Re: Appeal to Abstract Authority - a never ending fallacy by materialists
- From: Kermit <unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:30:47 -0700
On Nov 3, 2:36 am, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Materialists keep on undermining their credibility by their continued
appeal to abstract authority.
I have never before heard anyone call reality "abstract authority".
Your brain really is addled, you know. Which is a metaphor, but still
true.
http://www.psychohistorian.org/atheism/ellisnoma.html
"....Recent Templeton Foundation prize winner Prof George Ellis
(Applied Mathematics, UCT) has elaborated on this in his lucid essay
"Science and Religion: A personal view of their relation....."
Why do you reference Prof. Ellis, and then not quote him? You complain
about "Abstract authority", whatever that is, but then dishonestly
claim that this man represents your following misrepresentations. This
is intellectual cowardice, and dishonest.
How could Mr.Science and Mr.Religion have a relation if they don't
exist ?
What childish nonsense is this?
What is he really trying to say. For this we need to know what
is the materialist assumptions and world views. They believe that
matter created language,
Yes, living things, in particular humans, are made of matter.
theists that language created matter.
Most theists would say that one or more gods made the universe.
Whether those gods used language or not, I don't believe any of them
claim that language was anything but a tool of power, and many don't
say that much. You understand comparative religion as poorly as you do
science.
Neither
of these world views can be proven or disproven.
Eh? It's pretty clear that language comes from the human brain. There
is as yet no verifiable evidence that anything besides the material
exist, except in the abstract. You can claim that this is not yet
proof, I suppose. There is not yet proof that there is no Santa Claus,
and am not sure what would constitute it.
What is the intent
then with "science" from the materialists?
It is dishonest of you, or pathological (I am not sure which applies)
to fail to acknowledge that scientist is not synonymous with, or a
subset of, philosophical materialists.
It is a proxy word for
their materialist superstitions.
An oxymoron. But I expect linguistic confusion from you, and little
else.
'Science' is not defined, nobody
knows what the word is supposed to mean.
Actually, nearly everybody who speaks English knows what it means.
Everybody uses it to
communicate some form of intent
Very few people use "science" to communicate an intent. For a few
posts you actually used the word "meaning" correctly, but you have
reverted. I suppose meaningful discourse was too much of a strain for
your brain.
and this intent differs from person to
person.
If you mean "mean" instead of "intent", no. Peers (literate or not)
general mean about the same thing, and have no trouble communicating.
If you actually mean "intent", the sentence is nearly gibberish, and
does not refer to reality.
A word like "selection" is defined by its synonyms such as
choice, decision and preference, but "science" what intent are we
trying to communicate with this word?
A rational study of reality, and how the world works. This is what
confuses you about it.
Materialists use it as a rhetorical device when arguing from authority
regularly invoking the non-existent person Mr.Science with statements
such as "...science says so.." and science says nothing.
Well, by materialist, you mean science-literate people.
By rhetorical device, you mean linguistic shorthand.
When saying arguing by authority, you really mean offering their
observations of reality.
By invoking, you mean using as the subject of the sentence.
By non-existent person, you mean a parenthetical aside that this
interpretation is, BTW, just a feverish vision of your addled brain.
By Mr. Science, you mean the people who do science.
By science says so, you really do mean science says so.
By science says nothing, you mean that you don't understand.
So yes, you are correct.
What they are
really trying to say is that from their assumptions that their
thoughts are created by atoms bouncing inside their head
You have an extraordinarily concrete image of the world. Even your
understanding of atoms are more material than real atoms actually are.
You continually conjure up an image of little billiard balls, which is
OK I suppose for third graders, but inappropriate if you want to
understand what's going on. Certainly investigating the origns of
language requires looking at society and human brains at a higher
level of organization than chemistry or nuclear physics. Which, it
goes without saying, you show no sign of grasping.
- matter
creates language - that they as materialists decree by their authority
as the secular hight priests of society that such and such is so.
Actually, they explain how the universe itself works. The origin of
language is still not clear. You understand it even less, but until
you admit that, you have no hope of learning more. Hell, you still
can't read for comprehension.
These debates in evolution should start from what is the person's
personal religious beliefs. I believe Language created matter and
materialists the reverse. I think their position is preposterous they
think mine is ridiculous.
How could either be proven? It can't of course all we can do is
motivate for our position as below:
Well, methodological materialists can't continue to learn facts, until
the picture becomes clear. Empirical nihilists can continue to get
drunk and assert that their personal vision is divine. I suppose you
could try trial by combat - fisticuffs in the alley behind the bar.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071003074237AAG26mw
"...Are what we call thoughts and ideas necessarily determined by the
atoms bouncing around in our heads the way atoms bounce around in
solar systems?
What a peculiarly concrete and simplistic view of what goes on.
If our minds consist of nothing more than the same
matter that makes up the rest of the universe, one may be tempted to
answer, yes.
I might point out that you have no evidence to the contrary. We know
that our minds are a process of the brain, as well as we know
anything.
But, then the question would be, isn't that answer also
necessarily determined? And on and on it goes! If what we call
"thoughts" are necessarily determined, then words and ideas really
have no meaning,
No, this doesn't follow. Why would the ultimate source of the mind
being material imply that ideas have no meaning? I could as well
assert that "if the mind derives from spirit, then ideas would have no
meaning". Why on Earth would you think so?
we could not have thought or acted any differently
than we did anymore than Jupiter could take a break.....
Correct. Do you think that the universe - or even your own brain - is
as simple as you think? Our brains are complex and chaotic systems.
Free will is another issue altogether than your linguistic confusion,
you know.
Science != philosophical materialism
Science != atheism
Science != determinism
Until you learn what words *mean, you will never be able to clarify
your thinking, or make intelligible statements.
"..Well, if matter in motion is all there is, then matter in motion is
all there is!
Okaay...
In other words, there are no elements that allow us to
draw independent conclusions,
No this is not "in other words".
or to give real meaning to words and
sentences.
Nor this. Why would you think so?
If this form of atheistic cosmology
What is atheist cosmology supposed to be, and what does it have to do
with science?
it true, then the
matter in motion that makes up you and me must also act in a
necessarily determined way,
I happen to think so, yes.
as all other matter in motion must. What
we call thoughts, are nothing more than the result of atoms and
molecules bouncing around in our heads as they must according to the
laws of physics...."
Yes...
How do you break the laws of physics when you think )or whatever you
call it)?
Do you fly? Does your brain not use glucose for fuel? Or what?
"...If this is true, then it would be impossible for me not to be a
Christian;
Yeah. If you were born in Calcutta, you'd be a very confused Hindu.
that is the way the atoms are bouncing and no one can do
anything about it.
About our thoughts? We can try reasoning. True, that doesn't seem to
work, but I haven't ruled out antipsychotics yet. We interact with the
world around us all the time! How can you possibly think nobody can do
anything about your thoughts?
Or by "it" do you mean that we can't create an alternate universe
which is deterministic? Well, duh.
It would be impossible for an Atheist not to be an
Atheist;
Ha. Silly boy. I'm an atheist. All you have to do to convince me is
offer persuasive and verifiable evidence that there are gods. Have
any?
that is the way the atoms are bouncing in his head.
In response to all that is happening and has happening to him/her,
yes. You really don't understand this, do you?
This
means there is no such thing as real "thoughts,"
No, it means there are no spirits. Why would it mean there are no
thoughts?
there is merely the
necessary bouncing of atoms, deterministically producing what bouncing
atoms produce...."
Yes. This does not explain why you have no native language.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,194,Huw-Edwards-Interviews-Richard-...
"....Dawkins as an atheist says he wants people to make up their own
minds. Well, if our minds consist of atoms bouncing around constrained
by the laws of chemistry and physics, we don't believe what we believe
because it is true.
I would consider all of my beliefs to be true. Why could I believe
them if I thought otherwise? You don't seem to be able to wrap your
mind around the idea that you might be mistaken in anything; this is
common in concrete thinking fundamentalists. If materialism were true,
then the materialists would obviously be correct in this particular at
least, yes?
So Dawkins, according to his own beliefs, has to
admit that he believes what he believes not because they are true.
No he doesn't. For instance, you obviously do not admit that you are
confused because you are stupid, and that is obviously true.
His
atheism undercuts any attempts to utilize logic
That doesn't follow.
(which is immaterial btw) and reasoning...."
Yes. Abstract thought is what functioning human brains sometimes do.
Why is that a problem for you? Philosophical materialists (which not
all scientists are, remember?) say that abstractions such as music,
math, ideas, etc, are subsets of brain behavior. You, lacking all
evidence to the contrary, deny this.
HTH.
Kermit
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: A falsified hypothesis
- Next by Date: Re: King Kong, Charles Darwin and the Irish Fenians
- Previous by thread: Re: Appeal to Abstract Authority - a never ending fallacy by materialists
- Next by thread: Re: Appeal to Abstract Authority - a never ending fallacy by materialists
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
