Comments

  1. Ronald Kyle says

    I am always amazed at why people who argue for “god” using all that pseudo-philosophical gobbledygook, then proceed to assume that this god is the celestial slave monger YHWH? Then some go on to assume that this YHWH went to all the trouble of raping and committing adultery with a 13 years old girl in the middle of nowhere so as to insert 1/3rd of himself inside her to ooze out after 9 months of thumb twiddling to still do nothing for another 30 more years and then go get himself a weekend of BDSM and then disappear for 1989 years and counting???

    Why do they not think that this celestial fraudulent real estate monger is the DEVIL (say) and the “god” they argued for previously on the whatever SOPHETRY basis they used, is a totally different god???

    And then the Christian dupes amongst those sophists proceed to the claptrap about the resurrection….

    EVEN IF we grant every single bit of the resurrection hoax did actually happen, what exactly does it prove??? A Devil could have done it just as equally or an Alien or a Time Lord or Vampire or even a genie or Wizard or Atlantean…. all these fairy tale protagonists could have done the exact same fairy tale magic of the New Tall tales….

    So why do they even bother with all the pseudo-philosophical claptrap to in the end ASSUME whatever their inculcation and brainwashing made them wish for????

  2. indianajones says

    And not a single dick joke Noah? I wouldn’t have believed you had it in you! Great show, thanks guys.

  3. says

    To Ben. Don’t also forget things we are told as small children, by people we trust, really, really stick in our heads. For example, when I was about four, I and my older sister, whom I looked up to but was a bit of a jerk sometimes, were walking on the beach after a storm. There were large heaps of seaweed piled on the tideline.
    She suddenly grabbed my hand and said “Jeanette, we never told you this because it would scare you, but sometimes bad sea monsters wash up and hide in the piles of seaweed. There is one right behind us. When I say the word, you run as fast and as hard as you can, and I will stay behind and try to slow it down. She said “RUN”, and I raced up the beach, tripping and scraping my knees, beyond terrified. Then I heard her laughing.

    The point is, forty years later, I am still leery of piles of seaweed when I walk on the beach. I KNOW there are no sea monsters hiding in them, but I still unthinkingly tend to walk around them.

    I am sure you were told there is a hell when you were small. It may be hard to get over the twinge of fear hiding in the corners of the back of your brain, but as a rational adult you can realize that it was just a lie you were told to control you, when you were very small. There is no reason to fear any hell, and you can just get on with your life.

  4. John Garcia says

    I am trying to rephrase “I don’t know” as “I don’t have enough information to know”. Many religious folks are essentially saying they have enough information to know, and on that specific point they and I often disagree.

  5. Ronald Kyle says

    @John Garcia

    “I don’t know” applies to the ethereal esoteric “god” definitions that some religious people try to sneak into the conversation. And of course, they do not know, nor can we disprove their unfalsifiable claims.
     
    However, when it comes to the next stage of their “argument” they invariably proceed to make the extra claims they need to morph this ethereal “god” into their version of a GOD.
     
    When they proceed to equate the unfalsifiable esoteric pseudo-philosophical “god” to their God, the game changes. Now they no longer are making unfalsifiable claims. They are most definitely making express claims and they are brandishing about even more specific pseudo-evidence for their God.
     
    Unfortunately for these versions of a God, they now are in the realm of falsifiability. And invariably their God is most evidently falsifiable by numerous means.
     
    So yes, in the case of an esoteric ethereal pseudo-philosophically conjured up “god”, we and them do not know. However, in the case of their God whom they are trying to sneak into reality under all that pseudo-philosophical smoke and sophistic legerdemain, we DO KNOW. We know that this God is an impossible and definitely falsifiable myth on par with pixie fairies and leprechauns.
     
    I am always dismayed by how a benefaciary of all the knowledge and science of the 21st century would so readily and blindly accept those claims of ancient duffers from benighted epochs as more likely to be gods, rather than, say, TEASERS (see below).
     
    Or in one salient case of a primitive insanity, why don’t these INGRATE denizens of the 21st century stop to ponder that it would have been a lot more feasible ASS-U-mption than an ill begotten son of a celestial slave monger, that the simpletons of the benighted era could have been the victims of an Alien Sex Tourist who came to Earth for a weekend of BDSM with strapping young Romans in domineering uniforms after a lengthy dalliance of naked feet washing orgies with 12 duped dullards.
     
    ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

    Teasers are usually rich kids with nothing to do. They cruise around looking for planets that haven’t made interstellar contact yet and buzz them….They find some isolated spot with very few people around, then land right by some poor unsuspecting soul whom no one’s ever going to believe and then strut up and down in front of him wearing silly antennas on their head and making beep beep noises.

  6. oreoman1987 says

    “I am always dismayed by how a benefaciary of all the knowledge and science of the 21st century would so readily and blindly accept those claims of ancient duffers from benighted epochs as more likely to be gods, rather than, say, ”

    Science is a bad way to find knowledge. https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2016/entries/induction-problem/

    Falsificationism also has a lot of problems; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Criticisms

  7. Monocle Smile says

    Can we please ban the troll? The attempted restarting of the same pointless nonsense in three threads should be evidence enough.

  8. Ian Butler says

    Noah Lugeons was a good co-host, with an awesome moniker! Reminds me of a punk rocker buddy of mine back in the day who called himself Noah Fence.

  9. t90bb says

    8…oreo…

    “science is a bad way to find knowledge”…….(but i admitted i follow the conclusions of science and induction)…lol////

    complains about the show and the hosts….but watches “religiously”……

    states the obvious and pretends like he is contributing something valuable

    PLEASE BAN THIS ASSHAT…….he is as confident in science and induction as anyone here. This has been demonstrated repeatedly by his own admitted behavior…….i know flat earthers that are more intellectually honest.

    With each post oreo demonstrates his trust and confidence in science and induction and in the same reality as the rest of us…..if he lacked trust in science and induction he would not be typing on an apparent keyboard, attempting to transmit info on an unternet site, and responding to apparent participants….HIS ARGUMENT HERE IS SELF REFUTING…..and we have explained this to him dozens of times…..BAN HIM as a favor to himself…or ill identify him

  10. t90bb says

    btw….watch!!!..oreo will respond demonstrating his trust and confidence in the same principles as the rest of us. If science and induction was not convincing to oreo….he would not trust this board exists!!!! But just wait….he will demonstrate his trust by responding……..

  11. twarren1111 says

    Oreo

    What is the best process for obtaining knowledge? How does it work? How does it avoid the problems you see with the scientific or religious process?

    Thank you.

  12. twarren1111 says

    Ian, I too enjoyed Noah. I’ve noticed that Matt feeds a lot of his co-host. Specifically, Matt seems to ‘go longer’ before he gets fed up. That’s why I like Tracie and him together so much. But it was most pronounced with Noah since I’ve been watching the show.

  13. twarren1111 says

    Ian, Jeff Dee kinda did this for Matt too but mainly I think is bc Dee was like Matt supercharged, so Dee as co-host was another pairing that worked well for Matt.

    I think I saw that Noah co-hosted for talk heathens too.

  14. twarren1111 says

    Oreo,

    I am asking you seriously. Instead of addressing your comments about the problem of induction, etc, which is where we went last time with you, I’d appreciate hearing how you determine knowledge. I’m guessing it is rooted in philosophy. It would be nice if you could also relate your process to a historical control. Eg, how your process explains how we went from ENIAC to the iPad I’m writing on and the ‘environment’ I’m doing it on: YouTube, internet, networks, satellites, etc…

  15. twarren1111 says

    And Sal Cordova and Kafei,

    You haven’t left us, have you…last week having over 400 posts may have been a record

  16. oreoman1987 says

    twarren1111, The problem is is that the problem of induction is all that’s needed to show that knowledge most likely doesn’t exist. Just because science has given you cool things like iPhones and iPads doesn’t mean it’s rational or true.

  17. oreoman1987 says

    “btw….watch!!!..oreo will respond demonstrating his trust and confidence in the same principles as the rest of us. If science and induction was not convincing to oreo….he would not trust this board exists!!!! But just wait….he will demonstrate his trust by responding……..“

    Trust and confidence doesn’t mean knowledge or belief. Using it also doesn’t require you to believe in it.

  18. larpar says

    Did oreoman post something? I don’t know for sure. I have, however, induced that they are a worthless troll. I could be wrong, but repeated evidence leads that way.

  19. oreoman1987 says

    Monocle Smile, You’ll have to actually engage or solve the problems I’m presenting instead of running away from them in order to silence me.

  20. oreoman1987 says

    “I’d appreciate hearing how you determine knowledge. I’m guessing it is rooted in philosophy.“

    We don’t know. Nobody has ever demonstrated that they have knowledge or even any justified beliefs. Philosophers who study epistemology are still trying to solve all these problems and paradoxes.

  21. Bluestar says

    Noah is a great host
    Would like to see more of him. Great boat builder too or so I’ve heard…
    Pls do not engage oreo-douche. Let it write it’s pointers drivel and ignore.

  22. t90bb says

    20….OREOspaz

    You have trust and confidence in science and induction….ME TOO! In fact almost everyone who has commented about you also have trust and confidence in science and induction! We have so much in common….but that was obvious before you got here. So whats your argument again??

  23. t90bb says

    OREO does not know how absolute knowledge is possible….he strawmans us into claiming we disagree with him lol…..to flex his pretend muscles……awwww so cute.

    ohh and he does not believe this forum actually exists….he just uses it…GTFOOH…lol……..

    might be the biggest stooge ever on the blog. thanks for keeping it interesting Oreospaz……it gets boring here sometimes.

  24. t90bb says

    At the urging of some….I will no longer engage the person we have no knowledge or belief of. .

  25. Honey Tone says

    @ Oreo 23:

    Nobody has ever demonstrated that they have knowledge or even any justified beliefs. Philosophers who study epistemology are still trying to solve all these problems and paradoxes.

    You should get back to us when those problems and paradoxes are solved. In the interim, we carry on.

    Without you.

  26. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, “OREO does not know how absolute knowledge is possible….he strawmans us into claiming we disagree with him lol…..to flex his pretend muscles……awwww so cute.”

    The question is, how do you know anything with 1 pert certainty? Where did I say you disagreed with me?

  27. oreoman1987 says

    “You should get back to us when those problems and paradoxes are solved. In the interim, we carry on.
    Without you.”

    That’s a way of you believing everything on faith.

  28. paxoll says

    Oreo,
    What is your definition of knowledge.
    What is your definition of belief
    What is your definition of faith,
     
    You keep throwing those words around in meaningless ways

  29. twarren1111 says

    To lapar, EL, secular strategy, et al, I understand your request that others (me included not engage Oreo but I’m interested in his response)

    To Oreo
    I asked you what process you use to determine knowledge. You answered in #19 that what the problem with induction means is that there may not be knowledge. Thank you for answering.

    Let me provide a real world situation that I am expert in. My goal is to understand how you would respond to the situation. Another goal is to understand what you mean by knowledge, truth, reality, etc.

    This is part 1:
    In the 1970s an Italian study was done in which women with breast cancer that had spread to the lymph nodes were randomized to two different treatment arms. The hypothesis was that in women who had breast cancer spread into the axillary lymph nodes had a high risk of relapse because of microscopic disease that was undetected at the time of surgery to remove their breast and draining lymph nodes. The secondary hypothesis, based upon studies in stage 4 breast cancer patients in which the use of a triple drug regimen (CMF) showed that measurable tumors would shrink in response to the drugs but that no cures could be achieved, was that the use of CMF when all measurable disease was removed may be able to irradicate microscopic disease left behind so that either the number of women cured would be increased by ‘mopping up’ with chemo or at least if still disease was left after chemo that at least the duration of remission would be increased. So, using statistical tools to determine how many patients needed to be on the two treatment arms a large phase 3 study was done on resected breast cancer patients with disease spread limited to the lymph nodes where one half received placebo and the other half received CMF. Treatment went on for a year (placebo vs drug) and survival was followed. What was shown was that in the patients who received CMF that at 5 years the number of women who were alive and without cancer was higher than the group that had surgery followed by placebo. To be specific, the statistics were that the difference in survival between the two arms was at a p value of < 0.05 which means that there was a 95% or greater chance the difference in survival between the two treatment arms was real and not just noise. The idea of that p value being the cut off was long ago determined as the cut off in biological trials to be able to compare results. Eg, if treatment A shows a 5 year survival advantage and treatment B shows a 1 year survival, the result is only considered different if the p value between the two arms is <0.05.

  30. twarren1111 says

    This is part 2:
    A new drug was developed in breast cancer in the late 1970s and 1980s. It was isolated from a bacteria found near the Adriatic Sea. As testing was conducted (bench to animal to human to phase 1 to 3 in spread breast cancer) it became accepted that this new anti-microbial agent called adriamycin was most likely the most effective single agent against breast cancer discovered at that time. One problem with adriamycin is that the human heart can only take a certain amount before the risk of permanent heart failure occurred.

    After testing in stage 4 breast cancer, 6 cycles of CAF were clearly superior to 6 cycles of CMF. Thus, enough confidence was gained that the higher risk of toxicity with CAF (hair loss, blood count suppression and heart failure risk) vs CMF (usually no hair loss, mild blood count suppression, no heart failure) was worth the statistically significant greater effect on tumor kill rates in the stage 4 setting that it was rational and ethical to compare the two regimens in the curable setting.

    Thus, a large phase 3 study was done in stage 2 breast cancer patients who had undergone resection and had disease in the lymph nodes. Bc of the first Italian study, it was no longer ethical to have a placebo (ie, no chemo arm) controlled trial. Further, as the Italian study used 12 months of CMF, there was no way to blind the study in terms of CAF for 6 cycles. Plus, the side effects were so different, blinding the treatment arms was futile. Most importantly, as hundreds of women from many institutions would need to be enrolled to get the study done, bias such as type of therapy were eliminated anyway.

    The study was clear: in resected, node positive breast cancer, CAF x 6 cycles was ‘better than’ CMF x 12. As for better than, specifically, the p values for survival made it clear with a greater than 95% probability that the higher cure rate and relapse free rate (just bc you’ve relapsed at say the 5 year mark doesn’t mean you’re dead yet) seen in the CAF arm compared to the CMF arm was true. In addition, while the number of side effects and their intensity were greater at 6 months on the CAF arm compared to the CMF arm, the rates of how bad those toxicities were still made it clear that the cure benefit outweighed the toxic cost. But, this enabled nuances in decision making. Eg, what if you had a woman with 3 lymph nodes positive but she also had had one heart attack after her surgery and was a diabetic smoking 2 packs a day. Well…you may not feel comfortable offering her CAF but CMF does increase the cure rate and is much less toxic to the heart.

    It had long been suspected that the F in CAF and CMF was not contributing much. Plus, in the stage 4 setting, many studies by this time (early 1990s) had established that CAF x 6 was no better (or ‘non-inferior) to AC x 4. One reason the regimen without F wasn’t called CA was that the doses of the adriamycin and cyclophosphamide were different when F was dropped (the A was increased a bit). Plus, CA is an abbreviation for cancer…

    One of the toxicities that started to emerge by this time too was acute leukemia. It wasn’t clear if it was the C or the A or both. The cyclophosphamide was developed out of WWI nitrogen mustard gases so we knew it hit the marrow already. Anyway, the rate was very low, like 0.4% at 10 years but this is like ten times the background rate. But, the cure benefit in early breast cancer was too high to consider dropping either drug.

    So, in the early 1990s several large, international studies were done in the curative setting in breast cancer. Why several and large and international? Bc the difference between the treatment arms was getting so small that to get to that 95% rate of confidence started needing not only thousands per arm but we needed more than one study looking at the same hypothesis. Why? The problem of induction.

    But all the studies came out the same: AC x 4 was EQUAL to CAF x 6. Equal meant the cure rate was the same. In both arms, it was about a 98% cure rate at 5 years. The toxicity was the same, or trended better or was provably better by p value on the AC x 4 arm.

    Thus, after 40 years we went from the best survival in node positive resected breast cancer being:
    1. No additional therapy, to
    2. CMF x 12, to
    3. CAF x 6, to
    4. AC x 4 with 98% being alive at 5 years.

    To get from 1 to 4 took hundreds of clinical trials, tens of thousands of women, decades and millions of dollars. Each step built upon the previous. For example, once ether was discovered, it was Dr. Halstead who first showed that even doing a mastectomy was better than not. Then not taking the pectoralis muscle was demonstrated to not decrease the cure rate. Once radiation therapy happened, many studies were done showing simple mastectomy equaled doing a lumpectomy if you irradiated the left behind breast. Many of these surgical studies also had treatment arms that involved what chemo or other therapy to try.

    So this is how clinical biological science in oncology deals with the problem of induction. We keep defining, hypothesizing and then testing. And so on. And on. Indeed, ‘subset’ analysis of data collected on these breast cancer studies led to the concept of ER positive and negative breast cancer. In fact, breast cancer now is actually about 20 different diseases. Each study collected data that led to more questions. All tissue from every study has been kept. This fact Eg led to a 21 gene assay being developed to tell us which node negative breast cancer needed chemo or not. How? Bc it was noticed that these 21 genes appeared to correlate with breast cancer. They then went back to previous tissue from studies and measured these genes in the samples. But remember: they knew EXACTLY what happened to each patient over the next 10 years! Thus, they could use the genetic tissue results of these 21 genes in patients to develop a three level risk pattern. If you were high, you got chemo. If you were low, we knew chemo did nothing. A huge study was done with the middle group. These node negative patients were randomly assigned to chemo or no chemo. What this study proved was the EXACT cut off point in terms of how the cancer expressed these 21 genes. In other words, if you had an otherwise low aggressive looking breast cancer that hadn’t spread to your lymph nodes, we now could do this 21 gene assay and tell the patient exactly if taking chemo improved survival by a 95% or greater margin or not.

