Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by MCT on March 17, 2011 at 11:47am

Those are objective definitions. That's what definition is. The objectification of subjective patterns of perceptions into valid concepts. And you copying and pasting my words doesn't demonstrate anything but their presence repeated.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 17, 2011 at 12:24pm

I'm not trying to be a pain here, but in fairness:

To be constructive, if you want to assert a definition that everyone can work with in a conversation, it is best to cite an online dictionary verbatim.

While cute, (and even accurate by some meanings of the word), adding "self-contradictory" to the definition of skepticism is baiting.

Not that baiting can't be entertaining, but if that's your point, own it. Otherwise, if you mean to come to agreeable terms for the point of having a conversation, cite the definition and then add your two cents.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on March 17, 2011 at 12:34pm

Skepticism as the impossibility of knowledge is itself a contradiction. Unless you mean skepticism as a healthy amount of doubt about something that as yet is not conclusive or not able to be contextually integrated without contradiction. I clarified that, I believe. But these folks are using it as the former, not the latter. In a very contradictory fashion. But, I guess you are right in that it should not be included in an objective definition.

Permalink Reply by MCT on March 17, 2011 at 9:12am

While I have a great deal of respect for those you have quoted, and many of those quotes are contextually valid, most metaphysically, but none of those quotes or anything else I've ever heard, read or seen are convincing evidence that things that are directly opposed to the most basic epistemological (and metaphysical/scientific) rules can exist. Existence, perception, conception and consciousness could not possibly exist if God exists. The whole idea is self-contradictory and therefore cannot exist. There is a limit to our knowledge, true, and exact and perfection are not really good words to describe it, but some absolutes exist and must, for the idea that there are no absolutes is, itself, a contradiction and is therefore false. Reality is an absolute. And dictates that there is no God. For sure.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on March 17, 2011 at 10:06am

Whoever espouses the idea or wherever they get it from, skepticism as a foundation of epistemology or metaphysics fails at the outset. Certain knowledge of reality is possible and God is not. Skepticism as doubt of a thing without ample evidence is proper. Skepticism as doubt of already contextually valid knowledge is irrational.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 17, 2011 at 10:38am

Since you offer them in lieu of answering a direct question, you are not only committing the fallacy, but point it out even as you deny it. Odd.

 

But, yes, we know that you did not invent skepticism yesterday. Thanks for clearing that up. :)

 

There are people I could quote as well in an appeal to authority? Really? So why waste all this time thinking for myself?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 17, 2011 at 9:34am

Jonothan... No, atheist does not mean "without theology." It means "one who believes there is no deity." (Webster)

Believe, in this context, means to hold as true or to have an opinion.

Joel, thanks for the quotes. I'm sure you put a lot of effort into sharing those with us.

However, I don't think Feynman or Sagan or Mill or the others would have any problem attesting their certainty that 2+2=4 and not 17.

When someone says they cannot be certain that a god without properties exists, this is nonsense. If it exists, it already has the property of existence. And if so, must, by definition, have other properties. When we are confronted by oxymoron, a proposal that actually contradicts itself, we can be certain that it does not exist in reality.

As any definition of God, wherein he actually fits the minimum job description of at least being able to, at will, transcend the laws of nature (ie. he must be supernatural, otherwise, he's just a dude who is smart enough to work with the laws of nature sufficiently to impress). Of course, a being able to transcend the laws of nature is an oxymoron. The concept of a creator god is doubly oxymoronic because such a being would have created the laws of nature to his own will. Transcending them would never be necessary and actually doing so would be to act against one's own will... hardly fitting of a deity.

So disbelief in God is really as simple as disbelief in 2+2=17.

Is there anyone here who would afford .000000...0001% doubt that 2+2=17?

Joel, you have a tendency to avoid such direct questions (while demanding that your own are answered repeatedly). So let me ask you directly:

Joel, are you absolutely certain that 2+2 does not = 17?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 17, 2011 at 10:50am

I am curious as to why it is you cannot directly answer a question, but have to wander off onto an unrelated tangent, talking down to people as if you were the first person to get an education.

 

Yes, I'm familiar with Zeno's paradoxes, but they are only mind exercises, not true paradoxes (which, of course, don't actually exist).

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not 2+2 is equal to 17.

 

You do not obfuscate well.

 

And I don't think you have yet answered the question as to whether or not you were certain that the entire Chinese army is not currently residing in your ass.

 

As I said, I wanted to make it as easy as possible for you. Certainly, if there were even one soldier of any ethnicity, let alone an entire army complete with equipment and armaments, you'd feel the worse for wear and would, no doubt, notice the intrusion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 17, 2011 at 11:28am

How childish. I think you are finding your position increasingly indefensible. Probably something to do with the lack of a military presence in your nether regions.

 

So pick up your toys and go home if you can't win.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 17, 2011 at 6:01pm

If you were truely interested in conversation you'd have not accused me of not answering the question.

If you were truly interested in conversation, you wouldn't throw childish tantrums when your assertions are illustrated to be nonsense. You'd behave like an adult and soldier on.

I only pointed out that you didn't answer the question because you DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Here's another question you did not answer:

"For those of you who say you can never be certain of anything, I'll take a cheap emotional shot:

If your child comes up to you and says, "Mommy/Daddy, are you absolutely certain that you love me?" Do you have to lie to them?"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Willa Cartwright on March 18, 2011 at 3:25pm

Joel Potter,

 

I had arguments with both religious and non-religious who are like this - they so desperately want you to agree. They can only work with absolutes.

 

For example, I came back here after being away two years and added my two cents worth - and in less than 24 hours, Vince Watkins launches in with this "99.999 % is cowardly agnostic" nonsense.

 

It's almost religious Atheism.

 

In my professional life I've been involved in literally of 1000s of ventures, and in none of them, was I ever 100% sure of anything.

 

In some situations I've been pretty confident and in others I've been sure enough to risk my own life, but never, ever was I 100% sure - simply because I always acknowledged I didn't know everything.

 

So maybe Vince and all the other 100 percenters are really smart guys - and they know far better that the rest of us - but I 'm a 50 blond woman so I'll stick to the 99.999% sure there is no god crew - cause I don't know for sure and I'm obviously not so smart.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 18, 2011 at 4:43pm

"...Vince Watkins launches in with this "99.999 % is cowardly agnostic" nonsense."

Willa, it is very tacky of you to put a remark like that in quotes when I never said it. Between Joel quoting me out of context and failing to attribute it to me and you attributing to me what I never said, I can imagine that the two of you might get along splendidly.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 61
• 62
• 63
• 64
• 65
• …
• 155
• Next ›
• Page