Do Atheists pick on others (Off Topic version)

[Josiah]

So do you have a degree or a PhD? What is your field of research? Simple questions Josiah.

Read post #175.

 

[MarkFL]

See posts 170.

I had already read it and unfortunately didn't find anything to which a response was required, or even possible really. No disrespect intended, but it struck me as a lot of arm waving in an attempt to say I have faith for some reason.

...Your not reading that mandates repetition that is unfortunate (and I will mostly avoid).

I keep asking for an example of me believing something without good evidence (i.e. to show I use faith in forming my worldview)...so far you are avoiding that. Can you point to a specific example of a belief I hold without valid evidence? My worldview is ever a work in progress, and so it would be helpful to me if you can show me specifically where I am believing in something without evidence, or where I am ignoring compelling evidence.

Your "box" didn't spring out of nothing, you created it by your assumptions, your choices. It's a creation of your faith. Now, you'd pretty well documented that the "EXAMINATION" you speak so often about.... the "SKEPTICISM" you stress is so important... these are excluded from your faith, your 'box', your method, your arbitration. It simply means that you reject anything other than YOUR faith, your "box", your methods, your arbitration.... you've created a closed, circular system that exists to reaffirm and not challenge your faith, your box, your methods, your conclusions. I've not denounced that (I've even noted how common it is) but it is what it is. I've ONLY indicated you might benefit from stepping back and permitting your mandate about "examining" and "skepticism" to apply to the "box" you keep preaching as the "reality." And..... perhaps...... show a little respect to others who do as you do?.

My box sprang out of experience and critical evaluation of what is supported by evidence and what is not. As a skeptic, I reject that which is not, but I don't insist others do the same. I merely point out how my worldview is formed, and how my skepticism leads me to be an atheist. I intend no disrespect to those who form their worldviews differently, but only to explain my own reasoning and method for forming my own worldview.

 

[TubbyTubby]

Read post #175.

Just answer the question please for my benefit.

 

[TubbyTubby]

I've NEVER done that.


Actually, your assumptions (call them "belief") also requires faith. Sure, if you chose to believe that "physics" is what is "real" (I have a Ph.D. in physics and I have NO IDEA what that clause even means!)

So do you have a degree or a PhD? What is your field of research? Simple questions Josiah.

Why won't you just answer this simple question, that's all I'm asking.

 

[Josiah]

I keep asking for an example of me believing something without good evidence

Who determines what is and is not "evidence?"

What determines what is and is not "evidence?"

According to what concepts of reality?

According to what methodologys?

As arbitrated by whom?


Friend, as has been shared many times now (we've devolved into that repetition stage).... what you have done is typical. You have assumptions, a world-view: largely taught to you. From this you have made choices, you have determined realities and non-realities (intentionally or not, examined or not). You seem to have a "box" that is essentially what YOU "see" as "natural" and essentially what YOU "see" as physical/material. One could say this is your religion but I simply think of it as the "world" the "reality" one chooses to "live" in. And you have protected it from all examination and skepticism (in spite of your ever-so-ironic cries for the contrary) with a perfect circle: all outside the box must be inside the box and confirmed by what is inside the box, with tools and methods coming from inside the box, as arbitrated by the nature of the box and finally determined by you). It's a perfect circle, entirely closed, elminating the "examination" and "skepticism" you claim are important and then render impossible. These ONLY mean that you will conclude everything outside your box is...... at best, baseless fantasy. But most Atheists go further: what isn't in confirmity to THEIR box, THEIR faith, THEIR methods, THEIR tools, THEIR arbitration merely shows people who are not enlightened, informed, intelligent, honest, strong, and even human as they are. See posts 151, 162, 164, 170 where all this is shared more fully and clearly.

Now, although I've not stated this, MY "box" includes a variation of yours - so I've NEVER denounced what your faith embraces (although, in passing, noted I embrace a bit of a variant - the differences irrelevant to our discussion. But many (um.... most?) embrace a box bigger than yours - one you poo-poo, but more importantly, you create an epistemology that has one function: protect your faith and render all else as unsubstantiated (at best) but the proclaimation is that such flows from weak minds, unenlightened persons of questionable intelligence, knowledge and even humanity. See posts 151, 162, 164, 170. Anything outside the box must conform to the box (and since the box is "natural" thus it can be depended upon to dismiss the SUPERnatural - it can't do otherwise, you can depend on it to defend your faith, your box), and all tools of investigation MUST from from the 'box' and all knowledge must be contained within your box..... and only those in the box can determine if anything outside of it (which has already been declared as unreal - it's OUTSIDE the box!) actually is "proven" by "compelling" "evidence" from inside the box by the methods inside the box by the people inside the box to be inside the box - which no one claims it is. What is the purpose and singular function of this epistemology you mandate? To protect your faith, your box. And that's what it does - as you keep pointing out. See posts 151, 162, 164, 170 where this has been shared more carefully.

Now, I've not rebuked you (the rebukes in this thread have come from the other direction). I've not denounced what's 'IN' your box (as you noted, my whole work depends on such). I've simply noted that you do largely what you denounce.... and your cries about "examination" and "skepticism" aren't what you claim they are since you employ an epistemology that mandates your faith and box get excluded. What you do is pretty common - and I've not denounced it, just noted it. And invited you to step back and take an honest look at it. I doubt this will cause you to examine your box or be skeptical toward it (boxes an be built in indistructable ways) but perhaps it will cause you to be a bit more respectful.... less insulting..... to others who have done exactly as you have - but the result has been a different box than yours. And maybe to "see" that that reality does NOT mean they are thus not as enlightened, not as intelligent, not as thoughtful, not as strong, not as human as YOU?????? It MIGHT be something worth considering...... especially to one who TALKS a lot about examining and skepticism..... but probably not.




.

 

[Rens]

My ex always said: I am a professor in dunnowhat.
My dad was sure I would get a phd in some sort of science. I was so intelligent, being his daughter.
He was wrong LOL.

 

[MarkFL]

...

So in other words, you cannot point to a specific example of a belief I hold without good evidence. That's all I'm asking for. I won't ask for it again.

Yes, our boxes are very similar since we exist in the same reality, but yours includes the faith-based belief in the supernatural, whereas mine does not. Does this make my box intrinsically better than yours? No, that's largely a matter of opinion, but for me, my goal to include only those things for which there is evidence, makes my box more useful to me. It gets me closer to my goal of only believing in those things back by solid evidence. I apologize if this is perceived as a rebuke...this is not my intention.

 

[psalms 91]

These things: personal abilities, governments, programs...they have evidence for their existence...we see them in action. So, is it really faith if, for example, I observe that I am able to produce a vBulletin add-on today, that I believe I will be able to do so tomorrow?

Do you ever get it wrong? Did you have faith that you would do it correctly? You see we all have faith in something

 

[MarkFL]

Do you ever get it wrong? Did you have faith that you would do it correctly? You see we all have faith in something

Sure, I can be wrong. But to observe that I can solve a certain kind of mathematical problem correctly, and then believing that I will be able to solve a problem of that kind if given one is not faith. I can demonstrate to others that I have successfully solved many problems like that by producing work from my notes. But, I am also aware that I may make a blunder (no matter how minor) at any time that causes me to give an incorrect solution to the next problem of that type I try to solve.

 

[Josiah]

....



.

So in other words, you cannot point to a specific example of a belief I hold without good evidence.

A plethora of evidence. Just read posts # 151, 162, 164, 170, 185. I refuse to engage in your word-for-word repetitions of past posts. But I have addressed that point - over and over and over, you just have wholly and completely ignored and evaded it every time, supplied absolutely no evidence that you even read it.

Yes, our boxes are very similar since we exist in the same reality

Again, if you had read any of the past 5 posts to you, then you could not begin this with "yes". Again, I suggest the courtesy of reading at least posts 151, 162, 164, 170, 185 - because I've already addressed (at length) that issue, and indicated that I do NOT share your faith or box or methods (I don't think most do). What I actually said is that my 'box' essentially (not exactly) includes what is in your box but is NOT at all similar to yours because it is bigger than yours, which, of course, if you READ what I said would mean I stated that they are NOT similar.... and I did NOT say we embrace the same reality, I repeatedly stated we do NOT.

You seem to want to simply skip over my part of the discussion (reduced to ".....") and repeat verbatim your questions, etc. which have already been addressed over and over and over again - but always wholly evaded, with zero indication you even read it. This does not lead to fruitful discussion.




Here is what you reduced to just "...."

Who determines what is and is not "evidence?"

What determines what is and is not "evidence?"

According to what concepts of reality?

According to what methodologies?

As arbitrated by whom?


Friend, as has been shared many times now (we've devolved into that repetition stage).... what you have done is typical. You have assumptions, a world-view: largely taught to you. From this you have made choices, you have determined realities and non-realities (intentionally or not, examined or not). You seem to have a "box" that is essentially what YOU "see" as "natural" and essentially what YOU "see" as physical/material. One could say this is your religion but I simply think of it as the "world" the "reality" one chooses to "live" in. And you have protected it from all examination and skepticism (in spite of your ever-so-ironic cries for the contrary) with a perfect circle: all outside the box must be inside the box and confirmed by what is inside the box, with tools and methods coming from inside the box, as arbitrated by the nature of the box and finally determined by you). It's a perfect circle, entirely closed, elminating the "examination" and "skepticism" you claim are important and then render impossible. These ONLY mean that you will conclude everything outside your box is...... at best, baseless fantasy. But most Atheists go further: what isn't in confirmity to THEIR box, THEIR faith, THEIR methods, THEIR tools, THEIR arbitration merely shows people who are not enlightened, informed, intelligent, honest, strong, and even human as they are. See posts 151, 162, 164, 170 where all this is shared more fully and clearly.

Now, although I've not stated this, MY "box" includes a variation of yours - so I've NEVER denounced what your faith embraces (although, in passing, noted I embrace a bit of a variant - the differences irrelevant to our discussion. But many (um.... most?) embrace a box bigger than yours, dissimilar to yours - one you poo-poo, but more importantly, you create an epistemology that has one function: protect your faith and render all else as unsubstantiated (at best) but the proclamation is that such flows from weak minds, unenlightened persons of questionable intelligence, knowledge and even humanity. See posts 151, 162, 164, 170. Anything outside the box must conform to the box (and since the box is "natural" thus it can be depended upon to dismiss the SUPERnatural - it can't do otherwise, you can depend on it to defend your faith, your box), and all tools of investigation MUST from from the 'box' and all knowledge must be contained within your box..... and only those in the box can determine if anything outside of it (which has already been declared as unreal - it's OUTSIDE the box!) actually is "proven" by "compelling" "evidence" from inside the box by the methods inside the box by the people inside the box to be inside the box - which no one claims it is. What is the purpose and singular function of this epistemology you mandate? To protect your faith, your box. And that's what it does - as you keep pointing out. See posts 151, 162, 164, 170 where this has been shared more carefully.


Now, I've not rebuked you (the rebukes in this thread have come from the other direction). I've not denounced what's 'IN' your box (as you noted, my whole work depends on such). I've simply noted that you do largely what you denounce.... and your cries about "examination" and "skepticism" aren't what you claim they are since you employ an epistemology that mandates your faith and box get excluded. What you do is pretty common - and I've not denounced it, just noted it. And invited you to step back and take an honest look at it. I doubt this will cause you to examine your box or be skeptical toward it (boxes an be built in indistructable ways) but perhaps it will cause you to be a bit more respectful.... less insulting..... to others who have done exactly as you have - but the result has been a different box than yours. And maybe to "see" that that reality does NOT mean they are thus not as enlightened, not as intelligent, not as thoughtful, not as strong, not as human as YOU?????? It MIGHT be something worth considering...... especially to one who TALKS a lot about examining and skepticism..... but probably not.



.

yours includes the faith-based belief in the supernatural, whereas mine does not

Your faith created a 'box' that only embraces and acknowledges what you label as "natural." Then (in spite of your shouts about "examination" and "skepticism") exclude your box from examination and skepticism, insisting on an epistemology that only acknowledges your faith, your box, your methods, your arbitration..... that only permits examination within the confines of your faith, your box..... all so as to protect your box, your faith in that it has no other possibility or function that to dismiss everything outside of your box. Pretty circular. And every time I've noted that in this thread (and it's been a lot of times), you've ALWAYS ignored it and chose to not reply. And avoid every question I've asked of you regarding it (including in this last post of mine to you above). Hum.

my goal to include only those things for which there is evidence, makes my box more useful to me.

As I've repeatedly pointed out (always entirely evaded and ignored) then you have failed. By presuming what is and is not real, by limiting evidence to what YOU regard as real, by limiting epistemology to what will protect your faith and box, and insisting on a circular argument that has no other possible function but protect your box. See the past several posts to you where this has been noted at length (but always evaded)....... it is useless for me to go over it again when it's just wholly evaded.




.

 

[MarkFL]

This does not lead to fruitful discussion.

Yes, I would agree...when things like "observable reality" and "testable theories" are pointed to as vague concepts somehow in need of clarification (instead of the well-defined concepts they actually are), then the discussion is indeed fruitless and even pointless.

 

[Rens]

If you want to get evidence it's no use to discuss with an intelligent person. Find the most foolish or uneducated one you can find, who simply has faith and raises a dead person or pops out an arm for you. The mother of my ex saw arms popping out in Indonesia in the fifties or sixties. These miracles don't happen much in sophisticated countries where christians are also educated and taught to use their brains. A girl from a Dutch forum said she saw 2 fingers pop out from the man next to her in a meeting in America from Guillermo Maldonado.

 

[MarkFL]

Even if I were to witness firsthand the regeneration of a human limb, complete with some kind of ceremony led by holypersons aimed at beseeching supernatural magical entities to perform the restoration of the limb, I would be unjustified in declaring that the cause was actually supernatural simply because I couldn't explain how it happened. Seeing something that can't be explained by known and understood processes doesn't give us the right to declare the cause must then be supernatural, all it means is that our understanding of some aspect of reality is lacking, and it should be investigated in an effort to determine the cause.

 

[TubbyTubby]

If you want to get evidence it's no use to discuss with an intelligent person. Find the most foolish or uneducated one you can find, who simply has faith and raises a dead person or pops out an arm for you. The mother of my ex saw arms popping out in Indonesia in the fifties or sixties. These miracles don't happen much in sophisticated countries where christians are also educated and taught to use their brains. A girl from a Dutch forum said she saw 2 fingers pop out from the man next to her in a meeting in America from Guillermo Maldonado.

Please. Fingers pop out from what, his ears? Nose? If this is the sort of thing you believe in on this forum, I'm not sure it's the place for me.

I notice nobody has questioned this ridiculous claim so far which is equally as astonishing.

Please tell me you don't actually buy into tales like this of "arms popping out".

 

[psalms 91]

Please. Fingers pop out from what, his ears? Nose? If this is the sort of thing you believe in on this forum, I'm not sure it's the place for me.

I notice nobody has questioned this ridiculous claim so far which is equally as astonishing.

Please tell me you don't actually buy into tales like this of "arms popping out".

Tell you what i do buy into is medical miracles documented by fact such as X ray or biopsy. T^here have been numerous people cured of cancer and other fatal diagnois where it showed a growth one time and the next it didnt with no explanation for why. That should be easy enough for you to believe in as many are well documented

 

[TubbyTubby]

Tell you what i do buy into is medical miracles documented by fact such as X ray or biopsy. T^here have been numerous people cured of cancer and other fatal diagnois where it showed a growth one time and the next it didnt with no explanation for why. That should be easy enough for you to believe in as many are well documented

There are medical cases where people have made recoveries, I don't go any further than assume that some natural cause was involved.

You, on the other hand will invoke god (coincidentally the very same god as those involved believe in) as having stepped in to make things right.

 

[Lamb]

Please. Fingers pop out from what, his ears? Nose? If this is the sort of thing you believe in on this forum, I'm not sure it's the place for me.

I notice nobody has questioned this ridiculous claim so far which is equally as astonishing.

Please tell me you don't actually buy into tales like this of "arms popping out".

No way.

 

[Rens]

Never mind, some things I'd better just not say lol.

 

[psalms 91]

I understand Messy, it is good that God is not bound by the natural and can do anything He wants