Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

The beliefs above are arrived at via different means. To suppose the one means valid (empirical evidence about the effects of smoking) and the other (religious belief) invalid is to stake a claim to the supremacy of faith in empiricalism over faith in spiritualism.

Or - phrased in English which has a clear, unambiguous and identifiable meaning - you reckon that things for which there is no evidence are as valid as things for which there is evidence.

Where did you acquire this view?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Or - phrased in English which has a clear, unambiguous and identifiable meaning - you reckon that things for which there is no evidence are as valid as things for which there is evidence.

Or - phrased in English which has clear unambiguous and identifiable meaning: empiricism

Where did you acquire this view?

Where did you acquire this faith

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where did you acquire this faith

I have noticed over my lifetime that things for which there is evidence are more likely to be accurate than things for which there is no evidence. Feel free to mischaracterise this as "faith" if you wish.

You clearly disagree with this view, so I'm interested to know where you learned the philosophy you are producing here as it's not part of any course on epistemology - the philosophy of knowledge - which I'm aware of.

batgoat

robindch wrote: »

I have noticed over my lifetime that things for which there is evidence are more likely to be accurate than things for which there is no evidence. Feel free to mischaracterise this as "faith" if you wish.

You clearly disagree with this view, so I'm interested to know where you learned the philosophy you are producing here as it's not part of any course on epistemology - the philosophy of knowledge - which I'm aware of.

And the complete faith based can result in parents sending their LGBT teens to conversion therapy. Basically a willingness to endanger and reject their kids for faith.

antiskeptic

The faith is in your philosophically-sourced definition of evidence. Because all you have to go on by way of your (you and people similarily equipped) observations is all you have to go on, its to be expected that you will close-loop. The philosophy derives from the observations.

Philosophies of knowledge presumably seek universality: something governing all people at all times. "This is how anyone knows what they know.

Universality (the need for in order for knowledge to be classed as such) is a presumptive.

Who set that requirement?


Simple enough questions might help illuminate the problem here.

1. Can God (say God of the Bible) exist? Assuming you would say yes (after the usual dancing around on the head of a probability pin) then..

2) Would you agree that in the event he exists, the mechanisms whereby we 'know' (and conclude we know) are God-designed and defined? If so..

3) In the event he exists, can God enable some people to know of a spiritual realm, via another mechanism of his design?

4) Assuming yes, what possible problem for me, just because what I would know thus doesn't fit the mechanisms of knowing available to you?

robindch

^^^ Did you come up with this yourself, or did you find it out from somebody else?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Did you come up with this yourself, or did you find it out from somebody else?

Come up with what? Logic statements?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Come up with what?

...come up with the ideas vaguely specified by the English words which you are posting here in the A+A forum here and on boards.ie.

Are these ideas yours? Or are they somebody else’s?

Please let me know if you find this yes/no question unclear.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Simple enough questions might help illuminate the problem here.

1. Can God (say God of the Bible) exist? Assuming you would say yes (after the usual dancing around on the head of a probability pin) then..

2) Would you agree that in the event he exists, the mechanisms whereby we 'know' (and conclude we know) are God-designed and defined? If so..

3) In the event he exists, can God enable some people to know of a spiritual realm, via another mechanism of his design?

4) Assuming yes, what possible problem for me, just because what I would know thus doesn't fit the mechanisms of knowing available to you?

Ok, so substitute 'Allah', 'The Force', 'The flying spaghetti monster' or 'Ah Pook' for 'God' in the above, and the logic holds to the same degree. You don't get past point one until you've demonstrated your belief is vaguely credible.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Simple enough questions might help illuminate the problem here.

1. Can God (say God of the Bible) exist? Assuming you would say yes (after the usual dancing around on the head of a probability pin) then..

2) Would you agree that in the event he exists, the mechanisms whereby we 'know' (and conclude we know) are God-designed and defined? If so..

3) In the event he exists, can God enable some people to know of a spiritual realm, via another mechanism of his design?

4) Assuming yes, what possible problem for me, just because what I would know thus doesn't fit the mechanisms of knowing available to you?

Ok, so substitute 'Allah', 'The Force', 'The flying spaghetti monster' or 'Ah Pook' for 'God' in the above, and the logic holds to the same degree. You don't get past point one until you've demonstrated your belief is vaguely credible.

Look at it logically rather than emotionally/ misdirectionally / confusedly. Let your inner Spock out..

Take step 1 and answer yes or no. If only because it's a yes/no question.

If no, then provide a logical, rather than emotive, misdirective, confused answer.

If it helps at all, know that a 'yes' answer says nothing at all about the likelyhood of God's existence. That horrible prospect can remain having a (completely unsubstantiatable) 0.00001% chance of being true in your own head, if you want it to remain thus.

(pity Dawkins forum has been naturally selected out. There'd have been the chance of asking the 6.7 meister himself!)

antiskeptic

Just a query on your probability-think smacl.

You seem to be working from the view that the more candidates standing for election, the reduction in the probability of any one candidate being elected. In bald speak this is true.

However, if one candidate's starting position sees him with a reasonable expectation of obtaining 80% of the vote, the entry into the fray of a candidate from the Monster Raving Flying Teapot party will affect the probability of the formers victory not one jot.

In other words, the availability of all the various gods (both 'established' and of the fairy at the bottom of the garden variety) affect not one wit, the probability of God existing. He either does or doesn't is all you can say.

If you don't believe me, try getting a job with Paddy Power as a probability calculator ☺

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Come up with what?

...come up with the ideas vaguely specified by the English words which you are posting here in the A+A forum here and on boards.ie.

Are these ideas yours? Or are they somebody else’s?

Please let me know if you find this yes/no question unclear.

You weren't clear on which of the two topics in my post you were referencing. Don't shoot the messenger huh?

The ideas expressed in both areas are my own.

You can deal with either (although I'd be particularily interested to see whether you can see and raise on smacl's effort.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

What isn't clear is whose being intolerant. And who is the 'we' doing the adjudicating on what is intolerant.

The homophobe is being intollerant.
The "we" is society.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A judgement is being made on the veracity of Folaus belief (namely, that it isn't true). Not exactly tolerant.

It's now intolerant to come to the conclusion that someones beliefs are not true? When I point out the Paradox of Tolerance, I didn't expect you to dig deeper.
And the judgement isn't really based on ther veractity of the belief, it's based on it's intolerance. He is a homophobe regardless of whether he is right.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which brings us back to Popper. His paradox rests on the assumption his philosophical groundings are true / more valid.

I.e. his conclusion is based on his premises. Slow clap. Any chance you would like to refute his argument, linked and quoted to you a few times in this thread, rather than point out the ludicrously obvious? We might actually get somewhere.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Simple enough questions might help illuminate the problem here.

1. Can God (say God of the Bible) exist? Assuming you would say yes (after the usual dancing around on the head of a probability pin) then..

2) Would you agree that in the event he exists, the mechanisms whereby we 'know' (and conclude we know) are God-designed and defined? If so..

3) In the event he exists, can God enable some people to know of a spiritual realm, via another mechanism of his design?

4) Assuming yes, what possible problem for me, just because what I would know thus doesn't fit the mechanisms of knowing available to you?

Ah, this old goat. I'm sure we've entire threads about this. Lets skip all the semantic back and forth and get to the logical crux of your flawed reasoning:

You claim to have some special sauce knowledge. Another poster appears, lets call them uncleskeptic, claims to have some special sauce knowledge that contradicts yours. And lets say, for arguments sake, that one of you is 100% right, their special sauce exists and is accurate.
1) How does a completely impartial onlooker, with no special sauce knowledge of any kind, tell which of you actually has any knowledge?
2) How do you tell?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Take step 1 and answer yes or no. If only because it's a yes/no question.

That's a resounding 'No' to question one for me then.

It's a bit like the emails that I get every day saying I've won the Dutch lottery, an aunt I've never heard of has died and left me millions, or the Finance minister of Ghana would like to transfer a huge amount of money into my bank account. They're scams, plain and simple, so while there is technically an infinitesimal probability of one actually being true, we all know that in fact none of them are true. They play to my greed. They want me to want them to be true, and I guess they sucker some fools in on that basis. I can categorically tell you each and every one is a scam.

Now lets look at religion. The carrot here is much bigger, immortality no less. And there's a stick thrown in for good measure in the shape of hell that Folau seems so keen on promoting. People naturally fear death, and if young children are told that if they worship such and such a deity they can live forever, it is an attractive proposition. Make sure that the person telling these things is someone they love and trust and the fish is hooked. What also helps is if the person in question is impoverished to the extent that this life is miserable and they're not made aware of alternative notions about life and death. Religion thrives in an environment with poverty and poor education for a good reason.

I see no reason to believe your God might exist and plenty of reasons to believe your religion is a scam, so your little thought exercise is stalled before it begins.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to be working from the view that the more candidates standing for election, the reduction in the probability of any one candidate being elected. In bald speak this is true.

However, if one candidate's starting position sees him with a reasonable expectation of obtaining 80% of the vote, the entry into the fray of a candidate from the Monster Raving Flying Teapot party will affect the probability of the formers victory not one jot.

In other words, the availability of all the various gods (both 'established' and of the fairy at the bottom of the garden variety) affect not one wit, the probability of God existing. He either does or doesn't is all you can say.

If you don't believe me, try getting a job with Paddy Power as a probability calculator ☺

I hadn't realised that we'd started electing our preferred choice of deity through democratic process. Are you saying that your God exists primarily on the basis of a large number of people wanting him to exist? FWIW, I think Allah has stolen the popular vote at this point, I'd rather vote for the teapot than a God that would see gays suffer for all eternity, and it looks like atari jaguar will take the seat in this particular constituency.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I hadn't realised that we'd started electing our preferred choice of deity through democratic process. Are you saying that your God exists primarily on the basis of a large number of people wanting him to exist? FWIW, I think Allah has stolen the popular vote at this point, I'd rather vote for the teapot than a God that would see gays suffer for all eternity, and it looks like atari jaguar will take the seat in this particular constituency.

I'm saying that the view which holds that the fact of a multiplicity of gods reduces the probability of any one god actually existing .. is faulty thinking.

The common-to-this-forum practice of citing a multiplicity of gods, both established and comical-device, as a means to diminish the possibility of any gods existence (or diminish the rational for believing in God's existence) is that same faulty thinking at work.

There is no probability calculation possible on God's existence or not. Especially not when there is no probability calculation possible for the truth of the claims off the various philosophical faith systems used to attempt such a calculation.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

That's a resounding 'No' to question one for me then.

It's a bit like the emails that I get every day saying I've won the Dutch lottery, an aunt I've never heard of has died and left me millions, or the Finance minister of Ghana would like to transfer a huge amount of money into my bank account. They're scams, plain and simple, so while there is technically an infinitesimal probability of one actually being true, we all know that in fact none of them are true. They play to my greed. They want me to want them to be true, and I guess they sucker some fools in on that basis. I can categorically tell you each and every one is a scam.

Yet people do receive genuine letters saying an unknown great aunt has died and left them an enormous sum. You are incorrect to say that none of them are true.

Does the existence of a large number of scam letters diminish the probability of someone receiving a genuine letter? Would that particular probability be affected were there twice as many scam letters? Not one bit. The probability being looked at is receiving a genuine one, not receiving scam ones.

Your faulty probability understanding at work again. Now that that's been corrected and it turns out you don't know that they are all scams (since they aren't all scams), we can move on.

God, you accept, can exist. You don't actually know the probability at all. You haven't a clue in fact.


Question 2 awaits

Now lets look at religion. The carrot here is much bigger, immortality no less. And there's a stick thrown in for good measure in the shape of hell that Folau seems so keen on promoting. People naturally fear death, and if young children are told that if they worship such and such a deity they can live forever, it is an attractive proposition. Make sure that the person telling these things is someone they love and trust and the fish is hooked. What also helps is if the person in question is impoverished to the extent that this life is miserable and they're not made aware of alternative notions about life and death. Religion thrives in an environment with poverty and poor education for a good reason.

I see no reason to believe your God might exist and plenty of reasons to believe your religion is a scam, so your little thought exercise is stalled before it begins.

I'm not particularly interested in your view of religion. I'm interested in your answers. If you answer no, then give logic reasons (not faith-based reasons) that actually stand up, unlike the one above. They are logic questions afterall.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet people do receive genuine letters saying an unknown great aunt has died and left them an enormous sum. You are incorrect to say that none of them are true.

You seem to have changed emails to letters there. Letters from a solicitor on their headed paper, the details of which can be verified, which are entirely different from unsolicited emails. I get an email saying that an aunt that I didn't know existed has left me millions, it is a scam. I get a letter from a legal firm that I'm a benefactor in the will of an aunt I didn't know about deserves more investigation, though might still potentially be a scam. We still haven't moved from your first point there.

Like many people, I get about 4-5 of these emails a day. How many of these would you respond to and how many would you bin immediately?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

The ideas expressed in both areas are my own.

I rather thought so - they're so brazenly wrong that I think even the noisier of the US's tramyard preachers would blush before reaching for them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can deal with either (although I'd be particularily interested to see whether you can see and raise on smacl's effort.)

There's nothing to see here.

You use the word "belief" in two entirely separate contexts. Then, noting that you've used the same word, you inexplicably claim that you're describing the same thing.

It's a little like watching an amateur magician who, on his first live night, might cadge a writstwatch from some poor sap in the audience, smash it with a flourish and a hammer, then hand back the broken bits, in the mistaken belief that he'd done the full trick.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

I rather thought so - they're so brazenly wrong that I think even the noisier of the US's tramyard preachers would blush before reaching for them. There's nothing to see here.

Coming from you that's a bit limp. You don't seem to know what a 'zero sum game' is (given both sides of the abortion referendum was engaged it it, apparently). And you don't read what you write before posting to check elemental mistakes.

You use the word "belief" in two entirely separate contexts. Then, noting that you've used the same word, you inexplicably claim that you're describing the same thing.

Watching American Sniper or something. Hoping for that long range headshot?

The usual protocol is to quote so it can be seen what you're referring to. Especially in your case since you sometimes don't even read what's written correctly. You might be a mod, but there are objective reasons to suppose you're not necessarily firing on all cylinders recently.

It's a little like watching an amateur magician who, on his first live night, might cadge a writstwatch from some poor sap in the audience, smash it with a flourish and a hammer, then hand back the broken bits, in the mistaken belief that he'd done the full trick.

Sometimes you have to make things bite sized.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

You seem to have changed emails to letters there.

Let it be an genuine email from a solicitor if you insist

Letters from a solicitor on their headed paper, the details of which can be verified, which are entirely different from unsolicited emails. I get an email saying that an aunt that I didn't know existed has left me millions, it is a scam. I get a letter from a legal firm that I'm a benefactor in the will of an aunt I didn't know about deserves more investigation, though might still potentially be a scam. We still haven't moved from your first point there.

Like many people, I get about 4-5 of these emails a day. How many of these would you respond to and how many would you bin immediately?

This is all a very long winded way of saying that you give religion no credence. That's known. That's a given.


I'm not interested in your beliefs about religion, for I know your beliefs already. I know you don't consider your beliefs to be of the same quality as you hold the religious beliefs to be. Your beliefs "are different", "better", in your mind at least.

The questions posed you aren't looking for "probability assessment" based on the belief system you adhere to. Your probability assessments work for you and that's fine.

What is requested of you is that you follow the logic down and conclude as the logic insists you need conclude.

After that, we can move it on a bit .

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The homophobe is being intolerant.
The "we" is society.

This is what was written:

antiskeptic wrote:

What isn't clear is whose being intolerant. And who is the 'we' doing the adjudicating on what is intolerant.

The inclusion policy can be argued to be intolerant about someone expressing their belief.

The expression wasn't intolerant: it didn't say homosexuals should be excluded. It didnt say homosexual expression shouldn't be allowed or should be made illegal.

It said what the belief held about unrepentant homosexuals coming before God. Just like the expression of the belief that smokers, though tolerated, face a nasty end.

The beliefs above are arrived at via different means. To suppose the one means valid (empirical evidence about the effects of smoking) and the other (religious belief) invalid is to stake a claim to the supremacy of faith in empiricalism over faith in spiritualism.

You might do me the pleasure of dealing with the arguments?

It's now intolerant to come to the conclusion that someones beliefs are not true? When I point out the Paradox of Tolerance, I didn't expect you to dig deeper.

Tolerance doesn't decide beliefs aren't true and seek to squash them. The whole point of tolerance is that you tolerate, despite personally having a contrarian opinion. That raises a problem - how do you draw the line. But the problem isn't resolved by intolerance.

You have to have a basis. And I'm wondering what the basis is: it seems to be mere emprical/rationalist secularism. One belief system (on the rise) vs another (on the wane).

Might is right?

And the judgement isn't really based on ther veractity of the belief, it's based on it's intolerance. He is a homophobe regardless of whether he is right.

I don't think you've thought this through.

If the belief was held to be true by the powers that be, they'd be saying

a) they believe God exists

b) God's a homophobe.

You want to rethink this one?

I.e. his conclusion is based on his premises. Slow clap. Any chance you would like to refute his argument

Refute? I don't need to. I'd ask for a proof of his philosophical underpinnings. He is relying on them afterall. Without a sound basis for what he says, what he says is fairies at the bottom of the garden territory.

We might actually get somewhere.

Without a proof all you're left with is a belief. I mean, it a big deal to claim, for instance, that all that is to be known is to be known empirically. Now, "all that is to be known" is everything. To say you know everything (or have the means whereby everything that is to be known can be known) lies in the realm of a god.

That's a pretty high bar.


If it's beliefs vs. beliefs then we have a stalemate. That doesn't solve our problems, indeed it opens a can of worms, but it might stop the finger pointing. You say terrorist, I say freedom fighter.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

And you don't read what you write before posting to check elemental mistakes.

Or "elementary mistakes", as we say in English.

Lots of people mess up - indeed, many seem to be entirely unaware of - the language's two distinct adjectival forms - attributive and predicate.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Or "elementary mistakes", as we say in English.

Lots of people mess up - indeed, many seem to be entirely unaware of - the language's two distinct adjectival forms - attributive and predicate.

Whatever.

You might not have the time other than to take creative writing potshots. You might be too bored with it all (I get it: it's boring to listen to folk think admitting to logical conclusions means letting the existance of God getting a foothold in the door). You may even think you're above all this: that your conclusions are true so what's the point.

But my belief is as sound for me as yours presumably (an understandably, given how my belief views your mindset) is for you.

And a belief your system remains, unless it can provide something that, ultimately, have to pull itself up by it's own bootstraps.

It's only ever going to end up in a stalemate. Which is ever only my point. Those who think I'm trying to elevate my belief over your belief can rest assured. It's not possible for either of us. That's the bottom line of faith.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

You might not have the time other than to take creative writing potshots.

