|
| Thread: Are the Religions guilty? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
posted September 04, 2005 06:27 PM |
|
|
USAtheist, i love you.
While I myself am not Atheist, but Agnostic. I dont believe in many of the organized religion, mainly because of the corruption, politics, and some things dont make sense (Like the Adam/Eve thing you pointed out) However I do believe there is a god of sort, a supreme being, but not a single person here or anywhere else knows anything about him.
Another point that could be considered valid is the bible.
Say all those stories in the bible WERE true at one point. Mostly everything in the old testament was written way before man learned how to write. Man didn't learn how to write until about 3000 years ago, while many stories in the bible were from several millenia back, before man knew how to write. So when somoene did get the bright idea to copy all those stories down into one organized text, the stories were probably GREATLY distorted than the original ones.
To see an example of this, get about 10 people in a circle. Whisper something in the person to your rights ear and tell them to pass it on. By the time it gets back to you, it will probably have changed.
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2005 06:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
USAtheist, i love you.
While I myself am not Atheist, but Agnostic.
Agnosticism is not exclusive of atheism. Agnostics lack knowledge of God while atheists lack belief in God. I myself am an agnsotic atheist. Agnostics canm be either atheist(most are) or theist. Thomas Huxley, who coined the term "agnostic" was an atheistic agnostic.
Many people have a misconception that agnosticism means "I am not sure..." or somewhere 'between' atheism and theism.
Quote:
I dont believe in many of the organized religion, mainly because of the corruption, politics, and some things dont make sense (Like the Adam/Eve thing you pointed out) However I do believe there is a god of sort, a supreme being, but not a single person here or anywhere else knows anything about him.
Then you are an agnostic THEIST  .
Quote:
Another point that could be considered valid is the bible.
Say all those stories in the bible WERE true at one point. Mostly everything in the old testament was written way before man learned how to write. Man didn't learn how to write until about 3000 years ago, while many stories in the bible were from several millenia back, before man knew how to write. So when somoene did get the bright idea to copy all those stories down into one organized text, the stories were probably GREATLY distorted than the original ones.
To see an example of this, get about 10 people in a circle. Whisper something in the person to your rights ear and tell them to pass it on. By the time it gets back to you, it will probably have changed.
Yes, I could go on for days and days about Biblical errancy and the behavioral causes(translation errors, repitive distortion, pattern recognition etc.) but we would be in for some probably unreadably long posts  .
Thanks for the kind reply BTW. At least we have agnosticism(and probably a lot more) in common.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
posted September 04, 2005 08:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I could go on for days and days about Biblical errancy and the behavioral causes(translation errors, repitive distortion, pattern recognition etc.) but we would be in for some probably unreadably long posts .
Like it was said in another thread: if we don't respond, it doesn't mean we don't read. Actually, your posts are the most thoughtful ones in a long time here. It's nice to have you around again.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 06:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No. You can reasonably inder that the Earth's core is magma by understanding rudimentary geology and physics. Science has absolutely NOPTHING to do with "faith" and faith is not a requirement of science. IF you believe that there is a magical kingdom in the clouds, it is because you lack understanding of how the universe works. Not because some poeple simple place their trust in scientists while others place theirs in Holy men.
Understanding how the universe works does not make it impossible to believe in God.
Heaven doesn’t have to be some magical kingdom in the clouds either. Do you have any idea how vague the Bible is? Religion is about faith, nothing more. It’s simply a set of beliefs held by a considerable amount of the world’s population. If you look at the different religions, they are not much different.
The existence of God can be proven using simple logic. Anselm of Canterbury developed his ontological argument for God’s existence in 1077. He states:
Now we believe that you [God] are something than which nothing greater can be imagined.
Then is there no such nature, since the fool[Atheist] has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool[Atheist], when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is.
For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his understanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
Therefore even the fool[Atheist] is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding.
And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality.
He is saying that we can all agree on the definition of God. God is a being of which there can be nothing greater. And so even a “fool” can have the idea of a God, have it in their understanding, but having something exist is always better. As nothing can be greater than God, God must exist.
Quote:
For example: I know for a FACT that there are NO automobiles made entirely of fog or chicken soup. I do not have to simply have "faith" in FOrd or BMW and what they tell me cars are made of. I can study automotive engineering and learn enough about physics to rule out "Fog-mobiles" the same way I can rationally dismiss "cloud kingdoms" and "Hell" as existent places.
Fog-mobiles and such things are not even close to the same as a belief in God.
Quote:
Also, the problem with the 'Stigmataa' crowd is that most of them are alleged to come up with wounds to their palms(as many Hollywood movies depict Jesus' crucifixion) but the Romans NEVER crucified ANYONE by driving nails through their palms. There is no support in the hands(feel your own hand bones to confirm this). The bones radiate outward from the ulna and there are no cross sectional bones to stop the spike from simply tearing through the flesh with teh weight of the body).
He was tied to the cross like normal, in addition to the nails.
Quote:
"Sinning" was a word describing those who actively worshippend the Egyptian moon-god adn had nothing to do with outright immoral acts.
My how time desorts things eh...?
Since when have the Catholic Church been keen on pagan rituals? The Catholic Church would have deemed the worshiping of an Egyptian god wrong/evil. Hence “sinning”. Makes perfect sense to me.
Quote:
extraordinary claims, on the other hand, if true, would require us to dismiss a sizeable portion of our understanding of physical reality and must be supported by greater than anecdotal evidence.
In other words, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Why if God exists would we have to dismiss our current understanding of physical reality? Same reason I can believe in Darwin’s evolution and believe in God at the same time. I personally don’t believe God is a micromanager helping you pick out your pair of socks in the morning. I do believe he set the ball rolling on the greatest ant farm ever created, and only stops by every now and then to keep certain things on track.
Quote:
Quote:
Have you seen the lava in the center of the Earth? Have you seen Mars? Have you seen Ceasar, or Hitler? And yet you believe all these things are real. To quote you now: "You don't know it's true, because you haven't seen it yourself."
But we HAVE seen all these things! Also, you must distinguish between an ordinary claim and an extraordinary claim. Ordinary claims can be supported by anecdotal evidence alone because they are things we regularly observe in life and their truth would not cause 2,000 years of scienctific observation and experiemetn to have to be thrown out!
extraordinary claims, on the other hand, if true, would require us to dismiss a sizeable portion of our understanding of physical reality and must be supported by greater than anecdotal evidence.
In other words, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
The center of the earth thing is a valid argument that shouldn’t be dismissed so easily. Scientists have said what the core should be made of using physics. They have even estimated densities of the material. These are theories, same as the arguments for God existing, take them as you will.
As for the evidence for God’s existence, look around you. I challenge you to go out in the wilderness and live for a couple months and tell me nature didn’t have a little help.
Quote:
so the burden of proof rests with YOU, not those who dissent from your claim.
Which puts us on the tougher side, eh? It’s far easier to say, “I don’t believe it!” and leave it at that. I look at the world around me as proof, experiences I’ve had, and how certain aspects of my life fell into place so perfectly there just had to be a little help.
-2XtremeToTake
Quote:
Man didn't learn how to write until about 3000 years ago.
Actually, ancient Egypt was around 3,000 BC. That works out to at least 5,000 years of writing, just FYI.
____________
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 10:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No. You can reasonably infer that the Earth's core is magma by understanding rudimentary geology and physics. Science has absolutely NOPTHING to do with "faith" and faith is not a requirement of science. IF you believe that there is a magical kingdom in the clouds, it is because you lack understanding of how the universe works. Not because some poeple simple place their trust in scientists while others place theirs in Holy men.
Understanding how the universe works does not make it impossible to believe in God.
Never said it did. This is a strawman.
Quote:
Heaven doesn’t have to be some magical kingdom in the clouds either.
Never said it did. Please keep in mind the context of what I said.
Quote:
Do you have any idea how vague the Bible is?
Yes. Vaguery and contradictions are abundant within.
Quote:
Religion is about faith, nothing more. It’s simply a set of beliefs held by a considerable amount of the world’s population. If you look at the different religions, they are not much different.
Depends on how you define "different". Do they bear similarities? Sure. This is what one would expect from such a continually evolving meme that has evolved from animism and polytheism to patheism, monotheism, Ufo cults etc.
Quote:
The existence of God can be proven using simple logic. Anselm of Canterbury developed his ontological argument for God’s existence in 1077.
And Anselm's arguments have been refuted extensively ever since then(I believe Hume fired the first volley) and I will tear it apart below for you:
Quote:
He states:
Now we believe that you [God] are something than which nothing greater can be imagined.
Right off the bat Anselm introduces an unqualified assertion.
Quote:
Then is there no such nature, since the fool[Atheist] has said in his heart: God is not?
Followed immediately by an ad hominem attack on atheists. He is not doing well so far.
Quote:
But certainly this same fool[Atheist], when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is.
This is(and I am sorry that there is no more sophisitcated way of saying this) pure nonsense. The "fool", atheist or otherwise, cannot possibly concieve of a thing which is greater than anything he can imagine since if he DID such a thing, his ability to imagine would have grown to encompass this new thing also and he would be locked in a perpetual state of 'reimagining'.
Quote:
For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is.
Fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
Quote:
For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his understanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
Therefore even the fool[Atheist] is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding.
Again, more nonsense statements. Just because someone hears someone else state that there can be something which is greater than anything imagined does not mean they can make sense of this anymore than they can understand "faster than instantaneous" or "Tastier than purple!".
Quote:
And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone.
Why not? Does not this line of reasoning suggest that gossamer winged fairies must exist? WHatabout man-eating umbrellas? I can imagine or "have understanding" of these things in my head but they do not exist.
Quote:
For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality.
His conclusion does not follow logically from his premises and his premises are as shaky as things get!
Double fault!
But the real kicker is that one can construct a logical DISPROOF of God using Anselm's argument as a basis(which I will do below).
Quote:
He is saying that we can all agree on the definition of God. God is a being of which there can be nothing greater.
That is not a definition. It has no explanatory power and you can replace "God" with "Santa Claus" or "Evil Satan" or "Giant Lumberjack" and the argument remains equally invalid for each!
Quote:
And so even a “fool” can have the idea of a God, have it in their understanding, but having something exist is always better. As nothing can be greater than God, God must exist.
How do you even arrive at that?!? How does it follow that there MUST be something greater than anything we can imagine and how do you further deduce that this something which is greater must in fact exist in reality?
Quote:
Quote:
For example: I know for a FACT that there are NO automobiles made entirely of fog or chicken soup. I do not have to simply have "faith" in FOrd or BMW and what they tell me cars are made of. I can study automotive engineering and learn enough about physics to rule out "Fog-mobiles" the same way I can rationally dismiss "cloud kingdoms" and "Hell" as existent places.
Fog-mobiles and such things are not even close to the same as a belief in God.
No one was saying they were. You missed the point of what I was saying. I was responding to the notion that, because there are things we do not know, we cannot say that anything is certain or impossible. Fog-mobiles are impossible even though I have not inspected every sauto in the universe. Science rules out "fog-mobiles" without falling back on "faith" beliefs.
Quote:
Quote:
Also, the problem with the 'Stigmataa' crowd is that most of them are alleged to come up with wounds to their palms(as many Hollywood movies depict Jesus' crucifixion) but the Romans NEVER crucified ANYONE by driving nails through their palms. There is no support in the hands(feel your own hand bones to confirm this). The bones radiate outward from the ulna and there are no cross sectional bones to stop the spike from simply tearing through the flesh with teh weight of the body).
He was tied to the cross like normal, in addition to the nails.
Nope. This is a fairly recent rationalization that Christians have come up with but the fact is that Romans drove nails through the wrists, not the palms.
Quote:
"Sinning" was a word describing those who actively worshippend the Egyptian moon-god and had nothing to do with outright immoral acts.
My how time destorts things eh...?
Since when have the Catholic Church been keen on pagan rituals? The Catholic Church would have deemed the worshiping of an Egyptian god wrong/evil. Hence “sinning”. Makes perfect sense to me.
You are missing the point guy. The original usage of the word "sin" or "sinning" had nothing to do with commiting immoral acts such as murder, adultery, theft etc. It was a far more congenial term to describe those oddballs who followed that moon god(kind of like how we refer to the Ramtha crowd as "crackpots" and such).
Quote:
Quote:
extraordinary claims, on the other hand, if true, would require us to dismiss a sizeable portion of our understanding of physical reality and must be supported by greater than anecdotal evidence.
In other words, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Why if God exists would we have to dismiss our current understanding of physical reality? Same reason I can believe in Darwin’s evolution and believe in God at the same time. I personally don’t believe God is a micromanager helping you pick out your pair of socks in the morning. I do believe he set the ball rolling on the greatest ant farm ever created, and only stops by every now and then to keep certain things on track.
It all unravels like a sweater whose threads are pulled at. IF God is "transcendent" and not bound by phsycial constraints, then there is nothing(within the realm of logic I presume) he cannot do, including altering the earth's orbit, reversing gravity, and the like. Now if the potential for these "miracles" to happen exists and we can say this is so, then the actuality of their occurances must also be so. Which means that these physical laws do NOT exist since it is entirely possible that God would break them in monumental ways every 3.5 seconds for the next thousand years! We could make no scientific predictions based on theories and understanding of physics because we would in effect be living in an "anything is possible" universe. It would be just as likely that everyone will turn into pink giraffes in five minutes as it would be for nothing extraordinary to happen!
Just the existence of God itself would invalidate whatever laws he was not constrained by!
Quote:
Quote:
But we HAVE seen all these things! Also, you must distinguish between an ordinary claim and an extraordinary claim. Ordinary claims can be supported by anecdotal evidence alone because they are things we regularly observe in life and their truth would not cause 2,000 years of scienctific observation and experiemetn to have to be thrown out!
extraordinary claims, on the other hand, if true, would require us to dismiss a sizeable portion of our understanding of physical reality and must be supported by greater than anecdotal evidence.
In other words, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
The center of the earth thing is a valid argument that shouldn’t be dismissed so easily. Scientists have said what the core should be made of using physics. They have even estimated densities of the material. These are theories, same as the arguments for God existing, take them as you will.
Nope. You are misusing the word theory or commiting the fallacy of equivocation. A "theory" in science, is an explanation of a FACT/observed phenomenom. It is not just some "unproven idea" or a "best guess" or any such nonsense.
The belief that God exists is NOT an explanation of any fact. It is simply an unsubstantiated claim/belief. This belief is uintestable, unfalsifiable, makes no predictions adn cannot be shown valid through any controlled experiment.
Quote:
As for the evidence for God’s existence, look around you. I challenge you to go out in the wilderness and live for a couple months and tell me nature didn’t have a little help.
Been there and done that. Nature indeed had a lot of "help" but none of it was supernatural or Godly. The "help" came from nature!
You seem to be hinting at several fallacious arguments here...the presupposition that nature is highly complex/ordered in such a way that it must have been "designed" by someone(the universe is mostly, overwhelminly chaos with small knots of order here and there which is what one would expect from a naturally evolving universe).
The other error you seem to be hinting at is the idea that nature is more or less in a state of objective "perfection" which could not be arrived at without the aid of a "perfect designer".
Nothing in nature points to any gods. That we can appreciate things like the beauty of flowers or the usefullenss of wood and ore is only evidence that we have experiences that shape our ideas, likes and dislikes.
Again, rules of inference...
Quote:
Quote:
so the burden of proof rests with YOU, not those who dissent from your claim.
Which puts us on the tougher side, eh? It’s far easier to say, “I don’t believe it!” and leave it at that. I look at the world around me as proof, experiences I’ve had, and how certain aspects of my life fell into place so perfectly there just had to be a little help.
Has nothing to do with what is "easier". I am simply unable to assent to that which does not make sense or is irrational. I am in the minority of atheists in that I dare say that I CAN disprove God's existence by the law of noncontradiction(a thing cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at once) so I obviously am not out to take the "easier" way.
It is simply basic logic that the burden of proof rests with the one asserting the positive(including ME if I assert that God cannot exist, which I DO so assert) and NOT with those who simply dissent from your claims.
General atheists(AKA "weak atheists" or "negative atheists") are no more obligated to prove that your god does not exist than you are obligated to prove that Thor does not exist.
Now for the fun stuff...
First the ontological DISPROOF of God:
The greatest things are ALWAYS imaginary. Real parrots can learn a few hundred words and mimmick their use but cannot truly understand their meanings or form sentences with them.
Imaginary parrots(in movies and such) can respond to an insult with an even wittier insult. They can outsmart robbers and thugs, spend money and ogle a beautiful human woman.
Real gods are Gaius Ceaser(aka Caligula), Kim Jong Il and small wooden statues. Imaginary gods can be in all places at once, hear every blaspheme and systematically violate physical laws in cartoonish ways to achieve goals of vengeance, punsihment and the like.
And now for my real disproof of the transcendent God:
When we say that something "exists", what are we saying exactly? I am not asking about things which have a conceptual existence or a dependent existence. I mean things that exist indpenendently, and outside of our minds.
WHen we say that such a thing exists, we are saying that, first of all, it has 'sense-contents'. The only way we have of establishing the existence of ANYTHING is by percieving it and it's effects on the universe.
Science is the method by which we examine things with sense-contents(things which exist).
The other necessary component of existence is being bound by linear time. If a thing is not in a state of being for at least a nanosecond or long enough to leave a consequential effect, then it is indistinguishable from the imaginary.
Now, often when we ask those of the Abrahamic faiths why there is no tangible evidence for "God", we are told that God is "transcendent" or "beyond being percieved/measured" and beyond the constraints of existence(linear time etc.).
So they are saying that God is both 'A' and 'Not A'...like a round square. He exists(meaning he is in a state of being which would hold relevance to US and therefore is bound by linear time and observable) adn at the same time is "beyond existence"!?
This God is an imaginary thing.
I will further illustrate why this God is ridiculous by way of analogy:
I invite you over to my house for a beer. While you are sitting on my couch, I suddenly stand up and motion towards an empty corner and say "Well hello Angelina. So good of you to join us!".
You look around but see no one.
I then start saying "Wa...HERE?!?...NOW?!? Well okay Ms. Jolie but won't this make the guest feel uncomfortable?"
I then start removing clothing and making passionate noises while kissing my hands and such.
At some point, I stop and explain to you that I am dating "invisible, intangible Angelina Jolie". Since she is invisible, you cannot see her and since she is intangible, I must touch and kiss myself to get off why making love to 'her'.
Your only question at this point should be 'what is the difference between "transcendent Angelina Jolie" and "Imaginary Angelina Jolie'?
And that is my question to theists who believe in the transcendent God. What is the fundemental difference between the God you worship and an imaginary God?
Both(assuming a real God existed for the sake of argument) can inspire the same feelings and beliefs that they are evidenced, but a REAL God should be capable of the same degree of proof that gravity or mountains are evidenced by.
As my argument illustrates, the transcendent God is simply a non-existent, imaginary thing. Just as I must touch myself when making whoopie with Angelina, so to must theists do all of the things they credit God with.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 06:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When we say that something "exists", what are we saying exactly? I am not asking about things which have a conceptual existence or a dependent existence. I mean things that exist indpenendently, and outside of our minds.
What is an idea? Does it exist?
What about numbers? What exactly is a number?
Quote:
The only way we have of establishing the existence of ANYTHING is by percieving it and it's effects on the universe.
Someone could easily use this as an argument FOR God’s existence.
Quote:
Been there and done that. Nature indeed had a lot of "help" but none of it was supernatural or Godly. The "help" came from nature!
What exactly does that mean? That makes no sense.
Quote:
You seem to be hinting at several fallacious arguments here...the presupposition that nature is highly complex/ordered in such a way that it must have been "designed" by someone(the universe is mostly, overwhelminly chaos with small knots of order here and there which is what one would expect from a naturally evolving universe).
I am full aware of the Chaos Theory, and believe in it wholeheartedly. You seem to have misunderstood my reference to God in nature as order. I believe God created an ant farm, he put stuff in poked it a little and watched it go. Of course as any kid with an ant farm he pokes and prods it a little every now and then.
However, Chaos Theory doesn’t discount the design theory.
Design theory only means that the universe had a designer, nothing more. Evolution can happen under the design theory, I believe in both.
I really don’t have much to say to that analogy of yours, it’s just so ridiculous. Which I think is your point.
I believe that atheists are of two groups, those that are stubborn and won’t believe even if evidence and logical proofs set before them, or those that are too ignorant or busy to sit down and look at their life and how things fell together.
I’ll tell you a story about how things fell into place for me in one instance. I’ll just tell it, take it as you will.
I was a Boy Scout in the spring of 1999 and I had just come home from the meeting where we got the paper to choose what classes/merit badges we want to take. I took it home and was looking over it with my mom. I had things like Camping, Archery, Emergency Preparedness, and I wanted to do one more. My mom looked at the sheet, scanned it and pointed to Horsemanship. I wasn’t really sure about that, but she insisted it would be fun. So I signed up and passed it later that summer.
The next year a buddy of mine took it, also.
The next year after that, I wasn’t planning on going to summer camp due to money issues. That buddy of mine came up to me and pointed out that they were offering Advanced Horsemanship at camp that year. Well I really wanted to do it, but knew it was almost impossible. I went home and practically begged to be allowed to go. My parents finally said okay, and so I signed up.
That year, another guy from our troop started working on staff as a lifeguard. We all made fun of him for working there because of all the goofy songs and dumb stuff like that. I said I would never work in a place like that.
My buddy and I were having a great time. Then on the second to the last day the girls working there let us run one of the trails, technically they weren’t supposed to. The last day, we thought we were going to run, but we couldn’t because it was too wet. Well the running the previous day had a hooked. While sitting talking after the class was over, the Head Wrangler was talking just offhand about how he really wanted a couple guys working up there for added security on weekends, and extra muscle.
Walking back to our campsite after that last class we looked around and said, “We could do this.” Completely changing my opinion from a few nights before.
After camp, as school was starting I got something in the mail about horseback riding lessons. So I went to the introductory meeting, and I think I might have been the only guy there. I said to my mom who had come with me, I wouldn’t do this unless my buddy came with. Plus it was kind of expensive. I got my friend to come and he was hooked too. After a few weeks, one of the girls showed up that had worked at camp, she was taking lessons at this same place. It was so weird that of all the places to ride horses in Omaha, she had picked the one where we were.
After a few months, Eric (buddy) and I started training a young horse. We didn’t really know what we were doing, but the woman who ran the barn decided we did.
Later in December, I got a call for an interview for a camp staff job. I don’t think they were going to hire either of us, but they liked that we had first had an exposure to horses from camp and that we were training a young horse. They figured we must know what we were doing.
So, June 2003, we started as wranglers.
Three summers later, still working there. I may go to Texas and work with horses there next summer, not sure though.
Too many things fell into place for this to work for there not to be some prodding by an outside force.
My mom randomly picking Horsemanship from a piece of paper.
Parents giving in to send me to camp so I could take Advanced Horsemanship.
Friend working there. (Showed me how to apply and told us what to expect.)
Offhand comment by the Head Wrangler.
The lessons, that came out of nowhere.
Seeing a girl that worked there come to take lessons with us.
It’s just eerie the way it worked out. Maybe you’d have to live it and witness it yourself to understand, but there is no doubt in my mind there is a God of some sort.
I only ask you not to dissect my story, just take it as is.
____________
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 06:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
When we say that something "exists", what are we saying exactly? I am not asking about things which have a conceptual existence or a dependent existence. I mean things that exist indpenendently, and outside of our minds.
What is an idea? Does it exist?
What about numbers? What exactly is a number?
As I said above: I am not talking about things with a dependent existence(ideas, numbers etc.) because if you are saying that God exists only in the way that other ideas exist then you will get no argument from me(you would be as much an atheist as I).
I don't think that is what you are claiming when you say that God exists.
let's move on then.
Quote:
Quote:
The only way we have of establishing the existence of ANYTHING is by percieving it and it's effects on the universe.
Someone could easily use this as an argument FOR God’s existence.
How so? What effects, as per rules of inference, point towards God, rather than simply natural forces?
Quote:
Quote:
Been there and done that. Nature indeed had a lot of "help" but none of it was supernatural or Godly. The "help" came from nature!
What exactly does that mean? That makes no sense.
It means that things develope and evolve in this universe, mostly gradually and incrementally, by natural means. More on this below when I deal with your 'cart before the horse' statements.
Quote:
Quote:
You seem to be hinting at several fallacious arguments here...the presupposition that nature is highly complex/ordered in such a way that it must have been "designed" by someone(the universe is mostly, overwhelminly chaos with small knots of order here and there which is what one would expect from a naturally evolving universe).
I am full aware of the Chaos Theory, and believe in it wholeheartedly.
I was not refering specifically to Chaos Theory. Only that there is NOT much "order" at ALL in this universe, contrary to what design advocates claim. Proponents of "intelligent design" and such Creationist ideas often point to things like the human eye or spiral galaxies or what have you as being "Too orderly" and "obviously well designed" to have happened by "chance".
What they do not realize is that, if the eye, for example, was "designed" then it is evidence of a foolishly incompetent God/designer. It is upside down and backwards and a marvel of inefficiency!
Most of the universe is like the human eye in that, if "designed" then it makes no sense unless the designer was dumb as a brick.
Quote:
You seem to have misunderstood my reference to God in nature as order. I believe God created an ant farm, he put stuff in poked it a little and watched it go. Of course as any kid with an ant farm he pokes and prods it a little every now and then.
No I understood you perfectly. Trust me, I have encountered probably every angle there is to enosnower in this debate, including the "we are an ant farm" analogy, hundreds of times.
Quote:
However, Chaos Theory doesn’t discount the design theory.
Design theory only means that the universe had a designer, nothing more. Evolution can happen under the design theory, I believe in both.
"Design theoery" is a misnomer. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. It is supported by empirical evidence, makes predictions and contains grounds for falsification.
"Design theory" is, at BEST a hypothesis(and that is being generous!). It makes no predictions, cannot be falsified, and is not supported by any tangible evidence or concurrent observation.
I am not trying to say that you cannot or should not believe in a "God" who may have started the ball rolling. But this is not a scientific theory. It is a "God of the gaps" case. Science can never examine these gods of the gaps because they remain only in the areas not yet illuminated by science. Just as one can believe a genies "wished" the big bang to happen adn science cannot disprove this.
Quote:
I believe that atheists are of two groups, those that are stubborn and won’t believe even if evidence and logical proofs set before them, or those that are too ignorant or busy to sit down and look at their life and how things fell together.
More logical fallacies on your part. The first is called the false dichotomy or false dillemma. You present as if there are only two options(e.g. atheists are either ignorant or stubborn) when in fact there are many more(such as atheists are rational or insane or sense-deprived or whatever). You are free to believe such things about us if it helps you to sleep better thinking we are all ignorant, closed-minded fools but if you cannot demonstrate this as being likely the case, then this is just a personal attack and not worthy of consideration.
Secondly, this is a strawman mischaracterization. You avoid tackling my actual argumetns adn reasoning by instead beating on some ridiculous caraciture of atheism that you have invented.
Quote:
I’ll tell you a story about how things fell into place for me in one instance. I’ll just tell it, take it as you will.
I was a Boy Scout...
(much snipped in the interest of brevity)
So, June 2003, we started as wranglers.
Three summers later, still working there. I may go to Texas and work with horses there next summer, not sure though.
Too many things fell into place for this to work for there not to be some prodding by an outside force.
This is a 'cart-before-the-horse' analysis. You are examining the sequence of events from the conclusion that the way things happened was a "goal" and reasoning backwards towards the beginning to see all of the pieces falling into place to arrive at this "goal".
Here is an experiemetn you can do to illustrate the error in your thinking:
1)Take a deck of playing cards and shuffle them.
2)Draw three cards at random adn note which cards and what order they were drawn in.
3)Now calculate the odds of drawing those specific three cards in that exact order.
You will find that the odds of you drawing ANY three cards in ANY particular order are astronomically low. By your reasoning, someone must have qucikly fixed the deck as you were setting the shuffled cards down . Too many variables fell into place for you to have drawn THOSE cards in THAT order by chance!
The error here is a misuse of probability. You cannot calculate the odds of something happening retroactively.
This is the error that William Dembski commits at the core of his "Design Theory" and Behe repeats ad nauseum.
Quote:
My mom randomly picking Horsemanship from a piece of paper.
Parents giving in to send me to camp so I could take Advanced Horsemanship.
Friend working there. (Showed me how to apply and told us what to expect.)
Offhand comment by the Head Wrangler.
The lessons, that came out of nowhere.
Seeing a girl that worked there come to take lessons with us.
1)Your mom did not "randomly pick" horsemanship. She pointed top a suggestion she thought sounded interesting/fun. She did not throw a dart at a board full of one million possibilities and hit "horsemanship".
2)Parents often "give in" to something their meritorious boy scout desperately want(usually balancing this by NOT giving in to some other want/wish). Nothing miraculous here.
3)Your friend working there was not an incredibly odds-defying event that lead to your involvement with horsemanship. That is like saying "I went to my friend's music store and got a great discount on a new guitar!! Just think...if my friend had not worked there, I would not have gone there to buy the guitar adn would not have gotten the discount!".. In other words, it only stands to reason that, he being your friend, you would end up there instead of at some complete stranger's place of work!
4)I do not see what you are getting at with the bits about the "off hand comments" by the wrangler or the "lessons coming out of nowhere!".
5)Seeing the girl...: Does it not stand to reason that, since you and the girl were at the same camp, you both recieved the same invitation/information to go to the same palce for lessons adn since you both had an interest in horsemanship, you would both end up there?
It is like if I meet someone at the library who enjoys sci-fi and while we are talking someone walks up and hands us an invitation to a local sci-fi convention then we both show up at said convention, I do not lose my mind at the "amazing coincidence" of the guy from the library being at THAT particular convention instead of one of the dozen other conventions happening at the time.
Quote:
It’s just eerie the way it worked out. Maybe you’d have to live it and witness it yourself to understand, but there is no doubt in my mind there is a God of some sort.
I only ask you not to dissect my story, just take it as is.
I do not know what you mean with the request that I do not "disect" your story. Do you not want me to examine it with a critical eye? Or do you simply want me to agree that it is an amazing series of coincidences that was most likely caused by God(contrary to what reason and rationality tell me)?
What you are describing is simple pattern recognition behavior(once again). It is an all-too-common human tendency to overestimate the importance of confirmatory "evidence" while disregarding or downplaying contradictory, rational evidences.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
ConanAmra
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2005 06:44 AM |
|
|
Well I believe in some coincidence in the life as almost it was happening to me so i can realize my own faults that i had done and so i can learn to doesnt make such faults again.
But sometimes some people are trying to find coincidences even when they dont exists.
For example like people with tarot cards ,or something with numbers ,they are seeing only the result of these things and thinking ,wow,ive got 29 together it is mine birthday number ,and here I have this number,i met my girlfriend then,and so and so.I knew some people like this,they think because of some things like they go to the seer or like the tarot cards they are thinking that they are the chosen ones and other similar things.
Well maybe its something on it,but also it is only in their heads and they want to trust in it,like people want to trust in God.
There must be some higher power or something that moves with all the space and galaxys,stars and with us.
But when we will know that true ,only time will tell.
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2005 08:43 AM |
|
|
Agreed ConanAmra. Statistically, amazing coincidences MUST happen and they DO. For example, here in America, several years ago on a Christmas Eve, twin sisters both decided to pay a surprise visit to the other adn give their Christmas presents. They both left their houses at the same time. They decided upon the same travel route/road and BOTH of them died at the same time in a head on collision...with EACH OTHER!
If such amazing, mind-blowing coincidences did NOT take place occasionally THAT would be the greatest improbability imaginable!
But coincidences, even when they are legitimate, do NOT at all require the oversight or direction of some master planner/God! IF that were the case then we would have to conclude that God(or 'karma' or whatever mystic mumbo-jumbo one adheres to) was an evil bastard for pushing those twin sisters out the door to such a horrible and ironic tragedy the night before Christmas!
But most such alleged copincidences are just people seeing what they want or expect to see and ignoring the non-confirming evidence.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
ConanAmra
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2005 09:20 PM |
|
|
An interesting one.
Another question ,do you believe in the Templar knights?
All of you ,and about the thing that they have found the holy relics of Jesus and other important religion things with all the treasure and so and so.
Because of they accidently rise to wealthy people the French King has ordered to eliminate all of them because he wanted their ownings and for that,that the church doesnt wanted that normal people would knew the truth about the religion ,the true faith in God and the right way.
It is really interesting and the community of people which theoreticaly exist still in our time they are guarding all the secrets of Jesus and ohters.
What do you think about this?
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted September 24, 2005 04:27 PM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 24 Sep 2005
|
Finally, a big fish has cut the bait.
Quote:
I personally see ALL religion as a net NEGATIVE because there is NOTHING that religion provides which cannot be had WITHOUT religion and religion always brings the potential for negative baggage(bigotry, sexual hangups, "holy wars" etc.).
Even though you might have a point from the secular social point of view you seem to be taking, which is rather centrist imo, you’re still not quite right about the social benefits of religion versus atheism.
Religion has always played an important role, since the earliest societies. It was imortant for the group cohesion, the metaphysical perception of the world and the group morals. Granted, all of these are possible without the existance of religion, but are much more harder to achieve. An apparent example - do you think that the Jews would have retained their culture and language for several millenias if it wasn’t for their distinctive religion. On a personal level, religious people are much more persistant and endure in hardship, because they believe God is with them and their efforts are not in vain and will be rewarded. This cannot be matched by any secular will of self-confidence, for the simple reason that belief in a watchful God extends highly above the individual person, on which atheism bases human will.
Your centrist view takes as granted that God doesn’t exist, throws away all of the religious from the discussion, in what makes out to be a highly partial observation. In a similar way, a religious person could claim that you neglect a crucial side of your being, the need for religion as a natural necessary predisposition, and on top of that, disrespect God’s laws and demands, which are to be superior to any earhtly pieces of srap, which men choose to call laws. For such a crime you could be hanged, what in fact was the case well into the 18th century. 
Quote:
No. You can reasonably infer that the Earth's core is magma by understanding rudimentary geology and physics. Science has absolutely NOPTHING to do with "faith" and faith is not a requirement of science. IF you believe that there is a magical kingdom in the clouds, it is because you lack understanding of how the universe works. Not because some poeple simple place their trust in scientists while others place theirs in Holy men.
I think your strong belief in “the FACTS” clouds your judgement. Yes, you can infer that the earht’s core is magma by seeing the magma (that is if one has seen one), but there’s nothing, no empirical evidence so far, that disproves the hypothesis that hell is inside the earth’s core. Furthermore, science has little to do with faith only for the scientists (and even that’s discussable), but for normal people who don’t take their time to empirically confirm what they read in books is all about faith and finding logic in that faith… what is not at all different from religion, since theologists also strive to find logic in the faith.
Quote:
I can study automotive engineering and learn enough about physics to rule out "Fog-mobiles" the same way I can rationally dismiss "cloud kingdoms" and "Hell" as existent places.
lol.. You think you can know enough about physics to rule out anything? My dear friend, with all respect much more smarter people than you (scientists, that is) have had such believes that were only ruled out couple of years later. “There’s not a way that anything heavier than air can fly.” Don’t remember who said that, but it wasn’t long before the airplane was invented. btw, please tell me your logical reasoning in dismissing Hell.
Quote:
IF God is "all-knowing"/omniscient, as the Bible clearly states, then God himself could not have free will and could not "choose" to do ANYTHING and Jesus, nor any of us humans could not have chosen to do anything and therefore could not be blamed for "sin" nor praised for "saving us" from such.
Primitive human logical laws are one thing, God’s reality is a different thing. It would be too arrogant to even expect to grasp it.
God/Jesus both knew what was going to happen and had the power to choose so. That is why they are godly. The same cant be said about any humans, that is why we are human and have human logic. In our reality “free will” and “omniscense” terminate each other, but in God’s – who knows?
Quote:
No God worthy of worship would WANT to be worshipped and worshipping ANYTHING is demeaning to the person doing the worshipping. God exhibits every madness and vice of humanity within the Bible and Koran, from petty jealousy to murder to outright insanity! He comands the rape of innocent virgins and slaughter of babies for the simple "crimes" of being born in the wrong region or under the wrong king.
Showing devotion to such a character, especially when he is likely ficticious, is at best irrational and at worst, utterly sick.
Good, now you claim you know God’s ways. You are progressing from simple atheist to heretic. I’ll change the hanging with a more appropriate form of punishment – cutting limbs. 
Quote:
Why didn't he simply equip Adam and Eve with brains capable of seeing through the con game of the serpent and failing this why could he not simply forgive us?! I would NEVER punish my child for being taken in a scam by a con man but even if I did I could forgive him without resorting to such schemes as the Bible describes!
This is not only about Adams sin, silly. Men have been sinful ever since then, disrespecting God, doing bad deeds and not showing their love to Him. That is why God offered the hope of salvation. Not because he wanted to forgive and save us all, but because he wants to select those who are worthy of forgivnace and those who are not. That is why he sent his son on Earth, to teach us and show us the way. Indeed maybe he didn’t have to die, but that is a symbolical way for God to show his love for us, it is His way, not yours.
The Romans not having records of Jesus isnt surprising. You wouldn’t expect them to have records of every man then, or even if they had had, normally we don’t ge everything the Romans back then wrote. Beside, no need for any - the whole snowing Bible is a historical record of Jesus.
Quote:
Wrong. You are , ironically enough, commiting a fallacy of logic with this appeal to endurance(actually this is an argumentum ad populum or appeal to popularity). It is like saying "My grandfather is 95 years old and he believes that the loch ness monster exists! If someone has been around as long as he has and believes such a thing then it must be true!". Logically, the age of myth has nothing to do with it's veracity and if it did then you would be forced to conclude that the ancient Summerian/Babylonian/Egyptian and pagan myths which Christianity borrowed from must be the truth.
The argument still stands. I’m not saying we should believe the book because it’s so old (as your example with the grandfather), but because its still valid, e.g. not disproven, what cant be said about scientific hypotheses. Your example with the myths is also of no relevance, since myths didn’t exist to present the truth, but had much more complex nature than that.
Quote:
Yes, we CAN "see" atoms. This all goes back to what is called rules of inference in science. Existence is defined by certain constraints. The only way we can say that 'X' "exists" is because 'X' is constrained by linear time and has "sense contents".
This is highly philosophical. But we can make it scientific, if you want. The criteria for existence are ever changing in science. It wasn’t long ago when scientists believed that everything with mass 0 doesn’t exist, and yet light exists. In one word, your case falls on the very first step, which is too bold. You say: “Existance is defined by..”, a rather neat passive sentence, but lacks the perpetrator. Where is it defined? Nowhere, people have defined it and their axoimal judgement is just as uncertain as anything else, thus makes everything derived from it to be – uncertain. On a philosophical note, objective materialism is no more relevant than any other philosophical doctrine, including objective idealism. Therefore, i can safely claim that immaterial things exist. Beside, the point about “seeing atoms” was again in the spirit of the need of peronal empirical verification before one can claim anything.
Quote:
But God is alleged to be "transcendent", meaning he has no "sense contents" and/or is NOT bound by linearity. Logically, a thing cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at once, therefore to say that a transcencdent thing(re:God) "exzists" is like saying that a round square exists. It is nonsense.
God is alleged to be both transcedent and immanent. Anyway, why should existence be bound by linear time? How is the universe bound by linear time? Ergo, it doesn’t exist, does it? Even more, how do you mean “linear time”? Cause I thought after Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity linear time doesn’t exist. You see there are so many questions that disprove so many things, which you consider to be hardcore facts.
Quote:
Ordinary claims can be supported by anecdotal evidence alone because they are things we regularly observe in life and their truth would not cause 2,000 years of scienctific observation and experiemetn to have to be thrown out!
Correct, regularly see. I don’t think anyone sees regularly the things they claim to believe in. I’m talking about individual people, not scientific understanding. It is a matter of doctrine, since early human age and the dominance of the scientific doctrine in the civilizational age we live in.
Quote:
extraordinary claims, on the other hand, if true, would require us to dismiss a sizeable portion of our understanding of physical reality and must be supported by greater than anecdotal evidence.
How does belief in God dismiss anything? No, it only accumulates to the persons ideas and completes the balanced functioning of the being. Beside, and what is my core argument to the entire debate, the belief in God doesn’t require irefutable logical prooves (for the simple reason that you cant find any for anything that you believe in), only a strong faith and dedication.
Quote:
You are asserting the positive, that "X exists"('X' being God in this case) so the burden of proof rests with YOU, not those who dissent from your claim.
Am I? I don’t assert anything. I’m rather skeptical about proving anything. All I say is that belief in God and the Bible isnt by far the most ilogical thing to do, as many people think.
Quote:
IF God is "transcendent" and not bound by phsycial constraints, then there is nothing(within the realm of logic I presume) he cannot do, including altering the earth's orbit, reversing gravity, and the like. Now if the potential for these "miracles" to happen exists and we can say this is so, then the actuality of their occurances must also be so. Which means that these physical laws do NOT exist since it is entirely possible that God would break them in monumental ways every 3.5 seconds for the next thousand years! We could make no scientific predictions based on theories and understanding of physics because we would in effect be living in an "anything is possible" universe. It would be just as likely that everyone will turn into pink giraffes in five minutes as it would be for nothing extraordinary to happen!
Hehe, your reasoning is not much different than Anselm’s.
How do you conclude that the actuality of the occurance is there, only because the potential for the miracles exists? It’s like saying: I’ll win the lottery because there’s a potential chance that I do. Then further, you say that the physical laws don’t exist, because its possible for God (a supernatural aka superphysical being) to break them. How’s that connected?
You cant say how often God would resort to these “miracles”, therefore scientific predictions are perfectly possible, although there have been a documented few examples where scientific explaination didn’t manage to clear certain events, where its safe to say that it was God’s miracle.
Quote:
Nope. You are misusing the word theory or commiting the fallacy of equivocation. A "theory" in science, is an explanation of a FACT/observed phenomenom. It is not just some "unproven idea" or a "best guess" or any such nonsense.
The belief that God exists is NOT an explanation of any fact. It is simply an unsubstantiated claim/belief. This belief is uintestable, unfalsifiable, makes no predictions adn cannot be shown valid through any controlled experiment.
Theory is indeed a “best guess” and every so often they tend to prove wrong.
Furthermore, the existance of God can be said to be a metaphysical theory, explaining the greatest ‘fact” of all, that the world exists.
PS: Oh, 1 more thing, USA theist. Such an ironic name...
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
DragonMaster
Known Hero
Master of Dragons
|
|
posted September 24, 2005 04:28 PM |
|
|
wow, how long did THAT take?
____________
Fire is not a dragons only strength, so don't come to close to it's mouth, when he is not flammable.
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 25, 2005 02:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
An interesting one.
Another question ,do you believe in the Templar knights?
All of you ,and about the thing that they have found the holy relics of Jesus and other important religion things with all the treasure and so and so.
Because of they accidently rise to wealthy people the French King has ordered to eliminate all of them because he wanted their ownings and for that,that the church doesnt wanted that normal people would knew the truth about the religion ,the true faith in God and the right way.
It is really interesting and the community of people which theoreticaly exist still in our time they are guarding all the secrets of Jesus and ohters.
What do you think about this?
I put this up there with the "JFK was a victim of the CIA/Mafia/Cubans...etc." conspiracy theories. In other words, complete nonsense. The templar conspiracy theories have gotten a recent boost in popularity because of The Bible Code(soon to be a movie).
Basically, you can judge a conspriacy theory's plausibility by the number of people that would have to be involved to maintain the big secret(s), coupled with the (lack of) evidence in support of said theory.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 25, 2005 05:12 PM |
|
|
@Svarog:
Quote:
Finally, a big fish has cut the bait.
Quote:
I personally see ALL religion as a net NEGATIVE because there is NOTHING that religion provides which cannot be had WITHOUT religion and religion always brings the potential for negative baggage(bigotry, sexual hangups, "holy wars" etc.).
Even though you might have a point from the secular social point of view you seem to be taking, which is rather centrist imo, you’re still not quite right about the social benefits of religion versus atheism.
Religion has always played an important role, since the earliest societies.
True but irrelevant. SUperstition of all sorts has played an important role since adbstract-thinking homosapiens first climbed down from the trees. SUperstition adn religion are evolutionary adaptions that enabled us to survive(eg. when we feared evil "night spirits" we were less likely to wander into a tar pit when it was dark out), so religion definately DID provide something which we MAY have lacked and needed for our survival at one point. But like many evolutionary adaptions, religion has NOW become a hindrance to us. A drawback that threatens our existence.
Quote:
It was imortant for the group cohesion, the metaphysical perception of the world and the group morals.
Again, irrelevant. "Metaphysical perceptions" are not necessarily...er, necessary and morals arise mostly from rational thought, fear/caution and physical reality. They are often justified through appeal to metaphysics adn the supernatural but do not really arise from belief in such.
Quote:
Granted, all of these are possible without the existance of religion, but are much more harder to achieve.
Unqualified assertion. Explain why you believe this is so.
Quote:
An apparent example - do you think that the Jews would have retained their culture and language for several millenias if it wasn’t for their distinctive religion.
A loaded question as their religion WAS their culture to great extent. The simple answer is that cultures, especially nowadays, can and DO survive without religious elements. Furthermore, the survival of "culture" is not of primary concern, per se. "Culture" in itself is neither a good nor a bad thing. For example, Nazi culture survives and thrives even today but it is something I could do without. I am not saying Jewish culture = Nazism. Just that the value of ANY culture is a subjective assessment.
Quote:
On a personal level, religious people are much more persistant and endure in hardship, because they believe God is with them and their efforts are not in vain and will be rewarded.
Again, an unqualified assertion. You might as well have said that "Blondes have more fun!". For all we know, it could be TRUE that blondes have greater enjoyment of life but if it is there are many reasons for this such as the fact that they are given preferential treatment by men(here in America at least)/fit a certain stereotype, are percieved to be less intelligent(so men buy them free drinks thinking this will get them sex) etc.
But neither the "religious people are more persistent", nor the "Blondes have more fun!" assertions are demonstrated, objective truths.
Quote:
This cannot be matched by any secular will of self-confidence for the simple reason that belief in a watchful God extends highly above the individual person, on which atheism bases human will.
False. You are reading too much into atheism. Atheism is ONLY lack of belief in God/gods and entails no views on "human will" or individuality. And again, these are bald assertions.
Quote:
Your centrist view takes as granted that God doesn’t exist,
"Centrist view"...?
I do not take for granted any such thing. I was born an atheist, learned about theism & religion, became a theist/religionist, studied adn contemplated the matter, became a skeptic and atheist adn finally became a positive atheist or strong atheist.
Science takes for granted that the supernatural(including gods) does not exist becuase science is bound by logic and it is logically fallacious to assume the existence of such things. Therefore, until they are shown to exist, the claims for such are FALSE.
Quote:
throws away all of the religious from the discussion, in what makes out to be a highly partial observation.
No. What you seem to not realize is that NOTHING, no matter how patently false can be disproven to people across axioms. A scientist/materialist cannot prove to a solopsist that the moon is not made of cheese because a solopsist can always hide behind hte notion that everything we percieve as objectively real is just our imaginations at work and we are all brains in jars or somesuch.
I do not bother debating things with such people because nothing can be known by their axioms, which makes their positions worthless to me.
