# How do you tell the difference?

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
How do you tell the difference?

I've seen the notion that some Theists don't actually believe and are 'culture Theists' or 'believe in a belief' or something similar.

So how do you tell the difference between these and the Theists that actually believe?

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
Kay Cat wrote:as a member of

Kay Cat wrote:

as a member of the audience; it helps us understand some peoples motivations and motives that we wouldn't comprehend otherwise.

Really now? All you have is Hamby's pop psyc analysis.  What could that possibly say about my motivations or me in general?

All he did was list off possible things he probably pulled out of his ass.

I AM GOD AS YOU
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
Offline
.... a screamer in denial

.... a screamer in denial ?

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline
Pulling from the other

Pulling from the other thread -- cause it was my fault for confusing threads -- I've mentioned this to you before, Pineapple.  I know you have problems expressing yourself.  Look at it from my position, though.  If you don't express yourself well, I can't know what you mean.  My choices are to guess or to press you.  You get pissed when people press you, and then you get sarcastic.  When people guess wrong, you get snippy and defensive.

Again, I have two choices.  I can let you continue getting pissed when other people do one of the only two things you've allowed them to do, or I can try to motivate you into expressing yourself better.

The best way for me to help you express yourself better is to show you how you've expressed yourself poorly and then ask you very specific questions that avoid as much potential confusion as possible.  Of course, you get snippy with me when I do that, maybe because you think I'm trying to trap you or something.

You see what happens?  You are forcing people into making you defensive and snippy.  You give them no choice.  Your introversion is a self-sustaining cycle, where you create what you fear.

Damn... pop psychology is a bitch, isn't it?

Then again, I'm probably just pulling all of this out of my ass, right?  None of it applies to you, cause that's not what you were saying earlier... you were saying something else... only you were joking

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

Kay Cat
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
Offline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Kay Cat

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Kay Cat wrote:

as a member of the audience; it helps us understand some peoples motivations and motives that we wouldn't comprehend otherwise.

Really now? All you have is Hamby's pop psyc analysis.  What could that possibly say about my motivations or me in general?

All he did was list off possible things he probably pulled out of his ass.

demonstrable facts aren't just pulled out of rectums, pineapple. Hamby has consistently provided evidence of his positions, including bibliographies. Stop derailing the topics you bring up when you get uncomfortable about them. I know a tease when I see one, as I was one myself.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
You want honesty Hamby? I

You want honesty Hamby?

I was one click away from telling you to go suck a cock, when I saw this.

Hambydammit wrote:

maybe because you think I'm trying to trap you or something.

That's pretty much it. By being direct, I think you're just trying to get more out of me. I honestly believed you would post on the mod forum, or some other site 'Hey, check out what Pineapple said this time!'

If you think I'm 'snippy' on the internet, you haven't seen me in real life.

The reason I'm not in complete bitch mode here is that it's impersonal.Nobody knows who I am.

Which brings me to this:

Quote:

Maybe it's because you've seen me interact with other people on cam and know that I am very respectful of other people but also very direct,

I didn't watch the whole thing. I only saw you for like five seconds. I can assure you if you said all this when you were on cam, it would not have been pleasent. I don't like being able to put a face to a post, then I would picture you at your computer snickering at me.

I was actually hesitent to post all this. Because truth be told I think you're a snob that gets his jollies by analyzing people on the net and it's an ego boost even if you're even remotely accurate. You're wrong about my percieved gender/age bias.

PorkChop
Posts: 154
Joined: 2008-06-26
Offline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

...truth be told I think you're a snob that gets his jollies by analyzing people on the net and it's an ego boost even if you're even remotely accurate. You're wrong about my percieved gender/age bias.

I'm so sure that is how Hamby gets his jollies!  Please don't flatter yourself, Pineapple.  He seems to be quite the straight shooter that calls it like it is.  Just relax, child.  Nobody here is trying to hurt you...they just don't like time-squandering games.

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline
Quote:That's pretty much it.

Quote:
That's pretty much it. By being direct, I think you're just trying to get more out of me. I honestly believed you would post on the mod forum, or some other site 'Hey, check out what Pineapple said this time!'

That's odd.  I wonder where you got the idea that I do that sort of thing, or that I would enjoy it, for that matter.  Considering the fact that I've mentioned you maybe once in the mod forums... ever... and that I pretty much only post about mod stuff, it seems you must have gotten this idea from somewhere else.  Weren't we talking about your own insecurities a minute ago?  I wonder if they might have something to do with it...

Quote:
If you think I'm 'snippy' on the internet, you haven't seen me in real life.

I'll take a miss on this one, if it's ok.

Quote:
I didn't watch the whole thing. I only saw you for like five seconds. I can assure you if you said all this when you were on cam, it would not have been pleasent. I don't like being able to put a face to a post, then I would picture you at your computer snickering at me.

It's a shame you feel that way.  Maybe one day you'll realize that not everyone hides their feelings as much as you do.  Whatever I have felt about your posts, I've printed for your knowledge, if not benefit.

Quote:
I was actually hesitent to post all this. Because truth be told I think you're a snob that gets his jollies by analyzing people on the net and it's an ego boost even if you're even remotely accurate. You're wrong about my percieved gender/age bias.

I imagine you were.  It's the closest you've been to open in a long time.  It's also not very open, and it doesn't even address anything I said.

Imagine that.

I'm not here to try to fix you or laugh at you, Pineapple.  I'm here to moderate a message board and to have conversations.  Conversations with you are very difficult because you never say what you feel in a clear manner.  I point that out because I don't like dancing around issues or playing guessing games.

Out of curiosity, while we're talking about clearly expressing oneself, would you care to go back to the post you were quoting and notice all the maybe's I wrote?  As in... possibly?  Like I said, if the shoe fits, wear it.  If not, that's why I used the word, maybe.

Feel free to tell me to suck a cock if it makes you happy.  You don't get special dispensation from me.  If you're unclear, I'm going to tell you so.  That goes for anyone and everyone on the board.

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

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline
Oops... forgot my main

Oops... forgot my main point...

So, Pineapple, do you have any comment on the dilemma I have accused you of creating for yourself?  You force people to guess what you mean, then you get mad at them for either being wrong or pressing you into being more clear.

Can you understand how that could happen?

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

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
Hambydammit wrote:I imagine

Hambydammit wrote:

I imagine you were.  It's the closest you've been to open in a long time.  It's also not very open, and it doesn't even address anything I said.