He who would take grammatical potshots at other posters should not point the gun at their own foot.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

He who would take grammatical potshots at other posters should not point the gun at their own foot.

It was a little less than grammatical: you accused me of zero sum score when that patently a ridiculous (and a challenge unanswered by you) idea.

You supposed I didn't believe the bible when I clearly do (what "believe the bible" means is open to discussion, granted. But to say I don't believe it, when I clearly didn't say that, isn't a grammatical issue)

Spellink and the grammar I couldn't give a fig about. Substance is the meat.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Coming from you that's a bit limp.

Watching American Sniper or something. Hoping for that long range headshot?

You might be a mod, but there are objective reasons to suppose you're not necessarily firing on all cylinders recently.

Mod: As per the charter, please address the post and not the poster.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Mod: As per the charter, please address the post and not the poster.

Given your activity in this thread, it's highly improbable that you missed robindch's potshots.

It's a little like watching an amateur magician who, on his first live night, might cadge a writstwatch from some poor sap in the audience, smash it with a flourish and a hammer, then hand back the broken bits, in the mistaken belief that he'd done the full trick.

Can I enquire what it is in particular about my posting which has attracted mod interest?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Given your activity in this thread, it's highly improbable that you missed robindch's potshots.



Can I enquire what it is in particular about my posting which has attracted mod interest?

Mod: If you have a problem with a post, please report it. Do not discuss forum moderation in-thread. Thanks for your attention.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is what was written:

You might do me the pleasure of dealing with the arguments?

I did deal with them. You questioned who was being intolerant and who judges that it's intolerant. The rest of my post dealt with the relevant parts of the rest of yours. I omitted the waffle.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Tolerance doesn't decide beliefs aren't true and seek to squash them. The whole point of tolerance is that you tolerate, despite personally having a contrarian opinion. That raises a problem - how do you draw the line. But the problem isn't resolved by intolerance.

How many times do I need to link to the paradox of tolerance? It explains all of this. You are tolerant up to just before the point where you are tolerant of the intolerant.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't think you've thought this through.
If the belief was held to be true by the powers that be, they'd be saying
a) they believe God exists
b) God's a homophobe.
You want to rethink this one?

Nope, I've already said that even if god exists and sends gay people to hell then god is a homophobe.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Refute? I don't need to. I'd ask for a proof of his philosophical underpinnings. He is relying on them afterall. Without a sound basis for what he says, what he says is fairies at the bottom of the garden territory.

I've given you his argument. Repeatedly. To repeat, for the last time:
In simple terms, you can't include everybody when some people don't want others included. If you must exclude somebody then those people, the intolerant, should be excluded.
(Because I know you are going to ask this) why do you exclude the intolerant and not who they are intolerant of? - you exclude the intolerant because they are who brings intolerance into the system and by excluding them you minimise the amount of intolerance. Like everything in life, it can't be 100% pure (i.e. perfectly tolerant) so you minimise the bad.

That is the argument you need to refute. Why shouldn't we minimise intolerance and why isn't this the best way to do it.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

But my belief is as sound for me as yours presumably (an understandably, given how my belief views your mindset) is for you.

Just in case you missed it, are you going to respond to this post? Because it address your problem here. Your belief may be as sound to you as robindch's is a s sound to him, but that doesn't mean either of your beliefs are sound to an impartial onlooker. How does the onlooker decide which is sound?

Bannasidhe

[snip]

smacl beat me to warning people not to question mod decisions on thread.

Mod hat on : Cards will be issued if people continue to do so...

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a little like watching an amateur magician who, on his first live night, might cadge a writstwatch from some poor sap in the audience, smash it with a flourish and a hammer, then hand back the broken bits, in the mistaken belief that he'd done the full trick.

Can I enquire what it is in particular about my posting which has attracted mod interest?

As you have asked - well, you post as though you'd studied philosophy at some point, but your conclusions are amongst the daftest I've read here in 14-odd years on A+A - completely self-defeating, and completely self-contradictory but you continue to post them regardless. There is quite a funny side to getting things so wrong, and I - for one - do appreciate the funny side here

Also, you've been honest enough to post about your hardline religious views in the past - such as, AFAIR, the time you mentioned you'd be prepared to kill somebody if the voices you hear in your head told you to. Most religious people would stop before admitting that in public. There's another fine contradiction right here between somebody who willingly admits that they would kill somebody while simultaneously disagreeing with abortion - makes no sense to me at all, but then, mental backflips aren't my thing.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

But my belief is as sound for me as yours presumably (an understandably, given how my belief views your mindset) is for you.

Just in case you missed it, are you going to respond to this post? Because it address your problem here. Your belief may be as sound to you as robindch's is a s sound to him, but that doesn't mean either of your beliefs are sound to an impartial onlooker. How does the onlooker decide which is sound?

Impartial onlooker? What on earth is that?

Worldviews (which informs how one looks on) are like assholes..

antiskeptic

Robindch wrote:

As you have asked - well, you post as though you'd studied philosophy at some point

You give the impression of someone who has. Yet when this one who hasn't studied philosophy pointed out a kindergaarten error in your application of 'zero sum score' recently, you went all .... silent.

Most folk who I studied mechanical engineering with (in two different colleges) had no real aptitude for it - sure they walk out with their 2:1's and get a job in the sector. But actual ingrained aptitude?

Forgive if I don't bow to a white coat - especially one who incorporates so little substance in their responses.

Put it this way: if God exists and I know it, a consequence would be that I know 'empiricists' claims about the only ways we can know are wrong from the get go.

Certainly, the never ending expressions of belief in empiricism on here ... but no proof (emprical or otherwise) .. aren't going to put much of a dent in anything. "Philosophy says it, ah buleeve it, da settles it" seems to be the mindset.

but your conclusions are amongst the daftest I've read here in 14-odd years on A+A - completely self-defeating, and completely self-contradictory but you continue to post them regardless. There is quite a funny side to getting things so wrong, and I - for one - do appreciate the funny side here

Also, you've been honest enough to post about your hardline religious views in the past - such as, AFAIR, the time you mentioned you'd be prepared to kill somebody if the voices you hear in your head told you to. Most religious people would stop before admitting that in public. There's another fine contradiction right here between somebody who willingly admits that they would kill somebody while simultaneously disagreeing with abortion - makes no sense to me at all, but then, mental backflips aren't my thing.

Rigor isn't a strong point in your arguments, clearly. Neither is your recall total of my argument. Selective is how I'd describe your 'synopsis'.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Forgive if I don't bow to a white coat - especially one who spends his time in the peanut gallery and makes emmental errors, despite being educated in the field.


Rigor isn't your strong point, clearly. Neither is your recall total. Selective is how I'd describe your 'synopsis'.

Mod: Antiskeptic, dial down on making personal remarks about other posters please or cards will be flourished.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ah, this old goat.

Yeah, the one that is ducked and dived around, as ever.

You claim to have some special sauce knowledge. Another poster appears, lets call them uncleskeptic, claims to have some special sauce knowledge that contradicts yours.

The empiricist's special sauce will do for the purposes of onwards discussion.

And lets say, for arguments sake, that one of you is 100% right, their special sauce exists and is accurate.

Okay

1) How does a completely impartial onlooker, with no special sauce knowledge of any kind, tell which of you actually has any knowledge?

As outlined above, everyone has a special sauce (a.k.a. worldview). There are no impartial onlookers.

2) How do you tell?

How do I tell? Or how does the non-impartial onlooker tell?


I don't see a logical crux or flaw. What I see here is a stalemated position: two worldviews, neither of which can prove their root. And no impartial judge to decide.

It's a problem generated by the lack impartial judge. I see no logical crux or flaw.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Forgive if I don't bow to a white coat - especially one who incorporates so little substance in their responses.

An unusual response from somebody who bows to an imaginary white beard

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Put it this way: if God exists and I know it....

Your logic is faulty as your argument is clearly based on a false predicate. You don't know that god exists, you believe it but there is no objective evidence to support that belief.

You seem to be working from the view that the more candidates standing for election, the reduction in the probability of any one candidate being elected. In bald speak this is true.

However, if one candidate's starting position sees him with a reasonable expectation of obtaining 80% of the vote, the entry into the fray of a candidate from the Monster Raving Flying Teapot party will affect the probability of the formers victory not one jot.

You seem to be trying to promote the possibility of your belief holding true based on the fact that it is a popular belief, which is not only an argumentum ad populum fallacy as already pointed out, but contradicts your previous criticism of human rights standards as being no more than the mood of the people.

antiskeptic wrote: »

He who lives by the mood of the time, dies by the mood of the time.

So much for enlightened thinking.

Quite so.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Impartial onlooker? What on earth is that?

Worldviews (which informs how one looks on) are like assholes..

It's clear what it is, someone who is uninformed, and has no opinion either way, about your and robindch's beliefs.
So, instead of pretending not to understand that, would you like to actually respond to it?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yeah, the one that is ducked and dived around, as ever.

Well, when you stop ducking and diving then you can stop bringing it up as if it hasn't been debunked repeatedly.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The empiricist's special sauce will do for the purposes of onwards discussion.

Actually no, it won't do. That is a strawman and we will go no further until you abandon it. My argument equally applies to a christian and hinduist presenting their claims to an impartial onlooker. This is not about empiricisim vs non-empiricism, it's about two people equally confident in their conflicting arguments.
(In my head, I actually approach these scenarios, not form the point of view of an empirical atheist questioning a theist, but from the point of view of an uninformed de-facto agnostic talking to an atheist and a theist. That's how I arrive at my questions.)

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do I tell? Or how does the non-impartial onlooker tell?

You clearly quoted "How do you tell?" (after separately quoting and responding to "how does an onlooker tell"), so which do you think I'm asking here: How do you tell or how does someone else tell? :rolleyes:.
We are going to get nowhere if this is the level you are dragging the debate to.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Put it this way: if God exists and I know it, a consequence would be that I know 'empiricists' claims about the only ways we can know are wrong from the get go.

Assuming your conclusion in order to demonstrate your conclusion might make for good rhetoric, but it also makes for lousy logic.

The same rhetoric shows that the flying spaghetti monster is deity as plausible as yours - this perhaps isn't your intention, though it's a reasonable conclusion.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Put it this way: if God exists and I know it, a consequence would be that I know 'empiricists' claims about the only ways we can know are wrong from the get go.

Assuming your conclusion in order to demonstrate your conclusion might make for good rhetoric, but it also makes for lousy logic.

I'm not demonstrating anything. If/then.

What it would mean, in practice that I can expect to encounter a fatal flaw in say, the empiricist view. That it rests on an assumption that can't be demonstrated.

Follow the rabbit down the hole and it would be found (if my IF is the case) that a rabbit is being pulled from the empiricists hat.

As it is, things only ever rise to the level of bald faith claims from empiricists here: 'its true, sure, everyone knows it.

Its about as likely true as the flying spagetti monster
Until demonstrated otherwise.

The same rhetoric shows that the flying spaghetti monster is deity as plausible as yours - this perhaps isn't your intention, though it's a reasonable conclusion.

Empricists, welcome to the club!

Self-evidency seems to be your ace card. What a crock..

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote:

Well, when you stop ducking and diving then you can stop bringing it up as if it hasn't been debunked repeatedly.

Another 00's internet meme: the 'its been debunked" self-certification.

And the impartial onlooker who decided same was..

The A&A forum members?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The empiricist's special sauce will do for the purposes of onwards discussion.

Actually no, it won't do. That is a strawman and we will go no further until you abandon it.

It looks like you don't know what a 'strawman' is, although your arguments are peppered with the word.

An empiricists special sauce is the belief in its fundamental claim. And then going on to hold it true/self evident / possessing utility/ etc.

But there is no proof for it.
We are empiricall wired and can obtain knowledge of the empirical world. Thats true. Thats all that true.

If you want to simply assume empiricism is 'true' then we can indeed go no further. Since we would simply have two claims, neither of which can be proven.

My argument equally applies to a christian and hinduist presenting their claims to an impartial onlooker. This is not about empiricisim vs non-empiricism, it's about two people equally confident in their conflicting arguments.
(In my head, I actually approach these scenarios, not form the point of view of an empirical atheist questioning a theist, but from the point of view of an uninformed de-facto agnostic talking to an atheist and a theist. That's how I arrive at my questions.)

1. You have to have a basis to self exclude (which is convenient for you)

2. I'm afraid I don't have faith in your self declaration on impartiality. And I don't think there's a way to demonstrate it either.

The idea that anyone is impartial (ie; doesnt view through a worldview lens is without merit. Heck, you leak empiricist through every pore on here. For you its all about empirical evidence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do I tell? Or how does the non-impartial onlooker tell?

You clearly quoted "How do you tell?" (after separately quoting and responding to "how does an onlooker tell"), so which do you think I'm asking here: How do you tell or how does someone else tell? :rolleyes:.
We are going to get nowhere if this is the level you are dragging the debate to.[/quote][/quote]

I'm on a phone so amn't trawling back.

The question is valid (how do I know I know (when another faith head says he knows his competing view is true ..vs how does the impartial onlooker know between the two claims (assuming one is true)

As I said. I don't hold there is such a thing. And I don't know how anyone could begin to demonstrate there is such a thing or that such a thing is even possible.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Impartial onlooker? What on earth is that?

Worldviews (which informs how one looks on) are like assholes..

It's clear what it is, someone who is uninformed, and has no opinion either way, about your and robindch's beliefs.
So, instead of pretending not to understand that, would you like to actually respond to it?

So you mean a 3 year old? They are uniformed but hardly going to make head or tale of us.

The uniformed person might not have a degree in philosophy but they will appreciate the empirical world. Something like that?

Question, has this impartial person any experience of the spiritual world?

If not, they are not exactly impartial, are they?

Your not assuming your position again? The empiricism is this neutral agent.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Your logic is faulty as your argument is clearly based on a false predicate. You don't know that god exists, you believe it but there is no objective evidence to support that belief.

Assuming you mean the false predicate to be 'AND I know it' ( I should have capped the 'and' to indicate part of a logic sequence)? IF so;

Before the false predicate there was something else. An 'IF God exists..'

