Serious question for atheists

If we're going to talk about the current argument, it's more like a, "LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" kind of argument. One guy talks, while the other jerks off.

Static, I assume the only reason you persist is to see the stupid shit he's going to spout next, and/or, you want him to declare you winner (in some form or another).

I only joined the thread because it seemed like everyone else had stopped trying. I didn't want him to think he had won because his argument was actually right, if indeed he was winning at all, it was only in the amount of cyclic nonsense he could spew out.

I don't expect he will ever concede that he has lost this argument, because as I have pointed out before, he doesn't really care about the content of the debate, only that he appears to be winning it. With less asinine people, I wouldn't have to ask them to explain their points so concisely, because if I can see what they mean they don't need to have it spelled out for me. This debate would have then ended before I even joined it if Kalistean was such a person.

However some people require a special sort of debate technique wherein you must probe them to be as explicit as possible on everything. This is because they don't care much about their points, they just want to win, and if you don't force them to be explicit they will change things around.

The saddest part about the whole thing is that he actually believes he is using logic, and he really thinks that he is right. If I stop posting, who else will crush his ego?

*yawns* You're not really using logic, you're just whining that I'm "being evasive" and then restating something I've already said in a new way like it suddenly becomes new and magical.

But let's tear apart your post shall we.

By looking up my words in definition, I was referring to you attacking when I used sound versus logical.

They have specific definitions that means seperate things. You apparently think they're interchangeable for some reason. They are not.


I realize that what is observable is the only real concrete evidence we have. I realize that you failed to go back and read through the argument that you hastily jumped into, but this was already covered.

I never disputed this fact and still do not dispute it. Got it? If you think I was unaware of this, please demonstrate WHERE because I'm just feeling a grasping of straws.

Meh, I'm about as passive-aggressive as you are. So whatever.

Now to move onto the gravity thing.

Indeed, the falling is part of the observation. But that is still due to the result of gravity acting upon it. Gravity is not falling. Would you like to suggest it is?

The invisbile man does indeed work even if it was made up. The invisible man is an invisible force just like gravity. He creates reactions just like gravity does.

Moving on from that. If you were to take a ball, and throw it. Are you saying you could go "There is more than one force acting upon it." Just because you can see it arching?

This is without any knowledge about gravity and so on.

No. You could not throw the ball and instantly see that it has more than one force acting upon it.

The fact that a force is even acting upon the ball is an inference. It is a quick inference than anyone with intelligence could do, but it is still an inference.

To make it quicker.

The apple is falling. Are you saying falling is gravity? I'm not saying is it the result of gravity, I am asking if the falling IS gravity itself.

Unless you are saying that the falling IS gravity, then you cannot say that you can see gravity because you see it falling. You infer it is gravity at that point.

Yes we do it so naturally that you don't even realize you do it, but that is what happens.


Towards Sats: In no way am I stating that the scientific method does not work. That is not my argument. /end

All you have really done with this argument is drawn it closer and closer to that base uncertainty. I don't need to make the claim that falling and gravity are the same thing, because we are talking about something that is functional here and, as we have previously agreed, that which is observable (and therefore functional, the two are closely related) is all we have to go on. There is indeed an inference, as you suppose, but the inference is only made from a state of absolute uncertainty. Again, this inference you are referring to is not remarkable though, because you must make an inference about everything you get from your senses. You say you see an apple fall and you infer gravity. I say that I see you in real life, and I infer that you exist. You infer the existence of gravity in the same breath and at the same level that you infer that the apple even exists.

I am sure that it will still not make sense to you, so go ahead, try another way and I will do my best to impart this concept on you.

Why in the world did you make your text tiny. It is annoying to read and gives me a headache.


Anyways.



You whine about me with misdirection, but you go ahead and do it. I enjoy how you never answered the fact that it was already concluded beforehand and instead try to redirect to THIS.

observable evidence is used in science, yes. But it is only when you use it that it becomes science. Observable evidence by itself is nothing but there. So suggesting that understanding observable evidence is concrete does not mean I agree that there is no faith in science.

I did indeed read your post, try reading mine.







It amuses me that you provide so much information for an offhand comment.





You whine about me not reading your posts, even though I do, and then you spout this crap?

And you even copied what I said. What the hell man.

I didn't say "Gravity Falls." I said "Are you suggesting gravity is falling" as in "Gravity = Falling." You can whine that "I wasn't clear" like you seem to do, but I'll call bullshit on that or else you just have trouble comprehending certain things.




Ok, I was respecting you so so for at least trying to not seem overly bias, but this has just gone over the line into stupid realms.

It is an ANALOGY. Just because something doesn't exist in reality does not mean it has any less importance.

Your whole argument in this paragraph is compressed to this. "He be imaginary man, so it is irrelevant."

It is there to better demonstrate the situation. It does not need to be real to have a purpose. If that is your only reason for it not being relevant then you need a new reason.


As for the last portion of your post.

What is with you and then "fundamental uncertainty" You bring it up even if you have no reason to bring it up.

Whether or not I infer something does not mean squat with fundamental uncertainty. It is only AFTER you infer it, that said uncertainity comes into play on whether or not you infer it right.

So yeah.

And it also seems you missed my argument about that a couple of posts. You might want to refresh if you're going to keep trying to use it.



This part right here.

This is the fun part.

Seeing the apple is not the same as seeing its existence. Just like seeing me is not the same as seeing my existence.

And mind you, this is physical stuff. The most basic level of inference.

And it can be all brought down because you are hallucinating and seeing the apple or myself in a hallucination. Which would mean that you infer the existence wrong.

So again. I will state. Seeing gravity work on something, is not the same as seeing gravity.

Which is what I had originally argued.

I can pull up the post for you if you want.

I'd laugh if the girl forgot she put it in their then when she is about to have sex he sticks it and "SNAP!" he screams and she's like "Oh Yeah..." I would be pissed though if I was raping a girl and she had that. I'd probably rape her through the pain though because I'm a man and real men don't feel pain. Cause I doesn't afraid of anything.

Well... it was 4 pages long in word and I figured I should do something at least to make it shorter, so I made the quoted bits smaller since they shouldn't be very important anyway. I'm sorry for the bolded bit being small too, I should have made it normal size. I'll do my best to summarize this one.



This is not misdirection, misdirection is creating analogy's that appear similar but have fundamental elements missing. This is you glossing over a core point of mine and pretending you can ignore it. You know that I really don't even care about the gravity stuff, it was silly from the start and never very important. We were discussing the faith element to science. My point about gravity was never that there was no uncertainty at all anyway, my point was closer to, in the functional sense, there is no uncertainty.

And then I made the argument that because the only element of uncertainty in the nonfunctional sense comes from the base uncertainty, while yes it does technically exist, it isn't important to anything we care about, and as explained before, you cannot include it in an argument or your argument becomes pointless. As I said then, it is arguing a technicality. To say that it is arguing a technicality does imply that there is something to argue, thats what the technicality is. Its just that it doesn't really matter which way you argue a technicality because its still irrelevant. And three pages later we're still arguing about gravity because you can't see that.

Also on your invisible man argument, I would like to point out one more time that I am not trying to be a dick about it, but you really can't use it. I could make up imaginary scenarios where you see things that don't exist. Note these are not hallucinations, because hallucinations exist, I wouldn't need to make those up, I could just say you were on drugs. Now using this imaginary scenario I have created where anything is possible, I'm going to say that you see apples flying all over the place, they are raining from the sky, millions of them. Doesn't make sense does it? Now I want you to explain that with science. The invisible aspect the your analogy was never important, it was the imaginary aspect (note imaginary, not theoretical, there is a difference) that makes it useless. You can't explain mine anymore than yours, even though the apples in mine are explained as visible. It would never happen, science is bounded by real laws. I would let this drop, but this isn't even a technicality, this is just stupid.

I'll explain the difference between theoretical and imaginary here as briefly as possible as well. The difference between theories in science and things that are imaginary, is that theories are postulated to exist, and scientists are actively trying to prove them. Theoretical examples given in science are postulated to operate within the bounds of known science. You are not trying to prove the invisible man, because you cant honestly even say that you postulate that he exists. And you have made zero attempt to keep the example within the bounds of science. For example, technically the apple falling form a tree is also an imaginary scenario, but it assumes that in this scenario all the laws of science are active, and thus it is a good argument. I am not displaying a bias by refuting this argument, I am displaying sanity. Consequentially, this is a prime example of why we are still debating, because you tell me that I need new reasons without having understood or properly countered the ones I have already given.

Now a couple direct replies:



No, you said that in a completely different place in your argument. Yes, I did even copy what you said. Guess why? So that you would know which part of your argument I was responding to. Your wording on the two was different, and given their separate placement in your argument I took them to be separate arguments and addressed them separately. You said "Unless you are saying that the falling IS gravity" at the end of your argument, not remotely close to the part I had quoted. But please don't start arguing over this too, I'm getting really tired of debating things that have nothing at all to do with anything.

I will admit that in retrospect, after having read the second part of your post you probably meant to ask earlier what you asked then, only that the idea was half formed in your mind when you wrote it then. Regardless, I answered the second question anyway, so if all you had intended to do was ask it twice, I still answered it. If that is the case I apologize for belittling your first point, although I think I can hardly be held accountable. You did in fact ask me a direct question, if gravity was falling. The most obvious use of falling is as a verb.




Great, so we have agreed that your sense of vision, being potentially victim to hallucinations (and probably any other number of scientific phenomenon), is dependant on inferences to function. However, it is not functional, not reasonable, to doubt your vision. It is indeed, as you suppose, the most basic level of inference: that is, the most basic level of inference is to infer that we know anything at all. Unless something leads you to believe that you should doubt your vision, such as taking LSD (something you could only know about though the use of your senses I might point out), you do not as a principle doubt it. Therefore it is not functional or reasonable to doubt that you could see me and that I exist, or as I already said, that you can see forces acting on an object.

You will call this an inference. I will call it something functional that we don't need to infer. And we will continue to argue this inane point over this inane technicality probably for pages to come.

Edit: If it will make you happy, I will in fact argue that falling IS gravity, although not in the sense that they are exchangeable, which is what you (unreasonably) wanted. Falling is a sub case of gravity, wherein gravity is the only force, or the prevalent force acting on the object. It is for example, still possible to tell that gravity is acting on an object that is not falling (think objects in orbit). But in the sense that watching an object fall is the force of gravity, yes, falling IS gravity.

Edited again for clarity and grammar.

Oh, you made a post.

Cool.

Oh look, you threw in your towel.

I shower naked.

The phrase 'throw in the towel' has nothing to do with showering. It originated from boxing. The 'towel' is the one that boxers use during time outs.

Thanks for explaining something I already knew because you failed to grasp the ironical sense of my post.

It was most helpful.

You're welcome.

*marks a note about the fact that said person does indeed have a slight learning ability even if it seems to be very stunted.*

Im an Atheist and I dont "tear" anyone from their beliefs,They can believe what they want so all ill do is sarcastically nod my head and go "Mmmmmmm ah yes Youre right! Mmmmmm Hmmmmm aaaaaaah... What a compelling arguement, No I dont want to go to your Church but Jesus is GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREAT though" whenever a religious person FORCES their shit on me!!

Ill be all sugar and sweetness because it simply makes things easier for all concerned besides I dont want to be nagged to death! (Ive met some REALLY horrible religious people)

Yes im a little two faced (Who in all honesty isnt) but atleast I can admit it... I AM A SINNER!!! (Im sure God will forgive me even if you cant)

Religion just seems like a waste of time to me. Ill live what id consider a (Reasonably) good moral life without it anyway. Maybe your bro figured this out too and just didnt like the machinery of the Church. :)

Back to insults already? I don't think many could read this thread and honestly come to the conclusion that I am stunted, but if it makes you feel better to say it, do what you will. I am fairly certain that behind all of your pride you don't really believe it anyway.

Also, I find it quite humorous that you have reduced yourself to derepping my posts. Does it bother you that other people agree with me and not you?

I'm still waiting for your response to my post you know. Failing that, there really isn't any reason to keep posting here. Lets try to keep it on topic shall we?

Back to? I haven't stopped. Though I do find it funny that you act so blatantly hypocritical.

Please quote to me the last time I insulted you. I'm sure if you can even find one, it was probably pages ago.

You mean directly or indirectly?

Though that would matter if the hypocrisy was referring to the insulting.