Why pick on Kent Hovind?

ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Why pick on Kent Hovind?

Not that I like the guy or anything, but he seems to be the whipping boy for numerous websites. Even RRS has a top level link for him.

I know for certain that atheists think he has bad arguments, but that not all. Many Christians, even a large number of young earthers, think his arguments are bad. Answers in Genesis released a statement listing arguments not to use, many of which Kent Hovind uses.

Would it not be more profitable to discuss things written by WL Craig, NT Wright, or Doug Geivit, Paul Copan, or Alister McGrath? Anydanyway...whether I agree with these guys are not, there writings are certainly more stimulating.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Because he makes

Because he makes himself into an easy target?

 

Seriously, if you want to use the “arguments we prefer creationists not use” thing, why not mention one of my other favorites:

 

Barry Setterfield scientist.

 

Basically, his arguments are also bogus but you have to have a pretty good handle on physics to understand why. A possibly better way to get to what he is about comes from the fact that I have hacked his web site and (at the time) he had his resume on the site but not linked.

 

His claim to being a scientist arises from the fact that he completed the first semester of freshman geology before dropping out of school to become an evangelist. As far as I can tell, he uses the word scientist as part of his name to make himself sound more important.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Yeah...I've read some of his

Yeah...I've read some of his papers...I'm no physicist, but I did sit through some physics classes in college. It did not take much to see that his theory had some issues. I could certainly see how it would be compelling to YEC, who seem to grasping for something that looks intellectual regardless of its validity.

Easy target...yeah, I suppose so. He comes up in conversatoins a lot though. Maybe because he is hated on both sides.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I try to give equal time to

I try to give equal time to al of the incompetents you listed - Hovind's stuff still comes up (especially in the backwater where Ilive) so I play with him for the lulz.

"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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I try to give

jcgadfly wrote:

I try to give equal time to al of the incompetents you listed - Hovind's stuff still comes up (especially in the backwater where Ilive) so I play with him for the lulz.

I know someone that bought a DVD duplicator to pass out Hovind's stuff....scary.

I forget to mention Hugh McCann in my list...His stuff is interesting too.

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Would it

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Would it not be more profitable to discuss things written by WL Craig, NT Wright, or Doug Geivit, Paul Copan, or Alister McGrath?

If you'd like to bring up any of their material, I'd be happy to crush it like a cockroach for you. Maybe like a watermelon. OR like a car in one of those conveyer-belt compactor things. Those are awesome.

All I'm saying is crush'd.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
He's an arrogant imbecile.

He's an arrogant imbecile. It's fun to crap on arrogant imbeciles.
BTW, William Lane Craig has been thoroughly destroyed here as well. And DeSouza, and Fox, and Comfort, and pretty well all of the big names.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:If you'd

HisWillness wrote:

If you'd like to bring up any of their material, I'd be happy to crush it like a cockroach for you. Maybe like a watermelon. OR like a car in one of those conveyer-belt compactor things. Those are awesome.

All I'm saying is crush'd.

I just said these guys were more intellectually stimulating than something like Hovind. But if you feel you have a need to "crush" them, by all means, go right ahead.

I'd be happy to play the devil's advocate, but picking a fight...that's not really what debates are all about. If arguments were suffeciently convincing one way or another, then I suppose there would be no need to debate them, would there?

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:He's an

Vastet wrote:
He's an arrogant imbecile. It's fun to crap on arrogant imbeciles. BTW, William Lane Craig has been thoroughly destroyed here as well. And DeSouza, and Fox, and Comfort, and pretty well all of the big names.

Regardless of how he portrays himself -- arrogant or cute and cuddly -- he certainly lacks the intellectual prowess of other xian apologist IMHO.

"Destroyed"...what do you mean by that?

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:I'd be

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
I'd be happy to play the devil's advocate, but picking a fight...that's not really what debates are all about.

I've never heard of this not-picking-a-fight style of debate. It sounds alien and dull.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
If arguments were suffeciently convincing one way or another, then I suppose there would be no need to debate them, would there?

Hahahahaha! He. Good one.

If evolution had all the evidence, and creationism had none, then the matter would be settled!

Yeah. Something makes me think that it's not always the rational in people that wins the day.

PS:

Arch is teh r0Xor

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Vastet

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Vastet wrote:
He's an arrogant imbecile. It's fun to crap on arrogant imbeciles. BTW, William Lane Craig has been thoroughly destroyed here as well. And DeSouza, and Fox, and Comfort, and pretty well all of the big names.

Regardless of how he portrays himself -- arrogant or cute and cuddly -- he certainly lacks the intellectual prowess of other xian apologist IMHO.

"Destroyed"...what do you mean by that?


Every argument any of them has ever made has been swiftly torn apart here. Many by myself, more by others. That's all I mean.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Every argument

Vastet wrote:
Every argument any of them has ever made has been swiftly torn apart here. Many by myself, more by others. That's all I mean.

"Torn apart". Hmm...sounds like a paper shredder. Or an 80's rock balad. Are you talking about tearing them apart on grounds of soundness or validity? Most of Hovind's arguments fail in both area IMHO. But I suppose that's just it...my opinion. Countless people are convinced he's right. How do we conclude who wins and who loses? In debates I've been to, the winner was decided by a majority vote. If that's the case, Hovind wins...NO!!!!!!

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:If

HisWillness wrote:

If evolution had all the evidence, and creationism had none, then the matter would be settled!

If only it were that simple...too bad it's not. There's old earthers, those who buy into theistic evolution, deists, etc. Then you have to deal with the interpretation of evidence.  To quote Harold Wilson, "I'm at my best in a messy, middle-of-the-road muddle."

HisWillness wrote:

Yeah. Something makes me think that it's not always the rational in people that wins the day.

Rationality...goodness...there's even debates on how to define what is "rational". My question is, how can one define rationality apart from rationality? Good ol' Dr. Dawkins said, "The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry" But in order to do rational inquiry this, we first have to determine what is and is not rational inquiry. But as I said, that requires rationality. Sounds like a tautology me. Unless of course someone wants to assert something about rationality based on, um...., blind faith?

HisWillness wrote:

PS:

Arch is teh r0Xor

I'd be happy to see folks embrace any type Linux FlavorAids rather than Microsoft and Mac flavored Kool-Aid.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Vastet

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Every argument any of them has ever made has been swiftly torn apart here. Many by myself, more by others. That's all I mean.

"Torn apart". Hmm...sounds like a paper shredder. Or an 80's rock balad. Are you talking about tearing them apart on grounds of soundness or validity? Most of Hovind's arguments fail in both area IMHO. But I suppose that's just it...my opinion. Countless people are convinced he's right. How do we conclude who wins and who loses? In debates I've been to, the winner was decided by a majority vote. If that's the case, Hovind wins...NO!!!!!!

 

Things that are grounded in solid empirical evidence. For instance when Hovind stated that you could cover the planet with one drop of water he was completely and unambiguously wrong. The easy stuff is picking apart seperate individual claims that he uses to support his overall bankrupt beliefs.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Di66en6ion wrote:Things that

Di66en6ion wrote:

Things that are grounded in solid empirical evidence. For instance when Hovind stated that you could cover the planet with one drop of water he was completely and unambiguously wrong. The easy stuff is picking apart seperate individual claims that he uses to support his overall bankrupt beliefs.

Then on the soundness then. His premises are bad. Fuechsel was right: garbage in, garbage out.

What do you perceive to be wrong with the way WL Craig substantiates the Kalam Arguement? Soundness (ie. bad evidence) or validity (that is bad logic).

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A formal debate structure

A formal debate structure does not define who is right, it simply defines who is better at debating. Put me in one with them and you'll watch me wipe them all over the floor. Most scientists who debate theists are crippled by sheer incredulity.
Logically and scientifically, their arguments all fail. They fail in physics, astronomy, geology, genetics, psychology, and every other branch of science. They also often fail at history, though I'll admit that is the one area where they can be right on occasion. Still, much of history is interpretation, not solid fact. There is no evidence to support or deny religion on a historic basis. That they go there at all is indicative that on some level they realise how far they have to stretch to convince the average person to convert.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
I have much more respect for

I have much more respect for theists whom will never gain Kent Hovind's unwarrented fame.

I can accept that there are people who truly   believe in their position when they disagree with me. But the battle for resources is about marketing. Ethics comes in when you know there is a point you don't cross.

Kent, forgets that there are far too many who know PT Barnum's quote, "There's a sucker born every minute". Kent, like many selling religion, care more about attention, than they do about evidence.

The difference between Larry Flint and Jerry Falwell is that Larry is not pretending to sell you something you need. Larry puts it out there, if you like it, you do, if you dont, he has noone knock on your door.

 

"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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:A formal debate

Vastet wrote:
A formal debate structure does not define who is right, it simply defines who is better at debating. Put me in one with them and you'll watch me wipe them all over the floor. Most scientists who debate theists are crippled by sheer incredulity. Logically and scientifically, their arguments all fail. They fail in physics, astronomy, geology, genetics, psychology, and every other branch of science. They also often fail at history, though I'll admit that is the one area where they can be right on occasion. Still, much of history is interpretation, not solid fact. There is no evidence to support or deny religion on a historic basis. That they go there at all is indicative that on some level they realise how far they have to stretch to convince the average person to convert.

 

Wiping the floor -- Isn't that what the janitor does after the debate? I suppose what you get when a theologian that dabbles in science is incredulity. And when a scientist is embarrassingly misinformed about theology, one gets umm....a raving mad man? But in any case, I suppose one can occasionally find a gem -- a scientist that is informed about theology or a theologian (or an 'atheologian' if you prefer) who is informed about science. I did go to a debate once between Bill Dembski and Michael Ruse. Bill Dembski, for what he's worth, had more substance that Ruse while Ruse had more style. At the end of the day most people felt that Dembski 'won', but not because he better substance, but simply because Ruse didn't have substance. In any case, I felt cheated and wanted my money back. 

Vastet wrote:

Enlightened Atheist, & Gaming God.

An atheist who thinks of himself as a God. Does this mean you don't believe in yourself?? No really...what do you play?

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I have much

Brian37 wrote:

I have much more respect for theists whom will never gain Kent Hovind's unwarrented fame.

I can accept that there are people who truly   believe in their position when they disagree with me. But the battle for resources is about marketing. Ethics comes in when you know there is a point you don't cross.

Kent, forgets that there are far too many who know PT Barnum's quote, "There's a sucker born every minute". Kent, like many selling religion, care more about attention, than they do about evidence.

