Open thread for episode 22.52: Tracie and Jen


General TAE Links

General useful resources

Comments

  1. StevenAS says

    How is Brojo’s claim that we were made in god’s image, evidence for a god? His god doesn’t walk on earth, so why would he have legs, he doesn’t breath or talk physically, so why would he have a nose or mouth, doesn’t listen physically, so why have ears. Why wouldn’t his god just be a formless blob? So if we can’t be sure he looks like us, how do we know we’re made in his image?

  2. mikeydans says

    Hi there. Great show tonight. Great team aswell as there always is on AXP. just out of curiosity after a thought provoking description (or non description!) of the word “nothing” on a previous episode by the brilliant Tracie Harris. What would, if any, the lovely miss Harris give as the definition of “nothing”? Or is the question itself nonsensical? Should there be no definition? Be interested what other members of the team think.
    Hope you all have a super New Year! Take Care. Mikey

  3. Walker says

    What are the chances chances that the presuppositionalist on todays show actually comes to the blog as Tracie suggested?

  4. JoAnn Kuhr says

    I’m not sure if I’m doing this right. I have a comment for Tracie regarding the definition of a spirit. I’m saying it’s conscious energy–not something to believe in but something to speculate about in terms of the multiverse and all that jazz. What do you think?

  5. says

    @Lyndale – I read the introduction as well as the conclusion in the paper you linked to for proof of conscious awareness in plants. I see nothing put forward that suggests plants are consciously aware. Can you cite the part of the article you believe is claiming plants have conscious awareness? Bear in mind we all acknowledged on the call that reacting is not evidence of conscious awareness–that I can digest food, for example, while not conscious.

    @Mike – Because “nothing” cannot exist, I don’t know what it would be. It would be like saying “nonexistence can exist.” What does that mean?

    @JoAnn – I have the same problem: “conscious energy”–what is that? If I don’t know what that is, how can I talk about it coherently?

  6. Jefe1951 says

    This is my first comment on the blog. I am unaware of a brainless consciousness and need proof there of.

  7. Walker says

    @Richard Dimartino Brojo was a presuppositionalist. They like to go around making a bunch of claims about atheists/atheism but they never back up their claims. Its rather unlikely he would come to the blog where his inability to do so would be easily seen. They prefer live debate where its easier to avoid backing up their claims.

  8. Anthony Princiotti says

    @Lyndale You would do well to get a better handle on the concept of the Equivocation Fallacy.

  9. RationalismRules says

    @mikeydans #5
    ‘Nothing’ is a state, not an existent thing. In the same way that ‘on’ describes the state of a switch, yet is not an existent thing in itself, ‘nothing’ describes the state of the absence of all existent things, but is not a thing in itself.

  10. StonedRanger says

    @Lyndale #3 So you make some lines on a map that dont conform to anything and thats a picture of god? Your lines kind of follow BORDERS (not boarders) but where the actual border does not make the lines of your picture you conveniently ignore them and keep on drawing. If thats the kind of shit that makes you believe in god, more power to you. But that is no more convincing to me than having some religious shmo tell me god hates fags, and in the same breath try to tell me how loving the god of the bible is. That is not proof of a god. Its proof of your overactive imagination.

  11. StonedRanger says

    So are you now saying that god did such a poor job with the bible, that he had to wait two thousand years so he could do all this stuff with google maps to show us its real? What about people who dont have access to the internet? Are they just damned to eternal torture? You make my head hurt.

  12. larpar says

    Lyndale @#3
    Congratulations, your linked video is the dumbest thing I have ever seen on the internet. A person could do the same thing you did with any story. As an example, look at all the different interpretations of star formations.

  13. RationalismRules says

    @StonedRanger
    I’m torn between laughing at the utter inanity of that video vs. pity/sadness that anyone could convince themself that this sort of post hoc fabulation is actually meaningful. It’s no different from looking at clouds and making up stories to fit the faces you see in them. Except this guy has convinced himself that his cloud story is actual evidence of something. I find that level of deluded thinking quite sad on some levels.

    Then I read “Important to know that sinned [sic] started at a 75° angle”, and I’m back to laughing.

    So many absurdities… Why would an all-knowing god need to look into a goblet in order to know what his archangel is doing…? Wouldn’t it already know? For that matter, why would a god have a goblet in the first place? Presumably it doesn’t need to drink anything. If it did, it must have got reeeeallly thirsty in the eternity before it had the idea of creating water… And why is it wearing clothes? Why would a god feel the need to hide its (presumably) perfect body? Presumably it isn’t for warmth. Then again, this god needs a goblet to see behind/above it, so it clearly has limitations. Perhaps it can’t regulate the temperature of its ephemeral body. And so on…
     
    But, we do know for certain that it’s not just pareidolia at work, because, as is stated in the YouTube description “This is not random and it is not and I repeat “not”, Pareidolia.”
    Well, that settles it, I guess. Everybody knows: if you’re making a bald assertion, repeating part of it makes it utterly unassailable. Better than evidence, any day.

  14. RationalismRules says

    @heicart
    A state isn’t an existent thing. It’s a description of the configuration / status of existent things.
    If you take all the apples out of a fruit bowl, it doesn’t then contain a ‘thing’ called ‘no apples’. ‘Nothing’ cannot “be”, in the same way that ‘no apples’ cannot “be”.

  15. Ronald Kyle says

    My favorite thing about those who go to all that trouble to find their god in some malodorous crevices, is that once they deluded themselves enough with the lump of stuff they find wedged in that crevice, they then proceed to convince themselves that it is whatever version of crap that they swallowed throughout their unfortunate life of inculcation and indoctrination.

    Somehow when a Christian or Muslim or Jew or whatever duped wretch goes on a quest to locate their gods in whatever fissure they can misconceive, they happen to always find the god they imbibed since childhood… I have yet to come across a Christian concluding that Vishnu is the right one or a Muslim concluding that Zeus is the real god he pried out of the gaps.

    Strange is it not? Somehow it is as if their Wishful Thinking is its very own justification.

  16. Bunny Mellon says

    Lyndale- I would suggest using something like “my evidence” instead of “undeniable proof” when citing sources. Undeniable? How is that gullible, silly video “proof of God” much less “undeniable proof?” Undeniable means “unable to be denied or disputed, unquestioned as to quality, merit, etc; indisputably good, and not open to refusal” (1) so where is the “undeniable” part?

    The video was something an ill-informed, very naive person would come up with to make themselves feel less insecure in their beliefs. If you made it, I am sorry to hurt your feelings but I am tired of the false civility used to help continue your particular type of behavior and actions. That behavior does cause many problems and can hurt others.

    In the video, you saw “God” holding a chalice on a computerized map. It is very obvious that your brain is doing what most human brains do– searching for patterns. That is something almost all human brains do. “The Brain Seeks Patterns in Coincidences” (2) The video was really nothing more than an example of what is called pareidolia, and no, that doesn’t mean you’re “crazy” or mentally ill, and I hope no one tries to state that. “Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon in which the mind responds to a stimulus, usually an image or a sound, by perceiving a familiar pattern where none” and you can look more into this phenomenon in the article titled “Pareidolia: Seeing Faces in Unusual Places.” (3) Point is, your video is far from “proof.” It just doesn’t work. You should look up the terms proof and evidence, too.You seem to have some problems in those definitions. Hey, we all learn something new everyday. Well, we should.

    The video was sad because it was almost coming off as satire or the like, and certainly desperate. Watermarks on Google maps = the story of creation? How did you come to that conclusion? You need to really exam why you believe what you do and how, what, etc. Do you have any other evidence we can all examine? If so, please post it!

    Sorry if this post is somewhat discombobulated. I have a f**kerroo of a headache and I’m kinda a baby when it comes to headache pain because I rarely deal with it! However if I procrastinate and wait to post, I will forget. LOL. Thanks for understanding.

    (1) https://www.dictionary.com/browse/undeniable
    (2) https://drjudithorloff.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Psychiatric-Annals-Brains-Seek-Patterns.pdf
    (3) https://www.livescience.com/25448-pareidolia.html

  17. Bruce Baker says

    1. Happy Saturnalia, everyone.

    2. I came here, after the show, for the exchange between Jen and the gay=sick guy. I don’t see it on this thread. On main page it was, I think, 1. Open thread for this week. 2. Open thread for last week. So no separate thread for her topic. And she can’t need to await mod approval, so…?

    3.@Joann Kuhr
    You’d define spirit as “conscious energy”. Okay.
    a) what does that even mean?
    b) what reason do you have to figure that energy, of whatever definition, could be conscious?
    c) consciousness could be seen as an emergent property of brains. Perhaps brains of at least a certain level of complexity.
    Brains employ and require “energy”. Energy derived from sunlight and food. And micro volts of (I think) actual electricity firing neurons.

    So brains use energy and have consciousness. Is that “spiritual”? Or just mechanical.? Or at least more mundane than “spiritual” seems to imply.

    How about this. Spiritual is hypothetical wooey interconnectedness between things that are demonstrably real (like people, life & death, pictures hanging on a wall) and nebulous, hypothesized “forces” or “beings” that the speaker simply asserts are (or may be) real.

  18. says

    Brojo; Our hosts here easily pulled your chair out from under you and you fell flat on your ass.
    This is your opportunity to redeem yourself and provide evidence for your claim, that a god exists.

  19. Thane McKinsey says

    If relativity is true then nothing can not exist.
    The universe came from an infancy, infinity.

  20. DanDare2050 says

    @17 heicart says
    >> the state of the absence of all existent things
    > Can this “state” “be”? Can a state of nothing exist?

    You can’t get there from here. 🙂

    The state of nothing includes no rules or laws, no time, no other states. It has no power to prevent a change to some other state. If it was the state it certainly isn’t the state now and can never be moved to.

  21. Honey Tone says

    If anyone is interested, Brojo was reading his little spiel about the definition of atheism from this source:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

    (The full citation reads: Draper, Paul, “Atheism and Agnosticism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . )

    which is an article within the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and it includes a subsection on the various definitions of “theist” and “atheist”.

    Apparently, philosophy geeks like Brojo and the Oreo guy from the previous thread are intent on using modern academic philosophy to show that atheism ain’t real/rational/logical/valid.

    Gee, I can’t wait.

  22. Net says

    I have problem with terms such as life and especially consciousness. How do you define consciousness? How do you really know if some animal is conscious? If we are conscious why would not monkey be conscious? Why would not owl be conscious or some fish? Can ants be conscious? And ultimately why the jelly-fish or plant could not be conscious? How about self-driving car reacting to the situation on the road? Where is the line between conscious and non-conscious? How can you tell which brain is conscious? At which point would AI be conscious? How can you tell from outside?

  23. says

    Hi Net: Consciousness generally includes some capacity to be aware of what one is doing. I agree there are gray areas. But it isn’t assumed. It’s demonstrated. That is, I have no reason to believe the car knows the car is reacting to the environment, only that it is reacting. While a jelly fish or tree may be “aware”–simply demonstrating a thing reacts is not the same as demonstrating it is aware it is reacting. So, to say it “IS” conscious, means you have to demonstrate not only that it reacts, but that within itself, it is somehow aware of the fact it’s reacting, and that it isn’t reacting by rote. Consider the difference between me picking up a cup of tea and drinking some, versus my liver filtering out any toxins from the tea. I am conscious of drinking the tea. I am not conscious of the liver filtering process. I am “aware” of it and conscious that it happens, but I have no conscious experience of that reaction in my body. So, two different reactions, both happening to me as the subject. One requires consciousness, the other not at all.

    If it is the case that a jelly fish or tree possess awareness sans a brain, it has to be demonstrated before a person can assert it as fact. Right now I’m not aware of that being a fact. Could a tree be conscious? Sure. But for now it has not been demonstrated, and trees lack the hardware, so far as we understand it, to have what we call “consciousness.” And until someone can show not just that they react, but that they are aware they are reacting, we can’t say they’re conscious.

  24. says

    >The state of nothing includes no rules or laws, no time, no other states. It has no power to prevent a change to some other state. If it was the state it certainly isn’t the state now and can never be moved to.

    But further, if it “was” then it existed and was “something”. To “be” is to exist. And “was” is simply the past tense of “be.” It seems to me, self-refuting and even beyond our capacity to even coherently talk about it. For me, it’s like the married-bachelor.

  25. says

    @Bruce: I’m not sure when Jen will post. She was not able to stay for the after-show dinner, so I know she had some other engagement last night. I’ll let her know folks are enthusiastic about seeing the exchange.

  26. says

    >@heicart
    A state isn’t an existent thing. It’s a description of the configuration / status of existent things.
    If you take all the apples out of a fruit bowl, it doesn’t then contain a ‘thing’ called ‘no apples’. ‘Nothing’ cannot “be”, in the same way that ‘no apples’ cannot “be”.

    ***
    And if you took away “all the things”–whatever is left, is what would “be”. To be is to exist. I agree in terms of limited capacity, “nothing” is a descriptor of missing things. My question is in the theist-atheist debate–where “nothing” is used to mean a totally of no-things–is it coherent? And it isn’t. A totality of missing things, would still be, itself, a thing. It would “be” and, therefore, exist. It’s a self-refuting proposition.

  27. RICHARD KERSTING says

    @Lyndale @Brojo You really must define what you understand by conscious.

    I read the article and at no moment it mentions anything like trees having a conscience in the sense defined in any dictionary. What I would admit to is that, according to the paper, the trees reacted to actions inflicted upon neighbouring trees via communication by some wave, whatever. But that doesn’t imply that the tree was ‘aware’ and had a sense of ‘ inner feelings’ or right and wrong!

  28. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ tracie 28:

    Even if a jellyfish or a tree is aware / conscious / whatever, it’s still a physical being that is using its physical form to interact with the world around it, and this awareness / consciousness / whatever is still the product of physical processes of some sort. If someone is going to posit the existence of a mind / consciousness free from any kind of physical existence, they can’t point to physical things for justification.

  29. virago says

    Brojo is a moderator on a discord server where matt slick hangs around. Yesterday i asked him to post a follow-up to his call on here.

  30. DocMoonSmash says

    The fact that formal philosophy hasn’t adapted to how actual atheists use the terms and take positions, and theists tend to try to push that old formalization rather than actually asking the people with the position what position they have makes me think of Dan Dennett’s “chmess” every time.

  31. oreoman1987 says

    Honey Tone, I never argued against atheism or theism.
    Plus, why would you not be interested in philosophy?

  32. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, I’m not sure if Tracie Harris has ever opened a philosophy book. I think if she did, she wouldn’t still have faith in science.

  33. Walker says

    @oreoman 1987, you shouldnt pretend your views will be shared by others after they learn the same things. The people on this thread for instance include people who disagree with you even knowing as much or more than you do about philisophy. You also still havent even clarified what you mean by faith or belief in science.

  34. says

    If you can’t believe your own eyes, you won’t believe my words (In regards to my earlier post).
    Here’s one last video I made. If you live near the Pacific Ocean, you’ll want to watch this.
    https://youtu.be/1UGpXddwv8I
    Please read the comments there and no, this isn’t a joke.
    Good luck to those near the Pacific.

  35. Ronald Kyle says

    @Honey Tone “philosophy geeks like Brojo and the Oreo guy from the previous thread”

    And you are being overly generous calling them “philosophy geeks”… I think they are LESS than that and especially in the case of the latter guy I am 100% sure he is a dissimulator and liar…. the former has not yet revealed much.

  36. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Ok, if Oreo is taking this to a new thread, he really needs to be banned. Tracie, could you take a look at last week’s thread to see that he’s effectively a troll and needs to be banned, please? Hundreds of posts of dishonesty and refusing to engage with questions from myself and many others. And this request to ban is coming from me, borderline freeze peach absolutist.

  37. Net says

    On the subject of nothing before big bang, I recommend this lecture, even though it is pure speculation, it is interesting viewpoint.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Zmzcl85Ds

    @heicart 28: I am not entirely sure how you can demonstrate to me, that you are conscious by that definition? What if you are advanced robot that is programmed to react certain way and appear as if it was conscious? What if I am in a simulation and you are NPC? (What if I am NPC in a simulation?)
    How do you go about and demonstrate that someone’s brain is “advanced” enough that it is not only reacting, but is aware of the process? Because if consciousness is a decision-making process that is more complex than simple input and output, but is “processed” that is what computers are doing for a while and modern neural networks are getting increasingly more complex and work with concepts they form based on the inputs (they “see” a car, or obstacle, not just bunch of pixels).
    What I mean I need useful definition of consciousness that allows me to decide if something or someone is conscious without them telling me they are conscious.

    I mean I know what I am conscious of, I just do not know how to demonstrate that another person, animal, organism, or machine is or is not conscious of its reactions. And since all the evidence points in the direction that consciousness is an emergent property, I need a working definition to be able to determine at which point it emerges. I mean if we have 500 trillion synapses in our brain, maybe we are trillion times more conscious than jellyfish, maybe because of the extra complexity we are quintillion times more conscious than jellyfish. Maybe jellyfish is not conscious at all. The thing is I cannot know until I see some useful definition of consciousness. I mean, the current definition tells me I am alive (conscious) and dead person is not alive (nor conscious). But how many neurons or synapses has to stop working in order to person be dead and not alive? How many neurons need to shut down to stop the consciousness? Is sleeping person conscious? Is person in coma conscious?

