You’re committing a category error here. We’re not talking about “innate human reason,” because if it didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be able to have this discussion. We’re talking about the existence of moral facts - the things people know they ought or ought not do.
But since you brought that up, why do the laws of logic exist and how is human reason accounted for in the atheist theory of knowledge?
First of all, there is no atheist theory of knowledge. There is philosophy.
Secondly, the laws of logic stem from human reason…
No they don’t. They’re the pre-requisites for human reason. Without them, you couldn’t think.
[/quote]
Quite right. Reason is the application of logic. Many are confused by this so it is just easier to lump logic and reason together to cover your bases.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Ever noticed how some people are full of shit?
First there was that Youtube clown posing as Thomas Paine fancifully pretending that Paine would have supported an integration of “god into public life” whatever that means. Or that Paine would have supported a universal draft.
It gets worse.
In the recent thread, some asshole wrote:
Do you think less God in our country means we are abandoning the ideas of the founding fathers, or that the founding fathers were following the popular belief system of the day and were able to get away withintegrating the word God into every document they wrote?
[/quote]
How incredibly intelligent of you. Posting random comments from different threads with no context. Why not comment on these statements in the actual threads they occur and then explain if the inaccuracies actually change the outcome of the argument.
What’s your point? That this country wasn’t founded in Christian principals? That the founding fathers specifically set out to exclude religion in any form from government activities or any activities somehow funded or supported by gov’t?
Now you are just being silly.
Are all axioms created equally? Are axioms that can be witnessed and tested logically equivalent to axioms of faith? I was a bit of a math nerd so i do understand the difference between logical axioms and non logical axioms. You should look it up.
Secondly, why can’t logic prove that axioms contradict each other. Must is always be used to move from axiom to theory? Rationalization is used as much or more for this purpose. Can’t logic be used to dissect theory and point out non-logical or contradicting logic?
Let me just say that you accusing anyone else on this board of being pretentious is laughable.
What would call an argument that was based solely on axioms that were non logical or contradictory? I will call it illogical until a better, more universally understood, definition is unveiled. From now on when I say illogical I do not mean devoid of any logic. I mean logically challenged.
semantics and a very silly argument. Ask yourself this. Do the statements, that irritate you so, make sense in the context of the discussion and given the common understanding of the vernacular used?
nice try. again, go back the book you must be reading at the time, that has so inspired this post, and try and understand the difference between logic/reason and rationalization. Also try and comprehend that not all axioms are created equal. This is all probably in chapter two. Unless you are reading Kant.
You’ll pass? Excellent. Perhaps you should quit trying to engage me on this topic then too, huh, to avoid wasting each other’s time? Don’t you have some Islam to defend elsewhere on this section of the forum?
Nothing to engage. You have proven that God exists, using an irrefutable argument. I am simply backing you up by providing more evidence, in the form of a Chevy Impala and chocolate Easter bunnies.
Quiting one and then expecting me to jump into another with you is a bit unfair, not that you’re much into fairness.
And I’d say that Islam can manage pretty well without me defending it, after all.
You would think, wouldn’t you? I mean, few of us conservatives (yourself exclused) haven’t noticed the soldiers of Allah in every part of the globe “defending” Islam. But there you always are…like a moth to a flame.
And speaking of moth to a flame, you never miss an opportunity to take a dig a Christianity. I loved the time where you said, “I condemn nobody, and nobody’s holy book. I snicker at them all from time to time, but I don’t mean nothin’ by it. Mostly.” Gee, really? When have you snickered at the Qur’an and Hadith? When have you failed to snicker at the Bible? It’s amazing how on the “Do you believe in God?” thread, you were able to discuss Bible passages at length, but you can never seem to do so with the holy books of Islam. Whenever we get into a discussion of Christianity, there you are with your pseudo-intellectual spasms of snark: http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/christ_would_oppose_usa?id=2704869&pageNo=3
It’s amazing how much you know about Christianity (Paulianity, as you put it), how much criticism you have for it, and how little criticism and how much defense you have for Islam. Weird, huh, for a guy you condemns “nobody’s holy book?”
[/quote]
I feel privileged… no, honored that I, of all people, would rate so much attention in this, the very last post ever written by PRCalDude on T-Nation. Praise the Lord.
You’ll pass? Excellent. Perhaps you should quit trying to engage me on this topic then too, huh, to avoid wasting each other’s time? Don’t you have some Islam to defend elsewhere on this section of the forum?
Nothing to engage. You have proven that God exists, using an irrefutable argument. I am simply backing you up by providing more evidence, in the form of a Chevy Impala and chocolate Easter bunnies.
Quiting one and then expecting me to jump into another with you is a bit unfair, not that you’re much into fairness.
And I’d say that Islam can manage pretty well without me defending it, after all.
You would think, wouldn’t you? I mean, few of us conservatives (yourself exclused) haven’t noticed the soldiers of Allah in every part of the globe “defending” Islam. But there you always are…like a moth to a flame.
And speaking of moth to a flame, you never miss an opportunity to take a dig a Christianity. I loved the time where you said, “I condemn nobody, and nobody’s holy book. I snicker at them all from time to time, but I don’t mean nothin’ by it. Mostly.” Gee, really? When have you snickered at the Qur’an and Hadith? When have you failed to snicker at the Bible? It’s amazing how on the “Do you believe in God?” thread, you were able to discuss Bible passages at length, but you can never seem to do so with the holy books of Islam. Whenever we get into a discussion of Christianity, there you are with your pseudo-intellectual spasms of snark: http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/christ_would_oppose_usa?id=2704869&pageNo=3
It’s amazing how much you know about Christianity (Paulianity, as you put it), how much criticism you have for it, and how little criticism and how much defense you have for Islam. Weird, huh, for a guy you condemns “nobody’s holy book?”
I feel privileged… no, honored that I, of all people, would rate so much attention in this, the very last post ever written by PRCalDude on T-Nation. Praise the Lord.
[/quote]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pat wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pat wrote:
You cannot know that every time you let go of a penny, it will fall…It’s a pretty safe assumption based on the history of penny dropping, but you can never know it for certain. Key word 'assumption…BTW, If you hold a penny and let it go, I bet you $1 million bucks it will fall.
I’ll take that bet.
I hear that it costs $2 million for civilians to launch into space nowadays, so you might want to reconsider taking that bet.
Well, see, people like Dennis Tito and Greg Olsen fucked up by going through the “proper channels.” Of course they overpaid.
All I had to do to get my white ass into orbit was to slip the launch master at Baikonur a few bottles of Stolichnaya, a carton of Marlboros and a couple of Bulgarian prostitutes.
Cost me about a hundred and thirty bucks.
Actually, if you are falling and you let penny go, it will stay right next to you…I rescind the bet. I don’t have a mil…
Technically, if you are in free-fall, then the penny would also be falling, just not relative to you. So in that case you would win the bet.
So your axiom “a dropped penny always falls” depends entirely upon the presence of gravity.[/quote]
Your picture of an astronaut letting a penny go isn’t quite the counter you think it is. That penny will eventually attempt to make it back to Earth, until it burns up in the atmosphere. Sure it might take forever and a day but it is still “falling”, just not at the rate it would in Earth’s atmosphere. Why else would satellites need to use rockets to move themselves into a higher orbit on occasion?
However, in order to stimulate insult creativity, let’s get seven easy insults out of the way: moron, stupid, idiot, ignorant, dumb, gullible, and fool.[/quote]
Jesus, I don’t know what kind of vagina board you’ve been reading. I stopped using those in the fifth grade in favor heavier artillery like cunt, cocksucker, douchebag, bitch, faggot, and asshole.
Unfortunately I can’t use any of these on you because I agree with nearly everything you wrote.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Setting the schizophrenia of the post aside, I think there is a good nugget about the “logic” of believing in a god. Logic is not just an endpoint, it is a process - and in the absence of complete information, that process may include assumptions, inductions, and other methods of inquiry not based in science.
There is nothing more “rational” in disbelieving in a god than there is believing in a god. Whether or not you are rational depends on how to you get to your conclusion.
Your picture of an astronaut letting a penny go isn’t quite the counter you think it is. That penny will eventually attempt to make it back to Earth, until it burns up in the atmosphere. Sure it might take forever and a day but it is still “falling”, just not at the rate it would in Earth’s atmosphere. Why else would satellites need to use rockets to move themselves into a higher orbit on occasion?[/quote]
Depends where that astronaut is. If he’s far enough, the penny isn’t coming anywhere near Earth ever again, unless it pulled some serious “Homeward Bound” shit which I think is a stretch even for an American coin.
Your picture of an astronaut letting a penny go isn’t quite the counter you think it is. That penny will eventually attempt to make it back to Earth, until it burns up in the atmosphere. Sure it might take forever and a day but it is still “falling”, just not at the rate it would in Earth’s atmosphere. Why else would satellites need to use rockets to move themselves into a higher orbit on occasion?
Depends where that astronaut is. If he’s far enough, the penny isn’t coming anywhere near Earth ever again, unless it pulled some serious “Homeward Bound” shit which I think is a stretch even for an American coin.[/quote]
I am assuming he is at furthest the highest satellite orbits, seeing as the moon has not had visitors from Earth recently. So I would think what I said holds up, but yes if the penny is far enough away it will not gravitate towards Earth.
Your picture of an astronaut letting a penny go isn’t quite the counter you think it is. That penny will eventually attempt to make it back to Earth, until it burns up in the atmosphere. Sure it might take forever and a day but it is still “falling”, just not at the rate it would in Earth’s atmosphere. Why else would satellites need to use rockets to move themselves into a higher orbit on occasion?
Depends where that astronaut is. If he’s far enough, the penny isn’t coming anywhere near Earth ever again, unless it pulled some serious “Homeward Bound” shit which I think is a stretch even for an American coin.
I am assuming he is at furthest the highest satellite orbits, seeing as the moon has not had visitors from Earth recently. So I would think what I said holds up, but yes if the penny is far enough away it will not gravitate towards Earth.[/quote]
There is one problem–satellites don’t use rockets once they are in a stable orbit, so if you were in the same position, the penny would be in no danger of falling either.
Your picture of an astronaut letting a penny go isn’t quite the counter you think it is. That penny will eventually attempt to make it back to Earth, until it burns up in the atmosphere. Sure it might take forever and a day but it is still “falling”, just not at the rate it would in Earth’s atmosphere. Why else would satellites need to use rockets to move themselves into a higher orbit on occasion?
Depends where that astronaut is. If he’s far enough, the penny isn’t coming anywhere near Earth ever again, unless it pulled some serious “Homeward Bound” shit which I think is a stretch even for an American coin.
I am assuming he is at furthest the highest satellite orbits, seeing as the moon has not had visitors from Earth recently. So I would think what I said holds up, but yes if the penny is far enough away it will not gravitate towards Earth.
There is one problem–satellites don’t use rockets once they are in a stable orbit, so if you were in the same position, the penny would be in no danger of falling either.[/quote]
The space station is technically a satellite and was really what I was meaning. It does on occasion have to boost itself to a higher orbit. In hindsight I should have just said space station.
