Atheism

[stiggywiggy]

originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Wrong, as usual. I never said a thing about feelings. Let me refresh your memory. Someone here claimed that that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed. I gave an example which contradicts that: I cannot define the love I had for my wife, but I can discuss it.
​

So it was you who brought up your love.

Uh, yeah. I'm stiggywiggy. Glad you're somewhat keeping up.


stiggy earlier:Then why did you bring up my feelings then?

You did, as you have readily admitted above.

And yet I didn't. I never once mentioned feelings. But perhaps you define love as a mere feeling.

That must be because you got in the discussion late or something, and perhaps missed the reason for bringing it up. So you don't like the wife example? OK, try my love of okra. I cannot define the taste, yet I can discuss it.
​

Can you? I don´t know how to discuss taste.

That's a shame. Most people can.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Quite the contrary. Trials are based on evidence, not unsupportable "transcendental" experience.

Trials are also based on testimonies. Surely you know what a "witness" is. And as I said, if you declare to a judge that you would give equal weight to the testimonies of fifteen as you would to three, you will NOT serve on a jury.

If they can't prove it in some way, why give the claim any weight at all?

So if a witness at a trial says he saw the defendant kill his neighbor, and yet he can't prove it, you would give it no weight.

Lucky dog, you. I wish I was that deceived. It would keep me off juries forever.

And how much weight is a jury supposed to give to these unprovable testimonies?

According to you, none: "If they can't prove it in some way, why give the claim any weight at all?

Could you give me an example of an unprovable testimony that some jury gave weight to because a number of people believed it?

Nearly all of them, since witnesses can seldom prove that they saw what they saw. In fact if they had video evidence, we would not even need their testimony.

You said you'd believe a Nigerian prince if someone received money from one.

No, I didn't. Please attempt to show me where, thus verifying your mistake when you fail in that task.

 

[stiggywiggy]

You miss the point.

The point is that argument from a quantity of testimonies is not a useful measure of anything.

Measure? I would think not. But obviously our justice system believes that the testimonies of three are worth more than the testimonies of NO ONE. Otherwise, why would witnesses ever be sworn in?

The example shows that "surely Christianity is false" follows from the majority of the world not experiencing it.

I see. So I guess it follows from "the majority of the world not believing in other galaxies" in the sixth century, that "surely other galaxies are false."

Any argument from popularity is bad and that's why it has its own name: Argumentum ad populum.

Popularity? I'm talking about numbers, not popularity, and I'll say it again:

Anyone who would give equal weight to the testimonies of a billion, while considering even the remote possibility of those testimonies being factual, as they would to the testimony of three, is a fool. Our justice system understands this concept. Sorry you don't.

 

[sandwiches]

Measure? I would think not. But obviously our justice system believes that the testimonies of three are worth more than the testimonies of NO ONE. Otherwise, why would witnesses ever be sworn in?

I see. So I guess it follows from "the majority of the world not believing in other galaxies" in the sixth century, that "surely other galaxies are false."

Popularity? I'm talking about numbers, not popularity, and I'll say it again:

Anyone who would give equal weight to the testimonies of a billion, while considering even the remote possibility of those testimonies being factual, as they would to the testimony of three, is a fool. Our justice system understands this concept. Sorry you don't.

Stiggy, pay attention to what's being said, focus, and make up your mind.

Is the amount of people who believe in a claim always directly correlated to the the veracity of said claim, YES or NO?

 

[quatona]

originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Wrong, as usual. I never said a thing about feelings. Let me refresh your memory. Someone here claimed that that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed. I gave an example which contradicts that: I cannot define the love I had for my wife, but I can discuss it.
​

Uh, yeah. I'm stiggywiggy. Glad you're somewhat keeping up.


stiggy earlier:Then why did you bring up my feelings then?


And yet I didn't. I never once mentioned feelings. But perhaps you define love as a mere feeling.

Yes, love in my understanding is a feeling (I don´t know what the "mere" is supposed to tell me, though). Obviously, you worked from a different definition - and here we see my very point in action: Discussing your love failed because you hadn´t defined your term.

 

[GryffinSong]

I take it leaving the dogs behind for a hike is not an option?

Hiking in the rain (for a few hours) is rather fun.

Trying to clean and dry the dogs afterwards is not.

Actually, they have rain coats that eliminates the clean/dry problem. I've just become wimpier as I've gotten older. I don't like hiking in the rain these days. I do have fond memories of a half day hike in the pouring rain, though. We took the day off of work and it was actually quite fun.

 

[Davian]

I see that you and HTML just don't get along. Oh well...

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Thank you.

Of course. I use words with meaning when discussing anything with anyone. And as I said, I can used those words to discuss that which I cannot define, i.e. my love for my wife, thus disputing the contention that that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed.
​

No, I didn't. I said that I cannot define the love I had for my wife.

From here, it looked like you used the word 'love'.

I seriously doubt that others can DEFINE the love I had for my wife.

At least that is an improvement from your recent absolute statements, where you said it couldn't be done.

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Where did I say you did? I asked you to explain the rationale behind "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed" (or something like that). You told me to ask Kant. Did you forget that?
​

OK. Thanks for the belated admission. So now we have this: you did not forget that I asked you to explain the rationale behind "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed." You did not forget that in answer to that, you told me to ask Kant.

Does this mean that you cannot explain what you've asserted?

I did so previously. It is called ignosticism.

Did you read up on Kant?

None. I also have no evidence to the contrary. Nor do you. If a creature existed who lived all his life inside the hood of a car, he might mistakenly think that the fundamental CAUSE of the car's motion comes from the uncaused movement of pistons in a cylinder. That's because he is unable to see a more fundamental cause: A FOOT ON AN ACCELERATOR.

Bad analogy. The workings of an automotive engine are well understood, and we have robust definitions for accelerator (pedal) and feet (and creatures that possess them). How does that in any way explain brain states?

You may also link to where we established that I have no evidence to support my understanding of how the brain works, or retract.

??? Why didn't you put the entire #150 quote up?

Why don't you?

You are hallucinating positing there.

In post # 150: "They transcend the empirical realm". No 'if', no other qualifiers.

I NEVER posited the existence of the non-transcendent. You are quite wrong.

I don't think the existence of the 'non-transcendant' is in question here. You are quite confused.

I did state the obvious in #150: IF, IF, IF, IF, IF (no positing there) a non-empirical realm exists, it transcends the empirical.

In post # 150: "They transcend the empirical realm". No 'if', no other qualifiers.

BTW, what does "transcends" mean?

Please restate the above for clarification.

???? I have no idea how that question could possibly shed any light on whether or not a non-empirical realm would by definition transcend the empirical. You don't even attempt to flesh out these associations that are apparently only in your mind.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7608800-21/#post59208837

And how will you know if you don't answer the question? Superman or Batman? and why?

 

[RobinRobyn]

Trials are also based on testimonies. Surely you know what a "witness" is. And as I said, if you declare to a judge that you would give equal weight to the testimonies of fifteen as you would to three, you will NOT serve on a jury.

Stop being condescending, of course I know what a witness is. Witnesses testify to what they've seen or what they know about. They don't testify about unprovable, transcendental experiences.

So if a witness at a trial says he saw the defendant kill his neighbor, and yet he can't prove it, you would give it no weight.

I'd consider it as evidence, weighed against any evidence that contradicts it.

Lucky dog, you. I wish I was that deceived. It would keep me off juries forever.

You're very insulting. Stop it or we're done.

According to you, none: "If they can't prove it in some way, why give the claim any weight at all?

Yes, that's what I said about things that are unprovable.

Nearly all of them, since witnesses can seldom prove that they saw what they saw. In fact if they had video evidence, we would not even need their testimony.

I dispute that. Provide examples, please.

No, I didn't. Please attempt to show me where, thus verifying your mistake when you fail in that task.

#175 " Of course not. I never even implied it would. Your analogy will work only if you can show me someone who claims to have had a personal experience with the Nigerain scheme actually working. You can't, so I suggest you drop the analogy."

I'm tiring of your condescending attitude. If you can't discuss civilly, I'm done with you.

 

[variant]

By secular culture I mean in part a lot of pop culture I find awful. Pulp fiction, rubbishy TV shows, graffiti, drugs, hyed up violence, music where make up and looking "cool" sell records like its more of an a image contest, and the recording industry that has helped destroy localised live folk traditions and replaced them with banal "pop stars". My present gripe is that the only "live folk sing-song" style music I get to participate in is in the congregation singing hymns etc at my local church, and whatdyaknow, I am targeted as a deluded mental cripple worshipping imaginary fairies for doing so. This is just messed up. I could go on.

I am glad you find beauty in nature/creation. In fact I was so stressed yesterday I took a trip into the countryside and focusing on the scenery cleared away al that negative conceptual thought.

Positive today, yeah +++, ty. I can't live too long with my own gripeing.

Doesn't seem to have much to do with atheism to me. Much of secular culture is produced by Christians, it is mainly religion neutral.

Further, secular culture has been producing most of the top flight novels, history, science, music and entertainment for the better part of a century now. Christian (TM) inspired equivalent works have fallen off dramatically over that time in quality and are now few and far between.

 

[KCfromNC]

Sure it can be. In fact, we see an example here. Your question implied the non-existence of the transcendent, so I asked if Shakespeare transcended his own works. He does you know, thereby refuting any belief you might have that transcendence may not exist.

I guess trying to answer a question no one asked is another way to avoid answering a difficult question, kind of like your first attempt to answer it with another question.

I never said transcendence couldn't exist. I simply wanted to know how you were sure that god transcended reality. Based on your lack of answers, it looks like you don't know why you believe this. Fair enough, but you seemed so sure of yourself when you posted it originally.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Is the amount of people who believe in a claim always directly correlated to the the veracity of said claim, YES or NO?

No. Why do you ask? Were you thinking I had said or even implied that? I didn't, which is why in your next reply you will be unable to muster up said quote.

I believe it is you who needs to "pay attention." You don't remember me speaking of how our jury system obviously does not subscribe to this asinine idea that the weight of unprovable testimony is ZERO? Well, we KNOW that the number of witnesses is not ALWAYS directly correlated with the veracity of their testimonies.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Discussing your love failed

But it didn't. I specifically said that I am able to discuss the love I had for my wife, even though I cannot find it.

 

[sandwiches]

No. Why do you ask? Were you thinking I had said or even implied that? I didn't, which is why in your next reply you will be unable to muster up said quote.

I believe it is you who needs to "pay attention." You don't remember me speaking of how our jury system obviously does not subscribe to this asinine idea that the weight of unprovable testimony is ZERO? Well, we KNOW that the number of witnesses is not ALWAYS directly correlated with the veracity of their testimonies.

To quote you:

Popularity? I'm talking about numbers, not popularity, and I'll say it again:

Anyone who would give equal weight to the testimonies of a billion, while considering even the remote possibility of those testimonies being factual, as they would to the testimony of three, is a fool. Our justice system understands this concept. Sorry you don't.

If veracity isn't linked to the number of people who say this. Why do you even mention the above? Why would anyone care how many people claim X, if the truth isn't dictated by how many people say something or not?

 

[stiggywiggy]

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Of course. I use words with meaning when discussing anything with anyone. And as I said, I can used those words to discuss that which I cannot define, i.e. my love for my wife, thus disputing the contention that that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed.
​

No, I didn't. I said that I cannot define the love I had for my wife.
​

From here, it looked like you used the word 'love'.
Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

I seriously doubt that others can DEFINE the love I had for my wife.
​

At least that is an improvement from your recent absolute statements,

You're confused. I never made any absolute statements about love. I only spoke of the undefinability of the love I had for my wife.




Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Where did I say you did? I asked you to explain the rationale behind "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed" (or something like that). You told me to ask Kant. Did you forget that?
​

OK. Thanks for the belated admission.

Admission??? What are you talking about? Let me put my quote up again, so that you'll realize your error:

Where did I say you did? I asked you to explain the rationale behind "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed" (or something like that). You told me to ask Kant. Did you forget that?


​

Obviously no admission of squat.





stiggy earlier: So now we have this: you did not forget that I asked you to explain the rationale behind "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed." You did not forget that in answer to that, you told me to ask Kant.

Does this mean that you cannot explain what you've asserted?
​

I did so previously.

But you didn't.

It is called ignosticism.

Sorry, but merely typing website addresses is not tantamount to your explaining what you asserted above.



Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

None. I also have no evidence to the contrary. Nor do you. If a creature existed who lived all his life inside the hood of a car, he might mistakenly think that the fundamental CAUSE of the car's motion comes from the uncaused movement of pistons in a cylinder. That's because he is unable to see a more fundamental cause: A FOOT ON AN ACCELERATOR.
​

Bad analogy. The workings of an automotive engine are well understood,

Bad comment. The hypothetical creature in my analogy lives under the hood and has no access to the accelerator. He definitely does NOT understand the workings of an automobile. Similarly, we have no access to any alleged transcendent realm unless something from that alleged realm reveals itself.



Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

http://www.christianforums.com/t7608800-post59215931/#post59215931

You are hallucinating positing there.
​

In post # 150: "They transcend the empirical realm". No 'if', no other qualifiers.

No, definitions of words do not posit the reality of what those words define. If I tell you that the creature defined as an angel, has wings, I am hardly positing the existence of angels.

BTW, what does "transcends" mean?

Unbelievable. You've been commenting on a word for several pages now without even knowing what it means??

how will you know if you don't answer the question? Superman or Batman?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[The Paul]

Ask a prosecuting attorney or a defense lawyer. He or she will explain to you why one should give greater consideration to the testimony of five, than one would to the testimony of two. I'll let you extrapolate the numbers outward, and then you can apply it to Buddhism, Christianity, abominable snowman claims, whatever.

Only if they're bad at their job.

Most legal professionals are fully aware that the memories of a large group of people can become "contaminated" and converge on something that didn't really happen.

A small group of people isolated from the popular belief will provide a more accurate account.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Trials are also based on testimonies. Surely you know what a "witness" is. And as I said, if you declare to a judge that you would give equal weight to the testimonies of fifteen as you would to three, you will NOT serve on a jury.
​

Stop being condescending, of course I know what a witness is. Witnesses testify to what they've seen or what they know about. They don't testify about unprovable, transcendental experiences.

No, they definitely testify about unprovable experiences.




Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

So if a witness at a trial says he saw the defendant kill his neighbor, and yet he can't prove it, you would give it no weight.
​

I'd consider it as evidence, weighed against any evidence that contradicts it.

Then I guess you're not the guy who said he would give no weight to testimonies which are unprovable. Sorry. I'm new here and a ton of people are replying to me. I have yet to get all you guys straight.



originally Posted by stiggywiggy

http://www.christianforums.com/t7608800-23/#post59216081

According to you, none: "If they can't prove it in some way, why give the claim any weight at all?
​

Yes, that's what I said about things that are unprovable.

Wow, so it was you after all.

Are you even aware that your two sentences above in red are contradictory?


Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Nearly all of them, since witnesses can seldom prove that they saw what they saw. In fact if they had video evidence, we would not even need their testimony.
​

I dispute that. Provide examples, please.

Actually, I can't think of any examples to the contrary, where witnesses actually prove their testimony to be true. You want examples: OJ, Robert Blake, Casey whatshername, Michael Jackson's doctor. None of the witnesses who testified at that trial provided proof.

 

[quatona]

But it didn't. I specifically said that I am able to discuss the love I had for my wife, even though I cannot find it.

By "discussing" you mean "discussing with yourself"?

 

[stiggywiggy]

I never said transcendence couldn't exist. I simply wanted to know how you were sure that god transcended reality.

By definition. Any alleged creator would have to transcend his creation, whether it be the entire cosmos or Hamlet.

 

[stiggywiggy]

If veracity isn't linked to the number of people who say this. Why do you even mention the above? Why would anyone care how many people claim X, if the truth isn't dictated by how many people say something or not?

Ask an attorney why our jury system cares how many people testify in court, especially since those testimonies are not PROOF of anything.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Originally Posted by stiggywiggy

Ask a prosecuting attorney or a defense lawyer. He or she will explain to you why one should give greater consideration to the testimony of five, than one would to the testimony of two. I'll let you extrapolate the numbers outward, and then you can apply it to Buddhism, Christianity, abominable snowman claims, whatever.
​

Only if they're bad at their job.

No, if they were bad at their job, they'd take your advice. I somehow doubt that a "good lawyer" would say, "well, we already have five witnesses. Let's not overdo it by having six more testify on behalf of our client."

Most legal professionals are fully aware that the memories of a large group of people can become "contaminated" and converge on something that didn't really happen.

Then I guess it will remain a mystery as to why lawyers attempt to find as many witnesses as possible to bolster their case.