Science, Arts, Belief, Right & Wrong...

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Yeah but what if I came and told you I got straight A and you dont even know me? What will your default position be until you get the rest of the info?

default position for not knowing something is not disbelief..

for example u come to me and tell me u got straight A in all ur courses
u havent shown me ur report card
but i know ur the sharpest person i have known..ur wise intelligent hard working brilliant..
i have seen u study the whole year
my default position will be belief..i wont even ask u to show me ur report card..ill simply hug u and congratulate u

about the hedge fund manager..
if its a common practice..that money can b dbled in a year and if i know my hedge fund manager never lies..ill believe him simply
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Then you are a very entitled person to think that. We are insignificant in the grand scheme of things and the universe doesnt owe us anything.

Reality does not morph into what you want or do not want. Reality is reality and we can only know it from studying evidence.

You can hold beliefs without valid proof or evidence, its your right to believe what you want to believe but dont say that belief without valid evidence is a rational position to hold.

and the universe does owe me an explanation
when i look at it..i find it a creation
i as a human want to find its creator
 

Lord Botta

Minister (2k+ posts)
You have your definitions mixed up.

An atheist simply disbelieves that there is a God. He is neither saying there is a God or there isnt a God.

An Agnostic on the other hand is a person who says it can never be known whether there is a God or not.

They are similar but the main difference is that an Agnostic is making a claim that the answer can never be known while the atheist is not making any claims.

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/

noun

  1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.


ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/

noun


  1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Infact your whole dogma is messed up and that too ; very severely. You claimed that an agnostic is a person who can that you can "never" know whether God exists or not but the definition that you provided does not mention the "never" that you emphatically emphasized on , that I objected to
 
Last edited:

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
Yeah but what if I came and told you I got straight A and you dont even know me? What will your default position be until you get the rest of the info?
dont change ur stance..
the example u gave was of hedge fund man..if he is my fund man ill certainly know him and will be in perfect position to asses his claim..

nonetheless u dont need evidence to entertain an idea..
signs can also b used ascertain an idea say in a police investigation
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
It says nothing is known or can be known. Nothing can be known is a perpetual statement without a time limit on it which means ever.

But I think this is a pointless argument.

You know my position: Disbelief in God and I dont know where we came from.

Argue against my position rather than arguing over definitions because this is getting a bit ridiculous.

You are looking for petty things such is trying to poke holes in definitions and wordings here and there to score some brownie points so you can feel good about your irrational position.

If thats your intention then you can have your brownie points and stop wasting my time.

If you want to argue against my position then I have told you my position tell me what is your concern with it so I may address it.

Infact your whole dogma is messed up and that too ; very severely. You claimed that an agnostic is a person who can that you can "never" know whether God exists or not but the definition that you provided does not mention the "never" that you rigoursaly emphasized on , that I objected to
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
Yeah but what if I came and told you I got straight A and you dont even know me? What will your default position be until you get the rest of the info?
yet again..coming on ur turf..

lets say ur a stranger and tell me u got straight As..
who am i to give a damn..u might have gotten them u might not have
why would i even disbelieve or believe
still if u look like a gentleman well dressed sharp from ur face..it is more probable that ill believe u
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
What if you do not know the fund manager yet and he approaches you. What will be your default position before you get all the extra information/evidence?

In the absense of evidence your default position is always disbelief.

dont change ur stance..
the example u gave was of hedge fund man..if he is my fund man ill certainly know him and will be in perfect position to asses his claim..

nonetheless u dont need evidence to entertain an idea..
signs can also b used ascertain an idea say in a police investigation
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Exactly before you know me and in absense of evidence you will neither believe my claim nor beliece the opposite of my claim. Your position will be disbelief that I got straight As until you get evidence/information about me.

yet again..coming on ur turf..

lets say ur a stranger and tell me u got straight As..
who am i to give a damn..u might have gotten them u might not have
why would i even disbelieve or believe
 
Last edited:

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
Exactly before you know me and in absense of evidence you will neither believe my claim nor beliece the opposite of my claim. Your position will be disbelief that I can double your money until you get evidence/information about me.
so u have switched to information now..
is evidence = infomation ?
 

Tenacious Khan

Councller (250+ posts)
He is all over the place. He ranks himself an atheist but quickly shifts to agnosticism when encountered. Francis Bacon once famously said "A little philosophy inclines one's mind to atheism , depth of philosophy leads one to religion". Vitamin is a man of little philosophy. All what he has in his stock are rhetorics of Hitchens , sweeping statements and agnostic outbursts
Finally, someone has called him out on playing on both sides of the wicket. Vitamin_C has a knack of choosing the end that suits him best and jumps to the other side as soon as he is trapped plumb on the other end. Who can blame him, the likes of Shoaib (Iconoclast), Dennis Lillie (Sohail Shuja) and Brett Lee (yourself) are spearing in yorkers and bouncers left, right and center and he has no clue which way the ball is swinging, when it's actually reversing. 😅 Anyways, jokes apart......

Let us examine his definition of Atheism, since he clearly considers himself above and beyond the "founders" of atheism and of course has a better understanding of the subject than anyone but himself.... 😂

So according to Mr. Vitamin, oxford dictionary states the atheist is defined as:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

So, now there are two scenarios, one drawing a definite picture (i.e. disbelieves) vs. an ambiguous definition (i.e. lacks belief). If I were to take the latter as the right description, then against all odds what Vitamin is saying is actually right. However, for the time being, I will stick to a more definite picture and opt for the former description i.e. disbelieves. Disbelief is simply refusing to believe in something, in this case existence of GOD. So, technically by sticking to that argument I am rejecting the possibility of a GOD.

I would like to further strengthen my argument by providing the definition of atheism from Cambridge dictionary. Here's Cambridge dictionary defining atheism for you:

the belief that God does not exist.

Here's the source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheism

Mr. Vitamin continue feeding your ego all you want but by now the readers have seen who is being a pompous dickhead and dishonest to the infinite degree. You've been exposed.

In all honesty, I was expecting a better show from Vitamin_C. He truly has disappointed me. Refusing to touch on subjects like dark matter, entropy etc. just goes on to show, how much understanding he has of the physical principles often provided by atheists. I guess he should call for reinforcements, perhaps calling the likes of Qarar, BlackSheep and Janbaazkarachi would serve him well. Though I have seen them jumping ships from atheism to agnosticism in the past too. 😅
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
Then you are a very entitled person to think that. We are insignificant in the grand scheme of things and the universe doesnt owe us anything.

Reality does not morph into what you want or do not want. Reality is reality and we can only know it from studying evidence.

You can hold beliefs without valid proof or evidence, its your right to believe what you want to believe but dont say that belief without valid evidence is a rational position to hold.
dont presume that i think im some significant person...ur illogically connecting different things
im not saying universe owe me billion dollars..
as a logical person i think universe is a creation..and i need to find its creator..whats the big deal

last time i cheked reality was simulation according to you 😅
 

Lord Botta

Minister (2k+ posts)
It says nothing is known or can be known. Nothing can be known is a perpetual statement without a time limit on it which means ever.

But I think this is a pointless argument.

You know my position: Disbelief in God and I dont know where we came from.

Argue against my position rather than arguing over definitions because this is getting a bit ridiculous.

You are looking for petty things such is trying to poke holes in definitions and wordings here and there to score some brownie points so you can feel good about your irrational position.

If thats your intention then you can have your brownie points and stop wasting my time.

If you want to argue against my position then I have told you my position tell me what is your concern with it so I may address it.
I would be the last person to discuss definitions but your non linear hetrogeneous stance and straddling of the fence necessitated that you be checked on definitions.
I don't know what your stance is but I would rather take you as an atheist and present an argument for the existence of God and see how you deconstruct it. I hope you know that in the premises of an argument are logically valid , the conclusion is necessarily true. I would expand and substantiate the premises and address your questions as it goes on so here we go.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. The Universe has been fine tuned to an inexplicable extent for its own survival and the life of living species on it.
4. God is the only explanation for the origin and fine tuning of the Universe.
5. The creator of the Universe is God and he exists.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Calling yourself a logical person doesnt make you logical.

Rational people study the evidence and then follow it to find the conclusion

Illogical people make a conclusion first (ie universe as created) theb try to find arguments and evidence to try to rationalize it

as a logical person i think universe is a creation..and i need to find its creator..whats the big deal
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Thats not information in the context of evidence but rather thats a claim.

In the same way as saying that god exists is not information in context of evidence but a claim.

Information in the context of evidence would be something that supports a claim. For example if you share information regarding past performance of the fund manager from 30 years, that information can be used in the context of evidence to support your claim.

By using words out of context or in different context you are engaging in a logical fallacy known as equivocation fallacy.

really..
if i give u information that give person X 1000 dollars he is gona double it in a month..
will that be evidence or fact..will u do it
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Thats a deductive argument meaning all the premises need to be true for the conclusion to be true.

Atleast 2 of your premises (3 and 4) are false. Therefore your conclusion is most likely false.

Universe is not perfectly fine tuned but only marginally tuned for conditions for life to exist in only a small insignificant fraction of its space. Rest of the universe is extremely hostile to life.

Also God is definately not the only explanation. Even if it is, its still not enough to conclude that God is the cause. Argument by elimination is also a logical fallacy because you still need evidence pointing to th conclusion rather than say there are no other alternitives that I can think of. Not B therefore A is a logical fallacy.

I would be the last person to discuss definitions but your non linear hetrogeneous stance and straddling of the fence necessitated that you be checked on definitions.
I don't know what your stance is but I would rather take you as an atheist and present an argument for the existence of God and see how you deconstruct it. I hope you know that in the premises of an argument are logically valid , the conclusion is necessarily true. I would expand and substantiate the premises and address your questions as it goes on so here we go.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. The Universe has been fine tuned to an inexplicable extent for its own survival and the life of living species on it.
4. God is the only explanation for the origin and fine tuning of the Universe.
5. The creator of the Universe is God and he exists.
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
Calling yourself a logical person doesnt make you logical.

Rational people study the evidence and then follow it to find the conclusion

Illogical people make a conclusion first (ie universe as created) theb try to find arguments and evidence to try to rationalize it
Thats not information in the context of evidence but rather thats a claim.

In the same way as saying that god exists is not information in context of evidence but a claim.

Information in the context of evidence would be something that supports a claim. For example if you share information regarding past performance of the fund manager from 30 years, that information can be used in the context of evidence to support your claim.

By using words out of context or in different context you are engaging in a logical fallacy known as equivocation fallacy.
u really love to throw these terms..to put weight in ur argument maybe

let me give example of straight As again
evidence is ur report card period..
information is that i know u i know ur talent etc..
information is sufficient enough for me to believe u
i dont need to see ur report card(evidence) to believe u

about creation and all
how do u term something a creation..
its simply an inner voice
if ur moving through a rocky mountain and u see rocks do u think about its creator ?
but if u saw a house made of those same rocks..it will instantly cross ur mind that there has to be someone who has built it
 

Prince of Dhump

MPA (400+ posts)
Calling yourself a logical person doesnt make you logical.

Rational people study the evidence and then follow it to find the conclusion

Illogical people make a conclusion first (ie universe as created) theb try to find arguments and evidence to try to rationalize it
ill buy it if u give me a single example of something that i would call a creation but evidence/maths/1000dimensional physics will call it otherwise
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Do you mean creation out of rearrangement of already existing matter or creation out of nothing?

And what does this have to do with following evidence to reach a conclusion?

ill buy it if u give me a single example of something that i would call a creation but evidence/maths/1000dimensional physics will call it otherwise
 
Sponsored Link

Latest Blogs Featured Discussion