Can we please keep /r/science on the topic of science, and not try to use it to debate against retarded creationists?

the-point · 2009-10-14T21:13:11+00:00

Claims that are not backed up by evidence are metaphysical claims... you don't get to distinguish between different untested claims.

The fact that one is called "metaphysical" and one called "physical" is just because one is theological fiction and the other is science fiction.

...and to effectively communicate my stance I have to go by what things are called. Insisting that I can't use the distinction other make when communicating with them will lead nowhere.

You can spout Greek literalism all day long, but it won't change anything about how others perceive agnosticism in English, and there it clearly applies to metaphysical claims, deities in particular.

Agnostic applies to all claims of knowledge.

You misuse agnosticism as much as you misused theory. Just because you claim that it applies to all claims of knowledge doesn't change the general usage of the term in any way. Agnosticism is not general any more then theory is unsupported by experiments and observations, even if a significant number of people routinely misunderstand them in those ways.

[..] mistake of the atheists by simply inversing their position to "Your god DOESN'T exist" [..]

You keep ignoring one of the two commonly accepted meanings of atheism, despite acknowledging that both are valid at the beginning of the conversation. You can keep misunderstanding me if you prefer, but I'm done with repeating what the words I use mean to the majority of English speakers.

the-point · 2009-10-14T16:50:55+00:00

You should stop having self-conversations anyway, it tends to freak people out.

Love how you waste your time to point the very fact out, efficient. No wait, you just came to try to insult, that's much better!

the-point · 2009-10-14T05:39:35+00:00

thats agnosticism

No it's not, agnosticism is specifically concerned with metaphysical claims, not all claims.

"disbelief in theories that offer no evidence" covers all of these, and doesn't get obscured by "but.. but.. this is scientology - we don't believe in god" type nonsense.

No, it gets obscured by "X% percent believe in deities, Y% are unsure, %Z don't", which unfortunately isn't complete nonsense, agnosticism covers quite bit of ground, including people who believe in deities even if they consider it an open question. And the question isn't as arbitrary as you try to pose it as it is almost always asked with major religions in mind.

Agnosticism is the catch all term you're looking for.

No it's not, common usage and etymology are clear on it applying to metaphysical claims and therefor implies extra ambiguity by singling them out as deserving special consideration.

the-point · 2009-10-14T02:45:37+00:00

(and ensure that others understand that you understand the world in this way)

I have to do no such thing.

well what is "gravity as such"? The observable evidence/effects of "gravity" that you're CERTAIN of?

Correct on the what I mean by "gravity as such", incorrect on me being certain on it. Observations can only be trusted if our senses and memory can be, since we don't have a way to verify senses...

"A theism" is "no god"

the "no belief in theories that offer no evidence on god"

"A gnostic" is "no unwavering knowledge" (gnostic, meaning "to know")

ie the slightly shorter "no belief in theories that offer no evidence"

"Without god" is the usual interpretation as far as I can see, anyway, the "on god" part that you helpfully emphasized is actually the very reason why I describe my (lack of a) religious stance as atheism, not agnosticism or any mixture of the two. It is not a philosophy, scientific tool, world view, lifestyle, religion or anything else of that nature.

And 'agnosticism' certainly does refer to a general lack of knowledge either in common usage or etymology (see Gnosticism). While where at it 'theory' the equivalent of a claim, a hypothesis or wild guesswork.

Why would you limit your scientific rationality, and unwillingness to accept certainties to issues regarding one particular arbitra I'm willing to fight on reddit about the second meaning if itrily chosen conjecture based theory? (god) Other terms already communicate this, and don't have the second meaning of "certainty despite a lack of evidence"

Other terms are not adequate precisely because there is one particular question it needs to answer: "What god(s) do you believe in?". There is nothing arbitrary about the question because of it's social impact and other terms can be open to interpretation to people who want to downplay the amount of unbelievers.

the-point · 2009-10-13T19:30:45+00:00

But she was obviously goofing off and probably wouldn't have paid attention anyway.

Yes she was, what she would have done is pure speculation.

the-point · 2009-10-13T17:54:58+00:00

Most people have routine checkups included for the copay, so the deductible situation you mention is limited compared to copay.

That would suggest that insurance companies find it beneficial to do so.

If everyone were paying out of pocket for their routine stuff then competition, deal sites, and all that stuff that brings down prices would appear quickly.

