|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:17 pm
Valheita Honney Boy Valheita CH0Z0 Valheita Honney Boy The phrase "Agnostic atheist" would mean that you are unsure if you're an atheist. There's no reason to get nasty here, unless you're feeling insecure and want to make others pay for it. The links suggest otherwise. Care to cite your reasoning? I always get nasty when people don't listen. It's a personality flaw. perhaps you could leave your nasty someplace else. I am trying, but people keep bringing it back up. Deary Ducks, Wikipedia isn't a source. It's just a bunch of hearsay plopped into one place. There's no proof that anyone who's ever written anything in it is in any way qualified to. So, no citing your reasoning then? I'm sorry, but I simply can't see how the phrase agnostic atheist means anything remotely similar to that. I mean, an agnostic duck isn't someone who doesn't know whether or not they're a duck. Of course not. An agnostic duck is unsure of everything.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:31 pm
Honney Boy Valheita Honney Boy Valheita CH0Z0 perhaps you could leave your nasty someplace else. I am trying, but people keep bringing it back up. Deary Ducks, Wikipedia isn't a source. It's just a bunch of hearsay plopped into one place. There's no proof that anyone who's ever written anything in it is in any way qualified to. So, no citing your reasoning then? I'm sorry, but I simply can't see how the phrase agnostic atheist means anything remotely similar to that. I mean, an agnostic duck isn't someone who doesn't know whether or not they're a duck. Of course not. An agnostic duck is unsure of everything. If they're unsure of everything, they're unsure if they're a duck. =P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:15 am
Valheita Honney Boy Valheita Honney Boy Valheita CH0Z0 perhaps you could leave your nasty someplace else. I am trying, but people keep bringing it back up. Deary Ducks, Wikipedia isn't a source. It's just a bunch of hearsay plopped into one place. There's no proof that anyone who's ever written anything in it is in any way qualified to. So, no citing your reasoning then? I'm sorry, but I simply can't see how the phrase agnostic atheist means anything remotely similar to that. I mean, an agnostic duck isn't someone who doesn't know whether or not they're a duck. Of course not. An agnostic duck is unsure of everything. If they're unsure of everything, they're unsure if they're a duck. =P Are you sure they're that sure of which specie they are?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:41 pm
Gakre Valheita Honney Boy Valheita Honney Boy Deary Ducks, Wikipedia isn't a source. It's just a bunch of hearsay plopped into one place. There's no proof that anyone who's ever written anything in it is in any way qualified to. So, no citing your reasoning then? I'm sorry, but I simply can't see how the phrase agnostic atheist means anything remotely similar to that. I mean, an agnostic duck isn't someone who doesn't know whether or not they're a duck. Of course not. An agnostic duck is unsure of everything. If they're unsure of everything, they're unsure if they're a duck. =P Are you sure they're that sure of which specie they are? Given that ducks have no trouble identifying other ducks, while I daresay they don't call each other ducks, they know that they are a duck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:52 pm
Valheita Gakre Valheita Honney Boy Valheita Honney Boy Deary Ducks, Wikipedia isn't a source. It's just a bunch of hearsay plopped into one place. There's no proof that anyone who's ever written anything in it is in any way qualified to. So, no citing your reasoning then? I'm sorry, but I simply can't see how the phrase agnostic atheist means anything remotely similar to that. I mean, an agnostic duck isn't someone who doesn't know whether or not they're a duck. Of course not. An agnostic duck is unsure of everything. If they're unsure of everything, they're unsure if they're a duck. =P Are you sure they're that sure of which specie they are? Given that ducks have no trouble identifying other ducks, while I daresay they don't call each other ducks, they know that they are a duck.
Would the vast majority who think that goose is a duck be right, since there would be no one to disprove it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:13 pm
Pirate Captain Sushi Valheita Gakre Valheita Honney Boy Of course not. An agnostic duck is unsure of everything. If they're unsure of everything, they're unsure if they're a duck. =P Are you sure they're that sure of which specie they are? Given that ducks have no trouble identifying other ducks, while I daresay they don't call each other ducks, they know that they are a duck.
Would the vast majority who think that goose is a duck be right, since there would be no one to disprove it?I'm going to say no, just to be a duck. I'm also unclear on the purpose of this metafowlsical speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:09 am
I'm going to say maybe only because our world is full of mysteries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:46 am
I had a guinea pig that seemed to think it was a rabbit. It behaved like a rabbit, was accepted by the actual rabbit rabbits and even mated with them, of course producing offspring.
Ducks frequently have trouble identifying other ducks. Hunters exploit this with decoys of badly painted wood or clay and with little noise makers. You can also confuse them with puppets. When they're born they will imprint anything. A human hand is frequently confused for a duck.
On the subject of science and reality, science tells us there is no such thing as objectivity and that the null state of an uncollapsed waveform is a very definite maybe. All of the universe/multiverse has not yet been confirmed, observed and quantified therefore the existence of dieties would fall into the uncollapsed waveform of "maybe" That's just science though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:41 pm
kittycross On the subject of science and reality, science tells us there is no such thing as objectivity and that the null state of an uncollapsed waveform is a very definite maybe. All of the universe/multiverse has not yet been confirmed, observed and quantified therefore the existence of dieties would fall into the uncollapsed waveform of "maybe" That's just science though. The null state of an uncollapsed waveform is a superposition of all it's possible states, which mathematically averages to a "maybe". It's not a maybe in the sense that the english word would convey. Your argument also assumes that the waveform exists so as to be unobserved. This is an unqualified statement, and so would invalidate your logic in formal debate. Also, science is based around the concept of objectivity. If there was no objectivity, then no objective truths could be obtained, thus science could not exist. What science says is that things are relative, to the time-space window you are observing through, which is distinct from the idea of there being no objectivity. Since you're probably concerned about sources, I studied Quantum and Relativistic physics at University. I rather suspect that constitutes a source. God, and I told myself I wouldn't get into this again D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:03 pm
I am open to the idea of a higher power, but I don't think it is there at all times watching what happens and interfering.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
I prefer the clockmaker analogy, the idea that he is there, but might not be paying attention.
If he was omnipotent, and omniscient, wouldn't he be able to set everything up at the beginning, knowing how everything would turn out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:18 pm
Valheita kittycross On the subject of science and reality, science tells us there is no such thing as objectivity and that the null state of an uncollapsed waveform is a very definite maybe. All of the universe/multiverse has not yet been confirmed, observed and quantified therefore the existence of dieties would fall into the uncollapsed waveform of "maybe" That's just science though. The null state of an uncollapsed waveform is a superposition of all it's possible states, which mathematically averages to a "maybe". It's not a maybe in the sense that the english word would convey. Your argument also assumes that the waveform exists so as to be unobserved. This is an unqualified statement, and so would invalidate your logic in formal debate. Also, science is based around the concept of objectivity. If there was no objectivity, then no objective truths could be obtained, thus science could not exist. What science says is that things are relative, to the time-space window you are observing through, which is distinct from the idea of there being no objectivity. Since you're probably concerned about sources, I studied Quantum and Relativistic physics at University. I rather suspect that constitutes a source. God, and I told myself I wouldn't get into this again D: All observations, the fundaments of science, are relative to the observer and not truly objective. No person can ever be truly objective. No scientist, however scientific, stops being a person because he/she/it is looking at something and any data received ins interpreted by a person or persons inherently unobjective by the very nature of being a person. All science is relative to the inherent bias of humanity. Science is based on relative objectivity because that is the best anyone can do. Significant evidence surrounding waveforms directly imply their existence. -not proof of waveforms, but proof of something people call waveforms that has given rise to working theories. Various experiments have shown observation changing the nature of particles and waves. Perhaps I should have said the superposition of possibilities of an uncollapsed waveform is "maybes" but I didn't think pluralization was really necessary there since all possibilities exist in the state of potential and all the maybes are maybe, I thought one maybe would suffice. See dictionary for meaning of the word "maybe." I don't recall questioning your sources (even though wikipedia is so discredited the local elementary schools won't accept it) but I could be mistaken. I recall Honney boy took issue with it. Your understanding of ducks and the natural world .... sad Do you really want to talk about logic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:06 am
kittycross Valheita kittycross On the subject of science and reality, science tells us there is no such thing as objectivity and that the null state of an uncollapsed waveform is a very definite maybe. All of the universe/multiverse has not yet been confirmed, observed and quantified therefore the existence of dieties would fall into the uncollapsed waveform of "maybe" That's just science though. The null state of an uncollapsed waveform is a superposition of all it's possible states, which mathematically averages to a "maybe". It's not a maybe in the sense that the english word would convey. Your argument also assumes that the waveform exists so as to be unobserved. This is an unqualified statement, and so would invalidate your logic in formal debate. Also, science is based around the concept of objectivity. If there was no objectivity, then no objective truths could be obtained, thus science could not exist. What science says is that things are relative, to the time-space window you are observing through, which is distinct from the idea of there being no objectivity. Since you're probably concerned about sources, I studied Quantum and Relativistic physics at University. I rather suspect that constitutes a source. God, and I told myself I wouldn't get into this again D: All observations, the fundaments of science, are relative to the observer and not truly objective. No person can ever be truly objective. No scientist, however scientific, stops being a person because he/she/it is looking at something and any data received ins interpreted by a person or persons inherently unobjective by the very nature of being a person. All science is relative to the inherent bias of humanity. Science is based on relative objectivity because that is the best anyone can do. Significant evidence surrounding waveforms directly imply their existence. -not proof of waveforms, but proof of something people call waveforms that has given rise to working theories. Various experiments have shown observation changing the nature of particles and waves. Perhaps I should have said the superposition of possibilities of an uncollapsed waveform is "maybes" but I didn't think pluralization was really necessary there since all possibilities exist in the state of potential and all the maybes are maybe, I thought one maybe would suffice. See dictionary for meaning of the word "maybe." I don't recall questioning your sources (even though wikipedia is so discredited the local elementary schools won't accept it) but I could be mistaken. I recall Honney boy took issue with it. Your understanding of ducks and the natural world .... sad Do you really want to talk about logic? An individual observation is subjective. If all subjective observations agree, then it is objective - by the definition used by scientists. Yes, the waveform model has sufficed to solve certain issues. However, there's no evidence to support a specific "god waveform" which is what I meant with my own post. Before you go any further with this talk of waveforms, lets point out that the Schrodinger wave equation is the probability of a given particle existing at a given location in space. So when we talk about an uncollapsed waveform, we say that the particle may be found anywhere within the bounds of the waveform, with a probability of it's being in a given location given by the absolute amplitude of the waveform at that given point in space. That is to say it "maybe" in this location, or it "maybe" in that location. There's no "maybe" about whether it's within the waveform. I'm covering my bases. (On the topic of Wiki... does anyone else realise that if they don't trust wiki, they can check the sources cited on the wiki? Seems pretty reliable to me) Not with you, but Mother commands that we learn and grow, so an education in the basics of logic you shall have to recieve. Well, until I depart the guild that is. Incidentally, I found religion. I'm still an atheist, but it's going to make life a bit more interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:41 am
Valheita kittycross Valheita kittycross On the subject of science and reality, science tells us there is no such thing as objectivity and that the null state of an uncollapsed waveform is a very definite maybe. All of the universe/multiverse has not yet been confirmed, observed and quantified therefore the existence of dieties would fall into the uncollapsed waveform of "maybe" That's just science though. The null state of an uncollapsed waveform is a superposition of all it's possible states, which mathematically averages to a "maybe". It's not a maybe in the sense that the english word would convey. Your argument also assumes that the waveform exists so as to be unobserved. This is an unqualified statement, and so would invalidate your logic in formal debate. Also, science is based around the concept of objectivity. If there was no objectivity, then no objective truths could be obtained, thus science could not exist. What science says is that things are relative, to the time-space window you are observing through, which is distinct from the idea of there being no objectivity. Since you're probably concerned about sources, I studied Quantum and Relativistic physics at University. I rather suspect that constitutes a source. God, and I told myself I wouldn't get into this again D: All observations, the fundaments of science, are relative to the observer and not truly objective. No person can ever be truly objective. No scientist, however scientific, stops being a person because he/she/it is looking at something and any data received ins interpreted by a person or persons inherently unobjective by the very nature of being a person. All science is relative to the inherent bias of humanity. Science is based on relative objectivity because that is the best anyone can do. Significant evidence surrounding waveforms directly imply their existence. -not proof of waveforms, but proof of something people call waveforms that has given rise to working theories. Various experiments have shown observation changing the nature of particles and waves. Perhaps I should have said the superposition of possibilities of an uncollapsed waveform is "maybes" but I didn't think pluralization was really necessary there since all possibilities exist in the state of potential and all the maybes are maybe, I thought one maybe would suffice. See dictionary for meaning of the word "maybe." I don't recall questioning your sources (even though wikipedia is so discredited the local elementary schools won't accept it) but I could be mistaken. I recall Honney boy took issue with it. Your understanding of ducks and the natural world .... sad Do you really want to talk about logic? An individual observation is subjective. If all subjective observations agree, then it is objective - by the definition used by scientists. Yes, the waveform model has sufficed to solve certain issues. However, there's no evidence to support a specific "god waveform" which is what I meant with my own post. Before you go any further with this talk of waveforms, lets point out that the Schrodinger wave equation is the probability of a given particle existing at a given location in space. So when we talk about an uncollapsed waveform, we say that the particle may be found anywhere within the bounds of the waveform, with a probability of it's being in a given location given by the absolute amplitude of the waveform at that given point in space. That is to say it "maybe" in this location, or it "maybe" in that location. There's no "maybe" about whether it's within the waveform. I'm covering my bases. (On the topic of Wiki... does anyone else realise that if they don't trust wiki, they can check the sources cited on the wiki? Seems pretty reliable to me) Not with you, but Mother commands that we learn and grow, so an education in the basics of logic you shall have to recieve. Well, until I depart the guild that is. Incidentally, I found religion. I'm still an atheist, but it's going to make life a bit more interesting. How does this in any way account for the ducks? Humans have a hard time knowing who and what they are, why would things like camouflage or identity issues only be for humans?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:04 am
Valheita kittycross Valheita kittycross On the subject of science and reality, science tells us there is no such thing as objectivity and that the null state of an uncollapsed waveform is a very definite maybe. All of the universe/multiverse has not yet been confirmed, observed and quantified therefore the existence of dieties would fall into the uncollapsed waveform of "maybe" That's just science though. The null state of an uncollapsed waveform is a superposition of all it's possible states, which mathematically averages to a "maybe". It's not a maybe in the sense that the english word would convey.Your argument also assumes that the waveform exists so as to be unobserved. This is an unqualified statement, and so would invalidate your logic in formal debate. Also, science is based around the concept of objectivity. If there was no objectivity, then no objective truths could be obtained, thus science could not exist. What science says is that things are relative, to the time-space window you are observing through, which is distinct from the idea of there being no objectivity. Since you're probably concerned about sources, I studied Quantum and Relativistic physics at University. I rather suspect that constitutes a source. God, and I told myself I wouldn't get into this again D: All observations, the fundaments of science, are relative to the observer and not truly objective. No person can ever be truly objective. No scientist, however scientific, stops being a person because he/she/it is looking at something and any data received ins interpreted by a person or persons inherently unobjective by the very nature of being a person. All science is relative to the inherent bias of humanity. Science is based on relative objectivity because that is the best anyone can do. Significant evidence surrounding waveforms directly imply their existence. -not proof of waveforms, but proof of something people call waveforms that has given rise to working theories. Various experiments have shown observation changing the nature of particles and waves. Perhaps I should have said the superposition of possibilities of an uncollapsed waveform is "maybes" but I didn't think pluralization was really necessary there since all possibilities exist in the state of potential and all the maybes are maybe, I thought one maybe would suffice. See dictionary for meaning of the word "maybe." I don't recall questioning your sources (even though wikipedia is so discredited the local elementary schools won't accept it) but I could be mistaken. I recall Honney boy took issue with it. Your understanding of ducks and the natural world .... sad Do you really want to talk about logic? An individual observation is subjective. If all subjective observations agree, then it is objective - by the definition used by scientists. Yes, the waveform model has sufficed to solve certain issues. However, there's no evidence to support a specific "god waveform" which is what I meant with my own post. Before you go any further with this talk of waveforms, lets point out that the Schrodinger wave equation is the probability of a given particle existing at a given location in space. So when we talk about an uncollapsed waveform, we say that the particle may be found anywhere within the bounds of the waveform, with a probability of it's being in a given location given by the absolute amplitude of the waveform at that given point in space. That is to say it "maybe" in this location, or it "maybe" in that location. There's no "maybe" about whether it's within the waveform. I'm covering my bases. (On the topic of Wiki... does anyone else realise that if they don't trust wiki, they can check the sources cited on the wiki? Seems pretty reliable to me) Not with you, but Mother commands that we learn and grow, so an education in the basics of logic you shall have to recieve. Well, until I depart the guild that is. Incidentally, I found religion. I'm still an atheist, but it's going to make life a bit more interesting. Please. Learn to use a dictionary. Pretty please? Refer to the word "maybe." Also looking up "probability" might help. There are also spell check options. Also in English, English is capitalized and university is not - unless of course you are attending University University. If your mother remarks about your need for education, I can see why. Attending a class does not equal being a source. Attending a class means that you showed up in a place at a specified time. If I'm not mistaken you are an aspiring computer programmer and not a quantum physicist. It may not have