Bitcoin Forum
September 04, 2015, 09:04:50 PM *
News: New! Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.11.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ... 223 »
281  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: May 16, 2015, 05:08:57 PM
Because atheists have logical mind.

It is not logical, however, to not believe in something because of a lack of physical evidence, and that seems to be the primary reason that most atheists are atheists.

Don't you realise how ridiculous you sound whenever you say something like that? The fact is religious people will happily believe in god ( because they've usually had it literally beaten into them at an early age ) yet somehow all the other stuff like unicorns and santa claus don't exist. You create your own rulesets for scientific evidence and change the definition of words to suit what you say and try to force somebody who tries to debate you into those rules, that's why these kinds of threads go onto hundreds of pages rather than just be 1 page.

It isn't clever, it just makes you either incredibly petty, or somebody who resorts to circular logic because you've had whatever you believe programmed into you at an early age, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with major religions in particular if it weren't for the fact that you're blatantly trying to infiltrate governments and school systems, that's putting it very politely as well.

If people wanted to worship satan or the flying spaghetti monster, I couldn't give a fuck, just don't expect me to go along with your bullshit because that I find is the most insulting thing of all, that you expect me to go along with what you believe or else.

Responding according to paragraph:

1)  How many dozens of academic sources about the limits of Empiricism would you like me to cite for you?  A dozen?  Ten dozen?  This is common academic knowledge.  Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you can find the implications of what I'm saying, either directly or indirectly, in literally thousands of works, grade school, high school, and collegiate text books, etc.?

Claim: It is silly to believe in something without evidence.
Counterclaim:  It is silly to believe in something without good reason.

Intelligent Design (assumption of religion) --> No evidence
Positivistic Universe (assumption of Empiricism and Science) --> No evidence

Scientists maintain the assumption of a Positivistic Universe without evidence.  The assumption is empirically unfalsifiable (to scientifically falsify this assumption would require the observational collection of data in a Universe totally absent of any observers).

So, why do scientists maintain this assumption without evidence?  Simple -- they have a good reason to maintain the assumption.  Specifically, the reason is that it is sound to control for the effects of observer participation so long as we recognize and obey the rules of logical inference and inductive reasoning.

The face value of the assumptions of Intelligent Design and a Postivistic Universe are the same.  In the same way that scientists defer to reason to justify certain assumptions, you must also defer to reason to justify your assumption.

Evidence is irrelevant in this case. Sorry, you're wrong, and you will forever be wrong if you maintain this position.  It's not even any less unsound than anything BADecker has been saying.  There is nothing to debate, here.


2)   I'm not even religious.  I hate dogma, and I defer to no holy book or authority. I've submitted research proposals to the APA board and have carried out experimental studies.  I've taught research and experiment design in college classrooms.  You really had better check yourself if you are intellectually honest and care about the topic you're engaging in discussion.  Again, none of this is uncommon knowledge.  I can provide dozens of references for you.  No matter how you spin it, Intelligent Design falls outside the scope of Empiricism in the exact same way that Science's own assumptions fall outside the scope of Empiricism.  Evidence is an irrelevant consideration.  Sorry, you need to do better.  I don't know how else to tell you except you're wrong.

Simple deductive argument:
Premise 1  Empiricism cannot comment and explore upon that which is not bound by physical constraints (axiom; self-description).
Premise 2:  An omnipotent Intelligent Designer is not bound by physical constraints  (axiom; self-description)
Therefore: Empiricism cannot comment and explore upon an omnipotent Intelligent Designer.

TKO.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to refute that.


3)  Flying Spaghetti Monster is an invalid analogy to an omnipotent Intelligent Designer.  An omnipotent Intelligent Designer is defined in terms of a lack of constraint while the FSM is defined in terms of constraint.  Phrased another way, a lack of constraint is the distinguishing characteristic -- the *only* one -- which differentiates between it and any constrained forms it could take, such as an FSM.  Accordingly, there theoretically would be a way to empirically prove or falsify an FSM but not an omnipotent Intelligent Designer.
282  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: May 16, 2015, 04:43:06 PM
Because atheists have logical mind.

It is not logical, however, to not believe in something because of a lack of physical evidence, and that seems to be the primary reason that most atheists are atheists.

Would your view of an intelligent creator's attributes be; omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, benevolent, and infinite?

I'm most comfortable with the term "Intelligent Designer," which I would define as an "omnipotent creator of reality."
283  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: May 16, 2015, 04:36:01 PM
i just wonder what kind of expression that be had by an atheist when he shocked
if religions people say "Oh My God" of "Oh Jesus Christ", do an atheist will say "Oh science", "Oh universe", or "oh boson higgs particle"?

I have wondered this, as well. In some of the mills in America, or on some of the docks like in San Francisco or L.A., workers don't seem to have a touch of religion, but they call on the name of God whenever they please.

Smiley

All those years as a kid that I said "holy cow" must mean I was a Hindu, right?

So that's why you studied all those 6 or 7 religions you studied.

Smiley

Um...what?
284  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: May 16, 2015, 04:34:58 PM
Because atheists have logical mind.

It is not logical, however, to not believe in something because of a lack of physical evidence, and that seems to be the primary reason that most atheists are atheists.
285  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: May 16, 2015, 04:23:42 PM
i just wonder what kind of expression that be had by an atheist when he shocked
if religions people say "Oh My God" of "Oh Jesus Christ", do an atheist will say "Oh science", "Oh universe", or "oh boson higgs particle"?

I have wondered this, as well. In some of the mills in America, or on some of the docks like in San Francisco or L.A., workers don't seem to have a touch of religion, but they call on the name of God whenever they please.

Smiley

All those years as a kid that I said "holy cow" must mean I was a Hindu, right?
286  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: EvBitcoinFan is a scammer that took our money and voided the shipping. on: May 15, 2015, 09:37:28 PM
In the middle of driving cross country. But if you were baited from my account here into sending funds PM me those PM's and transaction info. I feel terrible that my email, coinbase and account here were compromised. Still trying to figure out how many of my accounts on the net they were into

Then why haven't you even changed your password yet?
287  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: May 14, 2015, 09:25:56 PM
I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.
QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.


Religions are not failed sciences, simply for the fact that science and the scientific method are failed sciences. After all, what is the real goal of science? Of course, it is different for every person/scientist (some want to use it to benefit humanity, others to take over the world, all to live at least a reasonable personal life).

Science will never get to the goal it is looking for. Why not? Because the universe is too large for science to achieve any real coherence within its various fields of endeavor. Only religion can do that.

If you are going to contest what I have written here, be my guest. But come back with something serious when science proves that it has allowed people to live for 200 years in good health... better, 500 years... or a thousand years.

Long before science can do this, religion will have proven itself to be true as mankind nears destroying the earth, and Jesus God returns in glory as He has said He would.

Smiley

1) The scientific method is perfect, it just has limitations.  Philosophy and logic in general don't have such limitations and accordingly have greater scope.  But you have no desire to learn how or why.  You *could* learn about how and why so you don't keep making dumbass statements which, after hundreds of posts, indicate you still have no idea what the scientific method is, how it works, why it works, and why it works perfectly within the boundaries of its scope.

2) Religion isn't epistemology.  It's a belief system.  It's not even comparable.  Religon is not a method which leads to knowledge acquisition.  Again, its a belief system. Different religions are derived from various epistemological roots (e.g. "Read the Bible because the Bible is true") but it's the epistemology which must be evaluate for its rigor, not the religion itself.

3) The size of the Universe has nothing to do with science's inability to form a comprehensive explanatory model of reality.  Instead, it's limited by the rules of inductive reasoning which do not permit such explanations.

4) Consider yourself contested and defeated.  Care to contest what I said?  And by "contest," I don't mean just disagreeing.  I mean, can you actually provide reasons?

5) Way to equate "religion" with "Chrisianity" and ignore every other religion.  

1. The scientific method is perfect with regard to itself. No limitations. But that is all it has. What's the matter. Do you have problems recognizing the truth, so you attempt to do character assassinations of my understandings which are, obviously, way beyond your simplistic thinking?

2. Science is a belief system. The scientific method simply describes the details of science. Thus science, at least the way that it is expressed, is a religion. It is a weak religion, because by the time that it finishes what it is attempting to do, the whole universe will have crumbled to beyond dust, through entropy.

3. I would consider science a much better tool than that, as long as it remains in truthful expression.

4. You might prove things to many people. But if you do, it is only because they are willing to accept what you "evidence" to them as proof.

5. Actually, Christianity is not really religion. It is reality. The way scientific knowledge is exaggerated in the expressions of scientists and politicians, science is one of the biggest religions out there, surpassed only by atheism.

Smiley

1) Blah blah blah, hot air and no actual point.  I love how you claim I have "simplistic thinking" when you don't actually provide any reasons for your own statements.

2) No.  *Empiricism* is a belief system.  Science is an empirical *method.*  The scientific method is in no way a belief system.

3)  It *must* remain truthful by acknowledging its limitations at every turn, especially in the conclusion section.  No problem here.  If it didn't, it wouldn't be good scientific practice.

4)  It's called "margin-of-error," and *every* scientific conclusion has one.  No problem, here.  There is no person more humble or cautious about a conclusion than a good scientist, for it is his duty to explicitly describe where scientific experiments have points of weakness.

5) What kind of fucking moron do you have to be to create a belief system in which you think an actual religion isn't one, and a total non-religion is one?  Here we go again.  This type of thinking meets the criteria for psychosis.  I'm not kidding.

Can you possibly frame your beliefs using the words everyone else uses?  No?  Of course not, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm going to create a thread where I do nothing but quote you and show your own quotes directly contradict yourself.  Out of curiosity, how would you plan to wiggle out and explain your own contradictions, such as saying "religion will be shown to be true" and "Christianity isn't even a religion"?  Furthermore, how so you intend to reconcile several dozen of these types of contradictory quotes?

(Chuckle.)

C'mon, now. Relax. You are losing the connection between your soul and your brain, and your corpus callosum is turning into hemorrhoids.

 Cheesy

Says the guy who thinks an inductive fallacy is about poor electrical semiconductors.

TKO.
288  Other / Meta / Re: PICISI: Philanthropic Investment and Charity for Inventions, Startups, and Ideas on: May 14, 2015, 09:02:36 PM
I clicked this thread because I thought it was about a charity.


the OP lead you in that direction by making the suggestion in the question.  so its reasonable to make that selection.

had you looked up PICISI you likely would not have made that selection because you would have known what it was.



No, I read the current thread title a couple of minutes ago.  I've never heard of PICISI before, to my knowledge.  I thought it was possibly a charity Vod was representing.

That is what I was saying that you were lead by the OP.

When OP wrote: "Would a reasonable person look at this title and assume it was a charitable organization?"  

the word "charitable" was the lead.  Had he put "Investment" or "Philanthropic" or "Invention" or any other derivation of any one of the words in the name it would have been a lead in that direction.  Had he simply asked the generic question of: "What type of business do you think they are in?"  you would have a more pure (less skewed) result.

You know the name of the company isn't 6 words long, that would be unreasonable.   The company name is PICISI and that is why people rarely see all of the other words and why they are always in parenthesis when properly presented.  Again by leaving out the parenthesis he lead you to wrongfully believe that it was the name of the company.

The name of the company is one word "PICISI" pronounced (pick-easy)    

Now, when you look at this "Philanthropic Investment and Charity for Inventions, Startups, and Ideas" how many comas do you see and where are they?  Clearly the collection of words are designed to be said as a phrase and to have meaning.   The meaning is: 'a place where industrious (inventors, entrepreneurs, creators) could go to get funding'.

When the OP saw it it was in context it said a 'crowdfunding site (under construction)' but of course he quotes it out of context.

So given the multiple leads and omissions why would anyone reasonably expect a more fair outcome?




I don't think you understood me.

Quote
No, I read the current thread title a couple of minutes ago... I thought it was possibly a charity Vod was representing.

There was nothing in the OP that could have led me to that conclusion prior to reading the OP.
289  Other / Off-topic / Re: Ethnicity on: May 14, 2015, 07:13:29 PM
Last option is a social experiment Tongue

Now it's a quasi-experiment Tongue
290  Other / Meta / Re: PICISI: Philanthropic Investment and Charity for Inventions, Startups, and Ideas on: May 14, 2015, 07:10:25 PM
I clicked this thread because I thought it was about a charity.


the OP lead you in that direction by making the suggestion in the question.  so its reasonable to make that selection.

had you looked up PICISI you likely would not have made that selection because you would have known what it was.



No, I read the current thread title a couple of minutes ago.  I've never heard of PICISI before, to my knowledge.  I thought it was possibly a charity Vod was representing.

The tread title that led me to think this is:

Quote
Re: PICISI: Philanthropic Investment and Charity for Inventions, Startups, and Ideas

Edit:  In consideration of redsn0w's post below me, I did not place a vote, either.
291  Other / Meta / Re: PICISI: Philanthropic Investment and Charity for Inventions, Startups, and Ideas on: May 14, 2015, 07:01:50 PM
I clicked this thread because I thought it was about a charity.
292  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: May 14, 2015, 06:00:19 PM
I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.
QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.


Religions are not failed sciences, simply for the fact that science and the scientific method are failed sciences. After all, what is the real goal of science? Of course, it is different for every person/scientist (some want to use it to benefit humanity, others to take over the world, all to live at least a reasonable personal life).

Science will never get to the goal it is looking for. Why not? Because the universe is too large for science to achieve any real coherence within its various fields of endeavor. Only religion can do that.

If you are going to contest what I have written here, be my guest. But come back with something serious when science proves that it has allowed people to live for 200 years in good health... better, 500 years... or a thousand years.

Long before science can do this, religion will have proven itself to be true as mankind nears destroying the earth, and Jesus God returns in glory as He has said He would.

Smiley

1) The scientific method is perfect, it just has limitations.  Philosophy and logic in general don't have such limitations and accordingly have greater scope.  But you have no desire to learn how or why.  You *could* learn about how and why so you don't keep making dumbass statements which, after hundreds of posts, indicate you still have no idea what the scientific method is, how it works, why it works, and why it works perfectly within the boundaries of its scope.

2) Religion isn't epistemology.  It's a belief system.  It's not even comparable.  Religon is not a method which leads to knowledge acquisition.  Again, its a belief system. Different religions are derived from various epistemological roots (e.g. "Read the Bible because the Bible is true") but it's the epistemology which must be evaluate for its rigor, not the religion itself.

3) The size of the Universe has nothing to do with science's inability to form a comprehensive explanatory model of reality.  Instead, it's limited by the rules of inductive reasoning which do not permit such explanations.

4) Consider yourself contested and defeated.  Care to contest what I said?  And by "contest," I don't mean just disagreeing.  I mean, can you actually provide reasons?

5) Way to equate "religion" with "Chrisianity" and ignore every other religion.  

1. The scientific method is perfect with regard to itself. No limitations. But that is all it has. What's the matter. Do you have problems recognizing the truth, so you attempt to do character assassinations of my understandings which are, obviously, way beyond your simplistic thinking?

2. Science is a belief system. The scientific method simply describes the details of science. Thus science, at least the way that it is expressed, is a religion. It is a weak religion, because by the time that it finishes what it is attempting to do, the whole universe will have crumbled to beyond dust, through entropy.

3. I would consider science a much better tool than that, as long as it remains in truthful expression.

4. You might prove things to many people. But if you do, it is only because they are willing to accept what you "evidence" to them as proof.

5. Actually, Christianity is not really religion. It is reality. The way scientific knowledge is exaggerated in the expressions of scientists and politicians, science is one of the biggest religions out there, surpassed only by atheism.

Smiley

1) Blah blah blah, hot air and no actual point.  I love how you claim I have "simplistic thinking" when you don't actually provide any reasons for your own statements.

2) No.  *Empiricism* is a belief system.  Science is an empirical *method.*  The scientific method is in no way a belief system.

3)  It *must* remain truthful by acknowledging its limitations at every turn, especially in the conclusion section.  No problem here.  If it didn't, it wouldn't be good scientific practice.

4)  It's called "margin-of-error," and *every* scientific conclusion has one.  No problem, here.  There is no person more humble or cautious about a conclusion than a good scientist, for it is his duty to explicitly describe where scientific experiments have points of weakness.

5) What kind of fucking moron do you have to be to create a belief system in which you think an actual religion isn't one, and a total non-religion is one?  Here we go again.  This type of thinking meets the criteria for psychosis.  I'm not kidding.

Can you possibly frame your beliefs using the words everyone else uses?  No?  Of course not, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm going to create a thread where I do nothing but quote you and show your own quotes directly contradict yourself.  Out of curiosity, how would you plan to wiggle out and explain your own contradictions, such as saying "religion will be shown to be true" and "Christianity isn't even a religion"?  Furthermore, how so you intend to reconcile several dozen of these types of contradictory quotes?
293  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: May 14, 2015, 04:20:42 PM
I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.
QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.


Religions are not failed sciences, simply for the fact that science and the scientific method are failed sciences. After all, what is the real goal of science? Of course, it is different for every person/scientist (some want to use it to benefit humanity, others to take over the world, all to live at least a reasonable personal life).

Science will never get to the goal it is looking for. Why not? Because the universe is too large for science to achieve any real coherence within its various fields of endeavor. Only religion can do that.

If you are going to contest what I have written here, be my guest. But come back with something serious when science proves that it has allowed people to live for 200 years in good health... better, 500 years... or a thousand years.

Long before science can do this, religion will have proven itself to be true as mankind nears destroying the earth, and Jesus God returns in glory as He has said He would.

Smiley

1) The scientific method is perfect, it just has limitations.  Philosophy and logic in general don't have such limitations and accordingly have greater scope.  But you have no desire to learn how or why.  You *could* learn about how and why so you don't keep making dumbass statements which, after hundreds of posts, indicate you still have no idea what the scientific method is, how it works, why it works, and why it works perfectly within the boundaries of its scope.

2) Religion isn't epistemology.  It's a belief system.  It's not even comparable.  Religon is not a method which leads to knowledge acquisition.  Again, its a belief system. Different religions are derived from various epistemological roots (e.g. "Read the Bible because the Bible is true") but it's the epistemology which must be evaluate for its rigor, not the religion itself.

3) The size of the Universe has nothing to do with science's inability to form a comprehensive explanatory model of reality.  Instead, it's limited by the rules of inductive reasoning which do not permit such explanations.

4) Consider yourself contested and defeated.  Care to contest what I said?  And by "contest," I don't mean just disagreeing.  I mean, can you actually provide reasons?

5) Way to equate "religion" with "Chrisianity" and ignore every other religion.  
294  Other / Meta / Re: scammer gave me a Negative trust because He Defaulted in loan on: May 14, 2015, 03:10:04 PM
Senior account worth 0.1 ? you really joke. This account is worth min 0.3BTC. You earn 0.2BTC on this loan and call me scammer? What the hell is wrong with you?


You are a scammer because you didn't repay the loan.  Not difficult to understand.


This is interesting.  In an extreme case, if someone hypothetically provided 10x collateral on a loan and defaulted, you would label them a scammer?  

I would've assumed the collateral is part of the "deal" such that, whether or not the original loan amount is repaid, the lender is satisfied (else the conditions of collateral wouldn't be agreed to).
295  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Watch out guys - NASA confirms alien invasion on: May 14, 2015, 06:40:07 AM

If the speed of light is the absolute limit in the galaxy, then we will never visit an alien's planet, and they will never visit ours.  The distances are just too great.  Sad

I'm talking for organized matter.  While it could be theoretically possible to enter a black hole and come out in some other area of the galaxy - there is no way we would survive such a journey.  Smiley

If something like wormholes exist, the speed of light doesn't matter because you travel a faster route.
296  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: May 14, 2015, 06:36:41 AM
You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.


snip-

Hello the joint, I know you believe in a "god", and that metaphysical things exist. But can you explain to me why and how?

All identifiable, real things must self-apparently have an abstract basis.

The reason for this is that real things/reality are defined by metrics, which are abstract scales of measurement.

The most fundamental metric is binary.  A binary metric is fundamentally necessary in order for something to exist.  For example "1" vs. "0" or "yes" or "no" is a fundamental metric which allows us to assert something exists, which is distinguishable from non-existence.

Perception is the catalyst which invokes this primary metric, and reality is literally defined and affirmed to exist by it.  Without such a metric, there is nothing by which to differentiate betwee existence and non-existence, real and unreal.

Secondary metrics provide similar functions.  For example, after first distinguishing between space and not-space, we can invoke a secondary metric.  If we select a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous.  If we instead invoke a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous.  Neat, eh?

In the absence of such metrics, we can't assert reality to exist at all.  Born of these metrics, which differentiate between real objects and define them, are rational statements.  The root word of rationale is "ratio," and every rational statement is one describing a relationship between real objects.  Because logic is a predicate for truth, and because any logical statement is a rational statement, truth only takes the form of such relational statements; there is no truth relevant of consideration outside these rational statements.

So, without metrics, we can't even begin to explore what's true and what isn't.  Metrics differentiate between things, thereby setting a ratio between them and allowing us to form true, rational statements about them.  Because metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an [intelligent] mind, and because all real definition is a product of these metrics, Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined.

Ok thank you it's an interesting read.

Of course, none f this matters to anyone in great pain or great joy, except that the pain won't stop or that the joy will.

Smiley


None of that sentence matters regarding anything I said.
297  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: May 13, 2015, 05:27:30 PM
You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.


snip-

Hello the joint, I know you believe in a "god", and that metaphysical things exist. But can you explain to me why and how?

All identifiable, real things must self-apparently have an abstract basis.

The reason for this is that real things/reality are defined by metrics, which are abstract scales of measurement.

The most fundamental metric is binary.  A binary metric is fundamentally necessary in order for something to exist.  For example "1" vs. "0" or "yes" or "no" is a fundamental metric which allows us to assert something exists, which is distinguishable from non-existence.

Perception is the catalyst which invokes this primary metric, and reality is literally defined and affirmed to exist by it.  Without such a metric, there is nothing by which to differentiate betwee existence and non-existence, real and unreal.

Secondary metrics provide similar functions.  For example, after first distinguishing between space and not-space, we can invoke a secondary metric.  If we select a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous.  If we instead invoke a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous.  Neat, eh?

In the absence of such metrics, we can't assert reality to exist at all.  Born of these metrics, which differentiate between real objects and define them, are rational statements.  The root word of rationale is "ratio," and every rational statement is one describing a relationship between real objects.  Because logic is a predicate for truth, and because any logical statement is a rational statement, truth only takes the form of such relational statements; there is no truth relevant of consideration outside these rational statements.

So, without metrics, we can't even begin to explore what's true and what isn't.  Metrics differentiate between things, thereby setting a ratio between them and allowing us to form true, rational statements about them.  Because metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an [intelligent] mind, and because all real definition is a product of these metrics, Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined.
298  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: May 13, 2015, 03:47:10 PM
You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.



Devil's advocate:  The 'atheist scientist" fallacy at play is that they believe 1) the scientific method should have the final say, or that 2) only empirical things are real, or that 3) scientific falsification is the only kind that exists, or that 4) the scientific method sets the standard for explanatory rigor.

1)  In this case it shouldn't as it is entirely inapplicable (there is no possible, theoretical way to even conceptualize a means of empirical falsification even if you assume outright God exists).  Actually, it can't even explore the topic of God or Intelligent Design in any meaningful way.

2)  Non-empirical (i.e. non-physical) things exist.  This is self-apparent every moment of your conscious experience.

3)  Logical falsification > empirical falsification.  The scientific method has no built-in mechanism for distinguishing between contradictory observations (e.g. our extrapolation based upon observations of Universal expansion that the Universe is 'x' years-old vs. our observations that galaxies at similar ages of development appear equidistant from our locality in every direction).  Science must defer to logic to distinguish between contradictory conclusions derived from observations.  In such a case, logic can reconcile what Science cannot.

4)  The scientific method is a philosophical subset.  Its roots are entirely abstract and philosophical, and stem from empirical epistemology.  In an empirical context (i.e. where the role of observation is controlled and assumed to have no causal effect on reality whatsoever), the scientific method does set the standard for explanatory rigor.  Outside of an empirical context, its explanatory rigor is exactly zero.  Nil.  Zip.  Nothing.  Nada.  It has absolutely no capacity whatsoever to explore or comment upon abstract phenomena, including its own abstract assumptions, and also the abstract rules of logical inference and theory-making which it utilizes at every experimental turn.

At the height of generality, logic is self-descriptively the most capable of forming sound explanatory models.
299  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: CONTEST: How many Bitcoin Penny™ coins are in the jar? on: May 13, 2015, 03:39:22 AM
342
300  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: May 12, 2015, 06:16:13 PM
I find it interesting how religious people want to believe that religion is essential and so atheists must also have religion.

That is an interesting notion. Do you think that the reason theists try to fallaciously claim atheism to be equal to a religion because they actually can't understand the concept of moral sentience without religion?

Actually, come to think of it, back when I was a fence-sitting agnostic, I actually believed it was impossible to be a genuine atheist, with the associated 'the end is the end of me' acceptance, without losing one's mind. I now know that, actually, once you become an intellectualised atheist, by way of reaching that position through much thought and consideration coupled with objective reasoning and critical thinking, it becomes absolutely natural a concept.

I didn't exist before I did and that wasn't a problem, so why would not existing after I do be any different?



Perhaps atheists have their own personal religion, but atheism in general is religion. Its god is the human mind.

I guess you are expanding the meaning of the word too far. Believing in something (which is what you are evidently trying to say) doesn't necessarily constitute a religion...

From the dictionary definition listed in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg11350691#msg11350691:
Quote
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
Seems to me that an atheist who responds to anti-atheism posts zealously is not only a zealot, but he is a religious zealot, as well.

Smiley

Lol what?!

You realize that your selected definition totally discredits your point.

You're basically saying that atheists are religious in the same way that a baseball player is religious about team spirit.  Or that vegans are religious about the foods they eat.

You selected the definition that is as far away from dogmatic religion as possible while still being able to use the word 'religion.'

You really, truly suck at this.

You are finally getting my point. Science is described by many people in many ways. Some people call their electric range in their kitchen science.

Smiley

Yeah, they could.  They could say, "Hey, I'll cook some eggs for you atop my science."

You're right, they could say this.  And they would be horrible communicators.

Just because you can make a word mean something else doesn't mean you should.  Language is for communication.  Communication successfully occurs according to accurate translation.  All you do is spin, twist, and invent new meanings for things.  The results are that nobody understands your argument by common usage. And by specific usage, you just start contradicting yourself (because your invented definitions are usually the opposite of the common usage definitions, which you use whenever you're losing an argument). Clever trick -- whenever you're wrong, just say that words mean the exact opposite (or are so vague that it could mean *any*thing) and suddenly you're right (well, no...you're still wrong).

You said yourself that "common usage" is what's in the dictionary.  So quit making shit up and use words and language we all understand.  If you can't get your argument to work using the words and definitions we already have, then surely you must think it's insane that the solution is to start making shit up.  Agreed?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ... 223 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!