A) it doesnt matter who did it first, it doesn't matter who supports / opposes it now, it is a bad thing. Sure. And I agree with that. But one can't blame people for saying "the left did it first" in response to attacks that the right is to blame for it.
B) Restricting areas to prevent clashes etc.. is fine, the reverse (only allowing protests in certain areas) is not. And I also agree with that, in general, but in a small area like most college campuses, they end up being virtually the same thing.
After all what is the point of a protest if you cannot be seen or heard. Yep. And that is why I opposed the Free Speech Zones at the conventions in 2004. They should have been right near the entrance to the conventions.
we need to stop talking party affiliation and start looking at policy. Sure. But the fact is -- speaking for myself here -- I disagree with many Democratic policies because those policies are based on the fundamental disagreements of principles that I have with Democrats, which are the reasons why I am a Republican. For example, I don't oppose universal health care because it comes from Democrats, I oppose it because I think it is (at the federal level) unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment, and further because it is what Bastiat called "false philanthropy."
And this is where many people are today. We don't disagree because we are of different parties, we are of different parties because we disagree.
Does it really matter what the political affiliation of those who support and encourage this are? Yes, because the left tries to blame the right for it. So it is, therefore, worth pointing out that this is unfair. For example, the Dem convention in 2004 in Boston had free speech zones, well before the GOP did it, yet the left habitually blames Bush for it.
I would have thought that in the "Land of the Free" the limitation of freedom would be frowned upon. Moreover what worries me with these free-speech zones is that I have no idea what is permissible outside of them. There is nothing new about this. If you want to hold a protest out in public, for many places, you need a permit, because protests in those areas can cause problems for everyone else. The Supreme Court has upheld time, place, and manner, restrictions as Constitutional, essentially as long as those restrictions a. are not content-specific, and b. still allow for the expression.
So imagine a political convention. You could restrict protests from directly in front of the main doors, for many reasons: right of access of the attendees, fire hazard, and so on. If it is a crowded city area, it makes sense to have a "zone" specifically for protests, and within the two-block area around the building, making that the only place you're allowed to protest, because ANY OTHER protests would be too restrictive of the rights of others, and endanger safety.
HOWEVER, to make that zone way down the road and around the corner is probably an unreasonable restriction, because it does not allow for true expression, which needs to be within eye/earshot of the event.
There's a balance that needs to be struck. It is not the free speech that is being restricted by having a "zone," necessarily. It is that the time, place, and manner of the protests may violate the rights of, or cause a danger to, others.
I have always said that parenthood is a powerful poison of the mind; it seems to cause profound and uncontrolled reversion to instinct, something which is often harmful and dangerous to modern society and to the individuals thereof.
Then again, many of these individuals may not have been thinking beings beforehand: mindless children become mindless adolescents become mindless adults.:P Let me take a wild guess here: you don't raise children, do you?
you never offered any of the actual content of the book either. You paraphrased it, sure. But if you want to claim the book is right, then present arguments from the book, and we can talk those arguments. I say, and this book I haven't read agrees, that before the bit with the Egyptians, the Hebrews weren't monotheists, and that they worshiped a goddess right along the god who threw all those frogs. Yes. And I say that isn't backed up by any serious evidence.
I say this because in the bible (much easier to find than that other book), that god doesn't claim to be the only god You don't know the Bible very well. It is all over both the Old and New Testaments. The very beginning of the Old Testament, in Genesis, is a statement of monotheism. In the beginning there was God. Deuteronomy 4:35 is much more explicit, with Moses relaying the words of God: "To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him." And in verse 39: "Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other."
and he specifically names other gods when telling people to worship only him Yes, and the clear implication is that those "other gods" are "false gods." Meaning they are not real gods. Meaning they don't exist.
In fact I think at one point Moses gets annoyed because people keep putting up Ashera poles next to his Yaveh shrines even though he told them not to do it already. If you say I shouldn't worship Jesus, does that mean you are conceding that Jesus exists? Of course not.
If your argument is that SOME Hebrews at various points worshipped other Gods, well, duh. The story of the Ten Commandments tells us this. But that doesn't seem to be your argument.
That, my friend, is evidence that modern monotheist theology is a made up theo/ry/logy. It is not serious evidence. On the contrary, we have bulletproof evidence of monotheism going back to the original writing of the Pentateuch.
Not anyone, but one group (Christians) in particular who has a history (past and current) of banning and burning books. False. SOME Christians do. Many other Christians find the practice appalling. And it was not just Christians who did this: the Soviets, Chinese, Germans, and so on.
The question is not "does did book piss off influential Christians" but "is this book based on facts or fiction". Yes, exactly. So I don't know why you brought up the red herring of banning books in the first place, since that is entirely beside the point.
And the reason why I say religion is a bad thing is that religious people tend to look to their shepherd's emotional response to a book rather than to the facts discussed within. Shrug. I didn't. YOU are the one who went there, not me.
You, for instance, haven't told me anything about the actual content of the book. All you've done is tell that it's bullshit because people (with a stake in the matter) have said so. That's a bullshit response, for two reasons. First, the only people who PUSH the book are ALSO people who have a stake in the matter. Second, you never offered any of the actual content of the book either. You paraphrased it, sure. But if you want to claim the book is right, then present arguments from the book, and we can talk those arguments. My saying "the book is wrong" without evidence is no less valid than you're saying "the book is right" without evidence.
And no, I wouldn't ban the bible [sic] Some non-Christians would. And some Christians would ban other books. No difference.
Yeah, um, somehow I think you're wrong that someone "sane and rational" would agree that "I didn't say $x" is a lie, when, in fact, as you showed, I didn't say $x. Sorry but you haven't shown that at all, and you don't qualify as a sane and rational man. Yes, I didn't show it. YOU showed it. You quoted me talking about "reasonable doubt," and none of those quotes had me saying I "needed" reasonable doubt. If you do have a quote showing me saying I "need" reasonable doubt, present it. Otherwise, it is "sane and rational" to conclude I was not lying to say I didn't say I "needed" reasonable doubt.
You really suck at simple logic. Are you SURE you like science? It's hard to believe. Scientists usually love -- and understand -- basic logic.
you are comparing banned books to a panned one. That makes no sense. When you can't ban, you pan. So? The question is whether everyone who pans, would ban.
Any sane and rational human being would agree that I have proven you've lied. Yeah, um, somehow I think you're wrong that someone "sane and rational" would agree that "I didn't say $x" is a lie, when, in fact, as you showed, I didn't say $x.
If you use it in your discussion, then you need it for your discussion. That is, quite obviously, false. That assumes I could not have used something else, which is an obviously unwarranted discussion.
Further, even if you still believe I needed it, that's beside the point: I do not believe I need it, and did not say I needed it. And therefore it was not a lie for me to say I didn't say I needed it, despite your claim to the contrary.
This is typical of you. "What I really meant was" blah, or "I didn't need to say it that way I could have said it this way" Yawn.
You are saying it was a lie for me to say I never said something that IN FACT I never said, regardless of your blathering about whether what I didn't say is true. I didn't say it. You said I lied when I said I didn't say it. You're quite obviously wrong, and making yourself look like an idiot.
Actually, I take that back. You're not making yourself look like an idiot. After the rest of your posts, this one little transgression could not possibly make you look any worse to anyone, since already look so terribly bad. However, that you are so obviously incorrect here and are still saying you're right wraps up very neatly, in a nice little package, how irrational you are.
I'd compare your irrationality to religion, but you are far more irrational than any religious person I know. With every single religious person I've ever met, they would agree that a claim "I did not say A" is not a lie if, in fact, that person did not say A. But you can't even agree with that. It's no wonder you don't believe science requires philosophy: you disagree with standard tenets of logic!
Here's a clear example of you lying.
by pudge (3605) on 05:47 PM -- Sunday January 20 2008 (#22115350) I've already proven beyon any reasonable doubt that you cannot prove right and wrong (despite your claim that provability is all that matters)
by pudge (3605) on 04:23 AM -- Monday January 21 2008 (#22117622) I can't prove it, but I can demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt. None of my statements provide evidence backing up your statements about me that led me to call you a liar. You are, therefore, a liar.
by pudge (3605) on 02:27 PM -- Monday January 21 2008 (#22122678) No, in fact, I never said I needed "a standard of proof that's a reasonable doubt," or anything that could be taken to imply such a notion. Whatever it is. Yes, thank you. Your "example" does not show I am lying, but that you lack reading skills.
"Reasonable doubt" is one of many standards. I use it, as I use others, depending on the context. I never denied this. I only said I do not "need" it. You said that I do "need" it. I replied: I did not say that I "need" it. This is true, and nothing you provided in your "example" shows otherwise.
Showing that I use the standard of reasonable doubt is entirely dissimilar from showing that I "need" it, or that I said I "need" it.
This is obvious to most people. That it is not obvious to you shows why you have had so much difficulty with this discussion.
a book that has been widely rejected due to being a made-up theory with no serious evidence behind it whatsoever. I've heard that before: De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. You are committing a red herring fallacy. First, you are comparing banned books to a panned one. That makes no sense. Second, you are assuming that just because some books were banned, that therefore this book isn't un-serious.
Are there any theories that are not made-up? Yes. Many theories are formed to fit the evidence, rather than, like this one, the other way around.
He exclusively lists humorous evidence? I do not understand how this is a question.
You can offer better evidence for the bible than any of his evidence of the pre-egyptian-slavery religious practises of the hebrew people? That is committing the logical fallacy of question-begging. That "evidence" you refer to is not serious evidence. Talking about finding evidence "better than" this non-evidence is nonsense.
A damned shame. You're confused. You think that saying "if A (harm), then B (punishment)" is the same as saying "the only reason to !A, is B." It is not the same. And I think it is not even remotely similar. You can quibble with "remotely similar" all you like, but the fact is, you were equating the two. And the two, clearly, cannot be equated.
There is evidence that the god of the ancient jewish people was at first only the husband of the dominant deity, which was later displaced and eventually banned. No, in fact, there is no evidence of this at all. It's a common view among anti-religious folks, but it's a made-up theory with no serious evidence behind it whatsoever. The Hebrew Goddess is a 1967 book by Jewish historian and anthropologist Raphael Patai. Yes, a book that has been widely rejected due to being a made-up theory with no serious evidence behind it whatsoever.
What is painfully ironic here is that you reject this history on the basis of a supposed (but erroneous) complete lack of evidence, but you reject the idea of questioning your theology for lack of evidence. False on both counts.
You've begun to contradict yourself quite a bit:( False.
First, religion is not irrational. Religion is based on faith. Faith is, by definition, believing in something without a rationally justifiable reason. That's question-begging, and it's not true.
This is a common belief, but to the extent it is true, it is also therefore true that most of your beliefs are irrational, since they too are based on faith. That you are more than just a head in a jar imagining the universe is based on faith. Do you believe that, too, is irrational? I hope not.
The Reformation -- one of the most powerful forces of the last millennium -- existed BECAUSE religious people rejected the "bad things" told to them by religious authorities. Right, one of the most unique events in history is a group of religious people breaking away from their leaders. If this was an everyday kind of thing, it wouldn't be in every history book. Actually, it is an everyday kind of thing. Happens all the time. It's been happening constantly throughout American history, which is why we have so many different sects/denominations, with many people moving between sects, or rejecting religions, not necessarily as groups, as individuals (how many ex-Catholics do you know? and not just those who are now atheist/agnostic, but many ex-Catholics are still religious, just not Catholic). It is so common now that it doesn't require any group, let alone fanfare or special attention.
And indeed, it happened a lot before the Reformation, too (as we see with the many non-Roman Catholic, but coexisting, sects that predated Protestantism), but the Reformation was a unique case, for many reasons: the scope of disagreement, the scope of effect of the movement, and so on.
Shall I act like you and run around chanting liar repeatedly.
If you can find a single example of me lying, sure. Unfortunately for you, you cannot do so.
You say I can't prove anything but they aren't my standards of proof. By my standards I can prove plenty.
No, you cannot, unless you change what your own standards are. Remember, you said you could "prove" something is "bad" or "good." That means metaphysical proof, necessarily.
If you can live with being that irrational, that's your cross to bear.
Oh _I'm_ being irrational
Yes.
says the man who claims to be tolerant but hurls abuse and accusation
Neither of which are related to "tolerance."
Says the man who believes nothing can be proved if it can't be expressed mathematically.
See, like this. This is a lie. I never said that. You have been told this several times, and you either know it to be true, or you are too stupid to realize it is true. I believe you are not that stupid, so the only other choice is: you are a liar.
You don't love science.
You're a liar.
You refuse to acknowledge the damage religion has done to scientific endevour
You refuse to give any such examples.
Science had to breeak away to get away from false logic like yours.
False.
Again if it can't be proven why do you feel so strongly about it?
Two logical errors.
First, I do not feel strongly about it. I have no feelings about it all. I think about it, not feel.
Second, "proof" is irrelevant. I cannot answer your question any more than I can answer "if the sky is blue, why does chocolate taste good?" It's a nonsensical question.
why is the unprovable thing I say a lie
Because you claim that it IS provable. THAT is the lie.
whereas the unprovable thing you say is true and golden
Again, you're lying. I never said or implied any such thing.
How am I suppose to show it impractical if I can't prove anything?
You could start by realizing that "proof" has nothing to do with the process. But if you're too stupid to figure that out, then the rest of the process won't help you much.
Yes we need metaphysics to explain a method that basically says go out, observe, experiment and generate formal rules that cover all the things you see.
Well, specifically, you need epistemology, but epistemology rests on metaphysics. Broadly speaking: all science rests on philosophy. No exceptions. Without it, there is no science.
This is Philosophy of Science 101. Any scientist should know this. But don't feel bad; unfortunately, many are completely ignorant of such basics.
The fact is mankind hasn't observed laws of physics changing or bending. What we work out holds true in all observered instances.
The funny part is that you don't even see what you are doing. Your argument right there is epistemological! Why do you say that something that "holds true in all observed instances" is valuable? That is not a scientific claim, it is a metaphysical claim ABOUT science.
False on both counts. What I say is absolutely, 100 percent consistent, and you have shown yourself incapable of demonstrating otherwise.
By your own arguments can't prove that.
False. I cannot prove that I said those things, but I can prove that the things that appear to have been said are consistent.
So you admit that you lied previously when you claimed I said only math could be proven. Thank you for admitting you lied.
I admitted no such thing
Yes, you did. You several times claimed I said only math could be proven. But this time, you admitted that, in fact, I said there were also other things that could be p
Perhaps, but that is how MOST atheists use the word today, that I run into, whether it's Penn Jillette or Richard Dawkins or many of my friends. Overwhelmingly, they use the definition "lack of belief" instead of "belief in lack." That's because they're trying to move the definition of "atheist" back to its roots - but you'll note that they still go out of their way to specify that they're using the non-standard definition Maybe in your experience. In MY experience, it's the opposite: they assert this is what atheist means, and that their definition is the only one that counts, and that I am stupid for thinking they meant that they believe in a lack of a higher power.
That's where I have to take issue - you weren't just using the nonstandard definition that Jillette and Dawkins do, you were going even further, and you skipped by a perfectly good, unambiguous word that would have done the job, without so much as a hint that you were doing so. I disagree. But whatever.
Backing up a bit: So I reject your premise on two fronts: that any torture or murder done on behalf of religion has specifically religious motive, rather than deeper motives of control of people who are different, and further, that what "theocracies" do are representative of religion.
I would agree with you that when the state gets involved in a religious issue nothing good can come of it, and that the ills it inflicts can't be blamed on the beliefs being taken advantage of. On the other hand, I still feel that by getting people to believe in benign irrational thinking, religion makes people more susceptible to malign irrational thinking. First, religion is not irrational. You may believe it is irrational, but the word "irrational" directly implies that it can be demonstrated as being against logic/reason/etc. And you cannot so demonstrate.
Second, ignoring your problems with the word "irrational," I have never seen any serious evidence that would lead a rational person to believe that religion makes people any more susceptible to "malign" thinking than non-religious people. It just isn't there. There's plenty of examples of strong religious communities who never succumb to such things, and plenty of examples of non-religious communities (or communities not defined or marked by religious natures) who do.
Once someone is willing to accept good things based on faith or the authority of a religious figure, what prevents them from accepting the bad things as well? Well, for the most part, the same things that got them to believe the good things in the first place.
Certainly not critical thinking. Again, you simply cannot show that belief in religion is in any way associated with a lack of critical thinking. No one has ever been able to show that.
And indeed, history proves the opposite. The Reformation -- one of the most powerful forces of the last millennium -- existed BECAUSE religious people rejected the "bad things" told to them by religious authorities. Protestant thought through most of history has been marked primarily by critical thinking (read some of the Fundamentals, from which our term "fundamentalist" comes from, for some mostly very interesting and thoughtful essays on various topics related to Christian thought).
Of course, there are many Protestant communities -- the most obvious current example probably being Westboro Baptist Church -- who are marked by what appears to me, and most people, to be sheer emotion (and unfortunately, hateful emotion at that). But again, there's no reason to think that this is a feature of religious belief, rather than a feature of being human.
Yes. So? You say that like it is exceptional. People say things all the time that they can't prove. YOU are the only one who thinks that we should have to prove everything we say and believe.
Yeah, just like you don't have to accept that the Earth is round, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, if you want to remain ignorant and make your choices based on fallacies.
Says you, the person who has introduced numerous -- and oft-repeated -- fallacies into this discussion.
And you are just admitting that you are inconsistent. You say -- again, as you have said many times -- that you should have to be able to prove everything you say and believe, or else you are being illogical/irrational. Yet you cannot prove MANY of the things you say and believe.
If you can live with being that irrational, that's your cross to bear.
So you're an intolerant religious zealot.
Lie.
I'm interested in the quest for truth in the form of the best scientific models and ideas available at any given time.
That's a shame, since there is far more to truth than science. This is self-evident truth, since the scientific method ITSELF is a metaphysical, not scientific, idea. Without having truth greater than science, science wouldn't, itself, be capable of existing.
You are not.
False. Indeed, I love science at least as much as you. And I almost surely know more of science than you do, too.
You're even free to call me a liar and intolerant while at the same lying and showing intolerance to me. However that makes you a logically inconsistent hypocrite in front of all rational thinking human beings.
Only if the word "tolerant" means something other than what it means to most people. Which it doesn't. By definition.
You know -- and this isn't a spelling or grammar flame, just an observation -- you spell a lot of words wrong, and from other things you've said I wonder if you are not a native speaker of English. Is this the case? If so, this might explain your misuse of the word "tolerant."
What I actually said but you once again felt the need to twist around to your own liking is that if a claim is made, it should be based on the best evidence we have not on unprovable garbage.
No. You are lying again. You said it should be proven. Period.
Some of what I say can be proven.
Almost all of it cannot be proven.
Not to your standards since you hold inconsistent and impractical standards for proof
False on both counts. What I say is absolutely, 100 percent consistent, and you have shown yourself incapable of demonstrating otherwise.
Nor is it in the least bit impractical. You haven't even TRIED to show it is impractical, except by irrationally arguing against straw men you've created.
Further, they are not even my standards. They are yours. You are the one who decided to go into the realm of the metaphysical by talking about "proof" of whether having a belief is "good" or "bad." In metaphysical terms, there is only one standard of proof that has any meaning.
I don't know why you keep making this logical error over and over and over. I am not restricted to claiming only what is provable, because that is a standard I never acknowledged. That was your standard, and you are bound by it.
You little hypocrite. YOUR words were that FEW things besides mathematics could be proven.
So you admit that you lied previously when you claimed I said only math could be proven. Thank you for admitting you lied.
When I use that against you, you turn around and one minute you need a standard of proof that's a reasonable doubt (your words and your standards), then when you fail that test you say you don't have to adhere to it..
No, in fact, I never said I needed "a standard of proof that's a reasonable doub
And it chills my blood whenever a religious person implies that the only reason they don't rape and murder all the live long day is that they're afraid of getting caught and punished. I know very few religious people who claim that. Yet you just implied it. You might be careful not to spell it out, but it slipped. False. I implied no such thing, whatsoever. Re-read it, because you clearly did not understand what I wrote, if you think that I don't do bad things because I am afraid of punishment. My personal views could not be further from that.
What I was referring to is the fact that most everyone -- including you -- is "indoctrinated" into the idea that if they harm others, they will be punished. That is not remotely the same as saying that the only reason to not harm others is to avoid punishment.
Though since people like that do exist, I can see why someone made up an invisible watcher You have absoultely no evidence he was "made up." There is plenty of evidence of the progression of the myth, from polytheistic origins towards simplification of the pantheon on to assimilation of competing gods and their attributes and eventually leading to monotheism. Actually, no, there's not. People have tried to make that case, but it is extremely weak, especially since the records of the monotheistic Jewish God go back as far as our records of polytheism. It's only by begging the question, ignoring and re-interpreting evidence that doesn't fit the hypothesis, that you can arrive at this conclusion.
There is evidence that the god of the ancient jewish people was at first only the husband of the dominant deity, which was later displaced and eventually banned. No, in fact, there is no evidence of this at all. It's a common view among anti-religious folks, but it's a made-up theory with no serious evidence behind it whatsoever.
Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. First, you are using the wrong word. You mean "evidence," not "proof."
Second, your use of the word "require" implies something that is literally impossible: that there is some objective standard by which my claims must be measured in order for them to be valid. That is logically not possible, because no such objective standards can possibly exist.
Perhaps what you meant to say is, that you won't believe my claims without providing strong evidence to convince you. That's a given. But as I am not trying to convince anyone that my religious beliefs are true, it is irrelevant. For example, I am not saying "the Bible is true and you have to accept it." I am merely saying "the Bible is true, in my opinion." That is perfectly legitimate, period.
On the other hand, you seem to be saying "it is invalid for you to believe something that isn't proven," which is utter nonsense.
Why should you believe in that god and not in another? Another poorly worded question. Perhaps you mean, why I do I believe in this theology, and not another?
Simply, because I am convinced this is correct theology. I could explain the many reasons why, but I don't think you'd care, and I don't have the time.
There is as much faith in their believers as there is in your peers and as much proof of the existence of any of them (none). Again, you are misusing the word "proof." Strictly speaking, yes, there's no proof. But evidence? There's quite a bit. None of it amounts to proof, of course, but then, there's no evidence that comes close to disproving any of it, either.
