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 60 of 75
 [ 1496 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Something leroy will never wrote:Okams Razor tells us that should should not invoke unnecessary entities .......

Given that there is anything that the existence of natural causes explains better than magical brainless free will.............. magical brainless free will becomes an unnecessary entity.

The lack of parsimony together with the lack of necessity, provide evidence against the existence os magical brainless free will

;)
"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 10, 2017 5:09 pm
leroyPosts: 1767Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
Something leroy will never wrote:Okams Razor tells us that should should not invoke unnecessary entities .......

Given that there is anything that the existence of natural causes explains better than magical brainless free will.............. magical brainless free will becomes an unnecessary entity.

The lack of parsimony together with the lack of necessity, provide evidence against the existence os magical brainless free will

;)



in fact if you are a naturalist, free will (magical or non magical) becomes an unnecessary entity. so you should not grant nether magical nor non magical free will


we know that natural mechanisms can create illusions, and delusions, including the delusion of free will. so why invoking an unknown mechanism (magical or non magical) to explain our experience of will, if we already have an explanation using only known natural mechanisms ?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed May 10, 2017 5:26 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:in fact if you are a naturalist, free will (magical or non magical) becomes an unnecessary entity. so you should not grant nether magical nor non magical free will

I'll take as an admission that you should reject free will. Will you Leroy? Will you finally pick option B rather than option A like you always do?
"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 10, 2017 5:31 pm
leroyPosts: 1767Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:in fact if you are a naturalist, free will (magical or non magical) becomes an unnecessary entity. so you should not grant nether magical nor non magical free will

I'll take as an admission that you should reject free will. Will you Leroy? Will you finally pick option B rather than option A like you always do?


I ll answer only after you do.


do you grant non magical free will? yes or no?

in other words do you grant that at least sometimes in McDonalds one has the non magical ability to choose which hamburger to eat
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed May 10, 2017 5:36 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:['ll answer only after you do.

do you grant non magical free will? yes or no?

in other words do you grant that at least sometimes in McDonalds one has the non magical ability to choose which hamburger to eat

And Leroy picks option A again!

You don't need my answer first before answering Leroy. I do not reach conclusions by the same "standard" that you do. So what you affirm about what should be rejected does not apply to me.

You however, have affirmed that by your standard, rejection of Santa Claus is the good position. By that standard, Leroy's definition of human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/options" should also be rejected. Do you?

Or do you pick A?
"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 10, 2017 5:41 pm
leroyPosts: 1767Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:['ll answer only after you do.

do you grant non magical free will? yes or no?

in other words do you grant that at least sometimes in McDonalds one has the non magical ability to choose which hamburger to eat

And Leroy picks option A again!

You don't need my answer first before answering Leroy. I do not reach conclusions by the same "standard" that you do. So what you affirm about what should be rejected does not apply to me.

You however, have affirmed that by your standard, rejection of Santa Claus is the good position. By that standard, Leroy's definition of human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/options" should also be rejected. Do you?

Or do you pick A?


No I don't need your answer before answering.............but given that I have asked you this question multiple times without an answer, (or with answers that you then deny) why should I answer to any of your questions?



If you answer with a Yes or No question I will answer with a Yes or No question


if you answer with a Yes or No and a justification I will do the same
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed May 10, 2017 5:50 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:No I don't need your answer before answering.............but given that I have asked you this question multiple times without an answer, (or with answers that you then deny) why should I answer to any of your questions?

What you have done Leroy is ask me multiple times to repeat an answer that was already provided.

But you don't have to answer Leroy and in fact, you have demonstrated by repeatedly picking A over and over again that there is little chance you will answer. That's because all of us already know your answer.

You have your excuse now yet you prove the opinion everyone has of you right every opportunity you have. Congratulations.
"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 10, 2017 5:53 pm
leroyPosts: 1767Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:No I don't need your answer before answering.............but given that I have asked you this question multiple times without an answer, (or with answers that you then deny) why should I answer to any of your questions?

