|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 18:18:56 GMT
tpfkar Another totally ridiculous notion of yours is that simply because you have seen no evidence then there is none. Ten people go separately into the forest. When they return they report. Five saw a bear, the other five did not see any bear. What is the probability there is a bear in the forest? Substitute "Loch Ness Monster" for "bear". I can diagram sentences. It's not like I can't. Sure thing. If a million people went separately to Scotland and on their return three of them report seeing a monster in Loch Ness and the other 999,997 did not see any monster, what is the probability there is a monster in Loch Ness? You mean like that?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 31, 2018 18:23:25 GMT
tpfkar Substitute "Loch Ness Monster" for "bear". I can diagram sentences. It's not like I can't. Sure thing. If a million people went separately to Scotland and on their return three of them report seeing a monster in Loch Ness and the other 999,997 did not see any monster, what is the probability there is a monster in Loch Ness? You mean like that? Like all people have seen all kinds of bahrrs, in woods, ferrusts, zoo-places and wot not. We already know bears shatz in the woods. I don't believe you know even one real scientist except me. We aren't as common as you might think. My IQ is exceptionally high.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 18:39:16 GMT
tpfkar Substitute "Loch Ness Monster" for "bear". I can diagram sentences. It's not like I can't. Sure thing. If a million people went separately to Scotland and on their return three of them report seeing a monster in Loch Ness and the other 999,997 did not see any monster, what is the probability there is a monster in Loch Ness? Extremely low.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 18:58:04 GMT
Sure thing. If a million people went separately to Scotland and on their return three of them report seeing a monster in Loch Ness and the other 999,997 did not see any monster, what is the probability there is a monster in Loch Ness? Extremely low. No kidding. Wasn't that fun? Did you have a point you wanted to make?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 22:08:11 GMT
No kidding. Wasn't that fun? Did you have a point you wanted to make? Yeah. The evidence for the Loch Ness Monster - and the plausibility thereof - is a mountain compared to the flyspeck of evidence for any kind of god.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 1:57:37 GMT
What definition would you like me to use that allows you or anyone to provide evidence for him? Yes, that's your claim, but it's a claim you haven't proven. Right now, what we have are engineers saying they have to adjust for relativity to make GPS work. Who should I believe? Some self-proclaimed internet journalist or the people that actually make GPS systems? Defining god is problematic. I can see that. First you define him, then next thing you know you find yourself making claims about him that are testable and falsifiable! Can't have that! Defining is like a gateway drug. Much better to keep it all vague and subjective so you don't have to worry about any evidence disturbing your belief.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 3:21:17 GMT
you don't have to worry about any evidence disturbing your belief What exactly do you think I believe? There are problems science can't solve. I know I said that here several times. When everyone agrees what the problem is, then science can sometimes solve it. However most issues in society are issues because there is no agreement what the problem is in the first place. Then "science" is useless. Something more in the category of an "art" is required.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 3:31:01 GMT
you don't have to worry about any evidence disturbing your belief What exactly do you think I believe? There are problems science can't solve. I know I said that here several times. When everyone agrees what the problem is, then science can sometimes solve it. However most issues in society are issues because there is no agreement what the problem is in the first place. Then "science" is useless. Something more in the category of an "art" is required. That God/afterlife exists. These are claims about objective reality. They should be testable by science. I've agreed with you before that science can't define our values or what our problems are, but for anyone making truth claims about what exists/doesn't exist, what hypothesis explains phenomenal aspects of reality, then science should be able to address them if you're doing your beliefs right.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 3:55:10 GMT
No kidding. Wasn't that fun? Did you have a point you wanted to make? Yeah. The evidence for the Loch Ness Monster - and the plausibility thereof - is a mountain compared to the flyspeck of evidence for any kind of god. You betray the superficiality of your concept of religion when you say "any kind" of god.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 4:02:41 GMT
What exactly do you think I believe? There are problems science can't solve. I know I said that here several times. When everyone agrees what the problem is, then science can sometimes solve it. However most issues in society are issues because there is no agreement what the problem is in the first place. Then "science" is useless. Something more in the category of an "art" is required. That God/afterlife exists. These are claims about objective reality. They should be testable by science. I've agreed with you before that science can't define our values or what our problems are, but for anyone making truth claims about what exists/doesn't exist, what hypothesis explains phenomenal aspects of reality, then science should be able to address them if you're doing your beliefs right. On the question of the afterlife all I ever said is that your dismissal of the all the evidence is unwarranted, which it certainly is unwarranted. On the question of "god" and or "religion" I have pointed out to you that religion does advise society or least serve some function in society deemed valuable, especially considering science can be useless.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 4:32:47 GMT
That God/afterlife exists. These are claims about objective reality. They should be testable by science. I've agreed with you before that science can't define our values or what our problems are, but for anyone making truth claims about what exists/doesn't exist, what hypothesis explains phenomenal aspects of reality, then science should be able to address them if you're doing your beliefs right. On the question of the afterlife all I ever said is that your dismissal of the all the evidence is unwarranted, which it certainly is unwarranted. On the question of "god" and or "religion" I have pointed out to you that religion does advise society or least serve some function in society deemed valuable, especially considering science can be useless. When I say "dismiss" I'm not claiming for certain it doesn't exist, what I'm saying is that we don't have to consider its existence until evidence is produced for it. It's the aliens/burglary principle at work. And I agree with you on that, I'd merely disagree that it serves any purpose that philosophy and politics can't/don't serve (Religion is basically just philosophy/politics with a "God said so" attached to it).
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 4:56:55 GMT
On the question of the afterlife all I ever said is that your dismissal of the all the evidence is unwarranted, which it certainly is unwarranted. On the question of "god" and or "religion" I have pointed out to you that religion does advise society or least serve some function in society deemed valuable, especially considering science can be useless. When I say "dismiss" I'm not claiming for certain it doesn't exist, what I'm saying is that we don't have to consider its existence until evidence is produced for it. It's the aliens/burglary principle at work. And I agree with you on that, I'd merely disagree that it serves any purpose that philosophy and politics can't/don't serve (Religion is basically just philosophy/politics with a "God said so" attached to it). Your priorities are just that, your priorities. They are not, as you believe, cosmic or even nearly universal. There is no cosmic law that requires the ignorance of valid data on the afterlife. It is just your intellectual laziness. Perhaps you aren't purposefully arrogant, but some arrogant people are not purposefully so. From where I'm standing religion, philosophy and politics have a lot of work to do. When do you suppose they will get to it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2018 10:44:09 GMT
Yeah. The evidence for the Loch Ness Monster - and the plausibility thereof - is a mountain compared to the flyspeck of evidence for any kind of god. You betray the superficiality of your concept of religion when you say "any kind" of god. You betray the weakness of your argument when you seek refuge in semantics. Just define god as a banana. Then you can say atheists are all foolish not to believe. It will be a famous victory for you.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 12:32:41 GMT
Just define god as a banana. You are not the only person suffering from your affliction. Most atheists have the same problem. They just can't see it in themselves even when, like you here, they can see it in others. I already had my famous victory, over the atheists here so far anyway, science cannot solve most issues in society. That never occurred to atheists here before. You can argue that what you need is "philosophy" or "politics" but obviously "bananas" won't work, and you've already given up science for this purpose. You do however need some sort of name on the building. It does have not to be the same name on all the buildings. There is a lot of work to be done. Disorder is rampant. You can call your project "humanism" if you like, but it isn't going to work any better than your science unless you copy quite much from religion. There definitely is something going on in religious services quite well suited to solving issues in society. There might be a church building or two where the focus is on little more than bananas. Overall however much more serious work is being done. You are the one using semantics to avoid this truth.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 12:36:01 GMT
Just define god as a banana. I already had my famous victory, over the atheists here so far anyway, science cannot solve most issues in society. That never occurred to atheists here before.
That occurred to me back when I read Hume's Is-Ought argument in my early 20s. I'm sure you'd like to take credit for an 18th century atheist enlightenment philosopher's argument, but I don't think many would buy it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 12:41:56 GMT
I already had my famous victory, over the atheists here so far anyway, science cannot solve most issues in society. That never occurred to atheists here before.
That occurred to me back when I read Hume's Is-Ought argument in my early 20s. I'm sure you'd like to take credit for an 18th century atheist enlightenment philosopher's argument, but I don't think many would buy it. I don't need any credit, thanks anyway, but speaking of "not buying" I don't buy that you would know how to boil peanuts much less solve any issues in society, and I mean today.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 1, 2018 21:25:46 GMT
Just define god as a banana. You are not the only person suffering from your affliction. Most atheists have the same problem. They just can't see it in themselves even when, like you here, they can see it in others. I already had my famous victory, over the atheists here so far anyway, science cannot solve most issues in society. That never occurred to atheists here before. You can argue that what you need is "philosophy" or "politics" but obviously "bananas" won't work, and you've already given up science for this purpose. You do however need some sort of name on the building. It does have not to be the same name on all the buildings. There is a lot of work to be done. Disorder is rampant. You can call your project "humanism" if you like, but it isn't going to work any better than your science unless you copy quite much from religion. There definitely is something going on in religious services quite well suited to solving issues in society. There might be a church building or two where the focus is on little more than bananas. Overall however much more serious work is being done. You are the one using semantics to avoid this truth. How much is 'quite much'? Is it more or less than that found in 'any kind' of religion?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 23:14:25 GMT
You are not the only person suffering from your affliction. Most atheists have the same problem. They just can't see it in themselves even when, like you here, they can see it in others. I already had my famous victory, over the atheists here so far anyway, science cannot solve most issues in society. That never occurred to atheists here before. You can argue that what you need is "philosophy" or "politics" but obviously "bananas" won't work, and you've already given up science for this purpose. You do however need some sort of name on the building. It does have not to be the same name on all the buildings. There is a lot of work to be done. Disorder is rampant. You can call your project "humanism" if you like, but it isn't going to work any better than your science unless you copy quite much from religion. There definitely is something going on in religious services quite well suited to solving issues in society. There might be a church building or two where the focus is on little more than bananas. Overall however much more serious work is being done. You are the one using semantics to avoid this truth. How much is 'quite much'? Is it more or less than that found in 'any kind' of religion? There are things you can get without "religion" that are just a whole lot easier to get with the help of the enlightened and organized. Something you can get somewhat without religion is a vocabulary. For example the Hindus have a word for more or less what we are discussing here, the "Atman." Marcus Aurelius referred to it as the "divine" (mine divinus, yours divina) within. He was a trifle agnostic about the "gods" (dei). Those would be the anthropomorphic ones of his time I assume. But he never appears to doubt there is a "divine" spark in humans. Before AJ pops in and corrects my use of Hindu terms, let me point out I am using all these terms just a bit loosely. For better detail you can go to the sources. It is no simple matter to say how much the divine within humans is identified with a particular individual as Aurelius points out here. See how much Aurelius thinks like you? Just a bit, no? He however, as agnostic as he was toward the dei, did not set himself against them as you perhaps do. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. What "philosophy" is without "spirituality"? Nihilism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 1:44:12 GMT
Just define god as a banana. You are not the only person suffering from your affliction. Most atheists have the same problem. They just can't see it in themselves even when, like you here, they can see it in others. And you are not the same person suffering from your affliction. Most stupid people have the same problem. They just can't see it in themselves. Yes indeed. A victory in your own mind. That's rather like declaring that plumbing can't solve most of societies problems, and crowing that this never occurred to fans of plumbing. The reality is that the fans of plumbing understand perfectly well what it's intended to do and how brilliantly it does it. It is you who assumes that other people believe things that they don't and then crow about it. You think it's a victory. In fact it's a demonstration of your own ignorance. The sound of goalposts being shifted in a desperate and rather transparent attempt to shift the victory in your head to the outside world. Oh well. Perhaps next time you should ask somebody with a 100+ IQ to assist you.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 1:50:29 GMT
When I say "dismiss" I'm not claiming for certain it doesn't exist, what I'm saying is that we don't have to consider its existence until evidence is produced for it. It's the aliens/burglary principle at work. And I agree with you on that, I'd merely disagree that it serves any purpose that philosophy and politics can't/don't serve (Religion is basically just philosophy/politics with a "God said so" attached to it). Your priorities are just that, your priorities. They are not, as you believe, cosmic or even nearly universal. There is no cosmic law that requires the ignorance of valid data on the afterlife. It is just your intellectual laziness. Perhaps you aren't purposefully arrogant, but some arrogant people are not purposefully so. From where I'm standing religion, philosophy and politics have a lot of work to do. When do you suppose they will get to it? What priorities? What I’ve said has nothing to do with priorities. Sometimes I’d swear your responses are produced by a Random Response Generator. There’s nothing arrogant or lazy about ignoring/dismissing more complex hypothesis that have no greater predictive power than their simpler counterparts; that’s just pragmatic. You’ve yet to explain what’s wrong with alien burglars without resorting to Occam. They’re always getting to it, just usually in the wrong and stupid ways.
|
|