Offers & Competitions0 min ago
What Makes A Good Thread On R & S?
89 Answers
If a believers view is expressed on here, the responsive message is, in general terms, "Shut up stupid! Father Xmas & Tooth Fairy. You betray yourself thinking illogically! You are wrong and we are right!"
These sentiments are often accompanied by anything from mild annoyance, to anger.
So, what makes a good thread on here, in your opinion?
Should the atmosphere be like PM's question time in the Commons, or like a social drinking session amongst friends in the local?
Or something else I have not yet covered?
And, if I post a thread, what would make it interesting for you?
These sentiments are often accompanied by anything from mild annoyance, to anger.
So, what makes a good thread on here, in your opinion?
Should the atmosphere be like PM's question time in the Commons, or like a social drinking session amongst friends in the local?
Or something else I have not yet covered?
And, if I post a thread, what would make it interesting for you?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
nightmare, I'm not entirely sure who you are - I don't recall having had a conversation with you - but I strongly suspect you might be nescio.
Two points upon which you appear to be confused:
//I am fully aware that there are many areas where science cannot provide the answer, but there is absolutely no necessity to invoke any kind of supernatural explanation.//
I wasn't aware that I had invoked any kind of supernatural explanation. Since I don't believe that anything is supernatural it's not something I ever do.
//...we are keeping up a debate, despite your protestations over its validity.//
But I'm not protesting the validity of the current debate because we are not debating the subject in question - the introduction of Mr Russell's teapot as our opposing argument to that of a believer - which as I said can only possibly result in instant stalemate.
May I suggest you take your own advice to actually read my answers and understand what I am saying?
Incidentally.... Occam's Razor: the principle does not provide positive results, but if you, like many others here are happy to accept answers that are potentially less than the truth, that's your choice. It isn't good enough for me.
Two points upon which you appear to be confused:
//I am fully aware that there are many areas where science cannot provide the answer, but there is absolutely no necessity to invoke any kind of supernatural explanation.//
I wasn't aware that I had invoked any kind of supernatural explanation. Since I don't believe that anything is supernatural it's not something I ever do.
//...we are keeping up a debate, despite your protestations over its validity.//
But I'm not protesting the validity of the current debate because we are not debating the subject in question - the introduction of Mr Russell's teapot as our opposing argument to that of a believer - which as I said can only possibly result in instant stalemate.
May I suggest you take your own advice to actually read my answers and understand what I am saying?
Incidentally.... Occam's Razor: the principle does not provide positive results, but if you, like many others here are happy to accept answers that are potentially less than the truth, that's your choice. It isn't good enough for me.
Whiskeyron, if you had been capable seeing beyond the indignant red haze that appears to be clouding your vision, you would know that there are one or two atheists here who agree with some of the points you've raised. And by the way, I think you'll find that practically the last person around here to be accused of not being all the ticket was me. Is no one safe from those damned atheists? ;o)
Just as I suspected, a pointless question to ask of you, Ludwig. But I appreciate your vote of confidence all the same. As an apparent proponent of the culture of make believe this answer is not for you but for those who retain a respect for the value of objectivity.
Explaining why something does not exist can only be done in terms of refuting those assertions postulating the existence of that which is by any and all means inconceivable and incomprehensible. ‘God’ by virtue of being an undefined entity is not simply beyond reason but is by any description in contradiction to and therefore beneath reason. If you must go beyond reason in an attempt to justify a belief you have in the process departed from reason in choosing to believe that which, like your belief in Santa Claus, is merely a preferred delusion.
Explaining why something does not exist can only be done in terms of refuting those assertions postulating the existence of that which is by any and all means inconceivable and incomprehensible. ‘God’ by virtue of being an undefined entity is not simply beyond reason but is by any description in contradiction to and therefore beneath reason. If you must go beyond reason in an attempt to justify a belief you have in the process departed from reason in choosing to believe that which, like your belief in Santa Claus, is merely a preferred delusion.
Mibs, Your suspicion is irrational and your accusation misplaced. It would only be accurate if levelled at those who determinedly refuse to acknowledge that they don't know, since whichever side of the fence they sit on, claiming to possess knowledge that it is not possible to know must logically be a preferred delusion.
Naomi, On what basis are you claiming knowledge of that which you claim cannot possibly be known? I know that 'god' does not exist because I know that contradictions do not exist and 'god' by all accounts is in every respect a logical absurdity ruling out any possibility of an asserted existence by those claiming to know what those honest enough to concede cannot be known.
Before one can know anything with any degree of certainty one must first learn and come to understand the biological means and conceptual process by which knowledge is perceived, verified and made cognitively useful and logically distinguishable from what one believes and what one can objectively confirm after having engaged in and adhered to the conceptual non-contradictory identification and integration process of reason. Only then will you have obtained the essential ability to fully understand, comprehend and logically consider what I am saying and how I can possibly know what it is I do or do not know and only then will you be properly equipped to fairly pass judgment on anyone’s rationality or lack thereof. Objectivity is much, much more than a stubbornness of will and a belief that you already know all there is to know about what can be known.
Before one can know anything with any degree of certainty one must first learn and come to understand the biological means and conceptual process by which knowledge is perceived, verified and made cognitively useful and logically distinguishable from what one believes and what one can objectively confirm after having engaged in and adhered to the conceptual non-contradictory identification and integration process of reason. Only then will you have obtained the essential ability to fully understand, comprehend and logically consider what I am saying and how I can possibly know what it is I do or do not know and only then will you be properly equipped to fairly pass judgment on anyone’s rationality or lack thereof. Objectivity is much, much more than a stubbornness of will and a belief that you already know all there is to know about what can be known.
Naomi, The only thing/s for which I'm claiming there can be no knowledge are those things which do not exist. One cannot know anything about something that does not exist other than that it does not exist . . . there's nothing else that can or needs to be known, said or done regarding something that one knows cannot possibly exist.
Might I suggest that we get off this merry-go-round now, unless you have a valid reason (which as it just so happens I know you don't) why I should believe a god exists . . . and the discovery of a teapot orbiting Uranus (which would be by far more believable) would not be a valid reason.
Only when you have gained an understanding of why certain things with certain attributes are inherently contradictory and therefore impossible will you understand why such an understanding excludes certain possibilities, among them the existence of a creator god. I do not ask that you believe that which you do not understand nor should anyone ask of another that they believe that which they themselves do not understand. Belief can only be justified by the understanding that justifies that belief and any and all other beliefs are without merit or justification. Such is the basis and springboard of objectivity.
Might I suggest that we get off this merry-go-round now, unless you have a valid reason (which as it just so happens I know you don't) why I should believe a god exists . . . and the discovery of a teapot orbiting Uranus (which would be by far more believable) would not be a valid reason.
Only when you have gained an understanding of why certain things with certain attributes are inherently contradictory and therefore impossible will you understand why such an understanding excludes certain possibilities, among them the existence of a creator god. I do not ask that you believe that which you do not understand nor should anyone ask of another that they believe that which they themselves do not understand. Belief can only be justified by the understanding that justifies that belief and any and all other beliefs are without merit or justification. Such is the basis and springboard of objectivity.
Mibs, //The only thing/s for which I'm claiming there can be no knowledge are those things which do not exist.//
Strangely enough despite your assumed air of intellectual superiority - par for the course in the defence of irrationality - the things you claim do not exist coincidentally just happen to be the very same things that you would rather didn't exist. However, if it makes you feel better, as requested I'll get off this inconveniently factual merry-go-round right now.
Strangely enough despite your assumed air of intellectual superiority - par for the course in the defence of irrationality - the things you claim do not exist coincidentally just happen to be the very same things that you would rather didn't exist. However, if it makes you feel better, as requested I'll get off this inconveniently factual merry-go-round right now.
Despite your presumption of an ‘assumed air of intellectual superiority in the defense of irrationality’ as a rational being I know the futility of pining for that which I know does not exist to be obtained.
//...if it makes you feel better, as requested I'll get off this inconveniently factual merry-go-round right now.//
It was not a request but merely a suggestion, Naomi, based on the fact that in light of your steadfast refusal to consider the possibility that someone might actually know something about what you're refusing to consider, this discussion was and continues to go nowhere. I believe I’ve stated my case about as clearly as I know how and you’ve apparently drawn the only conclusion at your disposal so I’ll wish you good night or good morning, whatever the case may be.
//...if it makes you feel better, as requested I'll get off this inconveniently factual merry-go-round right now.//
It was not a request but merely a suggestion, Naomi, based on the fact that in light of your steadfast refusal to consider the possibility that someone might actually know something about what you're refusing to consider, this discussion was and continues to go nowhere. I believe I’ve stated my case about as clearly as I know how and you’ve apparently drawn the only conclusion at your disposal so I’ll wish you good night or good morning, whatever the case may be.
Mibs, the only thing I refuse to consider is that people who claim to know without doubt that which it is impossible to know - ie that God definitely exists, or that he definitely does not - have a valid claim because the reality is that none of you know - and that is something you all refuse to consider.
Good morning.
Good morning.
naomi, I have no intention of boring you (and, more importantly, others) with a detailed summary of the number of times you have preferred to attack me recently (and rudely) rather than my arguments. A back-check, for anyone who is remotely interested, would be enough.
Just for the record you never made any case for disputing the commonsense represented by Occam's Razor.
I accept that you are abandoning one-on-one debates with me. But you must not expect me to avoid commenting on things that you say. To call my Santa/Fairy argument 'silly' gets us nowhere and my record of never having it challeged stands. Plainly I must look elsewhere for a reasoned rebuttal - if it exists.
'Bye, naomi, it was nice trying to reason with you.
Just for the record you never made any case for disputing the commonsense represented by Occam's Razor.
I accept that you are abandoning one-on-one debates with me. But you must not expect me to avoid commenting on things that you say. To call my Santa/Fairy argument 'silly' gets us nowhere and my record of never having it challeged stands. Plainly I must look elsewhere for a reasoned rebuttal - if it exists.
'Bye, naomi, it was nice trying to reason with you.
Chakka, that is quite simply utterly dishonest. Here are the final exchanges on our Occam discussion, and if you want more, I have more:
//Naomi: Whilst a rational person is at liberty to consider possibilities, he doesn't accept any explanation until it's proven. If there is no proven answer, he can only conclude that he doesn't know, because he doesn't.
Chakka: Can't disagree.//
Additionally, I haven't attacked you. I've said you're rude because you are rude - and I'd welcome any back-check you might care to make. I expect that sort of silly nonsense from the idiots around here but I don't expect it from someone I considered to possess intelligence and grace, and hence respected and thought of as a friend. Silly me. I honestly believed you were better than that.
But enough. Comment all you like on what I say, but let us be clear on a couple of things. Unlike you, I do not deliberately attack the messenger as the last resort to rescue a failing argument - and make no mistake - unlike you, I do not tell lies.
//Naomi: Whilst a rational person is at liberty to consider possibilities, he doesn't accept any explanation until it's proven. If there is no proven answer, he can only conclude that he doesn't know, because he doesn't.
Chakka: Can't disagree.//
Additionally, I haven't attacked you. I've said you're rude because you are rude - and I'd welcome any back-check you might care to make. I expect that sort of silly nonsense from the idiots around here but I don't expect it from someone I considered to possess intelligence and grace, and hence respected and thought of as a friend. Silly me. I honestly believed you were better than that.
But enough. Comment all you like on what I say, but let us be clear on a couple of things. Unlike you, I do not deliberately attack the messenger as the last resort to rescue a failing argument - and make no mistake - unlike you, I do not tell lies.
Naomi, you've drawn your own conclusion //the reality is that none of you know// and I've drawn mine . . .
The question which remains in your assertion and the one I consider most important and crucial to answer (and the one you seem steadfastly resolute in refusing to ask) is . . . "and how do you know that?" . . . because until you know how you know what it is you believe you know, all you have is your beliefs . . . and your empty assertions.
It is by reason of believing in only that which I know to be true that I have found it necessary and worthwhile to go to the trouble of answering this crucial question, "How do you know what you know?" for myself. It is only in the light of having found the answer to that question that one achieves objectivity and the means to reach any certain conclusions about anything at all. But to begin the quest for objective certainty one must first be willing to ask and seek the answer to that question and one must be resolute in pursuit of that answer until one has found it. Until you do we're right back where we started from . . . going nowhere and getting there ~ at light speed.
The question which remains in your assertion and the one I consider most important and crucial to answer (and the one you seem steadfastly resolute in refusing to ask) is . . . "and how do you know that?" . . . because until you know how you know what it is you believe you know, all you have is your beliefs . . . and your empty assertions.
It is by reason of believing in only that which I know to be true that I have found it necessary and worthwhile to go to the trouble of answering this crucial question, "How do you know what you know?" for myself. It is only in the light of having found the answer to that question that one achieves objectivity and the means to reach any certain conclusions about anything at all. But to begin the quest for objective certainty one must first be willing to ask and seek the answer to that question and one must be resolute in pursuit of that answer until one has found it. Until you do we're right back where we started from . . . going nowhere and getting there ~ at light speed.
Mibs, but the question you say I'm refusing to ask is precisely the one I have asked. How do you know? How does anyone know? How CAN anyone possibly know? You may come to a conclusion that suits you personally, but that conclusion, in this instance, cannot possibly be claimed to be 'fact', simply because the'facts' are unknown. No one can know something that is unknown. That's simple logic. Quite honestly, I can't make head nor tail of your 'logic' in this instance, so perhaps we should agree to disagree.
chakka:
Here is a logical analysis of your Santa Claus/Tooth Fairy/God (TF/SC/G) analogy. Let X be a set of characteristics. (Here X is "is a supernatural creature...etc.")
TF is X (and implicitly, only X)
SC is X (and only X)
G is X (and only X)
If I reject TF and SC because of their X-ness, then I must reject G because of its X-ness.
This is close to tautology, since by defining G as "X and only X", you basically assert what it is you hope to show.
A believer might respond:
Let X and Y be distinct sets of characteristics.
TF is X and only X
SC is X and only X
G is X and also Y
I reject TF and SC because of their X-ness but accept G because of its Y-ness.
Of course a believer would have to specify what Y is ("Makes the sun rise?" "Can smite people?" "Good at guessing whatever number I'm thinking of?") But there's the basis for dispute.
Personally think the question is beyond science (not falsifiable), but that's not relevant.
Here is a logical analysis of your Santa Claus/Tooth Fairy/God (TF/SC/G) analogy. Let X be a set of characteristics. (Here X is "is a supernatural creature...etc.")
TF is X (and implicitly, only X)
SC is X (and only X)
G is X (and only X)
If I reject TF and SC because of their X-ness, then I must reject G because of its X-ness.
This is close to tautology, since by defining G as "X and only X", you basically assert what it is you hope to show.
A believer might respond:
Let X and Y be distinct sets of characteristics.
TF is X and only X
SC is X and only X
G is X and also Y
I reject TF and SC because of their X-ness but accept G because of its Y-ness.
Of course a believer would have to specify what Y is ("Makes the sun rise?" "Can smite people?" "Good at guessing whatever number I'm thinking of?") But there's the basis for dispute.
Personally think the question is beyond science (not falsifiable), but that's not relevant.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV7 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
