“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1182 Apr 26, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
So true.
A logical progression always begins with at least one premise. To invalidate that progression's conclusion, one either shows the logic to be flawed or the premise to be questionable. That done, one can support an alternative conclusion with more solid premises and better logic. But attacking a logical progression by making unsupported counter-assertions, as is often seen here, leaves the original progression intact.
So many people claim that logic supports a point of view but fail to show that logic. One of the defining qualities of logic is that it can be expressed and delineated. Yet when challenged to "show their work," so to speak, few can produce said logic.
Odd, that, don't you think?
Yes, it is odd to me. But one of the things I have learned from teaching mathematics is that logic is not 'natural' for most people. It takes *training* to learn to think logically. In fact, this is probably the biggest hurdle for advanced undergraduates in math: they have to learn how to write logical proofs and even what it means to *be* a logical proof. This is remarkably difficult for a large number of such students.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1183 Apr 26, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> hello to you again also. glad to see you still here. I still do not approve of skeptic, partly because he seems to insist he knows, which does not seem very skeptical. also because his comments are off-color rather than off-topic, and I can take that sort of thing only when bleeped out from Jon S or Colbert. I recommend them recently. They have to be very clever and wise to get across their semi-contrarian views on current matters.
I also recommend Chris Hayes, before Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. He dared to report on the chemical fire and how many people were killed and what the degree of negligence was. He did not dare to put together the capitalist negligence, with the Bush Admin (Cheney's son in law blocked good regulation of chemical plants) negligence, and come up with any comparison of which element in our society is the real terrorist enemy of our country. I say it is Ted Cruz, and Cheney-types (Bush is a bit too dumb to despise quite so thouroughly).
Whatever one's views on religion, I still put ethics first, and would prefer a radical believer who is for kindness rather than hatred or complacency, to a hatefuilled atheist or even agnostic.
Yes. One of my core beliefs is that kindness, compassion, and empathy are the most admirable of human attributes. Human impulses towards others can be benign, benevolent, or malevolent. When one becomes aware of a malevolent impulse, it is time for some serious introspection. I've found in my own life that once I become of the emotions that underlie such impulses, they tend to fade surprisingly quickly in the same way that most injuries heal over time. When they do, I am so happy that I restrained myself from acting on an ignoble impulse.

But benignity can be a failure of sorts as well. It can be cold, even heartless. It is often best to leave well enough alone, but when friends or neighbors are suffering, benign neglect s still neglect, and it is no healthier to suppress empathy and compassion than it is to allow anger, resentment, and other negative emotions to simmer below the level of awareness. Benevolence helps those around us, yes, but it also makes us healthier, happier, and more balanced in our lives.

None of this has anything to do with atheism or religion. It's about basic human nature, which transcends the petty squabbles we indulge in here. I like that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1184 Apr 26, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd that atheists take a literal interpretation of the Bible, Ironic
Not really.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1185 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, causality works fine in practice. It just doesn't work for your theories.
You are also wrong that causality does not apply in the quantum world. Causality applies, you simply don't know what it is.
Then you should have no problem in informing everyone one that cause is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1186 Apr 26, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not him that kills us, it's humans, haven't you been listing, know because you're ignorant.
How do humans cause global floods?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1187 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Not having a cause and causing itself are the same thing.
Are they now? Since you said:
Buck Crick wrote:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause, since something cannot come from nothing.
Of course we already know that your position is that an eternal infinite invisible magical Jewish wizard (often referred to as God) created the universe. Therefore saying God is uncaused is the same as God caused itself.
Buck Crick wrote:
Given a "something", there is a cause. If you propose, as you say here, that the universe is uncaused, then it caused itself to begin to exist, as there was nothing else to cause it. Perhaps you avoid that contradiction and say it "just happened" uncaused. That doesn't help you.
Then God is caused or it caused itself. Perhaps you avoid that contradiction and say it "just happened" uncaused. That doesn't help you.
Buck Crick wrote:
Either the necessary and sufficient conditions for the appearance of spacetime existed or not; if so, then it is not true that nothing existed. If not so, then the universe would not exist and no cause is necessary.
Don't even try the eternal universe tactic. There can be no infinite series of past events.
Sorry.
Oh, indeed. After all you said so:
Buck Crick wrote:
"Infinite" is merely conceptual, and nothing has ever existed or ever will exist that is infinite.
"Infinite" does not exist and has never existed, therefore your post is absolute nonsense in its entirety.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1188 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Logic tells me that every thing is caused by something else and that nothing can cause itself.
Buck just said God caused itself. He will also claim it's eternal therefore it is uncaused, however he has just stated that to claim something is uncaused is the same as causing itself, which is not possible.

Oh wait - it's possible as long as your invisible magic Jewish wizard is the daddy, but not possible for anything else at all. Ever. Therefore the invisible magical Jewish wizard did it no matter what and there's no way out of it. Let's just forget about the part where it has zero evidence.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1189 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
You guys who claim that quantum events occur uncaused are misleading the reader.
I could explain why that claim is not accurate, but since you already believe it, you don't understand anything about quantum physics, or you are just lying.
Buck, why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1190 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Your paranoia about talking serpents and lizards only shows how much you understand of metaphorical language or poetic similes. Sad!
I understand the idea of metaphors, however many of your compatriots do not. Many of them honestly believe that the invisible magic Jew-wizard didit with a magic poof with talking lizards and a spare rib.

Of course most of them DO at least accept that the Earth is not flat, as numerous Biblical passages state it is a flat square circle at the center of a geocentric universe, contrary to current evidence.

So if one wants to derive religious meaning from the Bible, then fine. But it does at least demonstrate that as a science book it's not very reliable.

Unfortunately it also happens to be the same thing where you get the idea that the universe was magically poofed into existence by your favourite wizard. We simply dispute this based on the lack of evidence. Evidence of existence is merely evidence of existence. It is not evidence that an invisible Jew made it all.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1191 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
See what I mean? For you the idea that God created the unverse He probably must have worked with His hands. This is anthropomorphism and not the way I claim.
His alleged body-parts were totally superfluous and irrelevant to my point, which was that we are perfectly open to the possibility of the universe being caused. It's just that there is not enough information available from which to claim that the cause was "intelligent".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1192 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
And my thinking is the one very ancient! Even before Aristotle the Bible already claimed that the universe had a beginning. The cosmologists preferred the modern Aristotelian theory that the universe was rather eternal without a biginnin and without an end. In 1922 a Catholic theist priest fixed their mistake by proving the Bible was right all the time by theorizing that the BB gave origin to the universe and the Cosmologists changed their minds to adopt the theory of the Catholic priest. How can someone be proud of scientific theories?
By making successful scientific predictions with their theories, such as the amount of background radiation from the Big Bang. Something the Bible never did.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1193 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?
There are certain personality types that can't seem to refrain accusing adversaries of lying when it would be more accurate to say that they are wrong, mistaken, ignorant, or simply that he disagrees with them. High strung? Overly emotional? I don't know, but it is obvious that when such accusations are flying, emotions are more involved than intellect.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1194 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please supply a definition of the word 'cause' that allows quantum events to be caused.
Alternatively, please explain, using whatever material from QM that you wish, to explain why the statement that QM is an acausal theory is inaccurate.
I understood more about quantum physics when I was 13 years old than you ever will.
Don't you understand though that Buck is the greatest scientist in the universe?!?

:-O
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1195 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Sorry, but you are simply wrong yet again. There is no logical problem with an infinite sequence of past events.
But it removes the need for his invisible Jewish wizard.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1196 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
LOL!

Brilliant!
Thinking

Blandford Forum, UK

#1197 Apr 26, 2013
If only religitards tried.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
Brilliant!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1198 Apr 26, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> That was written to someone else, but I wanted to say hi to you, since I have been busy and off the internet for so long.
You refer to the horrid God of the big three religions, I assume. It seems to be horrid in all three, but theoretically, ethically, philosophically worse in the basic dogmas of Christianity. Fr most Christians at least their God is the evil being, and they do not think it commands them to do murders in order to go to heaven, though I suspect there are exceptions who still use that excuse. But ethically, if it forgives murderers, it is not putting out a very good deterrent (sp) is it? At least it does not promise rewards.
On a related subject. I am realizing that I am against the death penalty in most cases, even some of the big ones now. I think the best thing to do with some of these folks - not to name names and inflame those who hate them and want them to sufffer and die - is to put them in a special facility, where psychologists and trained medical doctors and psychiatrists can study them, test them, talk to them - and not hurt them - and try out various types of possible nonhurtful therapies to see if they can be changed in attitudes, character, personality, or whatever. Getting some folks off of the worst of their religion and on to the best of it - which is there in small doses even in the big three - would be required too, I suspect. But hormones and chemical imbalances of various kinds are also possible.
I have lousy glasses on so forgive the typos - hard to read my own comment!
You know I agree with you on most matters - espeically what you oppose. I still insist that agnostic atheist is the sensible philosophical view - not believing but not claiming to know. There is one definition of a god that I still like to propose to see what the reaction - that it is a name for all that exists. Obviously it would then exist. It would include all that is - even beyond our own concepts of existence, and thus would not be a mere little thing like a teapot in space, which might not be, or an important thing like a cat, which excludes dogs, equally or more important. I'd rather take my chnces with a border colie thatn anything else as a mere creature turned into a dog. I would expect to be created and maintained in very good health with great runing spead and a playful sense of humor, though I suppose I might have to put up with being herded into a pen with like beings at times. I may try to get back Sat. if you reply
I, too am against the death penalty.

My reason is this: we only have proof that each person gets once around life's racetrack.

All else is speculation.

Since that seems to be true? I think it is too much to take that life.

And I especially think that is too much power to give to institutions, like our government.

Contrariwise? I also think that people and governments, have the right to defend themselves if needed. With lethal force, if that's what it takes.

Yeah... those two ideas conflict with each other-- I know.

But it's a conflict I can live with.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1199 Apr 26, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =z0DT6uljSbgXX&feature=pla yer_detailpage
Bullsh7t video by morons.

The top comment was spot-on:
TheRealFlenuan wrote:
0:55 – The big bang wasn't&#65279; an explosion.

1:10 – Existence arises from the logical principle that nonexistence cannot exist.

2:12 – That is not at all included in Virtual Particle Theory—this retard made that up.

2:15 – No, not even in the most hypothetical physic, as "God" defies numerous logical principles. And even if a self-creating, all-powerful god were possible, there would be infinitely many of them popping up superpowerfully from time to time, just creating themselves constantly.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1200 Apr 26, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =z0DT6uljSbgXX&feature=pla yer_detailpage
Oh! And guess what? My head did not explode... not even a little...

...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1201 Apr 26, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> hello to you again also. glad to see you still here. I still do not approve of skeptic, partly because he seems to insist he knows, which does not seem very skeptical. also because his comments are off-color rather than off-topic, and I can take that sort of thing only when bleeped out from Jon S or Colbert. I recommend them recently. They have to be very clever and wise to get across their semi-contrarian views on current matters.
I also recommend Chris Hayes, before Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. He dared to report on the chemical fire and how many people were killed and what the degree of negligence was. He did not dare to put together the capitalist negligence, with the Bush Admin (Cheney's son in law blocked good regulation of chemical plants) negligence, and come up with any comparison of which element in our society is the real terrorist enemy of our country. I say it is Ted Cruz, and Cheney-types (Bush is a bit too dumb to despise quite so thouroughly).
Whatever one's views on religion, I still put ethics first, and would prefer a radical believer who is for kindness rather than hatred or complacency, to a hatefuilled atheist or even agnostic.
The problem is? There is no such thing as "radical believer who is for kindness".

No such thing.

To be a radical believer requires hate to fuel the radical behavior.

So the two cannot co-exist....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min Aura Mytha 228,578
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 14 min Mikko 1,009
Our world came from nothing? 3 hr _Bad Company 705
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 10 hr Dally Mama 5,587
Heaven 13 hr susanblange 2
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 14 hr Patrick 7
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 14 hr Patrick 152

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE