ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th July 2017, 05:38 AM   #81
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Cherry picking won't help your case, Jordan. Individual bacterium do not think.


.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
Bacteria think..
No, that's not what the article said. Your ability to understand simple concepts is under question.


(A)


On the contrary to your remark that they don't think, here is additional data from the article:

"Pamela Lyon, of the University of Adelaide and the ANU, has been arguing for some time that this makes what bacteria do a form of cognition."


(B)

Also, I didin't cherry pick.
You might have noticed that John S. Wilkins (the article's author) is a philosopher.
I simply extracted what was likely to be valid data from the article, that is data with respect to actual biologists.


Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post


That has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of belief as an evolutionary trait.

It seems like you simply don't understand the first thing about what's needed to follow this sort of discussion.



That's like saying you have a choice to find pastry tasty.

What scientific evidence can you show us, regarding belief as a set trait in humans, that humans cannot avoid?

__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 4th July 2017 at 05:47 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 05:52 AM   #82
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,855
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
"Pamela Lyon, of the University of Adelaide and the ANU, has been arguing for some time that this makes what bacteria do a form of cognition."
I've already addressed this. Individual bacterium do not think.

Quote:
What scientific evidence can you show us, regarding belief as a set trait in humans, that humans cannot avoid?
Why would I present evidence for a claim that I didn't make?

Seriously, you seem incapable of following the discussion. I can't help you with that.

Here's an example, from your sig:

Quote:
"non beliefism" = atheism minus theism
Atheism already doesn't have theism. How can you subtract theism from atheism? That makes no sense.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."

Last edited by Argumemnon; 4th July 2017 at 05:53 AM.
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 06:13 AM   #83
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,027
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Likewise, one can choose not to employ belief.
Really?

Science is built on the premise that under the same circumstances, the same things will happen. For instance, if I drop a ball, it will fall, and if I do it again, it will fall again.

That premise is a belief. It certainly has a lot of evidence for it, but it is a belief nonetheless, and this specific belief is one that certain theists do not have. Their god can change the laws of nature from one moment to the next, and since it is a god-in-the-gap argument, it cannot be disproved.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 06:24 AM   #84
Chanakya
Punditry Unlimited
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 156
Hilarious thread! They've moved it to R&P now. Shouldn't this go under Humor?


PGJ, I don't believe you're 100% sane. Do you agree with my non-belief?

*gets ready to duck to avoid the graphics*
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 06:36 AM   #85
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,670
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I had read them.

Both articles express that bacteria can think, but not in the same way as mammals. Doesn't remove the factum that they think, regardless.




That is nonbeliefism's point Argumemnon; why would one choose Y, given that X is better?

KneeGrow, please.

You haven't made a single defensible point in the many months you have been trying. You keep falling back on equivocation fallacies and appeals to false definitions.

Don't make me read you like The New York Times once again.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:09 AM   #86
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I've already addressed this. Individual bacterium do not think.



Why would I present evidence for a claim that I didn't make?

Seriously, you seem incapable of following the discussion. I can't help you with that.

Here's an example, from your sig:



Atheism already doesn't have theism. How can you subtract theism from atheism? That makes no sense.
I noticed you switched from bacteria, to individual bacterium don't think, about a post ago.

Still doesn't change that you said bacteria didn't think, several posts ago.

Also, where did I express the words "individual bacterium think"?

Why did you express that bacteria (not individual bacterium) didn't think?


FOOTNOTE:
It appears there is an error in your short term memory.

Did you forget this quote of yours?:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon
Choose"? We're talking about evolution, here. There's no choice there.
So, you need to provide evidence, as to why you garner that humans cannot avoid belief.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 4th July 2017 at 07:26 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:17 AM   #87
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
KneeGrow, please.

You haven't made a single defensible point in the many months you have been trying. You keep falling back on equivocation fallacies and appeals to false definitions.

Don't make me read you like The New York Times once again.
Nonbeliefism occurs on a simple description; that no critically thinking human somebody should select belief (that by definition, can include non science) instead of the scientific methodology.


It is empirically observed that scientific methodology cannot include non scientific methodology, but however, that belief can include non science,
and such is non beliefism's premise.


One need not trust/believe in science, such that one applies it...
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:20 AM   #88
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Really?

Science is built on the premise that under the same circumstances, the same things will happen. For instance, if I drop a ball, it will fall, and if I do it again, it will fall again.

That premise is a belief. It certainly has a lot of evidence for it, but it is a belief nonetheless..
Wrong.

That flat earthers exist, does not disregard gravitational theory, and that scientists may believe in equations, does not alter the behaviour of those equations.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:24 AM   #89
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,855
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I noticed you switched from bacteria, to individual bacterium don't think, about a post ago.

Still doesn't change that you said bacteria didn't think, several posts ago.

Also, where did I express the words "individual bacterium think"?

Why did you express that bacteria (not individual bacterium) didn't think?
I didn't switch anything. I waited to see if you'd spot your mistake, and gave you several chances to do so, before springing the trap.

Saying "humans don't fly" is the same as saying "a human doesn't fly", by the way. That bacteria colonies exhibit certain behaviours changes nothing about the fact that bacteria don't think.

But again, you seem completely out of your depth in a discussion that uses reason.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:29 AM   #90
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I didn't switch anything. I waited to see if you'd spot your mistake, and gave you several chances to do so, before springing the trap.

Saying "humans don't fly" is the same as saying "a human doesn't fly", by the way. That bacteria colonies exhibit certain behaviours changes nothing about the fact that bacteria don't think.

But again, you seem completely out of your depth in a discussion that uses reason.
Go back to post 54.
Why lie?
Are you trolling?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon
Bacteria don't have nervous systems. Ergo they don't think.
So you definitely switched, only to confuse yourself further.

Also, recall this data by actual biologist:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
On the contrary to your remark that they don't think, here is additional data from the article:

"Pamela Lyon, of the University of Adelaide and the ANU, has been arguing for some time that this makes what bacteria do a form of cognition."
Why bother to lie though?

Are you aware that others here can easily navigate to the replies, and quickly uncover that the error you accused me of doing, is non existent, and instead that you blundered?
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 4th July 2017 at 07:39 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:36 AM   #91
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,140
Repeating the same thing ad nauseum doesn't make you righter.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:39 AM   #92
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Repeating the same thing ad nauseum doesn't make you righter.
Argumemnon could perhaps evolve, with your remark above...
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 4th July 2017 at 07:41 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:39 AM   #93
Chanakya
Punditry Unlimited
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Repeating the same thing ad nauseum doesn't make you righter.

So you believe.

He doesn't believe in believing at all, remember? So what you say won't apply to him.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:44 AM   #94
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Hilarious thread! They've moved it to R&P now. Shouldn't this go under Humor?


PGJ, I don't believe you're 100% sane. Do you agree with my non-belief?

*gets ready to duck to avoid the graphics*
The grade of intellect reflected in some of these responses are almost laughable.

I would therein not oppose to this thread's moving to humour section.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:49 AM   #95
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,140
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
The grade of intellect reflected in some of these responses are is almost laughable.

I would therein? not oppose to this thread's? moving to humour section.
You should always check your spelling, grammar, and general 'does this make sense' before criticising the intellect of others.

Or perhaps, like bacteria, this thread has a form of cognition?
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

Last edited by fagin; 4th July 2017 at 07:50 AM.
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:51 AM   #96
Chanakya
Punditry Unlimited
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 156
Just kidding, PGJ. I don't really think you're nuts. And you're doing great work here. What better way to spend the time of day, after all, than spreading laughter and cheer all around?

But you didn't answer my question. If someone walks up to you and tells you "PGJ, I don't believe you're 100% sane. Do you agree with my non-belief?", what would you tell them (apart from the put-downs, in words and graphics)?
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 08:09 AM   #97
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,855
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Go back to post 54.
Why lie?
Are you trolling?

So you definitely switched, only to confuse yourself further.
Look, I've made every effort to explain things to you: bacteria have no nervous system. Ergo they cannot think. Like individual neurons in your brain can't think. The whole of the brain, however, may have emergend properties such as thought. Do you understand this?

Quote:
Why bother to lie though?

Are you aware that others here can easily navigate to the replies, and quickly uncover that the error you accused me of doing, is non existent, and instead that you blundered?
Yes, I'm aware of that, and so far you seem to be the only one confused by what I'm telling you. This is all an attempt by you to divert from your initial mistake of countering my post with bacteria as an example when they are irrelevant to that post.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 08:30 AM   #98
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Atheism already doesn't have theism. How can you subtract theism from atheism? That makes no sense.
Not to defend this poster's comedy routine argument, but I gather he means that the very concept of theism is inadmissible in his stated premise of rejecting beliefs, so it should not logically be used in his definition (it is not properly atheism if a faith-based theism is rejected in toto). Kind of like someone wouldn't claim to be anti-invisible-pink-unicorn. He wants to advocate rationality by rejecting belief wholesale...which highlights his misunderstanding of what belief is. It was a funny word game initially but is dragging on a bit now.
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 08:35 AM   #99
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,140
I believe you may be correct.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 08:47 AM   #100
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,855
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Not to defend this poster's comedy routine argument, but I gather he means that the very concept of theism is inadmissible in his stated premise of rejecting beliefs, so it should not logically be used in his definition (it is not properly atheism if a faith-based theism is rejected in toto). Kind of like someone wouldn't claim to be anti-invisible-pink-unicorn. He wants to advocate rationality by rejecting belief wholesale...which highlights his misunderstanding of what belief is. It was a funny word game initially but is dragging on a bit now.
If correct, that may be even more stupid. PGJ's entire shtick seems to be word salad dressed up as erudition and intelligence.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 08:56 AM   #101
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
If correct, that may be even more stupid. PGJ's entire shtick seems to be word salad dressed up as erudition and intelligence.
I ponder:

(A)

Rationality betwixt the cited layed premise of nonbeliefismTM and subset eg: theism is incongruencable, henetoforth nonscienceish.

Recall:

(B)

Amidst thine musings, you plummet forshortenedly betwixt the God-ish inassailabilityianism of the premise.

...Peons...
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 09:04 AM   #102
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 608
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
If you don't fancy science, and instead prefer wishful thinking select another book/
Are you being deliberately obtuse or can you genuinely not understand my point?

At no point in the post of mine that you quoted and responded to did I say that I "don't fancy science". I said or implied absolutely nothing of the sort.

My comment was clearly not about the pros or cons of science, but about the rather desperate sounding declaration at the very start of the book about how it contains "no opinion, faith emotion nor bias......" etc.

People who read the book can and will decide themselves about how opinionated, biased, emotional, etc. it is. When people read the book, they will be able to decide if it is biased or not, emotional or not, opinionated or not, etc. based upon what is actually written in the book. Telling people at the very start of your book that it is unbiased, unemotional and unopinionated is not going to make them believe that it is actually these things.

It's not like you're quoting from a review where the reviewer read the book, noted these positive qualities and wrote the up in a review. No, what you're doing is arrogantly declaring your own opinion about your book at the very start in order to try and convince people before they even read the book, just how coldly logical and scientific and just darn awesome it is.

Like I said, this sets off red flags for me. It's like your telling your readers what they should think of your book before that actually read it, instead of letting them form their own opinion after actually reading it, which is generally how these things should work.

Quote:
Rather than declare opinion, I avoided such, as one tends to express nonsense/non-science, when one expresses opinion.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.


Quote:
FOOTNOTE:
There are several valid sources included in the book, including source 1, and others.
Did I say that your book contained no valid sources?

Quote:
By extension, biblical contradictions are a non-trivial portion of silly constructs believed by billions of humans..., that should be self-explanatory to some.
I'm not here to debate Biblical contradictions and why people would believe such a ridiculous book as the Bible. I asked about it because you randomly mentioned the Bible and its contradictions in the introduction to your book and it seemed to be mentioned in the introduction for no obvious reason. What I wanted to know was why you mentioned Christianity and Biblical contradictions in the introduction. The introduction does not say that there is a section of the book dedicated to these things and that you will discuss the problems with religion and the problems with religious scriptures. You just randomly mention the Bible and Biblical contradictions in the midst of an introduction that seems to randomly and vaguely mention topics like artificial intelligence, quantum mechanics, the meaning of life, Biblical contradictions, etc. and there's no apparent reason for the relevance of these topics or there connection with each other or with the overall theme of the book. Is the book about these topics? Are there chapters about these various topics? The introduction is so poorly written that I can't tell what it's actually getting at. It doesn't appear to be making any attempt to actually introduce what's going to be in the book as it doesn't mention that these topics are going to be discussed in the book and why they're mentioned in the introduction. It's like you just rambled on about various subjects (that may or may not be important topics in the book) in the introduction for some reason or other, without stopping to think about what the purpose of the introduction actually was and what you expect your readers to get out of the introduction.

The introduction to a book should do as the name implies, introduce the book to the potential reader. Let them know what the book is about. What the motivation was for writing the book. What topics will be discussed. What the overall theme is. Things like that. Instead, what you've appeared to have done is string together a bunch of random sentences that obliquely mention various topics that have no apparent connection with each other and no explanation is given to the reader about the relevance of these subjects and their connection to the overriding theme of the book. The sentences are disconnected from each other. They don't seem to follow from each other. Its all rather strange and random reading to me.

TL;DR version: Having read the introduction to your book, I don't actually know what the book is really about. That does not inspire me to want to read the actual book. The introduction should give me some idea of what to expect in the book itself.

Anyway, make of this criticism what you will, but if you're going to bother responding to it, please responding to what I'm actually criticising about the introduction to your book, not what you imagine I'm criticising about it, which is what you appear to have done.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 09:34 AM   #103
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,855
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I ponder:

(A)

Rationality betwixt the cited layed premise of nonbeliefismTM and subset eg: theism is incongruencable, henetoforth nonscienceish.

Recall:

(B)

Amidst thine musings, you plummet forshortenedly betwixt the God-ish inassailabilityianism of the premise.

...Peons...
I feel so small right now.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 09:58 AM   #104
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,777
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post


It is empirically observed that scientific methodology cannot include non scientific methodology, but however, that belief can include non science,
and such is non beliefism's premise.


One need not trust/believe in science, such that one applies it...
It is empirically observed that a vegan diet cannot include non vegan foods, but however, that snacks can include animal products.

Categories do not include other categories that they must exclude by definition. This does not need saying. You're not saying anything here.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 09:59 AM   #105
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,855
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
You're not saying anything here.
Excellent thread summary.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:38 PM   #106
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,398
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Does red oppose crimson because red can refer to other shades of red than crimson as well as crimson, while crimson can only refer to crimson?
Repeating the question, because ProgrammingGodJordan still has yet to even explain why he sees this logical principle to be valid, much less has presented a valid defense of this logic.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:52 PM   #107
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
It is empirically observed that a vegan diet cannot include non vegan foods, but however, that snacks can include animal products.

Categories do not include other categories that they must exclude by definition. This does not need saying. You're not saying anything here.
Quite the irrelevant sequence above.

That belief may inherently include non-science, should indicate to any normal human thinker that belief is not compatible with science.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 01:59 PM   #108
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
The grade of intellect reflected in some of these responses are almost laughable.
I would therein not oppose to this thread's moving to the humour section.
You should always check your spelling, grammar, and general 'does this make sense' before criticising the intellect of others.

Or perhaps, like bacteria, this thread has a form of cognition?
(1) Grade may mean set. So, my usage of 'are' is valid.
(2) Therein is a valid word thereafter.
(3) Not opposing to something, is valid.

https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...n-that-follows
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 4th July 2017 at 03:33 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 02:01 PM   #109
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Are you being deliberately obtuse or can you genuinely not understand my point?

At no point in the post of mine that you quoted and responded to did I say that I "don't fancy science". I said or implied absolutely nothing of the sort.

My comment was clearly not about the pros or cons of science, but about the rather desperate sounding declaration at the very start of the book about how it contains "no opinion, faith emotion nor bias......" etc.

People who read the book can and will decide themselves about how opinionated, biased, emotional, etc. it is. When people read the book, they will be able to decide if it is biased or not, emotional or not, opinionated or not, etc. based upon what is actually written in the book. Telling people at the very start of your book that it is unbiased, unemotional and unopinionated is not going to make them believe that it is actually these things.

It's not like you're quoting from a review where the reviewer read the book, noted these positive qualities and wrote the up in a review. No, what you're doing is arrogantly declaring your own opinion about your book at the very start in order to try and convince people before they even read the book, just how coldly logical and scientific and just darn awesome it is.

Like I said, this sets off red flags for me. It's like your telling your readers what they should think of your book before that actually read it, instead of letting them form their own opinion after actually reading it, which is generally how these things should work.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.


Did I say that your book contained no valid sources?

I'm not here to debate Biblical contradictions and why people would believe such a ridiculous book as the Bible. I asked about it because you randomly mentioned the Bible and its contradictions in the introduction to your book and it seemed to be mentioned in the introduction for no obvious reason. What I wanted to know was why you mentioned Christianity and Biblical contradictions in the introduction. The introduction does not say that there is a section of the book dedicated to these things and that you will discuss the problems with religion and the problems with religious scriptures. You just randomly mention the Bible and Biblical contradictions in the midst of an introduction that seems to randomly and vaguely mention topics like artificial intelligence, quantum mechanics, the meaning of life, Biblical contradictions, etc. and there's no apparent reason for the relevance of these topics or there connection with each other or with the overall theme of the book. Is the book about these topics? Are there chapters about these various topics? The introduction is so poorly written that I can't tell what it's actually getting at. It doesn't appear to be making any attempt to actually introduce what's going to be in the book as it doesn't mention that these topics are going to be discussed in the book and why they're mentioned in the introduction. It's like you just rambled on about various subjects (that may or may not be important topics in the book) in the introduction for some reason or other, without stopping to think about what the purpose of the introduction actually was and what you expect your readers to get out of the introduction.

The introduction to a book should do as the name implies, introduce the book to the potential reader. Let them know what the book is about. What the motivation was for writing the book. What topics will be discussed. What the overall theme is. Things like that. Instead, what you've appeared to have done is string together a bunch of random sentences that obliquely mention various topics that have no apparent connection with each other and no explanation is given to the reader about the relevance of these subjects and their connection to the overriding theme of the book. The sentences are disconnected from each other. They don't seem to follow from each other. Its all rather strange and random reading to me.

TL;DR version: Having read the introduction to your book, I don't actually know what the book is really about. That does not inspire me to want to read the actual book. The introduction should give me some idea of what to expect in the book itself.

Anyway, make of this criticism what you will, but if you're going to bother responding to it, please responding to what I'm actually criticising about the introduction to your book, not what you imagine I'm criticising about it, which is what you appear to have done.
TL; DR.
Try to be more precise in your expressions.

Please organize your thought cycles, and reconstruct a concise, small response.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 02:04 PM   #110
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Just kidding, PGJ. I don't really think you're nuts. And you're doing great work here. What better way to spend the time of day, after all, than spreading laughter and cheer all around?

But you didn't answer my question. If someone walks up to you and tells you "PGJ, I don't believe you're 100% sane. Do you agree with my non-belief?", what would you tell them (apart from the put-downs, in words and graphics)?
I would direct them to my book.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 02:10 PM   #111
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Not to defend this poster's comedy routine argument, but I gather he means that the very concept of theism is inadmissible in his stated premise of rejecting beliefs, so it should not logically be used in his definition (it is not properly atheism if a faith-based theism is rejected in toto). Kind of like someone wouldn't claim to be anti-invisible-pink-unicorn. He wants to advocate rationality by rejecting belief wholesale...which highlights his misunderstanding of what belief is. It was a funny word game initially but is dragging on a bit now.


Belief standard definition:
To accept something as true, especially absent evidence.

Thusly, simply, that belief may primarily include non-scientific methodology, should indicate to humans beyond the age of childhood, that belief opposes science...
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 03:09 PM   #112
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,140
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(1) Grade may mean set. So, my usage of 'are' is valid.
(2) Therein is a valid word thereafter.
(3) Not opposing to something, is valid.
Nope, set is still singular, and I can't be bothered with the rest of your word salad.

Your 'literary' affections are tiresome.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 03:23 PM   #113
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Nope, set is still singular, and I can't be bothered with the rest of your word salad.

Your 'literary' affections are tiresome.
To clarify, the 'set' occured with respect to a relative clause, in tandem with 'intellect', which may be plural.

https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...n-that-follows
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 4th July 2017 at 03:34 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 03:31 PM   #114
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
For those that appear to be enamoured with belief, take a listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtBnm0X50VQ

__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 03:41 PM   #115
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,784
PGJ I don't believe a word.

Do you have a diagram for me? <g d r>
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 04:47 PM   #116
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,398
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Quite the irrelevant sequence above.

That belief may inherently include non-science, should indicate to any normal human thinker that belief is not compatible with science.
That "liquid" may inherently include liquids that are not in the human body should indicate to any normal human thinker that liquid is not compatible with the human body. If you actually did embrace this logic of yours, you would be forced not to drink any liquids (and try to remove any that are already present)! I wonder, are you even able to understand how the logical principle that you're employing fails in both theoretical and practical application?

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
For those that appear to be enamoured with belief, take a listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson
Employing an argument from authority when he's dumbing things down into a talking point for the masses doesn't actually support your case, especially when he was addressing a notably different argument in the first place.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 4th July 2017 at 04:58 PM.
Aridas is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 05:03 PM   #117
ProgrammingGodJordan
Muse
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
That "liquid" may inherently include liquids that are not in the human body should indicate to any normal human thinker that liquid is not compatible with the human body. If you actually did embrace this logic of yours, you would be forced not to drink any liquids (and try to remove any that are already present)! I wonder, are you even able to understand how the logical principle that you're employing fails in both theoretical and practical application?



Employing an argument from authority when he's dumbing things down into a talking point for the masses doesn't actually support your case, especially when he was addressing a notably different argument in the first place.

You need attempt avoid silly, irrelevant anecdotes.

Your words do not alter the factum, that belief, can allow non-scientific methodology, while science cannot.

I am disappointed that it is not then clear to you, that belief opposes science, as it is a construct that primarily allows non-science.



FOONOTE:

Neil Tyson is addressing the very same issue that my book addresses; that belief is worthless, opposing science by definition.
You should also recall that such an authority is quite knowledgeable on the matter of science, probably more so than yourself.



I am curious, how is Neil's point supposedly "notably different" than the point(s) I make amidst the original post and above?
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 4th July 2017 at 05:53 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 06:54 PM   #118
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,398
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
You need attempt avoid silly, irrelevant anecdotes.
Highlighting the faults in the logic that you're employing is hardly silly or irrelevant. Logical principles need to be generally true to be valid to employ as an argument, not specially pleaded to be relevant for one case and not others. Doing things like you are is something of a hallmark of the nastier aspects of religion... and quite frankly, I have no intention of inserting religious thinking into my atheism.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Your words do not alter the factum, that belief, can allow non-scientific methodology, while science cannot.
Of course it doesn't. Nor was there any attempt to argue that it did. Rather, it was highlighting how you are attempting to grossly and fallaciously misuse that rather trivial fact to try to support a harmful, ignorant, and internally contradictory "understanding."

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I am disappointed that it is not then clear to you, that belief opposes science, as it is a construct which primarily allows non-science.
There are effectively uncountable kinds of liquids that will kill you if you drink them and frequently even if you are near them, and that very possibly includes the overwhelming majority of kinds of liquids. Does that make it any more reasonable or valid to say that liquids are not compatible with the human body? Or, shockingly, could you admit that maybe, just maybe, a more nuanced approach is needed to validly address the issue than to proclaim all liquid to be in opposition to the human body and should thus be removed from the human body?

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Neil Tyson is addressing the very same issue that my book addresses; that belief is worthless, opposing science by definition.
More specifically, certain kinds of beliefs do oppose science by definition. Trying to overgeneralize that fact into a rejection of all belief, however, is to ignore the nature of what belief actually is and what functions it serves, on top of committing multiple logical fallacies.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
You should also recall that such an authority is quite knowledgeable on the matter of science, probably more so than yourself.
And I didn't claim that the weakness necessarily laid with him, though I very strongly suspect that Tyson and I would very quickly agree in a discussion on the topic, when it comes the points that I was actually making. After all, this is very basic stuff that we're talking about and it would surprise me quite a bit if he actually disagreed with a counter to that statement that said "Reality is what's true regardless of what one believes about it. Science is simply the most reliable tool that we have to determine what reality actually is, by far." To draw on a couple of Tyson's quotes myself to further reinforce that, though, given that he's the subject in question, "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." and "Knowing how to think empowers you far beyond those who know only what to think."

Back to your understanding of the matters at hand, though... that does seem to be a place of great weakness. Hence one of the reasons why I pointedly differentiated between belief and faith at the beginning of discussion and why I've been highlighting how the logic that you've been employing is little more than special pleading and overgeneralization.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I am curious, how is Neil's point supposedly "notably different" than the point(s) I make amidst the original post and above?
Hmm? In response to a questioner who was vaguely waffling about different people believing different things, he responded with the claim that science doesn't require one to believe in it for to be true. That is quite true, given that truth is not mutable or dependent upon outside subjective validation to actually be the case. It's also a reference to the fact that the scientific method is all about focusing on the beliefs regarding the best methods to gather and evaluate information rather than on the desired end beliefs. It's about the how, in other words, more than the what. To repeat the quote from earlier for emphasis, "Knowing how to think empowers you far beyond those who know only what to think." That's certainly not a rejection of all kinds of belief, there. A rejection of beliefs based on fallacious logic, perhaps, but not all belief by a long shot.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 4th July 2017 at 07:21 PM.
Aridas is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:08 PM   #119
desmirelle
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 241
Algebra!

non-beliefism = atheism minus theism

then

non-beliefism = a

Don't know how that helps, but it's what the problem reduces to.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 07:13 PM   #120
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post


Belief standard definition:
To accept something as true, especially absent evidence.
So you keep saying. And as it has been repeatedly pointed out to you on several threads now, the use of 'especially' does not imply the exclusivity you think it does. Belief can mean to accept as true without evidence (faith) and it can also mean to accept as true with evidence (as in a scientific belief). You are having an inexplicably difficult time grasping the latter.

Quote:
Thusly, simply, that belief may primarily include non-scientific methodology, should indicate to humans beyond the age of childhood, that belief opposes science...
A human beyond the age of childhood can normally grasp the concept of scientific or rational belief. Faith may not withstand the rigors of the scientific method, but you persistently employ the wrong term (belief).

Just look at what you wrote above: because belief may be unfounded on science, you assert it opposes science. No, Baba Louis. It may sometimes oppose science, which is not a particularly profound observation. It's really not that complicated.
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.