  38. Ronald Kyle says

    @Lyndale

    I suggest your time is much better spent familiarizing yourself with stuff that has a direct impact on your psychological condition

    Read about the concepts of Wishful Thinking, God of the Gaps, Pareidolia.

    Also about Inculcation, Indoctrination, Acculturation, Brainwashing, Cognitive Dissonance, Ambiguity Effect, Confirmation Bias, Congruence Bias etc. etc.

    But I think above all you really need to study about the Dunning Kruger Effect

  39. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ EL 38:

    Yes, Tracie, please look at the last thread if you haven’t – if hijacking the thread with dozens and dozens of posts that boil down to “you can’t disprove hard solipsism” is a productive activity, then you’re in luck. One week of that is more than enough.

  40. Monocle Smile says

    @Net
    How many molecules of water need to be on something before it is considered wet? This directly relates to your post.

  41. Ronald Kyle says

    @Net “How do you define consciousness”

    I do not think that consciousness is and On/Off thing… I think it is a spectrum.

    I think if a being can’t go to sleep thinking about the mistakes it has done during the day then that might be tending towards the 100% marker.

    A being that can plan for something and can use tools that might be tending towards the 80% marker

    A being that does nothing more than react to stimuli might be tending towards the 0% marker.

    And notice in all the above I said a BEING… not a thing that was FABRICATED as a tool by a being.

  42. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @heicart 28: I am not entirely sure how you can demonstrate to me, that you are conscious by that definition? What if you are advanced robot that is programmed to react certain way and appear as if it was conscious? What if I am in a simulation and you are NPC? (What if I am NPC in a simulation?)

    This is how I answer that retort.

    I presuppose some generalized version of the mediocrity principle as part of my epistemology foundation. See:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

    With the basic use of science, I can determine that other humans are behaviorally identical to me. I can also determine that they are born, just like I am, and they die, just like I will die. The only remaining difference is whether they’re all philosophical zombies or not.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

    On the basis that I am probably not special, ala the generalized mediocrity principle, I cannot be the only conscious human and everyone else is p-zombies, and therefore the other humans are conscious too.

    As for direct evidence that other humans are conscious and not p-zombies? I think that’s impossible. The best that you can do is the argument that I just laid out.

    As for the question “How complicated does something have to be before we decide that it’s conscious?”. I don’t know. I really don’t. As a pragmatic matter, I suppose that they should be able to interact with their environment and display learning displays and display a value of self worth of at least some sort of animal before I consider the question morally relevant.

    I don’t really know why or why I have concluded that this wood desk in front of me has no feelings and doesn’t mind when I lay my arms on it as I type this. I haven’t thought about this exactly, which also surprises me now. I might hold it as an appeal to consequences fallacy, e.g. it would be inconvenient for me if the table had a mind and feelings. The best I can do,

    I think, is a really pisspoor argument like: The only things with minds that I know about also have brains, and therefore all minds have brains, and therefore a wood table does not have a mind. I say pisspoor because the formal structure of the argument is a very poor inductive argument. See the classic black swan fallacy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

    Or maybe I could appeal to the notion that the universe is only made of energy (and matter) and space and time, which seems decently well supported by the evidence, with the caveat that minds, whatever they are, are always the result of a brain. I think this is still of the same bad form as the argument above, but I like it more because I feel like I have a good enough grasp on the nature of the whole universe, enough to make the positive materialist assertion, and assuming materialism, then it’s safe to claim that minds must come from brains, because a mind without a brain is an impossibility in materialism. I think so at any rate.

  43. Lyndale says

    I think you should believe your eyes over your hearts.
    I only do this because you don’t remember me, but if you did, you’d know how much we loved each other ‘then.

    If you can figure that last sentence out, you’ll understand why Jesus is called the “redeemer” of mankind.

    God bless all of you out there.

  44. Ronald Kyle says

    @Monocle Smile “How many molecules of water need to be on something before it is considered wet”

    Exactly…. I like this…. you have a talent for expressing things with succinct analogies.

  45. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Welp. Got a reply to Net sitting in moderation because 3 or more links, and I forgot to use html code tags. Guess I’ll just wait for it to be approved. It looks like Tracie is active in the thread.

  46. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Fun aside, especially for Monocle Smile, because IIRC you have a background as a physicist.

    The question “How many molecules of water need to be on something before it is considered wet?” actually came up in an entirely separate context for me. There was an asshat online, and they were making asshat claims, and during the extended conversation, I caught them in an obvious error.

    I am not quite sure, but I think he was attacking a certain form of reductionism, where he said that the phenomenon of the large world are “something more” than the mere result of the rules of quantum mechanics, and he accidentally gave an example of this claim by pointing out water is wet and mistaken claim that particle physics cannot predict that water was wet. That, of course, is just wrong. Completely wrong. I said that I didn’t have a source offhand, but I’m sure with enough effort, that I could find a paper, or even textbook, that does exactly that. Part of that was discussing “how many water molecules do I need in order for it to count as ‘wet’.”. No really, the conversation actually came up, lol. I decided that I would test his integrity by focusing on the first mistake and hounding him until he convinced me that it wasn’t a clear mistake, or until he admitted his error. Unfortunately, he did neither, and became incredibly evasive to the point of dishonesty when I pressed him on this point.

    Thus ends story time from EL.

  47. Ronald Kyle says

    @Lyndale “Jesus is called the “redeemer” of mankind”

    Mankind does not need a mythical HUMAN BLOOD SACRIFICE to be redeemed from a nonexistent celestial slave monger’s despotic tyrannical imbecilic wrath.

    You keep giving us claptrap to read… but you do not do any reading yourself even of the claptrap you want us to read… and we do read it only to find out how you haven’t read it yourself in the first place.

    I suggest you read this… and I bet you that you will not… if you do not read that will only indicate to yourself that you are a hypocritical ignoramus…
    http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/03/50-reasons-to-be-ashamed-and-not-a-fan-of-jesus/

  48. Ronald Kyle says

    @Lyndale “Jesus is called the “redeemer” of mankind”

    Mankind does not need a mythical HUMAN BLOOD SACRIFICE to be redeemed from a nonexistent celestial slave monger’s despotic tyrannical imbecilic wrath.

    You keep giving us claptrap to read… but you do not do any reading yourself even of the claptrap you want us to read… and we do read it only to find out how you haven’t read it yourself in the first place.

    I suggest you read this… and I bet you that you will not… if you do not read it, that will only indicate to yourself that you are a hypocritical ignoramus…
    http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/03/50-reasons-to-be-ashamed-and-not-a-fan-of-jesus/

  49. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, I’m not sure how any of you know anything if we still have the problem of skepticism. Epistemology is the study of knowledege and weather we have it. Check out the Gettier problem for more.

  50. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, I never said you couldn’t disporove hard solipsism. I was asking how you or anyone else know it’s false.

  51. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, What proof do you have that I’m being dishonest? I’m asking simple questions on how you guys know anything with certianty while using something unjustified like science. It seems like most of you are uncomfortable with skeptical hypothesis. Dismissing them as irrelavent is no more effective than a theist calling atheism a religion or waving a bible around. It’s a way if simply avoiding debate.

  52. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, Thomas Khun demonstrated in hos 1962 book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that scientists also tend to use cognitive dissonace and wishful thinking. He pointed out that scince progresses more in a paradigm instead of critical thinking and open-mindedness. Plus, the god of the gaps cliche is I think a bad argument to use in debate because this would be equivelent to a theist saying science of the gaps. Especially when both religon amd science are unjustified and based on faith.

  53. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 While i cant speak for others, i can say i dont have a problem of skeptism or need to worry about the gettier problem (i dont consider knowledge to be justified true belief). I dont need absolute certainity. I dont care that you think its required since i know its not.

    A common silliness of presuppositiomal apologetics (which you seem to be emulating) is claiming if everything you know can be wrong then you cant know anything. The thing is, its logically impossible for everything i know to be wrong, such as knowing i dont know everything. Since i can and do know that, i know i can know things (without god incidently).

    The rest of your comments in this thread and last week’s thread just boil down to you not paying attention to your own strawmen, mistakes, or otherwise lack of considering the flaws when they get pointed out to you.

  54. Ronald Kyle says

    @Lyndale “Jesus is called the “redeemer” of mankind”

    The problem with religious casuists is that they INVARIABLY fail on a DOUBLE LEVEL.

    They fail because their premises are wrong in the first place….

    But EVEN IF… just for the sake of the argument… we grant them their faulty premises as true just for the sake of the argument … they STILL FAIL AGAIN because their conclusion is faulty too even if their faulty premises were granted as true.

    In other words… they cannot see that that their premises are wrong… and then they proceed to draw even more asinine insanity as a faulty conclusion out of the premises….

    Double Imbecility…..

    Let me demonstrate this with the Lundale’s statement as an example….

    The premises are
    (1) a sky despotic monster exists
    (2) he is angry with humanity
    (3) the aformentioned sky monster raped a 13 years old girl and adulterously impregnatged her with an ill begotten son named Jesus

    None of those premises are SANE let alone correct… but EVEN IF we grant Lyndale his premises…. HE STILL fails because his conclusion

    ==> Jesus redeemed mankind by becoming a Human Blood Sacrifice to that celestial slave monger to appease his wrath at humanity.

    FAILS abysmally….. because…. within the fairy tale itself this celestial tyrant said:

    ⬛ 2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin…

    So as we see in the above… the very sky monster himself in the fairy tale gave us a FORMULA for how to be redeemed… and as you can see it has no rape of little girls and no ill begotten sons and no human blood sacrifice….

    Can Christianity explain why their god who once said the words of 2 Chronicles 7:14 (above) would all of a sudden feel compelled to have to rape and commit adultery with a 13 years old girl so as to impregnate her with a third of himself and then sit inside her for 9 months twiddling his thumbs and then ooze out from between her legs to YET AGAIN do nothing for thirty more years and then go entice 12 men away from their work and their obligation to provide for and protect their families so as to go hoboing about with him having naked feet washing orgies and then help him annoy some fanatics so as to induce them to give him a weekend of BDSM so as to achieve (and fail to do so) what he has already explained how to achieve without any raping or adultery with a little girl and without any BDSM or torture or bloodshed or HUMAN BLOOD sacrifice????

    And the pathetic idiocy of it all is that even in the NT we have Christianity admitting that it was a pointless human blood sacrifice in the first place ….
    ⬛ Luke 16:29-31 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them… but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent… he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

    So their premises are insane and their conclusion based on the insane premises is an even more demneted insanity.

    Can you Lyndale explain why would a god who said the words in 2 Chronicles 7:14 and who KNEW the words of Luke 16:29-31 feel the need for all that rape and committing adultery with a 13 years old girl and then go through the FARCICAL HOAX of a weekend of BDSM with muscly men in domineering uniforms????

  55. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    This is for the benefit of other readers: Oreoman is incorrectly portraying Thomas Khun’s work. It’s a common mistake, common enough that Khun had to create a postscript to his work to explain that, while scientists suffer significantly more biases than previously believed, and while scientists sometimes stagnate in a particular paradigm long past time that it should be overthrown and replaced with a new one, it was still true that science progresses towards objective truth. Science doesn’t progress towards an objective truth all of the time, nor is the progression constant through time. Khun’s thesis was to point out that science doesn’t advance at a constant rate, instead sometimes get stuck in ruts, and having to be forced out of the rut via the accumulation of overwhelming evidence that the prevailing paradigm was wrong, to be replaced with a new paradigm.

    If you want someone who goes the sort of distance that Oreoman is talking about, someone who denies that science is getting closer to objective truth over time, then look up Paul Feyerabend.

  56. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

    In the second edition, Kuhn added a postscript in which he elaborated his ideas on the nature of scientific progress. He described a thought experiment involving an observer who has the opportunity to inspect an assortment of theories, each corresponding to a single stage in a succession of theories. What if the observer is presented with these theories without any explicit indication of their chronological order? Kuhn anticipates that it will be possible to reconstruct their chronology on the basis of the theories’ scope and content, because the more recent a theory is, the better it will be as an instrument for solving the kinds of puzzle that scientists aim to solve. Kuhn remarked: “That is not a relativist’s position, and it displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in scientific progress.”[30][31]

  57. Ronald Kyle says

    @Moderators,

    OK… this is now getting beyond just stupid… this guy Oreomendacious is DELIBERATELY trolling and SABOTAGING this forum … he is flooding the threads with his asinine crap OVER AND OVER AND OVER …. he is deliberately sabotaging this forum.

    I never advocate for banning any idiots just for being idiots…. but this guy is not just an idiot he is a PERNICIOUS SABOTEUR… deliberately engaging in an ATTACK on this forum… he is carrying over his insane arguments to this thread where the have absolutely no relevance… and he is doing this with the intent of FLOODING the thread and DROWNING OUT any relevant discussion.

    Please everyone do not engage him on this thread regarding his solipsism RED HERRING … if you want to address his claptrap please go to the thread before this one where he is repeating over and over and over and over the exact same thing without any regard to what others say to him.

    I have demonstrated in the previous thread that this pernicious villain is a LIAR FOR JESUS student of a Seminary School where they teach parasites how to LIE FOR JESUS and his lying dissimulating nature was exposed by his very own words in his numerous posts.

    Oreoconman Liar For Jesus… if you want to engage in topics to do with your Lying For Jesus please do it on the previous thread…. but on this thread please confine your LYING to issues to do with the topics of this thread.

  58. neevok says

    Could you address the topic of metaphysics on one of the shows? There is not much to be found online from an atheist perspective…

  59. Heretical Ryan says

    Lyndale#36
    >Please read the comments there and no, this isn’t a joke.

    But it’s funny like a joke.

  60. Ronald Kyle says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal “Oreoman is incorrectly portraying”

    Of course he is… his WHATABOUTISM is well noted and is yet another TELLTALE of his Lying For Jesus that he learned at that 2nd rate Seminary School he is attending.

    Whataboutism is a staple of LIARS for Jesus or whatever other category of peddling and hucksterism and hawking.

    What OreoConman fails to fathom is that scientists are humans and thus are just as prone to all the cognitive biases and failures as any human…. but … the difference between religious Casuists who are pretending to be philosophers and scientists is that they are aware of that fact and TAKE MEASURES to detect them when they occur and to avoid them as much as they can.

    Thus what OreoMendacious fails to fathom is that his ilk of trained liars for their sky daddy either are utterly blinded by their cognitive failures or are ACTIVELY SEEKING to instill cognitive blindness in others.

  61. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    As a nit, I doubt this person is from seminary. Seminaries are actually great places to find (closeted) atheists. Most seminaries, even seminaries that are nominally run by the worst religious whackjobs that America can muster, employ teaching staff who actually know what they’re talking about, and they properly teach their students about the Bible, including its history.

    It’s a well known joke from one priest in particular that “no one can come out of seminary believing in god”.

    I was struck in particular by one priest saying that he was shocked in his first year in seminary. He was learning about all of the different versions, or textual variants, of the Bible, and he was waiting for his teachers to tell him which one the “real” one was, and he was aghast and surprised that his teachers didn’t seem to care about which version was the real one, and they taught the actual facts about the history of the Biblical texts.

    See also: Dan Dennett and The Clergy Project.

    I remember another priest from the Clergy Project saying something to the effect that a very large number of priests are actually closet atheists. He said that it was hard to tell, because they’re all closeted, but he suspects that most priests don’t believe the stuff that they’re peddling.

    How is it possible that most priests are (maybe?) atheists? Going to seminary is a big commitment. Especially completing it. You have no appreciable job skills for the real world except being a huckster. Many have families that they need to support. Many more still have family, friends, a whole social network, that would disown the priest if the priest admitted that they didn’t believe in god.

    So, for these reasons, I don’t think this person went to seminary or is in seminary. His arguments are much too nonsense and rank amateur for that to be likely. In effect, you’re dismissing the rather good quality of education that seminaries actually give.

  62. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Did you ever hear of the time he pointed out that scientists actually tend to ignore facts that contradict their theories?

  63. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoMasquerador “scientists also tend to use cognitive dissonace and wishful thinking”

    Your asinine whataboutism can be seen for the imbecilic statement it is with an analogy

    ⬛Defense attorney: Your honor my client is not a murderer because scientists are murderers and thus we are all murderers and what is murder in the first place, how do we know we exist how can you be sure that my client is not a brain in a vat, can you solve the problem of skepticism… no I assert that the answer is NO and thus I move that we all go to insane hospitals and just bang our heads on padded cell walls.

    ⬛Judge: Ok since you are not sure of anything and you cannot even know it … then I sentence your client AND yourself to an IMMDIATE death sentence to be carried out right now.
    …..
    ⬛Judge: What is that …. you object… well how can I be sure it is you who is objecting… how can I overcome the problem of skepticism…. thus Objection overruled… bailif… shoot them right now… in the head and let’s see if the vats are broken or not.

  64. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, It’s not a red herring. It’s a point to see how you guys are able to get past unsolved philosophical problems that are a threat to science. If not, then you’re believing in things on faith.

  65. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, This isn’t “whataboutism”. This is an actual issue for scientists and the history of science. Especially if Khun is right about science and truth being progressed throught a paradigm.

