Do you believe every individual, living person is religious then?

Here's a question for you:  Since you keep claiming atheism is a religion, can you instead describe what it means to be non-religious?  In other words, what criteria does a person need to meet in order to be considered non-religious, according to you?

So, then, how would you devise a method to determine that I am in fact a liar and biblical claims of a 6,000 year old Earth are not lies?

You call me a liar, I call them a liar...same thing.  What now?

Lol It's not even character assassination, dummy ("dummy" is character assassination; the rest is not...see the difference?)

I can't comprehend what you say anymore.  Sorry.  Meaningless garbage, and convincing you of it is an act of futility.

I'm 26,000 years old.  A few posts up, you mentioned that nobody was around 25,000 years ago to verify things.

Well, I'm telling you I'm 26,000 years old.  What now?  Surely you wouldn't rely on evidence to suggest I might actually be in my 20's or 30's, would you?

Don't feel too bad about it.  I think the reason people keep engaging BADecker is because they actually care to try to prevent someone continuing on such a profoundly deluded path.  This differs drastically from BADecker who doesn't seem to care one way or another whether someone believes in the truth or if he/she might go to hell.  He's just gleeful from thinking he's right, and that's about it.

I really wonder though, how many Christians and theists would need to tell BADecker he's delusional in order for him to start wondering whether he's wrong?

lol he's pointing out that you can't poll dead people. 

Yes, inasmuch as theory-making is axiomatically predicated upon mental processes, and inasmuch as logic constitutes the rules of valid thinking, I believe we need to defer to logic as an absolute objectifier.

Furthermore, I believe that objective and subjective are fundamentally inseparable, despite being inverse to each other.  I believe that in every subject-object relationship there is an absolute objectifier that functions similar to a God-like entity, and so it follows I also believe the Intelligent Design process works on multiple levels.  I think there is a sort-of archetype for Intelligently-Designed systems which serves as an objective, referential template for all other ID systems, the result being that all other ID systems are isomorphic to the archetype.

And, with regards to Hume and Descartes, I would say I wouldn't ascribe to either of those ideas (fundamentally).  Cartesian Dualism is easily proven false by the sameness-in-difference principle (i.e. mental and physical reality must logically reduce to a common medium), and for Hume, I think there is self-apparently knowledge that is available to us which is independent of experience.

Well, when you put it that way, I guess it does seem a bit ironic, doesn't it?

Oh fine, fine, take the easy way out 

Shortcuttin' son-of-a...

There's a difference between asking whether empiricism is the basis of metaphysics, and asking whether something empirical is the basis of metaphysics.

Empiricism is just a theory of knowledge acquisition, i.e. the theory that any and all knowledge is gained through sensory experience.  Metaphysics differs from classical physics in that it does not control for observation, and therefore there can be no direct metaphysical 'evidence.'

To that extent, if you are an empiricist, you would probably reach the conclusion that something empirical, i.e. the brain and sensory organs, gives rise to the type of abstract thinking required for metaphysical ideas. 

If you are a metaphysicist (ultimately, not practically), you might reject the Positivistic Universe assumption and consider that the brain and sensory organs might not exist mutually exclusive from that which perceives it, and thus may be affected by it.

But regardless of whether you adopt an empirical or metaphysical view of reality, the fact remains that all we are doing is tossing around ideas according to logical rules to build better and better theories.  We are limited to ideas and the rules they obey.  We have no choice but to regard the rules of logic as absolutely unbreakable and foolproof, because it is the only means by which we have cognitive understanding of anything that makes sense.

The concluding point is that this means that all we can do is create an understanding of things as it relates to our mind.  Talking about reality independent of mind is beyond our cognitive capability.

With regards to Descartes and Hume, could you be a little more specific?

The margin-of-error can only be calculated based upon the number of trials.  If I've been alive for 3,000 days and the sun hasn't exploded yet, then based upon 3,000 "trials" I can predict with very high statistical confidence that the sun will not explode tomorrow due to a very small margin-of-error.  Of course, that confidence does no good if the sun goes nova tomorrow.  The margin-of-error exists specifically because you always have access to a limited data set.  The margin-of-error could be eliminated completely if you somehow had knowledge of all trials that ever were, are, and ever will be, but obviously we don't have this ability.

And correct, mathematical proofs are fully abstract, internally consistent, and (at least) to that extent, sound.  Whether or not (and how) they actually apply to physical reality is another issue.  But regardless, they constitute 'a priori' knowledge and are knowable at a 100% level of confidence, without any margin-of-error.


Yes, your understanding is basically correct, and also correct about the "perfect machine."  Sensory technology seems to function as a 2nd-order observer.  In the double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics, the suggestive collapse of the wave function occurred in the presence of both human and technological observers.

Your question about whether Intelligent Design is the "necessary" mechanism by which reality is created/defined is fantastic.  You are correct to imply that conclusion didn't necessarily follow.

The best model one can theoretically come up with to explain something must meet a few criteria:  It must 1) Be internally consistent, 2) Comprehensively and soundly explain all information it attempts to do so, and 3) Introduce the fewest number of assumptions, ideally zero.  Falsification of the model can happen on two levels.  At a lower level, the model can be rendered internally invalid if new information is introduced which should be explained by it, but isn't.  At a higher level, the model can be rendered externally invalid if another model, which is broader in its scope, not only explains all information in the original model, but synthesizes this knowledge with other information unexplained by the original model (the result being a deeper understanding which predicates any topological understanding).

That being said, could reality have "always existed," independent of metrics?  From an empirical perspective, maybe, but there's no possible way to know without introducing some unnecessary assumptions.  This actually gets right back to the Positivistic Universe assumption, as your question yields to the same impossible means of empirical falsification, i.e. you would need to somehow collect metric data via observation in a Universe totally void of observers and metrics.  What we do know, however, is that the data suggest that in 100% of cases where reality has been affirmed to exist, perception and metrics were present, and in exactly 0 cases has reality been affirmed to exist in the absence of perception and metrics.  That's why the Positivistic Universe assumption exists in the first place; it's as practical to adhere to this assumption as it is to assume the sun won't go nova tomorrow.

From a philosophical perspective, no lol, reality could not have existed independent of metrics.  One reason is we have the sameness-in-difference tautology of logic to turn to, which states that all relational entities must necessarily reduce to a common medium.  Because what is real and unreal are relational entities, it follows they, too, reduce to a common medium.  Metrics axiomatically create the distinction between real and unreal according to a simple difference metric (i.e. 1 vs. 0).  No metric --> no distinction between what's real and unreal.

But you didn't imply that at all.  Saying that it is idiotic to believe in something without evidence is completely different from saying that an atheist has a good reason to not believe in religion.  These are two separate things.

Also, I would argue that Buddism in its purest form is anti-bullshit.  It even provides a replicable method to test some of its most fundamental claims.  This is somewhat beside the point, though.

Scientific *conclusions* rely on available empirical information.  The scientific method relies solely upon philosophical reasoning supporting empirical epistemology.

To this extent, the scientific method *does* rely upon belief, just not idiotic ones.  Specifically, it relies on the belief in the validity of logical inference as it relates to inductive reasoning.  This validity is established entirely by logic, and not by physical evidence whatsoever.

I wouldn't say that.  It's wrong.

Believing in something without good reason is idiotic; believing in something without evidence is not necessarily idiotic.

Clarifying, believing in something empirical without evidence is idiotic.  Believing in something non-empirical without evidence is perfectly permissible so long as you have a good, logical reason to do so.  Why?  Because 1) non-empirical things self-apparently exist, and 2) axiomatically, there cannot be empirical evidence for non-empirical things.

And, let me point out, that any proponent of science who states that it is idiotic to believe in something without evidence is a hypocrite, for the scientific method itself has purely non-empirical roots.

Neat.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929884.msg10208795#msg10208795

Are these funds in escrow?  September 1st?  Are you kidding me?

Nicely put.  It's interesting to me that we can look to ourselves as a community to justify a statement like, "The value is fundamentally unknown...and changing constantly."  It's stating the obvious, but if so many people have to ask what they think the real value is, then, well...they don't know it lol

But, you just contradicted yourself again.  This was the definition of religion that you recently quoted:


Can you help me understand what you mean?  Oh wait, I have an idea -- pick one definition of religion and stick with it.  I don't care if its your own, but pick one and stick with it.

Looks like a serpent to me  

Edit:  That is insanely cool to look at when the white blood cells latch onto it, and it spasms like it has rigor mortis.