Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 43 of 73
 [ 1447 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Dustnite wrote:Is it time to bring out....THE CHART?

Image


sorry

points 3 and 4 are not aplicable for the atheists in this forum, they don't have to defend any world view and they don't have to present evidence for anything


I would also have to add that there is no standard way of determine if an argument is good or not, any argument that atheist don't like will be consider a bad argument.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Oct 13, 2016 4:55 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
Grumpy Santa wrote:[
We can, however, scientifically demonstrate that dreams exist and happen. They can be "observed" by watching brain activity during the dream stage. The same cannot be said for this god of yours (or any others, to be fair).




However it is still a fact that you can know what was your last dream about, even though you cant prove it.


that is my point. We all believe in stuff even if we cant prove them.


You've missed the point that there's at least evidence dreams exist.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Thu Oct 13, 2016 4:55 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
points 3 and 4 are not aplicable for the atheists in this forum, they don't have to defend any world view and they don't have to present evidence for anything


I would also have to add that there is no standard way of determine if an argument is good or not, any argument that atheist don't like will be consider a bad argument.


Again, shifting the burden of proof. If you're going to assert the existence of a god you need to demonstrate it exists. We're under no obligation to defend not accepting a belief that has no evidence supporting it.

Thus it follows that an argument is good if it's supported by the evidence. An argument without evidence is not a good argument.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Thu Oct 13, 2016 4:57 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 880Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Well atleast I am not the only one who is confused

Because Leroy is Leroy:
the ability to choose how to act
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will

is missing "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God - freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention"

Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

is missing "which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.)" and a whole lot more.

free and independent choice; voluntary decision:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-will

is missing: "Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. - the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined - the ability to make a choice without coercion: he left of his own free will: I did not influence him"

And interestingly, Leroy insisted that a choice made under coercion was still free will, while the definition Leroy "quoted" incompletely states that a free will requires no coercion.

The ability or discretion to choose; free choice
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+will

is missing: "The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will."

every single source that I was able to find, defines free will in a similar way I did,

I was unable to find any source that defines will and free will in a meaningful different way. It is obvious that free will and will are the same thing according to most (if not all sources)

and if Mars is reading this I would have to add, that none defines free will as brainless choices.

it is obvious that everybody defines free will the same way I did, you (and mars) seem to be the only 2 individuals in the world that would argue that the my definition of free will is wrong.

As seen above, a completely false statement. There is a synonym usually used for when someone makes a statement they know to be false...
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Oct 13, 2016 4:57 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3498Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Well, it is quite easy to be confused when you keep insisting that you are talking about free will, yet keep defining it as will. How about using the correct terminology instead of equivocating two different terms and making your side of the converstation all the harder to follow.
:


Well atleast I am not the only one who is confused

the ability to choose how to act
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will



Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

free and independent choice; voluntary decision:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-will


The ability or discretion to choose; free choice
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+will



every single source that I was able to find, defines free will in a similar way I did,

I was unable to find any source that defines will and free will in a meaningful different way. It is obvious that free will and will are the same thing according to most (if not all sources)

and if Mars is reading this I would have to add, that none defines free will as brainless choices.


it is obvious that everybody defines free will the same way I did, you (and mars) seem to be the only 2 individuals in the world that would argue that the my definition of free will is wrong.


MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:Well atleast I am not the only one who is confused

Because Leroy is Leroy:
the ability to choose how to act
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will

is missing "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God - freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention"

Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

is missing "which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.)" and a whole lot more.

free and independent choice; voluntary decision:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-will

is missing: "Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. - the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined - the ability to make a choice without coercion: he left of his own free will: I did not influence him"

And interestingly, Leroy insisted that a choice made under coercion was still free will, while the definition Leroy "quoted" incompletely states that a free will requires no coercion.

