The New Atheists

When you identify yourself as a Gnostic, you are evoking the syncretistic religious movement, who took their name from the greek word γνῶσις, knowledge, and whose beliefs rest in the idea that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge- the judeo-christian god. When I hear the word “Gnostic” as applied to a philosophical or religious stance I do not immediately think of the greek word (Gnosis).

Didn’t I write the exact thing In my response to you ? Do you have difficulties understanding concepts or stuff that I write ?

but to the term as it has been contextually applied in the history of religious and philosophical movements. Since no other group in history outside of these beliefs have claimed the term for themselves

Actually there are a lot of people identifying themselves for Gnostic/Agnostic Atheists ( http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?tit…st_vs._Agnostic ).

BTW A nice hint you start using logic and reason then you don’t look retarded. Trying to prove a absolute negative is impossible you fool ! Because you would need to be all knowing and have knowledge of every single person in history and obviously your knowledge is less then a Google searche :stuck_out_tongue: , that’s a nice example of what accurse if you don’t accept the impossibility of proving a absolute negative (matrix scenario) especially is it is possible (there is no logical of physical limitation for humans to do this ).

You can try to define “Democratic” as “human,” but unfortunately ‘you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning.’

O Yes how I love the superstitious people always believing in magic seriously you are going to defend this notion ?

Ok neo-mystic boy here it comes “HOW do you discover the exact meaning of the word ONI ?”

What is the exact meaning of this combination of audio waves and how are you going to discover it ? Maybe using your magical crystal ball ? :smiley:

How about the word Hel is it Hell ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell ) like in English or Hel ( http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(miasto) ) like in Polish ? And with in Polish is it the hel ( http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(pierwiastek) ) element or Hel ( http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(miasto) ) please ? Yes overindexing can accrue in one language or how about the English word state is it a synonym for government “the state haze ordered” or a word like “I state this proposition” ?

Bring it on show me this discovering of exact definitions of sound wave patterns and I will be the firs to congratulate you on your Nobel prize in linguistics and physics .

Bring it :frowning: on stop talking nonsense and give me some examples instead of this religious crap I’m a hard core empiricist and I will get my evidence.

BTW what are you going to tell me next “One day you will discover there is a god ” ? HAHAHA really you silly religious notions are the same retarded bullshit that Christians throw at me simply replace the word “god” with anything and you have again the same illogical argument.

Maybe you assumed that you don’t supposed to overindex in a definition set however this is more a rule then a discoverable truth. I argue strongly in favor of outlawing overindexing.

However this is not consistent with word like “discover”.

PS: Why do I suppose to hold enemy respect for a definition of something that belongs to a long extinct religion. I can use their index numbers because they sound nice if I wont to besides its used by many Atheist so they understand it and its accepted. Whets next rename the planets because if someone says Jupiter you think about the god Jupiter and not the name give to the planet ? Your proposition is absurd at best to honor the index numbers of nonexistent religions of how altruistic from you.

Have you been reading too much Derrida?

???

What is that ???

???

Are you referring to this dude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida ???

Do you really think I got my ideas from a book ?

HAHAHAHA Thus are self evident truths that can be found true experimentation its like me presenting the proof for gravity and you say “Have you been reading too much Newton ”. You can find and prove everything that I have stated here ! Look up the languages ! See that overindexing occurs ! Case proven there can be overindexing therefore there is no inherent meaning to audio wave combinations that we have for index numbers or are you implying numerology ?

It may be surprising to someone who is a second hander that depends on other people for knowledge that some people like me are quite capable of discovering knowledge on their own.

Maybe what you mean is that you have to recognize that after you have made a conclusion, new information could come to light that could change the equation? Because that’s true, but it isn’t quite the same as always assuming you could be wrong on any point. If someone is schizophrenic and all they do is see cats where there aren’t any, then it might be a while before someone realizes what’s happening and points it out to them (which is what happened to Nash in the movie - everyone just figured he was an oddball genius and left him alone). But once someone does point it out, then you can evaluate the new information and maybe come to a different conclusion.

What Prosperity means (correct me if I’m wrong) is that it’s arbitrary to assume that whenever I see a cat it might just be that I have schizophrenia. If there’s no evidence of it then you can assume you don’t have it. If there’s no evidence that you’re wrong, then you can assume that you’re right. Then when/if new evidence comes to light you can reevaluate - you don’t have to assume that it’s going to in any given case. In most cases if you’re evaluating the truth value of something that actually matters (i.e. is a truth valuation you need to make in order to decide on a course of action), it’s going to come to light pretty quickly. But you need some reasonable level of certainty in a conclusion in order to take any action at all, and a level of certainty in which all your knowledge is taken into account and you have no evidence to the contrary is as “certain” as it gets.

While I agree for all practical reasons with his its still not sufficient to deny a matrix scenario because there would be no possibility of every discovering something different because every sensory impute would be a part of the matrix and unlike in the film there would be no people or evidence to free you from the matrix (no evidence to show that you are deluded , its more like a insane person who is constantly hallucinating and will never awake and haze no contact with reality or real people ). The matrix scenario is a nice description of the impossibility of all knowledge because even if something is claming a absolute stance to know that he is all knowing he would need to know that he isn’t in a matrix and the matrix is obscuring itself from his powers.

Besides its a nice that experiment to realize how some experiences can be deceiving like hallucinations and some truths that can be hidden under a that we think is the truth examples Newton physics and Einstein’s physics or how about the atom previously assumed to be indivisible now we know we can split it or even play alchemy creating gold from air (nuclear fusion) so knowledge can be only statistical never absolute.

The matrix scenario is for me more of a abstract mind experiment to show that sometimes evidence like thinking you can disprove the possibility of making iron into gold by seeing some religious nonsense preformed on metals doesn’t negate the possibility of iron turning into gold however we never can know if there exists this possibility or not. On a side note there could be a possibility us really living in the matrix and do to our limitations never realizing it , a nice example of this is found in games/simulations for instance the game “black and white” is a god game where players play as gods to compete with other while some AI gods are really all knowing (they can detect everything instantaneously do to the scripting) in the game , they can never use thus abilities out side of the game because they are only a limited script created by the computer/matrix. And this is a nice debacle for Christians and everyone claming to have negative knowledge that is absolute (god can not be deceived) in science positive knowledge only counts (like this experiment doesn’t make iron into gold ) that is not absolute.

One thing before someone points out “but saying that it is impossible to prove a absolute negative is absolute in itself ” maybe I clarify if I use impossible I have ~99% certainty only and if someone shows me a method to find a way out of the matrix scenario I will correct my self and accept that is possible however until someone doesn’t show a method that works my statistical knowledge remains the same.

Didn’t I write the exact thing In my response to you ? Do you have difficulties understanding concepts or stuff that I write ?

I’m sure he does. You can’t spell (I suggest a simple spelling program), and you’re erratic.

What makes you think that you’re making perfect sense, and people understand everything you say? I’m not saying that everyone has to speak perfect English, but if you don’t, you can’t then pretend that you do and call people stupid when they don’t know what the hell you’re on about. Or at least you shouldn’t. You should try to keep your sentences short, and only use structures and words you master.

I’m sure he does. You can’t spell (I suggest a simple spelling program), and you’re erratic.

What makes you think that you’re making perfect sense, and people understand everything you say?

]O Really news flash I use a spell check !

Prove me wrong ! Quote the word the I spelled incorrectly bring it on show me my errors.

Bring it on. :frowning:

Do it show me my errors I’m waiting.

“Hel” is not a spelling error its a word from the Polish language equally “hel” and “oni” again except words from different languages my spell check in not finding errors.

Maybe you learn to actually have something before starting . Maybe if you actually run my posts in a spell check you will not find errors.

What is it with you people and you your absolute lack of evidence ?

If I’m hard to understand then ask nicely for clarification note that I have asked nicely if there is a problem in understanding of my writing. Nicely so that a confusion can be clarified .

I’m not claming that my sentence is perfect after all English is not my first language. However to somehow absurdly jump to conclusions that I need to use a spell check is retarded especially that I use one maybe next time you ask yourself humbly “hey maybe this dude is using a spell check lets see and check his posts in MS-Word”.

If I have made a spelling error then I apologies immediately and give my humble regrets this I swear to you. It could be that I have used one word that haze a different meaning is spelled the same however written differently (or , ore) and made a mistake. I would sincerely apologies if proven wrong.

May I ask what brings you to the conclusion that I have a spelling error in one of my posts ?

There may be a word that haze a different meaning however that not a spelling error.

Besides I’m using short word structures and I’m often repeating the same concept just to make my self absolutely clear.

If there is a difficulty simply quote the sentence and ask for me to clarify. While I know that I don’t supposed to jump on people like this really tops everything I use a spell check I can’t get over it , chow could you assume that I don’t use a spell check ?

O Really news flash I use a spell check !

Prove me wrong ! Quote the word the I spelled incorrectly bring it on show me my errors.

Bring it on. :frowning:

If I have made a spelling error then I apologies immediately …

Apology not accepted. I hate you because you’re a douche, not because you can’t speak English.

May I ask what brings you to the conclusion that I have a spelling error in one of my posts ?

There may be a word that haze a different meaning however that not a spelling error.

Technically, haze is spelled correctly, but it is a poor substitute for the word has.

chow could you assume that I don’t use a spell check ?

I am not sure chow he could have assumed that either.

This guy is just trolling.

Technically, haze is spelled correctly, but it is a poor substitute for the word has.

I am not sure chow he could have assumed that either.

Don’t blame me blame the spell check.

I have an intriguing and sometimes fairly heated discussion with my boss at work about once a week. My boss is a Christian (Baptist,) actually studying in seminary to become a preacher…pastor or whatever. I am an Objectivist, and an Atheist.

Reliably every time, the discussion whittles down to the basis for morals and ethics.

He states that, as I do not believe in a god or holy scripture or holy word, there is no basis for my morals or ethics (his basis being the word of his god.)

I explain to him that the basis for my morals, values and ethics rests in my ability to reason…my understanding of the world and people around me, and my recognition of the correct values and morals which allow me to best serve my own well being.

He then claims that my own reason or intelligence is not a valid basis for morals, ethics or values, as my knowledge is not nearly extensive enough to determine the difference between right and wrong. He claims that only god and jesus christ can truly make this distinction, and for that reason we should follow his word.

I usually then repeat to him a quote I heard…from someone. Not Rand…peikoff, paul, anyone like that, not a name. I think it was from an obscure book.

“It is foolish to claim that because I know something, I know everything. It is far more foolish to claim that because I do not know everything, I know nothing.”

Don’t blame me blame the spell check.

I’ve reported you to the mods, troll.

Haste Law Visa, Baby. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

He thinks that people can be good without religion just because some instinct informs them.

This belief has an analogue in the Aristotelian view of ethical process as taught at Providence Collage in the Ethics course

It is called “co-natural knowledge” and holds that an attutude toward good and evil “comes with the territory” i.e. from living and being an observant being, without formal training. This, in turn, is used as evidence to point to the legitimacy of Ethics (how to tell good from evil) as a subject of inquirey. Also the desireability of the Good lies not in ethics (which presupposes good and evel and the desireaability of making that observation and distinction), but in Metaphyisics.

He then claims that my own reason or intelligence is not a valid basis for morals, ethics or values, as my knowledge is not nearly extensive enough to determine the difference between right and wrong. He claims that only god and jesus christ can truly make this distinction, and for that reason we should follow his word.

Just because he is not able to discern right from wrong dosen’t mean the rest of us need the Great Wish fairy in the Sky to tell us what is what. Point out to him the Bible was not written by “God,” but by men.

He is willing to give up to an authority his ability to think for security of being told what to think. That make him no better than a child.