What you have done Leroy is ask me multiple times to repeat an answer that was already provided.

But you don't have to answer Leroy and in fact, you have demonstrated by repeatedly picking A over and over again that there is little chance you will answer. That's because all of us already know your answer.

You have your excuse now yet you prove the opinion everyone has of you right every opportunity you have. Congratulations.


You have answered and changed your answer multiple times


No one in this forum knows what you answer would be (if I where wrong your atheist friends would have jump and take advantage of the opportunity to correct my mistake)
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed May 10, 2017 6:03 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:You have answered and changed your answer multiple times

No one in this forum knows what you answer would be (if I where wrong your atheist friends would have jump and take advantage of the opportunity to correct my mistake)

I'll make an exception and repeat myself for your latest comment:
Show it Leroy. Show 1 exemple where I actually changed my answer rather than you misunderstanding or you making up a fantasy. 1 exemple.

I'm still waiting from the last time you made that assertion. You came up with nothing.

Try coming up with better excuses to avoid answering if you apply your own standard or not.
"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 10, 2017 6:25 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
Grumpy Santa wrote:

Except, of course, finding out that your parents actually put the presents under the tree is only evidence that your parents put presents under the tree, it's not evidence against Santa Claus, even though you mistakenly gave him credit for what your parents actually did. You haven't offered evidence against Santa Claus, you've only demonstrated that what was thought to be evidence for Santa Claus actually wasn't.


this is way out of topic and way beyond the point that I am making, if you what to make Santa analogous to free will you have to use my analogy with the Christmas tree and presents


I did exactly that.

but...

Okams Razor tells us that should should not invoke unnecessary entities .......


... such as supposing a mythical "morality giver" when none is needed?


Given that there is anything that the existence of Santa Clause explains better than parents..............Santa Clause becomes an unnecessary entity.

The lack of parsimony together with the lack of necessity, provide evidence against the existence os Santa Clause


I understand the point you're trying to make, and you're so close to getting it, but just a hair off. I know the Santa analogy is a bit silly, but I'm going to roll with it for argument's sake. Let's say that the popular belief, myth, what have you is that Santa delivers the presents under the trees on Christmas. You're parents tell you (later in life) that no, it was us. What does that tell you, logically speaking? That Santa, if he exists, wasn't actually the one delivering presents to your house and putting them under your tree, nothing more really. You check around, no one anywhere can demonstrate that Santa put presents under any of their trees. You go crazy with the desire to find the truth and manage to cover the entire planet, and nowhere on earth can you find a single example that Santa has delivered a single present. Sure, some kids show you package labels that say "from Santa", but the parents give you a wink and a nod and you understand.

So, what have you actually shown? That Santa doesn't exist? Not really, even though you possibly just thought "yes, exactly" (or something similar) to yourself. You've only shown that Santa doesn't deliver presents on Christmas eve. Santa may still exist, but he's not the present delivering myth of old. Perhaps the legends became bigger than the entity? Who knows... there are more possibilities on the table than "Santa doesn't exist".

BUT!

This is a pretty important but, Leroy, so I'll repeat it.

BUT!

Due to the lack of evidence that Santa actually does exist, you really have no reason at all to believe that he does, do you? You haven't demonstrated anything more than the fact that he's not delivering presents on Christmas, but no one else can offer any evidence of his existence that you can't debunk (often with a wink and nod from the parents of the children insisting he does exist). So, while you haven't proven that there's no Santa existing, you're well established to not believe that he does because there's no valid reason for you to do so.