The ability or discretion to choose; free choice
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+will

is missing: "The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will."

every single source that I was able to find, defines free will in a similar way I did,

I was unable to find any source that defines will and free will in a meaningful different way. It is obvious that free will and will are the same thing according to most (if not all sources)

and if Mars is reading this I would have to add, that none defines free will as brainless choices.

it is obvious that everybody defines free will the same way I did, you (and mars) seem to be the only 2 individuals in the world that would argue that the my definition of free will is wrong.

As seen above, a completely false statement. There is a synonym usually used for when someone makes a statement they know to be false...


:docpalm:

Quote-mining prescriptive sources, yet I thought this thread was about atheist blunders? Well, thank you MarsCydonia for doing the heavy lifting. Honestly, I was just going to concede this point in the hopes that dandan leroy would present some evidence or evidence for once.

Dandan Leroy, how about instead of quote-mining the dictionary, we just define these terms for our discussion. We already did this with evidence and evidence, remember?

I would define free will as hackenslash did: the ability to choose unconstrained between freely realisable alternatives. Will I would define as the ability to make choices. Is this agreeable to you?

Beyond this, are you just going to ignore everything else I said in my last post? Are you ever going to present evidence or evidence for anything you have asserted?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:03 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:Well atleast I am not the only one who is confused

Because Leroy is Leroy:
the ability to choose how to act
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will

is missing "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God - freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention"

Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

is missing "which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.)" and a whole lot more.

free and independent choice; voluntary decision:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-will

is missing: "Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. - the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined - the ability to make a choice without coercion: he left of his own free will: I did not influence him"

And interestingly, Leroy insisted that a choice made under coercion was still free will, while the definition Leroy "quoted" incompletely states that a free will requires no coercion.

The ability or discretion to choose; free choice
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+will

is missing: "The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will."

every single source that I was able to find, defines free will in a similar way I did,

I was unable to find any source that defines will and free will in a meaningful different way. It is obvious that free will and will are the same thing according to most (if not all sources)

and if Mars is reading this I would have to add, that none defines free will as brainless choices.

it is obvious that everybody defines free will the same way I did, you (and mars) seem to be the only 2 individuals in the world that would argue that the my definition of free will is wrong.

As seen above, a completely false statement. There is a synonym usually used for when someone makes a statement they know to be false...



aja,

can you please explain what meaningful difference there is between my definition and any other of those definitions?

can you find any source that defines free will as brainless choices?


and for HWN, can you provide any source that distinguish will and free will in any meaningful way?


And interestingly, Leroy insisted that a choice made under coercion was still free will, while the definition Leroy "quoted" incompletely states that a free will requires no coercion


depending on what you mean by coercion........but so what? given these definitions what is the difference between will and free will?............and even more important, ..........where did you get your brainless BS? ...no one has ever defined free will as brain less choices......
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:10 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Dandan Leroy, how about instead of quote-mining the dictionary, we just define these terms for our discussion. We already did this with evidence and evidence, remember?

I would define free will as hackenslash did: the ability to choose unconstrained between freely realisable alternatives. Will I would define as the ability to make choices. Is this agreeable to you?

Beyond this, are you just going to ignore everything else I said in my last post? Are you ever going to present evidence or evidence for anything you have asserted?


You are the one who is making a big deal with definitions, given that I defined free will since the very first page and given that my definition is consisten with all other sources (not only dictionaries) why did it took you so long to get to this level?

I don't see any difference between the definition of will and free will, but just to let this go, I will use the term will and every time I have used the term free will I have always meant what you call will

yes I will reply to the rest of your comment,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:21 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Grumpy Santa wrote:
leroy wrote:
points 3 and 4 are not aplicable for the atheists in this forum, they don't have to defend any world view and they don't have to present evidence for anything


I would also have to add that there is no standard way of determine if an argument is good or not, any argument that atheist don't like will be consider a bad argument.


Again, shifting the burden of proof. If you're going to assert the existence of a god you need to demonstrate it exists. We're under no obligation to defend not accepting a belief that has no evidence supporting it.

Thus it follows that an argument is good if it's supported by the evidence. An argument without evidence is not a good argument.


according to the graph we both have to adopt a view

for example my view is that God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe

your view could be, multiverses is a better explanation than God.

the we both try to provide evidence for our view


but I am aware that this is not how things are being done in this forum this is why I asserted that the graph does not apply to atheist.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:27 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Grumpy Santa wrote:[
You've missed the point that there's at least evidence dreams exist.



and what about 1000 years ago, where dreams where not proven empirically?

my point is that even 1000 ago people knew what their dreams where about even if they can not prove it, even if they could not even prove (empirically) that dreams exist.

it is possible to know something even if you can not prove it...........agree?


after you grant this point, we could argue if is it reasonable to accept religious experiences as real, even if you can not prove them
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:34 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 880Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:..........where did you get your brainless BS? ...no one has ever defined free will as brain less choices......

leroy wrote:...the brain itself cant make free choices.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:34 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 880Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I would define free will as hackenslash did: the ability to choose unconstrained between freely realisable alternatives. Will I would define as the ability to make choices. Is this agreeable to you?

This is why I cannot "defend free will from a materialistic perspective": because I don't assert free will exists as I do not comprehend what it means.

Particularly in this definition, what is meant by "unconstrained"? As I mentionned for to Leroy to ignore, if "unconstrained/free" means "unconstrained/free" from any and all causality, then how does a "free choice" differ from a random event? Why call it a choice?

As Leroy cut from his quote-mining, "philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia".
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:48 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:..........where did you get your brainless BS? ...no one has ever defined free will as brain less choices......

leroy wrote:...the brain itself cant make free choices.

aja

but brain less is not and has never been part of the definition of free will (or will)
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:13 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 880Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:aja

but brain less is not and has never been part of the definition of free will (or will)


Who cares if it is not worded in your definition Leroy. You asked where I got "brain-less" from well I got it from you.
leroy wrote:...the brain itself cant make free choices.


You asserted that:
"Free choices cannot be produced by the brain" and that "Free will is the ability to make choices".

The implication? "Free will is the ability to make choices not produced by the brain" or in other words "Free will is the ability to make brain-less choices".

Why don't you own up to your words? This is not the forum where Leroy never has to back up his assertions, never answer difficult questions and never admits to contradictions and lies... though you try hard for it to be.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:23 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:aja

but brain less is not and has never been part of the definition of free will (or will)


Who cares if it is not worded in your definition Leroy. You asked where I got "brain-less" from well I got it from you.
leroy wrote:...the brain itself cant make free choices.


You asserted that:
"Free choices cannot be produced by the brain" and that "Free will is the ability to make choices".

The implication? "Free will is the ability to make choices not produced by the brain" or in other words "Free will is the ability to make brain-less choices".

Why don't you own up to your words? This is not the forum where Leroy never has to back up his assertions, never answer difficult questions and never admits to contradictions and lies... though you try hard for it to be.



yes that is what I ve been telling you for months........................it took you like 10 tries to understand this


brainless is not part of the definition is part of the implications
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:02 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 880Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:yes that is what I ve been telling you for months........................it took you like 10 tries to understand this

brainless is not part of the definition is part of the implications

:docpalm:

I know Leroy, most of us have been repeatedly telling you that your definition is piss poor for that exact reason.

Hence why you had to quote-mine definitions and had to hide the parts of the definitions that were relevant to the context:
"Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces"

"The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will."

Is the brain natural, Leroy? Is it physical?

Since you like to play with definitions, tell me how should I call "A person that hides relevant information, in order to mislead or deceive" such as you did? What word would you use for that?

Oh and Leroy, those were rethorical questions because I already know, with a high degree of certainty, what answers I would have gotten. I can determine them.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:55 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
Grumpy Santa wrote:
You've missed the point that there's at least evidence dreams exist.



and what about 1000 years ago, where dreams where not proven empirically?

my point is that even 1000 ago people knew what their dreams where about even if they can not prove it, even if they could not even prove (empirically) that dreams exist.

it is possible to know something even if you can not prove it...........agree?


after you grant this point, we could argue if is it reasonable to accept religious experiences as real, even if you can not prove them


It's reasonable to argue that people have what they call "religious experiences", true, but it's not reasonable to claim that they're due to an action by a god when no examples of gods have ever been demonstrated to exist. Someone calls something a "religious experience" because it feels like what they'd expect a religious experience to feel like yet so far all the evidence points to natural effects of the human brain.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:37 am
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:according to the graph we both have to adopt a view

for example my view is that God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe

your view could be, multiverses is a better explanation than God.

the we both try to provide evidence for our view


but I am aware that this is not how things are being done in this forum this is why I asserted that the graph does not apply to atheist.


My "view" is that we don't have enough information to know for sure what triggered the expansion of the universe.

The problem with your view is that you can't back it up. You need to demonstrate, for example, that the universe is actually "fine-tuned", whatever that means. You need to demonstrate that this "fine-tuner" you call "God" actually exists. THEN you would need to demonstrate that this "fine-tuner" actually did "fine-tuning".

If I, as you say, need to provide evidence for my view that we don't have enough information then I submit your view as evidence. The fact that we don't have enough evidence results in people making up mythological woo to try and fill in the gaps in our knowledge.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:43 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3498Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:and for HWN, can you provide any source that distinguish will and free will in any meaningful way?


Would that not be all the sources you quote-mined? I mean, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy goes into detail about it. However, I doubt you have read that whole thing if you have to ask this question.

leroy wrote:You are the one who is making a big deal with definitions, given that I defined free will since the very first page and given that my definition is consisten with all other sources (not only dictionaries) why did it took you so long to get to this level?


What level might that be? You quote-mining dictionaries to get your definition. Beyond that, one should make a big deal about definitions. Having agreed upon definitions of words means that one is not able to equivocate terms down the line. Anyone that cares to have a meaningful conversation should care about definitions of words, thus I am sorry if I am trying to be clear in my discussion with you. See how much time we have wasted on this? It all could have been avoided if only you cared to make yourself clear from the start.

leroy wrote:I don't see any difference between the definition of will and free will, but just to let this go, I will use the term will and every time I have used the term free will I have always meant what you call will


The difference is obvious and if you cannot see it, than you really have no business trying to use it as an argument. Free will differs from will in that one is able to choose among freely realisable alternatives. That is to say, their choice cannot be determined. The big deal with this, and this only really applies to you; you think our choices are not deterministic, yet you believe in a creature that exist outside of our space and time that is able to determine our future based on our passed and present. This is your problem in that you are holding two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. Beyond that, if you truly only ever meant will in all your earlier comments, than you could not have been using it to argue against a deterministic reality.

However, I am glad we are moving forward. Now I cannot wait to see how you use will to show there is a deity.

MarsCydonia wrote:As Leroy cut from his quote-mining, "philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia".


Well, philosophers can debate this all they want, but it appears scientists are on the cusp of answering this question.

Oh, and dandan leroy is trying to advocate for dualism. That is the whole point of his "free will argument". Again, if he was clear from the start, so much time would not be wasted.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:19 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 880Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Oh, and dandan leroy is trying to advocate for dualism. That is the whole point of his "free will argument". Again, if he was clear from the start, so much time would not be wasted.

It was always pretty clear for me that Leroy was attempting to argue for some sort of dualism and making a mess of it.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:47 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3498Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Oh, and dandan leroy is trying to advocate for dualism. That is the whole point of his "free will argument". Again, if he was clear from the start, so much time would not be wasted.

It was always pretty clear for me that Leroy was attempting to argue for some sort of dualism and making a mess of it.


Methinks he never came out and said that because he must know all the flaws present in dualism. Beyond that's, he has not broken out of the circle of his argument (i.e. we know we have free will/dualism, because fairies/god gave it to us. We know fairies/gods exist, because we have free will/dualism).
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Oct 14, 2016 3:08 pm
YIM WWW
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 43 of 73
 [ 1447 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests
cron