (or a specific demographic), but that is a result of statistical aggregation of the response patterns. The individual variance within the responses would be highly subjective.

I'm not sure what this adds to the conversation. I've already addressed the immaterial affect on the material, so... let's see. Let's look at your original statement: 

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

--You say the cutest things. So because we cannot naturally observe the supernatural or materially observe the immaterial it is absent altogether? This would be akin to saying that because we cannot logically prove the beauty of a painting the beauty does not exist, or that since we cannot empirically prove a double negation it is not valid. But again, I don't know if this matters, since you're a positivist and not a logical positivist.


Well, to start with, the observation of beauty is subjective, as we both seem to believe (and, actually, seems to be an objective truth-- go figure). Here, though, it seems you are striving for something more. Something... supernatural. As if the natural "beauty" response to a natural object somehow validates the possible existence of a supernatural... something. This seems to lead back to point #2.

We find ourselves back at point #4. We see the effects of the beauty reaction, whether in a statement, an intake of breath, or even just a slight tightening of the chest and a dialtion of the pupils. There are effects within the objective, real world. Here again is a case of the immaterial affecting the material.

However, to extend this to something outside of objective reality (something "supernatural," say) is not just a leap, it's a misapplication of logic. Then to further suggest that the effects of the beauty judgement are not part of the natural world-- breathtaking. Your poor logic is a thing to behold.

Anyway, here you try to use a subjective reaction (beauty) to an objective reality to "prove" that something (you really aren't quite clear on this point) might exist in the "supernatural" realm that affect the natural realm, yet remains unobservable.

Tell me, what has these properties:

1) Isn't directly observable

2) Isn't able to affect observable change

Give up? Well, it's really quite simple.

Nothing.

If you're able to come up with something real, please let me know. Y'know, just as a favor to someone who is unworthy.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

I think from here on out I will only respond to comments at least as motivating/challenging/worthy as Kelly's.  These other points about wholly impertinent topics are not advancing this discourse any further.

Thanks. At least you tell her that her arguments are "cute." Are you hoping to get laid or something?

Impertinent? Hey, I was only responding to your assertions. Are your own assertions not worthy of defence? Even from "silly" arguments like mine?

I think you didn't like the fact I called your arguments "philosophical masturbation." Which they are. And you haven't proven otherwise.

PS:

Seriously, Joshua-- I do resort to some ad-homs here, and I sort of apologize for them. (Not completely, obviously, since I haven't removed them. I think they're deserved, and I refrained from some rather [in my own opinion] creative expletives.) But seriously, dude. If you want to really argue this stuff, rather than just resort to pre-canned arguments, you should study some physics, and some information theory, and some evolutionary biology. Those go hand-in-hand. You definitely have the philosophy, I'll grant you. You are my master with philosophy. And if it were only philosophy we were debating, I'd have to supply my own silver platter for you to hand me my ass.

As it is, you chose to argue pedantic philosophy in the realm of a specific epistemology-- science. And, as much as you know about general philosophy, and with all the intellectual arguments at your disposal, it is quite apparent you know jack-all about science, and the fruits thereof.

And it doesn't help that you are damned arrogant about it all. There's nothing worse than an arrogant ignoramous.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
... But to speak of a "time" before "time" is to invoke the very matter of time already, is it not?  Time seems to be a condition of matter, although matter does not seem to be a condition of time.  But this isn't my area ...

You're really doing backflips with this, but you're right to defer to your friend. Time and matter being "conditional" is a bit of a medieval philosophy argument. It would be great to hear from your friend.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Your arguments that the supernatural must manifest within the natural are unfounded.

The real assertion there is that nothing beyond the natural exists. When something that previously may have been thought to be supernatural is measured, it becomes part of "natural".

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Energy is quite physical in both nature and effect.

Absolutely true. Beer cans are also physical in both nature and effect. Are we just listing off things that can be observed?

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"Effectively" not existing and "not existing" are two very, very different things.  How silly of you to equate them.

How silly? PLEASE outline the differences (for they must be vast to warrant a "silly" comment) between "effectively" non-existent and non-existent for us. I believe you'll end up back at "if it can't be measured, it doesn't mean it's not there." That brings you to the agnostic atheist position. I don't know, but I don't have enough evidence to believe. Evidence like "effective" existence.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
... "beauty" is not reducible to material, could very well be considered "immaterial"/"nonphysical", and yet motivates action/is causally effective.  So if we are to allow beauty into the causal chain we have no reason not to add a great deal more.

Beauty is a concept. I'm willing to concede that God is a concept that effects the causal chain, sure. Leprechans, Zeus, Mars, Amon Ra, and Marduk would, in other times, apply equally to your argument, though. The only difference is that in this period in history, the concept of God is more prevelant than Zeus et al. The word "beauty" also really describes a human behaviour indirectly, that being the judgement of what is and is not beautiful. So we're still in the realm of the natural with beauty, whereas the concept of God is fed strictly by religious text.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
I think from here on out I will only respond to comments at least as motivating/challenging/worthy as Kelly's.  These other points about wholly impertinent topics are not advancing this discourse any further.

You set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
"Information is immaterial,

"Information is immaterial, yet it affects the material. This is the entire basis of evolution. Information is transcribed via the material, but the material is merely a representation of the information. In the case of genetics, the information is transcribed into the genotype via DNA, which is expressed as a phenotype. However, although it is the phenotype that is selected, and not the genotype, it is the  genotype that is propagated. That is: it is the information, which is immaterial, that produces the individual, which is the phenotypic expression of the information.. It is the information that drives evolution, through its expression.

So, here we have a case of the immaterial affecting the material. Satisfied?

Probably not, as you most likely don't understand the nuances of information theory vis-a-vis the physical biology of information propagation. If you did, you wouldn't've brought up point 2.

However, as another, plainer example, I'll simply refer you to, well, basically the whole of quantum physics, in which information theory plays a large part. The uncertainty principle will be a good starting point, in case you are actually interested. If you need it explained in monosyllabic words, I'm available."

--Well if you're referring to Heisenburg then I think you've totally missed the mark there.  But we won't touch on that - let's stick to genetics, which is central here.

My point was (and remains) that immaterial cannot causally affect the material, and I don't think you've proven anything to the contrary.  This geneto-homunculus argument will not hold water, especially given two important things:

1)  When you reference "information" in this specific example of genetics, do you really mean immaterial information, or do you mean long strands of adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine?  I'm sure you're well aware that there's nothing so immaterial about proteins, amino acids, etc., and that referencing the "information" contained as a genotype is...well...silly.  Genotypes are very, very material, are they not?  So please do explain here what the "immaterial" you're referring to is, exactly?  Genetic information is clearly not immaterial.  The "information" is strictly a series of very real material things.

And, by the way, you have not succeeded in much, I don't believe.  You have now admitted that the immaterial directs the material.  I suppose you've got all sorts of explanations for that.  An explanation, by the way, is not an example to the contrary.  You may have instantiated a specious case of substance-interactionist dualism at the genetic level, but you have yet to explain it.  If it is truly "immaterial", you see, then for it to direct any "material" would require what exactly?  Well it might require some sort of willing, interpretive force here, yes?  This notion of "information" being replicated and represented by the phenotype is - again - worthless, if in fact you are referring to genetic information which is something like ATCGATGGGCACAGGT.  I don't believe that is very immaterial.

 

"However, to extend this to something outside of objective reality (something "supernatural," say) is not just a leap, it's a misapplication of logic. Then to further suggest that the effects of the beauty judgement are not part of the natural world-- breathtaking. Your poor logic is a thing to behold.

Anyway, here you try to use a subjective reaction (beauty) to an objective reality to "prove" that something (you really aren't quite clear on this point) might exist in the "supernatural" realm that affect the natural realm, yet remains unobservable."

--Did the extension of this particular argument span to anything like a "proof" of god?  I think rather the point was that physicalist models are completely inaccurate concerning several events which we can call into consideration at any point during the day.  If you should like to admit that the immaterial quality of "beauty" can physically affect the material object of "body", then I do believe you are already a dualist.  And, again, I'm sure you've solved all the problems with that.  What was that about metaphysics?

"No-- because of definitions. Once something occurs within the natural world, no matter the source, it is part of the natural world. Duh."

--Yes, thank you Hume.  I'm well aware of this principle, but I think you've left out something quite crucial here.  First, I was responding to the criterion that the supernatural interact with the natural world.  I never claimed this position, only responded to it.  Secondly, you may do well in explaining all manner of effect in naturalist language, I agree.  I believe Wittgenstein makes this point in his speech on ethics.  Once we've "got" a "miracle", then of course it's not a miracle anymore, as we can test it and this and that quantifiable blah blah blah.  Yes, I do believe I know all that.  But we are not merely speaking of the effects here, are we?  If - mind you, IF - the supernatural were to (and I never claimed it should or does or whatever else) interact with the natural world to cause some series of unnatural event, violating the laws of physical determinism, you could very well explain every last iota of the effects.  You would, however, be entirely wrong in claiming that the "cause" would be part of the natural world.

As long as we're being hypothetical here, let's take a stroll through a thought experiment.  If a large number of people were to observe some spontaneous generation of some object X, they would immediately be able to say "well this is part of the natural world".  But would they be able to explain its cause?  You may say "such a thing has never occurred", but I chide you to notice that I am not claiming it has.  But so far as your rationale is concerned, everything about this ex nihilo object should be subject for swift explanation.  How?
 

"I'm not sure what this adds to the conversation. I've already addressed the immaterial affect on the material,"

--No, you really, really haven't.  And I will not progress (re: waste any more time and text) towards any further commentary/response until we have sufficiently and comprehensively concluded this point.  According to all physical laws, the immaterial is causally impotent.  Your point about genetics is not really cutting the mustard here.  Now you may try again to explain how exactly genetic codes, which are really only strands of material, are immaterial.  If you want to reference the fact that they are "information", again please note what your signifier points to.  If it's a genetic coding of the aforementioned order, then it's not "immaterial information" such as the types I provided (logic, belief, etc.).  And if in fact there is a case of the "immaterial" affecting the material, I should like to hear how this is possible...especially from a physicist.