    In other words, all the data from using chemo and what type of chemo to improve cure rates in node positive patients led to proving beyond a doubt exactly when a node negative, ER+ breast cancer patient will benefit from chemo Bc she actually has disease spread already as predicted by these 21 genes.

    And here’s the kicker, we don’t know what these genes even do except for 3 or 4. How do we know then? Because it’s the PATTERN OF EXPRESSION of these 21 genes in ER+ breast cancer that hasn’t spread to the nodes that matters. And how do we know the pattern? Bc we could go back and test for these genes on thousands of breast cancer cells that were ER+ but not found in the lymph nodes. But that is respective data. Problem of induction. So you then do the prospective study. It was called TAILORx. Cool name. If you had ER+, lymph node negative breast cancer, the 21 gene assay was done and a score was given by the assay. A high score we knew from the retrospective analysis on saved breast cancer samples that chemo increased the cure rate with a 95% certainty. A low score chemo did nothing. This happens: some patients beg for chemo Bc ‘more is better’. These women I could look in the eye and say, “we know with a 95% or greater confidence that giving you chemo will do nothing to your cure rate. The only thing you could get is a toxic effect. And the greatest toxic effect would be the car crash you die in coming to clinic for a chemo treatment that was unnecessary”. Besides, now insurance won’t cover it. For the middle group, that’s what made the TAILORx study ethical: these were very low risk patients as determined by all those studies since the original Italian one in that these are the node negative and ER + patients. Thus, it was very ethical to flip a coin. And women got thus too. And this was a huge study. Thousands and thousands. Why? Bc to tell a difference in survival when you are in the 98 to 99% cure rate area in a favorable population to begin with requires a very high n value to get a p value > 0.05.

  31. jigglefresh says

    I participate in a large forum regarding, generally, poker related subjects. They employ, when needed, containment threads. Instead of banning certain posters, any posts by those posters or those who choose to engage directly with them are automatically moved to that particular containment thread. Of course, there are many banned accounts there… people who are particularly vulgar or otherwise detrimental to the forum. This policy has seemed to work well for years and years. The containment threads often just wind down, with the original poster/s drowning everyone else out with the nonsense. He/she ends up just talking to him/herself. Some of these threads have continued on for months, years or even over a decade though.

    I don’t know the capacity or functionality of this website itself or how it pertains to one particular blog. But if such a thing is possible here, it may be something worth considering.

    Sorry for the derail… carry on as you fine folks see fit.

  32. twarren1111 says

    This is part 3, the last part.
    So here is my question Oreo:
    Knowing with a greater than 95% certainty that more node positive breast cancer patients will be alive if they take chemo after surgery is called what in your vocabulary? To me that is knowledge. Being able to use the data from clinical trials to tell a node positive breast cancer patient what her rate of relapse will be with chemo and without chemo with a >95% accuracy is knowledge.

    Knowing by a gene assay of 21 genes in a woman’s breast cancer that is ER+ and hasn’t spread to her lymph nodes with a 95% certainty whether her cure rate is increased or unaffected by taking chemo is what I call knowledge.

    I started my cancer training in the 1990s. Thus, I participated in the studies from CAF onwards. What I told patients about every two years changed. And it changed Bc the problem of induction means you have to repeat testing hypotheses and instead of repeating the same exact hypothesis you add to it. And so on. This means that from the mid 90s the cure rate of node positive breast cancer has gone from 80% to 98%. What do you call that improved cure rate? Is that knowledge?

    In the ER+, node negative breast patient, what do you call the idea that we now exactly who benefits from chemo and who doesn’t? In fact, here is a summary of how the results came out over time. Please note, when percentages are given, we are saying that liklihood that result is real is >95%. So what do you call these results? I call the results knowledge. Knowledge achieved by using the scientific method to overcome the problem of induction. Indeed, that’s why the TAILORx study took 10,200 women to be enrolled on it to find, at a >95% confidence, that he survival differences reported here are true. Why isn’t that knowledge?

    “The study has randomized more than 10,200 women with this type of breast cancer at 1,182 sites in the United States, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and Peru. Women recently diagnosed with estrogen-receptor and/or progesterone-receptor positive, Her2/neu-negative breast cancer that had not yet spread to the lymph nodes were eligible for the study. (See a summary of the TAILORx protocol for more information.)

    The women were categorized into three recurrence risk groups depending on their score on the gene expression test. Women in the lowest-risk group were assigned to treatment with hormone therapy, women in the intermediate-risk group were randomly assigned to receive hormone therapy alone or hormone therapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy, and women in the highest-risk group were assigned to receive hormone therapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy.

    In September 2015, results were reported from an analysis of the women in the lowest-risk group. The findings showed that at 5 years, rates of distant relapse-free survival were 99.3%, of invasive disease-free survival were 93.8%, and of overall survival were 98.0%. These results provide prospective evidence that the gene expression test identifies women with a low risk of recurrence who can be spared chemotherapy. (See the clinical trial result summary for more information.)

    Results for women in the intermediate-risk group were presented at the 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting in Chicago and published in the New England Journal of Medicine on June 3. The findings showed that adjuvant hormone therapy alone worked as well as hormone therapy and chemotherapy together. After 9 years of follow-up, the rates of invasive disease-free survival were 83.3% for hormone therapy alone and 84.3% for hormone therapy and chemotherapy, and for overall survival, the rates were 93.9% and 93.8%, respectively. (See the press release for more information.)”

  33. jigglefresh says

    Despite my previous post, I would also like to see how Cookiemale responds to, dips and dodges or ignores twarren’s most recent questions. Thank you for taking the time to post all of that twarren.

    Perhaps Cookiemale and kafei should collaborate. Maybe kafei can give him some drugs and they could figure out a way to make reality collapse in on itself.

  34. bluestar says

    twarren1111 Well said. Unfortunately IMHO oreo is a disingenuous jerk off with no motive or purpose other than to wax a woodie when he sees his own posts and believes he is disrupting discussion.

    jigglefresh Here here, I second. But IDK if this forum has the machinery to isolate threads. I was hoping after a nice warm vaycay in the Caribbean, the only oreo I would see was my cookie wrapper.

  35. oreoman1987 says

    twarren111, Just because science has done great things for things like breast cancer and makes accurate predictions, doesn’t mean it gives us knowledge. It relies on the weakest form of reasoning which is induction. Induction has never been shown to be justified deductively. Worst of all, we can’t even find a justification for mathematics or logic. Just because you have seen beneficial things happen due to some tool, doesn’t make that tool a key to knowledge or truth. In order to know anything with certainty, you. Have to get past the skeptics. Otherwise, you have to believe everything in science, mathematics, logic, and statistics by faith since they all rely on unproven assumptions.

  36. oreoman1987 says

    twarren1111, Plus, keep in mind, I’ve never said science isn’t useful. Just that it can’t guarantee knowledge. Not even probable knowledge. Also, just because you’re justified in believing something, doesn’t mean you have knowledge. This is the point of the Gettier problem presented in 1963 that refuted Plato’s justified true belief theory.

  37. oreoman1987 says

    @bluestar

    “Perhaps Cookiemale and kafei should collaborate. Maybe kafei can give him some drugs and they could figure out a way to make reality collapse in on itself.“

    This is called an appeal to ridicule fallacy.

  38. oreoman1987 says

    paxoll

    “What is your definition of knowledge.
    What is your definition of belief
    What is your definition of faith,

    You keep throwing those words around in meaningless ways”

    We don’t have a consistent definition of knowledge.
    Believing something means you hold something to be true.
    I define faith as belief based on assumptions.

    Since science, mathematics, and logic are all based on assumptions, they must embe taken on faith.

  39. jigglefresh says

    @ Cookiemale Yes I was ridiculing. I did it on purpose and, imo, it was warranted.

    @most everyone else… umm… actually I don’t think I need to say anything about his responses. I have faith that you are all chuckling, perhaps even snorting in derision. 🙂 😉

  40. oreoman1987 says

    jigglefresh, The problem is, ridicule doesn’t win debates. It leads to close-mindedness.

  41. Monocle Smile says

    This isn’t a debate. A whiny troll throwing a tantrum doesn’t a debate make.
    This is far too common in cyberspace. One stupid person mindlessly objecting to something doesn’t suddenly become a “debate.” That term has a connotation of legitimacy on either side or at least implies value of the ideas presented. We don’t have that here.

  42. paxoll says

    @Oreo, I didn’t ask what “we” defined as knowledge, I asked what was YOUR definition. You keep claiming we have no way to get knowledge, so why are you using a word you have no definition for or “we” don’t have a consistent definition for?

    So you have defined everything as faith because to get past the problem of hard solipsism requires an assumption that we exist. That is an absolutely useless definition and is not how anyone else uses the word.

    How can you define belief as what we hold to be true, if reality is something we simply have faith in? That means truth is faith and utterly meaningless to bother using the term true. Also, how can someone act without belief? We do have some autonomous reflexes but how can any conscious act be made without holding a belief that something is true. Everyone acts as if there is an objective reality, a truth, to take any action requires this belief. If we have no choice in believing in an external reality, that external reality requires consistency, or we would not be able to believe in it. Every action you take demonstrates a belief in a consistent external reality.

    From here we can conclude that beliefs are not just things we hold to be true, but can be true or not true (basic logic). If beliefs can be true or not true, than there are reasons to believe and these reasons can be evaluated based on how often they produce beliefs that turn out to be true or not. Which is how we have all of our logic. So by existing and having actions you demonstrate the a belief in the validity of logic whether you consciously agree or not. Which makes your assertion that science is the same faith based belief as religion completely contrary to every single action you have taken on this forum.

  43. jigglefresh says

    @Oreo I wasn’t trying to win a debate. There is no debate between us.

    However, I would be oddly and comedically impressed with your continued ability to completely miss the overall point that some have made, clearly, to you, if I weren’t slightly suspicious that it was on purpose.

    Enjoy your cookies and all the best

  44. jigglefresh says

    @bluestar Caribbean? Warm? Vacation? You’ve gone too far. Please consider other people’s feelings. 😉

  45. oreoman1987 says

    “From here we can conclude that beliefs are not just things we hold to be true, but can be true or not true (basic logic). If beliefs can be true or not true, than there are reasons to believe and these reasons can be evaluated based on how often they produce beliefs that turn out to be true or not. Which is how we have all of our logic. So by existing and having actions you demonstrate the a belief in the validity of logic whether you consciously agree or not. Which makes your assertion that science is the same faith based belief as religion completely contrary to every single action you have taken on this forum.”

    The problem is is that we can’t come up with a consistent system of logic. The laws of logic themselves lead to contradictions. This is especially true when we have all these paradoxes.

  46. oreoman1987 says

    “This isn’t a debate. A whiny troll throwing a tantrum doesn’t a debate make.
    This is far too common in cyberspace. One stupid person mindlessly objecting to something doesn’t suddenly become a “debate.” That term has a connotation of legitimacy on either side or at least implies value of the ideas presented. We don’t have that here.”

    This is an example of whining and self-projection.

  47. oreoman1987 says

    “I didn’t ask what “we” defined as knowledge, I asked what was YOUR definition. You keep claiming we have no way to get knowledge, so why are you using a word you have no definition for or “we” don’t have a consistent definition for?“

    That’s the point of the Gettier problem. Nobody has given an example of knowledge since they’ve been unable to account for it. Things like science, logic, verificationism, religion, divine revelation, and even common sense have had trouble solving skepticism and shown to be problematic.

  48. Ronald Kyle says

    Thanks OreoMephitic… you have unwittingly helped prove the nature of another LIAR FOR JESUS around here.
     
    One of the bullying practices that infantile bullies do to their victims is to snatch a possession of their victim and start lobbying the object back and forth between the bully and his accomplices so that the poor victim gets utterly frustrated when he cannot retrieve his possession.
     
    The bullies derive major sadistic pleasure from this torment and continue to do it until the victim gives up and goes away abandoning any hope of retrieving his possession.
     
    You and your crony (whom I am sure by now everyone can identify) have snatched this forum for the last three weeks and are pretending to be debating in lieu of lobbying it over the heads of your victims here in this forum… well done… I congratulate you on being capable bullies and thanks again OreoMuck for helping expose yet another Liar For Jesus.

  49. paxoll says

    Oreo, your constant appeal to hard solipsism is ridiculous. If I call knowledge justified true belief and all I have as possible evidence for something to be true is whatever is allowed after the assumption of existence, then by definition the limit of what can be demonstrated as true is what constitutes knowledge. Like Matt told you when you called last year, absolute knowledge is not possible, but the confidence in something being true can be so high that we call it knowledge. You know gravity works, you believe it so strongly that it is not possible for you to even imagine how to act as if you didn’t believe. At this point I am done with your dishonesty of trying to conflate the demonstrable bad reasons to believe in religion with the demonstrable good reasons we believe in science by calling everything faith.

    Hey everyone, it looks like the clip of Oreo popped up on youtube after I was listening to Aron-Ra. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2v22RcD-U

  50. twarren1111 says

    Oreo,

    In post #14, I asked you:
    1. What is the best process for obtaining knowledge?
    2. How does this process work?
    3. How does this process avoid the problems you see with scientific or religious based processes to determine knowledge.

    In post #20, you replied:
    1. Is that the problem of induction is all that is needed to show that knowledge most likely does not exist.
    2. Just because science has worked in producing material things doesn’t mean it is rational or true

    In posts #36, 37 and 38, I outlined for you:
    1. The overall development of showing that in lymph node positive breast cancer, clinical trials showed from the 1970s until the late early 2000s that CMF x 12 cycles was better than no chemotherapy, then that CAF x 6 cycles was better than CMF x 12 cycles, then that AC x 4 cycles was better than CAF. Each of these treatments were determined to be better by two measures, each with a 95% chance that these conclusions were true: which chemo was superior in terms of survival and toxicity.
    2. I then showed you how using subset analyses of all these studies led to studies to associate genes with survival of breast cancer. In this process, the massive inductive hypothesis that genes could be associated with survival were then assessed by using a pattern of 21 genes, most of which we still have no idea as to what these genes do or express or how they function, and tested these 21 genes on enough specimens held in storage from clinical trials in which we knew the outcome, ie, the survival rate (and more specifically, when, where, how, etc as to how relapse and death occurred) in order to ‘validate’ the gene assay patterns in their ability to predict relapse. Thus, the inductive hypothesis was tested by using samples with completely known outcomes which means that the inductive hypothesis was tested using deductive testing of actual samples in which we knew the complete outcome of the patient who had a particular outcome and gene pattern. The TAILORx study was then done in which 10,200 women were tested using this gene assay. Those who had a low recurrence score on the assay got not chemo. Those with a high score got chemo. Those with an intermediate score were randomized to chemo or no chemo. The results, as they came in, were published over a 9 year period of time after enrollment finished. The last report was June 2018. The results were clear.

    I then asked you what to you call the results of these studies? I told you I called them knowledge. To be specific, I do not use the word BELIEF at all. It is too easy to equivocate. If I do use belief, it is only in the context of the future. Thus, instead of using the word belief, I use the word predict.

    As for the present and the past I use only the word knowledge. Either I have knowledge or I do not have knowledge. Knowledge I define according to Bayesian reasoning and what percentage the experts in a field consider significant for the threshold of knowing or not knowing. For example, for most things, I require that there be a 95% or greater chance that the hypothesis is correct before I say I know something.

    To be even more specific, there is nothing we do has human’s in decision making, regarding either the past, present or future, that doesn’t follow bayesian reasoning. This means that once you have a certain level of complexity, ie, a self-referential system, then every possible piece of evidence is either true positive, false positive, true negative or false negative. Everything must be given a claim aka hypothesis. Thus, if you ask me if chemotherapy will improve survival in patients in lymph node positive breast cancer I will say that based upon the result so many studies we know that this hypothesis is positive with a greater than 95% probability because the data shows that the TP/TP+FP of the evidence related to this hypothesis has greater than or equal to 95% probability as correct.

    If a patient asks, “do you believe that this chemotherapy will work?” I will say to the patient that what they are asking me is if I can predict if the chemotherapy will work in them. I will tell them that no, I cannot predict that. Why? Because you cannot be 98% pregnant. Either you are or you aren’t. But what I can predict is that if you take the chemotherapy you will be in a group in which in 5 years 98% of you will be alive and cancer free. If you do not take the chemotherapy then I know and can predict that you will be in the group that is around 93% alive and cancer free. In other words, if 100 women are starting today and take the chemo then 98 of you will be here in 5 years. I will tell you in 5 years if you are here or not. If you refuse to take the chemo along with another 99 women today, then 5 years from now I can tell you 93 of you will be here and 7 will not. I can tell you that the difference between the 93 and 98 people who are alive in the two groups 5 years from now is real with a greater than 95% confidence level. And we consider that level to be true. In fact, it is supported by every study done since 1970.

    Let’s give another real world example:
    I claim that my car is in the drive way right now. Based upon prior data, having had a car since I was 17years old, that I am 50 now, that there is a certain chance my car is in the drive way. That is the true positive rate. Now, there is a chance I can look out my window and see a car, and think it is my car, but it is actually someone else’s car. This is the false positive rate. This rate, as you can imagine, is exceedingly low. There is a chance that my car isnt there and that I either know that or not (true negative or false negative). You see, based upon my priors, I do have what philosopher’s have referred to as a true justified belief. But there is also the Gettier problem. Specifically, the false positive rate. So how do I overcome this?

    With bayes. If over 33 years my car has always been in the drive way when I think it is in the driveway then I know my true positive rate. It’s 100%. But you, know, nothing is 100%. So the best I can give my TP rate is 99%. And you know what, I recall one time thinking my car was in my driveway and taking the bus home and discovering when I got home that I had actually driven into work that day. That’s true by the way. So, my false positive rate is 1 day/33 years. My TP rate is 33 years-1 day/33 years. In other words, my TP rate is 33(365)-1/33(365) = 0.9999169. My FP rate is 1/33(365) = 0.000083. Thus the likelihood my car is in my driveway right now according to my hypothesis and the evidence based upon priors means my ABDUCTIVE conclusion per baye’s theorem is 0.9999169/(0.9999169+0.000083)=0.99999 or a 99.999% chance that my hypothesis is correct.

    In post #43 you reply to me:
    Just because science has does great things for breast cancer and makes accurate predictions, doesn’t mean it give us knowledge.

    THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU. I asked you:
    1. what do you call the results of the studies showing ACx4 for node positive breast cancer is the best treatment for cure by the time of the early 2000s? What do you call that IDEA?

    You then say that science relies on the weakest from of reasoning which is induction. But, I gave you explicit examples where based upon deductive findings in the lab on how chemo works on cancer cells, on deductive findings on how chemo works on breast cancer cells in the lab, on deductive findings that these agents work in animals, then inductive studies are done as prospective clinical trials. To handle the ‘problem of induction’ these studies are repeated over and over and over again until consistently all the experts in the field agree that the results are true with a 95% certainty. The experts in the field call this degree of certainty knowledge. This knowledge is obtained via inductive and deductive reasoning and is then tested by experiment.

    As proof of concept, we then even developed a genetic assay in the mid 2000s and used cancer samples frozen for decades to prove that our inductive reasoning was true deductively. We then prospectively tested it over and over again. This is the TAILORx study.

    Indeed, another amazing finding occurred. In all the studies in breast cancer in which women received an estrogen blocking agent something curious was noted. Women have two breasts right? And so we have an in vivo experiment going on with the non-involved breast. Statistically, we know that women will develop a NEW breast cancer at a certain rate in the OPPOSITE breast right? Well, after about 30 years and about 20,000 women on studies, it was noted that in those studies in which an estrogen blocker was given, women kept developing a NEW breast cancer in the OPPOSITE breast at HALF the rate expected. WHY??????

    This lead to a HUGE induction: that blocking estrogen may prevent breast cancer. SO the largest cancer study to date was done. It enrolled 14,000 women deemed by certain criteria to be at high risk for developing breast cancer. Half got an estrogen blocker and the other half didn’t. At two years enough breast cancers occurred that ethically the study had to be stopped. In the 7000 women who got the estrogen blocker there were about 60 new breast cancers. In the 7000 women who got placebo about 170 breast cancers occurred. The p value was very high. We were certain.

    What word do you use to describe the idea that with a greater than 95% certainty we know that women who are high risk of developing breast cancer will reduce their chance of developing breast cancer by over 50% if they take an estrogen blocker?

    My point is this: you mention the Gettier problems as if they are set in stone and destroy for all time justified true belief. Well, actually, the examples Gettier have are just what we call False positive. For example, if smith thinks jones is going to get the job and jones has 10 coins in his pocket but smith ends up getting the job and he has 10 coins in his pocket too, well, the point you are forgetting is TIME. TIME. And this is why you refusing to see how and why we have overcome the ‘problem of induction’ and ‘the Gettier problem’ is by using TIME to collect data.

    And we collect data to test our claims. Why? Because complexity, by which I mean self-referential systems, are such that there is not a binary read out. There is not a TRUE or FALSE. The OPPOSITE of TRUE is NOT FALSE. The OPPOSITE OF TRUE IS NOT TRUE. The OPPOSITE of FALSE is NOT TRUE. The OPPOSITE OF FALSE IS NOT FALSE. Do you understand?

    This is what Bayes’ discovered and it answers the problem of induction because what Bayes does is factor in what the REAL problem is: the difference between prior knowledge and posterior knowledge.

    The process of determining truth is NOT static. IT is DYNAMIC.

    So, again, what do call the results of the clinical trials i refer to? I use the word knowledge. And I either know something or I do not know something. I believe nothing. I will predict the future is the closest I come to belief.

    Now that the problem of induction is gone and the Gettier problem solved, what do you call the results I mention above? Remember, men get breast cancer too and the same data is used for them. So, if you develop ER+, node positive breast cancer, will you take AC x 4? And if the answer is yes, WHY will you take AC x 4?

  51. twarren1111 says

    Oreo

    IF you are Alex from colorado, just wow man.

    “we all believe something on faith” I so vividly recall you saying!! I hope paxoll is right in deducing your identity!!

    Alex: I believe NOTHING and I HAVE NO FAITH.

    And I do not equivocate here: I DO NOT MEAN FAITH AS IN TRUST. I MEAN FAITH AS IN taking as true an idea INDEPENDENT of the evidence, even to the point of the opposite of the evidence. And that is just, well, sick.

    I either know or do not know. And this pertains to the present or the past. And is based upon bayesian reasoning using the evidence for a claim in ALL THINGS.

    As for the future, I predict the outcome of the evidence based upon prior knowledge of the outcomes for a hypothesis based upon prior evidence.

    TO be specific, this means that prior to whoever it was who discovered Australia, I would have had said that the I know that the hypothesis that all swans are white is true based upon a 99% probability using bayesian reasoning. Once I got off the boat on the new land of AUstralia and saw what looked like a black swan, I would have collected a specimen and used every tool to determine if it was the same species as the white swans I knew with the best evidence seeing if the black swan would breed with the white and how the offspring looked (they must be swan-like in all properties except color of feathers). WIth this new knowledge, I would then UPDATE my reasoning. I would now say that I know that all swans are NOT white, but that thus far, of all the known swans to exist in the world, 99.99999999999999999% of them are white. And, I would wonder why on an island nation is where we see this type of variation.

    This would of course lead me to predict things and come up with evolution and be named the greatest scientist of all time.

    Thank you Alex!!!!!!!!

    I hope you understand how TIME, by which I mean the continual collection of evidence along with the continual production of hypotheses leads to updating priors with posteriors such that using bayesian reasoning one can get closer to and closer to significance in determining the TP, FP, TN, and FN rates of reality.

    This is how the ‘problem of induction’ and the ‘problem of deduction’ by the way, as well as the ‘Gettier’ problem are all overcome.

    It’s why it takes time.

    It’s why two brains are better than one.

    It’s why KNOWLEDGE is BETTER THAN FAITH

    And this all works from the 10 to the minus 43 seconds to now

    ANd that is why you are having such a problem, Alex.

  52. jigglefresh says

    If we grant Oreo’s hypotheses and eventual conclusion, we are to understand that science, in general, is unreliable (or, at least, we have no reason to think it is reliable). Forget the philosophy for a moment. Behavior, in the real world, aligning with this would cause actual, measurable harm. The abandonment of the very notion that advances in the sciences ARE an increasingly reliable and generally positive influence on society and the average human condition would be devastating. I wish that someone, say twarren1111, could provide an example of… oh, wait.

  53. indianajones says

    @jigglefresh. Thread isolation is a FANTASTIC idea and having it done by mods is even better!

  54. oreoman1987 says

    “Oreo, your constant appeal to hard solipsism is ridiculous. If I call knowledge justified true belief and all I have as possible evidence for something to be true is whatever is allowed after the assumption of existence, then by definition the limit of what can be demonstrated as true is what constitutes knowledge. Like Matt told you when you called last year, absolute knowledge is not possible, but the confidence in something being true can be so high that we call it knowledge.”

    I’m not appealing to solipsism because I don’t believe in that either. I’m defending a skeptical position that looks for justification for everything people hold to be true. Plus, I’ve never spoken to Matt on the show. I’m honestly not interested in speaking to him because I find him a bit defensive and dogmatic when it comes to him defending his positions. Especially when he made one of the worst arguments I’ve ever heard. Which was that Muslims aren’t problem in Austin, Texas and ignored the callers point about Islamic extremists being a problem across the world and that Muslims make up only 1 percent of the American population. He should have known better than that. Also, like I said before, confidence doesn’t mean knowledge. Billions of people are confit that a god exists but that doesn’t mean they’re right.

  55. oreoman1987 says

    jigglefresh 61, I never once said that science isn’t useful. Just that it can’t guarantee knowledge. Reliablism is also a theory of truth that has met some criticisms. If you forget about philosophy like you said, you forget about everything. Including science, logic, argument, debate, ethics, truth, criticism, and so on. The reason people receive PhDs from universities is because everything you study is a product of philosophy.

  56. oreoman1987 says

    “As for the future, I predict the outcome of the evidence based upon prior knowledge of the outcomes for a hypothesis based upon prior evidence.”

    That’s an example of circular reasoning.

  57. oreoman1987 says

    “I either know or do not know. And this pertains to the present or the past. And is based upon bayesian reasoning using the evidence for a claim in ALL THINGS.”

    That’s an example of circular reasoning because you’re using your memory to verify your memory.

  58. oreoman1987 says

    twarren1111, Also, remember, I would never recommend you to abandon science. I’m just saying that t has yet to be justified in giving us knowledge. I also don’t deny the fact that some scientists have had an influence on how philosophy is done. For example, Kurt Gödel with his incompleteness theorms and Charles Darwin with his theory of evolution by natural selection. Both these ideas have had tremendous impact on philosophy and science. In fact, I think Charles Darwin completely destroys the idea of divine design.

  59. oreoman1987 says

    twarren1111, Also, no, I’m not this guy from Calorado.

    As for my definition of what knowledge exists s, I would say it’s justified true belief with a Gettier defeater. I had just remembered this definition soon after I had mentioned this problem.

  60. oreoman1987 says

    twarren1111, Also, no, I’m not this guy from Calorado.

    As for my definition of what knowledge is, I would say it’s justified true belief with a Gettier defeater. I had just remembered this definition soon after I had mentioned this problem.

  61. jigglefresh says

    @oreo #65 I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking about you to others. Way to miss my point completely though. At least you’re consistent.
    Yawn

  62. oreoman1987 says

    “I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking about you to others. Way to miss my point completely though. At least you’re consistent.
    Yawn“

    I was responding to you because it’s me that you’re criticizing.

  63. Monocle Smile says

    I sense more xenophobia about Islam upcoming.
    Pray tell, how was Matt wrong about what he said concerning Muslims in Austin? And how do you know since knowledge is impossible and everything is faith based?

  64. oreoman1987 says

    Monocle Smile, Because, by his logic, nothing is a problem in this world since it’s not happening in his hometown.

    While knowledge may or may not be possible, there can be propositions that are justified.

  65. oreoman1987 says

    Monocle Smile, By Dillahunty’s logic, nothing can ever be solved since he doesn’t focus on problems outdo of America. I think he’s too obsessed with Christianity to understand what makes Islam different from every other religion.

  66. Monocle Smile says

    So he wasn’t wrong and you’re butthurt about it anyway.
    There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being focused on the issues in one’s own country, especially one with such a large population. Matt sticks to what he knows.

    Troll somewhere else.

  67. oreoman1987 says

    Monocle Smile, If he sticks to only what he knows, then it’s not very impressive when considering the massive issue with Islam. The problems with Christianity are basically non-existent when compared to Islam. His ignorance on this issue is inexcusable.

  68. oreoman1987 says

    Monocle Smile, In fact, every time The Atheist Experience gets confronted about the issue of Islam, they get defensive and change the topic to Christianity and white people. And then accuse the callers of being bigoted or racist.

  69. Monocle Smile says

    Oh, so now we’ve shifted from sealioning to blatant lies, have we?
    Now at least we know why you’re trolling the blog.

  70. oreoman1987 says

    “Oh, so now we’ve shifted from sealioning to blatant lies, have we?”

    How is it trolling or lies? You can look up every call that TAE has had on being confronted about Islam and see how my point is accurate.

  71. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    You can look up every call that TAE has had on being confronted about Islam and see how my point is accurate.

    You seem pretty confident, dare I say even having a belief, or knowledge. Whereas, I don’t know man. I might have to like assume that my memory is mostly reliable. I might be being tricked by an Evil Demon aka a Cartesian Demon. I don’t know.

    PS: In4before you say I assumed your gender. Your name literally includes the word “man”.

    PPS: Definitely need a ban on this guy and any sock-puppets that he has.

  72. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Assumptions are necessary when engaged in debate. It’s just important to defend them with as much consistency as you can. Why not engage with people on topics just in case there is knowledge and truth?

  73. Monocle Smile says

    Sweet, a link to a fringe position that, while it says lots of worthwhile stuff, is essentially only arguing semantics and uses niche definitions to make a largely unnecessary point.
    Most of us are perfectly capable of recognizing that there are justified beliefs and unjustified beliefs and that some beliefs contain assertions of absolute certainty and some don’t. Jim Walker seems to think people are too stupid to do this, so he instead relabels those buckets. They are still the same buckets.

    Either way, fuck off.

  74. buddyward says

    Wow interesting conversations.

    Looks like false equivocation fallacy between the faith used by theist and the high degree of confidence in science that most everyone uses.
    There is also this notion of “you are just as bad as I am” argument which leads to “no one really knows anything” and therefore no one is justified that what they are saying is true, including the one positing that there is no justification in people having confidence in science.

  75. oreoman1987 says

    buddyward, Confidence doesn’t mean knowledge or truth. Billions of people are confident that a god exists but that doesn’t make it true. Remember, only the academic skeptics argue that knowledge is impossible. I don’t argue this. I just have yet to see anyone demonstrate that they know anything with certainty.

  76. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    Confidence doesn’t mean knowledge or truth. Billions of people are confident that a god exists but that doesn’t make it true. Remember, only the academic skeptics argue that knowledge is impossible. I don’t argue this. I just have yet to see anyone demonstrate that they know anything with certainty.

    I never said that confidence means knowledge or truth, so good job with the strawman.

  77. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    https://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

    Well, here’s actually something novel. I suppose it warrants a response.
    I skimmed some of it. I notice that it defines “belief” as an emotional state. I have heard that from only one other source, Sam Harris, and I think that this is an accurate description of what it means “to believe”. “To believe something (as true)” means that one has a particular mental state of acceptance or confidence, and those mental states are emotional states. I’m totally on board.

    Then, I noticed this bit:

    Many kinds of concepts occur without the need for belief. People can invent rules, maps, games, social laws, and models without requiring a belief or absolute trust in them. For example, a map may prove useful to get from point A to point B, but to believe that the map equals the territory would produce a falsehood.

    This is wrong. None of the individual bits are wrong per se, but the implied conclusion is wrong. People can invent all sorts of models without believing in them. For example, plenty of people have invented alternative physics that describes a world that is clearly not our own – Flat-Land for example.
    https://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/07/02/flatland-understanding-multiple-dimensions-from-our-third-dimensional-perspective/
    However, for a person to use a model of reality in order to plan their actions, they must have some sort of confidence, or (probabilistic) expectation, or hope. People don’t take actions without some emotional investment in those actions.

    Earlier, you said that belief is not required to take actions. Now I have a better understanding of what you mean. I didn’t understand that you were objecting to the emotional content of “belief”. I didn’t understand that you thought that people could be straw-Vulcans.
    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan

    It is a true fact of human psychology that practically every time someone takes actions, they do so because of an emotional hope, or expectation, or belief, etc., that their actions will produce some sort of desired result. There is an unavoidable emotional investment.

    My go-to response to this sort of straw Vulcan is to say: Why did you get out of bed this morning? Because you had certain emotional needs. For me, I was experiencing the sensation of “needing to piss”, and that was uncomfortable, which has an unavoidable emotional state attached to it. I also knew that by urinating (in my toilet), this unpleasant sensory experience would pass. Thus, I decided to get up to go to the toilet to piss. This decision was an emotional decision, based on many emotions, including my emotional desire to avoid the unpleasant state of feeling like I need to piss, and the emotional expectation that pissing will end this unpleasant sensory experience. If I did not have a conviction of some sort that pissing would relieve this unpleasant feeling, then I would not have gotten out of bed at the time that I did. Why would I? We make decisions in order to satisfy our emotions.

    Without that emotional conviction, action does not happen.

    That’s why I’m calling your argument a straw-Vulcan. Vulcans in Star Trek are not emotionless; otherwise they also wouldn’t get out of bed in the morning. Vulcans have emotions. They just suppress their strong emotions, and strive to use rationality instead of irrational responses that we see from humans who are experiencing certain kinds of strong emotions. In other words, they practice impulse control in order to gain delayed gratification at the cost of immediate gratification because that often leads to better outcomes, and they definitely try to analyze when it’s better to delay gratification vs try for immediate gratification. (Vulcans also have a social stigma against typical expressions of emotion.)

    The idea of an emotionless person, and especially the idea of emotionless decision-making, is pure unadulterated nonsense.

  78. oreoman1987 says

    buddyward, Then you have have to take science on faith. This is not a strawman because I didn’t intentionally misrepresent your argument. There’s a difference.

  79. Honey Tone says

    @oreo #83

    Why not engage with people on topics just in case there is knowledge and truth?

    According to your philosophy, there can be no knowledge. Therefore, for you, it’s a useless exercise.

  80. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    Then you have have to take science on faith. This is not a strawman because I didn’t intentionally misrepresent your argument. There’s a difference.

    You represented that I meant confidence to be the same as knowledge or truth and then argued against it. Classical definition of strawman.

    I reject your definition of faith as you cannot demonstrate that your definition is accepted by everyone.

  81. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, I’m not using examples that strawman people’s arguments but demonstrating that thy don’t know everything they think they know and that having confidence in science isn’t the same as having justification for it. Plus, I’m not sure how your Vulcan examples have anything to do with actions or beliefs. This is because a skeptic who doesn’t believe anything can in fact have emotions, but he doesn’t have to believe he has them. The same way an atheist can sometimes feel uncomfortable with religion and it’s actions despite the fact that he doesn’t being in that religion. Plus, how exactly do you know everyone has emotions? Have you met every single person on earth and examined their minds? Unless you think babies have propositional attitudes, I’m not sure how you can definitively conclude that everyone holds beliefs or emotions.

  82. oreoman1987 says

    “You represented that I meant confidence to be the same as knowledge or truth and then argued against it. Classical definition of strawman.
    I reject your definition of faith as you cannot demonstrate that your definition is accepted by everyone.“

    How is that a strawman? I simply corrected you on your assumptions about me using a strawman. Plus, I agree that everyone is most likely going to have a different definition of faith. I just have yet to see how anyone can justify any beliefs without making assumptions that they’re unable to demonstrate.

  83. buddyward says

    How is that a strawman? I simply corrected you on your assumptions about me using a strawman. Plus, I agree that everyone is most likely going to have a different definition of faith. I just have yet to see how anyone can justify any beliefs without making assumptions that they’re unable to demonstrate.

    So you are just going to deny the fact that you argued against what you assumed I meant by confidence as being the same as knowledge or truth. Where in fact that is not what I said. Or perhaps you just do not know what a strawman argument fallacy is.

  84. oreoman1987 says

    “So you are just going to deny the fact that you argued against what you assumed I meant by confidence as being the same as knowledge or truth. Where in fact that is not what I said. Or perhaps you just do not know what a strawman argument fallacy is.“

    The problem is is that you used confidence in science as an example as if it has any superiority over faith. Plus, a strawman fallacy is when you intentionally misrepresent someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. Matt Dillahunty also doesn’t seem to understand this.

  85. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    This is because a skeptic who doesn’t believe anything can in fact have emotions, but he doesn’t have to believe he has them.

    And here I was, holding out a glimmer of hope that you were not just a troll. It now seems that you just linked to that essay without actually agreeing with the contents of the essay, and possibly without even properly reading the essay. Unfortunate. Shame on me I suppose.

    PS: To take actions requires having an emotional commitment, expectation, hope, trust, faith, etc., that the actions will achieve some desired goal or goals. That emotional commitment, expectation, hope, trust, faith, etc., a belief, and taking actions requires having beliefs.

  86. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    The problem is is that you used confidence in science as an example as if it has any superiority over faith.

    I did not say that, you are making assumptions on what I am saying.

    Plus, a strawman fallacy is when you intentionally misrepresent someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. Matt Dillahunty also doesn’t seem to understand this.

    Yes you misrepresented what I meant by confidence and argued against what you thought I meant because it is easier for you to attack.

  87. oreoman1987 says

    “And here I was, holding out a glimmer of hope that you were not just a troll. It now seems that you just linked to that essay without actually agreeing with the contents of the essay, and possibly without even properly reading the essay. Unfortunate. Shame on me I suppose.
    PS: To take actions requires having an emotional commitment, expectation, hope, trust, faith, etc., that the actions will achieve some desired goal or goals. That emotional commitment, expectation, hope, trust, faith, etc., a belief, and taking actions requires having beliefs.”

    The idea of linking an essay doesn’t follow that I believe everything the essay says. Also, I’m not sure how you can honestly conclude with certainty that every action requires an emotional state. Why can’t it just be proclivities instead of beliefs? While a skeptic doesn’t hold any beliefs, he can have proclivities. I may decide to get out of bed every day without any beliefs about what’s going to happen. To understand that you don’t know what’s going to happen when you get out of bed is a good example of taking action without holding any beliefs. I don’t have to believe that the sun will rise every day in order to have the proclivitythat it will. I just don’t know either way. Therefore, I suspend beliefs and emotions.

  88. oreoman1987 says

    “I did not say that, you are making assumptions on what I am saying.”

    That’s exactly what you wrote, though. You made the impression that confidence in science was superior to religious faith.

    “Yes you misrepresented what I meant by confidence and argued against what you thought I meant because it is easier for you to attack.“

    How, exactly? You implied that science was different from religious faith and I pointed out how this is faulty. How exactly is that a misrepresentation?

  89. Honey Tone says

    @oreo #78

    If he sticks to only what he knows, then it’s not very impressive when considering the massive issue with Islam. The problems with Christianity are basically non-existent when compared to Islam. His ignorance on this issue is inexcusable.

    Gee, something you’re alarmist about, eh?

    Neither Matt nor any of the other hosts have ever ignored Islam or any other religious belief. This is a call in talk show, driven by the callers. There’s a bunch of YT vids showing him and the other hosts dealing quite effectively with Islamic callers. You can look them up.

    You want to Islam confronted more robustly? Get your own show.

    And if you truly think the problems with Christianity are “nothing” compared to Islam, you are being deliberately provocative. They are both a huge threat to secular and humanist ideals, to science, and to political and social freedoms.

  90. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    That’s exactly what you wrote, though. You made the impression that confidence in science was superior to religious faith.

    Made an impression? So, I did not actually say it, you are making an assumption on what I am meant.

    How, exactly? You implied that science was different from religious faith and I pointed out how this is faulty. How exactly is that a misrepresentation?

    I implied? You are trying to make more of what I actually said just so that you can easily knock it down.

  91. oreoman1987 says

    “Gee, something you’re alarmist about, eh?
    Neither Matt nor any of the other hosts have ever ignored Islam or any other religious belief. This is a call in talk show, driven by the callers. There’s a bunch of YT vids showing him and the other hosts dealing quite effectively with Islamic callers. You can look them up.
    You want to Islam confronted more robustly? Get your own show.
    And if you truly think the problems with Christianity are “nothing” compared to Islam, you are being deliberately provocative. They are both a huge threat to secular and humanist ideals, to science, and to political and social freedoms.”

    The sort of callers I’m talking aboard not Muslims themselves but atheists who have confronted them about the issue of Islam. No, Christians are not doing any even remotely close to what Muslims are doing in terms of violence and radicalism. The views of Muslims towards other people are also more problematic than that of any other religion. Especially Jews and homosexuals. These religious beliefs are not equal nor close to be equally violent. There is a world outside of America. The only reason Muslims aren’t a big problem in America is because Muslims make up only 1 percent of the American population. Yet they have still managed to kill more people here than any other religion has. Every year the worst terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims. No other religion believes that you should be killed for leaving nor that violence and threats should be used to convert people.

  92. oreoman1987 says

    “Made an impression? So, I did not actually say it, you are making an assumption on what I am meant.”

    So, you don’t really believe that confidence in science is superior to religious faith?

  93. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I may decide to get out of bed every day without any beliefs about what’s going to happen.

    Nonsense.

  94. buddyward says

    oreoman

    So, you don’t really believe that confidence in science is superior to religious faith?

    That is a loaded question that appears to have a false dichotomy.

  95. t90bb says

    104 oreo…you say/////..

    The sort of callers I’m talking aboard not Muslims themselves but atheists who have confronted them about the issue of Islam. No, Christians are not doing any even remotely close to what Muslims are doing in terms of violence and radicalism. The views of Muslims towards other people are also more problematic than that of any other religion. Especially Jews and homosexuals. These religious beliefs are not equal nor close to be equally violent. There is a world outside of America. The only reason Muslims aren’t a big problem in America is because Muslims make up only 1 percent of the American population. Yet they have still managed to kill more people here than any other religion has. Every year the worst terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims. No other religion believes that you should be killed for leaving nor that violence and threats should be used to convert people.

    SOOOO OREO……how do you know Islam even exists??? are you claiming knowledge?? faith?? confidence?? belief????::trust??? how can you justify this position???……..

  96. t90bb says

    ALSO OREO…..before you give Christianity a pass ,,,,,,, My brother is a pastor it a church….he is a steven anderson type and believes that the old test laws still apply……

    have you read this part of your hokey babble?

    Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

    But that Islam is really evil right?? What faith would require you to kill those that dont believe as you do?? OHH WAIT!

  97. oreoman1987 says

    “That is a loaded question that appears to have a false dichotomy.”

    Do you even know what those fallacies mean? It doesn’t appear you do.

  98. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb,The problem is is that Islam makes every other religion look nonexistent when it comes to threats to free speech, homosexuals, science, the Constitution, and so on. Another huge difference is that Muslims are interpreting their sciriptures way more violently than any other religion does.

  99. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, Muslims not only interpret their holy books more violently but take it way more seriously than every other religion does. This is also a religion that is responsible for over 90 percent of terrorists attacks every year. Does that really need to be explained to you?

  100. jigglefresh says

    Wow! Someone just went careening of the rails. You have officially blown your cover dude. Move on Cookiemale.

  101. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    Do you even know what those fallacies mean? It doesn’t appear you do.

    I never said that confidence in science is superior to religious faith. You are assuming that I did. You then continue to ask me whether or not I believe what you assumed I said. Whatever the answer is it will be in the context that your assumption is true. Loaded question.

    I said that it “appears” to have a false dichotomy. I am happy to be corrected and shown that the question does not have false dichotomy as my evaluation is tentative.

    Coming from a guy who cannot identify that he is committing a strawman fallacy? Sure, tell yourself that.

  102. oreoman1987 says

    “Wow! Someone just went careening of the rails. You have officially blown your cover dude. Move on Cookiemale.”

    How? Everyone who’s responded to me have made fallacious and unsupported arguments. How can this be “careening”?

  103. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    The problem is is that Islam makes every other religion look nonexistent when it comes to threats to free speech, homosexuals, science, the Constitution, and so on. Another huge difference is that Muslims are interpreting their sciriptures way more violently than any other religion does.

    Muslims not only interpret their holy books more violently but take it way more seriously than every other religion does. This is also a religion that is responsible for over 90 percent of terrorists attacks every year. Does that really need to be explained to you?

    How do you know all this? Is this what they have done in the past?

  104. oreoman1987 says

    “I never said that confidence in science is superior to religious faith. You are assuming that I did.”

    You did in fact say that I was implying that religious faith was on the same level as confidence in science, though, as if science had any difference in approach to that of religious faith.

    This is what you said: “Looks like false equivocation fallacy between the faith used by theist and the high degree of confidence in science that most everyone uses.
    There is also this notion of “you are just as bad as I am” argument which leads to “no one really knows anything” and therefore no one is justified that what they are saying is true, including the one positing that there is no justification in people having confidence in science.”

    It looks pretty clear that I didn’t strawman you.

  105. jigglefresh says

    If you aren’t a troll, then why didn’t you just start with “I’m a Christian and I wish those darned AXP people would pick on someone else’s primitive superstitions more often”?

  106. oreoman1987 says

    “How do you know all this? Is this what they have done in the past?“

    Yes. And it’s what a lot of them are doing now all the time.

  107. oreoman1987 says

    “If you aren’t a troll, then why didn’t you just start with “I’m a Christian and I wish those darned AXP people would pick on someone else’s primitive superstitions more often”

    Where did I say any of this?

  108. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    You did in fact say that I was implying that religious faith was on the same level as confidence in science, though, as if science had any difference in approach to that of religious faith.

    This is what you said: “Looks like false equivocation fallacy between the faith used by theist and the high degree of confidence in science that most everyone uses.
    There is also this notion of “you are just as bad as I am” argument which leads to “no one really knows anything” and therefore no one is justified that what they are saying is true, including the one positing that there is no justification in people having confidence in science.”

    It looks pretty clear that I didn’t strawman you.

    On the same level, no declaration of superiority.

  109. oreoman1987 says

    “On the same level, no declaration of superiority.“

    The problem is is that you claimed that I had used a false equivalence which means you implied that science had an upper hand against a religious method. If you claim that science and religion are not equal in gaining knowledge, then you did in fact say what I pointed out.

  110. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    Yes. And it’s what a lot of them are doing now all the time.

    Oh so you are using induction to justify your conclusion. Good job.

  111. oreoman1987 says

    “Oh so you are using induction to justify your conclusion. Good job“

    This is actually deduction.

    Induction is when you make conclusions based on past observations to make predictions about the future. For example, dropping a pen and believing it’s going to fall because it has every other time you let it go in the past.

  112. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    The problem is is that you claimed that I had used a false equivalence which means you implied that science had an upper hand against a religious method. If you claim that science and religion are not equal in gaining knowledge, then you did in fact say what I pointed out.

    There is nothing in false equivalency that declares one is superior over the other.

  113. oreoman1987 says

    “There is nothing in false equivalency that declares one is superior over the other.“

    Not superiority, but differences in which something is on the same level or not.

  114. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    This is actually deduction.

    Induction is when you make conclusions based on past observations to make predictions about the future. For example, dropping a pen and believing it’s going to fall because it has every other time you let it go in the past.

    You are believing that they are going to be problem because they have been a problem in the past. Right, once again, good job.

  115. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    Not superiority, but differences in which something is on the same level or not.

    Equivalency is not specific to level.

  116. oreoman1987 says

    “You are believing that they are going to be problem because they have been a problem in the past. Right, once again, good job.“

    This is not an example of induction but of deduction because of what a huge number of Muslims have done and are doing currently. Remember, I didn’t say they were going to do it in the future. Just that they are still doing it today.

  117. oreoman1987 says

    “Equivalency is not specific to level.“

    How so? You wouldn’t say that there are different levels and degrees to what a religious person believes as opposed to what an atheist believes? You also wouldn’t say that crimes like murder is on a different level than that of theft? Or you would just say that they’re equal?

  118. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    This is not an example of induction but of deduction because of what a huge number of Muslims have done and are doing currently. Remember, I didn’t say they were going to do it in the future. Just that they are still doing it today.

    So why do we need to solve the problem if there are no justifications that they will do it in the future?

  119. oreoman1987 says

    “So why do we need to solve the problem if there are no justifications that they will do it in the future?”

    Because there is a high probability that it will continue and there are huge numbers of Muslims who hold radical views and have a high tendency to commit violence.

  120. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    How so? You wouldn’t say that there are different levels and degrees to what a religious person believes as opposed to what an atheist believes? You also wouldn’t say that crimes like murder is on a different level than that of theft? Or you would just say that they’re equal?

    If I say that a cat is falsely equivocated to a dog, there are no connotation in that statement with regards to level or to superiority.

  121. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    Because there is a high probability that it will continue and there are huge numbers of Muslims who hold radical views and have a high tendency to commit violence.

    How did you determine the probability?

  122. oreoman1987 says

    “How did you determine the probability?”

    The number of times it’s happened and the rate at which it occurres every day.

  123. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    The number of times it’s happened and the rate at which it occurres every day.

    Oh so, induction. My pen fell in the past when I dropped it and it occurs everyday when I drop it.

  124. oreoman1987 says

    “Oh so, induction. My pen fell in the past when I dropped it and it occurs everyday when I drop it.“

    There’s a difference between induction based on single observations and observations that are deduced based on examples of events. Since these terroristic events are deduced, it isn’t induction.

  125. oreoman1987 says

    “Oh so, induction. My pen fell in the past when I dropped it and it occurs everyday when I drop it.”

    You only use induction if you’re arguing that it’s going to continue happening in the future. I never said this about this issue. Since I can deduce that Islamic terrorism has happened in the past and today, I have used deduction.

  126. oreoman1987 says

    “Sounds like induction to me, equivalently assuming a uniformity principle.”

    Only if you argue that it going to happen in the future. There’s a difference.

  127. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Only if you argue that it going to happen in the future. There’s a difference.

    That’s implicit in your statements. You’re expressing concern, and the only reason to express concern is to express concern is that you believe that it will continue in the future.

  128. oreoman1987 says

    “That’s implicit in your statements. You’re expressing concern, and the only reason to express concern is to express concern is that you believe that it will continue in the future.“

    Where did I argue that it’s going to happen in the future? And how does it show that I believe it will happen tomorrow?

  129. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    There’s a difference between induction based on single observations and observations that are deduced based on examples of events. Since these terroristic events are deduced, it isn’t induction.

    I observed many pens fall when dropped in the past. No longer a single observation.

  130. oreoman1987 says

    “I observed many pens fall when dropped in the past. No longer a single observation.”

    It’s a single observation that’s being used to argue for future events. That’s what makes it induction.

  131. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    It’s a single observation that’s being used to argue for future events. That’s what makes it induction.

    Things fall when dropped. I dropped my pen and my bag they both fell.

  132. oreoman1987 says

    buddyward, Another example of a deductive argument is Richard Dawkins’ Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit from The God Delusion. Dawkins doesn’t argue that evolution is going to happen in the future but that Darwin and others have demonstrated that it occurs and contradicts the idea of design.

  133. oreoman1987 says

    “Things fall when dropped. I dropped my pen and my bag they both fell.”

    This can be used as deduction as long as you’re not arguing that it’s going to continue to happen in the future.

  134. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    Another example of a deductive argument is Richard Dawkins’ Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit from The God Delusion. Dawkins doesn’t argue that evolution is going to happen in the future but that Darwin and others have demonstrated that it occurs and contradicts the idea of design.

    Which is not what you are doing here.

    Let me short circuit this a little bit because I am getting hungry as well as getting tired of this pointless conversation. Your description of inductive and deductive reasoning is flawed. You keep adding unnecessary conditions to them. Please feel free to look them up.

  135. Monocle Smile says

    Why scream and carry on about Islam if there’s no reason to think anything in the past is going to happen in the future?

  136. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    This can be used as deduction as long as you’re not arguing that it’s going to continue to happen in the future.

    Wow, you already forgot the last few posts, let me restate. Things fall when dropped. I dropped my pen and my bag they both fell in the past. My pen and my bag falls when I dropped them today. They will fall again when I drop them in the future. Inductive reasoning.

    Hmm, you appear to have focused on the pen and the bag dropping as opposed to the similarities of your reasoning to what I am presenting as an example.

  137. oreoman1987 says

    “Which is not what you are doing here.
    Let me short circuit this a little bit because I am getting hungry as well as getting tired of this pointless conversation. Your description of inductive and deductive reasoning is flawed. You keep adding unnecessary conditions to them. Please feel free to look them up.”

    Where did I misuse them? I clearly pointed out the differences between arguing for future events based on past observations to that of observations to deduce certian events.

  138. oreoman1987 says

    “Why scream and carry on about Islam if there’s no reason to think anything in the past is going to happen in the future?“

    Well, why not?

  139. oreoman1987 says

    “Wow, you already forgot the last few posts, let me restate. Things fall when dropped. I dropped my pen and my bag they both fell in the past. My pen and my bag falls when I dropped them today. They will fall again when I drop them in the future. Inductive reasoning.
    Hmm, you appear to have focused on the pen and the bag dropping as opposed to the similarities of your reasoning to what I am presenting as an example.”

    Yes, because arguing for the past is not the same as arguing for the future. While you can present evidence and deduction for the past, it’s unlikely that you can with the future.

  140. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    Where did I misuse them? I clearly pointed out the differences between arguing for future events based on past observations to that of observations to deduce certian events.

    Those are not the accepted description of inductive and deductive reasoning. You have a nice day.

  141. oreoman1987 says

    “Those are not the accepted description of inductive and deductive reasoning. You have a nice day.“

    How so? Do you know a way of deducing the future? Why can’t the violence be taken by Islamists today be deduced instead of using inductive inferences? I stated clearly that I’m not arguing for the future of events but deducing then based on past and present.

  142. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    How so? Do you know a way of deducing the future? Why can’t the violence be taken by Islamists today be deduced instead of using inductive inferences? I stated clearly that I’m not arguing for the future of events but deducing then based on past and present.

    All men are mortal. Mortals die. Plato is a man. Plato will die. Deductive reasoning where the conclusion is set in the future.

    I am no longer going to continue with this conversation as it clearly shows that you do not have a grasp of basic philosophy. Have a nice day.

  143. oreoman1987 says

    “All men are mortal. Mortals die. Plato is a man. Plato will die. Deductive reasoning where the conclusion is set in the future.
    I am no longer going to continue with this conversation as it clearly shows that you do not have a grasp of basic philosophy. Have a nice day.”

    This argument doesn’t argue that all men in the future will die, but that every man in the past has died and deduces that these men will die based on many observations as opposed to just a single one to predict future occurrences.

  144. oreoman1987 says

    buddyward, Plus, Plato’s argument never says that he or others will die but that all men so far have been mortal.

  145. t90bb says

    Well folks…..that was the key….keep the cookieman talking………..It was inevitable that he would show his cards. Sometimes you just have to give enough rope. This poor fuck is so riddled with contradiction its literally sad. Why would anyone want to discuss or debate anything with this piece of shit is now beyond me. He is dishonest and cowardly. Hes had an agenda all along but was too cowardly to bring it. We had it nailed weeks ago……

    This dumb fuck actually asked me above how I could be one percent certain of anything?? “one percent certain!!”””” LOL….Your either certain or you not……thats kinda like asking if someone is one percent pregnant, lol. I let it go earlier but I am still chuckling over that.

    His game is simple…….make any knowledge claim…or belief unjustified…….then belief in his magic genie is just as reasonable as any other. But he then makes knowledge and belief claims about the nature and history of Islam……

    Hes tied himself in a pretzel……..Heres the good news…..cookiemans time here keeps him from doing any real damage elsewhere. What a pathetic piece of shit.

    The mental gymnastics needed to get to jeezassss never ceases to amaze….

  146. t90bb says

    Ohh and ill kick you on the way out…YOU SAY

    t90bb,The problem is is that Islam makes every other religion look nonexistent when it comes to threats to free speech, homosexuals, science, the Constitution, and so on. Another huge difference is that Muslims are interpreting their sciriptures way more violently than any other religion does.

    t90bb, Muslims not only interpret their holy books more violently but take it way more seriously than every other religion does. This is also a religion that is responsible for over 90 percent of terrorists attacks every year. Does that really need to be explained to you?

    OREO….FUNNY….how do you have any certainty that ISLAM even exists?? how can you even be “one percent certain”? Your own expressed philosophy renders your babble worthless…….

  147. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987

    This argument doesn’t argue that all men in the future will die, but that every man in the past has died and deduces that these men will die based on many observations as opposed to just a single one to predict future occurrences.

    I thought this over and would like to make a correction. What I did was indeed induction and then called it deduction, which is exactly what oreoman was doing.

  148. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, While we may or may not have knowledge, we can still have justified and consistent beliefs that are defendable.

  149. t90bb says

    166……”justified and consistent beliefs”…..according to whom?? How can you be even “one percent certain that you are justified and or consistent? how can you know your defense is even accurate or based in reality??

    So how do you know that Islam even actually exists in reality??? How do you know this board even exists in reality???? Are you even “one percent certain?” lol

    Perhaps Islam does not even exist and your mind has made it up to let out frustration and aggression…..

  150. t90bb says

    oreo….how many assuptions and presuppositions are you making in drawing your conclusions about islam? can you list them??

  151. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoZionist

    Aha… so you are not just a LIAR FOR JESUS and a charlatan and a scum but you are also a ZIONIST scum at that… thanks for revealing further that you are a LYING Evangelical Zionist Christian DOG yapping about while licking crumbs off of your masters’ tables…. and the pathetic disgusting irony is that those crumbs you are licking have been paid for by your country’s billions of taxes and by your parishioners’ billions of donations and tithes…
     
    ⬛ Matthew 15:24-27 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel….Matthew 15:26-7 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to 🔹🔹🔹dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the 🔹🔹🔹dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their 🔹🔹🔹masters’ table.
     
    Zionist Christian Mental Slave Dogs of your caliber are the ORIGINAL CAUSE of all the Muslim terrorism you seem to be sure of knowing despite all your LIES FOR JESUS about how you cannot know anything.
     
    Zionists like you are terrorists BY PROXY… you fund terrorism and foment it and cause it with your INSANE MYTHOLOGY all because you are looking to bring about your SADISTIC MENTAL ORGASM of Armageddon.
     
    You are a heinous dastardly scoundrel…QED!!!

  152. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb,
    “oreo….how many assuptions and presuppositions are you making in drawing your conclusions about islam? can you list them??”

    They aren’t assumptions but examptof what’s going on mainly in the Middle East.

  153. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb,

    “”justified and consistent beliefs”…..according to whom?? How can you be even “one percent certain that you are justified and or consistent? how can you know your defense is even accurate or based in reality??
    So how do you know that Islam even actually exists in reality??? How do you know this board even exists in reality???? Are you even “one percent certain?” lol
    Perhaps Islam does not even exist and your mind has made it up to let out frustration and aggression…..”

    Based on what you can show to be consistent and without contradictions. If you have justified true beliefs with a Gettier defeater, then you have knowledge. You need to actually look into the concepts of epistemology to understand how this can be done. The big problem is is weather your assumptions can be effective against the skeptics.

  154. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoZionist “I think Ronald Kyle has lost his mind.”

    🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂… I must have hit a raw nerve… BINGO!!!

    How do you know I have a mind to lose? How do you know you have a mind yourself? By your very own admission your an ignorant ignoramus who knows nothing… so shut up and stop yapping you benighted imbecile!!!

  155. oreoman1987 says

    “How do you know I have a mind to lose? How do you know you have a mind yourself? By your very own admission your an ignorant ignoramus who knows nothing… so shut up and stop yapping you benighted imbecile!!!“

    The problem is, how do YOU know any beliefs to be true when you haven’t solved the problem of skepticism? Plus, your comment is an example of an ad hominem fallacy.

  156. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoZionist “The problem is, woof woof woof woof….”

    See… you are nothing but a well trained pitbull who knows nothing other than how to bark and bark…

    @OreoZionist “your comment is an example of an ad hominem fallacy”…

    How do you know that? Are you sure your hominem exists? You yourself said that you are an ignorant ignoramus who knows nothing; not even if your hominem exists… no? So how can I ad hominem you when you yourself do not know if you are even a hominem in the first place… so shut your yapping rabid gob you pathetic dingbat!!!!

  157. t90bb says

    171…how many assumptions have you made to conclude the stories out of the middle east are true in reality?? can you answer the question or no?

  158. t90bb says

    173….oreo says…

    t90bb,

    “”justified and consistent beliefs”…..according to whom?? How can you be even “one percent certain that you are justified and or consistent? how can you know your defense is even accurate or based in reality??
    So how do you know that Islam even actually exists in reality??? How do you know this board even exists in reality???? Are you even “one percent certain?” lol
    Perhaps Islam does not even exist and your mind has made it up to let out frustration and aggression…..”

    Based on what you can show to be consistent and without contradictions. If you have justified true beliefs with a Gettier defeater, then you have knowledge. You need to actually look into the concepts of epistemology to understand how this can be done. The big problem is is weather your assumptions can be effective against the skeptics.

    THIS DID NOT REMOTELY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOVE….I WILL ASSUME YOU CANT ANSWER THEM…..ONCE AGAIN HOW DO YOU KNOW??? HOW ARE YOU EVEN ONE PERCENT CERTAIN OF ANYTHING?? HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS BOARD OR ISLAM ACTUALLY EXIST IN REALITY??? BE SPECIFIC

  159. t90bb says

    176….KYLE….COOKIEBOY LIKES TO MAKE DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS all while telling us we cant know or be one percent certain of anything…..ohh the irony…………

    i wonder what being one percent certain of anything looks like lol…….maybe he can tell us since he used this measure……

  160. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, The problem is is that I’ve seen almost everyone on here tell me that they don’t have absolute certainty about anything.

  161. oreoman1987 says

    “How do you know that? Are you sure your hominem exists? You yourself said that you are an ignorant ignoramus who knows nothing; not even if your hominem exists… no? So how can I ad hominem you when you yourself do not know if you are even a hominem in the first place… so shut your yapping rabid gob you pathetic dingbat!!!!“

    It doesn’t require belief to point out people using fallacies. I simply point it out to show how their beliefs lead to contradictions. Plus, this type of thinking you’re using is what leads to faith and dogma.

  162. oreoman1987 says

    “COOKIEBOY LIKES TO MAKE DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS all while telling us we cant know or be one percent certain of anything…..ohh the irony…………“

    Remember, I don’t say that knowledge is impossible. Only the academic skeptics do. I just seek out to see if anyone actually can show that they know anything.

  163. Ronald Kyle says

    @t90bb “while telling us we cant know”…

    I have established three weeks ago and the week after, that the guy is a seminary school missionary. He is PAID (or getting grades) to peddle lies for his BASTARD son of a celestial ethnic cleanser. His machinations are nothing but sheninigans they teach them in seminary schools to obfuscate and to SABOTAGE forums like this one.

    The ruse of “we can’t know” is somethign the Christian INSANITY instills in their victims so that FAITH can become a virtue. He is doing a long running trick of undermining knowledge and their arch nemesis called science, so that then he can tell the victims of his hucksterism and lies that faith is just as valid as science. And of course the ultimate giver of knowledge is none other then the LOGOS and the GNOSIS whom he thinks is the BASTARD son of a celestial fraudulent real-estate monger called Jesus.

    And meanwhile he is peddling lies for Jesus, he is also peddling further mind enslavement called Zionism with the ultimate goal of causing the destruction of the world so that his ill begotten son of the celestial slave monger can have a red carpet of blood to come down the isle on.

  164. t90bb says

    oreo said….

    The problem is is that Islam makes every other religion look nonexistent when it comes to threats to free speech, homosexuals, science, the Constitution, and so on. Another huge difference is that Muslims are interpreting their sciriptures way more violently than any other religion does.

    Muslims not only interpret their holy books more violently but take it way more seriously than every other religion does. This is also a religion that is responsible for over 90 percent of terrorists attacks every year. Does that really need to be explained to you?

    HOW CAN YOU BE ONE PERCENT CERTAIN THAT ISLAM EXISTS IN REALITY?? AND YOU SAY IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 90 PERCENT OF THE TERROR ATTACKS?? IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD OREO?? HOW CAN YOU BE ONE PERCENT CERTAIN THAT ALL THOSE ATTACKS OCCURRED IN REALITY???……

  165. t90bb says

    182….COOKIEBOY…….

    YOU SAY..

    “COOKIEBOY LIKES TO MAKE DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS all while telling us we cant know or be one percent certain of anything…..ohh the irony…………“

    Remember, I don’t say that knowledge is impossible. Only the academic skeptics do. I just seek out to see if anyone actually can show that they know anything.

    SOOOOOOO COOKIEBOY…..ARE YOU CLAIMING KNOWLEDGE OF THE DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS YOU MAKE?? IF SO, CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE HOW YOU HAVE COME TO SUCH KNOWLEDGE??

  166. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoZionist

    Did you know that when the BASTARD SON of the celestial real-estate peddler you call Jesus comes back, you are supposed to take your clothes off and lie supine on the bed of the wedding chamber with enough oil and be ready for him to shut the door and start performing his bridegroom duties on you as his faithful bride???

    Are you ready? Do you have enough oil? Will you enjoy it?? Are you still a VIRGIN (I doubt this part)???

    ⬛ Matthew 25:1-10 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom… the wise 🔹🔹🔹took oil in their vessels … the bridegroom came; and they that were ready 🔹🔹🔹went in with him to the marriage: and the 🔹🔹🔹door was shut.

  167. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoZionist “I just seek out to see if anyone actually can show that they know anything”…

    I showed that I know that you are a trained seminary school missionary and are a Liar For The Bastard Son of a celestial infanticidal real-estate peddler and that you are a Zionist dastard who is actively seeking to bring about the end of the world.

    And you have proven with every reaction and lie you made that I am right and I am willing to bet on it lots of money.

    The only way you could prove me wrong would have been to do the challenge I gave you three weeks ago. You failed and thus you further cemented the fact that you are a Huckstering Hawking Mendacious charlatan who is here to sabotage and undermine this forum.

    And today you expose your mendacity even further by revealing that you are a ZIONIST liar for the bastard son of the fraudulent celestial ethnic-cleanser…. thanks for that by the way… you could not help yourself… could you????

  168. indianajones says

    @MS @148. If you start drawing those pentacles or dancing those dances, I am going to take your crayons and music away from you, d’ya hear!

  169. Nathan Roe says

    So oreo just finished his first semester at college getting a degree in philosophy and thinks he is a genius. Congrats being 18 doesn’t make you smart, kiddo.

  170. oreoman1987 says

    “So oreo just finished his first semester at college getting a degree in philosophy and thinks he is a genius. Congrats being 18 doesn’t make you smart, kiddo.“

    This is a blind and incorrect assumption. Intelligence is also a questionable concept.

  171. oreoman1987 says

    “SOOOOOOO COOKIEBOY…..ARE YOU CLAIMING KNOWLEDGE OF THE DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS YOU MAKE?? IF SO, CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE HOW YOU HAVE COME TO SUCH KNOWLEDGE??“

    There are some statements that are able to undermine the existence and of knowledge. Plus, what’s with the all caps?

  172. oreoman1987 says

    “So oreo just finished his first semester at college getting a degree in philosophy and thinks he is a genius. Congrats being 18 doesn’t make you smart, kiddo.“

    How did you even come to this false conclusion?

  173. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, What relevance do bible verses have to what I’ve been saying? You may as well be quoting any book to me.

  174. oreoman1987 says

    “And you have proven with every reaction and lie you made that I am right and I am willing to bet on it lots of money.“

    What about your lies about people being religious?

  175. oreoman1987 says

    “HOW CAN YOU BE ONE PERCENT CERTAIN THAT ISLAM EXISTS IN REALITY?? AND YOU SAY IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 90 PERCENT OF THE TERROR ATTACKS?? IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD OREO?? HOW CAN YOU BE ONE PERCENT CERTAIN THAT ALL THOSE ATTACKS OCCURRED IN REALITY???……“

    So, you give up looking for knowledge?

  176. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoZionist “Islam different from every other religion”

    Given all your lying claims about not being able to know anything, I will take you at your level of imbecility and accept that your rabid hatred of Muslims must be instinctual, and equally instilled and INSANE as their hatred for you.

    If you were not such an ignorant ignoramus (according to your own admissions) you would have been able to realize that the reason you so instinctively and insanely hate Muslims is the exact same reason a trained killer pitbull finds itself compelled to maul and tear to pieces another equally trained rabid dog in a fighting ring for the entertainment and enrichment of their masters.

    Good Boy… Good Boy… Attack!!!

  177. oreoman1987 says

    “Given all your lying claims about not being able to know anything, I will take you at your level of imbecility and accept that your rabid hatred of Muslims must be instinctual, and equally instilled and INSANE as their hatred for you.“

    I never said people can’t know anything. Just that I have yet to see anyone who actually does know anything. Also, criticizing Muslims for what’s going on with their religion isn’t hatred but an honest and reasonable stance to take when it comes to the danger of their religious doctrines. I also don’t mock Muslims, nor do I say that they are all radicals. The issue is is that the majority of them want Sharia law and hundreds of millions of them are in favor of terrorism. I also find it ironic that you have no problem criticizing Christians constantly but yet label criticisms of Muslims as hatred. I’m an antitheist, as I think every atheist should be. Of course, if you watch TAE, you probably won’t have any awareness of what’s going on in the Muslim world. Matt, Russell, Jen, and the others are some of the biggest Muslim apologists I’ve ever seen.

  178. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoZionist “I never said people can’t know anything”
     
    Here are just a few of statements you have made this week and two weeks ago…. you do not seem to be able to keep track of your lies…. a bad trait for a Liar For Jesus trainee… give up you dimwit and go do something else
     

    We don’t know. Nobody has ever demonstrated that they have knowledge or even any justified beliefs. Philosophers who study epistemology are still trying to solve all these problems and paradoxes.

    We don’t have a criterion for discovering truth or knowledge yet. Worst of all, we can’t even come up with a consistent system of logic, mathematics, or science. Check out Russell’s paradox and Gödel’s incompleteness theroms for more on that. Therefore, they all must be taken on faith.

    The problem is is that the problem of induction is all that’s needed to show that knowledge most likely doesn’t exist

    We don’t have a consistent definition of knowledge.

    Nobody has given an example of knowledge since they’ve been unable to account for it

    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.

    I’m not sure how any of you know anything if we still have the problem of skepticism

    I’m asking simple questions on how you guys know anything with certianty while using something unjustified like science

    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.

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

    it’s impossible to prove or know anything

    That’s an example of circular reasoning because you’re using your memory to verify your memory.

  179. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoZionist “Just that I have yet to see anyone who actually does know anything”
     
    But you of course know this

    The issue is is that the majority of them want Sharia law and hundreds of millions of them are in favor of terrorism.

    And the way you so arrogantly state it as GOSPEL TRUTH you seem to know it with 100% certainty.
     
    So you are not taking all this on faith as you stated earlier.
     
    So what you are saying is that you are the only one you have ever seen who knows things.
     
    You are a dimwitted pernicious Zionist scumbag. Your skull is rattling too much with mephitic fecal matter that was excreted by the religion virus that consumed your gray cells.

  180. oreoman1987 says

    “Here are just a few of statements you have made this week and two weeks ago…. you do not seem to be able to keep track of your lies…. a bad trait for a Liar For Jesus trainee… give up you dimwit and go do something else”

    If you call someone a liar or a religious person, you need to actually demonstrate that they are and not just assert it. Plus, I have been very clear and consistent on where I stand.

  181. oreoman1987 says

    “So you are not taking all this on faith as you stated earlier.”

    I point out that you and many others hold many beliefs by faith. Including faith in science.

  182. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, Yes, there is a difference between saying knowledge doesn’t exist and that knowledge hasn’t been found yet.

    I ask you, how do you know anything to be true?

  183. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoZionist “If you call someone a liar or a religious person, you need to actually demonstrate that they are and not just assert it”
     
    😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
     
    @OreoZionist ” Plus, I have been very clear and consistent on where I stand.”…
     
    Yes… indeed… you have been very clear that you stand as a Zionist Evangelical Christian and that you are a 2nd rate seminary school missionary out to peddle LIES FOR JESUS…. you have proven these facts with every word you said.
     
    You dimwittedly expose yourself with every telltale lie you peddle…. but this statement alone exposes you as a LIAR FOR JESUS

    a scinetific theory is only a theory

    and this one reveals your Zionism

    the majority of them want Sharia law

    You are a failed LIAR ASPIRANT… your lies are transparent and you have too many tells… give up and go seek another occupation that does not require skills, you obviously lack any.

  184. oreoman1987 says

    “You are a failed LIAR ASPIRANT… your lies are transparent and you have too many tells… give up and go seek another occupation that does not require skills, you obviously lack any.“

    This is an ad hominem fallacy. I don’t think anyone can reason with you if you if you just always assume everyone who disagrees with you is a “liar for Jesus”. Where did I ever defend Christianity or the Bible?

  185. Monocle Smile says

    Well, why not?

    A bald admission of trolling. At least we have confirmation now.
    Too bad the thread has devolved into a shouting match between a troll and a youtube comments section.

  186. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoZionist “This is an ad hominem fallacy”
     
    You are not a hominem… you are a parasite trying to infest this forum and you are scamperring about excreting all over it your slimy lies for Jesus….
     
    @OreoZionist “Where did I ever defend Christianity or the Bible”
     
    Here you dullard…

    …Nobody has ever demonstrated that they have knowledge or even any justified beliefs….We don’t have a criterion for discovering truth or knowledge yet. Worst of all, we can’t even come up with a consistent system of logic, mathematics, or science….Therefore, they all must be taken on faith…. a problem for science because it demonstrates that science can never know when it has it right or not… In the end, a scinetific theory is only a theory…. The problem is is that you haven’t demonstrated how you know anything with your epistemology… you’re stuck with dogma amd faith…. Islam makes every other religion look nonexistent when it comes to threats to free speech, homosexuals, science, the Constitution… the danger of their religious doctrines… majority of them want Sharia law…. Matt, Russell, Jen, and the others are some of the biggest Muslim apologists I’ve ever seen.

  187. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, How is that in anyways defense of Christianity? Are you this desperate for me to be a “liar for Jesus”?

    And do you even know what an ad hominem is?

  188. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ MS #148:

    “When was the last time someone on this blog looked so nakedly idiotic?”

    About three weeks ago, when this guy first showed up to blather on and on and on about how inductive reasoning doesn’t produce absolute certainty, which practically nobody here would disagree with.

  189. oreoman1987 says

    “About three weeks ago, when this guy first showed up to blather on and on and on about how inductive reasoning doesn’t produce absolute certainty, which practically nobody here would disagree with”

    Then why do so many people strongly believe science can give us absolute certainty?

  190. buddyward says

    @oreoman1987
    Then why do so many people strongly believe science can give us absolute certainty?

    I do not and many here have already told you that there is no such thing as absolute certainty. The fact that scientific findings have always been subject to scrutiny and change as new information arises demonstrate that absolute certainty is not something that science claims.

    Perhaps instead of assuming what people believe you should ask them what they believe.

  191. t90bb says

    211….oreo says…..

    Then why do so many people strongly believe science can give us absolute certainty?

    we respond…

    1. can you demonstrate with knowledge, trust, or confidence that these people you are alluding to actually exist??? Can you list a few dozen of these “so many people” that we all might recognize???

  192. oreoman1987 says

    “1. can you demonstrate with knowledge, trust, or confidence that these people you are alluding to actually exist??? Can you list a few dozen of these “so many people” that we all might recognize???”

    I don’t claim to have proof or disproof of these things. I simply assume them for the sake of argument.

    Look at people like Aronra, Lawrence Krauss, Matt Dillahunty, Richard Dawkins, The Messianic Manic, TJ Kirk, Thunderfoot, and so many other “skeptics” strongly believe that science can give us truth. The problem of induction and underdetermination shows that they’re wrong to think this.

  193. oreoman1987 says

    “I do not and many here have already told you that there is no such thing as absolute certainty. The fact that scientific findings have always been subject to scrutiny and change as new information arises demonstrate that absolute certainty is not something that science claims.
    Perhaps instead of assuming what people believe you should ask them what they believe.”

    Look at how many videos The Atheist Experience has dogmatically defended science. Look how often Aronra, Lawrence Krauss, and Richard Dawkins hold onto the belief that science can give them knowledge and truth. This is true of most theist and atheist YouTubers.

    If science doesn’t know anything with absolute certainty like you say, then it doesn’t know anything.

  194. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    If science doesn’t know anything with absolute certainty like you say, then it doesn’t know anything.

    Are you absolutely certain about that?

  195. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    Look at how many videos The Atheist Experience has dogmatically defended science. Look how often Aronra, Lawrence Krauss, and Richard Dawkins hold onto the belief that science can give them knowledge and truth. This is true of most theist and atheist YouTubers.

    You are misunderstanding their high degree of confidence with your assumption of absolute certainty. Have you even asked any of them whether or not they believe science provides absolute certainty? If not then you are strawmanning their position.

  196. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    If science doesn’t know anything with absolute certainty like you say, then it doesn’t know anything.

    You do realize that science is not a person, right? That science is a process used to help us understand the universe around us. The statement above is similar to saying how does the process of photosynthesis know anything? It is nonsensical.

  197. Ronald Kyle says

    @buddyward “You do realize that science is not a person, right?”

    In his psyche science is the arch nemesis of his celestial slave monger god, and his whole raison d’être as a hawker for Jesus is to undermine science and at the very least equate it to the faith he uses to justify his bastard son of his sky daddy.

    The argument is …. “science is useless for knowing anything thus you just have faith and therefor you people who rely on science are in no standing to begrudge me having faith in my magical gobbledygook.”

  198. t90bb says

    214….oreo……

    Matt D goes through great pains to state that he does not claim absolute certainty of anything…including science. You must be watching a different show…..

    what is clear is that you have to strawman Matt as part of your argument. You are confusing a level of confidence with “certainty” and “knowledge”……..and its clear you are doing this on purpose.

    You claiming Matt claims science can reveal truth, knowledge, and absolute certainty is a clear example of your dishonesty. He does claim that science is useful just as you have claimed as well.

    Why do you feel the need to be dishonest to defend your position??? You do realize you have strawmanned Matt?? You now claim that the people you address as claiming science yields absolute certainty may not even exist but are proposed for the sake of argument?? You have crossed yet another line into the absurd cookieboy…

    It tool a while but the more you are engaged the more silly you and all your “philosophical” arguments are……..Im not sure what else there is to say.

    It appears most of the board thinks you are unworthy of further dialogue. I am officially in agreement. Thanks for playing.

  199. oreoman1987 says

    “Matt D goes through great pains to state that he does not claim absolute certainty of anything…including science. You must be watching a different show…..“

    So, Matt Dillahunty doesn’t know anything?

  200. oreoman1987 says

    “In his psyche science is the arch nemesis of his celestial slave monger god, and his whole raison d’être as a hawker for Jesus is to undermine science and at the very least equate it to the faith he uses to justify his bastard son of his sky daddy.
    The argument is …. “science is useless for knowing anything thus you just have faith and therefor you people who rely on science are in no standing to begrudge me having faith in my magical gobbledygook.”“

    Where did I ever defend a god or religion?
    What is your evidence that I am in anyway defending or believe in any religion?

  201. oreoman1987 says

    “Are you absolutely certain about that?“

    This is known as a paradox. It’s meant to show that you don’t know something either way.

  202. oreoman1987 says

    what is clear is that you have to strawman Matt as part of your argument. You are confusing a level of confidence with “certainty” and “knowledge”……..and its clear you are doing this on purpose.

    The problem is is that Matt never acknowledges the problem of induction. Not even on his own website Ironchariots.org

    That tells me something about him.

  203. oreoman1987 says

    “You do realize that science is not a person, right? That science is a process used to help us understand the universe around us. The statement above is similar to saying how does the process of photosynthesis know anything? It is nonsensical.”

    Which is why I referred to it as “it” instead of he or she. Plus, I never said that science wasn’t a toll to help us understand the universe. Just that it can’t guarantee knowledge.

  204. oreoman1987 says

    “You are misunderstanding their high degree of confidence with your assumption of absolute certainty. Have you even asked any of them whether or not they believe science provides absolute certainty? If not then you are strawmanning their position.“

    How? What am I misunderstanding about it? Just look at all the people at the Reason Rally and other organizations that hold that science is a key to certainty. This is not a strawman at all as all of you assert. Look how many theists and atheists use science to justify their positions in debates.

    If Matt Dillahunty and everyone on this board don’t know anything with absolute certainty, then how is it you even know I’m wrong about anything?

  205. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    This is known as a paradox. It’s meant to show that you don’t know something either way.

    Which includes you, thus you cannot claim to know anything either way.

  206. oreoman1987 says

    “Why do you feel the need to be dishonest to defend your position???“

    I don’t defend any position. I’m a skeptic. I’ve seen a lot of dishonesty on this board from a lot of you. And by you saying that Matt Dillahunty doesn’t know anything, you’re basically admitting that he doesn’t know anything. So, maybe you and him should also be skeptical?

  207. oreoman1987 says

    “Which includes you, thus you cannot claim to know anything either way.“

    Be careful! Just because knowledge has never been found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Be a indirect skeptic. Not a dogmatic one.

  208. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    How? What am I misunderstanding about it? Just look at all the people at the Reason Rally and other organizations that hold that science is a key to certainty. This is not a strawman at all as all of you assert. Look how many theists and atheists use science to justify their positions in debates.

    If Matt Dillahunty and everyone on this board don’t know anything with absolute certainty, then how is it you even know I’m wrong about anything?

    It is a strawman because you have not established what these people believe with regards to absolute certainty. You have not made any attempts to disclose whether or not have asked these people what their position is with regards to absolute certainty. You are inferring their position on absolute certainty without any way to validate whether or not your inferrence is correct. You then proceed to argue against what you think is correct inference with no validation whether it is true. Strawman fallacy.

    We have a high degree of confidence that you are wrong based on the fallacious arguments that you have presented, your lack of understanding of science, etc. Is there a possibility that you are correct? Of course there is, but by far you have not demonstrated any good reason to show that you are correct. You have made arguments to positions we do not hold and that does not make you correct.

  209. oreoman1987 says

    “It is a strawman because you have not established what these people believe with regards to absolute certainty. You have not made any attempts to disclose whether or not have asked these people what their position is with regards to absolute certainty. You are inferring their position on absolute certainty without any way to validate whether or not your inferrence is correct. You then proceed to argue against what you think is correct inference with no validation whether it is true. Strawman fallacy.”

    So, these people and you don’t even know you exist? Plus, how do you know that these people don’t believe anything with certainty? I’m not sure you and Matt Dillahunty know what a strawman fallacy is.

  210. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    Which is why I referred to it as “it” instead of he or she. Plus, I never said that science wasn’t a toll to help us understand the universe. Just that it can’t guarantee knowledge.

    He or she refers to sex of a being. By generalizing the pronoun to “it” you then included anything that may not be capable of acquiring knowledge which muddies the water. What you are doing here is attaching an attribute to something for which you have no evidence that it has.

  211. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    Be careful! Just because knowledge has never been found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Be a indirect skeptic. Not a dogmatic one.

    I never said it does not.

  212. oreoman1987 says

    “We have a high degree of confidence that you are wrong based on the fallacious arguments that you have presented, your lack of understanding of science, etc. Is there a possibility that you are correct? Of course there is, but by far you have not demonstrated any good reason to show that you are correct. You have made arguments to positions we do not hold and that does not make you correct.“

    Confidence is not the same as knowledge. Billions of people are confident that a god exists. So, by your logic, atheism is wrong? Plus, be careful what you assume about my understanding of science. And where did I ever say that anything I’m saying makes me correct? In the end, science doesn’t look for truth. Philosophy does.

  213. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    So, these people and you don’t even know you exist? Plus, how do you know that these people don’t believe anything with certainty? I’m not sure you and Matt Dillahunty know what a strawman fallacy is.

    I do not have to because I am not the one making claims on what they believe nor in their existence. Thus I do not have the burden to prove either. You made a claim that these people (they exist), believe (their belief) that science provides absolute certainty.

    I’m not sure you and Matt Dillahunty know what a strawman fallacy is.

    Well that is most likely that you do not know how to identify that particular fallacy. I have already mapped it out twice for you on two different occasions.

  214. oreoman1987 says

    “I do not have to because I am not the one making claims on what they believe nor in their existence. Thus I do not have the burden to prove either. You made a claim that these people (they exist), believe (their belief) that science provides absolute certainty”

    But you did claim that they don’t claim to have absolute certainty about anything. Including science. Plus, these are not my claims but are actual positions of many secular YouTubers and scientists that you can view for yourself.

    “Well that is most likely that you do not know how to identify that particular fallacy. I have already mapped it out twice for you on two different occasions.”

    Yes, because a strawman fallacy is when you intentionally misrepresent an argument or position in order to make it easier to attack. Which I didn’t. It seems every time Matt gets cornered or exposed on his positions, he always accuses his opponents of using strawman arguments. Which, as far as I’ve seen, they’re not.

  215. oreoman1987 says

    “He or she refers to sex of a being. By generalizing the pronoun to “it” you then included anything that may not be capable of acquiring knowledge which muddies the water. What you are doing here is attaching an attribute to something for which you have no evidence that it has.”

    When did I ever label science as a person? When I say “it” I’m referring to science as a method. How is it muddying the water if these problems I’m presenting aren’t complicated? How are they confusing? And what kind of evidence would you expect for a problem existing for something like science? Because if you mean empirical evidence, this is very nonsensical.

  216. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    Confidence is not the same as knowledge.

    I do not know how many times we have to tell you this. We never said those two are the same. Please try and keep up.

    Billions of people are confident that a god exists. So, by your logic, atheism is wrong?

    Do those billions people have in any way to test the existence of god in a way that is similar when I test that my pen will fall when I drop it? I have confidence that my pen will fall when I drop it because I can test it.

    Plus, be careful what you assume about my understanding of science.

    I am making an assesment of your understanding of science based on how you are describing and characterizing science.

    And where did I ever say that anything I’m saying makes me correct?

    You asked me how do I know you are wrong?

    In the end, science doesn’t look for truth. Philosophy does.

    Again, that is not what Science is. Philosophy is the study of the fundamentals of knowledge, reality and existence. It offers tools for us to be able to reason within the confines of logic. However, due to our limitations as human beings we cannot just reason everything into existence. At some point Philosophy would have to take a step back so that we as human can determine whether or not our reasoning conforms to reality by testing our premises and confirming that the conclusion follows.

  217. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoZionist “I’m a skeptic”…
     
    You are as much a skeptic as Paul was not a charlatan…. you claiming you are a skeptic is hilariously belied by your words and actions… but of course you do not even realize that because you are a very bad missionary even by the standards of the 2nd rate seminary school you attend(ed).
     
    ⬛ 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.

  218. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    But you did claim that they don’t claim to have absolute certainty about anything. Including science. Plus, these are not my claims but are actual positions of many secular YouTubers and scientists that you can view for yourself.

    I can give you a link to an AXP episode where Matt said he does not claim absolute certainty on anything. Can you provide me evidence of the contrary?

    Yes, because a strawman fallacy is when you intentionally misrepresent an argument or position in order to make it easier to attack. Which I didn’t. It seems every time Matt gets cornered or exposed on his positions, he always accuses his opponents of using strawman arguments. Which, as far as I’ve seen, they’re not.

    You have just described exactly what you are doing. Thank you for supporting my point.

  219. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    When did I ever label science as a person? When I say “it” I’m referring to science as a method. How is it muddying the water if these problems I’m presenting aren’t complicated? How are they confusing? And what kind of evidence would you expect for a problem existing for something like science? Because if you mean empirical evidence, this is very nonsensical.

    You attributed possesion of knowledge (colloquial usage) to science which is a human attribute or at the very least a sentient being. A rock, a table, a process are things that cannot posses knowledge.

  220. oreoman1987 says

    “I can give you a link to an AXP episode where Matt said he does not claim absolute certainty on anything. Can you provide me evidence of the contrary?“

    So you’re saying Matt Dillahunty doesn’t know anything?

    Plus, he here defends science as if it holds any water whatsoever in discerning the difference between facts and fiction. He also says it’s a good way to find truth. He also claims that science and not religion is capable of finding truth. How can he know this if he doesn’t know anything with absolute certainty? https://youtu.be/y-H_UvFdhmk

  221. oreoman1987 says

    “You have just described exactly what you are doing. Thank you for supporting my point.“

    Except I explained how it’s not a strawman and how you misused it against my points.

  222. oreoman1987 says

    “You attributed possesion of knowledge (colloquial usage) to science which is a human attribute or at the very least a sentient being. A rock, a table, a process are things that cannot posses knowledge”

    How can you know this if you don’t know anything with absolute certainty? And where did I ever mention a sentient being? I define knowledge as justified true belief with a Gettier defeater. Just because you have confidence or a true belief, doesn’t mean you have knowledge.

  223. oreoman1987 says

    “You are as much a skeptic as Paul was not a charlatan…. you claiming you are a skeptic is hilariously belied by your words and actions… but of course you do not even realize that because you are a very bad missionary even by the standards of the 2nd rate seminary school you attend(ed).”

    Are you going to demonstrate that?

  224. t90bb says

    cookieboy….

    so are you claiming that matt has claimed absolute certainty about anything?? or that he claims to not know anything?? which is it???? You cannot seem to make up ur mind……

    And how do you know Matt exists with “one percent” certainty?? Why are you talking about Matt as if he exists if you dont know anything???

    Can you demonstrate that Matt has said anything at all in reality????

  225. t90bb says

    cookiebiy does not like that some have a high degree of confidence in the scientific method. Too bad for him. Sorry if that bothers you (not really).

  226. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    So you’re saying Matt Dillahunty doesn’t know anything?

    That is not what I am saying. Please do your best to understand.

    Plus, he here defends science as if it holds any water whatsoever in discerning the difference between facts and fiction. He also says it’s a good way to find truth. He also claims that science and not religion is capable of finding truth. How can he know this if he doesn’t know anything with absolute certainty? https://youtu.be/y-H_UvFdhmk

    That video did not in anyway show that Matt said science provide absolute certainty. You are once again making inferences that is not validated.

  227. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, I’m responding to people who say that Matt has never claimed absolute certainty about anything. Plus, why not assume that the external world and other people’s minds do exist just in case? Be an indirect skeptic. Not a dogmatic one.

  228. Ronald Kyle says

    @buddyward “Philosophy is the study of the fundamentals of knowledge, reality and existence”
     
    No matter how much philosophy one does they will not be able to verify the existence or not of what we cannot see or hear or what we cannot reach or what we cannot disillusion ourselves about.
     
    Engineering and Science and Biology and Chemistry with TOOLS invented by science and technology enable us to overcome the limitations of the senses and the human body that would (and did) render philosophy impotent.
     
    No matter how much philosophers might have tried they could have never verified the truth or not of the electron or the bacteria or the galaxies or the nature of the moon or the composition of the stars or what is lighning or magnetism or aerodynamics or gravity or or or
     
    Only science and scientific tools and equipment that overcome our senses’ limitations and the scientific method to ovecome our self-illusion and self-delusion that we are victims of due to our brain structure and senses’ limitations.
     
    Philosophers could philosophize to the end of the world and would have never discovered what composition is Mars. And they would have no hope of ever knowing whether their conjurings are true or not.
     
    It is Philosophers that can never have a hope of verifying truth not scientists. And OreoZionist has it exactly the wrong way round.
     
    Science and scientific tools and engineering and practical technology is the only means of having a hope of collecting facts and verifying postulations and discovering the unknown and exploring the possible.

  229. oreoman1987 says

    “Science and scientific tools and engineering and practical technology is the only means of having a hope of collecting facts and verifying postulations and discovering the unknown and exploring the possible.”

    The problem of induction and underdetermination show that you’re wrong about this.

  230. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, Without philosophy, science wouldn’t exist. Science would also not be the way it is without philosophy. If you give up on philosophy, you give up on everything including science, logic, ethics, debate, mathematics, truth, justification, and so on.

  231. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, Be careful! Without philosophy and epistemology, science can’t even get off the ground. Albert Einstein himself can tell you this. Science came from philosophy and the discipline of the philosophy of science looks for ways to determine what counts as true science as opposed to pseudoscience. In order to get anywhere with science, you have to solve the problem of induction. Otherwise, you’re stuck with faith.

  232. oreoman1987 says

    “That is not what I am saying. Please do your best to understand.”

    If Matt doesn’t know anything with absolute certainty, then he doesn’t know anything.

    “That video did not in anyway show that Matt said science provide absolute certainty. You are once again making inferences that is not validated.”

    Except he defended science as if it holds any water at all in deciding what’s true. It doesn’t because of the problem of induction. He also gets defensive when confronted about the issue of relying on science too much.

  233. oreoman1987 says

    “cookiebiy does not like that some have a high degree of confidence in the scientific method. Too bad for him. Sorry if that bothers you (not really).”

    Confidence and knowledge and trust are not the same things.

  234. Ronald Kyle says

    @OreoZionist
    You are an INGRATE… another telltale characteristic of your nature as a delusional scoundrel trying to scam people.

    Only a scoundrely dastard uses a computer in the 21st century to rail against science and the validity of science on internet forums across the globe…. or a total idiot who does not even have the capacity to fathom the IRONY of what he is doing.

    I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a buffoon on the level of one who thinks he is a poached egg.

    So the only other option is that you are a charlatan and a liar and scoundrel who deserves to be spat at and derided for the fraud and huckster that you are.

  235. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    How can you know this if you don’t know anything with absolute certainty?

    I read what you wrote about science not knowing anything.

    And where did I ever mention a sentient being?

    Wow, have you lost the capacity to comprehend the written language? You are so focus on trying to “win” that you are losing track of the actual conversation. I did not say you mentioned sentient being. Please read my response again and and point to me where I accused you of mentioning sentient being.

    I define knowledge as justified true belief with a Gettier defeater. Just because you have confidence or a true belief, doesn’t mean you have knowledge.

    I could care less of your interpretation of Gettier nor your equivocation of knowledge with absolute certainty. You keep trying to force us into your little world of equivocating knowledge with absolute certainty and we have in multiple times rejected that. Yet you keep coming back to those definitions and equivocations as if we agreed to it.

  236. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle,

    “Only a scoundrely dastard uses a computer in the 21st century to rail against science and the validity of science on internet forums across the globe…. or a total idiot who does not even have the capacity to fathom the IRONY of what he is doing.

    Using something doesn’t mean believing in it. It also doesn’t guarantee validity. Just because science gives you cool things doesn’t mean it’s rational. This is not an undermining of science but an example of why science doesn’t lead to certainty.

  237. oreoman1987 says

    “I could care less of your interpretation of Gettier nor your equivocation of knowledge with absolute certainty. You keep trying to force us into your little world of equivocating knowledge with absolute certainty and we have in multiple times rejected that. Yet you keep coming back to those definitions and equivocations as if we agreed to it.”

    How is it an interpretation? Do you understand the problem posed by Gettier? The issue I have is that most of you have said that you don’t have absolute certainty about anything and I point out that that’s a problematic and self-contradicting position.

  238. oreoman1987 says

    “Wow, have you lost the capacity to comprehend the written language? You are so focus on trying to “win” that you are losing track of the actual conversation. I did not say you mentioned sentient being. Please read my response again and and point to me where I accused you of mentioning sentient being.”

    This isn’t about winning or losing but trying to clarify positions and arguments to understand and present philosophical problems that most people seem to not be aware of. I’m never concerned about convincing or winning over people. Just to make them aware of concepts that contradict what they take for granted. Taking things for granted like confidence and science is what leads people to faith and close-mindedness.

  239. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    If Matt doesn’t know anything with absolute certainty, then he doesn’t know anything.

    That is what you are saying. Those are not my words.

    “That video did not in anyway show that Matt said science provide absolute certainty. You are once again making inferences that is not validated.”

    Except he defended science as if it holds any water at all in deciding what’s true. It doesn’t because of the problem of induction. He also gets defensive when confronted about the issue of relying on science too much.

    So what if he defended science, does that mean he is claiming absolute certainty? You are also ignoring the context in the video where the caller is saying that religion is just as good in determining truth as that of science. Matt is pointing out the contrast of using science versus using religion. Nothing there claims absolute certainty.

    I will ask you again, can we test the existence of your god in a way similar to me testing how my pen falls when I dropped it. I am admitting that I am using inductive reasoning in thinking that my pen will again fall when I drop it but my confidence level is high that it will. Do you have anything of that sort to test your god’s existence? In other words have there been in the past a test for the existence of your god and can we replicate the result of that test so that we can have the same confidence as my pen falling?

  240. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo

    A humble suggestion –

    You’ve taken over this thread for several weeks now and apparently have yet to convince anyone of anything. This is due in large part, as Tracie and a bunch of other people have pointed out a thousand times now, to the fact that you’re using terms like “knowledge” and “belief” in esoteric ways that nobody here uses them, which means that you’re talking past people and straw-manning them with a definition of knowledge that equates to absolute certainty. If you truly aren’t a troll and do indeed want to have a productive discussion, I suggest you do one or more of the following:

    1) suggest, in the apparent absence of a path to absolute certainty, a way forward in living our daily lives that doesn’t involve science. NOT a perfectly justified way, but simply the best way available to us at the current moment. Because otherwise, you’re not offering anything of value. It’s kind of like if you were my financial advisor, and I was asking you where I should invest my retirement funds, and you told me in response that no equity or mutual fund is 100% free from risk. Well, I already knew that. That wasn’t what I was asking. If absolute certainty is apparently not attainable because of the problem of induction, well, then, so what? Who cares?

    2) call the show

    OR

    3) leave this blog, which is focused on issues of atheism, and find a philosophy forum where you can talk about this stuff to your heart’s desire

  241. oreoman1987 says

    “That is what you are saying. Those are not my words.”

    Except you yourself said that he doesn’t know anything with absolute certainty. So, basically, he can’t know anything. Which is what your statement implies.

  242. oreoman1987 says

    “So what if he defended science, does that mean he is claiming absolute certainty? You are also ignoring the context in the video where the caller is saying that religion is just as good in determining truth as that of science. Matt is pointing out the contrast of using science versus using religion. Nothing there claims absolute certainty.”

    The problem of underdetermination shows that science can never know what theories to keep and what theories to throw out. If Matt is claiming that there’s a difference between using science and religion, then he’s make an absolute certain claim. This, contradicts his own position.

  243. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy,

    “You’ve taken over this thread for several weeks now and apparently have yet to convince anyone of anything. This is due in large part, as Tracie and a bunch of other people have pointed out a thousand times now, to the fact that you’re using terms like “knowledge” and “belief” in esoteric ways that nobody here uses them, which means that you’re talking past people and straw-manning them with a definition of knowledge that equates to absolute certainty. ”

    How do you know that nobody is using these terms the way I’ve pointed out? Because many people defend science as if it can give us truth. Tracie Harris also seems to have no grasp of philosophy and seems to think that science is reliable for everything testable. The problem of underdetermination shows that she’s wrong. I’m also not trying to convince anyone like you say, but to simply make people aware of the limits of their knowledge claims and basic beliefs. If you don’t have absolute certainty, then how can you know what anyone actually believes or what their position is?

  244. buddyward says

    @oreoman

    Except you yourself said that he doesn’t know anything with absolute certainty. So, basically, he can’t know anything. Which is what your statement implies.

    I only said that Matt does not claim absolute certainty, you added the other parts.

  245. buddyward says

    @Monocle Smile

    Please ignore the troll, folks. He’s already dead.

    I think i am going to follow your advise here as I agree with your assesment.

  246. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 266:

    “Tracie Harris also seems to have no grasp of philosophy and seems to think that science is reliable for everything testable.”

    You have no grasp of the concept of falsification, which seems to be the problem.

    “I’m also not trying to convince anyone like you say”

    You’re trying to convince people that science has limits, which we all generally agree with. Fine. And?

    “If you don’t have absolute certainty, then how can you know what anyone actually believes or what their position is?”

    Because they often tell me these things directly. You should try it sometime

    I see you’ve chosen option 4: continue to be a pedant without answering questions directly. Sigh.

  247. oreoman1987 says

    “Because they often tell me these things directly. You should try it sometime”

    The issue is whether or not your basic beliefs (axioms) can get past the problem of skepticism.

  248. oreoman1987 says

    “I only said that Matt does not claim absolute certainty, you added the other parts.“

    If he doesn’t have absolute certainty, then he doesn’t know anything. It means he could be wrong about everything he’s saying.

  249. Wiggle Puppy says

    Yep, you’ve chosen the pedant option for sure.

    “The issue is whether or not your basic beliefs (axioms) can get past the problem of skepticism.”

    No, the issue is whether to get McDonald’s or Taco Bell for dinner tonight.

  250. oreoman1987 says

    “I think i am going to follow your advise here as I agree with your assesment.”

    This is a way of running from delay and holding onto beliefs regardless of inconsistencies. It’s what lead to faith.

  251. oreoman1987 says

    “I think i am going to follow your advise here as I agree with your assesment.”

    This is a way of avoiding debate and holding onto beliefs regardless of inconsistencies. It’s what lead to faith.

  252. t90bb says

    OREO….There is no real debate after you have admitted that science is useful. We agree. You continue to argue with a phantom in a dishonest way. Your obvious strawman of Matt was the last straw for me.

    As long as you agree that science is useful….and that you live in accord with many or most of its conclusions I really could care less about the rest of your mental masturbation. At the end of the day…your obvious point (that you pawn off as genius) that absolute certainty cannot be established leads us right back to the position most of us have here….agnostic atheism.

    If you find any actual reasons we should believe a god exists do let us know. 1000 or so posts was more than enough time for you to make an actual point…but instead you jerk off and think you are impressing someone. If you grow a set and call the show I will have a tad of respect for you. As is obvious all but a few of us have decided you are not worth engaging since you regurgitate and swallow your own cum over and over . Its even gotten old for me.. I am only encouraging your time wasting by entertaining your intellectual drool. We have given you every opportunity to make a meaningful point. You have my permission to continue to suck your own c@ck for as long as you wish. See ya

  253. StonedRanger says

    Oh boy. Another week of Oreo telling us we cant know anything with certainty because we havent answered some philosophical bullshit questions no one gives a shit about. New people (and some regulars?) are arguing with Oreo and still getting nowhere. And Ronald Kyle frothing at the mouth calling Oreo a liar for jesus. None of which has anything to do with this weeks show. Four weeks running. Good job. Ho fucking hum.

  254. oreoman1987 says

    “As long as you agree that science is useful….and that you live in accord with many or most of its conclusions I really could care less about the rest of your mental masturbation. At the end of the day…your obvious point (that you pawn off as genius) that absolute certainty cannot be established leads us right back to the position most of us have here….agnostic atheism.”

    I never said absolute certainty can never be established. I just have yet to see someone demonstrate that they do. There’s a difference. Also, how exactly do you know agnostic atheism is the most reasonable position if you say you don’t have absolute certainty?

  255. oreoman1987 says

    “If you find any actual reasons we should believe a god exists do let us know. 1000 or so posts was more than enough time for you to make an actual point…but instead you jerk off and think you are impressing someone”

    I never said you should believe in a god. Nor did I ever defend the existence of one.

  256. oreoman1987 says

    “Oh boy. Another week of Oreo telling us we cant know anything with certainty because we havent answered some philosophical bullshit questions no one gives a shit about. ”

    If you abandon philosophy, you abandon everything. Including knowledge, truth, logic, argument, justification, and so on.

  257. buddyward says

    To everyone else,

    I sure do hope that we can continue having a conversation here with regards to the show and at the same time manage to ignore oreoman’s ramblings. I sure hate to see this thread or this blog for that matter cease in activity simply because it gets taken over by some incoherent ramblings of one individual.