It is not that I am being "partial" or biased or unobjective. It is just that I operate from the materialist axiom which is the only one that makes any sense according to observation. The rest...idealism and whatnot, are unfalsifiable hypothesis without regards for rules of inference.
"Materialism rules out the supernatural the way baseball rules out "touchdowns"." my recently deceased friend Charles Fiterman used to say.
Quote:
In a similar way, a religious person could claim that you neglect a crucial side of your being, the need for religion as a natural necessary predisposition, and on top of that, disrespect God’s laws and demands, which are to be superior to any earhtly pieces of srap, which men choose to call laws. For such a crime you could be hanged, what in fact was the case well into the 18th century.
Yes, a religionist could say such things. SO? They can also claim that automotive engine failure is caused by gremlins but what is the point?!
Quote:
Quote:
No. You can reasonably infer that the Earth's core is magma by understanding rudimentary geology and physics. Science has absolutely NOTHING to do with "faith" and faith is not a requirement of science. IF you believe that there is a magical kingdom in the clouds, it is because you lack understanding of how the universe works. Not because some poeple simple place their trust in scientists while others place theirs in Holy men.
I think your strong belief in “the FACTS” clouds your judgement.
I do not "believe" in "the FACTS". I AKNOWLEDGE facts. Facts, by definition, are things that do not NEED "belief".
Quote:
Yes, you can infer that the earht’s core is magma by seeing the magma (that is if one has seen one), but there’s nothing, no empirical evidence so far, that disproves the hypothesis that hell is inside the earth’s core.
Even if we are so generous as to call THAT a "hypothesis", it is a worthless hypothesis because it cannot be falsified. Unless grounds for falification are laid out, the hypothesis is not worth examining.
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
Quote:
Furthermore, science has little to do with faith only for the scientists (and even that’s discussable), but for normal people who don’t take their time to empirically confirm what they read in books is all about faith and finding logic in that faith… what is not at all different from religion, since theologists also strive to find logic in the faith.
Irrelevant. I do have "faith". Never touch the stuff. "Faith" is not soemthing necessary to human existence or to our survival. It is not even an objective, explainable phenomenom by any stretch. "Faith" is irrational conviction.
Quote:
Quote:
I can study automotive engineering and learn enough about physics to rule out "Fog-mobiles" the same way I can rationally dismiss "cloud kingdoms" and "Hell" as existent places.
lol.. You think you can know enough about physics to rule out anything? My dear friend, with all respect much more smarter people than you (scientists, that is) have had such believes that were only ruled out couple of years later.
A number of fallacies here:
1)Being a "Scientist" does NOT infer some degree of intelligence(it does not, by virtue of being a scientist, make one "smarter"(than a non-scientist).
2)Yes. You CAN understand enough about physics to rule out certain things as impossible. FOr example: I have ruled out "fog mobiles" and unless you can demonstrate driving around in a car made entirely of fog, they remain impossible.
3)The argument that 'there have been scientists who had beliefs that were later proven false, therefore all scientific facts may be false!', is nonsense. It is like saying "I know politicians who were liberal but changed their minds and became conservative. Therefore, ALL political ideas may be wrong!".
Science is not "perfect". Mistakes are made and sometimes (rarely but it does happen) egotism clouds judgement. But the beautiful thing that truly seperates science from religion and such is that science is Self-correcting!. Flasehoods are eventaully revealed because of the rigorous demand for (re)verification & testing.
Quote:
“There’s not a way that anything heavier than air can fly.” Don’t remember who said that, but it wasn’t long before the airplane was invented.
It does not stand to reason that because a single alleged scientist had an erroneous conclusion based on the primitive science of the 19th century(or before), which was later disproven BY SCIENCE, that science is therefore no better than religious thinking or what have you.
That is like saying that we should not trust geology because an early earth scientist thought plate tectonics was rubbish.
Quote:
btw, please tell me your logical reasoning in dismissing Hell.
The existence of Hell is not inferted by any concurrent observation, testing, or empirical evidence. It cannot be falsified as a scientific theory must be adn so the idea is no more worth my assent than the idea that the moon is made of cheese.
Quote:
Quote:
IF God is "all-knowing"/omniscient, as the Bible clearly states, then God himself could not have free will and could not "choose" to do ANYTHING and Jesus, nor any of us humans could not have chosen to do anything and therefore could not be blamed for "sin" nor praised for "saving us" from such.
Primitive human logical laws are one thing, God’s reality is a different thing.
How would YOU know that? Unless YOU are part of "God's reality", you cannot make such an assertion.
I have no reason to conclude that there is any "God" in any "seperate reality" and such claims, when examined logically, are found to be contradictory and impossible.
If you postulate that there is something other than reason by which we can understand such "truths" or soem "other logic" by which "other realities" operate, then please show us. DO not use reason to explain it to me. "Faith me" the understanding. SHow me how feet can be used to think and eyeballs chew food for example or show me how how things shrink while getting more massive in both area and denisty/mass. SHow me how something can be bopth 'A' and 'Not A' at the same time.
Until you can do THAT, there is only the logic we use and the reality we observe.
Quote:
It would be too arrogant to even expect to grasp it.
So if I claim that Svarog is a sentient ion cloud floating above Kansas, I can support this claim as "true" by asserting that anyone who does not believe it is "too arrogant to grasp the truth"?
Quote:
God/Jesus both knew what was going to happen and had the power to choose so.
Impossible, as I have already shown.
Quote:
That is why they are godly. The same cant be said about any humans, that is why we are human and have human logic. In our reality “free will” and “omniscense” terminate each other, but in God’s – who knows?
Then someone who walks into my livingroom adn catches me masturbating cannot actually say that I AM doing so because the reality could be that I am making love to invisible, intangible, ANgelina Jolie(who operates by different physical laws and logic than we do)?
That is nonsense. Unless theere is reason to infer these "other realities" and you can demonstrate this "other logic", the claims are false.
Quote:
Quote:
No God worthy of worship would WANT to be worshipped and worshipping ANYTHING is demeaning to the person doing the worshipping. God exhibits every madness and vice of humanity within the Bible and Koran, from petty jealousy to murder to outright insanity! He comands the rape of innocent virgins and slaughter of babies for the simple "crimes" of being born in the wrong region or under the wrong king.
Showing devotion to such a character, especially when he is likely ficticious, is at best irrational and at worst, utterly sick.
Good, now you claim you know God’s ways.
As desdcribed to me via the Bible. But my point above is that wanting or demanding to be worshipped is in act itself that makes one unworthy of worship. I was not commenting on GOD'S ways so much as I was commenting on HUAMNITY's ways.
Quote:
Quote:
Why didn't he simply equip Adam and Eve with brains capable of seeing through the con game of the serpent and failing this why could he not simply forgive us?! I would NEVER punish my child for being taken in a scam by a con man but even if I did I could forgive him without resorting to such schemes as the Bible describes!
This is not only about Adams sin, silly.
So? What is your point?
Quote:
Men have been sinful ever since then, disrespecting God, doing bad deeds and not showing their love to Him.
What do these bald assertions have to do with my above point(s)?
Quote:
That is why God offered the hope of salvation.
You are just repeating the same assertions I refuted above without addressing the logic/arguments.
Quote:
Not because he wanted to forgive and save us all, but because he wants to select those who are worthy of forgivnace and those who are not.
AGAIN, the point is that an omnipotent God should nopt require the Rube Goldbergian methods described in the Bible. WOuldn't an all-knowing God already KNOW who was "worthy"?
Quote:
That is why he sent his son on Earth, to teach us and show us the way.
AGAIN, you are not addressing my arguments. WHY would God need to impregnate a mortal woman(in effect, raping a virgin) to have a son? WHy would he need a son? Is God incapable of doing the simple things that I CAN do(teaching, forgiving etc.)???
Quote:
Indeed maybe he didn’t have to die, but that is a symbolical way for God to show his love for us, it is His way, not yours.
Do you see what you did just there? You have backed yourself into a paradox. You are asserting that God...in all his "wisdom" would attempt to make these things known to US in ways we could not possibly appreciate since we are humans and his ways are "godly". That is like handing an infant a catcher's mit and expecting him to catch a 95 MPH fastball thrown by Randy Johnson, then getting ticked off when the infant fails.
Quote:
The Romans not having records of Jesus isnt surprising. You wouldn’t expect them to have records of every man then, or even if they had had, normally we don’t ge everything the Romans back then wrote.
And yet we have a great amount of written historical information from them about people like Appolynus of Tyanna who was said to preach peace, love and a single all-powerful God, who was tried for sedition and crucified by the Romans and was said to have come back from the dead to preach again. But this "Jesus" guy, by all accounts more important adn inlfuential...there is not a single shred of legitimate recorded history of him?
That sounds wonky to say the least.
Quote:
Beside, no need for any - the whole snowing Bible is a historical record of Jesus.
No, it is NOT. It is a religious holy book detailing the myths of Yahweh and Jesus. It is no more a historical record than Stephen King's Christine is a historical record of sentient automobiles.
Quote:
Quote:
Wrong. You are , ironically enough, commiting a fallacy of logic with this appeal to endurance(actually this is an argumentum ad populum or appeal to popularity). It is like saying "My grandfather is 95 years old and he believes that the loch ness monster exists! If someone has been around as long as he has and believes such a thing then it must be true!". Logically, the age of myth has nothing to do with it's veracity and if it did then you would be forced to conclude that the ancient Summerian/Babylonian/Egyptian and pagan myths which Christianity borrowed from must be the truth.
The argument still stands. I’m not saying we should believe the book because it’s so old (as your example with the grandfather), but because its still valid, e.g. not disproven, what cant be said about scientific hypotheses.
AGAIN, you miss the point. It is a logical fallacy and therefore invalid. It is not a valid argument because it does not follow that because something is still believed in, it must be true. You cannot prove that fairies do not exist and there are many who still believe in them. DOes that mean they DO exist?
Of course not.
Quote:
Your example with the myths is also of no relevance, since myths didn’t exist to present the truth, but had much more complex nature than that.
??? You are not maiing sense here. A "myth" is simply a story about US(humans). They are neither true nor flase by nature. SOme myths are proven true(or to a degree, true) while some are shown to be false and some we cannot conclusively say for lack of information(such as the alleged historical King Arthur).
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, we CAN "see" atoms. This all goes back to what is called rules of inference in science. Existence is defined by certain constraints. The only way we can say that 'X' "exists" is because 'X' is constrained by linear time and has "sense contents".
This is highly philosophical. But we can make it scientific, if you want. The criteria for existence are ever changing in science.
False.
Quote:
It wasn’t long ago when scientists believed that everything with mass 0 doesn’t exist, and yet light exists.
Light has mass. Negligible mass but it IS matter nonetheless. But that is besides the point. You are again commiting the same fallacy of "Some scientists thought *this* and were wrong...therefore science in general may be wrong."
Quote:
In one word, your case falls on the very first step, which is too bold. You say: “Existance is defined by..”, a rather neat passive sentence, but lacks the perpetrator. Where is it defined? Nowhere, people have defined it and their axoimal judgement is just as uncertain as anything else, thus makes everything derived from it to be – uncertain.
Metaphysical handwaving. Worthless in this discussion since I am not prone to axioms which hold no value for understanding reality. SUre...you CAN assume that we live in "The Matrix" and nothing we observe is real adn this cannot be disproven. But this is irrelevant since the reality you observe will still behave as it behaves. In other words, even IF we are all dreaming mermaids at te bottom of the ocean, if we still must apparently exert energy to walk, type and interact with THIS reality by all appearances, then the "true" reality is irrelevant. This IS the true reality either way.
If I must touch myself to get off then I am masturbating even if invisible, intangible Angelina Jolie really DOES exist.
Quote:
On a philosophical note, objective materialism is no more relevant than any other philosophical doctrine, including objective idealism.
I do not debate axiomatic positions. If you are an idealist then that ends the debate right there. The best I can do is to point out that your behavior is contradictory to one who believes such. That is the difference between materialists and idealists. MAterialist is not contradicted by the actions/behaviors of materialists but idealists adn such must behave as if materialism is TRUE in order to get anything done(such as you typing your messages on a keyboard and watching them appear on your monitor).
Quote:
Therefore, i can safely claim that immaterial things exist.
You can CLAIM it, yes. But you cannot verify this by any means of relevance to US(humans who appear to exist in a material reality). There is no difference between saying "Immaterial things exist." and saying "SNozzwogglers jump angrily yellow."
Both are nonsense statements that cannot be verified/falsified.
Quote:
Quote:
Beside, the point about “seeing atoms” was again in the spirit of the need of peronal empirical verification before one can claim anything.
Quote:
But God is alleged to be "transcendent", meaning he has no "sense contents" and/or is NOT bound by linearity. Logically, a thing cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at once, therefore to say that a transcencdent thing(re:God) "exists" is like saying that a round square exists. It is nonsense.
God is alleged to be both transcedent and immanent.
Round squares are alledged to be both round and not round.
Quote:
Anyway, why should existence be bound by linear time?
How can something be said to "exist" if it is not in a state of being for the moment it is said to exist in?
"Exist" has a much more specific meaning, in this context, than you seem to realize. When we say that something exists, we are saying that it is there in the current moment. When we say something existed, we are saying it WAS there, moments ago/in the past.
Quote:
How is the universe bound by linear time?
Because without linear time, we coulkd not say, do, believe, think about, percieve, dismiss, act on ANYTHING. Nothing can make sense since existence is over at the same instance it begins. The action of throwing a ball is nonsense in this scenario because the act only has meaning in a sequential chain of causeality(the arm winds up, then moves forward, then the hand releases the ball, the ball then moves toward the catcher, ...etc.
Throwing a ball, in a non-linear reality breaks down to an impossible infinite regression(as opposed to POSSIBLE infinite regress) because the "wind up" occurs simulataneously with the "release" and the ball lkanding in the catcher's mit. There can be no causeation and therefore the very act is impossible. You cannot "catch" a ball that was never made and subsequently thrown/dropped by someone/thing.
Quote:
Ergo, it doesn’t exist, does it?
?!? What?!
Quote:
Even more, how do you mean “linear time”? Cause I thought after Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity linear time doesn’t exist.
Einstein's theory of relativity showed the exact opposite(that linear time DOES exist as an independent entity).
I am in disagreement with both Einstein and most others in that I say it does not. It is, in my view, simply a convenience term for us. Something by which we measure the passing of events. It only "exists" in the sense that events MUST happen and they must happen in a sequential order that follows logically(i.e. My throwing the ball does not happen because someone caught it to me.).
Quote:
You see there are so many questions that disprove so many things,
Questions themselves do not disprove anything(least of all the things I have stated here).
Quote:
which you consider to be hardcore facts.
The facts remain facts in spite of your efforts. Reality is that which persists even when we stop believing it.
Quote:
Quote:
Ordinary claims can be supported by anecdotal evidence alone because they are things we regularly observe in life and their truth would not cause 2,000 years of scienctific observation and experiement to have to be thrown out!
Correct, regularly see. I don’t think anyone sees regularly the things they claim to believe in. I’m talking about individual people, not scientific understanding. It is a matter of doctrine, since early human age and the dominance of the scientific doctrine in the civilizational age we live in.
I agree that "believers" do NOT regularly see what they claim to believe in. I am no "believer" though.
We DO concurrently observe reality though. IF you and I are standing on the same street corner we will BOTH jump out of the way fo a speeding car that is careening towards us. If the car were simply a figment of my imagination then we would not expect YOU to jump out of the way.
Ergo, there IS an objective reality.
Quote:
Quote:
extraordinary claims, on the other hand, if true, would require us to dismiss a sizeable portion of our understanding of physical reality and must be supported by greater than anecdotal evidence.
How does belief in God dismiss anything? No, it only accumulates to the persons ideas and completes the balanced functioning of the being. Beside, and what is my core argument to the entire debate, the belief in God doesn’t require irefutable logical prooves (for the simple reason that you cant find any for anything that you believe in), only a strong faith and dedication.
Quote:
You are asserting the positive, that "X exists"('X' being God in this case) so the burden of proof rests with YOU, not those who dissent from your claim.
Am I? I don’t assert anything. I’m rather skeptical about proving anything. All I say is that belief in God and the Bible isnt by far the most ilogical thing to do, as many people think.
It IS as illogical/irrational as beliefs get. One cannot imagine any claim which is less rational than the Biblical God.
Quote:
Quote:
IF God is "transcendent" and not bound by phsycial constraints, then there is nothing(within the realm of logic I presume) he cannot do, including altering the earth's orbit, reversing gravity, and the like. Now if the potential for these "miracles" to happen exists and we can say this is so, then the actuality of their occurances must also be so. Which means that these physical laws do NOT exist since it is entirely possible that God would break them in monumental ways every 3.5 seconds for the next thousand years! We could make no scientific predictions based on theories and understanding of physics because we would in effect be living in an "anything is possible" universe. It would be just as likely that everyone will turn into pink giraffes in five minutes as it would be for nothing extraordinary to happen!
Hehe, your reasoning is not much different than Anselm’s.
It is FAR different. Anselm adhered to his "ontological proof of God". I CAN present an ontological DISPROOF of God but all this demonstrates is that Anselm's logic was faulty.
Quote:
How do you conclude that the actuality of the occurance is there, only because the potential for the miracles exists?
I am saying that such potential does NOT exist adn CANNOT exist. If miracles WERE possible then statistically we would expect to have demonstrated at least onew instance of such occuring and such demonstrated "miracles" would cease to be so. They would become a part of our reality which we studied and came to undertand.
If a vampire is discovered, scientists will cage it, call it Homo Nocturnus and classify it as a hemoglobin dependent, non-reflecting, untraviolet allergic parasite adn then study iot to figure out the mechansims behind it's functions.
To argue that something "exists" but is "beyond science" is a contradiction. Either it exists adn is therefore subject to being studied by scientists or it does not.
Quote:
It’s like saying: I’ll win the lottery because there’s a potential chance that I do.
No, completely false. It is like saying that SOMEONE will win the lottery if the lottery can be won!
See the difference?
Quote:
Then further, you say that the physical laws don’t exist, because its possible for God (a supernatural aka superphysical being) to break them. How’s that connected?
No, no, no. Physical laws don't exist in the way we are using the term "existence", regardless of what God can allegedly do or not do. They exist in the same way that ideas and such exist. A conceptual existence.
GOD does not exist because if the universe operates by physical laws of behavior and God violates these physical laws, then one or the other has to give. IF these physical laws can be so violated then they are not physical laws. If God can cause gravity to cease with the snap of his proverbial fingers, at any moment, then we have no reason to presume that gravity will act to attract objects of lesser mass to objects of greater mass.
Quote:
You cant say how often God would resort to these “miracles”, therefore scientific predictions are perfectly possible, although there have been a documented few examples where scientific explaination didn’t manage to clear certain events, where its safe to say that it was God’s miracle.
Thus far there has NEVER been a documented occurance of such a thing(a miracle). Again, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence...
Quote:
Quote:
Nope. You are misusing the word theory or commiting the fallacy of equivocation. A "theory" in science, is an explanation of a FACT/observed phenomenom. It is not just some "unproven idea" or a "best guess" or any such nonsense.
The belief that God exists is NOT an explanation of any fact. It is simply an unsubstantiated claim/belief. This belief is uintestable, unfalsifiable, makes no predictions adn cannot be shown valid through any controlled experiment.
Theory is indeed a “best guess” and every so often they tend to prove wrong.
False. You have a misunderstadning of what a theory is. You are employing a common, non-scientific(i.e. layman's) definition of "theory".
Quote:
Furthermore, the existance of God can be said to be a metaphysical theory, explaining the greatest ‘fact” of all, that the world exists.
PS: Oh, 1 more thing, USA theist. Such an ironic name...
Metaphysical theories are worthless. All that is is dressing up the term "Fantasitc and unfounded belief" in psuedo-scientific jargon to make it sound impressive.
The corrrect reading is US Atheist(as in United States Atheist).
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted September 27, 2005 03:47 AM |
|
|
Hello there, USA theist.
If you havent realized by now, i’ve been playing devil (God)’s advocate a bit (its hard to find any sane debate opponents on the forums these days if you turn up attacking His Non-existence), but seeing that by now i have found plenty of points of disagreement with you, i can safely return to my default atheist perspective without the fear of you running away from the debate, since you look so horny about it. We’re symmetrically opposite on just about every philosophical stepstone. Objective materialism vs subjective idealism. Rationalism vs empiricism. Angard!
By quoting every bit of my post, you’re not being thorough, but just plain boring. I know that it’s easier to cut a human body on pieces to better deal with it, but you’re chopping every inch of it, to the point of non-recognizing what came from where. Such is with some of my sentences, and then you reply with “what?”, after its taken completely out of context. And also, silly and kid-like analogies wont be of use to anyone, such as the one above demonstrates. So save it for the schoolkids; you have enough clarity of expression for me not to need such colorful examples. (I wouldn’t have problems when people made analogies, if it wasn’t for the fact that they rarely hit the point or are funny.)
I’ve been reading the Spirituality thread as well, but don’t think i can fly in successfully there, since there’re so many loopholes in your claims, that i don’t know where to start quoting. And i’m not your “quote-it-all mentality” and block HC server with amazing amounts of text (and analogies).
Quote:
Quote:
It was important for the group cohesion, the metaphysical perception of the world and the group morals.
Again, irrelevant. "Metaphysical perceptions" are not necessarily...er, necessary and morals arise mostly from rational thought, fear/caution and physical reality. They are often justified through appeal to metaphysics adn the supernatural but do not really arise from belief in such.
Morals arise from anything BUT rational thought. That also goes about physical reality. How the hell are morals connected to physical reality? The belief in supernatural itself of course doesn’t bring about morals, but they constitute a main element in the broader concept of religion (where the belief in supernatural itself is of little importance). Thus, religion enforces morals more than any legal code ever could - exactly the aspect of religion i was talking about.
Quote:
“Granted, all of these are possible without the existence of religion, but are much more harder to achieve.”
Unqualified assertion. Explain why you believe this is so.
I don’t mean to write a book on that to prove you and being the so called “skeptic” (cos you are far from it, but i’ll get to it later) you declare urself to be, even a whole library wouldn’t be enough. There’re numerous historical examples which testify on the great influence of religion in terms of forming social groups and group morals. Religion has been the most powerful tool in that sense, although today that influence in the West is highly diminished, but only because religious influence in secular life is strictly controlled. But you can take the Islamic republics as proof for its potential to shape our society if you want.
Quote:
A loaded question as their religion WAS their culture to great extent. The simple answer is that cultures, especially nowadays, can and DO survive without religious elements.
Have no idea why you entangled urself just later in talk about “value of cultures”, but anyway: Yes, religion is always part of the culture, but i’m attributing the survival (and much of it intact) of Jewish culture largely on religion. Almost always once a group accepted the religion of their conquerors, got assimilated into the broader religious areal. This wasn’t the case with the Jews, who stand as unprecedented example in history for withstanding assimilation all over Europe even in such small isolated communities. Only because of religion. On the other hand, those Jews who accepted other religions, got assimilated very fast.
Quote:
But neither the "religious people are more persistent", nor the "Blondes have more fun!" assertions are demonstrated, objective truths.
I noticed you want to toy with the term “objective truth” and how to prove it. Newsflash, there is no such thing. I posited a largely logical sentence why it is so, some tests may have also been done, dunno, but if you want this debate to have any future, then you don’t want me to ask you to “objectively” prove your claims every time you make one. As a further piece of proof though, it’s not a coincidence that the most elite orders in the Middle Ages were composed of the most fervent of believers, not the most fervent of skeptics. Take suicide terrorists and mujahedins also, i don’t think they share your views on atheism really.
Quote:
"Centrist view"...? […]
Science takes for granted that the supernatural(including gods) does not exist because science is bound by logic and it is logically fallacious to assume the existence of such things. Therefore, until they are shown to exist, the claims for such are FALSE.
Forgive me for calling your view “centrist”. I was too soft; what you’re claiming on these boards is equal to intellectual fascism. First, science is not bound by logic, science is bound by experience (experiments). Second, it’s not “logically fallacious” to assume the existence of gods (which logical law does it break?), it’s just that no one has yet empirically confirmed such a thing. And third, the fact that no one hasn’t demonstrated/proven smth yet, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. For all that i agree with you, this is your one really nonesense claim. Take gravitons for example – they arent proven yet, but many scientists are pretty certain that they exist. So what happens when (prolly) we discover them – will they suddenly be created then? What about extra-terrestrial life? It hasn’t been “shown to exist” (to use ur own words), but its only reasonable to believe that in this huge universe there’re some little green creatures with antenaes somewhere. If you lived in Ancient Greece, and someone talked to you about electric current and electrons, you’d place it in the area of the spiritual, and claim that it doesn’t exist since Greek science cant show it exists. Imagine that we didn’t have eyes and ears, but were equally intelligent. The same USA theist would probably claim that there’s no such thing as light or sound, no such thing as colours, if say a creature with all five senses came and told that to us. That is sooo not in line with the materialist objectiveness that you forward, since objectiveness is all about what there really is, no matter how people perceive it.
How can one be so arrogant as to think people have evolved so much to be able to detect all reality there is. Shake your head Human – you’re nothing but a half-learned ape, with an overly developed ego. Nothing personal, of course.
Quote:
It is not that I am being "partial" or biased or unobjective. It is just that I operate from the materialist axiom which is the only one that makes any sense according to observation. The rest...idealism and whatnot, are unfalsifiable hypothesis without regards for rules of inference.
“Its not that I’m being partial, it’s just that I operate with one axiom discarding all the others.” That’s a good one.
Its not true that idealism is opposite to all common sense and prevents any functioning systems. The difference is that they are idealistic systems, not materialistic ones.
I’ll use one nice formulation by you, which i find completely true, to explain my position better: “ MAterialist is not contradicted by the actions/behaviors of materialists but idealists adn such must behave as if materialism is TRUE in order to get anything done” Yes, so? There’s no materialist sin here. I create in my mind, since the very first day I’m born a complete world which functions according to all (and exclusively) materialist principles, so the practical implications are just the same for me as any other materialist. But that doesn’t change the fact that this world only exist in my conscience and through my senses.
What you are doing however, is turning the picture upside down. You urself say that the reason for ur materialist worldview are “sense” and “observation”, which are idealist categories. Don’t tell me now that they are flesh induced, since that idea also is grasped again by the same concepts.
Anyway, I can quite clearly forgive you and understand your materialism though. Even if we don’t agree, our positions here differ slightly.
Quote:
“In a similar way, a religious person could claim that you neglect a crucial side of your being, the need for religion as a natural necessary predisposition, and on top of that, disrespect God’s laws and demands, which are to be superior to any earthly pieces of scrap, which men choose to call laws. For such a crime you could be hanged, what in fact was the case well into the 18th century. “
Yes, a religionist could say such things. SO? They can also claim that automotive engine failure is caused by gremlins but what is the point?!
This is where your intellectual fascism comes into play. For religious people intuitive cognition is more valid than rational (for you), but for me both step aside in favor of empirical cognition. These basic axiomic standards are all equally valid. Now, i feel your pain since the “equally valid” term seems inconsistent with the logic of things, but that’s the agony every objectivist has to endure. Either that, or succumb to “centrist” views that his position is the only valid one, what you seem to have already done. Went to the Dark Side.
Quote:
I do not "believe" in "the FACTS". I AKNOWLEDGE facts. Facts, by definition, are things that do not NEED "belief".
Oh dear. Yes, you believe. It’s a belief supported by your rational judgment, call it how u like, but nonetheless a belief. U seem to like downgrading the word “believing” to only relate to someone accepting supernatural stuff as reality, and elevating yourself to “acknowledging” the correct and only ones and never-changing FACTS. But lets not turn this into a game of semantics. Btw, havent you heard, facts don’t really exist.
Quote:
Furthermore, science has little to do with faith only for the scientists (and even that’s discussable), but for normal people who don’t take their time to empirically confirm what they read in books is all about faith and finding logic in that faith… what is not at all different from religion, since theologists also strive to find logic in the faith.”
Irrelevant. I do have "faith". Never touch the stuff. "Faith" is not something necessary to human existence or to our survival. It is not even an objective, explainable phenomenon by any stretch. "Faith" is irrational conviction.
You completely avoided the point. I asked you about your strong conviction in the facts. Arent they based on your faith/blind belief in what you read (assuming you’re not a scientists dealing with it directly). And before you quack, no it’s not rational, since its also completely rational to read somewhere that that-and-that lake was created by a giant comet, and not by tectonic rifts, say. There’s no way u can know unless you set onto examining the lake urself. That’s why you have to rely in faith of what the scientists tell you.
This is exactly how it was for the middle age students whose faith in God was unquestionable, since throughout their lives they’ve been taught that. That’s why u always have to take ur believes (“facts”) with a pinch of salt.
Quote:
A number of fallacies here:
1)Being a "Scientist" does NOT infer some degree of intelligence(it does not, by virtue of being a scientist, make one "smarter"(than a non-scientist).
2)Yes. You CAN understand enough about physics to rule out certain things as impossible. For example: I have ruled out "fog mobiles" and unless you can demonstrate driving around in a car made entirely of fog, they remain impossible.
3)The argument that 'there have been scientists who had beliefs that were later proven false, therefore all scientific facts may be false!', is nonsense. It is like saying "I know politicians who were liberal but changed their minds and became conservative. Therefore, ALL political ideas may be wrong!".
1) sorry, i meant “smarter” as more experienced and knowledgeable, not as more intelligent.
2) See under the paragraph where i talk about proving things, ur centrist views and arrogance. By saying what you say, it’s clear to me that you don’t understand enough about physics. Somewhere i read that you consider a fact that time travel is not possible, earth is not flat and there’re no detectable energy auras radiating from human beings. All ur supposed facts are false, proven by science. Einstein’s theory of relativity provides theoretical possibility for time travel [see thread Time Travel, a flat earth model is perfectly viable (only the space would have to be curved), and energy auras radiating from humans are electro-magnetic waves, also known as common heat, perfectly detectable by infra-red cameras and such (u can put ur palms very closely to one another to feel it as well).
Before Einstein, most sane people would claim time travel is only fiction. This is an excellent example how people know sh!t about reality, including both of us.
Ps: “Fog mobiles’ could be possible some day, when we learn how to control ionized vapour atoms with electro-magnetic fields, why not. Possibilities of science are boundless.
3) u r perfectly correct rephrasing me here. We must retain the possibility that each and every scientific theory could be proven false. It’s also true about political ideas. But of course, you think that the liberals are the best and their ideas are indeed rationally better than all the other parties’, i assume.
Quote:
The existence of Hell is not inferted by any concurrent observation, testing, or empirical evidence. It cannot be falsified as a scientific theory must be adn so the idea is no more worth my assent than the idea that the moon is made of cheese.
Aha, correct! I notice an evolution in your stance. You don’t say that you can disprove it, you just say that the idea is not worth attention, but still that leaves a place for it being true. That is true skeptical reasoning. Anyway, its evident that with this reasoning we’re stuck with so many possible alternatives of reality, that its difficult to choose the right one (so people often resort to materialism). Have you heard of Schroedinger’s cats? It’s a principle that says that whenever more models are possible to explain reality we choose to use the most simple model (not ruling out the other ones). In our case, its more simple to believe that Hell isnt down there, since nothing points to it, so we adopt that model. Notice i’m talking about models of reality all the time, and not facts. Therefore it’s unbelievable to me the way you agreed with bort’s post in the other thread which spoke about models of describing reality, when in fact it’s so opposite to your objectivist view of matter.
Quote:
If you postulate that there is something other than reason by which we can understand such "truths" or some "other logic" by which "other realities" operate, then please show us. DO not use reason to explain it to me. "Faith me" the understanding. SHow me how feet can be used to think and eyeballs chew food for example or show me how how things shrink while getting more massive in both area and denisty/mass. SHow me how something can be bopth 'A' and 'Not A' at the same time.
Until you can do THAT, there is only the logic we use and the reality we observe.
Of course I cant, but that was just a possible rationalist explanation of how it is possible the Christian God to exist and have all the alleged properties from the Bible. I don’t consider it valid either, but it is with a 0,00…001% possibility possible. My point was to disprove your unfounded attempt to disprove the Christian God.
Btw, since i still think u still got me wrong. I meant “God’s reality” as in the “real objective reality” (God being pure objectivity and universal being; yada yada; religious crap; beginning to sound like Hegel; hate that), because we humans have only a perception of reality, which could be very similar but also very different from the objective one (which is eternally inaccessible to us).
I don’t need to/ I cant demonstrate the “other logic”, since the logic we live by, is clearly subjective and limited by our puny minds.
Quote:
AGAIN, you miss the point. It is a logical fallacy and therefore invalid. It is not a valid argument because it does not follow that because something is still believed in, it must be true. You cannot prove that fairies do not exist and there are many who still believe in them. DOes that mean they DO exist?
You will never know whether they exist or no (because that the part of objective reality, that’s out of reach for us). Therefore, FOR US they exist only in the minds of humans. So, the more people believe in them the more they’ll exist (for us). Sounds silly, but that’s the way it is. Take it like this: imagine that we really ARE in the Matrix. All the people believe that they’re leaving in a real world, so in fact we are, for us. The objective reality (the Matrix) is irrelevant (inaccesable); that is until Neo wakes up. . The same with fairies.
U completely missed my point about myths, but nevermind. It was a sidekick.
Quote:
Light has mass. Negligible mass but it IS matter nonetheless. But that is besides the point. You are again commiting the same fallacy of "Some scientists thought *this* and were wrong...
Light has no mass. It is matter, but without mass.
No fallacy there. That’s just giving you so many proofs how people who are so convinced in facts, turn out to be so wrong all the time. Empirically pointing you out where you’re going.
Quote:
”Anyway, why should existence be bound by linear time?”
How can something be said to "exist" if it is not in a state of being for the moment it is said to exist in?
Well, imagine you’re a light wave. You travel by c. That means time “freezes” around you. Difficult for scientists to ponder even, so oh please explain me how your infallible definition deals with that.
[follows a laughable explanation of how it isnt possible to catch throw and catch a ball in 0 moments ; very evident thank you. That’s not what i asked. The point was the universe existing eternally, it is not “bound” by linear time (yet another shaky construct), thus it doesn’t exist. Aint it so?]
Quote:
” Even more, how do you mean “linear time”? Cause I thought after Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity linear time doesn’t exist.”
Einstein's theory of relativity showed the exact opposite(that linear time DOES exist as an independent entity).
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, sorry to say that. Don’t tell me what Einstein’s theory said, i study that. Much less the concept of independent objective time exists. Then, you dare say you’re in disagreement with Einstein (?!)(who u don’t even understand), thinking you’re impressing anyone.
Quote:
”How do you conclude that the actuality of the occurrence is there, only because the potential for the miracles exists?”
I am saying that such potential does NOT exist adn CANNOT exist. If miracles WERE possible then statistically we would expect to have demonstrated at least onew instance of such occuring and such demonstrated "miracles" would cease to be so. They would become a part of our reality which we studied and came to undertand.
Let me repeat what was said. You said that if miracles existed, there is also the actuality of their occurrence, which means that they do happen so often, that we cant seem to organize any physical laws by which we could govern ourselves. To which i replied, no, they could happen, but how often, thats diff business. In fact, some of them do happen, the so called scientific mysteries (smth which cant be explained by current scientific laws). Now there’re two possibilities: first (much more likely), that they are explainable by yet undiscovered scientific theories and second - they’re indeed miracles (by definition impossible to demonstrate by humans; only caused by God, lets say). Nothing of this prevents us from governing ourselves with our accepted laws and no “universum of everything” happens.
Quote:
GOD does not exist because if the universe operates by physical laws of behavior and God violates these physical laws, then one or the other has to give. IF these physical laws can be so violated then they are not physical laws. If God can cause gravity to cease with the snap of his proverbial fingers, at any moment, then we have no reason to presume that gravity will act to attract objects of lesser mass to objects of greater mass.
Says who? I mean, i don’t believe in this, but its rational explanation – God being almighty, can put physical laws on hold and perform miracles. Maybe.
Quote:
Metaphysical theories are worthless. All that is is dressing up the term "Fantasitc and unfounded belief" in psuedo-scientific jargon to make it sound impressive.
Nonetheless, a theory, which was my point.
Quote:
The correct reading is US Atheist(as in United States Atheist).
There’s no correct reading, USA theist, it’s only what i see in it.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2005 12:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hello there, USA theist.
If you havent realized by now, i’ve been playing devil (God)’s advocate a bit (its hard to find any sane debate opponents on the forums these days if you turn up attacking His Non-existence),
Yes. I gathered as much after reading other posts you made in other threads.
Quote:
but seeing that by now i have found plenty of points of disagreement with you, i can safely return to my default atheist perspective without the fear of you running away from the debate, since you look so horny about it.
??? 
Quote:
We’re symmetrically opposite on just about every philosophical stepstone. Objective materialism vs subjective idealism. Rationalism vs empiricism. Angard!
Just a side note here but I am neither a "rationalist"(in the philosophical sense you once ranted about), nor an "objectivist"(in the Ayn Rand sense). I am definately a materialist and, to great degree, an empiricist.
Quote:
By quoting every bit of my post, you’re not being thorough, but just plain boring. I know that it’s easier to cut a human body on pieces to better deal with it, but you’re chopping every inch of it, to the point of non-recognizing what came from where.
Okay, this sounds like you are saying that I am taking something out of context(hard to tell going by your strange analogy). If so, where specifically did I do this?
Quote:
Such is with some of my sentences, and then you reply with “what?”,
Again, THAT is what the quote function is for. I have no idea what sentence & reply you are refering to so this amounts to another bald assertion(go to [url=http://www.datanation.com/fallacies]this site[/url] for more info about logical fallacies.)
Quote:
after its taken completely out of context. And also, silly and kid-like analogies wont be of use to anyone, such as the one above demonstrates.
I have no idea what you are on about here. It sounds like you are ranting about something without giving me any details that would clue me in as to what you were miffed about.
Quote:
So save it for the schoolkids; you have enough clarity of expression for me not to need such colorful examples.
Even if this were true, it is irrelevant. Analogies help EVERYONE to express and understand what is being expressed, regardless of how smart you think you are or how dumb you think I or anyone else is. It sounds to me like my analogies WORKED and you did not like what was revealed so you are tring to take some tools off the table in order to cripple my arguments. Like when mystics/anti-skeptics often tell me to "take your logic and shove it!".
Quote:
(I wouldn’t have problems when people made analogies, if it wasn’t for the fact that they rarely hit the point or are funny.)
I’ve been reading the Spirituality thread as well, but don’t think i can fly in successfully there, since there’re so many loopholes in your claims, that i don’t know where to start quoting.
I find this unsubstantiated assertion dubious. It is like someone telling an inventor "You're ideas are lousy and impractical. Don't ask me for details about which invention sucks and why because I am not into that."(there you go. ANother analogy! Hehe  ).
Quote:
And i’m not your “quote-it-all mentality” and block HC server with amazing amounts of text (and analogies).
Oh please, spare me this copout/cowardice! If you cannot support your assertions, don't make them!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It was important for the group cohesion, the metaphysical perception of the world and the group morals.
Again, irrelevant. "Metaphysical perceptions" are not necessarily...er, necessary and morals arise mostly from rational thought, fear/caution and physical reality. They are often justified through appeal to metaphysics and the supernatural but do not really arise from belief in such.
Morals arise from anything BUT rational thought. That also goes about physical reality. How the hell are morals connected to physical reality?
Morals are evolutionary adaptions. Humans have morals for the same reason we have HAIR...because we are an animal that does!
Rational thought is not the ONLY reason for morals(as you try to mischaracterize me above) but they are a source of morality. Laws are often based on moral sensibilities, which tend to change with progressive thought/culture. For example: Canada has recently been moving towards both legalization of marijuana and gay marriage. This is due to rational thought of most modern Canadians leading them to the conclusion that "blue laws"/prohibition and sexual orientation discrimination are immoral.
Nonhuman primates(such as chimps) and wolves, for example, demonstrate moral systems comparitive to primitive humanity. They have specific punishments(exile or even death) for specific crimes(stealing, murder etc.) and all of these are rooted in the same physical causes/reality as our human morals. The morals of nonhumans are not based on rational thought(more on survival instincts and fear) but huamn morality is all teh more rich and complex because of this additional source(rationality).
Quote:
The belief in supernatural itself of course doesn’t bring about morals, but they constitute a main element in the broader concept of religion (where the belief in supernatural itself is of little importance).
SO you are backtracking and agreeing with me now but do not feel up to coming out and saying this? Nice...8^)
Quote:
Thus, religion enforces morals more than any legal code ever could - exactly the aspect of religion i was talking about.
Another bald assertion. WHich religion, do you feel, "enforces morals better than any legal code ever could!" and by what criteria do you make this assessment? Also, what is the relevance of this assertion?
Quote:
Quote:
“Granted, all of these are possible without the existence of religion, but are much more harder to achieve.”
Unqualified assertion. Explain why you believe this is so.
I don’t mean to write a book on that to prove you and being the so called “skeptic” (cos you are far from it, but i’ll get to it later) you declare urself to be, even a whole library wouldn’t be enough.
Another EXCUSE?!? This is getting ridiculous. Is there ANYTHING you have asserted that you CAN prove or at least support?
Also, I am all too familiar with the "You're not a real skeptic..." line of malarky. It is ALWAYS uttered by people who have no idea what skepticism is. Go [url=http://www.skeptic.com/]HERE[/url] for a primer.
Quote:
There’re numerous historical examples which testify on the great influence of religion in terms of forming social groups and group morals.
SO? I don't disagree with this and it does not relate to anything I said.
Quote:
Religion has been the most powerful tool in that sense,
Unqualified assertion.
Also I have never denied that religion CAN BE and often IS a powerful tool in motivating people to all sorts of things(social bonds being one). The relevant question here is this: Will humans still form these social bonds and be motivated towards moral developments in the absence of religious conviction?
The obvious answer is YES. If this were not true then non-religious atheists would be filling up the prisons and be incapable of moral behavior.
Quote:
although today that influence in the West is highly diminished, but only because religious influence in secular life is strictly controlled.
That depends. Here in the U.S.(a secular country) the religious influence is downright threatening!
Quote:
But you can take the Islamic republics as proof for its potential to shape our society if you want.
Undoubtedly. But you can also see in countries like Japan and China, despite being mostly religious(though mostly atheist) that the religiosity(buddhism mostly) does not have as much influence on the morals of their society as, for example, Catholicism has on the morals of many Catholic countries.
The bottom line is that you cannot cite any single factor(such as religion) as a be-all-and-end-all cause for morality. And people with no religious influence are just as apt to have and develope moral sensibilities as anyone else.
Quote:
Quote:
A loaded question as their religion WAS their culture to great extent. The simple answer is that cultures, especially nowadays, can and DO survive without religious elements.
Have no idea why you entangled urself just later in talk about “value of cultures”,
And I have no idea what you are trying to say...?!?
Quote:
but anyway: Yes, religion is always part of the culture, but i’m attributing the survival (and much of it intact) of Jewish culture largely on religion. Almost always once a group accepted the religion of their conquerors, got assimilated into the broader religious areal. This wasn’t the case with the Jews, who stand as unprecedented example in history for withstanding assimilation all over Europe even in such small isolated communities. Only because of religion. On the other hand, those Jews who accepted other religions, got assimilated very fast.
I am not sure what you are trying to get across here either. Judaism itself is largely a hodgepodge mixture of "borrowed" elements of Summerian, Babylonian and Egyptian religious mythologies, which is not surprising since the jews were captives of all of the above at one time or another. So they are not unique at all in this regard.
Likewise, many black americans today have adapted the religion of their former captors(the Christianity of white Europeans/Americans) but this has diminished greatly, so that today there are black muslims(such as the Nation of Islam) who have tweaked Islam beyond all recognition by supplanting UFOlogy(the mother wheel etc.), the native America "Ghost Dance" myth(the wrath of the Mother Wheel), African animist beliefs etc.
Judaism, like all religions(with the possible exception of Catholicism ), is constantly evolving and has been for millenia.
Quote:
Quote:
But neither the "religious people are more persistent", nor the "Blondes have more fun!" assertions are demonstrated, objective truths.
I noticed you want to toy with the term “objective truth” and how to prove it. Newsflash, there is no such thing.
NEWSFLASH! Yes there IS!(See? ANyone can spout a bald assertion! Does mine above convicne YOU of anything?)
This goes back to the axioms again and, as I said before, I do not engage in pointless debates over axiomatic positions such as idealism vs. materialism or solopsism vs, everything else. Axiomatic positions arte not debateable. They are regarded as "necessary assumptions" we ALL must have in order to proceed with learning/understanding.
Quote:
I posited a largely logical sentence why it is so, some tests may have also been done, dunno, but if you want this debate to have any future, then you don’t want me to ask you to “objectively” prove your claims every time you make one.
Again, if it is your axiom that all we opbserve is illusory or we cannot trust ANY information obtained via the senses or what have you, then I cannot say or do anything to change this. Your position is a sort of unfalsifiable hypothesis and is therefore "safe" from critical examination.
Likewise, I cannot prove that objective reality exists to a believer in such axioms. The best I can do is point out that you stub your toe on the same rocks, whether you believe the rocks exist or not and you will be run over by an oncoming truck reagrdless of what you say you believe or do not believe.
Quote:
As a further piece of proof though, it’s not a coincidence that the most elite orders in the Middle Ages were composed of the most fervent of believers, not the most fervent of skeptics. Take suicide terrorists and mujahedins also, i don’t think they share your views on atheism really.
???
Another bald assertion(not saying it is false BTW, just that you did not bother to substantiate this) and what is your point here? How is this "further proof" of ANYTHING you have said?
Quote:
Quote:
"Centrist view"...? […]
Science takes for granted that the supernatural(including gods) does not exist because science is bound by logic and it is logically fallacious to assume the existence of such things. Therefore, until they are shown to exist, the claims for such are FALSE.
Forgive me for calling your view “centrist”. I was too soft; what you’re claiming on these boards is equal to intellectual fascism.
*Yawn*
Countdown to "Hitler" comparison in 3, 2, 1...
Quote:
First, science is not bound by logic, science is bound by experience (experiments).
Nonsense. Go study science before commenting on it.
As an example of how the boundires of logic apply to science, Rules of inference are just another term for "Occam's Razor"(a principle of logic). Almost the entire scientific methodology is tied up in logic.
Yes, experiemnts are an integral component of said method. So?
Quote:
Second, it’s not “logically fallacious” to assume the existence of gods (which logical law does it break?),
It IS logically fallacious because there is nothing to infer the existence of supernatural gods(unless you are slipping in a different usage now of either "Gods" or "believe"...?). It is akin to seeing a broken window and from this sole fact(that the window is broken) ariving at the conclusion that a jabberwocky must have shattered the window with it's deafening roar.
Before you even start in on the analogy, ask yourself if assuming the existence of "God(s)"(such as the CHristian God or the ancient Greek gods) is any sillier than assuming the existence of the jabberwocky.
That is the point of the analogy. If it is ridiculous and fallacous to assume the existence of ONE extraordinary, supernatural entity, then it is equally fallacious to assume the existence of even GREATER(omnipotent, omnipresent) entities who share an identical lack of evidence/inference.
Science treats such claims(including supernatural gods) as "FALSE" by default. This does not stop some scientists from believing in God. They just recognise that, by the standards of SCIENCE, there Gods do not exist.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", to quote a famous scientific mind.
Quote:
it’s just that no one has yet empirically confirmed such a thing. And third, the fact that no one hasn’t demonstrated/proven smth yet, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. For all that i agree with you, this is your one really nonesense claim. Take gravitons for example – they arent proven yet, but many scientists are pretty certain that they exist. So what happens when (prolly) we discover them – will they suddenly be created then? What about extra-terrestrial life?
You are going off in ten different directions here. In general, you are correct that not being proven to exist(yet) does not mean that something definately does NOT exist. No one here is arguing otherwise.
But there is a GREAT difference between "extraterrestrials" and "gods" and "gravitons".
I do not believe that extraterrestrial life(assuming comparable or better intelligence/tech level to humans) exists because there is no evidence indicating such a thing(yet) and I see no reason to assume such a thing.
I do NOT, however, say that extraterrestrials themselves are impossible. These are NOT "extraordinary claims".
I DO say that supernatural things(such as gods adn ghosts) are IMPOSSIBLE , just as SCIENCE ITSELF rules these out. There are problems with both logic and our general knowledge of how the universe operates in regards to these claims. SImply put, we do NOT live in a "supernatural universe" or an "ANything is possible" universe.
Gravitons may not be "proven" but they are LIKELY based on the evidence we have.
Quote:
Quote:
It hasn’t been “shown to exist” (to use ur own words), but its only reasonable to believe that in this huge universe there’re some little green creatures with antenaes somewhere.
False. The size of the universe does NOT, in itself indicate that such things are probable or likely. This is a poor argument. It is like saying "Of all the MILLIONS of automobiles on the earth, it is only reasonable to assume SOME of them run on pea soup instead of gasoline or electricity. It may well be possible to run a car on pea soup one day but at this time, regardless of the number of autos on the planet, it is fallacious to assume that some cars DO.
Quote:
If you lived in Ancient Greece, and someone talked to you about electric current and electrons, you’d place it in the area of the spiritual, and claim that it doesn’t exist since Greek science cant show it exists.
Greek science was more advanced than people often realize. As early as 500 BC, Greek scientists knew that the Earth was spherical and not flat. Also the first two piston steam engine was developed in the Library of Alexandria, around two millenia ago.
But back on point: Your argument is a false analogy as you cannot rightly compare the scientifc understanding of TODAY with "ancient Greece". You are making a God of the gaps argument to boot. Just because we once did not understand electricity and we now DO, does not mean that we may someday come to understand logically contradcitory and impossible things such as gods or Santa CLaus though we do not NOW see them.
This argument works equally poorly for "geneies", fairies", Sorcerors, and dragons but I NEVER hear someone trotting this chestnut out for such things!?
Quote:
Imagine that we didn’t have eyes and ears, but were equally intelligent.
That is akin to trying to imagine we had no arms but were equally capable of tool construction and use. The brain did not develope in a vacuum, without the simultaneous physical developments of eyes and ears and such.
Quote:
The same USAtheist would probably claim that there’s no such thing as light or sound, no such thing as colours, if say a creature with all five senses came and told that to us.
IF we had no eyes or ears, how would he "tell us" that?
You are making my case for me here. The thing about the "beyond our reality" or "beyond our ability to percieve" arguments that adherants fail to grasp is that such postulations cut both ways. If our senses and science are "too limited" to percieve the evidence, then we are also without any basis to infer the existence of such.
Our five sense are the only means we have of percieving reality(until someone discovers some other means) and we process this data with our brains(not a "piece of magic").
Something which is "beyond our reality" or "beyond matter" is STILL non-existent FOR US(even IF the contention were true that it existed in "some other reality").
Quote:
That is sooo not in line with the materialist objectiveness that you forward, since objectiveness is all about what there really is, no matter how people perceive it.
Yes, then by this definition, I am an objective materialist. What is it that is "sooo not in line..." that you are(assumedly) attributing to me?
Quote:
How can one be so arrogant as to think people have evolved so much to be able to detect all reality there is.
Oh GAWD!! The "arrogance" charge...AGAIN!?!? And this is also a [url=http://www.datanation.com/fallacies]strawman[/url]. No one was arguing any such "people have evolved so much..." nonsense.
You also have a misunderstanding of evolution to boot as evolution does NOT = "progress", it = "change". AN adaption that kills off a species is STILL evolution, just as one that enables it to survive.
Quote:
Shake your head Human – you’re nothing but a half-learned ape, with an overly developed ego. Nothing personal, of course.
I am starting to get the idea that personal attacks, followed by "I meant nothing by it of course" type folow-ups are the modus operandi here.
Quote:
Quote:
It is not that I am being "partial" or biased or unobjective. It is just that I operate from the materialist axiom which is the only one that makes any sense according to observation. The rest...idealism and whatnot, are unfalsifiable hypothesis without regards for rules of inference.
“Its not that I’m being partial, it’s just that I operate with one axiom discarding all the others.” That’s a good one.
If you are going to quote ME, then quote what I say, without alterations. Last time I will warn about that, kiddo.
Also, look up the definition of "axiom"(not the mathematical one but the philosophical one) adn explain to us how ANYONE either lacks an axiomatic position or does NOT "discount all others".
Quote:
Its not true that idealism is opposite to all common sense and prevents any functioning systems.
That was not what I said. You are attempting more strawmen it seems.
Quote:
The difference is that they are idealistic systems, not materialistic ones.
And I refer you back to my earlier point about axioms being "necessary assumptions". They are NOT at ALL subject to "proof" or substantiation. IF they were then they would not be axiomatic(we would just keep requesting "Well, how do you know THAT?" in infinite regression).
Quote:
I’ll use one nice formulation by you, which i find completely true, to explain my position better: “ MAterialism is not contradicted by the actions/behaviors of materialists but idealists and such must behave as if materialism is TRUE in order to get anything done” Yes, so? There’s no materialist sin here. I create in my mind, since the very first day I’m born a complete world which functions according to all (and exclusively) materialist principles, so the practical implications are just the same for me as any other materialist. But that doesn’t change the fact that this world only exist in my conscience and through my senses.
You are not making sense here. If it exists only through YOUR conscious mind and senses, but not objectively so for everyone else, regardless of what you believe/dream up, then why is there any concurrence of observation and experience? Why do we walk AROUND the same trees even though I do not use YOUR mind or YOUR senses? Why can't you walk THROUGH the brick walls that only exist in MY conscious mind or through MY senses?
Furthermore, this speculation is a 'cart-before-horse' bit of nonsense that completely does away with causation. We should not expect things to occur sequentially in an idealist universe the way they do. If your mind is creating matter then there is no reason why your senses would have developed at all. What need is there for eyes and ears if the things they percieve are being conjured by the mind? Saying that "X exists because I see it." is like saying that "I threw the baseball because he caught it.". Nonsense all around.
Quote:
What you are doing however, is turning the picture upside down. You urself say that the reason for ur materialist worldview are “sense” and “observation”, which are idealist categories.
False and DOUBLE FAULT!. I never said that there was any such reason for my being a materialist. Axioms are not subject to such reasoning. I merely pointed out that, as a materialist, I do not have to posit bizarre rationalizations and impossible twists of logic in order to be so. Observation is entirely consistent with materialism.
However, idealism and such are NOT. That is why you have to go to such great lengths to try and make idealism "fit" with what you observe. You admittedly behave in every way as though materialism were the truth but only posit these bizarre ideas in order to maintain your opposition to the what you obviously realize.
The tree in my yard will not vanish when I die. The walls of your house will not disapear when YOU die or go to sleep. You can put a video camera on things you are not observing or thinking about and it will record the same observations you would have if you were there.
Quote:
Don’t tell me now that they are flesh induced, since that idea also is grasped again by the same concepts.
No idea what you mean by that.
Quote:
Anyway, I can quite clearly forgive you and understand your materialism though.
Oh how saintly of you. I will forgive you as well and completely understand that not everyone is subject to a good education or developing critical thinking skills.
Quote:
Quote:
Even if we don’t agree, our positions here differ slightly.
Quote:
“In a similar way, a religious person could claim that you neglect a crucial side of your being, the need for religion as a natural necessary predisposition, and on top of that, disrespect God’s laws and demands, which are to be superior to any earthly pieces of scrap, which men choose to call laws. For such a crime you could be hanged, what in fact was the case well into the 18th century. “
Yes, a religionist could say such things. SO? They can also claim that automotive engine failure is caused by gremlins but what is the point?!
This is where your intellectual fascism comes into play. For religious people intuitive cognition is more valid than rational (for you), but for me both step aside in favor of empirical cognition. These basic axiomic standards are all equally valid.
False. "Intuition" is NOT anywhere NEAR the religability of reason/rationality. If it were then we would alllow police to operate by their "intuition" when determining if a crime is commited and what the appropriate action would be. In the past this has usually led to innocent people shot down here in the U.S. which is why we have strict protocols and laws that dictate the use of rationality/reason rather than "If he seems suspicious, SHOOT HIM!".
Can you possibly demonstrate how intuition is as consistent/religable as rationality? Also please describe the mechanism behind "intuition" if you could.
I am sure I have no idea what YOU mean by "empirical cognition".
Quote:
Now, i feel your pain since the “equally valid” term seems inconsistent with the logic of things, but that’s the agony every objectivist has to endure. Either that, or succumb to “centrist” views that his position is the only valid one, what you seem to have already done. Went to the Dark Side.
You are again, not making sense. The very nature of axiomatic positions such as materialism and idealism is that we MUST choose ONE adn assume it is 100% TRUE in order to get on with the learning/understanding our reality. Saying "They are all valid." is the same as saying "I don't have an axiomatic position." adn saying this would leagve you with no foundation from which to learn ANYTHING.
Quote:
Quote:
I do not "believe" in "the FACTS". I AKNOWLEDGE facts. Facts, by definition, are things that do not NEED "belief".
Oh dear. Yes, you believe. It’s a belief supported by your rational judgment, call it how u like, but nonetheless a belief. U seem to like downgrading the word “believing” to only relate to someone accepting supernatural stuff as reality, and elevating yourself to “acknowledging” the correct and only ones and never-changing FACTS.
Wrong. In debates and discussions, it is proper that all terms being used be clearly defined and differentiated from one another. Otherwise we would have no way of understanding a damned thing being said. IF I define "Woman" as being either a female human, a plastic boat, a movie, a bowl of soup or a UFO, then how are you to understand what I mean when I say "I saw a woman the other day."?
Likewise, if "belief" can be either a rationally substantiated aknowledgement, a completely unsubstantiated religious belief, a delusion or what have you, then how are we supposed to understand each other when we incoke these terms unless we go about redefining the term for every instance of it's usage?
Since it is traditional and common to define convictions without rational justification as "beliefs" adn NOT common to define objective observations and such as beliefs, I am not going to go about causing a bunch of unecessary confusion by radically redefining the terms to appease YOU. Just because YOU would find your "beliefs" labeled as "facts" flattering and my facts/observations/aknowledgements labeled as "beliefs" a nice dig at me, is no reason to engage in such nonsense.
Quote:
But lets not turn this into a game of semantics.
Too late. In spite of my trying to avoid such by clearly defining terms, you have taken the debate there.
Quote:
Btw, havent you heard, facts don’t really exist.
Independently? No they do not. What is your point? Objects exist adn the behaviors of these objects are attributed to immutable physical laws and from these circumstances, we derive facts of existence.
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, science has little to do with faith only for the scientists (and even that’s discussable), but for normal people who don’t take their time to empirically confirm what they read in books is all about faith and finding logic in that faith… what is not at all different from religion, since theologists also strive to find logic in the faith.”
Irrelevant. I do not have "faith". Never touch the stuff. "Faith" is not something necessary to human existence or to our survival. It is not even an objective, explainable phenomenon by any stretch. "Faith" is irrational conviction.
You completely avoided the point. I asked you about your strong conviction in the facts. Arent they based on your faith/blind belief in what you read (assuming you’re not a scientists dealing with it directly).
No, they are NOT! That is what I am trying to get through to you! I do not have "faith". I NEVER, EVER rely on "faith". I have NO USE for such stuff. Now if you are trying another semantic game of redefining "observation and experiment" to mean the same thing as "Having faith", then good luck to you. I won't be engaging in such wankery though.
For example: It takes "faith" to believe in God. THis is because there is nothing to warrant the inference of God in our universe. It does not take ANY "faith" to accept that the chair I am sitting in will continue to support my weight. This is a reasonable inference based on repeated observation and experiment. Same goes for the sun rising tomorrow! No faith is necessary to accept/conclude that the sun will probably rise tomorrow(if it doesn't, then I won't be around to wonder why now will I?).
Quote:
And before you quack, no it’s not rational, since its also completely rational to read somewhere that that-and-that lake was created by a giant comet, and not by tectonic rifts, say. There’s no way u can know unless you set onto examining the lake urself.
Wrong. I can study geology and easily determine if any lakes were more or less likely to have been formed by comets than tectonic rifts.
Quote:
That’s why you have to rely in faith of what the scientists tell you.
Wrong again! If I simply had "faith" in what scientists told me then I would be equally able to believe a scientist who said that "God created the universe" as I would one who said the big bang was responsible(with or without any alleged gods).
Quote:
Quote:
A number of fallacies here:
1)Being a "Scientist" does NOT infer some degree of intelligence(it does not, by virtue of being a scientist, make one "smarter"(than a non-scientist).
2)Yes. You CAN understand enough about physics to rule out certain things as impossible. For example: I have ruled out "fog mobiles" and unless you can demonstrate driving around in a car made entirely of fog, they remain impossible.
3)The argument that 'there have been scientists who had beliefs that were later proven false, therefore all scientific facts may be false!', is nonsense. It is like saying "I know politicians who were liberal but changed their minds and became conservative. Therefore, ALL political ideas may be wrong!".
1) sorry, i meant “smarter” as more experienced and knowledgeable, not as more intelligent.
Regardless, being a scientist, in and of itself, does not make you "more experineced and knowledgeable" either.
Quote:
2) See under the paragraph where i talk about proving things, ur centrist views and arrogance. By saying what you say, it’s clear to me that you don’t understand enough about physics. Somewhere i read that you consider a fact that time travel is not possible, earth is not flat and there’re no detectable energy auras radiating from human beings. All ur supposed facts are false, proven by science. Einstein’s theory of relativity provides theoretical possibility for time travel [see thread [url= http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?FID=10&TID=15761]Time Travel[/url],
Bull. Time travel is impossible for reasons of simple logic, which is illustrated profoundly by the causeality paradox(aka the "Granfather clause"). If I go back in time to kill my grandfather so that I was never born, then I could never have gone back in time to kill my grandfather. So I will be born and can gopnback in time to kill my grandfather...ad infinitum.
There is ano logical answer to this. As long as the paradox exists, time travel is theoretically and physically impossible.
I will check out your thread as I am anxious to see what sort of whacky misunderstandings of Einstein's work have given rise to such sillyness.
Quote:
a flat earth model is perfectly viable (only the space would have to be curved),
No it isn't. You will have to do better than this simple assertion to make it so. Curved space would not cause a traveller sailing beyond the horizon to continue around the world and eventually reach the starting point of his journey. If you are attempting to curve space so muchy that the earth behaves in every way as a spherical/elipsoid object, then my point stands.
Quote:
and energy auras radiating from humans are electro-magnetic waves, also known as common heat, perfectly detectable by infra-red cameras and such (u can put ur palms very closely to one another to feel it as well).
False. No one was claiming that the body generated "heat" and no one disputed this. Conan claimed he could see, with his naked eyes, "auras" which he described to be FAR different than simple heat emissions(he said they came in different colors depending on a person's mood and that he could manipulate this energy to physically heal people).
Nice try though .
Quote:
Before Einstein, most sane people would claim time travel is only fiction. This is an excellent example how people know sh!t about reality, including both of us.
Yeah...right. I think I made my point here.
Quote:
Ps: “Fog mobiles’ could be possible some day, when we learn how to control ionized vapour atoms with electro-magnetic fields, why not. Possibilities of science are boundless.
