Kain,
Its not that i think Mykull himself is being disingenuous, its that the argument is. In many philosophical arguments arguing about realtiy or for politics there is some verbal or semantic 'slight of hand' going on that needs to be pointed out in order to be refuted.
Most of the time the person making or even coming up with the argument doesn't notice it.
|
This is a mostly-related post a friend just made. I decided to share, cuz it's damn funny:
Dear Kirk Cameron,
If bananas fitting perfectly in our hands is evidence of God's existence, then certainly pineapples are evidence that there is no god.
A**hole.
Bananas are not divinely ordained for human consumption.
Wikipedia
Bananas are not a seed bearing fruit. In cultivated varieties, the seeds are diminished nearly to non-existence; their remnants are tiny black specks in the interior of the fruit
thanks wikigenesis 1:29
I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.Therefore off the menu, no matter how well designed, they are forbidden fruit
RAW
Well, then it looks like Kirk Cameron is stupid for TWO reasons now.
While Myrkul's beliefs and religion are not my own, I disagree he is 'avoiding the elephant in the room'. The arguments posted for G-D on the first page do not make any mention of this, and he has tried to explain his own position on each one, whether he believes they are arguments for G-D or not.
In response he's been called a liar, told that his statements are B.S. because they don't match up with someone else's experiences and whatnot.
I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from, because he's presented himself as the most reasonable and even tempered guy on the religious side of things.
Yeah, but this
he's presented himself as the most reasonable and even tempered guy on the religious side of things.
is like saying,"I don't know why such civil pro-lifers are being received so uglily at this NARAL event." The climate on these boards is decidedly anti-religious (I won't try to adduce any reasons for this, though I have some ideas).
The climate on these boards is decidedly anti-religious (I won't try to adduce any reasons for this, though I have some ideas).
Not really. Just the less vocal religious folks tend not to hang around in the OTD defending their worldview. Yet another way in which internet forums can distort your perspective. Just because you hear from more atheists here doesn't mean there are more, it just means perhaps that atheists are more argumentative (the reasons for this being somewhat obvious).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm...what you see as anti-religious, I see as rational. No one is advocating banning or acting against religions...they're just refusing to respect beliefs that have no rational basis in observable evidence. I submit that if that is truly anti-religious, then you have bigger problems than a perceived slant on a message board.
In response he's been called a liar, told that his statements are B.S. because they don't match up with someone else's experiences and whatnot.
I called him a liar because he LIED. He told me that I believed something which I do not, and it was a statement I've seen trotted out again and again and again.
I called his assertion b@+*@**# because it was demonstrably and obviously false.
He IS avoiding the elephant in the room, because he hasn't explained why god can exist without being caused, as he has insisted is the case for everything else that exists.
He IS avoiding the elephant in the room, because he hasn't explained why god can exist without being caused, as he has insisted is the case for everything else that exists.
This.
First Cause has always been a terrible argument, for obvious reasons. Anyone who employs it should expect not to be taken seriously.
Meatrace, physicists are really grasping at straws when they try to explain why things must be. Their hopelessly complicated bs string theory is never going to show anything besides on paper.
The basic argument that it is more likely the universe happened to be here than that god happened to be here and made the universe is a bogus assertion. They aren't relatable probabilities. It could be either.
Which is why I'm not a believer in string theory.
Sure. It could be either. That doesn't change the fact that we don't know.EDIT: Sorry must have misread your comment. Personally I find it difficult to believe in anything there is no empirical evidence of. What you say about string theory only working on paper? Same is true for your god. The difference is there are people fervently working to FIND empirical evidence of strings, whereas no one is looking for god, preferring to rest on their laurels with rationally inconsistent beliefs and "true faith."
The basic argument that it is more likely the universe happened to be here than that god happened to be here and made the universe is a bogus assertion. They aren't relatable probabilities. It could be either.
Not really. Positing "the universe is uncaused" at ;east gets the first part right" the universe IS. Positing that God is uncaused has problems at both ends
|
String theory seems to answer a lot of questions, answers them in the same way no matter who is asking the question, and is made of math anyone can work out, reproduce, and derive. Empirical data to back up the theory? It's a stretch, I think, when vocal proponents like Brian Green and Leonard Susskind argue that string models that mirror quantum models with empirical proof, themselves share that same proof. Nonetheless, I'm reminded that any number of theories langored for decades and longer before experiment bore them out.
Well, that will be the clincher. If they find a way to test string theory in a laboratory setting, or find a way to "see" strings. So far demonstrability has been its weak point, you can't deny that.
True, but no one's been able to test that spacetime is curved by mass to produce gravity either.
I thought that was the point of the relativity experiment with the eclipse they had so much trouble doing.
|
|
Nobody is able to prove anything really. But in the case of gravity, the experiments have shown a good agreeemnt with the theory (gravitonal lenses, redshift, gps, etc)Well, that will be the clincher. If they find a way to test string theory in a laboratory setting, or find a way to "see" strings. So far demonstrability has been its weak point, you can't deny that.True, but no one's been able to test that spacetime is curved by mass to produce gravity either.
But that applies to .string theory, too. :-)
BNW,
That was to test that the current techniques for detecting extra solar planets from their effect on the star's emission spectrum rather than anything to do with gravity, I thought.
|
|
String theory indeed matches the predictions made by relativity; this is point one of the theorists' argument. Point two is that it marries gravity to the other forces; that marriage is commonly called quantum gravity.
The problem I have is that the theory is currently unprovable, makes no new predictions, and requires more dimensions than empirical data agree are there (Witten's work is phenomenal, and while Gell-Mann did the same thing with quarks, I'm reluctant [this means I won't] to call CY spaces adopted to make the math of ST work to be categorically 'new predictions').
Disclaimer: I'm not a string theorist, but I'm adept at the mathematics, have studied it extensively in a professional setting, and am savvy enough with QFT/QED to feel comfortable calling my opinion informed.
On another note, while not Nobel-winning conclusive, Gravity Probe-B pretty convincingly proves relativity in terms of actual physical STC.
I'm adept at the mathematics, have studied it extensively in a professional setting
Thank Quark there's someone to help with the theoretical physics here. A bunch of old rocks are the best I can do, when it comes to science.
Is String Theory a kind of cheese?
BNW,
That was to test that the current techniques for detecting extra solar planets from their effect on the star's emission spectrum rather than anything to do with gravity, I thought.
Tests for relativity I think the 1919 eclipse test was the one i was refering to.
The basic argument that it is more likely the universe happened to be here than that god happened to be here and made the universe is a bogus assertion. They aren't relatable probabilities. It could be either.Not really. Positing "the universe is uncaused" at ;east gets the first part right" the universe IS. Positing that God is uncaused has problems at both endsTouche'
I like your style.
This worries me... :)
I believe he was a product of the far, far Right attempting to eliminate the decaying effects of cultural Marxism from Europe Anklebiter.What's a cultural Marxist?
So Aretas, how's that definition of cultural Marxism coming? Or was asking just a veiled insult of some kind instead of an honest question?
I thought Anders Brevik was a nazi?
Aren't all plants seed bearing plants?
|
I think it quite possible that the main reason Christians and Atheists don't always get along is because Christians like to believe that faith in God is totally rational, mostly because we place a great deal of emphasis on being taken seriously.
Honestly, I don't mind being seen as being irrational. I mean, I don't think that the existence of God, or any divine being, can be empirically proven, because divinity would need to exist outside of our reality in order to not be bound by the laws which govern the universe's existence.
There isn't any argument to be had once the faithful come to grips with irrationality.
Aren't all plants seed bearing plants?
From my understanding...
The most common type of 'seedless' fruit comes from a simple genetic problem. To reproduce, you have to split your chromosomes in half. For example human males share one of their XY chromosomes, the female shares one of her XX's.
Some plants have 4 chromosomes. Don't ask me if it's XXYY, XXXY or some other set of shapes, cause I don't know. Some of the same plant species will have two chromosomes, like us, but they can still breed with 4 chromosome plants of the same species. The 4 chromosome plants share 2 of their chromosomes with their offspring, while those with 2 still share one. The result is an offspring with 3 chromosomes. Since you need to share half your chromosomes, but you can't share half of one, the result is a sterile plant.
The seeds become vestigial, they're still there in your store bought banana, the tiny black specks, but they'll never do anything.
The seeds of a wild banana, are much larger and harder.
Propagation of cultivated bananas is done through splitting the roots, which can regrow the tree. Essentially, the vast majority of banana trees are clones. It can also be done through tissue samples, which has mostly taken over as the main form of propagation, since it is easier to control the spread of disease.
Pretty much all bananas you see in the store are Cavendish bananas. They are ripened in special rooms, with a gas pumped into it. Tree ripened Cavendish bananas are green-yellow. Gas ripened Cavendish bananas are yellow.
So Aretas, how's that definition of cultural Marxism coming? Or was asking just a veiled insult of some kind instead of an honest question?I believe he was a product of the far, far Right attempting to eliminate the decaying effects of cultural Marxism from Europe Anklebiter.What's a cultural Marxist?
Its assumed you understand 101 concepts if you are engaging people in a 200 level class/discussion if you get my analogy. Get a clue. Run along now, back to the internet cafe with you.
Its assumed you understand 101 concepts if you are engaging people in a 200 level class/discussion if you get my analogy. Get a clue. Run along now, back to the internet cafe with you.So Aretas, how's that definition of cultural Marxism coming? Or was asking just a veiled insult of some kind instead of an honest question?I believe he was a product of the far, far Right attempting to eliminate the decaying effects of cultural Marxism from Europe Anklebiter.What's a cultural Marxist?
So it was the latter. Thanks for playing.
Ok, when an internet chatroom full of relatively enlightened, educated, and informed individuals (not to toot my own horn. well maybe a little) has no idea what the crap you're talking about, perhaps you should explain when you're asked politely and repeatedly to do so.
It's fascinating to see what evolved from a few rules that no-longer-primitive tribes used to get along with each other in times of rapid population growth.
Mix these social rules with an answer to the one great conundrum of all sentient beings where the strong urge to survive clashes with the knowledge that death is inevitable.
And *bang* religion.
Now apply the then usual ways to explain natural phenomenoms.
*Bang* god(s).
But the best part came much later:
"I know that your life sucks, but hey, you will have a nicer one waiting for you when you die, IF you do as I say. Now toil for me some more!"
Brilliant!
Ok, when an internet chatroom full of relatively enlightened, educated, and informed individuals (not to toot my own horn. well maybe a little) has no idea what the crap you're talking about, perhaps you should explain when you're asked politely and repeatedly to do so.
He must have learned something (We beat the odds!) from the persecution flap he started a while back.
Ok, when an internet chatroom full of relatively enlightened, educated, and informed individuals (not to toot my own horn. well maybe a little) has no idea what the crap you're talking about, perhaps you should explain when you're asked politely and repeatedly to do so.
You can do the research. If you don't know then you are not to answer the original question I posted.
So it was the latter. Thanks for playing.Its assumed you understand 101 concepts if you are engaging people in a 200 level class/discussion if you get my analogy. Get a clue. Run along now, back to the internet cafe with you.So Aretas, how's that definition of cultural Marxism coming? Or was asking just a veiled insult of some kind instead of an honest question?I believe he was a product of the far, far Right attempting to eliminate the decaying effects of cultural Marxism from Europe Anklebiter.What's a cultural Marxist?
If you don't know then you are not. You are welcomed to do the research.
Ok, when an internet chatroom full of relatively enlightened, educated, and informed individuals (not to toot my own horn. well maybe a little) has no idea what the crap you're talking about, perhaps you should explain when you're asked politely and repeatedly to do so.He must have learned something (We beat the odds!) from the persecution flap he started a while back.
I'm starting to believe you guys sit around in the same dank basement validating each other's world views. Very interesting.
(meatrace & samnell)
You can do the research. If you don't know then you are not to answer the original question I posted.Ok, when an internet chatroom full of relatively enlightened, educated, and informed individuals (not to toot my own horn. well maybe a little) has no idea what the crap you're talking about, perhaps you should explain when you're asked politely and repeatedly to do so.
I did do some research, but it only lead me to the question: what the hell does that have to do with anything around here?
The best definition I can find is "political correctness gone mad". I definitely don't think I'm PC.
|
|
Ok, when an internet chatroom full of relatively enlightened, educated, and informed individuals (not to toot my own horn. well maybe a little) has no idea what the crap you're talking about, perhaps you should explain when you're asked politely and repeatedly to do so.He must have learned something (We beat the odds!) from the persecution flap he started a while back.I'm starting to believe you guys sit around in the same dank basement validating each other's world views. Very interesting.
(meatrace & samnell)
Nah. We just go outside and find reality does a pretty good job of that. You're welcome to join us.
We have cookies.
If you don't know then you are not. You are welcomed to do the research.So it was the latter. Thanks for playing.Its assumed you understand 101 concepts if you are engaging people in a 200 level class/discussion if you get my analogy. Get a clue. Run along now, back to the internet cafe with you.So Aretas, how's that definition of cultural Marxism coming? Or was asking just a veiled insult of some kind instead of an honest question?I believe he was a product of the far, far Right attempting to eliminate the decaying effects of cultural Marxism from Europe Anklebiter.What's a cultural Marxist?
Oh, I think it's entirely possible that a description could apply to me without my being aware of it. I haven't heard every possible description, after all.
But I did try to do your work for you. I got a bunch of white supremacist nutbags. Is that what you wanted me to find? If not, and I assumed that was not what you wanted me to find, perhaps you can tell us what you mean by the term?
Ok, when an internet chatroom full of relatively enlightened, educated, and informed individuals (not to toot my own horn. well maybe a little) has no idea what the crap you're talking about, perhaps you should explain when you're asked politely and repeatedly to do so.He must have learned something (We beat the odds!) from the persecution flap he started a while back.I'm starting to believe you guys sit around in the same dank basement validating each other's world views. Very interesting.
(meatrace & samnell)
I'm a card-carrying Sodomite, but I don't know about meatrace and in any event confess I have not had the pleasure of validating his worldview.
This is getting terribly off-topic, but would you even entertain the idea, Aretas, that the US has become (not permeated, by far, but certainly moreso) anti-religion, family, and capitalism because we have become more educated? That we see our current system as being unsustainable as well as not leading to greater happiness and seek to change it?
I'm sorry I must have hysterical blindness for the term "family". Whenever I read the term "pro-family" it reads as either "pro-unchecked breeding" or "anti-gay". Either way it's bad juju.