Okay Lola and Blatham...time to put up or shut up!

Lola

Quote:

I agree with watchmaker about this. We can never know anything as an absolute fact. But enough consistent evidence for which there is no known evidence to contradict it can constitute what we know as scientific fact (which of necessity requires doubt).

So, you mean that geocentric system, since Aristotle and Ptolomeus was the only scientific theory acceptable until the end of XVI century. In fact, it was the only system consistent to evidence. Aristarco had not a scientific position, since he claimed that was the earth that moved, and that fact could not be an "evidence" in his time.

Then, you also mean that space and time are absolute references, as Newton said, according to the evidence of his time.

With Einstein, new "evidence", new theory. Space and time are related to the observer, according to the speed of light and position.

And tomorrow?

And another question: what do you mean by "evidence"? Reading your post I had the idea you were referring to Popper. But he doesn't speak about evidence. He talks about experiments, what I think is completely different.

What I mean by this is that you are supporting Frank's agnosticism. Scientific theories are not explanations of facts, just interpretations until a new one, based in new evidence, destroys the other. So, why care about the present theories? Tomorrow there will be new ones, and after tomorrow another.

0 Replies

In an email, Frank asked me to tell everyone that he won't be able to continue to participate on this thread......he's been kicked off again. He says he's never coming back......but Bernie and I will talk to him about that. Too bad too.

Val,

I'll comment to your post next. Working on it.

0 Replies

Any insight as to why Frank got kicked off?

What kinds of things would get you kicked off?

I mean I see the policy, etc.

But I was just wondering, in practice, what kinds of things do they actually kick people off for usually?

0 Replies

Quote:

I personally see that position as being superior in all respects to yours...and I think it is presumptuous of you to suggest I lower my standards to yours.

I was going to let it go and apologise originally. However...

It's presumptuous of ME to suggest that YOU lower your standards?

You are welcome to remain outside of religious conversation, if you don't want to become involved you don't have to. If you say "gee, I don't actually know", that's fine. If you get involved in the interest of learning, or aiding others in their discussions, yet again it's fine. No, it's fantastic, love to have you aboard.

You however attempt to convert others to your ignorance and act in an arrogant superiority over those who venture out of the safeness of your position to say "you know, I've been thinking about this issue and I think..."

You're like some philosopher wandering up to Isaac Newton and saying "We can't know about this gravity. The next time you drop something it might not fall. You shouldn't be making claims about this because really we don't know."

The rest of us are out here doing the hard work of attempting to logically reason out something. If we forget that none of us truely know for certain, then remind us that in truth we are all agnostic. If someone pesters you to accept their belief, say that you're not convinced.

If the human race treated all matters as you treat religion we would be extinct. I don't care what your opinion is, but how dare you condemn us when you're high and dry in your safe position of ignorance. How dare you so presume.

Only in religion could people tolerate this kind of behaviour. In science no one would condemn anyone willing to posit a theory to explain what they've seen.

0 Replies

val wrote:

Lola

Quote:
I agree with watchmaker about this. We can never know anything as an absolute fact. But enough consistent evidence for which there is no known evidence to contradict it can constitute what we know as scientific fact (which of necessity requires doubt).

So, you mean that geocentric system, since Aristotle and Ptolomeus was the only scientific theory acceptable until the end of XVI century. In fact, it was the only system consistent to evidence. Aristarco had not a scientific position, since he claimed that was the earth that moved, and that fact could not be an "evidence" in his time.

Then, you also mean that space and time are absolute references, as Newton said, according to the evidence of his time.

With Einstein, new "evidence", new theory. Space and time are related to the observer, according to the speed of light and position.

And tomorrow?

And another question: what do you mean by "evidence"? Reading your post I had the idea you were referring to Popper. But he doesn't speak about evidence. He talks about experiments, what I think is completely different.

What I mean by this is that you are supporting Frank's agnosticism. Scientific theories are not explanations of facts, just interpretations until a new one, based in new evidence, destroys the other. So, why care about the present theories? Tomorrow there will be new ones, and after tomorrow another.

In my post, I was referring to Richard Feynman. Please see his definition of evidence.

I don't believe you read my post carefully enough, Val......

Some hypotheses are so close to certain that we accept them as facts, until proven otherwise. Without the assumption of fact, scientific experimentation and conjecture would be impossible, as impossible as it would be without doubt.

Absolute certainty is a ridiculous requirement for establishing the existence of fact. I believe it's a fact that I'm typing on my computer right now, that there is an orchid sitting on my desk beside me, that it's the Chrysler building pointy thing I see in the distance. We could never speak of facts without doubt. But some things are certain enough for now, until new technology or new findings indicate otherwise to be considered to be and treated as fact. You can bet I'm not going to step in from of an oncoming bus when I go down stairs in a minute to go to the store. Maybe some day proof will be available that there is a God, but I don't think it will. I so don't think it will that I'm not worried about it. That's as close as we come to absolute truth. But just because we maintain the possibility that a fact may be disproved, doesn't mean that it will be.

For now, I'm content to say that I do not believe there is a God. It's a matter of probability. That's all we have. Given our present knowledge, it is much more probable that there is no God than that there is one. And there's a lot of evidence, referred to in the Dawkins piece, that evolution is the explanation. Evolutionary knowledge is evolving or developing, but so far, nothing has been found to contradict it. And there's a logical problem involved in the possible existence of a creator.

It's good enough for me for now. That's all we've got. But I don't think it's accurate to say, as I've heard Frank say so many times that we have no proof either way. We have a lot of evidence for one and none for the other.

0 Replies

I'm not gloating about Apisa getting kicked off again - I'm NOT.

Really.

Honestly.

0 Replies

Good.

It would become you very ill indeed.

Hardly - well - either reasonable or christian, hmmm?

0 Replies

watchmakers guidedog wrote:

Quote:
I personally see that position as being superior in all respects to yours...and I think it is presumptuous of you to suggest I lower my standards to yours.

I was going to let it go and apologise originally. However...

It's presumptuous of ME to suggest that YOU lower your standards?

You are welcome to remain outside of religious conversation, if you don't want to become involved you don't have to. If you say "gee, I don't actually know", that's fine. If you get involved in the interest of learning, or aiding others in their discussions, yet again it's fine. No, it's fantastic, love to have you aboard.

You however attempt to convert others to your ignorance and act in an arrogant superiority over those who venture out of the safeness of your position to say "you know, I've been thinking about this issue and I think..."

You're like some philosopher wandering up to Isaac Newton and saying "We can't know about this gravity. The next time you drop something it might not fall. You shouldn't be making claims about this because really we don't know."

The rest of us are out here doing the hard work of attempting to logically reason out something. If we forget that none of us truely know for certain, then remind us that in truth we are all agnostic. If someone pesters you to accept their belief, say that you're not convinced.

If the human race treated all matters as you treat religion we would be extinct. I don't care what your opinion is, but how dare you condemn us when you're high and dry in your safe position of ignorance. How dare you so presume.

Only in religion could people tolerate this kind of behaviour. In science no one would condemn anyone willing to posit a theory to explain what they've seen.

As long as you keep attacking Frank, you fail to hear or understand how the agnostic position works. Why not ask HOW it is superior, rather than saying "No, I refuse to listen and without knowing your position I say you are wrong."

One benefit of the agnostic position is that scientists and philosophers are no longer "penny-wise and pound-foolish". An agnostic can look at all the possible avenues to explore, and pick only the most worthwhile questions. The questions that have adequate evidence for us to build a reasonable next conclusion. And the questions that are pertinent to our lives.

If someone spends days, months and years debating about the existence of God:
1) There's a good chance they won't get anywhere.
2) The answer is not constructively pertinent to very much in daily life.

To see this, just consider the huge variety of answers, religions, and philosophies that billions of people have come up with so far.
Instead of coming up with yet another not-very-useful and not-very-supportable "belief",
why not spend that time in more constructive endeavors, where meaningful progress is more likely?

It is a wise scientist that knows when to stop -- to say "That's as far as the evidence takes me; We should not conclude anything unwarranted, but focus on more deterministic experiments".

"convert others to your ignorance and act in an arrogant superiority"?
If you want to claim that agnostics support ignorance, that is your right.

It could also be argued that religion (including atheism) supports ignorance many times greater than the agnostics' vigorous pursuit -- of the evidence that is available and productive.

In what ways do you see atheism to be superior?
Again, nobody here is trying to act superior or sound superior -- we're discussing how every approach actually is superior, simultaneously -- each approach having it's pros and cons.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Frank:-

You just lost round 2.You are playing word games and telling lies loses you the round.

Betting update-Lola Bumpskins 1 to 2.Burnlikker 3 to 1,Watchdog 8 to 1.Chamberfull 100 to 1.

This is a very odd thread for me, because I see Frank being very honest, direct, and clear in his explanations, without initiating any insults or personal attacks. He mirrors logic with logic, personal jabs with personal jabs.

But quite a few people discuss him, rather than the subject of the thread.

If anyone can point out even one example of his
1) word games
2) telling lies
that would be very helpful to me.

Thanks!

0 Replies

Quote:

Does this mean God would be in a serial killer or child molestor, also?

I don't think it means that God is responsible for the action, but that the cognitive existence of the being is a part of God and the traits is something else.

0 Replies

CodeBorg wrote:

spendius wrote:
Frank:-

You just lost round 2.You are playing word games and telling lies loses you the round.

Betting update-Lola Bumpskins 1 to 2.Burnlikker 3 to 1,Watchdog 8 to 1.Chamberfull 100 to 1.

This is a very odd thread for me, because I see Frank being very honest, direct, and clear in his explanations, without initiating any insults or personal attacks. He mirrors logic with logic, personal jabs with personal jabs.

But quite a few people discuss him, rather than the subject of the thread.

If anyone can point out even one example of his
1) word games
2) telling lies
that would be very helpful to me.

Thanks!

Codeborg, you are right. Frank is not playing word games. It's just that his strong convictions seem to put some people off, I guess...and I think that Spendius is just plain jealous.

0 Replies

Kickycan, I don't think it's Frank's strong convictions that puts some people off, it's his adolescent manner. Nevertheless, I don't think his behavior in this thread warrants his dismissal. I wonder how he has been performing on all other threads. Frank is entitled to his convictions; most of us have strong beliefs and attitudes which is in part why we participate in A2K. But I don't want to critique his ideas until he comes back.

0 Replies

JL, I know that you and Frank have a history of disagreements over these issues, and if you say that in your case, it's his adolescent manner, that is good enough for me. I apologize for lumping you in there.

But I still feel that there are many others who become defiant and bristle at his strong convictions and strongly worded opinions needlessly.

And for what it's worth, I don't think that his behavior warrants his dismissal either.

0 Replies

I fully expect to get flamed for this post.

The only part that bothers me is the vulgar name calling and personal attacks on the person's intelligence, put-downs, insults, etc.

I'm all for a good laugh, and sometimes a put-down is warranted, etc.

But some people take it to an extreme and do it repeatedly as part of their debate (which really isn't a debate anymore at that point).

And some kids and religious people and people that may not have tough-as-nails constitutions enjoy these boards. And even though I'm not religious, etc., I'd rather have some modicum of respect and not subject those people or kids to constant profane put-downs when they may be truly trying to learn something.

Free speech is hard and I feel for the A2K Webmasters who have to deal with this. You want to allow Free Speech of course. But if its constantly laced with obscenity and name calling and personal put downs, at some point, its like Why? Why do this?

I'm sure there are plenty of other Profanity-friendly boards folks can post to.

The sad thing is some of these profanity happy personal attackers also have some good things to say at times.

Ironically, I thought this particular thread was very tame. No offensive things really.

The only thing I can figure: Perhaps the offensive posts were deleted and/or on other threads.

Notice I didn't mention any names in this post.

I fully expect to get flamed for this post.

0 Replies

Well, let's see if we can talk Frank into coming back when he can. He gets worked up. Everybody knows that. But that's just Frank. We all get worked up from time to time. We are all provocable......and I guess the moderator got provoked.....apparently he or she had reason. It's as hard being a moderator as it is being a mother to teenage daughters.......which is hell.

oh well. All in a day at a2k.

0 Replies

A2
tcis, I see no reason why you should be "flamed" for your post. It was a reasonable expression. I think A2K should be very vigilant to avoid what happened to ABUZZ. The barbarians who ruined that forum have not been able to get a foothold at A2K because of the vigilance of our monitors. I think we should be very greatful to them. Nevertheless, I have never considered Frank Apiso to pose such a threat. When he gets rude, I simply resolve to ignore him until he changes his mood. That has happened a number of times. I do hope A2K will allow him back in, assuming he will want to come back to the likes of me with my "head up my a*s."

0 Replies

I like Frank and consider him a good friend. We have had our share of arguments, but when it's over, there is no rancor. He, the militant agnostic, I, the stoic atheist. But, the wrangling's in fun. I sincerely wish he would continue to be a member here. Policing a site is fine and dandy, but there has to be some give for the excentricities many of us exhibit.

0 Replies

Lola
Please tell Frank that I will miss him very much and hope he will be back :-(

0 Replies

Dungdingdangdengdongdung!!!

Your Grace,yor worships,ladies and gentlemen-Mr Frank Apisa has chucked in the towel and Mrs Lola Bumpskins is the winner.Will you all kindly vacate the stadium in an orderly fashion.The bars are open and there are food counters for those in need of sustenance.Counsellors are on hand to guide confused spectators.Thank you.Have a safe journey.
That'll be fifty dollars if you can spare it.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Dungdingdangdengdongdung!!!

Your Grace,yor worships,ladies and gentlemen-Mr Frank Apisa has chucked in the towel and Mrs Lola Bumpskins is the winner.Will you all kindly vacate the stadium in an orderly fashion.The bars are open and there are food counters for those in need of sustenance.Counsellors are on hand to guide confused spectators.Thank you.Have a safe journey.
That'll be fifty dollars if you can spare it.

And you're another one, Spendius. Laughing

Aren't smileys fun?

0 Replies

Okay Lola and Blatham...time to put up or shut up!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know