The 'false' predicate (concerning me knowing) rests on the status of the former (IF he exists)

Unless your saying God cannot exist (good luck with that. Your slipping out 'its possible', then diving immediately into the foxhole of groundless probabilities and spagetti monsters doesn't impact on the progression of the logic).

IF he does THEN..


You cannot say 'I don't know' (because you can't know that God doesn't exist). You can, however? say you don't believe I know, (because you don't believe God exists for the reasons you don't)

Obviously too, if God exists I can have objective evidence of it. It only takes him to decide to evidence himself. Your wrong on that score too.

I understand that as someone invested in "empirically demonstrable = the ONLY way to objective", your adhering limpet-like to the idea.

But this is God we'd be talking of. The Creator (if he exists) of all. Including the objectivity we obtain due to our (his) wiring

I can know. Logic.

I can know objectively

All that has to happen is he exists.

You seem to be working from the view that the more candidates standing for election, the reduction in the probability of any one candidate being elected. In bald speak this is true.

However, if one candidate's starting position sees him with a reasonable expectation of obtaining 80% of the vote, the entry into the fray of a candidate from the Monster Raving Flying Teapot party will affect the probability of the formers victory not one jot.

You seem to be trying to promote the possibility of your belief holding true based on the fact that it is a popular belief, which is not only an argumentum ad populum fallacy as already pointed out, but contradicts your previous criticism of human rights standards as being no more than the mood of the people.

I'm not trying to make a majority argument ( but will remind you when you do (remember the topic of this thread)

My point was merely that 10,000 competing gods / philosophies becoming 20,000 doesn't alter the probability of any one god/philosophy being true (in the event one is actually true]

Bannasidhe

Sooo... any news on Israel Falou?

Does he still have a job?
Does he need a new job?
Is he actually the victim of internalised homophobia and is protesting too much?

Cabaal

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/israel-folau-sacked-by-rugby-australia-over-homophobic-post-1.3895449

Wallabies full-back Israel Folau has been sacked by Rugby Australia over homophobic social media posts.

Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle told a press conference: “We are here to announce that Wallabies and Waratahs player Israel Folau has today been issued a sanction directing termination of his playing contract for his high-level breach of the professional players’ code of conduct.

“The three-member panel of John West QC chair, Kate Eastman and John Boultbee, provided its final written decision today in relation to the code of conduct hearing over Folau’s social media post on April 10, 2019.

“While Rugby Australia accepts the panel’s decision directing termination of Israel Folau’s contract for his high-level breach of the code of conduct, we want to stress that this outcome is a painful situation for the game.

“Rugby Australia did not choose to be in the situation, but Rugby Australia’s position remains that Israel, through his actions, left us with no choice but to pursue the course of action resulting in today’s outcome.

“This has been an extremely challenging period for rugby. This issue has created an unwanted distraction in an important year for the sport and for the Wallabies team.

“But our clear message for all rugby fans today is that we need to stand by our values and the qualities of inclusion, passion, integrity, discipline, respect and teamwork.”

Castle said she had been in touch with players to “make it clear that Rugby Australia fully supports their right to their own beliefs, and nothing that has happened changes that.

“But when we’re talking about inclusiveness in our game, we’re talking abut respecting differences as well. When we say rugby is a game for all, we mean it.

“People need to feel safe and welcomed in our game regardless of their gender, race, background, religion or sexuality.

“Israel is a great rugby player and we are disappointed and saddened by the fact that he will not see out his four-year contract and commitment to the Wallabies and also with the Waratahs.”

The right decision, he knew the rules and he broke them.
He also had a previous chance and he still broke the rules again.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

It looks like you don't know what a 'strawman' is, although your arguments are peppered with the word.

A strawman is when someone takes someone elses argument they have no answer to, changes it to something they feel they can argue against better and ignores what was actually said. Which is what you are doing. My argument is not empiricism vs non-empiricism. The nature of the special-sauces is irrelevant, just that they are contradictory.

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. You have to have a basis to self exclude (which is convenient for you)

2. I'm afraid I don't have faith in your self declaration on impartiality. And I don't think there's a way to demonstrate it either.

The idea that anyone is impartial (ie; doesnt view through a worldview lens is without merit. Heck, you leak empiricist through every pore on here. For you its all about empirical evidence.


I'm on a phone so amn't trawling back.

The question is valid (how do I know I know (when another faith head says he knows his competing view is true ..vs how does the impartial onlooker know between the two claims (assuming one is true)

As I said. I don't hold there is such a thing. And I don't know how anyone could begin to demonstrate there is such a thing or that such a thing is even possible.

I am not claiming to be the impartial onlooker. If you want to assume the impartial onlooker is some ideal abstract, then fine, but just answer my damn questions:
1) How does someone, with no worldview, tell which of two contradictory (but equally confident) people's proposed worldviews are true?
2) How does either of those people tell?