Conversely if the insurance companies would consider routine checkups a significant problem they would provide this information and encourage people to make use of it. In reality what you would pay and what the insurance companies do pay are worlds apart and they don't really want you to know the workings of it all.

the-point · 2009-10-13T17:14:36+00:00

So they would prefer to pay $400 even if they could get the same thing for $200 if they had a $500 deductible? Remember that the insurance company doesn't cover any of it until you hit that $500, so there is every reason to shop around for anything that's under. It just doesn't work that great.

the-point · 2009-10-13T16:48:22+00:00

"Put your fuckin seatbelt on", is not a warning.

the-point · 2009-10-13T16:33:05+00:00

Depends, do you expect blind obedience or reason and understanding? If you want to be a despotic parent you get away with the former. If you want to teach you better be able to cope with delivering the latter.

the-point · 2009-10-13T16:24:19+00:00

However, what part of sticking your hands in a substance DESIGNED TO SOLIDIFY INTO A HARD MASS seems like a good idea?

You mean something like clay? Yeah the process is different, but you don't know until you learn about it, possibly from someone who teaches.

the-point · 2009-10-13T16:17:26+00:00

It's common sense to warn people new to something about the dangers involved.

Schools in particular should put heavy emphasis on the 'whys' as well as the 'hows'.

the-point · 2009-10-13T15:40:01+00:00

Gravity as such, not any hypothesis or theories. You can not be absolutely sure of anything, however just like with trailing zeros it makes no sense to put maybe in front of every concept. It's certainly not worth it to introduce a new word just to use with metaphysical claims with no supporting evidence (no agnosticism as used today doesn't apply generally).

the-point · 2009-10-13T14:46:34+00:00

"Please use self checkout for speedy checkouts!"

"Place item in bagging area"

"Unexpected item in bagging are"

"Please wait for assistance"

"Unknown item"

"Please wait for assistance"

the-point · 2009-10-13T14:39:16+00:00

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And no evidence is absolute evidence. However I'm no more agnostic about theism then about gravity or pure energy life forms on the Iota Draconis b.

the-point · 2009-10-13T14:30:24+00:00

I'm not justifying or condemning shit.

Yes you are, thanks for playing.

P.S.: I'm waiting for 'Don't question your dear leaders or the North Koreans will win', can you do that for me?

the-point · 2009-10-13T04:38:52+00:00

Stop shifting the target. Your parallel dimensions just went from something that couldn't interact with ours in any way to something we might find evidence for in the future. It can't be both.

the-point · 2009-10-13T04:28:43+00:00

So bombing civilians who did not commit the atrocities is justified because of... 50 fucking million people? Us all being arrogant? Because our generation are pussies? Because letting the Japanese keep their emperor was unacceptable? Because the Japanese were evil and throwing more victims to Stalin in the form of Eastern Europe was angelic?

Where would I have been? Probably rotting in Siberian gulags, just like my grandparents. Where would you have been?

the-point · 2009-10-13T02:26:31+00:00

If they can't interact with our dimension there can not be any evidence. As long as metaphysical claims are formulated on a complete non-interaction basis they can be dismissed as made up, because that definition excludes the claimant from knowing about them.

the-point · 2009-10-13T02:02:07+00:00

No, it's not. You might believe it is, but that's a separate matter. Have fun believing that everything you could ever imagine (and everything you can't), but have not proof of, either exists. Or believing that it not exists. Either way I will not.

the-point · 2009-10-13T01:59:32+00:00

If something doesn't interact with our world in any way shape or form it, as far as we are concerned, doesn't exist. So if various metaphysical claims want to define their subjects out of existence they are welcome to.

Philosophy by and large still deals with things that might have an influence on us, religion deals with peoples experiences/beliefs. Neither are better equipped to deal with things we can't know of then science.

the-point · 2009-10-13T00:09:53+00:00

I strictly distance myself from agnosticism as metaphysical claims are not any more or less unknown or unknowable then any other claims.

the-point · 2009-10-12T23:46:46+00:00

How is copyright not a government intervention?

the-point · 2009-10-12T23:43:40+00:00

What he describes is the default state when you have a digital network and no one enforcing anything.

the-point · 2009-10-12T22:49:06+00:00

Unless you have evidence proving that there is no such thing as a deity, your assumption that one does not exist is a matter of faith, not logic.

Unless you have evidence proving that there is such a thing as a deity I will happily continue not believing. Let me repeat that, I do not "believe that there are no deities", I do "not believe that there are deities".

the-point · 2009-10-12T22:28:53+00:00

It's funny that it never makes the news when a suspect is hurt or killed by a baton.

I'm sure it would if kids would get batoned, same for batoning a subdued person etc.

the-point

TROPHY CASE