Our server costs ~$33 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 22nd January 2017, 16:17

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)
#41
RE: ★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)
(10th January 2017, 03:49)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: That is quaint.

Do you find any errors in the facing sequence?

Quote:Non-beliefism/basis[ii]:

Belief may constitute non-science.

Logic/science in contrast, shan’t encode non-science.

…ie scientific evidence shan’t contain non-scientific-evidence.

Thereafter, it is illogical to believe.

I find many errors, yes, not the least of which is the fact that your conclusion is a complete non-sequitur.

But the empirical evidence demonstrates that pointing out your errors and discussing this with you will be an extremely futile use of my energy, so enjoy your idiocy.  I'm not going down this rabbit hole with you.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#42
RE: ★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)
@Asmodee

Asmodee Wrote:What I was saying is quite simple.  I CAN regard any event as true, total or absolute.  I just might not be right.

The point is, humans shan't regard any event as true/absolute.
As far as science goes, we may only regard events as probable.
One may perhaps regard events as true, if one maintains omniscience. [Otherwise, one shall probably argue from omniscience]

PS: Perhaps you shall avoid usage of words such as 'quite' that construe absoluteness.


.
.
.
.

@Ben Davis
Ben Davis Wrote:Cherry-pick much?

You're entire premise is dependent on the attribute 'truth' being defined in it's most narrow context. You ignore the attribute 'acceptance' and the broader definitions of 'true' which are more appropriate in the context of belief. As has been stated many times, your requirement for certainty/absolutism is not necessary for a definition of belief and is about as far from a valid rebuttal of the existence of belief as you can get. You've conducted a poor analysis by failing to include all attributes of the entity and you have failed to recognise how to improve it in spite of advice from peer review.

As an aside, I assume you regularly describe/ascribe entities and attributes in your role as programming god. You should apply the same rigour to your philosophical considerations.

As I mentioned before:
(1) We shan't believe/ie we shan't regard any event as true.
(2) Belief is illogical, whether the definition construes truth, or not.

From website: "Thusly, belief is illogical abound the absolute and non-absolute description paradigm[/color]"

So, non-beliefism had long encoded that belief need not be described to contain truth/certainty; whence belief is illogical regardless.

.
.
.
.


@Faith No More 

Faith No More Wrote:I find many errors, yes, not the least of which is the fact that your conclusion is a complete non-sequitur.

But the empirical evidence demonstrates that pointing out your errors and discussing this with you will be an extremely futile use of my energy, so enjoy your idiocy.  I'm not going down this rabbit hole with you.

Let us break it down:

(1) Belief has the probability of containing non-science/nonsense. 
(ie belief MAY contain non-science)


(2) Logic/science does not have the probability of containing non-science.
(ie logic/science MAY NOT contain non-science)

(3) ie.... scientific-evidence does not have the probability of containing non-scientific-evidence.
(ie scientific evidence MAY NOT contain non-scientific evidence)

(4) So belief is illogical.
(ie belief MAY contain non-science, where as logic/science can't contain non-science, so belief is clearly illogical)
I am but a casual body builder/software engineer (see my body in image below)

★ I am the creator of "non-beliefism". (http://nonbeliefism.com/) ★

[Image: jajybkV.jpg]

★ more body images: https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan


Reply
#43
RE: ★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)
Humans are an illogical species. To expect logical behaviour from an illogical species is itself illogical.
Please read and abide by the Forum Rules, available here.


(21st June 2016, 07:31)Homeless Nutter Wrote: When someone is knocked on the head, they may see stars. That doesn't mean we should rely on their testimony, when studying astrophysics...
Reply
#44
RE: ★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)
(11th January 2017, 14:05)Stimbo Wrote: Humans are an illogical species. To expect logical behaviour from an illogical species is itself illogical.

Nonsense; for, as is long mentioned, it is possible for one to detach oneself from the concept of belief.
That is, one need not attempt to regard any event as true (we can't, as far as science goes anyway); one need not compose expressions on non-scientific evidence.
I am but a casual body builder/software engineer (see my body in image below)

★ I am the creator of "non-beliefism". (http://nonbeliefism.com/) ★

[Image: jajybkV.jpg]

★ more body images: https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan


Reply
#45
RE: ★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)
Individuals can be logical. The species as a whole tends not to be so.

Are you done being arrogant yet?
Please read and abide by the Forum Rules, available here.


(21st June 2016, 07:31)Homeless Nutter Wrote: When someone is knocked on the head, they may see stars. That doesn't mean we should rely on their testimony, when studying astrophysics...
Reply
#46
RE: ★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)
(11th January 2017, 14:14)Stimbo Wrote: Individuals can be logical. The species as a whole tends not to be so.

Are you done being arrogant yet?

Here is a prior response of mine:

ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:As I mentioned before:

(1) We shan't believe/ie we shan't regard any event as true.
(2) Belief is illogical, whether the definition construes truth, or not.

From website: "Thusly, belief is illogical abound the absolute and non-absolute description paradigm"

Thereafter, non-beliefism had long encoded that belief need not be described to contain truth/certainty; whence belief is illogical regardless.
I am but a casual body builder/software engineer (see my body in image below)

★ I am the creator of "non-beliefism". (http://nonbeliefism.com/) ★

[Image: jajybkV.jpg]

★ more body images: https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan


Reply
#47
RE: ★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)
I don't care about your prior responses to other people. You're talking to me now. Are you capable of holding a polite conversation without resorting to cookie-cutter deepity non-answers?
Please read and abide by the Forum Rules, available here.


(21st June 2016, 07:31)Homeless Nutter Wrote: When someone is knocked on the head, they may see stars. That doesn't mean we should rely on their testimony, when studying astrophysics...
Reply
#48
RE: ★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)
PGJ, do you work in used car advertising? I feel like I've seen your work before.

[Image: Used_Car_Sell-Off_Ad.jpg]
Reply
#49
RE: ★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)
If he did, it can't have been for long. The idea of advertising is actually to sell the product.
Please read and abide by the Forum Rules, available here.


(21st June 2016, 07:31)Homeless Nutter Wrote: When someone is knocked on the head, they may see stars. That doesn't mean we should rely on their testimony, when studying astrophysics...
Reply
#50
RE: ★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)
(11th January 2017, 14:25)Stimbo Wrote: If he did, it can't have been for long. The idea of advertising is actually to sell the product.

Oh, and what errors do you suspect in my advertisement strategy?
How shall I purge such suspected errors?


.
.
.


(11th January 2017, 14:23)Stimbo Wrote: I don't care about your prior responses to other people. You're talking to me now. Are you capable of holding a polite conversation without resorting to cookie-cutter deepity non-answers?

[Image: JYrZOW4.jpg]

Ironically, I tend to analyse prior responses, such that I may respond politely absent deepities /non-answers.
I am but a casual body builder/software engineer (see my body in image below)

★ I am the creator of "non-beliefism". (http://nonbeliefism.com/) ★

[Image: jajybkV.jpg]

★ more body images: https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I was wrong about the simple choice. MysticKnight 42 989 3rd January 2017, 13:12
Last Post: Asmodee
  It's a simple choice: MysticKnight 72 1664 31st December 2016, 15:12
Last Post: Astreja
  If someone says science can't explain everything what's the best way to repond? ReptilianPeon 94 4413 14th December 2016, 12:03
Last Post: Asmodee
  How to become a God, in 3 simple steps (absent faith/belief): ProgrammingGodJordan 91 2794 28th November 2016, 21:08
Last Post: ProgrammingGodJordan
  A Thousand Gods? chimp3 22 645 19th October 2016, 19:39
Last Post: Khemikal
  Dalai Lama says that terrorists have no religion Aegon 12 477 28th September 2016, 02:58
Last Post: InsaneDane
  False pagan gods are not the True ones? theBorg 88 3022 17th August 2016, 09:39
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  Why did we stop inventing gods? Greatest I am 58 1861 16th August 2016, 12:33
Last Post: Excited Penguin
  Bill Maher Says It. Tax the Fucking Churches! Minimalist 29 1636 20th April 2016, 04:36
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  If someone says to me "consciousness, therefore god", what's the best way to respond? ReptilianPeon 56 4134 9th March 2016, 07:02
Last Post: Tazzycorn



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)