  66. Walker says

    @EL #60 I do tend to agree with your assessment. I have mentioned it several times, but i believe he is attempting to use the presuppositional methodology and approach but just cherry picking philisophical concepts that he thinks fits that approach that are not typucally used by presupps.

  67. Ronald Kyle says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal “Seminaries are actually great places to find (closeted) atheist”

    Yes, good ones… that is why I said he is from a 2nd rate seminary school… there are hundreds of these run by Evangelicals and they do not teach the stuff that good seminary schools teach with honesty and integrity.

    Those 2nd rate ones are not teaching…. they are TRAINING parasites into becoming SOLDIERS and liars for Jesus.

  68. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, Also, your court analogy is also an issue with the philosophy of law and justice. Philosophy is also the reason why the justice system operates tge way it does today. So, no, you still haven’t escaped the problem of skepticism.

  69. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, How exactly do you know these people are lying? Have you examined all of what they study or what sort of philosophical arguments they’ve examined that you haven’t? If you accuse someone of lying, you need to actually back it up with evidence.

  70. Walker says

    @oreoman 1987, while i realize that you appear to be a troll, but you havent demonstrated that there are any problems for science or that any of us have a problem of skeptism.

    You really should listen to people when they poimt out your flaws and mistakes. Strawmanning, misrepresenting concepts, outright lying etc. Are not generally good ways to make an argument and it is very easy to lose any credibility you may have had by using them as you have.

    If you want to make a case for something it would be good if start without the dishonest and fallacious tactics and actually listen to the criticisms when they are presented.

  71. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Yes, good ones… that is why I said he is from a 2nd rate seminary school… there are hundreds of these run by Evangelicals and they do not teach the stuff that good seminary schools teach with honesty and integrity.

    As I already said, I don’t think this is the case. From hearing Dan Dennett and a former member of the Clergy Project speak, it really does sound like even the shittiest American Evangelicals run seminaries that do a good job teaching the Bible and thereby make good atheists. Perhaps I’m wrong about what I saw, and perhaps Dennett and the priest were wrong, but this is what I remember.

  72. paxoll says

    Really? Still masturbating over hard solipsism, ignoring explanations, and straw-manning everyone here? I don’t like to call for people to get banned, but this is no different than someone getting on the blog and preaching.

  73. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, Just becaue you’ve never heard of these problems, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Maybe it would help you to research them. If you did, I don’t think you’d still have faith in science and reason. And, where exactly did I strawman anyone? And how are any of my points fallacious? The problem is is that you haven’t demonstrated how you know anything with your epistemology. In order to have knowledge, you have to solve the problem of skepticism. Until then, you’re stuck with dogma amd faith.

  74. oreoman1987 says

    paxoll, I’m not arguing for solipsism. Just trying to see if any of you can refute it. If not, I’m not sure how any of you can say that any of your beliefs are justified.

  75. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 Ronald, among others, has presented evidence of your lying.

    You may also want to grasp that you have yet to demonstrate any threats to human knowledge. You have been given many responses by others that go into detail as to why your claims are strawmen, outright wrong, misrepresentations, or irrelevent to attaining knowledge, yet you continue to act as if nothing was said and just reiterate already rebutted claims.

  76. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, These aren’t my claims. They are ancient problems that are unsolved and are a threat to science. Plus, where did any of you refute the problems I’ve presented? I however have responded to every response I’ve recieved. The information on these problems is very easy to find. This is the same thing as a creationist not researching evolution.

  77. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 I mentioned this earlier but you have yet to clarify what you mean by have faith in science or reason.

    You may want to take you own advice and learn from the folks on this blog.

  78. RationalismRules says

    @heicart

    A totality of missing things, would still be, itself, a thing.

    No, it wouldn’t. A ‘totality’ is not a thing, any more than ‘zero’ is a thing. They are just concepts. We use them to consider/discuss these ideas, but they don’t have any existence outside our minds.
    The same applies to ‘missing things’. An apple is a thing, but ‘the lack of an apple’ is not. It’s just a concept.
    If you take away all the apples, you are not left with a thing called ‘a totality of missing apples’. You are just left without any apples.
     

    And if you took away “all the things”–whatever is left, is what would “be”.

    There is no ‘whatever’ left, because you just took away all the things. The incoherence lies in this idea that ‘no things’ is itself a thing. That is the self-contradictory proposition.

    I agree that we tend to fall into contradictory language as soon as we start trying to talk about a situation where no things exist, because we immediately start using the words ‘be’ or ‘exist’ in relation to the situation/state. But that’s a language issue, because we don’t have a better way of expressing the idea, rather than a contradiction in the idea itself. The idea of ‘no existing things’ is not inherently self-contradictory or incoherent.

  79. Ronald Kyle says

    ⬛@EnlightenmentLiberal “but he suspects that most priests don’t believe the stuff that they’re peddling”

    EXACTLY… which makes them LIARS for Jesus… they do not need to believe it themselves … they are peddling it as he said and they continue to peddle it despite not believing it… which makes them pernicious heinous LIARS…. no?

    If they were not pernicious hypocrites they would declare the facts and stop peddling lies.

    ⬛@EnlighenmentLiberal “So, for these reasons, I don’t think this person went to seminary or is in seminary”…

    That is not at all correct… for precisely the reasons you listed in your post (e.g. “no appreciable job skills for the real world except being a huckster”) this guy is peddling lies… either as an assignment for his hucksterism class to prove to his huckstering teachers that he deserves the grade in hucksterism… or he is earning money from some organization to come here and huckster since this is his only job skills.

  80. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, The reason science is based on faith is becaise it relies on induction. Which is the weakest form if reasoning because it doesn’t guarentee the conclusion of the premisses. The problem of induction shows that to believe that the uniformity of nature will continue i the past can only end in circularity. It’s also for having certainty that every fire you tluch isngoing to be hot or that every time you touch water that it’s going to be wet. These beliefs have yet to be justified deductively. The problem of underdetermination is also a problem for science because it demonstrates that science can never know when it has it right or not.m since there are a numver of theories tha have just as much explanatory power as any other. In the end, a scinetific theory is only a theory.

  81. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    From my previous thread:

    I should whip out my troll bingo card. I could have gotten several lines already.

    Now quoting this thread:

    In the end, a scinetific theory is only a theory.

    BINGO

  82. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 So now you have switched to a more mainstream presuppositionalist argument rather than one from ancient skeptics.

    Is there a particular reason you think the problem of induction is important? I have seen enough solutions to it that collectively show there is no problem of induction.

  83. Ronald Kyle says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal “From hearing Dan Dennett and a former member of the Clergy Project speak”

    Are there are no more clergy? Are you saying that seminary schools have allllll succeeded in eliminating clergy alllltogether… are there no more clergy at all???

    Are you saying that every single seminary school student in all seminary schools have become a closetted atheist?

    But even then… you have said this

    “You have no appreciable job skills for the real world except being a huckster. Many have families that they need to support. Many more still have family, friends, a whole social network, that would disown the priest if the priest admitted that they didn’t believe in god.”

    Which makes the questions I posed above utterly moot… the facts you satated above are enough to prove that this guy is engaging in Lying for Jesus here on this forum to feed his family or to pass a course so that one day he would feed his family by peddling lies about Jesus…. or to impress his friends or to teach other dupes in how to huckster.

    Whether he believes the lies or not… whether he is from a 2nd rate seminary that TRAINS LYING SOLDIER for Jesus rather than EDUCATE HYPOCRITICAL LIARS for Jesus… is utterly immaterial… the guy is either earning grades or is earning money or pleasing friends by peddling lies for Jesus.

  84. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, No, these are problems that existed hundreds to thousands of years before presuppositionalism. Why do you think tge skeptics or presuppers are wrong?

    Also, what solutions to the problem of induction are you reffering to?

  85. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Walker
    I’ve learned long ago not to argue with my fellow atheists, or anyone really, over this matter, because it’s singularly unproductive, but it strikes my fancy at the moment, and so I have to ask what you mean by “solutions”? As far as I know, there is no solution to the problem that he’s proposing, and the only “solution” is to reject the implicit premises that underlie the challenge. It’s the standard regress argument aka Münchhausen trilemma.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
    Either you’re a foundationalist, or a coherentism, or some mix of the two, or your reject the premise of the challenge which some coherentists do, specifically they reject the premise that we should strive towards forming beliefs in a “justified by” graph, e.g. some coherentists say that justification should be whollistic, which in my mind just translates in my mind to “I am bullshitting, don’t listen to me”. However, do use a whollistic approach in practice for the beliefs in my foundation.

    Regardless, none of these options are satisfactory for Oreo. As the Münchhausen trilemma makes plainly clear, it is impossible to rise to the challenge of: how do you justify all of your beliefs, where “justify” is used in the traditional foundationalist way? How do you do that also without circular reasoning? It’s not possible to answer the challenge head-on, and instead you have to reject to one or more of the implicit premises. I know that this position is rather unpopular, including among the hosts of The Atheist Experience, and it boggles my mind that these obvious facts are so obscure to so many people.

    So, what do you mean by “solutions”? Can I have an example or two?

  86. Ronald Kyle says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal “Perhaps”….

    EXACTLY… thanks for saying that… BUT… I have my reasons to be fully sure of it… I am 100% sure of it… but my reasons are immaterial since he has exposed himself with his very own words umpteen times over in the previous thread and now already a couple of times in this thread.

  87. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal 87, Just because you don’t have a solution yet doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It also doesn’t mean you should give up looking for one.

  88. RationalismRules says

    @EL, Paxoll, WigglePuppy, t90bb, RonaldKyle et al.

    We all know by now that Oreo is not interested in engaging with integrity.

    Banning is not effective, he’ll simply throw up a sock puppet. In fact, he has an alternative posting ID all ready to go from a previous thread – it’s ‘Josh Opell’.

    There is an effective way to get rid of him – it’s simply for everyone to stop engaging. We’ve seen many times that even the most persistent trolls lose their incentive very quickly once no-one is responding to them.

    I suggest we all stop giving him the oxygen he craves, and point any new responders to the previous thread.

  89. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To RR
    I suggest both. The old 4chan advice of “don’t feed the troll” sometimes works, and sometimes doesn’t. Sometimes the troll is persistent and need to be banned. I think a healthy dose of both are called for.

    Yes, someone can evade their ban, but that only goes so far. I hope the need doesn’t arise to do IP section banning, but that’s also a possibility for the most persistent trolls.

    Plus, the standard moderation for the first post, with a substantial delay, helps avoid the sock puppet problem immensely as well. It’s not an easy process to make a new account, relatively speaking.

  90. RationalismRules says

    Further to #90
    … of course if you want to keep engaging with him that’s your prerogative, but if you do, perhaps you’d consider doing it on the previous thread. There’s no need for this thread to get all gummed up with cookie crumbs.

  91. Ronald Kyle says

    @Lyndale “Jesus is called the redeemer of mankind”

    I wish you would answer my question…. Can you explain why would a god who said the words in 2 Chronicles 7:14 (see below) and who KNEW the words of Luke 16:29-31 (see below) feel the need for all that rape and committing adultery with a 13 years old girl and then go through the FARCICAL HOAX of a weekend of BDSM with muscly men in domineering uniforms????

    ⬛ 2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin…

    As we see in the above verse… the very sky monster himself in the fairy tale gave us a FORMULA for how to be redeemed… and as you can see it has no rape of little girls and no ill begotten sons and no human blood sacrifice….

    Can Christianity explain why their god who once said the words of 2 Chronicles 7:14 (above) would all of a sudden feel compelled to have to rape and commit adultery with a 13 years old girl so as to impregnate her with a third of himself and then sit inside her for 9 months twiddling his thumbs and then ooze out from between her legs to YET AGAIN do nothing for thirty more years and then go entice 12 men away from their work and their obligation to provide for and protect their families so as to go hoboing about with him having naked feet washing orgies and then help him annoy some fanatics so as to induce them to give him a weekend of BDSM so as to achieve (and fail to do so) what he has already explained how to achieve without any raping or adultery with a little girl and without any BDSM or torture or bloodshed or HUMAN BLOOD sacrifice????

    And the pathetic idiocy of it all is that even in the NT we have Christianity admitting that it was a pointless human blood sacrifice in the first place ….
    ⬛ Luke 16:29-31 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them… but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent… he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

  92. RationalismRules says

    @EL
    Yes, I take your points, especially about the initial mod delay – that’s what nixed his little game the first time he tried to join a thread – his posts came through so late that only MS and I noticed them.

    Also, getting everyone to behave in a co-ordinated way is like the proverbial cat-herding… Still, worth a try, though.

  93. Walker says

    @EL Stove and later worked on by Williams came up with a deductive solution from a statiscal point of view. It only applies for a specific type of induction and under the right conditions, but does show a limited solution.

    Objectivists offer several solutions, although they tend to ones that challenge the underlining premises as you said.

    One example:
    http://www.johnmccaskey.com/uniformity-principle/

  94. oreoman1987 says

    RationalismRules, This is the kind of reasoning that leads to close-mindedness in stead of debate. Banning someone from a blog is a sign of that also. The whole point of philosophy is the exchange and debate of beliefs and ideas. Philosophy is the study of everything. Without it, you can’t justify anything. It’s the reason people get PhDs from universites because everything you learn is a subfield of philosophy.

  95. RationalismRules says

    @EL
    Don’t worry about answering that last question. I googled it for myself, which is what I should have done before asking the question.

  96. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 An exchange of ideas would suggest you are open to listening to the other people in the exchange. Since you outright ignore every flaw, mistake, etc that others point out to you (a sign they are in fact listening to you) and proceed to pretend they were not made, it does tend to make you look kind of hypocritical of you.

  97. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoMendacious “The whole point of philosophy is the exchange and debate of beliefs and ideas”

    You are not doing that … you are spewing claptrap and gobbledygook and you are doing it over and over and over regardless of the responses… you just repeat ad nauseam your LIES FOR JESUS.

    What you are doing is deliberately stinking out the thread by wafting about a MEPHITIC RED HERRING and you keep whirling it round your mendacious head despite all appeals to you to stop it.

    So don’t give us that crap about debate and decorum… you have foregone all that… you are neither debating nor acting with respect to anyone here… you are a SABOTEUR trying to red herring this thread and if you are not stopped you have no shame or dignity or self-respect and above all NO MORALITY to stop all by yourself.

  98. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To RR
    Yea. The short of it is: You can ban the IP block that the proxy uses. Unfortunate if there are any legitimate users of that proxy. I mentioned this obliquely above.

    To Walker
    Sorry, I meant to ask for an answer to the challenge of the regress argument itself, and not an answer to the problem of induction. To posit the uniformity principle as the answer to the problem of induction is not itself an answer to the regress argument. I could simply say “ok, and how do you justify the uniformity principle?”.

  99. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, I’m not arguing for a positionbut trying to see how any of you justify the uniformity of nature and skepticism. These are not red herrings but they are issues that have yet to be solved in philosophy. I have mot once debated for a position or argument with any of you because I have yet to see a justified one presented. Plus, what evidence do you have that I’m a “liar for jesus”? Or even that I’m a theist? Because this isn’t the case. I refer you to my linked videos on my problems with presuppositionalism from earlier.

  100. Walker says

    @EL As far as i can tell, most attempted solutions to the problem of induction attempt to avoid a uniformity priniciple entirely or to find a deductive basis for that principle.

    The link i gave for instance is one that avoids needing a uniformity principle.

  101. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 But you do through out red herrings, strawmen, etc.

    Btw, its one thing to ask people to justify a beliefs, its quite another to claim something is a threat to science and reasoning. The latter requires you to demonstrate or back up your claims. Your mode of operation is that of a presuppositionalist. Whether you are an actual theist or not doesnt change that. You make accusations and claims and then refuse to justify, back up, or demonstrate those claims and instead try to get others to prove you wrong.

    You are also using the typical fallacies and dishonest tactics of presupps.

  102. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoConman “I’m not arguing for a position”

    Yup.. you are right… you are wafting red herrings… and proving that you have no honesty, no shame, nor self-respect and above all you are exposing is that you are utterly immoral….

    I’ll bet that you will show how immoral you are yet again by continuing to post gobbledygook on this thread… if you want to demonstrate that I am wrong please stop posting red herrings on this thread and go to the thread where you were given free rein to fling about your mephitic crap and do any more flinging over there….

    You get that… if you continue to post here on this thread any crap about your asinine objections to reality then all you are doing is PROVE that you are a lying immoral pissant…. if you want to prove me wrong then just refrain from any further flinging of your crap on this thread…. feel free to keep doing it on the other thread… just prove me wrong on this thread.

    I challenge you….if you post one more time about that asinine malodorous crevice scratching you pretend if philosophizing about solipsism then you will have proven my assertions that you are an immoral liar for your celestial slave monger and his ill begotten son.

  103. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Walker
    Ok. I read up on the approach of Williams and Stove. Again, it has the same fundamental “problem”: It attempts to give a justification for using induction. Typically, a justification is an argument for the truth of one proposition, by appealing to the truth of one or more propositions. The approach of Williams and Stove is no different. I could ask a variety of questions, like “why use logic”, or “why use math”, but let me ask a more practical question, “why use this particular mathematical equation to predict the real world in these cases in this way?”. It might seem obvious to you, self-evident even (but then that would be a belief for which you had no external justification, e.g. foundationalism). However, it’s actually more interesting than it might appear. By way of analogy:

    What is 2 + 2? It’s 4.

    What do you get when you start with an empty basket, and put two apples into it, and then put another two apples into it? Obviously 4 apples.

    Suppose you are in a parked car, and then you accelerate to 2 mph, and then you accelerate another 2 mph in the same direction. How fast are you going? You might be tempted to say “4 mph”, but that would be wrong. We have discovered that this is not the way that the real world works. General relativity and all that. The correct answer, as best as we can currently determine, is a number that very slightly less than 4 mph, and for all possible tests that we can construct on Earth, the difference is immeasurable. However, with satellites, the orbit of Mercury, and other things, we notice this difference.

    So, it might be true that 2 + 2 = 4 (but I could even challenge you to give a justification for that), but I think the much more interesting thing that I could do is challenge you why you think a particular mathematical equation, and the accompanying model of reality that uses that equation, is a correct model of reality.

    Again, the point of the regress argument is to act like a petulant 5 year old child. Start with any belief at all, and start asking “and why do you believe that? what justification do you have?”, and most people will answer with another belief, and the child repeats the question, and the adult gives another belief as the answer, and so on, until quite quickly most adults would find themselves justifying one belief in terms of another belief (e.g. coherentism), or saying “I don’t know / it just is that way” (e.g. foundationalism). I don’t see how it’s impossible to beat the challenge; I’m very sure that you cannot beat the challenge. Instead, you need to object to the premises, and some of the most common premises to object to are:

    1- Every belief should have a justification (in terms of another belief).

    2- Belief justification should form an acyclic graph, where nodes are the beliefs, and justifications are some directed edge-like construct.

    Some people say that some beliefs don’t need a justification (in terms of another belief). They’re called foundationalists.

    Some people think that it’s ok to use circular justifications in some circumstances. They’re called coherentists.

    Some people object to the notion that belief justification should form a strict graph, and instead they assert that justification is some underdefined “whollistic” nonsense. These people are also often called coherentists.

    Some people mix the approaches to varying degrees, including me, and also Matt Dillahunty, according to his remarks in the Sye Ten Bruggencate debate.

    PS:
    Some of the last remarks by Oreo suggest strongly to me that he is a liar for Jesus. In particular, he said to me that I shouldn’t give up on finding an answer, and there might be answer. That is exactly something that a “deep undercover” follower of Sye Ten Bruggencate would say. The answer, of course, is Jesus.

  104. Walker says

    @EL From the standpoint of the trilema, as far as i can tell most approaches to the problem of induction could be considered foundational since they all go back to axioms eventually, although obviously one approach is to just accept its circularity and move on.

  105. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Damnit. I made a mistake (probably). I claimed that you cannot test adding of speeds with experiments on Earth. I actually don’t know if that’s true or not, because that’s just special relativity (I think). I am pretty sure that we cannot yet construct a practical test for the additional weirdness of general relativity on Earth, but I do not know about mere special relativity. In fact, I’m tempted to say that we can test some of the predictions of special relativity, at least with particle accelerators. I would be surprised were it otherwise.

  106. Walker says

    @EL My thoughts with respect to you #106 post. 2 +2= 4 because we defined it that way.

    Personnelly i think everyone is going to foundationalist since everything can go back to the axioms we hold.

  107. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal Look into the philosophy of mathematics and check out “Principia Mathematica Vol. 1-3” to see the difficulties of proving anything in math.

  108. t90bb says

    106 EL…YOU SAY

    PS:
    Some of the last remarks by Oreo suggest strongly to me that he is a liar for Jesus. In particular, he said to me that I shouldn’t give up on finding an answer, and there might be answer. That is exactly something that a “deep undercover” follower of Sye Ten Bruggencate would say. The answer, of course, is Jesus.

    CONCUR..i have said similar repeatedly.

    has anyone made progress with the ban?

  109. Ronald Kyle says

    @Lyndale “Jesus is called the redeemer of mankind”

    You might yourself wish to call him that … but I asked you twice to justify that he is indeed at all needed for redemption in the first place… you refuse to respond.

    How about if I call him an 🔹Alien Sex Tourist Predator🔹…. yes that is right…. An ALIEN who is a sexual predator who came to earth on a SEX TOURISM trip much like rich dentists from the USA go to Africa to hunt lions or sons of rich millionaire mafiosos might go to Thailand to prey on little girls and boys.

    And what is IRONIC for dupes of your caliber is that I can justify my claim totally with the data given in the narrative of the New Tall tales and my conclusion does not in any way contradict logic or natural reality or rational reasoning…. nor contradict the data given in the narrative of previous Old Fairy Tales.

    Can you deny the possibility that the New Tall Tales PROVE that Jesus was an 🔹Alien Predatorory Sex Tourist🔹??????? I can back up my claims with verses of the NT… and you cannot deny a single one of them.

    I still await your response to the question I pose in previous posts.

  110. t90bb says

    I WILL REPEAT…..

    Each time oreoTARD posts, he is in conflict with his claims. He does not know this blog exists IN REALITY WITH ABSOLUTE CERAINTY, but finds value in it by posting AND PARTICIPATING…,,,,,SO HE OPERATES JUST AS WE DO…..

    THAT IS…HE CHOOSES TO LIVE, BEHAVE AND PARTICIPATE WITHOUT ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY………ON THIS BLOG WITH EACH AND EVERY POST ……..

    IF OREOTARD WAS TRULY A SKEPTIC…HE WOULD NOT ENGAGE OR ATTEMPT TO CONVEY/EXPRESS/EXCHANGE MEANING ON A BLOG HE CANNOT KNOW ACTUALLY EXISTS WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY……..

    SO HES NOT A TRUE SKEPTIC..

    HE FINDS POTENTIAL VALUE HERE ON THIS BLOG AND YET IS NOT ABSOLUTELY. CERTAIN ANY OF IT EXISTS IN REALITY////……BUT DENIES SCIENCE’S POTENTIAL VALUE . JUST A TAD INCONSISTENT FROM OUR OREOTARD.

    AGAIN AND FINALLY,, WITH EACH POST HE EXPOSES THAT HE MOVES FORWARD WITHOUT ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY….just like we do with science…..

    SO WHAT IS HE WHINING ABOUT?

    CHECKMATE

    BANNNNNNN HIMMMMMM

  111. Ronald Kyle says

    @t90bb “CHECKMATE”

    Not for OreoConman… he was not playing chess or any game that has rules at all… he is more like a pigeon strutting about a chess board toppling all the pieces and defecating all over the board and table and seats and the clock … and cooing to other pigeon-brains like him that he dominated the place.

  112. Ronald Kyle says

    @Walker “Just curious, do you ever bother to read the things you cite”…

    Of course not… and that is another tell tale of his nature as a Liar For Jesus…in his CASUISTRY classes, he was given a list of things to cite and was instructed that they would make him appear to be authorotative since most people don’t have the wherewithal to read them or understand them and thus this would give an air of legitimacy to his APPEAL TO AUTHORITY sophistry which might dupe the less vigilant skeptics.

  113. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, These are not the arguments of presuppositionalists. They are the arguments of ancient skeptics. Did you even watch the videos Ilinked describing my problems with presuppositionalism?

  114. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 Ronald was quite clear about what he felt was your appeal to authority.

    You use presupp tactics and you cant deny that at this point.

    Presupps use dishonest tactics and logical fallacies as a method, but in terms of their biggest issues, they never back up the claims they make, just like you, and instead pretend its on everyone else to prove them wrong.

    You keep making claims that you know you cant back up and then lie and claim you are not arguing a position while requesting others prove you wrong.

    Its the typical presupp.

  115. t90bb says

    122….oreoturd…..

    Why should anyone care of your blatherings when its demonstrated that you behave like everyone else??? For all this philosophical masturbation……you engage on a board you do not even know exists with absolute certainty; Why are you engaging on a board you have no certainty exists???? I thought you were a skeptic! lol…

  116. ShaneW says

    @oreoman1987 the reason is that it is a circular argument, especially in the way that people like Sye Ten and Eric Hovind use it.

    So when you start off with a fallacious argument, often such argument defining itself as correct before the conversation even starts and offers nothing to support it, then people using it aren’t interested in having a reasonable discussion on the topic.

  117. t90bb says

    124…Oreoturd..

    Ancient skeptics??? Who specifically and do you know with absolute certainty theses ancient skeptics ever existed>>??

  118. RationalismRules says

    @t90bb
    I enjoy your posts, but please please please stop using ‘tard’ as a slur. It is NOT OK to use disability as a term of insult.

  119. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, Why not engage with people just in case they do exist? Wouldn’t you ever want to know the truth?

    Some of the most famous ancient skeptics include Pyhrro of Ellis, Carneades, Agrippa, Sextus Empericus, and Timon. Remember, only the academic skeptics claim that knowledge doesn’t exist. The phyrronian skeptics do not.

  120. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 Then you have already solved your dilemma and have nothing to complain about. Basically, you shot yourself in the foot.

    Btw, you have shown you really dont care aboit truth already with your constant ignoring of problems, fallacies, flaws, mistakes, etc in the things you have said.

  121. Skye Eldrich says

    Someone needs the goo in his brain vat changed. I wonder if the label on it says “Abby Normal.”

  122. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoMountebank,

    See I won the bet… you are an unashamed IMMORAL turd… you have proved it … I challenged you to prove me wrong and you have done the exact thing I PREDICTED you cannot stop doing…QED!!!

    Thanks for demonstrating yet again your nature as an IMMORAL PARASITE trying to infect this forum.

    Someone Please DISINFECT this forum from this fecal parasite.

  123. t90bb says

    135…..Oreo………..you have folded your hand I am afraid…..I guess you could just as easily have said…Why not engage with Jesus just in case he exists, Wouldn’t you ever want to know the truth?

    Its taken a while….but your hypocrisy is finally in full bloom.

    Sometimes ya gotta keep them talking til they hang themselves. I will no longer respond to Oreo on this or any other thread.

  124. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, It’s always necessary to make assumptions when engaging in debates. You don’t necessarily have to believe something in order to defend it.

  125. t90bb says

    135…..Oreo………..you have folded your hand I am afraid…..I guess you could just as easily have said…Why not engage with Jesus just in case he exists, Wouldn’t you ever want to know the truth?

    Its taken a while….but your hypocrisy is finally in full bloom.

    Sometimes ya gotta keep them talking til they hang themselves. I will no longer respond to Oreo on this or any other thread.

  126. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, The problem is is that there are several theories of truth. Pragmatic, coherence, correspondence, and so on. Which one do you believe in?

  127. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, That’s because I’m not defending any views. Just simply asking for justification for certian beliefs out of curiosity.

  128. Thane McKinsey says

    oreoman1987
    Propagation is the basic presupposition of all human thought, Sex not god.
    and propagation of a idea is how all people arrive at a worldview.

  129. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 Since younstarted off making claims and have in fact argued for your position rather than just asking questions, you are straighout lying right now.

    Additionally, as i said you dont appear to be interested in truth. You only appear interested in spouting claims you cant seem to back up.

  130. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoMeningococcal,

    Seeing that your fellow pigeon-brain refuses to answer my question, maybe you might want to ask your 2nd rate seminary school teachers to come here and answer the question….

    Can you disprove that Jesus was a horny Alien who came to earth to have 🔹🔹🔹a week end of BDSM🔹🔹🔹 performed on him by sweaty strapped men in domineering uniforms and to enjoy some naked feet washing orgies with 12 men and the occasional 🔹🔹🔹PASSION🔹🔹🔹 with a naked young man???

    Do you have any way of disproving that Jesus was an 🔹🔹🔹Alien Predatory Sex Tourist🔹🔹🔹 who may have also taken bets on the side on how many men he can “have” before his crescendo of his Sex Tourism Vacation the BDSM session????

  131. Ronald Kyle says

    @t90bb “Its taken a while….but your hypocrisy is finally in full bloom”

    He already did this in the previous thread umpteen times over and over…

    Have a Happy New Year…

  132. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 it isnt really relevent which theory of truth i ascribe to when you have shown you dont care about truth.

    I am rather curious though why you chose to adopt presupp tactics including your straightout lies. It isnt as if the tactics and their inherent dishonest approach isnt known to folks on boards like these.

  133. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, Where did I make any claims? I merely just listed different theories of truth and unsolved problems in philosophy.

  134. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, Plus, I don’t use any of them. I only pose problems to people they probably haven’t heard of. I also have yet to see anyone on here actually give a response to these problems and the presuppositionalists.

  135. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 Why do you insist on lying? You know you made claims, you know people can see you made claims, yet you try to lie about it.

    Why is that?

  136. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 see you are lying again. You have seen people give responses to the various problems you mentioned. You replied to many such responses.

    Why do you insist on lying?

  137. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoMephitic ” I never saw question from you”…

    Of course not … the PALL on your head is too heavy to be able to see any light from under there… you are too busy flinging fecal matter all over this forum…

    BUT… you now tell me that you have not seen any question… in response to a post that HAS THE question right in it… but yet you pretend that you have not seen the question…

    More telltale of your lying nature…

    The thread you responded to has a couple of questions… but here are the numbers of the posts that have the questions that you have seen and now claim that you have not, despite one of those posts is the post you are responding to.

    Can you have anyone from your DEN OF THIEVES respond to the questions in these posts
    #54, #93, #116, #149

  138. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, I also don’t get what your posts about Jesus have to do with the problems I’ve been presenting. Nor do I get what they’re even saying.

  139. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoMeningococcal,

    Scurry back to your hucksterism instructors and ask them if they can explain why did their celestial salve monger feel it necessary to enviegle and rape a MARRIED 13 years old… could he not have done exactly the same with a 25 years old unmarried spinster instead???

    Why did feel it compelling that he has to CUCKOLD poor Joseph???

  140. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 You know you look even more dishonest when you pretend that you dont know what you claimed. Especially so when you pretend that you cant understand basic english telling you what you lied about.

    You sound very much like a presupp i know who trolls youtube.

  141. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoMountebank “Nor do I get what they’re even saying”

    QED!!!… there you have it everyone… if you were not convinced 100% by the oodles of times he exposed himself for the LIAR FOR JESUS that he is … this response should CINCH it for any one who might have had any lingering doubts about the nature of this huckster and pretender and hawker for his ill begotten son of a celestial slave monger.

    QED!!! for the umpteenth time

  142. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, I still have yet to see a demonstration of where I made any claims or lies. Plus, your point a someone being a presupper is an example of blind speculation and hasty generalization.

  143. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 You seem to be confused. It has already been established that you lie. The question was why.

  144. DanDare2050 says

    @29 heicart says

    >>The state of nothing includes no rules or laws, no time, no other states. It has no power to prevent a change to some other state. If it was the state it certainly isn’t the state now and can never be moved to.
    >
    > But further, if it “was” then it existed and was “something”. To “be” is to exist. And “was” is simply the past tense of “be.” It seems to me, self-refuting and even beyond our capacity to even coherently talk about it. For me, it’s like the married-bachelor.

    Not quite I think. Its a problem with semantics for this. “If it was the state” is a strange phrase in this respect that I had real trouble trying to formulate. Lets try a different way and blend them together: reality can have two base states; “on and off”. Off is when there is no reality, no laws no rules. “when” and “was” are temporal terms but here should be considered state terms with some vague idea of ordering. If the state of reality is “off”, then nothing is “being”. Its null, void. That means the state of reality “on” can just happen, can just be, and it has states and vectors and behaviours none of which can lead to the state “off”. I think. Sort of.

    Unlike the married-bachelor the state of not anything at all can be coherently conceptualised (but not visualised).

  145. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 I want to believe you, I do. The problem is between this thread and last week’s thread you have quite a lot of comments that include positive claims. So your claim that you havent made any such claims is undeniably false, as is your claim that you havent argued for any positions. And again the same issue with claims you about not getting responses, not being shown to commit fallacies, mistakes, misrepresentations etc.

    All of them are quite obviously and demonstrably false. But to show you lied you had to know they were false, but you did so by replying to responses and other comments pointing out your faults/flaws etc and by showing you know what a claim is.

    So you knew your statements were false and hence you lied.

    So the question is why.

  146. Thane McKinsey says

    oreoman1987, your posts all do seem to be foolishness.
    I like Walker would like to know why?

  147. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, None of what I posted were claims but were actual philosophical problems that are unsolved. This isn’t an example of lying but is a way of presenting philosophical concepts.

  148. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, Also, pointing out that someone has not given a response to me about the problems I’ve presented is also not the same as making claims.

  149. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoMendacious,

    Scurry over to your 2nd rate seminary school and see if you can get someone with a better than the C++ average that you are at to come here and answer the questions I put to you and your fellow pigeon-brain in posts
    #54, #93, #116, #149, #166

    And which you have admitted that you are too dimwitted to even understand….

    Also here is another question

    Why couldn’t your celestial ethnic cleanser just make his ill begotten son already a 30 years cad instead of having to rape and commit adultery with a 13 years old girl to shove Jesus inside her to sit there for 9 moths twiddling his thumbs and then slither out through the poor little girl’s body to STILL YET AGAIN do nothing for 30 more years???

