I think you have this backwards.
Qualification is conferred as a result of knowledge.
The other way round is just [enc]Appeal to authority[/enc] - a logical fallacy.
Believing God does NOT exist with certainty suggests ignorance comparable to theists
- Thread starter Betrayer0fHope
- Start date
I think you have this backwards.
Qualification is conferred as a result of knowledge.
The other way round is just [enc]Appeal to authority[/enc] - a logical fallacy.
Based on this warped logic, anyone who holds any belief at all is arrogant.
"I know there's no real evidence whatsoever to support my belief that the world is flat, but I think you're being very ignorant if you assert it isn't with certainty!"
"I know there's no real evidence whatsoever to support my belief that the world is flat, but I think you're being very ignorant if you assert it isn't with certainty!"
I'm afraid it is
The problem is (of course) that the premises are not truthful.
you can have rational statements that are not truthful (as given) and also truthful statements that are not rational.
eg - Today is Friday, I am wearing brown shoes, therefore I am hungry.
As indicated, rationality and truthfulness are two separate issues.
Generally a claim is credible if it fulfills both criteria.
If a window cleaner was placed in front of this what do you think they could observe with it.
Compare to a lab technician.
correction
it simply cannot meet the demands of empiricism
Ok then
When was the last time the minister of defense directly observed the prime minister?
When was the last time you did?
Why is it that you can not rock up and see the prime minister as often as the minister of defense?
What is essentially faulty about your skills of observation?
a lack of naval craft to africa (as far as central australia circa 1500 AD is concerned) certainly invalidated the claim
first of all they had to meet criteria to see it
Its not like they came to the conclusion by sitting on their laurels
whenever you're ready to get off your laurels
not necessarily
not necessarily
regular check ups or detecting one thing while seeking guidance for another is quite common.
For instance my father picked up a cancer in the bone of his leg while going in to see to back trouble (the two issues were not connected).
Similarly I went in to get the brakes relined the other day only to have it brought to my attention that the seal was broken on the rear axle
Last edited:
the actual break down is
theory - > application - > conclusion
theory is also a type of knowledge, preliminary to qualification, but it is the application of this theory where knowledge actually becomes valuable.
For instance I may know (in theory) all about car brakes but if I lack the practical experience to identify issues that surround their installation and repair, my knowledge doesn't amount to much (IOW I need to consult with someone who really knows, namely a mechanic)
Which makes not a single point. Wow.
An assertion you have not demonstrated. Clearly you would not like to believe I can. Clearly this is an area you seem to think you have some singular "expertise" in, but you show only a limited function.
Why would I even attempt this with you. You're a theist and, thus, not qualified to comment on the psychological, anthropological and sociological nature of religious issues based on your clear bias. You are deluded by superstition. You, therefore, have preconceived biases which preclude any rational discourse. The only thing to do with irrational people like yourself who visit science boards to argue with the big bad atheists is to take the piss out of them. You are incapable of rational discourse, so you assert illogical claims using fallacious reasoning then have the nerve to contend that others are "not capable" of discussing philosophical topics or are "not qualified" to understand religious superstition.
You troll this forum with your bullshit then, when you are called on it, you accuse others of "trolling." You're a troll. A theistic troll. In the first order. You revel in post-modernist mumbo-jumbo, taking the intellectual coward's way out by accusing others of simply being "unqualified" when you don't like what they have to say.
Perhaps not. But I have more philosophical understanding in the fungus struggling to thrive on the plantar aspect of my first left metatarsal than you've ever exhibited in this forum.
Please provide Thread Names & Post #s.
Yes. Please post where I said, "listen, I'm the mod here and I say you are deluded."
In fact, those that remember me from before I was moderator here probably wonder why I don't hammer you the way I used to then.
In fact, those that remember me from before I was moderator here probably wonder why I don't hammer you the way I used to then.
I think you are missing the point that no matter how difficult visibility is for something's existence, someone can always demonstrate it. For example, your kid may not know what to do with a microscope and a drop of water from a fish bowl, but I can show him the existence of paramecium quite easily.
Yes. Average joe-schmuck.
If it's not placed within those parameters then it has nothing to do with truth.
It is the only way to validate truth. You have an idea in your head. If it's true reality will agree. If it's not then reality will disagree. There is nothing more to it.
its just when one starts speculating about norms, origins, causes and reactions of human emotional needs that it gets hairy
That's fine, but it's not necessary. The "what" is sufficient regardless of the "how / why".
Last edited:
Skinwalker
Just thought you might want to demonstrate your capacity for philosophy .... a tall order, I know.
unlike you when you try to discuss issues of religious philosophy, I don't require to redefine or corrupt the applications or theories of psychology, anthropology and sociology in order to discuss them.
"when all else fails, get tentative" eh?
Seriously, I am just trying to help you form a coherent argument.
it does throw some doubts over your claim that logic is sufficient for determining truth (assuming one has problems with flying horses)
well whenever you are willing to begin discuss philosophy, please be my guest ....
Just thought you might want to demonstrate your capacity for philosophy .... a tall order, I know.
Its okay
unlike you when you try to discuss issues of religious philosophy, I don't require to redefine or corrupt the applications or theories of psychology, anthropology and sociology in order to discuss them.
hehe
"when all else fails, get tentative" eh?
quite noble of you
try reading works by Flew and Russel (they're both atheists so you don't have to worry about your ideas getting challenged)
Seriously, I am just trying to help you form a coherent argument.
If you speak to your lawyer like that when you face legal difficulties, if you speak to your doctor like that when you face medical difficulties and if you speak to your car mechanic like that when your car breaks down, you must have a difficult life.
All I've seen from you is a talent for trolling and ad homming, which you do with full confidence from your moderator status
Crunchy cat
if you doubt this I will pretend to be a highschool drop out inimical to science and you can pretend to be a physics professor.
Demonstrate to me an electron.
“
every time you use empiricism to validate a metaphysical claim you shoot yourself in the foot.
except the big question of a persons ability to perceive the nature of reality
I think you would be hard pressed to find a practical example (a researcher, a discipline, etc in a field of soft science that can somehow resist the temptation to venture into issues of how or why a human emotional state exists) of what you suggest
but it cannot be demonstrated to all people at all times
if you doubt this I will pretend to be a highschool drop out inimical to science and you can pretend to be a physics professor.
Demonstrate to me an electron.
only if they accept your testimonial authority - otherwise they can argue with you until the cows come home.
then you have problems since the average joe schmuck probably can't even switch on an advanced piece of lab equipment, what to speak of make sense of it.
“
hehe
every time you use empiricism to validate a metaphysical claim you shoot yourself in the foot.
certainly no empirical evidence for that statement .... a good rule of thumb to test whether you are entering into areas of metaphysics is when you tag the bit in italics to your statements.
it appears you do to
except the big question of a persons ability to perceive the nature of reality
Soft science disagrees since it is primarily involved in discussing these topics
I think you would be hard pressed to find a practical example (a researcher, a discipline, etc in a field of soft science that can somehow resist the temptation to venture into issues of how or why a human emotional state exists) of what you suggest
I've yet to meet a theist whose claims about god were credible enough to bother considering the question seriously. Instead, the claims of theists inevitably dispel any lingering doubts I might have had that if there were such a thing as a "god" that any infomation about it would come from a theist.
“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its not that the only card you can play is the "heavy moderator" because you have nothing else to prop yourself up. Its more like the one you favor when the going gets tough in your discussions, and you simply give in to confidence statements and tentative statements. ("You're deluded" "No, you're deluded" "Listen, I'm the mod here and I say you are deluded" etc etc ”
POST #45 :
Not only does he not mention being moderator, from Post #45 or any he posted in this thread, no 1 can tell he's the moderator until you mention it.
Its not that the only card you can play is the "heavy moderator" because you have nothing else to prop yourself up. Its more like the one you favor when the going gets tough in your discussions, and you simply give in to confidence statements and tentative statements. ("You're deluded" "No, you're deluded" "Listen, I'm the mod here and I say you are deluded" etc etc ”
POST #45 :
Not only does he not mention being moderator, from Post #45 or any he posted in this thread, no 1 can tell he's the moderator until you mention it.
"All pigs can fly, all horses are pigs, therefore all horses can fly." is NOT rational. To be rational the premises must be reasonably thought to be true.
Absolutely no truth can be determined without logic. Reasoning is using logic.
IF there is life after death, I hope Russell is blissfully unaware of LG claiming to benefit from reading him.
Absolutely no truth can be determined without logic. Reasoning is using logic.
IF there is life after death, I hope Russell is blissfully unaware of LG claiming to benefit from reading him.
Then, how can you claim gods exist if you can't prove it?
Incorrect
To be rational the premises are required to relate to the proposed conclusion
as mentioned earlier, issues of truth and logic are usually what we look for in terms of credibility
I think anyone can benefit from learning how to lodge a coherent argument
Unfortunately you claimed the sentence was rational, not the argument.
lightgigantic said:
I'm guessing you meant to say "Here's a rational argument..."?
Or do you think "All pigs can fly" is being rational?
You can't even get that part right. That would be that the conclusion logicly follows the premises, not simply that they're related. Of course that yet doesn't make a logical argument.
You have no business speaking of credibility.
Yes, even you could benefit from learning how to make a coherent argument.
If someone can demonstrate it to one person then the demonstration can be recorded and shown to anyone who'se interested. That's a neat thing about technology... we can capture the past and replay it over and over again. For example here is a demonstration of an electron that was recorded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related
There would not be anything to argue about with me. Light, magnification, and fish water. Then you just watch the little critters do their thing. What happens is that my "testimony" is validated by reality. It becomes truth. Technically, my testimony doesn't even matter because what is being seen is self-evident.
That's ok, we can do it for him. He just has to observe.
Of course there is empirical evidence for that statement. Everything that has been demonstrated to be true follows the pattern. No exceptions exist.
except the big question of a persons ability to perceive the nature of reality
Use the visibility tools luke. They can translate the things (or their unique effects) that we can't see into a presentation that we can. Look at a drop of your blood under an electron microscope.
Soft science disagrees since it is primarily involved in discussing these topics
I think you would be hard pressed to find a practical example (a researcher, a discipline, etc in a field of soft science that can somehow resist the temptation to venture into issues of how or why a human emotional state exists) of what you suggest
I think the point was rather missed. It's irrelecant to this discussion as only the "what's" are necessary. We know that anthropomorphism and human psychological needs exist. That alone explains a large portion why people very easily conceive of and believe in the existence God/Gods.
with all that critique but perhaps you never looked at religion that way?
meaning:
who is the last word to define the correct religion?