Imagine that.

Okay now you can just outright go and fuck yourself. I explained the reason I gave snippy responses because I thought you were probing me, and believe me, you're not really giving the impression you don't do/enjoy what I accuse you of doing. Are you going to PM your buddies, get them in on this too?

You were bitching about why I give snippy responses, this is why.

So either:

1) You have the mental capacity of a 5 year old and couldn't put together my post with why I give snippy responses and avoid issues

or

2) You actually are trying to get a rise out of me.

or

3) It doesn't go with why you thought I gave the responses so now you're trying to get a moral victory by probing me into getting to say anything that remotely indicates you were right.

Let me make this abundently clear:

I put up with this shit for a year and I think it's 2).

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline
So you're saying you're not

So you're saying you're not going to address my actual questions to you.  Ok.

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

PorkChop
Posts: 154
Joined: 2008-06-26
Offline

Please see post #56...and maybe pull out whatever has crawled up your butt?

I AM GOD AS YOU
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
Offline
Girls are too often shy

Girls are too often shy about their dildo love , free them .... go go dildos .... why deny the girls ???  Set them girls free and they will come back to us boys  ..... screaming Yeah .....

Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
Offline
Quote:I'm so sure that is

Quote:
I'm so sure that is how Hamby gets his jollies!  Please don't flatter yourself, Pineapple.  He seems to be quite the straight shooter that calls it like it is.  Just relax, child.  Nobody here is trying to hurt you...they just don't like time-squandering games.

No one here, on this entire forum, has shown himself or herself to be a straight shooter.   You know how I can say that? Because its a statement of perception, my perception.  In the same way that you perceive Hamby to be a straight shooter, I do not.  Who is more right?

And I don't mean to discredit Hamby, or anyone else on this forum, I have rarely met a "straight shooter."  IMO, we all have things we "are straight" about.. and other things that we are not.

I AM GOD AS YOU
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
Offline
I am go as you ..... what

I am god as you ..... what ain't god ????

BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
Offline
Thomathy wrote:BMcD

Thomathy wrote:

BMcD wrote:
This is actually a concept that I've found I have to explain to a lot of women... and that's not saying ANYTHING against women... but while we all have a lot of behaviors we do without thinking about it, this is something that's more true of men than of women: We don't think.

When you ask a man 'What are you thinking?' and he just looks at you for a moment? We're not thinking. Man is capable of long-term planning and rational thought. We are capable of careful, meticulous study. But 99% of the time, men especially, we're on autopilot. We're not thinking. We're just acting, or reacting. We're just completely 'in the moment' without even thinking about it.

I know this is a wierd place to be saying this, but ladies, when we seem to be acting like obtuse fools just to piss you off? We're just obtuse fools. Men are dogs. Really, we're very simple creatures. As I said, we may have plans, we may have interests, we may have devoted fields of study, but outside of the things we have consciously chosen to bend out intellects to, here is what goes on in a man's brain:

Man's Brain wrote:
We're just dogs. We want something to eat, someplace to sleep, and a leg to hump every now and again, and we're happy.

Speak for yourself.  I won't be included in a generalization of men whereby I am compared to an animal completely driven by instinctual urges.  It's insulting, frankly, to hear a man proudly exclaim that he does not have anything going on in his brain at any given moment when his consciousness is not bent to a particular task.  I am ever thinking and I very much doubt that I am the exception to the rule.  Your generalization is rooted, apparently, in some masculine, machismo and heterosexual stereotype and should be kept to yourself or at least applied only to yourself.  Perhaps you meant to be writing in the first person and not using any pronoun but 'I' and certainly not the words 'men' and 'man'?  It doesn't help that you're just plain wrong, either.

Proudly? Who said anything about being proud of it? Every man I've known, gay and straight, has existed on autopilot for a much larger percentage of his time than the women around him. Most people do it to some degree, but I've found that women tend to be far more likely to be mentally reviewing their 'to-do' list in their heads whenever they're not focusing on something specific. Men, on the other hand, tend to lapse into a 'ready standby'. That's been the case with every man I've ever known, from military personnel to college kids to multi-millionaires who owned their own businesses, to a freelance tech writer I know who's usually got upwards of two dozen projects he's working on on any given day. We're capable of thought, and we do it quite well when we need to, but it's not the 'at rest' state.

Don't think you do it? Do you drive? When you drive, are you actively scanning every inch of your surroundings? Are you preoccupying your brain with all of the minutiae of you latest checklist? Safe drivers are doing neither: they're aware of their surroundings in a passive way, paying attention to the road without obsessing over any particular detail. Attempting to consciously look for as much detail as you'll take in passively means you'll miss something. Occupying your brain with trivial details about anything other than 'I am the guidance system for a 3,000 lb projectile full of gasoline' is even more dangerous.

If you really think you don't spend the majority of your mental 'at rest' state in a passive, reactive mode w/out active thought, then you should probably spend some of those excessive thought cycles and re-evaluate that presumption.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid

magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
Offline
BMcD wrote:Thomathy

BMcD wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

BMcD wrote:
This is actually a concept that I've found I have to explain to a lot of women... and that's not saying ANYTHING against women... but while we all have a lot of behaviors we do without thinking about it, this is something that's more true of men than of women: We don't think.

When you ask a man 'What are you thinking?' and he just looks at you for a moment? We're not thinking. Man is capable of long-term planning and rational thought. We are capable of careful, meticulous study. But 99% of the time, men especially, we're on autopilot. We're not thinking. We're just acting, or reacting. We're just completely 'in the moment' without even thinking about it.

I know this is a wierd place to be saying this, but ladies, when we seem to be acting like obtuse fools just to piss you off? We're just obtuse fools. Men are dogs. Really, we're very simple creatures. As I said, we may have plans, we may have interests, we may have devoted fields of study, but outside of the things we have consciously chosen to bend out intellects to, here is what goes on in a man's brain:

Man's Brain wrote:
We're just dogs. We want something to eat, someplace to sleep, and a leg to hump every now and again, and we're happy.

Speak for yourself.  I won't be included in a generalization of men whereby I am compared to an animal completely driven by instinctual urges.  It's insulting, frankly, to hear a man proudly exclaim that he does not have anything going on in his brain at any given moment when his consciousness is not bent to a particular task.  I am ever thinking and I very much doubt that I am the exception to the rule.  Your generalization is rooted, apparently, in some masculine, machismo and heterosexual stereotype and should be kept to yourself or at least applied only to yourself.  Perhaps you meant to be writing in the first person and not using any pronoun but 'I' and certainly not the words 'men' and 'man'?  It doesn't help that you're just plain wrong, either.

