Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Iggy

  1. That can be a minefield though. If one person says "I saw Jesus", and another person says "I saw Jesus too", then what part of that is exactly irrational. One person has just verified by the testimony of another person that which he believes he saw with his own eyes. I get that it's difficult to call that evidence, but I'm also not sure "convincing others through rational thought" is exactly the demarcation. If there is a demarcation then I'm honestly not sure what it is.
  2. I don't argue there. No... I think we're talking cross purposes. You know how Shakespeare said "a rose by any other name"? Whatever the problems are of the democratic party -- they are here today for democrats to own and claim -- whatever the failings. But, you can't ask someone three generations late to a party to apologize for his name. The name alone means nothing. A rose by any other name smells just so sweet.
  3. Besides popularity, in what specific way(s) do you suggest... White noise. Please do. Please do so in your next post. Please don't ask me any questions first. Please prove to me that pixie farts and dragon poop are equivalent to god. In the mean time... stop saying they are!
  4. Who did that? Who just gave me a -1? In what way does "you said it, you explain it, I'm not explaining it for you" deserve a -1? And, I was polite the whole time. What form of cowardice does this -1 shite take? You can't seem to hit "reply" and make an argument, so you just figure on doing that. Retarded. If you can't find the courage to leave your cheerleading squad for just a minute and admit what you think here, then PM me. What did I just say that was so wrong? TELL ME! Your disapproval otherwise is nothing but whimpering cowardice. None of you can find an argument against what I'm saying, but you've all gone so far as to -1, 2, 3, times every single one of my posts. This just figures about what I'm saying about this thread. Let's all hear iNow say that God is equivalent to pixie farts again. He'll get a +3 for that. And, you call yourself a science site! HA!
  5. Uhhh... you remember pro-slavery democrats? How old are you? Anti-slavery democrats joined with northern Whigs to form the republican party some time before 1970, but that was all ancient history by the time of Kennedy and Jim Crow. Speaking of a "big deal"... it changed in the time of FDR in fact. If you remember democrats being behind attack dogs and water cannons then I'm pretty sure you're spot off there. Edit... I guess... maybe southern democrats up until maybe the 1950's... but... whatever... it has nothing to do with the party now. You're about 3 generations late on that.
  6. Iggy

    Yay, GUNS!

    Moral decay without individual rights is far worse. So... yeah... it is a bright spot.
  7. I NEVER proposed they are different. You not only proposed, but claimed, they were equivalent. You made the claim, repeated it, told me that you've repeatedly shown that they are equivalent but refuse to point me to a post, and all the while try to shift the burden of proof to everyone else. This is debating 101. I'm not going to prove your claim for you. It would be no different if someone said "there is a God", and you replied "show me him", and they could only manage "well... prove to me that there isn't". I'm not going to define your words for you either. Completely agreed.
  8. Please ignore my belligerent tone and concentrate on what I'm saying. This is an analogy: Just like "Corndog pooping dragons exist", "God exists" is unfalsifiable... they both therefore make a bad scientific hypothesis" I would be fine with something like that. What happened wasn't an analogy.
  9. Yes, but it's an equivocation fallacy when it happens. "you shouldn't believe in God because he's nothing more than leprechaun erections and fairy dust" is an equivocation fallacy. It is the weak argument. It is the assertion. I absolutely do, and I can prove it. Tar frequently does the inverse of what iNow does. He says "You should believe in God because he's no different from the majesty of the universe" (a pantheism argument), and he can tell you how far I've taken the argument to him for him to stop doing it. It's an equivocation fallacy all the same. There's no point in either of them doing it. It's not good science. That's all I'm saying. And, it really isn't about protecting Pears. She can obviously handle herself. It's about being annoyed that every other post is dragon poop and leprechaun erection fallacies that seem to serve no purpose but insult and making us atheists look bad. It's hypocritical and annoying.
  10. Yeah, I think we're both in the wrong there. Now, that's fair. I'm not calling you out specifically. Yours was a convenient post by which to hit reply, but you're right, this isn't your issue. You're even making my argument in so many words. I'm sorry for the last post. Really. It's iNow and Ringer that need to answer why they're browbeating somebody for refusing to answer personal questions.
  11. Not just shifting it, but perhaps just shifting it slightly off topic. It's ok. We can shift that burden of proof back. Aren't we all glad iNow can prove the above claim scientifically? I've seen him attack at least a dozen people based on it, so we're all happy to hand him the bag and let him prove it. I'll be grinning ear to ear when you do it, iNow. It will be a new dawn for mankind. I'm an atheist, I can tell you... "Winter is coming" won't be in our lexicon any more when you do it. In the mean time... STOP doing it on a feakin' science site... and more than all... stop attacking ppl with it! You haven't been following the thread, I can tell. The thing is... now that you realize that Pears isn't the one making all kinds of "specific" claims based on her personal beliefs... but it is rather others, what are you going to do? What does your scientific sense tell you? If it's "an opinion that you're completely entitled to" (and not even a belief she's admitted or argued from) what then about the people who cut her down for having this ghost belief? What about their strawmen? Nothing I suspect.
  12. I'm not so sure anymore. If you look at what Libya did after the latest Iraq war started... Gaddafi gave over his chemical weapons at last. He really didn't have to, but it seemed like he felt maybe the changing politics in his own country combined with the threat of international force made them more trouble than they're worth. He could have done a lot of damage with those things. But, he just gave them up. Maybe al-Assad has come to a likewise conclusion. Of course, it helps enormously that Russia smacked him across the ear. And, of course, it has to be a delaying tactic in so far as Assad thinks it will keep him stay in power... so, you're ultimately right, I just... I don't know, I'm conflicted. I was happy when Gaddafi gave up his nerve agent, but I was more happy when someone dragged him out of drain pipe and shot him in the head. I guess I'm just hoping (like maybe you are as well) that the former doesn't prevent the latter in this case, because Assad is a monster and deserves no better.
  13. Yeah, you compared what he did to a kid needing a blanket. That's what you did, and it's really cold. What part of that is so hard for everyone to understand? All of you are cutting that guy down for having a personal belief that he refuses to publish on a science site. Good for him. You could benefit from taking a page from his book. And you... whoever you are (I'm not willing to look up at your name again... that sounds nauseating)... comparing him to a kid needing a blanket... you should be disgusted with yourself. Baboonery. Not worthy of science. I'm going to step out of the thread for a while. I can't deal with this level of ignorant hostility. Saying you're going to "help him". Disgusting! You need help!
  14. No, I read it this time. Now I've read it a second time. I'm going to ignore it again. The green color was nice though. Threw some red in. Looked like christmas.
  15. You and I were reading a different post. Do you need me to quote the part about the kid's blanket? Do you need me to point you to it? What are you talking about. Again, I can only say... Pears... don't give an inch to this type of ?#@!.... whatever, just don't give an inch.
  16. She's really good too. She's an Australian girl.... or maybe New Zealand... whatever it is, she's really freakin good.
  17. Of course you make decisions based on emotion, Ringer. Of course you do. You can't say you don't. You're calling pears out for doing exactly what you do every day. And, worse than that... it's really diminutive... you tell him he needs a kid's blanket? That's really cold and dismissive. Don't give an inch, Pears. Your private beliefs are your own, and you have made quite clear you aren't making any arguments based on them. Good for you. You're doing better than two people I can spot from here. Ringer can demand emotional meaning, and iNow can demand empirical evidence... but they are both exactly as guilty, and couldn't be more wrong. Don't give an inch.
  18. I thought it was a bloody brilliant post. Post 32 was better, but all around interesting.
  19. Ok. Let's just agree that verifiability isn't the only demarcation. That should negate post 264 just fine, and we won't derail this topic any further. BTW, you impressively know your stuff.
  20. Well... he was a bit naive, but I wouldn't exactly call him wrong on the main point. He changed the face of science. He redefined the scientific method. You've gotta give the guy his props. No... I think you're thinking of science being reproducible. That's fine. I can stick by that, but not "verifiable". Once you say that science is verifiable then all the sudden astrology becomes part of science. I can't do that.
  21. I respect your opinion.
  22. We've covered that... Yeah, but you've believed things in your life that lack supporting empirical evidence, so that isn't it. Good idea though.
  23. Oh, uhh... Karl Popper was a famous philosophy of science guy. He was the good guy. Think of him like Luke Skywalker. Now, there were a bunch of bad guys too. They called themselves the "Vienna circle". You can think of them like the evil empire. So, what Popper did was to prove the Vienna circle wrong about verifiability. It was a big argument. Made all kinds of headlines. He introduced the idea that falsifiability is the thing that matters to science, and not verifiability. Then the death star exploded and here we are.
  24. Heh! Funny. Yeah, you're more right than you know. To be honest, that was the only sentence from that post I read, and I didn't even respond to it right... Embarrasing. You're right to call me out on that. Sorry. I think I like you. LabRat is a terrible name, but despite that you seem alright. At least you're speaking up. The broken record... did you notice iNow is just repeating himself in the last post? He claimed that god was equivalent to corndog pooping dragons and now he's endlessly beggaring everybody to prove his comparison. And, demanding people define his words for him. That doesn't sound like my problem. He said that two things are equivalent, and I'm just standing here wondering how he's going to prove it. This isn't my problem. If I sound like a broken record saying that, then fine... It's true. By the way, Pears, verifiability hasn't been a demarcation of science since Popper. It doesn't enter into the discussion. It sounds like maybe you know that.
  25. Good. Tell iNow to stop comparing them.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.