Seth wrote:Ah, well, please excuse me for making an assumption that your ethos included dedication to reason, logic and the scientific method. I see that perhaps I have overreached in that assumption. My apology.
You are forgiven. That being said, my original statement remains undisputed.
Not at all. My original reply stands and your statement is non sequitur.
Your original reply, which I include below in the hide tag was not a reply at all, but an obvious misreading of my statement. Abstracting out the relevant portion you state that, "There is speculation and hypothesis, but that's all...[speculation and hypothesis] doesn't meet the necessary standard of critically robust scientific evidence of exactly what happened, why, and how." Since my statement is eyewitness testimony, and neither speculation nor hypothesis, the only non sequitur here is yours.
(emphasis added)
No, it hasn't. In the intervening 95 years there has been much speculation and hypothesis on what caused people to report what they reported, and there is evidence pointing towards mass visual hallucination, but nobody has provided a shred of evidence that God did NOT actually cause the events which were observed.
Because this was a one-off, one-time event that has not been repeated, and because there was not scientific equipment capable of observing the environment during the event at the event, there is exactly ZERO scientific evidence that the events did not occur as described.
There is speculation and hypothesis, but that's all.
That doesn't meet the necessary standard of critically robust scientific evidence of exactly what happened, why, and how.
If, in fact, God exists and is anything like what is described by theists, then God would be perfectly capable of producing a mass visual hallucination.
Moreover, it doesn't necessarily take a god to produce such a mass visual hallucination, now does it? Some people hypothesize that it can be caused by the brain's own misinterpretations of visual clues.
But there's yet another hypothesis that's just as scientifically valid, which is that the event actually did occur as described, it was not a mass visual hallucination, and it was produced by some highly-advanced yet unknown technology by some equally advanced intelligence of which we are unaware.
Or, God did it.
This whole exercise was about demonstrating the fallacious and irrational thinking of Atheists like Gawdzilla who violate their own principles of logic, reason and science to deny the existence of God without a shred of actual evidence that God does not, or cannot exist. It's one thing to say "I don't believe God exists" or "I don't know if God exists or not," but it's fallacious and irrational to say "what evidence do you have" and then run away from the evidence that exists by simply denying it and abandoning the investigation rather than holding onesself to a rigorous standard of scientific reason and logic.
But then again that's pretty typical intellectually inferior reasoning by Atheists, who aren't actually interested in science, but only like to use "science" as a blunt instrument in their religiously-based anti-theist zealotry, as if merely ritualistically invoking "science" like some sort of god is some sort of actual scientific refutation of the claims of theism, which it's not.
There are no firm answers to the Fatima event (or any of the many other so-called miracles that have been documented by the Vatican), so the best any atheist can rationally or logically say about Fatima or any other unexplained event not subject to scientific investigation is "I don't know."
What's truly amazing is how deep in delusion and denial religiously-zealous Atheists are that they are categorically unable to simply admit that the question of the existence of God is a completely scientific and yet entirely open one that has insufficient critically robust scientific data upon which to draw any sort of rational, logical and scientific conclusion.
Why they have so much difficulty with simply saying "I don't know" regarding the question of God's existence is one for a psychiatrist to answer I suppose, because it's certainly based in some sort of personality or mental disorder, because it's naught to do with reason, intellect, logic or science.
Your second reply, again hidden for convenience, asserts that I have an ethos which requires me to meet some burden of proof. However, when challenged to support this assertion, you retracted it and apologized for making the assumption that I had such an ethos. It disappears.
You made a claim that you produced the miracle and that therefore it is explained. According to your own ethos, you are required to provide the critically robust scientific proofs of this claim.
Get with it.
Unless there is a third reply which directly addresses my statement which I am missing, there is no presumed reply for me to reply to. I could go on, but I'm seeing the same pattern I saw in the thread on the Catholic church in Holland. When you are pressed, you start making things up (calling me an 'A' Atheist and accusing me of declaring an ethos I never declared), lying, and attempting to change the subject.
Seth wrote:The fact that you have no reason, logic, or scientific ethos...
Again, I'm going to have to demand that you cite your sources. Playing devil's advocate is one thing. Pulling shit out of your ass and claiming that I said it is something else. To the best of my knowledge, I have not asserted a concrete position on the nature of reason, logic or science on any forum. That you think I have and that you continue to attempt to mount forays on non-existent positions only makes me laugh. Tell me more about my atheism with a capital 'A' — it's such a lovely story.
I don't like being negative, though with you it is hard for me to avoid. In the interests of charity, I'll throw you a bone with a quote from something I was reading last night. From wiser folk than me.
"This is why it is said that ... formlessness is best."
I'll be waiting on your citations of your substantive reply, and of my writing about my positions on reason, logic and science. Until you back those up, or back off them, don't bother to reply.
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows. I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak. When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
apophenia wrote:Until you back those up, or back off them, don't bother to reply.
Oops! Division by zero error - 3 things Seth is totally incapable of doing cited as a trichotomy!
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return. Salman Rushdie You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic. House MD Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view. Sandy Denny This is the wrong forum for bluffing Paco Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish! Calilasseia I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants. Twoflower Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse Millefleur
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows. I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak. When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
apophenia wrote:Until you back those up, or back off them, don't bother to reply.
Oops! Division by zero error - 3 things Seth is totally incapable of doing cited as a trichotomy!
Trichotomy? we have a barber here? or is that a fancy word for splitting hairs?
Actually, I was almost surprised to find it was a real word and meant what I meant it to mean! I just extrapolated from Dichotomy.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return. Salman Rushdie You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic. House MD Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view. Sandy Denny This is the wrong forum for bluffing Paco Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish! Calilasseia I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants. Twoflower Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse Millefleur
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows. I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak. When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Svartalf wrote:So I had guessed, but I could not pass up something offered on that large a platter.
Hence your waistline...
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return. Salman Rushdie You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic. House MD Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view. Sandy Denny This is the wrong forum for bluffing Paco Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish! Calilasseia I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants. Twoflower Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse Millefleur
Jonesboy wrote:Well, it's good to say I don't believe in...
If, of course, the measure of truth, we think, is found in our world.
But that adopts a posture. It is a physical stance almost.
You meant "physical stance" metaphorically? Nose up in the air? Skepticism = arrogance?
I suppose so, but I wanted also to emphasise the energy that needs to be put into certain beliefs that help to deny, rather than not believe in, a god. It makes a person a caricuture, It will be driven and sustained through a physical postiure.
I'm not sure how this is the case. Skeptics could see those who go to extremes to defend their beliefs in things for which there is no evidence as a caricature or parody of the modern, post-Englightenment human.
On the other hand, I think you have a point when you mention those who dogmatically assert knowledge of the absence of a divine creator. I think that's over-reaching, going beyond what the evidence (lack of it, really) supports. A careful skeptic, I think, would say something more along the lines of, 'Without evidence, there is no reason to think that a diety exists', rather than 'There is no god.' That is, it's one thing to say, "I don't think there is a divine creator" as an opinion, and yet another to say dogmatically "There is no god" as if it were knowledge.
I suppose that is true of anything, but it struck me as especially true for the people who do, or do not believe. i never thought that a God was a matter of belief.
According to scripture and doctrine, faith is essential to the abrahamic traditions, is it not?
There can be no evidence for something that is the ground of evidence.
Also, faith is not belief. Belief is acting upon one of two or more unfounded propositions. Faith doesn't insist on those conditions.
FBM wrote:But...without evidence for god's existence, one must believe that s/he exists in order to feel the urge to approach him, eh? What am I missing here?
FBM wrote:Nor do I, Rum, but intellectual honesty forces me to admit that I don't know for a fact that there is no god or afterlife or whatnot. Until some evidence is presented for them, it's perfectly reasonable for me to live as though they don't exist, without making any dogmatic metaphysical claims along the way. As in Pyrrhonist skepticism, I mean.
you don't know "for a fact" if there is a god?
What sort of fact, pray?
Audley Strange wrote:We know in advance what [Seth is] going to say and in many cases it is hilarious...
Quite. Recently , I began to paste snippets of utterances that amused me in some way or another into a notepad document. It's by no means exhaustive. If I read more of his posts, I'd undoubtedly have more in this collection of laugh-out-loud moments, but for what it's worth, here is what I got:
vjohn82 wrote:No wrong was committed in repeating information already in the public domain.
You're so deep in delusional denial and atheistic hatred that you cannot even see, much less admit the wrong you perpetrated against the innocent children.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 6#p1045616
I don't care what Progressives propose, because even if it sounds like it might "actually make things better" it will also be carefully designed to enhance the cancerous spread of Progressivism
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 2#p1057322
Obama was the child of Marxists, he was raised by Marxists, many of his influential adults were Marxists, his friends are Marxists, his acquaintances are Marxists...so, if it walks like a Marxist, and quacks like a Marxist, I don't think it's unreasonable to call him a Marxist.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1077140
Religion, you see, doesn't require a god, it merely requires a belief/practice set that meets the definition of "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 4#p1078784
No, an assertion doesn't "become evidence" it IS evidence, if it's an assertion of an observation of an actual event. You disbelieve that certain claims of actual events are factual, but you cannot provide any countervailing evidence to prove that Jesus did not exist or that he did not perform the acts which the observers recording the acts claim. You know full well that written accounts of observations of events are without any question held to be evidence of those events. Whether they are true accounts is another matter, but they are absolutely evidence that the events written of occurred.
apophenia wrote:
A. I did not write half the shit you attributed to me.
Yeah? Oh well, you're in the same Atheist boat with everybody else, so if the shoe fits, wear it. Consider it to be a collective "you", as in "you Atheists."
Seth, did you actually call apophenia an Atheist (as in Big A Atheist)???
Tut, tut - you almost made me choke on a perfectly good Irish Coffee. Would you please, in the future, give advance warning is you are going to exhibit UTTER cluelessness regarding your fellow ratz? Thank you.
Hey, It's an atheist forum, so it's a reasonable assumption. I don't know anything about her religion, nor does it matter really.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1084745
So, it appears that absent the ritualistic observations of faith and belief in supernaturalism, science fits almost all of the criteria for being defined as a religion.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
Gawdzilla wrote:The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.
No it's no trouble at all. It would only be trouble if you engaged in earnest. Considering Seth's rationale I'm amazed people keep getting into it with him, all the time. We know in advance what he's going to say and in many cases it is hilarious, often at someone else's self inflicted expense but not always. It's not a debate, it's a preposterous polemic, a strawman erected to fight against other strawmen. The point is not to win, but to frustrate.
At least that's my take on it.
That's often the case in playing the role of devil's advocate, I think. Obviously, Seth isn't really convinced that a supernatural deity dicked around with the sun that day. AFAICT, his goal is to shake up our illusion of certainty and the resulting dogmatism about whether or not the scientific method/approach results in absolute, incontrovertible, eternal Truth, which, if you study it closely, it doesn't. In a previous post, I mentioned Hume's problem of induction. I'm not saying that Seth is another Hume, or even that he knows of Hume's work; I'm only pointing out that quite a few people who served as gadflies to those in dogmatic slumbers wound up being highly regarded and respected for their efforts. Gödel's incompleteness theorems made a lot of people unhappy at first, but he stuck to his guns despite the criticism and now...
Again, I'm not saying Seth is comparable to either Hume nor Gödel in intellectual sophistication, only that we might do well to recognize a game of devil's advocate for what it is: a challenge to critically self-examine.
Yes. People are good at pointing out and criticising others flaws and not so good at noting the same flaws themselves certainly. The problem as I see it though is that such confrontation only works with those who have unreasonable certainties, no matter what they are. The thing about here, which I've noticed that doesn't apply in some of the other "rationalist" site, is that most here seem old enough to have got by that adolescent stage of knowing absolutely everything with self righteous fury and therefore the tactic is not as effective as say against some of the more youthful firebrands who get up in arms about anything that challenges their spoon-fed world-view.
To be honest I think Seth does have a point with regards to the "Atheist" community though. It does seem to me to be a self congratulatory "oh aren't we all the illuminated ones" to the extent they called themselves "brights" without a shred of self conciousness or irony. It does seem in many cases to be an actual resentment (which may well be justified considering some of the actions of Religious Authorities) but also in many cases it seems like the same juvenile posturing as being "A goth" or "a satanist" is so far as being an atheist might seem a rebellious challenge against the status quo.
To me being an atheist is nothing more than non acceptance of a concept that it actually meaningless to me. That's it. Any railing or protesting I do against religion is nothing to do with my lack of belief in God. It is a political problem, in much the same way as I consider bailing out the banks or keeping peasants fed for doing nothing and not sterilising them is a political problem. The discourse has become too entrenched and too narrow whereupon a stereotype of ATHEIST emerges, smug, self satisfied, psuedo-intellectual left-centrist politics where everyone is tolerant of each other except those who don't fit. and THEIST is some bomb wearing child fucker who blows up abortion clinics in the Name of Allah.
In other words we are as we always do letting extremists define the discussion. Just like every other political group.
Its absurd and I think pointing out that absurdity is fine, when pointing it out does is not equally absurdist.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man
apophenia - you're being trolled
Thanks for clearing that up.