  258. Alan Wilson says

    If anyone wants to sanitize the threads here…on Chrome browser, add the extension “User CSS”, restart Chrome and add the following user css:

    li.comment-author-oreoman1987 {
    display: none;
    }

    Works a treat.

  259. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ myself # 273

    Update: I decided on Taco Bell, and I know that it was the right choice. By the process of induction, I believe that the next trip there will be excellent as well. That’s the truth!

  260. Ronald Kyle says

    @StonedRanger “And Ronald Kyle frothing at the mouth calling Oreo a liar for jesus”…
     
    At first I was going to take offense to that stupid statement… but then I realized that coming out of you this is probably a compliment since it is an obvious self-projection.
     
    Given the fact that you are an admitted hard drugs abuser, frothing at the mouth and other foul orifices of your drug infused body is something you “think” is the normal thing to do inside the delusional world created by the wretched fried neurons of your poor abused and scarred brain.
     
    So I am going to excuse you… you have no way of understanding better….
     
    StonedRanger says January 7, 2019 at 5:51 pm (#67)

    … Ive taken LSD and/or mescaline over 500 times …. just my brain on drugs….

  261. oreoman1987 says

    “And Ronald Kyle frothing at the mouth calling Oreo a liar for jesus.”

    He does this with everyone who disagrees with him. Posting weird comments with bible verses that have nothing to do with what I or anyone else is saying. Especially when there’s no indication that said person is a bible believer.

  262. t90bb says

    Alan Wilson……

    Is there anything that breaks down the process of blocking certain members in a simpler format??? This is great news.

  263. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @t90bb #290:

    Kyle is fine, hes got spunk. I like what he brings.

    Preening competitive degradation repeated (and phrased) ad nauseum.

  264. Bluestar says

    3 weeks of appx 300 post show posts, most of them pointless, repetitive, and useless. S suggestion to the Powers: I subscribe to Dr. Ehrman ‘s blog. The comments section there is filled with insightful discussions on the topic post. There are some rules there and they are enforced. No proselytizing, 2 posts per topic, 400 word limit per post. This works very well. Maybe you folks can consider similar controls to keep the disrupted away.

  265. t90bb says

    292…i dont get the feeling the moderators spend much time here. tracie and john drop in from time to time. why a few of the oldest members of this blog cant be granted mod privileges is beyond me. of course is the blog was more tightly policed i would not be here, lol. i nominate victor oreo and jimmy…..haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    291….your trash is my treasure. hes far from the problem here you Zionist, you! lol

    i love you guys

  266. Honey Tone says

    My 2 cents: Just ignore the crazy.

    We are (mostly) adults. We don’t have to take the bait.

  267. Ian Butler says

    There’s nothing wrong with this blog that banning a few trolls yesterday wouldn’t fix. Unfortunately there appears to be nobody at the helm, just like the universe…

  268. Ronald Kyle says

    @Monocle Smile “Okay, I think we’ve had enough of Ronald Kyle’s cartoonish ranting, too”

    Sorry señor Grand Inquisitor…. I am sad that you do not appreciate the heresy of the art of cartoons… but don’t you think excommunication is a tad too despotic?

    I mean if you are too much of a dolt to appreciate cartoons, don’t you think others might like them?

    Cartoons might be too clever and too hereitical for your drab existence but variety and different styles can be refreshing even though you are too stale to appreciate them.

    But I understand how your ilk always think it is your way or the highway… it is a very common trait.

  269. Ronald Kyle says

    @t90bb “.your trash is my treasure. hes far from the problem here you Zionist, you! lol”
    👍👌🙏😁😁
    I know you are being sarcastic, but he is not likely to be a Zionist since Christian Zionism is an insanity rampant amongst rabid Evangelicals like OreoMephitic.
     
    @t90bb “Kyle is fine, hes got spunk. I like what he brings”
    👍👌🙏… I am glad to see that you are not tribalistic… 🙏🙏
    One of the most disheartening phenomena I have observed in numerous church substitutes forums is mindless tribalism and sniffing up the posteriors of the alpha dogs, even in ones purported to be for atheists.

  270. Ronald Kyle says

    @CompulsoryAccount7746 “Preening competitive degradation…”

    “Preening”… 🤦‍♂️🤣😂… well I can see how even mediocrity might appear as such for the 1st century coprolith you have in lieu of brains.

    “competitive”… is that what you call debunking your fairy tales and exposing the vandalism and lies of your ilk OreoZionist… well fine.

    “degredation”… your insane fables and the pernicious filibustering lies of your colleague OreoMendacious deserve nothing more.

  271. indianajones says

    The point is, Ronald, that once you have painted the wall white, it aint gonna get whiter with more paint.

  272. Ronald Kyle says

    @indianajones “once you have painted the wall white, it aint gonna get whiter with more paint.”

     
    Can you explain to me what the people at AXP have been doing week in and week out for the last 22 years???

     
    Besides… I suggest you go back to Episode 22.51 Dec 23 2018… scroll down to my first post #101 Dec 24 2018 6:49 pm and read my posts from then onward until this one and please show me how I repainted the wall the same color…. my posts progressively exposed OreoMendacious as a liar and saboteur of this forum.

     
    I started suspecting he is a saboteur here
    (#102)Ronald Kyle says December 24, 2018 at 7:22 pm

    … PROFESSIONAL theists are relentlessly trying to UNDERMINE the confidence of the recipients of the benefits of science….Accordingly, brace yourself for a mercurial disingenuous inveigler trying by hook or by crook to peddle his deadbeat sky daddy with specious semantic skullduggery …

     
    And I proved him a liar here
    (#141) Ronald Kyle says December 26, 2018 at 8:56 pm

    @oreoman “Otherwise, you’re stuck with faith”…

    AHA… you now reveal your true nature as a LIAR FOR JESUS (or whatever your sky daddy is) … one of the most pursued ruses that Liars For Jesus keep relentlessly trying to use is the “science is faith” poppycock.

    The idea is that if science is faith then their faith is just as valid and we all have to have faith and poppycock and gobbledygook…..Your jig is up Oreoman… you exposed yourself with your very own words….

     
    Which is something that took some people 3 weeks to deduce
    (#205)Monocle Smile says January 17, 2019 at 10:27 am

    A bald admission of trolling. At least we have confirmation now.

     
    So as you can see repainting is continuously needed as long as pissants like OreoMalicious keep coming round to piss on the wall while other jackasses keep kicking at the paint and the painter instead of the one who is pissing all over THEM while they are fully aware that he is sprinkling them with golden pseudo-wisdom.

     
    Furthermore, I already explained what I was doing as a strategy to combat the second week of incessant sabotage by OreoMephitic
    (#235) Ronald Kyle says December 31, 2018 at 11:18 pm

    …I am not at all engaging him … I am trying to undermine his taking over the thread, by asking questions about Jesus that will F**** with his brains…My questions are done 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 questions 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.

     
    Unfortunately it seems that my questions about Jesus being a piece of fecal matter F**** the brains of some "atheists" around here instead of the shameless immoral OreoMeningococcus.

     
    Ian Butler says January 3, 2019 at 9:17 am

    …. Ronald Kyle, at this point literally nobody here wants to hear what you have to say….

     
    Otherwise why so many are so darned annoyed at the repainting?? It is an interesting phenomenon this? It’s not costing them anything and they don’t need to keep watching the wall get painted they can either lend a hand or go away and let the painter paint. So why such vehement objections????

     
    CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says January 3, 2019 at 12:50 am (#316)

    Ronald Kyle … Why should anyone here care about your pet narrative?

     
    Why are some self-proclaimed atheists so hellbent on expending all that time and effort to rail against the painter and press numerous keys to malign and project their own peculiar profligacies on the painter while continuing to cavort with the pissant as if they were oblivious to his sabotage of the wall and pissing on their heads.

     
    paxoll says January 2, 2019 at 6:39 pm

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

    StonedRanger says January 17, 2019 at 5:10 pm

    …. And Ronald Kyle frothing at the mouth …

    paxoll says January 3, 2019 at 1:42 am

    … 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…. mental disorders …

     
    They even command barring the painter while begging the pissant to come back to keep pissing all over them.

     
    Ian Butler says January 3, 2019 at 9:17 am

    …. Ronald Kyle, at this point literally nobody here wants to hear what you have to say…. The Calvary can’t come soon enough.

    paxoll says January 3, 2019 at 3:39 am

    ….I am going to check in only to see if Oreo wants to have an actual discussion….

     
    Peculiar, isn’t it? Expending all that effort trying to throw the painter over the wall while equivocating him with the pisser pissing on them and even begging the pisser to stay on their side of the wall…. hmmm???

     
    StonedRanger says January 2, 2019 at 3:37 pm

    Ronald Kyle… You are doing exactly the same thing oreo is…

    paxoll says January 3, 2019 at 3:39 am

    Well Ronald, …. I don’t particularly care to hear anything else from you…

  273. indianajones says

    ‘Otherwise why so many are so darned annoyed at the repainting??’

    Because, at this point, you seem to be doing your best to hog as much of the wall as you can.

  274. Ronald Kyle says

    @indianajones “at this point, you seem to be doing your best to hog as much of the wall as you can”…
     
    Yes it seems so …. but only because of all that extra painting need to remove the piles of additional crap flung on the wall by those cognitive dissonance afflicted hypocritical self-righteous jackasses on top of the piss sprayed all over the wall by the pissant OreoMuck.

  275. Honey Tone says

    OMFG, Ron

    This blog doesn’t need protection.
    It certainly doesn’t need a self-appointed protector.
    Oreo was not scoring points.
    You are over the top constantly.

  276. indianajones says

    A quick cut and paste of the last 48 hours of posts, including this one, comes to 3 pages of posts in Open Office.
    Scoreboard
    Ronald: 2 1/2 pages, 5 posts
    Oreo: 0 pages, 0 posts
    Everyone else: 1/2 page, 4 posts
    ‘Seems’ because is.

  277. Ronald Kyle says

    @indianajones
     
    Wow…. you have gone to a lot of effort to fabricate statistics from conveniently and arbitrarily selected claptrap.

     
    Hhmmmm….. I wonder what would compel you to go to all that effort to deliberate fabricate lies like this??? You must be an employee of Faux “news” in the propaganda department.
     

    There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. — Mark Twain

     
    Unfortunately for you, anyone with a slight skill in using computers can prove your lies. Thus here is the correct data you bloody faker.

     
    The number of posts by each poster on this entire thread….not a conveniently selected cutoff date to create obfuscating rubbish. A total of 305 posts

    oreoman1987 [130]
    buddyward [43]
    t90bb [28]
    Ronald Kyle [24]
    Monocle Smile [11]
    twarren1111 [11]
    jigglefresh [10]
    EnlightenmentLiberal [9]
    indianajones [6]
    Wiggle Puppy [5]
    Honey Tone [5]
    paxoll [4]
    larpar [3]
    Ian Butler [2]
    Secular Strategy [2]
    bluestar [1]
    CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain [1]
    Bluestar [1]
    Bluestar [1]
    Nathan Roe [1]
    Nicholasxxx [1]
    Alan Wilson [1]
    Paul Stevens [1]
    StonedRanger [1]
    Jeanette [1]
    Muz [1]
    John Garcia [1]

  278. twarren1111 says

    You know, my posts tend to be extra long so can I get credit for more than 11 posts??

    What’s another word for thesaurus?

    If ballerina’s keep having to stand on their tippy toes, why don’t they just hire taller ballerinas?

  279. t90bb says

    311. Ron Kyle….keep doing what you do. I may not agree with everything you post but I find you hella entertaining!. Just be you man! Had this board been properly moderated this would never had been an issue. No way a jackass should be able to come here….repeat his bullshit over and over and over….be asked to stop…..and be allowed to continue. Thats like 3 weeks. The only upside is that we kept him so busy here, he was less able to cause any trouble in the real world that we are not absolutely certain exists!

  280. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @t90bb #311:

    No way a jackass should be able to come here… repeat his bullshit over and over and over… be asked to stop… and be allowed to continue.
    […]
    we kept him so busy here, he was less able to cause any trouble in the real world

    Subtle. I don’t think Ron will get it.
     

    Ron Kyle… keep doing what you do. […] I find you hella entertaining!

  281. walker says

    @Oreoman1987 #282 and #287. Why would you claim that abandoning philisophy leads to the lose of all knowledge and truth while previously claiming that we currently dont have any or the ability to get it. You are going around in circles.

    Incidently, if you cant define knowledge you cant make any claims as to its non existence.

    Also, there are lots of indications that you are a bible believer.

  282. Murat says

    @OreoZionist

    I also find it ironic that you have no problem criticizing Christians constantly but yet label criticisms of Muslims as hatred.

    There is nothing ironic about that in the case of addressing people who specifically ask for criticism of Islam while keeping their attachments to other, similar dogmatic beliefs. What seems to drive you is hatred. For you to have the proper grounds to assess Islam justly and correctly, you must first retreat to objective reasoning in your own mind and grow devoid of any feuds. You don’t get to give tickets to drunk drivers if you are intoxicated yourself. Not even if you are a legit law enforcer or something.

  283. oreoman1987 says

    “Incidently, if you cant define knowledge you cant make any claims as to its non existence.”

    Except I don’t claim that it doesn’t exist. I just have yet to see someone demonstrate that it does. There’s a difference.

  284. t90bb says

    316…cookieboy….

    “Incidently, if you cant define knowledge you cant make any claims as to its non existence.”

    Except I don’t claim that it doesn’t exist. I just have yet to see someone demonstrate that it does. There’s a difference.

    THEN DEFINE IS SWEETIE. such cowards

  285. dontpanicdent says

    @ Ronald Kyle (#2)

    ‘EVEN IF we grant every single bit of the resurrection hoax did actually happen, what exactly does it prove??? A Devil could have done it just as equally or an Alien or a Time Lord or Vampire or even a genie or Wizard or Atlantean…. all these fairy tale protagonists could have done the exact same fairy tale magic of the New Tall tales….’

    I really liked the list of options you gave in your opener to this thread. It got me thinking… With the popularity of zombies this last decade or so, isn’t there a case that the Church has been getting more and more anxious we’ll discover Jesus might be a zombie– that Lazarus came by and bit Jesus in the tomb? Historians have often wondered about the teachings of the Lazarus story. Maybe, the reason Lazarus was resurrected in the first place is the simplest– so he could then resurrect Jesus in turn!

    The Church would be screwed if that got out. Who is going to worship a flesh-eating zombie?

    This makes much more sense to me.

  286. dontpanicdent says

    @ oreoman1987 (#9)

    Regarding your opening post on this thread, I took a look at the wiki link you provided. I don’t think it says what you think it says:

    ‘Several contemporary philosophers of science and analytic philosophers are strongly critical of Popper’s philosophy of science. Popper’s mistrust of inductive reasoning has led to claims that he misrepresents scientific practice.

    Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers the world over have wasted or are wasting their intellectual careers. The gulf between Popper’s way of doing philosophy and that of the bulk of contemporary professional philosophers is as great as that between astronomy and astrology.”
    — W. W. Bartley III, “III: Biology – evolutionary epistemology”, 1976

    Popper’s ideas have failed to convince the majority of professional philosophers because his theory of conjectural knowledge does not even pretend to provide positively justified foundations of belief. Nobody else does better, but they keep trying, like chemists still in search of the Philosopher’s Stone or physicists trying to build perpetual motion machines.
    — Rafe Champion, “Agreeing to Disagree: Bartley’s Critique of Reason”, 1985’

    This is a criticism of those who mistrust inductive reasoning, as you do. It’s reporting that the majority of contemporary philosophers find the idea contemptible.

    This position of yours regarding inductive reasoning is false. I know you cannot prove this to yourself, but won’t you accept the opinions of most of the world’s philosophers?

  287. dontpanicdent says

    @ oreoman1987 (Re: #2 again)

    In the paper entitled “The Problem of Induction” via the link you provided, I also found another one or two odd things:

    I understand Karl Popper’s (and your) objection to evidence a little better now and that his opinion was ‘science … is a deductive process.’ But, it was interesting to note in Section 2.2 that ‘(Popper) did however hold that theories could be falsified, and that falsifiability … was a virtue. …Highly falsifiable theories thus make stronger assertions and are in general more informative. Though theories cannot in Popper’s view be supported, they can be corroborated: a better corroborated theory is one that has been subjected to more and more rigorous tests without having been falsified. Falsifiable and corroborated theories are thus to be preferred, though … these are not to be confused with support by evidence.’

    ‘Popper’s epistemology is almost exclusively the epistemology of scientific knowledge. This is not because he thinks that there is a sharp division between ordinary knowledge and scientific knowledge, but rather because he thinks that to study the growth of knowledge one must study scientific knowledge.’

    Here, we find two things: 1) Popper valued falsifiable and corroborated theories (as we all do) AND Popper believed that studying scientific knowledge leads to growth in knowledge (as we all do).

    Further on, we read something else interesting:

    Section 4.2 of the paper is where D.C. Williams states that induction is both reasonable and logical. ‘Williams and Stove maintain … there are good deductive arguments that prove that certain inductive methods yield their conclusions with high probability.’

    Yes, there were and are problems with their conclusions– a hidden dependency that produced conflicting probabilities. But, these were carefully revised to minimize their effect. Criticisms of the theorems have weakened, but not invalidated them.

    Hence, inductive reasoning may have some faults, but it is in no way an invalid method of “doing science” and gathering knowledge.

    The third line of the paper put it more succinctly: ‘Such methods are clearly essential in scientific reasoning as well as in the conduct of our everyday affairs.’

Leave a Reply

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