Philosophy, what is it good for?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
You ignored my question, same old John. If they're "unobtainable and undiscoverable", then it's a contradiction to claim to have no doubts they exist, but I see I have inadvertently stepped onto the john Breezy merry-go-round of dishonest evasion, so I'll be getting off now, you enjoy.
There's no contradiction between not doubting the existence of an objective world, and being aware we cannot discover it ourselves.
Yes, there quite obviously is.
I don't doubt that there could be life on the other side of the galaxy, but we'll never be able to discover it ourselves.
Breezy "I don't doubt that objectivity exists"
"I don't doubt that there ***could be*** life on the other side of the galaxy, "
Having **no doubt something exists is not remotely the same as having no doubt something **could** exist.
You claimed to have no doubt something exists in the same sentence you claim it seems "unobtainable and undiscoverable".
I have "no doubt" you don't see the contradiction, but it is nonetheless implied, as I said at the start. No one can rationally claim to be certain (having no doubts) about anything that is "unobtainable and undiscoverable".
When it comes to objectivity I don't doubt it's existence, and when it comes to aliens I don't doubt it's possibility. However, I can also simply not doubt the existence of extraterrestrials period; I'm sure plenty of people don't.
Atheists seem to love calling things contradictions rather than investing the little mental energy it takes to harmonize two statement.
Personally, I have very little doubt that I have too many doubts about all the doubts I often have doubts about. Sadly, I doubt anybody would understand. Although, I don't doubt the possibility that somebody might. On second thought..... Nah, I doubt it.
That makes sense to me lol. But I'm not the one that thinks it's impossible to doubt your doubts *cough sheldon*
Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's beyond the shadow of a doubt that any of those doubts are seriously worth doubting. Hard to doubt how anybody could possibly doubt that.
How much do you think someone doubts something when they say they *DON'T doubt it? No seriously, don't clearly means something different to me than it does to wheezy?? Apparently when John says he doesn't doubt something, it means he has doubts about it, priceless.
I thought I had a rudimentary grasp of English, but Wheezy has me *doubting that is the case, with his dishonest semantics.
Tue, 08/21/2018 - 16:46 John Wheezy "I'm not the one that thinks it's impossible to doubt your doubts "
It was your claim to have no doubts John, I made no such claim?? You really are the mother and father of all liars John. Or, you were dropped as a child and are a bit slow. I wouldn't want you accusing me of thinking I'm clairvoyant so I added a caveat for you at the end. Anyway here is *YOUR* claim again.
Sun, 08/19/2018 - 06:38 John Wheezy "****I don't doubt***** that objectivity exists, it just seems unobtainable and undiscoverable by us."
So you claimed something seemed unobtainable and undiscoverable, after you claimed to have *no doubts it existed. When I point out this implies an obvious contradiction you make up yet another bare faced lie about me. Christians, can't live with them, can't expect them not to be lying hypocrites.
There are no contradictions; keep thinking about it, maybe it will click eventually.
Yes there is an inerrant contradiction in claiming to have no doubts about something you simultaneously claim is undiscovered and unobtainable. Just it is a contradiction for you to claim it's an objective fact the world is round, but only as a subjective philosophical premise. Either there is substantive and sufficient objective evidence that the world is round or there isn't.
I sense it's only a matter of time before you mention the Matrix.
"Then what we know is that life has only emerged a single time ..but when it comes to aliens I don't doubt it's possibility."
All you had to do is put both statements together. Out of all the times you've tried to claim I contradict myself, this requires the least amount of effort to resolve.
Remember you put a 1 in for the number of planets with life; but now you have confirmed you don't believe that.
That number was based on what we know, not what could be. We even modified it to reflect the potential for more (1+x), which doesn't really do anything because x is currently zero.
read what you wrote again Breezy:
Then what we know is that life has only emerged a single time.
Additionally that is the value you put into the equation to calculate the probability of life, so any argument about interpretation is moot; that is the number you used.
So yes, when your argument needed life to have emerged as few times as possible, you claimed to have knowledge that life has emerged only once; and now that you don't need that you have abandoned it.
I'll always claim that what we know is that life has only emerged a single time (duh); and I'll never doubt that there is life out there.
Edit: Reading your comment again, the emphasis you are adding gives a very absolute and narrow meaning to those words. Such that we know absolutely that it has only emerged once and never again. As opposed to simply saying we know of only one instance, which is how my sentence is supposed to read.
But then again, if I were to say that "everybody loves pizza" you'll actually try to convince me I'm wrong because your cousin doesn't.
Right. The point is you plugged it into the equation as a 1 (then lied about it); so arguing over what you meant is moot. You did this insane thing; own it.
Arguing over what I meant is not moot; it's literally the most important part. Secondary to that, and therefore subject to debate, is how to transform those statements into an equation.
Makes one wonder why you latch on to the equation so desperately and ignore what was meant by it? Hmm.
Just to be clear; please give a precise answer to "how many times has live emerged in the universe?"
So which is it: were you full of shit in the past, or the present?
The answer (again) is that we know of only one, and I don't doubt there could be more; simple. Even back then I made things clear for you (see attachment). However, your brand of atheism requires bending words and reality to protect itself. Therefore, the only contradiction I'll gladly confess to, is the one that contradicts you.
First you set the numerator as 1; then you gave it as 1 + x; then told us that your world view required it to be greater than 1 (even though you had recently set it to 1).
n=1 and n > 1 form a pretty damn obvious contradiction; that no amount of bullshit will escape.
There's no contraction; if anything there is humility given that my worldview requires the number to be greater than one, but we currently have no knowledge of those other life forms. When other intelligent life forms are found, it will add support to my worldview, and officially increase the numerator above one.
I would like to take this moment to highlight the difference between Nyar and LogicFTW. When Logic comes across an issue in the conversation, he traces back through that conversation to see where the misunderstanding emerged. He also suggests ways to fix it (e.g. "Probably should of dropped the 'anything' in the 'So, to say we share 99% of anything isn't really true'").
Most importantly, he doesn't let such misunderstandings derail the conversation. He has no problem shifting his interpretation to reflect the intended meaning of the speaker, and then continues his argument based on that new perspective. In contrast, Nyar never seems to have any arguments worth making, and instead clings desperately to his own misunderstandings and interpretations. The moment he finds what he believes to be a contradiction, you can be certain he is trying to kill the conversation. No amount of clarification and explanation will ever lead him to progress to anything more interesting. That's as far as he is willing to go, and perhaps, as far as he is able to go.
How exactly should I shift my interpretation of the number 1?
I can't help you there. Your cognitive abilities are limited by your unique neural composition. I'm only taught how to measure such abilities, not improve them.
Try taking this sample Sorting Task. Pay attention to how well you can shift between rules.
I'm serious; please tell me how I should interpret the number 1 differently.
I'm serious as well; take the test.
"n=1 and n > 1 form a pretty damn obvious contradiction; that no amount of bullshit will escape."
Are you sure, he seems to have a fairly limitless supply.