Stanfords new definition of atheism

Still bullshit

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#21  Postby laklak » Aug 12, 2017 3:02 pm

Image
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 16372
Age: 63
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#22  Postby John Platko » Aug 12, 2017 3:05 pm

Wortfish wrote:
...
If you don't try and refute the proposition then it becomes true by default.


:scratch: :eh: :what: :doh:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 8574
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#23  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Aug 12, 2017 3:07 pm

Whether something is true or not is irrelevant of whether people are interested in arguing about it with you.
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: a certain type of girl
Posts: 11392
Age: 29
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#24  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 12, 2017 3:17 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Fallible wrote:
You appear to be claiming that people are born believing in God. Show your workings out.

No. I am claiming that the proposition that God exists has been proposed.

A great many things throughout history, have been proposed, from fairies and dragons to aliens and ghosts. All of them place a burden of proof on the people making the claim.

Wortfish wrote:Ignoring it means you have no say on the matter.

Nope.

Wortfish wrote:
Someone doesn't understand the difference between holding a position in discourse and simply existing in a certain state. Or do you think that in order to not hold a belief in leprechauns you have to show how rainbows and cobbling happen without them? Give over.

Not talking about beliefs, we are talking about propositions. You can believe in lots of things, but that doesn't make them propositions.

Actually it does. If you positively believe in something you believe something about that proposition.
proposition
prɒpəˈzɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: proposition; plural noun: propositions

1.
a statement or assertion that expresses a judgement or opinion.

Just because you haven't verbalised that opinion or judgement, doesn't mean it isn't a proposition.

Wortfish wrote:
No dear, you don't have to do anything in order to not have a belief in some crap. I wish you and your ilk would desist this tiresome wank.

If you don't try and refute the proposition then it becomes true by default.

Unlike Fall, I was doubting, but this last line of yours demonstrates you're either a really bad troll, or someone who really does not understand how basic logic works.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27121
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#25  Postby Wortfish » Aug 12, 2017 3:33 pm

Rumraket wrote:
So the null hypothesis "There is a God that does not interact with gravity or electromagnetism, can deliberately choose to hide from us using His omnipotent will, and knows all actions and thoughts we will ever have" is a completely unfalsifiable proposition. As such, it can never ever become a proper null hypothesis.

Leaving aside God's propensity to hide himself - which most theists don't actually claim as they say the signs of his existence are everywhere in Nature - all you have to to refute the proposition of a Creator-God is to show that the universe was never created but has always existed. Failing that, you just need to show that no Creator-God was required to create the universe.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 506

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#26  Postby Wortfish » Aug 12, 2017 3:37 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Just because you haven't verbalised that opinion or judgement, doesn't mean it isn't a proposition.

A proposition is a formal declaration that something is true and can be objectively confirmed or refuted.

Unlike Fall, I was doubting, but this last line of yours demonstrates you're either a really bad troll, or someone who really does not understand how basic logic works.

If you don't show up in court to defend your case, then the other side wins by default.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 506

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#27  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 12, 2017 3:46 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Just because you haven't verbalised that opinion or judgement, doesn't mean it isn't a proposition.

A proposition is a formal declaration that something is true and can be objectively confirmed or refuted.

I already quoted a dictionary definition that refutes this.
So you either haven't bothered to read my post, or dishonestly pretending I already demonstrated otherwise.

Wortfish wrote:
Unlike Fall, I was doubting, but this last line of yours demonstrates you're either a really bad troll, or someone who really does not understand how basic logic works.

If you don't show up in court to defend your case, then the other side wins by default.

Wrong. You might get arrested and imprisoned for failing to appear in court, but there needs to be actual evidence to demonstrate your guilt. The maxim is 'innocent till proven guilty'. Not 'guilty unless you demonstrate innocence'.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27121
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#28  Postby BlackBart » Aug 12, 2017 3:54 pm

Even if it were true, this isn't a court. :coffee:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 10467
Age: 55
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#29  Postby monkeyboy » Aug 12, 2017 4:29 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Just because you haven't verbalised that opinion or judgement, doesn't mean it isn't a proposition.

