Are you a secularist

[annnnoid]

You are surrounded by products of science while railing on about how science fails.

You don't have to declare victory because your modus operandi is to make vague, meaningless, irrelevant statements in the fond belief that they make you appear intelligent.

It truly is staggering how people can demand that science answer questions like "is murder wrong?" and then, without even blinking, demand that science also provide the definition of wrong for them.

Wrong using which definition? Utilitarianism? Prioritarianism? Who's dying, what's the method of execution, what is accomplished by the act? Are we talking about giving Hitler the lethal injection or feeding Mother Theresa into a wood chipper?

Ask a meaningless question and you get turned away. If you want an answer, define your terms.

It is truly staggering that…on the one hand…you and your herd of true believers can claim…endlessly…that science is the only valid epistemology…the only one that works…etc. etc. etc.

Science works. Nothing else does.

We know it's valid.

There are no others.

…and then…as soon as you arrive at a minor obstacle…suddenly it’s no longer the only epistemology…suddenly it’s not the only one that works.

So what is it Nonpareil?

Is it the only one…is it the only one that works?

So answer the damn questions then…or admit you can’t.

Pixy has…once again…run away from the questions so it’s up to you. Seeing as how you both agree that science is the ONLY valid epistemology and the ONLY one that works:

Establish if there is something to be investigated.
Establish the parameters of investigation if necessary.
Establish the parameters of definition if necessary.
Establish the words, the meanings, the context, the syntax, the semantics.
IOW…do what a scientist supposedly does.
Use the ‘only valid epistemology that works’.

…or admit you can’t.

...or you could really impress everyone and run away again.

 

[Nonpareil]

It is truly staggering that…on the one hand…you and your herd of true believers can claimendlessly…that science is the only valid epistemology…the only one that works…etc. etc. etc.

…and then…as soon as you arrive at a minor obstacle…suddenly it’s no longer the only epistemology…suddenly it’s not the only one that works.

I'm sorry. What conversation are you reading? It certainly isn't this one.

o answer the damn questions then…or admit you can’t.

Ah. A conversation taking place in another thread, in which you have been soundly thrashed on the grounds of, to be brief, making up claims about alternate systems that you can't even define, let alone demonstrate the validity of. All so that you can claim that anecdotal reoorts of NDEs are evidence of consciousness without a brain.

This is commonly referred to as "derailing". And I have already given my answer to your questions in the other thread. In case you forgot, it is thus: your questions are alternately stupid, nonsensical, straw men, indicators of a complete lack of understanding of the terms involved, or any combination of the above, and I have no interest whatsoever in entertaining your demands when you refuse to substantiate your own claims.

You could simply post your alternative and prove me wrong, of course. But you won't.

Because you can't.

This entire "question" nonsense is just a stalling tactic to try and weasel out of actually having to support the nonsense you spout. If you showed any interest - or even ability - to do so, you might get a response. Or if you just showed any ability to read for comprehension - but then, if you could, you wouldn't be asking in the first place.

Learn to read. Post your own arguments. Then maybe someone will feel like indulging your willful ignorance again.

 

[annnnoid]

I'm sorry. What conversation are you reading? It certainly isn't this one.



Ah. A conversation taking place in another thread, in which you have been soundly thrashed on the grounds of, to be brief, making up claims about alternate systems that you can't even define, let alone demonstrate the validity of. All so that you can claim that anecdotal reoorts of NDEs are evidence of consciousness without a brain.

This is commonly referred to as "derailing". And I have already given my answer to your questions in the other thread. In case you forgot, it is thus: your questions are alternately stupid, nonsensical, straw men, indicators of a complete lack of understanding of the terms involved, or any combination of the above, and I have no interest whatsoever in entertaining your demands when you refuse to substantiate your own claims.

You could simply post your alternative and prove me wrong, of course. But you won't.

Because you can't.

This entire "question" nonsense is just a stalling tactic to try and weasel out of actually having to support the nonsense you spout. If you showed any interest - or even ability - to do so, you might get a response. Or if you just showed any ability to read for comprehension - but then, if you could, you wouldn't be asking in the first place.

Learn to read. Post your own arguments. Then maybe someone will feel like indulging your willful ignorance again.

I was wondering how you’d evade that one. Good job!

I guess we’ll just have to try again.

In THIS thread…the following statements were made:

What about the morality of, say, late-term abortion of a healthy foetus? It is a life-style decision. Assume no health problems for mother or child, and no population problem generally. I'm curious how the morality of this is scientifically answerable, if indeed it is.

Or murder? Is murder wrong? What does science say?

You…and Pixy…and others…have flat out insisted that science is the ONLY valid epistemology.

So…no excuses now…use the only valid epistemology and resolve the issues presented in those two quotes.

If something isn’t defined…use the only valid epistemology and define it.
If something isn’t explained…use the only valid epistemology and explain it.
If something isn’t resolved…use the only valid epistemology and resolve it.

So far…just as I predicted…both you and Pixy are back-peddling like crazy.

You have both claimed that science is the ONLY valid epistemology. On THIS thread we are discussing the issues raised by GDon and angrysoba.

Use the only valid epistemology and resolve the issues.

…or admit you can’t.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy has…once again…run away from the questions so it’s up to you.

In the sense that Wellington ran away from Napoleon at Waterloo.

 

[Nonpareil]

So…no excuss now…use the only valid epistemology and resolve the issues presented in those two quotes.

Like I said. If you actually had any ability to read for comprehension, you wouldn't need to ask this.

Here's a hint as to why: it's been done.

 

[annnnoid]

In the sense that Wellington ran away from Napoleon at Waterloo.

You said...over and over and over...that's science is the one true epistemology. The only valid epistemology. The only epistemology that works.

...so use it.

Resolve the issues.

...or everyone will simply have to admit that you can't and your claims are B.S.

 

[Nonpareil]

You said...over and over and over...that's science is the one true epistemology. The only valid epistemology. The only epistemology that works.

...so use it.

Resolve the issues.

...or everyone will simply have to admit that you can't and your claims are B.S.

Read the thread.

 

[annnnoid]

Like I said. If you actually had any ability to read for comprehension, you wouldn't need to ask this.

Here's a hint as to why: it's been done.

…running away…again. You’re really making a very sad impression here Nonpariel.

Just like you said…this thread isn’t about epistemologies…so maybe you’d like to stop the endless derails.

This thread is about what angrysoba and Gdon wrote in their posts.

Here they are….again:

What about the morality of, say, late-term abortion of a healthy foetus? It is a life-style decision. Assume no health problems for mother or child, and no population problem generally. I'm curious how the morality of this is scientifically answerable, if indeed it is.

Or murder? Is murder wrong? What does science say?

...hear that Nonpareil.

What does science say?

...you are the prophet of science. You wield the one true epistemology.

Use it and resolve the issue...

...or admit you can't.

And if there is a word that is not defined, use the one true epistemology and define it...

...or admit you can't

So far you're at fail #4. Let's see if we can get to fail #10.

Personally I simply can't see the problem The questions are very simple. The issues are very simple. You are in possession of the one true epistemology. All you have to do stop making a complete fool of your position is to resolve the issues.

...or admit you can't.

 

[annnnoid]

Read the thread.

Sorry...missed that one.

What kind of fallacy is it when someone makes a monumental claim and then keeps running away from the consequences. Why don't we call it the yellow fallacy.

Fail #5.

 

[Fudbucker]

Assuming you are a human being, I'm 99.999% confident you too hold baseless and irrational beliefs. I surely do, even though I'm not aware which ones they are.

Pixy believes that if one moves enough rocks around in the "right way", one can produce a conscious mind.

That should disqualify him from heading most scientific organizations.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yeah I remember the first time I saw the Matrix too.

Even for philosophy the "Simulated reality" argument is stupid. So if this is a simulated related where did the reality where the simulation is operating in come from? Or is it just simulated turtles all the way down?

No, it's a probability argument based on a few assumptions:

1. Advanced civilizations will be able to simulate universes (and the people who inhabit them), and will do so.

2. The number of people who exist in the simulations will outnumber the simulators.

3. If you're a person wondering if you're in a simulation, chances are, you belong in the larger set of "simulated people" than the smaller set of "simulators" (or "potential simulators", if you lack the technology to create a simulated world).

 

[Fudbucker]

There isn't any. That's a subjective judgement.

The work of art itself exists though.

There isn't any good art?

Do delicious foods exist? How about beautiful sunrises?

 

[Fudbucker]

Is there any evidence technologically advanced aliens exist?

Is believing that technologically advanced aliens exist "woo"?

 

[Nonpareil]

Sorry...missed that one.

Yes. Yes, you did.

 

[Fudbucker]

But what do you mean by valid?

Simple: All the terms must be well-defined.

Is it morally acceptable to kill animals for meat / experimentation?

How is that question scientifically answerable?

Define "morally acceptable".

So the statement "a billion monkeys live on Venus" is valid? Each term in that statement is "well defined".

 

[tsig]

There isn't any good art?

Do delicious foods exist? How about beautiful sunrises?

Opinions differ.

Appreciation of art, food and sunrises is a purely human function, why do you think it has any other significance?

 

[Nonpareil]

So the statement "a billion monkeys live on Venus" is valid? Each term in that statement is "well defined".

It's valid in that it is coherent.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's correct.

 

[Fudbucker]

Define "should".

Should the U.S. invade Mexico and enslave all its people?

There's really only three answers to that question: "Yes", "No", or "I don't understand the question".

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "no", even though I haven't defined "should" in any way.

Do you agree that the answer to my question is "no", even though we haven't said one thing about the word "should"?

 

[Fudbucker]

It's valid in that it is coherent.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's correct.

So it's incorrectly valid?

Or is there more to validity than simply having well defined terms?

 

[Fudbucker]

Opinions differ.

Appreciation of art, food and sunrises is a purely human function, why do you think it has any other significance?

No, I'm asking "does good art exist?"

Someone claimed good art doesn't exist. That's absurd. Do you agree with that claim?