I hope this clarifies the positions being taken here and the reasoning behind them.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Wed May 10, 2017 6:44 pm
leroyPosts: 1767Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Grumpy Santa wrote:I understand the point you're trying to make, and you're so close to getting it, but just a hair off. I know the Santa analogy is a bit silly, but I'm going to roll with it for argument's sake. Let's say that the popular belief, myth, what have you is that Santa delivers the presents under the trees on Christmas. You're parents tell you (later in life) that no, it was us. What does that tell you, logically speaking? That Santa, if he exists, wasn't actually the one delivering presents to your house and putting them under your tree, nothing more really. You check around, no one anywhere can demonstrate that Santa put presents under any of their trees. You go crazy with the desire to find the truth and manage to cover the entire planet, and nowhere on earth can you find a single example that Santa has delivered a single present. Sure, some kids show you package labels that say "from Santa", but the parents give you a wink and a nod and you understand.

So, what have you actually shown? That Santa doesn't exist? Not really, even though you possibly just thought "yes, exactly" (or something similar) to yourself. You've only shown that Santa doesn't deliver presents on Christmas eve. Santa may still exist, but he's not the present delivering myth of old. Perhaps the legends became bigger than the entity? Who knows... there are more possibilities on the table than "Santa doesn't exist".

BUT!

This is a pretty important but, Leroy, so I'll repeat it.

BUT!

Due to the lack of evidence that Santa actually does exist, you really have no reason at all to believe that he does, do you? You haven't demonstrated anything more than the fact that he's not delivering presents on Christmas, but no one else can offer any evidence of his existence that you can't debunk (often with a wink and nod from the parents of the children insisting he does exist). So, while you haven't proven that there's no Santa existing, you're well established to not believe that he does because there's no valid reason for you to do so.

I hope this clarifies the positions being taken here and the reasoning behind them.




Yes, I agree with all that .............what I don't understand is how it relates with my comments on free will?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed May 10, 2017 7:44 pm
Steelmage99Posts: 171Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
Grumpy Santa wrote:I understand the point you're trying to make, and you're so close to getting it, but just a hair off. I know the Santa analogy is a bit silly, but I'm going to roll with it for argument's sake. Let's say that the popular belief, myth, what have you is that Santa delivers the presents under the trees on Christmas. You're parents tell you (later in life) that no, it was us. What does that tell you, logically speaking? That Santa, if he exists, wasn't actually the one delivering presents to your house and putting them under your tree, nothing more really. You check around, no one anywhere can demonstrate that Santa put presents under any of their trees. You go crazy with the desire to find the truth and manage to cover the entire planet, and nowhere on earth can you find a single example that Santa has delivered a single present. Sure, some kids show you package labels that say "from Santa", but the parents give you a wink and a nod and you understand.

So, what have you actually shown? That Santa doesn't exist? Not really, even though you possibly just thought "yes, exactly" (or something similar) to yourself. You've only shown that Santa doesn't deliver presents on Christmas eve. Santa may still exist, but he's not the present delivering myth of old. Perhaps the legends became bigger than the entity? Who knows... there are more possibilities on the table than "Santa doesn't exist".

BUT!

This is a pretty important but, Leroy, so I'll repeat it.

BUT!

Due to the lack of evidence that Santa actually does exist, you really have no reason at all to believe that he does, do you? You haven't demonstrated anything more than the fact that he's not delivering presents on Christmas, but no one else can offer any evidence of his existence that you can't debunk (often with a wink and nod from the parents of the children insisting he does exist). So, while you haven't proven that there's no Santa existing, you're well established to not believe that he does because there's no valid reason for you to do so.

I hope this clarifies the positions being taken here and the reasoning behind them.




Yes, I agree with all that .............what I don't understand is how it relates with my comments on free will?


Fuck off, your dishonest little toad.

The Santa Claus example was a response to your hilariously stupid statement;

leroy wrote:I cant prove it, but given that there is no evidence against these particular intuitions, I guess it is rational to grand these intuitions as true.


That is an amazingly imbecilic way of thinking. So I guess it comes completely natural to someone of your intellectual standards, leroy.

I could explain to you WHY it is such a stupid way of thinking, but I rather doubt you would be able to understand it.
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Wed May 10, 2017 10:42 pm
leroyPosts: 1767Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Steelmage99 wrote:

That is an amazingly imbecilic way of thinking. So I guess it comes completely natural to someone of your intellectual standards, leroy.

