The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:There is

MattShizzle wrote:

There is anti-matter but it's still material.

yes, everything I described as a scientific example of opposites is a material except for gravity which is not fully understood by science itself.  It is theorized that because everything else seems to have an opposite, then gravity could or I guess should by scientific Law as well.  I went on to generalize material in general in an attempt to possibly clarify the idea that if science says everything should have an opposite, then material in general theoretically should too. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Thomathy

caposkia wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Anti-gravity!  I want some of what you're smoking.  That's fucking batshit insane!  Anti-gravity!  My mind has been blown away!  I'm surprised I can still type or breathe!  I'm surprised I can be surprised.  You're complete misunderstanding of 'dark' matter is also aching my ribs and robbing me of brain cells.  It is not distinguished by the difference you imagine and the name is descriptive, not a definition.

You do know how stupid what you've written is, right? (rhetorical)

There is no anti-material.  You obviously did not understand or have not read the entire article.  All that exists in the universe is all that exists in the universe.  I realize the tautology is simple, but it is key to understanding just how ludicrous what you wrote really is.  The universe is material, that is it exists and all that is in the universe is also material and exists.  Anti-material would, I imagine, be something that doesn't exist, something without of the universe.  The immaterial is a broken concept because it has no universe of discourse, it is negatively defined.  To be clear if the immaterial or anti-material did exists they could only be either in name for the very fact of their existence would nullify what is to be understood as immaterial or anti-material.

I can barely think; what you've written is so stupid.

It was just an approach, nothing to lose your head about.  I guess you're not up on that much scientific theory.  That's alright.  It is understood that the Universe is material.  That's why it's known to us as what it is. 

Anti-material is just a name I made up to coenside with the understanding of scientific theories of opposites.  I'm not sure how else I could explain it to you, but by your response it seems clear to me that unless you can touch it, see it, taste it, hear it... it doesn't exist.  Therefore, there's nothing more we can do on this topic. 

 

How do you stretch your concept of "anti-material" to cover the construct of human imagination you call "God"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
caposkia wrote:Thomathy

caposkia wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Anti-gravity!  I want some of what you're smoking.  That's fucking batshit insane!  Anti-gravity!  My mind has been blown away!  I'm surprised I can still type or breathe!  I'm surprised I can be surprised.  You're complete misunderstanding of 'dark' matter is also aching my ribs and robbing me of brain cells.  It is not distinguished by the difference you imagine and the name is descriptive, not a definition.

You do know how stupid what you've written is, right? (rhetorical)

There is no anti-material.  You obviously did not understand or have not read the entire article.  All that exists in the universe is all that exists in the universe.  I realize the tautology is simple, but it is key to understanding just how ludicrous what you wrote really is.  The universe is material, that is it exists and all that is in the universe is also material and exists.  Anti-material would, I imagine, be something that doesn't exist, something without of the universe.  The immaterial is a broken concept because it has no universe of discourse, it is negatively defined.  To be clear if the immaterial or anti-material did exists they could only be either in name for the very fact of their existence would nullify what is to be understood as immaterial or anti-material.

I can barely think; what you've written is so stupid.

It was just an approach, nothing to lose your head about.  I guess you're not up on that much scientific theory.  That's alright.  It is understood that the Universe is material.  That's why it's known to us as what it is. 

Anti-material is just a name I made up to coenside with the understanding of scientific theories of opposites.  I'm not sure how else I could explain it to you, but by your response it seems clear to me that unless you can touch it, see it, taste it, hear it... it doesn't exist.  Therefore, there's nothing more we can do on this topic. 

 

You proved my point with this post. You cant justify fictional super heros, so rather than admit that is what they are, you try to fit a square peg into a round hole by trying to put fiction into a natural catigory, YOU EVEN MADE UP YOUR OWN WORD!

Quote:
it seems clear to me that unless you can touch it, see it, taste it, hear it... it doesn't exist.

Somewhere in Japan is a Japanese man I have never met, sure he exists. But what you aspouse is a completely different subject.

By your logic, since neither of us have been to Jupiter ourselves in person, neither you or I know if there isn't a giant invisable teapot orbiting Jupiter.

There are tons of galaxies our telliscopes have yet to map, yet they exist, sure. But pixies and unicorns and hocus pokus will always be fiction and will only exist in human imagination.

This is the same old ploy used by countless theists. When we call magic magic and fiction fiction, they try to fit their hocus pocus into the same catigory as nature.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I've never heard of a

I've never heard of a scientific theory saying everything has an opposite. Scientifically, for example, hot and cold aren't opposites - there are levels of heat energy - no heat energy at all is absolute zero. Same with light and dark - dark is the absence of light. So "Anti-material" by that definition would be void or nothingness.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Whats a

Brian37 wrote:

Whats a matter? Afraid of defending magic? Need to take the long road and tell us the bible doesn't say what it says?

I am not fooled and neither is anyone else here. The difference is that others have more patience than I do in trying to unscramble your brain. I prefer shock treatment, and you need it.

I'll play any game you'd like to play.  We could have fun with this, but please don't be offended by my sarcasm.  If you are, just tell me.  I don't mean to offend.  I'll stop. 

I'll still be the same for everyone else.  If anyone else doesn't like it either, please just say so. 

Shock treatment it is. 

Brian37 wrote:

You are trying to strip the bible of it's hocus pokus by re-defining the words, it cannot be done. That work of fiction is full of bullshit claims right from page one.

Why not?  Others have done it.  the Jehovah's Witnesses are famous for it.  Many non-believers are very good at it.  I don't believe I redefine anything in the Bible.  Carefully researched... yea... redefined... nah..

Brian37 wrote:

Now, the only person here that is convinced that the bible is not a book of fictional magical claims is you.

derrrr... couldn't be because I'm on an anti-theism site could it? 

Brian37 wrote:

When you get called on it your only resort is to back peddle and say that the bible doesnt say what it says.

OR!!! it doesn't say what you want it to say.    If I've changed my views, I'll tell you.  I can guarantee that my understanding is shared by millions around the world, thousands in the United States.  It's not just me.

Brian37 wrote:

When one starts from the naked assertion that a super natural being exists, and convinces themselves of that without question, they can further justify myth they want.

"God did it"

Is the same as

"Allah did it"

Is the same as

"Thor did it"

God is known by many names...

Don't miss it. I get your point.

Brian37 wrote:

You are merely back peddling because you don't want to admit that people, including you, want to believe in a magical protector in the sky, and now since science has stripped away that fiction, you cling to it because of emotional appeal. So mentally you go back and try to make the words sound more naturalistic.

the science I know has only further confirmed that belief for me.  (see science vs. religion forum) I don't remember what was covered, but we'll go from there.  I've probably learned a bit since then too. 

I don't try to make anything sound any way.  Other than the above excuses, I haven't seem much in the way of evidence against my understanding.

Brian37 wrote:

Is heaven(insert favorite deity here) an actual physical place? For Muslims it is a harem and rivers of milk and wine. For Christians it is where they get to hang out with other dead relitives, including people who did horrible things only later to be forgiven by Jesus. All of it is crap, utopian crap. Your heaven or their hell is merely a product of human imagination.

If heaven was a physical place, then I guess God would be physical too huh. 

Ironically again.... ok, not so ironic, but that view that you have about Christians beliefs is yet again not accurate... eh, but you're not interested in my views.  Remember, I change things so they sound good to me.

Brian37 wrote:

None of us here are fooled by your dead and tired argument that words don't mean what they mean.

I think you missed the part where I said you missed the point... or are missing a lot of information.  As I've said, you can't take a phrase out of the Bible and claim that's what God is about.  There's probably a deeper reason why they're there. 

If you want to do that, then I can prove to you by means of taking a phrase out of context that your pet dog is going to drink your blood when you die.  Or, for technicality reasons you don't have a dog, your neighbors dog, or some stray walking down the street when you die.  Eh.. let your imagination run with it.  You're good at that. 

Brian37 wrote:

You are afraid to admit that you want a magical protector. Why do you feel you need a deity by any name? Are you afraid you might forget how to tie your shoes? Are you afraid you might start BBQing kittens?

hey! don't knock BBQ'd Kittens until you've tried it.  Very tender...

anyway, if there's a spiritual world as described in the Bible, sure I want a "magical protector".  The only one who can protect someone from the evils of a magical world is a magical protector.  Doi. 

actually.  He's understood to be my creator... Therefore, my Father! It is also understood he wants us to LOVE him, not be his slave like most on here would like to think. 

yea yea, I know I know.  If he loves us so much why did he... (Put out of context story phrase here)  If you really want to know, ask me in a PM or another forum and I'll explain my best understanding of it.  If I don't know, I'll find out by some means what is understood.  That way we can level on where either of us might be misunderstanding something. 

Brian37 wrote:

Or re you afraid that your mortality is finite and not infinite? This is what you are really afraid of and the emotional appeal that you have in your head right now has you in a stranglehold. The only way to escape this is to question the magic.

yea, been there, done that.  Questioned it long time.  Can't deny it due to many factors.  Studied hard.  Tried to disprove the possibility. 

Brian37 wrote:

If it sounds like fiction, it is fiction, and you have bought a work of fiction merely because it makes you feel good. You don't realize it, but that IS what is going on in your head. I only hope for your own intellectual sake you have the bravery to be introspective and question it.

How many times do I have to say it. I ALWAYS QUESTION MY OWN UNDERSTANDING. That's why I'm on here too!!!  Unfortunately, few have been helpful in giving me something worth questioning. 

...haven't read or seen suggestions yet...

Thank you for giving me a sensible and meaningful conclusion in all seriousness.  I do appreciate your views and understanding.

Maybe we can start hitting some specific points and see where it goes instead of just going back and forth like we did on this post.  Your "shock factor" really brought no progress to any part of this whole forum nor my understanding. 

What I do understand at this point is that on a Christian site like this,  people are sincere and show they care (for the most part... can't speak for everyone) regardless of what is said or how much people don't want to accept what is being said.  whereas on here the going trend I see is people getting angry, frustrated, and just plain rude in many instances.  (Don't think I'm talking about you, it's a general statement and is not directed toward any single person)

It's people's behaviors that is one of many factors that leads me to believe.  Being in a Christian crowd is so much different as well.  There is a lot of trust within those groups whereas otherwise there is a major lack of it. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:It's your claims

Magus wrote:

It's your claims so it's your basis of research.  Accept as valid?? That all depends on  the evidence warranting being acceptable. If it's independently verifiable, repeatable, or empirical that would be a good start.

millions who have whole heartedly sought God out have claimed to find him.  I guess those personal experiences fit the bill.  So my suggestion would be to seek out God and from your heart try to find him. 

Magus wrote:


"...why there is no God..." Once again this isn't my position. My position is that without evidence of "X", it is irrational to believe "X" to be true.  I don't have to disprove any assertions.  Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

Honestly, this is the same reasoning behind why I still believe.  X in my case being that God does not exist.  Plus I've seen more evidence for Y to verify my understanding. 

Magus wrote:

Atheism is not a set of belief about the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe.  It is simply an answer to your claim of the existence of a deity.

right.  We claim an intelligent being created the universe, most atheists I've talked to as well base their understanding... or at least seem to use this as a basis for their understanding... on the fact that the universe was naturally formed by a sequence of events.  I guess the purpose of the Universe is up for debate. 

Magus wrote:


Your analogy fails, computers are build from the top down, living being are build from the bottom up. What this means is we build computers for a specific purpose and don't add things that would cause it to fail.  Evolution doesn't know what will work so there are many generates each with options but only the working options survive.  In this process nothing needs button pressing a the program that cannot run on its on will fail, the ones that can replicate on their own do.  This is basic evolution.

But I wasn't talking about evolution now was I.  I was talking about the question of mediation between soul and body.  If it was based on evolution, then the soul wouldn't have been a factor. 

Magus wrote:

Proof that a soul separating from the body at death.

From what source could I find evidence that this does or does not happen?  What studies the movements of the soul? 

 


 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Whats a matter? Afraid of defending magic? Need to take the long road and tell us the bible doesn't say what it says?

I am not fooled and neither is anyone else here. The difference is that others have more patience than I do in trying to unscramble your brain. I prefer shock treatment, and you need it.

I'll play any game you'd like to play.  We could have fun with this, but please don't be offended by my sarcasm.  If you are, just tell me.  I don't mean to offend.  I'll stop. 

I'll still be the same for everyone else.  If anyone else doesn't like it either, please just say so. 

Shock treatment it is. 

Brian37 wrote:

You are trying to strip the bible of it's hocus pokus by re-defining the words, it cannot be done. That work of fiction is full of bullshit claims right from page one.

Why not?  Others have done it.  the Jehovah's Witnesses are famous for it.  Many non-believers are very good at it.  I don't believe I redefine anything in the Bible.  Carefully researched... yea... redefined... nah..

Brian37 wrote:

Now, the only person here that is convinced that the bible is not a book of fictional magical claims is you.

derrrr... couldn't be because I'm on an anti-theism site could it? 

Brian37 wrote:

When you get called on it your only resort is to back peddle and say that the bible doesnt say what it says.

OR!!! it doesn't say what you want it to say.    If I've changed my views, I'll tell you.  I can guarantee that my understanding is shared by millions around the world, thousands in the United States.  It's not just me.

Brian37 wrote:

When one starts from the naked assertion that a super natural being exists, and convinces themselves of that without question, they can further justify myth they want.

"God did it"

Is the same as

"Allah did it"

Is the same as

"Thor did it"

God is known by many names...

Don't miss it. I get your point.

Brian37 wrote:

You are merely back peddling because you don't want to admit that people, including you, want to believe in a magical protector in the sky, and now since science has stripped away that fiction, you cling to it because of emotional appeal. So mentally you go back and try to make the words sound more naturalistic.

the science I know has only further confirmed that belief for me.  (see science vs. religion forum) I don't remember what was covered, but we'll go from there.  I've probably learned a bit since then too. 

I don't try to make anything sound any way.  Other than the above excuses, I haven't seem much in the way of evidence against my understanding.

Brian37 wrote:

Is heaven(insert favorite deity here) an actual physical place? For Muslims it is a harem and rivers of milk and wine. For Christians it is where they get to hang out with other dead relitives, including people who did horrible things only later to be forgiven by Jesus. All of it is crap, utopian crap. Your heaven or their hell is merely a product of human imagination.

If heaven was a physical place, then I guess God would be physical too huh. 

Ironically again.... ok, not so ironic, but that view that you have about Christians beliefs is yet again not accurate... eh, but you're not interested in my views.  Remember, I change things so they sound good to me.

Brian37 wrote:

None of us here are fooled by your dead and tired argument that words don't mean what they mean.

I think you missed the part where I said you missed the point... or are missing a lot of information.  As I've said, you can't take a phrase out of the Bible and claim that's what God is about.  There's probably a deeper reason why they're there. 

If you want to do that, then I can prove to you by means of taking a phrase out of context that your pet dog is going to drink your blood when you die.  Or, for technicality reasons you don't have a dog, your neighbors dog, or some stray walking down the street when you die.  Eh.. let your imagination run with it.  You're good at that. 

Brian37 wrote:

You are afraid to admit that you want a magical protector. Why do you feel you need a deity by any name? Are you afraid you might forget how to tie your shoes? Are you afraid you might start BBQing kittens?

hey! don't knock BBQ'd Kittens until you've tried it.  Very tender...

anyway, if there's a spiritual world as described in the Bible, sure I want a "magical protector".  The only one who can protect someone from the evils of a magical world is a magical protector.  Doi. 

actually.  He's understood to be my creator... Therefore, my Father! It is also understood he wants us to LOVE him, not be his slave like most on here would like to think. 

yea yea, I know I know.  If he loves us so much why did he... (Put out of context story phrase here)  If you really want to know, ask me in a PM or another forum and I'll explain my best understanding of it.  If I don't know, I'll find out by some means what is understood.  That way we can level on where either of us might be misunderstanding something. 

Brian37 wrote:

Or re you afraid that your mortality is finite and not infinite? This is what you are really afraid of and the emotional appeal that you have in your head right now has you in a stranglehold. The only way to escape this is to question the magic.

yea, been there, done that.  Questioned it long time.  Can't deny it due to many factors.  Studied hard.  Tried to disprove the possibility. 

Brian37 wrote:

If it sounds like fiction, it is fiction, and you have bought a work of fiction merely because it makes you feel good. You don't realize it, but that IS what is going on in your head. I only hope for your own intellectual sake you have the bravery to be introspective and question it.

How many times do I have to say it. I ALWAYS QUESTION MY OWN UNDERSTANDING. That's why I'm on here too!!!  Unfortunately, few have been helpful in giving me something worth questioning. 

...haven't read or seen suggestions yet...

Thank you for giving me a sensible and meaningful conclusion in all seriousness.  I do appreciate your views and understanding.

Maybe we can start hitting some specific points and see where it goes instead of just going back and forth like we did on this post.  Your "shock factor" really brought no progress to any part of this whole forum nor my understanding. 

What I do understand at this point is that on a Christian site like this,  people are sincere and show they care (for the most part... can't speak for everyone) regardless of what is said or how much people don't want to accept what is being said.  whereas on here the going trend I see is people getting angry, frustrated, and just plain rude in many instances.  (Don't think I'm talking about you, it's a general statement and is not directed toward any single person)

It's people's behaviors that is one of many factors that leads me to believe.  Being in a Christian crowd is so much different as well.  There is a lot of trust within those groups whereas otherwise there is a major lack of it. 

 

Quote:
God is known by many names...

No......there are many god claims with many different names and all are fiction, including yours.

Quote:
It's people's behaviors that is one of many factors that leads me to believe.

Which is a STUPID reason to take a position on any issue. Evidence is the only reason to hold a position ON ANY ISSUE. You seem to think you have evidence but all you keep talking about is emotional appeal.

So you admit you like the warm fuzzies of belonging to a club so your rose colored bias creeps out.

Quote:
There is a lot of trust within those groups whereas otherwise there is a major lack of it.

And Muslims can be tight knit too and don't trust others outside the tribe. So? Again, what makes you cling to a group or label is the same STUPID reason other people of other religions do it, BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD. You belong to the same placebo club Muslims do and Hindus do. You  all hang out because you all like the same fictional super hero(incert favorite religion here). You claim to want to stand out and are "different than the others" but you have the same amount of evidence for your deity as they do.

But right there in that statement your pompiety(THERE I MADE UP A WORD)!

That is code in your own head, realizing it or not for, "Only Christians can be trusted". Your tribalistic behavior  is not via some fictional being talking in your head, it is your natural human need to socialize. Again, no magical "father" needed to understand mundane human psychology.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Magus

caposkia wrote:

Magus wrote:

It's your claims so it's your basis of research.  Accept as valid?? That all depends on  the evidence warranting being acceptable. If it's independently verifiable, repeatable, or empirical that would be a good start.

millions who have whole heartedly sought God out have claimed to find him.  I guess those personal experiences fit the bill.  So my suggestion would be to seek out God and from your heart try to find him. 

Appeal to popularity fallacy.  Personal experience is not evidence it doesn't fit the bill it is not "independently" verifiable or empirical.  My suggestion is that you try reading my post.

caposkia wrote:

Magus wrote:

 

"...why there is no God..." Once again this isn't my position. My position is that without evidence of "X", it is irrational to believe "X" to be true.  I don't have to disprove any assertions.  Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

Honestly, this is the same reasoning behind why I still believe.  X in my case being that God does not exist.  Plus I've seen more evidence for Y to verify my understanding. 

Are you suggesting that without evidence all claims are 50/50?  You have not presented any of your so called evidence.

caposkia wrote:

Magus wrote:

Atheism is not a set of belief about the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe.  It is simply an answer to your claim of the existence of a deity.

right.  We claim an intelligent being created the universe, most atheists I've talked to as well base their understanding... or at least seem to use this as a basis for their understanding... on the fact that the universe was naturally formed by a sequence of events.  I guess the purpose of the Universe is up for debate. 

No idea what you are going with here. Do you agree that Christianity is a religion and that atheism isn't one?

 

caposkia wrote:

Magus wrote:

 

Your analogy fails, computers are build from the top down, living being are build from the bottom up. What this means is we build computers for a specific purpose and don't add things that would cause it to fail.  Evolution doesn't know what will work so there are many generates each with options but only the working options survive.  In this process nothing needs button pressing a the program that cannot run on its on will fail, the ones that can replicate on their own do.  This is basic evolution.

But I wasn't talking about evolution now was I.  I was talking about the question of mediation between soul and body.  If it was based on evolution, then the soul wouldn't have been a factor. 

Your analogy failed because you referred to the design of a computer to the way living beings work, humans are no different than the rest of the animals.  You have yet to establish that a mediation exists or that it is required for life to be as it is.

caposkia wrote:

Magus wrote:

Proof that a soul separating from the body at death.

From what source could I find evidence that this does or does not happen?  What studies the movements of the soul? 

 

It's your magical word, you should have the evidence to support it if you don't it is irrational to believe there is such a thing as a soul.  The real question is why do you believe it without any studies done on it?

You seem to be under the impression that without evidence all claims positive and negative are equal.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Thomathy

caposkia wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Anti-gravity!  I want some of what you're smoking.  That's fucking batshit insane!  Anti-gravity!  My mind has been blown away!  I'm surprised I can still type or breathe!  I'm surprised I can be surprised.  You're complete misunderstanding of 'dark' matter is also aching my ribs and robbing me of brain cells.  It is not distinguished by the difference you imagine and the name is descriptive, not a definition.

You do know how stupid what you've written is, right? (rhetorical)

There is no anti-material.  You obviously did not understand or have not read the entire article.  All that exists in the universe is all that exists in the universe.  I realize the tautology is simple, but it is key to understanding just how ludicrous what you wrote really is.  The universe is material, that is it exists and all that is in the universe is also material and exists.  Anti-material would, I imagine, be something that doesn't exist, something without of the universe.  The immaterial is a broken concept because it has no universe of discourse, it is negatively defined.  To be clear if the immaterial or anti-material did exists they could only be either in name for the very fact of their existence would nullify what is to be understood as immaterial or anti-material.

I can barely think; what you've written is so stupid.

It was just an approach, nothing to lose your head about.  I guess you're not up on that much scientific theory.  That's alright.  It is understood that the Universe is material.  That's why it's known to us as what it is. 

Anti-material is just a name I made up to coenside with the understanding of scientific theories of opposites.  I'm not sure how else I could explain it to you, but by your response it seems clear to me that unless you can touch it, see it, taste it, hear it... it doesn't exist.  Therefore, there's nothing more we can do on this topic. 

 

PARDON FUCKING ME?!  I responded because what you wrote was simply so outrageous that I thought it appropriate to correct you and as a result of that you've written a backpedaling response about an 'approach' and showcased your ignorance in what I'm positive you construe as a rebuttal in your mind.  There is no 'understanding of scientific theories of opposites'!  There is no anti-gravity.  There is no anti-material.  You persist at making things up!  Things can and do exist even if I cannot directly make use of my five senses to detect them.  Atoms most definitely exist.  Subatomic particles too.  I could continue listing, but it should be fairly obvious that things can exist without our being capable of detecting them directly.  Of course, I never made any statement to the contrary; you're simply making it up!  It is you, in fact, who has a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding of some very basic science and logic.  It is you who has nothing more you can say on this or, I suspect, any other topic; your continued ignorance and blatant lying belie your stupidity.  Now that I have had an experience with just how inane you are and how futile conversation of any sort is with you, I think I can ignore whatever other bile you spew onto the forums.

In case I was unclear, you are an ignorant lier.

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Magus

caposkia wrote:

Magus wrote:

It's your claims so it's your basis of research.  Accept as valid?? That all depends on  the evidence warranting being acceptable. If it's independently verifiable, repeatable, or empirical that would be a good start.

millions who have whole heartedly sought God out have claimed to find him.  I guess those personal experiences fit the bill.  So my suggestion would be to seek out God and from your heart try to find him. 

Magus wrote:


 

"...why there is no God..." Once again this isn't my position. My position is that without evidence of "X", it is irrational to believe "X" to be true.  I don't have to disprove any assertions.  Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

Honestly, this is the same reasoning behind why I still believe.  X in my case being that God does not exist.  Plus I've seen more evidence for Y to verify my understanding. 

Magus wrote:

Atheism is not a set of belief about the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe.  It is simply an answer to your claim of the existence of a deity.

right.  We claim an intelligent being created the universe, most atheists I've talked to as well base their understanding... or at least seem to use this as a basis for their understanding... on the fact that the universe was naturally formed by a sequence of events.  I guess the purpose of the Universe is up for debate. 

Magus wrote:


 

Your analogy fails, computers are build from the top down, living being are build from the bottom up. What this means is we build computers for a specific purpose and don't add things that would cause it to fail.  Evolution doesn't know what will work so there are many generates each with options but only the working options survive.  In this process nothing needs button pressing a the program that cannot run on its on will fail, the ones that can replicate on their own do.  This is basic evolution.

But I wasn't talking about evolution now was I.  I was talking about the question of mediation between soul and body.  If it was based on evolution, then the soul wouldn't have been a factor. 

Magus wrote:

Proof that a soul separating from the body at death.

From what source could I find evidence that this does or does not happen?  What studies the movements of the soul? 

 


 

 

1. "Millions have sought God and found Him" - Millions have found catharsis and emotiomal relief and called it "Gpd", you mean?

2. You have the conclusion that God exists and stretch whatever you can find to meet that conclusion, damn any explanations to the contrary. One can always adjust evidence to fit a desired outcome. It doesn't make the outcome correct.

3. Not much of a debate needed - Individuals make their own purposes - the Universe doen't need one.

4. What mediation does the soul do that the mind doesn't do? God? No, God is a construct of the mind - no need for a soul.

5. If you can't prove it exists - how can you prove the soul moves and separates from the body at death?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Are we needing a primer in

Are we needing a primer in how to think critically?

First, we need to understand that critical thinking is the use of valid logic combined with the implementation of proper science.  Critical thinking is necessarily the only way to consistently derive true conclusions about reality.  This conclusion can be reached through a simple line of reasoning.  To begin with, we need to establish the following:

1. The axioms of identity, noncontradiction, and the excluded middle must exist for knowledge to be possible.

2. I know that I exist.

C1. Therefore, knowledge is possible.

The axiom of identity necessitates that any extant thing exists as something, and necessarily must have properties, which are synonymous with limits in this context.  They must be, or the concept of identity would break down.  The concept of the infinite is substantially different than the material existence of the infinite, which is quite impossible.  (Furthermore, consider that something which is described as infinite cannot also be finite, and so is subject to at least one limit.)

Please read the following essays for information on axioms, identity and universe of discourse, and some of the ways that bad critical thinkers commit errors with regard to them.

'Supernatural' (and 'immaterial') are broken concepts

A Materialist Account for Abstractions - or - How Theists Misplace the Universe.

An easy argument to refute: Van Tillian/Calvinist presuppositionalism.

Logic is nothing more and nothing less than a description of how we move from premises to conclusions.  It was not invented.  It was codified.  The moment that man first reached a conclusion, logic was necessarily used.  Put another way, it is quite impossible to reach a conclusion without using logic, for logic IS the process of reaching conclusions.

Logic can be valid or invalid.  Validity is determined by form, not content.  The following argument is valid:

* All men are mortal

* Socrates is a man.

* Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The form of this argument is expressed like so:

* M are L

* s is M

* Therefore, s is L

All arguments using this form are valid, regardless of the content of the premises:

* All dogs are domesticated.

* That animal is a dog.

* Therefore, that animal is domesticated.

Clearly, the first premise is false, so we cannot trust the conclusion.  However, the argument is valid.  Note that depending on which dog we are talking about, the conclusion may be true or false.  Supposing that we are talking about my neighbor's dog, Fido, the conclusion would be true, even though a supporting premise was false. 

Invalid arguments can also be used to reach true or false conclusions:

* All mammals have eyes.

* Crocodiles have eyes.

* Therefore, crocodiles are mammals.

The conclusion is false.  Both the premises are true, but the conclusion is false.

* All mammals have eyes.

* Bears are mammals.

* Therefore, bears have eyes.

Same form, this time with a true conclusion.

It is deductively certain that there is only one kind of argument which can always be trusted to produce true conclusions provided the premises are true.  That is a valid argument.  The flip side of this is that any invalid argument can NEVER be trusted, for there is no way to determine the truth value of the conclusion.  Put another way, any argument whatsoever that contains a fallacy is completely and utterly useless for the purposes of determining truth.

We're halfway home.  We know now that we must use valid logic in order to know anything about reality beyond axioms, which are self evident and precede logic.  We've also demonstrated that we must have true premises combined with valid logic.  Here's where the next hurdle comes in.  We can easily demonstrate to ourselves that our senses are not completely reliable.  We can be fooled.  How then can we ever know anything if we cannot be certain of anything?  This question is often cited by theists looking for an excuse to slip gods into reality, but this fails because they misunderstand the dilemma.  Read about the problem of induction here:

Why the "Problem of Induction" really isn't a problem. (And why theists don't even get it right)

The way we deal with empirical observations is through probability, which is based on deduction, and therefore certain.  Here's a way to think about how empirical reality can be both certain and uncertain.  Supposing that I have two boxes, and one and only one of them has a coin in it, the probability that each box has a coin in it is 50%.  In reality, one of the boxes does have a coin and the other doesn't, but we don't know for certain which is which.  Here's how it breaks down:

* The boxes and coins are not 100% certain to exist because I have used my senses to establish their existence, and my senses are not 100% reliable.

* However, IF the boxes and coins exist, it is 100% certain that there is a 50% chance that each box has the coin.

Furthermore, as described in the above link, with Bayes Theorem, we can deductively derive the probability of the boxes and coins existing!  Suppose we use Bayes Theorem and reach the conclusion that the boxes are 99.9^10% likely to exist.  For all practical purposes, there's no reason to suppose that they do not exist.  Based on a deductive conclusion, we can trust our senses so well in this case that if we were somehow able to run the test a billion billion times, we could be certain for all practical purposes that the boxes would exist all billion billion times.

Astute readers will realize that the chain of induction is endless.  So long as we are talking about empirical reality, there will always be a mathematical uncertainty inherent in the discussion.  However, you can hopefully see the absurdity of invoking this uncertainty as a justification for a conclusion contrary to odds that are astronomically bad.  It would be absurd, for instance, to suggest that I do not have hands, when a Bayesian prediction would likely estimate that the chances of this being true are 1 in MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF ATOMS IN THE UNIVERSE.

Having established that we can learn about the nature of reality with a percentage of certainty so close to 1 that it defies logic to treat it as anything but 1, we must set about trying to discover how it is that we learn about material reality.

 

This is where science comes in.  Science, like logic, is the description of how we gain knowledge of the universe.  It was not invented.  It was codified.  Like logic, science can be good or bad.  For illustration, here is an excerpt from one of my essays:

Quote:

 

Science, very simply, is a process. It is a method, like math or logic. More precisely, it is the method for learning about our universe. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the sole milieu of trained academics and stodgy old men with glasses. Science is practiced by everyone on the planet on a daily basis. In fact – and this is a crucial point – it is impossible to avoid using science.

 

A simple way to learn the scientific method is to perform a series of thought experiments. Let's start at the very beginning. Imagine that you are walking along a road, and you spot an object on the sidewalk. It is metallic, roughly circular, and covered with a sticky black substance. Now suppose you decide that you want to know what it is. The first thing you are likely to do is pick it up. Imagine that when you do, you discover that it is very hot – so hot, in fact, that you are unable to hold it for very long. Out of sheer reflex, you drop it again.

 

At this point, we have quite a bit of data to work with. First, we have a physical description of the thing, and we have verified, as well as possible, that our eyes reported approximately accurate information to our brain. From picking the object up, we've learned that the object feels like it looks. It does indeed feel metallic. It has a heft that we would expect from metal. In short, we now have corroborating evidence – feel and touch – to help us decide what it might be.

 

If you will forgive the pedantic nature of this next observation, I promise it will be worthwhile. Picking the object up is a very important step in our little science experiment. We have all learned that our eyes are often not reliable sources of information. Not only are they often fooled, but many substances look very much like other substances, even though they are quite different. We might very well have discovered that the object, which gave every appearance of being metallic, was actually styrofoam covered with metallic paint. The simple act of verifying our initial observation with a second kind of observation is crucial to science.

 

Now, after you have dropped the very hot object, you make a third observation. When you put your fingers near your face, you notice a distinct smell and recognize it as that of burning motor oil. This new data puts an idea into your head. Perhaps this object is part of a car, and has recently been expelled from a running engine, landing on the sidewalk only a few moments earlier. In support of this idea, we have the following set of data:

  •  

    Metallic object

  •  

    Much hotter than expected from the current weather

  •  

    Appears to be mechanically crafted

  •  

    Appears to be covered with oil

  •  

    Found very near a road

 

By itself, any one of these pieces of data might not be enough to reasonably conclude that the object is a car part, or that it was recently in a running car. However, when you put all of the information together, it seems a reasonable conclusion. Now, suppose that as you look up, you see a disabled car about fifty feet ahead, and a man working under the hood. At this point, you will probably feel confident enough to take the object to the man, certain that you have found something he needs. If, having done so, you watch him place the object back into his engine, in a space that appears specifically designed for it, you can leave satisfied of the facts.

 

Removing the details, what can we say has happened here in terms of general principles? First, you encountered something unknown. Second, you made multiple observations. Third, you tested the observations against one another for consistency. Fourth, you made a guess, based on your observations, about a likely explanation for the unknown object. Finally, you devised a test to determine if your guess was correct.

 

This, in a nutshell, is the scientific method. There's nothing magical about it, and certainly nothing requiring years of education. In fact, without consciously thinking about it, you performed the steps in exactly the correct order! The reason for this is that the correct order is the order that works and you intuitively knew it.

 

For comparison, let's try thinking of ways in which you could have deviated from the scientific method and reasonably hoped to get the correct answer. Is there any way that you could have looked at the object without recording the observation as data in your brain? Unlikely, to be sure. Could you pick it up without noticing the texture, temperature, or weight? Again, no. In short, there's no way to avoid recording empirical data about the world. Simply by interacting with the world, we are collecting evidence.

 

Likewise, if a pattern emerges from your observations, it is entirely unreasonable to suggest that our brain will not try to subconsciously make sense of it. That's what brains do. The process of forming guesses about patterns is ingrained in our consciousness, and cannot be avoided. It is the way we think. Literally.

 

Very simply, the scientific method is just the expression of what we as humans unavoidably do. We make observations and predictions based on patterns of information. Now, let us do another thought experiment about the same situation. Suppose that after having gathered all your data about the mystery object, you decided that the object was likely a piece of debris from an alien spacecraft. Would that guess be a good one? There are obviously several problems with it. First, nobody on earth has ever produced an alien spacecraft for observation, so it's hard to test the idea. Second, unless alien spacecraft are invisible, there would be considerable evidence against the notion. Local radar, observations of other people, and satellite imagery could all demonstrate rather conclusively that no alien spacecraft were in the vicinity in the recent past. In short, there is a mountain of evidence against the guess.

 

Furthermore, there are clearly better guesses. Anyone noticing the broken down car could hazard a guess that makes more sense to the circumstances. In fact, a simple test will tell us whether this guess is accurate or not. If the man didn't actually need the part, and it didn't fit anywhere in his car, we would have to refine our guess. Perhaps it was from another car, which didn't suffer badly enough to stop running when the part was ejected. Perhaps it's from a riding lawnmower. (If there was a John Deere store in the vicinity, this guess would gain more credibility.)

 

Suppose now that after guessing that the part was from the broken down car, you tested your hypothesis by asking the man working on it, and it turned out that the part was not from that car. Has science failed us? Of course not! We have simply ruled out one possibility. The part might still be from a car. We could easily take it to an auto parts store and compare it with their inventory. If we found an identical part, we could be sure of it's identity. If, having tried several auto mechanics and auto stores, we were unable to find anyone with knowledge of cars who recognized the object, we would be forced to conclude that, barring any new information, the object was not from a car.

 

At this point, we could try various machine shops and manufacturing plants, repeating the same set of tests, until eventually, we correctly identified the object. This, again, is precisely what the scientific method prescribes. When we rule out one possibility, we keep looking for as long as it takes to find enough evidence to say what something is, or how it works. Here, we may ask a very pointed question. Supposing that we exhaust all of the known avenues for identifying the object, and we have still not determined its true nature. What is the correct answer to the question: “What is it?”

 

The answer, of course, is “I don't know.” This seems patently obvious, but it's astonishing how many times people forget this simple bit of logic. Suppose that, having exhausted our resources, we still had no evidence for what the object was. Would it be correct to say that since there was no evidence for its nature, that it must surely be part of an interstellar space station from the Andromeda Galaxy? Of course it wouldn't! In fact, it would be preposterously wrong to suggest such a thing, since the very result of our search demonstrated that there was no evidence for what the thing was!

 

It should be obvious at this point that whenever we don't have evidence for something, there's no way to form a reliable guess about its nature. However, just to drive the point home conclusively, let's do one more thought experiment. I have, on my desk at this moment, a picture of something. What is it?

 

Clearly, you have no idea. Perhaps, through random chance, you will guess the subject of the picture correctly, but it's highly unlikely. All you know is that the thing in question can be rendered in picture form, and that it definitely exists, or existed. You don't even know for certain that it exists on earth. Perhaps it is a photo of a far away galaxy, or of the upper atmosphere on Mars. (You don't even know if it's a photograph. Perhaps it's a drawing of something imaginary!) The point is that with no evidence, there is absolutely no way to make any kind of guess about what a thing is.

 

Suppose I ask you to now make a bet with me. If you guess correctly, you get ten thousand dollars, but if you guess wrong, you owe me ten thousand dollars, immediately. Unless you are a complete fool, you wouldn't dream of taking the bet, and for good reason. You have virtually no chance of winning. Now, suppose I gave you more information. Suppose I told you that it is a photograph of a baseball helmet. Would you be comfortable making the bet now? Probably not. If I added more information, and told you that it was a helmet from a Major League team, you would still only have a slim chance of guessing it – Far less than fifty-fifty, at any rate. However, if I told you that it was either a Chicago Cubs helmet or an Atlanta Braves helmet, you might feel sufficiently brave to take the bet.

 

Now, imagine that I told you that it's a photo of a Chicago Cubs helmet, and then asked you to make the bet with me. You'd be a fool not to take it, right? Or, would you? If you examined the evidence carefully, you'd realize that all you had to go on was my word. In fact, I would have a very strong motivation to tell you something inaccurate, so the weight of my testimony is almost nil. However, if I invited you over to my house and showed you the photo, allowing you to examine it to your heart's content, you would then have enough evidence to confidently take my bet.

 

This, again, is a step by step explanation for how (and why) science works. Some evidence is more reliable than others, and certainty can be measured in degrees. Imagine that I invite three people to make the same bet with me, and give each their own set of evidence. To the first person, I say only that I have a picture of something. To the second, I say that I have a photo of a Major League baseball helmet. To the third, I provide the photograph itself. Each one of these three people, if forced to make a bet, has a certain likelihood of getting it right. The first person's chance is virtually zero. In fact, we could probably let him take thousands of guesses with confidence that he would not get it right. The second person, on the other hand, would certainly guess it within thirty tries, since that is the number of teams in Major League Baseball. The third person, unless he was monumentally stupid, would guess right on the first try. Though we cannot be 100% certain of his guess, it's fair to say that for all practical purposes, he will win ten thousand dollars in the next few seconds.

 

All of this, I hope, seems really straightforward and simple. Perhaps it is even insultingly so. However, it is apparently something that needs to be drilled into a lot of heads. The number of times I have had to defend the scientific method against other “sources of truth” is staggering. In fact, I have no doubt that there are many people who, upon reading this, will still cling to the idea that science isn't the only way to get knowledge.


 

The Problem of Induction

 

Most objections to science come from people who have heard of the Problem of Induction, but don't understand it. I mentioned this briefly at the beginning of this chapter, but we need now to examine it in more detail. Put simply, it is the observation that nothing empirical (that is, existing in the material universe) can be known with certainty. People who subscribe to a philosophical concept called solipsism insist that the only thing that can ever be known is self. That is, I can never know for certain that anything besides myself exists. In fact, I can never know exactly what I am, only that I am. This is sometimes referred to as the “Brain in a Vat” theory. That is, we might simply be brains in vats, and everything we perceive of as reality is an intricate illusion.

 

This supposed problem is not nearly as difficult to resolve as you might immediately guess. For one thing, there's an obvious issue with the “Brain in a Vat.” Even if it is true (and we can't conclusively prove that it's not) we cannot help the fact that we can't test the idea in any way. If we are trapped in an illusion, then we are trapped, and the illusion, for every conceivable purpose which we might have, is real.

 

Furthermore, if there is some evidence that we are brains in a vat, the theory becomes testable. If we discovered a “tear in the Matrix,” for lack of a better term, we could scientifically study it, and if there was enough evidence to sway our opinion to the conclusion, it would no longer be in the realm of philosophy. It would be scientific fact.

 

We must, it appears, conclude that all the available evidence suggests that reality is what it appears to be, that other people exist, that our senses are basically reliable, and that through rigorous testing, we can verify the reliability of our observations.

 

Nevertheless, some will argue that even granting the reality of this existence, the fact that science cannot prove anything with certainty negates the value of science. This is clearly absurd, and we can prove it with the somewhat tedious examples I gave in the previous section. When provided with overwhelming evidence – the actual photo in question, in this instance – we can say with virtual certainty that a thing is a fact. We can clearly demonstrate that some sets of evidence are stronger than others, and that for all practical purposes, science does have measurable value.

 

Finally, (and forgive me for getting a little bit technical) scientific certainty isn't based on guesswork. It's based on deduction. Math is deductively true. That is, it is 100% certain. Probability equations are math, and therefore, based on deduction. When we can say, for example, that there is mathematical certainty that a thing is 50% certain, it is certainly 50% certain. What we cannot say is that any objects involved in the probability are 100% certain to exist. However, as we've seen, we can be so overwhelmingly sure that there's no point in questioning them. In fact, in science, whenever you hear the word “certain” you can interpret it as “so astonishingly probable as to negate any realistic chance of it being untrue.” When we say that gravity and evolution are certain, we mean just that. Assuming that we are not brains in a vat, the probability that they are true is a value approaching one hundred percent with only an infinitesimally small chance of being untrue – perhaps one in the number of atoms in the universe.

 

Consider this very simple example. Suppose that I am in a soundproof room (and suppose that I have used science to prove with overwhelming certainty that it really is soundproof) and there are only four things in the room – three boxes and me. The boxes are all across the room from me, and there is a noise coming from that general direction. With no other information at all, I can say that I am scientifically certain that the noise comes from one of the three boxes. However, at this point, any box I pick is only 33% likely to be the correct box. Now, suppose I ask an assistant to remove one of the boxes that is not making the noise. Now, I have a 50% likelihood of guessing correctly. If the assistant removes another box, and the noise persists, I can be 100% certain that the box is making the noise, even without doing any more experiments.

 

In many cases, this is what science attempts to do. When there are multiple possible explanations, scientists try to eliminate as many as possible. If they can do this successfully, and only one explanation remains, they can feel certain that it is the correct one. At every step of the scientific process, everything is questioned, tested, and retested. Nothing is ever assumed until it is demonstrated to be so certain that it is worth assuming. Even then, scientists are perfectly happy to concede that new information could exist which would change their conclusion.

 

However, it's important to note that there is also a way to calculate the probability of this happening. Suppose that science has observed a phenomenon thoroughly, and has determined that it has happened one hundred thousand times, and in all cases, it happened in exactly the same way. Furthermore, the proposed explanation of the phenomenon made it logically necessary that a second event will happen in a very particular way, and that event has been observed a hundred thousand times, without incident. Now, suppose that there is a chain of events, where there are not just one or two, but a hundred thousand things that would logically have to happen a certain way, and all hundred thousand have been observed a hundred thousand times, without a single instance of deviation.

 

How likely is it that the logic is wrong? How possible is it that our predictions are wrong, and that there is some other explanation for our observation of all of these events? Obviously, it's staggeringly improbable. It's so improbable that without any reason to believe otherwise, we can say that this is a fact of nature. Again, this is what science attempts to do – demonstrate things so many times that certainty becomes nearly complete – so nearly complete that it becomes unnecessary to provide a disclaimer because of the “Problem of Induction.”



*****************

This brings us to the final piece of the puzzle, which is the burden of proof.  Simply put, the burden of proof necessitates that evidence must exist before belief.  If you think about it, it can be no other way.  As I've clearly explained above, without evidence, there would be no way for anyone to say what the picture on my desk might be.  Knowledge requires evidence.  So, we can think of it this way.  If I am to say that something exists, I must produce evidence, for if I have knowledge of something, then I must have evidence.  To suggest that someone could know something without having any evidence for it is absurd.

Therefore, we can say with certainty that in order for someone to demonstrate the truth of a thing's existence to another person, the person making the statement must also provide the evidence for the thing's existence!  The BURDEN OF PROOF is necessarily on the person making the claim.  Just as you have no knowledge of blixqfliggins because you've never seen any evidence of their existence, nobody can have any knowledge of anything without perceived evidence of their existence.  The default state of the human brain is ignorance with regard to anything that materially exists.  Belief can only emerge from evidence.

Here, then, in a nutshell, is critical thinking:

1. Only claims supported by evidence should be considered.  All unsupported claims should be dismissed.

2. Only arguments using valid logic should be considered.  Any argument that is invalid is completely useless.

3. Fallacies are descriptions of errors in logic.  Any argument with a fallacy is necessarily invalid, and must be discarded.

4. Conclusions about the material universe are to be judged based on the probability of their truth.




Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Don't tear yer hair out over

Don't tear yer hair out over Cappy. He's like the engineer in that creationism video feigning astonishment over the ants that didn't spontaneously generate in his chunky Jif.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Capo, I

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Capo, I need to ask you two very, very important questions at this junction:

1) Do you accept evolutionary theory as a scientific fact?

I believe in evolution as things evolve to adapt to their surroundings and  change through genetics over the years.  I haven't seen enough evidence to accept inter-special evolution

Kevin R Brown wrote:

2) How old do you think the Earth is?

 

In the Billions.  I don't think anyone knows exactly how old.  No, I'm not a young Earth creationist


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You proved my

Brian37 wrote:

You proved my point with this post. You cant justify fictional super heros, so rather than admit that is what they are, you try to fit a square peg into a round hole by trying to put fiction into a natural catigory, YOU EVEN MADE UP YOUR OWN WORD!

OR! I tried to explain something with a scientific understanding that cannot be explained through science.  Oops. 

Seems to be the only language you're able to speak.  Do you have another you'd accept and understand?

Brian37 wrote:

Somewhere in Japan is a Japanese man I have never met, sure he exists. But what you aspouse is a completely different subject.

By your logic, since neither of us have been to Jupiter ourselves in person, neither you or I know if there isn't a giant invisable teapot orbiting Jupiter.

There are tons of galaxies our telliscopes have yet to map, yet they exist, sure. But pixies and unicorns and hocus pokus will always be fiction and will only exist in human imagination. 

How do you know this particular Japanese man exists if you've never met him? 

Yea, I'm on a different subject, it's about spiritual verses physical.

 

right as well.  I guess with your logic we wouldn't know, but logically be it that humans invented teapots, there wouldn't be unless someone took the time to spend billions of dollars to make a teapot orbit the planet approprately. 

yea, I'm familiar with the teapot excuse.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Yea, I'm on a

caposkia wrote:
Yea, I'm on a different subject, it's about spiritual verses physical.
So, you're onto a topic about something that doesn't exist and the only thing that does?


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

You proved my point with this post. You cant justify fictional super heros, so rather than admit that is what they are, you try to fit a square peg into a round hole by trying to put fiction into a natural catigory, YOU EVEN MADE UP YOUR OWN WORD!

OR! I tried to explain something with a scientific understanding that cannot be explained through science.  Oops. 

Seems to be the only language you're able to speak.  Do you have another you'd accept and understand?

Brian37 wrote:

Somewhere in Japan is a Japanese man I have never met, sure he exists. But what you aspouse is a completely different subject.

By your logic, since neither of us have been to Jupiter ourselves in person, neither you or I know if there isn't a giant invisable teapot orbiting Jupiter.

There are tons of galaxies our telliscopes have yet to map, yet they exist, sure. But pixies and unicorns and hocus pokus will always be fiction and will only exist in human imagination. 

How do you know this particular Japanese man exists if you've never met him? 

Yea, I'm on a different subject, it's about spiritual verses physical.

 

right as well.  I guess with your logic we wouldn't know, but logically be it that humans invented teapots, there wouldn't be unless someone took the time to spend billions of dollars to make a teapot orbit the planet approprately. 

yea, I'm familiar with the teapot excuse.

1. He knows he exists because he knows Japanese men exist in Japan.

2. Why is the teapot an excuse but your God is real?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And Muslims

Brian37 wrote:

And Muslims can be tight knit too and don't trust others outside the tribe. So? Again, what makes you cling to a group or label is the same STUPID reason other people of other religions do it, BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD. You belong to the same placebo club Muslims do and Hindus do. You  all hang out because you all like the same fictional super hero(incert favorite religion here). You claim to want to stand out and are "different than the others" but you have the same amount of evidence for your deity as they do.

But right there in that statement your pompiety(THERE I MADE UP A WORD)!

That is code in your own head, realizing it or not for, "Only Christians can be trusted". Your tribalistic behavior  is not via some fictional being talking in your head, it is your natural human need to socialize. Again, no magical "father" needed to understand mundane human psychology.

Wow, you get all that from; "There is a lot of trust within those groups whereas otherwise there is a major lack of it."!!!

This is a real experience. I never said anything about:

Not trusting others outside of my "tribe"

It making me feel all fuzzy inside

Only Christians can be trusted

or anything about socializing. 

Where do you get this crap!  You may forget I mentioned most of my closest friends are non-believers and I trust them with my life.

Just because I'm in a group of people I can trust, Christian or not, does not mean i feel good about being there.  It just means I can trust them.  leave things around without worrying about people stealing them etc.

I noticed too after pulling out some outliers in your response that you were quite redundant with your rant. 

BTW, your "evidence" for no deity has been just as sufficient.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia, why are you

Caposkia, why are you wanting people to provide evidence for the statement, "I have seen no evidence for a deity"?

I don't think it's possible to provide evidence of no evidence beyond its not being there.

Where have you seen God? Can I get tickets?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:Are you

Magus wrote:

Are you suggesting that without evidence all claims are 50/50?  You have not presented any of your so called evidence.

what evidence have I not presented?  I just suggested a book.

 

Magus wrote:


Your analogy failed because you referred to the design of a computer to the way living beings work, humans are no different than the rest of the animals.  You have yet to establish that a mediation exists or that it is required for life to be as it is.

You're starting to twist the origin and point of bringing up the computer analogy.  It was taking the for instance idea that a soul existed and how that would be a mediation for the body.  The analogy explains it clearly.  You're still trying to compare with the state of mind that the soul doesn't exist.  If a soul does not exist, then of course the computer analogy does not work. 

Remember, you had asked "what mediation?"

Magus wrote:


It's your magical word, you should have the evidence to support it if you don't it is irrational to believe there is such a thing as a soul.  The real question is why do you believe it without any studies done on it?

I brought up a suggestion of reading.  You brought up the idea of a soul and tried to challenge it.  The soul is not the defining factor of my belief.   If you're going to bring up a topic and try to challenge it, I'm going to need some sort of basis of research that you will accept.  Otherwise, don't bother bringing it up. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:PARDON

Thomathy wrote:

PARDON FUCKING ME?!  I responded because what you wrote was simply so outrageous that I thought it appropriate to correct you and as a result of that you've written a backpedaling response about an 'approach' and showcased your ignorance in what I'm positive you construe as a rebuttal in your mind.  There is no 'understanding of scientific theories of opposites'!  There is no anti-gravity.  There is no anti-material.  You persist at making things up!  Things can and do exist even if I cannot directly make use of my five senses to detect them.  Atoms most definitely exist.  Subatomic particles too.  I could continue listing, but it should be fairly obvious that things can exist without our being capable of detecting them directly.  Of course, I never made any statement to the contrary; you're simply making it up!  It is you, in fact, who has a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding of some very basic science and logic.  It is you who has nothing more you can say on this or, I suspect, any other topic; your continued ignorance and blatant lying belie your stupidity.  Now that I have had an experience with just how inane you are and how futile conversation of any sort is with you, I think I can ignore whatever other bile you spew onto the forums.

In case I was unclear, you are an ignorant lier.

yea, you were right Brian, everyone's just as nice wherever you go...


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:So, you're

Thomathy wrote:

So, you're onto a topic about something that doesn't exist and the only thing that does?

If you're convinced it doesn't exist then there's nothing I can tell you that will make you think otherwise.  "The truth cannot be told to you unless you're willing to hear it" 

All I've said is, "give me a basis for research and study" and all I've gotten back is "you're talking about a topic that doesn't exist"  I'm still waiting to hear your basis of research.  Lack of evidence as I've said is a very illogical conclusion scientifically speaking. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. He knows

jcgadfly wrote:

1. He knows he exists because he knows Japanese men exist in Japan.

2. Why is the teapot an excuse but your God is real?

Why is the teapot contingent on the existance of my God?

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Caposkia, why

jcgadfly wrote:

Caposkia, why are you wanting people to provide evidence for the statement, "I have seen no evidence for a deity"?

I don't think it's possible to provide evidence of no evidence beyond its not being there.

Where have you seen God? Can I get tickets?

actually, I'm wanting people to provide evidence for the statement, "you're talking about a topic that doesn't exist."  The matter of fact statement leads me to believe that they've done some extensive research and have come to that conclusion.  Otherwise that would be a very dumb statement don't you think?

If you've read through this forum, which I can't blame you if you haven't, you'd notice that I've already given props to the ones who have admitted to "not having enough evidence."  I respect that.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. He knows he exists because he knows Japanese men exist in Japan.

2. Why is the teapot an excuse but your God is real?

Why is the teapot contingent on the existance of my God?

 

Where did I say it was contingent?

There is just as much evidence for Russell's teapot as there is for your God, but you dismiss the teapot as a mere "excuse" while claiming your god for which there is no evidence is incontrovertible fact.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Caposkia, why are you wanting people to provide evidence for the statement, "I have seen no evidence for a deity"?

I don't think it's possible to provide evidence of no evidence beyond its not being there.

Where have you seen God? Can I get tickets?

actually, I'm wanting people to provide evidence for the statement, "you're talking about a topic that doesn't exist."  The matter of fact statement leads me to believe that they've done some extensive research and have come to that conclusion.  Otherwise that would be a very dumb statement don't you think?

If you've read through this forum, which I can't blame you if you haven't, you'd notice that I've already given props to the ones who have admitted to "not having enough evidence."  I respect that.

Well, until you can define a spirit without terms like incorporeal, intangible, invisible, unmeasurable, invisible, inaudible, etc., it's kind of hard to buy the concept that there is a "world" filled with such things.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. He knows he exists because he knows Japanese men exist in Japan.

2. Why is the teapot an excuse but your God is real?

Why is the teapot contingent on the existance of my God?

 

Where did I say it was contingent?

There is just as much evidence for Russell's teapot as there is for your God, but you dismiss the teapot as a mere "excuse" while claiming your god for which there is no evidence is incontrovertible fact.

When you start with a naked assertion you can justify anything after that. What Cappy fails to realize is that Russel was demonstrating the fallacy of starting from a naked assertion.

"I can fart a full sized real Lamborginni out of my ass"

Is the same as,

"God did it"

Is the same as,

"Allah is real"

Is the same as,

"Bigfoot is real"

Cappy fails to consider that a WHAT and not a WHO is the substance of nature, an uncognitive process, like pollen floating through the air. Cappy thinks their deity is real but fails to realize that people have been making such absurd claims long before his deity claim was first spouted. Cappy fails to consider that humans are capable of intensely and fervently believing false things as fact and somehow magically he is immune to the same human fault all present and past humans are subject to.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ragnarok
High Level Donor
ragnarok's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-07-05
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia's Gambit

This forum is quite funny.  At first I wasn't going to read too much of it because Caposkia seemed like such an unprepared participant that his argument would falter quickly and finally be ignored.  But then I saw that the forum was 4 pages long, with posts almost a month old, so I kept going.  I cannot believe that you folks put up with his nonsense for so long.  My hat is off to all of you, but I caution you all not to keep wasting so much time on the willfully ignorant.  I truly believe he was just doing this to push someone's buttons, not to have an intelligent and purposeful debate of any kind.   And Hamby with the monster post...was it worth it?  There are what, 5 members pummeling this one unrelenting moron to a fine, sludgy pulp, and just when you think the topic has finally been closed, here comes the murmur from below 'But I still believe!'  I don't think a baseball bat to the frontal lobe could cure him, nevermind thinking.

Caposkia, here's a thought for you, something to illustrate the yawning gap between your belief in the magical entity and real life:

I will wager that I can live the rest of my life very comfortably without the need for religion or the trumped up belief in an omnipotent supernatural being, but I also wager that you couldn't live comfortably without the benefits of science for more than a month. 

 

As Edward G. Robinson once rhetorically inquired, "Myah, myah, where's your god now, Moses?

 

 

 

 

I have little poignant or anecdotal to share in this space, but I'm glad I wrote something that made someone like you waste their time reading it. HAVE SOME.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Thankfully, most of that

Thankfully, most of that monster post was just cut and paste from stuff I'd already written.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Thomathy

caposkia wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

PARDON FUCKING ME?!  I responded because what you wrote was simply so outrageous that I thought it appropriate to correct you and as a result of that you've written a backpedaling response about an 'approach' and showcased your ignorance in what I'm positive you construe as a rebuttal in your mind.  There is no 'understanding of scientific theories of opposites'!  There is no anti-gravity.  There is no anti-material.  You persist at making things up!  Things can and do exist even if I cannot directly make use of my five senses to detect them.  Atoms most definitely exist.  Subatomic particles too.  I could continue listing, but it should be fairly obvious that things can exist without our being capable of detecting them directly.  Of course, I never made any statement to the contrary; you're simply making it up!  It is you, in fact, who has a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding of some very basic science and logic.  It is you who has nothing more you can say on this or, I suspect, any other topic; your continued ignorance and blatant lying belie your stupidity.  Now that I have had an experience with just how inane you are and how futile conversation of any sort is with you, I think I can ignore whatever other bile you spew onto the forums.

In case I was unclear, you are an ignorant lier.

yea, you were right Brian, everyone's just as nice wherever you go...

I called you an ignorant lier because you are both a lier and ignorant.  It has nothing to do with being nice.  If you're referring to the general tone and my use of a profanity and not about my calling you what you are, those too are not a matter of being nice.

caposkia wrote:

If you're convinced it doesn't exist then there's nothing I can tell you that will make you think otherwise.

Of course I'm convinced, what you're talking about is meaningless.  The immaterial cannot exist in this universe nor can it be accessible to this universe or else it would not be immaterial.  I am amazed that this eludes you.

caposkia wrote:
  "The truth cannot be told to you unless you're willing to hear it"
So, you're asserting that the immaterial/supernatural/anti-material/spiritual exist?  Great.  Evidence?  I've shown you mine and no it is not a 'lack of evidence', it is a logical necessity.

caposkia wrote:
All I've said is, "give me a basis for research and study" and all I've gotten back is "you're talking about a topic that doesn't exist"
I have.  Others have.  Refer to the links provided.  Get an education in philosophy and/or science, teach yourself or make an attempt at understanding the information you've been asked to review.

caposkia wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear your basis of research.
Read above.  Read the rest of the damned thread and read the bloody links. 

caposkia wrote:
Lack of evidence as I've said is a very illogical conclusion scientifically speaking.
That makes little sense.  (In trying to decipher what you've written I've come up with this statement, "As I've said, the lack of evidence doesn't lead to any logical conclusions scientifically speaking." so I'll respond to that.)  Of course, one cannot draw any conclusions about anything without evidence of some sort, but one can safely without belief in something without evidence for it.  The existence of the supernatural/spiritual/immaterial/anti-material is precluded by the nature of the universe and further by the meainglessness of the terms themselves and that is anything but the lack of evidence.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If you're

caposkia wrote:
If you're convinced it doesn't exist then there's nothing I can tell you that will make you think otherwise.  "The truth cannot be told to you unless you're willing to hear it"

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we call projection. The theist projects his or her own mindset onto the atheist and accuses the atheist of being just like him or her. Quite sad, but telling of the process by which they protect their delusions.

In all seriousness, there actually is a thing you could do to convince us it exists. Ready? Here it comes. Provide evidence. Ok? Got it now? Good, I am looking forward to the evidence.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Where did I

jcgadfly wrote:

Where did I say it was contingent?

There is just as much evidence for Russell's teapot as there is for your God, but you dismiss the teapot as a mere "excuse" while claiming your god for which there is no evidence is incontrovertible fact.

What evidences?  I have repeatedly asked for a basis of research to go by that will support an either or conclusion of the spiritual world.  So far

personal experience won't work

     a.  can't back up a personal experience because it was personal

     b.  no one is willing to try it anyway

 

physical sciences won't work

     a.  physical sciences don't study the spiritual

   

History won't work

     a.  anyone can write anything at any time claiming any number of things, therefore, no matter how many people agree or have written the same, it is dismissed as story telling.

    

geology won't work

     a.  any credible geology supporting scripture is dismissed as either ironic, or "not necessarily supporting the Bible because it's something that happened in History"

     b.  anything better supporting the Bible is quickly dismissed as a mistake or misunderstanding by the people who discovered it

 

accountability won't work

     a. doesn't matter if 6 billion people claim it, it's still a fantasy world.  Something that makes people feel good. a crutch if you will. 

     b.  no one wants to try it.

     c.  People around the world get tortured and killed in the name of Jesus Christ, but it's just a fantasy that makes people feel good. 

 

Please, give me a basis for research!  You can't accept the evidence I might have if you won't accept the source.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Well, until

jcgadfly wrote:

Well, until you can define a spirit without terms like incorporeal, intangible, invisible, unmeasurable, invisible, inaudible, etc., it's kind of hard to buy the concept that there is a "world" filled with such things.

Definitions:

 

Incorporeal:  Of, pertaining to or characteristic of nonmaterial beings

Intangible:  not capable of being precieved by the touch

Invisible:  not perceptible by the eye.  (not always the case with the spiritual.  See "The Bible)

unmeasured:  of undetermined amount

 

I'm not sure if I actually used the words invisible or inaudible, but let's look at it this way.  Basically, you're going to dismiss anything that doesn't reference to the physical (see definitions above).  Therefore, there's never going to be any progress to this conversation because we've already determined that the spiritual world (assuming now that it exists) is not any part of the physical world. 

I understand it's a hard concept to by, but I'm not selling it to you.  That's probably a personal journey you'd have to do on your own. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
ragnarok wrote:Caposkia,

ragnarok wrote:

Caposkia, here's a thought for you, something to illustrate the yawning gap between your belief in the magical entity and real life:

I will wager that I can live the rest of my life very comfortably without the need for religion or the trumped up belief in an omnipotent supernatural being, but I also wager that you couldn't live comfortably without the benefits of science for more than a month. 

I never said anyone couldn't live life comfortably without my God.  I also never said I dont' like science.  If you read carefully, which I don't blame you if you didn't, it's quite redundant and pointless, you'd notice that I've said that science supports a lot of what I believe.  In fact, I've used much of it to back up my understanding and have done extensive research... not just science... to come to my conclusion.  See Science VS Religion.  Long forum, much fluff, but some points were made. 

The easy way out is to not believe.... The "comfortable" way of living is to not believe. 

I wager you don't have the balls to try to seek out God wholeheartedly.  I feel my odds are pretty good. 

 

BTW, all I suggested was a book.  All I've done on here is answered some questions, and asked some of my own to better answer questions that were asked still unanswered mind you... and you blame me for the nonsense that's been going on???

it's alright, it's what i expect from a non-believer on this site.  It actually surprises me when I find one who actually takes the time to try and level and understand.  They earn more respect I think from everyone than you did by your post.

To not have to think is the comfortable life.  I've learned to believe is to have to think. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:I called you

Thomathy wrote:

I called you an ignorant lier because you are both a lier and ignorant.  It has nothing to do with being nice.  If you're referring to the general tone and my use of a profanity and not about my calling you what you are, those too are not a matter of being nice.

ok, then your conclusion is irrational in illogical.  no worries, I expect that on here.

Thomathy wrote:

Of course I'm convinced, what you're talking about is meaningless.  The immaterial cannot exist in this universe nor can it be accessible to this universe or else it would not be immaterial.  I am amazed that this eludes you.

Then why are you on here?  All I did was suggest a book.  So far, no one has taken the suggestion.  If you're so convinced, then you're wasting your time with me.

Thomathy wrote:

So, you're asserting that the immaterial/supernatural/anti-material/spiritual exist?  Great.  Evidence?  I've shown you mine and no it is not a 'lack of evidence', it is a logical necessity.

as redundant as this is...

give me a basis for research that you will accept and that supports either the existance of something beyond the physical or concludes that there isn't.

Thomathy wrote:

I have.  Others have.  Refer to the links provided.  Get an education in philosophy and/or science, teach yourself or make an attempt at understanding the information you've been asked to review.

I have reviewed some of it and responded.  I still haven't had a chance to review the videos. 

no one can complain I'm not trying.  I haven't heard anyone yet claim they picked up the suggested book or now books I have recommended.  Evidence?  Which book did you read?

Thomathy wrote:

That makes little sense.  (In trying to decipher what you've written I've come up with this statement, "As I've said, the lack of evidence doesn't lead to any logical conclusions scientifically speaking." so I'll respond to that.)  Of course, one cannot draw any conclusions about anything without evidence of some sort, but one can safely without belief in something without evidence for it.  The existence of the supernatural/spiritual/immaterial/anti-material is precluded by the nature of the universe and further by the meainglessness of the terms themselves and that is anything but the lack of evidence.

If you actually took an English course at the highschool level at some point, you'll notice that you used a lot of opinionated words, which in the world of fact and fiction have no place. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:In all

KSMB wrote:

In all seriousness, there actually is a thing you could do to convince us it exists. Ready? Here it comes. Provide evidence. Ok? Got it now? Good, I am looking forward to the evidence.

yea yea, I'm sick of being redundant.  Read the forum then get back to me on the "evidence" 

My conclusion?  People on here enjoy arguing fruitlessly and are only satisfied when it boosts their ego.  I have yet to see anyone stick to the point of this forum. 

BTW, whoever said I thought you were any different than me?

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Well, until you can define a spirit without terms like incorporeal, intangible, invisible, unmeasurable, invisible, inaudible, etc., it's kind of hard to buy the concept that there is a "world" filled with such things.

Definitions:

 

Incorporeal:  Of, pertaining to or characteristic of nonmaterial beings

Intangible:  not capable of being precieved by the touch

Invisible:  not perceptible by the eye.  (not always the case with the spiritual.  See "The Bible)

unmeasured:  of undetermined amount

 

I'm not sure if I actually used the words invisible or inaudible, but let's look at it this way.  Basically, you're going to dismiss anything that doesn't reference to the physical (see definitions above).  Therefore, there's never going to be any progress to this conversation because we've already determined that the spiritual world (assuming now that it exists) is not any part of the physical world. 

I understand it's a hard concept to by, but I'm not selling it to you.  That's probably a personal journey you'd have to do on your own. 

 

Again, these definitions tell me what it's not. I'm still left with the question "What is Spirit?"

If you can't tell me what it is, how can you know it exists?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:KSMB wrote:In

caposkia wrote:

KSMB wrote:

In all seriousness, there actually is a thing you could do to convince us it exists. Ready? Here it comes. Provide evidence. Ok? Got it now? Good, I am looking forward to the evidence.

yea yea, I'm sick of being redundant.  Read the forum then get back to me on the "evidence" 

My conclusion?  People on here enjoy arguing fruitlessly and are only satisfied when it boosts their ego.  I have yet to see anyone stick to the point of this forum. 

BTW, whoever said I thought you were any different than me?

 

The OP's point was "Hey, check out this book and tell me what you think". Not a whole lot of thread sustaining there until people read the book, huh?

I work for a university library and haven't seen it yet. It's not in the local public library either.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Magus

caposkia wrote:

Magus wrote:

Are you suggesting that without evidence all claims are 50/50?  You have not presented any of your so called evidence.

what evidence have I not presented?  I just suggested a book.

 

Which means you presented a book, which might contain evidence.   If you had any evidence you would present that first. Here is an example. Here is "X" historically this item has been called "y" of "J", now here is a book that explains why 'x' is evidence of 'y' of 'J' and is not a hoax. That book would then have to be peer reviewed. Which I have not found evidence that your book has such rigorous examination and approval. Since I you have not have any independently verifiable pieces of this  historical event, there is nothing that the book could be talking about except speculation. Which isn't evidence.  If anyone here has a problem with the example please give me one that would be better.

caposkia wrote:

Magus wrote:

Your analogy failed because you referred to the design of a computer to the way living beings work, humans are no different than the rest of the animals.  You have yet to establish that a mediation exists or that it is required for life to be as it is.

You're starting to twist the origin and point of bringing up the computer analogy.  It was taking the for instance idea that a soul existed and how that would be a mediation for the body.  The analogy explains it clearly.  You're still trying to compare with the state of mind that the soul doesn't exist.  If a soul does not exist, then of course the computer analogy does not work. 

Remember, you had asked "what mediation?"

This is circular reasoning on your part.  In order for you analogy to work the soul must exists.  Yet the analogy is suppose to show that indeed a soul exists.  That is why your analogy fails it requires that the conclusion be part of the premise.

caposkia wrote:

Magus wrote:

 

It's your magical word, you should have the evidence to support it if you don't it is irrational to believe there is such a thing as a soul.  The real question is why do you believe it without any studies done on it?

I brought up a suggestion of reading.  You brought up the idea of a soul and tried to challenge it.  The soul is not the defining factor of my belief.   If you're going to bring up a topic and try to challenge it, I'm going to need some sort of basis of research that you will accept.  Otherwise, don't bother bringing it up. 

The basis of research is scientific research the unless you can show me a more reliable method of research.

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Thomathy

caposkia wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

I called you an ignorant lier because you are both a lier and ignorant.  It has nothing to do with being nice.  If you're referring to the general tone and my use of a profanity and not about my calling you what you are, those too are not a matter of being nice.

ok, then your conclusion is irrational in illogical.  no worries, I expect that on here.

Why is my conclusion 'irrational in illogical (sic)'?  You've consistently shown yourself to be an ignorant lier.  Was there another conclusion I should have drawn?  Show me exactly how the statement, 'You're an ignorant lier.' is 'irrational in illogical (sic)'

caposkia wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Of course I'm convinced, what you're talking about is meaningless.  The immaterial cannot exist in this universe nor can it be accessible to this universe or else it would not be immaterial.  I am amazed that this eludes you.

Then why are you on here?  All I did was suggest a book.  So far, no one has taken the suggestion.  If you're so convinced, then you're wasting your time with me.

*face-palm*

caposkia wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

So, you're asserting that the immaterial/supernatural/anti-material/spiritual exist?  Great.  Evidence?  I've shown you mine and no it is not a 'lack of evidence', it is a logical necessity.

as redundant as this is...

give me a basis for research that you will accept and that supports either the existance of something beyond the physical or concludes that there isn't.

I can only conclude that you have not adequately reviewed the information in the links others have provided and that you do not understand the logic that leads to the conclusion that the immaterial is meaningless -a broken concept.

caposkia wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

I have.  Others have.  Refer to the links provided.  Get an education in philosophy and/or science, teach yourself or make an attempt at understanding the information you've been asked to review.

I have reviewed some of it and responded.  I still haven't had a chance to review the videos. 

no one can complain I'm not trying.  I haven't heard anyone yet claim they picked up the suggested book or now books I have recommended.

Mhmm. 
caposkia wrote:
Evidence?  Which book did you read?
What?

caposkia wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

That makes little sense.  (In trying to decipher what you've written I've come up with this statement, "As I've said, the lack of evidence doesn't lead to any logical conclusions scientifically speaking." so I'll respond to that.)  Of course, one cannot draw any conclusions about anything without evidence of some sort, but one can safely without [withhold] belief in something without evidence for it.  The existence of the supernatural/spiritual/immaterial/anti-material is precluded by the nature of the universe and further by the meainglessness of the terms themselves and that is anything but the lack of evidence.

If you actually took an English course at the highschool level at some point, you'll notice that you used a lot of opinionated words, which in the world of fact and fiction have no place. 

I assume you meant to write, 'fact and non-fiction' if it matters.  In fact, caposkia, you're treading down the wrong path with me here.  I urge you strongly to not get into a discussion about language with me as I will 'pwn' you as it were.  If you like (or are masochistic), you can point out to me exactly how the paragraph I wrote above is opinionated and which words, specifically, were opinionated.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Again, these

jcgadfly wrote:

Again, these definitions tell me what it's not. I'm still left with the question "What is Spirit?"

If you can't tell me what it is, how can you know it exists?

You can see it sometimes, you can feel it sometimes.  Not feel as in physical touch, but as in a presence. 

Spirit is something knowable and sensed through experience.  The Bible calls it pneuma or "breath".  It can be understood as "life" or the energy that makes up life.

The only "tangible" way pneumatologists have discovered in studying "spirit" is through electric impulses.  Energy as we know it is animated through such impulses.  No matter what the source, the power is ultimately put out by an electrical current of some sort. 

Spirit can also be defined as a power that acts independently or by itself.  No form to make it do something. 

Any of those explanations are acceptable, but it all comes down to one idea, an energy or power. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I work for a

jcgadfly wrote:

I work for a university library and haven't seen it yet. It's not in the local public library either.

huh... well, it is written to Christians, do you have any seminaries near by?  Their library should have it, if not they should be able to get it for you.  Other libraries should be able to get it for you through loan from other libraries as well. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:This is circular

Magus wrote:

This is circular reasoning on your part.  In order for you analogy to work the soul must exists.  Yet the analogy is suppose to show that indeed a soul exists.  That is why your analogy fails it requires that the conclusion be part of the premise.

That was the point.  Assuming a soul existed... did I not say that? Probably assumed it was implied if I didn't. 

Magus wrote:

 

The basis of research is scientific research the unless you can show me a more reliable method of research.

 

Well, we can't base this on science alone.  You asked the questions, it'd be up to you to give me a more reliable method of research, otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time running around different methods until I trip upon the one that you'll accept as valid. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Why is my

Thomathy wrote:

Why is my conclusion 'irrational in illogical (sic)'?  You've consistently shown yourself to be an ignorant lier.  Was there another conclusion I should have drawn?  Show me exactly how the statement, 'You're an ignorant lier.' is 'irrational in illogical (sic)'

I guess the first step would be to tell me what i lied about because  I was unaware. 


Thomathy wrote:

Of course I'm convinced, what you're talking about is meaningless.  The immaterial cannot exist in this universe nor can it be accessible to this universe or else it would not be immaterial.  I am amazed that this eludes you.

Quote:

Then why are you on here?  All I did was suggest a book.  So far, no one has taken the suggestion.  If you're so convinced, then you're wasting your time with me.

*face-palm*

I'm glad you see my point


Thomathy wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Evidence?  Which book did you read?
What?

face*palm...  The point of this forum was a book.  Questions arose and there was another book referenced to to answer some questions.  This forum is about a book.  Which book did you read that didn't show you evidence???

If you're refering to the tangent convo, then what source have you decided upon for evidence?

Thomathy wrote:


I assume you meant to write, 'fact and non-fiction' if it matters.  In fact, caposkia, you're treading down the wrong path with me here.  I urge you strongly to not get into a discussion about language with me as I will 'pwn' you as it were.  If you like (or are masochistic), you can point out to me exactly how the paragraph I wrote above is opinionated and which words, specifically, were opinionated.

... uh... no... I meant fact and fiction.  as in real and not real... There is no room for grey matter or "opinions" when comparing fact to fiction! or reality to non-...er...reality Mr. English whiz. 

Anyway, if you have anything published, I'd love to read it. 

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Kevin R Brown

caposkia wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Capo, I need to ask you two very, very important questions at this junction:

1) Do you accept evolutionary theory as a scientific fact?

I believe in evolution as things evolve to adapt to their surroundings and  change through genetics over the years.  I haven't seen enough evidence to accept inter-special evolution

I've always been a bit curious why people have a problem with evolution as applied to speciation.

Mostly, it's because there's really no such thing as a species in biology. By that I mean, our idea of "species" isn't so much based on a single biological reality, but on our need to classify things. Rather, individual organisms exist in a continuum, genetically defined by how closely their genes match up to others in the continuum.

To talk about "inter-special evolution" is to talk about a method of categorization imposed by man. It really has very little to do with nature itself. You can talk of the degree of genetic divergence between two organisms, but that applies equally well to individuals within what we call a species, as it does to individuals genetically far removed from each other.

I think this whole idea of "species" is a stumbling block for many. Once you realize it's an artificial concept designed to make the discussion of genetic relationships easier (a shorthand representation of archetypal genomes), the understanding of evolution comes much easier.

"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


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Nikolaj

caposkia wrote:

Nikolaj wrote:

I am, for the sake of argument, assuming a the potential of a spirit world now.

Okay...

What source... what source... A book?

A particular book?

You say science isn't a valid source, because it doesn't adress a potential spiritworld, well all religious texts of all religions that have ever written anything of theirs down all adress your potential "spirit world", not to mention The Silmarilion and the various stories of Buffy the Vampire slayer... What source indeed.

What makes the Bible so special to you, other than the fact that you happen to have been born into a social cirkle where you were at some point exposed to someone that felt the Bible was special? And before you say anything, yes I have read it; I study Comparative Religion at University, so I've scrutinized that book as much as any Theologian.

I never said in that post that the Bible had to be their source for answers.  I just merely pointed out that if what we believe is true, then obviously science wouldn't be the best way of discovering it.  In order for someone to claim as they did, they would have to have some other source which would verify those claims to be true. 

If there is a spiritual world for the sake of argument... there would have to be 1 true way of it to work just as science points out in the laws of our universe. 

 

Cap, if you don't know anything about the Spiritual World (which you claim to not know anything about - you just believe it), then how do you know there is only 1 true way for it to work?  Why are you demanding that the Spiritual World (whatever that is!) follows the same logical rules as the physical world?

How do you suspect this?  Is it based on the vast amount of evidence of spiritual happenings - that just happen to defy the physical sciences in every way?  (Note the sarcasm, please - I'm trying to have fun).

 

Your entire response is one of the most convoluted string of nonsense and fallacious reasoning I have seen in a while.

 

I'm declaring Poe's Law.  I can't see any other way when he outright admits that he has absurd beliefs:

 

"I just merely pointed out that if what we believe is true, then obviously science wouldn't be the best way of discovering it."

 

"Merely"!  I love it!    Um, what if I believe something that is true AND science happens to be the best way to discover it?

 

DOH!  I guess I'm screwed!

 

(BTW, Poe's Law or this guy is an arrogant ass who thinks he's the only True Xian and those who HE agrees with).

 

Another Question, Cap: Which popular figure in History would you say is or was a True Xian so I can get a reference:  Martin Luther? Paul? John? Luke? Mark? Pope Pious X? Mother Theresa? Fred Phelps? Billy Graham? Joel Orsteen?

Who 'does it" for you?

(Don't say Jesus, it would be a fallacy on so many levels.)

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
This exercise in futility

This exercise in futility has me well muscled.  I really should have stopped earlier.  Have fun everybody!


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
caposkia wrote:ragnarok

caposkia wrote:

ragnarok wrote:

Caposkia, here's a thought for you, something to illustrate the yawning gap between your belief in the magical entity and real life:

I will wager that I can live the rest of my life very comfortably without the need for religion or the trumped up belief in an omnipotent supernatural being, but I also wager that you couldn't live comfortably without the benefits of science for more than a month. 

I never said anyone couldn't live life comfortably without my God.  I also never said I dont' like science.  If you read carefully, which I don't blame you if you didn't, it's quite redundant and pointless, you'd notice that I've said that science supports a lot of what I believe.  In fact, I've used much of it to back up my understanding and have done extensive research... not just science... to come to my conclusion.  See Science VS Religion.  Long forum, much fluff, but some points were made. 

The easy way out is to not believe.... The "comfortable" way of living is to not believe. 

I wager you don't have the balls to try to seek out God wholeheartedly.  I feel my odds are pretty good. 

 

BTW, all I suggested was a book.  All I've done on here is answered some questions, and asked some of my own to better answer questions that were asked still unanswered mind you... and you blame me for the nonsense that's been going on???

it's alright, it's what i expect from a non-believer on this site.  It actually surprises me when I find one who actually takes the time to try and level and understand.  They earn more respect I think from everyone than you did by your post.

To not have to think is the comfortable life.  I've learned to believe is to have to think. 

Quote:
I never said anyone couldn't live life comfortably without my God.  I also never said I dont' like science.

If humans can live life comfortably without your god, then you are admitting to us that your god, or any god for that matter, is not needed to live life. THANK YOU for that admission. I hope it sinks in for your sake.

 You obviously don't like it when science says that human flesh cannot survive rigor mortis. Otherwise you would have abandon this clap trap claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Harry Potter can't fly around on broomsticks either. And you CAN find morals in fiction without believe that fiction to be fact. I love the original Star Wars but I certainly don't believe in "THE FORCE"

The sooner you face that you got sold a myth, the sooner you can free your mind from the shackles others have put your brain in.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:I've

nigelTheBold wrote:

I've always been a bit curious why people have a problem with evolution as applied to speciation.

Mostly, it's because there's really no such thing as a species in biology. By that I mean, our idea of "species" isn't so much based on a single biological reality, but on our need to classify things. Rather, individual organisms exist in a continuum, genetically defined by how closely their genes match up to others in the continuum.

To talk about "inter-special evolution" is to talk about a method of categorization imposed by man. It really has very little to do with nature itself. You can talk of the degree of genetic divergence between two organisms, but that applies equally well to individuals within what we call a species, as it does to individuals genetically far removed from each other.

I think this whole idea of "species" is a stumbling block for many. Once you realize it's an artificial concept designed to make the discussion of genetic relationships easier (a shorthand representation of archetypal genomes), the understanding of evolution comes much easier.

Ok, I haven't seen enough evidence to conclude the assumed ancestors of humans to be true.  The transition doesn't seem to be there.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote:Cap, if you

daedalus wrote:

Cap, if you don't know anything about the Spiritual World (which you claim to not know anything about - you just believe it)

huh??  When did I claim to not know anything about the Spiritual world?  I'm sorry if I said that.  My mistake. 

daedalus wrote:

"I just merely pointed out that if what we believe is true, then obviously science wouldn't be the best way of discovering it."

Why would science, a man made study of the physical world, be the best way of discovering a Spiritual world?

daedalus wrote:

 

"Merely"!  I love it!    Um, what if I believe something that is true AND science happens to be the best way to discover it?

 

Then I guess you'll be a believer just like me.  If you read back a bit, you'll notice that I've said science BY ITSELF isn't sufficient.  However, I've used science to confirm my belief.  See Science VS. Religion.

daedalus wrote:

Another Question, Cap: Which popular figure in History would you say is or was a True Xian so I can get a reference:  Martin Luther? Paul? John? Luke? Mark? Pope Pious X? Mother Theresa? Fred Phelps? Billy Graham? Joel Orsteen?

I have no idea, why is this relevant?


 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If humans can

Brian37 wrote:

If humans can live life comfortably without your god, then you are admitting to us that your god, or any god for that matter, is not needed to live life. THANK YOU for that admission. I hope it sinks in for your sake.

uh... right.  Unless my God is real, which in that case He created you and you just wouldn't exist without Him.  It's like saying you were born without a mother or father to make it happen.  We never claimed that life is miserable without God, but you'd be surprised at what happens in life with God.

Brian37 wrote:

 You obviously don't like it when science says that human flesh cannot survive rigor mortis. Otherwise you would have abandon this clap trap claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

dust to dust

Brian37 wrote:

The sooner you face that you got sold a myth, the sooner you can free your mind from the shackles others have put your brain in.

remember that.

Now if you'd like to make progress with a conversation, lets get a topic and a forum going.