You really think you have buddied up with us? You know the saying :"We're not laughing at you, we're laughing with you"? No, we are laughing at you, not with you.

We have theists here all the time and the ones that act like you run away like crying babies or they get banned for being trolls. You do deserve credit for being the most notable prick we have had in a while.

We have also have now and have had in the past theists  here who are not pricks whom we merely have disagreements with. You are a prick and you have earned it and it has nothing to do with your theism.

I don't know what the mods plans for you are or the owner of this website's plan is, but you are on shaky ground right now and I would highly suggest you change your tune if you wish to stay at this site.

We are not your buddy. We could care less if you like us or not and we don't care what god you believe in. This site is for atheists and if believers want to make claims we expect them to debate.

Do not waste your time or our time preaching. Lose the patronizing attitude. We are not lost puppies and you are not our teacher. Lose the ___________in your posts, learn how to use the quote function, and lose your signature "Respectfully".

Otherwise don't be surprised if your stay here is short.

Falsification is partially non-empirical, correct. Falsification is the use of deductive logic to test the non-validity of a proposition. As I explain below, induction is used to match data to a known mathematical model (or to create a new logically-consistent and coherent mathematical model). Deduction is used to predict what new empirical evidence would not contradict the proposition. Empirical data is gathered, and if it matches that which was deductively predicted, the proposition is not falsified, and we begin to accept that proposition as possibly accurate.

However, you cannot test the non-validity of a proposition without empiricism -- the gathering of more data. Logic merely sets out the boundary conditions of expected empirical results. Without empirical data, the deductive logic merely states what one might expect given a specific proposition.

Unless you know of a way to vet an arbitrary proposition using only logic?

Empiricism does not operate in a vacuum. Observations are not random. If the underlying system is coherent, observations of that system will also be coherent. The example I used before (that of your monitor forming words on your screen, though the screen itself is made up of discreet pixels) is similar to a pointalist painting: each point is unique, and taken alone means nothing. Taken together as a whole, they form a picture.

The same is true of empiricism. If you are gathering data of a coherent system, the data you get will form a coherent picture.

Now, the interpretation bit: we have another thing called "math." Mathematics is nothing more and nothing less than the exploration of all possible symbolic relationships in abstract systems. As mathematics explores all possible systems of relationships, it is a fairly sure bet that mathematics is applicable to any natural system that consists of relationships. Interpretation is reduced to either fitting the data to a known system (such as nuclear decay fitting within statistical distributions), or attempting to discern the system of relationships described by the data (such as Newton and calculus).

Empiricism is how we gather data about the real world. Period. There is no other way to gather data. I have challenged you to give an example of a way of gathering verifiable data, and you have failed that challenge. What we do with that data after it is gathered is another matter, involving inductive logic and intuition to fit the data to an existing mathematical model, or to create a new mathematical model that is logically coherent in which the data fits. After one or more propositions (formally called an hypothesis) have been constructed, they are then subjected to deductive logic. The proposition is considered as an axiom, and deduction provides necessary corollaries. These corollaries point the way to further empirical investigation.

You're confusing me with someone else. (I believe you think I'm BobSpence1.)

And you seem to think that rationalism and empiricism are mutually exclusive. Considering the vast number of philosophical disciplines that combine empiricism and rationality, going all the way back to Aristotle at least, they are complementary domains, not exclusionary. Your insistence one cannot be both empirical and rational shows you are confused, and you are not trained in philosophy then.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get your philosophy training? Are you an autodidact?

Empiricism and logic are two different domains, just like matter and concepts are two different domains. I'm not sure how many times it has to be explained to you before you get it, but empiricism is the method we use to gather data about reality, and logic is the tool we use to create conceptual models of that data. The two things are complementary, not exclusionary. An empiricist is merely one who believes the only way to gather data about reality is to observe reality. A rationalist is merely someone who believes the only way to gain conceptual knowledge is through the application of logic. These are two orthogonal axes. An empirical rationalist (or rational empiricist) is merely one who believes the only way to discern what is real is through observation, and the only way to turn that data into knowledge is through the application of logic.

All the rest of philosophy is just window dressing, or quibbling about the finer points.

However, I think I owe you an honest apology, as your reply here was actually fairly good (though your exclusionary view of empiricism, and your strawman of philosophical labels, is still a bit frustrating).

I hope your next response actually addresses some of my points, rather than your usual tactic of ignoring those that directly address your assertions.

He's an atheist too?

Where did "Hot Banana Soup" come from?

Hi Jean,

Fuck you.

Respectfully,

El-ahrairah.

Mmm... long pig.

I think our posts are falling on deaf ears. If you guys didn't ban him he has run off. Not a surprise. The most fundy of believers get all out of joint when you don't follow their script. To any believer reading this, please lear a lesson on how NOT to behave while on an atheist website.

We don't mind that you believe. But demonizing us will not work. Make your case but expect your claims to be kicked around. Don't come in here trying to "teach" us like lost puppies. Jean's behavior is the perfect example of what not to do while here.

"A Rational Chrisitan of Intelligence (Rare)"

I usually order by Rational Christian of Intelligence medium rare or medium. I'm not one of those folks who like it still mooing when you stick it with your fork.

Respectfully,

nigelTheBold

/me wishes I woulda though of this the first time through. Oh, well. Better late than never, as my gram always said.

Of course, she was habitually late.

LOL.

I gotta admit. Even though he has managed to rub everyone the wrong way at one point or the other. Even though I don't agree with one single thing that he has said. Even though I haven't really seen a whole lot of rationality apparent. Jean is a source of quite a bit of amusement on my end. I have found some of his replies and word play to be extremely funny at some points.

To be perfectly honest, at times there is nothing worse than some of these fundamental theists that have taken seminary classes and philosophy classes and thereby feel that they now have all of this education to debunk atheism at every turn.

But at other times, like this one, it is almost hysterically funny to watch the drama unfold. Like he reminded us though, It takes TIME to ANSWER. So in another day or so, I will anxiously be awaiting the ANSWERS to everyone. Unless he has just decided to quit.

I think we are witnessing his second coming as "askathiestsimplequestions".

we often have one annoying theist appear after a time of quiet who then disappears with the birth of another, the last disappearing like smoke, the newcomer, with strangely odd spelling and syntax seeming to try too hard to be unique. The doctrine predictably literalistic.

If this is a single person, it's a commendable effort. I thought Jean, tho' a major pain in the arse, was having a great time juggling atheists. He seemed to get the most satisfaction out of the most inane and silly things, trotting out banal christian arguments with poe-like satisfaction.

Full credit to him for effort. Imagine arguing with all of us at once - he must be on holiday or something.

Or since we have no freakin morals he figured out he was in fact a chew toy

Give me a strong cohesive argument that the existence of God somehow establishes a fact.

How does an "eternal, unchanging, reference" that is not proven to exist, corner the market on what can be a fact ?

Did a god invent the law of gravity or was god restricted by the law of gravity, in your opinion  ?

None of us were able to answer him ? Hmm, are you sure you read the whole thread ?  

I was able to do it- simply not willing because I did not trust him to obey the rules in his responses.

Generally speaking, I only debate with other atheists.  I did give him the generous offer to prove his earnestness by depositing a guarantee in an escrow- to be donated to charity if he violated the rules of debate.

My problem with presenting an argument for him is that it wouldn't serve any purpose, because he would proceed to cheat in the debate, and would not learn anything from it.  If, at astronomical odds, he participated fairly, then a purpose would be served- one more atheist in the world- or if he deposited to an escrow and cheated, the purpose of charity would be served.

Without purpose, I have no motivation to waste my time.

No, the only logically coherent view is atheism- certain, positive, atheism.  Agnosticism is giving up, rather than reasoning to its ends- generally, copping out.

You should study older religions like Jainism, which though they were probably wrong on more empirical matters, at least understood that this supposed 'ultimate god' was logically impossible thousands of years before the first Christian was an idiot.

That the deistic/theistic world view is patently wrong is the oldest and most fundamental philosophy on Earth- it is, genuinely, the root of all knowledge, where theism is precisely the opposite of knowledge, with its presentation of a belief system predicated on an impossible and inherently false foundation of faith that denies any further relationship with reality.

I disagree, and I think it's very important to qualify; those things which are logically impossible can be known not to exist with absolute certainty-- things such as this "god" creature.  We not only can, but *must* know those things with logical certainty unless we are to completely reject logic, in which case...

...things like this, even, would not only be uncertain, but would be incoherent.

Not only 'reasonably', but absolutely and with certainty.  This is a crucial distinction.

Pascal's wager may be a steaming pile of bullshit, but a wager of dialetheism isn't.  Thanks to logical explosion, it's the only probability wager with an absolute answer.

Logic is true    ||  Logic is not true

Logic is true  ---  Logic is false

Illogic is false ---  Logic is true

                      ---  Illogic is true

                      ---  Illogic is false

                      ---  0 = 1

                      ---  monkey + square = apple

Note that in either situation, logic is still true (though the latter is, additionally, completely incoherent).  You can't go wrong with the proposition "Logic is true".

I do not consider the 'possibility' that logic is false, because there is no such possibility.  The impossible is not possible by definition.  To even consider the 'possibility' to be 'possible' is to assertively reject logic, which is to reject all falsification (as all falsification is predicated on logic), and thus reject all knowledge in totality-- it is the ultimate in close mindedness.

Yes, being willing to consider it a possibility that logic is wrong is closed minded.  Funny how that works- but it's the one and only nefarious little meme that, by being open to it, you completely demolish the very foundation of open mindedness.  It's the termite that you invite into your house, only to find you no longer have a house to invite anything else into.

By granting the impossible 'possibility' out of some misguided attempt to appear open minded, you not only give the theist leeway he or she has not ever earned (nor will he or she ever earn it), but you also vastly weaken your own position in the process.

There are absolutes in the world, and they aren't just idiotic assumptions of beings with magical powers which arbitrarily exist pulling objective information out of the void while simultaneously violating that very essential nature which is required for reality with a rusty corkscrew.  Reality is logical because reality could not exist to provide a coherent experience without being itself coherent.  "I think therefore I am", and  "reality therefore logic" are just as certain, and with equal certainty, this "god" does not, can not, and could not ever exist in any context.

Blake, my statement about logic, or more properly, the justification for accepting the primary Laws of Logic, ie the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction, is, arguably, more basic than your argument. Unless you accept those, you can say nothing coherent about anything, let alone construct something remotely like a logical disproof of whatever 'alternative assumptions' you go for.

In one sense we're making the same argument, but I'm a little critical of your presentation.  I'm not sure how many of these logic-denying nuts you've met, but they actually consider it a perfectly acceptable option- or the preferable one- that nothing coherent can be said about anything.  That everything is equally valid and invalid, so they believe what they believe.

It's problematic to present that as an option without outlining precisely why it *isn't* an option, because many people will simply select it when you present it for them.

It's just not coherent to refer to these things as possibilities, and not necessary to give the theists the benefit of granting them impossible options- even if only an accident of semantics.