The difference between Larry Flint and Jerry Falwell is that Larry is not pretending to sell you something you need. Larry puts it out there, if you like it, you do, if you dont, he has noone knock on your door.

Whatever his motives may be, I suppose a more profitable (no pun intended) discussion would be to talk about other ideas rather than his.

In any case, I've always thought this quote from Bill Hicks to be funny: “You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks like He rushed it.” Maybe I need to goo look in the mirror and make sure my forehead is not sloped....

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Regarding the first segment

Regarding the first segment of your post, I am rarely presented with theological problems that I can't overcome. All of those problems are historic in nature. And irrelevant to the issue of a god to boot, since there's no 2000 year old rock with perpetually glowing words backing interpretations of a god.
I don't have a problem with the belief in a deity or deities, unless it intrudes on my lack of the same to the point it interferes with my enjoyment of the only existence I will ever know. My morality extends this outwards to others, and I often get as mad seeing it happen to another as I would it happening to me. Sometimes more so.
As a result, the vast majority of the theists I encounter are the ridiculous ones that are a clear and present danger to humanities future and present. To a T, they are completely ignorant or illogical or both when it comes to reality. Usually both. Religion should be private. If it refuses to be, and is shoved in my face everywhere I turn, then I refuse to tolerate it.
tbc..

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
... Especially when it

...
Especially when it refuses to tolerate me. By their very sacred rules, most don't tolerate me (fortunately most of them don't pay much attention to the truly dangerous segments of religion except in times of desperation). And they are seeking MORE power than they already have to continue and expand upon it. I will fight them tooth and claw, more capably than many scientists, because I have absorbed enough science to at least be a layman with a few specialties, and enough religion to mirror their attacks back at them.
Yet also due to the above, I leave those who don't shove it in my face and heap hatred upon me or others alone. Most theists won't cross my path. I aim for the dangerous ones. The weapon of choice is science, as it is all I need to disprove 99% of them. The remaining percentage are obscure religions and generally harmless. In part because they are obscure. Though also usually vague enough to be inarguable either way.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Shit. This turned into a 3

Shit. This turned into a 3 post rant going all over the place. Sorry. Sticking out tongue
Mod merge please? Smiling
I should probably wrap up on your second comment... lol.
I don't recognise a definition of god unless it is a natural explanation (I stretch it only for debate), and in this case, it basically indicates that only I control my destiny, with a bit of ego in my gaming skills/knowledge. It is my true love, even before Star Wars. Sticking out tongue
As for what I play, that could be another 5 pages, lol. Pretty well anything. Final Fantasy & Star Wars top the list, but it's a huge list. I've been gaming since the Pong/COCO2 era, and still pick up 20 year old games every now and then, but I don't skip out on the new ones anymore than my budget forces me to.
As an indicator, I'm posting with a PS3 here, hence the trip post. There's a character limit... Sad

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Remind me to not debate you.

Remind me to not debate you. I like my face the way it is....no claws, teeth and nails. But watching a debate of that style...wow...that'd be better than ECW!

Vastet wrote:
As an indicator, I'm posting with a PS3 here, hence the trip post. There's a character limit... Sad
 

Awesomeness...I game...but restrict my choices to the PC.  Playing a game with a controller?!? Why would you want to settle for 20 buttons when you can have 102?

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
For first person shooters or

For first person shooters or MMORPG's, a keyboard is an absolute requirement for true interaction. For puzzles, non-action RPG's, old school 2D platformers, and similar genres it is equal to a good controller. But for todays platformers, sports games, action RPG's, third person shooters, and racing games, a keyboard doesn't compare I'm afraid. Of course, that's why you can get controllers for PC's. Smiling
Still, PC gaming has been too expensive for me for years. I own 4 consoles. Only one died in the amount of time that passes before you need to upgrade: N64(96). My PC(98) stopped being useful for even most flash games by 2003. The PS1(96) I bought only died after 8 or 9 years of constant releases. The PS2(00) I bought on launch still has games coming out for it every year. I fully expect a similar performance from my PS3(09). If I were rich I'd have it all. But I'm not, so I'm going for the greatest value per dollar so I can enjoy the most games. Sony has owned gaming since 1994. So be it. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:For first

Vastet wrote:
For first person shooters or MMORPG's, a keyboard is an absolute requirement for true interaction. For puzzles, non-action RPG's, old school 2D platformers, and similar genres it is equal to a good controller. But for todays platformers, sports games, action RPG's, third person shooters, and racing games, a keyboard doesn't compare I'm afraid. Of course, that's why you can get controllers for PC's. Smiling Still, PC gaming has been too expensive for me for years. I own 4 consoles. Only one died in the amount of time that passes before you need to upgrade: N64(96). My PC(98) stopped being useful for even most flash games by 2003. The PS1(96) I bought only died after 8 or 9 years of constant releases. The PS2(00) I bought on launch still has games coming out for it every year. I fully expect a similar performance from my PS3(09). If I were rich I'd have it all. But I'm not, so I'm going for the greatest value per dollar so I can enjoy the most games. Sony has owned gaming since 1994. So be it. :P

 

Indeed...I suppose old habits die hard. My first platform was a Commodore 64, then  a 128, then my mighty 286....I've never owned a console, believe it or not. But at times, I had many computers. Oh the days of getting picked on because I had no idea who Chun Li and E. Honda were, but I could recite every line from Duke Nulkem 3D. Now, I'm hooked on COD4 & 5 and pining away from Starcraft II...Blizzard just announced that they will not release it until 1Q 2010. Freeze me in a glacier and thaw me out whenever it is ready. Smiling Just don't forget me. I'd hate to wake up in a world were atheists were killing one another.

