| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nico Demusopelous" |
| Date: |
15 Jan 2006 03:10:11 PM |
| Object: |
THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
The faith of Christopher A. Lee was explored back in March and April of
last year, e.g:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/555631d86063e107
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/469370a77ea21dc3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/4e6f55739045d893
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/e08096257fbf47e0
Now, note that the intention of this thread is neither to attempt to
demonstrate the veracity of theism (or any particular form of theism,
e.g: Christianity) nor to attempt to demonstrate the falsity of quantum
mechanics (henceforth: QM). The intention of this thread is to expose
one of the most abusive and nasty posters in alt.atheism as holding a
certain position regarding QM (which he appeals to quite often) wholly
on faith (cf. the third post from the top of the four linked to above).
Now, exploring Christopher A. Lee's faith, I'd like to call to witness
something he wrote on January 12:
"ONE NEEDS A REASON TO BELIEVE SOMETHING. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON
TO DO SO, ONE DOESN'T BELIEVE."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/92241e756862b48a
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased and/or
truly random events? For example, if a person observes an event, what
is YOUR REASON for concluding that the event observed was wholly
uncuased or truly random?
Do you even have a reason? Or do you just accept things on faith?
.
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 03:29:02 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1137359411.667107.26300@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<SNIP>
Now, exploring Christopher A. Lee's faith, I'd like to call to witness
something he wrote on January 12:
"ONE NEEDS A REASON TO BELIEVE SOMETHING. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON
TO DO SO, ONE DOESN'T BELIEVE."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/92241e756862b48
a
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased and/or
truly random events? For example, if a person observes an event, what
is YOUR REASON for concluding that the event observed was wholly
uncuased or truly random?
Do you even have a reason? Or do you just accept things on faith?
Well I'm not the person you are addressing but what you are posing here is
an equivocation fallacy. Faith in ordinary natural events occuring in a
regular fashion is a testable/falsifiable conclusion based on past
experience. Religious faith means accepting an untestable claim from
authority.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 03:38:16 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Well I'm not the person you are addressing but what you are posing here is
an equivocation fallacy. Faith in ordinary natural events occuring in a
regular fashion is a testable/falsifiable conclusion based on past
experience. Religious faith means accepting an untestable claim from
authority.
I was thinking of "faith" more in the sense of believing in something
without the ability to furnish evidence or even an understanding of the
subject at hand, or just belief without reason.
As for "religious faith," I think we can have certain kinds of
religious faith which is testable. While something like "the deity that
spoke to Abraham is the same who created the universe" seems
untestable, a statement like "my swami can turn water into blood" (or
"a living prophet of Yahweh can summon extraterrestrial chariots") does
seem testable, despite being a religious position.
And why is it that you employed "falsifiable" when referring to the
former sort of faith, yet opted not to do so when referring to the
latter? Couldn't religious faith be falsifiable? I think so. For
example, if a person gives reasons under which he would be willing to
admit that a particular religious position is false (e.g. "if you show
me an error in the Quran I will conclude it is not from Allah"), then
that particular religious position does seem to be falsifiable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 04:12:04 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1137361096.113890.38780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Well I'm not the person you are addressing but what you are posing here
is an equivocation fallacy. Faith in ordinary natural events occuring
in a regular fashion is a testable/falsifiable conclusion based on past
experience. Religious faith means accepting an untestable claim from
authority.
I was thinking of "faith" more in the sense of believing in something
without the ability to furnish evidence or even an understanding of the
subject at hand, or just belief without reason.
As for "religious faith," I think we can have certain kinds of
religious faith which is testable. While something like "the deity that
spoke to Abraham is the same who created the universe" seems
untestable, a statement like "my swami can turn water into blood" (or
"a living prophet of Yahweh can summon extraterrestrial chariots") does
seem testable, despite being a religious position.
The religionist will always make an excuse when such tests fail. They
didn'y pray right. Or the unbeliever defiled the test or they weren't
"true" christians, moslems etc.
And why is it that you employed "falsifiable" when referring to the
former sort of faith, yet opted not to do so when referring to the
latter? Couldn't religious faith be falsifiable? I think so. For
example, if a person gives reasons under which he would be willing to
admit that a particular religious position is false (e.g. "if you show
me an error in the Quran I will conclude it is not from Allah"), then
that particular religious position does seem to be falsifiable.
You are starting from the position. i.e that it is from Allah. Basically
you would accept no evidence that it is wrong and are bound to attempt
some apologetic to claim otherwise. Compare that with scientific theories
which are expected to be falsified - that is how science has always
advanced.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 04:27:47 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
As for "religious faith," I think we can have certain kinds of
religious faith which is testable. While something like "the deity that
spoke to Abraham is the same who created the universe" seems
untestable, a statement like "my swami can turn water into blood" (or
"a living prophet of Yahweh can summon extraterrestrial chariots") does
seem testable, despite being a religious position.
The religionist will always make an excuse when such tests fail. They
didn'y pray right. Or the unbeliever defiled the test or they weren't
"true" christians, moslems etc.
Maybe many "religionists" have done precisely that, but I think that
does not lead deductively to the conclusion that you have made here. If
what you were stating was true, then there would be no examples of
people abandoning their faith (either for a non-theist position or for
another faith different views). Of course we have seen many examples of
people changing or abandoning their faith, thus we can conclude your
statement is an exaggeration, with all due respect.
But that is irrelevant. I was simply noting that certain religious
beliefs (e.g. "my swami can turn water into blood" or "a living prophet
of Yahweh can summon extraterrestrial chariots") can be testable (i.e.
we can agree to terms before hand, and then test the proclamations).
Whether a certain person will accept the results or not does not mean
the proposition in question is testable.
And why is it that you employed "falsifiable" when referring to the
former sort of faith, yet opted not to do so when referring to the
latter? Couldn't religious faith be falsifiable? I think so. For
example, if a person gives reasons under which he would be willing to
admit that a particular religious position is false (e.g. "if you show
me an error in the Quran I will conclude it is not from Allah"), then
that particular religious position does seem to be falsifiable.
You are starting from the position. i.e that it is from Allah. Basically
you would accept no evidence that it is wrong and are bound to attempt
some apologetic to claim otherwise. Compare that with scientific theories
which are expected to be falsified - that is how science has always
advanced.
How do you know? Let us suppose some hypothetical Muslim believes the
Quran is from Allah and gives a way that this belief can be falsified.
We would have the following:
CLAIM: the Quran is from Allah.
WAY TO FALSIFY CLAIM: finding an error in the Quran
Actually many Muslims take this position (cf. their interpretation of
vers 4:82 in the Quran), and while many may try to move the goal posts
if an alleged error is shown, this nonetheless provides with an example
of a religious belief which is falsifiable (and note that there have
been Muslims who became apostates precisely becaused they believed the
Quran was in error, just as there have been Christians who have had
similar reactions to the Bible).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 05:40:04 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1137364067.921867.215790@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
As for "religious faith," I think we can have certain kinds of
religious faith which is testable. While something like "the deity that
spoke to Abraham is the same who created the universe" seems
untestable, a statement like "my swami can turn water into blood" (or
"a living prophet of Yahweh can summon extraterrestrial chariots") does
seem testable, despite being a religious position.
The religionist will always make an excuse when such tests fail. They
didn'y pray right. Or the unbeliever defiled the test or they weren't
"true" christians, moslems etc.
Maybe many "religionists" have done precisely that, but I think that
does not lead deductively to the conclusion that you have made here. If
what you were stating was true, then there would be no examples of
people abandoning their faith (either for a non-theist position or for
another faith different views). Of course we have seen many examples of
people changing or abandoning their faith, thus we can conclude your
statement is an exaggeration, with all due respect.
You are missing the point. Such conclusions/falsifications are not part of
the religion. Wereas testing/falsification of an existing theory is what
scientists attempt to do. The rewriting/correcting of their holy books is not
part of a religion. Some individuals may do so and reject their religion or
may change it and start a new sect if they can convince enough followers but
that is irrelevant to the point.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 05:47:43 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
You are missing the point. Such conclusions/falsifications are not part of
the religion. Wereas testing/falsification of an existing theory is what
scientists attempt to do. The rewriting/correcting of their holy books is not
part of a religion. Some individuals may do so and reject their religion or
may change it and start a new sect if they can convince enough followers but
that is irrelevant to the point.
Then what was the point? You labeled one form of faith falsifiable, and
did not do so for another. I noted that some religious positions held
on faith (i.e. which does not rest on logical proof or material
evidence) can nonetheless be falsifiable: e.g. the Muslim
interpretation of verse 4:82 in the Quran, which holds that if a person
can demonstrate errors in the Quran, then that is a reason to reject
the Quran as being from Allah (God). You also made the (apparently
inductive) claim that a "religionist" will never accept the results of
a test of one of their religious claims if the test results are not in
their favor. This does not seem to a be a true statement, and
furthermore, the willingness of a person to accept test results does
not tell us whether a given proposition was testable in the first place
(which relates back to your claim that religious beliefs are not
testable).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 06:46:35 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1137368863.802806.5510@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
You are missing the point. Such conclusions/falsifications are not part
of the religion. Wereas testing/falsification of an existing theory is
what scientists attempt to do. The rewriting/correcting of their holy
books is not part of a religion. Some individuals may do so and reject
their religion or may change it and start a new sect if they can
convince enough followers but that is irrelevant to the point.
Then what was the point? You labeled one form of faith falsifiable, and
did not do so for another. I noted that some religious positions held
on faith (i.e. which does not rest on logical proof or material
evidence) can nonetheless be falsifiable: e.g. the Muslim
interpretation of verse 4:82 in the Quran, which holds that if a person
can demonstrate errors in the Quran, then that is a reason to reject
the Quran as being from Allah (God).
That is just a disingenuous statement and not a real part of the religion.
It is merely to shore up the beliefs of those that already believe by the
pretense that they can test their religion.
You also made the (apparently
inductive) claim that a "religionist" will never accept the results of
a test of one of their religious claims if the test results are not in
their favor. This does not seem to a be a true statement,
Of course it is true. If it were otherwise they would not remain part of
their cult.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 08:08:05 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Then what was the point? You labeled one form of faith falsifiable, and
did not do so for another. I noted that some religious positions held
on faith (i.e. which does not rest on logical proof or material
evidence) can nonetheless be falsifiable: e.g. the Muslim
interpretation of verse 4:82 in the Quran, which holds that if a person
can demonstrate errors in the Quran, then that is a reason to reject
the Quran as being from Allah (God).
That is just a disingenuous statement and not a real part of the religion.
It is merely to shore up the beliefs of those that already believe by the
pretense that they can test their religion.
It serves as an example of how a religious belief might be falsifiable.
Whether any particular person holds to the previously agreed upon rules
of falsifiability doesn't change this fact.
You also made the (apparently
inductive) claim that a "religionist" will never accept the results of
a test of one of their religious claims if the test results are not in
their favor. This does not seem to a be a true statement,
Of course it is true. If it were otherwise they would not remain part of
their cult.
Look, many people have abandoned their particular religious view, thus
showing that it is possible for a person to see their faith as false
after it has been tested in a certain way. But again, the falsity of
your statement can be demonstrated via a simple modus tollens:
(1) If it is the case that a religious person will never accept the
results of a test of one of their doctrines in instances where the
results are negative, then we would not have people abandoning their
respective faiths.
(2) We have seen many examples of people abandoning their faith.
(3) Therefore, it is not the case that a religious person will never
accept the results of a test of one of their doctrines in instances
where the results are negative.
I could give many examples:
(a) Among the Lubavitcher sect of Judaism, there was the belief that
Menachem Schneersohn was the Jewish Messiah. One of the generally
agreed rules of Judaism are that if a prospective Messiah dies before
establishing peace on earth, then he was NOT the Messiah. When
Schneerson died in the 90s, many (or even most?) Lubavitchers abandoned
their claim that he was Messiah (i.e. they admitted they were wrong).
(b) Islamic missionaries who primarily do their missionary work amongst
Christians (cf. the names Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik, Jamal Badawi, or
Shabir Ally) have gotten some Christians to roughly agree to the
framework that if the Christian/Biblical story of Jesus is riddled with
contradictions, and the Islamic/Quranic story of Jesus is not, then
they should abandon Christianity for Islam. From there they have given
arguments for such a position, and as a result there have been
Christians who have embraced Islam after meeting these people, reading
their books or watching their videos.
(c) Many individuals have concluded that the cosmology laid out by
modern physics necessarily contradicts the description of cosmology
laid out in the Bible or Quran and have thus abandoned their respective
faiths in Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
(d) Physicists have noted that if a human being left the planet earth
betweel one and two thousand years ago, and was traveling at nearly the
speed of light, he still would not have left our galaxy today. Even if
he were traveling *at* the speed of light, this would still be the
case, and on top of that the mass and length of the person would have
become infinite (possibly engulfing our galaxy?). This had led some to
conclude, therefore, that Jesus did not ascend to heaven 2,000 years
ago, and Muhamad did not ride to heaven on a flying horse 1400 years
ago.
In short, there have been and continue to be religious people who will
submit to tests on their some of their religious beliefs and have
changed faiths as a result of their understanding of those tests.
Furthermore, there are numerous religious beliefs which are testable
and/or falsifiable, and this is not changed by the fact that certain
dogmatic types might resist uncomfortable conclusions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 09:35:06 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1137377285.452228.19100@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Then what was the point? You labeled one form of faith falsifiable,
and did not do so for another. I noted that some religious positions
held on faith (i.e. which does not rest on logical proof or material
evidence) can nonetheless be falsifiable: e.g. the Muslim
interpretation of verse 4:82 in the Quran, which holds that if a
person can demonstrate errors in the Quran, then that is a reason to
reject the Quran as being from Allah (God).
That is just a disingenuous statement and not a real part of the
religion. It is merely to shore up the beliefs of those that already
believe by the pretense that they can test their religion.
It serves as an example of how a religious belief might be falsifiable.
Whether any particular person holds to the previously agreed upon rules
of falsifiability doesn't change this fact.
No. It serves as an example of a lie. This is shown by the Islamic
attitude towards apostates. Namely that they are merely wilfully rejecting
what they know to be true. This is common in many religions where they
pretend to hang on to the coat tails of reason and or science in a lame
attempt to legitimise their nonsense. The leopard is known by his spots.
You also made the (apparently
inductive) claim that a "religionist" will never accept the results
of a test of one of their religious claims if the test results are
not in their favor. This does not seem to a be a true statement,
Of course it is true. If it were otherwise they would not remain part
of their cult.
Look, many people have abandoned their particular religious view, thus
showing that it is possible for a person to see their faith as false
after it has been tested in a certain way. But again, the falsity of
your statement can be demonstrated via a simple modus tollens:
Of course the apostate considers their old religion to be falsifiable and
falsified. Your argument is nothing but ignoratio elenchi. We are talking
about the beliefs of the religion itself not the beliefs of those who have
rejected the religion.
Klazmon.
<SNIP nonsense>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 04:17:09 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2006 11:12:04 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
"Nico Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1137361096.113890.38780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Well I'm not the person you are addressing but what you are posing here
is an equivocation fallacy. Faith in ordinary natural events occuring
in a regular fashion is a testable/falsifiable conclusion based on past
experience. Religious faith means accepting an untestable claim from
authority.
Faith and believe are the wrong words to use, especially when the
person using them has dishonestly substituted them for the more
accurate words originally used.
I was thinking of "faith" more in the sense of believing in something
without the ability to furnish evidence or even an understanding of the
subject at hand, or just belief without reason.
And he was lying again. Which is why I finally killfiled him.
As for "religious faith," I think we can have certain kinds of
religious faith which is testable. While something like "the deity that
spoke to Abraham is the same who created the universe" seems
untestable, a statement like "my swami can turn water into blood" (or
"a living prophet of Yahweh can summon extraterrestrial chariots") does
seem testable, despite being a religious position.
The religionist will always make an excuse when such tests fail. They
didn'y pray right. Or the unbeliever defiled the test or they weren't
"true" christians, moslems etc.
He doesn't understand the difference between a conclusion and an
existing belief in the absence of evidence.
And why is it that you employed "falsifiable" when referring to the
former sort of faith, yet opted not to do so when referring to the
latter? Couldn't religious faith be falsifiable? I think so. For
example, if a person gives reasons under which he would be willing to
admit that a particular religious position is false (e.g. "if you show
me an error in the Quran I will conclude it is not from Allah"), then
that particular religious position does seem to be falsifiable.
You are starting from the position. i.e that it is from Allah. Basically
you would accept no evidence that it is wrong and are bound to attempt
some apologetic to claim otherwise. Compare that with scientific theories
which are expected to be falsified - that is how science has always
advanced.
I don't think he understands this.
He's another one who is hung up on first cause rationalisations (not
proofs) and imagines everybody else should fall for them.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 04:43:29 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Faith and believe are the wrong words to use, especially when the
person using them has dishonestly substituted them for the more
accurate words originally used.
Can Christopher give examples of what words I substituted? It was
Christopher himself who wrote:
ONE NEEDS A REASON TO BELIEVE SOMETHING. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON
TO DO SO, ONE DOESN'T BELIEVE.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/92241e756862b48a
From this we can conclude the following premise:
If Christopher believes X, then Christopher has reasons for believing
X.
Now, instatiating the proposition "uncaused events have been observed"
in for X, what is Christopher's reason for believing such? Notice that
he has yet to answer!
I was thinking of "faith" more in the sense of believing in something
without the ability to furnish evidence or even an understanding of the
subject at hand, or just belief without reason.
And he was lying again. Which is why I finally killfiled him.
So Christopher decides to "killfile" me rather than answer the question
of the thread, or attempt to offer what he thinks is the proper
definition of "faith".
He doesn't understand the difference between a conclusion and an
existing belief in the absence of evidence.
I understand the difference quite well. The above is merely a
ridiculously false claim, not to mention a red herring! The question
was what were the philosophical justifications for the conclusion
Christopher came to (i.e. that uncaused events have been observed). He
has failed to answer this question yet again.
And why is it that you employed "falsifiable" when referring to the
former sort of faith, yet opted not to do so when referring to the
latter? Couldn't religious faith be falsifiable? I think so. For
example, if a person gives reasons under which he would be willing to
admit that a particular religious position is false (e.g. "if you show
me an error in the Quran I will conclude it is not from Allah"), then
that particular religious position does seem to be falsifiable.
You are starting from the position. i.e that it is from Allah. Basically
you would accept no evidence that it is wrong and are bound to attempt
some apologetic to claim otherwise. Compare that with scientific theories
which are expected to be falsified - that is how science has always
advanced.
I don't think he understands this.
What is there to understand? On what grounds should we assume the claim
that a person who believes the Quran is from Allah would never accept
evidence to the contrary? If that claim were true, then there would
never be apostates from Islam. Employing a bit of a modus tollens, we
can cite the existence of apostates from Islam and conclude that the
claim above is therefore false!
He's another one who is hung up on first cause rationalisations (not
proofs) and imagines everybody else should fall for them.
I don't claim anyone should fall for first cause arguments, nor have I
employed any in this thread. This is yet another red herring. Notice
Christopher will write many lines of text, yet never make an attempt to
answer the question which is central to the thread: his reasons for
believing that uncaused events have been observed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 08:56:51 PM |
|
|
In <1137365009.630836.103980@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Nico
Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote:
So Christopher decides to "killfile" me rather than answer the question of
the thread, or attempt to offer what he thinks is the proper definition of
"faith".
Where do you get off thinking he owes you anything?
Get help 'kay?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Charity hospital closes for good
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3D51207C
A city on hold
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3E55207C
If Katrina was a "judgment," god hates poor people
and churches but loves a good party...
http://www.nola.com/mardigras/
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 04:14:17 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137361096.113890.38780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Well I'm not the person you are addressing but what you are posing here
is
an equivocation fallacy. Faith in ordinary natural events occuring in a
regular fashion is a testable/falsifiable conclusion based on past
experience. Religious faith means accepting an untestable claim from
authority.
I was thinking of "faith" more in the sense of believing in something
without the ability to furnish evidence or even an understanding of the
subject at hand, or just belief without reason.
I think that Christopher would be the first to point out that his acceptance
of quantum findings does not mean he is 100% certain of their validity. I
suspect that he places a certain amount of confidence upon the findings
based on the amount of confirmation garnered by the scientific community. A
community with a good track record whose previous findings have resulted in
such devices as television sets, automobiles, and usenet. Devices that would
not work if their findings were bogus.
I may be completely wrong, and Christopher my not agree with the above at
all, but that's my rationale.
As for "religious faith," I think we can have certain kinds of
religious faith which is testable. While something like "the deity that
spoke to Abraham is the same who created the universe" seems
untestable, a statement like "my swami can turn water into blood" (or
"a living prophet of Yahweh can summon extraterrestrial chariots") does
seem testable, despite being a religious position.
Does a person who says "there might be a god" have faith in god? I don't
think many theists would say that he does. That indicates to me that, among
theists, faith is actually a code-word for absolute certainty. Yet they're
not afraid to argue as if faith means doubt or hope like it does in
every-day usage, and then close their bait and switch to justify their own
absolute certainty.
