News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Hello fellow humans :)

Started by luckswallowsall, September 26, 2018, 04:15:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 07:01:01 AM
Congratulations and welcome to the club.   I hope you stay that way.

Well, I'd only become a theist if (a)God actually existed (b)I was having an episode of psychosis.

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Sal1981 on September 27, 2018, 11:22:00 AM
That was just me being a contrarian. I tend to be mostly rational and down-to-earth logical for the most part.

So you're rational at least when you're not being contrarian?

As for down-to-earth... depends what you mean really. If being down-to-earth means having commonsensical non-counterintutive ideas, and following basic intuitions, then being down to earth is often being less rational, if we mean rational in the sense of logical, as common sense and intuition is often incorrect and largely mistaken.

luckswallowsall

Quote from: SGOS on September 27, 2018, 11:50:53 AM
I was about that age when I first heard about evolution.  That was 65 years ago.  My dad told me about it, and it just made sense.  My dad had a close fundamentalist friend named Bernie, and my dad told me that Bernie didn't believe in evolution.  So one day Dad, Bernie, and I were walking down the side walk, and I asked Bernie why he didn't believe in evolution.  Bernie picked up a green leaf that had fallen from a tree, and showed it to me, not that I'd never looked at a leaf before.  I mean what little did never picked up a leaf and wondered about it?  He pointed out the shape and the tiny veins that crept through it forming a random pattern that carried the nutrients to all the parts.  He said, "This is just too complicated to be an accident."  I politely acknowledged, but I understood enough about evolution to realize that shape and random patterns didn't mean it couldn't have happened over years of tiny changes.  It was like Bernie thought that one day all the parts of a fully formed leaf just came into being, and presto!  We had trees from that day on.

Years later, I heard about irreducible complexity of the eye and how an eye couldn't develop over time, and I thought, "Gee, that sounds just like Bernie."

Thank you for the story. It was an enjoyable read.

Cavebear

Quote from: SGOS on September 27, 2018, 11:50:53 AM
I was about that age when I first heard about evolution.  That was 65 years ago.  My dad told me about it, and it just made sense.  My dad had a close fundamentalist friend named Bernie, and my dad told me that Bernie didn't believe in evolution.  So one day Dad, Bernie, and I were walking down the side walk, and I asked Bernie why he didn't believe in evolution.  Bernie picked up a green leaf that had fallen from a tree, and showed it to me, not that I'd never looked at a leaf before.  I mean what little did never picked up a leaf and wondered about it?  He pointed out the shape and the tiny veins that crept through it forming a random pattern that carried the nutrients to all the parts.  He said, "This is just too complicated to be an accident."  I politely acknowledged, but I understood enough about evolution to realize that shape and random patterns didn't mean it couldn't have happened over years of tiny changes.  It was like Bernie thought that one day all the parts of a fully formed leaf just came into being, and presto!  We had trees from that day on.

Years later, I heard about irreducible complexity of the eye and how an eye couldn't develop over time, and I thought, "Gee, that sounds just like Bernie."

Yes, that is typical theist thinking.  You can't get from A to Z,  and I agree.  But you can get from A to B and B to C, etc.  And that is what theists either cannot "get" or refuse to accept.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 26, 2018, 04:15:16 PM
Hello. I'm a 30 year old male atheist from England.

I am interested in debate, being logical, and philosophy.

I look forward to some interesting discussions here.

Welcome also.  Several Brits here.  And some Brit fans.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Sal1981

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 11:58:23 AM
So you're rational at least when you're not being contrarian?
Yes.

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 11:58:23 AMAs for down-to-earth... depends what you mean really. If being down-to-earth means having commonsensical non-counterintutive ideas, and following basic intuitions, then being down to earth is often being less rational, if we mean rational in the sense of logical, as common sense and intuition is often incorrect and largely mistaken.
I think you're reading too much into it. I mean "down-to-earth logical" as in not having lofty ideals ... a pragmatist rather, if you will. I'm well aware of how counterintuitive a lot of stuff is, just look at optical illusions and be visually fooled says a lot about how our brains work. I take everything, no matter what, with a grain of salt - even mathematical proofs.


luckswallowsall

Quote from: Sal1981 on September 27, 2018, 03:15:00 PM
I mean "down-to-earth logical" as in not having lofty ideals ... a pragmatist rather, if you will.

I understand that down-to-earth refers to being practical or pragmatic. That is why I mentioned common sense and intuition.

What I mean is... sometimes the most practical and pragmatic answer that is most useful... is actually factually incorrect... and what goes against common sense and intuition.... is often impractical, but nevertheless true.

QuoteI'm well aware of how counterintuitive a lot of stuff is, just look at optical illusions and be visually fooled says a lot about how our brains work. I take everything, no matter what, with a grain of salt - even mathematical proofs.

Do you take a grain of salt to be a grain of salt though? Or do you take the notion of a grain of salt being a grain of salt with a grain of salt?

If so, do you take your taking of a grain of salt with a grain of salt, and if so doesn't that make your grain-of-salt-taking itself at least partially self-defeating?

Sal1981

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 03:23:16 PM
I understand that down-to-earth refers to being practical or pragmatic. That is why I mentioned common sense and intuition.

What I mean is... sometimes the most practical and pragmatic answer that is most useful... is actually factually incorrect... and what goes against common sense and intuition.... is often impractical, but nevertheless true.
Which is why I gave the example of visual illusions; a clear violation of the efficiency of intuition.

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 03:23:16 PM
Do you take a grain of salt to be a grain of salt though? Or do you take the notion of a grain of salt being a grain of salt with a grain of salt?

If so, do you take your taking of a grain of salt with a grain of salt, and if so doesn't that make your grain-of-salt-taking itself at least partially self-defeating?
Yes, nothing is outside the scope of doubt, even "doubt".

luckswallowsall

#25
Quote from: Sal1981 on September 27, 2018, 03:32:02 PM
Which is why I gave the example of visual illusions; a clear violation of the efficiency of intuition.

I'm glad you agree that intuition can be wrong. But I'm not glad that you're down-to-earth. But only because I'm opposed to pragmatism.


QuoteYes, nothing is outside the scope of doubt, even "doubt".

This sounds rather similar to the Socrates quote that the only thing that he knows is that he knows nothing. I'm always flabbergasted at the fact that no one else can seem to see Socrates' contradiction in terms there though. If he truly knows nothing then he can't even know that he knows nothing... so for him to say that knowing nothing is the only thing he knows is a contradiction, because knowing that he knows nothing is in fact knowing something, not knowing nothing, so he can't know nothing, if he really knows that he knows nothing, he must at least know something. So to refer to it being the "only" thing he knows... makes no sense... when he says that that one thing he knows is "nothing" because "nothing" is not a thing, and if he truly knows nothing, then he can't know that. Or he'd be knowing something (and 'round and 'round we go). Socrates' quote is self-defeating. What he should say is "I don't know anything except the fact that I can't know anything else." or "I know almost nothing. The only thing I know is that I don't know anything else besides this fact.")

But I'd still wonder how he supposedly knows this. It seems kind of silly to hold onto the knowledge of zero knowledge when zero knowledge is literally the only thing that can't possibly be known. If there's one category of things that isn't knowable then that category is the unknowable . . .

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: Cavebear on September 26, 2018, 11:49:40 PM
How did you become an atheist?
How does anyone become anything other than an atheist?
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: SGOS on September 27, 2018, 11:50:53 AM
I was about that age when I first heard about evolution.  That was 65 years ago.  My dad told me about it, and it just made sense.  My dad had a close fundamentalist friend named Bernie, and my dad told me that Bernie didn't believe in evolution.  So one day Dad, Bernie, and I were walking down the side walk, and I asked Bernie why he didn't believe in evolution.  Bernie picked up a green leaf that had fallen from a tree, and showed it to me, not that I'd never looked at a leaf before.  I mean what little did never picked up a leaf and wondered about it?  He pointed out the shape and the tiny veins that crept through it forming a random pattern that carried the nutrients to all the parts.  He said, "This is just too complicated to be an accident."  I politely acknowledged, but I understood enough about evolution to realize that shape and random patterns didn't mean it couldn't have happened over years of tiny changes.  It was like Bernie thought that one day all the parts of a fully formed leaf just came into being, and presto!  We had trees from that day on.

Years later, I heard about irreducible complexity of the eye and how an eye couldn't develop over time, and I thought, "Gee, that sounds just like Bernie."
So, a single leaf outsmarted Bernie. That's awesome.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Sal1981

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 27, 2018, 03:42:45 PM
How does anyone become anything other than an atheist?
indoctrination ... at any age. It only requires uncritical acceptance. And it takes years of deprogramming to get rid of, at least, it did for me.

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 27, 2018, 03:42:45 PM
How does anyone become anything other than an atheist?

By developing a belief in at least one god.