|
IamMe
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: October 26, 2007, 12:51:53 PM » |
|
I'm just being honest. I later realized you are not [slow].
Feel free to identify any dishonesty you perceived. If you do not substantiate the assertion, a reader can fairly conclude that you chose it as a cheap out. OK, I see how that could have been misinterpreted. The agnostic retreat?
It's not a retreat when you put words in my mouth and then say I can't back them up. The problem with that is that your position on materialism remains, even after you claim to have no positive belief in materialism, yet see no evidence for anything other than material. So I've not offered a strawman.
You have, as I will demonstrate. Of course you do see exactly that sort of evidence daily. You entertain ideas for which you have no material explanation.
But I don't therefore conclude that they have no material explanation. That's just lazy thinking. Knowing that you've been challenged in the past to provide that explanation, and that you've never been able to do it, and that encounter evidence of the non-material daily, yet continuing to deny that, demonstrates something reprehensible, if not bigotry.
Of course there is stuff for which I have no explanation. To therefore conclude that there is therefore a non-material explanation is lazy thinking - it's avoiding the question. Also, could you please define what non-material things are? Do you have any other evidence beyond your argument from ignorance. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
zukiphile
|
|
« Reply #46 on: October 26, 2007, 01:04:39 PM » |
|
I'm just being honest. I later realized you are not [slow].
Feel free to identify any dishonesty you perceived. If you do not substantiate the assertion, a reader can fairly conclude that you chose it as a cheap out. OK, I see how that could have been misinterpreted. I appreciate the clarification. The agnostic retreat?
It's not a retreat when you put words in my mouth and then say I can't back them up. I haven't "put words in your mouth." If you disagree, please be specific. Of course you do see exactly that sort of evidence daily. You entertain ideas for which you have no material explanation.
But I don't therefore conclude that they have no material explanation. That's very much the problem. While a person may assert that entertainng a thought is a purely material phenomenon, that isn't the same as having an explanation for how that phenomenon would work. Without even any explanation, let alone material evidence for that expanation, it is faith. When that faith cannot recognise challenges, some would see it as a bigotry. Knowing that you've been challenged in the past to provide that explanation, and that you've never been able to do it, and that encounter evidence of the non-material daily, yet continuing to deny that, demonstrates something reprehensible, if not bigotry.
Of course there is stuff for which I have no explanation. To therefore conclude that there is therefore a non-material explanation is lazy thinking - it's avoiding the question. Which question? Also, could you please define what non-material things are? Do you have any other evidence beyond your argument from ignorance.
It is not an argument from ignorance to note that thought, ideas and perceptions are real, that we each have ampe evidence for each of them, and to note that they have no material explanation. A non-material thing would be one that isn't material. A material object would exist independent of perception. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Genius
Shoes and socks removed,
Ahk tries to count syllables
But can\'t write haiku.
\\"...fuck off dickless.\\" -Ahkenaten
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Patere legem, quam ipse tulisti.
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #47 on: October 26, 2007, 01:30:35 PM » |
|
I'm just being honest. I later realized you are not [slow].
Feel free to identify any dishonesty you perceived. If you do not substantiate the assertion, a reader can fairly conclude that you chose it as a cheap out. OK, I see how that could have been misinterpreted. I appreciate the clarification. The agnostic retreat?
It's not a retreat when you put words in my mouth and then say I can't back them up. I haven't "put words in your mouth." If you disagree, please be specific. I have never claimed to be a materialist. Simply I no-reason to believe that any specific phenomenon is caused by non-material things. But I don't therefore conclude that they have no material explanation. That's very much the problem. While a person may assert that entertainng a thought is a purely material phenomenon, that isn't the same as having an explanation for how that phenomenon would work. Without even any explanation, let alone material evidence for that expanation, it is faith. When that faith cannot recognise challenges, some would see it as a bigotry. [/quote] You just went off on a Baldar-esque tangent. When did I assert that entertaining a thought is a purely material phenomenon. Which question?
The question of what caused a particular phenomenon. It is not an argument from ignorance to note that thought, ideas and perceptions are real, that we each have ampe evidence for each of them, and to note that they have no material explanation.
Prove they have no material explanation. All you are entitled to say is that they have no known material explanation. A non-material thing would be one that isn't material. A material object would exist independent of perception.
Super. Not sure how this truism helps. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
zukiphile
|
|
« Reply #48 on: October 26, 2007, 02:16:16 PM » |
|
Prove they have no material explanation. All you are entitled to say is that they have no known material explanation. First let's recognise the desperation in your demand for proof of a negative. then let's understand that having no known explanation is exactly the same as having no explanation. You drawn a distinction without difference. A non-material thing would be one that isn't material. A material object would exist independent of perception.
Super. Not sure how this truism helps. Then why did you ask for it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Genius
Shoes and socks removed,
Ahk tries to count syllables
But can\'t write haiku.
\\"...fuck off dickless.\\" -Ahkenaten
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Patere legem, quam ipse tulisti.
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #49 on: October 26, 2007, 02:22:52 PM » |
|
Prove they have no material explanation. All you are entitled to say is that they have no known material explanation. First let's recognise the desperation in your demand for proof of a negative. You made a statement you cannot prove and then call it desperation when I point that out. then let's understand that having no known explanation is exactly the same as having no explanation.
No it isn't. Before we knew what causes lightning there was no known explanation. But there was an explanation. We just didn't know it. You drawn a distinction without difference.
Only in the mind of an idiot. A non-material thing would be one that isn't material. A material object would exist independent of perception.
Super. Not sure how this truism helps. Then why did you ask for it? I didn't. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Delta Nine
Full Member
Karma: +21/-125
Posts: 130
The Rapture? I'm not worried. Santa will save me.
|
|
« Reply #50 on: October 26, 2007, 02:25:30 PM » |
|
I don't see why you put Barney in the same camp as me.
You're in Barney's camp as Chester is in Spikes camp.  Chester's the little one. You're Chester.........just to clarify. Fine with me. I have no where near the amount of knowledge on religion as Barney does. Even if I did, I still can't write as well as he can. On the other hand, I can destroy you so you're no one to talk. Are you aware that you just admitted to being Barney's sidekick? If Barney were a bully (which he isn't though some people seem to think he is) you'd be the little nerdy kid who hangs around with him for protection and does all his homework. Sad. EDIT: BTW you are a bigot and the rest of us get tarred with the same boat. I'll let you know when I care what you think. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #51 on: October 26, 2007, 02:40:07 PM » |
|
2.DOH, why not debate topics instead of simply dealing in ad hom's? Is that all you've got? Has your reasoning dried up and its time to start calling people names?
This has been happening a lot lately. Zuk, baldar, you, etc.. have all refused to debate topics and simply attacked people.
ALL OF YOU: ADDRESS THE TOPICS!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
zukiphile
|
|
« Reply #52 on: October 26, 2007, 04:03:33 PM » |
|
You confuse explanation and cause. That would be an easy error for an idiot. What is your excuse? A non-material thing would be one that isn't material. A material object would exist independent of perception.
Super. Not sure how this truism helps. Then why did you ask for it? I didn't. You should pay more attention to what you write. Also, could you please define what non-material things are? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 26, 2007, 05:54:02 PM by zukiphile »
|
Logged
|
The Genius
Shoes and socks removed,
Ahk tries to count syllables
But can\'t write haiku.
\\"...fuck off dickless.\\" -Ahkenaten
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Patere legem, quam ipse tulisti.
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #53 on: October 26, 2007, 05:58:02 PM » |
|
He asked for a definition, not a re-statement of the word.
Idiot is an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
2.DOH
Full Member
Karma: +83/-18
Posts: 171
|
|
« Reply #54 on: October 26, 2007, 07:03:15 PM » |
|
2.DOH, why not debate topics instead of simply dealing in ad hom's? D9 asked why you & he were in the same camp. I used an illustration, a parallel, to answer the question. That's not an ad hom. This has been happening a lot lately. Zuk, baldar, you, etc.. have all refused to debate topics and simply attacked people.
Refused? You're mistaken. I've been debating you in the "respecting beliefs" thread. That shows no refusal. From now on, I'll keep in mind, your distaste for ad homs & treat you with the same grace & courtesy you & D9 have shown Christians on this board, both currently & from the days at IAP 1.0. ADDRESS THE TOPICS!!!!!!! What topic? Is the OP(I am me) a bigot? I don't know enough about him to state one way or another. That's why I clicked "who are you?" as my answer. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 26, 2007, 07:20:52 PM by 2.DOH »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #55 on: October 27, 2007, 10:19:15 AM » |
|
You confuse explanation and cause. That would be an easy error for an idiot. What is your excuse? A non-material thing would be one that isn't material. A material object would exist independent of perception.
Super. Not sure how this truism helps. Then why did you ask for it? I didn't. You should pay more attention to what you write. Also, could you please define what non-material things are? I asked what they are not what they are not. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #56 on: October 27, 2007, 11:01:39 AM » |
|
And this shows the special pleading of demanding material evidence for religious concepts, while not requiring it of other concepts. We likely share some idea about the social equality or ethics that have no evidentiary support in our five senses, but can be part of a coherent overall view.
I am sorry that this is going to be a digression from the topic. There is no special pleading involved here. A number of religious concepts concern an interraction with the material. The demand in this case for material evidnce or at least an account of why it should not be required are perfectly valid. Where a demonstration of certainty is demanded for the idea of God, but materialist assertions and beliefs are accepted on faith there is indeed a special pleading. [/quote] No demonstration of certainty is demanded. One of your regualar approaches to any question is to bang on about the empistemological problem of certainty. For this discussion, I'll cede that point - we cannot have certainty. We can however have reasonable grounds, a warrant, for believing things about the material world. This, I claim, is not faith. It is the application of some principles of evidence and reasoning. These principles do not apply to 'god' (apparently). Therefore, I simply ask how these principles should be EXTENDED to cover the idea of 'god'. The only way in which this is 'special pleading' is because the godders try to make god different - though they cannot explain or demonstrate how. (Note that a parallel thread asking for a definition of god is producing nothing of worth). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #57 on: October 27, 2007, 11:04:15 AM » |
|
(Note that a parallel thread asking for a definition of god is producing nothing of worth).
Seriously. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #58 on: October 27, 2007, 11:58:09 AM » |
|
Where a demonstration of certainty is demanded for the idea of God, but materialist assertions and beliefs are accepted on faith there is indeed a special pleading.
No demonstration of certainty is demanded. This of course is false. IamMe has demanded "proof" for God on numerous occasions. One of your regualar approaches to any question is to bang on about the empistemological problem of certainty. For this discussion, I'll cede that point - we cannot have certainty. I for one am happy abut this concession. We can however have reasonable grounds, a warrant, for believing things about the material world. This, I claim, is not faith. It is the application of some principles of evidence and reasoning. Yes, but here you have changed the premise. Since you have ceded the point on certainty, then we are not speaking of believing certain general aspects of this universe, rather we are speaking of the cause for this universe. Theists believe it was caused by a creator while those who don't accept a creator believe it had a material cause. On this point, comparing apples to apples, the special pleading becomes larger than life. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #59 on: October 27, 2007, 01:22:24 PM » |
|
Damn I didn't notice the 'tag'.
Where a demonstration of certainty is demanded for the idea of God, but materialist assertions and beliefs are accepted on faith there is indeed a special pleading.
No demonstration of certainty is demanded. This of course is false. IamMe has demanded "proof" for God on numerous occasions. Not in this sub-thread. I am simply responding to your mate's comment that "And this shows the special pleading of demanding material evidence for religious concepts". Keep up, Reasond Faith. One of your regualar approaches to any question is to bang on about the empistemological problem of certainty. For this discussion, I'll cede that point - we cannot have certainty. I for one am happy abut this concession. And I am certain that you (a) noted the 'for this discussion' and (b) will not display any certainty yourself about any of your obsessions. We can however have reasonable grounds, a warrant, for believing things about the material world. This, I claim, is not faith. It is the application of some principles of evidence and reasoning. Yes, but here you have changed the premise. Since you have ceded the point on certainty, then we are not speaking of believing certain general aspects of this universe, rather we are speaking of the cause for this universe. Theists believe it was caused by a creator while those who don't accept a creator believe it had a material cause. On this point, comparing apples to apples, the special pleading becomes larger than life. ? I think it is you who are trying to change the terms of the argument. I was speaking of rational warrant - you are introducing the very special pleading I was denying by trying to claim there is a different mode of justifying belief beyond rationality. I made NO allusion to causes or origins of the universe - that is the purlieu of your sects. I am simply querying the basis on which you claim a non-material whatever (for me the idea is oxymoronic) that affects the material: a basis which is not EXPECTED to use the principles of justification of the material that it purportedly affects. The special pleading belongs entirely to your views - the burden of justification is upon you. You introduce a class of objects 'beyond' the material that is to be immune to the ways of assessing the material. So how should they be assessed? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
