Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    View Poll Results: What religion do you affiliate yourself with?

    Voters
    352. You may not vote on this poll
    • Christianity

      123 34.94%
    • Islam

      4 1.14%
    • Agnostic/Atheist

      162 46.02%
    • Hinduism

      2 0.57%
    • Buddhism

      6 1.70%
    • Judaism

      6 1.70%
    • Scientology

      2 0.57%
    • Sikhism

      3 0.85%
    • Neo-Paganism

      2 0.57%
    • Other

      42 11.93%
    Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 111718192021
    Results 701 to 712 of 712

    Thread: What Religion Are You?

    1. Member cockerpunk's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 17th, 2010
      Location
      Twin Cities MN
      Posts
      3,922
      Vehicles
      Mr2, 951, NA6
      06-07-2012 04:28 PM #701
      Quote Originally Posted by StormChaser View Post
      Again, why does it matter why someone gives, as long as they give? And religious people give more to non-religious charities than nonreligious people.
      because why someone does something is important, it tells us about how they think, and fundamentally, how someone thinks is more important then what someone does, because how someone thinks controls what someone does.

      if you give because you are guilted into it, that says something about your giving. it says you give not to solve a problem, but to ease your emotions. this is a recipe for ineffective aide.

      Quote Originally Posted by StormChaser View Post
      That can be said of any rule/law as well. Or any form of social control. So, if you really believe that, I assume you are an anarchist who believes that there should be no laws? To say otherwise would be hypocritical.
      really? thats what your gonna come at with? you really don't think the only thing stopping us from killing people, raping people, and stealing other peoples stuff is just because its illegal?

      thats pretty terrifying.
      Quote Originally Posted by Time for a GTI View Post
      Something has gone horribly, horribly wrong when cockerpunk is representing the voice of reason. Holy ****.

    2. 06-07-2012 04:31 PM #702
      Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
      if you give because you are guilted into it, that says something about your giving. it says you give not to solve a problem, but to ease your emotions. this is a recipe for ineffective aide.
      Apparently not.
      Unofficial Feelings Manager for OT. http://www.npboards.com/index.php

      "I am JIMP."

    3. Member cockerpunk's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 17th, 2010
      Location
      Twin Cities MN
      Posts
      3,922
      Vehicles
      Mr2, 951, NA6
      06-07-2012 04:34 PM #703
      Quote Originally Posted by StormChaser View Post
      My God you are an _______ (less than intelligent person). You claim logic, but fail at it. Did you actually take a Logic class in college? If so, your professor SUCKED.

      It is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Some people even think that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. I will show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all...but be prepared for a LONG read.

      Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait… this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.
      Not only that, but any claim can be expressed as a negative, thanks to the rule of double negation. This rule states that any proposition P is logically equivalent to not-not-P. So pick anything you think you can prove. Think you can prove your own existence? At least to your own satisfaction? Then, using the exact same reasoning, plus the little step of double negation,
      you can prove that you aren’t nonexistent. Congratulations, you’ve just proven a negative. The beautiful part is that you can do this trick with absolutely any proposition whatsoever. Prove P is true and you can prove that P is not false.

      Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by ‘prove.’ Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here’s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens:
      1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
      2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
      3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

      Someone might object that that was a bit too fast, after all, I didn’t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that’s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here’s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum. Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we’re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative.

      Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will conclusively, indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues that we’ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible evidence of Bigfoot’s existence, and therefore there is no Bigfoot. A classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be hiding in that next stand of trees. You can’t prove he’s not! (until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too). The problem here isn’t that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty about anything at all, positive or negative. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white looked like a pretty good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia.

      The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. We’d better not dismiss induction because we’re not getting certainty out of it, though. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow? Not because of observation (you can’t observe the future!), but because that’s what it has always done in the past. Why do you think that if you turn on the kitchen tap that water will come out instead of chocolate? Why do you think you’ll find your house where you last left it? Why do you think lunch will be nourishing instead of deadly? Again, because that’s the way things have always been in the past. In other words, we use inferences — induction — from past experiences in every aspect of our lives. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, the chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner. But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer would be a surprise.

      So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people keep believing in alien abductions, even when flying saucers always turn out to be weather balloons, stealth jets, comets, or too much alcohol. You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.

      If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones. You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all.
      so ... after a trashy post calling me every name in the book, you said the same thing i did, only way to prove a negative is to prove a positive that contradicts it. inductive proofs are indeed merely proving a positive claim. if you find black swans, thats a positive claim, that disproves the negative claim there are no black swans.

      cool. we are on the same page.

      so there is no god still doesn't require proof, it the the logical and scientific null hypothesis that has yet to be overcome by data.
      Quote Originally Posted by Time for a GTI View Post
      Something has gone horribly, horribly wrong when cockerpunk is representing the voice of reason. Holy ****.

    4. 06-07-2012 04:55 PM #704
      Cockerpunk, you've now moved from asserting that a negative can't be proven to a negative can't be proven directly, or a negative can only be proven if.... Significantly, no one argued such a direct proof.

      That's fine. It also leads back to the ostensible basis of your faith, i.e. that its grammitical construction doesn't demand further thought or inquiry. That's a simple burden shifting assertion, not an argument.

      Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
      so there is no god still doesn't require proof, it the the logical and scientific null hypothesis that has yet to be overcome by data.
      And you've still not come to grips with differences in questions of evidence and logic, and the overlap of knowledge, belief, faith and doubt, let alone appreciated the difference between a negative grammatical construction and a null hyppothesis.

      There is no God but God.

      The earth is not flat.

      Zero does not exist.

      This sentence is not true.


      Each is a negative grammatical construction. Negative grammatical construction doesn't make a rational person believe whatever is stated as a default.
      Unofficial Feelings Manager for OT. http://www.npboards.com/index.php

      "I am JIMP."

    5. Banned StormChaser's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 3rd, 2000
      Location
      Annapolis, MD
      Posts
      19,431
      Vehicles
      2006 Volvo V50, 1993 RX-7 R1, 1980 Hatteras 53MY, 2002 Grady White Release 283, 1958 Mohawk 14
      06-07-2012 05:38 PM #705
      Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
      because why someone does something is important, it tells us about how they think, and fundamentally, how someone thinks is more important then what someone does, because how someone thinks controls what someone does.

      if you give because you are guilted into it, that says something about your giving. it says you give not to solve a problem, but to ease your emotions. this is a recipe for ineffective aide.
      Yet religious people give more to those same non-religious charities. So, your logic fails yet again. And it doesn't mean they are guilted into it. It could very well mean that their religion has taught them to do good. Being non-religious, you don't have a very good perspective on what goes though the minds of those who believe.

    6. Member The*Fall*Guy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 10th, 2009
      Location
      There
      Posts
      698
      06-07-2012 06:59 PM #706
      Quote Originally Posted by O_G View Post
      Oh please.
      Another brilliant, game changing post by O_G ladies and gentlemen.

      Have you ever considered adding a little fiber to your diet?
      Quote Originally Posted by A.Wilder View Post
      he must be new here.
      Not quite Adam. Some of us prefer to lurk. I've been here for a long time.

    7. Member im easy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 14th, 2009
      Location
      VA
      Posts
      293
      Vehicles
      slow girls car
      06-07-2012 07:08 PM #707
      I voted Christian.

    8. Banned Chris Stack's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 27th, 2008
      Location
      'Murica. F yeah.
      Posts
      11,644
      Vehicles
      Hondas, regular and extra-pricey
      06-07-2012 07:30 PM #708
      Quote Originally Posted by im easy View Post
      I voted Christian.
      At a glance I read that as "I voted Chilledman" and I thought, "eh, could do worse."

    9. Banned Chilledman's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 14th, 2010
      Location
      USA
      Posts
      3,637
      06-07-2012 08:57 PM #709
      Quote Originally Posted by Chris Stack View Post
      At a glance I read that as "I voted Chilledman" and I thought, "eh, could do worse."
      Yeah he could of voted Jehovah's witness :lol:

    10. Banned StormChaser's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 3rd, 2000
      Location
      Annapolis, MD
      Posts
      19,431
      Vehicles
      2006 Volvo V50, 1993 RX-7 R1, 1980 Hatteras 53MY, 2002 Grady White Release 283, 1958 Mohawk 14
      06-22-2012 01:33 PM #710
      Quote Originally Posted by Chilledman View Post
      Yeah he could of voted Jehovah's witness :lol:


    11. 06-22-2012 01:35 PM #711
      Quote Originally Posted by GolfTango View Post
      Roman Catholic
      Same

    Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 111718192021

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •