Freedomain Radio

Nojus Arturas Namajunas:

Dave Bockman:

 

Would you mind asking those agnostic friends which definitions of god are not falsifiable through the scientific method?

Maybe a deistic god? I don't know, I'm not an agnostic.

Aren't you curious?

 

Nojus Arturas Namajunas:

 

To be honest, it feels the same as when my step-dad tries to inform my sister on something he knows nothing about and she just accepts it without question.

Thats not a feeling. How do you feel? Do see this emotional avoidance game your playing with yourself? what do you think that reveals?

RickyCisco:

 

Thats not a feeling. How do you feel? Do see this emotional avoidance game your playing with yourself? what do you think that reveals?

I feel fine?  I'm not sure what it reveals.

Dave Bockman:

 

Aren't you curious?

 

 

Um, as long as they don't make the claim that I'm wrong or try to force their beliefs on me then no... 

But does that have anything to do with my argument?

 

Nojus Arturas Namajunas:

To be honest, it feels the same as when my step-dad tries to inform my sister on something he knows nothing about and she just accepts it without question.

 

 

I am just saying that when I asked you about the emotions you experience while reading this thread you end up giving me a story. Why?

 

Nojus Arturas Namajunas:

 

I feel fine?  I'm not sure what it reveals.

I'd say it reveals that agnostism has instilled emotional road blocks in you, perhaps because you have close friends that uphold the position. If you accept agnostism to be an equivocal cowardly stance (or lack thereof) then you are going to have to confront your friends, or view them differently. 

I know I am psychologizing you, but its because Stefan has thoroughly shown / proven that agnostism does not hold up on a number of podcasts.

Why aren't you agnostic?

RickyCisco:

 

 

I am just saying that when I asked you about the emotions you experience while reading this thread you end up giving me a story. Why?

It's an analogy.

 

RickyCisco:

 

I'd say it reveals that agnostism has instilled emotional road blocks in you, perhaps because you have close friends that uphold the position. If you accept agnostism to be an equivocal cowardly stance (or lack thereof) then you are going to have to confront your friends, or view them differently.

I already have confronted them and they answered my questions to satisfaction.  There are strawmen being set-up here, that's why agnosticism seems so silly the way Stefan attacks it.

RickyCisco:

I know I am psychologizing you, but its because Stefan has thoroughly shown / proven that agnostism does not hold up on a number of podcasts.

I've heard all his podcasts and they're mostly strawmen arguments.  There are certain definitions of a god or gods that are not falsifiable through logic.

RickyCisco:

Why aren't you agnostic?

I'm a theological non-cognitivist/ignostic.  An ignostic is someone who asks for a definition of a god before deciding if it exists or not.  If the definition can be falsified through logic it does not exist.  If the definition is not falsifiable through the scientific method then the ignostic treats the question as meaningless.

Nojus, brav-frickin'-o..

Ricky, perhaps you have emotional road blocks instilled that prevent you from seeing the glaringly fallacious arguments Stef uses against agnosticism.  It's just a thought..

Nojus Arturas Namajunas:

 

I'm a theological non-cognitivist/ignostic.  An ignostic is someone who asks for a definition of a god before deciding if it exists or not.  If the definition can be falsified through logic it does not exist.  If the definition is not falsifiable through the scientific method then the ignostic treats the question as meaningless.

 

Interesting way of calling yourself an atheist and refuting agnosticism. I rest my case. 

 

RickyCisco:

Interesting way of calling yourself an atheist and refuting agnosticism. I rest my case. 

 

Wow...

Dave Bockman:

Nojus Arturas Namajunas:

Dave Bockman:

 

Would you mind asking those agnostic friends which definitions of god are not falsifiable through the scientific method?

Maybe a deistic god? I don't know, I'm not an agnostic.

Aren't you curious?

I'll leave this conversation with the observation that you seemed to have deliberately avoided the central part of my question to you, which is:

Asking your agnostic friends a question for which there is no logical answer, and which will confront them with their own corruption.

 

 

Fine, I'll confront them further.  Even though their position has no negative consequences for me because they don't force their beliefs on me.

 

Happy?

 

I love how people who don't accept Stef's positions on things are branded as corrupt etc...  Sounds like bigotry to me.

Ok, I just thought I'd pass along my experience of the last couple days of this thread, in case anyone is interested in exploring the information further:

I have felt mostly irritation, annoyance, and frustration while reading the posts from Ricky, Dave, and Nojus. At times, I've also felt spikes of anger, and some moments of contempt.

I'm not saying my experience is any kind of objective proof of anything, but given the nearly consistent presence of these feelings, I suspect that the interactions amongst the participants of this thread over the past few days has been anything but enjoyable.

So, my question is: why is there a continuous impulse to engage on this thread? Could it have been my original post? Is it possible the thought I had that initiated the thread, is itself some sort of acting-out that triggered everyone else? Or, is there something else going on here?

 

GregG:

Ok, I just thought I'd pass along my experience of the last couple days of this thread, in case anyone is interested in exploring the information further:

I have felt mostly irritation, annoyance, and frustration while reading the posts from Ricky, Dave, and Nojus. At times, I've also felt spikes of anger, and some moments of contempt.

I'm not saying my experience is any kind of objective proof of anything, but given the nearly consistent presence of these feelings, I suspect that the interactions amongst the participants of this thread over the past few days has been anything but enjoyable.

So, my question is: why is there a continuous impulse to engage on this thread? Could it have been my original post? Is it possible the thought I had that initiated the thread, is itself some sort of acting-out that triggered everyone else? Or, is there something else going on here?

 

I felt the need to defend my friend's positions on agnosticism.  It seemed as though you were labeling people that I know as blind, stupid and worshippers of contradiction.  These are people that I have confronted before and don't hold the positions that Stef seems to keep attacking. 

 

Then RickyCisco felt the need to psychologize me and Dave had questions as to what definitions of god could be non-falsifiable through logic.

 

GregG:

So, my question is: why is there a continuous impulse to engage on this thread? Could it have been my original post? Is it possible the thought I had that initiated the thread, is itself some sort of acting-out that triggered everyone else? Or, is there something else going on here?

I think it's what I said to Ricky, but admittedly not in the most productive fashion.  I think there is a definite propensity here at FDR for people to have a blind spot for fallcious arguments when they support the overall conclusion of that argument.  And it goes against the core FDR value of arguing from first principles, reason and logic.  And that bothers some of us.  There's been quite a few threads in the last two months that either start out pointing out these flaws or devolve into talking about them, coming from various users, new and old, and even from folks with the "philosopher king" label next to their name.  The reason scientific inquiry works so well and has endured the ages is because at its core foundation is the value of criticism, both giving and receiving.  Here, if you criticize, you are bullied back in line by a handful of other users, or sometimes Stef himself.  Sometimes overtly, but mostly passive aggressively.  It almost resembles the slave-on-slave attacks that Stef argues so well against the power of the State.  Frighteningly so.  I see so much potential here, that's why I came to participate.  But I see so many of the same flaws that any other social group exhibits, and despair that perhaps even in this group, they simply cannot be overcome.

 Reading this thread has made me feel sad and anxious. 

 

Captain Trips:

GregG:

So, my question is: why is there a continuous impulse to engage on this thread? Could it have been my original post? Is it possible the thought I had that initiated the thread, is itself some sort of acting-out that triggered everyone else? Or, is there something else going on here?

I think it's what I said to Ricky, but admittedly not in the most productive fashion.  I think there is a definite propensity here at FDR for people to have a blind spot for fallcious arguments when they support the overall conclusion of that argument.  And it goes against the core FDR value of arguing from first principles, reason and logic.  And that bothers some of us.  There's been quite a few threads in the last two months that either start out pointing out these flaws or devolve into talking about them, coming from various users, new and old, and even from folks with the "philosopher king" label next to their name.  The reason scientific inquiry works so well and has endured the ages is because at its core foundation is the value of criticism, both giving and receiving.  Here, if you criticize, you are bullied back in line by a handful of other users, or sometimes Stef himself.  Sometimes overtly, but mostly passive aggressively.  It almost resembles the slave-on-slave attacks that Stef argues so well against the power of the State.  Frighteningly so.  I see so much potential here, that's why I came to participate.  But I see so many of the same flaws that any other social group exhibits, and despair that perhaps even in this group, they simply cannot be overcome.

CT, in the spirit of proving your claims in this post wrong, I want to ask for evidence and examples that validate these claims.