Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 61 of 75
 [ 1496 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:lets give users form this forum the opportunity to vote.........

Vote 1, 2 or 3[/size]

1 I proved successfully that you have made contradictory claims, sometimes you seem to grant human choice, sometimes you seem to reject (or at least not grant) human choice

2 none of these statements is contradictory, Mars clearly grants human choice will, free will, libertarian free will etc. (as I defined those terms)

3 none of these statements is contradictory, Mars clearly doesn't grant human choice will, free will etc. (as I defined those terms)

please take your time to vote, feel free to read the original quotes and to read the whole contexts
and an other opportunity to vote, for the members of this forum

vote 1 or 2

Anyone who reads MarsCydonia s comments in this post, could know with certainty if he grants or not human choice (as I am using the term)

agree (vote 1)

disagree (vote 2)

My votes would be
1 and 2

And Leroy picks A again!

Not only have you ran from all the issues I hightlighted in my last comment to go down a pointless rabbit trail (you always do), you reduced your brainless voting opportunity to option 1 to 3. The reality however Leroy, is that there is an option 4. You even wrote yourself what option 4 would be but its an option that never dawned on you because you refuse, or do not have the mental capacity, to deal with the reality of what people actually write and you create these fantasies that exist nowehere but in your brainless mind.

And even if you miraculously formed the ability to actually learn for a short time, you would spend that time better in trying to understand the issues with your brainless ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." than finally understanding an answer you already have about my position.

But we know: you'll pick A again.






However, the silence of your atheist friends is quite telling.


what are the odds that a theist makes a mistake in this forum and not being corrected by fanatic atheist?


the silence of your atheist friends revels that

1 I proved successfully that you have made contradictory statements

2 you have not explained clearly your position regarding human choice.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue May 16, 2017 1:57 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 834Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:However, the silence of your atheist friends is quite telling.

what are the odds that a theist makes a mistake in this forum and not being corrected by fanatic atheist?

the silence of your atheist friends revels that

1 I proved successfully that you have made contradictory statements

2 you have not explained clearly your position regarding human choice.

It isn't silence that is telling you something Leroy, its the fantasies your brainless mind loves to come up in order to avoid dealing with reality because once again, you reduced to possibilities to fantasies.

If you, who is fanatically obsessed with my position on human choices, were too lazy to go back and read my comments upthread, why should the others, who probably don't care as much, if at all, should? They're certainly not obsessed like you are.

Once again there's another option, a third option that you refuse to, or cannot, contemplate.
Once again you ran from the adressing the issues with the brainless ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc."
Once again you've picked A Leroy.

And you'll pick A again... and again... and again...
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue May 16, 2017 2:44 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:However, the silence of your atheist friends is quite telling.

what are the odds that a theist makes a mistake in this forum and not being corrected by fanatic atheist?

the silence of your atheist friends revels that

1 I proved successfully that you have made contradictory statements

2 you have not explained clearly your position regarding human choice.

It isn't silence that is telling you something Leroy, its the fantasies your brainless mind loves to come up in order to avoid dealing with reality because once again, you reduced to possibilities to fantasies.

If you, who is fanatically obsessed with my position on human choices, were too lazy to go back and read my comments upthread, why should the others, who probably don't care as much, if at all, should? They're certainly not obsessed like you are.

Once again there's another option, a third option that you refuse to, or cannot, contemplate.
Once again you ran from the adressing the issues with the brainless ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." ]



I read your comments and proved that you are making contradictory statements, anyone can read and confirm the statement.

If I where wrong I would have been corrected by other members of the forum, theist are always corrected when they make a mistake, why assuming that things would be different now?






Once again you've picked A Leroy.

[b]And you'll pick A again... and again... and again... [/b





Should I add that stament to the list of quotes of you granting human choice ?


:lol:
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue May 16, 2017 3:17 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 834Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:I read your comments and proved that you are making contradictory statements, anyone can read and confirm the statement.

If I where wrong I would have been corrected by other members of the forum, theist are always corrected when they make a mistake, why assuming that things would be different now?

You read my comments and deluded yourself that I made contradictory statements.
You did not deal with what I actually wrote but with made-up fantasies of your brainless mind (how many times have I repeated this?)

Is this how evaluate if you're right or not? "If I'm not pointed out to be wrong by more than 1 person on this forum I must be rightz!!!"? :lol:

leroy wrote:Should I add that stament to the list of quotes of you granting human choice ?

:lol:

Sure you can Leroy. Add it to the long lists of statements where I explicitly affirm that I grant human choices.
Because I've never said I do not. I've explained this repeatedly but you've always preferred to deal with a fantasy of what I wrote...

And I'll add your latest comment to the long list of comments where once again ran from the adressing the issues with the brainless ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." ][/quote]

And also add it to list of comments where you once again picked A, Leroy.

And you'll pick A again... and again... and again... [/quote]
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue May 16, 2017 3:28 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:[

Sure you can Leroy. Add it to the long lists of statements where I explicitly affirm that I grant human choices.
Because I've never said I do not. I've explained this repeatedly but you've always preferred to deal with a fantasy of what I wrote...

And I'll add your latest comment to the long list of comments where once again ran from the adressing the issues with the brainless ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." ]


ok, so today you grant human choice, lets see how long does it take you to change your view


according to you what am I ignoring? I have answered to everything and multiple times
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue May 16, 2017 3:32 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 834Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:ok, so today you grant human choice, lets see how long does it take you to change your view

Like I did yesterday and the day before that and the day before that...
Let's say how long it takes for you to delude yourself again that I do did not.
Here we have Leroy's typical false equivalence. Where he uses something, "will", and lies that when most people believe (will), is actually Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc.", the both free and not free, uncaused yet caused brainless version of a brain-indoctrination-damaged troll.

What is true for "will" and Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is also true for "choice" and Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc.".

You have to be completely stupid to think that because someone rejects the brainless, meaningless, incoherent Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." they also reject "choices" and "will" because they do not mean the same things.

Isn't reality unpractical for your brainless fantasies Leroy?

leroy wrote:according to you what am I ignoring? I have answered to everything and multiple times

1. That your brainless and ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is incoherent.

2. That the brainless and ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is explained with a viciously circular definition of "choice" and of "option".

3. That the brainless and ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is incoherent does not save you from the "blunders".

4. That you still have given a proper solution to the omniscience issue either.

5. That you've repeatedly contradicted yourself.

6. That you've repeatedly lied about the position of others.

7. That you've failed to support that 3. and 4. are false

I think that's enough for now, don't you think?

Pick A again Leroy, we all know you can't do otherwise.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue May 16, 2017 3:45 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

I will simply make a few modifications of a comment that I made a few days ago...

leroy wrote:Just a Conclusion.

1 Most people, including MarsCydonia, grant that they have will, this means that when they are at McDonalds they would grant that at least sometimes, they can select among different types of hamburgers or when someone asks them a question they would grant that they have at least 2 alternatives ether be honest and answer the question with the truth or be dishonest and lie.

2 As hackenslash explained clearly, even in principle it is impossible to prove that we have will, there is no evidence for will. no one has proven will empirically,

3 therefore most people, including MarsCydonia believe in something (will) without evidence

.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue May 16, 2017 5:51 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 834Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:I will simply make a few modifications of a comment that I made a few days ago...

leroy wrote:Just a Conclusion.

1 Most people, including MarsCydonia, grant that they have will, this means that when they are at McDonalds they would grant that at least sometimes, they can select among different types of hamburgers or when someone asks them a question they would grant that they have at least 2 alternatives ether be honest and answer the question with the truth or be dishonest and lie.

2 As hackenslash explained clearly, even in principle it is impossible to prove that we have will, there is no evidence for will. no one has proven will empirically,

3 therefore most people, including MarsCydonia believe in something (will) without evidence

And Leroy still gets it wrong... I stopped counting for a bit, where were we? Leroy now 0 for 1057563?

That is some spectacular delusion if you're able to come up with a fantasy that completely ignores the previous comment... There's reality then there is the fantasy world Leroy runs away to.

That means: Leroy picked A like he always does...

Oh but I'll also add point 7. that Leroy ran from:
7. The issue that by your standard of "evidence" you wish to apply to Santa Claus, you should reject the brainless "Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc."' but you haven't.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue May 16, 2017 5:58 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:ok, so today you grant human choice, lets see how long does it take you to change your view

Like I did yesterday and the day before that and the day before that...
Let's say how long it takes for you to delude yourself again that I do did not.
Here we have Leroy's typical false equivalence. Where he uses something, "will", and lies that when most people believe (will), is actually Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc.", the both free and not free, uncaused yet caused brainless version of a brain-indoctrination-damaged troll.

What is true for "will" and Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is also true for "choice" and Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc.".

You have to be completely stupid to think that because someone rejects the brainless, meaningless, incoherent Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." they also reject "choices" and "will" because they do not mean the same things.

Isn't reality unpractical for your brainless fantasies Leroy?

leroy wrote:according to you what am I ignoring? I have answered to everything and multiple times

1. That your brainless and ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is incoherent.

2. That the brainless and ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is explained with a viciously circular definition of "choice" and of "option".

3. That the brainless and ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is incoherent does not save you from the "blunders".

4. That you still have given a proper solution to the omniscience issue either.

5. That you've repeatedly contradicted yourself.

6. That you've repeatedly lied about the position of others.

7. That you've failed to support that 3. and 4. are false

I think that's enough for now, don't you think?

Pick A again Leroy, we all know you can't do otherwise.


you can not accuse me for ignoring or running away fornot responding for the 21th time, something that I have already answered like 20 times

1 you are the only one in this forum who thinks that the definition is incoherent, even HWN adopted and used the definition

2 all definition are circular, and there is nothing viciously about my particular definitions

3 what blunders?

4 Well I haven't provided a solution that you personally find satisfying, but didn't ignore nor ran away from that point, I answered multiple times

5 for example?

6 those are not lies, they are mistakes at worst.

7 I have no idea what you mean with 3 and 4, are you talking about this set of points ?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue May 16, 2017 6:37 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
1 Most people, including MarsCydonia, grant that they have will, this means that when they are at McDonalds they would grant that at least sometimes, they can select among different types of hamburgers or when someone asks them a question they would grant that they have at least 2 alternatives ether be honest and answer the question with the truth or be dishonest and lie.

2 As hackenslash explained clearly, even in principle it is impossible to prove that we have will, there is no evidence for will. no one has proven will empirically,

3 therefore most people, including MarsCydonia believe in something (will) without evidence
[/quote]
And Leroy still gets it wrong... I stopped counting for a bit, where were we? Leroy now 0 for 1057563?

care to explain exactly why am I wrong?.........which of these 3 points is wrong?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue May 16, 2017 6:40 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 834Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Of course I can make the statement that you ignore and run away from the issues raised when you ignore and run from the issues.
Unlike you Leroy, I'm dealing with what you actually write, not with your fantasies that you think count as adressing the issue.

leroy wrote:1 you are the only one in this forum who thinks that the definition is incoherent, even HWN adopted and used the definition
Really Leroy?
Have you missed that HWIN stated that he agreed to your brainless definition to move the conversation along (so that he could ask you how you differentiate between Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." and the illusion of it, something you have yet to do and admitted cannot do).

Have you already forgotten or have already replaced reality with a new fantasy that ignores that multiple people pointed out to you to incoherence of Leroy's non-constraining constraints? Or of Leroy's not-free freedom?

Is that how you determine if you are correct? "Less than 4 people corrected me, I must be right!"

So point 1 is still something you ignored and ran from.

leroy wrote:2 all definition are circular, and there is nothing viciously about my particular definitions

If you're going to appropriate something hackenslash wrote, you should do so only if you understood what he meant. It's clear that you do not because "options are choices" and "choices are options" is viciously circular. Just asserting it isn't will not change that fact?

leroy wrote:3 what blunders?

Granting [i]Leroy's brainless "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc."
means you are guilty of the blunders in your first comment of the thread. That's something that has been highlighted repeatedly.

leroy wrote:4 Well I haven't provided a solution that you personally find satisfying, but didn't ignore nor ran away from that point, I answered multiple times

That's true, you have answered multiples times, none of which was coherent and some where you contradicted a previous attempt from yourself (from "god knowing like a time traveler" to "god being able to determine our undetermined choices"...)

leroy wrote:5 for example?

See above.

leroy wrote:6 those are not lies, they are mistakes at worst.

Do "lie" and "mistake" mean something different in Leroy-speak? What word is "Leroy-speak" for knowingly and willfully misrepresented someone?

The rest of us call that a lie.

leroy wrote:7 I have no idea what you mean with 3 and 4, are you talking about this set of points ?

For exemple, you accused me of contradicting myself. I'm still waiting for you to prove that. If can't, that was simply a lie (a mistake Leroy would be if you only accuse me once and admitted to it being a mistake. Doing it repeatedly is a lie).

And still ignored 8. The issue that by your standard of "evidence" you wish to apply to Santa Claus, you should reject the brainless "Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc."' but you haven't.

leroy wrote:
MarsCydonia wrote:1 Most people, including MarsCydonia, grant that they have will, this means that when they are at McDonalds they would grant that at least sometimes, they can select among different types of hamburgers or when someone asks them a question they would grant that they have at least 2 alternatives ether be honest and answer the question with the truth or be dishonest and lie.

2 As hackenslash explained clearly, even in principle it is impossible to prove that we have will, there is no evidence for will. no one has proven will empirically,

3 therefore most people, including MarsCydonia believe in something (will) without evidence

And Leroy still gets it wrong... I stopped counting for a bit, where were we? Leroy now 0 for 1057563?

care to explain exactly why am I wrong?.........which of these 3 points is wrong?

Care to repeat myself again?

Like I already explained, twice I believe, in the last two pages of comments that "will" and Leroy's brainless "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." are not the same thing?

Pick A again Leroy, you know you cannot freely do otherwise.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue May 16, 2017 7:55 pm
Steelmage99Posts: 170Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Leroy, stop pretending that you know what other people think.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are unable to.
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Tue May 16, 2017 8:38 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia reed carefully


Leroy....
1 Most people, including MarsCydonia, grant that they have will, this means that when they are at McDonalds they would grant that at least sometimes, they can select among different types of hamburgers or when someone asks them a question they would grant that they have at least 2 alternatives ether be honest and answer the question with the truth or be dishonest and lie.

2 As hackenslash explained clearly, even in principle it is impossible to prove that we have will, there is no evidence for will. no one has proven will empirically,

3 therefore most people, including MarsCydonia believe in something (will) without evidence



Nobody is talking about brainless will will may or may not have a brainless source the origin of will is irrelevant for the definition of will. we can both agree that we have will, and disagree on the origin of will, in the same way we can both agree that humans exist even if we disagree on the origin of humans.

You can read 60 pages of conversation and note that I never defined will as something that is necessarily brainless. and I have explained multiple times that brainlessness is not part of the definition of will.


1 MarsCydonia grants non magical, non brainless will .... this means that Mars grants that at least sometimes he can select among various options of hamburgers when he is at Mcdonalds, but that doesn't automatically imply that will is brainless not magical

2 there is no evidence for non magical, non brainless will other than our own personal and subjective experiences as has been pointed out, even in principle it is impossible to prove none magical non brainless will (same thing would apply for brainless magical will)


3 there is at least 1 thing that MarsCydonia grants even when there is no evidence for it.




so do you agree with point 1?

do you agree with point 2 ? a disagreement comes with a burden proof

do you agree with point 3?


Steelmage99

Leroy, stop pretending that you know what other people think.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are unable to



.in fact Steelmage99 I can predict what people think, for example I know that Mars is thinking something like this>



what MarsCydonia is thinking
Dam, I do accept each of those 3 points, Leroy was correct and has always been correct, But I have to find a clever way to try to look intelligent and without admitting (nor denying) that I grant those 3 points .

mmmm Prehaps the best thing to do is insult Leroy and play some word games, or perhaps a straw man would also help
.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed May 17, 2017 3:24 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 834Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Nobody is talking about brainless will

You mean besides you, right? Because you've repeatedly stated that choices need to be brainless because Leroy's brainless "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." needs to be "underteministic" and "brains are deterministic" and "There's no reasons believe brains are not deterministic even in a non-deterministic universes"?

Face it Leroy, you've shown repeatedly that what you need in your Leroy's brainless "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is not actually freedom but brainlessness.

So is this a "mistake at worst" from Leroy? No, it's another lie.

leroy wrote:You can read 60 pages of conversation and note that I never defined will as something that is necessarily brainless. and I have explained multiple times that brainlessness is not part of the definition of will.
See above. Your "only my explanations mentionned brainlessness, not my definitions" excuse is pathetic, par for the course for a christian troll like yourself.

So was this a "mistake at worst" from Leroy? No, it's another lie.

leroy wrote: 1 MarsCydonia grants non magical, non brainless will .... this means that Mars grants that at least sometimes he can select among various options of hamburgers when he is at Mcdonalds, but that doesn't automatically imply that will is brainless not magical

2 there is no evidence for non magical, non brainless will other than our own personal and subjective experiences as has been pointed out, even in principle it is impossible to prove none magical non brainless will (same thing would apply for brainless magical will)

3 there is at least 1 thing that MarsCydonia grants even when there is no evidence for it.

so do you agree with point 1?

do you agree with point 2 ? a disagreement comes with a burden proof

do you agree with point 3?

And you got it wrong again. And you got it wrong even after my positions on all of these brainless points was explained. "Will" and Leroy's brainless "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." are two different things, even if you removed brainlessness from the equation (thought with Leroy, brainlessness is always a reality).

It would really help if you got the definition of "will" correctly.

So I'll repeat myself, for the Leroy-minded people again:
1. Leroy gets the meaning of "will" continuously wrong but if in fact we're discussing Leroy's brainless "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc.", I cannot grant something that is explained incoherently and meaninglessly.
2. I cannot assert if there is evidence or no evidence for something until that thing is rigorously explained. Leroy's brainless "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc.", was explained both incoherently and meaninglessly.
3. There is no thing that MarsCydonia grants without sound evidence for it.

So was this a "mistake at worst" from Leroy? No, it's another lie.

leroy wrote:Steelmage99
Leroy, stop pretending that you know what other people think.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are unable to

.in fact Steelmage99 I can predict what people think, for example I know that Mars is thinking something like this>
what MarsCydonia is thinking
Dam, I do accept each of those 3 points, Leroy was correct and has always been correct, But I have to find a clever way to try to look intelligent and without admitting (nor denying) that I grant those 3 points .

mmmm Prehaps the best thing to do is insult Leroy and play some word games, or perhaps a straw man would also help
.

You really do love your fantasies Leroy. "Leroys is correct"? :lol: At this point, it would be easier to convince me that christianity is correct than you are Leroy because you must be 0 for 100573957 by now.

So is this a "mistake at worst" from Leroy? No, it's another lie.

Leroy picked A again.

But let's talk about your Leroy's brainless "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc."...

Are you now saying that free will can be explained naturally? That free will can originate from atoms-and-chemical-based brains?

It's a simple question Leroy ... Don't run away now.

But you'll pick A again, you always do Leroy.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Wed May 17, 2017 3:58 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:Nobody is talking about brainless will

You mean besides you, right? Because you've repeatedly stated that choices need to be brainless because Leroy's brainless "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." needs to be "underteministic" and "brains are deterministic" and "There's no reasons believe brains are not deterministic even in a non-deterministic universes"?[



Yes I personally believe that will has a brainless non naturalistic source, but that is irrelevant, the origin of will is not relevant in any of the points that I am making.

for the sake of this discussion we can assume that will (if real) had a naturalistic origin

so, now that we are granting that will has a naturalistic, non magical, non brainless source

1 MarsCydonia grants non magical, non brainless will .... this means that Mars grants that at least sometimes he can select among various options of hamburgers when he is at Mcdonalds, but that doesn't automatically imply that will is brainless not magical

2 there is no evidence for non magical, non brainless will other than our own personal and subjective experiences as has been pointed out, even in principle it is impossible to prove none magical non brainless will (same thing would apply for brainless magical will)

3 there is at least 1 thing that MarsCydonia grants even when there is no evidence for it.

so do you agree with point 1?

do you agree with point 2 ? a disagreement comes with a burden proof

do you agree with point 3?



remember we are talking about non magical non brainless will


Are you now saying that free will can be explained naturally?


well no, up to this point there is not a naturalistic explanation for will, but sure there could be an explanation in the future, I don't think this is going to be the case, but it is possible

That free will can originate from atoms-and-chemical-based brains?


sure, that is a possibility, I don't believe is the case, but it is certainly a possibility.

It's a simple question Leroy ... Don't run away now.


yes, see how easy it is to answer to simple questions?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed May 17, 2017 4:46 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 834Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Yes I personally believe that will has a brainless non naturalistic source, but that is irrelevant, the origin of will is not relevant in any of the points that I am making.

for the sake of this discussion we can assume that will (if real) had a naturalistic origin

so, now that we are granting that will has a naturalistic, non magical, non brainless source

But being "brainless" is not simply the origin of Leroy's brainless human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc., its part of the thing itself according to multiple quotes that we have of you.

you've repeatedly stated that choices need to be brainless because Leroy's brainless "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." needs to be "underteministic" and "brains are deterministic" and "There's no reasons believe brains are not deterministic even in a non-deterministic universes"?

So brainlessness is not irrevlevant, it is part of the very thing you cannot, by your own admission, provide evidence for and for which you have yet to provide a meaningful or coherent explanation.


leroy wrote:1 MarsCydonia grants non magical, non brainless will .... this means that Mars grants that at least sometimes he can select among various options of hamburgers when he is at Mcdonalds, but that doesn't automatically imply that will is brainless not magical

2 there is no evidence for non magical, non brainless will other than our own personal and subjective experiences as has been pointed out, even in principle it is impossible to prove none magical non brainless will (same thing would apply for brainless magical will)

3 there is at least 1 thing that MarsCydonia grants even when there is no evidence for it.

so do you agree with point 1?

do you agree with point 2 ? a disagreement comes with a burden proof

do you agree with point 3?

remember we are talking about non magical non brainless will

See, this is what brainlessness does to someone. I answered all of these in my very last comment, and these answers were repeated from previous comments as well, and you somehow you missed that these answers exist because of your brainlessness.


leroy wrote:well no, up to this point there is not a naturalistic explanation for Leroy's brainless human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc., but sure there could be an explanation in the future, I don't think this is going to be the case, but it is possible

So
1. You have now added 1 more contradiction to the long list of your contradictions on this subject.
2. You have created a further issue for Leroy's brainless human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc.: you admitted that something natural can be the origin of something supernatural which renders your "brainlessness as the origin" completely uneccesary and superfluous until evidence for it is shown.

Do you have any metaphorical leg left for you to shoot of? :lol:

leroy wrote:yes, see how easy it is to answer to simple questions?

Must be why you ran from issues 1 to 8 :lol:

You no longer have any point Leroy. Worse, by "granting Leroy's brainless human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc.", you're comitting all these blunders you think atheists fo all the time.

You really have no leg to stand on.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue May 23, 2017 4:03 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1483Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Examples of logical contradictions that some atheist makes all the time,
I don´t believe in free will, but I am a free thinker.

By definition, you can´t be a free thinker if there is no free will



How about: I don"t believe that Free Will is a valid concept. I don't think it's the right way to think about volition, the way the brain works, what its role is - there's a philosophical underpinning to the notion that I find unacceptable. That there is the potential for Will to exist without the brain. Is the brain not Will itself? Isn't the entire body, including both macro and cellular processes part of the thing that possesses the Will? Is an involuntary blink 'not free will'? It doesn't make sense to me, never has, and I don't think ever will.

Instead, I think that there are many processes, some of which we are conscious of, some of which we are not. We have executive control over some of those processes, but rarely final and ultimate control. For example, we breath involuntarily - we breathe when we're asleep every night without ever needing to be aware of it. However, we can actively stop ourselves breathing, or control our breath in complex ways that have no genuine role in terms of initial anatomical functionality, we can bring ourselves to red faced panting.... but then will or no our body takes over and stops us. But isn't that really us just stopping us? Did you really want to? Was there really a will there to not breathe? Can there be? Is there anything about Will being somehow subject-independent that isn't rife with internal contradictions? Isn't this just dualism repackaged?

Me no gets it. Either which way, sure if I can go either left or right and both are wholly equal, I can choose which way independently of anything other than me choosing which way. But yeah, it's dependent on me, and me.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:00 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1483Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Perhaps should have continued, but I kind of got sidetracked on that particular - let us call it a question - and left it at that.

Edited it out now to focus on the remainder:


I don’t believe in free will, but creationists are dishonest and/or faith is dishonest


Firstly, obviously given my complete dismissal of the entire notion of free will, I also want to make it clear that I don't think that most creationists are dishonest. I think they are wrong, inculcated, often undereducated, and they lend undue credence to authority figures who shepherd them round the philosophical obstacles.

Their belief is handed to them on a plate, and they never for a moment inspect it so busy are they chowing down on it.

In my personal experience, I have met a rather unfortunate number of people who were essentially claiming to represent the creator of the universe and yet used repeated deceptive tactics, refused to engage in empirical evidence, and who got abusive, aggressive, or otherwise demented in short order. Of course, I would never for a moment suggest that one should extrapolate out from personal experiences, and instead offer the notion that small segments of crazy people from any given group self-select by pushing their contorted agenda on platforms where they are greatly outclassed. I would never assume for a moment that the rank and file of any group are best represented by the crackpot fringe.

Faith, on the other hand, can't really be 'dishonest'. Honesty and dishonesty are really things people do - a behavior. Faith is either right or wrong. There are certainly many areas of probability space of which humanity has no vision, and fine if you want to fill it with your preconceived handed down idea, or even spontaneously craft a new cosmology every Tuesday after breakfast. Not a jot of my business. It's only when you want to publicly claim that it's true that I - or many others - might be roused to respond to dishonesty with reality.


leroy wrote:Honesty by definition implies that there is free will, you can´t be dishonest without free will


I think you're kind of tangled in your own trap here. The problem is more that you're importing your notion of free will onto what other people think. While I think I could give a fairer rendition, as I've already said I disagree with the concept in entirety, I think it would be better to leave it to a genuine proponent. I am sure given the large number of posts this thread seems to have collected (I've only read the original post), that you've been given answers in spades here. But I will read with interest.


leroy wrote:There are no objective moral values, but religion/God/Bible is morally wrong
If there is no objective morality, you have no basis to claim that something is wrong


Sorry, you seem to have forgotten to unpack your thoughts there. Clearly, it's a non-sequitur. Whether morals are objective or relative has no bearing whatsoever on whether someone can consider X right or wrong. Your 'blunder' here is completely incoherent. You could as adequately written if there were no fish, you have no basis to claim that something is wrong. Sense, it makes not.

Of course I can very easily tell whether something's right or wrong. Here, I will do it now.

Murdering an innocent person is wrong.

Why?

Because that person could be me, and we all understand that it could equally be any of us, so let's all agree to make that one a No Go!.

You don't even need moral reasoning - purely selfish motivation.

Of course, you can also morally reason - a concept wholly foreign to many angry religious internet proselytizers - and it goes like this. A person is a unit of my society, and my society keeps me safe and provides the kind of things I need to live or thrive. I want society to be safe not just for me but for my wife, kids, (I can't imagine if they were murdered - the grief) and oh my parents,... neighbors all would suffer terribly. Actually, you know what, no one should be killed, I don't need to know those people to understand that they don't want their loved ones murdered any more than I do - not just because of the stuff they provide to society, but because they are someone else's wife, kids, parents and neighbours too, and I know how the death of those I loved would destroy me and have no reason not to assume it's the same for everyone. None of us here, together, living in this unit need to experience this activity, we are not better or freer either as individuals or a unit to have the right to murder innocent people, in fact, it's the contrary. By any scale, allowing the continuation of murder lessens a quality we all hold dear, whether it's freedom, or security, or walking down our streets without fear at night. We all deserve to be free of the fear of being murdered.

See how easy it is to a) need no objective morality and b) make an apparent objective morality (in terms of its universality)?


leroy wrote:
My brain was not intelligently design; I trust my brain
If the brain was created by a mechanism that was not even trying to create a reliable brain (evolution) then there is no reason to assume that your brain is reliable, therefore you can´t trust your brain when you conclude things like “God does not exist”


I am rather disappointed that all your points are the same Transcendental Argument repeatedly repackaged. But not as disappointed you will be to discover that it was an anti-theist who first alighted on it (but didn't accept it, funnily).

Anyway, I can't remember the contemporary (or possibly recently deceased) apologist who promoted this absurd line of reasoning showing once and for all he didn't understand science at all.

How can we trust our brain? By seeing if the product of it works in the external world. The degree to which we should trust our brain is measured in units of evidence. How can I say God does not exist? Well, point to it, please.

What's that?

Don't worry, with honest people, mumbling normally ensues.

I can point to other things I say empirically exist, why can't you point to this god which you also declare is everywhere? Don't you dare try and pull out the Love canard or I promise I will unload 25 years of canard-bashing on you! :)

Theists unquestionably trust their brains, believing their god is showering them with blessings when they find their keys, but somehow never process that the external world won't conform to their belief system. But they're the good guys. The bad ones are those who try to subvert the empirical and pretend their fantasy was right all along.

Either which way, you should look up correspondence theory of truth. These are not questions for 'evilomatheistolutionist materialistssss' or whatever caricature is current, but for all humans honestly trying to understand who they are, and what all this whacky shit is about.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:41 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

To be dishonest implies that you had the option to be honest, that you could have been honest..................agree?


When you call someone dishonest (creationists for example) you are granting that he had the option to be honest..............agree?



the blunders comes because many atheist are determinists, they don't believe that there was an other option, but call people dishonest.


so you ether grant that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option (meaning that determinism is wrong) or stop calling people dishonest, because if determinism is true they really had no other option and you cant really accuse them for being dishonest.



the other 3 comments deal with a similar type of blunder
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:31 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1483Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:To be dishonest implies that you had the option to be honest, that you could have been honest..................agree?


When you call someone dishonest (creationists for example) you are granting that he had the option to be honest..............agree?



the blunders comes because many atheist are determinists, they don't believe that there was an other option, but call people dishonest.


so you ether grant that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option (meaning that determinism is wrong) or stop calling people dishonest, because if determinism is true they really had no other option and you cant really accuse them for being dishonest.



the other 3 comments deal with a similar type of blunder



I can't oblige you to read what I wrote, but you can hardly expect to come back with questions I've already addressed in the post directly above your reply and expect me to write out the reply again. ;)

I'll do synopsis format.

1st sentence: No, that's just a contrived attempt to emulate a Ray Comfort level of obfuscation.

2nd sentence: No, that's just a contrived attempt to emulate a Ray Comfort level of obfuscation.

3rd sentence: Cite your quantitative source for this assertion regarding what 'many atheists' allegedly believe. Also, it's a non-sequitur: determinism doesn't mean 'believes peoples thoughts are pre-determined, but rather that every event and affair is a result of an antecedent event or affair. It's a really poor sentence that starts with an assertion you've made up and ends with, at best reading, a terminal miscomprehension of the charge you're attempting to lay.*

4th sentence: absurd as you've dug a hole and expect others to fill it for you. Worse, you think you get to use your strawman and manufactured series of assertions as if it were a moral compunction which has been failed by the heathen.

Worse, the first sentence of my previous post which you are, presumably, replying to says "Firstly, obviously given my complete dismissal of the entire notion of free will, I also want to make it clear that I don't think that most creationists are dishonest. I think they are wrong, inculcated, often undereducated, and they lend undue credence to authority figures who shepherd them round the philosophical obstacles."

So why is the notion of Creationist dishonesty back? Oh that's right, because you insist that I think Creationists are dishonest, and it doesn't matter whether I say the opposite, you're still more knowledgeable about me and my motivations than I am, having just 'met' me yesterday. :roll:


Finally, do you still beat your wife? Or to put it another way: I wholly reject on rational grounds every single word you uttered in the above post.



* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:27 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 61 of 75
 [ 1496 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
cron