Proudly? Who said anything about being proud of it? Every man I've known, gay and straight, has existed on autopilot for a much larger percentage of his time than the women around him. Most people do it to some degree, but I've found that women tend to be far more likely to be mentally reviewing their 'to-do' list in their heads whenever they're not focusing on something specific. Men, on the other hand, tend to lapse into a 'ready standby'. That's been the case with every man I've ever known, from military personnel to college kids to multi-millionaires who owned their own businesses, to a freelance tech writer I know who's usually got upwards of two dozen projects he's working on on any given day. We're capable of thought, and we do it quite well when we need to, but it's not the 'at rest' state.

Don't think you do it? Do you drive? When you drive, are you actively scanning every inch of your surroundings? Are you preoccupying your brain with all of the minutiae of you latest checklist? Safe drivers are doing neither: they're aware of their surroundings in a passive way, paying attention to the road without obsessing over any particular detail. Attempting to consciously look for as much detail as you'll take in passively means you'll miss something. Occupying your brain with trivial details about anything other than 'I am the guidance system for a 3,000 lb projectile full of gasoline' is even more dangerous.

If you really think you don't spend the majority of your mental 'at rest' state in a passive, reactive mode w/out active thought, then you should probably spend some of those excessive thought cycles and re-evaluate that presumption.

Gotta go with Thomathy on this one. This is a caricature of the "black people drive like this, white people drive like this" variety. While I recognize that women have gotten a raw deal in many societies, including my own, I'm not ready to abdicate depth and complexity as a consolation prize. Those things just aren't divided along gender lines. Either sex is capable of encompassing a variety of personalities, from the very deep, to the very, very stupid and shallow (I can name an example of the latter in each sex, in a recent thread, but I won't).

HisWillness
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
Offline

IMO, we all have things we "are straight" about.. and other things that we are not.

If you're coming out of the closet here ... well, this is awkward.

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

HisWillness
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
Offline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:So

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So either:

1) You have the mental capacity of a 5 year old and couldn't put together my post with why I give snippy responses and avoid issues

or

2) You actually are trying to get a rise out of me.

or

3) It doesn't go with why you thought I gave the responses so now you're trying to get a moral victory by probing me into getting to say anything that remotely indicates you were right.

I can't speak for Hamby, but the reason I pointed out your behaviour to you is that I think you should be aware of it in case it ever causes you difficulty and you want to deal with it. There's no personal victory in empathizing with someone I'll never meet. I told you I understand because I do, not because I think it'll score points with someone.

As far as I'm concerned, if you just let go and be bitchy, it would be a bit of a relief. You may also find that you're really not that bitchy.

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

Thomathy
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
Offline
BMcD wrote:Proudly? Who said

BMcD wrote:
Proudly? Who said anything about being proud of it? Every man I've known, gay and straight, has existed on autopilot for a much larger percentage of his time than the women around him. Most people do it to some degree, but I've found that women tend to be far more likely to be mentally reviewing their 'to-do' list in their heads whenever they're not focusing on something specific. Men, on the other hand, tend to lapse into a 'ready standby'. That's been the case with every man I've ever known, from military personnel to college kids to multi-millionaires who owned their own businesses, to a freelance tech writer I know who's usually got upwards of two dozen projects he's working on on any given day. We're capable of thought, and we do it quite well when we need to, but it's not the 'at rest' state.

Don't think you do it? Do you drive? When you drive, are you actively scanning every inch of your surroundings? Are you preoccupying your brain with all of the minutiae of you latest checklist? Safe drivers are doing neither: they're aware of their surroundings in a passive way, paying attention to the road without obsessing over any particular detail. Attempting to consciously look for as much detail as you'll take in passively means you'll miss something. Occupying your brain with trivial details about anything other than 'I am the guidance system for a 3,000 lb projectile full of gasoline' is even more dangerous.

If you really think you don't spend the majority of your mental 'at rest' state in a passive, reactive mode w/out active thought, then you should probably spend some of those excessive thought cycles and re-evaluate that presumption.

Fine, you're not proud of it.  I don't do it.  I don't drive.  Even if I did drive, it would mean nothing. Any 'safe' driver is hopefully paying attention to the road, male or female and judging by accident rates males are less safe drivers.  You can drop the stereotyping whenever you want.

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."

Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
Offline
Quote:If you're coming out

Quote:
If you're coming out of the closet here ... well, this is awkward.

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline
Quote:I can't speak for

Quote:
I can't speak for Hamby, but the reason I pointed out your behaviour to you is that I think you should be aware of it in case it ever causes you difficulty and you want to deal with it. There's no personal victory in empathizing with someone I'll never meet. I told you I understand because I do, not because I think it'll score points with someone.

I've already said why I brought up Pineapple's evasiveness.  It's better for everyone on the boards if posts are clearly articulated and convey their meaning as accurately as possible.  Out of all the posters in this thread, there's one who's having particular trouble saying things clearly.  That's Pineapple.  It's also a bit of a problem, since it's her thread.

In general, I think the world would be a better place if everyone learned to articulate themselves more clearly, and particularly, to think about definitions more carefully.  To that end, I put criticisms of clarity in print.  If the criticisms don't help the poster, that's sad, but there are people reading who might see and learn something about themselves.  Call it high and mighty if you like, but humans improve themselves by interacting with others, and this is a public forum.

When deludedgod tells me that I've got something wrong about genetics, I listen.  Ninety nine out of a hundred times, I defer to his superior knowledge on the subject.  If Matt Ridley wants to jump in here and call me out on a point of Evolutionary Psychology, I'll listen.  That's what public forums are for, right?  The edification of all involved?  If anyone has any problem with me calling someone out on a point of clarity in writing, I'll ask you to please give me samples of your editing, because I can always use help becoming a better writer.

So to anyone questioning my motivations for hounding Pineapple (Yes, I mean you, Rhad), those are my motivations.

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

Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
Offline
Quote:So to anyone

Quote:
So to anyone questioning my motivations for hounding Pineapple (Yes, I mean you, Rhad), those are my motivations.

I always question the motivations--I question my own motivations--so, don't take to much from any supposed questioning of your motivations.  And if I seemed to have implied that you had some "not praise worthy" motivation, I apologize, that was not my intent.

