Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-11-2013, 22:46   #581
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Sure, it's possible that one did exist, it's possible that one has never existed. It's clear to me.

I find it odd that causes some people such discomfort.
What "causes discomfort" is your dodging questions. I didn't ask what was possible, or what you thought was possible; I asked if you knew if you believe in deities. As always, you answered the question you were comfortable answering, not the question you were asked.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 22:48   #582
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's an active thing, not passive. That's all.


Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Date: 1672
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
Do you actively reject the assertion deities exist?
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 22:54   #583
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Steel box? What steel box?
Steel box, you have your medical/military terminology and I have my metallurgy terminology. Welded steel boxes are used in crucible particle metallurgy when you want things sealed up real tight, just like Geko's example did by giving you absolutely no where to go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'm glad you at least admitted what the obvious intent of Geko45 was. You've been a big help.
There needs to be no "admitting what the obvious intent of Geko45 was" in making that post since he clearly stated his intent and even correctly predicted your response. Remember how we talked about evidence that leads one to a correct prediction being the best kind of evidence there is? How long are you going to persist with this BS idea that Geko, G36, AM, AG, Randy, Muskogee, Void, ksg and myself are all failing to see something here that you aren't? At least that nutcase that likes to diagnose others as nutcases is on your side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
If I choose not to play true/false digital thinking games, so what?
Well then you're a coward, that's so what. Not just any coward but the worst kind of coward that likes to tout his military service and laments of "those that run to the sound of gunfire" and all that Ooh-Rah! nonsense. If you can handle all that war business then what's so hard about answering 3 simple little questions? I can do it. Watch...

My answers to Gek's 3 questions are,

1. True
2. True
3. False (answering for myself instead of for you as the question was worded)

Now that wasn't so hard was it? No military service or tactical training required. But you want to keep whining about loaded questions and digital thinking games even though those questions are neither. What's the hangup tough guy?
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 23:04   #584
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I happen to agree with that definition. You don't. It's OK.

Have you contacted Merriam Webster with your complaints yet? Would you share any response you get?
Of course you agree with that definition. It's the only thing that comes close to backing up the absurd claim you keep making. Among the many questions you've dodged was one that I asked about whether the dictionary was the final authority on the meaning of words or if etymology is. You could have been making the claim that a siphon was powered by air pressure instead of gravity and cited the definition as your evidence and you'd both have been wrong. Now, in a forum where at least 9 intelligent fellows are disagreeing with you on that claim and giving you dozens of very good examples as to why, you might want to consider that your one point that your entire argument hinges on just might need to be revisited.
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 23:21   #585
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,264


__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 23:26   #586
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I happen to agree with that definition. You don't. It's OK.

Have you contacted Merriam Webster with your complaints yet? Would you share any response you get?
You insist upon an idiosyncratic definition that doesn't apply to you, and that you've had clearly explained why it actually doesn't apply by the people to whom it only nominally applies, with cited examples that do apply.

You're right, that's okay, it's just remarkably odd anyone would keep doing such a thing.

Last edited by ksg0245; 02-11-2013 at 23:27..
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-12-2013, 00:29   #587
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
2 possibilities, life was made, or happened by natural phenomena. You're loading your questions too.

Why do you limit yourself? If life was created, that would be the nature of things, and not supernatural.

Do you think if man ever creates life, would that prove abiogenesis is correct, or intelligent design is correct? Or neither?
I'm not loading questions, I've just thought this through more than you have. If life is capable of happening anywhere that the conditions are right that would mean it occurred naturally. Even aliens planting life on earth or panspermia would require life to exist somewhere else first. That all falls under the heading of naturally occurring.

The only other option would be supernatural if deities with magical powers did it all and that deity would have to exist outside the laws of our universe if they are to have had no creator themselves. That's supernatural. Why don't you try just answering a question for a change instead of nit picking wordings and definitions and playing games?

If life was created it would have to have ORIGINALLY been created by a supernatural being. Supernatural meaning existing outside the natural laws of the universe. Science is not interested in that which cannot be verified.

If man ever creates life by reproducing natural conditions (you don't really expect them to reproduce supernatural conditions do you?) then that will prove that life can (and Occam's Razor says it did) happen without supernatural influence. Even if it takes some extremely convoluted and complex process the nay sayers will still have to prove those conditions were never present in the entire universe at any time.
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-12-2013, 01:23   #588
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I happen to agree with that definition. You don't. It's OK.
Yes I know you do. It's the only piece of ammo you have in your "Atheism is a Religion" agenda. Makes me wonder if those that create these definitions don't also have an agenda similar to yours. The fact is... it isn't consistent with the etymology of the "A" prefix which means and has always meant "Without".

Allow me to demonstrate...

Amoral

Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.
Synonyms
non-moral - immoral - unmoral

Achromatic

Relating to, employing, or denoting lenses that transmit light without separating it into constituent colors.

Without color.

Synonyms
colourless - colorless

Ahistorical

Lacking historical perspective or context.

Atypical

Not representative of a type, group, or class:

Adynamic

undynamic: characterized by an absence of force or forcefulness.

You can see, the prefix A to a word means WITHOUT, or NOT HAVING, or the ABSENCE OF. If we remain consistent with the way words are structured then Atheism means WITHOUT Theism. I get that you prefer the incorrect definition. But that doesn't keep it from being incorrect. And being in the dictionary doesn't make it automatically correct. Much like calling you Doc which is short for Doctor would be incorrect since you aren't one. I just like words to have accurate and consistent meanings.


Quote:
Have you contacted Merriam Webster with your complaints yet? Would you share any response you get?
No, never really thought to. But I'd be willing to bet that unless they have an agenda to incorrectly label Atheism as a religion, they'd have to agree the application is inconsistent.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 02-12-2013 at 01:24..
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-12-2013, 13:19   #589
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It is what it is. It got this way precisely how it got this way. We are pretty good at describing what is, not so good at describing the moment it all started, or even if there was a start.

Describing with any detail, events that occurred hundreds of millions or billions of years ago is not an precise exersize.
"It got this way precisely how it got this way" is, while a true statement, so obvious it doesn't need posting. Why on Earth would you even bother with that?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I see two problems with that. First, it may have been a rather normal appearing intelligence, after all, we are getting close to doing it, and we aren't all that super.
That doesn't really fit with the idea of creationism that is widely held on this planet, however. Almost every religion that has a creation myth attributes our creation to a supernatural diety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Second, if it were created, even using abilities we haven't even considered, that would be the nature of things, and not supernatural. Even the math behind BBT suggests a time when the normal laws of physics we observe today may not have applied.
Supernatural based on what we understand as natural laws today. I should have thought this was also obvious. A lot of things were perceived as "supernatural" before we had the science and knowledge to explain it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's not more logical.
On this, we completely agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
We all have opinions on what is MORE logical. I personally think firm belief in either of two poorly supported beliefs, even though one is likely correct is illogical. That's why I don't have a firm belief that life just happened or that it was made. I'll wait until something convincing comes along then decide. Until then I don't worry to much about what happened billions of years ago (other than on GTRI), as I have plenty to learn about and do in the present.
Then why are you participating in this discussion? I don't have a "firm belief" in abiogenesis, either. However, it is the only option that is supported by the precious little evidence we have. As such, I give it more credence than creation.
hooligan74 is offline  
Old 02-12-2013, 14:43   #590
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's an active thing, not passive. That's all.


Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Date: 1672
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
Merely being an act does not account for the motivation behind the act.

For instance, the simple fact that someone committed the act of firing a gun at another human being does not automatically assign any particular reason for the act of "firing a gun at another human being". It could have been self defense. It could have been murder. It could have been war. Context will matter, a lot, there.

In this case, if we consider disbelief the "act of mentally rejecting something as untrue", that does not demand that the reasoning behind disbelief is absolute, rather than conditional or provisional. It could go either way, depending on context. Many self-identified atheists here have told you that they approach their particular act of disbelief in deities in a provisional manner. Why can't you simply accept that? Is it merely that accepting it would require you to not hold the position that you're holding?

Basically, for you to hold the position you hold (that atheism is a religion), you have to treat a theist holding a position of "I believe on faith and nothing will change my mind" as equivalent to an atheist holding a position of "I do not believe, but if evidence or information indicates otherwise in the future I would change my mind". They are not at all equivalent.

(This is not to say that there are no atheists that hold the position on an equivalent of faith. Just that there are plenty telling you they do not, and you seem to think it's just fine to ignore that completely).
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-12-2013 at 14:51..
void * is offline  
Old 02-12-2013, 17:03   #591
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
"It got this way precisely how it got this way" is, while a true statement, so obvious it doesn't need posting. Why on Earth would you even bother with that?
It's obvious enough to be stated. Occam's razor. Exactly how it came to be this way is a mystery, and yet some get so upset when you don't adopt their beliefs. It's interesting.

Quote:

That doesn't really fit with the idea of creationism that is widely held on this planet, however. Almost every religion that has a creation myth attributes our creation to a supernatural diety.
I don't see a need to make assumptions, and as you say just below, what is supernatural is a matter of perspective.

Quote:

Supernatural based on what we understand as natural laws today. I should have thought this was also obvious. A lot of things were perceived as "supernatural" before we had the science and knowledge to explain it.
Physics as we know it breaks down in the beginning of the BBT. It's not supernatural either, if that was a natural phenomena, it's natural. It it was started by an intelligence, that would be natural too. The question is, which was it? It's controversial even among theists and atheists.

Quote:
On this, we completely agree.



Then why are you participating in this discussion? I don't have a "firm belief" in abiogenesis, either. However, it is the only option that is supported by the precious little evidence we have. As such, I give it more credence than creation.
Why not?

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-12-2013 at 17:20..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-12-2013, 17:18   #592
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Merely being an act does not account for the motivation behind the act.

For instance, the simple fact that someone committed the act of firing a gun at another human being does not automatically assign any particular reason for the act of "firing a gun at another human being". It could have been self defense. It could have been murder. It could have been war. Context will matter, a lot, there.

In this case, if we consider disbelief the "act of mentally rejecting something as untrue", that does not demand that the reasoning behind disbelief is absolute, rather than conditional or provisional. It could go either way, depending on context. Many self-identified atheists here have told you that they approach their particular act of disbelief in deities in a provisional manner. Why can't you simply accept that? Is it merely that accepting it would require you to not hold the position that you're holding?

Basically, for you to hold the position you hold (that atheism is a religion), you have to treat a theist holding a position of "I believe on faith and nothing will change my mind" as equivalent to an atheist holding a position of "I do not believe, but if evidence or information indicates otherwise in the future I would change my mind". They are not at all equivalent.

(This is not to say that there are no atheists that hold the position on an equivalent of faith. Just that there are plenty telling you they do not, and you seem to think it's just fine to ignore that completely).
The act of disbelief is something someone does, not something that happens to them. I'm sure there are plenty of different motivations. I'd ask them personally instead of requesting that I generalize.

Well, lets not pretend that everyone is the same. Some theists could be convinced if there were convincing evidence. Quite a few people here that have said they are atheists have also claimed to have once been theists. A lot of people change over time. It's a choice.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-12-2013, 17:27   #593
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Yes I know you do. It's the only piece of ammo you have in your "Atheism is a Religion" agenda. Makes me wonder if those that create these definitions don't also have an agenda similar to yours. The fact is... it isn't consistent with the etymology of the "A" prefix which means and has always meant "Without".

Allow me to demonstrate...

Amoral

Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.
Synonyms
non-moral - immoral - unmoral

Achromatic

Relating to, employing, or denoting lenses that transmit light without separating it into constituent colors.

Without color.

Synonyms
colourless - colorless

Ahistorical

Lacking historical perspective or context.

Atypical

Not representative of a type, group, or class:

Adynamic

undynamic: characterized by an absence of force or forcefulness.

You can see, the prefix A to a word means WITHOUT, or NOT HAVING, or the ABSENCE OF. If we remain consistent with the way words are structured then Atheism means WITHOUT Theism. I get that you prefer the incorrect definition. But that doesn't keep it from being incorrect. And being in the dictionary doesn't make it automatically correct. Much like calling you Doc which is short for Doctor would be incorrect since you aren't one. I just like words to have accurate and consistent meanings.




No, never really thought to. But I'd be willing to bet that unless they have an agenda to incorrectly label Atheism as a religion, they'd have to agree the application is inconsistent.

Let us know what kind of response you get.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-12-2013, 17:38   #594
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
I'm not loading questions, I've just thought this through more than you have. If life is capable of happening anywhere that the conditions are right that would mean it occurred naturally. Even aliens planting life on earth or panspermia would require life to exist somewhere else first. That all falls under the heading of naturally occurring.

The only other option would be supernatural if deities with magical powers did it all and that deity would have to exist outside the laws of our universe if they are to have had no creator themselves. That's supernatural. Why don't you try just answering a question for a change instead of nit picking wordings and definitions and playing games?

If life was created it would have to have ORIGINALLY been created by a supernatural being. Supernatural meaning existing outside the natural laws of the universe. Science is not interested in that which cannot be verified.

If man ever creates life by reproducing natural conditions (you don't really expect them to reproduce supernatural conditions do you?) then that will prove that life can (and Occam's Razor says it did) happen without supernatural influence. Even if it takes some extremely convoluted and complex process the nay sayers will still have to prove those conditions were never present in the entire universe at any time.

There has been some controversy about what the exact weather conditions were 500+millions of years ago.

If man can make life, it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that life could have been made.

The details of how that happened here hundreds of millions of years ago will likely still be debatable.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-12-2013 at 17:39..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-12-2013, 20:48   #595
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The act of disbelief is something someone does, not something that happens to them.
Of course. I never claimed that it was something that happened to them. I claimed that you cannot infer intent or motivation from the mere fact that something is an act. Yet, your argument demands that the mere fact it is defined as an act require that the act be non-conditional - because it has to be a non-conditional, non-provisional act for the act to be equivalent to the act of a theist believing in a deity on the basis of faith.

So your argument rests on an unjustified assumption that merely being an act says something about the motivation behind the act.

Quote:
I'm sure there are plenty of different motivations. I'd ask them personally instead of requesting that I generalize.
I'm not requesting that you generalize. I'm requesting that you stop generalizing, because your entire argument rests on an untrue generalization.

Quote:
Well, lets not pretend that everyone is the same.
I am not pretending everyone is the same. Why do you make statements worded to imply that the person you are talking with has claimed something they haven't? You've done so twice in your response so far.

Quote:
Some theists could be convinced if there were convincing evidence.
This may well be true, if it were possible to prove the posit "There are no deities" (which, imho, it is not) - but every time the question 'What would convince you otherwise' is asked, the people who respond "Nothing" are invariably theists. This is not to say that all theists would respond with nothing, or that all atheists would claim something - just that when it actually happens, in threads on this forum, you can bet money on many theists claiming "Nothing" or the equivalent - yet I can't recall a single time a self-identified atheist has done so, and if there has been such a case (I'm sure there's probably at least one atheist out there who holds such a position), they are *far* outnumbered by the theists who do so.

That piece of data ought to tell you something - but, of course, I can't expect you to admit that the sides have different probability of answering the question "What evidence would change your mind" with "nothing", because your entire argument rests on the idea that there cannot be such a differential in attitude towards beliefs held, they both have to be "religion". So - you must ignore the evidence, right? No matter how convoluted your argument must become, no matter how obvious you have to make it that you avoid answering simple questions (such as "Do you believe?"), you cannot admit that people who reject the posit "There is a deity" can do so with a different basis than those who accept the posit.

You can't even admit that as an agnostic, you yourself have to be rejecting the posit "There is a deity", since you're at the very least provisionally rejecting it if you cannot truthfully say you accept it - and a provisional rejection is still a rejection.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-12-2013 at 21:07..
void * is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 00:08   #596
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The act of disbelief is something someone does, not something that happens to them. I'm sure there are plenty of different motivations. I'd ask them personally instead of requesting that I generalize.

Well, lets not pretend that everyone is the same. Some theists could be convinced if there were convincing evidence. Quite a few people here that have said they are atheists have also claimed to have once been theists. A lot of people change over time. It's a choice.
No it is not. Not for me anyway. I don't believe what seems unlikely to be true. It is not possible for me to chose to believe what seems unlikely to be true. It's hard for me to think that anyone could.
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Quote:
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...
Syclone538 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 08:21   #597
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Syclone538 View Post
No it is not. Not for me anyway. I don't believe what seems unlikely to be true. It is not possible for me to chose to believe what seems unlikely to be true. It's hard for me to think that anyone could.
Don't get me wrong, we all evaluate what we have been told, and what we have seen and how it all fits together. Most have given a fair amount of consideration prior to deciding. Some feel driven by what they believe to a particular conclusion. We reach many different conclusions. It's not just a random choice.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 09:15   #598
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's obvious enough to be stated. Occam's razor. Exactly how it came to be this way is a mystery, and yet some get so upset when you don't adopt their beliefs. It's interesting.
Occam's razor: Therazor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power.

Please tell me how that applies to you stating "Things happened precisely they way they happened."?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I don't see a need to make assumptions, and as you say just below, what is supernatural is a matter of perspective.
Assumptions about what? Supernatural isn't about perspective, it's about what we know and can prove regarding the physical laws of the world we live in. Are you honestly trying to argue that an omnipotent, omnipresesnt, omniscient creator that has always existed is *not* supernatural? Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Physics as we know it breaks down in the beginning of the BBT. It's not supernatural either, if that was a natural phenomena, it's natural.
When did I ever claim the BBT was supernatural?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It it was started by an intelligence, that would be natural too. The question is, which was it? It's controversial even among theists and atheists.
If it was started by a god, in the way that the VAST majority of civilizations describe gods, it would most certainly be supernatural. Controversial? Certainly that, as well. What's your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Why not?
Powerful argument.
hooligan74 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 09:39   #599
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,264


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It is what it is. It got this way precisely how it got this way.
A vacuous truth and a reasonable analogy for all of CavDoc's posts.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 02-13-2013 at 09:41..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:22   #600
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syclone538 View Post
No it is not. Not for me anyway. I don't believe what seems unlikely to be true. It is not possible for me to chose to believe what seems unlikely to be true. It's hard for me to think that anyone could.
I think that at some level it is a choice - whether subconscious or conscious or whatever.

With respect to this argument, though, it doesn't actually matter whether or not it's a choice, as it being a choice is not support for his argument.

What Cavalry Doc is ignoring with his response is that, just as something being an 'act' does not allow an automatic assignment of reasons for the act, something being a choice does not, either.

He's basically responding to my point of 'Hey, you cannot assume the reasons for an act merely because something is an act, your argument is only valid if you can assume those reasons, therefore, your argument fails' with 'it's a choice' as though that somehow doesn't fall to the like logic of "Hey, you cannot assume the reasons for a choice merely because something is a choice, your argument is only valid if you can assume those reasons, therefore, your argument fails'

Basically, his argument demands that the reasons for not believing be the same reasons at some level that people believe. They do not have to be, and in this particular case, for many atheists they are not - and he has to ignore that, because if he didn't ignore it he'd have to admit that the argument fails.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-13-2013 at 10:26..
void * is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:57.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 983
273 Members
710 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31