> On Nov 2, 12:19 am,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 5:18 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > snexwrote: > > > > On Oct 28, 5:58 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> snexwrote: > > > >>> On Oct 27, 1:46 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> On 27 Okt, 11:49,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>>> On Oct 21, 11:53 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>> On 2009-10-20,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> On Oct 15, 3:54 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:43:53 -0700, the following appeared > > > >>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker > > > >>>>>>>> <starma...@ix.netcom.com>: > > > >>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dana Tweedy wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> They are the New Religion of Scientism. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No such thing. > > > >>>>>>>> Sorry, Dana, but I have to disagree;snexis a perfect > > > >>>>>>>> example of the genre. > > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html > > > >>>>>>>>> used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, > > > >>>>>>>>> or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things; > > > >>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism > > > >>>>>>>> Agreed. But that's not how science actually works; scientism > > > >>>>>>>> is basically disguised religion (i.e., belief rather than > > > >>>>>>>> knowledge) with no specific deity. > > > >>>>>>>>> That is what I see in this newsgroup a lot, ...Scientism! > > > >>>>>>>> You do if you read such posters assnex. Not so much > > > >>>>>>>> otherwise. > > > >>>>>>> show me a reliable method for determining knowledge about gods. > > > >>>>>> I think you should master chess first before attempting more > > > >>>>>> esoteric knowledge. > > > >>>>>>> if you > > > >>>>>>> cant, stop pretending that people who believe in them and pretend to > > > >>>>>>> know what they want are reasonable people. > > > >>>>>> People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more reasonable than > > > >>>>>> you. > > > >>>>> no, they arent. > > > >>>>>> Why is that? > > > >>>>> why do you believe it, you mean? probably because at the most > > > >>>>> fundamental level, you are a dishonest person. that is why you believe > > > >>>>> in gods in the first place. you have no care whatsoever about what > > > >>>>> statements about the world are true, only what statements about the > > > >>>>> world are useful for achieving your own selfish ends. if you actually > > > >>>>> cared about what statements were true, you would only stick to > > > >>>>> reliable methods of discovery. > > > >>>> Well, I'm a thoroughgoing atheist, but I have to agree with Garamond. > > > >>>> His posts are uniformly reasonable, thoughtful, polite, and well- > > > >>>> argued. I'm sure I disagree with him about religion, but he is > > > >>>> entirely reasonable. > > > >>> maybe when he deals with idiots about evolution, but try engaging him > > > >>> on the topic of religion. you just witnessed him make an appeal to > > > >>> popularity fallacy. > > > >> Not really, he didn't. He provided evidence, as requested by you, for > > > >> the statement: "People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more > > > >> reasonable than you." That is a statement about populations and has to > > > >> be supported by claims about populations (what you mistake for > > > >> "popularity falsity"), and how certain characteristics in populations > > > >> correlate - it is not, as you seem to think, a statement about the > > > >> reasonableness of the belief in gods.
> > > > sorry, but the statement was "As the median reasonableness of of the > > > > population who believes in one or more gods is very close to the > > > > median for the total population, I'm condfident in my conclusion that, > > > > in the main, these folks are far more reasonable than you."
> > > > if this isnt an appeal to popularity, then nothing is.
> > > Then nothing is.
> > no, youre just another dishonest shit who will lie for jesus all day > > long. it was an appeal to popularity. just admit it. why will you > > accept any tripe, no matter how stupid, as long as it defends theism? > > why dont you just jump on the creationism boat right now and save > > yourself the time?
> That is whysnexis just a fundamentalist simpleton in a cheap coat of > paint: to the Pagani and the Nashtons, everyone that argues with them > is an atheist. Tosnex, everyone that argues with him is theist.
no, its just the theists using dishonest tactics when they argue.
