|
Post by dividavi on Mar 19, 2017 2:03:46 GMT
No you name calling buffoon. If you're claiming something is true, you have to demonstrate that it's true. Otherwise it's just a claim.
There is nothing circular about that.
My question which you quoted btw and said you directly answered was: why does truth need to be demonstrated? Your answer now is that truth need to be demonstrated because If you're claiming something is true, you have to demonstrate that it's true. You being a circular twit is not name-calling. Now is the truth that you're a circular twit relative or absolute? No, the truth is that you're a churchie dumbfuck who plays stupid word games to appear smart. You prove something is true by demonstrating that it's true. Until you've done that, you're guessing. For instance there were people who asked if the square root of 2 was a rational number. By rational they meant a number A=B/C where B and C are positive integers and where A multiplied by A is exactly equal to 2. It took a while but it has been proven that no such number A can exist, hence square root of 2 is irrational. Some ancient Greeks wondered about prime numbers and whether there were infinitely many of them or if there was some final, ultimate prime. It has been proven that there are infinitely many. Look up Fermat's Last Theorem, retard. It's been known since 1637 but a proof was only completed in 1994.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 19, 2017 2:30:26 GMT
Your example is lab testing. Now what isn't lab testable in your example is that your brother even likes his girlfriend. After all, maybe he just likes to boink her. Really you can't actually know that love exists. Since you cam't really test that, it doesn;t exist. Regarding your second example, you can;t possibly have a knowledge of how the universe was created with a belief. I'm not one to say atheism is a religion since it's much to slight a concept for that, but it is silly to pretend that as an atheist what you know is what is fact. Really because you don;t have support regarding the origins of the universe, the universe clearly doesn't even exist. It depends on what you mean by love, because many aspects of it we absolutely have evidence for, such as the chemicals involved that produce the sensation we associate with the emotion.
I get this idea that theists think there is no evidence for the circumstances we define as "love" and they can convince somebody they believe in love even though there's no evidence, that somehow this makes the idea of a god legitimate. First, there is evidence depending on what your definition of love even is. Second, it wouldn't matter. God would still need it's own justification to justify believing it.
I didn't say I knew how the universe began or claim that anybody does. The honest answer is we don't know, although we do have several possibly models we are testing. I don't see how you think that means I can't believe the universe exists.
Don't twist it. I am simply using your parameters regarding the need for everything to be factual which I think we can all agree is a retarded view because you believe in tons of stuff not supported by evidence that wouldn't satisfy me and my beliefs are supported by evidence that satisfies me and not you. This is why none of this matters because when it comes to opinions and beliefs and ideals we set our own parameters for being convinced. It couldn't be any more irrelevant for me to worry about convincing you of my beliefs whether they be secular or religious. You saying it matters does not in any way make it true, it just makes you wrong. But on the plus side, it'll keep giving you opportunities to make the same thread using different questions. I can hardly wait for your next version of "Why don't you care that I don't believe you?" you'll spring up.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 3:40:18 GMT
Don't twist it. I am simply using your parameters regarding the need for everything to be factual which I think we can all agree is a retarded view because you believe in tons of stuff not supported by evidence that wouldn't satisfy me and my beliefs are supported by evidence that satisfies me and not you. This is why none of this matters because when it comes to opinions and beliefs and ideals we set our own parameters for being convinced. It couldn't be any more irrelevant for me to worry about convincing you of my beliefs whether they be secular or religious. You saying it matters does not in any way make it true, it just makes you wrong. But on the plus side, it'll keep giving you opportunities to make the same thread using different questions. I can hardly wait for your next version of "Why don't you care that I don't believe you?" you'll spring up. What do I believe that isn't supported by evidence? Name anything. You say there are tons of things, just name one.
Regarding love, there are emotions, and those are understood to be chemical processes. We have evidence of bonding among most all animals, if that's what you mean by love.
And yes, some people set low standards. Whether something exists or not, is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 19, 2017 3:44:48 GMT
My question which you quoted btw and said you directly answered was: why does truth need to be demonstrated? Your answer now is that truth need to be demonstrated because If you're claiming something is true, you have to demonstrate that it's true. You being a circular twit is not name-calling. Now is the truth that you're a circular twit relative or absolute? No, the truth is that you're a churchie dumbfuck. I didn't say I was smart or even implied it. I don't give a fuck if I'm wrong or right, I view truth as relative remember so stick your projection shit up your arse, you derivative-insult-stealing weakling. If truth is absolute (i.e. not relative) then why does it need to be demonstrated? Just a simple question, less words than you presented me with you irrelevant dickhead.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 19, 2017 3:50:52 GMT
Don't twist it. I am simply using your parameters regarding the need for everything to be factual which I think we can all agree is a retarded view because you believe in tons of stuff not supported by evidence that wouldn't satisfy me and my beliefs are supported by evidence that satisfies me and not you. This is why none of this matters because when it comes to opinions and beliefs and ideals we set our own parameters for being convinced. It couldn't be any more irrelevant for me to worry about convincing you of my beliefs whether they be secular or religious. You saying it matters does not in any way make it true, it just makes you wrong. But on the plus side, it'll keep giving you opportunities to make the same thread using different questions. I can hardly wait for your next version of "Why don't you care that I don't believe you?" you'll spring up. What do I believe that isn't supported by evidence? Name anything. You say there are tons of things, just name one.
Regarding love, there are emotions, and those are understood to be chemical processes. We have evidence of bonding among most all animals, if that's what you mean by love.
And yes, some people set low standards. Whether something exists or not, is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact.
I actually could be wrong. It is entirely possible that you are simple minded that you only think about things that are testable if not experienced by you. Actually evidence experienced by you cannot count I suppose so forget that last part. Still, you keep changing the subject so I'll try to connect the two. Are you basically under the impression that everyone thinks as you do AND also think that they owe you an explanation that will keep them up at nights if you don't accept it?
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Mar 19, 2017 5:07:41 GMT
No, the truth is that you're a churchie dumbfuck. I didn't say I was smart or even implied it. I don't give a fuck if I'm wrong or right, I view truth as relative remember so stick your projection shit up your arse, you derivative-insult-stealing weakling. If truth is absolute (i.e. not relative) then why does it need to be demonstrated? Just a simple question, less words than you presented me with you irrelevant dickhead. Gee, fuckhead, let's give your last remark a bit of thought and let's examine the number 1006303. Is it an integer? It demonstrates the characteristic of an integer in that there's nothing after the period so, voila, it's an integer. Is it prime? Well, could be, maybe not, but we know that it's one or the other, as demonstrated by the fact it's an integer. Anyway, if you run this on EXCEL (you do know how, don't you, fucktard?), you'll demonstrate that the number is prime. You see, fucktard, that's how reality works. You check out everything that could be true and you chuck out everything that's false. In the example, we first demonstrated that 1006303 is an integer type number. After that, we check out all possible divisors of that number and we see that none divide 1006303 without leaving a remainder. Thus we demonstrated that 1006303 is indeed prime and until we did we didn't know for sure. But now we do. So in answer to your retard question, "If truth is absolute (i.e. not relative) then why does it need to be demonstrated?" it's because that's how things work. Seeing as you're a churchie liar, another answer is, "Because God made it that way!"
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 5:32:22 GMT
I actually could be wrong. It is entirely possible that you are simple minded that you only think about things that are testable if not experienced by you. Actually evidence experienced by you cannot count I suppose so forget that last part. Still, you keep changing the subject so I'll try to connect the two. Are you basically under the impression that everyone thinks as you do AND also think that they owe you an explanation that will keep them up at nights if you don't accept it? People thinking differently is great, and I encourage and support that.
But that has nothing to do with determining what is true and what isn't. If we are all in a pursuit of knowledge that can be utilized and shared and demonstrated to be true, the only way to do that is through evidence. Not coming up with your own ideas that have nothing to do with reality, and then just saying you think different as though it's some sort of excuse.
Nobody owes me an explanation, but they do owe themselves the intellectual honesty to ask if their beliefs are justified by evidence and if not to investigate and discover more about the subject in order that they will learn. I'm sure you don't object to learning.
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Mar 19, 2017 7:33:37 GMT
Fucking hell, truth has changed into exists! Now I didn't see that coming! If I claim something is true, I have to demonstrate that it's true.
Funny you should say that because when you used to post your little anecdotes you were asked by numerous posters, myself included, to prove that they were true and you would bend over backwards to avoid doing so.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 19, 2017 9:43:53 GMT
Most of these points listed have nothing to do with believing in things with questionable evidence; they have something to do with wanting to impose your beliefs and values on others. In human history there have been plenty of terrorist groups who were not theistic. RAF (Germany), PKK and ETA come to mind. When I said that I see no problem with people believing delusional things if it makes them happy, I was talking only about the person themselves. Believing something is one thing; trying to convince others of these beliefs is something else. What people who make the argument you just made always miss, is that those delusional beliefs lead to irrational actions based on them, and those actions impact society. You don't get to pretend that they don't impact society. It's like you think there is no impact at all.
Those actions I listed directly have to do with thinking holy books are instructions from a god, that these books are true, that their teaching are moral, etc etc etc. The problem you aren't seeing, is that people make decisions based on what they believe, and if they have irrational beliefs, they are going to make irrational decisions.
Nobody here is suggesting there be laws against thoughts, but your best response here is that you support being delusional. Have a good time with that, I advocate against it, because I see a benefit in people making rational decisions based on a rational understanding of reality.
Is there a problem with my position?
Short answer: Yes. And now the longer answer. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I tend to be utilitarian. Meaning: I care more about the consequences of actions than about the intentions. So whether a decision was made rationally or irrationally is less important than whether the decision has a good outcome or a bad outcome. And sometimes, irrational decisions are better than rational ones. Example one: Airflight. On January 15th 2009, a flock of birds flew into the propulsion engine of flight 1549, rendering it difficult to pilot. The rational decision would have been to follow the proper protocol for these cases, which is: Reach the nearest airport and attempt an emergency landing there. But the pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, decided to deviate from protocol and made the decision based on his gut feeling to fly the plane on the Hudson river. Result: Everybody on board of the plane lived, and Sullenberger is today considered a hero. Example two: Sports. When you train to become a professional athlete, you learn physical endurance, and also techniques. You also learn how to respond to certain game situations. Like in tennis, where the coach teaches techniques like cross, longline, topspin, volley, and when to play them. However, if you only play like out of the training book, your game becomes predictable, and your opponent will adapt to it. Therefore, the really good players also can make bold moves, which are not in training manuals, they can't defend rationally and for which their coach would probably scold them, but which will catch the opponent by surprise. That's how Michael Chang won the French Open in 1989. Example three: Music. In music history, there have always been rules about counterpoint, melody, harmony, rhythm. But the reason music evolves is because there have been composers who have deviated from the accepted rules. We admire composers like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or rock bands like the Beatles or Pink Floyd. Not because they only made music as it was always known, but because they introduced unexpected elements, like disharmonies or particular rhythms. And none of them are to be explained rationally. Computers have been programmed to compose pieces in particular styles. But most people who know anything about music agree that it's pleasant, but not a masterpiece. And what's missing is the element of surprise, which can only be introduced if we forget rationality. In short: Computers haven't learned to behave irrationally. Of course, irrational decisions can also lead to disaster. Planes can crash because pilots prefer relying on their own piloting abilities instead of autopilot; tennis players can play randomly and miss the ball, and just hitting keys at random on a piano is not really music. The key is to find the right mix between rational and irrational. 100% rationality is bad. 0% rationality is worse. The right mix between rationality and irrationality is genius. And it varies depending on the individual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 12:45:45 GMT
I tend to be utilitarian; so when it comes to beliefs I believe that it's legitimate to believe things not necessarily because they are true; but because they make you happy. But did you say that because you believe that it's true, or because saying it made you happy? You see where this leads? No matter what claims you make regarding this - or any - subject, you are asserting that your viewpoint has merit because you believe it is true. Even dismissing the importance of truth is a truth claim. It's not that I'm saying I think everybody cares about truth... it's that I'm saying it's impossible not to, even if you say you don't. I'd argue that if you say a certain rock band is the best band in the world then you've actually mis-spoken. What you really meant to say if that they are your favourite band, or the band you enjoy listening to the most. And that is indeed a claim about an objective fact. Is that true, or is it just something that makes you happy? It's true for me, and I believe it makes me neither happy nor unhappy. It's just the way I see things.[/quote] Then you're disagreeing with your own premise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 12:51:49 GMT
It depends on what you mean by love, because many aspects of it we absolutely have evidence for, such as the chemicals involved that produce the sensation we associate with the emotion.
I get this idea that theists think there is no evidence for the circumstances we define as "love" and they can convince somebody they believe in love even though there's no evidence, that somehow this makes the idea of a god legitimate. First, there is evidence depending on what your definition of love even is. Second, it wouldn't matter. God would still need it's own justification to justify believing it.
I didn't say I knew how the universe began or claim that anybody does. The honest answer is we don't know, although we do have several possibly models we are testing. I don't see how you think that means I can't believe the universe exists.
Don't twist it. I am simply using your parameters regarding the need for everything to be factual which I think we can all agree is a retarded view because you believe in tons of stuff not supported by evidence that wouldn't satisfy me and my beliefs are supported by evidence that satisfies me and not you. This is why none of this matters because when it comes to opinions and beliefs and ideals we set our own parameters for being convinced. It couldn't be any more irrelevant for me to worry about convincing you of my beliefs whether they be secular or religious. You saying it matters does not in any way make it true, it just makes you wrong. But on the plus side, it'll keep giving you opportunities to make the same thread using different questions. I can hardly wait for your next version of "Why don't you care that I don't believe you?" you'll spring up. But you can know that love exists and you can test it. The evidence of love lies in people's behaviour. You can tell a person loves you by how they behave towards you. Does a woman enjoy herself in your company - smile a lot, laugh, talk as if she enjoys sharing anecdotes with you? Does she flirt? Does she want to have sex with you? Does she ask you to marry her? Have children with you? Show up and provide emotional support when you need it? Does she say she loves you? Those things are evidence that she loves you. Hell, if there was as much evidence that "god loves you" as there is that the average person's wife loved them, religion would be on a vastly surer footing than it is. And incidentally there are people who take it on faith that a woman loves them when there is no evidence to support it. They're called stalkers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 13:09:33 GMT
Matters enough for you to comment on it, apparently. That's not really the right context for my reply. Every time I make a comment here, it never matters in any significant way and it certainly doesn;t matter that someone not understand my beliefs. A person's views of my beliefs are entirely irrelevant unless they want to do something about it and the board should largely be used for entertainment purposes. You seem to post an awful lot to say things like "that doesn't matter" or "why should I talk about that". Seems to me like the above is incorrect; if these things actually didn't matter to you then you wouldn't talk about them at all. When a person posts to say something is irrelevant to them, you can bet it is relevant to them - they're just in denial about it.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 19, 2017 13:20:09 GMT
That's not really the right context for my reply. Every time I make a comment here, it never matters in any significant way and it certainly doesn;t matter that someone not understand my beliefs. A person's views of my beliefs are entirely irrelevant unless they want to do something about it and the board should largely be used for entertainment purposes. You seem to post an awful lot to say things like "that doesn't matter" or "why should I talk about that". Seems to me like the above is incorrect; if these things actually didn't matter to you then you wouldn't talk about them at all. When a person posts to say something is irrelevant to them, you can bet it is relevant to them - they're just in denial about it. That's because a lot of things don;t matter. My view comes with a different persepctive. I keep thinking that there a lot of times atheists come up with stuff that isn't their concern or a threat to them.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 19, 2017 13:23:14 GMT
Don't twist it. I am simply using your parameters regarding the need for everything to be factual which I think we can all agree is a retarded view because you believe in tons of stuff not supported by evidence that wouldn't satisfy me and my beliefs are supported by evidence that satisfies me and not you. This is why none of this matters because when it comes to opinions and beliefs and ideals we set our own parameters for being convinced. It couldn't be any more irrelevant for me to worry about convincing you of my beliefs whether they be secular or religious. You saying it matters does not in any way make it true, it just makes you wrong. But on the plus side, it'll keep giving you opportunities to make the same thread using different questions. I can hardly wait for your next version of "Why don't you care that I don't believe you?" you'll spring up. But you can know that love exists and you can test it. The evidence of love lies in people's behaviour. You can tell a person loves you by how they behave towards you. Does a woman enjoy herself in your company - smile a lot, laugh, talk as if she enjoys sharing anecdotes with you? Does she flirt? Does she want to have sex with you? Does she ask you to marry her? Have children with you? Show up and provide emotional support when you need it? Does she say she loves you? Those things are evidence that she loves you. Hell, if there was as much evidence that "god loves you" as there is that the average person's wife loved them, religion would be on a vastly surer footing than it is. And incidentally there are people who take it on faith that a woman loves them when there is no evidence to support it. They're called stalkers. Of course you can, but not on the OP's parameters. However, behavior is not a decent test. Love based on behavior can start with something as simple as a hot stripper. However, I'm not sure why behavior doesn;t get to be applied to belief. It's the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 15:08:27 GMT
Funny you should say that because when you used to post your little anecdotes you were asked by numerous posters, myself included, to prove that they were true and you would bend over backwards to avoid doing so. I've never avoided stating how something is true, or at the very least (since we're in a chat room and I can't literally show you) pointing the person to a source to verify my claim.
Further, everything I hold to be true is supported by evidence, which the same can not be said for theists.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 15:18:16 GMT
Short answer: Yes. And now the longer answer. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I tend to be utilitarian. Meaning: I care more about the consequences of actions than about the intentions. So whether a decision was made rationally or irrationally is less important than whether the decision has a good outcome or a bad outcome. And sometimes, irrational decisions are better than rational ones. The following are single word answer questions.
1. Which type of decision making process will more often lead to productive solutions? Rational or Irrational 2. Which type of decision making process will more often lead to destructive actions? Rational or Irrational
And that's why I discourage irrational thought support groups like religions who enable each other to keep thinking that way, and encourage people who are skeptical and following the scientific process in order to learn.
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Mar 19, 2017 15:51:43 GMT
Funny you should say that because when you used to post your little anecdotes you were asked by numerous posters, myself included, to prove that they were true and you would bend over backwards to avoid doing so. I've never avoided stating how something is true, or at the very least (since we're in a chat room and I can't literally show you) pointing the person to a source to verify my claim. Yes you have.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 15:54:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 19, 2017 15:56:37 GMT
I tend to be utilitarian; so when it comes to beliefs I believe that it's legitimate to believe things not necessarily because they are true; but because they make you happy. But did you say that because you believe that it's true, or because saying it made you happy? You see where this leads? No matter what claims you make regarding this - or any - subject, you are asserting that your viewpoint has merit because you believe it is true. Even dismissing the importance of truth is a truth claim. It's not that I'm saying I think everybody cares about truth... it's that I'm saying it's impossible not to, even if you say you don't. I didn't say that I don't care about truth. I said that truth is relative. What is true for me may not be true for you. If grass is green for me, it may not be for a colorblind person. Or a synesthesist may say that a color sounds funny. I don't. But none of us has the claim to absolute truth. Maybe a source for misunderstandings is the definition of absolute truth. Some posters here seem to mean truth that is measurable, and upon which humans can agree. When I say "absolute truth" I mean truth independent from human observation or perception. Objective truth, so to speak. My opinion is that humans can't grasp it. We (humans) can approximate it, but since everything we see and measure is through our perception, possibly with the help of instruments designed to fit our perception abilities, it will always be subjective from a human standpoint. I'd argue that if you say a certain rock band is the best band in the world then you've actually mis-spoken. What you really meant to say if that they are your favourite band, or the band you enjoy listening to the most. And that is indeed a claim about an objective fact.[/quote] Actually how I feel about music is a subjective fact. Maybe there are some chemical reactions that could be measured; but I don't believe I have exactly the same sensation twice when I listen to music.
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Mar 19, 2017 15:59:33 GMT
When posting your anecdotes you were asked by several people, myself including, if you can prove that they are true, the only response you gave is "You like to pretend theists don't behave like that".
|
|