Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tristan Scott · 07-11-2002, 11:50 AM

Quote:

No, actually, it clarifies it, had you not redacted it.

Oh please, I redacted nothing and you know it. You have posted on these boards long enough to know that redactions are indicated.

Quote:

And I fail to see how that could be true, since you consciously redacted the explanation that clearly and obviously shows why I posted it.

No. What I see is that instead of admitting you made an honest mistake in reading my post and then clarifying it for me, you have decided to take the low road and be accusatory.

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-11-2002, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page:

Not for me - how do you know which concepts to discard?

The concept of God, as I posted.

Quote:

MORE: Detrimental to whom

Individuals.

Quote:

MORE: or what?

Society.

Quote:

MORE: Should we abandon concepts altogether?

No. Why would we? We were discussing the concept of God.

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-11-2002, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott:
Oh please, I redacted nothing and you know it.

You posted:

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan:

KOY: Concepts cannot effect events (e.g., be the direct cause of events, such as is claimed by theists with God), but they certainly can affect events...

Which was a redaction of my post. Note the elipses, the very definition of "redaction?"

Quote:

MORE: You have posted on these boards long enough to know that redactions are indicated.

You redacted my post in your post and then declared that a later point I made was in contradiction to my earlier statement, when in fact (had you not redacted my post), you would have seen that there was no contradiction.

Let me demonstrated. Here is what I originally posted:

Quote:

ME: Concepts cannot effect events (e.g., be the direct cause of events, such as is claimed by theists with God), but they certainly can affect events (e.g., Holy Wars are instigated based upon the fact that one side believes their concept of God is right and the other side believes their concept of God is right).

The first one necessitates an actual, autonomous being that factually exists and cannot be contriverted; the second has no such requirement and thus must be immediately discarded as false and obviously detrimental.

In other words, one (effect) is "right" and the other (affect) is "wrong."

See?

Quote:

MORE: No. What I see is that instead of admitting you made an honest mistake in reading my post

...which I did not...

Quote:

MORE: and then clarifying it for me, you have decided to take the low road and be accusatory.

You asked me what my point was ("I guess I fail to see what you are posting this for? Are you trying to make some point?") and I then explained to you that the point was already made in the redacted part:

Quote:

ME: The first one necessitates an actual, autonomous being that factually exists and cannot be contriverted; the second has no such requirement and thus must be immediately discarded as false and obviously detrimental.

I then clarified it further for you:

Quote:

ME: The point was that a concept of a god is worthless and detrimental, because of its power to affect society and therefore should be immediately discarded from human consciousness in the same manner one would discard thoughts of, say, child rape or incest.

In other words, it is a detrimentally false concept that ultimately destroys society.

Clearer now?

Ion · 07-11-2002, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott:

...
Why? What is the difference between existing as a concept and existing in reality? What makes something real?
...

In the material world something is defined to be 'real' when its human interpretation maps into reproducible changes in nature.

If it doesn't, and the religion concept doesn't and never did, then it's an 'imaginary' concept, a theory.

'Imaginary' concepts are internally consistent like in mathematics, and internally inconsistent like in religions.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott:

...
If gods only exist as concepts, what difference does that make? They still affect events, do they not?

'They' being 'gods', they never did anything to nature that history is aware of.

On the contrary, history is aware that 'They' -as defined in religious texts- couldn't possibly have done anything material to the 'real' world.
(See the definition of 'real', above).

"They still affect events..." to religious lunatics only.

Eudaimonist · 07-11-2002, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feather:
Here's an argument as presented to me, in pseudo symbolic logic, followed by a "translation" into english.

This appears to be the Baffle Them With Bullshit approach, or the Argumentum ad Bullshitum logical fallacy.

Most people's eyes will glaze over at all the symbolic logic, and they will assume that their incomprehension indicates the presence of profound truth. Yeah, right. lol

Tristan Scott · 07-11-2002, 01:43 PM

Koyaanisqatsi,

No it is not clear at all. I never posted what you claimed I posted.

Anywhere.

My post was to Keith and didn't have a thing to do with anything you posted, get it?

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]

Tristan Scott · 07-11-2002, 01:58 PM

Ion,

Quote:

In the material world something is defined to be 'real' when its human interpretation maps into reproducible changes in nature.
If it doesn't, and the religion concept doesn't and never did, then it's an 'imaginary' concept, a theory.

'Imaginary' concepts are internally consistent like in mathematics, and internally inconsistent like in religions.

I agree. on edit. but only to a point. religious concepts are somewhat consistent when we consider why humans invent them in the first place. Oh, and mathematics arent always consistent. That is why we have to have imaginary numbers.

Quote:

'They' being 'gods', they never did anything to nature that history is aware of.
On the contrary, history is aware that 'They' -as defined in religious texts- couldn't possibly have done anything material to the 'real' world.
(See the definition of 'real', above).

"They still affect events..." to religious lunatics only.

I was not referring to 'they' as gods but only the concept of gods.

Whether gods are actual beings is not known. Whether gods are not actual beings cannot be known. IOW you can only prove if something exists, you cannot prove something does not exist.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]

Ion · 07-11-2002, 04:51 PM

Tristan,

1) "...religious concepts are...consistent..." with 2000 years superstitions about nature's laws.

2) "Oh and mathematics aren't always consistent.":
'inconsistency' is any logic that doesn't follow definitions; I studied mathematics, and any inconsistency is rejected from it; mathematics is clean from inconsistencies; I studied the Bible, and any inconsistency is apologized for;
do you have any examples of inconsistencies in mathematics, Tristan?

3)That's why we have to have imaginary numbers.":
when you posted "That's why...", I see that you don't know the mathematical definition of 'imaginary' numbers; I do know it; 'real' and 'imaginary' numbers are equally consistent in being human symbols describing the nature, and they both don't exist in nature.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott:

...
I was not referring to 'they' as gods but only the concept of gods.
...

The "...concept of gods..." is what I am referring to when I write ""They still affect events..." to religious lunatics only.".

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott:

...
Whether gods are actual beings is not known. Whether gods are not actual beings cannot be known. IOW you can only prove if something exists, you cannot prove something does not exist.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]

Yes, I can prove that something does not exist.
I prove it by using today's standards of 'real'.
See the definition of 'real' in my previous post.
For example I can prove that 'God', as 'God' is defined by the Bible, is baloney.
Do you want some?
I am waiting.

Tristan Scott · 07-12-2002, 07:46 AM

Ion,

Maybe you should try getting over yourself. You study math do you? Well, I teach algebra and trig and I can tell you that imaginary numbers are used because we cannot take sqaure roots on negative numbers and come up with real numbers, so we have devised a system of imaginary numbers that we can use when figuring phasors or phase vectors. Is this an actual inconsistency in mathematics? No, because mathematics is a tool in which inconsistencies can be manipulated out. My mention of imaginary numbers was a bit of humor, hence the

. Are you devoid of humor, Ion? You certainly appear to be.

You claim to be able to prove that something does not exist. Then you amend it to claim that you can prove something is baloney. You are inconsistent here, Ion. I would very much like to see you prove something does not exist. Please do.

Mageth · 07-12-2002, 07:57 AM

Tristan, but you seem to be claiming that a (solid) proof that something doesn't exist doesn't exist.

Can you prove that a proof that something doesn't exist doesn't exist?

07-11-2002, 01:43 PM	#26
Tristan Scott Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southwest USA Posts: 4,093	Koyaanisqatsi, No it is not clear at all. I never posted what you claimed I posted. Anywhere. My post was to Keith and didn't have a thing to do with anything you posted, get it? [ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-12-2002, 07:46 AM	#29
Tristan Scott Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southwest USA Posts: 4,093	Ion, Maybe you should try getting over yourself. You study math do you? Well, I teach algebra and trig and I can tell you that imaginary numbers are used because we cannot take sqaure roots on negative numbers and come up with real numbers, so we have devised a system of imaginary numbers that we can use when figuring phasors or phase vectors. Is this an actual inconsistency in mathematics? No, because mathematics is a tool in which inconsistencies can be manipulated out. My mention of imaginary numbers was a bit of humor, hence the . Are you devoid of humor, Ion? You certainly appear to be. You claim to be able to prove that something does not exist. Then you amend it to claim that you can prove something is baloney. You are inconsistent here, Ion. I would very much like to see you prove something does not exist. Please do.

07-12-2002, 07:57 AM	#30
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Tristan, but you seem to be claiming that a (solid) proof that something doesn't exist doesn't exist. Can you prove that a proof that something doesn't exist doesn't exist?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.