Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theophilus · 04-22-2003, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Demigawd
Er, that should be "didn't tell Mad", not "did".

Er, technically, he can only waste "his" time.
Come to think of it, how does one "waste" time?
Come to think of it, what is time?

Demigawd · 04-22-2003, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Demigawd's original post is nothing but question begging and supposition. It also perpetuates (as many following do also) the discredited "myth" that ancients were a bunch of ignorant boobs. It is well documented that they were both technically "aware," if not advanced and had a reasonable grasp of the "nature" of things.

"Ignorant boob" is your strawman, not mine. I termed the common person of ancient times as "innocent." Innocent as in actually trusting the upper crust of society wasn't feeding them a load of bull. I've grown up in an agrarian society that trusts charismatics, yet poo-poos honest academics because they apparently rock the boat.

And what do you mean by "aware"? Aware as in privy to information that was the domain of an educated elite who had the time and resources to actually study things?

theophilus · 04-22-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
I feel I�m in the Monty Python skit where the guy pays $5 for an argument, but steps into the wrong office and gets verbally abused, then steps into the right office but only gets flat-footed contradictions. Must I bring out a dictionary definition of an argument as the Monty Python character did? Suffice it to say that saying ��Taint so� or �Prove it,� does not an argument make. But this is precisely what D doesn�t seem to understand:

Actually, it seems to me more like a Three Stooges movie; Monty Python is based on a good deal of sophistication and learnin'. Three Stooges is just "nyuck, nyuck, nyuck" and fingers in the eyes.

Responding to these posts is something akin to people arguing against Susan Sarandon's opinion on the war, i.e., responding gives the false impression that something meaningful has been said.

Demigawd · 04-22-2003, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Er, technically, he can only waste "his" time.

No, you're wrong. And the reason why is that I honestly spent time reading through his post to see if he had something to offer to the discussion. By the time I reached his last word, I knew that all he was doing was being an evangelical for his particular mythology.

Quote:

Come to think of it, how does one "waste" time?

Well, one example of wasting time would be giving a fellow the benefit of doubt that he has observable evidence for his assertions, rather than just warm fuzzies wishful thinking can bring.

Quote:

Come to think of it, what is time?

I consider time to be the observable rate of change in one's environment. Others think it's a domain in-and-of-itself. Still others point towards a pretty rocking song by Pink Floyd.

theophilus · 04-22-2003, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Demigawd
"Ignorant boob" is your strawman, not mine. I termed the common person of ancient times as "innocent." Innocent as in actually trusting the upper crust of society wasn't feeding them a load of bull. I've grown up in an agrarian society that trusts charismatics, yet poo-poos honest academics because they apparently rock the boat.

And what do you mean by "aware"? Aware as in privy to information that was the domain of an educated elite who had the time and resources to actually study things?

This in interesting only because you did not respond to the first part of my post.

theophilus · 04-22-2003, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Is this not the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy?

Well, you're half correct: it is ignorant, but it does not really have the nature of argument.

Bill Snedden · 04-22-2003, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
It is impossible to prove a universal negative argument.

Sorry, but no.

There are no married bachelors: A universal negative whose truth is trivially easy to prove (if it really needs proving).

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Demigawd · 04-22-2003, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
This in interesting only because you did not respond to the first part of my post.

You mean this?

Quote:

Actually, Albert's original post was correct and it's too bad this thread didn't end there. This is an ignorant post and what has followed is not much better.

It is impossible to prove a universal negative argument. Further,. all propositions are not proven/disproven in the same way: the absense of an apple may be grounds for believing that there is no apple "in front" of you (BTW it does not prove that no apple exists - which would be the real comparison) but not seeing any "supernatural powers" does not prove their non-existence (it does not follow that their absense disproves the existence of God).

Moreover, you may have a reasonable idea of an apple, but how do you know what suppernatural powers would "look" like.

As it has been stated many times on this website, those who state a positive are in the position to actually provide proof of their assertion. You are asserting there is such as thing as "suppernatural" (sic) (Supper's Ready, anyone?) Well, put up or shut up. Otherwise you must concede the possibility (therefore serious consideration) of vampires, leprechauns, pagan dieties, proctology-obsessed aliens, etc.

There's a thread in Science and Scepticism concerning multiverses. I find the concept of multi-universes to be very fascinating, yet I reserve my belief in such a concept to actual proof.

theophilus · 04-22-2003, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hinduwoman
No. As I said this is a negative proof of a negative propostion.

It is not "proof" of anything; it is not even an argument.

Besides if this is ignorance, I am willing to see how theists can enlighten us --- without resorting to their subjective experiences.

Well, I don't know who you've been reading, but I, for one, have never "resroted to ... subjective experience."

My argument is, always has been, and always will be that unless we assume the God of the Bible and his revelation, we can know nothing.

sandlewood · 04-22-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
...the absense [sic] of an apple may be grounds for believing that there is no apple "in front" of you (BTW it does not prove that no apple exists - which would be the real comparison) but not seeing any "supernatural powers" does not prove their non-existence (it does not follow that their absense [sic] disproves the existence of God).

Except that an apple is not supposed to be omnipresent.

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
The argument is just this: if life is just a great biological/cosmological accident, then meaning, in any transcendent sense is impossible. On a personal level, what you call meaning/purpose is just brain activity, i.e., matter in motion, and means nothing.

Means nothing to whom?

What is �meaning in a transcendent sense�? Why should we think there is such a thing?

Quote:

God created man to display his holiness (justice and mercy) and the universe is the stage upon which that "drama" is being accomplished.

Display it to whom? To himself or to us? Why would an omnipotent being want to show off to a bunch of human creations? To fulfill a need?

Quote:

3. The last sentence is incomprehensible and a grammatical nightmare; s/b "..so they invented a being to whom they are the most important thing.

Of course I knew it was grammatically incorrect. I purposely worded it that way to emphasize the importance of the proposition, which I was doing the entire post. I guess I wasn�t being obvious enough.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.