Similarly, there is no "proof" that you are more than a brain in a jar imagining this entire universe. Literally, none.
Once again, you're lying. I never claimed everything had to be absolutely proven: you did You stated that I was a liar. You stated this as if it were a fact. Your own logic means that you can't prove I'm a liar, however you're happy to call me one. Yes. So? You say that like it is exceptional. People say things all the time that they can't prove. YOU are the only one who thinks that we should have to prove everything we say and believe.
I don't know why you keep making this logical error over and over and over. I am not restricted to claiming only what is provable, because that is a standard I never acknowledged. That was your standard, and you are bound by it.
Yes, I do. And you're ignorant, too, because you for some unfathomable, irrational, reason you believe that my calling you a liar has anything to do with any accepted notion of "tolerance." Your own beliefs mean you can't prove what I'm saying is untrue. If you were a tolerant person you wouldn't be calling me a liar and hurling abuse, when you can't even prove it. Untrue. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You are falsely claiming that tolerance has anything to do with that. It doesn't. Further, you are, without any evidence -- and against thousands of years of history of human thought, interaction, and communication -- claiming that someone should have to be able to prove something they say or believe.
In fact, you have no idea what the word "tolerant" means.
All you can offer me is your personal belief that I am a liar. Also untrue. I gave plenty of evidence for it. Now you're lying again.
How on earth do you expect to win an argument where you claim to be tolerant on the one hand and hurl abuse at your opponent on the other? I did not hurl any abuse whatsoever.
Is it "abuse" to call someone who has has millions of dollars a millionaire? Is it abuse to call someone who owes millions of dollars a debtor? No. Neither is it abuse to call someone who lies often, a liar. It is merely a label that describes the person's characteristics. You are a liar. Shrug.
Your inconsistent and fanciful logic shows you have a weak and undisciplined mind. Unfortunately, you have yet to show a single example of flaws in my logic. Each time you try, you commit serious logical fallacies, such as changing the definition of the word "tolerant," or saying I said things I never said.
I can't prove it, but I can demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt. Shifting the goal posts I see. Impossible. You cannot see it, because it is not there.
Why is "beyond a reasonable doubt" good enough for you and your arguments but not good enough for me and my arguments? Ask yourself. That is the standard YOU set. YOU are the one who said PROOF was required to make a claim. Don't blame me for the logical hole you dug for yourself.
Well I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that virgins don't give birth, the earth wasn't created in 6 days. Perhaps. But so what? The only way you can actually claim that it is TRUE that Jesus was not born to a virgin is to violate your own statement that what we claim as true must be provable. And if you do that, then you lose your main argument against religion.
You can call me liar again and again. It doesn't make it true. Correct. However, the fact that you many times claimed I said things I didn't say, and believe things I don't believe, does make it true.
I have shown logical inconsistencies in your argument. No, you have not. You have not shown a single inconsistency, despite your several attempts.
And it chills my blood whenever a religious person implies that the only reason they don't rape and murder all the live long day is that they're afraid of getting caught and punished. I know very few religious people who claim that. The Bible -- the New Testament in particular -- is pretty clear that things that are wrong (sin) are to be avoided not to avoid punishment, but out of love: love for God, love for others.
Though since people like that do exist, I can see why someone made up an invisible watcher You have absoultely no evidence he was "made up." Feel free to believe what you have no evidence for, though.
I suppose the fact that I'm lying is one of those very other special things along with mathematics huh? Once again, you're lying. I never claimed everything had to be absolutely proven: you did.
Oh yeah you're the very picture of tolerance. I am a very good picture of tolerance, yes. Whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing, I don't know. It's true, nevertheless.
And you call me a liar. Yes, I do. And you're ignorant, too, because you for some unfathomable, irrational, reason you believe that my calling you a liar has anything to do with any accepted notion of "tolerance."
You're the one who claims to be tolerant yet repeatedly calls me a liar
That has, in fact, nothing to do with tolerance.
and idiotic
Thinking that my calling you a liar has anything to do with tolerance proves you are idiotic. Again, nothing to do with tolerance.
because my views don't allow me to accept unproven nonsense on the same level as what's proven.
You're lying again. First, you have repeatedly claimed not that these things are merely unproven, but that they are "fiction" and so on. So you are misrepresenting yourself. Further, whether it is "nonsense" is, in fact, unknown, and therefore you are committing the question-begging logical fallacy (again). And finally, you keep claiming things are "proven" which are, in fact, not.
You're the one who repeatedly confuses metaphysics with physics
You're lying again. I never did any such thing.
seeking to call everything unprovable
You're lying again. You are the one who first did that, in fact. You are the one who talked about proof in metaphysical terms first, claiming you could prove that religion was wrong, and that things were "bad."
(except by some strange and twisted logic that makes no sense you exclude maths)
There's nothing strange or twisted about it; that you think show proves your ignorance.
You're the one who seeks to twist my words and put words in my mouth.
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
(Show me one place where I said I should force you to believe anything
Show me one place where I said you said that.
You're the one who repeatedly denies your own logical fallacies and inconsistencies.
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
You're the one who repeatedly and purposefully misinterprets my words in the most dishonest way possble.
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
You're the one who believes things when there is no proof.
You're lying again. You do this too. Every day, all the time.
In short you're a religous nutter and a dangerous extremist.
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
If yours is an example of a tolerant religious man thank you for reinforcing my belief that all religion is dangerous.
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
If you were part of the inquisition in Galileo's time I have no doubt whatsoever you're the exact sort of person who'd have been complicit in his imprisonment.
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
You're a liar
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
You're a liar.
Strong words. Prove it.
I can't prove it, but I can demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt. None of my statements provide evidence backing up your statements about me that led me to call you a liar. You are, therefore, a liar.
Therefore you are calling me a liar without being able to prove it.
Again, I never claimed something had to be proven in order to claim it, or believe it. That was YOUR standard: that belief requires proof.
By your own argument you can only say you BELIEVE me to be a liar.
That is, in fact, what "you're a liar" necessarily means. Nothing more, or less, then that I believe you're a liar. In order for me to prove it -- assuming I could prove (which I cannot) that you exist, and that you said the things you said -- I'd also have to prove that you have a memory, that you know the things that had been said before, and that you understood the things that had been said before.
You have not come close to showing that my religious views are irrational. You believe that nothing save mathematics can be proven. You're lying again. I was very explicit that there may be a few other things that are provable.
You accuse me of intolerance. Duh. That much is obvious.
Yet you say that nothing can be proven to be good or bad. I never said that I have to be able to prove something is good or bad to say it is good or bad. YOU are the one who said you have to be able to prove something to believe it. YOU are the one who violates YOUR belief that something must be proven in order to believe it. Every time you call religion "fiction," you admit that you believe something that cannot be proven, therefore violating your own belief (which itself is unprovable).
Therefore you can't prove that's good or bad (unless I accept your views of a "higher authority") Yet you can't prove that this higher authority exists. In fact your own logic means you can't prove that he COULD exist. All true, and none denied, and none inconsistent with my statements or beliefs.
I have to take it on your faith, your beliefs. Shrug. You take your own beliefs on faith, too. No difference.
So on and so on. You've spent too much time considering the metaphysical and too little considering the concrete. Again, you're lying. You're the one who went to the metaphysical.
The real problem here is that you don't consider my opinion to be equally valid at all. It depends on what you mean by that. If by "equally valid," you mean "correct" or "just as likely to be correct," yes, I do not consider it to be equally valid. How that is a problem, I don't know, because surely you believe no better about my opinion.
You believe that everyone should act according to your own beliefs. You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
You just won't admit it. I generally don't admit things that are so obviousl false, yes.
If all view points are equal and none are provable, you can't prove I'm wrong or a liar. I never said all points of view are equal, and I never said views have to be provable to be valid, nor that I can prove you are wrong.
But even if I had, it would be easy to prove you are a liar: you make many claims about me that are not only wrong, but are not backed up by any evidence.
Yet... you're suprised that I don't [believe it] You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
You are far more likely to do harm to others than I am, because you are FAR less tolerant of differences in others than I am, and far less rational than me, to boot. Yes you tolerate people making decisions that affect their own life and yours based on irrational superstition. You are, again, lying. You have not come close to showing that my religious views are irrational.
That said, other people do, in my opinion, have irrational views. Take, well, you, for example, as I have repeatedly shown.
Yet you don't see how this could be harmful. The alternative -- to prevent people from being able to do so -- is far more harmful. Read Federalist 10:
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
Sounds like your view of religious people, doesn't it?
There are... two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
Which would YOU choose?
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
Do you want to get rid of liberty?
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.
Most people, to this, say, "well, duh." But you act like this is some terrible thing to be stopped.
As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
But you don't care, as long as everyone thinks like you.
Frankly, I think you have deceived yourself into thinking that this has anything to do with right and wrong, proof and not. I've already proven beyon any reasonable doubt that you cannot prove right and wrong (despite your claim that provability is all that matters), and that you, in fact, live by faith just as much as I do. Indeed, you are the one who keeps making repeated, and totally unsubstantiated, claims that views that are not provable are "fiction" and so on. You cannot have come to that view by anything OTHER than "faith," because there is no empirical evidence supporting that view.
Go read a single book with an open mind and without your preconceived notions. In fact, that is not possible. You certainly can't do it. No one can. That you think you are somehow more open-minded than anyone else is... well, sad. Not only have you proven you are far less open-minded than I appear to be (since there was not a single concept that I demonstrated closed-mindedness toward, unlike yourself), but it is a simple fact that everyone bring their preconceived notions into every situation.
I did not lie. False. That, too, is a lie.
Books written by people based on no evidence whatsoever. Liar. You cannot possibly know that. You are, in fact, lying.
You simply have no concept of how science works False.
(as proven by your attack on Newtonian physics simply because it had been found to be incorrect and a better theory has been found) More lies. I never attacked Newtonian physics. I used the facts about Newtonian physics to attack YOUR idiotic claim that something that is incorrect is therefore bad. YOU made that claim. Then you defended the use of Newtonian physics, which is incorrect. You could have amended your idiotic claim, said you were wrong, etc. You didn't.
I proved your claim was wrong, and you refused to admit you were wrong. You have accused me of doing that very thing, which I have not done. YOU did that. YOU are the one who is closed-minded, who will not admit he is wrong when proof is presented.
If it were you, you'd start arguing that nothing is provable which is a line of thought that is unhelpful. More lies. YOU are the one who brought up "provable" as some holy tenet of science. And I showed you that you were, in fact, incorrect.
If people based their life on your rambling premise "nothing is provable" we'd never have tried to make use of the regular laws of science that have led to modern technology. Correct. The problem is, that was MY point to argue against YOUR claim that what we believe in must be provable. YOU are the one who claimed we have to be grounded in provability. I merely showed -- proved, actually -- that this was nonsense.
You can't PROOVE to me that a wheel will always roll. So lets not base our lives on it. That was YOUR argument, in fact. YOU are the one who made that claim. I am the one who showed you how stupid that is.
You point to how religion has helped science Yes.
yet time and again there are examples of science being trampled by religious biggotry Not really. A few examples here and there, which are not significantly different than science being trampled on for other reasons. Or, for that matter, science being used to trample on things. For example, take the IPCC's reports on global warming. They are quite clear: we have correlation, and no causation, that manmade CO2 is causing global warming that has significant effects on the environment. Yet the UN scientisits and Al Gore and others LIE and say that the debate is over, and that science has proven man is causing significant global warming.
You may argue, "that is PEOPLE being irresponsible with the science, not the fault of science." Agreed. However, it's the same thing with the religious bigotry you point to. Religion did not persecute Galileo. People did.
You choose what you believe based on preconceived notions and ignore reality You're a liar. And I feel confident in calling you a liar. You have, in fact, not given a single example of the claims you make about me. You claim I have poor logic, but do not present a single example. You claim I have no concept of how science works, yet you give no example of it. You claim I have preconceived notions, but have no example. You claim I ignore reality, but have no examples.
You, like all religious people, have no wish to have a rational discussion based on the best evidence we have. You're a liar. You provided no evidence against anything I said. YOU are the one who repeatedly uses logical fallacies, thereby showing a disdain or lack of ability for rational discourse.
Instead you keep pointing to metaphysics and the limits of provability and the fact that theories can be superceded and therefore aren't absolute truth. Exactly: I used the best evidence we have.
All while at the same time choosing to believe things written in books by people Wow. BOOKS by PEOPLE!!!
because you were taught them as a child False. Stop lying.
that are both less provable Another logical fallacy. There's no such thing as "less provable." There is provable, and there is not provable.
contradictory And yet you could not come up with a single contradiction. Stop lying.
and much more subjective than any scientific theory Irrelevant. I never contested that. I said simply that you were full of crap when you said that you could prove something is bad, and when you said you do not operate on faith. You can't, and you do.
That's your choice. Technically, no, no one chooses to believe anything (though you can choose to try to convince yourself of something). But that's a separate discussion.
I think it's a terrible thing to base a life on And your opinion on that is worthless to me.
and it does lead to great harm, as in the case of Galileo Except that you provided, and have, no evidence that his religious beliefs led to harm, while we have very strong evidence that his religious views led to his scientific investigations.
At the same time I see that arguing with you is a complete waste of time because even if I do prove something or point out a flaw in your logic you simply deny it. Again, you're a liar. You never did such a thing, so how could you know?
Good luck to you in however you choose to live your life. I hope you do neither yourself nor others harm due to your beliefs. You are far more likely to do harm to others than I am, because you are FAR less tolerant of differences in others than I am, and far less rational than me, to boot.
Slashdot Mirror
A) it doesnt matter who did it first, it doesn't matter who supports / opposes it now, it is a bad thing. Sure. And I agree with that. But one can't blame people for saying "the left did it first" in response to attacks that the right is to blame for it. B) Restricting areas to prevent clashes etc.. is fine, the reverse (only allowing protests in certain areas) is not. And I also agree with that, in general, but in a small area like most college campuses, they end up being virtually the same thing. After all what is the point of a protest if you cannot be seen or heard. Yep. And that is why I opposed the Free Speech Zones at the conventions in 2004. They should have been right near the entrance to the conventions. we need to stop talking party affiliation and start looking at policy. Sure. But the fact is -- speaking for myself here -- I disagree with many Democratic policies because those policies are based on the fundamental disagreements of principles that I have with Democrats, which are the reasons why I am a Republican. For example, I don't oppose universal health care because it comes from Democrats, I oppose it because I think it is (at the federal level) unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment, and further because it is what Bastiat called "false philanthropy."
And this is where many people are today. We don't disagree because we are of different parties, we are of different parties because we disagree.
So imagine a political convention. You could restrict protests from directly in front of the main doors, for many reasons: right of access of the attendees, fire hazard, and so on. If it is a crowded city area, it makes sense to have a "zone" specifically for protests, and within the two-block area around the building, making that the only place you're allowed to protest, because ANY OTHER protests would be too restrictive of the rights of others, and endanger safety.
HOWEVER, to make that zone way down the road and around the corner is probably an unreasonable restriction, because it does not allow for true expression, which needs to be within eye/earshot of the event.
There's a balance that needs to be struck. It is not the free speech that is being restricted by having a "zone," necessarily. It is that the time, place, and manner of the protests may violate the rights of, or cause a danger to, others.
Then again, many of these individuals may not have been thinking beings beforehand: mindless children become mindless adolescents become mindless adults.
If your argument is that SOME Hebrews at various points worshipped other Gods, well, duh. The story of the Ten Commandments tells us this. But that doesn't seem to be your argument. That, my friend, is evidence that modern monotheist theology is a made up theo/ry/logy. It is not serious evidence. On the contrary, we have bulletproof evidence of monotheism going back to the original writing of the Pentateuch.
You really suck at simple logic. Are you SURE you like science? It's hard to believe. Scientists usually love -- and understand -- basic logic.
Would you ban the Bible?
Further, even if you still believe I needed it, that's beside the point: I do not believe I need it, and did not say I needed it. And therefore it was not a lie for me to say I didn't say I needed it, despite your claim to the contrary. This is typical of you. "What I really meant was" blah, or "I didn't need to say it that way I could have said it this way" Yawn.
You are saying it was a lie for me to say I never said something that IN FACT I never said, regardless of your blathering about whether what I didn't say is true. I didn't say it. You said I lied when I said I didn't say it. You're quite obviously wrong, and making yourself look like an idiot.
Actually, I take that back. You're not making yourself look like an idiot. After the rest of your posts, this one little transgression could not possibly make you look any worse to anyone, since already look so terribly bad. However, that you are so obviously incorrect here and are still saying you're right wraps up very neatly, in a nice little package, how irrational you are.
I'd compare your irrationality to religion, but you are far more irrational than any religious person I know. With every single religious person I've ever met, they would agree that a claim "I did not say A" is not a lie if, in fact, that person did not say A. But you can't even agree with that. It's no wonder you don't believe science requires philosophy: you disagree with standard tenets of logic!
I've already proven beyon any reasonable doubt that you cannot prove right and wrong (despite your claim that provability is all that matters)
by pudge (3605) on 04:23 AM -- Monday January 21 2008 (#22117622)
I can't prove it, but I can demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt. None of my statements provide evidence backing up your statements about me that led me to call you a liar. You are, therefore, a liar.
by pudge (3605) on 02:27 PM -- Monday January 21 2008 (#22122678)
No, in fact, I never said I needed "a standard of proof that's a reasonable doubt," or anything that could be taken to imply such a notion. Whatever it is. Yes, thank you. Your "example" does not show I am lying, but that you lack reading skills.
"Reasonable doubt" is one of many standards. I use it, as I use others, depending on the context. I never denied this. I only said I do not "need" it. You said that I do "need" it. I replied: I did not say that I "need" it. This is true, and nothing you provided in your "example" shows otherwise.
Showing that I use the standard of reasonable doubt is entirely dissimilar from showing that I "need" it, or that I said I "need" it.
This is obvious to most people. That it is not obvious to you shows why you have had so much difficulty with this discussion.
This is a common belief, but to the extent it is true, it is also therefore true that most of your beliefs are irrational, since they too are based on faith. That you are more than just a head in a jar imagining the universe is based on faith. Do you believe that, too, is irrational? I hope not. The Reformation -- one of the most powerful forces of the last millennium -- existed BECAUSE religious people rejected the "bad things" told to them by religious authorities. Right, one of the most unique events in history is a group of religious people breaking away from their leaders. If this was an everyday kind of thing, it wouldn't be in every history book. Actually, it is an everyday kind of thing. Happens all the time. It's been happening constantly throughout American history, which is why we have so many different sects/denominations, with many people moving between sects, or rejecting religions, not necessarily as groups, as individuals (how many ex-Catholics do you know? and not just those who are now atheist/agnostic, but many ex-Catholics are still religious, just not Catholic). It is so common now that it doesn't require any group, let alone fanfare or special attention.
And indeed, it happened a lot before the Reformation, too (as we see with the many non-Roman Catholic, but coexisting, sects that predated Protestantism), but the Reformation was a unique case, for many reasons: the scope of disagreement, the scope of effect of the movement, and so on.
It is not unusual at all.
Shall I act like you and run around chanting liar repeatedly.
If you can find a single example of me lying, sure. Unfortunately for you, you cannot do so.
You say I can't prove anything but they aren't my standards of proof. By my standards I can prove plenty.
No, you cannot, unless you change what your own standards are. Remember, you said you could "prove" something is "bad" or "good." That means metaphysical proof, necessarily.
If you can live with being that irrational, that's your cross to bear.
Oh _I'm_ being irrational
Yes.
says the man who claims to be tolerant but hurls abuse and accusation
Neither of which are related to "tolerance."
Says the man who believes nothing can be proved if it can't be expressed mathematically.
See, like this. This is a lie. I never said that. You have been told this several times, and you either know it to be true, or you are too stupid to realize it is true. I believe you are not that stupid, so the only other choice is: you are a liar.
You don't love science.
You're a liar.
You refuse to acknowledge the damage religion has done to scientific endevour
You refuse to give any such examples.
Science had to breeak away to get away from false logic like yours.
False.
Again if it can't be proven why do you feel so strongly about it?
Two logical errors.
First, I do not feel strongly about it. I have no feelings about it all. I think about it, not feel.
Second, "proof" is irrelevant. I cannot answer your question any more than I can answer "if the sky is blue, why does chocolate taste good?" It's a nonsensical question.
why is the unprovable thing I say a lie
Because you claim that it IS provable. THAT is the lie.
whereas the unprovable thing you say is true and golden
Again, you're lying. I never said or implied any such thing.
How am I suppose to show it impractical if I can't prove anything?
You could start by realizing that "proof" has nothing to do with the process. But if you're too stupid to figure that out, then the rest of the process won't help you much.
Yes we need metaphysics to explain a method that basically says go out, observe, experiment and generate formal rules that cover all the things you see.
Well, specifically, you need epistemology, but epistemology rests on metaphysics. Broadly speaking: all science rests on philosophy. No exceptions. Without it, there is no science.
This is Philosophy of Science 101. Any scientist should know this. But don't feel bad; unfortunately, many are completely ignorant of such basics.
The fact is mankind hasn't observed laws of physics changing or bending. What we work out holds true in all observered instances.
The funny part is that you don't even see what you are doing. Your argument right there is epistemological! Why do you say that something that "holds true in all observed instances" is valuable? That is not a scientific claim, it is a metaphysical claim ABOUT science.
False on both counts. What I say is absolutely, 100 percent consistent, and you have shown yourself incapable of demonstrating otherwise.
By your own arguments can't prove that.
False. I cannot prove that I said those things, but I can prove that the things that appear to have been said are consistent.
So you admit that you lied previously when you claimed I said only math could be proven. Thank you for admitting you lied.
I admitted no such thing
Yes, you did. You several times claimed I said only math could be proven. But this time, you admitted that, in fact, I said there were also other things that could be p
I would agree with you that when the state gets involved in a religious issue nothing good can come of it, and that the ills it inflicts can't be blamed on the beliefs being taken advantage of. On the other hand, I still feel that by getting people to believe in benign irrational thinking, religion makes people more susceptible to malign irrational thinking. First, religion is not irrational. You may believe it is irrational, but the word "irrational" directly implies that it can be demonstrated as being against logic/reason/etc. And you cannot so demonstrate.
Second, ignoring your problems with the word "irrational," I have never seen any serious evidence that would lead a rational person to believe that religion makes people any more susceptible to "malign" thinking than non-religious people. It just isn't there. There's plenty of examples of strong religious communities who never succumb to such things, and plenty of examples of non-religious communities (or communities not defined or marked by religious natures) who do. Once someone is willing to accept good things based on faith or the authority of a religious figure, what prevents them from accepting the bad things as well? Well, for the most part, the same things that got them to believe the good things in the first place. Certainly not critical thinking. Again, you simply cannot show that belief in religion is in any way associated with a lack of critical thinking. No one has ever been able to show that.
And indeed, history proves the opposite. The Reformation -- one of the most powerful forces of the last millennium -- existed BECAUSE religious people rejected the "bad things" told to them by religious authorities. Protestant thought through most of history has been marked primarily by critical thinking (read some of the Fundamentals, from which our term "fundamentalist" comes from, for some mostly very interesting and thoughtful essays on various topics related to Christian thought).
Of course, there are many Protestant communities -- the most obvious current example probably being Westboro Baptist Church -- who are marked by what appears to me, and most people, to be sheer emotion (and unfortunately, hateful emotion at that). But again, there's no reason to think that this is a feature of religious belief, rather than a feature of being human.
Yes. So? You say that like it is exceptional. People say things all the time that they can't prove. YOU are the only one who thinks that we should have to prove everything we say and believe.
Yeah, just like you don't have to accept that the Earth is round, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, if you want to remain ignorant and make your choices based on fallacies.
Says you, the person who has introduced numerous -- and oft-repeated -- fallacies into this discussion.
And you are just admitting that you are inconsistent. You say -- again, as you have said many times -- that you should have to be able to prove everything you say and believe, or else you are being illogical/irrational. Yet you cannot prove MANY of the things you say and believe.
If you can live with being that irrational, that's your cross to bear.
So you're an intolerant religious zealot.
Lie.
I'm interested in the quest for truth in the form of the best scientific models and ideas available at any given time.
That's a shame, since there is far more to truth than science. This is self-evident truth, since the scientific method ITSELF is a metaphysical, not scientific, idea. Without having truth greater than science, science wouldn't, itself, be capable of existing.
You are not.
False. Indeed, I love science at least as much as you. And I almost surely know more of science than you do, too.
You're even free to call me a liar and intolerant while at the same lying and showing intolerance to me. However that makes you a logically inconsistent hypocrite in front of all rational thinking human beings.
Only if the word "tolerant" means something other than what it means to most people. Which it doesn't. By definition.
You know -- and this isn't a spelling or grammar flame, just an observation -- you spell a lot of words wrong, and from other things you've said I wonder if you are not a native speaker of English. Is this the case? If so, this might explain your misuse of the word "tolerant."
What I actually said but you once again felt the need to twist around to your own liking is that if a claim is made, it should be based on the best evidence we have not on unprovable garbage.
No. You are lying again. You said it should be proven. Period.
Some of what I say can be proven.
Almost all of it cannot be proven.
Not to your standards since you hold inconsistent and impractical standards for proof
False on both counts. What I say is absolutely, 100 percent consistent, and you have shown yourself incapable of demonstrating otherwise.
Nor is it in the least bit impractical. You haven't even TRIED to show it is impractical, except by irrationally arguing against straw men you've created.
Further, they are not even my standards. They are yours. You are the one who decided to go into the realm of the metaphysical by talking about "proof" of whether having a belief is "good" or "bad." In metaphysical terms, there is only one standard of proof that has any meaning.
I don't know why you keep making this logical error over and over and over. I am not restricted to claiming only what is provable, because that is a standard I never acknowledged. That was your standard, and you are bound by it.
You little hypocrite. YOUR words were that FEW things besides mathematics could be proven.
So you admit that you lied previously when you claimed I said only math could be proven. Thank you for admitting you lied.
When I use that against you, you turn around and one minute you need a standard of proof that's a reasonable doubt (your words and your standards), then when you fail that test you say you don't have to adhere to it..
No, in fact, I never said I needed "a standard of proof that's a reasonable doub
What I was referring to is the fact that most everyone -- including you -- is "indoctrinated" into the idea that if they harm others, they will be punished. That is not remotely the same as saying that the only reason to not harm others is to avoid punishment. Though since people like that do exist, I can see why someone made up an invisible watcher You have absoultely no evidence he was "made up." There is plenty of evidence of the progression of the myth, from polytheistic origins towards simplification of the pantheon on to assimilation of competing gods and their attributes and eventually leading to monotheism. Actually, no, there's not. People have tried to make that case, but it is extremely weak, especially since the records of the monotheistic Jewish God go back as far as our records of polytheism. It's only by begging the question, ignoring and re-interpreting evidence that doesn't fit the hypothesis, that you can arrive at this conclusion. There is evidence that the god of the ancient jewish people was at first only the husband of the dominant deity, which was later displaced and eventually banned. No, in fact, there is no evidence of this at all. It's a common view among anti-religious folks, but it's a made-up theory with no serious evidence behind it whatsoever. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. First, you are using the wrong word. You mean "evidence," not "proof."
Second, your use of the word "require" implies something that is literally impossible: that there is some objective standard by which my claims must be measured in order for them to be valid. That is logically not possible, because no such objective standards can possibly exist.
Perhaps what you meant to say is, that you won't believe my claims without providing strong evidence to convince you. That's a given. But as I am not trying to convince anyone that my religious beliefs are true, it is irrelevant. For example, I am not saying "the Bible is true and you have to accept it." I am merely saying "the Bible is true, in my opinion." That is perfectly legitimate, period.
On the other hand, you seem to be saying "it is invalid for you to believe something that isn't proven," which is utter nonsense. Why should you believe in that god and not in another? Another poorly worded question. Perhaps you mean, why I do I believe in this theology, and not another?
Simply, because I am convinced this is correct theology. I could explain the many reasons why, but I don't think you'd care, and I don't have the time. There is as much faith in their believers as there is in your peers and as much proof of the existence of any of them (none). Again, you are misusing the word "proof." Strictly speaking, yes, there's no proof. But evidence? There's quite a bit. None of it amounts to proof, of course, but then, there's no evidence that comes close to disproving any of it, either.
Similarly, there is no "proof" that you are more than a brain in a jar imagining this entire universe. Literally, none.
I don't know why you keep making this logical error over and over and over. I am not restricted to claiming only what is provable, because that is a standard I never acknowledged. That was your standard, and you are bound by it. Yes, I do. And you're ignorant, too, because you for some unfathomable, irrational, reason you believe that my calling you a liar has anything to do with any accepted notion of "tolerance." Your own beliefs mean you can't prove what I'm saying is untrue. If you were a tolerant person you wouldn't be calling me a liar and hurling abuse, when you can't even prove it. Untrue. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You are falsely claiming that tolerance has anything to do with that. It doesn't. Further, you are, without any evidence -- and against thousands of years of history of human thought, interaction, and communication -- claiming that someone should have to be able to prove something they say or believe.
In fact, you have no idea what the word "tolerant" means. All you can offer me is your personal belief that I am a liar. Also untrue. I gave plenty of evidence for it. Now you're lying again. How on earth do you expect to win an argument where you claim to be tolerant on the one hand and hurl abuse at your opponent on the other? I did not hurl any abuse whatsoever.
Is it "abuse" to call someone who has has millions of dollars a millionaire? Is it abuse to call someone who owes millions of dollars a debtor? No. Neither is it abuse to call someone who lies often, a liar. It is merely a label that describes the person's characteristics. You are a liar. Shrug. Your inconsistent and fanciful logic shows you have a weak and undisciplined mind. Unfortunately, you have yet to show a single example of flaws in my logic. Each time you try, you commit serious logical fallacies, such as changing the definition of the word "tolerant," or saying I said things I never said. I can't prove it, but I can demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt. Shifting the goal posts I see. Impossible. You cannot see it, because it is not there. Why is "beyond a reasonable doubt" good enough for you and your arguments but not good enough for me and my arguments? Ask yourself. That is the standard YOU set. YOU are the one who said PROOF was required to make a claim. Don't blame me for the logical hole you dug for yourself. Well I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that virgins don't give birth, the earth wasn't created in 6 days. Perhaps. But so what? The only way you can actually claim that it is TRUE that Jesus was not born to a virgin is to violate your own statement that what we claim as true must be provable. And if you do that, then you lose your main argument against religion. You can call me liar again and again. It doesn't make it true. Correct. However, the fact that you many times claimed I said things I didn't say, and believe things I don't believe, does make it true. I have shown logical inconsistencies in your argument. No, you have not. You have not shown a single inconsistency, despite your several attempts.
I'm not a liar. You are.
False on both counts.
You're the one who claims to be tolerant yet repeatedly calls me a liar
That has, in fact, nothing to do with tolerance.
and idiotic
Thinking that my calling you a liar has anything to do with tolerance proves you are idiotic. Again, nothing to do with tolerance.
because my views don't allow me to accept unproven nonsense on the same level as what's proven.
You're lying again. First, you have repeatedly claimed not that these things are merely unproven, but that they are "fiction" and so on. So you are misrepresenting yourself. Further, whether it is "nonsense" is, in fact, unknown, and therefore you are committing the question-begging logical fallacy (again). And finally, you keep claiming things are "proven" which are, in fact, not.
You're the one who repeatedly confuses metaphysics with physics
You're lying again. I never did any such thing.
seeking to call everything unprovable
You're lying again. You are the one who first did that, in fact. You are the one who talked about proof in metaphysical terms first, claiming you could prove that religion was wrong, and that things were "bad."
(except by some strange and twisted logic that makes no sense you exclude maths)
There's nothing strange or twisted about it; that you think show proves your ignorance.
You're the one who seeks to twist my words and put words in my mouth.
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
(Show me one place where I said I should force you to believe anything
Show me one place where I said you said that.
You're the one who repeatedly denies your own logical fallacies and inconsistencies.
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
You're the one who repeatedly and purposefully misinterprets my words in the most dishonest way possble.
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
You're the one who believes things when there is no proof.
You're lying again. You do this too. Every day, all the time.
In short you're a religous nutter and a dangerous extremist.
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
If yours is an example of a tolerant religious man thank you for reinforcing my belief that all religion is dangerous.
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
If you were part of the inquisition in Galileo's time I have no doubt whatsoever you're the exact sort of person who'd have been complicit in his imprisonment.
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
You're a liar
You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this.
You're a liar.
Strong words. Prove it.
I can't prove it, but I can demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt. None of my statements provide evidence backing up your statements about me that led me to call you a liar. You are, therefore, a liar.
Therefore you are calling me a liar without being able to prove it.
Again, I never claimed something had to be proven in order to claim it, or believe it. That was YOUR standard: that belief requires proof.
By your own argument you can only say you BELIEVE me to be a liar.
That is, in fact, what "you're a liar" necessarily means. Nothing more, or less, then that I believe you're a liar. In order for me to prove it -- assuming I could prove (which I cannot) that you exist, and that you said the things you said -- I'd also have to prove that you have a memory, that you know the things that had been said before, and that you understood the things that had been said before.
That is,
Yet you can't prove that this higher authority exists.
In fact your own logic means you can't prove that he COULD exist. All true, and none denied, and none inconsistent with my statements or beliefs. I have to take it on your faith, your beliefs. Shrug. You take your own beliefs on faith, too. No difference. So on and so on. You've spent too much time considering the metaphysical and too little considering the concrete. Again, you're lying. You're the one who went to the metaphysical. The real problem here is that you don't consider my opinion to be equally valid at all. It depends on what you mean by that. If by "equally valid," you mean "correct" or "just as likely to be correct," yes, I do not consider it to be equally valid. How that is a problem, I don't know, because surely you believe no better about my opinion. You believe that everyone should act according to your own beliefs. You're lying again. You cannot provide one example of this. You just won't admit it. I generally don't admit things that are so obviousl false, yes. If all view points are equal and none are provable, you can't prove I'm wrong or a liar. I never said all points of view are equal, and I never said views have to be provable to be valid, nor that I can prove you are wrong.
But even if I had, it would be easy to prove you are a liar: you make many claims about me that are not only wrong, but are not backed up by any evidence. Yet
That said, other people do, in my opinion, have irrational views. Take, well, you, for example, as I have repeatedly shown. Yet you don't see how this could be harmful. The alternative -- to prevent people from being able to do so -- is far more harmful. Read Federalist 10:Sounds like your view of religious people, doesn't it?Which would YOU choose? Do you want to get rid of liberty? Most people, to this, say, "well, duh." But you act like this is some terrible thing to be stopped. But you don't care, as long as everyone thinks like you.
Frankly, I think you have deceived yourself into thinking that this has anything to do with right and wrong, proof and not. I've already proven beyon any reasonable doubt that you cannot prove right and wrong (despite your claim that provability is all that matters), and that you, in fact, live by faith just as much as I do. Indeed, you are the one who keeps making repeated, and totally unsubstantiated, claims that views that are not provable are "fiction" and so on. You cannot have come to that view by anything OTHER than "faith," because there is no empirical evidence supporting that view. Go read a single book with an open mind and without your preconceived notions. In fact, that is not possible. You certainly can't do it. No one can. That you think you are somehow more open-minded than anyone else is
I proved your claim was wrong, and you refused to admit you were wrong. You have accused me of doing that very thing, which I have not done. YOU did that. YOU are the one who is closed-minded, who will not admit he is wrong when proof is presented. If it were you, you'd start arguing that nothing is provable which is a line of thought that is unhelpful. More lies. YOU are the one who brought up "provable" as some holy tenet of science. And I showed you that you were, in fact, incorrect. If people based their life on your rambling premise "nothing is provable" we'd never have tried to make use of the regular laws of science that have led to modern technology. Correct. The problem is, that was MY point to argue against YOUR claim that what we believe in must be provable. YOU are the one who claimed we have to be grounded in provability. I merely showed -- proved, actually -- that this was nonsense. You can't PROOVE to me that a wheel will always roll. So lets not base our lives on it. That was YOUR argument, in fact. YOU are the one who made that claim. I am the one who showed you how stupid that is. You point to how religion has helped science Yes. yet time and again there are examples of science being trampled by religious biggotry Not really. A few examples here and there, which are not significantly different than science being trampled on for other reasons. Or, for that matter, science being used to trample on things. For example, take the IPCC's reports on global warming. They are quite clear: we have correlation, and no causation, that manmade CO2 is causing global warming that has significant effects on the environment. Yet the UN scientisits and Al Gore and others LIE and say that the debate is over, and that science has proven man is causing significant global warming.
You may argue, "that is PEOPLE being irresponsible with the science, not the fault of science." Agreed. However, it's the same thing with the religious bigotry you point to. Religion did not persecute Galileo. People did. You choose what you believe based on preconceived notions and ignore reality You're a liar. And I feel confident in calling you a liar. You have, in fact, not given a single example of the claims you make about me. You claim I have poor logic, but do not present a single example. You claim I have no concept of how science works, yet you give no example of it. You claim I have preconceived notions, but have no example. You claim I ignore reality, but have no examples.
You're a liar.