Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Skepdick]

Either you believe that P is true, or you believe that P is NOT true.

Or:

If you believe neither of those then you neither believe that the Big Bang is true; nor believe that The Big Bang is NOT true.

By Jove, I think he's got it!

You believe a contradiction.

Then again, maybe not.

Learn some fucking logic, stupid. And if you reject the laws of reason, then say so - stupid. Admit that you don't give a shit about laws or reason.

Are you sure it's atheists who are getting pissed off?

Well, look. If pointing out that you are lying doesn't piss you off then nothing will.

You appear to be comfortable in your self-delusion.

At the very least, choosing not to choose is not science because it's not even wrong.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, look. If pointing out that you are lying doesn't piss you off then nothing will.

You appear to be comfortable in your self-delusion.

You are deluded if you think you are pointing out that I am lying.

[Skepdick]

Well, look. If pointing out that you are lying doesn't piss you off then nothing will.

You appear to be comfortable in your self-delusion.

You are deluded if you think you are pointing out that I am lying.

I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

By recursion: You neither believe that you have beliefs (about X) nor believe that you don't have beliefs (about X).

[Skepdick]

Well, look. If pointing out that you are lying doesn't piss you off then nothing will.

You appear to be comfortable in your self-delusion.

You are deluded if you think you are pointing out that I am lying.

I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

By recursion: You neither believe that you have beliefs (about X) nor believe that you don't have beliefs (about X).

We can recurse to infinity and beyond and you won't find a fence to sit on. It's called the Law of EXCLUDED middle.

That fence you claim to be sitting on has been EXCLUDED from the discourse. So you are necessarily lying by insisting that you are sitting on it.

[Will Bouwman]

At the very least, choosing not to choose is not science because it's not even wrong.

Tell that to Richard Feynman:
"we must keep all theories in our head, and every theoretical physicist that's any good knows six or seven theoretical representations for exactly the same physics." It's at 1:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

[Skepdick]

At the very least, choosing not to choose is not science because it's not even wrong.

Tell that to Richard Feynman:
"we must keep all theories in our head, and every theoretical physicist that's any good knows six or seven theoretical representations for exactly the same physics." It's at 1:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

Non-sequitur.

What's the competing hypothesis to The Big Bang/singularity?
The one which second-best explains all the evidence?

Belief drives action. No belief - no action. Not even the action of testing a hypothesis.

If you don't believe The Big Bang is falsifiable then you would never attempt to falsify it.
If you believe The Big Bang is not falsifiable then you accept it as The Final Theory.

[Skepdick]

At the very least, choosing not to choose is not science because it's not even wrong.

Tell that to Richard Feynman:
"we must keep all theories in our head, and every theoretical physicist that's any good knows six or seven theoretical representations for exactly the same physics." It's at 1:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

Not to mention that you are intentionally blurring the line about what Feynman believed and what he said.

If he's holding all theories in his head then he believes all of them. At the same time.

It's a different issue of whether he has a ranking of most to least likely.

[Will Bouwman]

What's the competing hypothesis to The Big Bang/singularity?

Again:

The current understanding of nature is Ex Nihilo.

Well no. That's your current understanding of the current understanding. Ex nihilo is one hypothesis, but there are many others.

[Will Bouwman]

Not to mention that you are intentionally blurring the line about what Feynman believed and what he said.

If he's holding all theories in his head then he believes all of them. At the same time.

And you tell me to learn some logic?

It's a different issue of whether he has a ranking of most to least likely.

Try and get your head around underdetermination.
"Nobody is ever going to be able to decide which one is right..." ibid: 2:00

[Will Bouwman]

Belief drives action.

So does curiosity.

[Gary Childress]

I don't believe in God with a capital, nor gods without.

I'm agnostic.

In fairness, I'm what most people call an agnostic, in that I don't know whether God (or gods) exists. I just don't call myself an agnostic in deference to the guy who invented the word:
Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
— Thomas Henry Huxley
I have no scientific grounds for not believing in God, I just happen not to and don't mind saying so.

I started out life as an atheist watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos and other things on TV, however, my studies of Philosophy and other subjects in college left me agnostic. At this point, I'm still agnostic.

Well, if agnostic is taken to mean not knowing if God exists, that is the position of everyone.

According to IC and others, Christians have been "left out" of the sciences because of no other reason than they are Christians. IC thinks that's not fair. So I guess it's necessary to let more Christians into the sciences. I mean, let them see what's going on for themselves too. Maybe it will instill some sense into them and turn them into agnostics too? Is that possible?

Any Christian who professes the importance of faith doesn't 'know' that God exists; they just happen to believe so. Christians are not left out of science. The problem that some Christians have is that they wish to believe that Biblical stories like Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark are literally true. The evidence strongly suggests they are not.

I mean, I'd hate to wake up tomorrow and find out that I'm a "heretic" because they don't agree with my agnosticism, however, maybe IC is right and science has been shutting Christians out of the process?

Insofar as science is a process of finding out what is true, the more one insists that the Bible is true, the more they shut themselves out of the process. Waking up tomorrow branded a heretic by some won't be any different to all the other days you have woken a heretic.

I've highlighted the part I am responding to.

If it is the case that I am a "heretic", then am I a heretic to good people or am I a heretic to bad people? That's really all I'm interested in knowing.

[Gary Childress]

I don't believe in God with a capital, nor gods without.

I'm agnostic.

In fairness, I'm what most people call an agnostic, in that I don't know whether God (or gods) exists. I just don't call myself an agnostic in deference to the guy who invented the word:
Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
— Thomas Henry Huxley
I have no scientific grounds for not believing in God, I just happen not to and don't mind saying so.

I started out life as an atheist watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos and other things on TV, however, my studies of Philosophy and other subjects in college left me agnostic. At this point, I'm still agnostic.

Well, if agnostic is taken to mean not knowing if God exists, that is the position of everyone.

According to IC and others, Christians have been "left out" of the sciences because of no other reason than they are Christians. IC thinks that's not fair. So I guess it's necessary to let more Christians into the sciences. I mean, let them see what's going on for themselves too. Maybe it will instill some sense into them and turn them into agnostics too? Is that possible?

Any Christian who professes the importance of faith doesn't 'know' that God exists; they just happen to believe so. Christians are not left out of science. The problem that some Christians have is that they wish to believe that Biblical stories like Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark are literally true. The evidence strongly suggests they are not.

I mean, I'd hate to wake up tomorrow and find out that I'm a "heretic" because they don't agree with my agnosticism, however, maybe IC is right and science has been shutting Christians out of the process?

Insofar as science is a process of finding out what is true, the more one insists that the Bible is true, the more they shut themselves out of the process. Waking up tomorrow branded a heretic by some won't be any different to all the other days you have woken a heretic.

Am I a heretic to people who would do evil or am I a heretic to people who would not do evil?

And what is "evil"?

[Skepdick]

Not to mention that you are intentionally blurring the line about what Feynman believed and what he said.

If he's holding all theories in his head then he believes all of them. At the same time.

And you tell me to learn some logic?

It's a different issue of whether he has a ranking of most to least likely.

Try and get your head around underdetermination.
"Nobody is ever going to be able to decide which one is right..." ibid: 2:00

I can only explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you.

Science isn’t a game of being right.
It’s a game of being least wrong.

I don’t know which theory is right.
But I know The Big Bang is impossibly wrong.

[Skepdick]

Belief drives action.

So does curiosity.

I can only explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you.

If you are neither curious about curiosity nor not curious about curiosity; then you aren’t even curious about why you are wrong.

There is no fence.

Abstract belief produces concrete actions; or lack thereof.

You can’t be curious AND not curious at the same time.

That’s a contradiction - intellectual dishonesty.

[Will Bouwman]

you have woken a heretic.

I've highlighted the part I am responding to.

If it is the case that I am a "heretic", then am I a heretic to good people or am I a heretic to bad people? That's really all I'm interested in knowing.

Both, I suspect. Holding some religious belief doesn't necessarily make anyone a bad person. I think it depends on what punishment they think you deserve for disagreeing with them.

Am I a heretic to people who would do evil or am I a heretic to people who would not do evil?

Same thing really.

And what is "evil"?

I don't use the term much, but in the secular sense, there are plenty of actions that could be described as evil, including some religious practices. What counts as evil in religion depends on the religion, but not complying with the religion is a common theme. Sorry I can't be more helpful.