Author Topic: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It  (Read 870 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Atheist Stephen Fry in his opening speech at The Intelligence Squared Debate says at 3:44 that he believes the Enlightenment.



Later in that debate, at 8:58- he admits again he believes in Empiricism and the Enlightenment.



Here is his problem: Mr. Fry the Enlightenment and traditional historical empiricism believes in ATOMISM! But wait, oh didn’t the atom get split in the 1930s? These atheist people still just don’t get it. You cannot be an Empiricist and believe in the Enlightenment without Atomism. Face the music atheists. You don’t have a theory. You never have had a theory and you never will have a theory.

Offline Jake

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
  • Darwins +9/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you do there.
    • Pat Condel's Godless Comedy
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2012, 01:50:45 AM »
What are you tring to achieve here?
"I don't respect your religious beliefs and I don't care if this offends you." - Pat Condel and myself along with him.   I do respect intelligence, rationality and logical consideration, however.    Humor's always good too.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5061
  • Darwins +580/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2012, 02:04:12 AM »
This is just another attempt to try to "prove" that the philosophy of atomism is relevant to science.  It is not, though it was mistakenly believed to be at one point.  Atoms were called as such because, as far as early chemists and physicists knew, they could not be divided into smaller parts, thus the name seemed appropriate.  When later scientists determined otherwise, the idea of atoms being indivisible went into the dumpster bin.  The idea of atoms being indivisible was never a requirement for science.

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2012, 02:09:16 AM »
In the words of the great apologist with all the answer "Not following this thread any more"

Reason: Despite repeated reminders, the great apologist still resorts to posting of matter from Youtube and Google Search results. The apologist seems to be incapable of having an opinion of his own or the ability to summarize what he has seen/read.


Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3617
  • Darwins +119/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2012, 02:16:00 AM »
Here is his problem: Mr. Fry the Enlightenment and traditional historical empiricism believes in ATOMISM! But wait, oh didn’t the atom get split in the 1930s? These atheist people still just don’t get it. You cannot be an Empiricist and believe in the Enlightenment without Atomism. Face the music atheists. You don’t have a theory. You never have had a theory and you never will have a theory.

1) What are you talking about?

2) Do you even know what 'atomism' means?
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline hickdive

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
  • Darwins +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2012, 02:57:47 AM »
Olivianus mistakenly believes that, since his religion must be unchanging, so must science.

Atomism is only one of a myriad of scientific propositions that new knowledge has replaced. This is a strength of scientific reasoning, not a weakness.
Stupidity, unlike intelligence, has no limits.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5380
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2012, 03:01:56 AM »
I'd advise all forum members to not reply to any of Oilianus' posts otherwise you will either be banned from him replying to you, or he will loudly abandon the thread as he has done twice so far elsewhere.

This nonentity has displayed in very short time all the impressively squalid attributes of the worst self-obsessed sad and lying theist trolls.

This OP is a fine example of it.
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2012, 11:20:05 AM »
Here is his problem: Mr. Fry the Enlightenment and traditional historical empiricism believes in ATOMISM! But wait, oh didn’t the atom get split in the 1930s? These atheist people still just don’t get it. You cannot be an Empiricist and believe in the Enlightenment without Atomism. Face the music atheists. You don’t have a theory. You never have had a theory and you never will have a theory.

nice to see the same idiocy that is often applied to evolution now applied to other science.  It seems that Oliv can't quite get it through his head that science changes and wrong hypotheses are left in the dung heap of history. 

ah, I should have left him alone but he's such a great illustration of a willfully ignorant Christian.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5061
  • Darwins +580/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2012, 12:08:50 PM »
I'd like to see Olivianus's source for the basis of the Enlightenment and historical empiricism believing in atomism.  I would also like to see his justification for why atomism, having been disproved, should still be relevant to any branch of science.  The closest he's come is the philosophical claim that knowledge needs things that stay changeless through constant change in order to mean the same thing five minutes later, and his assertion is that atomism provides those "objects of knowledge".  The problem is, this is a fancy way of saying that you cannot have knowledge unless you have things that never change; since all things in reality are potentially subject to change, his argument is that you must then have something outside of reality which is the source for knowledge, therefore his belief in scriptural canon from God is superior to science.

However, since you can only understand reality on its own terms, only philosophy which is supported by empirical results can have any bearing on reality.  Any philosophy which attempts to explain reality while ignoring or disregarding those empirical results is hopelessly flawed.

For example, Zeno's paradox, that you can use an infinite series of arbitrary points to disprove the idea that motion empirically happens, does not affect what really happens when someone moves.  When I take a step, I do not actually move through an infinite series of points.  I move from one defined point to another defined point.  Because the endpoints are defined, there cannot be an infinite number of points between them, because defining the endpoints limits the total number of possible midpoints available[1], and so the number of possible midpoints cannot be infinite because I can show points which cannot be midpoints.

The number of midpoints between a pair of defined endpoints is therefore finite.  It is also unbounded, in that you can always define more midpoints, but the number of midpoints is necessarily finite because you can define points which fall outside the endpoints.  This resolves Zeno's paradox, because when you move between two defined points, you have limited the number of points which can fall along the path you chose between them.
 1. If I define the endpoints of a number line as -100 and 100, 101 cannot be within the number line, nor can 100.1, or any other number that falls outside the bounds established by the endpoints.

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2012, 03:21:45 PM »
WHAT THE FUCK IS ATOMISM? AND WHY DOES THIS LONGWINDED GASBAG KEEP GOING ON ABOUT IT?


gigantic font removed
~Screwtape
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 03:44:27 PM by screwtape »
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2012, 03:23:38 PM »
calm yourself, Frank.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism

like many theists, especially creationists, Oliv thinks that using superseded and unsupported ideas prove his god. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2012, 03:24:49 PM »
calm yourself, Frank.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism

like many theists, Oliv thinks that using superseded and unsupported ideas prove his god.

Don't they all?
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6869
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2012, 03:39:28 PM »
Atheist Stephen Fry in his opening speech at The Intelligence Squared Debate says at 3:44 that he believes the Enlightenment.



Later in that debate, at 8:58- he admits again he believes in Empiricism and the Enlightenment.





Here is his problem: Mr. Fry the Enlightenment and traditional historical empiricism believes in ATOMISM! But wait, oh didn’t the atom get split in the 1930s? These atheist people still just don’t get it. You cannot be an Empiricist and believe in the Enlightenment without Atomism. Face the music atheists. You don’t have a theory. You never have had a theory and you never will have a theory.

Thank you for posting this wonderful Stephen Fry speech. You noticed that he mentioned the Enlightenment in passing while he completely dismantled the Catholic church and its claims of moral superority? I love me some Fry. He's brilliant and funny and witty and hung out with Douglas Adams and was in a recent movie with Robert Downey Jr. What's not for an atheist to love?  :-*
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2012, 08:34:23 PM »
I would also like to see his justification for why atomism, having been disproved, should still be relevant to any branch of science.

I suspect he's approaching it from a hardcore fundamentalist perspective:  How can science be true if it changes it story...ever.  In his mind it's a belief system, so how can it change?  It can only be disproven to him.  It's like saying we "believe in Jesus's divinity" and then when that is disproven we change it to we "believe Jesus was a prophet", and he's there calling foul, saying you can't change your belief system and have it keep any credibility. 

Remember he's hardcore protestant, so he truly believe HE'S the "keeper of the faith", the RCC has gone astray and ALL the other churches are in an even MORE untenable (heretical) position.

He UTTERLY misses the point of science, and invents a new "purpose" for science in that it is a tool of the RCC to f**k up the "persecuted" Scottish protestants.
Soon we will judge angels.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5061
  • Darwins +580/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2012, 08:49:35 PM »
I suppose.  But, to crib a line from Star Wars, that is why he fails, because he believes it isn't so.

Offline Jake

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
  • Darwins +9/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you do there.
    • Pat Condel's Godless Comedy
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2012, 09:04:24 PM »
For someone that attempts to lean so heavily on (mangled) epistemology, you'd think he'd also take the time to familiarize with concepts such as cognitive duality/plurality and context sensitivity of knowledge objects in the perceiving individual.   But, no.

One might also suppose that he, in attempting a platform of epistemelogical erudition, would take the time to not merely familiarize but comprehensively internalize the epistemological concepts beyond merely the scope of those he attempts to selectively apply.   But again, no.   

Moreover, one might suppose that he, seeming to be of an interest in formal knowledge, might research materials beyond the intrinsic scope of his perceived need (which seems not to be right so much as to try to wave a bigger verbal stick than the other guy).   He might, in so doing, come across cognitive development studies (I'd personally recommend looking into the research of Piaget and Perry; see also, principles of metacognition) as supplements to diversify and enrich his own capacity to express a sound, justified and reliable position in that formal context, but...no.

It's a bit disheartening on the thin edge.   Vexing in a purely typical manner.    Would be good to have a properly appointed epistemologist around, irrespective of their personal leanings, as that kind of resource would be a wonderful (and very educational) person to both engage and potentially learn from.

Instead, we get ego posturing under hastily hacked-together mockery of epistemology as delivered by someone with no demonstrated or stated interest in discussing anything with anybody.

Also, Fry is awesome.

Thank you, that is all.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 09:29:12 PM by Jake »
"I don't respect your religious beliefs and I don't care if this offends you." - Pat Condel and myself along with him.   I do respect intelligence, rationality and logical consideration, however.    Humor's always good too.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5380
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2012, 09:35:50 PM »
as supplements to diversify and enrich his own capacity to express a sound,


I deliberately misheard you

the drone of a mosquito
the whine of a dentist drill
where scraping the barrel bottom
 becomes for us just (and unjust) scraping the blackboard
communication as art-full dodger

I irritant therefore I am


words mean anything today
words do not mean anything today

his capacity to express a sound is severely diminished by the contradictory requirements of self-loving the sound of his own voice (wanker) vs. maintaining his fingers in his ears (theist)
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Atheist Stephen Fry; Atomism Was Refuted; You Still Don't Get It
« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2012, 09:48:10 PM »
Your conclusion is an unintelligible mess of a misuse of terminology, meaning, and even application to ideas in a way that follows rationally or logically.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me