I admire atheists for devoting time for "God"

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you rephrase that so that it uses proper grammar?
At this point, I have no clue what you are asking. Is it rhetorical? Or an actual question? I don't know.



Off course I got it right.
I was right all along.
As I predicted, you just dragged it out like you always do, overcomplicating everything with intellectual masturbation while only understanding half of what is being talked about (or pretending to only understand half).

It is result of the comparing of A and B objective?

 

[ppp]

Thank you for your answer. I will stop here.

It was an accusation, not answer. And a accurate one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It was an accusation, not answer. And a accurate one.

I will accept that we subjectively do our individual subjectivity differently and leave it at that.

 

[ppp]

I will accept that we subjectively do our individual subjectivity differently and leave it at that.

Not relevant to the accusation. But you do what you need to do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not relevant to the accusation. But you do what you need to do.

That is not relevant is subjective. Relevance is subjective as it is always relevant to somebody. So it goes both ways, you do relevant to you as it works for you and I do it differently. That is what makes it subjective. That you don't understand that is subjective in you.

 

[ppp]

That is not relevant is subjective.

You're tapdancing. And you said you were stopping several posts ago. Feel free to do so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is result of the comparing of A and B objective?

Yes. It's basicly counting and seeing which number is bigger.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. It's basicly counting and seeing which number is bigger.

But that doesn't make it better.
Premise 1: 5 is bigger than 4.
Therefore 5 is better than 4.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But that doesn't make it better.
Premise 1: 5 is bigger than 4.
Therefore 5 is better than 4.

You are incredibly obtuse.

Do you even remember what the "argument" is about? It sounds like you don't.
Let me refresh your memory, since you seem so caught up in your need to argue for the sake of arguing, that you simply forgot what was actually being talked about...

The point was about methods of inquiry that use a high standard of evidence vs methods that do not.
The claim was that the one that uses high standards of evidence are better. ie: as a tool, it works better to obtain accurate and useful answers about reality, then those that don't use such a standard.
The evidence offered for that claim, is the track record of results of such methods.

The one with the highest (=here's where you count) track record of success, is the one that works demonstrably better to obtain accurate and useful answers.


Now please, put this incredibly silly "argument" of yours to rest.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are incredibly obtuse.

Do you even remember what the "argument" is about? It sounds like you don't.
Let me refresh your memory, since you seem so caught up in your need to argue for the sake of arguing, that you simply forgot what was actually being talked about...

The point was about methods of inquiry that use a high standard of evidence vs methods that do not.
The claim was that the one that uses high standards of evidence are better. ie: as a tool, it works better to obtain accurate and useful answers about reality, then those that don't use such a standard.
The evidence offered for that claim, is the track record of results of such methods.

The one with the highest (=here's where you count) track record of success, is the one that works demonstrably better to obtain accurate and useful answers.


Now please, put this incredibly silly "argument" of yours to rest.

Yeah, I do think and feel like you. It is subjectively better; we agree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, I do think and feel like you. It is subjectively better; we agree.

If vaccine A provides immunity in 95% of people and vaccine B only achieves immunity in 12% of people, is vaccine A then only "subjectively better" then vaccine B?

Or is it rather demonstrably better in achieving immunity?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If vaccine A provides immunity in 95% of people and vaccine B only achieves immunity in 12% of people, is vaccine A then only "subjectively better" then vaccine B?

Or is it rather demonstrably better in achieving immunity?

No, but the want of a vaccine that works, is subjective. That is your "better". Not how science works, but the evaluation of what you can use science for.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, but the want of a vaccine that works, is subjective.

That is your "better". Not how science works, but the evaluation of what you can use science for.

No. The evaluation of the method in its ability to obtain accurate and useful answers.
Or more generic: the evaluation of a tool's ability of how well it works for the purpose it is being used for, as compared to other tools attempting to achieve the same goal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

View attachment 43242



No. The evaluation of the method in its ability to obtain accurate and useful answers.
Or more generic: the evaluation of a tool's ability of how well it works for the purpose it is being used for, as compared to other tools attempting to achieve the same goal.

Useful is subjective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Useful is subjective.

It is not.

Knowledge about relativity is useful for building GPS satellites.
Not taking it into account would result in GPS not working as it would be off by several miles.
By taking it into account, GPS becomes accurate to 1 or 2 meters.

Not subjective at all. Not a matter of "opinion".
A matter of fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not.

Knowledge about relativity is useful for building GPS satellites.
Not taking it into account would result in GPS not working as it would be off by several miles.
By taking it into account, GPS becomes accurate to 1 or 2 meters.

Not subjective at all. Not a matter of "opinion".
A matter of fact.

Explain how you know it is useful as useful. Use the definitions of objective I gave above. Here they are again:
Definition of OBJECTIVE
1a, 2a and 2b and don't just state it. Explain how useful is objective.

Here it is: I say God exists. That doesn't make it so.
You say useful is objective. That doesn't make it so.
Use evidence according to how evidence as objective works and explain. Don't just state it. Look for hidden assumptions in your thinking. What do you take for granted about useful? What makes useful useful?

 

[Clara Tea]

https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/marshall-herff-applewhite

The link above is about Marshall Applewhite's 1997 Heaven's Gate Cult which drank poison so their souls could hitchhike on passing Hale-Bopp comet.

Some Christians talk in tongues to God. Lets try that to hear what God has to say. lkflsjdf lsjflsjfd (writhing on the floor, babbling incoherently, as accepted by
Christians as God's language): Jonah lived in the belly of a whale, Heaven's Gate was right, yet atheists still persist in their belief that something seems silly.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

We devote time to pointing where religious people have got it wrong. We can't devote time to something that doesn't exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/marshall-herff-applewhite

The link above is about Marshall Applewhite's 1997 Heaven's Gate Cult which drank poison so their souls could hitchhike on passing Hale-Bopp comet.

Some Christians talk in tongues to God. Lets try that to hear what God has to say. lkflsjdf lsjflsjfd (writhing on the floor, babbling incoherently, as accepted by
Christians as God's language): Jonah lived in the belly of a whale, Heaven's Gate was right, yet atheists still persist in their belief that something seems silly.

Yeah, your examples of religion as silly do work as silly even for me as religious.
Now here is also something silly:
Our Vision | American Atheists

Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

That is silly, because it replaces God with reason and verifiable by experience and the scientific method. That is not possible for morality and all other related variants of good, useful and all that.
It has nothing to do with atheism. Rather some people don't get the limit of faith. Others don't get the limit of reason and verifiable by experience and the scientific method.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We devote time to pointing where religious people have got it wrong. We can devote time to something that doesn't exist.

Evidence or proof, please.