covered finite versus infinite, universe versus multiverse and existence beyond most basic in you Quantum Mechanics for Computer Programmers course, but it's something you might find interesting. Quantum theory goes beyond Schrodinger and probability is probability. Perhaps you might want to look into, although generally it comes after learning to identify basic farm animals. I believe you made your capacity for logic well known with your duck comment.Maybe I should be thanking you for that. My daughter got such a laugh to know that anyone thought like that. Finding religion and finding spirituality are different things, as are god/dess/es and churches. Finding religion is independent to belief. Also there more than one religion out there. If you happened to find the correct one, please do share your enlightenment that you choose not to have for your self. I still maintain that atheism is no more logical, rational or scientific than theistic or deistic beliefs. There is no demonstrable evidence for or against the existence of higher powers or beings. Lack of proof is not proof of lack, nor is it proof of and god/dess/es or higher powers. However, those who have obtained their own personal proof could even be considered a bit more rational and logical in that they have obtained data, analyzed and concluded. Even if they are obviously not objective-no one ever is- and their results might be repeatable, they are not demonstrable at least they are going by some thing other than "God's mean I don't wanna," resentment against churches, institutions and holy war or social conformity. The most rational and logical conclusion with out any data is still "unknown." (incidentally, question posed as to whether or not God or any type of god exists and there you have your god waveform waiting to collapse into answers. That's kind of basic quantum theory)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:10 pm
kittycross Please. Learn to use a dictionary. Pretty please? Refer to the word "maybe." Also looking up "probability" might help. There are also spell check options. Also in English, English is capitalized and university is not - unless of course you are attending University University. If your mother remarks about your need for education, I can see why. Attending a class does not equal being a source. Attending a class means that you showed up in a place at a specified time. If I'm not mistaken you are an aspiring computer programmer and not a quantum physicist. It may not have covered finite versus infinite, universe versus multiverse and existence beyond most basic in you Quantum Mechanics for Computer Programmers course, but it's something you might find interesting. Quantum theory goes beyond Schrodinger and probability is probability. Perhaps you might want to look into, although generally it comes after learning to identify basic farm animals. I believe you made your capacity for logic well known with your duck comment.Maybe I should be thanking you for that. My daughter got such a laugh to know that anyone thought like that. Finding religion and finding spirituality are different things, as are god/dess/es and churches. Finding religion is independent to belief. Also there more than one religion out there. If you happened to find the correct one, please do share your enlightenment that you choose not to have for your self. I still maintain that atheism is no more logical, rational or scientific than theistic or deistic beliefs. There is no demonstrable evidence for or against the existence of higher powers or beings. Lack of proof is not proof of lack, nor is it proof of and god/dess/es or higher powers. However, those who have obtained their own personal proof could even be considered a bit more rational and logical in that they have obtained data, analyzed and concluded. Even if they are obviously not objective-no one ever is- and their results might be repeatable, they are not demonstrable at least they are going by some thing other than "God's mean I don't wanna," resentment against churches, institutions and holy war or social conformity. The most rational and logical conclusion with out any data is still "unknown." (incidentally, question posed as to whether or not God or any type of god exists and there you have your god waveform waiting to collapse into answers. That's kind of basic quantum theory) Use a dictionary after all my posts explaining why the dictionary falls short of conversational needs? Why on earth would I do that. Spelling, and grammar, are different. Capitalization comes under grammar, if I'm not mistaken. It's not my mother silly, it's the mother. I did tell you I found religion for a reason. Alright, I attended and passed the course. And it was Quantum Mechanics for Astrophysicists, actually. You probably don't know this, but I studied astrophysics before switching to computer science. I'm glad someone got the joke. Yes, a religion is a commonly held spirituality. However, saying "I found spirituality" just doesn't have the same ring to it. I quite agree that atheism is no more rational or scientific, especially given that it's rational to follow what makes sense best to you, and science doesn't deal with deities. However, you're incorrect about it being logical - which is what I've been trying (and evidently failing) to explain to you. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear that by basic rules of logic, something does not exist until it is proven that it does. Maybe it would help if I pointed out that logic isn't always correct? Incidentally, if you're going to question my capacity for logic, I suggest easing off your own ad-hominem and argumentum ad ignorantium logical fallacies. It'll really support your cause better. =D Honney Boy How does this in any way account for the ducks? Humans have a hard time knowing who and what they are, why would things like camouflage or identity issues only be for humans? Was it supposed to account for ducks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