And why is it that you employed "falsifiable" when referring to the
former sort of faith, yet opted not to do so when referring to the
latter? Couldn't religious faith be falsifiable? I think so. For
example, if a person gives reasons under which he would be willing to
admit that a particular religious position is false (e.g. "if you show
me an error in the Quran I will conclude it is not from Allah"), then
that particular religious position does seem to be falsifiable.
But that depends entirely on the person involved, not on evidence presented.
If he's not willing to admit that his faith can be falsified, then it is
impossible to do so.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bullet" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
16 Jan 2006 07:37:11 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:NeSdnUXHdPWuVFfeRVn-jg@io.com...
"Nico Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137361096.113890.38780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Well I'm not the person you are addressing but what you are posing here
is
an equivocation fallacy. Faith in ordinary natural events occuring in a
regular fashion is a testable/falsifiable conclusion based on past
experience. Religious faith means accepting an untestable claim from
authority.
I was thinking of "faith" more in the sense of believing in something
without the ability to furnish evidence or even an understanding of the
subject at hand, or just belief without reason.
I think that Christopher would be the first to point out that his
acceptance of quantum findings does not mean he is 100% certain of their
validity. I suspect that he places a certain amount of confidence upon the
findings based on the amount of confirmation garnered by the scientific
community. A community with a good track record whose previous findings
have resulted in such devices as television sets, automobiles, and usenet.
Devices that would not work if their findings were bogus.
I may be completely wrong, and Christopher my not agree with the above at
all, but that's my rationale.
As for "religious faith," I think we can have certain kinds of
religious faith which is testable. While something like "the deity that
spoke to Abraham is the same who created the universe" seems
untestable, a statement like "my swami can turn water into blood" (or
"a living prophet of Yahweh can summon extraterrestrial chariots") does
seem testable, despite being a religious position.
Does a person who says "there might be a god" have faith in god? I don't
think many theists would say that he does. That indicates to me that,
among theists, faith is actually a code-word for absolute certainty. Yet
they're not afraid to argue as if faith means doubt or hope like it does
in every-day usage, and then close their bait and switch to justify their
own absolute certainty.
God is hypothetical ('might be' conjecture)
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjectural. One can't express a
high level of confidence unless there is proof, where proof is simply the
cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a statement, or the process
of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other
statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. See www.m-w.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
16 Jan 2006 10:42:23 PM |
|
|
In article <U_adnRFIz5S711HenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bullet" <b@nospam.net> wrote:
God is hypothetical
Non-existence of all gods is equally hypothetical!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 04:36:10 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
I think that Christopher would be the first to point out that his acceptance
of quantum findings does not mean he is 100% certain of their validity.
Which would be the safest thing to do, but he has not done such, and
this is because he views all these discussions in a very
confrontational "us vs them" sort of way. In other words, he refuses to
admit that he doesn't understand the justification for a position he
has pushed, because he fears that doing such would be giving ground to
the "godbots". Instead he opts to make claims, and call people moron,
liar, et cetera. So, I've taken to ribbing him occasionally over the
last year, with these sorts of posts.
I suspect that he places a certain amount of confidence upon the findings
based on the amount of confirmation garnered by the scientific community. A
community with a good track record whose previous findings have resulted in
such devices as television sets, automobiles, and usenet. Devices that would
not work if their findings were bogus.
I agree (i.e. this is along the lines of Dawkins' point that every time
a Creationist steps on an airplane he is exhibiting a certain amount of
faith in science).
However, with Christopher, he parades himself around as having every
belief being backed up by a reason for that belief, but his reasons for
believing that uncaused events have been observed have yet to be
furnished. So this is, as has been noted, not an attempt to cast doubt
on any realm of science. Rather I am merely taking a rather nasty
poster to task.
As for "religious faith," I think we can have certain kinds of
religious faith which is testable. While something like "the deity that
spoke to Abraham is the same who created the universe" seems
untestable, a statement like "my swami can turn water into blood" (or
"a living prophet of Yahweh can summon extraterrestrial chariots") does
seem testable, despite being a religious position.
Does a person who says "there might be a god" have faith in god? I don't
think many theists would say that he does.
I imagine a person with no faith in god could claim "there might be a
god" after a course in modal logic. So no, I do not believe the
statement conveys faith in the existence of god (or even faith in the
possible existence of god!).
That indicates to me that, among
theists, faith is actually a code-word for absolute certainty.
That would be a strange sort of theist (or more correctly put: a
wackjob theist).
Yet they're
not afraid to argue as if faith means doubt or hope like it does in
every-day usage, and then close their bait and switch to justify their own
absolute certainty.
Perhaps certain posters do that, but that was not my intention in this
thread. In no way was I going to argue "Christopher has blind faith in
a certain claim about QM, therefore my faith in [insert religious
belief] is justified," as that would be a terrible argument.
And why is it that you employed "falsifiable" when referring to the
former sort of faith, yet opted not to do so when referring to the
latter? Couldn't religious faith be falsifiable? I think so. For
example, if a person gives reasons under which he would be willing to
admit that a particular religious position is false (e.g. "if you show
me an error in the Quran I will conclude it is not from Allah"), then
that particular religious position does seem to be falsifiable.
But that depends entirely on the person involved, not on evidence presented.
If he's not willing to admit that his faith can be falsified, then it is
impossible to do so.
Fine, but the point was that even a religious position can be
falsifiable. The example above seems to clearly demonstrate such by
furnishing an example.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 03:36:10 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2006 10:29:02 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
"Nico Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1137359411.667107.26300@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<SNIP>
Now, exploring Christopher A. Lee's faith, I'd like to call to witness
something he wrote on January 12:
"ONE NEEDS A REASON TO BELIEVE SOMETHING. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON
TO DO SO, ONE DOESN'T BELIEVE."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/92241e756862b48
a
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased and/or
truly random events? For example, if a person observes an event, what
is YOUR REASON for concluding that the event observed was wholly
uncuased or truly random?
Do you even have a reason? Or do you just accept things on faith?
He was lying again. As is usual with an imposed false dichotomy - even
though the totally randomnature of quantum events has been pointed out
to him several times already.
Well I'm not the person you are addressing but what you are posing here is
an equivocation fallacy. Faith in ordinary natural events occuring in a
regular fashion is a testable/falsifiable conclusion based on past
experience. Religious faith means accepting an untestable claim from
authority.
He knows that and was being dishinest.
He's also replacing more accurate words with "believe" to reduce
reality to a belief.
Science merely follows where observation and investigation lead.
He's already been told several times it it is totally, statistically
random which atom decays first. He cannot grasp the significance of
its being truly random.
If it weren't, one could look for a cause.
QM is merely part of the scientific whole which he selectively rejects
for his own reasons that don't concern me.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 03:45:47 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased and/or
truly random events? For example, if a person observes an event, what
is YOUR REASON for concluding that the event observed was wholly
uncuased or truly random?
Do you even have a reason? Or do you just accept things on faith?
He was lying again. As is usual with an imposed false dichotomy - even
though the totally randomnature of quantum events has been pointed out
to him several times already.
Yes, there is no doubt that you have said many times that quanum events
have a purely random nature. The veracity of that claim is not even
being disputed by me. The question is why do you believe it is true. Do
you have reasons to believe any particular event is purely random? Or
do you just believe such because someone else said so?
Notice that despite contributing to the thread, Christopher has yet to
make an attempt at actually answering the question.
Well I'm not the person you are addressing but what you are posing here is
an equivocation fallacy. Faith in ordinary natural events occuring in a
regular fashion is a testable/falsifiable conclusion based on past
experience. Religious faith means accepting an untestable claim from
authority.
He knows that and was being dishinest.
Cf. my response to Llanzan.
He's also replacing more accurate words with "believe" to reduce
reality to a belief.
Science merely follows where observation and investigation lead.
Fine. Now, assuming we observe an event (like a thing coming into
existence), on what grounds would YOU, Christopher A. Lee, conclude
that the event just observed was wholly uncaused? You believe there can
be uncaused events on the grounds that uncaused events have been
observed. But how do you know that? Or, more specifically, WHY do you
believe that uncaused events have been observed? Why not tell us your
reasons?
He's already been told several times it it is totally, statistically
random which atom decays first. He cannot grasp the significance of
its being truly random.
I can understand the significance of an event being random, but the
question is what is the justification for the claim that the event is
random. So, what are YOUR REASONS for claiming that any particular
event was uncaused or truly random?
QM is merely part of the scientific whole which he selectively rejects
for his own reasons that don't concern me.
Christopher is simply lying. When did I ever say I reject QM? Notice he
is trying to poison the well and offer a red herring. Rather than
answer the actual question of the thread, he opts to paint me as a
rejector of science instead. Of course, whether I reject any particular
realm of science or not, that does answer the central question of the
thread: if an event is observed, what are CHRISTOPHER'S REASONS for
concluding that the event was uncaused or truly random?
<crickets chirping>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 08:27:35 PM |
|
|
In <1137359411.667107.26300@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Nico
Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote:
The faith of Christopher A. Lee was explored back in March and April of
last year, e.g:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/555631d86063e107
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/469370a77ea21dc3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/4e6f55739045d893
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/e08096257fbf47e0
Now, note that the intention of this thread is neither to attempt to
demonstrate the veracity of theism (or any particular form of theism, e.g:
Christianity) nor to attempt to demonstrate the falsity of quantum
mechanics (henceforth: QM). The intention of this thread is to expose one
of the most abusive and nasty posters in alt.atheism as holding a certain
position regarding QM (which he appeals to quite often) wholly on faith
(cf. the third post from the top of the four linked to above).
Now, exploring Christopher A. Lee's faith, I'd like to call to witness
something he wrote on January 12:
"ONE NEEDS A REASON TO BELIEVE SOMETHING. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON TO
DO SO, ONE DOESN'T BELIEVE."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/92241e756862b48a
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased and/or
truly random events? For example, if a person observes an event, what is
YOUR REASON for concluding that the event observed was wholly uncuased or
truly random?
Do you even have a reason? Or do you just accept things on faith?
You need a life.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Charity hospital closes for good
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3D51207C
A city on hold
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3E55207C
If Katrina was a "judgment," god hates poor people
and churches but loves a good party...
http://www.nola.com/mardigras/
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 08:37:02 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
The faith of Christopher A. Lee was explored back in March and April of
last year, e.g:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/555631d86063e107
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/469370a77ea21dc3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/4e6f55739045d893
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/e08096257fbf47e0
Now, note that the intention of this thread is neither to attempt to
demonstrate the veracity of theism (or any particular form of theism, e.g:
Christianity) nor to attempt to demonstrate the falsity of quantum
mechanics (henceforth: QM). The intention of this thread is to expose one
of the most abusive and nasty posters in alt.atheism as holding a certain
position regarding QM (which he appeals to quite often) wholly on faith
(cf. the third post from the top of the four linked to above).
Now, exploring Christopher A. Lee's faith, I'd like to call to witness
something he wrote on January 12:
"ONE NEEDS A REASON TO BELIEVE SOMETHING. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON TO
DO SO, ONE DOESN'T BELIEVE."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/92241e756862b48a
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased and/or
truly random events? For example, if a person observes an event, what is
YOUR REASON for concluding that the event observed was wholly uncuased or
truly random?
Do you even have a reason? Or do you just accept things on faith?
You need a life.
It may be the case that I "need a life," though I don't see how that is
relevant to this thread (i.e. the issue of Christopher A. Lee giving
reasons for a specific position he holds). This is alt.atheism, where
sometimes those who are nasty end up being the subjects of threads
(e.g. the long running exchanges between Duke and Yang, or Vrigil[?]
and the guy he calls "scepsis" or "spetic capon the simple pimple").
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 08:55:11 PM |
|
|
In <1137379022.726676.121370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Nico
Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
The faith of Christopher A. Lee was explored back in March and April
of last year, e.g:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/555631d86063e107
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/469370a77ea21dc3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/4e6f55739045d893
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/e08096257fbf47e0
Now, note that the intention of this thread is neither to attempt to
demonstrate the veracity of theism (or any particular form of theism,
e.g: Christianity) nor to attempt to demonstrate the falsity of
quantum mechanics (henceforth: QM). The intention of this thread is to
expose one of the most abusive and nasty posters in alt.atheism as
holding a certain position regarding QM (which he appeals to quite
often) wholly on faith (cf. the third post from the top of the four
linked to above).
Now, exploring Christopher A. Lee's faith, I'd like to call to witness
something he wrote on January 12:
"ONE NEEDS A REASON TO BELIEVE SOMETHING. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON
TO DO SO, ONE DOESN'T BELIEVE."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/92241e756862b48a
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased
and/or truly random events? For example, if a person observes an
event, what is YOUR REASON for concluding that the event observed was
wholly uncuased or truly random?
Do you even have a reason? Or do you just accept things on faith?
You need a life.
It may be the case that I "need a life," though I don't see how that is
relevant to this thread (i.e. the issue of Christopher A. Lee giving
reasons for a specific position he holds). This is alt.atheism, where
sometimes those who are nasty end up being the subjects of threads (e.g.
the long running exchanges between Duke and Yang, or Vrigil[?] and the guy
he calls "scepsis" or "spetic capon the simple pimple").
Boy do you *really need a life.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Charity hospital closes for good
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3D51207C
A city on hold
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3E55207C
If Katrina was a "judgment," god hates poor people
and churches but loves a good party...
http://www.nola.com/mardigras/
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 04:20:13 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 15 Jan 2006 13:10:11 -0800, "Nico Demusopelous"
<jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased and/or
truly random events?
Evidence.
I have a question for you: why are you such a fucking loser?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 04:45:23 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased and/or
truly random events?
Evidence.
Evidence? Such as? What evidence has CHRISTOPHER A. LEE seen that led
him to believe that uncaused events had been observed?
I have a question for you: why are you such a fucking loser?
If I am a "fucking loser," the reasons for such could be many. I
wonder, however, how this is relevant to the question posed in the
thread. Are you merely trying to employ ad hominems and red herrings on
Christopher's behalf?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 08:37:51 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 15 Jan 2006 14:45:23 -0800, "Nico Demusopelous"
<jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased and/or
truly random events?
Evidence.
Evidence?
Yes.
Such as?
You ask this as if you have done no research on a subject for
which your text makes it sound as if you are an expect.
So why are you a fucking loser?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 08:43:23 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased and/or
truly random events?
Evidence.
Evidence?
Yes.
Such as?
You ask this as if you have done no research on a subject for
which your text makes it sound as if you are an expect.
So why are you a fucking loser?
Do you even know what the subject is? We are trying to determine what
reasons CHRISTOPHER A. LEE believes that uncaused events have been
observed. How do I research such a topic? As far as I can see, the only
thing I can do is ask Christopher himself, and that is precisely what I
have been doing for nearly two years now. He has yet to furnish an
answer.
And again, are you merely trying to employ ad-hominems on Christopher's
behalf?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 08:55:51 PM |
|
|
In <1137379403.237423.255410@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Nico
Demusopelous" <jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> wrote:
We are trying to determine what
reasons CHRISTOPHER A. LEE believes that uncaused events have been
observed.
No, "we" aren't.
How do I research such a topic?
Learn physics.
Now, go away.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Charity hospital closes for good
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3D51207C
A city on hold
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3E55207C
If Katrina was a "judgment," god hates poor people
and churches but loves a good party...
http://www.nola.com/mardigras/
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
16 Jan 2006 09:04:18 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 15 Jan 2006 18:43:23 -0800, "Nico Demusopelous"
<jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased and/or
truly random events?
Evidence.
Evidence?
Yes.
Such as?
You ask this as if you have done no research on a subject for
which your text makes it sound as if you are an expect.
So why are you a fucking loser?
Do you even know what the subject is?
Yes: the subject is why you're such a fucking pathetic loser.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 04:30:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:20:13 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On 15 Jan 2006 13:10:11 -0800, "Nico Demusopelous"
<jesusboy_1988@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Even the moron's subject line is a slander.
So, then, Christopher, in light of the above, can you tell us what YOU
REASONS are for believing that scientists have observed uncuased and/or
truly random events?
Evidence.
I have a question for you: why are you such a fucking loser?
I've told him several times. It's not a belief in the sense he uses
it. It's part of the unified whole which is known as scientific
understanding of reality.
When its explanations work there is no reason to doubt them. He
doesn't understand this.
Or the random nature of events at the quantum level. Truly,
statistically random. For example in radioactive decay it is truly,
completely, statistically random which atom decays first. It could be
an old one, or one newly decayed itself. It cannot be predicted.
If it weren't random one could look for possible rules, causes and
explanations.
He's hung up on first cause "proofs". But hasn't addressed the other
reasons they fail, that they try to generate information where there
isn't any and make the non-sequitur leap to the god he already
believes in. He imagines everybody should find these as convincing as
he does - but they're statements of belief not proofs of anything.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 05:32:00 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Even the moron's subject line is a slander.
By the way, what is the difference between slander and libel? Isn't the
former spoke and the latter written? If so, in no way is what I wrote
"slander".
Now let's see if it is "libel". That would be something in writing
which is false and damages a person's reputation. Well, let me give you
an example (i.e. a basic reconstruction) of the nature/essence of this
conversation over nearly the last two years:
.
CHRISTOPHER: Uncaused events have been observed you fucking moron.
NICO: What is your justification for the claim that uncaused events
have been observed?
CHRISTOPHER: Go read about QM you nasty fucking lying godbot!
NICO: Yes, I've read about QM to a small degree, but I'm asking for
your justification. For example, if an event is observed, on what
philosophical grounds do you conclude that the event was uncaused?
CHRISTOPHER: Philosophy doesn't determine such you fucking fundo twit!
Why do you lie so much? Why do you require that sane people believe in
a thing that does not exist outside of your fantasies?
NICO: Okay, let me rephrase the question: if an event is observed, on
what grounds do you conclude that the event was uncaused.
CHRISTOPHER: Because its random you stupid *****! If it wasn't random
then you could look for a cause. I already told you about QM you silly
fucking godbot but you want to pretent science is some sort of atheist
catechism. Why can't you fucking idiots accept that atheists see your
"god" as only being part of somebody else's theology?
NICO: I don't claim science is an "atheist catechism". As for the
assertion that it is "random," what is your justification for that
claim? You have pushed the discussion back a step by saying it is
uncaused because it is random, but if you observe an event, on what
grounds do you conclude that it was truly random and without cause?
CHRISTOPHER: I already answered this! Because it is random you fucking
moron!
NICO: Yes, you said it was random, but the question is: what is your
justification for concluding that it is random? Or do you just accept
this position on faith?
CHRISTOPHER: It's fucking random!!! And what "faith" you fucking liar?
.
We've been going back and forth like this for nearly two years, and now
Christopher claims he has killfiled me. But notice that in not a single
instance of the myriad threads where I have attempt to extract the
relevant information has Christopher given any answer. He'll type lines
and lines of text, but never makes any attempt to answer the central
question: what are his reasons for believing that people have observed
events which were truly random and uncaused?
<crickets chirping>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: THE FAITH OF CHRISTOPHER A. LEE (another look) |
15 Jan 2006 04:57:22 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
I've told him several times. It's not a belief in the sense he uses
it. It's part of the unified whole which is known as scientific
understanding of reality.
Fine, but the scientific understanding of reality is based on a
collection of premises. Christopher A. Lee has asserted one particular
premise, and I am asking why he believes it is true. He was apparently
unable to answer, and thus opted to "killfile" me.
When its explanations work there is no reason to doubt them. He
doesn't understand this.
I understand this just fine, though there is certainly more to science
than merely an explanation "working".
But the question was about Christopher's reasons for believing that
uncaused events have been observed. He never answered (despite the fact
that I have asked him this question for well over a year!).
Or the random nature of events at the quantum level. Truly,
statistically random.
We've covered this more than a year ago. For example, cf. the following
post from April of 2004:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/f8fe7e3f8e37d7c1
In that thread I had asked him to justify the claim that certain events
observed were uncaused. He justified it by calling them "random". But
that only pushes the question back a step: what is his justification
for calling them "random"? In other words, how did he reach that
conclusion? Instead of answering the question, he spends nearly two
years simply asserting that they are random.
For example in radioactive decay it is truly,
completely, statistically random which atom decays first. It could be
an old one, or one newly decayed itself. It cannot be predicted.
Notice here that this is not enough for telling us if this is an
ontological issue or an epistemological issue. In other words, is it
truly random, period, or is the conclusion that it is truly random
based on an inability to accurately predict the next step? This too was
dealt with more than a year ago.
But more importantly, assuming Christopher means it is more than merely
an epistemic issue, the question still stands: what is his
justification for asserting that an event is truly random and uncaused?
If it weren't random one could look for possible rules, causes and
explanations.
Gee, he already wrote this (and did so several times before). This
doesn't answer the relevant question, unfortunately.
He's hung up on first cause "proofs". But hasn't addressed the other
reasons they fail, that they try to generate information where there
isn't any and make the non-sequitur leap to the god he already
believes in. He imagines everybody should find these as convincing as
he does - but they're statements of belief not proofs of anything.
This is a red herring. Did I raise any first cause argument in this
thread? No. Is the validity or soundness of any particular first cause
argument relevant to this thread? No.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
