Fed up of non believers

[Lockjaw]

 

Reduced to smartarse remarks, you really are a pathetic little man when it comes down to it aren't you?

 

Why don't you attempt to answer the questions I put to Redwhine at post 865 as he seems to have gone missing in action?

 

Mornin' mjw.

 

You've had the answers. You refuse to accept them.

 

You've also told the world you don't particularly care what the answers are and that you're enjoying winding up the "nit-pickers".

 

You first told us this on a previous thread, possibly now deleted, in which you also suggested there was a bunch of people, a posse if you like, ganging up on you and you were only taking part because you were enjoying winding them up.

 

When I saw you were participating on this thread I knew where it would lead so, rather than try and engage your pompous, arrogant, patronising closed mind, I thought I'd pop in and give you a taste of your own medicine.

 

My only regret is that I won't see your face during the sixth-sense-like denoument in which you go back and re-read all the posts in the context of this new information.

 

Fortunately, that has been more than made up for by the comedy provided by you hurling insults at people and then doing precisely the same thing for which you insulted them. Over and over again.

 

I'm done now.

 

x x

Edited March 8, 2014 by Lockjaw

[mjw47]

Mornin' mjw.

 

You've had the answers. You refuse to accept them.

 

You've also told the world you don't particularly care what the answers are and that you're enjoying winding up the "nit-pickers".

 

You first told us this on a previous thread, possibly now deleted, in which you also suggested there was a bunch of people, a posse if you like, ganging up on you and you were only taking part because you were enjoying winding them up.

 

When I saw you were participating on this thread I knew where it would lead so, rather than try and engage your pompous, arrogant, patronising closed mind, I thought I'd pop in and give you a taste of your own medicine.

 

My only regret is that I won't see your face during the sixth-sense-like denoument in which you go back and re-read all the posts in the context of this new information.

 

Fortunately, that has been more than made up for by the comedy provided by you hurling insults at people and then doing precisely the same thing for which you insulted them. Over and over again.

 

I'm done now.

 

x x

 

You are priceless you really are. (that one was just for you)

 

Every argument/discussion/debate in which I have ever taken part in has concluded in one of four ways.

 

A, I have made my point using facts in an easily understood manner, and the other person (s) have accepted the point, and we have moved on

 

B, The other person(s) have made their point by the use of facts I have conceded the point (s ) been happy to have learned something new, and we have moved on.

 

C, No agreement has been reached and we continue to argue. Almost invariable these disagreements have been sports related, where opinions rather than facts are inevitably employed. We have not moved on but continue to enjoy the discussion.

 

D, There have been insufficient facts available for either party to make their point acceptable to the other. Therefore we have agreed to differ, and we have moved on.

 

 

Now you on the other hand have managed to fail in all of the above.

 

A, You have failed miserably to produce facts to support your contention and have been unable to explain your point in an acceptable understandable manner.

 

Two possible conclusions here, either your ability to teach is nigh on useless or you are wrong. Take your pick.

 

B, You have ignored or disputed facts pointed out to you and referenced from people with appreciably more knowledge and experience of the subject than you.

 

C, You have discontinued the discussion and resorted to post juvenile little jibes. To be understood to a degree I suppose, in that you spend so much time with immature students that a certain amount of 'mirroring is only to be expected.

 

You should try to make some effort to resist this habit though, as it tends to make an adult doing it look somewhat foolish. As in your case.

 

D, Your only possible way to withdraw with at least a little dignity and not have to go to the bother of changing your user name.

 

Although I do have a certain amount of time on my hands it doesn't include wasting it on reviewing the thread.

 

As to seeing my face however, that can be arranged, PM me. Perhaps in real life the sheer magnetism of your personality has persuasive powers sadly lacking in print?

[Cyclone]

Still referencing authority as if it's impossible to refute or disagree with something because a Professor said it. And being rude now as well!

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2014 at 10:07 ----------

 

It's back Giving advice as usual.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2014 at 15:51 ----------

 

 

If you are incapable of explaining yourself ,and in the words of one of your like minded posters are ,'appealing to authority' then I'm not interested.

 

I referred to an eminent Professor, not in order to use him as proof of any belief, but purely as someone perfectly qualified to provide a definition of the differences between beliefs.

 

As that was dismissed on the grounds that it didn't suit the views of the unqualified, and in fact contradicted them, much to their annoyance, I see no reason why I should be expected to play along.

 

Answer the question in your own words. Where am I wrong in claiming to be agnostic, when both the OED and Professor William L Rowe an atheist agree with my definition?

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2014 at 16:08 ----------

 

 

Seriously? That's what your going with?

 

Scientists have these things which they refer to as instruments. Many of these instruments are accurate to an incredible degree.

 

There is no doubt that a complete absence of air and a vacuum can be achieved.

You'd probably be wrong. It's possible to get very close, but not one single molecule of gas.... Difficult to know if you've achieved it, since absence of evidence (ie we've detected no more air) is not evidence of absence.

I can see that you still don't really understand though why you can't prove negatives and aren't actually interested in learning.

 

I know you have no faith in God, but try not to lose your faith in science.

 

So accepting that, would it prove a negative or not? No idea myself, it was just something I thought up in answer to your claim that it couldn't be done

 

By the way are you a Scot?

No I'm not.

 

And like I said, the full definition is that you can't prove a negative except in the case of a bounded set. (Where you disprove all the options within the set). Your hypothetical situation is in effect a bounded set, although not a very good example.

 

I can prove that I'm not holding an apple for example. I show that both my hands are empty. Since the set is bounded (I have only 2 hands) that's an easy negative to prove.

You can't prove that there isn't an apple with my name written in sharpie somewhere in the universe, because you'd need to simultaneously observe everywhere in the universe to make that a closed set problem.

Hence why it's impossible to prove that any mythical figure doesn't exist. Most of the time they are attributed the ability to not be corporeal at all.

 

As another example, if a child had an imaginary friend, how would you prove it didn't exist? It's impossible to prove the non existance of something that only exists in someone elses imagination (like god, or imaginary friends).

[mjw47]

Cyclone.

 

Let me see if I can clarify this 'referencing authority' comment of yours which appears to have become your personal comfort blanket.

 

This is how it seems to work in your particular case.

 

You have a difference of opinion with another poster. Following a certain amount of 'yes it is', 'no it isn't', 'tis' 'tisn't' nonsense the other person does a bit of research and comes up with quotes from reputable sources which support his contention's.

 

This is what is commonly referred to by the more normal amongst us as, 'checking your facts and providing evidence in support of your argument'.

 

Not in your view though, from your viewpoint this is 'referencing authority' or in other words taking into consideration what people qualified in the subject matter of the debate have to say about it.

 

Apparently in your world this is a bad thing. Presumably because highly intelligent people who spend their lives studying a subject so often get it wrong, so badly wrong in this particular instance that they can't even get the basic terminology of their subject correct.

 

(Presumably, had the views of the experts coincided with your opinions we may never have been treat to the expression?)

 

Do I have that right? Are you so convinced as to the fact that you can't be wrong that no one else can be right ,no matter how much time they have invested into studying the subject and no matter how highly they are regarded by their peers?

 

As to not being able to prove a negative, you do realise don't you that it doesn't matter whether you can or cannot, it proves nothing either way?

 

To claim that God doesn't exist because you can't prove he doesn't would be a bit daft wouldn't it?

 

As for your lack of trust in sciences ability to create a perfect vacuum, well that's a bit unfortunate for an atheist don't you think?

 

After all, you guys put so much trust in the ability of science to eventually answer all the questions and make God redundant.

 

As to my rudeness, I'm sure the expression is used every day in the playground at Lockjaws place of work, 'He started it sir'.

[Cyclone]

To claim that god doesn't exist because there is no evidence is the logical, rational position to take, since negatives cannot be proven. I've explained this more than once, but you don't appear to be interested in learning the basic application of logic.

 

The comments of an authority figure are not facts or evidence. They are simply the opinion of someone else, to whom you are referring because you perceive that they have intellectual authority in this subject.

 

You're happy to give god the benefit of the doubt based on a complete lack of evidence, but you refuse to consider Santa, unicorns, goblins, the spaghetti monster and the imaginary friends of children. Presumably because in all those cases you demand some proof, and when some is not forthcoming you use some common sense and decide that you will go with non-belief until some evidence is provided.

 

I suspect that my lack of 'faith' regarding vacuum just means that I have a better understanding of the limits of our engineering (it's little to do with science) than you do.

 

Science helps engineers to build better pumps and so on. But that is not science.

 

Finally, science does not have to answer every question to make god 'redundant'. God doesn't exist, science is simply a way of investigating the universe in a logical manner. The two are only tangentially related.

[Obelix]

If you are incapable of explaining yourself ,and in the words of one of your like minded posters are ,'appealing to authority' then I'm not interested.

 

I'm not.

Have you read Dunning-Kruger yet?

 

Scientists have these things which they refer to as instruments. Many of these instruments are accurate to an incredible degree.

 

There is no doubt that a complete absence of air and a vacuum can be achieved.

 

Plenty of doubt I'm afraid.

 

Have you read Dunning-Kruger yet?

[mjw47]

I'm not.

Have you read Dunning-Kruger yet?

 

 

 

Plenty of doubt I'm afraid.

 

Have you read Dunning-Kruger yet?

 

Have you got over that unfortunate habit of repeating yourself several times to people who have absolutely no interest in your views yet?

 

As to Dunning - Kruger I think you need to take a long hard look in the mirror on that one.

 

I believe it's known as projecting.

[Bob England]

Guys, relax, its a party.

 

When you expire you may go to the land of milk and honey, there may be 72 virgins waiting for you, or a bloke with a white beard floating on a crowd with a load of sycophants singing.

 

Personally I would be more than happy to slowly fall apart, providing through my demise succor to the plants.

 

But hey, who knows, enjoy the ride.

[barleycorn]

Surely if a person claims to be an atheist then they are aligning themselves with the belief that God does not exist. In which case they believe that there is no God.

 

No problem with that, they are fully entitled to hold that belief.

 

The person that people have come to associate most recently with atheism is Richard Dawkins, who has put himself firmly in the limelight - and earned a considerable amount of money by doing so - by being strident and persistent in his belief that there is no such thing as a deity.

 

How can someone call themselves an atheist if they are prepared to accept that there actually may be a God?

 

They are placing themselves directly at odds with people like Dawkins, and can hardly then describe themselves using the same label.

 

That has to make them agnostic, admitting to doubt is admitting that you do not know the facts, and therefore lack knowledge which is the agnostic position.

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2014 at 00:11 ----------

 

 

Reduced to smartarse remarks, you really are a pathetic little man when it comes down to it aren't you?

 

Why don't you attempt to answer the questions I put to Redwhine at post 865 as he seems to have gone missing in action?

 

So, what do you call someone who simply lacks a belief in God?

 

jb

[mjw47]

Cyclone.

 

The difference between you and I is very basic but fundamental. You are prepared to believe in things which you cannot prove.

 

This makes you a believer.

 

I on the other hand - whilst being perfectly willing to 'take a view' 'hazzard a guess' 'express an opinion' ' give a theory' etc - am not prepared to believe without proof.

 

Please don't now make yourself look even more foolish than you already have ( if possible ) by trying to say that you are not a believer.

 

The comment in your last post 'God doesn't exist' is expressed as a statement of fact.

You have absolutely no way of proving that statement, therefore whilst it may be a fact, it may not be.

 

To claim something to be true with no actual proof is a statement of belief in exactly the same way that a theist believes.

 

And no, I do not believe that they have 'intellectual authority' I simply believe that given their background they have far more chance of being correct in their definition than some know it all on Sheffield Forum.

 

Especially given that one of the sources I referred to actually invented the word in question.

 

The fact that you are prepared to contest the meaning of the word with the originator speaks volumes as to your overweening and delusional sense of self regarding arrogance.

 

Not surprised that you claim to know more about engineering than me, is there anything that you don't claim to know?

 

And if you can't see the difference between Santa, Goblins , Unicorns and the belief in God, then there really is no hope for you.

 

Oh and you are aware that I don't actually believe or disbelieve in the existence or non existence of God don't you?

 

Don't know if I've mentioned this before but I'm agnostic.

 

---------- Post added 10-03-2014 at 11:20 ----------

 

So, what do you call someone who simply lacks a belief in God?

 

jb

 

A believer in the none existence of God?

 

'Do you believe in God?'

 

'No'

 

You have now thought about the existence of such a being by answering the question.

 

You have decided that, for whatever reason, you don't believe.

 

You cannot however, provide proof of your decision which means that it is simply something which you believe.

Edited March 10, 2014 by mjw47