which is best argument against creation (of universe)?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2007-05-01 09:56pm

This is slightly tangential, but free will is a great example of a widely held delusion; one that is so important it's absolutely essential for holding society together. In short, no. You don't have free will. Niether do I or anyone else. Every thought you've ever had and every action you've ever taken has been dictated by physics and biology. We're machines in every meaningful sense of the word. Sure, we're made out of meat and our CPUs are chemically programmed, but those differences are largely irrelevant. The logical implication of this fact is that no one is really responsible for their actions, but we still have to treat them as if they were because society would collapse otherwise. Cruel? You bet it is, but not as much as the alternative would be.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-05-01 09:59pm

Darth Raptor wrote:This is slightly tangential, but free will is a great example of a widely held delusion; one that is so important it's absolutely essential for holding society together. In short, no. You don't have free will. Niether do I or anyone else. Every thought you've ever had and every action you've ever taken has been dictated by physics and biology. We're machines in every meaningful sense of the word. Sure, we're made out of meat and our CPUs are chemically programmed, but those differences are largely irrelevant. The logical implication of this fact is that no one is really responsible for their actions, but we still have to treat them as if they were because society would collapse otherwise. Cruel? You bet it is, but not as much as the alternative would be.

Actually, the connection of personal responsibility to the concept of "free will" is a Christian religious construct, deriving from the "free will" argument to explain God's failure to intervene in human societal affairs.

Logically, social responsibility has nothing to do with this nebulously defined concept known as "free will", and is entirely a social construct necessary in order to maintain order and provide an incentive/disincentive system for socially constructive behaviour.

In fact, I would argue that the entire "free will" argument is corrosive to fair application of the law, and leads to absurdities such as drunken rapists being found not guilty or given reduced sentences because of their inebriation.

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2007-05-01 10:19pm

Hence, why I just stick to the definition of free will as the ability to make choices based upon which ones are available. Like I mentioned previously, this means even a computer would be considered having free will if it's given choices and any choice is dictated by input and programming.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2007-05-01 10:50pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
No, science is not useless in this matter, as the ongoing search for the Unified Field demonstrates. Your problem seems to be that unless science can definitevely disprove the existence of this so-called "ONE force", the explanation should be taken seriously until it is disproven. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way: the burden is not to disprove the alleged first cause but to demonstrate that such a thing happened or was even necessary in the first place.
Well I shouldn't say it's useless, I suppose I should modify that to presently incompetent.

Incompetent at what? Judging the validity of the purely imaginary? You won't explain just why assertions such as the ones you make are somehow exempt from examination and review beyond saying "they just ARE" over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

And I can still profess a faith based on what I gave as a reason for my own personal plausibility. This doesn't mean I'm trying to make an evidential argument. That's involving science again. You can't do that with faith. I know that, everyone here has said this many times in the past, so why does it seem people are trying to blend these two together when referring to my posts??

Because YOU are the one making assertions regarding the nature of reality itself and appealing to ignorance as the defence of your argument.

I see a lot of semantical dancing but nothing resembling a solid logical argument as to why such a thing must have existed at all.
I never said there MUST be. This is putting words in my mouth. I've already explained it was based on faith in its essence because of what would be plausible for me and others who felt that law and order indicated a lawmaker. That's all. There isn't any need to take it further or flesh it out. I'm not trying to claim anything evidential about it.

No, you're merely the one who asserts that this "lawmaker" (whatever that may be) must exist but that this assertion is somehow exempt from examination.

Wrong. The default logical assumption is always that if a thing's existence cannot be demonstrated, then the thing does not exist. The burden is always upon those to prove otherwise.
That may be, but that is not necessarily TRUE. We couldn't demonstrate gamma rays in the 18th century, but they were still real. That's why 'belief', 'faith' and 'theory' are all words that do not have the same meaning as demonstable, evidenciary and proven.

Nice try. Pity that it depends upon muddling the distinctions between a definable physical force and an abstraction. You also show a gross ignorance of what the word "theory" means.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-05-02 01:25am

SirNitram wrote:Surlethe, a minor point: I'd argue he isn't asking for politeness at all. He's asking for the opposite: The ability to be impolite and disrespectful as long as he doesn't call names. I've certainly found that disrespect to someone's intelligence, dishonesty, and wildly flung accusals to be hallmarks of impoliteness and rudeness; just not when someone using them is trying to play Miss Manners style.

This is true, although I expect you could subscribe to two different notions of politeness: the idea of stylistic politeness versus actual politeness of behavior. I'd say the former is what he has in mind, the kind you associate with smarmy assholes. The latter isn't actually demanded here, but it's a lot more likely to occur because people can't hide behind the former.

R. U. Serious · Post by **R. U. Serious** » 2007-05-02 04:07am

Bubble Boy wrote: I have no reason to believe it will come about or not, so why would or should I believe either way?

I could argue that the probability seems high given what I've generally heard from experts in the field, but that's not a belief.

Unless you're attempting to argue beliefs and opinions as the same thing.
[...]
I don't see where one requires a belief on the issue though, even if one has a strong interest in the concept, like myself.

I didn't mean to say that a belief is required, but it's often there. With regard to your first quetion: How would you differentiate between an unsufficiently supported opinion and an irrational belief? It appears to me there's pretty big gray area. Some opinions - throw away opinions on matters one hasn't given thought or research to - would certainly be different that beliefs. But once you got interested in the subject, made some research, looked at some evidence for the different positions and come to the conclusion that a certain position is "right" or a certain position is "wrong", I would say those are certain as much beliefs as they are opinions. The higher the intellectual investment, the more characteristics of a belief it gets.

_One_ (the first actually) of the definitions of opinion is "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof" (and yes, I know there are other ways to use each of the two words). And when we talk about "irrational beliefs" it's compatible with that definition of opinion (but one doesn't necessarily follow from the other).

In conclusion it looks like there is 2 dimensions, on one axis the high or low probability one assigns to the correctness of a certain position, and on the other axis the "intensity of the conviction" or maybe rather "the easiness" with which one can accept having made the wrong conclusion and the readiness to switch to the opposite viewpoint. Though I wonder - if the intensity of conviction is low, wouldn't you alternate ("flip-flop") between opposing positions, when alternating reading books by Dan Dennet (consciousness as a machine) and Roger Penrose (brains are special and can not be simulated with turing machines)...? Maybe it's time for a new topic here... ^^

I suppose it depends if you consider my age of twenty seven "still young enough".

We're hardly far apart, so we can safely exclude that influence.

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2007-05-02 09:28am

R. U. Serious wrote:Maybe it's time for a new topic here... ^^

I agree we seem to be straying the thread off topic here. If you wish to make a new thread or continue the discussion via PM, by all means.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-05-02 04:00pm

Well no matter how I try to get my points understood, it's failing through either my poor choice of words or I'm simply being unfairly accused of motives that are not even remotely true. It's apparent to me that many people here project their own ideas of people's positions on them because of the biased interpretation of their arguments. Great case in point, the use of the word 'dogma'. I've already suggested I may have chosen a poor word for my concept, but is that discussed? Of course not! "HEY, he said this and he can't take it back. NAIL HIM TO THE CROSS".

I've spent more time trying to spell out what I'm NOT saying than what I am. If words are the problem here it would be a lot simpler to just take a sentence of mine, single out the word and why it is inaccurate and then give me an opinion of where I could change my point to something it might be fair to say. In any event, it's like I said before. This place just has a tendency to dissolve into loud mouthed insulting bullshit where instead of a genuine desire to bring someone else around to understanding, the preferred mode is to call them asshole and simply declare them stupid. Have I shown any stubborn refusal to listen to the points brought up to me? Have I deliberately ignored logical points? Have I insulted people for disagreeing with me or simply planted my feet firmly down and said I'm right because it's my belief?

No. I don't believe I've done any of those things. I'm trying to make a point from MY understanding and it's not a goddamn issue that needs to dissolve into this immature squabbling. Contentious argument without cause does nothing to further the worlds harmonization, and going out of your way to attack those fellow members of generally like mind that are discussing all points fairly and not trolling, is hardly a great precedent to set for our world. If this was the way people tried to act with each other in diplomatic debates and negotiations, we would have wars without end. I'm offering an opinion that I stated MANY times is faith related. Yet everyone is determined to jump on me because THEY are insisting that for me to suggest it's plausible means I have to prove it's logical. News flash. I don't. It's my personal example of a reason good enough for a nebulous faith of a creator. None of you can declare that WRONG, you can just suggest it's not falsifiable. And I'm sorry I didn't say that...oh wait...yes I did...Many times actually. But I guess that doesn't matter as it only helps exonerate my position and will get in the way of more insults.

Mocking truly stupid people who refuse to acknowledge points, continue to insist things are true (not possible), without evidence and so forth is one thing. I understood the spirit of this place from the beginning. But to jump so heavily on people with excuses of malicious motivation like Nitram is claiming I'm trying to do sneakily, along with Surlethe who I'm surprised is falling for that foolish idea, is ridiculous. You can't read my mind and all I can do is say you're both WAY off. You just can't seem to see the forest for the trees and I suspect that's because of the priority placed on one-upmanship insulting instead of coming to an understanding.

IF that's the way you want to play your game, go right ahead but I don't have to be the other team. I'll talk with people on here that respect people. I'm through wasting my time trying to sow the seeds of understanding with those who prefer contention. This is a voluntary activity of leisure time that quite frankly, is not worth doing if people are just going to make it deliberately unpleasant for people. I don't enjoy these insulting arguments. It just turns my stomach and truly lowers my respect for those whose intelligence should hold them in better stead.

Just a little lesson for those who seem to think being smart is some kind of badge of honour. It's nothing but a tool in life. It doesn't make you any better than anyone else.
And the bottom line is that you can be the smartest person in the world, but that doesn't necessarily make you wise.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-05-02 05:00pm

Justforfun000 wrote:Well no matter how I try to get my points understood, it's failing through either my poor choice of words or I'm simply being unfairly accused of motives that are not even remotely true. It's apparent to me that many people here project their own ideas of people's positions on them because of the biased interpretation of their arguments. Great case in point, the use of the word 'dogma'. I've already suggested I may have chosen a poor word for my concept, but is that discussed? Of course not! "HEY, he said this and he can't take it back. NAIL HIM TO THE CROSS".

If you're too stupid to use the words, it's not my problem, kiddo. You aren't having your points 'misunderstood'. You're having your points dismantled and shredded. You can whine and bitch and moan all you like, but you tried to drag this into philosophy without realizing that philosophy requires logic and rules.