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:22:14 -0800 (PST), the following > appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >On Nov 4, 12:53 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:01:50 -0800 (PST), the following > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >On Nov 2, 4:24 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:13:52 -0800 (PST), the following > >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >> >On Nov 2, 12:11 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 29 Okt, 13:42,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Oct 28, 5:58 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > snexwrote: > >> >> >> > > > On Oct 27, 1:46 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> On 27 Okt, 11:49,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >>> On Oct 21, 11:53 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > >> >> >> > > >>> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >>>> On 2009-10-20,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >>>>> On Oct 15, 3:54 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:43:53 -0700, the following appeared > >> >> >> > > >>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker > >> >> >> > > >>>>>> <starma...@ix.netcom.com>: > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> Dana Tweedy wrote: > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> They are the New Religion of Scientism. > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> No such thing. > >> >> >> > > >>>>>> Sorry, Dana, but I have to disagree;snexis a perfect > >> >> >> > > >>>>>> example of the genre. > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things; > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism > >> >> >> > > >>>>>> Agreed. But that's not how science actually works; scientism > >> >> >> > > >>>>>> is basically disguised religion (i.e., belief rather than > >> >> >> > > >>>>>> knowledge) with no specific deity. > >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> That is what I see in this newsgroup a lot, ...Scientism! > >> >> >> > > >>>>>> You do if you read such posters assnex. Not so much > >> >> >> > > >>>>>> otherwise. > >> >> >> > > >>>>> show me a reliable method for determining knowledge about gods. > >> >> >> > > >>>> I think you should master chess first before attempting more > >> >> >> > > >>>> esoteric knowledge. > >> >> >> > > >>>>> if you > >> >> >> > > >>>>> cant, stop pretending that people who believe in them and pretend to > >> >> >> > > >>>>> know what they want are reasonable people. > >> >> >> > > >>>> People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more reasonable than > >> >> >> > > >>>> you. > >> >> >> > > >>> no, they arent. > >> >> >> > > >>>> Why is that? > >> >> >> > > >>> why do you believe it, you mean? probably because at the most > >> >> >> > > >>> fundamental level, you are a dishonest person. that is why you believe > >> >> >> > > >>> in gods in the first place. you have no care whatsoever about what > >> >> >> > > >>> statements about the world are true, only what statements about the > >> >> >> > > >>> world are useful for achieving your own selfish ends. if you actually > >> >> >> > > >>> cared about what statements were true, you would only stick to > >> >> >> > > >>> reliable methods of discovery. > >> >> >> > > >> Well, I'm a thoroughgoing atheist, but I have to agree with Garamond. > >> >> >> > > >> His posts are uniformly reasonable, thoughtful, polite, and well- > >> >> >> > > >> argued. I'm sure I disagree with him about religion, but he is > >> >> >> > > >> entirely reasonable.
> >> >> >> > > > maybe when he deals with idiots about evolution, but try engaging him > >> >> >> > > > on the topic of religion. you just witnessed him make an appeal to > >> >> >> > > > popularity fallacy.
> >> >> >> > > Not really, he didn't. He provided evidence, as requested by you, for > >> >> >> > > the statement: "People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more > >> >> >> > > reasonable than you." That is a statement about populations and has to > >> >> >> > > be supported by claims about populations (what you mistake for > >> >> >> > > "popularity falsity"), and how certain characteristics in populations > >> >> >> > > correlate - it is not, as you seem to think, a statement about the > >> >> >> > > reasonableness of the belief in gods.
> >> >> >> > sorry, but the statement was "As the median reasonableness of of the > >> >> >> > population who believes in one or more gods is very close to the > >> >> >> > median for the total population, I'm condfident in my conclusion that, > >> >> >> > in the main, these folks are far more reasonable than you."
> >> >> >> > if this isnt an appeal to popularity, then nothing is.
> >> >> >> Your reading skills are positively Paganoesque. An appeal to > >> >> >> popularity would be the claim that theism is true because many people > >> >> >> are theists. That would be nonsense. The claim that, on average, > >> >> >> theists are as reasonable as non-theists is an empirical claim. I > >> >> >> think it's probably true (you probably balance out one or two Paganos > >> >> >> or Nahtons all by yourself), but even if it isn't, it's not an appeal > >> >> >> to popularity.
> >> >> >read the claim again. "lots of people believe it, therefore they are > >> >> >more reasonable" is what it means.
> >> >> *You* read the claim again. At no point did he claim > >> >> causation, only that most people, believers or not, are more > >> >> reasonable than you. And your posts bear out his claim; if > >> >> you are at or above the mean for "reasonableness" then > >> >> Britney Spears is at or above the mean for "mature".
> >> >im not the one believing in magic men rising from the dead.
> >> Lack of relevant response noted. Again.
> >its perfectly relevant. the belief in magic men rising from the dead > >is entirely unreasonable.
> ....but the claim that those who believe this are nonetheless > more reasonable *in general* than you is the one at issue.
yep, people who listen to the arbitrary commands of an invisible man because a really old book told them to are oh so reasonable. keep digging that hole.
> > > > On Oct 21, 11:53 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > >> On 2009-10-20,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> > On Oct 15, 3:54 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > > > >> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:43:53 -0700, the following appeared > > > >> >> in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker > > > >> >> <starma...@ix.netcom.com>:
> > > >> >> >The Starmaker wrote: > > > >> >> >> Dana Tweedy wrote: > > > >> >> >> > The Starmaker wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > They are the New Religion of Scientism. > > > >> >> >> > No such thing.
> > > >> >> Sorry, Dana, but I have to disagree;snexis a perfect > > > >> >> example of the genre.
> > > >> >> Agreed. But that's not how science actually works; scientism > > > >> >> is basically disguised religion (i.e., belief rather than > > > >> >> knowledge) with no specific deity.
> > > >> >> >That is what I see in this newsgroup a lot, ...Scientism!
> > > >> >> You do if you read such posters assnex. Not so much > > > >> >> otherwise.
> > > >> > show me a reliable method for determining knowledge about gods.
> > > >> I think you should master chess first before attempting more > > > >> esoteric knowledge.
> > > >> > if you > > > >> > cant, stop pretending that people who believe in them and pretend to > > > >> > know what they want are reasonable people.
> > > >> People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more reasonable than > > > >> you.
> > > > no, they arent.
> > > Not coincidentally, people who believe in gods are, in the main, usually > > > able to come up with a better retort than "nuh-uh!".
> > oh really? then offer a valid and reliable reason to believe in any > > gods.
> What an, in all due respect, stupid reply. When has Garamond ever > purported to believe in any gods or have any evidence for them?
he just said that people who believe in gods are behaving reasonably. one would think that people behaving *reasonably* could be said to have valid *reasons* for their beliefs, wouldnt you think?
why dont you tell us YOUR valid *reasons* for believing in god?
> If > he hasn't, then you owe just as much evidence of gods as he does.
ok but YOU have claimed to believe in god. so where is your evidence? or will you admit that your reasons for belief are bad ones?
> snexwrote: > > On Oct 28, 5:58 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >> snexwrote: > >>> On Oct 27, 1:46 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 27 Okt, 11:49,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Oct 21, 11:53 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On 2009-10-20,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Oct 15, 3:54 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:43:53 -0700, the following appeared > >>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker > >>>>>>>> <starma...@ix.netcom.com>: > >>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Dana Tweedy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> They are the New Religion of Scientism. > >>>>>>>>>>> No such thing. > >>>>>>>> Sorry, Dana, but I have to disagree;snexis a perfect > >>>>>>>> example of the genre. > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html > >>>>>>>>> used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, > >>>>>>>>> or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things; > >>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism > >>>>>>>> Agreed. But that's not how science actually works; scientism > >>>>>>>> is basically disguised religion (i.e., belief rather than > >>>>>>>> knowledge) with no specific deity. > >>>>>>>>> That is what I see in this newsgroup a lot, ...Scientism! > >>>>>>>> You do if you read such posters assnex. Not so much > >>>>>>>> otherwise. > >>>>>>> show me a reliable method for determining knowledge about gods. > >>>>>> I think you should master chess first before attempting more > >>>>>> esoteric knowledge. > >>>>>>> if you > >>>>>>> cant, stop pretending that people who believe in them and pretend to > >>>>>>> know what they want are reasonable people. > >>>>>> People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more reasonable than > >>>>>> you. > >>>>> no, they arent. > >>>>>> Why is that? > >>>>> why do you believe it, you mean? probably because at the most > >>>>> fundamental level, you are a dishonest person. that is why you believe > >>>>> in gods in the first place. you have no care whatsoever about what > >>>>> statements about the world are true, only what statements about the > >>>>> world are useful for achieving your own selfish ends. if you actually > >>>>> cared about what statements were true, you would only stick to > >>>>> reliable methods of discovery. > >>>> Well, I'm a thoroughgoing atheist, but I have to agree with Garamond. > >>>> His posts are uniformly reasonable, thoughtful, polite, and well- > >>>> argued. I'm sure I disagree with him about religion, but he is > >>>> entirely reasonable. > >>> maybe when he deals with idiots about evolution, but try engaging him > >>> on the topic of religion. you just witnessed him make an appeal to > >>> popularity fallacy. > >> Not really, he didn't. He provided evidence, as requested by you, for > >> the statement: "People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more > >> reasonable than you." That is a statement about populations and has to > >> be supported by claims about populations (what you mistake for > >> "popularity falsity"), and how certain characteristics in populations > >> correlate - it is not, as you seem to think, a statement about the > >> reasonableness of the belief in gods.
> > sorry, but the statement was "As the median reasonableness of of the > > population who believes in one or more gods is very close to the > > median for the total population, I'm condfident in my conclusion that, > > in the main, these folks are far more reasonable than you."
> > if this isnt an appeal to popularity, then nothing is.
> In these posts, you seem to be equating reasonableness with factual truth.
> And that's wrong.
> One can start from certain axioms that are taken as true. Then one can > build a system of deductions (theorems) from those axioms, by following > principles of logic. That's entirely a good use of the human capacity > for reason.
> Now if a believer wants to take the existence of God as an *axiom*, he > can be perfectly reasonable, even flawlessly logical, in making > deductions and inferences from that axiom.
> If an atheist takes the non-existence of God as an axiom, he can make > his own deductions from that as well.
> It's like the parallel postulate in geometry. Take it as axiomatically > true, and you end up with Euclidean geometry. Take it as axiomatically > false, and you end up with non-Euclidean geometry.
> Now which better maps on to the factual analysis of the Universe in > which we live? Non-Euclidean geometry helps analyze the curvature of > space-time. But that doesn't make non-euclidean geometry "true." It > just means it's a useful tool for describing the space-time continuum. > It doesn't make Euclidean geometry "false."
> So I argue that both believers in God and non-believers can each use > reason to deduce things from their respective axiom systems. The > argument comes in when we try to determine which deductions of which > axiom systems best explain the empirical data we have about the universe.
well lets see. theists cant agree on *anything* about god, other than that he exists. once they get THAT little matter sorted out, we can start to talk about whether or not theism matches what we observe.
why do you suppose theists cant agree on what god is really like? it couldnt be that its all just a bunch of made-up bullshit, now could it? i mean, you could start with an axiom of "santa claus exists" and build your worldview from there, but nobody would consider you a reasonable person for doing so. why then is there an exception for theists? there is just as much reason to believe in god as there is to believe in santa claus.
> On Nov 4, 9:02 pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote: >> On Oct 27, 7:16 pm,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > On Oct 27, 12:59 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >> > wrote:
>> > > On 2009-10-27,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > > On Oct 21, 11:53 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > >> On 2009-10-20,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > >> > On Oct 15, 3:54 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> > > >> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:43:53 -0700, the following appeared >> > > >> >> in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker >> > > >> >> <starma...@ix.netcom.com>:
>> > > >> >> >The Starmaker wrote: >> > > >> >> >> Dana Tweedy wrote: >> > > >> >> >> > The Starmaker wrote: >> > > >> >> >> > > They are the New Religion of Scientism. >> > > >> >> >> > No such thing.
>> > > >> >> Sorry, Dana, but I have to disagree;snexis a perfect >> > > >> >> example of the genre.
>> > > >> >> Agreed. But that's not how science actually works; scientism >> > > >> >> is basically disguised religion (i.e., belief rather than >> > > >> >> knowledge) with no specific deity.
>> > > >> >> >That is what I see in this newsgroup a lot, ...Scientism!
>> > > >> >> You do if you read such posters assnex. Not so much >> > > >> >> otherwise.
>> > > >> > show me a reliable method for determining knowledge about gods.
>> > > >> I think you should master chess first before attempting more >> > > >> esoteric knowledge.
>> > > >> > if you >> > > >> > cant, stop pretending that people who believe in them and pretend to >> > > >> > know what they want are reasonable people.
>> > > >> People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more reasonable than >> > > >> you.
>> > > > no, they arent.
>> > > Not coincidentally, people who believe in gods are, in the main, usually >> > > able to come up with a better retort than "nuh-uh!".
>> > oh really? then offer a valid and reliable reason to believe in any >> > gods.
>> What an, in all due respect, stupid reply. When has Garamond ever >> purported to believe in any gods or have any evidence for them?
> he just said that people who believe in gods are behaving reasonably.
Yup. That I did. They get up at reasonable hours, drive in a reasonable fashion to work, do a reasonably good job, come back to the house that they can reasonably afford and watch a reasonable amount of television before going to bed at a reasonable time.
More to the point, they are able to discuss their religious beliefs in a reasonable tone of voice using reasonable capitialization. Their beliefs are reasonable in that following them to a reasonable degree correlates with a reasonable amount of success, health and happiness.
> one would think that people behaving *reasonably* could be said to > have valid *reasons* for their beliefs, wouldnt you think?
They do. They aren't reasons you're able to understand, but that comes with not being a reasonable person (which was my original point).
> why dont you tell us YOUR valid *reasons* for believing in god?
How about "it's an effective explanatory and predictive model that works well enough for what I need it to do"?
This allows the model to be compared to other models, say, yours. The model you use results in terrible writing, muddled thinking, and you being a generally miserable person.
So I think the more appropriate question is: why do you believe in your model when it's giving you such consistently lousy results? If your beliefs are based on evidence, you would have abandoned it a long time ago.
[Shrieking about virgin births in 5... 4... 3...]
>> If >> he hasn't, then you owe just as much evidence of gods as he does.
> ok but YOU have claimed to believe in god. so where is your evidence?
Eric might or might not have --- it's not the kind of thing I notice. I'm on record in believing in integers, which are non-corporeal and eternal. If you like, I'll be happy to provide you with evidence that integers exist.
> or will you admit that your reasons for belief are bad ones?
Let's hear yours, shall we?
Specifically, why would you have anything to do with a belief system that cannot handle any knowledge of quality other than accuracy?
>On Nov 5, 1:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:21:08 -0800 (PST), the following >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >On Nov 4, 12:52 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:00:43 -0800 (PST), the following >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >> >On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are >> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just >> >> >> >> >like i said.
>> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more >> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid >> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you >> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
>> >> >> >show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >> >> >> >measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
>> >> >> Message ID s4r1d51i1ihhcggki7tihskeh6ijo4f...@4ax.com
>> >> >> The subject was intelligence testing, and you claimed a >> >> >> chess game would be a good test for relative intelligence.
>> >> >and it isnt?
You might note that with this question you make the claim again which you denied making just a few lines above ("show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to measure intelligence")
>> >> > what am i using to play chess, if not my intellect?
>> >> Again, I don't know. What's Big Blue using?
>> >dont evade the question, moron.
>> It's not an evasion.
>yes it is dipshit. i asked you a question. you didnt answer it, but >rather asked your own question in response. answer the question.
Evasion noted. Again. So you believe you're using only your intellect to win at chess; experience, memory and preprogrammed winning algorithms have nothing to do with it? If that's true, what is Big Blue using? And you might note that claiming that you use solely your intelligence to win at chess means that you believe chess is a valid way to measure comparative intelligence, which was the original question.
>and no, im not "running and hiding," moron.
Seems you are, since you refuse to answer the question. --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
>On Nov 5, 1:52 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:22:14 -0800 (PST), the following >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >On Nov 4, 12:53 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:01:50 -0800 (PST), the following >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >On Nov 2, 4:24 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:13:52 -0800 (PST), the following >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >> >On Nov 2, 12:11 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 29 Okt, 13:42,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Oct 28, 5:58 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > snexwrote: >> >> >> >> > > > On Oct 27, 1:46 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > >> On 27 Okt, 11:49,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > >>> On Oct 21, 11:53 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> >> >> >> >> > > >>> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > >>>> On 2009-10-20,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> On Oct 15, 3:54 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:43:53 -0700, the following appeared >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>> <starma...@ix.netcom.com>: >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> Dana Tweedy wrote: >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> They are the New Religion of Scientism. >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> No such thing. >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>> Sorry, Dana, but I have to disagree;snexis a perfect >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>> example of the genre. >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things; >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>> Agreed. But that's not how science actually works; scientism >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>> is basically disguised religion (i.e., belief rather than >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>> knowledge) with no specific deity. >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> That is what I see in this newsgroup a lot, ...Scientism! >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>> You do if you read such posters assnex. Not so much >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>> otherwise. >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> show me a reliable method for determining knowledge about gods. >> >> >> >> > > >>>> I think you should master chess first before attempting more >> >> >> >> > > >>>> esoteric knowledge. >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> if you >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> cant, stop pretending that people who believe in them and pretend to >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> know what they want are reasonable people. >> >> >> >> > > >>>> People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more reasonable than >> >> >> >> > > >>>> you. >> >> >> >> > > >>> no, they arent. >> >> >> >> > > >>>> Why is that? >> >> >> >> > > >>> why do you believe it, you mean? probably because at the most >> >> >> >> > > >>> fundamental level, you are a dishonest person. that is why you believe >> >> >> >> > > >>> in gods in the first place. you have no care whatsoever about what >> >> >> >> > > >>> statements about the world are true, only what statements about the >> >> >> >> > > >>> world are useful for achieving your own selfish ends. if you actually >> >> >> >> > > >>> cared about what statements were true, you would only stick to >> >> >> >> > > >>> reliable methods of discovery. >> >> >> >> > > >> Well, I'm a thoroughgoing atheist, but I have to agree with Garamond. >> >> >> >> > > >> His posts are uniformly reasonable, thoughtful, polite, and well- >> >> >> >> > > >> argued. I'm sure I disagree with him about religion, but he is >> >> >> >> > > >> entirely reasonable.
>> >> >> >> > > > maybe when he deals with idiots about evolution, but try engaging him >> >> >> >> > > > on the topic of religion. you just witnessed him make an appeal to >> >> >> >> > > > popularity fallacy.
>> >> >> >> > > Not really, he didn't. He provided evidence, as requested by you, for >> >> >> >> > > the statement: "People who believe in gods are, in the main, far more >> >> >> >> > > reasonable than you." That is a statement about populations and has to >> >> >> >> > > be supported by claims about populations (what you mistake for >> >> >> >> > > "popularity falsity"), and how certain characteristics in populations >> >> >> >> > > correlate - it is not, as you seem to think, a statement about the >> >> >> >> > > reasonableness of the belief in gods.
>> >> >> >> > sorry, but the statement was "As the median reasonableness of of the >> >> >> >> > population who believes in one or more gods is very close to the >> >> >> >> > median for the total population, I'm condfident in my conclusion that, >> >> >> >> > in the main, these folks are far more reasonable than you."
>> >> >> >> > if this isnt an appeal to popularity, then nothing is.
>> >> >> >> Your reading skills are positively Paganoesque. An appeal to >> >> >> >> popularity would be the claim that theism is true because many people >> >> >> >> are theists. That would be nonsense. The claim that, on average, >> >> >> >> theists are as reasonable as non-theists is an empirical claim. I >> >> >> >> think it's probably true (you probably balance out one or two Paganos >> >> >> >> or Nahtons all by yourself), but even if it isn't, it's not an appeal >> >> >> >> to popularity.
>> >> >> >read the claim again. "lots of people believe it, therefore they are >> >> >> >more reasonable" is what it means.
>> >> >> *You* read the claim again. At no point did he claim >> >> >> causation, only that most people, believers or not, are more >> >> >> reasonable than you. And your posts bear out his claim; if >> >> >> you are at or above the mean for "reasonableness" then >> >> >> Britney Spears is at or above the mean for "mature".
>> >> >im not the one believing in magic men rising from the dead.
>> >> Lack of relevant response noted. Again.
>> >its perfectly relevant. the belief in magic men rising from the dead >> >is entirely unreasonable.
>> ....but the claim that those who believe this are nonetheless >> more reasonable *in general* than you is the one at issue.
>yep, people who listen to the arbitrary commands of an invisible man >because a really old book told them to are oh so reasonable. keep >digging that hole.
I said they're *more* reasonable, *in general*, than you are. And I stand behind that evaluation. --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:16:02 -0800 (PST), the following >appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <x...@comcast.net>:
>>On Nov 5, 1:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:21:08 -0800 (PST), the following >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>> >On Nov 4, 12:52 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:00:43 -0800 (PST), the following >>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>> >> >On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>> >> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >>> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>> >> >> >On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >>> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>>> >> >> >> <snip>
>>> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are >>> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just >>> >> >> >> >like i said.
>>> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more >>> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid >>> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you >>> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
>>> >> >> >show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >>> >> >> >measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
>>> >> >> Message ID s4r1d51i1ihhcggki7tihskeh6ijo4f...@4ax.com
>>> >> >> The subject was intelligence testing, and you claimed a >>> >> >> chess game would be a good test for relative intelligence.
>>> >> >and it isnt?
>You might note that with this question you make the claim >again which you denied making just a few lines above ("show >me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >measure intelligence")
>>> >> > what am i using to play chess, if not my intellect?
>>> >> Again, I don't know. What's Big Blue using?
>>> >dont evade the question, moron.
>>> It's not an evasion.
>>yes it is dipshit. i asked you a question. you didnt answer it, but >>rather asked your own question in response. answer the question.
>Evasion noted. Again. So you believe you're using only your >intellect to win at chess; experience, memory and >preprogrammed winning algorithms have nothing to do with it? >If that's true, what is Big Blue using? And you might note >that claiming that you use solely your intelligence to win >at chess means that you believe chess is a valid way to >measure comparative intelligence, which was the original >question.
>>and no, im not "running and hiding," moron.
>Seems you are, since you refuse to answer the question.
And snex runs away without answering again... --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:16:02 -0800 (PST), the following > appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >On Nov 5, 1:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:21:08 -0800 (PST), the following > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >On Nov 4, 12:52 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:00:43 -0800 (PST), the following > >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >> >On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >> >> >On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following > >> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
> >> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are > >> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just > >> >> >> >> >like i said.
> >> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more > >> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid > >> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you > >> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
> >> >> >> >show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to > >> >> >> >measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
> >> >> >> Message ID s4r1d51i1ihhcggki7tihskeh6ijo4f...@4ax.com
> >> >> >> The subject was intelligence testing, and you claimed a > >> >> >> chess game would be a good test for relative intelligence.
> >> >> >and it isnt?
> You might note that with this question you make the claim > again which you denied making just a few lines above ("show > me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to > measure intelligence")
> >> >> > what am i using to play chess, if not my intellect?
> >> >> Again, I don't know. What's Big Blue using?
> >> >dont evade the question, moron.
> >> It's not an evasion.
> >yes it is dipshit. i asked you a question. you didnt answer it, but > >rather asked your own question in response. answer the question.
> Evasion noted.
yes, it has been noted. i asked you a question, and you still have not answered it, but rather responded with your own question. pathetic how you cant answer a simple question.
> On Nov 20, 3:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:16:02 -0800 (PST), the following >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >> > what am i using to play chess, if not my intellect?
>> >> >> Again, I don't know. What's Big Blue using?
>> >> >dont evade the question, moron.
>> >> It's not an evasion.
>> >yes it is dipshit. i asked you a question. you didnt answer it, but >> >rather asked your own question in response. answer the question.
>> Evasion noted.
> yes, it has been noted. i asked you a question, and you still have not > answered it, but rather responded with your own question. pathetic how > you cant answer a simple question.
He gave you an answer. You even quoted it. It's "I don't know".
It's not the answer you wanted, so as usual you aren't able to respond to it.
>On Nov 20, 3:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:16:02 -0800 (PST), the following >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >On Nov 5, 1:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:21:08 -0800 (PST), the following >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >On Nov 4, 12:52 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:00:43 -0800 (PST), the following >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >> >On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >> >> >On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0700 (PDT), the following >> >> >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>> >> >> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >> >> >... your appeal to popularity fallacy answers it wonderfully. you are >> >> >> >> >> >a dishonest kook who has no interest whatsoever in the truth, just >> >> >> >> >> >like i said.
>> >> >> >> >> Welcome back! Do you still insist that Big Blue is more >> >> >> >> >> intelligent than you are, IOW that a chess match is a valid >> >> >> >> >> way to measure intelligence? I asked this earlier and you >> >> >> >> >> somehow failed to answer.
>> >> >> >> >show me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >> >> >> >> >measure intelligence, dishonest asswipe.
>> >> >> >> Message ID s4r1d51i1ihhcggki7tihskeh6ijo4f...@4ax.com
>> >> >> >> The subject was intelligence testing, and you claimed a >> >> >> >> chess game would be a good test for relative intelligence.
>> >> >> >and it isnt?
>> You might note that with this question you make the claim >> again which you denied making just a few lines above ("show >> me anywhere that i said that a chess match is a valid way to >> measure intelligence")
>> >> >> > what am i using to play chess, if not my intellect?
>> >> >> Again, I don't know. What's Big Blue using?
>> >> >dont evade the question, moron.
>> >> It's not an evasion.
>> >yes it is dipshit. i asked you a question. you didnt answer it, but >> >rather asked your own question in response. answer the question.
>> Evasion noted.
>yes, it has been noted. i asked you a question, and you still have not >answered it, but rather responded with your own question. pathetic how >you cant answer a simple question.
From above: "Again, I don't know. What's Big Blue using?"
What part of "I don't know" is giving you trouble? --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
|
