as a member of the audience; it helps us understand some peoples motivations and motives that we wouldn't comprehend otherwise.

maybe because you think I'm trying to trap you or something.

Maybe it's because you've seen me interact with other people on cam and know that I am very respectful of other people but also very direct,

That's pretty much it. By being direct, I think you're just trying to get more out of me. I honestly believed you would post on the mod forum, or some other site 'Hey, check out what Pineapple said this time!'

If you think I'm 'snippy' on the internet, you haven't seen me in real life.

I didn't watch the whole thing. I only saw you for like five seconds. I can assure you if you said all this when you were on cam, it would not have been pleasent. I don't like being able to put a face to a post, then I would picture you at your computer snickering at me.

I was actually hesitent to post all this. Because truth be told I think you're a snob that gets his jollies by analyzing people on the net and it's an ego boost even if you're even remotely accurate. You're wrong about my percieved gender/age bias.

I imagine you were.  It's the closest you've been to open in a long time.  It's also not very open, and it doesn't even address anything I said.

Imagine that.

I'm so sure that is how Hamby gets his jollies!  Please don't flatter yourself, Pineapple.  He seems to be quite the straight shooter that calls it like it is.  Just relax, child.  Nobody here is trying to hurt you...they just don't like time-squandering games.

BMcD wrote:

This is actually a concept that I've found I have to explain to a lot of women... and that's not saying ANYTHING against women... but while we all have a lot of behaviors we do without thinking about it, this is something that's more true of men than of women: We don't think.

When you ask a man 'What are you thinking?' and he just looks at you for a moment? We're not thinking. Man is capable of long-term planning and rational thought. We are capable of careful, meticulous study. But 99% of the time, men especially, we're on autopilot. We're not thinking. We're just acting, or reacting. We're just completely 'in the moment' without even thinking about it.

I know this is a wierd place to be saying this, but ladies, when we seem to be acting like obtuse fools just to piss you off? We're just obtuse fools. Men are dogs. Really, we're very simple creatures. As I said, we may have plans, we may have interests, we may have devoted fields of study, but outside of the things we have consciously chosen to bend out intellects to, here is what goes on in a man's brain:

Man's Brain wrote:

We're just dogs. We want something to eat, someplace to sleep, and a leg to hump every now and again, and we're happy.

 

Speak for yourself.  I won't be included in a generalization of men whereby I am compared to an animal completely driven by instinctual urges.  It's insulting, frankly, to hear a man proudly exclaim that he does not have anything going on in his brain at any given moment when his consciousness is not bent to a particular task.  I am ever thinking and I very much doubt that I am the exception to the rule.  Your generalization is rooted, apparently, in some masculine, machismo and heterosexual stereotype and should be kept to yourself or at least applied only to yourself.  Perhaps you meant to be writing in the first person and not using any pronoun but 'I' and certainly not the words 'men' and 'man'?  It doesn't help that you're just plain wrong, either.

IMO, we all have things we "are straight" about.. and other things that we are not.

Proudly? Who said anything about being proud of it? Every man I've known, gay and straight, has existed on autopilot for a much larger percentage of his time than the women around him. Most people do it to some degree, but I've found that women tend to be far more likely to be mentally reviewing their 'to-do' list in their heads whenever they're not focusing on something specific. Men, on the other hand, tend to lapse into a 'ready standby'. That's been the case with every man I've ever known, from military personnel to college kids to multi-millionaires who owned their own businesses, to a freelance tech writer I know who's usually got upwards of two dozen projects he's working on on any given day. We're capable of thought, and we do it quite well when we need to, but it's not the 'at rest' state.

Don't think you do it? Do you drive? When you drive, are you actively scanning every inch of your surroundings? Are you preoccupying your brain with all of the minutiae of you latest checklist? Safe drivers are doing neither: they're aware of their surroundings in a passive way, paying attention to the road without obsessing over any particular detail. Attempting to consciously look for as much detail as you'll take in passively means you'll miss something. Occupying your brain with trivial details about anything other than 'I am the guidance system for a 3,000 lb projectile full of gasoline' is even more dangerous.

If you really think you don't spend the majority of your mental 'at rest' state in a passive, reactive mode w/out active thought, then you should probably spend some of those excessive thought cycles and re-evaluate that presumption.

I can't speak for Hamby, but the reason I pointed out your behaviour to you is that I think you should be aware of it in case it ever causes you difficulty and you want to deal with it. There's no personal victory in empathizing with someone I'll never meet. I told you I understand because I do, not because I think it'll score points with someone.

First I'm skeptical (By 'skeptical' I mean I think it's bullshit.) of Hamby only posting to get me to write more clearly. Mainly because of his audience comment. If he was trying to get me write more clearly, why would he 'do it for the audience'? He's using me as his personal psychological guenne pig.

 

Even when I want to be clear, I can't and it has nothing to Theism/atheism.

I can't write clearly, and I've had this problem as long as I can remember. You should see the comments on my essays in High School.

Even when I want to be clear, I can't and it has nothing to Theism/atheism.

 

I can't write clearly, and I've had this problem as long as I can remember. You should see the comments on my essays in High School.

Cap'n, frankly, it doesn't matter what (say) Hamby does or doesn't say about you. Personally, I'm highly dubious that someone so busy running their restaurant, moderating a busy forum, catching-up on the latest in evolutionary psychology literature and writing their own book has much time to waste on poking fun of some barely literate theist they've never met.

I don't suppose you're familiar with the term 'projecting'? . . .

You're a joke. You're someone to be laughed at, and rightly ridiculed (given that your persona is so ridiculous. See: clowns). Your dishonesty is so flagrant and obvious that the only thing I'm ever left wondering is why a person like Hamby would bother trying to reason with you in the first place (aside from perhaps whatever little amusement might come from it).

You are being, by far, the most hypocritical person on this forum.

Holy fucking shit.   Capt apparently being on this atheist forum just irritates the hell out of you.  You play mind games and you're a drama queen.  You may pretend to be demure but then out of the blue, you just start shit with who ever is the focus of your rage.  

  I mean really, if we piss you off so much why don't you just go visit a theist forum and be with your own kind ?   Shit, as an atheist and I can assure that I never  spend time on Christian / Theist message boards so I wonder why the hell you're still here bitching at the atheists you apparently despise.  What's the fucking attraction here ?   You just like to vent you're rage ?

That's a ponderous charge. Please; do explain.

While I begin this post off with responding to a response to BMCD, I will get back to my own posts in a second.  All presumptions as to what BMCD meant (the ones implicit in the responses I give) are what I think he meant based upon what he said and based upon where this thread started off.  With that, I continue:

You:

Quote:

There's that 'proof' word again. Expect we're dealing with evidence, not proof. Allow me to highlight something for you, since apparently you need to be spoonfed your data:

No.. "we" WERE dealing with proof.

Me:

Quote:

The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Proof is what is needed to make an absolute statement, such as you did when you said "I am absolutely sure God does not exist."

proof     Audio Help   /pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

Evidence, is merely the stuff used to support a point, or "tends to prove or disprove."

ev·i·dence     Audio Help   /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1.    that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof (being used in the colloquial sense, I believe.. perhaps even definition 2 of "proof"--certainly not in the sense we are using the word "proof" now.. which is, "evidence sufficient to support an absolute statement"--granted, you may make the argument that proof and evidence are interchangeable.  But based upon earlier statements, where you said that "proof" is only a mathematical term, I don't think this is what you intended).

Sufficient evidence (even in consideration of counter-evidence) = proof.  If you have mere "evidence," then you have no basis for making an absolute statement upon that basis of "mere evidence". Unless you have established that the evidence is "strong enough in consideration of all other available evidence that it tends to lead to a certainty of fact" or "proof."

Which is why I first pointed out "absence of proof is not proof of absence."  A general principle also, meant to point out that a mere "absence of evidence" is usually not evidence enough to state the certainty of an assertion.

The "argument from ignorance."

YOU were the one that tried to change it to "evidence" because that was the only statement you could defend.

You:

Quote:

...You mean evidence, I assume? And yes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Example:

You did this, even though the original contention you made was an absolute.

You:

Quote:

'God' is a crap concept. There no way it could possibly exist

As a general principle, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."  Whether it is "strong" or "weak" evidence, however, is a matter based on what your testing--as your article clearly suggests.  But that does not mean "an absence of evidence, even in consideration of all currently available evidence, is proof of absence or even "strong evidence" of absence."

E.g., gaps in the fossil record.

As I said before, the fact that I have no evidence (i.e., an absence of evidence) that my brother has gone to the bathroom today, is evidence that he has not--it's just not particularly strong evidence.

Keep in mind, responding to this by saying "Your brother can provide evidence that he went to the bathroom, personal recollection," does not change the fact that my current lack of evidence the he did is evidence that he did not.

That is not to say that if the assertion is narrow and specific enough, however, e.g., "there are monsters under your bed right now!," then "absence of evidence is strong evidence of absence" (e.g., look under the bed)--sufficient evidence for proof even.

But, when I made the statement, it was in reference to the Illiad, the Odyssey, and whether or not we can say "the characters central to them are erroneous."

You:

Quote:

Correct. Which is why it's unfair to argue from ignorance and simply state, 'Oh, yeah, Achilles was probably real. Y'know... just a tough guy, or something,'

Me:

Quote:

Fair enough.  But what you contesting is that:

You:

Quote:

The fact that we would recognize the myths as erroneous, but not the figure central to them, is borderline lunacy (...at least it's not total lunacy).

Me:

Quote:

i.e., that the "figure central to them" is not real.

The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

If you want to suggest that the "absence of evidence" is "proof of absence," which is what is required for your the absolute statement, then you must, at least, even according to your article:

(1) define what is the probability that the "central figures" would have left evidence of their lives, even though it was supposedly lived during the greek dark ages.
(2) assert there is no evidence,
(3) wait for counterexamples,
(4) in the case of any lack of counterexamples, then hope that this "absence of evidence" is strong enough evidence to constitute proof for the purpose of rationalizing the making of the statement "the figure central to them [are erroneous]."

Quote:

(...This is a curious thing for someone claiming not to be a theist to say)

 - An all-powerful, all loving God that answers prayers should have demonstratable effect on said prayers.

 - An all-powerful, all loving God should have created a universe devoid of suffering.

 - An instantaneous creation event that created every single organism in one shot should be obvious from the fossil record.

...I'm sure people can think of others. Feel free to read the many articles of Todangst for further enlightenment.

Except, that these are based on certain assertions about "God," which, is inconsistent with your original post which suggested that "God" has not been defined.

Quote:

'Crap' concept . . . . it isn't even defined.

Sure.. if you want, I can create a "God" that "absence of evidence" suggests strongly does not exist.

But that's not what we were discussing here, neither was it what BMCD was discussing.

Here is his statement with a little more context then what you gave.

BMCD:

Quote:

Especially when you cannot give an example of what evidence would be necessitated if a cause were true. You can't give a single example of evidence that would have to exist if God does, which means you can't give a single solid example of the evidence that's missing.

BMCD is speaking of "God" generally.  You are speaking of a specific "God."

BMCD is on point of this thread.  You are not.

(I'm not even going to address some of the presumptions made in your statements as to what is "necessary evidence" for the claimed God-figure).

BMCD:

Quote:

When it comes to accurately modeling the existence of the divine, you do, as you indicated, have zero knowledge. Only likelihoods.

You:

Quote:

The same can be said for any numbers of things. Given a high enough probability, it's sensible to say at that point, 'Okay. We more or less no for sure that this is how this things works.'

A probability is nothing more than a ratio of how many times things happened over how many times it could have happened.  Since you have said that God has not been defined, then any probability is X/infinity, even assuming you could "prove" that many of those definitions are impossible, to make the general statement that "God" the undefined concept, does not exist, is meaningless.

Unless you can draw a limit on how many different definitions there can be for "God".. any "probability" you have for the non-existence of "God" (the undefined label) is 0.

Quote:

We've been knocking God off the list of a variety of things we used to think he did over the centuries, until now we've finally reached the point where attributing anything to God now is simply senseless. If we have the knowledge now that we did in times of antiquity, God would never even have been concieved of in the first place.

Bold claim.

Quote:

By your standards, no person employed by the university has a right to free speech, no person inside the university has a right to protest, no person inside the universty has a right to vote or engage in political discourse, etc. You're giving Catholics their special pleading on a silver platter and waving through their free pass on issues they happen to find offensive once again.

The employee has "Free Speech," he just bartered some of it away for job security.

That happens.. and it's perfectly legal.

Here are some other points that I think you should've conceded.  You haven't, merely ignored them... or brushed them off as "semantics." :
1.

Quote:

It definately does not exist if you can't define it.

Quote:

Once again.. you're changing the argument you started off with.  "Can't" and "is not," are different phrases with different implications. (You originally contested that God, as a concept, absolutely does not exist.. "it isn't even defined.&quot.

2.

Quote:

And if everyone took your lazy approach?

'Ah, whatever. Probably God did it.'

How could you possibly argue that this wouldn't be an impediment to progress?

Quote:

Because I could still ask the question "how?"

3.

Quote:

The fact that we would recognize the myths as erroneous, but not the figure central to them, is borderline lunacy (...at least it's not total lunacy).

Quote:

i.e., that the "figure central to them" is not real.

The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

4.

Quote:

It's the weakest of apologetics; because you've cherry-picked this particular piece of insanity out of your view, you think the overall scheme (which includes it) is reasonable, because any true Christian would do the same.

Quote:

Um.. no, I never said that.  I merely responded for myself and other Christians that think like me.  No more or less.  Many denominations, however, do profess, I believe, a "non transubstantiation" perspective on the aforementioned act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Views_of_other_Churches_on_transubstantiation

5.

Quote:

No, it can't.

The reason dictionaries give you different definitions is that each one it provides is specific. See: Grade 1 English.

Quote:

You fail to understand that when I said "two ways," I was not suggesting that the dictionary's definition was not specific, but rather that it intentionally used the disjunctive "or" as to make the word apply to two very specific scenarios (or three, if you count "both" as one).

See: Grade 5 English.

6.

Quote:

'Or' always means one or the other. 'And' would be what we use wen being all inclusive. Using 'or' when trying to be all inclusive leads to different connotations.

Example:

'Zebras are black and white,' (Suggesting both colors are present)

'Zebras are black or white,' (Suggesting Zebras can be one color or the other)

Quote:

Example:
I cannot teach english or math.

So I guess that means that I can't teach english.. or I can't teach math.. since obviously "or" requires one at the exclusion of the other.

7.

Quote:

Of course, you're a dishonest twat, so you decided to derail the discussion into a semantics argument about the word 'thing'.

Quote:

And you're a petulant ignoramus.

?  Did that aid the discussing in anyway  ?

As for your statement that followed the personal attack, I didn't derail anything.

One of the major issues, original issue:

"There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined."

Response:

"Something that is not defined cannot be said to not exist.  See: Thing."

Your response:

"Thing is a categorical label, it does not exist."

My response:

"Thing may be a categorical label, but it can be used to refer to something specific, although not precisely described, therefore, how can you say that it doesn't exist without further context?"

Hypothetical conclusion:

"You're right, thing can refer to something specific that does exist, although that is not precisely described.  Therefore, I cannot have said that "thing" does not exist without further definition or reference as to what thing I was talking about.  In the same way, I cannot say "God" does not exist without referring to a particular definition of God."

Or, you could have just corrected your original statement:

"God CAN'T be defined."

Which would be a different argument entirely.. but not what you said.

8.

Quote:

    See? You're just a fucking moron.

    There's your problem right there.

    'Proof' is a mathematical term. It doesn't apply outside mathematics at all. Unless your dealing with numbers, asking for a 'proof' of anything is spouting gibberish.

Check a dictionary next time...

proof     Audio Help   /pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.    anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3.    the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4.    the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5.    Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6.    the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7.    an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8.    Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.

You're using definition 8 and 7.. I'm referring to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5