    Why all that intervening NOTHING … not even raising a finger to avoid the massacre of thousands of innocent little babies that he caused because he was lusting after GOLD and had to DUPE some magicians to come to give it to him but misguide them with an imbecilic GPS system that would have never worked????

  150. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 Why do you keep lying? You have made many claims such as asserting that people you dont know ascribe to particular beliefs. Sorry, but claiming you havent made claims is simply false.

    Your claim about not getting responses is a positive claim, but i brought it up not as an example of you making claims, but instead as an example of something you said that is undenibly and demonstrably false. Combined with your replying to such responses which comfirm you are aware of them, it shows you are lying.

    So my question remains, why do you keep lying?

  151. oreoman1987 says

    Thane McKinsey,

    “you not being sure that everyone has a presupposition is a straw-man.”

    How?

  152. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, How are they positive claims if they don’t require proof for me to ask about them?
    I’m not sure how you concluded this.

  153. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, Also, I never claim that anything is true of false. Just simply point out hiw they seem contradictory.

  154. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 You may want to revisit what you just wrote and try to express it in a more legible way.

    Your positive claims do require you to back them up if you want to convince someone they are true. And while you have been rather unsuccessful at doing so, you have attemped to do so in some cases (hence making the claim you are not arguing for any positions false).

    You do need to understand its clear and undeniable thats you made claims and didnt just ask questions.

    So again, why do you insist on lying?

  155. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 Sorry, but there is direct evidence, ie your own comments that you do claim things are true or false. So another lie, unless you are quite dim in intellect combined with ignorance.

  156. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, ImThe point is not to convinve people of something, but to point out to them the flaws in their beliefs. I can’t decide what you’re going to believe anymore than I can know what you’re going to do tomorrow. Skepticism isn’t a position at all but something that questions every other position that holds beliefs. Plus, I’m not sure you know what lying is.

  157. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, The problem is is that it seems all of us are stuck only with ignorance due to the problem of skepticism.

  158. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoMountebank

    The list of questions you are incapable of answering in defense of your ill begotten son of a celestial rape commander is mounting.
    Posts #54, #93, #116, #149, #166, #181

    The fact that you PARADOXICALLY lie and say that you don’t understand them while also caliming that you have not seen them is yet another telltale of your Lying For Jesus training (although you are failing at it).

    So seeing that you are a liar and an admitted dimwit, please SHOO OFF and call a less dimwitted colleague to come and see if he can lie better lies than you are spewing.

    Here is another question

    Why is Jesus such a COWARDLY CAD… why is he a servile obeisant coward when faced with authority and an utter caddish scoundrel when faced with a feeble women begging him for help?

    Please scamper over and fetch someone with a slightly bigger pigeon-brain than yours to come here to try to CASUIST this away?

  159. Thane McKinsey says

    oreoman1987, because we don’t ever claim to be 100% sure about anything.
    We rely on evidence.

  160. oreoman1987 says

    Thane McKinsey , If you don’t know anything with 100% certainty, how can you even know what evidence is?

  161. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 unless lying is something other than making claims you kknow to be false when you make them, i know what lying is and i know lied.
    If you want to just point out flaws in what people believe you are going to need to stop making claims and arguing for positions.

    For instance, dont start by proclaiming what others believe as you have done.

    Oh and it doesnt appear to be a problem of skepticism, you never got around to demonstrating it was a problem.

    But the question remains, why do you lie?

  162. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 Why are you obsessed with absolute certainity?

    You still havent answered my question, why do you lie?

  163. Thane McKinsey says

    oreoman1987
    Evidence is what the facts are.
    Facts have to be testable, reliable and able to make predictions.

  164. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoMephiticfeces “I don’t believe in Jesus”…

    😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣…. good… so now can you stop your LYING for him???

    Besides the question in posts Posts #54, #93, #116, #149, #166, #181, #193… here is another one

    Why did Jesus want to CASTRATE his 12 merry men? Why did he tell them that if they castrate themselves for his sake he will take them to live in big rooms in his father’s mansion????

  165. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, Because if you don’t know anything with 100% certianty, then all of your beliefs cluldnbe false right now.

  166. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 Well since i already pointed out to you its impossible for everything i know to be false, thats not a problem.

    You still havent answered why you keep lying

  167. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 See you just made another claim, again about science.

    Its one you still havent backed up too.

  168. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, If you operate from that axiom, then I hope you can deduce it to show that you do in fact know some things with complete certainty. Plus, I can never tell you why I’m lying because I haven’t.

  169. Thane McKinsey says

    oreoman1987 says; The problem is is that the methods of science face many philosophical problems including induction, underdetermination, and demarceration.

    As opposed to making-believe and pretending?

  170. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 As i said its already been esyablished that you lied, i just want to know why.

    As to being impossible for everything i know to be false, thats not an axiom.

  171. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoMeningococcal,

    Besides the question in posts #54, #93, #116, #149, #166, #181, #193, #200… here is another on

    Who was the NAKED YOUNG MAN who was with Jesus during his night of PASSION and who ran away STARK NAKED when the soldiers came and caught him in the act???

  172. oreoman1987 says

    Thane McKinsey, I’m not saying anyone isnpretending or makebelieving. Just that they’re not justified in belieiving.

  173. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, The problem is is that without axioms, it’s impossible to prove or know anything. That’s the point about the theories of justification regarding the regress argument.

  174. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 I already told you several times now.

    And you still havent answered the question, why do you keep lying?

  175. DanDare2050 says

    Isaac just went of on a huge Gish Gallop on the consciousness thing. It could have been shut down immediately at “there are things science can’t explain”. That is to say that the scientific method, collecting data, proposing explanations of the data and testing those explanations, can never explain some particular thing. If that is true then that thing can not be explained. So Isaac has no basis on which to say he has explained that thing.

  176. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 I am trying to decide if you are simply being dishonest right now, are not very bright, or some combination of both.

    In any case, as i said i already told you.

    Just curious, are you going to go with not very bright, just dishonest, or try to ignore the fact that you have had this explained to you several times.

  177. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ Thane, Ronald, and Walker:

    The furious masturbation to the problem of hard solipsism won’t stop. Unless you want this guy to take over every thread every week, perhaps best not to feed the troll.

  178. Ninereeds says

    I’m coming to this late so just wanted to post for the first time so I can get the moderation over and done with.

    I really hope that BroJoe turns up.

    And of course, praise and thanks to everyone at the AAC for all the work they do and all the stuff they produce.

  179. RationalismRules says

    @DanDare2050 #175
    The problem isn’t to do with the components of the state, or whether we can return to the state, or how we can get from the state to here. They are all red herrings (albeit interesting ones). Tracie’s issue is whether the state itself is an existent ‘thing’, thereby negating ‘no-things’.

    My argument is that a state isn’t an independently existent thing, it’s a concept. So we can sit here in a state of many-things (aka ‘reality ON’) and think about a state of no-things (aka ‘reality OFF’), but in the state of no-things there are no minds to think about the no-things, so there is no state per se. It’s only a ‘state’ from our current perspective. Would you agree?

  180. Walker says

    @wiggly puupy i am mostly engaging because i suspect oreoman1987 is a presupp youtube troll i am very familar with.

  181. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, I’m not arguing for hard solipsism. However ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.

  182. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 So it is at least partially dishonesty.

    You know oreoma1987 claiming you havent been presented with explanations of your lies would be a less obvious lie if you didnt reply to comments in which such explanations were given.

    So why do you keep lying?

  183. Ronald Kyle says

    @Wiggle Puppy

    I am not at all engaging him on the malodorous crevice digging he is doing in search of his solipsism crap.

    I am trying to undermine his taking over the thread, by asking questions about Jesus that will F**** with his brains…. and other pigeon brains like Lyndale who never bothered to respond after his initial proselytizing posts.

    My questions are done in the manner I am doing them after each spree of lies he does … that way I am keeping the pressure up and not at all allowing him to DROWN OUT the thread with his crap.

    This guy ought to be most definitely removed….

    I think all should just stop asking him why he is lying since he will never tell us why… and stop FEEDING THE damned liar excuses to keep trolling and drowning out the thread… this the SECOND time he does this.

    There is absolutely no point in trying to engage him… I think we all should just keep asking him question regarding why his Jesus is a piece of fecal matter…. that might offend him enough to piss off… but I doubt it… the guy has no shame or morality of any kind.

  184. Thane McKinsey says

    oreoman1987
    In science a person is not justified in “believing”, that is nonsense.
    A person is justified in following the evidence.

  185. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 Again, when you lie in obvious fashion you dont help you case.
    So why do you keep lying?

  186. oreoman1987 says

    Thane McKinsey, The problem is is that science isn’t justified due tocthe problem of induction.

  187. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 They might, except i did explicitly point out how you lied. The evidence of your lies still exist as does the comments where i provided explanations of how you lied, and you replied to the comments that those explanations of how you lied, confirming you saw them.

    Basically, its already been demonstrated that you lied in the past, and given that, its also true you are lying now.

  188. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, Your comments have made no sense due to them being irrelavent to what I’m talking about.

  189. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, “They might, except i did explicitly point out how you lied. The evidence of your lies still exist as does the comments where i provided explanations of how you lied, and you replied to the comments that those explanations of how you lied, confirming you saw them.
    Basically, its already been demonstrated that you lied in the past, and given that, its also true you are lying now.”

    Where did you point any of that out? All you did was assert that I lied and kept repeating the same question without support. All you’re doing is making unssupported assertions again about me lying.

  190. Ronald Kyle says

    @Walker “So why do you keep lying”

    Are you not yet 100% sure that he is lying deliberately and INDIFATIGABLY for the sake of undermining this Forum???

    How many more times do you need to ask him the question which he will obviously never answer?

    And if you are trying to eek out evidence that he is a lying scoundrel and not just a dupe… then how many evasions and TRANSPARENT underhanded lies do you need him to do before you come to a conclusion?

    If you need more then please go to the previous thread just before this one and see more examples of him EXPOSING his nature as a deliberate scoundrelly IMMORAL liar who trying to SABOTAGE this whole forum and not just this thread and the one before it.

  191. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, There’s no anawer that question because I haven’t lied. Nor can you guys show where I did.

  192. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 I am curious, do you go by Michael R…….. on youtube?

    It doesnt matter.

    Sorry, but i pointed what statements you made that were false. How they are known to be false and how its known you know they are false. Better yet, you replied to the comments that contained those explanations, so you are aware that you were demonstrated to be lying.

    So why do you keep lying?

  193. oreoman1987 says

    “Sorry, but i pointed what statements you made that were false. How they are known to be false and how its known you know they are false. Better yet, you replied to the comments that contained those explanations, so you are aware that you were demonstrated to be lying.”

    Where did you refute or check out any of the problems I’ve presented? And, what statements did I even make that I was trying to defend?

  194. Walker says

    @Ronald i know he is a liar. I keep asking the question because if he is who i think he is i know he finds it annoying. Even if he isnt who i think he is, well it appears he still finds it annoying.

    The guy is a presupp troll (in technique and methodology if nothing else) and in my experience they cant sustain their bs as long if you press them on their dishonesty. On other topics they can go on and on, but even they generally realize that being caught in enough lies results in being pointless to continue.

  195. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 Hmm, so your first question is irrelevent to whether you lied or not, although the fact that you are asking about refuting the problems you presented suggests that those problems were a position/argument on your part, especially since you claimed they were problems before even discovering what people believed.

    For you second question, i already provided you examples. You can scroll up if you cant remember.

    So why do you lie?

  196. oreoman1987 says

    Walker, I don’t claim that they’re problems. I simply demonstratw that they are. There’s a difference. How is that a lie?

  197. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ Oreo:

    Do you prefer your Happy Meal with hamburgers or McNuggets? I’m a McNugget man myself

  198. Thane McKinsey says

    oreoman1987
    We are aware of the problems with Inductive reasoning that is why we never claim 100% certainty and we continue to collect data and form alternative hypothesis.

  199. Thane McKinsey says

    oreoman1987 says, The problem is is that science isn’t justified due tocthe problem of induction.

    More Nonsense from oreoman1987

  200. Walker says

    @oreoman1987 So you claim you demonstrate they are problems but dont claim they are?

    Sorry but your actual comments show the opposite, but even worse for you, if it was true then you were lying about only asking people to justify their beliefs because you still did more than that.
    Btw, since you know that demonstrating problems wasnt called a lie, you are again being dishonest by implying it was with your question.

    So why do you lie?

    You really do act like Michael R……. from youtube. Its amazing how similar you are.

  201. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoMountebank

    The list growing man… posts #54, #93, #116, #149, #166, #181, #193, #200, #208

    Here is one more… you better hurry and get the help of your 2nd rate seminary school instructors…ESPECIALLY on this one

    Why did Judas give Jesus a sloppy wet kiss on the mouth to indicate him to the soldiers? Could he not have just pointed at or touched him on the shoulder?

    Was it perhaps because the Sanhedrin arrested Judas as a “sodomite” and they offered him a deal to out Jesus as one too. Of course they could not just take his word for it, so they needed Judas to give Jesus a good passionate wet kiss and if Jesus participated and kissed back then that would be a good proof.

    The word used to describe the passionate kiss Judas used to OUT Jesus in both Matthew and Mark was the Greek verb kataphilein, which means to kiss firmly, intensely, passionately, tenderly, or warmly. It is the same verb that Plutarch uses to describe a famous kiss that Alexander gave Bagoas.

    Who is Bagoas you might ask….he was a 🔹🔹🔹EUNUCH🔹🔹🔹, said to have been the catamite of Darius III, and later the Eromenos (Beloved) of Alexander.

    I’ll leave it up to you to look up the word 🔹🔹🔹CATAMITE🔹🔹🔹… I think lots of seminary school graduates might already know it.

  202. Thane McKinsey says

    oreoman1987
    I just had a premonition, I saw you down on your knees praying to OZ, begging for a brain.
    You are the straw-man.

  203. paxoll says

    Ok Oreo, I’m going to pretend all your indications of dishonesty are faulty inferences. You make a lot of unjustified claims, so lets pin down some definitions in order to start an honest discussion.

    What is your definition of knowledge, what is your definition of belief, and what is your definition of “faith”?

    Could everyone else not interject on any of his reply’s to me.

  204. indianajones says

    @Paxoll, fair enough. @Everyone else Noting that the horse has bolted again this week. And further noting that the mods here are notoriously bad at banning people. I second RR’s suggestion that we, as a group, at least quarantine the infection. I propose that ANY further engagement with the dishonest, sea-lioning, hard soloipsist, umm person be confined hence-forth to this thread only. That, any time this oxygen absorbing, question ignoring, inhabitant engages in any way that they be answered here exclusively from here on in. This would mean that any time that this pollution is attempted to be spread from this source henceforth it would be made to look absurd and silly (which it already does) without cluttering up with sheer volume other productive discussion.

    K?

  205. Net says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #46
    Damn, I am curious, I like to read good sources.

    @Ronald Kyle #43
    I agree, that consciousness is not on/off thing, but even as spectrum it should be defined unambiguously. And I really would like to know how do you differentiate between advanced robot following its programming and conscious entity. Or if we encounter an alien entity how can we establish whether they are conscious or just machine following a programming.

    I cannot quite formulate my thoughts on the subject, but I would say that consciousness is about reactions based on previous reactions. Synapses between neurons are weakened over time and strengthened each time signal passes through. That is why “genetic programming” or chemical reactions of flower following sun I would not usually count as conscious activity. It gets slightly more complicated with jelly fish though and even some other plant reactions. However if I go by that definition than any computer program that runs artificial neural network and “learns” and “adapts” as it encounters new situations should be considered conscious imho. Perhaps not very conscious if the neural network is deep only few layers, but as long as that network is allowed to rebuild as it processes new information I cannot see how it cannot be conscious.

  206. Thane McKinsey says

    RationalismRules says; My argument is that a state isn’t an independently existent thing, it’s a concept. So we can sit here in a state of many-things (aka ‘reality ON’) and think about a state of no-things (aka ‘reality OFF’), but in the state of no-things there are no minds to think about the no-things, so there is no state per se. It’s only a ‘state’ from our current perspective. Would you agree?

    I don’t agree, your argument is a extension of the argument of the tree falling in the forest. Does the tree make a sound if there is no one there to hear it? Your argument is of Solipsism.
    Yes, the tree makes a sound. The mind is a extension of the physical world. The physical world is not an extension of the mind. The physical world exists independently of the mind.
    My evidence is; you can not change the physical world with just your thoughts.

  207. jtinma says

    I enjoyed the first call – as an atheist, I’ve been asked the question, what do you tell the children about death? I’ve raised one child, so while my experience may be limited, but I think telling your child the truth is usually the best path – and the truth is that the only person who will be with you for your entire life is you. We may or may not have an afterlife, but we do have this life, and we need to be able to live with ourselves, so that’s why we need to be good to the people in our lives.

  208. Ronald Kyle says

    @Net ” how do you differentiate between advanced robot following its programming and conscious entity”

    In my rudimentary explanation of the spectrum range I DELIBERATELY used the word BEING as the only participants in the range.

    I deliberately explained that THINGS fabricated by beings are not participants in the range… we might want to have a range for that (I do not see why) but this THINGS’ range is not part of the beings range.

    Beings are ALIVE… things are not.

    So in a way I am declassifying the “problem” you pose as a problem of Alive vs Not Alive.

    Only Alive things can participate in the consciousness spectrum for beings.

  209. Ronald Kyle says

    @Net “if we encounter an alien entity how can we establish whether they are conscious or just machine following a programming”

    Well… ask it!!

    Even us, if and when we FABRICATE THINGS that we might confuse as conscious we need to make those things CLEARLY identifiable as things and may build into them the answer, if questioned.

    But….. in the case of an alien that manages to come to Earth your question is in fact posed the other way round…. it might be quite a feat for OURSELVES to convince them that we are conscious beyond say what we classify a scurrying rat might be.

  210. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Guess I’ll repost then with html code tags.

    @heicart 28: I am not entirely sure how you can demonstrate to me, that you are conscious by that definition? What if you are advanced robot that is programmed to react certain way and appear as if it was conscious? What if I am in a simulation and you are NPC? (What if I am NPC in a simulation?)

    This is how I answer that retort.

    I presuppose some generalized version of the mediocrity principle as part of my epistemology foundation. See:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

    With the basic use of science, I can determine that other humans are behaviorally identical to me. I can also determine that they are born, just like I am, and they die, just like I will die. The only remaining difference is whether they’re all philosophical zombies or not.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

    On the basis that I am probably not special, ala the generalized mediocrity principle, I cannot be the only conscious human and everyone else is p-zombies, and therefore the other humans are conscious too.

    As for direct evidence that other humans are conscious and not p-zombies? I think that’s impossible. The best that you can do is the argument that I just laid out.

    As for the question “How complicated does something have to be before we decide that it’s conscious?”. I don’t know. I really don’t. As a pragmatic matter, I suppose that they should be able to interact with their environment and display learning displays and display a value of self worth of at least some sort of animal before I consider the question morally relevant.

    I don’t really know why or why I have concluded that this wood desk in front of me has no feelings and doesn’t mind when I lay my arms on it as I type this. I haven’t thought about this exactly, which also surprises me now. I might hold it as an appeal to consequences fallacy, e.g. it would be inconvenient for me if the table had a mind and feelings. The best I can do,

    I think, is a really pisspoor argument like: The only things with minds that I know about also have brains, and therefore all minds have brains, and therefore a wood table does not have a mind. I say pisspoor because the formal structure of the argument is a very poor inductive argument. See the classic black swan fallacy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

    Or maybe I could appeal to the notion that the universe is only made of energy (and matter) and space and time, which seems decently well supported by the evidence, with the caveat that minds, whatever they are, are always the result of a brain. I think this is still of the same bad form as the argument above, but I like it more because I feel like I have a good enough grasp on the nature of the whole universe, enough to make the positive materialist assertion, and assuming materialism, then it’s safe to claim that minds must come from brains, because a mind without a brain is an impossibility in materialism. I think so at any rate.

  211. Net says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal Thanks for the reply, I like the zombie hypothesis, I do not find it likely to be true, but good to illustrate my problem of observing consciousness.
    And I do think that consciousness (mind) is product of matter, though I think that computers might work just as well as brains. Or any physical/chemical process that works in the same way.
    I find this topic interesting because, depending on how you define consciousness, some computers/programs may already be conscious. Or very close to consciousness. Artificial Neural Networks are nowhere near as complex as our brains, but they process data and learn from experience and the math in between layers gets so weird that it is extremely hard to follow, it is deterministic in principle, but our behavior is rather predictable too. The AI used by Google or IBM recently has arguably more advanced “brains” than jellyfish (which do not have any) and might be more advanced than nerve ring of nematodes. Hard to say if it surpasses insects, but in specific tasks it is better than us. Of course it is also very different from our brains. Anyway I think that rather soon there will be question how do you know whether you deal with advanced chat bot or conscious entity.

  212. Paul S. Enns says

    I just want to comment about how happy I am to see “begging the question” not being used incorrectly. As a matter of convention, “begging the question” is equivalent to “raising the question”, and I am glad to see recognition that this is not correct. It’s one of those things that I will fight for, while recognizing that I’ll never win.

  213. Honey Tone says

    Slightly off topic: EL stated above he was going to “repost with HTML code tags.” Exactly how? Is there a “how to” somewhere? It needs to be very simple. Thanks for any help.

  214. larpar says

    If two threads get hijacked to over 250 comments, but without absolute knowledge, do they still exist?

  215. t90bb says

    267…larpar….

    oreo degrades the value of science and scientific inquiry due do its underpinnings and conclusions lacking absolute certainty….but values this blog although he cannot be certain of its underpinnings or existence with absolute certainty. This type of hypocrisy is usually reserved for the religious….hence our suspicions…LOL……

    Happy new year…hope you post more often larp!

  216. larpar says

    t90bb @#268
    Thanks for the welcome and HNY to you. I’m a long time lurker but I surprised myself when I posted in the last thread and found out it was my first. Let this be a warning, I’ll probably post more. : )

  217. Walker says

    @t90bb oreo appears to be a christian presuppositionalist that trolls youtube comment sections, especially videos of Bahnsen speaking.

  218. mpilot says

    Hello! First time making a comment here. I’ve been a long time listener, been to a couple tapings of AXP in Austin, and a semi-active ACA discord member.

  219. t90bb says

    267…BROJO

    “Tons of strawmen” here…..can you list your top 5 that you have noticed???…just listing them is enough for now……Glad you cleaned up your wounds inflicted Sunday. Nice to see you here. I am betting we are going to here NOTHING we have not heard about 1000 times…but maybe you will have something new and compelling???!! WE just disposed if some oreo fella…your up next!….I cant be absolutely certain sure oreo ever actually posted here……but it was fun.

  220. Monocle Smile says

    Why would anyone go to a presupp’s discord server? If I wanted to be screamed at by dumbasses who spend all their time throwing juvenile temper tantrums, I’d sign up to be a social worker for high schoolers. I have spent about 30 seconds in a chat with TrueEmpiricism and that was all I could tolerate.

  221. t90bb says

    286….Monocle…I took a peek and I dont have a mic. Brojo came to the TAE and was invited here. If hes got so much to say hes welcome here and id love to hear what hes got. His opening salvo is that there are a ton of strawmen here…….its possible we may have erred and do OCCASIONALLY strawman theist positions, so Ive asked him to identify his top 5 and lets discuss them. He may feel more comfortable in his discord environment….but he came here.

    Is there anywhere I can see any of his positions or works?? Has he posted on youtube? He seemed rather shellshocked on Sunday….

    CONSIDERING some have identified him as a presup…..any link between our other friend and brojo to anyones knowledge?

  222. says

    RE: Oreo: I see Oreo keeps posting, but continues to refuse to call the show. Regarding the excuses–the show does take atheist callers. In fact, I’ll personally tell the producer to expect your call Sunday, and alert Matt as well–when you get through, tell them you’re Oreoman from the blog. Additionally, as long as you argue honestly, you’ll be treated well on the call. But if Matt (who is hosting next Sunday) tells you that misrepresenting him, then pay attention. If you keep doing it, yes, you’ll be cut off or told off. Grow a spine and deal with it. It’s what you get when you disrespect people in that way. On the prior thread (I read all posts) you consistently and continually told people what they believed, so that they had to chronically correct you. Then, hypocritically threatened others to “be careful” about doing the same to you. You also relabeled common terms to mean proprietary things that nobody uses them to mean, and tried to make others adopt your language–another big mistake. And I know, I know, you so weren’t doing any of that–everyone is making it all up and not understanding–it’s not at all possibly YOU are the one not hearing what they’re saying. But for shit’s sake. Just call the damn show and quit wasting everyone’s time.

    RE: Jen’s e-mail thread. I did reach out to Jen. She did say she would post it. That’s all I can do, folks.

  223. RationalismRules says

    @Thane McKinsey
    No, I’m not arguing solipsism. Of course the physical world exists independent of the mind.

    However, a state isn’t a component of the physical world, it’s a description of the physical world. A switch can be ‘on’ or ‘off’, those are states, but ‘on’ and ‘off’ don’t exist as physical things, they just describe the configuration of the switch.
     
    The difference in the tree-falling-in-the-forest scenario is that sound waves are observable, measurable change-over-time in physical media, not just a frame of reference for thinking about the physical world.
     

    Yes, the tree makes a sound. The mind is a extension of the physical world. The physical world is not an extension of the mind.

    But it’s not quite as black & white as you make it out to be. I agree that given the idea of sound already existing, no observer is required for the tree to have made a sound. However, the concept of sound only exists because of ears and minds. In that sense, it is mind-dependent. If there had never been ears to receive the vibrations, and minds to process those stimuli in that particular way, then the tree would simply have made a vibration in the air, not a ‘sound’.
     
    So, although the physical world exists independent of the mind, the way we interpret it doesn’t. And ‘states’ are a frame of reference for interpreting the world.

  224. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Slightly off topic: EL stated above he was going to “repost with HTML code tags.” Exactly how? Is there a “how to” somewhere? It needs to be very simple. Thanks for any help.

    Consider this hyperlink:
    https://www.google.com

    The link text is:
    https://www.google.com

    Those two look different. Why?

    For the first one, I typed exactly:
    https://www.google.com

    Then this web site automatically detects that it has the form of a link, and automatically makes it into a hyperlink, e.g. a link that you can click.

    For the second one, I typed exactly:
    <code>https://www.google.com</code>

    The code tags, “<code>” and “</code>”, will override the previous behavior of the web site, and makes the web site think that it’s just text, and so it doesn’t turn it into a hyperlink, and thereby I do not trigger the other rule of this web site which is to automatically block any post with 3 or more hyperlinks. (Any post with 3 or more hyperlinks are automatically put into moderation.)

    PS:
    And how did I write that last line? I wrote this:
    <code>&lt;code&gt;https://www.google.com&lt;/code&gt;</code>

    And how did I write that? Same approach. Just have to follow the rules of HTML escapes.

  225. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PPS: For doing that, the preview button was definitely my friend, to make sure that I got the HTML escapes right.

  226. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Honey Tone #278:

    “repost with HTML code tags.” Exactly how?

    If you write this
     
    <code>blah blah blah</code>
     
    It ends up like this.
     
    blah blah blah
     
    Code tags, besides the cosmetic difference, turn the content they wrap into unclickable text. As such, it won’t be subject to the 3 link maximum, which applies when urls are merely pasted or wrapped in anchor <a href=”url_goes_here”>label</a>
     
    There are a few other tags besides “code”: “b” for bold, “i” for italic, “strike” for strike-through.
     
    To confirm you did it right, make a habit of clicking the preview button before you post.
     
    There’s a trick to writing tags so they’ll show up raw without being interpreted. It’s not something you need to know, but I’ll list some character escapes for completeness. As the comment goes through a round of interpretation, these sequences will be replaced with a literal character.
    “<“=&lt;
    “>”=&gt;
    “&”=&amp;
     
     
    Incidentally, placing “&nbsp;” alone on a line creates a blank space between paragraphs. I used two here for a postscript. It represents a non-breaking space.

  227. twarren1111 says

    Brojo sounded very much like a previous multiple caller to the show: Viktor from Brooklyn

  228. twarren1111 says

    What Viktor (Brojo) and others such as creationists don’t get is that once you have a self-referential system that the choices of the status of evidence are no longer binary. To wit: “this statement is false”. The opposite of false is NOT true. The opposite of false is not false. And the opposite of true is not false, it is not true. This is why, Eg, if the claim is the presence of breast cancer and a mammogram is positive, the chances one has breast cancer with a positive mammogram is about 9%. Why? Bc a mammogram measures density in tissue, not cancer. Thus, a mammogram refers to the density of the breast which then refers to the likelihood of benign or pathological diagnosis. It is self-referential. Thus, the answers are not binary but quaternary: true, not true, false and not false. Or to be clearer: true positive, false positive, true negative, false negative. Then, depending on the question being asked, you apply the appropriate terms in the appropriate Bayesian equation to answer your question.

    To bring this back to Brojo (Viktor), the hypothesis is “there is a god” which correlates with “there is a breast cancer”. The evidence then needs to be presented. For breast cancer this can be a palpable mass, a mammogram, an ultrasound, an MRI, or a biopsy. EACH OF THESE tests AKA evidences have a 4 part read out: TP, FP, TN, FN. And yes, you can have a false positive biopsy result! Further, if you do ALL these tests, the probabilities of each, if they are TP for breast cancer have to be multiplied together and usually a >95% probability is needed to consider the claim justified.

    What kills me is how basic this is. Viktor is making a claim: “there is a god”. Next step would be good for him to define the god. Then, provide each piece of evidence. And he needs to know that if presents 5 pieces of evidence that are singly at a 99% probability that .99x.99x.99x.99x.99=.9509. In other words, the more ‘ad hoc’ Pieces of evidence he flings at the wall, once he’s above 5 items, better be at 99.9% confidence or he’s lowered his overall probability to less than 95%.

    And this, parenthetically, is the fatal flaw with oreodoublestuff. He is forgetting that at the BOTTOM of the science pyramid is philosophy. And that over time, we keep running tests. And converting a priori evidence to post prior evidence. This is why you need 12 decimal places (99.999999999999%) sigma for a Nobel in physics. Oreo: that’s what WE, as in HUMANKIND, did with the ‘problem’ of induction: we collected data. Indeed, how do I know what the likelihood of having breast cancer with a positive mammogram is? Bc I already know, after 60 years of mammography, that mammograms have a 10% false positive rate and a 10% false negative rate. The next thing you need to know is that about one out of hundred women who get mammograms have breast cancer. Now, you fill in the ‘soduko’ chart and you can do the math.

    And to drive the point home Oreo: the ‘controversy’ over mammography in the USA isn’t over if mammograms saves lives it’s if it saves enuf lives for the cost. How about Sweden where mammograms are mandated and free? The lives saved are 40% higher than in USA. You see Oreo, the ‘problem of induction’ in the USA regarding mammograms is what is a life worth, NOT if the test is effective.

    What you keep forgetting Oreo, is that science is a process, not static, but dynamic, repeated and repeated by different ways of looking all the way up the pyramid: physics, math, chemistry, biology, neurology, etc. You forget that the ‘ancients’ started the questions and overtime we have succeeded by recording data, and methods and hypotheses. This is why THEORIES in science ARE FACTS.

    You are dishonest Oreo. And beyond that, you are what evil is. Why? Bc like a psychopath, Eg Trump, you are PURPOSELY wasting time. You are creating thermodynamic entropy while decreasing algorithmic entropy and you are doing it knowing full well what you are doing.

    Viktor is deluded. He does not fully understand his deceit of himself. You, Oreo, do. Thus, while Viktor is ill, you are evil.

  229. twarren1111 says

    And that’s why I found Tim Minchin’s spoken performance piece that was posted on last week’s thread called “Storm” so moving: he so perfectly expressed my rage at what Oreo is trying to do with his lies. There are too many Viktor’s out there falling for these lies. It’s just wasting time. And that’s what evil is.

  230. Ronald Kyle says

    @twarren1111

    You are dishonest Oreo […] while Viktor is ill, you are evil.

     

    What most people do not realize is that if a person of the caliber of OreoConman really believes in the tenets of Christianity… that is if one truely believes that the words of Jesus as given in the Gospels are true and are the words of god… then one knows that being evil and a liar and villain and scoundrel is prefectly fine with Jesus so long as one believes in Jesus and repents in the end even on the 11th hour. Christianity is a religion tailormade for villains
     

    Jesus says outright that you can sin for as long as you want and for as much as you want and have as many victims as you want… and when you finally retire from a life of crime you will be more welcome in heaven than 99 innocent souls or even your very own victims (some of whom might be in hell due to not believing in Jesus)…

    Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

     

    Read my post that I made about this two threads back
    https://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2018/12/16/open-thread-for-episode-22-50-tracie-and-john/#comment-651106
     

    Lying for Jesus is a cherished and long held tradition and some have made it a fulltime occupation. It was started off by the alleged words of the purported Jesus himself in the fairy tales

    Matthew 4:19 And He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

     

    Paul dissimulates and hucksters and shysters for Jesus’s sake

    1 Corinthians 9:20-23 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

     
    Eusebius, Emperor Constantine’s bishop, legalizes deception for Jesus’ sake

    How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.

     

    And Martin Luther the founder of Protestantism sanctified lying for Jesus’ sake

    What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

  231. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I might talk to the guy in Discord. I’m at least curious enough whether he’s a troll or just being that contrarian, and I might have a chance to discover that in voice communications. Yes, I am just that much of a sucker for pain.

  232. t90bb says

    298…..EL….let him know there are many of us that would like to hear what he has to say..and we are not on discord. If he is willing to engage here that would be great since he came here. If not we understand and good luck, not that you will need it. Honesty wins out….and our position is the honest one..but I am not absolutely certain of that LOL. hahahaahh

  233. paxoll says

    Ronald, telling people what they believe or trying to convince others you know what they believe is completely unproductive. What you are saying maybe completely true, and things Oreo says may be indications that you are correct. But it serves no purpose to speculate and claim psychic knowledge of what someone else thinks and believes. Just as I, and most would agree that it is not possible to consciously choose what you believe, most christians do not believe you can be truly repentant of something you choose to do wrong because you know you can repent.
     
    Mark 13:32 “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
     
    This is the scripture any christian would instantly go to if anyone claimed it was ok to sin because you can always repent later. Stick with dealing with what someone actually claims they believe.

  234. Ronald Kyle says

    @Paxoll ” telling people what they believe or trying to convince others you know what they believe is completely unproductive”

    When the person is lying and pretending about what they believe so as to huckster and scam then outing them as liars and charlatans is very productive….

    @Paxoll “What you are saying maybe completely true, and things Oreo says may be indications that you are correct”

    So saying the truth and exposing tricksters and charlatans for the scammers they are is unproductive????

    @Paxaoll “claim psychic knowledge”
    To you it might look like “psychic” knowledge because you are ignorant of the knowledge that I have that enables me to expose thaose charlatans for the charlatans they are …

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. — Arthur C. Clarke

    @Paxoll “Stick with dealing with what someone actually claims they believe”
    Why? Do you have an objection to exposing pretenders and liars and charlatans… If you stuck to dealing with what a charlatan told you you would be continuously duped.

    And you yourself admitted that I was right… so thanks for that… but why are you objecting to me having successfully exposed a LIAR and pretender???

    Do you just prefer they continue lying and duping and huckstering even on a forum for skeptics and there might be people who might fall for their lies if they are not exposed????

  235. StonedRanger says

    Ronald Kyle. We get it. What pax is trying to say is you made your point. You made it in the last thread. To continue on with what can only be described as ‘your mission’ is going to continue to be as unproductive as it has been. Oreo has said he is not doing what you say he/she is doing. All you are doing is taking up space. Oreo isnt responding to you or anyone else for that matter, honestly. Your aggressive behavior is offputting to say the least at his point. You are doing exactly the same thing oreo is, repeating yourself endlessly to no good effect, when everyone here gets your point. This is not to support oreo, I am all for that person to be banned. But it rarely happens here. Ive just chosen not to engage with them because it isnt worth the effort.

  236. Ronald Kyle says

    @StoneRanger “You are doing exactly the same thing oreo is”….

    WOW… what an imbecilic heinous thing to say… you are equating the person who is trying to expose charlatans to the charlatans.

    Pathetic!!!

  237. Ronald Kyle says

    @StonedRanger “This is not to support oreo,”
    Yes it is… you object to the charlatans being exposed and try to silence the ones who expose them and then equate the ones who state the truth and expose the scammers with the ones who are doing the scamming… there is something wrong with your reasoning and thinking… and you are unwittingly supporting the scammers and helping quash and obstruct the prevention of the scams.

    @StonedRanger “Ive just chosen not to engage with them because it isnt worth the effort”…
    But you found it worth the effort to try to shut me up instead… wow… your irrationality is astounding.

    @StonedRanger “Your aggressive behavior is offputting to say the least at his point”
    Yes this is a forum made by some of the most aggressive atheists and it is for doing precisely that … be aggressive against the
    SCAMMER and charlatans…

  238. Ronald Kyle says

    @StonedRanger ” What pax is trying to say is you made your point. You made it in the last thread”

    Yes… and I will imitate one of my favorites on this forum Matt Dillahunty when he says that he will keep doing it for as long as there are still dupe and charlatans who try to dupe them.

    This whole show and its forum has seen the same freaking claptrap repeated over and over ad nauseam and the same rebuttals and debunkings are also repeated over and over ad nauseam…

    If you have had enough then piss off… go somewhere else… but stop your irrational EQUIVOCATIONS of the charlatans with the exposers of the charlatans.

  239. Ronald Kyle says

    @Paxill

    Mark 13:32 […] … This is the scripture any Christian would instantly go to

    Of course… Jesus himself explained this quite well to his 12 merry men:

    ⬛ Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

    ⬛ Mark 4:11-12 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

    The SHEEP are taught some parts of scriptures and the SHEPHERDS are taught other parts. The sheep are instilled with the things that ensure they stay duped compliant sheep while their shepherds are taught the things that they need to be effective shepherds.

    It does not behoove the shepherds that the sheep learn that their FARMERS are not protecting them from wolves out of love for the sheep.

    That is why the church prevented the translation of the bible and used to BURN ALIVE anyone who tried to do so.

  240. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Ronald Kyle #306:

    That is why the church prevented the translation of the bible and used to BURN ALIVE anyone who tried to do so.

     
    Article: Quora – Why did the Catholic Church oppose Bible translation to popular languages?

    The idea that the mediaeval Roman Catholic Church was consistently and universally opposed to translating the Bible is something of a myth. It’s true that there were cases where specific Bible translations were forbidden, but it was never a blanket prohibition. None of the people mentioned in the question – Wycliffe, Tyndale and Hus – were condemned for translating the Bible as such, but for more general crimes of heresy and opposition to the Church hierarchy. Their books were proscribed along with their other teachings.
     
    For example, John Wycliffe […] When he went on to challenge the doctrine of Transubstantiation – the belief that communion wafers and wine literally transform into the body and blood of Christ during mass – he crossed the line into overt heresy […]. Nevertheless, while his doctrines were condemned Wycliffe himself was never put on trial; he died of natural causes. He was actually condemned as a heretic 31 years after his death; his corpse was then dug up again and posthumously burned at the stake.
    […]
    it seems their objection was more to his General Prologue than the text of the Bible itself. In this prologue Wycliffe had summarised the teachings of the Bible in his own words, and included homilies to the reader on his idea of what a true Christian should believe.
    […]
    William Tyndale a century later ran into similar problems. He was not condemned merely for translating the Bible, but for allegedly mistranslating it in a heretical fashion. Sir Thomas More charged him with replacing the words for ‘priest’ and ‘Church’ […] Tyndale’s Bible now seemed to say that any group of Christians could get together as a congregation, elect some senior member of their group as their leader, and claim that his (or her) authority was equal to that of the Pope himself! It’s unsurprising that the Church considered that to be heresy.
     
    The first known translation of the Bible into Czech was made nine years before Jan Hus was born, and although he (or his colleagues) worked on improving the translation, it wasn’t for that reason that he was condemned as a heretic.

     
    Article: Wikipedia – William Tyndale

    Tyndale “was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned”.

     
    Article: Wikipedia – Jan Hus

    He was burned at the stake for heresy against the doctrines of the Catholic Church, including those on ecclesiology, the Eucharist, and other theological topics.

  241. colinb says

    Hi – I’m also new here.
    Been watching the Atheist Experience for a while.
    Tracie & Matt make a powerful pair !

  242. Honey Tone says

    To EnlightenmentLiberal and Compulsory Account7746:

    Thank you both for the HTML lessons. You are more than gracious to walk this rookie through those. Of course, because I AM a rookie at HTML, it turns out I asked the wrong question(s). The correct question should have been: How do I quote someone else’s post and end up with the giant quote mark (“) and the neat-looking grey line to the left of the quoted material? But you both provided the clues, so I went searching for HTML elements, and found quote (for short stuff) and blockquote (for longer). It appears that blockquote is what I want.

    @ EL #292:
    PPS: For doing that, the preview button was definitely my friend, to make sure that I got the HTML escapes right.

    @CA #293:

    If you write this

    blah blah blah

    It ends up like this.

    I had been using the Preview button, but I was just using text-processor cut and paste functions to quote posts and then formatting them myself. Quite tedious.

    Again, thanks to both.

  243. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Oh, yea. Sorry. It looks like you figured it out. For anyone else, blockquotes

    this is a blockquote

    are created by writing
    <blockquote>this is a blockquote</blockquote>

  244. RationalismRules says

    @Sky Captain

    [John Wycliffe] was actually condemned as a heretic 31 years after his death; his corpse was then dug up again and posthumously burned at the stake.

    How utterly pointless.
    Heretic! We’re gonna CREMATE you!!
    LOL

  245. Ronald Kyle says

    @Sky Captain
    Thanks for your Quora apologetics 🤦‍♂️😂🤣… and thanks for the Wikipedia articles that show that the Church burned at least one person alive for translating the bible and that they were so angry and infuriated as to be driven to burn another even after he has been long dead.
     
    But I noticed that you have not bothered to comment on your ill begotten son of a celestial salve monger telling his 12 hobos that he deliberately misleads the laymen and reserves the real teaching of the mystery> to his 12 hobos.
     
    I think Pope Innocent III understood this
    trickery quite well when he said in 1199 CE [(Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771]:

    The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted

  246. Ronald Kyle says

    @Paxoll

    Ok Ronald, think you need to take your “Paxill” now.

    Thanks man… you have no idea how much your comment makes me happy… if even you as an atheist (see I take you at what you state you believe) are driven to such painful cognitive dissonance pangs, I can only delight with how much cognitive agony they have caused the Liars For Jesus and their ilk.

    🙏🙏🙏

  247. Ronald Kyle says

    @RationalismRules “How utterly pointless”

    Actually to their demented minds it was not at all pointless… from their belief system the desecration of his body and the burning of his bones would prevent him from being resurrected on the day Jesus finally comes back to complete his bridegroom duties with the christian brides behind shut doors.

    But more importantly it demonstrates to the ones who really do believe that they too will be dealt with in the same way ALIVE… so the whole things serves to announce to all, the horrors that await them if they dare defy the orders of the church.

  248. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Ronald Kyle #313:
    Your reaction to being corrected is noted.
     

    I noticed that you have not bothered to comment on your ill begotten son of a celestial salve monger telling his 12 hobos that he deliberately misleads the laymen

    Why should anyone here care about your pet narrative?
     
    Beyond the minor annoyance at seeing you repeat yourself endlessly, it wasn’t worth commenting on.

  249. noguru says

    Has Brojo posted any evidence, any intricate and complex syllogisms that support a clam “God exists”?

  250. Ronald Kyle says

    @SkyCaptain “Your reaction to being corrected is noted.”

    Hahaha … you call your Quora apologetics a correction… but the words of the Pope you conveniently just look past… 😂🤣😂🤣

    Blindness to reality and creating your own wishful thinking fantasy is noted.

    @SkyCaptain “the minor annoyance”

    Good, your annoyance is an indication that what is left of your gray cells are panging with Cognitive Dissonance… GOAL!!!

  251. Ronald Kyle says

    @SkyCaptain “Why should anyone here care about your pet narrative”

    Hey chump…. my pet narrative of debunking your religion and other insanities stemming from the Sumerian illegal immigrant pimp is the raison d’être of this forum and its associated Youtube channel…. the fact that you do not even know that is another indication of your ignoring reality and creating your own wishful thinking fantasy.

  252. paxoll says

    Ronald, cognitive dissonance is when someone holds two incompatible beliefs and they react extremely when something tries to make them see reason on the topic. I don’t hold incompatible beliefs and I haven’t reacted in any extreme way. On the other hand you have demonstrated some very peculiar behavior here that seems very angry, manic, ocd, and borderline in one way or another. The fact that you mis-named me “Paxill” while the drug Paxil is often used to treat people with those types of mental disorders seemed like a very amusing Freudian slip or hilarious ironic coincidence.

  253. Ronald Kyle says

    @smallpoxoll “Freudian slip”

    No you pathetic imbecile… it was a keyboard slip … the fact that you are practicing QUAK psychology over the internet is an indication of your utter Cognitive Dissonance pangs…

    @smallpoxoll “that seems very angry”

    Yup another indication of your utter dishonesty and hypocrisy … You accuse me of “psychic knowledge” because I manages to out a liar and charlatan and you scurry at the double to his defense and order me to stop it. But then you do not see any problem of you doing psychic quack tele-psychoanalysis.

    What a transparent pathetic hypocritical fool you have just demonstrated being….

    But I do understand… your Cognitive Dissonance pangs have caused you to abandon your modicum of sanity to revert back to being a defender of Christianity, which you despite being an atheist (I am still taking at your stated beliefs as you ordered) cannot help but feel offended when it is effectively debunked and revealed for the insanity it really is.

    I feel sorry for you… but one day you will get better.

  254. Ronald Kyle says

    @smallpoxoll “Freudian slip”

    Hahaha…LOL… I have just noticed that you are doing a PROJECTION… it is in fact you who chose a user name that is one letter off from your favorite drug which YOU might have had a keyboard slip typing… most likely you meant to type paxill and slipped on the keyboard and got stuck with it as paxoll….

    And the fact that you know what it is in the first place while I actually had to google it when I saw your CD compelled post, is an indication of your psychological PROJECTION.

  255. RationalismRules says

    @Ronald Kyle
    Of course they thought it was meaningful at the time. I was pointing up the irony of the activity compared to the current practise of… oh, forget it.

    “Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process.”
    ― E.B. White

  256. paxoll says

    Ronald, I have not defended Oreo, I have not defended Christianity, much less “revert back”. I even accepted your “liar for Jesus” term in earlier posts. If you cannot recognize how over the top your incessant, angry posting is, and how ridiculous your attacks on regular posters on this blog is over some fairly simple criticism, then you really need to take a break. Maybe stick with emailing the show directly, organize your arguments, quote the relevant context of the discussion and come back in a week or so.

  257. Ronald Kyle says

    @Paxill “I don’t hold incompatible beliefs and I haven’t reacted in any extreme way”…

    Yes you do hold incompatible beliefs… despite your declared atheism (I am still taking you at your beliefs), you have vestigial cherishing for the insanity you were made to swallow in your infantile stages and most likely until late into “adulthood”.

    So of course when one exposes the extent of the insanity of the social and childhood inculcation you still have vestigial fuzzy feelings for, your Cognitive Dissonance is aggravated.

    And yes you have reacted in an extreme way… but of course your denial of it is yet another indicator of the extent of your aggravated gray cells.

    Your post #300 is a very obvious stupidity only induced by CD and I have indicated how imbecilic it is in my posts #301 and #306

    Then instead of a civil response to my indicating the stupidity of your post, you respond with a PROJECTION to tell me that I need antidepressant medication and you quack tele-psychoanalyze me as suffering from manic OCD and anger… those actions my dear chump are a reaction in an extreme way.

    But of course you are currently in no condition to reason or see rationality… perhaps you need a dose of your familiar and obviuosly favorite drug to the extent where your user name is one letter away from the drugs name.

  258. Ronald Kyle says

    @RationalismRules “oh, forget it.”

    Ah… I get it now… I did not notice the word CREMATE… sorry…
    “Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process.” ― E.B. White

    I love the above too… hahaha… true… but in my defense I was not in the mood for jokes… sorry.

    P.S. I love that saying so much I am going to add to my list…. thanks for that one… I never heard of it.

  259. Ronald Kyle says

    @smallpoxoll post #324

    I have not defended Christianity

     
    No??? So what do you call this
     
    @Paxill post #300

    most christians do not believe you can be truly repentant of something you choose to do wrong because you know you can repent.

    Mark 13:32 “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

    This is the scripture any christian would instantly go to if anyone claimed it was ok to sin because you can always repent later.

     
    But the fact that your gray cells do not recognize that as defense of christians and christianity is yet another indication that they were too busy panging with CD pains…. GOAL!!!!

  260. paxoll says

    Well Ronald, you have left me speechless. Your behavior has been pretty much beyond what this forum is accustomed to. I don’t particularly care to hear anything else from you, but I can’t speak for anyone else here. So I am going to check in only to see if Oreo wants to have an actual discussion, and I hope to never hear from you again.

  261. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Ronald Kyle
    Come on good sir or maam. This is pretty over the top. Take a chill pill.

  262. Ian Butler says

    Looks like another poster is begging to be banned. I enjoy this blog because the intellectual dialogue is often informative, but sometimes it is a lesson in hubris and how not to behave in a group discussion. Ronald Kyle, at this point literally nobody here wants to hear what you have to say. There are 2 possible reasons why, either you are way too smart for us, or you are a jerk. Considering the overall intelligence of the group I’m going to go with option B. The Calvary can’t come soon enough.

  263. freewheel says

    On the (emailed) question of whether homosexuality should be considered a disorder or mental illness:

    Homosexuality actually was considered a disorder by psychiatrists until the 1970s. The story of why homosexuality was no longer considered a disorder (and removed from the DSM) is told in a very interesting recent “This American Life” podcast.

    Ep 204: 81 Words

    https://www.thisamericanlife.org/204/transcript

    The short version is that prior to the change, psychiatrists mostly saw homosexual patients who were unhappy or maladjusted and wanted to change their orientation. They assumed homosexuality caused their unhappiness.

    It was only after the work of some activists calling attention to the subject that psychiatrists started to study a wider population of gays and found that the vast majority of gay people were actually quite happy and well-adjusted. Therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that homosexuality, itself, is not a disorder.

    There’s more to it thank that, of course. Worth a listen.

  264. twarren1111 says

    I’d like to try re: Ronald Kyle:

    Ronald, I’ve made mistakes on this blog. I sometimes get too excited/angry and in a torrid have in the past rashly typed on my iPad and pushed “post”. And I bore the brunt. Monocle Smile, Compulsory Account, Enlightenment Liberal I know called me out. And I was wrong. So I listened. Calmed down. Gave it a few days or weeks. Apologized. And I was better for it. Which, I think, means that the blog was also better for it.

    I have enjoyed most of your previous posts up until you recently reacted to criticism by going after your peers on the blog. You format your posts well. As a recovering southern baptist I very much appreciate your inclusion of bible references. But often your anger (rage would be a better word) comes through and it can be so intense that you can be 99% correct (no one is 100%) in your point but the intensity turns on everyone’s defensive wall to reject you.

    I have a very good dose of ADD. Here’s a startling concept: ideas, words, that come to fast cause fear in the listener. And get this: if I record me speaking my own ideas from a script, even if I wrote the script, even if it flows better than something co-written by Obama and Churchill, if the rate at which I speak gets above a certain threshold I will reject my own words. I get frightened by the overwhelm of my own words.

    You, lately, have been like this in your posts. At least for me. And it hurts me, because I see a person who has much to contribute who is shooting himself in the foot.

    Lastly, you seem to have a handle on formatting. Now, I hope you see my point where I’m claiming to not be the pot calling the kettle black. Specifically, in my post #295 I use all caps but I think my intent of using all caps as emphasis and not yelling is how most took my post. For your style, however, which is persistently intense, I think adding to your formatting italics or bold (or both) instead of all caps would greatly help your ability to communicate.

    Lastly, we can all be guilty of ad hominem. It’s easy. Like the way I used oreodoublestuff. But, it does diminish the one who uses it. And it can be much more effective to refer to the behavior rather than the person. To wit: pointing out how Oreo was making his false positives so high so that he warped his evidence for his claims (Eg, his claim of the ‘problem of induction causing faith in science’ was being supported by TP/(TP+FP) where he was driving his FP to 99% thus drowning out his TP. In words, he was ‘freezing time’ around the age of David Hume and ignoring every scientific field and its evidence that had accumulated since. And the irony is that it is philosophy where all these natural philosophies came from; except we now call these natural philosophies physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Indeed, the natural,philosophy that was required for philosophy was math.

    Anyway, please, please Ronald Kyle, listen to your peers on this blog. This is a form of peer review. Your posts are amazing. And if you’d listen to what we are asking of you, your posts, which are already amazing, will become even greater.

    We are all in this together.

    Thank you for listening. I’m 99% sure you’ll read this. And I hope you are hearing my tone of respect. Because it’s real.

  265. Jason M Kimball says

    Just so everyone knows, don’t go to Brojo’s discord. I wasted a few hours last night trying to get 1 person there to have a conversation and before long I had 19 people personally insulting my military service saying it was useless. Not a single person would listen to reason and 1 guy even asked the same exact question over and over for about an hour because he I didn’t give him the answer he wanted. In the end, the people in the room (except for 1 other kind person) decided I was an idiot and morals weren’t based on goodness and doing the least amount of harm but solely on the bible. So don’t waste your time, Jacob (Brojo) is a timid creature who won’t even conversate with anyone who say something he doesn’t like, he’ll mute you quicker than a peregrine falcon diving for a fish.

  266. twarren1111 says

    Oh, I think I forgot to connect a concept again! My point about Oreo was that I provided a reason as to why and how his posts, his behaviors were irrational. And I then made the connection (bc everyone else had made it for me) that he was being irrational on purpose. He was ignoring everyone’s efforts to keep him rational, or rather, get him to be rational. And we failed.

    The degree he was doing this became immoral in that he was purposely wasting time and energy. And that’s my concept of immorality. It’s what the lack of empathy does: it allows one to either consciously or unconsciously purposefully support irrational Bayesian reasoning. Psychopaths are the worst. Primary anxiety disorders can’t help themselves. Anyway, my point is that this low empathy behavior is what evil is.

    Oreo: consciously being irrational. Having fun. Playing. Enraging to enrage. EVIL. Probably not changeable.
    Viktor: unconsciously being irrational. In distress bc of CD. Calls into shows bc he’s searching. Illness. Changeable.

    Saying Oreo and Viktor are evil and ill is not ad hominem bc I’m not referring to their person but to their reasoning.

  267. colinb says

    Hi –

    Members get a pretty little icon to make identifying their posts more easy.

    I get a little Swastika ?

  268. jigglefresh says

    Hi. Happy new year everyone. It has been a while since I’ve posted. I have recently caught up with the shows and blog. Oreoman seems splendid.
    Thank you AXP and others. That is all. Carry on.

  269. Dee says

    Can anyone tell me where to go for the homophobia email thread that they talk about in the show? Her take-down of the argument sounded like something that would be lovely to behold. They said it would be on the blog but I don’t see it…perhaps I’m missing something?

  270. Ian Butler says

    Well said twarren. Responses like that almost make it worth reading through the comments that need such a response.

  271. says

    Religious people have trouble winning debates because ALL their arguments are old, recycled and moot.
    They don’t have the creativity to take the claims to a new level.
    For example, I think that if they include the usage of drugs in the equation, then everything becomes more easily explained.

    Here are a few examples:
    1) Why did god approve of slavery? A: He was testing his first batch of meth.
    2) Why the flood? Why not kill; whoever he didn’t like and get it over with. After all, he IS god.
    A; That was his suicidal stage. He was hooked on heroin and didn’t make heads or tails of nothing.
    3) What about “Love thy neighbour?” A: Extasis
    4) Homophobia? A: Cocaine
    5) The garden of eden and the talking snake? A: Obviously LSD.
    6) WHat was he doing before creating the world? A: Baked on weed every single infinite day of eternity (right after he got the munchies so he needed to create a whole universe so he could produce food.

    Etc etc etc…

    https://www.facebook.com/thespicablethinker/
    https://www.facebook.com/Iwanttogotohelltoo/

  272. RationalismRules says

    @Lyndale
    I see you’ve started posting on the previous thread.
    You have had a dozen or so responses to your posts, yet you have not responded to anyone else.
    This is a space for discussion and debate, not for preaching. When you make no attempt to engage, but simply urge your beliefs onto others, that is a strong indicator that you are aware that your beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny.

    Banning is relatively rare on this forum, but one thing that posters do get banned for is simply preaching at the forum instead of making an honest effort to engage.

    I offer you a direct straightforward question, to see if you are actually able to defend your claims:
    You claim in your video that god placed a ‘watermark’ into the world, which you claim corresponds to the ‘creation story’. You have drawn the god as looking into a chalice, to see by reflection ‘what his archangel was doing’.
    My question is simply this: can you please point us to the passage(s) in the bible that refer to:
    a. god holding a chalice
    b. god looking at a reflection to see what his archangel was doing
    and if you are unable to give biblical references, please explain where you sourced these additions to the creation story.

    It’s a straightforward question, and one you should have no difficulty answering if your video is in fact based on the creation story as you claim.

  273. artofthetaco says

    I’m a long time listener of the show, but have never posted on the blog before. I was hoping to make a post about an issue I’m having related to being able to consider people of faith as close friends (and I live in Texas, so this post is 99% about Christians specifically). This might be better as a new post, but I can’t figure out how to do that. I probably need to be cleared by Mods before being able to make a new post.

    Basically, I have no problem being friendly with religious family and coworkers, even hanging out with them at work or in group settings. But I think I’m at a point in my life where I would never consider someone with a strong religious belief as a really close friend. Like a “lets go on a road trip / lets go camping / be my best man” level of friend. Not because I can’t get along with them, but because I can’t get over seeing one of three possibilities with this friendship:

    Possibility #1: They truly belief that I, a rabid and vocal atheist, will be burning in hell for all eternity, and they don’t seem to be doing anything to stop it. Regardless of the reality of hell, what a terrible friend! If I decided to put on a blindfold and start hiking the rim of the Grand Canyon, a true friend would do whatever it took to keep me from killing myself, even if they had to beat me with a branch and drag me away from the danger. If they did nothing other than tell you “it’s your decision, I’m just trying to set a good example by hiking without a blindfold”, they would be, by definition, a terrible friend.

    Possibility #2: They are trying to save me from this horrible fate, against my wishes, and in the process it is clear that they have no respect for my own beliefs. Again, terrible friend. This would be like a friend beating you with a branch during a hike, dragging you away from a dangerous canyon that doesn’t even exist, when you aren’t even wearing a blindfold. Much worse than #1. or

    Possibility #3: They don’t truly believe in the whole hell nonsense, and deep down (maybe even subconsciously), they aren’t really afraid of my future pain and suffering. If so, they are therefore being dishonest with me (and maybe even themselves). Not necessarily a terrible person or friend, but not someone I can really respect either, and respect is a key ingredient to a good friendship. I honestly think that most decent good-hearted Christians I know (including my loving mother) fall into the #3 category above, but I would be a terrible friend if I openly had so little respect in their beliefs that I didn’t even think they really bought into it. I give my mom a pass on this, since she’s my mom, but I can’t overlook this when it comes to less-close family members and people who I might otherwise want to try to become better friends with. If I overlooked it and just avoided the topic, I would feel I’m being dishonest, not something I want to be with a really close friend.

    I have a lot of respect for this community, and look forward to seeing if anyone can add some perspective to this or share their own woes when making friends with people you see as failing to see an obvious truth.

  274. thisg0wd says

    An ode to Tracie Harris

    Lets start with, I fell in love with Matt. He cut through the BS.

    But TH

    Properly listening when humans need that little bit of extra understanding, and then going there with them. Wow. Just wow.

    Tracie Harris, you is the wow signal

    Wonderful when she loses her shit, when humans are actually being arseholes. But that patience, that listening ability, that understanding. Its always respectfully giving the dickish humans hell, but only when they deserve it, cause they ain’t listening or they are misstating a position they are not holding, themselves.

    Super wonderful. Respectful, understanding and full on “fark off mate, you’re just being a douche,”, when needed.

    Wow.

    You have a gift dood.

    I’m not surprised how many of the male callers express their romantic affection. Not surprised in the least. But female callers too, they may not have expressed romantic affection, yet, but one can feel the love, just cause you listen so well, before addressing what they actually asked or said.

    That way you have with people. It’s just really cool to share space on this planet with you, or maybe the idea of you, at the same time.

    Thank you Tracie Harris for giving me a little hope in humanity.

    PS: Sorry humans on the blog.. This is all emotional n shit, but I haven’t found another public figure that does it the same way. That god damn understanding that she exudes, it’s just bloody well amazing. On AE or Talk Heathen, Tracie, you rock.

    PPS: I only watched one talk heathen all the way, cause I Googled “Tracie Harris” after exhausting all the AE episodes she was on. You filled in for someone. You actually had a very decent conversation with someone who is usually somewhat dismissed as a crackpot, on that show. If anyone else knows that episode, it was a thing of beauty TH handled that call, that human. I think you said you had a chicken or some bird in the oven, and had to turn said oven off to do the talk heathen gig at the last minute. I found that quite funny.

    Thank you Tracie for existing. This finite existence is better for you being in it.

    Ugh, wot a load of emotional hogwash. To hell with it. Tracie, god damn Harris is a super cool human being, and I ain’t afraid to say it.

  275. Chakat Firepaw says

    The winged unicorn, (sometimes called an alicorn), was probably a My Little Pony thing referencing the !Christmas holiday in the setting called Hearths Warming.

  276. paxoll says

    Artofthetaco,
    I think you are correct, but maybe being a little too binary. I think friendship is a very broad spectrum and people fit on it and move around based on different physical, emotional, and intellectual needs. In this day of social media, we have TMI of everyone. We know more about the way a stranger thinks/feels than someone 100 years ago knew about their spouse. This is going to cause conflict whenever there is a difference. There is a good reason why in the old days there were etiquette rules about talking politics and religion. There are tons of people in Texas that are christians, but don’t really care about christianity. You may see this as being someone intellectually lazy or dishonest and not be able to “respect” them and therefore not be good friends with them, but imagine a vegan saying the same thing, or a scientist with a narrow interest in study. Someone who is so intent on what they see as important that anyone who doesn’t have a strong rational position on the matter isn’t worth respecting and can’t be good friends with. It is the outsider test. We look at someone like that and shrug our shoulders and say its their own fault. If you want good close friends you have to stop making atheism the center of who you are and start being a secular humanist.

  277. Honey Tone says

    @artofthetaco

    I’m with paxoll on this: you’re being a little too binary. If you want a friend, be one. Religion and politics don’t have to be deciding factors in whether a friendship starts and works. Personality, tolerance, respect, empathy, all play major parts. Also, don’t be surprised if friendships change over time: you won’t be the same person in 20 years that you are now, and neither will the people you know.

    I’ve been an atheist for about 40 years. Most of my good friends are some stripe of Christian or Jew. We’ve worked together, played together, raised families together, supported each other in good times and bad. Of my 3 best friends, 1 is atheist, another is Catholic, and other is Baptist. Yes, I sometimes give those last 2 a hard time about their religious beliefs, as they sometimes give me a hard time about my lack thereof – but we’re not mean to each other.

    Don’t worry about whether or not you can be friends with (or how good a friend you can can be with) a religious person. Just be one.

  278. colinb says

    My little Swastika icon isn’t an indication of my political leanings.

    Just thought I’d mention that…

  279. Jerfery says

    Came to read the e-mails about homosexuality (not) being a disorder and only found a comment from Dee looking for the same. Where were those e-mails posted?

  280. artofthetaco says

    @paxoll and @Honey Tone

    Thank you both for the replies. I appreciate that there are still lots of people out there who can develop close friendships across such a divisive aisle. Perhaps one day I’ll be able to join you. I certainly haven’t closed my mind to the possibility of becoming very close friends with a religious person, I’m just being honest with myself that I don’t see it happening and why.

    I have many close acquaintances who are fairly religious, and they and I respect each other’s boundaries. We don’t totally avoid the topic, but are able to discuss our beliefs respectfully. We get along great, can have great conversations and good times together, but to me, this isn’t the same as a true, deep friendship. Would a true friend be ok with respecting your boundaries if they were really 100% convinced that you were driving your life full speed into a lake of eternal pain and suffering? I can’t wrap my head around how that person can justify not grabbing you by the collar every day and trying to save your soul, if they truly are a really really close friend. If the tables were turned, I would want to a true friend from an eternal suffering if I believed in such nonsense, even if that meant trampling over ideas that are considered rude or disrespectful to trample on. Because screw all that, I want to see my buddy in heaven for all eternity and dance on those golden streets or whatever it is I might believe in.

    I certainly don’t see myself as a person who defines myself primarily by my atheism, but perhaps it’s more true than I realize. Or maybe my bar for what I consider a really close friend is too high. And I’m not trying to come across as whining about a lack of good friends. I have a few who I really respect, who would punch me in the mouth to keep me from walking into a burning building, and I would do the same for them. I don’t feel I have a need for more, and I don’t see how someone who thinks I’m going to hell could fill this role in my life.

  281. alphanew says

    I had some questions for Craig from Alabama. If he is still reading / commenting, please let me know.

  282. artofthetaco says

    I guess I thought of a more direct question for @paxoll and @Honey Tone, or anyone else who has a super close friend who is also very religious. How do you justify in your head that this person believes you will spend eternity in pain, and isn’t doing much to prevent it? Is it something that you really don’t think they feel is true, is it something that just doesn’t bother you, or is it just something you don’t think about and try to be a good friend. Just curious, I don’t think any of those would work for me personally, but I’m sure it’s just an issue that wouldn’t bother a lot of people.

  283. paxoll says

    artofthetaco, what would you do if a family member (who I would hope you care about as much as a “best friend”) was a drug addict? You going to quit your job and spend every second of the day following them around so you can stop them from taking drugs? Do you think arguing is the best way to care about them and proving to them you care?

  284. artofthetaco says

    Fair question. I wouldn’t quit my job and follow them around, because I don’t think that would be the most effective way. If I really thought it would save them, I might try. But I would do everything in my power to help them. I would beg, educate, and even constantly nag them to get help, while trying my hardest to avoid arguing and pushing them away.

    What I honestly hope I would NOT do in this situation would be to claim to “respect their decision”; a decision that I can see is slowly killing them, even if they can’t see it themselves. I would NOT go on with our relationship pretending that everything is ok, or avoid a sensitive topic like their inevitable downward spiral just because it might lead to an argument. If I did, I think I would be a terrible son or brother or friend.

    And from my limited perspective, this is what it seems that Christians are doing when they have non-believing loved ones who they don’t try and save. Assuming they are true believers in the fiery pits of hell. (and don’t get my wrong, I’m not complaining about my religious family not actively trying to save me, I mentioned in my original post that I think my mom’s not really a true believer in the whole hell thing).

  285. bionicpianoman says

    Hi all, first post on the blog here but long time listener/viewer. I wanted to read Jenn’s response to the bigoted ‘homosexual’ email she mentioned on air, I thought I’d find it here. Can someone please provide a link or point me in the right direction? Thank you!

  286. oreoman1987 says

    I honestly don’t think anyone understood my point about the philosophy of science or the unsolved problems in philosophy. This is why it’s important to be skeptical of everything.

  287. Waller says

    @oreoman1987 Do confuse not understanding with disagreement, especially when you ignore everything thats others say to you.

  288. walker says

    @oreoman1987 #356 You shouldnt confuse not understanding with simple disagreement, especially when you ignore what everyone says to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *