Freethought & Rationalism Archive

capnkirk · 01-24-2003, 10:45 AM

Philosoft (or should I say Philo-hard?) I am NOT going to rehash point-by-point your most recent response. Rather, I will address the process at work here:

Amie's position had a clear context. Goliath (and apparently you too) arbitrarily discarded that context in favor of a hypothetical one...without so advising...so as to take frivolous issue.

In so doing, you have made YOUR point irrelevant to the thread because your hypothetical, while satisfying to you, does NOT apply to Amie's case-in-point (as elucidated at length in my preceding response).

The frustrating part is your insistence on our concurrence with your wholly irrelevant hypothetical, while at the same time patently disregarding any intimation of its irrelevancy, or even recognition that the original exchange had a context of its own.

In the process all you have accomplished is to PROVE the old axiom: If you let me write the definitions, I can prove anything is equal to anything! Your (by inheritance from Goliath) tortured saldfjag example has demonstrated that...in spades!

Your hypothetical has served only to drag the thread off-topic. It has contributed nothing positive at all.

Philosoft · 01-24-2003, 11:42 AM

James Tiberius,

Goliath and I had a pleasant little exchange and that was supposed to be the end of it. I was satisfied with what I said and I presume he was satisfied with what he said. My comment to you was more of a parenthetical and I now regret making it, but not because I think I'm wrong. My comments may or may not have been off-topic, but the fact remains that noncognitivism is a perfectly acceptable and defensible philosophical position. In any case, I certainly don't feel my comments should provoke anger and I'm baffled as to why you react that way, but it doesn't ultimately bother me. If you want to start a new thread, I'll bite, and you can be as tempermental as you like. Hasta.

Infinity Lover · 01-24-2003, 12:22 PM

The discussion so far has revolved around two seperate elements.

1 Whether or not a "subjective" experience can lead one to adapt a god-belief

2 Whether or not one would have to have some concept of what said god would be, in order to positively assert one doesn't believe in said god.

Let's put the two together. (If Amie, lieverd, you don't mind. Otherwise I'm going to anyway.

)

If one's definition of this god was of a purely personal nature, one could basicly make it compatible with any subjective experience... so couldn't pretty much anything lead you to believe in God in that case?

If one's definition came from a commonly accepted concept, from a holy scripture for instance, would the experience, if you used this concept/definition as a frame of reference to determine it's divine nature, still be of a subjective nature?

Wouldn't someone need an objective, rather than a subjective experience to properly win them over?
--------------
btw. I'd have guessed HQB was talking Afrikaans (papiemento; how 'bout that)

Bon dia otra bes esaki echt friu dia, Amy! Aki, e tempo ta miserabel, y toch frigido, y mi ta wardando p'e momento cu mi por bai p'e Caribe pa Vakantie.

Bon dia sound like good day, echt means real(ly), Amy means either friend I guess, or HQB is the umptieth person to misspell your name. Miserabel probably means miserale, does frigido mean frigid? Momento would be moment, and he was on vacation in the carabean or something.

So he was wishing you a really good day, and explaining that he feels miserabel about meeting someone who's frigid during his vacation in the carabean.

MadKally · 01-24-2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

originally posted by Amie:
If you saw an angel do you think you would suddenly believe in them or do you think you would say to yourself "there must be another explanation, hallucination due to fatigue or what not...

I believe there is an invisible Tootsie Pop in the center of every black hole in the universe. I have seen Tootsie Pops with my very own eyes.

I have faith because I believe in Tootsie Pops.

Philosoft · 01-24-2003, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sockpuppet
I believe there is an invisible Tootsie Pop in the center of every black hole in the universe. I have seen Tootsie Pops with my very own eyes.

I have faith because I believe in Tootsie Pops.

How many licks..... nah, nevemind.

Amie · 01-24-2003, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
How many licks..... nah, nevemind.

Just for you Philosoft The licking machine!

http://www.tootsie.com/memoriesLicksMachine.html

Philosoft · 01-24-2003, 02:49 PM

Amie, you've just been waiting for the chance to pull that one out, eh?

Amie · 01-24-2003, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sockpuppet
invisible Tootsie Pop

ahhh but how could something be invisible but yet concrete at the same time? I can see Tootsie pops therefore they are not invisible

I actually was reading a thread earlier and someone mentioned invisible pink unicorns, how can they be invisible *and* pink simultaneously?

not excuse me I have to go collect the worms that are escaping from my can...

yes Philosoft I was saving that for you

Amie · 01-24-2003, 04:12 PM

Hi Novowels

Quote:

You are saying you don't have a worldview?

I do have a worldview. I cant find the post I disagreed with, but I would elaborate to try to convey it better...

Quote:

You've missed my point, you have to ask what the word symbolizes, but you already have a view about the concept behind it. This can be either belief, or not belief (there is no third direction!) You are hiding behind semantics. You do not know what a saldfirac is. Fair enough. You've never heard of that word before. If a saldfirac is defined as a ghostly emanation that hides behind Jupiter and eats meteors, then you do not believe in it. (I would assume) Learning what saldfirac is defined as would not have created a nonbelief, it would merely define what the symbol means, so you can assign your belief/nonbelief to it. If, however, a "saldfirac" were another name for an angel, then you do already believe in it. The word is a symbol, and nothing more. You already have a system of belief for the concept behind it, whatever that may be.

I am really trying to follow you here, please be patient with me. Do you think that we each have a system of belief for the concept behind everything then?

Quote:

Lack of knowledge would = nonbelief. It would not equal belief, or "possibility." It would be nonbelief. After hearing about them, then one could change their belief (although that belief would be based on faith, rather than evidence). Et cetera.

I think it would be more of a "possibility" or an "I don't know" more than a non belief. I guess in my mind to not believe something seems to be a choice as well as believing is, do you see it as such novowels?
I am trying to get on the same page as you guys, really.

Novowels · 01-24-2003, 04:32 PM

If your worldview does not contain something, you do not believe in said thing.

There are two choices for something existing. Belief and nonbelief. If you don't know what something is, that is a part, a subset of not believing.

If you do not know what something is, you by definition do not believe in it.

That may possibly change in the future as you learn what it is, but then again it may not. As it stands, however, at the moment there is no belief for it. You are trying to weasel out of "nonbelief" by choosing a part of nonbelief and claiming it is not a part of nonbelief.

I give up on trying to explain words as symbols to you. That is obviously going nowhere.

01-24-2003, 10:45 AM	#151
capnkirk Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: where no one has gone before Posts: 735	"Hypothetically" frustrated!! Philosoft (or should I say Philo-hard?) I am NOT going to rehash point-by-point your most recent response. Rather, I will address the process at work here: Amie's position had a clear context. Goliath (and apparently you too) arbitrarily discarded that context in favor of a hypothetical one...without so advising...so as to take frivolous issue. In so doing, you have made YOUR point irrelevant to the thread because your hypothetical, while satisfying to you, does NOT apply to Amie's case-in-point (as elucidated at length in my preceding response). The frustrating part is your insistence on our concurrence with your wholly irrelevant hypothetical, while at the same time patently disregarding any intimation of its irrelevancy, or even recognition that the original exchange had a context of its own. In the process all you have accomplished is to PROVE the old axiom: If you let me write the definitions, I can prove anything is equal to anything! Your (by inheritance from Goliath) tortured saldfjag example has demonstrated that...in spades! Your hypothetical has served only to drag the thread off-topic. It has contributed nothing positive at all.

01-24-2003, 11:42 AM	#152
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Hello mountain, weren't you just a molehill? James Tiberius, Goliath and I had a pleasant little exchange and that was supposed to be the end of it. I was satisfied with what I said and I presume he was satisfied with what he said. My comment to you was more of a parenthetical and I now regret making it, but not because I think I'm wrong. My comments may or may not have been off-topic, but the fact remains that noncognitivism is a perfectly acceptable and defensible philosophical position. In any case, I certainly don't feel my comments should provoke anger and I'm baffled as to why you react that way, but it doesn't ultimately bother me. If you want to start a new thread, I'll bite, and you can be as tempermental as you like. Hasta.

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

01-24-2003, 12:22 PM	#153
Infinity Lover Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,047	The discussion so far has revolved around two seperate elements. 1 Whether or not a "subjective" experience can lead one to adapt a god-belief 2 Whether or not one would have to have some concept of what said god would be, in order to positively assert one doesn't believe in said god. Let's put the two together. (If Amie, lieverd, you don't mind. Otherwise I'm going to anyway. ) If one's definition of this god was of a purely personal nature, one could basicly make it compatible with any subjective experience... so couldn't pretty much anything lead you to believe in God in that case? If one's definition came from a commonly accepted concept, from a holy scripture for instance, would the experience, if you used this concept/definition as a frame of reference to determine it's divine nature, still be of a subjective nature? Wouldn't someone need an objective, rather than a subjective experience to properly win them over? -------------- btw. I'd have guessed HQB was talking Afrikaans (papiemento; how 'bout that) Bon dia otra bes esaki echt friu dia, Amy! Aki, e tempo ta miserabel, y toch frigido, y mi ta wardando p'e momento cu mi por bai p'e Caribe pa Vakantie. Bon dia sound like good day, echt means real(ly), Amy means either friend I guess, or HQB is the umptieth person to misspell your name. Miserabel probably means miserale, does frigido mean frigid? Momento would be moment, and he was on vacation in the carabean or something. So he was wishing you a really good day, and explaining that he feels miserabel about meeting someone who's frigid during his vacation in the carabean.

01-24-2003, 02:49 PM	#157
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Amie, you've just been waiting for the chance to pull that one out, eh?

01-24-2003, 04:32 PM	#160
Novowels Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,658	If your worldview does not contain something, you do not believe in said thing. There are two choices for something existing. Belief and nonbelief. If you don't know what something is, that is a part, a subset of not believing. If you do not know what something is, you by definition do not believe in it. That may possibly change in the future as you learn what it is, but then again it may not. As it stands, however, at the moment there is no belief for it. You are trying to weasel out of "nonbelief" by choosing a part of nonbelief and claiming it is not a part of nonbelief. I give up on trying to explain words as symbols to you. That is obviously going nowhere.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.