Mass Debates

[vbnautilus 48]

Really, so assuming your hypothosis is true and therefore merits research is crazy? Government grants are going to dry up I can tell you.

It would surely be bad science. You can decide your hypothesis is worth testing but in fact you always set up your experiment assuming that your hypothesis is not true, and looking for evidence that moves you from this position.

If someone says they think 'God must have created the universe because of the order, balance and physical laws that random chance doesn't adequately explain'....that's not the same as 'Haley Bop is a galatic taxicab, bring your own shoes.'

I disagree, they are both hypotheses which cannot be tested -- they cannot be falsified by evidence.And why is 'Hale Bop is a taxicab' any less absurd than 'the carpenter died and came back to life three days later'.

[Spademan 94]

See, it's like a guy from Boston with a lisp: "mass... debates".Heh.I get it.

[vbnautilus 48]

Really, so assuming your hypothosis is true and therefore merits research is crazy? Government grants are going to dry up I can tell you.We assume things are true all the time and proceed with this assumption. I can agree that once presented with evidence that your hypothisis is not true a healthy person then declares it not true, but let's not make the 'We've done that with Christianity and you won't admit it's not true" statement pretending that it's true, cause it's not.

Also, all this "assuming" is totally undermines the whole venture of finding out what the truth is. The first definition I come across of this word is "take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof".

[crowTrobot 2]

We assume things are true all the time and proceed with this assumption.

we make probability judgements based on evidence.

I can agree that once presented with evidence that your hypothisis is not true a healthy person then declares it not true, but let's not make the 'We've done that with Christianity and you won't admit it's not true" statement pretending that it's true, cause it's not.If someone says they think 'God must have created the universe because of the order, balance and physical laws that random chance doesn't adequately explain'....that's not the same as 'Haley Bop is a galatic taxicab, bring your own shoes.'But the statement in question tries to make them equal, because it's a poorly thought out statement, which is the foundational headline for the site linked in the OP.

the statement you're referring to is NOT meant to compare beliefs such as in a generic universal designer of some kind based (right or wrong) on one's objective interpretation of empirical evidence. that's not a religion in the sense that is meant. it IS meant to refer to specific human religious belief such as fundamentalist christianity - faith-based belief that the bible is literal history/god's word etc. those are two entirely different things.the former is worthy of debate, while to a non-believer the later certainly is no different than belief in galactic taxi cabs.

[Balloon guy 158]

I disagree, they are both hypotheses which cannot be tested -- they cannot be falsified by evidence.And why is 'Hale Bop is a taxicab' any less absurd than 'the carpenter died and came back to life three days later'.

While you entertain the notion that there is no distinctions between the two, we can't really have a discussion about the latter now can we?

[Balloon guy 158]

we make probability judgements based on evidence.the statement you're referring to is NOT meant to compare beliefs such as in a generic universal designer of some kind based (right or wrong) on one's objective interpretation of empirical evidence. that's not a religion in the sense that is meant. it IS meant to refer to specific human religious belief such as fundamentalist christianity - faith-based belief that the bible is literal history/god's word etc. those are two entirely different things.the former is worthy of debate, while to a non-believer the later certainly is no different than belief in galactic taxi cabs.

I think you are trying to pretend you are willing to entertain the notion that a Creator's existance is somethign to consider. I would argue that you are not even remotely willing to allow for this possibility. Maybe .00000001%, but that puts you squarely in the FSM camp of closed minded people.Trying to micro manage the notions of this catchphrase to give it validity only makes you look defensive. Which I know is your new thing to pretend, that your just defending yourself, while going to internet places to tell people they are wrong about their worldview.We all know what this phrase is supposed to mean, you all have used it to pretend you are righteous in your dismissal of all things supernatural, and it is based on poorly thought out conclussions with predetermined beliefs, not logic or common sense. But that's atheism in a nutshell in my mind.

[crowTrobot 2]

I think you are trying to pretend you are willing to entertain the notion that a Creator's existance is somethign to consider. I would argue that you are not even remotely willing to allow for this possibility. Maybe .00000001%, but that puts you squarely in the FSM camp of closed minded people.

you cannot point to a single post of mine in this entire forum that would back that up. this whole rant of yours is just a straw man to avoid the real point of the "phrase" (which is that fundamentalist christian beliefs are no less silly and illogical than any other human religious belief).

Trying to micro manage the notions of this catchphrase to give it validity only makes you look defensive. Which I know is your new thing to pretend, that your just defending yourself, while going to internet places to tell people they are wrong about their worldview.We all know what this phrase is supposed to mean, you all have used it to pretend you are righteous in your dismissal of all things supernatural, and it is based on poorly thought out conclussions with predetermined beliefs, not logic or common sense. But that's atheism in a nutshell in my mind.

and still more ranting about straw men to avoid the issue. yawn.

[vbnautilus 48]

While you entertain the notion that there is no distinctions between the two, we can't really have a discussion about the latter now can we?

Why not? And how are they different? Just that you believe in one and not the other, is that what you mean?

[Balloon guy 158]

Why not? And how are they different? Just that you believe in one and not the other, is that what you mean?

They are different for many reasons, pretending that any random phrase is equal in validity to the Bible and the Judeo-Christian faith makes me think you either want to be difficult for being difficults sake, which is my deal, or you are playing with me, which is also my deal.

[Balloon guy 158]

you cannot point to a single post of mine in this entire forum that would back that up. this whole rant of yours is just a straw man to avoid the real point of the "phrase" (which is that fundamentalist christian beliefs are no less silly and illogical than any other human religious belief).

wrong - an agnostic by definition is someone who IS NOT COMMITTED TO AN OPINION either way.an atheist is someone who DOES have an opinion, but note that "opinion" doesn't necessarily have to equate to an absolute belief in the sense you are talking about. it is just what that person considers most likely to be true.there's a whole spectrum of levels of disbelief involved that you are trying to pigeonhole. i'm 99.9999% sure that (an interested/intervening) god doesn't exist. does that .0001% make me an agnostic instead of an atheist? if so everyone is an agnostic and there is nothing else.

That was the first hit with search function, I guess I could look more but that one was so easy that I thought I would leave it at that.Here's is where you pretend your qualifier gets you off the hook.

[vbnautilus 48]

They are different for many reasons, pretending that any random phrase is equal in validity to the Bible and the Judeo-Christian faith makes me think you either want to be difficult for being difficults sake, which is my deal, or you are playing with me, which is also my deal.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I suspect we may have a misunderstanding. ( Also, you seem somewhat less jovial than normal so I hope everything is OK with you? )"Any random phrase is equal in validity to the JC faith"Of course you know that I think many statements are plenty more valid that those of the JC faith since I believe most of the JC claims to be false. But my point is that any statement is on the same ground in terms of requiring evidence to accept it. No statement is privileged in this regard. And in the case of a claim that defies the rest of the evidence about nature, even more evidence is needed. Really what is the difference between a UFO cult's supernatural claims and those of Christianity? Just that more people believe Christianity? There are older books claiming it to be true? From the point of view of evidence why are the supernatural claims made by Christianity in any better position than those made by Ghost Hunters? To claim that a wafer changes in your mouth into the body of a man dead for 2000 years is a pretty extreme supernatural claim, which to me calls for the same amount of skepticism as the claim about a UFO anal probing. And both are equally gross, too.P.S. I know transubstantiation is not necessarily a claim you believe in, but that is why I picked it.

[crowTrobot 2]

you cannot point to a single post of mine in this entire forum that would back that up. this whole rant of yours is just a straw man to avoid the real point of the "phrase" (which is that fundamentalist christian beliefs are no less silly and illogical than any other human religious belief).That was the first hit with search function, I guess I could look more but that one was so easy that I thought I would leave it at that.Here's is where you pretend your qualifier gets you off the hook.

obviously the qualifyer is there because it's what i meant. it's not an excuse to "get me off the hook" for whatever kind of irrational bias you're insinuating.your smoke screen isn't working. try again.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I suspect we may have a misunderstanding. ( Also, you seem somewhat less jovial than normal so I hope everything is OK with you? )"Any random phrase is equal in validity to the JC faith"Of course you know that I think many statements are plenty more valid that those of the JC faith since I believe most of the JC claims to be false. But my point is that any statement is on the same ground in terms of requiring evidence to accept it. No statement is privileged in this regard. And in the case of a claim that defies the rest of the evidence about nature, even more evidence is needed. Really what is the difference between a UFO cult's supernatural claims and those of Christianity? Just that more people believe Christianity? There are older books claiming it to be true? From the point of view of evidence why are the supernatural claims made by Christianity in any better position than those made by Ghost Hunters? To claim that a wafer changes in your mouth into the body of a man dead for 2000 years is a pretty extreme supernatural claim, which to me calls for the same amount of skepticism as the claim about a UFO anal probing. And both are equally gross, too.P.S. I know transubstantiation is not necessarily a claim you believe in, but that is why I picked it.

Yea..long two weeks of work..18 hour days etc. but glad for the work. Sorry if grumpy...I'm getting too old etc...Making the case that you find things to disagree with about JC faith is different in my mind than saying all things are equal when talking about metaphysical things.You can make the arguments for individual items in the JC faith, but to group the whole faith as equal to any phrase that contains any religious tag places this statment in the catagory of simplistic to the point of being ridiculous.

[Balloon guy 158]

obviously the qualifyer is there because it's what i meant. it's not an excuse to "get me off the hook" for whatever kind of irrational bias you're insinuating.your smoke screen isn't working. try again.

says youRemember the good old days when you weren't embarrassed to admit you have a goal of seeing all religions gone and living in a world where there were no religions?

[crowTrobot 2]

says you

instead of trying to make this about my motives you should be at least attempting to argue that christianity IS distinguished from otherreligious belief. that's the only possible way you could counter the argument, and it's what a loyal apologist would be doing right now

[Balloon guy 158]

instead of trying to make this about my motives you should be at least attempting to argue that christianity IS distinguished from otherreligious belief. that's the only possible way you could counter the argument, and it's what a loyal apologist would be doing right now

It's already been proven many times that Christianity is different from other religions, why should I repeat what has already been proven?

[crowTrobot 2]

It's already been proven many times that Christianity is different from other religions, why should I repeat what has already been proven?

i meant distinguished by supporting objective evidence.

[Spademan 94]

You guys are so ridiculous. How many times can you crush an argument, point out its stupidity (nicely for some reason), see the same stupid ass fallacies phrased differently, on different points, over and over and over and over... and still continue on as if you are having some sort of discussion?The only good point BG makes in this entire section of the forum is that people will suffer fools kindly. Unfortunately it is tangential and accidental, as he doesn't mean to make this point. He just happens to do so by being suffered. He makes some good jokes occasionally, elsewhere, and I think you are letting that affect how you treat his ignorance here. His red herring, missing the point, argument from authority, begging the question, pitifully misdirected high-horse bullshit cult-speak should be treated as the superstitious fucktardism that it really is -- regardless of how cool you otherwise think the guy may be -- whenever it presents itself.Stop legitimizing compartmentalized stupidity by being amiable with it.

[BaseJester 1]

Actually it is the exact opposite of that

:-/The FSM is a parody. It's supposed to be clear that it is stupid.The Pastafarians perceive the argument for teaching intelligent design in biology is that teaching should be balanced among the viewpoints; to do otherwise is biased. So they invent the FSM (which is absurd) to demonstrate that educators have to make a choice on which viewpoints to present. Giving equal weight to every viewpoint is silly and impossible.

[vbnautilus 48]

:-/The FSM is a parody. It's supposed to be clear that it is stupid.The Pastafarians perceive the argument for teaching intelligent design in biology is that teaching should be balanced among the viewpoints; to do otherwise is biased. So they invent the FSM (which is absurd) to demonstrate that educators have to make a choice on which viewpoints to present. Giving equal weight to every viewpoint is silly and impossible.

Yes but BG thinks the parody fails because all these beliefs are clearly not equal, so its easy to choose. He thinks Christianity is a much better idea than FSM, presumably because his imaginary supernatural creature is not made of noodles.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yes but BG thinks the parody fails because all these beliefs are clearly not equal, so its easy to choose. He thinks Christianity is a much better idea than FSM, presumably because his imaginary supernatural creature is not made of noodles.

But He did make noodles.Or the ability to enjoy them, which is not an evolved trait as is proven by common sense.