I've spent more time trying to spell out what I'm NOT saying than what I am. If words are the problem here it would be a lot simpler to just take a sentence of mine, single out the word and why it is inaccurate and then give me an opinion of where I could change my point to something it might be fair to say. In any event, it's like I said before. This place just has a tendency to dissolve into loud mouthed insulting bullshit where instead of a genuine desire to bring someone else around to understanding, the preferred mode is to call them asshole and simply declare them stupid. Have I shown any stubborn refusal to listen to the points brought up to me? Have I deliberately ignored logical points? Have I insulted people for disagreeing with me or simply planted my feet firmly down and said I'm right because it's my belief?

Whine whine whine. SDN is a big den of meanie-heads. Moan moan moan. No one listens or understands me. Cry cry cry.

Christ, you kids don't read the rules? Or what? It's pretty clear on the door we flame easily. Maybe you're just a dumb peice of shit.

You can cry about how we're not doing what you want, I guess. You can insist we're not fair. But you fail to meet the most basic parts of logical, mature debate, and what happens? You throw up a post simply to whine!

Cry me a river.

No. I don't believe I've done any of those things. I'm trying to make a point from MY understanding and it's not a goddamn issue that needs to dissolve into this immature squabbling. Contentious argument without cause does nothing to further the worlds harmonization, and going out of your way to attack those fellow members of generally like mind that are discussing all points fairly and not trolling, is hardly a great precedent to set for our world. If this was the way people tried to act with each other in diplomatic debates and negotiations, we would have wars without end. I'm offering an opinion that I stated MANY times is faith related. Yet everyone is determined to jump on me because THEY are insisting that for me to suggest it's plausible means I have to prove it's logical. News flash. I don't. It's my personal example of a reason good enough for a nebulous faith of a creator. None of you can declare that WRONG, you can just suggest it's not falsifiable. And I'm sorry I didn't say that...oh wait...yes I did...Many times actually. But I guess that doesn't matter as it only helps exonerate my position and will get in the way of more insults.

Oh no, I'm not furthering 'World Harmonization'! If I gave a shit, if I thought SDN had that kind of influence, maybe, just maybe, I'd give a fuck about this whining, crying little fit of a child who doesn't want to admit he's been full of shit.

And yes, Empiricism, a school of philosophy that has stood against all challengers(Unlike almost every other school), says you can say it's wrong when it's not falsifiable. You're the idiot who tried to make this philosophical; sadly, you didn't know what that meant...

Mocking truly stupid people who refuse to acknowledge points, continue to insist things are true (not possible), without evidence and so forth is one thing. I understood the spirit of this place from the beginning. But to jump so heavily on people with excuses of malicious motivation like Nitram is claiming I'm trying to do sneakily, along with Surlethe who I'm surprised is falling for that foolish idea, is ridiculous. You can't read my mind and all I can do is say you're both WAY off. You just can't seem to see the forest for the trees and I suspect that's because of the priority placed on one-upmanship insulting instead of coming to an understanding.

If you have no malicious intent, your capability for communication is sub-human, and thus I really don't give a shit if I'm insulting you. Fuck, I don't care when I flame Mike, and he's smarter than me overall and much better informed on a number of topics. Flames still go off. And you know what? Neither of us throw this little emo crying fit.

IF that's the way you want to play your game, go right ahead but I don't have to be the other team. I'll talk with people on here that respect people. I'm through wasting my time trying to sow the seeds of understanding with those who prefer contention. This is a voluntary activity of leisure time that quite frankly, is not worth doing if people are just going to make it deliberately unpleasant for people. I don't enjoy these insulting arguments. It just turns my stomach and truly lowers my respect for those whose intelligence should hold them in better stead.

You'll obey the rules of this forum, actually. And this rule's spirit seems to be broken by your stalking off in a huff because people won't play by your Miss Manners bullshit:

If you dismiss an argument because of its use of profanity, you can be instantly banned.

I leave that to other admin and moderators, though. I'm having fun.

Just a little lesson for those who seem to think being smart is some kind of badge of honour. It's nothing but a tool in life. It doesn't make you any better than anyone else.

Better: of superior quality or excellence. My intellect is clearly of superior quality to yours, since I'm smarter. Ergo, by definition, I am better. Furthermore, by being equipped with a superior version of this tool, I can exploit it better than you.

So yes, kid. I am better than you. For no reason other than being smarter.

And the bottom line is that you can be the smartest person in the world, but that doesn't necessarily make you wise.

Let's see, since you're playing word games, splitting 'Smart' and 'Wise'...

Wise: having the power of discerning and judging properly as to what is true or right; possessing discernment, judgment, or discretion.

Anything that is true can be proven via a careful analysis through Empiricism, and defended through the most flame-soaked debate. Ergo, while raw IQ points do not translate into wisdom, it would appear we are wiser than you: We can discern truth.

Any more pathetic last gasps? Any more railing against the entire board's basic nature? Any more crying like the little boy whose been spanked? I do hope so. You're amusing, all kids like you. You try to pretend you're able to debate, then you find you're out of your depth, so you leap into 'philosophy', thinking it's an arena with no meaningful rules. And there, well, I'm already sitting there, with Empiricism and Parsimony, developed specifically for philosophy. And then? You cry. And it amuses me, when your ego compels these posts.

TithonusSyndrome · Post by **TithonusSyndrome** » 2007-05-02 05:54pm

Typical navel-gaving adolescent philosophizing, smacking loudly of the drug culture. If I understand his argument correctly, and I think I do because I've encountered it before among the decrepit annals of post-highschool slackerdom, he's asking you to suspend empiricism with respect to that "single creative force" that may be behind gravity and electromagnetism because of typical first-cause arguments that demand an explanation. Unlike your average fundie who holds that YHWH made the cosmos, you can't pull a Dawkins and ask why they don't believe in Thor/Zeus/Rye's Mystical Arse because they're going the theosophist route and suggesting that all of the above are various manifestations of this single creative force as experienced by cultures throughout the history of the world. It's irritatingly difficult to explain why this argument on behalf of a mystical energy field that approaches you with tidings of infinite love when you drop acid is only superficially better than the anthropomorphic God that demands special dietary observations on specific days of the week to someone as stubborn and "open-minded" as this.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-05-02 06:04pm

If you're too stupid to use the words, it's not my problem, kiddo. You aren't having your points 'misunderstood'. You're having your points dismantled and shredded. You can whine and bitch and moan all you like, but you tried to drag this into philosophy without realizing that philosophy requires logic and rules.

If you're too much an asshole to prefer encouraging misunderstand and arguments, it's not my problem kiddo. I don't need to deal with you. I can wash my hands and just say very simply you aren't worth my time.
My points are being challenged and debated. Maybe in your delusional little world every post you make is automatically arbitrary and absolute, but that's your problem. We didn't even come CLOSE to finishing the debate of points. But of course why let a little thing like sense get in your way.

Whine whine whine. SDN is a big den of meanie-heads. Moan moan moan. No one listens or understands me. Cry cry cry.

Christ, you kids don't read the rules? Or what? It's pretty clear on the door we flame easily. Maybe you're just a dumb peice of shit.

Yes I'm familiar with this tired retread of an argument from you. *yawn*. The best defense is a good offense, right? Act yourself the very accusation you make against others and this makes you immune to criticism, right? LOL. You slay me.
And listen "kid", I'm quite a bit older than you and obviously a hell of lot more mature in behaviour, so you go run along back to your sandbox and be a good little nitwit.

And yes, Empiricism, a school of philosophy that has stood against all challengers(Unlike almost every other school), says you can say it's wrong when it's not falsifiable. You're the idiot who tried to make this philosophical; sadly, you didn't know what that meant...

Prove it. You prove to me that we have never considered something wrong that was later shown to be falsifiable. If you cannot say that has ALWAYS happened, then you cannot say that Empiricisms claim that it is wrong is truth.

After all, YOU are the one now making the claim that anything you cannot falsify HAS to be wrong. Nice try. Whoops. Ready to remove your foot now?

If you have no malicious intent, your capability for communication is sub-human, and thus I really don't give a shit if I'm insulting you.

Spoken like a true neanderthal with no class. It IS a good thing you're still a kid. It might save you somewhat from the very rude awakenings you have in store.

Fuck, I don't care when I flame Mike, and he's smarter than me overall and much better informed on a number of topics. Flames still go off. And you know what? Neither of us throw this little emo crying fit.

Mike himself reacts with hostility at the drop of a hat and as much as I respect his intelligence, I DON'T respect this aspect of his personality. It's still very immature and unnecessary unless the other person is TRULY being an idiot. and as far as I'm concerned, the deliberate attempt to be difficult or desire to troll has to be part of that package to deserve such responses. I can't control how he speaks to people any more than
I can you, but I CAN choose my behaviour and sometimes to be the better man you just have to give up on hopeless causes when they are simply too narrow minded to see their behaviour in its entirety.

I try to overlook this one major aspect of the board and work around it because of the intelligence of the people here (in general), and amazingly enough it's probably one of the only places on the web that has people of like mind constantly SNIPING at each other with incredible rudeness. It's actually quite ridiculous, but as I said I try to accept it for the other beneficial aspects. Yet it's telling enough that so many people I tried to introduce to this board culture simply dismissed the environment as toxic because of the hostile attitudes. If so many people are turned off by this kind of extreme behaviour, doesn't it stand to reason that it might be unacceptably overboard?

You'll obey the rules of this forum, actually. And this rule's spirit seems to be broken by your stalking off in a huff because people won't play by your Miss Manners bullshit:
I leave that to other admin and moderators, though. I'm having fun.

Of course you are. Like I said, you get immature little jollies off of needless contention. Did you pull wings off flies as a kid? Bullied other kids for the sheer joy of it? The mind has no secret that conduct does not reveal. Your sociopathic attitudes reveal quite clearly that you thrive on being a jerk.

Oh and nice try. I don't break the rules by choosing how or what I do respond to you. I'm not dismissing you without explanation. I'm either answering it or choosing to not discuss an aspect further. Not the same thing. And I have never done so in reference to the profanity either. I can still give my opinion on what you say (if I choose to respond) and whether I think you're being an asshole, but I won't just say "Well you swore at me so that makes what you say wrong." That's what the rule says, and too bad, so sad, I'm not breaking it.

Better: of superior quality or excellence. My intellect is clearly of superior quality to yours, since I'm smarter.

LOL! And what a perfect example of circular logic from Mr. "Intelligence". Sometimes you are truly laughable Nitram.

Anything that is true can be proven via a careful analysis through Empiricism, and defended through the most flame-soaked debate. Ergo, while raw IQ points do not translate into wisdom, it would appear we are wiser than you: We can discern truth.

Oh and thank you for that splendidly personal interpretation of such a complex topic as wisdom. Ok, if it makes you happy, you accept that simplistic little explanation as being comprehensive.

Any more pathetic last gasps? Any more railing against the entire board's basic nature?

Oh yes, my gasps are dying at your feet because you're SO slaying me with your brilliant wit and logic. Your all blather and no substance Nitram. Your statements contain so many non-sequiturs, I'd have to reply to you all fucking day to completely demolish your posts. I don't have the time or the inclination. I gave you your chance to be man enough to grow up and discuss things like an adult, and particularly a FRIENDLY one which shouldn't be an unreasonable thing to expect, but you're failing miserably so after answering your posts in their entirety, I see no reason to continue this unproductive exchange with you.
And I'm not ranting against the boards general nature. GENERALLY most people on here do not go to your little psycho extremes. It's those few that go overboard that deserve censure.

Jesus, the rest of your post is just chest beating garbage. You really sink low don't you? "You think you know how to debate, but you don't play by my rules and that makes me KING!"
It may be amusing to you, but to me it's something else. Pathetic. And unlike your usage, mine is accurate.

Goodbye Sir Nitwit. I doubt we'll talk again.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2007-05-02 06:11pm

TithonusSyndrome wrote:Typical navel-gaving adolescent philosophizing, smacking loudly of the drug culture. If I understand his argument correctly, and I think I do because I've encountered it before among the decrepit annals of post-highschool slackerdom, he's asking you to suspend empiricism with respect to that "single creative force" that may be behind gravity and electromagnetism because of typical first-cause arguments that demand an explanation.

Yeah, too bad he fails to provide adequate justification for such a demand. And it's not just a violation of empiricism, but of parsimony also. Too bad that makes it an entirely pointless position.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-05-02 06:21pm

If I understand his argument correctly, and I think I do because I've encountered it before among the decrepit annals of post-highschool slackerdom, he's asking you to suspend empiricism with respect to that "single creative force" that may be behind gravity and electromagnetism because of typical first-cause arguments that demand an explanation.

You don't have to suspend empiricism. The point is that we haven't yet EXPERIENCED the answer to the postulation of a "first cause". This does not make it invalid, just a faith based idea that is unproven. This is all I said. I never ONCE claimed that it was evidential or falsifiable. Not once! I professed that it could be plausible. That's it.
It's hard to believe that my very simple, very vague proposal of a potential reason people could personally have a kernel of belief that there might be something equivalent to a creator based on the existence of law and order has been strawmanned into such unbelievable complexity with conclusions attributed to me I'm not professing. Maybe it's a fault of words I"m choosing. It'd be more productive to focus on improving that angle of the conversation first and foremost before simply mud slinging claims of stupidity, being an asshole, accused of deliberately trying to misrepresent others,...there was even more but that's more then enough.

Unlike your average fundie who holds that YHWH made the cosmos, you can't pull a Dawkins and ask why they don't believe in Thor/Zeus/Rye's Mystical Arse because they're going the theosophist route and suggesting that all of the above are various manifestations of this single creative force as experienced by cultures throughout the history of the world. It's irritatingly difficult to explain why this argument on behalf of a mystical energy field that approaches you with tidings of infinite love when you drop acid is only superficially better than the anthropomorphic God that demands special dietary observations on specific days of the week to someone as stubborn and "open-minded" as this.

But it is more intellectually honest and also potentially possible in comparison, no? I mean we can easily disprove MANY major claims arising from Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Those people arguing against what we KNOW to be true are being deliberately delusional, and demonstrably wrong. But a belief in something science CANNOT rule out yet is not by default untruthful. It may be "illogical" to believe something by the scientific standard of not observing evidence for it yet, but it does not automatically INVALIDATE it.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-05-02 06:28pm

Yeah, too bad he fails to provide adequate justification for such a demand. And it's not just a violation of empiricism, but of parsimony also. Too bad that makes it an entirely pointless position.

What do you mean a "demand"? See this is exactly the problem here. How is my suggestion of a potential faith belief regarding something completely open to question, be a "demand"? Why are you strawmanning me after complaining I was doing it to you? AGGHHHH. Sometimes you guys are so frustrating because you truly seem to lack communication skills.

Ok. Lets start over. First even though it's "allowed" here, I feel I snapped a bit too much at you on the other post. An unfortunate side effect of my aggravation with Sir Nitwit. You were being polite without insulting me and I went a bit snarky. I apologize.

Now, please help me here. I'm extending an olive branch and asking if you would endeavour to take my proposition and give me the best merit of it as a potential idea and then clearly point out to me where the factual flaws could be. I didn't think there could be any because of the vague parameters of this argument, but if so, try to sum up where I'm losing you here..

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2007-05-02 06:47pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
Yeah, too bad he fails to provide adequate justification for such a demand. And it's not just a violation of empiricism, but of parsimony also. Too bad that makes it an entirely pointless position.
What do you mean a "demand"? See this is exactly the problem here. How is my suggestion of a potential faith belief regarding something completely open to question, be a "demand"? Why are you strawmanning me after complaining I was doing it to you? AGGHHHH. Sometimes you guys are so frustrating because you truly seem to lack communication skills.

Where the flying fuck am I accusing you of strawmanning, you inbred little shit? It just so happens that you were responding to my first post in this thread. Also, you are a goddamned idiot if you don't comprehend what "demand" means in this context.

Justforfun000 wrote:Ok. Lets start over. First even though it's "allowed" here, I feel I snapped a bit too much at you on the other post. An unfortunate side effect of my aggravation with Sir Nitwit. You were being polite without insulting me and I went a bit snarky. I apologize.

Now, please help me here. I'm extending an olive branch and asking if you would endeavour to take my proposition and give me the best merit of it as a potential idea and then clearly point out to me where the factual flaws could be. I didn't think there could be any because of the vague parameters of this argument, but if so, try to sum up where I'm losing you here..

It seems that you are confusing one poster with another. How droll.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-05-02 06:56pm

Where the flying fuck am I accusing you of strawmanning, you inbred little shit?

I apologize. I am confusing you with someone else.

Also, you are a goddamned idiot if you don't comprehend what "demand" means in this context.

I don't agree with you. It's not applicable.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2007-05-02 07:00pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
Also, you are a goddamned idiot if you don't comprehend what "demand" means in this context.
I don't agree with you. It's not applicable.

It is applicable, you dolt: it is a requirement of your insipid little non-system. "Demand" has meaning beyond common usage.l

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-05-02 07:09pm

It is applicable, you dolt: it is a requirement of your insipid little non-system. "Demand" has meaning beyond common usage.l

Oh for fucks sake, take a valium and start over. Don't be a wanker and just say "it's a requirement" and vaguely reference why. Fucking EXPLAIN it if you want to actually be USEFUL. Since it's in YOUR head, not mine, you have the burden to explain your position clearly enough for me to answer you. I don't see any "demand" in my preposition so it's your bloody burden to prove that I'm requiring it.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2007-05-02 07:15pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
It is applicable, you dolt: it is a requirement of your insipid little non-system. "Demand" has meaning beyond common usage.l
Oh for fucks sake, take a valium and start over. Don't be a wanker and just say "it's a requirement" and vaguely reference why. Fucking EXPLAIN it if you want to actually be USEFUL. Since it's in YOUR head, not mine, you have the burden to explain your position clearly enough for me to answer you. I don't see any "demand" in my preposition so it's your bloody burden to prove that I'm requiring it.

ROFL! You are insinuating that I need to take a valium, while throughout this thread you engage on a whinefest of epic proportions.

Your proposition is not empirical; your meta force cannot be detected nor can its effects be predicted or tested by experimentation. If this is not so, show that it can be so detected or tested. As long as you fail in this regard, yet call upon us to accept your position as relevant in any way, you are indeed discarding empiricism. The fact that you fail to see this shows how little you know and understand about the concept.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-05-02 07:36pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
If you're too stupid to use the words, it's not my problem, kiddo. You aren't having your points 'misunderstood'. You're having your points dismantled and shredded. You can whine and bitch and moan all you like, but you tried to drag this into philosophy without realizing that philosophy requires logic and rules.
If you're too much an asshole to prefer encouraging misunderstand and arguments, it's not my problem kiddo. I don't need to deal with you. I can wash my hands and just say very simply you aren't worth my time.

Isn't the tantrum-throwing kid cute? He can spit back sentences with words changed and pretend he's right!

My points are being challenged and debated. Maybe in your delusional little world every post you make is automatically arbitrary and absolute, but that's your problem. We didn't even come CLOSE to finishing the debate of points. But of course why let a little thing like sense get in your way.

Because you ran away when I pointed out even in your 'philosophical' debate, Parsimony applies. You're just throwing a tantrum, screaming your head off because otherwise, you'd have to admit you simply ran away from your arguments to whine about how mean and dogmatic people are.

Whine whine whine. SDN is a big den of meanie-heads. Moan moan moan. No one listens or understands me. Cry cry cry.

Christ, you kids don't read the rules? Or what? It's pretty clear on the door we flame easily. Maybe you're just a dumb peice of shit.
Yes I'm familiar with this tired retread of an argument from you. *yawn*. The best defense is a good offense, right? Act yourself the very accusation you make against others and this makes you immune to criticism, right? LOL. You slay me.

Excuse me? Since when is 'following the rules of SDN' acting like what I'm accusing you of? Have you been smoking from car exhaust pipes again?

And listen "kid", I'm quite a bit older than you and obviously a hell of lot more mature in behaviour, so you go run along back to your sandbox and be a good little nitwit.

Older, maybe. Like I give a fuck. More mature? I'm not the one screaming 'YOU WON'T PLAY NICE I"M NOT GONNA DO THIS ANYMORE!!!'.

And yes, Empiricism, a school of philosophy that has stood against all challengers(Unlike almost every other school), says you can say it's wrong when it's not falsifiable. You're the idiot who tried to make this philosophical; sadly, you didn't know what that meant...
Prove it. You prove to me that we have never considered something wrong that was later shown to be falsifiable. If you cannot say that has ALWAYS happened, then you cannot say that Empiricisms claim that it is wrong is truth.

It's inherent. That which is unfalsifiable has no empirical evidence for or against. This is a tautology. Since Empiricism says the only existance is that which has empirical evidence behind it, that which is unfalsifiabe must be wrong, since it has, and indeed, can have, no empirical evidence for or against it.

I await a rebuttal, kiddo.

After all, YOU are the one now making the claim that anything you cannot falsify HAS to be wrong. Nice try. Whoops. Ready to remove your foot now?

From your ass? Nah, not done kicking it yet. Empiricism inherently considers all unfalsifiables wrong on the basis it only postulates that which is empirically proven to be real.

If you have no malicious intent, your capability for communication is sub-human, and thus I really don't give a shit if I'm insulting you.
Spoken like a true neanderthal with no class. It IS a good thing you're still a kid. It might save you somewhat from the very rude awakenings you have in store.

Which, the ones that failed to occour when I entered the workforce at eighteen, or the ones that failed to occour when I got married at twenty two?

'Neanderthal! NO CLASS! YOU'RE MEAN!' More and more of the same superifical, style over substance crap. Cry me a river.

Fuck, I don't care when I flame Mike, and he's smarter than me overall and much better informed on a number of topics. Flames still go off. And you know what? Neither of us throw this little emo crying fit.
Mike himself reacts with hostility at the drop of a hat and as much as I respect his intelligence, I DON'T respect this aspect of his personality. It's still very immature and unnecessary unless the other person is TRULY being an idiot. and as far as I'm concerned, the deliberate attempt to be difficult or desire to troll has to be part of that package to deserve such responses. I can't control how he speaks to people any more than
I can you, but I CAN choose my behaviour and sometimes to be the better man you just have to give up on hopeless causes when they are simply too narrow minded to see their behaviour in its entirety.

You have a definition of immaturity, then, which has no relation to the actual word or actual world, for that matter. Maturity is about responsibility, honesty, and respect: Three things you have failed to represent here. I, on the other hand, have taken responsibiliy for every word, have been totally, bluntly honest, and showed you the respect due a whining bitch who runs away screaming 'BAD WORDS'.

I try to overlook this one major aspect of the board and work around it because of the intelligence of the people here (in general), and amazingly enough it's probably one of the only places on the web that has people of like mind constantly SNIPING at each other with incredible rudeness. It's actually quite ridiculous, but as I said I try to accept it for the other beneficial aspects. Yet it's telling enough that so many people I tried to introduce to this board culture simply dismissed the environment as toxic because of the hostile attitudes. If so many people are turned off by this kind of extreme behaviour, doesn't it stand to reason that it might be unacceptably overboard?

If you hate it so much, leave. There's actually a rule that says you can be removed if you endlessly bitch about the culture here.

You'll obey the rules of this forum, actually. And this rule's spirit seems to be broken by your stalking off in a huff because people won't play by your Miss Manners bullshit:
I leave that to other admin and moderators, though. I'm having fun.
Of course you are. Like I said, you get immature little jollies off of needless contention. Did you pull wings off flies as a kid? Bullied other kids for the sheer joy of it? The mind has no secret that conduct does not reveal. Your sociopathic attitudes reveal quite clearly that you thrive on being a jerk.

Really. The fact I'm honest makes me a 'jerk'? The fact I won't extend false courtesy makes me a 'sociopath'? Telling you you're flatly full of it when you spout bullcrap makes me equal to someone who bullies and picks flies apart?

What distorted world do you perceive, I wonder. I could write a whole psychology book on it.

Oh and nice try. I don't break the rules by choosing how or what I do respond to you. I'm not dismissing you without explanation. I'm either answering it or choosing to not discuss an aspect further. Not the same thing. And I have never done so in reference to the profanity either. I can still give my opinion on what you say (if I choose to respond) and whether I think you're being an asshole, but I won't just say "Well you swore at me so that makes what you say wrong." That's what the rule says, and too bad, so sad, I'm not breaking it.

So you're not responding to my points, save a pathetic claim that shows you don't understand Empiricism. So you've conceeded every other point of contention? I remind you: YOU chose to forgo rebuttal for a whining post.

Better: of superior quality or excellence. My intellect is clearly of superior quality to yours, since I'm smarter.
LOL! And what a perfect example of circular logic from Mr. "Intelligence". Sometimes you are truly laughable Nitram.

If you say so. You're the one stamping your feet being upset because I think I'm better because I'm smart. You yourself said I was smart; I just took the compliment.

Anything that is true can be proven via a careful analysis through Empiricism, and defended through the most flame-soaked debate. Ergo, while raw IQ points do not translate into wisdom, it would appear we are wiser than you: We can discern truth.
Oh and thank you for that splendidly personal interpretation of such a complex topic as wisdom. Ok, if it makes you happy, you accept that simplistic little explanation as being comprehensive.

Personal? Not quite. Dictionary. You know, those things with words in them, so you can communicate with other sentient beings. Not being a sentient being, I can understand your unfamiliarity with them.

Any more pathetic last gasps? Any more railing against the entire board's basic nature?
Oh yes, my gasps are dying at your feet because you're SO slaying me with your brilliant wit and logic. Your all blather and no substance Nitram. Your statements contain so many non-sequiturs, I'd have to reply to you all fucking day to completely demolish your posts. I don't have the time or the inclination. I gave you your chance to be man enough to grow up and discuss things like an adult, and particularly a FRIENDLY one which shouldn't be an unreasonable thing to expect, but you're failing miserably so after answering your posts in their entirety, I see no reason to continue this unproductive exchange with you.

'I don't have time to get my ass kicked this publically', 'They're all non-sequitors, but I'm not gonna say which, because then I'd have to actually find one', and 'I'm gonna run away to someone who isn't such a MEANIE HEAD'.

That about covers that CYA paragraph of yours.

And I'm not ranting against the boards general nature. GENERALLY most people on here do not go to your little psycho extremes. It's those few that go overboard that deserve censure.

Oooo, 'psycho extremes' like demanding you use logic. I know, that's so unreasonable in the Science LOGIC and Morality forum. How dare I bring up logic in the forum for logic.

Jesus, the rest of your post is just chest beating garbage. You really sink low don't you? "You think you know how to debate, but you don't play by my rules and that makes me KING!"
It may be amusing to you, but to me it's something else. Pathetic. And unlike your usage, mine is accurate.

Goodbye Sir Nitwit. I doubt we'll talk again.

Run along, kid. You can run away from this argument, screaming how you're better, but I suspect we will talk again. Your disdain for logic and reason mean that I'm sure your posts will wind up in the loving care of moderators.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-05-02 07:46pm

ROFL! You are insinuating that I need to take a valium, while throughout this thread you engage on a whinefest of epic proportions.

Apparently the definition of the word "whine" should be the first item on the list for education of certain people here...

In any case, I don't need to dignify that with a serious response.

Your proposition is not empirical; your meta force cannot be detected nor can its effects be predicted or tested by experimentation.

It's not empirical YET. That doesn't make it impossible, OR unlikely. Have I said otherwise?

If this is not so, show that it can be so detected or tested. As long as you fail in this regard, yet call upon us to accept your position as relevant in any way, you are indeed discarding empiricism.

Since when does an idea based on lack of complete knowledge need to be proven "relevant"? Have I said otherwise?

The fact that you fail to see this shows how little you know and understand about the concept.

Maybe the fact that people keep trying to put words in my mouth might have something to do with what I'm saying being twisted into more fucking shapes than a box of pretzels.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-05-02 07:49pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
Your proposition is not empirical; your meta force cannot be detected nor can its effects be predicted or tested by experimentation.
It's not empirical YET. That doesn't make it impossible, OR unlikely. Have I said otherwise?

Wow. Just wow. He doesn't even know the definition of 'unfalsifiable'.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2007-05-02 07:58pm

SirNitram wrote:
Justforfun000 wrote:And listen "kid", I'm quite a bit older than you and obviously a hell of lot more mature in behaviour, so you go run along back to your sandbox and be a good little nitwit.
Older, maybe. Like I give a fuck. More mature? I'm not the one screaming 'YOU WON'T PLAY NICE I"M NOT GONNA DO THIS ANYMORE!!!'.

*snickers* Just from what I've seen in this thread so far, Nitram's winning this little argument. It might help that despite his age, he's been married three years and has actual real-life experiences.

Now... as Mother Superior of the Knights Astrum Clades, let me say this: You're an idiot, JustforFun. Shut up, give up, take your toys and go home.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2007-05-02 08:01pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
ROFL! You are insinuating that I need to take a valium, while throughout this thread you engage on a whinefest of epic proportions.
Apparently the definition of the word "whine" should be the first item on the list for education of certain people here...
In any case, I don't need to dignify that with a serious response.

Quite. You do need to consider the definition of the word whine:

A fucking dictionary wrote:whine /ʰwaɪn, waɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hwahyn, wahyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, whined, whin·ing, noun
–verb (used without object)
1. to utter a low, usually nasal, complaining cry or sound, as from uneasiness, discontent, peevishness, etc.: The puppies were whining from hunger.
2. to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way: He is always whining about his problems.
–verb (used with object)
3. to utter with or as if with a whine: I whined my litany of complaints.
–noun
4. a whining utterance, sound, or tone.
5. a feeble, peevish complaint.
[Origin: bef. 1150; ME whinen (v.), OE hwīnan to whiz; c. ON hvīna]

—Related forms
whiner, noun
whin·ing·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. moan, whimper. 2. See complain.

Oh, but you are not going to dignify that with a serious response? Well, why don't you fuck of then, you petulant little shit?

Justforfun000 wrote:
Your proposition is not empirical; your meta force cannot be detected nor can its effects be predicted or tested by experimentation.
It's not empirical YET. That doesn't make it impossible, OR unlikely. Have I said otherwise?

If it is not empirical "yet" then it is not empirical. Yet, you are asking us to accept it as meaningful.

Justforfun000 wrote:
If this is not so, show that it can be so detected or tested. As long as you fail in this regard, yet call upon us to accept your position as relevant in any way, you are indeed discarding empiricism.
Since when does an idea based on lack of complete knowledge need to be proven "relevant"? Have I said otherwise?:

So: you claim that your "philosophy" need not be proven relevant in response to my point? Then it isn't relevent, fool. There is such a thing as burden of proof. Or did you think that appeals to ignorance should be accepted by default?

Justforfun000 wrote:
The fact that you fail to see this shows how little you know and understand about the concept.
Maybe the fact that people keep trying to put words in my mouth might have something to do with what I'm saying being twisted into more fucking shapes than a box of pretzels.

You are a liar. You complained that I was strawmanning you when I said that your position demanded the discarding of empiricism, and now you assert that your "philosophy" is not empirical "yet", and insinuate that it need not be proven relevant.

TithonusSyndrome · Post by **TithonusSyndrome** » 2007-05-02 08:05pm

I'm telling you, this slacker/drug culture of wandering around aimlessly after high school and discovering theosophy on your own has to be addressed. It's got to be more prolific than PoMobabble and a lot of kiddies are turning into deadhead leeches on their parents when they should be encouraged to further their education.