The possibilities of science are NOT "boundless". If they were tehn we would be living in an "anything is possible" universe and therefore could never know ANYTHING with ANY degree of certainty. When you thought you were feeding your child you would be just as equally likely to be slaughtering the infant or polishing a giant mushroom.
When you learn how to control ionized vapour atoms, let me know and we will discuss how this applies to "fog mobiles". It sounds like you are saying we may one day be able to change fog into matter but this would go AGAINST the claims you are making if this is what you are saying?
Quote:
3) u r perfectly correct rephrasing me here. We must retain the possibility that each and every scientific theory could be proven false. It’s also true about political ideas. But of course, you think that the liberals are the best and their ideas are indeed rationally better than all the other parties’, i assume.
Nope. Not sure what this has to do with anything here but liberals tend to hate me as much as conservatives because I am not dogmatic. I don't buy silly liberal ideas anymore than I buy silly conservative ones. I dislike Bush because he is a moron, not because he is a conservative.
Quote:
Quote:
The existence of Hell is not infered by any concurrent observation, testing, or empirical evidence. It cannot be falsified as a scientific theory must be and so the idea is no more worth my assent than the idea that the moon is made of cheese.
Aha, correct! I notice an evolution in your stance. You don’t say that you can disprove it, you just say that the idea is not worth attention, but still that leaves a place for it being true.
No...you misunderstand. Ideas that are not worth my assent are, by default "false". If they are so ridiculous and counrary to every observation we can make then they cannot be true. Hell does not exist. PERIOD. If you can prove ottherwise, then I will gladly change my mind but I am betting my house that you cannot adn isntead will offer a bunch of excuses.
"Hell" is an extraordinary claim adn therefore is FALSE until extraordinary evidence is provided.
"I have a tree in my yard" is an ORDINARY CLAIM and is considered likely true by the anecdotal evidence alone.
See the difference?
Quote:
That is true skeptical reasoning. Anyway, its evident that with this reasoning we’re stuck with so many possible alternatives of reality, that its difficult to choose the right one (so people often resort to materialism). Have you heard of Schroedinger’s cats?
Yes. I have heard mystic types try adn use his cats to prove one bit of nonsense or the other but never convincingly.
Quote:
It’s a principle that says that whenever more models are possible to explain reality we choose to use the most simple model (not ruling out the other ones). In our case, its more simple to believe that Hell isnt down there, since nothing points to it, so we adopt that model. Notice i’m talking about models of reality all the time, and not facts. Therefore it’s unbelievable to me the way you agreed with bort’s post in the other thread which spoke about models of describing reality, when in fact it’s so opposite to your objectivist view of matter.
*Sigh* You seem to be reading too much INTO some posts and not enough into others. Trying to twist every statement to fit your own dogma. I have been conssitent in my views as one can be.
Quote:
Quote:
If you postulate that there is something other than reason by which we can understand such "truths" or some "other logic" by which "other realities" operate, then please show us. DO not use reason to explain it to me. "Faith me" the understanding. SHow me how feet can be used to think and eyeballs chew food for example or show me how how things shrink while getting more massive in both area and denisty/mass. SHow me how something can be bopth 'A' and 'Not A' at the same time.
Until you can do THAT, there is only the logic we use and the reality we observe.
Of course I cant, but that was just a possible rationalist explanation of how it is possible the Christian God to exist and have all the alleged properties from the Bible. I don’t consider it valid either, but it is with a 0,00…001% possibility possible.
No, it is not. You are under the impression that all things are, to some degree, possible when this is clearly not the case and I can easily demonstrate why this is so.
Things that are statistically unlikely, even HIGHLY so, MUST still occur from time to time(otherwise THAT would be an even greater statistical unlikelyhood than the other unlikelyhoods themselves!).
For example, someone catching a nearly impossible to catch thrown object such as a lit cigarette flicked past their face is unlikely. When I was young(and a smoker) I did this. The smoke was down to the filter adn teh guy flicked it past my face while I was talking to a girl. I casually, without halting a word of my dialogue, snatched the burning cig' out of the air by the filter and everyone's jaw dropped.
Highly unlikely but still possible, therefore it happens.
But catching a full clip of submachine gun bullets with your bare teeth is impossible. Such a thing has never happened and never will happen(prove me wrong!) because it is physically impossible to do. You can try to fudge things to make a claim that it is 0.0000...000% likely all you want but it will never happen and this claim would be FAR less extraordinary than God's existence.
If it were even 0.000000000000000000000001% likely that a werewolves existed, then we would have caught one by now or had strong indirect observations/evidence of one or more. To argue otherwise is an even greater statistical unlikelihood than the aforementioned werewolves.
Some things are impossible. Even if we are not fully aware of all the impossibilities that are so, the remain impossible. Since I know from simple logic that some things are necessarily impossible, I can deduce that the things which would be so would be extraordinary claims that lack extraordinary evidence.
It would make no sense to deduce otherwise.
Quote:
My point was to disprove your unfounded attempt to disprove the Christian God.
Well, you failed...but thanks for playing!
Incidentally, you seem to be hawking a "nothing is certain" position, no? If so then how do you reconcile this with your certainty that nothing is certain?
The rest of your nonsense and taunts and insulots will have to wait as I have things to do now...
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
DragonMaster
Known Hero
Master of Dragons
|
|
posted September 28, 2005 02:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Angard!
is that En garde ?
Just wanna know, so I wont get the wrong idea here
____________
Fire is not a dragons only strength, so don't come to close to it's mouth, when he is not flammable.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted September 30, 2005 02:45 AM |
|
|
Contradictions
Ok, as a warm-up let me offer a small selection of noted contradictions by you.
“Just a side note here but I am neither a "rationalist"(in the philosophical sense you once ranted about), nor an "objectivist"(in the Ayn Rand sense).”
Lets see how rationalist you really are. Looked up definitions:
 Rationalism - a system of thought that emphasizes the role of reason in obtaining knowledge, in contrast to empiricism, which emphasizes the role of experience, especially sense perception.
Logic - science dealing with the principles of valid reasoning and argument.
Your quote: “Almost the entire scientific methodology is tied up in logic.”, and that’s beside the fact that you call upon logic all of the time.
Lets see how non-objectivist you really are.
“Ergo, there IS an objective reality.”
“Objects exist adn the behaviors of these objects are attributed to immutable physical laws and from these circumstances, we derive facts of existence.”
And these two are my favs:
“In general, you are correct that not being proven to exist(yet) does not mean that something definately does NOT exist. No one here is arguing otherwise.”
Confronted by:
”Science takes for granted that the supernatural(including gods) does not exist because science is bound by logic and it is logically fallacious to assume the existence of such things. Therefore, until they are shown to exist, the claims for such are FALSE.”
And another one to confirm that this wasn’t just a slip-up:
”If they are so ridiculous and counrary to every observation we can make then they cannot be true.”
Now, on with the debate points: (trying to avoid pointless discussion as much as possible)
Quote:
Canada has recently been moving towards both legalization of marijuana and gay marriage. This is due to rational thought of most modern Canadians leading them to the conclusion that "blue laws"/prohibition and sexual orientation discrimination are immoral.
That would mean “early” Canadians were incapable of rational thinking. Also, what to do with all those rational people from history whose rational thinking never helped them realize that sexual discrimination is immoral. Just the opposite, even the greatest rationalist thinkers in history have never gone so far as to even contemplate this issue. This rationalisty theory (comng from someone declaring himself “non-rationalist”) has so many loopholes to cover, so i don’t want to start a lengthy debate with you about yet another topic. Then you go on about animals “having moral systems comparative to early humans”, and the difference between the two constituting in the addition of the rationality element to the former, which is as scientific as a wild guess from someone never dealing with social anthropology.
Quote:
The bottom line is that you cannot cite any single factor(such as religion) as a be-all-and-end-all cause for morality. And people with no religious influence are just as apt to have and develope moral sensibilities as anyone else.
Never denied that. Just said that religious morality is the strongest, socially. Which i supported with examples, just for you to arbitrarily reject them. As I said, quoting it and writing random words beneath it, doesn’t mean you dealt with the argument.
Quote:
I do not engage in pointless debates over axiomatic positions such as idealism vs. materialism or solopsism vs, everything else. Axiomatic positions arte not debateable.
No, you just enforce yours and think everybody else should have it, otherwise they are not right, don’t live in reality, believe in hodoo-wodoo etc. Here shows up ur intellectual fascism.
Quote:
Also, look up the definition of "axiom"(not the mathematical one but the philosophical one) adn explain to us how ANYONE either lacks an axiomatic position or does NOT "discount all others".
Someone who lacks an axiomatic position is called skeptic or nihilist (that’s why u r not the self-proclaimed skeptic), and someone who doesn’t discount all the other axioms, wouldn’t go on forums ridiculing people for their believes (” If they are so ridiculous and countrary to every observation we can make ”) and persuading them that they’re wrong to believe so.
Quote:
The very nature of axiomatic positions such as materialism and idealism is that we MUST choose ONE adn assume it is 100% TRUE in order to get on with the learning/understanding our reality.
Really, we do? Good then, we should urgently implement mass education program to school people who have never heard or thought of either before and indoctrinate one of these two axiomatic positions, if any hope of these people (and kids) of ever learning smth new is to remain.
Quote:
” Second, it’s not “logically fallacious” to assume the existence of gods (which logical law does it break?),”
It IS logically fallacious because there is nothing to infer the existence of supernatural gods.
Logically fallacious means there has to be some logical inconsistency. There isnt.
Second, I said “assume”, not “prove”. In logic likewise:
I’m saying: “It’s not logically falicious to assume that claim p is truth, if we know nothing about p”. i.e. If we know nothing about claim p, p can be either TRUE or FALSE.
You’re saying: Claim p is “logically fallicious to be TRUE, because you cant infer it’s truthfulness”. i.e. Claim p is FALSE, because you cant prove its TRUE.
Anyone with minimum common sense will see for themselves the logical flaws in what we claim.
Quote:
I do NOT, however, say that extraterrestrials themselves are impossible. These are NOT "extraordinary claims".
Yes, we do see extraterrestrials ordinarily when we go to the supermarket and such. (ur quote:”Therefore, until they are shown to exist, the claims for such are FALSE.”) So, the claim that they exist is false, yes? But you also just said that they are possible. Wow, i guess there really are some non-standard logical systems where both “A” and “Not A” are possible, such as yours.
Quote:
Gravitons may not be "proven" but they are LIKELY based on the evidence we have.
Ok, about gravitons – they are imaginary particles that no one has registered so far. Certainly they are not ordinary. And even more certainly they are not shown to exist. And now ur by now famous quote again:”Therefore, until they are shown to exist, the claims for such are FALSE.” Is it FALSE or LIKELY? Try this definition with LIKELY, sounds so much better.
Quote:
The size of the universe does NOT, in itself indicate that such things are probable or likely. This is a poor argument. It is like saying "Of all the MILLIONS of automobiles on the earth, it is only reasonable to assume SOME of them run on pea soup instead of gasoline or electricity.” It may well be possible to run a car on pea soup one day but at this time, regardless of the number of autos on the planet, it is fallacious to assume that some cars DO.
The equivalent being: “It may well be possible that green creatures with antenae will exist one day but at this time, regardless of the size of the universe, it is fallacious to assume that somewhere they DO exist.”? Plain stupid.
Quote:
Something which is "beyond our reality" or "beyond matter" is STILL non-existent FOR US(even IF the contention were true that it existed in "some other reality").
Now, this one completely agrees with what I’ve been saying all the time (notice FOR US). Welcome to the subjective idealists club.
But just in the next paragraph you say: “Yes, then by this definition (“objectiveness is all about what there really is, no matter how people perceive it”, which i suggested), I am an objective materialist.” AGAIN, a contradiction.
Quote:
If it exists only through YOUR conscious mind and senses, but not objectively so for everyone else, regardless of what you believe/dream up, then why is there any concurrence of observation and experience? Why do we walk AROUND the same trees even though I do not use YOUR mind or YOUR senses? Why can't you walk THROUGH the brick walls that only exist in MY conscious mind or through MY senses?
For me, you also exist through my senses and consciousness only. If I had both our perspectives that could be a stronger argument that the world is indeed objective, but i don’t.
Quote:
If your mind is creating matter then there is no reason why your senses would have developed at all. What need is there for eyes and ears if the things they percieve are being conjured by the mind? Saying that "X exists because I see it." is like saying that "I threw the baseball because he caught it.". Nonsense all around.
My mind isnt certainly creating matter. That’s a typically objectivist assumption to think that the mind creates the world and destroys it, depending on whether one looks at smth or not. My mind simply detects something, which I have no way to know what it really is, only get ideas, which are necessarily subjective. In this sense, I do not claim the objective world doesn’t exist, but the only thing I can be sure of is its subjective reflection in my mind. Also, i do not claim spiritual substance exists, as I have no way of defining what my perceptions are really constituted of.
Quote:
False. "Intuition" is NOT anywhere NEAR the religability of reason/rationality.
Your rationalist mindset uses likewise rationalist criterias for determining reliability. However, for someone depending on intuitive cognition, rationalist/logical reasons why so, arent needed.
[concerning the example with the policemen] How society functions is a whole different thing. Animals function largely on intuition – is their system then more close to natural reality? No; same goes for humans.
[concerning the lake example] If you study geology as you study relativity, you would take an entire lifetime to determine whether that said lake was created by comet or tectonic rifts. Point was (and i feel really silly repeating it for the third time for you), you cant study all sciences and know everything by personally assuring that the said info is correct. What part of that is so hard to understand?
Quote:
No it isn't. You will have to do better than this simple assertion to make it so. Curved space would not cause a traveller sailing beyond the horizon to continue around the world and eventually reach the starting point of his journey. If you are attempting to curve space so muchy that the earth behaves in every way as a spherical/elipsoid object, then my point stands
With all respect, I’ve studied this model pretty thoroughly (resolving all kinds of “anomalies” within) and i’m not gonna waste my time explaining it now to someone who has no idea about it. Believe it, if you want, why do i care. No one’s paying me to teach you and u seem unwilling to learn anyway.
Quote:
Incidentally, you seem to be hawking a "nothing is certain" position, no?
Really saddens me at the end to see that you havent even understood my position. What i’m saying is that nothing is objectively certain. Of course, i’m certain in my own perceptions.
Ur entire case is based on so many wrong assumptions, such as: “Assuming supernatural/extraordinary things is logically contradictory and impossible.” Proven with the logic example, not true. “If something isnt detected by science, it doesn’t exist objectively.” Proven through the many contradictions I pointed – false. Without these two crucial nut points, ur case looks like a castrated penis, lengthy and cocky, but lost all its sense.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2005 03:22 PM |
|
|
clarification
Quote:
Canada has recently been moving towards both legalization of marijuana and gay marriage.
Just to clarify that we are not moving in the same direction as say Holland. We are not talking about smoking Marijuana in Canada for fun; we are debating whether the terminally ill should have the right to use this in a medicinal way. The government would issue licenses in such a case.
sorry for interrupting.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
DragonMaster
Known Hero
Master of Dragons
|
posted September 30, 2005 03:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Canada has recently been moving towards both legalization of marijuana and gay marriage.
Just to clarify that we are not moving in the same direction as say Holland. We are not talking about smoking Marijuana in Canada for fun; we are debating whether the terminally ill should have the right to use this in a medicinal way. The government would issue licenses in such a case.
sorry for interrupting.
What's wrong with Holland?
Gay marriage is available because Holland has understood what country's like the US are far from understanding, that sex isn't important in marriage.
Next to that, marijuana is legal as it is not a danger to health (it is to sanity but not to health) and therefore is allowed to be used in the privacy of your own home of coffee-shops with a permit.
As soon as you carry too much, or offer it to other people, it is illegal.
As you can see, Holland is not a country who just lets people do their thing, they do have laws attached.
____________
Fire is not a dragons only strength, so don't come to close to it's mouth, when he is not flammable.
|
| |
|
|