 

 

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:For first

Vastet wrote:
For first person shooters or MMORPG's, a keyboard is an absolute requirement for true interaction. For puzzles, non-action RPG's, old school 2D platformers, and similar genres it is equal to a good controller. But for todays platformers, sports games, action RPG's, third person shooters, and racing games, a keyboard doesn't compare I'm afraid. Of course, that's why you can get controllers for PC's. Smiling Still, PC gaming has been too expensive for me for years. I own 4 consoles. Only one died in the amount of time that passes before you need to upgrade: N64(96). My PC(98) stopped being useful for even most flash games by 2003. The PS1(96) I bought only died after 8 or 9 years of constant releases. The PS2(00) I bought on launch still has games coming out for it every year. I fully expect a similar performance from my PS3(09). If I were rich I'd have it all. But I'm not, so I'm going for the greatest value per dollar so I can enjoy the most games. Sony has owned gaming since 1994. So be it. :P

As a member of the PC gaming master race I must disagree, there is only one genre that a contoller is better for, that is the random button mushing games, fighting ans sports games. I suppose yes driving games to but those aren't really games are they, you dont call driving to work a game do you? Third person shooters and action rpgs are great on PC, auto lock-on sucks balls, you just cannot beat a mouse.

 

Only plebs cannot afford to join the PC gaming master race , I bought my PC mid way into the PS2's life time, cannot remember exactly when but it still runs all the new releases with ease, wasn't that expensive either, far less than a PS3.  I will say if you just buy your pc in one piece as a complete box instead of buying it in pieces and puting it together yourself you are in for financial pain.

 

Cards on the table I have only owned to 2 consoles in my life, the snes and the PS1. Snes was great but dam did the PS1 suck balls. Put me off consoles for life. There were only 2 games i like on the PS1 FF7 and FF8. Every other game i got on i was a huge disapointment

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 Gaming, for me at least,

 Gaming, for me at least, is always heightened by the social atmosphere. I use to dominate at halo 1 on xbox but the only reason I ever got into it was because of the ease at which you could set up lan parties with friends and not have to worry about upgrades, software/hardware problems, and most important of all a completely even playing field for everyone. Overall they both take time to master. No use arguing over which is better when they're so different.

 

I pretty much stick to my PC now but have no problem going to a console for gaming with friends/gf.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone, nice South

ubuntuAnyone, nice South Park episode. Too bad th Wii wasn't worth it. Sticking out tongue
Tapey, I could launch into a 20 page post about how PC's cost more, have less, and can't compare, with proof to boot, but I don't have a working PC because my PS3 was cheaper than any equivalent PC will be for many many years. I also don't have to become an engineer in order to play a game. Patches are delivered to me, I don't have to hunt them down. And finally, mice suck for gaming. HORRIBLY. Any game other than solitaire anyway. Keyboard alone is better. Mice are JUST as finicky as controllers, and you can turn auto aim off, so no advantage for mice. I would beat you with a controller if you use one. Also... you've obviously never played Burnout, if that's what you think of driving games. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
To bad ps3 cannot conect to

To bad ps3 cannot conect to a pc over the internet, or we could test that. Im sure it wouldn't be as easy as you think  

maybe in canada the PS3 is cheap but here in South Africa it costs 7 grand. That is a crap load of money, sure yes i could get a processer that costs 11 grand alone, but my pc was put together for under 5 grand (screen keybored and mouse not included). I can play Gta4 on full graphics, that a Ps3 game, im not sure if there was a graphical down grade but its the only ps3 game i have on pc. Unless Cod5 is also on the PS3. That also full graphics. Not to mention the games, Ps3 games here cost up to 800 Rand, computer games 450 rand max. Here computers are cheaper. Im sure in a year or to I will need a new PC but even when that happens the games are the killers here not the things you play em on.

 

I haven't played burnout but from what I have heard of it sounds like what happens out side my house every night (extremely annoying) most definately not a game to me

 

Most pc games come with an auto patch function now adays. no advantage there for the consoles crowd.

 

And now your biggest mistake, A mouse is indispensable to any game that involves a gun. First person shooters expessially. way quicker to point at your oppenent. Easier as well to aim at specific body parts. even in non first person shooters, like third person shooters the same aplies. That is why they put auto aim in console games to help aim because a contoller cannot compete with a mouse in any (relavant) fast paced game.

 

 Now in games where no mouse is required (the button mashers) fighting and sports yes a controller is better, but anything with precition a mouse cannot be beaten. I sense we will not agree on this though, il put that down to one of us here having bad taste

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm twice as fast and twice

I'm twice as fast and twice as accurate with a keyboard alone as you'll ever be with a mouse. Never have to stop moving/shooting because you never have to lift it up.
Re: controller vs mouse, I didn't intend to imply it would be easy, but I would win in the end tally more often than not. You get precision with a mouse, but a controller is much faster. Keyboard still > both though.
Re: price... I paid 600 for my PS3. A pc with half the power/features would cost twice that, and be useless in a year. Must be a continental thing.
Edit, spelling/clarity...twice

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm twice as

Vastet wrote:
I'm twice as fast and twice as accurate with a keyboard alone as you'll ever be with a mouse. Never have to stop moving/shooting because you never have to lift it up. Re: controller vs mouse, I didn't intend to imply it would be easy, but I would win in the end tally more often than not. You get precision with a mouse, but a controller is much faster. Keyboard still > both though. Re: price... I paid 600 for my PS3. A pc with half the power/features would cost twice that, and be useless in a year. Must be a continental thing. Edit, spelling/clarity...twice

 

hehe perhaps we should stop hijacking the thread, but one thing I should come clean about. A decent salary in South Africa is 10 grand a month. That is your average not to skilled office worker a couple years into to job. They are both fucking expensive. Its just that not to many PS3 games come into the country so the retailers can basically name there price im sure they do with the console as well if they are legally allowed to. Where as lots of PC stuff comes into the country because they have "work" uses aswell, that would explain the differance.

 

Now back on topic Kent Hovind, The reason is he is loud and sounds good untill you think. Then you realise he is just saying evolution is a lie repeatedly very fast. He takes his oppenents out of context or argues against a position evolutionists dont hold. But the biggest reason is he is popular , he was the first  (famous) creationist i heard of and still the one i hear the most about although that is mainly droping the soap jokes now.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Fuck kent, he doesn't

Fuck kent, he doesn't deserve a thread anyway. Laughing out loud
I would have thought there'd be a huge community of console alteration there to make up for the lack of titles, like China enjoys. Though for anyone in a second or third world nation, I must grant that PC's are the cheaper way to go. You just don't get enough attention from the big names. Sad

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
oh well I tried Na there

oh well I tried

Na there really is nothing going on with consoles atm but I think it is changing more and more people are geting them though so it will get better (mainly the xbox though as it is far cheaper, funny thing i have never even seen a Wii not in a shop or anywhere then again why would i want to ), The PC is where it is all at atm. We just get the short end of the stick, anything that is a luxery really does cost, just not enough people to buy yet. But what really annoys me is the release dates of games, just add a number of months onto any release date for no good reason why don't you

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Won't work for Xbox, and

Won't work for Xbox, and Windows I just don't know (Wii, who cares? lol), but about 99% of PS3 titles are region free. In other words, you can buy the game in Japan, but it'll still work on any PS3 ever made. I'd suggest trying to order online depending on how currency conversions work. But of course, best to know if a game is region free before going that route.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I love my 60GB for backwards

I love my 60GB for backwards compatiablity.

 

 

I think Sony really shit the bed by taking out BC.

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I love

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I love my 60GB for backwards compatiablity.

 

 

I think Sony really shit the bed by taking out BC.

 

 

 

 


Their biggest fuckup since the ps2 hdd. Fortunately they tend to fuck up this badly only twice a decade so far, compared to Nintendo (Hasn't made a gamer friendly choice since the SNES was on the market) and Microsoft (10%+ Failure rate on both XBox & 360, and discontinuing the XBox after 4 short years, making it the only company since Sega to screw their customers so badly, not to mention charging to go online, something that is just a cash grab as Sony has now proven by having a better network that costs customers nothing at all). I don't much like it either, but Sony actually cares. Or at least pretends to. The others don't give a shit.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Now back on

Tapey wrote:

Now back on topic Kent Hovind, The reason is he is loud and sounds good untill you think. Then you realise he is just saying evolution is a lie repeatedly very fast. He takes his oppenents out of context or argues against a position evolutionists dont hold. But the biggest reason is he is popular , he was the first  (famous) creationist i heard of and still the one i hear the most about although that is mainly droping the soap jokes now.

I'm sorry he was the first famous creationist you heard of....and what is an "evolutionist" anyways? Is that a word he made up?

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


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

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Rationality...goodness...there's even debates on how to define what is "rational". My question is, how can one define rationality apart from rationality?

I'm sorry, what? Rationality is pretty simple. If you want to talk in degrees of rationality, that's fine, but what debate would you be talking about? And that bit about defining apart from ... actually, I honestly don't know what you're making reference to. How does one avoid rationality and define anything?

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
But in order to do rational inquiry this, we first have to determine what is and is not rational inquiry. But as I said, that requires rationality. Sounds like a tautology me. Unless of course someone wants to assert something about rationality based on, um...., blind faith?

Honestly, it just seems like you're baiting. Blind faith doesn't describe trusting something that has been tested to work frequently. You might stretch the world "faith" a little, but having tested the tools of rational thought -- like logic -- over and over again, the "faith" that one might have in it's process isn't blind. Quite the opposite: it's informed.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I'd be happy to see folks embrace any type Linux FlavorAids rather than Microsoft and Mac flavored Kool-Aid.

Absolutely. I was showing solidarity flying the colours like that. I likes me some Linux, boy howdy.

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:And when

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
And when a scientist is embarrassingly misinformed about theology, one gets umm....a raving mad man?

 

How exactly can one be "embarrassingly misinformed" about theology? I, personally, am not very informed about centaur physiology, but I wouldn't say I'm embarrassed about it. Same for my Norse mythology. Why would following a stale line of thought from Plato that never seems to end be a requirement?

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I'm





HisWillness wrote:


I'm sorry, what? Rationality is pretty simple. If you want to talk in degrees of rationality, that's fine, but what debate would you be talking about? And that bit about defining apart from ... actually, I honestly don't know what you're making reference to. How does one avoid rationality and define anything?



Tis a reference to the principle of sufficient reason, or an application thereof. The discussion on what is rational and irrational hinges on such things, and there is no consensus. Pick your favorite epistemological school, and therein will be problems.

HisWillness wrote:


Honestly, it just seems like you're baiting. Blind faith doesn't describe trusting something that has been tested to work frequently. You might stretch the world "faith" a little, but having tested the tools of rational thought -- like logic -- over and over again, the "faith" that one might have in it's process isn't blind. Quite the opposite: it's informed.



Dave Barry said, "“The world is full of strange phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of logic or science. Dennis Rodman is only one example.” Many would say, "“The world is full of strange phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of logic or science. (Insert theist's or atheist's name here) is only one example.”

Do this: define logic apart from logic. I suppose one could say, "It just works". But even that assumes some form induction apart from empirical observations. Can my own rational thought processes pass the tests of rationality that I apply on other systems, such as, um, religion? Centaur physiology and other mythological elements aside (which are really subsequent to metaphysical and epistemological assumptions of any given world view) one could ask the question this way: do my own worldview assumptions when they are applied to themselves?

“The world is full of strange phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of logic or science. Dennis Rodman is only one example.”

HisWillness wrote:


Absolutely. I was showing solidarity flying the colours like that. I likes me some Linux, boy howdy.



whoo hoo!

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Tapey

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Now back on topic Kent Hovind, The reason is he is loud and sounds good untill you think. Then you realise he is just saying evolution is a lie repeatedly very fast. He takes his oppenents out of context or argues against a position evolutionists dont hold. But the biggest reason is he is popular , he was the first  (famous) creationist i heard of and still the one i hear the most about although that is mainly droping the soap jokes now.

I'm sorry he was the first famous creationist you heard of....and what is an "evolutionist" anyways? Is that a word he made up?

Very likely, but I wrote that at 2am so no telling what i was thinking

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
And a good gaming discussion

And a good gaming discussion dies. The Panda weeps. Sad

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:And a good

Vastet wrote:
And a good gaming discussion dies. The Panda weeps. Sad

Kent ruins everything doesn't he. Iv got an idea lets have an entire page dedicated to making him look like a jackass... oh wait I think we have found out why everyone has a page on him

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:And a good

Vastet wrote:
And a good gaming discussion dies. The Panda weeps. Sad

Maybe instaed of talking about gaming, we should be gaming . Besides, conversations about kent Hovind get boring after about 5 minutes. Why did I ever bring this up in the first place? Woe is me!

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Vastet

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Vastet wrote:
And a good gaming discussion dies. The Panda weeps. Sad

Maybe instaed of talking about gaming, we should be gaming . Besides, conversations about kent Hovind get boring after about 5 minutes. Why did I ever bring this up in the first place? Woe is me!

 Hehe

 

My gaming mokey will win

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Tis a

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Tis a reference to the principle of sufficient reason, or an application thereof. The discussion on what is rational and irrational hinges on such things, and there is no consensus. Pick your favorite epistemological school, and therein will be problems.

If you're mired in such things, that's fine, but for an actually successful epistemology, we have the empirical method. It works better than any other way we have to test the world around us by far. If all epistemologies were actually equivalent, it would be much harder to determine who to put into an insane asylum.

In reality, however, we rarely have that much trouble determining whether or not someone who claims to be Napoleon actually is.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Do this: define logic apart from logic. I suppose one could say, "It just works". But even that assumes some form induction apart from empirical observations.

Certainly not for those of us who are not professional philosophers. Pragmatism does have its place, here. Mathematics, which is held together by logic, has allowed us to describe much of the mechanics of our world within a very small margin of error. We can acheive statistically good predictions for physical systems. That's what I mean when I say "logic works".

Logic alone, as you say, is ridiculous. To remove it from our world (or, indeed, our brains) would be to enter realms we have no means to discuss. But given that it conforms to so much empirical knowledge, it would seem that it works very, very well.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Can my own rational thought processes pass the tests of rationality that I apply on other systems, such as, um, religion?

That's not a very specific question. Religion is a human behaviour -- that much we can know. Setting aside the ideas anyone may hold that the object of those peoples' attention merits an ontology, we can say merely that people engage in religious behaviour.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Centaur physiology and other mythological elements aside (which are really subsequent to metaphysical and epistemological assumptions of any given world view)

Not within an empirical "worldview". To the empiricist, the way one sees the world can be shattered by evidence.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
one could ask the question this way: do my own worldview assumptions when they are applied to themselves?

I think I understand what you're asking, but you've jumbled the words a bit in there, so I'll attempt to answer the question I think you asked.

You're talking about the basis of logic, which is actually pretty solid, philosophically speaking. Unless you'd like to dissect a particular part of the theory of logic you find lacking, it serves little to throw out baseless questions about personal bias affecting the rules of logic. Especially when logic often helps to rule out bias.

The thing about quoting Dave Barry is that I know you'd like to keep this a light and informal discussion, but mentioning the orphaned and unfortunate field of metaphysics can be a real downer. Metaphysics, that sad serpent eating its own tail, that anemic set of sophomoric riddles -- we can find no satisfaction from turning it on itself like a loaded weapon. The problem, it would seem, is that it is not loaded, as it consistently fires blanks. There are so many more effective ways to hammer out problems -- even philosophical ones -- that attempted metaphysical relativism isn't really an argument, it's more like running away.

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:


Metaphysics, that sad serpent eating its own tail, that anemic set of sophomoric riddles -- we can find no satisfaction from turning it on itself like a loaded weapon.



I suppose I prefer sophomoric riddling over other discussions. I admit that is has little practical value, and to the pragmatists, this whole discussion is a little more (or perhaps even less) than navel gazing. At least with navel gazing I can detect belly button lint. But that aside, I do not think this is a retreat to some sort of metaphysical relativism (actually, it would probably be a retreat to some sort of epistemic relativism) as a way to dodge the real issues. Is writing such things off as sophomoric riddling any less of a dodge? I would not be so quick to write off such discussions because an entire system will rise or fall on such things. In short, if my system is broken, then what it produces is of little value too.

I would certainly agree on the practical value of empirical observation as a way of gaining knowledge, and I doubt that there are many who would contest it. The line in the sand is drawn between those accept empirical observation as a way of gaining knowledge and those who accept empirical observation as the only way of gaining knowledge, namely the empiricists. Now albeit, this is perhaps a hasty generalization, as I realize that there are some middle ground. But even if one concedes some middle ground on the issue, it would make my point. To quote Mr. Pragmatist himself, William James, “To be radical, an empiricism must neither admit into its constructions any element that is not directly experienced, nor exclude from them any element that is directly experienced.”  My concern has to do with the first part of his evaluation. I do not think James was as radical as he is describing, but often times this is the impression I get when dealing with empiricists because they, at least to some degree, do not want to admit that there is even a possibility that they accept something that is not somehow empirically observed.

So in an effort to avoid such admissions, such adherents go to great lengths to verify everything. This inevitably seems to create some sort of circular logic, because inevitably the empiricist is forced to verify empiricism empirically. Consider even your statement, “Logic alone, as you say, is ridiculous. To remove it from our world (or, indeed, our brains) would be to enter realms we have no means to discuss. But given that it conforms to so much empirical knowledge, it would seem that it works very, very well.” Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is validating logic using the logic of empiricism. If this is the case, then is this not using the system to verify the system? But this is not verification, it’s question begging. One may as well assert the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true if we can do this, and I do not think we want to go there. (Bullshido martial artists do this same things. I, the master of kick-butt-fu, certify you as a master of kick-but-fu, and you in turn certify me....) But neither can we say empiricism itself is the only thing that is not empirically verifiable, as that is special pleading. The only option, so it seems, that is left is to accept something that is unverified empirically, but that would violate empiricism, strictly speaking.

Does this discredit empiricism or the empirical method? Absolutely not! As I’ve said, empirical observation is good for obtaining knowledge.  What is need then is perhaps a more holistic epistemology that embraces empirical observation plus something else. What that something else is,…that’s the real question, which brings me back to the OP. The Dawkins quote talked about blind faith being a stumbling block for rational inquiry, but my point was that there are many beliefs that rational inquiry cannot in and of itself verify without creating some sort of circular logic. These beliefs go by many different names such as brute facts, axioms, theorems, properly basic beliefs, among other things. These are statements that are presumed to be true in and of themselves, apart from any sort of justification. This, is not necessarily saying that religious beliefs are among them, but it seems to open the door to at least a possibility of religious beliefs being rational or at least no more irrational than some of beliefs held by those opposed to religion.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:I suppose

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
I suppose I prefer sophomoric riddling over other discussions.

Obviously I do, too, or I wouldn't be here chatting away on the internet. I enjoy picking on metaphysics, though, I admit it. I feel like a teenager's father, frustrated that metaphysics can't just cut its hair and get a real job.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
I do not think this is a retreat to some sort of metaphysical relativism (actually, it would probably be a retreat to some sort of epistemic relativism) as a way to dodge the real issues.

It's a dodge as long as we don't discuss epistemology in a serious way. If we're just going to ask, "yes, but what can we really know?" at every assertion, then you're setting up solipsistic black holes all over the place. A serious attack on empirical evidence would have to acknowledge its successes before spiraling into despair at the unknowable.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
The line in the sand is drawn between those accept empirical observation as a way of gaining knowledge and those who accept empirical observation as the only way of gaining knowledge, namely the empiricists.

Okay, I see what you mean. Here, I think it's safe to say that I'm not a hard-core empiricist. I personally think that repeated testing is the best way to know something, but certainly not the only way. At this point, we'd have to get into the epistemology, and look for ways to describe knowledge, etc.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
often times this is the impression I get when dealing with empiricists because they, at least to some degree, do not want to admit that there is even a possibility that they accept something that is not somehow empirically observed.

That's a fair criticism. The issue of trust definitely plays a part in belief. I wouldn't deny that.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Consider even your statement, “Logic alone, as you say, is ridiculous. To remove it from our world (or, indeed, our brains) would be to enter realms we have no means to discuss. But given that it conforms to so much empirical knowledge, it would seem that it works very, very well.” Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is validating logic using the logic of empiricism.

I see what you mean, but I'm not sure how you would want to validate a logical system. Early logic was, of course, seated in the basics of our physical world. Mathematics involves discerning one thing from another, and determining relationships between the abstractions we create out of that process. Logic functions along the same lines, and by virtue of abstraction, has some well-known limits.

On the other hand, it's no small feat to land something on the moon several times. That's an example of abstraction meeting reality, and consistently. Of course, it doesn't do so absolutely perfectly, and even chaos mathematics hasn't pinned down reality to its final decimal place. But I'm not sure how else you would want to figure stuff out.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
But neither can we say empiricism itself is the only thing that is not empirically verifiable, as that is special pleading. The only option, so it seems, that is left is to accept something that is unverified empirically, but that would violate empiricism, strictly speaking.

Right, and that's not where I would take the discussion, personally. The depth of human experience is ill served by stacking fallacies. Of course, the empirical method has its limits, philosophically speaking. In application, however, it's the most successful epistemology, bar none, and by a large margin. You seem to be ignoring Popper's contribution to the philosophy of the sciences: we don't actually confirm that things are true through the empirical method, we exclude those that are false. In this way, it's probably easier to see how the empirical method isn't as circular as you make it appear.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
This, is not necessarily saying that religious beliefs are among them, but it seems to open the door to at least a possibility of religious beliefs being rational or at least no more irrational than some of beliefs held by those opposed to religion.

You would have no quarrel with me if you were to say that you believe all people carry irrational beliefs. The possibility, however unconfirmable, seems highly likely. The problem with the crux of what you're implying is not just that religious beliefs have some space, but that any irrational belief has space to be defined as rational.

I'll outline my personal objection to gods, as a relevant example of something I hold to be an irrational belief, so that we can make this more direct.

1. Gods never show up. At the very least, we can say they are presently unmeasurable. That is, we must acknowledge that we have no direct knowledge of them;

2. What purported indirect knowledge we have of gods comes from people. Note, then, that the issue of belief is not strictly of gods (of whom we can have no direct knowledge) but whether or not we believe the people who claim to have indirect knowledge of gods;

3. The descriptions of gods we have from people (or from books) are internally incoherent (omnipotence, etc)

4. Sometimes, gods are said to defy description entirely;

From these four points, I would argue that it is irrational to believe the claims of people who say there are gods. The first two are fairly straightforward in describing that, but the last two really hammer home the irrationality.

Given 3, that there is something internally incoherent, then what, exactly is a person asking you to believe? Something that contradicts itself?

Given 4, what does this person believe in at all? What are they trying to convince you to believe in if they can't tell you what it is? Obviously that wouldn't settle the ontology by itself, but "believe in this thing that I can't tell you what it is" is an odd request. It's an irrational request.

Thus, a belief in gods must be irrational.

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


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:And a good

Vastet wrote:
And a good gaming discussion dies. The Panda weeps. Sad

 

OK, you can meet me any time in Steam as Malpine Walis.  Oh wait!11!!!1one!!1!  You don't actually have a computer.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10631
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I do, it's just ancient (win

I do, it's just ancient (win 98). The PS3 browses at least 10 times faster and more effectively, so there's not a lot of point in using the PC. It's not even connected to the net atm. I can't even play Star Craft on it, so it's just collecting dust.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Obviously

HisWillness wrote:

Obviously I do, too, or I wouldn't be here chatting away on the internet. I enjoy picking on metaphysics, though, I admit it. I feel like a teenager's father, frustrated that metaphysics can't just cut its hair and get a real job.


Heh. So THAT's why I'm poor! Shakespeare said in Much Ado About Nothing (an appropriate title for this thread!) "For there was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently" In short, we don't want to actually do any work, We just want to talk about working.

HisWillness wrote:

Early logic was, of course, seated in the basics of our physical world.


Transcendentalists think such things as logic are a priori, as we need logic abstract logic from the world. I have some sympathies towards Transcendentalism for this reason.

HisWillness wrote:

If we're just going to ask, "yes, but what can we really know?" at every assertion, then you're setting up solipsistic black holes all over the place. A serious attack on empirical evidence would have to acknowledge its successes before spiraling into despair at the unknowable.


I suppose if I went to extremes, I would be solipsistic, but I do acknowledge the value of empirical observation. For this reason, I'm not quick to write it off. But at the same time, in and of itself empiricism does not seem to be a holistic epistemology and I think there is a need for something else. But as I've mentioned, that "something else" has its own set of problems, one of which you rightfully noted, "that any irrational belief has space to be defined as rational." Gettier pointed this out in his famous paper.

HisWillness wrote:

You seem to be ignoring Popper's contribution to the philosophy of the sciences: we don't actually confirm that things are true through the empirical method, we exclude those that are false.


One of the criticisms of Popper was that his philosophy of  science did not produce new hypothesis but rather discredited old ones. For this reason, much of science today still follows traditional empirical induction rather than Popperian deduction. Popper was distrustful of induction as it is not considered to be as strong as deduction. This is not to say that Popper did not have a point, and I think that most including myself would agree that a theory should have a mechanism to falsify it, but they continue to use traditional empirical induction to make new hypotheses in spite of Popper's proposals.

I've asked atheists and theists alike that claim their beliefs are empirically justified to explain how they "test" the existence of a god. Furthermore, I've asked them if the test confirmed or denied the existence of a god, then would they be willing to change their beliefs. In response to these prompts, the most common response, so it seems, is they ask me to define the test. I then point out that although they may think they are holding beliefs empirically, they are not unless they can produce some objective method to test their beliefs. I use this exercise to expose the fact that many people change the test rather than change their beliefs, and are not really as empirical as they claim to be.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”