I am atheist,but I do not like science.

[FallentoReason]

Tick tock, tick tock....

I take it you've realised your belief in God is even less rational than believing that 5 minutes can actually pass. Congratulations.

[Whateverist]

I am relieved to learn that you do not seriously consider the stupid proposition that you gave another AF member; namely, how can you be sure that we weren't created some short time ago with seemingly older entities and historic events only having the appearance of age. This is the bullshit I attempted to dispell.

That's not a proposition. "How can you be sure that we weren't created recently, but with the appearance of age?" is a question. It isn't "true" or "false".

I consider that a serious question. If you don't think it's serious, then I don't think you've though through what implications it would have on evidentialism.

As a strict matter of logic, lots of patently absurd possibilities exist. You would have us realize this in order to suggest we question the possibility of all evidence based reasoning? Or am I missing your point?

The little closed loops of logic only caricaturize reality by exposing the implication of language. Formal logic is such a fragile and limited tool. Is there any reason to think that examining the implication of speech will lead to a better understanding of what that speech is about, the world for example?

[CliveStaples]

Because the concept works. Tell me how fast you're driving your car and I can tell you when it's expected that you will cross an imaginary line 100 metres in front of you. I'm assuming time can be measured and according to what I see in reality with this example I'll be able to show that the measurement was correct. Therefore it follows that time is real according to reality.

But how do you know that I'm telling you how fast I'm driving my car? How do you know that there are such things as cars? How do you know that physics works the way it does?

You're still making assumptions, and still refusing to question them.

You consider yourself a Christian. I'm assuming (and desperately hoping) that amongst all this wreckage about not being able to know anything for certain you've somehow come out with the conclusion that Jesus Christ is Lord. Any explanations for this convenient conclusion?

I didn't say that we couldn't know anything for certain. You just made that part up.

I'm asking you how you know things. I'm asking how you justify your beliefs. Now you're just refusing to answer the question.

---

As a strict matter of logic, lots of patently absurd possibilities exist. You would have us realize this in order to suggest we question the possibility of all evidence based reasoning? Or am I missing your point?

No, I'm asking you to be consistent. If you believe that every belief must be justified with evidence, then what is your evidence for the belief "every belief must be justified with evidence"?

If you don't have evidence, then you're inconsistent. If you have evidence, I'd love to hear it.

The little closed loops of logic only caricaturize reality by exposing the implication of language. Formal logic is such a fragile and limited tool. Is there any reason to think that examining the implication of speech will lead to a better understanding of what that speech is about, the world for example?

"Formal logic is a fragile and limited tool."

Wow. I actually got an atheist to criticize the use of logic!


I'm not talking about linguistics. I'm talking about the structure of your beliefs. It's epistemology, not linguistics.

---

Tick tock, tick tock....

I take it you've realised your belief in God is even less rational than believing that 5 minutes can actually pass. Congratulations.

I'm sorry, is this the part where you provide evidence for your beliefs?


...oh, guess we're still waiting on that.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Clive,

You should be embarrassed as a professional mathematician conflaitng my use of the word likely with mathematical probability. You should know more than others that the scenario I presented cannot be addressed probabalistically. I cannot and would never attempt to assign probability to either.

I am relieved to learn that you do not seriously consider the stupid proposition that you gave another AF member; namely, how can you be sure that we weren't created some short time ago with seemingly older entities and historic events only having the appearance of age. This is the bullshit I attempted to dispell.

Puipp or not-P. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at; however, I can almost smell a disengenuous use of Bayes' Theorem following.

You KNOW that the whole point of Clive's verbose contrarianism here is to be argumentative for its own sake, right? He seems to fancy himself quite the logician somehow. His approach to it, however, is like one who draws a bunch of random musical figures on a sheet of paper and tries to call it music.

[Whateverist]

As a strict matter of logic, lots of patently absurd possibilities exist. You would have us realize this in order to suggest we question the possibility of all evidence based reasoning? Or am I missing your point?

No, I'm asking you to be consistent. If you believe that every belief must be justified with evidence, then what is your evidence for the belief "every belief must be justified with evidence"?

If you don't have evidence, then you're inconsistent. If you have evidence, I'd love to hear it.

I don't make the claim that every belief must be justified by evidence. We demonstrably do use all sorts of beliefs all the time without bothering to check their evidentiary credentials, many times we do not even consciously note our possession of such beliefs and yet we still put them to effective use.

I would only say that anyone who wishes me to give up what I believe to make way for adopting what they believe, is going to be held to a higher standard than either one of us holds ourselves to. Yes, they'll need to offer me some evidence supported reasons or just keep their beliefs to themselves.

The little closed loops of logic only caricaturize reality by exposing the implication of language. Formal logic is such a fragile and limited tool. Is there any reason to think that examining the implication of speech will lead to a better understanding of what that speech is about, the world for example?

"Formal logic is a fragile and limited tool."

Wow. I actually got an atheist to criticize the use of logic!

Sure didn't take any arm twisting, did it? I'm a devotee of plain language. If it can't be said simply without jargon it probably isn't worth much. I thought it was you who prefered reducing language to well ordered prepositions. I think I'll take the credit here for bad mouthing logic.

For the record I am primarily agnostic with an atheist bent. What's your orientation? Which fights do you have a dog in?

[zentor]

Hey op I also am very bad at math and science and atheists are usually smart and have amazing vocabularies

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

You're still making assumptions, and still refusing to question them.

...says the guy who believes in the Great Fucking Pumpkin....

---

I didn't say that we couldn't know anything for certain. You just made that part up.

How many times have we heard this now? One-note Johnny Troll.

I'm asking you how you know things. I'm asking how you justify your beliefs. Now you're just refusing to answer the question.

You are equivocating the shit out of the word "belief", and for the thousandth time atheists are not atheists because we believe in anything. We don't *have* to believe anything at all.

As a strict matter of logic, lots of patently absurd possibilities exist. You would have us realize this in order to suggest we question the possibility of all evidence based reasoning? Or am I missing your point?

No, I'm asking you to be consistent. If you believe that every belief must be justified with evidence, then what is your evidence for the belief "every belief must be justified with evidence"?.

If you don't have evidence, then you're inconsistent. If you have evidence, I'd love to hear it.

What you are doing is quibbling everyone to death in an effort to see yourself as some kind of armchair philosopher.

The little closed loops of logic only caricaturize reality by exposing the implication of language. Formal logic is such a fragile and limited tool. Is there any reason to think that examining the implication of speech will lead to a better understanding of what that speech is about, the world for example?

"Formal logic is a fragile and limited tool."

Wow. I actually got an atheist to criticize the use of logic!

I'm not talking about linguistics. I'm talking about the structure of your beliefs. It's epistemology, not linguistics.

It's quibbling and equivocating the shit out of everything anyone says in an effort to distract from the obvious fact that you can't provide a shred of evidence to substantiate your fairy tale monster.

Tick tock, tick tock....

I take it you've realised your belief in God is even less rational than believing that 5 minutes can actually pass. Congratulations.

I'm sorry, is this the part where you provide evidence for your beliefs?


...oh, guess we're still waiting on that.

In other words, he does, but he is going to dump a semi trailer load of red herrings in the forum in an effort to avoid it.

[FallentoReason]

---

Because the concept works. Tell me how fast you're driving your car and I can tell you when it's expected that you will cross an imaginary line 100 metres in front of you. I'm assuming time can be measured and according to what I see in reality with this example I'll be able to show that the measurement was correct. Therefore it follows that time is real according to reality.

But how do you know that I'm telling you how fast I'm driving my car? How do you know that there are such things as cars? How do you know that physics works the way it does?

You're still making assumptions, and still refusing to question them.

You consider yourself a Christian. I'm assuming (and desperately hoping) that amongst all this wreckage about not being able to know anything for certain you've somehow come out with the conclusion that Jesus Christ is Lord. Any explanations for this convenient conclusion?

I didn't say that we couldn't know anything for certain. You just made that part up.

I'm asking you how you know things. I'm asking how you justify your beliefs. Now you're just refusing to answer the question.

---

As a strict matter of logic, lots of patently absurd possibilities exist. You would have us realize this in order to suggest we question the possibility of all evidence based reasoning? Or am I missing your point?

No, I'm asking you to be consistent. If you believe that every belief must be justified with evidence, then what is your evidence for the belief "every belief must be justified with evidence"?

If you don't have evidence, then you're inconsistent. If you have evidence, I'd love to hear it.

The little closed loops of logic only caricaturize reality by exposing the implication of language. Formal logic is such a fragile and limited tool. Is there any reason to think that examining the implication of speech will lead to a better understanding of what that speech is about, the world for example?

"Formal logic is a fragile and limited tool."

Wow. I actually got an atheist to criticize the use of logic!


I'm not talking about linguistics. I'm talking about the structure of your beliefs. It's epistemology, not linguistics.

---

Tick tock, tick tock....

I take it you've realised your belief in God is even less rational than believing that 5 minutes can actually pass. Congratulations.

---

I'm sorry, is this the part where you provide evidence for your beliefs?


...oh, guess we're still waiting on that.

So I have to assume a thing or two for my world view to work. So what? What is your point??? Evidence can't be justified therefore God?