I meant merely to share my general stance which is that "I will not believe a person is a straight shooter until they prove otherwise"--without qualification as to "straight shooter in what," its a difficult thing to "prove" to me because there are so many areas in ones life that I am not privy to.

Quote:
And I don't mean to discredit Hamby, or anyone else on this forum, I have rarely met a "straight shooter."  IMO, we all have things we "are straight" about.. and other things that we are not.

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline

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

Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
Offline

Quote:

Ah.. well then I was just responding to your answer.  Just to make sure there were no misunderstandings.

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline
(By the way, I appreciated

(By the way, I appreciated the humor in your post declaring that you would declare humor since nobody gets your humor...)

Again, just to be crystal clear, since I like that sort of thing, I was responding to Will's post, but I wanted you to notice it, since you had questioned my motivations.  Will didn't question them.  He just said he wouldn't speak for me.

When I mentioned people getting upset with me for presuming to be an authority on clarity of writing, I was speaking generally because that's the reaction I predicted some people would have.

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

Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
Offline
Quote:(By the way, I

Quote:

(By the way, I appreciated the humor in your post declaring that you would declare humor since nobody gets your humor...)

(Heh.  Thanks)

Quote:
Again, just to be crystal clear, since I like that sort of thing, I was responding to Will's post, but I wanted you to notice it, since you had questioned my motivations.  Will didn't question them.  He just said he wouldn't speak for me.

When I mentioned people getting upset with me for presuming to be an authority on clarity of writing, I was speaking generally because that's the reaction I predicted some people would have.

Clear as crystal.

(Just to share my opinion, I never thought you thought of yourself as the authority on clarify of writing (although there are some people on this forum that I do believe think of themselves as such)

[EDIT: Just to be a dick, I will point out that your previous statement should read thusly:  (Just to share my opinion, I never thought you thought of yourself as the authority on clarify of writing (although there are some people on this forum that I do believe think of themselves as such).)

As you can see, I have corrected your parenthetical deficiency, and have added punctuation outside of the contained parenthetical but inside the first.  Please take care to monitor your writing more carefully in the future.  -HD]

((I really need to spend less time on this forum and more time writing my paper.))

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline
(((clearly)))

(((clearly)))

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

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
First I'm skeptical (By

First I'm skeptical (By 'skeptical' I mean I think it's bullshit.) of Hamby only posting to get me to write more clearly. Mainly because of his audience comment. If he was trying to get me write more clearly, why would he 'do it for the audience'? He's using me as his personal psychological guenne pig.

Even when I want to be clear, I can't and it has nothing to Theism/atheism.

I can't write clearly, and I've had this problem as long as I can remember. You should see the comments on my essays in High School.

Frankly I'm surprised Hamby didn't pick up on this ealier.  He was probably took a few psych classes between his music degree and thinks he can get a case study of Theists.

PorkChop
Posts: 154
Joined: 2008-06-26
Offline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:First

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

First I'm skeptical (By 'skeptical' I mean I think it's bullshit.) of Hamby only posting to get me to write more clearly. Mainly because of his audience comment. If he was trying to get me write more clearly, why would he 'do it for the audience'? He's using me as his personal psychological guenne pig.

"Audience" doesn't always mean "folks to entertain".  I believe, in this realm, it means the folks that come here to learn and discuss.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Even when I want to be clear, I can't and it has nothing to Theism/atheism.

I can't write clearly, and I've had this problem as long as I can remember. You should see the comments on my essays in High School.

Can't never could.  Clarity is achieved with proper definition and usage of words.  It is easier to do if you sit and ponder a moment.  Generally, flying off the handle just because you are pissed leads to more confusion.  Just a thought.

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline
Done speaking directly to

Done speaking directly to me, are you?

Quote:
First I'm skeptical (By 'skeptical' I mean I think it's bullshit.) of Hamby only posting to get me to write more clearly.  (Emphasis mine - HD)

Hambydammit wrote:
If the criticisms don't help the poster, that's sad, but there are people reading who might see and learn something about themselves.

Do you see how you took me out of context?  I didn't say that I only posted to get you to write more clearly.  In fact, I specifically mentioned that seeing your problems with expression might benefit readers.  That, Pineapple, is a dual purpose, and it's what I've said not only in this thread, but in many other discussions with other posters.  This is a public forum, and I always consider it as much or more for the readers than the posters.  For every poster, there are at least a hundred lurkers.  Do you see how you've decided what I mean, and the content of my words don't even register with you at this point?

Quote:
Mainly because of his audience comment. If he was trying to get me write more clearly, why would he 'do it for the audience'?

I'm not trying to be mean, but look at what I just posted.  I already addressed this directly, and you missed it or ignored it.  You're caught in a false dichotomy.  Either I'm totally out to get you, or I'm lying.  At some point, you should stop and ask yourself why I would be picking on you personally when I have never shown any signs of blatantly harassing anyone else for the sake of harassment.  This is the second or third time you've given yourself way too much significance.  It would do you a lot of good to back up a step or two and realize that you're the person who is most interested in yourself in this conversation.

Quote:
He's using me as his personal psychological guenne pig.

Not exactly.  I'm conversing with you, and recognizing the potential benefit for readers.  As you well know, Pineapple, my main emphasis here is not bashing theism, but promoting science and critical thinking.  You're not thinking very critically right now, and I'm emphasizing that point.  With luck, some of the readers will notice your patterns in themselves.  With more luck, they will not feel personally threatened (as you do now) and will be able to examine their own patterns more objectively.  With even more luck, they might avoid reacting so emotionally as to prevent themselves from thinking critically in the future, and this whole conversation will have been successful for someone.

(As it turns out, one woman has already PM'd me to tell me that she recognized herself in your patterns, and that it was odd how easy the patterns are to see in other people, and how hard they are to see in yourself when they're happening.  So, Pineapple, you can be happy that someone actually IS benefiting.)

Quote:
Even when I want to be clear, I can't and it has nothing to Theism/atheism.

I've always been pretty good at expressing myself, but I'm worlds better now than I was in college.  I've been practicing and learning from other people for many years now.  I've had some people offer some very harsh criticism, and sometimes its made me very mad, but when I calmed down, I was able to examine the criticism more objectively.  Often, it was well founded.

Perhaps you will never be great at expressing yourself, but if you just lash out at people who are trying to help you, it's unlikely you'll get any better.  Honestly, Pineapple, are you going to be the laughing stock of your whole family if you take some constructive criticism from some guy on a web forum?  Clearly not.  You admit that you are bad at expressing yourself, yet when you are given the opportunity to answer clearly, you do not even try.  Instead, you lash out at the person who is showing you where you are being unclear, and trying to give you simple, unequivocal questions to help you express yourself better.

Quote:
He was probably took a few psych classes between his music degree and thinks he can get a case study of Theists.

Impugning my education, eh?  I'm sure nobody will notice that this doesn't address anything that I've said to you.   Attack the person.  Isn't there a name for that?

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

Kevin R Brown
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
Offline
Quote:Even when I want to be

Quote:

Even when I want to be clear, I can't and it has nothing to Theism/atheism.

I can't write clearly, and I've had this problem as long as I can remember. You should see the comments on my essays in High School.

...And yet you also take advanced physics courses?

Cap'n, frankly, it doesn't matter what (say) Hamby does or doesn't say about you. Personally, I'm highly dubious that someone so busy running their restaurant, moderating a busy forum, catching-up on the latest in evolutionary psychology literature and writing their own book has much time to waste on poking fun of some barely literate theist they've never met.

I don't suppose you're familiar with the term 'projecting'?

You are a case study for internal inconsistency, like it or not. 'I'm a man... but surprise, I'm also a girl, despite what you alleged rationalists happened to think, with your pathetic 'evidence'!' 'I'm a poor victim with learning disabilities and an inability to express or interpret language properly... but surprise, I'm also a huge, roaring bitch who is a grade A physics student at a credible university... and surprise again, I'm also a flirtatious cutesy girl who has the hawts for Hamby!'

You're a joke. You're someone to be laughed at, and rightly ridiculed (given that your persona is so ridiculous. See: clowns). Your dishonesty is so flagrant and obvious that the only thing I'm ever left wondering is why a person like Hamby would bother trying to reason with you in the first place (aside from perhaps whatever little amusement might come from it).

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
Kevin R Brown wrote:...And

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...And yet you also take advanced physics courses?

You don't write essays in physics course dipshit.

Have you've seen a physics/math exam? They're mostly calculations which I can do very well.

Quote:

Cap'n, frankly, it doesn't matter what (say) Hamby does or doesn't say about you. Personally, I'm highly dubious that someone so busy running their restaurant, moderating a busy forum, catching-up on the latest in evolutionary psychology literature and writing their own book has much time to waste on poking fun of some barely literate theist they've never met.

I don't suppose you're familiar with the term 'projecting'?

I don't laugh and talk trash about at people behind their back,  Kev, so no it's not projection.

Quote:

You are a case study for internal inconsistency, like it or not. 'I'm a man... but surprise, I'm also a girl, despite what you alleged rationalists happened to think, with your pathetic 'evidence'!' 'I'm a poor victim with learning disabilities and an inability to express or interpret language properly... but surprise, I'm also a huge, roaring bitch who is a grade A physics student at a credible university... and surprise again, I'm also a flirtatious cutesy girl who has the hawts for Hamby!'

I never said I was an 'A' student.

I know why you think I'm a guy: because I actually acknowledge your presence.

Fuck off you little dweeb.

There, is that more like how girls talk to you Kev?

Kevin R Brown
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
Offline
Look, more snide remakrs in

Look, more snide remarks in lieu of any counter-arguments or counter-evidence.

Big surprise.

PorkChop
Posts: 154
Joined: 2008-06-26
Offline
If you can't stand the

If you can't stand the truth, Cpt, get out of the kitchen

Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
Offline
Quote:Cap'n, frankly, it

Quote:
Cap'n, frankly, it doesn't matter what (say) Hamby does or doesn't say about you. Personally, I'm highly dubious that someone so busy running their restaurant, moderating a busy forum, catching-up on the latest in evolutionary psychology literature and writing their own book has much time to waste on poking fun of some barely literate theist they've never met.

I don't suppose you're familiar with the term 'projecting'? . . .

You're a joke. You're someone to be laughed at, and rightly ridiculed (given that your persona is so ridiculous. See: clowns). Your dishonesty is so flagrant and obvious that the only thing I'm ever left wondering is why a person like Hamby would bother trying to reason with you in the first place (aside from perhaps whatever little amusement might come from it).

See.. here it is again Kev.

Based upon your last few posts in http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14790 thread, I had thought that you had changed your ways after you had been made to look foolish.  Based upon the fact that you were clearly shown to be wrong on numerous points, I would think that a change would have been necessitated for anyone who is even in the least intellectually honest.

But it appears I was wrong.. either that or you are not, even in the least, intellectually honest.

You are being, by far, the most hypocritical person on this forum.

Kevin R Brown
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
Offline
Quote: know why you think

Quote:
know why you think I'm a guy: because I actually acknowledge your presence.

[sarcasm]

Right, it has nothing to do with the fact you've referred to yourself as a male in the past here, or the fact that you played a game in your 'Guess my gender' thread where you waited until people weighed-on on their guess, and then posted the opposite of what the majority consensus was.

[/sarcasm]

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940

Kevin R Brown
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
Offline
Quote:You are being, by far,

Quote:

You are being, by far, the most hypocritical person on this forum.

That's a ponderous charge. Please; do explain.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940

ProzacDeathWish
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
Offline
Holy fucking shit. Capt

Holy fucking shit.   Capt apparently being on this atheist forum just irritates the hell out of you.  You play mind games and you're a drama queen.  You may pretend to be demure but then out of the blue, you just start shit with who ever is the focus of your rage.

I mean really, if we piss you off so much why don't you just go visit a theist forum and be with your own kind ?   Shit, as an atheist and I can assure that I never  spend time on Christian / Theist message boards so I wonder why the hell you're still here bitching at the atheists you apparently despise.  What's the fucking attraction here ?   You just like to vent you're rage ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Holy

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Holy fucking shit.   Capt apparently being on this atheist forum just irritates the hell out of you.  You play mind games and you're a drama queen.  You may pretend to be demure but then out of the blue, you just start shit with who ever is the focus of your rage.

I mean really, if we piss you off so much why don't you just go visit a theist forum and be with your own kind ?   Shit, as an atheist and I can assure that I never  spend time on Christian / Theist message boards so I wonder why the hell you're still here bitching at the atheists you apparently despise.  What's the fucking attraction here ?   You just like to vent you're rage ?

It has nothing to do with them being atheists. It's all about them being arrogant snobs.

But hey at least Kev is honest about not liking me unlike the others.

'errr yeah Cpt, we're just trying to help you, we're not laughing at you (snicker..)'

ProzacDeathWish
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
Offline
Believe me, I am guilty of

Believe me, I am guilty of getting into flame wars.  My emotions are very volatile and I'm prone to over-react.   That's why I try ( most times ) to monitor myself to prevent conflict.

Dear Capt,  I respect your intellect as it far exceeds my own.  Your emotions are what creates a barrier on the forum, though.  I'm sorry for being so overtly in your face with my previous post.   It's just my attempt through cyber space to grab you by your shoulders and tell you to snap out of it.  Consider it an attempt at constructive criticism that was partly fueled by excessive caffeine consumption.

Peace !

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
Offline
Quote:That's a ponderous

Quote:

That's a ponderous charge. Please; do explain.

I have.. a few times before.  Everyone else forgive me for plugging something in here from another thread.. but here it goes (so not to be accused of taking things out of context, in case anyone is actually interested, here is the full thread, again http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14790):

While I begin this post off with responding to a response to BMCD, I will get back to my own posts in a second.  All presumptions as to what BMCD meant (the ones implicit in the responses I give) are what I think he meant based upon what he said and based upon where this thread started off.  With that, I continue:

You:
Quote:
There's that 'proof' word again. Expect we're dealing with evidence, not proof. Allow me to highlight something for you, since apparently you need to be spoonfed your data:

No.. "we" WERE dealing with proof.

Me:
Quote:
The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Proof is what is needed to make an absolute statement, such as you did when you said "I am absolutely sure God does not exist."

proof     Audio Help   /pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

Evidence, is merely the stuff used to support a point, or "tends to prove or disprove."

ev·i·dence     Audio Help   /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1.    that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof (being used in the colloquial sense, I believe.. perhaps even definition 2 of "proof"--certainly not in the sense we are using the word "proof" now.. which is, "evidence sufficient to support an absolute statement"--granted, you may make the argument that proof and evidence are interchangeable.  But based upon earlier statements, where you said that "proof" is only a mathematical term, I don't think this is what you intended).

Sufficient evidence (even in consideration of counter-evidence) = proof.  If you have mere "evidence," then you have no basis for making an absolute statement upon that basis of "mere evidence". Unless you have established that the evidence is "strong enough in consideration of all other available evidence that it tends to lead to a certainty of fact" or "proof."

Which is why I first pointed out "absence of proof is not proof of absence."  A general principle also, meant to point out that a mere "absence of evidence" is usually not evidence enough to state the certainty of an assertion.

The "argument from ignorance."

YOU were the one that tried to change it to "evidence" because that was the only statement you could defend.

You:
Quote:
...You mean evidence, I assume? And yes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Example:

You did this, even though the original contention you made was an absolute.

You:
Quote:
'God' is a crap concept. There no way it could possibly exist

As a general principle, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."  Whether it is "strong" or "weak" evidence, however, is a matter based on what your testing--as your article clearly suggests.  But that does not mean "an absence of evidence, even in consideration of all currently available evidence, is proof of absence or even "strong evidence" of absence."

E.g., gaps in the fossil record.

As I said before, the fact that I have no evidence (i.e., an absence of evidence) that my brother has gone to the bathroom today, is evidence that he has not--it's just not particularly strong evidence.

Keep in mind, responding to this by saying "Your brother can provide evidence that he went to the bathroom, personal recollection," does not change the fact that my current lack of evidence the he did is evidence that he did not.

That is not to say that if the assertion is narrow and specific enough, however, e.g., "there are monsters under your bed right now!," then "absence of evidence is strong evidence of absence" (e.g., look under the bed)--sufficient evidence for proof even.

But, when I made the statement, it was in reference to the Illiad, the Odyssey, and whether or not we can say "the characters central to them are erroneous."

You:
Quote:
Correct. Which is why it's unfair to argue from ignorance and simply state, 'Oh, yeah, Achilles was probably real. Y'know... just a tough guy, or something,'

Me:
Quote:

Fair enough.  But what you contesting is that:

You:
Quote:
The fact that we would recognize the myths as erroneous, but not the figure central to them, is borderline lunacy (...at least it's not total lunacy).

Me:
Quote:

i.e., that the "figure central to them" is not real.

The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

If you want to suggest that the "absence of evidence" is "proof of absence," which is what is required for your the absolute statement, then you must, at least, even according to your article:

(1) define what is the probability that the "central figures" would have left evidence of their lives, even though it was supposedly lived during the greek dark ages.
(2) assert there is no evidence,
(3) wait for counterexamples,
(4) in the case of any lack of counterexamples, then hope that this "absence of evidence" is strong enough evidence to constitute proof for the purpose of rationalizing the making of the statement "the figure central to them [are erroneous]."

Quote:
(...This is a curious thing for someone claiming not to be a theist to say)

- An all-powerful, all loving God that answers prayers should have demonstratable effect on said prayers.

- An all-powerful, all loving God should have created a universe devoid of suffering.

- An instantaneous creation event that created every single organism in one shot should be obvious from the fossil record.

...I'm sure people can think of others. Feel free to read the many articles of Todangst for further enlightenment.

Except, that these are based on certain assertions about "God," which, is inconsistent with your original post which suggested that "God" has not been defined.

Quote:
'Crap' concept . . . . it isn't even defined.

Sure.. if you want, I can create a "God" that "absence of evidence" suggests strongly does not exist.

But that's not what we were discussing here, neither was it what BMCD was discussing.

Here is his statement with a little more context then what you gave.

BMCD:
Quote:
Especially when you cannot give an example of what evidence would be necessitated if a cause were true. You can't give a single example of evidence that would have to exist if God does, which means you can't give a single solid example of the evidence that's missing.

BMCD is speaking of "God" generally.  You are speaking of a specific "God."

BMCD is on point of this thread.  You are not.

(I'm not even going to address some of the presumptions made in your statements as to what is "necessary evidence" for the claimed God-figure).

BMCD:
Quote:
When it comes to accurately modeling the existence of the divine, you do, as you indicated, have zero knowledge. Only likelihoods.

You:
Quote:
The same can be said for any numbers of things. Given a high enough probability, it's sensible to say at that point, 'Okay. We more or less no for sure that this is how this things works.'

A probability is nothing more than a ratio of how many times things happened over how many times it could have happened.  Since you have said that God has not been defined, then any probability is X/infinity, even assuming you could "prove" that many of those definitions are impossible, to make the general statement that "God" the undefined concept, does not exist, is meaningless.

Unless you can draw a limit on how many different definitions there can be for "God".. any "probability" you have for the non-existence of "God" (the undefined label) is 0.

Quote:
We've been knocking God off the list of a variety of things we used to think he did over the centuries, until now we've finally reached the point where attributing anything to God now is simply senseless. If we have the knowledge now that we did in times of antiquity, God would never even have been concieved of in the first place.

Bold claim.

Quote:
By your standards, no person employed by the university has a right to free speech, no person inside the university has a right to protest, no person inside the universty has a right to vote or engage in political discourse, etc. You're giving Catholics their special pleading on a silver platter and waving through their free pass on issues they happen to find offensive once again.

The employee has "Free Speech," he just bartered some of it away for job security.

That happens.. and it's perfectly legal.

Here are some other points that I think you should've conceded.  You haven't, merely ignored them... or brushed them off as "semantics." :
1.
Quote:
It definately does not exist if you can't define it.

Quote:

Once again.. you're changing the argument you started off with.  "Can't" and "is not," are different phrases with different implications. (You originally contested that God, as a concept, absolutely does not exist.. "it isn't even defined.&quot.

2.
Quote:
And if everyone took your lazy approach?

'Ah, whatever. Probably God did it.'

How could you possibly argue that this wouldn't be an impediment to progress?

Quote:

Because I could still ask the question "how?"

3.
Quote:
The fact that we would recognize the myths as erroneous, but not the figure central to them, is borderline lunacy (...at least it's not total lunacy).

Quote:
i.e., that the "figure central to them" is not real.

The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

4.
Quote:
It's the weakest of apologetics; because you've cherry-picked this particular piece of insanity out of your view, you think the overall scheme (which includes it) is reasonable, because any true Christian would do the same.

Quote:
Um.. no, I never said that.  I merely responded for myself and other Christians that think like me.  No more or less.  Many denominations, however, do profess, I believe, a "non transubstantiation" perspective on the aforementioned act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Views_of_other_Churches_on_transubstantiation

5.
Quote:
No, it can't.

The reason dictionaries give you different definitions is that each one it provides is specific. See: Grade 1 English.

Quote:
You fail to understand that when I said "two ways," I was not suggesting that the dictionary's definition was not specific, but rather that it intentionally used the disjunctive "or" as to make the word apply to two very specific scenarios (or three, if you count "both" as one).

6.
Quote:
'Or' always means one or the other. 'And' would be what we use wen being all inclusive. Using 'or' when trying to be all inclusive leads to different connotations.

Example:

'Zebras are black and white,' (Suggesting both colors are present)

'Zebras are black or white,' (Suggesting Zebras can be one color or the other)

Quote:
Example:
I cannot teach english or math.

So I guess that means that I can't teach english.. or I can't teach math.. since obviously "or" requires one at the exclusion of the other.

7.
Quote:
Of course, you're a dishonest twat, so you decided to derail the discussion into a semantics argument about the word 'thing'.

Quote:
And you're a petulant ignoramus.

?  Did that aid the discussing in anyway  ?

As for your statement that followed the personal attack, I didn't derail anything.

One of the major issues, original issue:

"There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined."

Response:

"Something that is not defined cannot be said to not exist.  See: Thing."

"Thing is a categorical label, it does not exist."

My response:

"Thing may be a categorical label, but it can be used to refer to something specific, although not precisely described, therefore, how can you say that it doesn't exist without further context?"

Hypothetical conclusion:

"You're right, thing can refer to something specific that does exist, although that is not precisely described.  Therefore, I cannot have said that "thing" does not exist without further definition or reference as to what thing I was talking about.  In the same way, I cannot say "God" does not exist without referring to a particular definition of God."

Or, you could have just corrected your original statement:

"God CAN'T be defined."

Which would be a different argument entirely.. but not what you said.

8.
Quote:
See? You're just a fucking moron.

'Proof' is a mathematical term. It doesn't apply outside mathematics at all. Unless your dealing with numbers, asking for a 'proof' of anything is spouting gibberish.

Quote:
Check a dictionary next time...

proof     Audio Help   /pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.    anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3.    the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4.    the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5.    Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6.    the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7.    an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8.    Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.

You're using definition 8 and 7.. I'm referring to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Some other people supported my points.. atheist even.. regarding the use of the word "or" or "proof" v. "evidence."

e.g.,

Quote:
This is incorrect.  You are thinking of "exclusive or", which is not the same as "or" in logic.  Colloquially, yes, people generally mean "exclusive or" in common speech ("red or white wine with dinner?" ), but you're having a logical argument, so Rhad's objection stands.  To illustrate:

A     B     A v B     A ^ B     A xor B
F     F     F     F     F
F     T     T     F     T
T     F     T     F     T
T     T     T     T     F

Since the truth tables for OR and XOR do not match, they are not equivalent operators.

From Shikko.

BMcD wrote:

Argh... Kevin, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree on a number of these.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
[Semantics] Are important. :P

If your interest is in playing word games in favor of arguing, I suppose you're right.

Semantics are important any time you want a common frame of reference. If you wish to establish that both parties are, in fact, able to communicate concepts between one another, semantics matter, because how you use language matters.

Quote:

...Are you kidding me? Did you even read what you just pasted?

"2.    some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described: The stick had a brass thing on it."

See the emboldened part, which you apparently missed? According to the dictionary defintion, a 'thing' is something that can't be specifically designated or precisely described.

Actually, Kevin, you need to re-read that embolded part: It contains the word 'or', which means the sentence retains its value if the 'or' clause is removed. Removing it would give us:

'some entity, object, or create that is not specifically designated...'

It doesn't need to be something that cannot be specifically defined, it simply has to be something that either cannot be, or currently is not specifically defined.

This is why semantics are important.

Quote:

Note that the example supports this perfectly: there's something on the stick that the observer doesn't know how to describe, other than to say it's brass. The brass object is not, in reality, a 'thing'; that's merely the temporary, ignorant label. Further inspection might reveal it's true nature (a brass bell, perhaps, or a brass ornament).

It might. It does not, however, in any way alter that 'thing' is a perfectly correct label for it.

Quote:

Quote:
The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

...You mean evidence, I assume? And yes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Example:

How does my bank know that I haven't deposited one million dollars into my bank account, if I go to them tomorrow and allege that I have? Simple: I'll have no evidence to support my claim. Moreover, the bank will have lots of consistent counter-evidence that I haven't made any such deposit. If you're drinking a beverage, how do you know when your glass no longer has any fluid in it? How can you tell that there aren't monsters lurking under your bed?

A)The bank's 'counter-evidence' is evidence of absence. Your lack of evidence to support your claim is absence of evidence. These two things are not equivalent.

B)When you stop getting liquid out of your glass, that is evidence of absence. It is not absence of evidence.

C)One would presume you look under the bed, which, once again, provides evidence of absence. Prior observation of this state, combined with no new evidence to contradict it, means that when you looked under your bed at 3 years old, there was the evidence of absence that is still valid today.

Again, this is why semantics matter. Absence of evidence is simply no evidence to support a claim. It is NOT evidence to disprove a claim.

Until one was caught in the 1930s, there was no evidence that coelacanths continued to exist as anything more than fossils. At that point, there was an absence of evidence. There was not, however, evidence of absence, as was made abundantly clear when one was caught in a fishing net.

Evidence of Absence is something that actively shows something is not presence. Example: A litmus test that would show the presence of acid not doing so. Fire suddenly going out when placed in atmospheric conditions where the presence of oxygen is questionable.

Absence of Evidence is simply a lack of anything that actively shows that something is present. Example: Nobody spotting a certain type of fish.

Absence of Evidence, combined with conjecture and inference, can give us high enough probability of absence that we need not presume presence, but it is not, and never will be, evidence of absence.

Quote:

I could go on, but you get the idea. Of course absense of evidence is evidence of absense[/i]; that's not to say it's evidence that can't be cpuntermanded, simply that it's a solid piece of evidence (like any other), and you look for consistency with other evidence to validate or invalidate it.

You could, but you'd be wrong. Absence of Evidence != Evidence of Absence.

From BMCD.

You ignore these issues.. and instead move on as if you are king of the world and still have the "intellectual high ground" in the thread.. saying:
Quote:
Oops. Hate it when you're made to look stupid like that, eh?

In response to someone who you contended you had proven wrong.

Quote:
You must make for a great Islamic apologist, BMcD.

Quote:
Are you kidding me, presup? Not only have you not clarified your concept since hamby's last rebuke, almost everybody who is an active member criticized the coherency of your definition.

Quote:
Actually, you're being dishonest by not bothering to respond to the quote where the article outright states, 'Absense of evidence is evidence of absense,' which is followed by a formula that demonstrates such.

To BMCD because you thought he "cherry picked" an issue.

Quote:
Shoddy work like astrophysics? All of these fields have completely thrashed every conventional model of god once proposed - so theists have had to keep shifting their goalposts. The endeavor is both silly and moronic.

Even though you tried to "shift the goalposts" many a times.. as was demonstrated in the thread.

And now:
Quote:
You're a joke. You're someone to be laughed at, and rightly ridiculed (given that your persona is so ridiculous. See: clowns). Your dishonesty is so flagrant and obvious that the only thing I'm ever left wondering is why a person like Hamby would bother trying to reason with you in the first place (aside from perhaps whatever little amusement might come from it).

And:
Quote:
Look, more snide remarks in lieu of any counter-arguments or counter-evidence.

Big surprise. :P

Heck, you even called me a dishonest twat.

So.. was that enough to show that if you're not being flagrantly hypocritical, unintentionally so?

Kevin R Brown
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
Offline

See: Having no case.

Also see:

The particle in a 1-dimensional potential energy box is the most simple example where restraints lead to the quantization of energy levels. The box is defined as zero potential energy inside a certain interval and infinite everywhere outside that interval. For the 1-dimensional case in the x direction, the time-independent Schrödinger equation can be written as[3]:

$- \frac {\hbar ^2}{2m} \frac {d ^2 \psi}{dx^2} = E \psi.$

The general solutions are:

$\psi = A e^{ikx} + B e ^{-ikx} \;\;\;\;\;\; E = \frac{k^2 \hbar^2}{2m}$
$\psi = C \sin kx + D \cos kx \;$ (exponential rewrite)

The presence of the walls of the box restricts the acceptable solutions to the wavefunction. At each wall :

$\psi = 0 \; \mathrm{at} \;\; x = 0,\; x = L$

Consider x = 0

• sin 0 = 0, cos 0 = 1. To satisfy $\psi = 0 \;$ D = 0 (cos term is removed)

Now Consider: $\psi = C \sin kx \;$

• at X = L, $\psi = C \sin kL \;$
• If C = 0 then $\psi =0 \;$ for all x and would conflict with Born interpretation
• therefore sin kL must be satisfied by
$kL = n \pi \;\;\;\; n = 1,2,3,4,5 \;$

In this situation, n must be an integer showing the quantization of the energy levels.

Wow, I must be a physicist!

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Note:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

See: Having no case.

Funny you should mention that....

I demostrated in previous posts that I have knowledge of physics (Funny, how nobody's called me on it, not even the 'Science freaks'..) eh? Why do you think that is?

Go fuck yourself.

PorkChop
Posts: 154
Joined: 2008-06-26
Offline

Your plagiarized signature says it all, Cpt

magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
Offline
Everybody chill out,

Everybody chill out, goddamnit.

HisWillness
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
Offline
magilum wrote: Everybody

magilum wrote:

Everybody chill out, goddamnit.

Yeah, seriously. Enough baiting and tormenting already.

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

Kevin R Brown
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
Offline
/me chills out.  (...I

/me chills out.

(...I need to invest in sleeping pills)

HisWillness
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
Offline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:'errr

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

'errr yeah Cpt, we're just trying to help you, we're not laughing at you (snicker..)'

I don't think I could be more clear when I say that I'm not laughing at you. Nor would I say I'm engaging in pity, which would be even more offensive, as pity is the most underhanded form of condescension. No, it actually is empathy.

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

I AM GOD AS YOU
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
Offline
I detect extreme sexual

I detect extreme sexual frustration, as I've been there myself. I keep thinking Pineapple would be explosive in bed !  Having fun with the idea anyhow .... Ever fight like hell and fuck even harder ?

Thanks for the fantasy entertainment Pineapple .... you can slap me, go kitten .... just don't scratch please, as pain lingers ..... I know you can purr

"What's New Pussycat?" Tom Jones

Puddle of Mudd - "She Fucking Hates Me"

"She Fricking Blocked Me"

Thomathy
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
Offline
What the hell is going on

What the hell is going on here?  Are we done with this yet?