A proposition is a formal declaration that something is true and can be objectively confirmed or refuted.

Unlike Fall, I was doubting, but this last line of yours demonstrates you're either a really bad troll, or someone who really does not understand how basic logic works.

If you don't show up in court to defend your case, then the other side wins by default.


So, people have shown up. Your claim re god's existence is declared preposterous. Let's see you pony up your evidence. Just saying stuff doesn't make it so.

Ask my daughter about the tooth fairy, she'll tell it exists because every time she puts a tooth under her pillow, it vanishes in the night and is replaced with a shiny coin. The tooth fairy even spotted when she cheated and used one of the dog's teeth. It was gone in the morning and a nice dog biscuit was there in its place. She's got her evidence but she's wrong. It's all fakery and nonsense made up to make losing teeth less traumatic and more fun. The tooth fairy ain't real, her mum has all her old teeth in a little box for some reason I've never understood.

But even if it's bad evidence due to not having all the available data, at least she'd be able to present a reasonably put case. So what's the case for god?

Me, I'm no astro- physicist, hardly capable of understanding latest theories on the big bang but I'm also incapable of understanding how computers work. Computers do work along with pretty much everything that scientific knowledge has produced so I'm happy to trust what those who know things that I don't say.

So far, no claim I've heard of god's work or power to do anything has been reliably shown to be true. Have you got something new Wortfish, or are you yet another who just expects people to disprove the existence of an idea without substance?

Origins of god stories are all based in superstitious people's attempts to understand their world and ascribe meaning to phenomenon such as the weather. Their claims were irrefutable up to them being shown to be wrong. Put that along with the flat earth idea, the global flood, the piss poor understanding of disease, anatomy, animal species, the number of insect legs, etc etc and it don't add up to anything reliable or anything beyond wild guesses becoming "fact" due to powerful people harbouring them and killing people who disagreed.....up until relatively recently in our histories.

Unless you live in ISIS held territory, and a few other strict Muslim states, your beliefs aren't uncritically protected any more and held as "knowledge" or "fact". They are beliefs only. If you want people to accept them as more than just beliefs based on a lack of contrary evidence, then all you have is something on a par with my daughter's belief in the tooth fairy, which gets you a patronising smile but that's about the weight of its worth.

So, that evidence? In your own time.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5321
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#30  Postby crank » Aug 12, 2017 4:46 pm

Fallible wrote:

No dear, you don't have to do anything in order to not have a belief in some crap. I wish you and your ilk would desist this tiresome wank.

Indeed, their excited ejaculations absolutely ooze with unctuous desperation, an impotent rage in the face of reality. And I'll slink away quietly now. :silenced:
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10358
Age: 2
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#31  Postby Rumraket » Aug 12, 2017 6:31 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
So the null hypothesis "There is a God that does not interact with gravity or electromagnetism, can deliberately choose to hide from us using His omnipotent will, and knows all actions and thoughts we will ever have" is a completely unfalsifiable proposition. As such, it can never ever become a proper null hypothesis.

Leaving aside God's propensity to hide himself - which most theists don't actually claim as they say the signs of his existence are everywhere in Nature

Yes they say this, but can never actually seem to get around showing how anything is evidence of God. And when questioned, all their rationalizations melt away.

Wortfish wrote:all you have to to refute the proposition of a Creator-God is to show that the universe was never created but has always existed. Failing that, you just need to show that no Creator-God was required to create the universe.

Any idiot can just make up a null-hypothesis and demand everyone else disprove it otherwise it's true by default.

I hereby declare that the universe has a cyclic nature and starts over when it becomes 15 billion years old, and that it has been through an infinite number of such cycles in the past and that the same exact history repeats itself every time. Prove me wrong or it's true by default.

Look, my proposition is falsifiable, we just have to wait another 1.18 billion years. So until it is falsified, we must believe it to be true. That's basically what you're proposing we do. Take your pet theory and accept it to be true until we disprove it. Why your pet theory over mine? Mine is simpler than yours, I only postulate the universe and it's eternal nature, nothing extra.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12594
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#32  Postby zoon » Aug 12, 2017 9:39 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
So the null hypothesis "There is a God that does not interact with gravity or electromagnetism, can deliberately choose to hide from us using His omnipotent will, and knows all actions and thoughts we will ever have" is a completely unfalsifiable proposition. As such, it can never ever become a proper null hypothesis.

Leaving aside God's propensity to hide himself - which most theists don't actually claim as they say the signs of his existence are everywhere in Nature -,.......

Like others here, I would be interested to know what signs of God's existence you have in mind?
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 2784

Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#33  Postby Wortfish » Aug 13, 2017 2:29 am

zoon wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
So the null hypothesis "There is a God that does not interact with gravity or electromagnetism, can deliberately choose to hide from us using His omnipotent will, and knows all actions and thoughts we will ever have" is a completely unfalsifiable proposition. As such, it can never ever become a proper null hypothesis.

Leaving aside God's propensity to hide himself - which most theists don't actually claim as they say the signs of his existence are everywhere in Nature -,.......

Like others here, I would be interested to know what signs of God's existence you have in mind?

Oh...you know....eclipses, flagella, molecular codes, finely-tuned physical constants....that sort of thing.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 506

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#34  Postby Wortfish » Aug 13, 2017 2:34 am

Rumraket wrote:
Any idiot can just make up a null-hypothesis and demand everyone else disprove it otherwise it's true by default.

You don't have to disprove it...that would be impossible. But you can show that your explanation is better and the more plausible.

I hereby declare that the universe has a cyclic nature and starts over when it becomes 15 billion years old, and that it has been through an infinite number of such cycles in the past and that the same exact history repeats itself every time. Prove me wrong or it's true by default.

Well, I think we can show that an infinite cycle could not possibly be true as it would have to be absolutely perfect and could not fail. It would have to somehow overcome entropy...etc....etc...We CAN show this idea to be ex recto nonsense.

Look, my proposition is falsifiable, we just have to wait another 1.18 billion years. So until it is falsified, we must believe it to be true. That's basically what you're proposing we do. Take your pet theory and accept it to be true until we disprove it. Why your pet theory over mine? Mine is simpler than yours, I only postulate the universe and it's eternal nature, nothing extra.

No. We don't have to wait. If it is logically flawed or incoherent, your hypothesis can be dismissed out of hand.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 506

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#35  Postby Thommo » Aug 13, 2017 2:41 am

Wortfish wrote:...eclipses...


Wait, the moon's shadow is evidence of god now?

I think that might need some elaboration. :?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21623

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#36  Postby pelfdaddy » Aug 13, 2017 4:18 am

The thing that enrages me, the poison fang against which modern atheism has arisen to protect civilization, is this fork-tongued lie propagated to every successive generation; that belief in these pompous, inaccessible and invisible super-people is the default position. Does wortfish intend that this august forum, the galleries of which cluster with luminaries of lucidity gazing down upon his or her vapid foray into the arena of discursive combat, imbibe the proposed flask--that merely because generations of the ignoble and ignorant have brainwashed their offspring even as they tumble slime-caked from between the legs of their superstitious mothers they should trust to these mythical nursery stories until they are overwhelmingly refuted by evidence for their negation?

We are suffering the effects even now, as we leap chasms of hard-won advancement, of our docile acceptance of this multi-generational psychosis.

Every god ever proposed was invented by a self-appointed spokesman, because every god ever proposed requires a priest. And what does every priest promise? Abundant agricultural yields, perfect bodily health, prosperity, special knowledge and eternal life. And what does every priest require in exchange?

Access. Access to you, your money, your loyalty, your absolute trust, your cooperation as a soldier within the walls of the cult fighting unseen enemies without. Access to your time, your heart and mind, and the blood of your sons. Access to the vaginas of your wives and daughters, and to the best wine in your cellar.

The access, the money, the loyalty are all paid up front, but the blessings? The miracles? The prosperity and well-being? All in good time.

And presiding over this multi-millennial catastrophic wastage of human assets is the ugly shadow of a deity passing clumsily over village life, the frigid shadow of the cathedral spire as it circles every city and points perfectly away from the sun, the throbbing shadow of the priest as it falls upon the trembling face of the child whose innocence is about to be taken by the angrily dripping dick of some faith hero who would surely make wortfish proud.

This is what we are here to contest. This is the superstition and the basic evil, the freight train of ignorance the tracks of which are laid down in the non-stop labors of the faithful even now. This forum exists because some of us are compelled to stand athwart those rumbling rails crying STOP.

This chain of slavery is forged by self-interest, carried forth by mean tradition, wrapped around the arms and breast by false humility and padlocked by the threat of violence. It is broken by the mind. This scrambling for a favorable definition, this race to the high ground to plant the flag of the burden of proof, this resort to apologetics, are the last grasping attempts of the liars and thieves who depend upon this threat, who sleep in this dark shadow, to lay hold on subsequent generations of human lives. How they wish, how they tear their garments and bite holes in their scarlet hats wishing, that the old days would return and they could simply beat us to death.

Do not forget that if this conversation were taking place four centuries ago, no argument over propositional positioning and burdens of proof would be necessary--only the weighty decision of wortfish and the other respected theologians as to whether our lives should be spared, or whether torture unto death should be employed.

I hope they will not take it too personally when we, in an effort to defend the future, invite them to fuck themselves until they bleed.
Last edited by pelfdaddy on Aug 13, 2017 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 943
Age: 51
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#37  Postby monkeyboy » Aug 13, 2017 7:35 am

Wortfish wrote:
zoon wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
So the null hypothesis "There is a God that does not interact with gravity or electromagnetism, can deliberately choose to hide from us using His omnipotent will, and knows all actions and thoughts we will ever have" is a completely unfalsifiable proposition. As such, it can never ever become a proper null hypothesis.

Leaving aside God's propensity to hide himself - which most theists don't actually claim as they say the signs of his existence are everywhere in Nature -,.......

Like others here, I would be interested to know what signs of God's existence you have in mind?

Oh...you know....eclipses, flagella, molecular codes, finely-tuned physical constants....that sort of thing.

So big complex things that lots of people don't understand enough themselves to be able to give a decent account of. Bravo sir, you've obviously proven god's existence........except you haven't done anything like that. All you're doing is ascribing a higher power to things either you don't understand fully or you find pretty amazing. That's proof of fuck all except your willingness to think god every time you're impressed by something.

So, if God created all this stuff, he also created tectonic plates etc, knowing up front that those shifting plates would cause earthquakes and tsunamis to kill thousands of people? He also made the not so finely tuned cells like cancer cells and brain cells which atrophy, and wasting muscular cells. Diseases, babies born with external organs or missing organs/limbs, lovely parasites who burrow through eyes etc etc etc.


Bit of cunt isn't he?
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5321
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#38  Postby Rumraket » Aug 13, 2017 7:41 am

Wortfish wrote:
zoon wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
So the null hypothesis "There is a God that does not interact with gravity or electromagnetism, can deliberately choose to hide from us using His omnipotent will, and knows all actions and thoughts we will ever have" is a completely unfalsifiable proposition. As such, it can never ever become a proper null hypothesis.

Leaving aside God's propensity to hide himself - which most theists don't actually claim as they say the signs of his existence are everywhere in Nature -,.......

Like others here, I would be interested to know what signs of God's existence you have in mind?

Oh...you know....eclipses, flagella, molecular codes, finely-tuned physical constants....that sort of thing.

So the moon isn't transparent to visible light means a God exists? Wat?

The flagellum evolved. So did the genetic code. There's no evidence the physical constants were fine-tuned or even that they can vary in any significant degree from what they are.

So by that sort of thing, you meant no evidence of God.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12594
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#39  Postby Rumraket » Aug 13, 2017 7:45 am

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Any idiot can just make up a null-hypothesis and demand everyone else disprove it otherwise it's true by default.

You don't have to disprove it...that would be impossible. But you can show that your explanation is better and the more plausible.

And here we see that you don't even understand what a null hypothesis is. No, you don't refute the null by simply coming up with an explanation. You refute it by observationally testing the predictions of your hypothesis.

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:I hereby declare that the universe has a cyclic nature and starts over when it becomes 15 billion years old, and that it has been through an infinite number of such cycles in the past and that the same exact history repeats itself every time. Prove me wrong or it's true by default.

Well, I think we can show that an infinite cycle could not possibly be true as it would have to be absolutely perfect and could not fail. It would have to somehow overcome entropy...etc....etc...We CAN show this idea to be ex recto nonsense.

Then do it. Show it to be ex recto nonsense.

Remember that all the same methods you would use to reject my infinite cycle, can be used to reject God. In other words your God can't possibly be true because it would have to be absolutely perfect and could not fail. It would have to somehow overcome entropy etc. etc.

Hoisted by your own petard.

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Look, my proposition is falsifiable, we just have to wait another 1.18 billion years. So until it is falsified, we must believe it to be true. That's basically what you're proposing we do. Take your pet theory and accept it to be true until we disprove it. Why your pet theory over mine? Mine is simpler than yours, I only postulate the universe and it's eternal nature, nothing extra.

No. We don't have to wait. If it is logically flawed or incoherent, your hypothesis can be dismissed out of hand.

Then do it. Show it to be logically flawed and incoherent.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12594
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#40  Postby Fallible » Aug 13, 2017 8:13 am

Wortfish wrote:
Fallible wrote:
You appear to be claiming that people are born believing in God. Show your workings out.

No. I am claiming that the proposition that God exists has been proposed.


Lol, no. You said the default proposition is that God exists, not merely that the proposition has been proposed. Clearly that would have been so stupidly redundant as to place it in the 'water is wet' category of revelations. What you were doing there was switching in the word 'proposition' when Scot Dutchy said only 'the default is atheism'. You're trying to direct the discourse away from atheism and towards atheist claims and arguments. Don't be sly, please. Atheism is the default with regard to the realm of belief. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Ignoring it means you have no say on the matter.


Wow, it looks as though we are in for yet another round of misunderstanding simple concepts. Scot Dutchy was not talking about 'say'. He even says 'atheists do not say it does not exists' for clarity (he's wrong there, some do), and you still managed to misconstrue it. See if you can stop trying to twist the discussion around to your favourite trolling points.

Someone doesn't understand the difference between holding a position in discourse and simply existing in a certain state. Or do you think that in order to not hold a belief in leprechauns you have to show how rainbows and cobbling happen without them? Give over.

Not talking about beliefs, we are talking about propositions. You can believe in lots of things, but that doesn't make them propositions.


No, the sentence you were replying to ('the default is atheism') was not talking about propositions. However it doesn't matter, since even when I am very very clearly talking about belief states, you still reply with a claim about propositions. See below.

No dear, you don't have to do anything in order to not have a belief in some crap. I wish you and your ilk would desist this tiresome wank.

If you don't try and refute the proposition then it becomes true by default.
[/quote]

Here. You see? I clearly speak about belief, and you still come back with an idiotic claim about refuting propositions. Obvious trolling is obvious. I guess we should put you down as a leprechaun believer then, since you haven't tried to refute the proposition that they exist.

As I said, you don't have to do anything in order to not have a belief in some crap. Your 'misunderstanding' over this is entirely of your making. I eagerly anticipate several more rounds of it to add to the hundreds of pages we have already seen here before everyone gives up on you.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 43938
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest