By the the outstanding YouTube channel QualiaSoup, maker of the video on open-mindedness posted by Phillychief on You Made Me Say It several months ago.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Logic, evidence and specific gods
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
81 comments:
He puts out some great videos. Great to see the wind argument there. That's a fun blast from the past. :)
That was fantastic, it mirrors what I've been saying for years. Of course, theists will completely ignore it, they're allergic to logic, reason or critical thinking.
I stopped six minutes into it. I agree with some of what this guy says, I just can't handle his annoyingly snobbish accent.
In general, I don't really think a successful ontological argument exists, so in that sense I agree with the guy. He's off his rocker with his views on what he calls "non-physical" though. That, to me, is one of the hardest things to understand about atheists in general; to me it seems so foolish to limit existence to that which can be detected empirically. And I know, I know... to atheists it seems so foolish to believe in anything that can't be detected empirically.
On and on it goes.
Good video. I'll have to check out his You Tube site.
cl - "I just can't handle his annoyingly snobbish accent."
Enough said! :)
We're not limiting existence to what can be detected empirically, we're limiting it to what can be demonstrated to be factually real, period. How can you make that determination about any non-physical entity at all? As has been said many times before, how does the theist tell the difference between something for which no objective evidence exists and something which doesn't exist in the first place?
That's a question theists are always silent on because they simply have no credible answers.
Materialism is my default position. I don't limit myself to philosophical materialism, but when I step out from that position I do so recognizing that I'm stepping into an area of sheer speculation. That attitude will change if and when some convincing evidence comes along.
I've had a few personal experiences that don't seem to fall under the umbrella of materialism as most folks understand it. I've also heard some anecdotal stuff that I somewhat trust not to be the result of lies or misapprehension. I wonder about these things from time to time; but ultimately, they warrant only a shrug, as there's no trustworthy framework within which to interpret them. Whether or not there's a 'non-physical' reality doesn't really speak to the subject of a god's existence, anyway. It gives him a possible environment to exist in, I suppose, but that really says nothing; no more than the existence of unexplored forests speaks to the existence of Bigfoot.
The previous two comments ask and say it all. Anything I could add would be superfluous.
...annoyingly snobbish accent
I find people, who think a foreign accent is annoyingly snobbish, annoyingly snobbish.
As has been said many times before, how does the theist tell the difference between something for which no objective evidence exists and something which doesn't exist in the first place?
If there is no objective evidence for something, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist, even if it does.
"I find people, who think a foreign accent is annoyingly snobbish, annoyingly snobbish."
I've run across this attitude many times in the course of my life, S.I. My favorite actor is Peter O'Toole, precisely because of his wonderful vocal mannerisms. I lean towards Shakespearean actors in general because of this. But a British accent seems to put a lot of Americans off, for some reason I really don't understand.
SI,
I realize you just wanted to take a jab at me, but..
"I find people, who think a foreign accent is annoyingly snobbish, annoyingly snobbish."
I didn't say I thought a foreign accent was annoyingly snobbish - I said I felt the narrators foreign accent was annoyingly snobbish. I don't equate foreign accents with snobbishness - but then again - I'm not holding that against you because you've already demonstrated that you don't sufficiently read my arguments before responding to them.
Cephus,
"We're not limiting existence to what can be detected empirically, we're limiting it to what can be demonstrated to be factually real, period."
Pure tautology, as the only way to demonstrate what is factually real is via empiricism.
"..how does the theist tell the difference between something for which no objective evidence exists and something which doesn't exist in the first place? That's a question theists are always silent on because they simply have no credible answers."
I'm not silent on that question at all, but what I would really like to know from you is how does an atheist tell the difference between something for which no objective evidence exists and something which doesn't exist in the first place?
Can you (or any atheist) tell me that?
I don't equate foreign accents with snobbishness - but then again - I'm not holding that against you because you've already demonstrated that you don't sufficiently read my arguments before responding to them.
You call "I just can't handle his annoyingly snobbish accent." an argument? Had me fooled. It certainly looked like an admission of prejudice to me.
...but what I would really like to know from you is how does an atheist tell the difference between something for which no objective evidence exists and something which doesn't exist in the first place?
It's the theist that advances the proposition that gods exist, not atheists, so Cephus's observation was properly directed to theists. How an atheist does it is irrelevant, and hence your question is nonsensical and, as usual, deflective.
Anyone remember the Seinfeld episode where Elaine goes on a blind date with her wake up service guy because he sounded hot?
Ah, yes. The show about nothing. There's a certain symbiosis going on here.
cl said: "I didn't say I thought a foreign accent was annoyingly snobbish - I said I felt the narrators foreign accent was annoyingly snobbish.
I didn't say I thought women let their vaginas get in the way of being great CEOs - I said I felt the woman in charge of that company is letting her vagina get in the way of being a good CEO.
If the narrator is acting like a snob (and I didn't catch that at all), why even *mention* his foreign accent unless that is an issue that rankles you, cl?
You can't "word-game" your way around this. Please don't throw your problems off on the reader.
I know you think it's just the evil atheists out to get poor cl, but you constantly say things that have implications and when you have those implications addressed, you claim that it's the person not not sufficiently reading your words. I don't hate you. I hate that.
"but you constantly say things that have implications and when you have those implications addressed, you claim that it's the person not not sufficiently reading your words."
Sophist at the Wheel!
When you’re on his tail, he changes gears
and spins the car around.
But the Charger that he’s driving
has been run into the ground.
Tis true, it makes a lot of noise,
and an oily cloud of smoke,
but he never lets up on the gas
or eases off the choke.
He hasn’t changed the oil in years,
and the alternator’s dead.
Plus, the dashboard Jesus has melted to
the Virgin Mary bobble-head.
And, yet, he drives defiantly
in his junkyard parts hodgepodge.
He may not be the Lord of Ford,
but he’s Master of the Dodge.
Sorry, watching !'Eraserhead'...'nuff said. LOL
So am I finally going to have to break-down after all these years and see "Eraserhead"? What then - "Pink Flamingos"?
SI,
"You call "I just can't handle his annoyingly snobbish accent." an argument? Had me fooled. It certainly looked like an admission of prejudice to me."
Man, I don't know what else to tell ya SI, but you really should take a long hard look at yourself. You're over on your own blog telling jokes about Mexicans and Canadians walking into bars, yet look what ya did here: replaced my original word - snobbish - with your own word - foreign - all in effort to make me look like some kind of prejudiced jerkoff. You got some real nerve.
Evo,
"If the narrator is acting like a snob (and I didn't catch that at all), why even *mention* his foreign accent unless that is an issue that rankles you, cl?"
See that's just the thing, genius: I didn't mention his foreign accent; I mentioned his snobbish accent (nasal, condescending, etc.). It was SI who completely changed my words from snobbish to foreign, thus shifting the entire scope of my statement, so don't even try to pull this crap John. I really hope you can look at this and say, "Oh yeah, cl's right here. SI did change cl's words." If not, well.. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
Anyways, the above is another perfect example of what I mean about you and SI not reading carefully (don't take it personally, we all fall short at times), which brings me to:
"I know you think it's just the evil atheists out to get poor cl, but you constantly say things that have implications and when you have those implications addressed, you claim that it's the person not not sufficiently reading your words. I don't hate you. I hate that."
As far as "evil atheists out to get me," that's not what I think. I think you and your little crew have serious difficulties being objective at times. Big difference between my actual position and your emotional caricature of it, no?
You the least, but there's a real sense of stubborn pride to the point where some on your team simply cannot cede any ground no matter what. You know what I'm saying has truth to it; you yourself have leveled this same complaint against Philly, as has Ex and many others. More recently, in a situation where any truly objective person would have said, "Damn cl, while we might not agree and I think you're a jerkoff, I'm sorry for dismissing your argument for hundreds of comments and claiming you were avoiding, when in fact I didn't even understand your argument which you stated clearly several times," SI chose to just close the comment thread instead. And I've already explained where I feel you abandoned objectivity in that case.
What I mean is, instead of showing up and just getting SI's back, at least one of you really should have held me down when it became obvious that SI hadn't even comprehended the argument he dismissed for over hundreds of comments. I take bullets for you guys whenever I know I should, and you know this firsthand.
cl - I will admit that SI was the first to use the word "foreign".
So, will you admit that the person we are discussing had an obvious British accent, that you used the word "accent" in describing his "annoying snobbishness", even though what you are now trying to switch this to is a discussion of his "attitude"?
Maybe this will provide clarity, cl (and I won't call you genius). If Obama were giving a speech that you found "annoying" (perhaps you perceived him to be condescending) would you ever think to write about it - "I stopped listening to his address due to his annoyingly
condescending accent? Come.thefuck.on.
I'm really not going to go around and around with you on this, cl. Like I've said to you before - you're welcome to the last word, and I'll leave it to the reader.
Accents are not condescending. Speech can be condescending. Accents refer to the foreign nature of the speech different from that of the listener.
And if that's guys speech was nasally, I'll eat my bible.
Cl, you are one piece of work.
I'm with Evo. Leave it to the readers to determine whether you really are a douche. And a bigoted one at that.
Accents aren't just foreign, even if those from the South sound like they're from another country (or planet).
Women with European accents generally sound hot, unless if they sound like Julia Child or Frau Blücher.
Also beware if they sound like Phil Hartman in that Love Werks skit from SNL.
cl:
It's not a tautology, it's an observation of a fact. To date, no one has managed to demonstrate that there is anything beyond the physical that actually exists. Inventing magic or the supernatural and demanding it's true doesn't prove in any way that it actually does and that's the problem.
As for how an atheist can tell the difference between the two, the answer is that we can't, that's why we don't claim that *EITHER* is real! Yet theists do make such claims, I'm still trying to figure out what the demonstrable basis of those claims might be.
Is it Friday already?
Jeez, the week went fast.
Miss us, didja?
I'm curious how you reconcile the fact that your god appears to have blessed most atheists with intelligence and talents so that we can have successful, lucrative careers where we don't necessarily have to sweat as we toil, perhaps not even having to toil much at all, whereas the devout like you don't get any of that. You have to break your ass doing menial labor for chump change. On top of that, we naturally get the ladies, hot ones in fact, whereas women probably won't give you the time of day because you're a broke ass truck driver.
Do you tell yourself it's some sort of test from your god? Do you soothe your resentment by imagining yourself one day floating in the clouds while we all writhe in fire? Do you tell yourself these little insulting rants against atheists online are somehow serving your god, and you're scoring points on that test of his by doing it rather than facing the truth that you do it because you're a jealous and resentful bastard unhappy with his lonely, pathetic life?
So the lies you tell yourself to feel good aren't just limited to religious ones. Interesting. That's always a big question concerning how right wingnuts believe what they believe. Is it prompted by religion, or is religion attractive because it says what you want to or already believe. You're a great example of the latter, where religion is just a great excuse for being an asshole.
Occasionally you're useful, Gideon. Thanks.
The Wisdom and profundity of those comments, Gideon - I'll tell you.... SI was *really* missing out by not getting that up. Even if he disagrees with you, he should welcome that type of cold, hard logic - just to sharpen his own debating skills.
Then again, you so accurately and incisively skewered everyone that you're probably right - He's censoring you! And I can see why he'd be tempted. I honestly don't think anyone would have a *rational* comeback to any of your... err... points.
Stumbled across the video just before I read this post, lol. I watched the open-mindedness video from a few months ago, and subscribed just based on that.
But this? Was even better. Especially the bit about the cube in the beginning, and what definitely wasn't inside it. "Stop fighting" written in the stars was also a very well done. The whole video was, simply, kickass.
And the accent? Only make it cooler. I'm a sucker for UK accents. If QualiaSoup was Scottish, I'd be proposing marriage :D
You seem to keep getting all the excremental overflow from my blog.
Sorry about that Evo. :(
Oh, Gideon . . . such a shameless flirt you are!
My ancestry's British...
What, I'm supposed to take that on faith?
::eyebrow::
Well, look at that. Gideon shamelessly flirting with someone of the opposite persuasion, both gender and religion.
Better not get too close, Giddy. You might find yourself dickless, and things don't hang as low in that condition.
"Women with European accents generally sound hot, unless if they sound like Julia Child or Frau Blücher."
So that makes Philly a pig now, right? LOL
Cephus,
"It's not a tautology, it's an observation of a fact. To date, no one has managed to demonstrate that there is anything beyond the physical that actually exists."
Hold on, let's back up a bit: In response to my,
..to me it seems so foolish to limit existence to that which can be detected empirically,
you said,
We're not limiting existence to what can be detected empirically, we're limiting it to what can be demonstrated to be factually real, period.
By tautology I mean stating the same thing with different words. By definition, that which has been demonstrated to be factually real has been detected empirically. So I still maintain that yes, it was a tautology - but to address the response, well.. pardon me for asking, but what exactly do you mean by "beyond the physical?"
"Inventing magic or the supernatural and demanding it's true doesn't prove in any way that it actually does and that's the problem."
Of course it doesn't. Seeing as how I didn't claim it does, where did this come from?
"As for how an atheist can tell the difference between the two, the answer is that we can't,"
Bingo. The difference is that I reject your premise (no objective evidence for God).
Evo,
I figured you wouldn't touch the original issue I took issue with. In your opinion, if somebody dismisses their interlocuter's argument for hundreds of comments and accuses their interlocuter of avoiding, then it turns out they didn't understand their interlocuter's argument at all in the first place although it had been clearly stated the entire time - if we are to say we are rationalists in the cold pursuit of truth - do they owe their interlocuter an honest apology?
"I will admit that SI was the first to use the word "foreign""
Nuff said :)
"So, will you admit that the person we are discussing had an obvious British accent, that you used the word "accent" in describing his "annoying snobbishness", even though what you are now trying to switch this to is a discussion of his "attitude"?"
John gimme a break here: you're trying to make this sound like I've claimed or implied that "British accent" = "snobbishness." As Philly said, accents aren't just foreign. They can also be sexy, repulsive.. or condescending and snobbish - regardless of the particulars.
"If Obama were giving a speech that you found "annoying" (perhaps you perceived him to be condescending) would you ever think to write about it - "I stopped listening to his address due to his annoyingly condescending accent? Come.thefuck.on."
Actually, when I get that perception from someone on TV, I change the channel, whether it's TBN, CNN, NBC or whatever. And yes, condescension and its negative import to clear communication often finds its way into my writings. If our relationship wasn't so one-way you'd know.
SI,
"You seem to keep getting all the excremental overflow from my blog. Sorry about that Evo. :("
First off, you have nobody in the world but yourself to blame for that, as you willfully encourage it by running your mouth to people you don't like on John's blog. I'm not here to talk to you. You closed comments on that thread, the one where I realized you'd been dismissing my argument and claiming I was avoiding when you hadn't even read the argument even though it had been clearly stated for over hundreds of comments.
"If there is no objective evidence for something, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist, even if it does.
Like Gideon correctly noted, this is another example of really faulty logic that you for some reason fancy as persuasive and/or cogent. By this logic, for all intents and purposes asteroids didn't exist until just a few centuries ago, yet if that were true we wouldn't be here.
"Leave it to the readers to determine whether you really are a douche. And a bigoted one at that."
Use whatever ad hominem attacks you will SI; in case you haven't figured it out yet, the opinions of a select group of atheists on the internet are nothing to shrink back from. The many who know me in real life would quickly testify how out of line you are with reality right now by trying to claim that I'm a bigot and douche. To me, it's obvious you were just trying to inflict damage, and that's unfortunate because it's caused you - ostensibly an esteemed professional - to change my words to support unjustified accusations of bigotry. You're starting to cross the line and you've got no business changing my words to call me a bigot with "So a Mexican, a Canadian, and cl walk into a bar" on your blog.
And for what it's worth, I've got a lil Brit in me ya wanker.
Gideon,
"And, you're a lawyer?"
I've had that reaction, too. Like right now. A lawyer making public accusations of bigotry after switching his interlocuter's words with his own.
"That, and ban every comment you don't approve of like a pussy!"
Yes, or close comment threads, or just dismiss your argument without correctly understanding it, then claim you're avoiding for hundreds of comments.
"You seem to keep getting all the excremental overflow from my blog. Sorry about that Evo. :("
First off, you have nobody in the world but yourself to blame for that, as you willfully encourage it by running your mouth to people you don't like on John's blog. I'm not here to talk to you.
Not everything is about you cl. That comment wasn't either, but thanks for your insightful observation.
SI,
"Not everything is about you cl."
I've not said it was. I'm defending myself against your rather insulting and baseless charges. Now again, please bugger off and let me do my thing.
Gideon,
Are you saying Quantum Flux and SI are the same person? Are you making a genuine claim or just having some fun again?
And what's all this about PhillyChief being fat? Is he overweight or something? How do you know?
Gideon,
"Btw, Jimbo is practicing censorship, now, as well, so my comment on that link's post of his won't see the light of day."
That's old news. He actually expunged his entire blog of all my comments.
Gideon:
Your last two comments were held in moderation. I posted the one that actually had some substance. The other one, as well as the one yesterday, didn't make the cut, I'm afraid. My blog, my rules. And your antics are a bit too juvenile to warrant much leeway. Grow up some, and we'll see. That's all I'll say about it on John's blog.
I'm defending myself against your rather insulting and baseless charges. Now again, please bugger off and let me do my thing.
That's so fucking typical of you cl. You address a comment specifically to me, calling me out on a comment I made that was not addressed to you, as if it was, and when I point out your error, you tell me to bugger off.
And it's not all about cl? 'Tis to laugh.
Are you saying Quantum Flux and SI are the same person?
Another hallmark of theist thinking - paranoia.
SI,
"You address a comment specifically to me, calling me out on a comment I made that was not addressed to you, as if it was, and when I point out your error, you tell me to bugger off. "
I didn't assume that comment was especially for me, but apparently you assumed I have.
Look through this thread from the top: I show up, and leave a comment, not to you, but to John, about his post.
You showed up and claimed I said I found foreign accents annoyingly snobbish when I didn't (even Evo had to be impartial this time) in order to make me look like a bigot - when I wasn't even talking to you.
Quit trying to play the victim and, please, for the third time, leave me alone and go about your own biz.
All spam filters and moderation are turned off on my blog and I've never deleted any comments, nor have I ever said I delete comments.
Giddy "knows" I'm fat the same way I "know" he likes sodomizing children.
Gideon:
I did want to take exception with this rhetorical question-
"And, are you insinuating that John-O is being juvenile by allowing me to comment here? He's already stated his reasons... are you second-guessing our esteemed host, sheep-man?"
Obviously I'm not. This is the kind of thing that got cl banned from my blog (though to a far, far lesser extent); you've asked a question in bad faith, simply to try and cause friction. There was never any such insinuation. Many of these guys choose to put up with such things. I do not.
I also see you've said this-
"At least Fat-boy's (The Chief) honest when he says he fries my comments as soon as he sees them, thereby admitting to all that he's a fucking pussy...
... but, at least he's not a LYING pussy!"
Philly has since denied this accusation, which I've seen you make before. Somebody's lying, you or Philly. It should be easy enough for you to produce proof of your charge. I'd like to see it.
Gideon:
You've said-
"At least Fat-boy's (The Chief) honest when he says he fries my comments as soon as he sees them, thereby admitting to all that he's a fucking pussy..."
and then the link you've provided to back up your statement reads thusly-
"I'm going to have to assume "banned" means 'won't bother to respond to my comments'. If so, yes, Gideon is one of the few "banned" at my blog. Everyone's comments, regardless of how moronic they are, are still published sans moderation.
Providing a platform doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to also provide responses, though."
It's clear here that, far from 'frying' your comments, Philly has simply stated that he will not bother responding to you (it's not clear to me whether this means always, or just when you're being particularly annoying). This is borne out by the sentence-
'Everyone's comments, regardless of how moronic they are, are still published sans moderation.',
which you have somehow, somewhat pathetically tried to make support your case. 'Published sans moderation' means published WITHOUT moderation!
Gideon, what you've offered here supports Philly's position, and not your own. This is one of the most pathetic attempts to twist the truth I've ever seen, and I've seen a LOT!
You're a liar, Gideon. Pitiful.
"This is the kind of thing that got cl banned from my blog (though to a far, far lesser extent); you've asked a question in bad faith, simply to try and cause friction."
That's what I found most discouraging; instead of treating dissent as dissent, it just gets categorized as "bad faith" but that is merely assumption and not reasonable grounds to censor what is otherwise respectful and reasoned speech. My two cents on that.
Metamorphhh: Some trolls I ignore altogether, and some I occasionally poke with a stick
If anyone is having comments disappear on my blog, let me know. Perhaps you can send a screenshot of the comment appearing in the Intense Debate comments before it allegedly disappears? I could then forward that info to Intense Debate and see what's up. It might help to also send your IP so I could forward that to them as well. They're tech support is a tad slow, but so far has been very helpful.
Gieeon:
You said:
"That "knife" I described in my last comment on your blog has descended with a vengeance! I knew you couldn't be the objective person you always claim to be. You're biased, and you all cover one another's asses no matter how ridiculous you look doing it, or how much you have to lie to do it."
I'm being perfectly objective here. The link you offered absolutely favors Philly's position, and not yours. You accused him of saying one thing, when he said PRECISELY the opposite. That's the lie on your part.
As for the rest, none of us but Philly know the absolute truth of it. However, you are already a proven liar now, and you've also shown yourself to be extremely paranoid, which can lead to conclusions wildly deviating from reality. I don't know Philly that well, but I know he doesn't come off like a nut-case. You do. Make what you want of that.
Gideon:
Btw, I published and responded to your last comment. Thanks for the offering.
Sorry, but one more btw. I lost one of my posts over at S.I.'s as well. Why that dirty rotten committer of bestiality and or incest! How dare he!!!
On the other hand, it's happened to e elsewhere before, and has happened to others on my wordpress blog, thanks to askimet. Oh, well.
Gideon:
You said:
"So, why are you pushing this? You know that I can't convince this crowd he's a lying little prick, and so does he!"
Because you've been caught in a factual lie, and you're doing the best you can to wriggle around that, and I'm not of a mind to let you.
The rest of your screed is quite revealing. I don't have to try and vilify you. Your own words do it for me. The utter hatred and malice you can't quite keep under your cap. Why, you're practically frothing at the mouth! And this not motivated by someone who's done you wrong, or has spoken in a misleading or otherwise devious way, but simply by someone who's spoken the truth, and has pointed out your lying.
And your answer to all this? Another long string of profanity and condemnation. I can almost see you rubbing your hands with glee at my coming damnation. You're hanging on by a loose thread, buddy boy.
Btw, I AM an atheist. I came to this position through reasoning. It seems you're motivated primarily by fear, and maybe a perverse desire to get back at people you think have offended you. Believe it or not, I understand. Take care, Gideon, and be a nice little god-boy. Jehovah WILL give you a cookie :) (not really, but whatever gets you through the night, I guess. that, and maybe rubber sheets)
Gideon, It's great to have you around. I sincerely hope that people vacillating in their faith are quietly hanging around and taking in your defense of the faith and the Christian spirit! You say it all about dogma so much better than I can or even the best of the YouTube videos I put up here. See you next Friday. Have a great week.
Gideon:
"That thread I linked to is the proof of your intentions, butting in on a perfectly civil thread with your vitriolic nonsense. How do you explain that, you putrid creep? Got an explanation for that?"
Just like the link you provided to prove Philly's 'lying' actually proved yours, the link to my comment displays a substantive, if passionate, comment, followed by examples of your typical mindless ranting style. Cl brought it up because, well, that's cl. Always seeking advantage by hook or by crook. "Oh, look! Jim used some naughty words! He's the bad guy! He's the bad guy!" LOLOL! And you keep bringing this up because you fancy you've got this rather pathetic fingerhold on me. Give it up, Gideon. I own you.
Truth's a bitch, isn't it? Try it some time, the both of you.
Post a Comment