I could explain to you WHY it is such a stupid way of thinking, but I rather doubt you would be able to understand it.



In fact we all grant facts using that imbecilic thinking.


You "know" what you eat for dinner because you trust your experiences and it "seems" that your memories provide reliable information, You would not grant that you have false memories unless evidence is presented to you.


The argument would be

It seems (feels) like you have reliable memory


There are no good reasons to assume that I suffer from false memories

You memory tells you that you had xyz for diner



therefore it is reasonable to assume that you had xyz for lunch

if you don't grant this imbecilic type of thinking then you should be skeptic about hundreds of things in your daily life that you grant as true


My reasoning behind free will would be a similar reasoning,


Of course you can dismiss my argument and claim that you are a verificationist but I am sure that you are not willing to accept the implications of verificationism
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu May 11, 2017 3:18 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:In fact we all grant facts using that imbecilic thinking.

You "know" what you eat for dinner because you trust your experiences and it "seems" that your memories provide reliable information, You would not grant that you have false memories unless evidence is presented to you.

The argument would be

It seems (feels) like you have reliable memory

There are no good reasons to assume that I suffer from false memories

You memory tells you that you had xyz for diner

therefore it is reasonable to assume that you had xyz for lunch

if you don't grant this imbecilic type of thinking then you should be skeptic about hundreds of things in your daily life that you grant as true

My reasoning behind free will would be a similar reasoning,

Of course you can dismiss my argument and claim that you are a verificationist but I am sure that you are not willing to accept the implications of verificationism

We don't Leroy, that has been repeatedly explained to you yet you still use that same old lie.

You don't even use your imbecilic thinking consistenly. You use two entirely different type of imbecilic thinking, one kind when it comes to Santa Claus, another kind when it comes to free will.

Come up with something better or admit you're a hypocrit.
"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
Thu May 11, 2017 3:38 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

I was reading an article this morning when I saw this link in the "related/other articles". I think this piece highlights well an issue I have with Libertarian Free Will and also an issue with "blunders Leroy moronically thinks atheists make" from which Leroy ran from (probably from his inability to understand it):
Paul Russell in "Freedom and Moral Sentiment, 1995, p.14 wrote:…the well-known dilemma of determinism. One horn of this dilemma is the argument that if an action was caused or necessitated, then it could not have been done freely, and hence the agent is not responsible for it. The other horn is the argument that if the action was not caused, then it is inexplicable and random, and thus it cannot be attributed to the agent, and hence, again, the agent cannot be responsible for it. In other words, if our actions are caused, then we cannot be responsible for them; if they are not caused, we cannot be responsible for them. Whether we affirm or deny necessity and determinism, it is impossible to make any coherent sense of moral freedom and responsibility.


Jonathan MS Pearce wrote:Well, when people claim we are, say. 80% determined, but that 20% of an action is still freely willed, we have EXACTLY the same problem – we have just moved that argument into a smaller paradigm, into the 20%. Assuming that we forget the 80% fraction which is determined so not being of interest to the LFWer, we are left with the 20%. But this is devoid of determining reasons. So what, then, is the basis of that 20% in making the decision? The agent cannot say, “Well my genetically determined impulses urged me to A, my previous experience of this urged me towards A, but I was left with a 20% fraction which overcame these factors and made me do B” because he still needs to establish the decision as being reasonable. OK, so if that 20% is not just random or unknown (but still grounded in something) and had any meaning, then it would be reasoned! The two horns of the Dilemma of Determinism raise their ugly heads again. We are left with reasoned actions or actions without reason, neither of which give the LFWer the moral responsibility that they are looking for.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2017/04/30/free-will-influenced-not-determined-80-20-approach-invalidated/?ref_widget=related&ref_blog=tippling&ref_post=kalam-cosmological-agument-causality-time
"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
Fri May 12, 2017 4:50 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3339Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Yeah, no evidence; besides the demonstration that the universe is not deterministic.


didn't we already agreed that deterministic brains can exist in non deterministic universes?................is there any evidence that the human brain is not deterministic and has will?


:facepalm:

I was responding to this:

leroy wrote:people like HWN> grant that we have will, even though he has no evidence for it


Since I already demonstrated that the universe we live in is not deterministic, the possibility of will exists. That is the point I was making. You have done nothing to demonstrate will except by saying you have feelings (which you later admitted does not work) and GodDidIt; even after I keep pointing out that some theist accept a god (your god!) and determinism.

hackenslash wrote:Let me try to clear this up:

No, they are not synonymous, but their referents are indistinguishable. In other words, there's no observation we can make, even in principle, that can tell which we're looking at, because they look exactly the same in every way.

HTH. Carry on.


I agree that synonymous was the incorrect word to use, that is why I also coined the term Schrodinger's definition (i.e. accepting both at the same time). As you point out, they are indistinguishable even in principle, yet dandan/leroy's whole argument hinges on them being different in some meaningful way. Thus, I see it as dandan/leroy's job to give us that meaningful way to test between them now. Otherwise, he is just grandstanding about something he cannot demonstrate.

leroy wrote:hope this clarification works


so until HWN clarifies otherwise, I will assume that he accepts will, even though he cant prove that the human brain has will.


As I keep saying, give me a meaningful way to distinguish between the two and I will answer this. Until this is done, you are just blowing smoke. Again, this hinges on you at this point, because since you freely admit they are the same in all measurable ways, I accept both.

Steelmage99 wrote:It is how you can't be "a little bit pregnant" or "a little bit dead".
It doesn't matter how dead or pregnant you are, as there is not such thing......you are simply dead or pregnant respectively.


Image


leroy wrote:sadly MarsCydonia and Dragan claim that your view is incoherent, and they claim to have proof for that. If they are intelligent they wont present their proof in this forum, they will present their proof in a journal and they will almost certainly win a Nobel Price.


What field would they win that in exactly? Literature, chemistry, physics, peace, economics, or physiology and medicine?

leroy wrote:in other words the probability of me typing A47@rtYn93$R6%17B without you asking for it, are nearly zero ...what are the odds of me typing that specific combination of characters if you would have not asked for it?

[emphases added]


Wow! He can learn. I have not had time to read through that other thread yet, but thank you to whoever explained this concept to dandan/leroy and made it stick.

Steelmage99 wrote:Like when you pretend to not know the difference between indentured servitude and slavery, leroy?


:o

Looks like I am in for a treat somewhere on this forum.

MarsCydonia wrote:... with perphaps the exception of the other slavery defender.


Are you fucken kidding me!? I guess I understand your new quote better now and why Christian is plural in it.

leroy wrote:and an the definition of will being the idea that at least sometimes we have more that one option (an other supposed incoherent and meaningless definition) was provided by He Who is Nobody.


I agreed with your definition to move our conversation forward. That just led to you grandstanding about how will and the illusion of will are the same in principal and practise and being upset with me asking for you to give me a meaningful difference. Thus, the ball is in your court. Give me a meaningful difference between the two and we can move forward once again, or you can grandstand about this ad nauseam; at this point, either is fine with me.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri May 12, 2017 7:43 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1767Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Just a Conclusion.

1 Most people 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 believe in something (will) without evidence


........

sure you can always say that you are not like the mayority of people, (you don't have to grant point 1) but if you deny will (as I am using the term in point number 1) that would imply that you are guilty for committing the blunders explained in the first post.

for example when you call someone a liar you are implying that he had the option to tell the truth, but decided to lie instead, you cant call someone a liar if had no other option but to pronounce that specific combination of words, If I grab your hand and force you to type incorrect information I your computer, no one will call you a liar, because you had no other option.


from now on I will simply respond to those who have a genuine interest in sharing information and learning, trolls that only what to play word games, insult or deribedly misinterpret everything




a side note about Santa Clause.

.
In previous comments I said that it is reasonable to accept as real things that seem intuitively true even if there is no empirical evidence for them, unless there are good reasons to reject that believe.

things like,

will, the idea that you live in a physical universe and that you are not a computer simulation, or your memories of that you had for dinner last night belong to this category, there is no empirical evidence for them, but given that no one has provided good reasons to reject those ideas, it is rational to accept them and grant them as true.



in the case of Santa Clause, we do have good reasons to reject its existence, there are good reasons to reject the idea that he is responsable for Christmas presents in the christmas tree.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun May 14, 2017 8:40 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Was this your pathetic attempt at trying to reset the conversation Leroy? Why can't you show some guts? Do we have to again go over this?

leroy wrote:1 Most people 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 believe in something (will) without evidence

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.

How brainless do you have to be to repeatedly make that mistake after its been pointed out? Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is not "will". There's a reason that "will", "free will" and "libertarian free will" are discussed in philosophy: they all have different meanings and are not actually interchangeable unlike the ever-growing Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc.". Anyone with a brain can understand this, Leroy apparently will not or cannot.

leroy wrote:sure you can always say that you are not like the mayority of people, (you don't have to grant point 1) but if you deny will (as I am using the term in point number 1) that would imply that you are guilty for committing the blunders explained in the first post.

for example when you call someone a liar you are implying that he had the option to tell the truth, but decided to lie instead, you cant call someone a liar if had no other option but to pronounce that specific combination of words, If I grab your hand and force you to type incorrect information I your computer, no one will call you a liar, because you had no other option.

And what brainless Leroy ran from, again and again, is that rejecting his Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." does not make anyone make the blunders he thinks it does but more importantly:
Accepting Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is what would actually make someone commit those blunders (if they were).

I've explained this repeatedly (highlighted it in my last comment in fact) and Leroy ran from this repeatedly.

leroy wrote:from now on I will simply respond to those who have a genuine interest in sharing information and learning, trolls that only what to play word games, insult or deribedly misinterpret everything

That's a lie Leroy and an obvious one because you do not respond to those who share information about the issues with Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc.", you run from the information like a coward and refuse to learn but that may be because you genuinely lack the mental capacity to do so.

leroy wrote:In previous comments I said that it is reasonable to accept as real things that seem intuitively true even if there is no empirical evidence for them, [size=150]unless there are good reasons to reject that believe..


And here we have one of Leroy's most often repeated brainless absurdity combined with a hypocritical lie, the two-for-one Leroy combo.
1. The brainless absurdity: It has been repeatedly shared with you that it isn't actually "reasonable to accept things that seem intuitively true even if there is no empirical evidence for them". I will not repeat information that has been given repeatedly for you to run from and refuse to learn (see the previous lie).
2. The lie: You do not actually apply this standard of "unless there are good reasons to reject". 60 pages of comments in and there good reasons to reject Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." but you have not done so.

You lack the ability to make reasoned evaluations or you lack the ability to make honest evaluations of the world and of your experiences. There's also the possibility that you lack both the reason and honesty (my vote).

So what you should get Leroy, is that this is the League of Reason, not the League of abandonning it and letting Leroy spew brainless absurdities, no matter how much you wish we would take out our brains as you did.

I've always explained you had options Leroy:
A. Prove everyone's opinion of you: that you are a brain-indoctrination-damaged troll, who cares nothing for reason or integrety
B. Prove them wrong, show some guts, tackle rather than run from the issues with your brainless absurdities. Discuss the subjects with an honest interest in learning and improving your understanding.

The reactions you are getting are entirely on you because you always pick A. So you'll always be called on your conduct by those who value reason. And you'll alway run from it.
"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
Mon May 15, 2017 1:54 am
leroyPosts: 1767Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:You have answered and changed your answer multiple times

No one in this forum knows what you answer would be (if I where wrong your atheist friends would have jump and take advantage of the opportunity to correct my mistake)

I'll make an exception and repeat myself for your latest comment:
Show it Leroy. Show 1 exemple where I actually changed my answer rather than you misunderstanding or you making up a fantasy. 1 exemple.

I'm still waiting from the last time you made that assertion. You came up with nothing.

.



No problem, I will provide a small samples of quotes where you granted will, free will, human choice etc. and an other list where you rejected (or at least not granted ) will, free will, human choice etc.


Some context for those that are not following the conversation, post by post.


It is true that I am using the terms will, free will, libertarian free will, human choice etc. interchangeably, this may or may not be a mistake (I don't know) but it shouldn't be relevant for MarsCydonia because this is what he said
MarsCydonia wrote:What something is called matters little in the discussion as long as what is discussed is clear.

But this is why terms should still be properly explained for a discussion to progress.


So in other words, given that I clearly and unambiguously explained what I mean when using those terms it shouldn't really matter if I am not using then properly.


.....
This is the first time I defined free will, will, choice etc...... in page 1 in this thread.

Leroy wrote
Leroy Freewill is defined as the ability to decide and make choices,(at least some times)


and up to this point this is the last definition that I have used

leroy wrote
Most people 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.


Anyone can see that there is not a meaningful difference between the first and the last definition, and anyone can read the 60 pages of this thread and note that I haven't provided any definition that is different from these definitions. this is what I have always meant when I use any the terms will, free will, human choice, etc.


so when Mars uses the term "Leroys definían of will, free will, human choice etc". he means those definitions



So a brief list of quotes where Mars seems to be granting that human choice, (will, free will etc.) as I am using those terms.



I've always explained you had options Leroy:
A. Prove everyone's opinion of you: that you are a brain-indoctrination-damaged troll, who cares nothing for reason or integrety
B. Prove them wrong, show some guts, tackle rather than run from the issues with your brainless absurdities. Discuss the subjects with an honest interest in learning and improving your understanding.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14042&start=1180


ok, so If I could have picked B, instead of A therefore you are granting that I had options, therefore you are granting human choice.
you run from the information like a coward and refuse to learn
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14042&start=1180



so I could have chosen not run and learn, but I choose to run and refuse to learn...........again you are granting human choice.

I am willing to bet that this is completely wrong:


Ok, If you are willing to do something, then you are granting will, or human choice


And I am willing to bet that the opinions of this majority (note the spelling) of scholars, if there is such a
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=12200&p=177838&hilit=willing#p177838


once again, willing to do something implies that you grant will

Actually Leroy, if you could stop lying in every comment:
I clearly and unambiguously said that I grant human choices.
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=12200&p=178018&hilit=choice#p178018


ok so you grant human choice (obviously)


Now a list of quotes where MarsCydonia seemed to have rejected, (or atleast not granted human choice, will, free will etc.)

I'll repeat what I said "I cannot accept "will" (ny which I mean Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" or libertarian free will, because I do not even understand what it would mean to accept it, no one has made an explanation of it that I found coherent

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14042&start=1060
".


ok so you denied will, human choice, free will (as I am defining those terms).....

My position is that I don't accept anything regarding human choices. I don't know how the process of choice works and I haven't seen anyone make a coherent explanation of it.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14042&start=1060


ok you don't accept human choices.


. I do not grant Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" but that does not mean I shouldn't grant that human choice is possible.

Realize that a position of skepticism toward a subject does not mean you categorically reject it's possibility or believe it's opposite. If I am skeptical that the number of gumballs in a gumball machine is even, that does not mean I do not grant that it could be even nor does it mean that I believe that the number is odd. I do not grant Leroy's definition of "will/freedom" because of its incoherence and its contradiction but that does not mean I do not believe that will is possible.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14042&start=1060


ok, so now you are being skeptic, but still you are not granting human choice, all you are doing is granting that human choice is possible ............


............

lets give users form this forum the opportunity to vote.........

Vote 1, 2 or 3


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
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon May 15, 2017 7:33 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

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.
"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
Mon May 15, 2017 7:55 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 60 of 75
 [ 1496 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests