The Invalidity of Atheism
A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid. We look and that is what we see. Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself. Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion.
Theism offers an explanation for our existence, atheism offers no explanations of its own, a weaker position. Naturalism is the counter-position to theism, atheism occupying a non-existent middle ground. The majority of the world's scientists, academics, etc. are not atheists accepting religion for what it is, Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria an example.
If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths. They would have nothing to talk about. Atheism is in being a-theistic making them a-theists.
The invalidity of atheism does not validate theism, as naturalism may still be right, but atheism needs to be invalid for theism to be right.
Anyhow, why should we listen to those who reject a God (a relatively simple addon) but then continue to believe in mermaids, unicorns etc.
Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left).
Theism offers an explanation for our existence, atheism offers no explanations of its own, a weaker position. Naturalism is the counter-position to theism, atheism occupying a non-existent middle ground. The majority of the world's scientists, academics, etc. are not atheists accepting religion for what it is, Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria an example.
If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths. They would have nothing to talk about. Atheism is in being a-theistic making them a-theists.
The invalidity of atheism does not validate theism, as naturalism may still be right, but atheism needs to be invalid for theism to be right.
Anyhow, why should we listen to those who reject a God (a relatively simple addon) but then continue to believe in mermaids, unicorns etc.
Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left).
Comments (1357)
The Cold War communist standards at the time. Oswald would have needed to believe he was doing something good and would become famous because of his actions. The reality is that had his plans worked out and he escaped he probably would have been successfully extradited from whatever country he took shelter in.
I see no difference between the actions, discoveries and utility of science and the actions, discovery and utility of the spear. Natural progression is a term that fits better with terms like 'evolution' and 'natural selection,' not science, in my opinion.
Quoting Gregory A
Humans do science, science makes discoveries, humans like discoveries, you can play with the order any way you like. You add nor subtract anything of significance by doing so.
Quoting Gregory A
I do not consider myself a 'Brit,' I am Scottish. The need for acclamation is not cultural or national, it is individual. I watched a series on the humble Amish and even within their community there are those who are 'more acclaimed' within the Amish community itself, compared to others in the same community and some of those more acclaimed individuals seemed to covet their influential status.
The caricature of the arrogant fame/wealth/power-seeking American is well known if not indeed exaggerated and conflated as all caricatures of nationality, normally are.
Look it up on your Google Machine.
You boys are getting all icky together.
Nasty mfs.
I don't hear scientists call any science book 'holy,' they prove this by constantly challenging and reviewing their contents. If science acted as religion does then you would most likely be a scientific apostate and under some scientific law (like sharia law in Islam) you could be killed for your scientific torus heresy.
Quoting EugeneW
This just comes from your own musings EugeneW. This is an example of the kind of typing from you that I DO think is based on your bitterness towards the current influential Cosmologists not responding to you with the consideration you feel you deserve. The DIMP guy and the Klien Bottle/Mobius guy felt the exact same way as you do minus your wink towards theism.
Maybe he was just a nutter or a patsy as he claimed.
Quoting Gregory A
Jack Ruby saved everyone the bother so what does it matter?
Meethinks the old guy doth protest too much.....poor ol Joe....we can make space for you if you want to join us...you don't have to play hard to get....just join in Joe.......anytime......you're welcome. :naughty:
It sure it is, uncle Crazy Mello Joe! Im sure you know everything about it. Im sure you practice a lot! What are your thoughts while mentally blowing yourself?
The Americans have been seeing themselves on TV since the 50's, the Brits mostly didn't have TVs then. An American thinks nothing of attention as they have everything they need and the Christian element enforces modesty. The British music invasion could only go the one way. The need for acclaim (and talent) drove things in that direction. Fame would only be incidental to those who are taught that 'success' is part of the American way. I'm not knocking anyone including the Brits, the need for acclaim combined with talent gave the world some of its best music. Annie Lennox's song 'Love is a Stranger' could have been done by an American? I don't think so.
That's part of the doctrine. But what about the dogma of molecular biology?
The point had been that Oswald was out of touch, driven by personal, non-political, goals
Ruby's actions reveal the biggest personal threat the modern-day patriarch has. The male who will as an act of chivalry kill his fellow males, those who challenge the female domination process, the feminists in women's clothing thing.
That's you projecting on me. Do you really think I care for some cosmologists not responding? I pity them arrogant bastard! Safely in their self erected towers of scientific ivory. I dont even try anymore to reach out (I asked a question on the podcast. No reply. Why not? Because I know things they dont and they are afraid of the unknown. Ooookhhh. Someone going against established order. They cant have someone knowing it better. But they cant prevent me thinking my thoughts. And I just know what the cosmos looks like on the fundamental level, unlike them, in their oh so important search for quantum gravity, or whatever silly approach. Like string theory. Nice theory but totally besides the truth. A fancy full fairytale. And they are content. So let them be happy. Let them wallow in their self-assigned importance and people watching in awe as if they are the possessors of some deep unknown truth knowable to the chosen ones, the lucky few only. There's your worshipping. It's the scientists that are worshipped...
Maybe Dawkins is one too. Without claiming it though... A mental case, a sufferer from a psychosis. Atheist psychosis.
That's how it actually is. They unconsciously worship. Why else should they be so condemning of atheism? Because theists worship something they cant understand and threatens their position? Because misery flows from theism. Hands cut off and stoning? Like I said, I can give you more examples of misery caused by science.
After a period at the end of a sentence, an ellipsis is part of a set of four dots, but still three dots.
If you’re gonna write all day long to pleasure yourself, learn how to write correctly.
No serious academic will read messy uneducated writing because there is ALWAYS a messy uneducated person behind it.
… understand?
Many political assassinations are not actually politically motivated. Instead done by people wanting a place in history. Oswald wanted to show he was someone, his defection and return not enough he turned to assassination the first of which failed, being armed and then to be presented with a once in a lifetime opportunity that working in the book depository gave he could hardly do anything other than assassinate the President. .
Yeah, I have heard all those black and Hispanic people living in the American ghettos are having a fab time and 'have everything they need.' Do you visit and walk through them at night without fear on a regular basis? The indigenous American tribal peoples are also very happy with their treatment since we Europeans stole their lands and named the whole place after an Italian mapmaker.
Where have you lived your life Gregory A in a Beverly hills bubble?
I don't know your back story but you do seem to have some naive viewpoints in my opinion.
I don't want to throw too many stones at you however as I am certainly not without sin myself.
Sin in my own non-religious definition, of course.
I don't associate words like 'doctrine' and 'dogma' with science/biology, you do. For me, Science is a methodology used to pursue knowledge.
Quoting EugeneW
All I can suggest is that you read the words you typed above back to yourself in as calm and subjective a manner as you can. Decide if you think your own words might read as bitter and angry when others read them.
Yeah, I know, I agree but this fact just points to the fact that many humans have mental problems.
We all know this.
You do get inebriated with your own verbosity Joe!
Everything okay, uncle Joe? Im a bit worried actually. Do they let you walk in the fresh outside air once in a while? Can you walk unguidedly already? Try start conversation with the inmates! Will do you good! Good for your thinking! If there is anything you need or want me to come along, you can always ask that sweet nurse to call me!
Best wishes, cousin Eugene.
Central dogma of molecular biology
Not my words, Uni.
Dont you think I did that? Its exactly meant as I wrote. I feel bitter for them. Not for me.
It's in our nationalistic interest to believe that Americans don't have it so good. But the reality is that their poor still have it better than we think. Poverty would be measured relative to regular living standards which are quite higher there than anywhere else. The British Isles have been invaded 73 time in the last 1000 years, it's survival of the fittest according to non-believers? I'm immodest and impolite, definitely not an American.
Ok!
I will leave it up to any American readers of your above typings to agree or disagree with you as they are probably the best suited to the task.
Quoting Gregory A
Every civilisation ever created in human history experiences attacks from outside groups this is as you suggest a result of our survival of the fittest origins but belief in god fables has just been used as another convenient reason for attacking those with different beliefs. They are all bad reasons, differing religion/colour/culture/nationality/gender/sexual preference etc etc. WAR, what is it good for?
Humans need to focus on what can unite them not divide them. Theism is much more divisive compared to atheism. Religion offers thousands of incarnations, atheism offers one.
Dogma is described as a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
I think most scientists are not happy with the idea that anything can be claimed as 'incontrovertibly true.'
So I assume that, as the material your link took me to has the description:
but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible
the authors considered use of the term 'Dogma' was apt in this case.
Is this the only use of the term Dogma being used to aid the understanding of a scientific paper, that you have encountered? This is hardly overwhelming evidence that all of science is intrinsically dogmatic.
Which is exactly what our good friend Dawkins does.
One example is sufficient evidence. Science uses dogma! The area it covers is immense.
No he doesn't. He regularly states that he cannot disprove god exists, he states a confidence level of 99.9%, as do I. 'God does not exist and that is an incontrovertible fact,' cannot be stated by atheists.
Therefore the atheist position is not dogmatic, in my opinion. But many individual members of all religions will claim that the existence of their particular god is an incontrovertible fact, so they are dogmatic. Do you claim with 100% confidence that your god(s) exist?
In science, one example is never sufficient evidence.
I mean what he claims in his books. It's based on the central dogma. BTW, how can you be 99.9% certain?
We dont talk science. We talk about science. In math one counter example disproves a claim. I disproved your claim that science aint about dogma.
In the same way you take the opposite view.
Quoting EugeneW
A single counter example can be 'an exception to the rule,' it does not necessarily invalidate the rule.
I don't say there is a chance of being right, or that therd is a chance that there are gods. It's a ridiculous statement.
Quoting universeness
There is no denial possible, universeness. Dogma is being used in science. It's even your hero using it!
I criticized it at a biology forum. Banned!
I just dont agree. Religion tries to take credit for almost everything science discovers.
Apart from complete morons like Ken Ham and his 'answers in genisis,' cronies, most religions now accept evolution from natural selection but claim it as god(s) work. Compare that to the days of the Scopes monkey trial and the treatment of Giordano Bruno and Galileo. Theism lost the moral high ground years and years ago and they will never get it back nor do they deserve to. Any dogmatic intent you try to highlight from science pales in comparison to theistic intrigues, past and present.
Religion takes credit for no scientific discoveries. It can help though in formulating or inventing models.
Quoting universeness
Dogma is used in molecular biology, if you agree or not.
Quoting universeness
I agree with the moron claim! Galileo was banned on rational grounds. There was no evidence for his claims yet. I would let the man be. Why bother? He lived a good last part of his life though. His case is merely used by atheists to show the stupidity of the church. And like I told you before, the church was actually right! General relativity shows that even rotation is relative.
Well the word has been used in biology, that's the only bit that's true.
I think we have gone around and around enough EugeneW.
My position has not moved one Planck length based on anything you have typed on this thread and I am sure the same is true for you.
I have nothing else to add that I have not already stated.
Thank you for the exchange.
"Go gently in the dark", Scotsman! Don't look too deep in the bottle! Thnx for the ever exciting exchange.
:smile:
Such was certainly not Karl Polanyi's intent, it is a purely economic perspective, but it fits the bill.
The problem there would be that his non-belief is in the god depicted in the Bible, which ties him into a position relative to that belief. He would be every bit as dogmatic as the believers he rejects. Dawkins attacks are mostly on Christians not the concept of a god anyhow.
I don't know how you justify the 'jumps' you make from the words I type to the conclusions you arrive at in your head. I said 'He regularly states that he cannot disprove god exists,' I did NOT restrict his statement to the Christian god of the bible, neither does he. He applies it to all god(s) from EL, BAAL, Zeus and Odin through to Gaia, Jehovah and Allah!
I would accept that he, like me, is DOGMATIC/passionately against many practices of the main religions.
I am incontrovertibly opposed to the evanhellicals, they are just evil through and through. Dawkins is aggressively/dogmatically against their practices as well. He has a similar stance against Sharia law from Islam or So-called Christians telling CHILDREN they will f****** burn in hell FOR ETERNITY if they don't believe. I and Richard Dawkins are unable to respond in a 'nice way' to such evil.
Dawkins will also say that historical religious practices such as pagan human sacrifice was totally F***** up thinking as well! I'm sure you are also personally against all the practices I have described above and in fact, share this common ground with Richard Dawkins. You would get much more support from him in establishing full equal political and social status for all gay people than you will from the vast majority of 'believers.'
Quoting Gregory A
You need to pay more attention to what he actually says and writes rather than your projections.
Please actually quote from Dawkins when you critique him negatively and try your best to be balanced in your critique and not quote him out of context. I will respond in kind and that way our exchange might have some value. If you want to start a separate thread, specifically on Dawkins then I will gladly contribute as a defender of his position. There are a lot of YouTube materials from him which can be cited, including his audiobooks, free on YouTube.
The universe has joined the atheist troops! Goooooodmorning Universe(ness)!!!
How can he apply it to non-existing gods? How does he arrive at 99.9%? What's the statistical calculation made? Does he involve the gods of all cultures? Of all native tribes (insofar not wiped out by science and Christianity)? What would the calculation look like? What samples does he use?
I'm gonna start a thread on the guy. He'll be delighted!
I understand what you are saying, no need to stress. And it is myself that's being frustrated as I can see you don't pick up on anything I'm saying. The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion. If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail, as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away, and that's regardless of your 'bad apple picking'.
A physicist at a philosophy forum does not a philosopher make.
You reminded me of an old Toyah song that I used to use as a wake-up call in the morning.
I think this was my wake-up call from about the age 22 to 26!
Quoting EugeneW
This is one of your long-playing repeats, I have already stated this answer to you more than once.
He and I arrive at this value based on intuition and the evidence available on gods existence. Which I personally think is a much more convincing intuition than your intuition that gods exist.
Quoting EugeneW
Yes, obviously he does not mention every god that has ever been invented by every tribe in history EugeneW, is that what he would have to do for you?
Quoting EugeneW
What does your god calculations look like? what samples do you use?
Quoting EugeneW
I don't think he will care one jot, he plays in much more important playpens than TPF
Good, please pay attention to the suggestions I gave to Gregory A. Don't waste time with frivolous or meaningless claims, stick to actual valid quotes he has made that are pertinent to any point you are attempting to make and I will try to do the same.
Goooooodmorning universeness! Howbout that! Nice song! You're from 1964?
Dawkins arrived at that value on intuition? How scientific! It's Dawkins making meaningless claims. It means nothing to say you're 99.9% sure gods don't exist. I can say I'm 100% sure the do. That's higher than his meaningless value!
Ive asked it twice! Without an answer, I might add. Chance from intuition is BS.
Well its not my fault that your points are completely generalist and misguided, in my opinion.
I read the words you type and I speak and comprehend English so perhaps its your choice of words which are poor. Your words:
The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion are just utter nonsense in my opinion and I have stated so all through this thread so you merely repeating them to me is useless and pointless.
Attempting to augment with "If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail" is just more BS to me. I comment based on my atheism not your contrived 'sociologist' label.
as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away is not true in any way shape or form, its just more of your BS.
I am not a physicist, @EugeneW is much closer to this label than I could claim to be and he seems more with your side of the OP than mine.
I really doubt that, Dawkins would be more like myself in that respect. There are no 'gay people' in context, homosexuals don't exist in the physical sense, it is instead a condition that some people have. And yes we should do our best (and we do) to accommodate their rights, but, and I'm sure Richard Dawkins would agree, the fundamental right of a child to have both a mother and a father should not be violated.
Am I being cruel? It sure looks like it. But then consider the biggest violation of that right is not by homosexuals but is instead being done by single parents, themselves yet another manifestation of the influence of the Left.
Scientists can be fairly dogmatic too. The main difference with the scientific approach is that it is far open to dispute/question the current way of understanding the universe and the vast majority of scientifically inclined persons are actually excited when experimentation and theory leads to something new and unknown, whilst religious doctrine (although it is adjusted sometimes) takes far, far longer to reform.
Both share something in common. They are ways and means of looking at human life in the universe and have, in part, helped each other along over the millennia.
When science hits a technological wall then philosophical and theological matters try and edge back in. When scientific investigation discovers something new both philosophers and theologians benefit from it (and sometimes try to undermine the discoveries or attach their importance to their own views).
It is most probably fair to say that a male and female roel model are needed for children in general, but this can exist beyond mere ‘mother and father’ roles - and does in some social structures. Levi-Strauss notes this with examples around the world. In modern cases there are families in Asia where the brother of the father/mother fulfils the role we would traditionally associate with ‘father’.
yes
Quoting EugeneW
You believe in god(s) how unscientific!
Quoting EugeneW
Yeah it is and confirms your theistic dogmatism!
Quoting EugeneW
Well, let me answer it again for about the 4th time, I am confident god(s) do not exist. My confidence level is 99.9% Similar levels are stated by most atheists, Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens/Dennet/Dillahunty etc.
A lower percentage than your 100% confidence that gods do exist. The fact that insufficient evidence exists, either way, awards you the theistic dogmatist award. I will link you back to this answer if you ask the question again, as a time saver
I do not hold to this viewpoint. I am a heterosexual male but I don't see homosexuality as some kind of genetic ailment but I would prefer other homosexual people to debate you on the viewpoints you type above.
The ultimate goal for us physicists seems to be to know the basic workings of the universe. Lots of ado bout that. There are zillions of other domains to explore but Democritus already thought to have found one and Einstein kept on dreaming till his death. Currently all the blazing's about the eternal reward of a quantum gravity. Of which its the question if it even exists in the usual context of QFT (coupling to virtual graviton condensate). But what if that goal is reached? I think I have a pretty good look at that fundamentals. So what? I think that knowledge, the closed gap, so to speak, leaves only one thing to conclude. And maybe knowledge of the universe implies knowledge of heaven.
I'm the one saying atheism's position isn't valid. It should not argue against theists or religion if it claims to simply represent 'non-belief' in a god/s. And to not have ulterior motives, politics, despite being unaware of it, one of those. Logic is part of the common language we use, atheism relates logically to theism, nothing else. A non-believer can exist in the social sense, but not logically, as we either need to believe in Nature or believe in a god.
Not really. Possibly for the more megalomaniacal scientist? Generally people who like to play football are not in pursuit of the basic workings of football. In the same way physicists are just ‘playing’ and enjoy the pursuit.
Feymann stated that the universe may or may not be reducible to a singular equation. He wasn’t really bothered either way, but it is generally more interesting for us if it isn’t. The ‘exceptions to the rule’ make life fascinating not the mundane day-to-say humdrum.
Precisely. And exactly these are the "heros" that are put forth by science. As if they know some profound truth only accessible to the "gifted" few.
Precisely because of the science I believe in them.
Quoting universeness
Im not dogmatic about it. If one doesnt wanna belief it's up to them. Claiming you are 99.9% sure they dont exist is dogmatic. With a little eyewink to the possibility they do exist. Which makes him a theist. A dogmatic scientific theist!
If as a physicist you dont wanna know the basic laws then you're no real physicist. Or pretending not to wanna know because you're not capable.
Oh for f*** sake! I KNOW! and I think YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!!
Quoting Gregory A
I fully understand that you claim that atheism is a political viewpoint. It is not, is my response, so there is no need for you to repeat this viewpoint to me.
Quoting Gregory A
Nonsense! A non-believer exists in the human sense and humans are not Vulcan Spock type characters who only use YOUR depiction of logic to speak to theism. They can use any aspect of their humanity they like. MY logic tells me that YOUR logic is flawed!
I don't find this convincing but I will take your word for it.
Quoting EugeneW
This contradicts your claim that you are 100% convinced gods exist. 100% belief is dogmatic unless you only accept facts that are convenient to your viewpoint EugeneW. Don't leave yourself open to the 'fake news' accusation.
Quoting EugeneW
Sorry but you leave me little choice. This is just nonsense!
I don’t quite understand what ‘hero’ you are about? Newton was a megalomaniac type. One example does not make a rule though. Just like not all theists believe the Earth was created in seven days and such.
Some people are more dogmatic than others. ‘Dogma’ is something believed in on authority regardless of investigation. In the past some took Aristotle’s view of gravity as the writ truth, but they changed their minds when an experiment showed his view to be wrong. This kind of ‘mind changing’ is more common amongst scientists because there is no written truth only a methodology that guides investigation.
Religions can, and do, also ‘change their mind’ due to social pressure. Science changes due to experimentation and discovery that often leads to social change. Both have a place as far as I can tell, but atm religion is struggling to adapt due to the speed of discovery we have been witnessing over tha past couple of millennia.
The picture the media paints. The physicist that has the answers to existence because of some sacred knowledge, unattainable to "the ignorant layman", exactly as in religion.
Einstein dreamt of a final unified theory. At CERN the fundaments of the universe are probed. I can tell them what to find at higher energies without ever having experienced the ultra small directly myself.
Hawking, Einstein, Witten, Rovelli, Carroll, Wheeler, Smolin, Lederman, Teresi, Süsskind, Strominger, etc. All painted as the priests of the church of science.
This methodology is a chimera, a fairy tale. Like the god particle and good and bad ghost particle fields.
As an example of the explanation of QM he simply stated ‘anyone who says they understand QM is lying, because no one understands it’.
When asked about creating ‘an anti-gravity device’ he said ‘a chair works perfectly well’.
The problem with many reporters in the mainstream, non-specialised, media is that they actively try to sensationalise anything they can. There is also the issue of funding experiments. Again, scientists openly admit they do ‘pretend’ to be researching one thing whilst really collecting data for something else related.
Money plays a big part in how religion and science is portrayed. Religion gets more money though.
Is that a ‘fairy tale’?
Good ol’ Nietzsche stuff. And he wasnt much of an anti-atheist either.
He wasn't an anti-a theist? Does that make him an atheìst? Or doesn't he accept the gods looking at us and announcing them to be dead? What was his image of gods?
Religion gets more money? The media is almost continuously ejecting the happy message of science and technology. Just look at commercials. Did you ever see one trying to sell gods? "One of the hardest problems in AI is to understand language", the scientists claim... As if understanding it and recreating it in AI is important. But it's brought as such. "We" (the scientists) "are on the verge of...". Documentaries about the sciences flood the market and in politics religion merely plays a side role, inly in name. Science and politics are conflated like never before in history and language is reduced to scientifically rational debate with arguments, so beloved by the ancient Greek philosophers, of who the distorted ideas of Xenophanes (the omni monster god) and Plato stood at the base of modern scientific thinking, and associated so-called democratic politics, how much we might dislike it.
I wrote that the methodology is a chimera. The pressumed methodology is an invention of philosophers. They try to capture the processes of scientific knowledge gathering. I think that a scientist operating while obeying the methodology (and there are lots of them invented) is a chimera.
Bye sushi.
Yes to what you are saying the brother/uncle can be there as the male role model. And a substitute is still better than not having the real thing. Widows and widowers almost automatically get another opposite family member to fill that part of of the missing role.
It's not just my poor word skills it's maybe also that my arguments are simple in their logic and go by you (rather than over your head).
If atheism is the non-belief in god/s, then it can't specify any one religion to challenge. As its position is to not accept the concept of any/all gods. Atheism vs Christianity is not valid for example.
Dawkins would believe in Nature and consequently needs to 'believe' that a god does not exist. Making it impossible to for him to 'honestly' expect evidence of God to be produced. As a scientist he can't really argue much against theism as it represents 'belief' in god/s, not scientific arguments in their favor. He also can't argue against theism from a sociological viewpoint because theism is not a religion. Dawkins would be a conservative, so wouldn't be politically motivated if atheism is another element of the Left. Dawkins therefor can only be an agent of destruction looking for a way to enhance the fame he already has. And as there is little aclaim to be had taking on obsure religions he mostly attacks the god of the Bible.
It isn't a genetic condition as for example left-handedness would be, it is (as far as I can see) a personality-related condition. Other homosexual people? Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights, it's the Left that is doing that. Their aim is to make marriage nothing more than an indulgence, something that anyone can participate in. Marriage is a foundation stone of conservative values consequently a target of the Left, gays and lesbians pawns in a game of destruction.
Conservative values are based in marriage?
Why do Liberals want to destroy these values?
So for you, logically, the word "All" is not a 'term of totality,' a simple way of including each and every individual example. If I say I am against ALL racists, does that mean (according to your logic) that I forfeit the right to argue with any of them? Atheists speaking against Christianity is completely valid and to say it is not, is pure sophistry, and it smacks of something the logic of Donald Trump and his followers, would try to peddle. You show yourself in a poor light sir.
Quoting Gregory A
This is just more of the same flawed logic. You are trying to scratch at Dawkins armour and try to get at him and all you have is a sponge. You are wasting your time, but sponge away, all you want, every time you type about him, you make his armour look better and better to me.
Dawkins hates Maggie Thatcher and everything she stood for he has said so on camera. He does not discuss politics much but I doubt very much that he is a conservative.
Put up or shut up sir, provide actual quotes from him to support your claims about him.
Here below is an extract from Wikipedia regarding a person who could possibly help you understand how confused you are when you type things like:
"Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights"
Peter is one of the best-known homosexual activists in the UK and has fought all his life for LGBT rights.
I can look up examples of such people from the right-wing of UK politics if you want me to.
Some British Conservative and Liberal MP's have marched beside Peter at Gay pride events etc.
[i]Peter Gary Tatchell (born 25 January 1952) is a British human rights campaigner, originally from Australia, best known for his work with LGBT social movements.
Tatchell was selected as the Labour Party's parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey in 1981. He was then denounced by party leader Michael Foot for ostensibly supporting extra-parliamentary action against the Thatcher government. Labour subsequently allowed him to stand in the Bermondsey by-election in February 1983, in which the party lost the seat to the Liberals. In the 1990s he campaigned for LGBT rights through the direct action group OutRage!, which he co-founded. He has worked on various campaigns, such as Stop Murder Music against music lyrics allegedly inciting violence against LGBT people and writes and broadcasts on various human rights and social justice issues. He attempted a citizen's arrest of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe in 1999 and again in 2001.[/i]
There are many other examples of such activists from across the political spectrum and in many many countries, especially USA.
Dunno. Whatever the genesis of the schism is, the atheist think they know it better. That theism involves fantasies of which they sure they have no counterpart in reality. To say, as Richard Dawkins, that they are 99.9% sure is the most non-scientific reply you can imagine. It can't get more unscientific. Moreover, Dawkins uses dogma in his books just the same as the religious dogma he fights so vigorously.
Yes, Scientism is surely the most hypocritical prejudice of all.
Clearly, not every phenomenon in the universe reduces to events that can be quantified in convenient experimental terms. People live a long time and enjoy feedback from the universe that can stretch across years, even decades. Intelligence and an open mind go hand in hand.
What would an Aussie know. They are all limpwrists anyhow.
And regardless of Dawkins political leanings his actions still result in a benefit to the Left.
Racists are real, you can make selections. Whereas if you claim to not believe in a particular god, you are at odds with the claim you don't believe in any/all gods.
All Birds Fallacy:
All LGBTQ activists being homosexual would not make all homosexuals LGBTQ activists. The activist faction is on the left. Got it. LGBTQ activists, not all being on the left would not mean LGBTQ activism is not on the left. Got it.
These are such lowbrow words Gregory A, you shame yourself.
Quoting Gregory A
Yeah, you just showed that with your comment on all Australians
Quoting Gregory A
More words from the twisted world of Gregory A. You are a bigot and a political vacuum.
Are you saying atheists are amoral?
No. "I do not believe in God therefore I do not believe in God."
:chin:
Movements associated with the left such as BLM , and the cancel culture of identity politics in general are highly moralistic. So much for lack of moral accountability. Apparently you dont need a God for a culture of blame.
:fire:
Quoting Agent Smith
In no sense is that "true". Theism consists of positive extraordinary claims and thereby a theist bears the burden of proving that such claims are true. Failing to meet that burden, however, it is reasonable to conclude that theism – the arguments in support of its claims – is not true and therefore is unwarranted, or unbelieveable – negative atheism (i.e. 'one does not believe the unproven claims about a deity are true'). NB: A positive atheist, however, bears the burden of proving that the claims (themselves, despite supporting arguments) of theism are not true.
Isn't that (underlined bit of your post) argumentum ad ignorantiam?
Remember to distinguish between
1. Default truth value of a proposition: Unknown true/false.
and
2. The principle of bivalence: a proposition is either true or false.
Quoting Gregory A
There are forms of atheism which believe that there is no God, however there are other forms of atheism which simply lack the belief that there is a god. The latter form of atheism cannot be invalid because in order to be invalid one must be making an argument. Saying that you don’t know if there is a God because you have seen no legitimate evidence or heard arguments which are sound, or at least strong and cogent, is not an argument. If you ask me if i believe aliens exist, then i could answer with a “yes” (to affirm their existence), or a “no” (to deny their existence which is to affirm their non-existence), or furthermore with an “I don’t know” (to nether affirm nor deny. The first option has a burden of proof and must present an argument to
justify the truth of the statement “There is a God” or be dismissed. The second option has a burden of proof and must present an argument to justify the truth of the statement “There is no God”. The third option however has no burden of proof, nor requires an argument because they are making a statement regarding their own beliefs (they are saying they hold no belief) of which only they have access to their own thoughts and ideas.
Just wanted to clarify that. Also, what do you mean by a non belief in something never shown to be intangible in-itself? Im not sure how you are defining “tangible” here, but tangible or intangible, it nevertheless must be shown.
:ok:
What if I successfully refute the argument for a claim C. That means C is not true as the argument is flawed. However, I can't say that C is false, can I? If I do, that would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
What I'm driving at is that C is neither true nor false, it is undecidable given what we know at the moment. Substitute "God exists" for C and you'll know what I'm trying to convey.
I don't think you're correct; perhaps we're using different definitions for "undecidable". In my book, if a proposition p is undecidable it means we can't prove either that p is true or that p is false.
If C is not true, it doesn't automatically make it false i.e. C's truth value is unknown or, more importantly, unknowable aka undecidable given the extent of our knowledge at present.
Quoting whollyrolling
They may change their guiding principles but their underlying philosophical-moral grounding is just as stable as your theistic moral grounding. You just think they have no stable grounding because you don’t understand it. You own philosophical-theological thinking is stuck in the 18th century. Why they think what they do is invisible to you, so you rely on misreadings and misinterpretations. I respect your misreadings, though. You belong to a traditionalistic culture and I support its protection. I want to see small town America thrive as a a quaint alternative to urban metropolitan America. They are two worlds and each needs to go in it’s own separate direction. We should really drop all the crap about whose side is right or moral.
“Cancel culture“ is a derogatory of the right leveled against the left term just as ‘ flying spaghetti monster’ is a derogatory term for God. Both are self-explanatory terms for how one group glimpses the view of another from behind their own blinders.
Quoting whollyrolling
There’s a difference between lacking a moral grounding and having a different moral grounding than the one you prefer, and between an aim that sees itself as moral and an outcome that succeeds in achieving that moral aim.
I think you’re arguing that the outcome of anarchism will be one which is not moral, but are you really claiming that their aims are the creation of human suffering, that their motivation is to make life more painful for the average person? The fact that you could engage in an endless debate among adherents of anarchist positions about whether the ‘destruction of all institutions’ results in complete lawlessness, and if so, whether and why this is or is not a more ‘moral’ outcome for society than the alternatives demonstrates only that your view of the connection between their
moral aims and the likely outcomes differs from their own calculus.
Quoting whollyrolling
Morality rests on justice , which depends on emotions of blame, retribution, punishment, condemnation, free will vs determinism. You argued that atheism imposes no accountability.
And yet, as I have argued, identity politics is despised by the right because it has highly structured ways of holding people accountable (such as by ‘cancelling’ them) for what it considers to be moral infractions. Again, you disagree about whether the outcomes are moral, but their reasoning is moralistic, according to agreed upon definitions of moral reasoning, because thier aim is the betterment of society. I understand that you believe their reasoning is flawed without access to a god, that accountability for them cannot ‘really’ be moral without god because human reasoning without access to god cannot be moral.
As Social Constructionist Ken Gergen explains:
“By and large identity politics has depended on a rhetoric of blame, the illocutionary effects of which are designed to chastise the target (for being unjust, prejudiced, inhumane, selfish, oppressive, and/or violent).”
How can you show intangibles to exists? The Intangibles might roam around in the physical universe and occasionally might even decide to tangibly show themselves to us, though the universe alone seems enough proof already.
False.
This answers this thread.
the form of atheism which believes there is no God is aka. "new-atheism", this are paranoid individuals who strive to preach about how there is no God in a paranoid militant baptism-style preaching, trying to convert theists into atheists.
This kind of atheism is an invalid atheism because it rest on strong belief rather than simply disbelief (or lack of belief) in God.
Quoting whollyrolling
You authored an op in which you wrote the following:
“ Many of the inhabitants of this site seem to respond with strong negative emotion, absent any rationality, to any discussion related to the bible or Christianity…”
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Do you personally believe there is such a thing as a valid form of atheism, or is that an oxymoron?
When you asked Space Dweller “What would a valid form of atheism look like?”, if he has answered “the one in the dictionary”, would you have considered that a valid form of atheism, or are you making a distinction between atheism as a valid belief system and a valid definition of atheism (which you do not consider to be a valid belief system)?
Ha! How true. :up:
The real atheists should not call themselves atheists or even engage in god debates. The real atheist just shuts up and lives life.
I will put this differently. We all have belief systems, whether we are aware of it or not. Every scientific theory rests on a larger framework of beliefs( you could call this a worldview). Atheism isn’t a single belief system. Rather, it refers most generally to a history of evolving god-based beliefs, ranging from fundamentalist to heretical. Atheism is also an evolving continuum of belief systems and there are myriad overlaps between theism and atheism, especially when we consider liberal forms of religion influenced by writers like Kierkegaard, Levinas and Buber. I find many points of agreement with theistic contributors to this forum like Constance and Wayfarer, because their philosophies of religion not not far removed from my philosophical orientation even though I consider myself an atheist. My belief system is likely farther removed from yours, not because you are a theist and I am an atheist , but becuase your philosophy of religion is a more traditionalistic one than the above contributors. I suggest it is not atheism per se that you oppose your faith to , but modern and postmodern belief, whether god-based or atheistic.
You have apparently found a way to bypass these complexities and ambiguities by reducing faith and atheism to cartoonish categories.
:up:
If only that were true, but sadly theists have never been content to keep their willful delusions to themselves. As long as theists insist on bringing theism with them to courtrooms, institutions and in the actions of elected leaders then an atheist has no choice but to engage.
I’ll make you a deal though, if you are not that type of theist. You get all the theists to respect the separation of church and state and ensure no theistic inspired action affects people not of that particular theistic belief and Ill make sure no atheist ever talks about or engages about god ever again. :wink:
:fire:
Absolutely agree.
That's because they have something to share. Atheists, on the other hand, don't.
Your admission of guilt is noted, I rest my case.
"Objection, your honor! The prosecution thinks I admitted guilt. But they didn't say what I'm guilty of!"
"Sustained! Prosecution, proceed!"
The glorious and liberating feeling of bathing in the soothing shining light of the eternal divine intelligences, who, in their great wisdom and in honest selfishness, have created the cosmos and all life in it, so it can continue their blissful heavenly play.
Yes it is, but I’m a sucker for numbered points so lets see what your refutation is…
1 “not all theists share their belief with others.“
I didnt claim all theists do. In fact if you actually read my post you will see I specifically account for the possibility of theists who aren’t interested in pushing their beliefs on others. I offered that you yourself might be one of these folks.
So no refutation here…lets keep going.
2 “theism can be a rational conclusion.“
I’m not sure about that, perhaps something to be discussed but certainly not a refutation. “Completely untrue” you said. So far, you have not supported this assertion.
3 “ theism is not necessarily associated with a specific religion, or religion in general.”
Sure, theism is belief in god. No necessary structure to theism. Agreed. Never said otherwise. When do you get to the part where what I said is untrue?
4 “ if theism is associated with a religion, or with religion in general, then a person is exercising their individual rights by making such an association and by practising it.”
What are you responding to? Are you sure its something I wrote? I never said anything about association or practice. Who you associate with and what you practice are not my business. The point I was making was it becomes my business once a theist inserts their beliefs outside those domains, specifically in the laws governing how we live.
5 “ theists are no more capable of tearing theism out of themselves than atheists are capable of tearing atheism out of themselves, and anyone who expects either of these outcomes doesn't respect anyone's individual rights--not their own, a theist's, or an atheist's--and could just as easily lose their own rights as remove them from someone else. ”
Depends on what you mean by tearing it out. Ive known both theists and atheists who have flipped their views. Again though, you are talking as though i made some contrary claim. I don’t think I did.
6 “ everyone has autonomy, an atheist can choose, an atheist is not some special category of human incapable of choice.”
Just another non-sequitor. Nothing you said supports your claim that what I said was “completely untrue”.
I think a civil person would apologize for such a clearly false disparagement.
"All theists" do not have to "share their belief with others" for theism to dominate cultural traditions and institutions. In the last two millennia in the West, for instance, secularism has been barely (and unevenly) in effect for couple of centuries, and the struggle of inclusive, cultural / scientific literacy and evidence-based thinking against dogmatic Iron Age superstitions and magical thinking continues.
Agreed, and I await a sound argument for "the truth of theism".
I didnt say that, you aren’t really listening. Most of what you said wasn't about me but some atheist bad actor you have in your head. Keep looking. I was trying to initiate an actual discussion but youre just here to trade snide talking points with snide atheists. Happy hunting.
“Objection your honour, the prosecution is not responsible for the defences review of the charges.”
It was a back and forth of like, 2 posts. I cant help you if you can’t track an exchange that short.
I thought there were 3 possibilities with respect to a proposition:
1. True.
2. False.
3. Unknown/Unknowable (undecidable with existing data and/or methods).
Quoting whollyrolling
I think you pulled that one out of your ass. What the heck does ‘singular’ mean? A belief system is singular. It’s a holistic frame that includes many elements. Do I need to spell out for you the complexity of issues and ideas that form the basis of a decision whether to believe or not believe in a god? Ask any individual why they are an atheist and they will give you a series of arguments that link together as a totality. This complexity is implied by the decision and it is a system. The meaning of their atheism for them isn’t a dictionary definition but their own personal story and reasons.
Quoting whollyrolling
I must have misunderstood. What would you call yourself?
Religions don't have that much in common either. Even within the one faith, they have often knocked off each other in endless vicious schism infighting about doctrine and dogma. As it turns out theists can't agree about god/s. Catholic versus Protestant, Evangelical versus Liberal, Christian versus Muslim, Hindu versus Sikh, Sunni versus Shite.... There is no such thing as theism per say - there are simply theists who hold a range of often incompatible and contradictory views from one another.
For the record, I'm not trying to score points. Sorry if that's the impression you get. Must be my lack of linguistic proficiency. I hope you'll let that slide.
Coming to our disagreement, I recall you showing me how God can be disproven: via entailments of God's predicates (re the riddle of Epicurus) that turn out to be false (modus tollens).I'm with you as regards that. God exists is false
However, there's another category of proofs that have the following form:
1. Premises
Ergo,
2. Conclusion: God exists
Such arguments, all of 'em, have been refuted, but do take note of the fact that this doesn't imply the conclusion (God exists) is false. Not guilty doesn't imply innocence or something like that.
Would it also follow that there's no such thing as religion due to the variations in religion? Can the same be said of political systems, that there's no such thing as them either due to their variations?
I agree with you of course that different religious systems describe their gods very differently, but each can independently be said to be theistic, and so the question then becomes what makes each theistic system resemble the next, but I don't think any of this means theism doesn't exist. We just find ourselves with the universal problem of precise definitions.
I think any honest theist would admit that the religious tradition they hold to is as much the result of family tradition, regional influences, and other such coincidences than actual free choice after full exploration. Sure, there are occasional Catholics who become Baptists, but none worship Zeus much any more, so something other than obvious truth must be guiding theists to their particular brand of religion.
My point here is that I do hold that whether to be atheist or theistic is a real choice we make, but once decided to be theistic, we tend toward the path of understanding most accessible to us. Those raised Jews turn toward Judaism and so on. With that, I think we're required to have respect for those other traditions with recognition ours isn't the only way; otherwise I'd be faced with the absurd argument I chose my Judaism after considering other options. I didn't.
I point this out only to defend against the idea that theism is so varied and murky that it doesn't meaningfully exist, and to respond maybe preemptively to the question of how can a theist pretend he's found the light after open minded exploration, when all he really did was repeat what he's always been told.
No, that maybe too strong, I was being a bit flip and more aphoristic. But there is a poetic sense in which this is true. It is often nearly impossible to define core beliefs for any given institution. How can we say something is the case if the situational vagaries produce variations so great?
Quoting Hanover
I wasn't trying to argue this so staunchly. As you know, people tend to think that institutions or positions are monolithic and that there is 'one' Catholicism or one atheism. This is a problematic approach and it is always worth remembering that a KKK member and Bishop Desmond Tutu (when alive) could both be said to be members of the same faith, with the same founding beliefs and yet have almost nothing in common.
"I don't believe God exists (full stop)" is valid atheism.
OR
The following quote from Hillary also answers you question:
Quoting Hillary
Therefore there are 2 kinds of atheism, one based on disbelief, and one based on belief accompanied by spread of their belief.
I think there are many types of atheism. Including religious or mystical atheism (atheist idealism). And there are atheists who embrace supernatural forces like astrology or ghosts. I think most beliefs come with the desire to spread a message or engage in public advocacy. This is true for religions especially (evangelism), secular beliefs systems, the arts, politics and law reform groups. This is a natural thing in a pluralistic society.
What you said is that the arts, politics or law reform groups could be classified as "religions"?
Quoting Tom Storm
Sure they do, but we are talking about atheism taking the role of theism here, which makes atheism invalid.
I don't think it would be meaningful to describe them as religions, but you can if you want. It is a natural thing for organizations to engage in marketing their ideas and ideals. Many organizations do it, especially political and social action movements.
Quoting SpaceDweller
I don't understand the connection. Sounds like you have a real problem with atheism if it doesn't correspond to your idea of what atheism is.
Feminism seeks to change minds and educate the world too - I guess you would see that as a religion then?
Do you see any group which seeks to influence people's thinking as religious because of this advocacy work?
Tell me more about why you think this way, I'm interested in how you arrived at this - are there any other thinkers who hold this position that you can cite?
:ok:
Sure, with the aim to decry something or somebody you can abuse the language in the most absurd ways, such as you attempt to equalize politics and arts with religion.
Quoting Tom Storm
It's not my idea, the definition of atheism is clear:
Therefore it's not a belief there is not God, it's disbelief.
Quoting Tom Storm
I'm sorry but It's not me who equalize these terms, it's you, don't push your burden of language abuse on me :smile:
Quoting Tom Storm
I already told you:
1. Valid atheism (by definition above) is lack of belief in God, such atheists just live their life.
2. Invalid atheism (aka. new-atheism and contradictory to definition of atheism) belief there is no God accompanied by spread of word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism
Trifling semantics. And "God" being undefined, this expression is incoherent. Lastly, your "definition of atheism" is colloquial, from a dictionary, and not philosophically probative – trivial. Consider how ("old") atheists might philosophically define themselves:
I took my definition of atheism from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
What is your (or philosophical) definition of atheism?
Quoting 180 Proof
how?, I don't know.
Quoting 180 Proof
What do you mean it's undefined?
It's well defined in both philosophy and theology.
Which "God" does "God" refer to? What are this (your) "God's" attributes, predicates, properties, etc?
See previous post (finished after your reply):
And this doesn't happen in science?
Who's talking about science? I was addressing this below which is clearly missing a large part of the story.
Quoting Hillary
https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/definitions-of-god.html
Quoting 180 Proof
Your point A and B are same as my previous points about valid and invalid atheism, just described differently:
Quoting SpaceDweller
Disagree because deity is not same thing as God.
There are countless kinds of deities with unique properties, almost all of which not o-o-o God, and most of which depicted with statuette.
I don't know why it's even relevant to discuss or identify God or specific deity since we are talking about atheists who reject any kind of a deity or God.
Yes, I understand that. But you make it appear as if atheism doesn't suffer from the same defects as religion.
"Religions don't have that much in common either. Even within the one faith, they have often knocked off each other in endless vicious schism infighting about doctrine and dogma. As it turns out theists can't agree about god/s"
Just replace religion by science and theists by scientists.
I never said that, and that wasn't what we were discussing, but you may be right about this, atheism isn't quite as dreadful to other people. Good point. :up:
Yes you're right! Just listen to that freak Dawkins...
Like it is true for scientifically thinking atheists. Just look at Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, Dennet, Pinker, and other cruscaders of the religious devotion to the one and only way.
hm, ok :meh:
Exactly - that's what I am saying - if you think you have better ideas and can help people, you want to share it with others. Bingo! :up:
Indeed! But what are better ideas must of course be determined after the facts. And science and technology, however interesting and wonderful, haven't done a good job so far. Just look at the state of the world. Science has taken global control, our schools have become it's indoctrination institutes (the bible replaced by science books), and the young people are turned into colorless replicators of the knowledge crammed into their minds, as if computers are programmed.
Quoting Hillary
I hire a lot of new graduates from university, I have rarely met any who care much for science. I don't think science is all that popular. Certainly not in Australia. In fact I'd say we are living in anti-science times. Maybe it's different where you live.
I don't talk about universities. I talk about schools where the children go by force of law.
Where Aboriginal children taken away from their parents in the name of science or religion? What was the reason? Was it because they had other gods, instead of the Christian monster God?
Christian culture and missionaries tended to take children and stick them in church orphanages where there was often abuse, but this is a separate issue.
Quoting Hillary
Same story at schools. Science isn't all that popular. But we should let people get back to the OP topic.
Indeed. Was a nice small digression.
So, I see there are two current threads about atheism. There are no atheist churches, obviously. But can there be atheist religious devotion?
If people are passionate about a belief that's great whether it be secular or theistic. Indifference and boredom are much less appealing modes to me. But none of this means that going to cinema or being an atheist is the same thing as being a Catholic or observant Jew. Religion is used here to denote passion and dedication.
Hope you don't mind me responding too.
I agree. They often do. Of course religious people often have seething contempt for atheists. They are often both held as flawed positions.
Quoting whollyrolling
Interesting idea. I think all ideas have meaning, even if they are ostensibly about nothing. If you lack belief in a creator deity that is likely to be a trigger for all sorts of potential beliefs or actions.
Quoting whollyrolling
I think it does fit. You're an atheist with a particular way of looking at it. Nothing wrong with that. Would your notion of an ideal atheist (if you'll forgive the term) remain silent on the issue?
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
There are literally many thousands of apologists (Christian and Muslim) eagerly debating atheists - even on Tik Tok. Plus there are Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons knocking on doors every day all over the world looking to convert.
Quoting whollyrolling
Some Atheists are cunts. We know that. I think the issue that upsets and angers atheists are the political and social philosophies of Islam and Christianity - the attitudes towards women and gay people and the changing of laws to suit a religious worldview and what can be taught in schools.
Some examples (I don't agree with all) of disliked religious worldview positions cribbed from American Atheists include:
. The discouragement of rational, critical thought. ?2. Vilification of homosexuality, resulting in discrimination, parents disowning their children, murder, and suicide.? 3. Women treated like second-class citizens based on religious teachings.? 4. Children growing up to hate and fear science and scientists, because science disproves their parents’ religion – leading to appalling scientific illiteracy. ?5. Tens of thousands tortured and killed as witches (a practice which still continues today).?6. People aren’t making the most of this life because of their belief in an afterlife.?7. People dying because they believe their faith makes them immune to snake venom, or other lethal aspects of reality.?8. People dying – and letting their children die – because their religion forbids accepting medical help.?9. People choked, starved, poisoned, or beaten to death during exorcisms.?10. Genital mutilation of babies endorsed by religious texts.?11. Psychological and physiological conditions blamed on demons, preventing believers from seeking medical care for themselves and their children.?12. People disowning family members for leaving their religion.?13. Friendships and romances severed or never started over religious differences.
14. “Abstinence-only” sex education, resulting in five times the amount sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies – often leading to ill-fated “emergency” marriages.?15. Women having septic abortions—or being forced to have unwanted children they resent—because religious organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or inaccessible.?16. Censorship (often destructive) of speech, art, books, music, films, poetry, songs and, if possible, thought.?17. The demonization of other religions, e.g. Christianity demonizing Pagans (“They’re devil-worshipers!”)?18. Children spending the period of their lives when the brain is most receptive to learning new information reading, rereading, and even memorizing religious texts.?19. People who believe the world is about to end neglect their education, are not financially responsible, and in extreme cases take part in mass suicides.
20. Long-term environmental issues ignored because of beliefs that the rapture/apocalypse or something will happen soon, so they don’t matter.
21. Wives told they will be tortured forever if they leave their abusive husbands (and vice versa).?22. Holy wars – followers of different faiths (or even the same faith) killing each other in the name of their (benevolent, loving and merciful) gods.?23. The destruction of great works of art considered to be pornographic/blasphemous, and the persecution of the artists.?24. Slavery condoned by religious texts.?25. Children traumatized by vivid stories of eternal burning and torture to ensure that they’ll be too frightened to even question religion.?26. Terminal patients in constant agony who would end their lives if they didn’t believe it would result in eternal torture.? 27. School boards having to spend time and money and resources on the fight to have evolution taught in the schools. ?28. Persecution of “heretics”/scientists, like Giordano Bruno (burned at the stake) and Galileo Galilei.? 29. Blue laws forcing other businesses to stay closed or limit sales, while churches can generate more revenue.? 30. Mayors, senators, and presidents voted into office not because they’re right for the job, but because of their religious beliefs. ?31. Abuse of power, authority and trust by religious leaders (for financial gain or sexual abuse of followers and even children).
32. People accepting visual and auditory hallucinations unquestioningly as divine, sometimes with fatal results.? 33. Discrimination against atheists, such as laws stating they may not hold public office or testify in court, or in half a dozen countries around the world, laws requiring their execution? 34. Missionaries destroying/converting smaller, “heathen” religions and cultures.?35. Hardship compounded by the guilt required to reconcile the idea of a fair god with reality (“why is God punishing me? What have I done wrong? Don’t I have enough faith?”).? 36. Human achievements—from skillful surgery to to emergency landings—attributed to gods instead of to the people actually responsible.? 37. Mother Teresa, prolonging the agony of terminal patients and denying them pain relief, so she can offer their suffering as a gift to her god. ?38. Tens of billions annually in the US alone spent to build, maintain, and staff houses of worship.? 39. Grief and horror caused by the belief that dead friends and family members are tortured as punishment for disbelief.? 40. Natural disasters and other tragedies used to claim God is displeased and present demands to avoid similar events (it’s like terrorism, but without having to plan or do anything)
**
I get that there are atheists, especially in theocracies and in countries where religions have significant influence, who are irritable or pissed. The biggest disputes between people are those where values clash. What the list demonstrates is that there are many potential issues at stake when it comes to a belief in god/s and what this can mean more broadly. That's all.
Not that believers ever follow or even much read their Bibles. There are passages encouraging evangelism (below) and it's a very old tradition, including the significant missionary work here in Australia where so many Aboriginal children were taken from parents and often put into Christian orphanages. I've worked with many of the victims over the past 30 years.
Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus says, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Quoting whollyrolling
I'll take your word for it, I don't know them. The list covers variations of many things atheists accept around the world. Many also held by a primary influence on my early thinking; Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong of Newark, who wrote one of the most damning indictments of Christianity called Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (amongst others).
But essentially you and I have demonstrated a key issue here: different values. What could be more disruptive to people and their relationships? I think much of this list is accurate. You do not. So we're probably stuck. How are such values differences resolved? Is it even possible? Trying to debate this further could be as relentlessly futile as attempting to explain why the French think Jerry Lewis is funny.
The list, whatever you may think of its merits, demonstrates that there are larger cultural and values issues inherent in the god belief caper.
Thanks for your interest and well argued responses.
What are intangibles? Could you define your term?
You don’t get to dictate systems of belief or lack thereof, nor do you get to dictate how people wish to define said systems. Are you saying there is no diversity among atheistic positions? If so, provide an argument. If not, then there is diversity, thus “forms” of atheism.
Things you can't touch, in principle. Out of reach of experimental verification.
"Forms? "Systems"? Sounds like a post-hoc classification scheme.
I label myself "atheist" because I don't believe in a god of religion (I believe such a hypothetical being does not exist). I also label myself as "agnostic deist": I consider it a live possibility (and only a possibility) there exists some sort of teleological locus - a generic "deity" that establishes a direction for the evolution of the universe.
IMO, most self-labelled atheists have somewhat unique sets of beliefs, like I do. Consequently, it may not be worthwhile to categorize atheists into "forms" or "systems", like one can with religions and denominations of Christianity. It may cloud one's understanding of individuals. But if you feel compelled to categorize, I suggest identifying clusters of beliefs among people who self-identify as atheist or agnostic, while bearing in mind the beliefs of any individual are more nuanced. Perhaps there are some sociological studies that do this. But if you're grouping people based on personal observation, I question the usefulness.
Thats what I thought you meant. If we are, by definition, unable to verify a thing (empirically im assuming), then how can we justify believing that it exists? Are we speaking of some platonic existence?
In some sense, yes. Plato's mathematical heaven can't be known though. The heavenly gods can be known though by looking around. We are not their shadows but material copies and the gods actually might make contact with us. And we with them, as must be the case as they watch us.
Despite there being plenty of deviation by individuals, if someone tells me they're Catholic, Evangelical Christian, LDS, or Jehovah's Witness, I can make some reasonable assumptions about some of their core beliefs. On the other hand, atheism is so broad, there's not much one can reasonably assume.
Quoting whollyrollingNo individual's belief system is "simple". Of course, you can draw some simple distinctions - like inferring that as an atheist I don't believe in "God", but the sort of inferences you can justifiably make are limited. As an example from personal experience: I've encountered many strawman arguments that "prove" atheism is false, which are pointless if they apply to almost no one.
What objective do you have in mind for drawing certain (simple?) distinctions about atheists (or clusters of atheists)?
-"A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid."
-A god hypothesis requires Objective facts for the default position of atheism to be rejected.
-"We look and that is what we see."
-That is a faith based statement. You need to verify theism objectively for atheism to become invalid.
-"Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself."
-Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden. Its the Default Position defined by the Null Hypothesis of Logic.
-" Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion."
-God concepts existed well before and outside bible. Atheism doesn't just reject the gods proposed in the bible, but by all known supernatural religions.
Quoting Gregory A
-Gregory...you haven't studied the topic, haven't you!
Theism promotes claims as explanations...it doesn't explain anything(Made up mysterious explanatiosn don't have explanatory power).
Gregory! Atheism challenges the truth value of those explanations.
Atheism is the rejection of the unfounded claims made by theism! IT isn't its job to pretend to have explanations like theism does!
Quoting Gregory A
Gregory!!!!(Philosophical)Naturalism is the counter-position of Supernaturalism. You are doing a category error. While Theism is part of Supernaturalism and Atheism only focus on the rejection of the theistic claim.
Gregory!!!!Atheism doesn't address the supernatural in general. There are Atheists that embrace supernatural explanations that do not include theism.!!!(Buddhists, Raelians, New agers etc etc)
Gregory!!!! Atheism doesn't occupy any non existent middle grounds! IT a reasonable position one holds on an unfounded belief. EIther we accept or reject a belief claim...there is No middle ground and Atheism clearly holds one from those two possible positions.
Quoting Gregory A
-Gregory!!!! you are making a fallacious arguments from false authority. The metaphysical beliefs of humans who happen to work in Scientific field are irrelevant to the evaluation of those beliefs!
Gould was right , Religions Should be non-overlapping magisteria, but unfortunately, religions tend to make claims about the physical realm and this is when we are able totest them by doing science.
Quoting Gregory A
-Gregory!!!! lol....validity has nothing to do with the reason why a position exists! People make unfounded supernatural claims and other people through reason are free to evaluate them and reject them as irrational!
Quoting Gregory A
-Gregory!!!! your statements are nonsensical. The validity of the rejection of Theism comes from Logic. The Null Hypothesis,the failure of the postion to meet its burden of proof, the unfalsifiability of the theistic position and the unparsimonious nature of it. Naturalism is irrelevant to the Default Position of Atheism!
Quoting Gregory A
You shouldn't ! You should use logic and reject theism as an irrational, not as a wrong belief.
Quoting Gregory A
Your claims become weirder and weirder. Atheism has nothing to do with free speech. After all in many countries of this world you can lose your life if you say openly you are an Atheist.
-Gregory!!!! you need to go back on the drawing board...find out what's bugging you and construct real arguments....Your emotions you have for Atheists are not arguments.
I am not sure you understand Atheism or what a circular argument is.
Atheism rejects all known god claims because they have failed to meet their burden...that's all.
-lol not really.... Do you use the standards to verify whether you are a billionaire or not ? lol
That can be verified very easily. Just look at my bank account. I'm pretty sure I'm no billionaire...
It is like saying everyone either lives in Paris or not. World is Parisians (God) or non-Parisians(Atheist).
Not true. One can reserve judgment. e.g. I reserve judgment as to whether there is life on Europa.
On the other hand, I do not reserve judgment as to the existence of gods. I believe these things don't exist. It's not an incorrigible belief, but it's a justifiable one, in that it's the best explanation for the available evidence.
-Rejection is not a judgment (whether a claim is true or not true). Reserving judgment means that you don't accept (reject) a claim that isn't supported by evidence.
-"e.g. I reserve judgment as to whether there is life on Europa."
So the claim is "there is life on Europa". You reject that claim until it can be justified by evidence.
Quoting Relativist
Sure , but in reality you reject A (god exists) and accept B(gods do not exist) which is a different claim.
You either have to accept or reject a claim without the need to declare it wrong (judge it) because you are then addressing a different claim.
Agree.
I don't understand what you're saying. If I accept a proposition, that means I believe it true. Rejection means I believe it false. I neither accept nor reject the proposition "there is life of Europa"; i.e. I reserve judgment. You seem to use the words differently.
-Correct.
-"Rejection means I believe it false."
-No it doesn't. Rejection means that you are not convinced of the truth value of the claim.
Think of the jury standard. The jury finds the defended guilty or not guilty but they don't address innocence because its a completely different claim.
Reserving belief in a claim means that you don't accept the claim in question. You reject it until evidence can warrant belief.
I dont accept/reject A ? I think A is wrong. ITs an logical error to address two different claims based on a single rejection.
A judgment in a criminal trial is a bit different. I may believe a dependent guilty based on it seeming more likely than not, but acquit because there is reasonable doubt. IOW, I can believe something without being absolutely certain.
-No it isn't. Don't focus on why we demand to demonstrate guiltiness beyond reasonable doubt (its for obvious reasons....the freedom and life of the defendant are in stake).
Focus that we ONLY address guiltiness (guilty/not guilty), we don't address an additional claim (innocent).
This is the error you do when you introduce "falseness" .
My acceptance or rejection of a claim addresses ONLY my belief towards a specific claim.
It Doesn't address the reasons why I reject it or the opposite claim!
The minimum requirement is to NOT be convinced....not to be convinced of a different claim (to be false).
This is a really basic rule. Its how we avoid false dichotomies..!!!
So you also don't understand why I don't accept/reject A doesn't ? I think A is wrong????
So you don't understand why we should address a single claim...not its opposite?
You c
You can either reject a claim either because you are not convinced, or because you are convinced of the opposite.
That is not defined by stating your rejection!
i.e. By rejecting the claim (god exists) that makes me an Atheist...not an Antitheist.(Hard Atheist).
In order to be an Antitheist, I must accept the opposite claims (God's do not exist).
When a jury finds the defendant not guilty , it doesn't mean that they think he is innocent. They only examine whether the prosecution can meet the burden of proving him guilty. We don't demand from the defendant to prove his innocence because the burden is on those who make the claim (accusation). We don't simultaneously examine two different claims (innocent and gulity) because not proving A doesn't mean B!!!!!!
I know...its part of the problem.
What I reject is your terminology. I explained what I meant, and you seem to insist I use the words the way you choose to use them.
[Quote]When a jury finds the defendant not guilty , it doesn't mean that they think he is innocent. They only examine whether the prosecution can meet the burden of proving him guilty. We don't demand from the defendant to prove his innocence because the burden is on those who make the claim (accusation). We don't simultaneously examine two different claims (innocent and gulity) because not proving A doesn't mean B!!!!!![/quote]Sure, but the standards jurors apply to verdicts do not prevent a juror from privately forming a belief based on a lower standard. In everyday life, we form most of our beliefs on a much lower standard than that. Consider a civil trial in which jurors are instructed to base judgment on a preponderance of evidence (i.e.slightly more evidence in one direction). Do you allow them to form a private belief on that basis? If so, you should allow them to form a private belief on the same standard in a criminal trial. A private belief needn't correspond to the jury instruction. Belief formation doesn't work that way.
(Legally a person is found not guilty which does not mean they did not do it, only that the case for their guilt was not made.)
I would say this model amounts to being an atheist regarding your belief, but an agnostic in terms of your knowledge. This a position held by a lot of atheists I know, including me.
No. I use the same evidence. My bankaccount is as much a proof that I'm no billionaire, as that gods exist. Your claim is that gods don't exist. Can you prove that?
First of all your bank account can not be as much a proof that you are no billionaire, as that gods exist. You will need objective evidence either than your bank account to demonstrate the existence of magical agents.
Now you need to be honest and avoid strawmanning other people's position.
I am constantly saying that you don't have evidence, that believing in gods is irrational not wrong that you use fallacies to conclude to gods.
So why are you asking me to prove something I have never claimed ??????
When did I say "gods don't exist".
Again I am pointing out that you are using false equivalencies, arguments from ignorance, special pleadings and poisoning the well fallacies to promote your irrational belief in invisibile magic agents.
You claim they don't exist. Then prove it. You can't.
You shouldn't and you need to understand that when we don't accept a claim from becoming our belief, our dictionaries provide the opposite of that action.
accept
Opposite verb
1.consent to receive or undertake (something offered).
Opposite refuse, reject, turn, down
Those two terms (accept reject) CAN ONLY inform us if one believes a claim or not....NOT if he thinks it is false or not. As you said your self "not convinced" can also be a reason why we reject a claim!
Now when , according to your words, youreserve belief to a claim, have you accepted it? No ! so what have you done? You rejected it from becoming your belief not because you think it is wrong, or not true, but because you are not convinced to proceed to a judgment.
You need to understand that by saying "I reject that claim" you can only know whether I accept it or not! That statement doesn't inform you whether I think it is false or not, untrue or not. You know what I did to that claim....not not the REASON I did it.
-"Quoting Relativist"
-Sure but you can never know what he believes by just knowing that he rejected the accusations of the prosecutor!!! right? You committed the same error when you equated " I reject A" = "I believe A is false"!
Quoting Relativist
-Correct, I agree, but that doesn't change that acceptance and rejection ONLY describe how we react to a claim and says nothing about the reasons behind our reaction.
Your objection about what a juror might believe and how we evaluate beliefs in our everyday life do not justify your assumptions that any rejection is based on the opposite belief.Can you see that problem?
Quoting Relativist
-Again what you allow to a jury in a trial with different standards of evidence is irrelevant to the basic rule of logic. I don't accept/I reject A can only inform you on whether I accept or reject A.
It can never tell you why I reject A. IT can never tell you if I believe it is wrong, or insufficient or untrue.
Do we agree on that.?
Addressing a claim /point at a time is how we avoid fallacies.
When you say to you accept the claim that god exists and I say no...I just informed you that I reject that claim from becoming by belief.
If you say "so you believe that the god claim is false" then you are making a Strawman arguement, because your initial question "Do you accept the claim that god exists" and "Do believe the god doesn't exist" Are two different claims. You are committing a false dichotomy and that leads you to your strawman and you demand a Burden of Proof from a claim I never made.
Seriously, this is Logic 101....it can't get more basic than that!
No I only point out that you are an irrational individual for accepting god claims that you can not Objectively demonstrate to be true.
I never accept the burden of the opposite claim.
Do you also have issues with Basic Logic mam?
The point is, I argue from knowledge. I know how the universe works, how it came to be, what there was before the big bang, etc. The only thing to logically conclude is that gods made it.
The default state is gods plus the universe. Any claim about gods not existing must be proven right before I accept they are not there.
Basic logic is great! So when I start from the default state as being true, I don't need to prove it. Its true by fiat and not because of the scientific need for proof, which only applies to the material universe.
Thank you Tom. Acceptance and Rejection inform people of my position towards a claim.
For them to know the reason they will need to ask an additional question.
To assume the reason from my rejection, is a fallacy (Strawman).
Quoting Tom Storm
Again, you are Correct.
Quoting Tom Storm
Me too. I don't need an indefensible burden...no matter how desperate mr Hillary is to force that belief on me.
Where do I force it on you? If you don't want to believe it's completely up to you mr. Strawman!
And neither do I accept the burden to prove gods. You might feel the urge to prove, but something so obviously clear doesn't need proof.
No , unfortunately you don't. Knowledge is by definition objective so you should be able by now to point to Good evidence for your belief.
Quoting Hillary
YOu can only know what our Systematic Epistemology allow us to know. SInce I am also informed of that epistemology, gods are not mentioned or demonstrated objectively or empirically.
Quoting Hillary
I am not convinced you understand the meaning of the work "logically". Logic is a tool that works with facts and describes their analogies, differences equations and relations in general.
Logical fallacies are formulas of logic that allow us to identify unjustified conclusions when people jump to them without epistemic support. You are making this jump and the only "logical" aspect oin your conclusions is that of a "fallacy."
IN order for a belief to be logical it will need to be justified by objective facts.
Quoting Hillary
That can never be default. I suggest you to study Parsimony and the Null hypothesis.
The Universe...and the gods are is an unparsimonious claim and in direct conflict with the Null hypothesis , a tool that allows us to identify the Default position in a belief.
You need to revisit your arguments because they are in direct conflict with Basic Logic.
Quoting Hillary
lol...hahahahahahahahaha. In order to define the Default Position you need to know how the Null Hypothesis work.
The Null Hypothesis dictates that we SHOULD nullify our claims thus remove elements in our claims that aren't demonstrated or accepted objectively and work on the falsification of our initial nullification.
The fact is that we can not objectively verify any gods(this is why we are having debates on the topic) and we will need significant results to add this value in our nullified default position.
When you add things in your default position that aren't observed or accepted by everyone you are introducing a value in it so that can never be the Null Hypothesis.
So your default position should go like this.
There isn't a connection (significant value) between A. Existence B. God until we can objectively falsify our initial rejection through objective evidence.
If you try to equate the Existence of the Universe with god...that is a fallacy(fallacy of ambiguity, false equivalency).
At least we now understand why you hold those irrational beliefs...You understanding of Logic is really bad.
-You are unable to stick to the topic mr Hillary! I am just pointing out that your conclusions are objectively irrational. This is called "critique" and it is something common in public forums.
This is what people expect when share their magical and irrational beliefs in public.
There i no way that you can force your belief on me! (well only if you can provide objective evidence.)
And there is NO way that you can force me NOT to provide my critique (only if we both were in North Korean and you were a member of the Party lol).
In simple terms people discussions and other people point out the problems in their syllogisms.
There is nothing you can do to avoid this...only if you stop posting irrational claim.
-Hillary...you are really bad in reasoning. Its not for you to decide whether your claim comes with a burden. EVery claim has a burden, whether you want to meet it or not.
I know that you don't want it but that choice of yours only renders your belief in that claim irrational.
There is nothing "obviously clear" in superstitious claims either than they qualify as irrational beliefs.
The fact that you don't want to accept the burden of proof for that claim means that you are just making excuses by saying "it doesn't need proof".
All claims need to meet their burden of proof IF our goal is to hold reasonable beliefs.
Well said! :smile: :clap:
We're discussing propositional attitudes developed through judgment. I don't believe there's anything controversial about my usage: In simplest terms, I may judge the proposition true, false, or withhold (suspend) judgment. Nuances can be added, such as degree of belief. Your usage appears to be non-standard in the realm of philosophy. Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic, since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy. If I'm mistaken, and you believe you are consistent with standard epistemology, please point me at a reference.
What if the proof can't be given? How can I possibly give a proof? If I tell you I saw it in a dream you say it's just a dream. What if an outcome in the double slit experiment gives unexpected results? Say that instead of an interference pattern a one slit pattern shows up? What if there was proof of gods?
Maybe, dear Nickolas, you should learn some real Physica, Science, before engaging in philosophical debate. You will find then that Metaphysica is a lot more than engaging in logic and that ontology includes Theology as well as Science.
Actually we are talking about logical negation and their importance to be direct.
A Direct logical negation allow us to avoid addressing other irrelevant aspects of a claim.
i.e. -Do you accept my god claim
-No I don't, I reject your god claim.
This is a direct logical negation. the negation No I believe no gods exists is not a direct one to the initial question.
-" I don't believe there's anything controversial about my usage: "
-your usage "reaches out" to possible reasons , that's all.
Quoting Relativist
-Correct! If you judge the proposition as true it means you Accept it. In both remaining cases where you withhold or judge it as false you just Don't Accept/reject the claim. Withholding a judgment has the exact same implications...The claim is not accepted as part of the body of your beliefs. (it doesn't make the cut).
Lets take a real life example. When you give ad interview and you end up not getting that job can you be sure that you were rejected because the interviewer believes you suck at that job? Is it possible that you didn't convince him that you are suitable for the position? Both positions can be responsible for your rejection.
Quoting Relativist
I will agree with that but again a specific degree of belief will allow us to accept a claim and all other degrees bellow will force us to reject a claim.
Quoting Relativist
Did I???...in fact I didn't point to a dictionary at all. I pointed to Logic,that a non Direct Logical Negation can easily derail us to a Strawman or a false dichotomy.
I pointed to the fact of what happens to a claim that is either not convincing to us(reserving belief) or convincing us to be false. In both case we don't accept the claim...the claim is rejected for not meeting our standards, not because it is false.
Those logical rules have a very important role in Philosophy.
This is why I object to saying anyone has some abstract "burden of proof". If our goal is rational beliefs, the beliefs must be rationally justified, which is weaker than "proof". More often than not, the justification is an inference to best explanation - and these can be quite weak.
that's your problem Mr Hillary, not mine. To be precise its an intrinsic problem of unfalsifiable claims based on non naturalistic principles.
Fortunately the burden is on the claim and as a believer you will have to meet it.
-" If I tell you I saw it in a dream you say it's just a dream."
-No, dismissing your dream by just calling it a dream isn't the best response. I can come with a better one that is compatible with your claim.
I will say. I also had a dream that revealed to me that your dreams are not true.
So we have two people making two antagonistic claims based on the same crappy subjective evidence. "my dream told me so".
How do we go around finding out whose dream is the real deal?????
Quoting Hillary
-Hillary.....the problem with your position is that currently there are no proofs for gods! When we come up with proofs that would be the moment to justify your belief ...not a second sooner!
"What ifs" do not qualify as sound premises for arguments ...you just express a wishful thought.
Quoting Hillary
Let me get this straight....this comments comes from you...the guy who introduces gods in science? the guy who declares the universe to be god? The guy who pretends to know the cause of the big bank....that guy tells me to learn more science?
The guy who doesn't understand how we arrive to a default position, what is the Null hypothesis, why soundness is important for reasonable beliefs, why all claims have a burden,why fallacies render a conclusion irrational....that guy tells me that I am not skilled enough for philosophical debates.
I may not be educated scientifically or philosophically enough.....but You Hillary? You really think you are in a position to judge that? lol
Quoting Hillary
The problem is that your philosophy is Pseudo-metaphysika....and only Pseudo ontology includes Theology since none of your claims can be investigated for their truth value. Without a known truth value we can never evaluate them for their wisdom. Without wisdom you don't have philosophy...you have pseudo philosophy.
You are a pseudo philosopher mr Hillary and a really bad "scientist"
-"Anyone" doesn't have some abstract "burden of proof''. Only claims have burden of proof. Those you accept them and promote them are oblige to meet it....if of course they are interested in accepting reasonable beliefs.
-". If our goal is rational beliefs, the beliefs must be rationally justified, which is weaker than "proof"."
Only in a mathematical aspect proof has a stronger value.
In the colloquial usage of the term, when we demand proof we literally demand Objective facts that can falsify or verify a claim.
-" More often than not, the justification is an inference to best explanation - and these can be quite weak"
-It still remains a standard by which we justify a position based on what feedback is currently available to us. No one is or should make absolute claims about knowledge or proof or certainty.
That said no one should ever believe or promote claims with zero justification just because there is a weakness in the way we can verify/falsify things.
The burden is on you, dear Nickolast. Try to disprove your claim. You can't.
Grow up Mr Hillary! You are the magical thinker who talks about gods. you are the one who needs to provide evidence.
I don't promote any claims. I only point out that your claims are unfounded and qualify as irrational beliefs...that's all.
You promote gods don't exist. Why should I prove them in the first place? But if you want. They cant show themselves directly. That would fuck up the material order. They could use hidden variables of QM but only on microscale. So who knows in what QM experiments they show up as a divergent chance. Or i dreams, like they did for me. You think they would show themselves in you? Don't think so.
I make many scientific claims. They need evidence. But gods are no scientific claim. They don't need evidence. Believe would not be believe anymore with evidence.
That is a problem because "I believe ~p" is NOT a direct logical negation of the proposition P!
I reject p only points to one thing......that I.......reject P.
IT says nothing about ~p. As you said reserving judgments can be the reason behind of the non acceptance of P and its the "minimum" reason one should have to reject a claim.
Again you you think that the statement"I reject P" means "I believe~p" then it is really easy to strawman the reason of the non acceptance.
Quoting Relativist
I know that this is the problem. What I point out that the usage and meaning of words have one purpose, to be practical enough so that they can cover all the needs of our communication.
If this was a simple matter of semantics I wouldn't bother at all, but as you can see, using "non acceptance/rejection'' in the way you suggest it allows logical fallacies and non direct logical negations to sneak in our arguments.
This is a common problem between Atheists and Theists.
The theistic claim is that a god exists. The direct negation made by Atheism is that Atheists are not convinced/do not believe in the claim that god exists. Unfortunately theists accuse Atheists for a Non Direct logical negation which is "you believe god doesn't exist".
Atheism doesn't address this negative claim and if it does we are dealing with Antitheism or Hard atheism which both are not the minimum requirement to be an Atheist.
I'll defend Hillary (a bit). He is free to hold irrational beliefs. He is free to hold rational beliefs and decline to share his justification. We are free to remain unconvinced that he could justify it. If he'd like to convince others that his belief in God is rational, then (and only then) he would need to demonstrate that its rational by sharing and discussing his reasoning.
-Ok I saw in my sleep that your claims about god are all wrong. its not a scientific claim, it doesn't need evidence and that proves that you are wrong...
Dude I don't want to believe that someone old enough to vote, raise children and drive can make such silly claims....I think you are a troll...
It is a statement of my attitude toward p: i believe p to be false. Why is that a problem?
You believe in trolls? Did the gods tell you in a dream they don't exist? How did they tell you if they don't exist?
I believe they do on a base of scientific knowledge. They provide a reason for existence.
Well said! :up:
I am getting really tired with accusations about things that I didn't do...by Universewoowoo, Hillary and you now.
WHEN DID I say that he is not free to hold irrational beliefs??????????????????????????
I only pointed out the reason why they are irrational, why all claims have a burden, why special pleading is a fallacy, why Unwarranted Assumptions in arguments pollute our philosophical arguments , why soundness is needed for an explanation to be logical.
He is free to say whatever he wants...but he can not make up his own facts on the Ontology of the universe and push them as science (he is entitled to his own opinion not his own facts) or insisting in using theology as an authority figure in philosophy or claim that making up invisible agents is the most reasonable explanation.
I don't know why you think you need to defend HIllary from me....seriously....when did I attempt to limit his freedom.....ITs the job of Logic and Objectivity to do that.
DUde Hillary....this is what I am saying you from post one mate!!!! You need to demonstrate the objective and epistemic values of your reasons when trying to communicate your claims in public forums.......holy cow, Am I talking to a 5yo!!
There aren't scientific bases for gods and you haven't presented any.
They first have to be demonstrated as true before one claims they provide a reason for existence......
I don't make up claims about the ontology of the material universe. Science investigates that universe and material is bound to certain behavior. But insofar the reasons for the material universe,and life in it, are concerned, how can I use scientific inquiry?
As you said its your attitude......not other people's attitude or the Default Position one should hold for p.
If you project your attitude on others then you will end up with a Strawman.
This is what I am telling you. If you only reject P when you believe it is false then that should mean that you accept P when you are not convinced/reserve judgment of P?
I suspect not. You reject all Ps that you think they are false and all Ps that haven't convinced you yet....right?
I don't learn the truth in my dreams by gods! Floberhulfter comes and informs me on what is true or not.
A "claim" is a statement made by a person; it is a statement of a belief held by the person. The person (not the statement) has a burden to defend it, and only if he's promoting it - trying to convince others.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
But we all hold falsifiable beliefs, and this can be rational. Demanding proof is expecting too much, because in practice it often means "convince me". Rather, request a justification and (if the guy is being rational), you'll find it's based on something else you disagree with. You can take such a conversation down several levels without being convinced - but you can (perhaps) learn to appreciate he has some depth to his reasoning.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I agree on both these points
The existence of the universe is sufficient proof for me. Science offers no reason, only mechanisms. The mechanisms and the material it offers can't provide reason for its own existence.
In other words, its no gods of the gaps I believe in. That would be too easy. And you can get to know the gods by looking at the universe and life in it. It resembles a temporally finite version of eternal heaven. All animals, all humans, all life, has a god counterpart. They just got bored living eternal heavenly life. So they created us. For me that's an absolute truth. Other people might have different absolute truths. There is not one, an idea the old Greek invented and we are stuck with.
Sure, but that's not a problem. If you've used p to try and convince me that q is true, it suffices to tell you "but I reject p". You are then free to challenge my position on p.
[Quote]
If you project your attitude on others then you will end up with a Strawman.[/quote]You're assuming a context. Some contexts might call for more discussion about p, but I'm just defending my usage of the simple statement.
[Quote]If you only reject P when you believe it is false then that should mean that you accept P when you are not convinced/reserve judgment of P?[/quote]No. There are 3 possible attitudes I can express, not 2:
1) I accept p as true; or
2) I reject p (believe p false); or
3)I reserve judgment on p (e.g. because I have insufficient information to either accept it or reject it).
Neither do I. But they showed themselves. I can't help it. Flober can tell you they don't exist but then he's lying. Did you ask him proof?
So you seem to believe there has to be a reason for everything. Why think so?
To be honest, that seems to me to be an assumption rooted in theism.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I was explaining why he doesn't "need to" do anything. You come off as overly aggressive. You can ask him to justify his beliefs, you can express skepticism that his position is justifiable. You can ask him to explain his reasoning. I just think you should soften it up, a bit..
Well, not for everything. Only for the existence of the universe... which is pretty much everything...
I just can't imagine we are the result of coincidental quantum fluctuation leading to an evolving universe. Or that we are the result of evolving life whose only purpose it is to pass on genes or memes. There has to be something unexplainable in the universe and gods put that in it. Why there are eternal gods who got bored? Bored virus gods, bored whale gods, bored human gods? Dunno! A mystery, which makes the universe mysterious again. So you could say that the scientific explanation is the cause!
-Correct to a degree. We as thinkers also have the freedom to learn about those claims and find out from those who presented them in public forums whether they have met their burden.
Quoting Relativist
What do you mean...its too much. We are here to discuss ideas. Some of us, like Mr Hillary comes with beliefs and makes absolute statements for their truthiness. I challenge that and ask for his reasons and evidence.(To prove his reasonableness ).
Where do you see the problem exactly? Did I pointed a gun at him and forced him to come on line and make all those arrogant unfounded claims of his "mystical knowledge" about the universe?
No he accepted the challenge when he agreed to interact with others in a public forum.
Listen you are making excuses by making a no True Scotchman fallacy.
You literally claim, that he is here (in almost all Discussions that include gods), claiming that gods are real...but because he isn't here to convince people(here is your Scotchman) we shouldn't ask for evidence or as we commonly say proof with a small p.
I don't know what criteria you use to distinquish a rhetoric from "I am just expressing my beliefs in many many posts".
My criteria are really simple.When a claim appears in public I want to learn from the author or the believer whether his belief have meet their burden...that simple.
If he keeps arguing for the truth value of his belief, I take that as an effort to convince me of his unfounded beliefs. If you have a criterion that proves that I am wrong pls present it to me.
Quoting Relativist
This is what proof means in its colloquial sense. By providing objective facts he has the change to prove that his belief is rationally justified.
Don't you ever use that word in your every day life? don't you ever demand from other to "prove it to you''?
Quoting Relativist
Does he really have depth to his reasoning?By pointing to argument from ignorance fallacies, or appealing to mysteries (dreams) or reject the burden an unwarranted assumption has?
Sorry I can not see a depth but only chaos in his reasoning.
Yes. But Im not trying to convince you. If you dont believe it then it's up to you. If I would use my believe to teach you morals, it would be different. But I dont. Be hetero, be gay, be socialist, capitalist, aboriginal, whatever. But when you say my belief is childish and needs proof, Ill get defensive, naturally.
For me, it's true, for you its not. As simple as that. If you ask positive proof, I ask you for negative proof. And you havent. The proof I gave you, you dont accept. What more can I do? You want me to get all gods from heaven and show you? So they can meet their mortal counterparts?
No No No....don't introduce ifs in the topic of this discussion. The example is specific.
Non acceptance(rejection) includes Ps that we are not convinced of and Ps~ that we think they are false.
The non acceptance of a P should always be a Direct logical Negation or else your conclusions are acceptable to logical fallacies. A Logical Negation can only address your rejection of that P.... NOT the reason of the rejection of P and not your belief in a P~
i.e. "I reject all god claim" tells you nothing about the statement "I believe gods don't exist".
Quoting Relativist
You are totally confused. Attitudes are irrelevant to the misuse of the term "rejection"!
You need to understand that that 2 and 3 attitudes lead you to NOT ACCEPT the claim. Non acceptance is rejection BY DEFINITION...why is this so difficult for you !!!??????
Point me at a work of epistemology that uses the term "reject" in such a manner.
You were not...since you said :"'ll defend Hillary (a bit). He is free to hold irrational beliefs"
No were in my statement I limited his freedom to accept a claim. I only pointed out that he is the one who needs to provide evidence for his claims (not me to falsify a Universal Negative).
Quoting Relativist
-No you were promoting a no True Scotchman fallacy. When he is arguing and debating for his beliefs,all over the place so he needs to justify them. His excuse "its not a scientific claim so I get a free pass" is not acceptable....I am sorry if you can not see that.
Am I going to do this with you too? Really. After many months I got back in this forum and I had people denying the role of wisdom in philosophy, the role of knowledge in wisdom, the role of knowledge in soundness, the role of logic in Philosophy.....
Now you deny that the act of Withholding judgment means that you don't accept a claim and non acceptance isn't synonymous to rejection?
And now you ask for a "work of epistemology that uses the term reject.....in such a manner".
Dude...open a dictionary...or better see whether you accept a claim while you withhold judgement and how reasonable would be if you did that!
-"Yes. But Im not trying to convince you."
-Hillary ...first be honest to your self and then to others. You act like a child.
You are all over the place exposing your irrational beliefs.
When I ask you what are your evidence and that a claim has a burden to meet in order to qualify as a rational one...your answer is "its not a scientific one...so It doesn't have a burden".
If you weren't trying to convince people you wouldn't be whining about other scientists not listening to you...and you wouldn't be claiming that you will win a Nobel Prize for these ideas....
The arguments you use for your beliefs and for the excuses you use to avoid exposing your beliefs are ridiculous.
You are a dishonest interlocutor and unfortunately there are many magical thinker in here that reward this dishonest behavior. This is really sad.!
I am honest. With myself and with you. Children are honest.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
That's gotta do with science, not gods. If they don't wanna belief in gods, it's completely up to them. But as they claim to be interested in science and the material universe, I thought it would be nice to offer them a new cosmology (which the gods made me see!). But they won't answer or help me refine it. Or even give a simple reply. Except for Haim Harari.
I complained earlier:
Quoting Relativist
You responded:
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
But you had. And now you're doing it again.
You're arguing semantics, and insisting that your usage of the word "reject" is (somehow) required. You're wrong. I explained what I meant (and I believe my terminology is consistent with published epistemology), so we should be able to communicate. But you seem to insist I use your non-standard definition. I don't understand why this is so important to you. We seem to agree on almost everything else.
Is English not your first language?
The point is, I don't use arguments. A belief is not based on argument. It's based on reason.
I couldn't agree more! Do you need a chip replacement?
It's not merely a case of correcting some non-essential belief (e..g. "Gee, I was certain that it was going to rain today - I guess I was wrong").
For deeply religious people, their beliefs form a core part of their identity - to admit some deeply held belief is wrong is not something that comes easy.
But don't let me discourage you. :wink: You may be planting some seeds that will bear fruit some time in the future.
BTW I don't believe Hillary et al are trolls, nor are they stupid.
It is a joke, but true. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
Discussions about religion and theism are mostly futile.
Your usage appears to be non-standard in the realm of philosophy.
No that is a false statement. Any usage that doesn't much the one I suggest and resembles yours is problematic for the reason I demonstrated before (logical fallacies, non direct logical negations etc).
Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic,
-ITs not! When the justification of a usage is verified by its ability to avoid ambiguities and fallacies(as I explained many times) and exists in the dictionary then its not problematic(btw do you know that dictionaries include more than one definition?)
. After all I didn't point to a specific definition of a dictionary, but to the facts of our actions pointing to a specific one .
The actions we take are two.
We are convinced for the truthiness of a claim....we ACCEPT it.
We are not convicted thus we reserve judgment ....we don't accept it
We are convinced the claim is wrong....we don't accept it.
But you dishonestly avoid to acknowledge these fact and you will do that again.
since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy.
Sure....I just listed you the facts that force this word to describe non acceptance...
Quoting Relativist
-I just pointed out where you can look up for synonyms of non acceptance.
The definition of this word is produced by our needs to describe the action of the non acceptance of a claim either due to withholding judgment or believing to be false.
-"You're arguing semantics,"
No you dishonest sophist!!!!!! I pointed out that if it was a simple semantic issue I would accept your usage..BUT IT ISN'T AND YOU KEEP DODGING TO ACKNOWLEDGE your position has with my questions.
Your definition is lead you to a logical fallacy(Strawman) and your arbitrary assumed reason for a rejection to a non Direct Logical Negation.
AGAIN AND FOR THE LAST TIME.
WHEN you withhold judgment, do you accept it as your belief?????????
WHEN YOU believe the claim to be false, to you accept it as your belief????
Now ANSWER HOnestly with a yes or no or you are done!
-I appreciate your input. The real problem is not individuals like Hillary, but guys like Relativist who are almost there but they will spill the milk when they are challenged to correct their views or defintions according to objective facts and our needs to describe them .
Hillary is a lost cause in my opinion and this is why I only use him as the medium to communicate ideas to undecided by-standards that happen to read the thread and posses critical thinking
I will admit, this doesn't happen often but I had a fair amount of hits in the past on other platforms.
:lol:
Well, at least you make me laugh! Gnight!
Not really....one front fork ,some tubes a shorter stem and a rear derailleur
"Coincidental"? Please identify the things upu consider coincidental.
[Quote]Or that we are the result of evolving life whose only purpose it is to pass on genes or memes.[/quote]
Notice that you assume there is a "purpose". If I flip a coin and it comes up tails, does that fulfill a purpose?
[Quote]There has to be something unexplainable in the universe ...[/quote]There's a lot that isn't explained today, and I see no reason to believe humanity will ever explain everything. The actual nature of reality may never be known, but this is a reflection of our limitations. So I don't see how one can draw conclusions from this.
I don’t understand why you say the classifications are post hoc? I suppose you are saying that I (or someone) waited until after your claim was made to reveal atheistic diversity?? There are various ways in which atheism can be while still retaining its fundamental shape (not theist). When I speak of “form,” I am referring to the way in which a thing is. Since there are various ways a view could be atheistic, it follows that there are multiple forms. I use the term “system” as in a collection of interrelated parts which together make up the whole of a thing. A “belief system” is simply a collection of many beliefs that are held particularly by a person, or more generally by an ideology. It is from this concept, and the specificities thereof, that diversity emerges from amongst atheistic beliefs.
An example of two very clearly divergent, though very clearly still atheistic beliefs include the division between “strong” and “weak” atheism. In its weak form, atheism is more a psychological state lacking a belief in God, likewise neither committing to the disbelief (perhaps it’s meaningless). The strong form of atheism are those which lack a belief in God, and furthermore deny the proposition “At least one God exists” is true. Strong atheism however also affirms the truth of the negating proposition “At least one God exists is false” (in other words, a psychological state which HAS a belief—not just lacking one—and that belief is that NO God exists). You see, atheism must be defined in relation with theism. Theism holds a belief that there exists at least one God, whereas with atheism it is necessary only to lack that belief and isn’t necessary to hold position at all. I think this makes sense given that i find definitions of God either meaningless or to entail a contradiction (to define something is to describe how it is distinct from everything else, though some definitions of God seem to be describing both a distinct and interdependent part of the world).
I mean the random distribution of the momenta of real particles that are inflated from the vacuum. Well, maybe not all random as they all inflate alike. But still... The real particles, out of which you and I are formed, started to inflate. I think a previous universe is the trigger for a new inflation, but that still doesn't explain where this eternal triggering comes from. There just has to be intelligences behind it. Or not, who knows, but I feel more comfortable, in the knowledge that there is such reason behind it. It doesn't provide moral or any other religious BS. Only a reason. If the heavenly gods got bored with eternal live I can imagine they created a material copy of heaven. And since there are a lot of god kinds, we should be carefull with creation. It's not meant for us only. That's maybe the only moral...
The standard view on evolution, genes or memes trying to replicate, says the purpose of life is to do exactly that. Replicating genes or memes (which, btw, is based on an unproven dogma). But in the light of gods it gets a different shine.
If you flip a coin it might have a purpose. It depends. The coins flipped near the big bang have no purpose. The flipped particles will always develop in a universe with life. However they flip. It's a different universe every time. But life in it will be the same every time. Like that the gods can be entertained eternally.
That depends on it's actual nature. I think everything can actually be known. Why not? From the big bangs to the mind. But why should we want to? The mystery of the eternal gods never can be known. It's nice to have a material explanation for the universe though...
It's the higher power that gives mass. Litteraly. The God particle is just ordinary matter. A hyperstrong hyper
color force is the higher power.
Ohooh...
-What is my usage lol?????Where do you expect to find entries about the action of non acceptance of a claim when belief is reserved
The meaning of the word is defined by your ACTION. The dictionary only provides to which words it is synonym with.
Here is your change!
1. When you reserve judgment for a claim do you go on and Accept the claim.
Since you going to tap dance the answer is NO. You won't accept, you will reject the claim until you are ready to make that judgment.
2. When you think a claim is wrong, do you go on and Accept it?
The answer again is NO you dishonest tap dancer.
The answer on the above questions....and your tap dance around them proves to everyone to everyone that you here to pump your ego...not to acknowledge your misconceptions.
IF you were honest you would answer both questions and FOUND OUT YOURSELF that REJECTION is your reaction for a claim NOT THE REASON.
Why is so difficult for you to accept that you are making silly excuses lol....."I searched a number of sources..."...hahaha you are unable to understand basic concepts.
I will hold your feet in the fire....answer that and you will see that your objection is just your ego.
I agree. Atheism is a rejection of a preconceived idea of god or gods. There is only “relative atheism” - atheism relative to say christian god or Hindu gods or allah etc. And seeing as anyone can posit at any time a more accurate and acceptable doctrine or description of any type of god whatsoever, of a possible god either to be discovered in the future or not, then true atheism would be to not believe in all possible things.
At most we can be agnostic. We simply don’t know yet.
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle begs to differ. If you know the exact location of a particle you cannot know it’s velocity and vice versa. It’s like a dot verses a line on a piece of paper. If you have a dot you don’t know what direction it may make a line to and if you have a line you don’t know at which point along that line the original dot was drawn. It’s a simplified Illustration but mathematically Heisenbergs uncertainty principle appears to hold true. You cannot know all information simultaneously as information itself is change and change cannot stop even momentarily.
Furthermore the act of knowing all information simultaneously is additional information outside the original set. You can’t operate outside of the system from which the definition comes from - this is known as a circular definition.
For example time can only be defined by words from which time is implied: eg event, moments, sequences.
Weel, that's according to one interpretation of QM.. There are other interpretations in which a partcle has determined values of all non-commuting observables. Take, for example, the z-direction of spin. It doesn't commute with Sx and Sy. Now, entangle two electrons. Measure simulataneously the Sz1 and Sz2. The components of the other, Sz2 and Sx1, are instantly known. So both S1z as S1x can be known at the same time.
An electron around a proton can, when in an s-orbital, have precise positions, with zero velocity, if it jumps instantaneously between all positions within the bounds of the wavefunction.
A question popular among theists is: "why is there something rather than nothing?" But this assumes there is a reason - so to ask the question implies one assumes there is intentionality behind it all. Similarly, fine-tuning arguments assume there's a reason (or design objective).
Of course, I'm not going to convince you there isn't intentionality behind it all, but I'd like you to see that you can't prove (or justify) God's existence by assuming there is intentionality - that's circular.
How could we ever determine the nature of the "bottom layer" of reality? Even if a model were developed (something like the standard model of particle physics), we could never know that there isn't something even more fundamental.
Quantum mechanics is weird - had we not been able to measure the weirdness (eg double slit), no one would have proposed such an odd model. Physical reality may very well have weirdness that doesn't expose itself to us. There would be no way to know.
Assume God created the world. What exactly did he create? Would there be any way to determine this?
There is a psychological phenomenon called "the need for cognitive closure." We all have it to some degree - it's related to curiosity. But it can also drive people to embrace answers just because they are answers. Conspiracy theorists have a high need for cognitive closure. Plausibility takes a back seat, explanatory scope is the driver. "Knowing" the answer gives them comfort. IMO, it's worthwhile to seek answers, but counterproductive to land on answers just because of the compulsion to have an answer, rather than applying reasonable epistemic standards.
But so is Dawkins' interpretation of evolution. The selfish genes or memes testify and this is based on a dogma even: The central dogma of molecular biology.
It can't be denied there is purpose in biology, but the purpose as suggested by Dawkinskians is just a consequence. The passing on of genes and memes is not the purpose but a consequence. Not a cause but an effect. It can't be denied it happens but his interpretation is wrong. That is, wrt to my interpretation, which views life as a mortal, finite, material copy of eternal, non-material life in heaven. And of course, some of that non-materialness is contained in the universe too. It's simply physical charge, like electricity or color, or hypercolor (gravity is a separate case, as mass is no real charge).
Quoting Relativist
The question is asked because there has to be a reason. And the fine-tuning argument is a good indication for the reason. The coupling constants (electric, color, and hypercolor charge, and to some extent mass) need to have a fixed ratio. In the string landscape 10exp 500 possibilities are offered but in the face of infinity this is small. We can also look at the geometric shape of a particle (so not strings or branes but something more sophisticated).
Exactly! I said that earlier somewhere. When the gaps are closed, gods provide the last closure.
Two basic massless particles, beneath the standard model seems the bottom. You logically can't go deeper. Or can we?
It's not so weird if you understand it from a certain angle, contrary to what Feynman said. It's actually very easy if you get used to it. Okay, classical particles are different, but you can use them to understand the quantum domain. The quantum apple bitten is sweet and we remain innocent!
Quoting Hillary
That's an assumption you make. There is no objective basis for the claim. Everything that exists has been caused by something prior, which can be described as a "causal reason" , but it's a phrasing to describe our motivation to discover "why?" There's no objective basis for assuming intentionality.
Quoting Hillary
The constants are what they are, and the universe has evolved accordingly. Fine tuning arguments assume there was a design objective and remark at the improbability of meeting the objective. The exact state of the universe today is grossly improbable, because of the many instances of prior quantum indeterministic events. But every unrealized state would have been equally improbable - so it is an absolute certainty that the universe would exist in a low probability state. Only if you assume humans (or a life permitting universe) was a goal does it seem remarkable that this particular universe came to be.
The point is that the psychological need for causal closure makes some of us overly willing to accept answers just because they are answers, in spite of weak support and implausibility.
We may not be able to explore deeper, but that doesn't mean this is truly fundamental. We used to think protons and neutrons were fundamental.
Of course. But he could have called it the altruistic gene as well then. Though he literally claims to have found the absolute truth of organisms being vessels of selfish genes and memes. Based on a dogma. Now what a view on life...
Quoting Relativist
No. But neither is there not to claim. And I think the incapacity of physics to find the cause of it's ingredients, elementary particles, pretty good reason for such assumption.
Quoting Relativist
Yes. But they could have been different. Only if the coupling constants have the ratio they have, and the speed of light and Planck's constant are what they are, life evolves. Redirecting the problem to a landscape, a stringscape, with many possible ratios isn't sufficient. Among the 10exp500 possibilities you already put the right ratio in.
It's weird in the sense that no one would have proposed it based on everyday experience of the world. The behavior did, at least, have an experimental manifestation. But there could be weirdness that doesn't manifest itself this way. We don't know what we don't know.
But I mean, if there are 2 basics, you can't go deeper logically. Two basis particles is the minimum. It can't be one.
Why exempt god(s) from requiring a reason for existing?
That's true. But the everyday world was not looked at in the experiments. Of course the macroscopic results were everyday life results. But the microworld has different particle properties. Which are still particles. But point particles are not the solution. They mean trouble in paradise. Singularities or renormalization. All because of point particles.
Quoting Hillary
Because they are different from the material universe. They are eternal intelligences, without the need for explanation. At least, not for me. BTW, Im absolutely no Christian or other monotheist. And I don't adore or worship them selfish bastards! :grin:
Not sure I follow you here... You mean not everything can be known?
If there is a god, it is probably not directly detectable. If one is open to that possibility, one should be open to the existence of other non-detectable things.
Well, maybe the gods can influence the hidden variables, as proposed in one interpretation. The chance-like character of QM offers a means for that.
Sounds like a special pleading. You acknowledge that something exists without explanation, and we agree on that. IMO, the notion that it is something as complex as intelligent beings seems absurd.
Yes, more than likely. You should agree, since you believe there are gods. How could you possibly determine their properties?
Yes, it's a special pleading. Non-intelligent matter, like elementary particles and space, etc. need intelligences to exist. Why should eternal intelligence need one too? They are different things. I think the fact (if you dont mind me calling that) that the gods are unexplainable comforting. There must be mystery!
Well, I can account for that too (Im terrible!). We can know the gods and heaven by looking at all life. All living beings have a counterpart as god.
It appears to me that intelligence entails complex processes, which are produced by complex entities- there's a dependency on underlying, complex structure. This implies that without components that work together, there can be no intelligence. Why think intelligence can be produced without this?
Just try to imagine how particles, virtual ones, or real ones, and the space the move in (which can be made of the hidden variables of QM) can come into existence. With all the right properties (or a mechanism to include all possibilities, which isn't the string landscape, and why not simply posing that they have the right qualities.). From nothing. I can't explain that. And the direction in which they move, towards the greater entropy, is an indication too.
What do you mean by "right qualities"?
Why do you assume there are QM hidden
variables? Does quantum indeterminacy unsatisfying?
You agree something exists that is uncaused. Do you also agree that it didn't "come into" existence?
Why assume the uncaused thing(s) are as complex as intelligent being(s)?
The right coupling strengths of particles, which determines interaction, and are just numbers and determine the relative strengths of vertex factors, The right speed of light. The right Planck constant. The dimensionslity of space, though for three dimensions there are as many translational as rotational degrees of freedom. They could be interrelated though but still. Where does it come from? What blows the fire into the equations?
Quoting Relativist
I just don't believe in non-determined, "empty" chance. Hidden variables offer a solution for all problems in QM, and offers a very nice understanding of what's going on on the micro level. They can even function as the Lorenz invariant substance of space. And non-local as the are (and space by definition is) they offer an explanation for spooky effects...
Quoting Relativist
Yes. The gods are eternal without a cause. I think.
Quoting Relativist
Because them gods are the non-material forms of life, as heaven is the form of the universe. Without the evolving into beings...
This is pure speculation. There is no evidence for it. This is true of many things you've asserted. I don't see how these can possibly be justified beliefs.
Quoting Hillary
The constants are what they are, and there are consequences. This doesn't mean they're "right".
The "fire in the equations" (sounds like something Vilenkin said) is based on a platonic view of laws of nature: equations existing in platonic heaven that mysteriously affect the objects to which they apply. Law realists (e.g. Armstrong, Tooley, Sosa) view laws of nature as physical relations, part of the physical structure of the world, existing exclusively in their instantiations . e.g.the attraction between electron and proton reflects a physical relation between them.
Of course it's speculation. So what? It offers reason for the material universe. Only for claims about the material universe, inside of it, evidence is required. And maybe the interaction is by means of hidden variables in dreams. I think it's like that.
Quoting Relativist
No. But for life they are right.
Quoting Relativist
Yes. Hawking said that. The gods breath the fire, the charge, into them.
What you mean by justified? Evidence? The universe and life in it is evidence. The gods are no superman fantasies. And who knows divergent QM observations are made. Or other dreams seen...
Quoting Hillary
In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche presents a famous fable explaining the transition from polytheism to monotheism (or what he elsewhere calls “monoto-theism”): when one of the gods declared himself to be the only god (the monotheistic god), the other gods (the gods of polytheism) laughed and laughed and slapped their knees and rocked in their chairs—until finally they laughed themselves to death! Polytheism died of laughter.”
Life is a consequence of what they are. Different values would have led to different consequences.
Quoting Hillary
OK, but it still reflects a platonist perspective. Law realism seems much more reasonable.
Quoting Hillary
Simply that it's not rational, because it's unjustifiable.
Some sort of epistemic justification, including (but not limited to): deduction, induction, abduction, inference to the best explanation...
I couldn't find my car keys this morning, despite the fact that I always hang them on the hook by the front door. Am I justified in blaming a poltergeist?
Well, the universe needs a reason and a kind of sacredness. A non-scientific reason, since I have a scientific description from beginning to end. I don't see how one can go deeper. Of course you can say that's because we don't know but I think we can know. So the three combined give reason, sacredness, and an vision of how gods and heaven look like (like life and the universe) And a reason why they created the basics in the first place. And the sacredness tells that we should treat all life as sacred.
How would you define the sacred?
Maybe your scientific description from beginning to end needs to be turned on its head.
Maybe there is a different kind of science, one not based on moldy Enlightenment assumptions about reason and objectivity, a science in its infancy that doesn’t split apart natural facts and their reasons, the makers and the made, the ineffably subjective and the objective? With this science it wouldn’t be necessary to seek a different realm from the scientific to find rhr kinds of answers you say you can’t find in science.
I'll assume that by "universe", you're referring to the stars/galaxies/dark matter etc that were produced by the big bang that cosmologists study. It's true that we don't have a scientific description of what existed prior to the inflationary period - but why would you assume this implies it's probably not natural? Why assume we can't go deeper, when you consider the gaps in scientific understanding (quantum mechanics and general relativity aren't reconciled - but theoretical physicists generally believe they will one day be reconciled). You say "we can know", but do you allow for theoretical physics to advance and answer at least some of the questions? It sounds too much like argument from ignorance.
Sacredness? Please explain what that is, and what leads you to believe there is such a thing. Why think there's a heaven? Is it a non-physical place, is it just a natural container for the universe? What's the basis of your "vision"?
That's exactly the kind of science I look for. All beings, all kinds of life, have evolved between the heat of the Sun at day and the cold of the void at night. There is a magic element in matter, which physicists call charge, by means of which matter reaches out for other matter and forms ever more complex holistic wholes, running away from thermodynamic equilibrium. All life evolves like this, towards one equilibrium at day and the opposite at night (heat intake from the Sun, heat radiated away to the cold void). There are many forms of these lives evolving, and all influence each other. There is no subject object divide yet, at least, not in the sense of positioning themselves oppositely to nature. Matter has material as well as magic (mental) features. Again, that's charge. Then the unity of both splits into the pure mental appearance in the brain, and the purely material side in the material, objective world. The body, i.e., we, or other living bodies in nature, stands between. The trees and plants still sleep. The inner world, the brain, shapes the outer world and the outer world shapes the inner world. Before life emerged, there was no shift yet. The mental and matter were one. Then the mental, the charges, became part of the inner world (patterns of electric charges continuously running in the brain, which from the outside looks material, but for minds only) and the material part of the outer world. With our bodies (or that of other forms of life, though viruses are still quite one) in between. The physical world is constantly simulated in our brain, our brain continuously resonates but at the same time shapes the physical world. But this is all happening to represent heavenly life, and it has to be complex if all forms of gods are to be represented in the universe. All mortal life has an eternal counterpart in heaven, as the universe itself. The difference being that it's all material plus divine charge here. But the big bang repeats over and over, in agreement with the desire of all gods to watch themselves eternally. In a sense we are immortal.
But I have a description. And for what happened long before the big bang too. And after ours.
Quoting Relativist
The whole history of periodic big bangs is natural. And because I can't know more than an infinite past (in which time starts from zero over and over) so what else to conclude that the gods started it infinitely long ago? What ignorance you refer too? It all fits together. Quantum field theory, gravity, dark energy, etc. Its all accounted for. Particles are tiny geometrical structures (3 of 6 space dimensions curled up to a tiny Planck circle, so no singularities can evolve, and the particles precisely fit around the mouth of a central 4d wormhole (which in fact is 7d), so the can inflate away from the mouth, on a closed 3d (6d) structure), there are only two massless basic fields, etc.
What's sacred? Good question!
But there are quite a few speculative hypotheses like this. How do you justify settling on a particular one?
Quoting Hillary
What makes you so sure the past is infinite? How do you reconcile an infinite past with time starting over?
Quoting Hillary
What does it mean to be "infinitely long ago"? Infinite past seems to entail no beginning.
I referred to an argument from ignorance: i.e. we don't know what happened, so you insist "therefore it must be X". The problem is there there are many existing speculative hypotheses available today, and there's many more could be developed. How did you choose the one you embrace?
Quoting Hillary
I'm asking what you mean by the term (which you used), not what IS sacred.
Penrose's cyclic model and the oscillating branes resemble serial big bangs too, but offer no real cause for inflation. They take it for granted.
Quoting Relativist
If before the current big bang, anither big bang inflates to infinity, then at the central singularity circumstances will trigger a new inflation. A new thermodynamic time and space emerge. And the end of our universe triggers a new bang behind us.
Quoting Relativist
If the first big bang started infinite big bangs ago, then the serie is created infinite time ago.
Quoting Relativist
Mine explains dark energy. To be honest, I don't know if the others explain dark energy. Anyhow, every physicist considers his model right, and I can't see, and haven't heard yet anyone giving arguments against it. I criticized myself too heavenly. Maybe I see one problem. But Im working on it.
Quoting Relativist
It means holey, that you gotta have respect for creation. Its made by gods.
You're treating "infinite" as a number, and transfinite math doesn't solve the problem. Time proceeds in countable increments, and you can't count from aleph-0 to today.
Yes. But that's no problem for gods. Maybe they created the first bang a zillion big bangs ago. The matter and spacetime structure to make serial bangs happen. One thing is sure, they created it once. If that's in an infinite past, no problem.
Well, aleph0 is countable. The continuum is aleph1
What do you mean here?
Quoting Hillary
There is a successor function that "counts" from one transfinite to the next, but you can't count integers (corresponding to a day, for example) and eventually reach aleph-0.
Aleph0 is countable. The number of big bangs is infinite. The times in all big bangs go from zero to infinite (or very large time). So an infinity of infinities or just infinity. You could involve aleph34 or baleph476 ot kaleph3, but why should that be a problem for gods? They are themselves eternal.
Yes, the set of integers is a countable set (unlike the real numbers). But the problem I'm referring to is that a temporal counting process would never end - it cannot reach infinity.
So?
The continuum can't be broken up in the first place.
Sure it can. The real number line can be divided into discrete, equal intervals mapping to integers. There have been infinitely many temporal points of time since yesterday, but we can divide it up into 24 1-hour intervals.
I mean the spacetime continuum.
Points of time don't exist. Nor points of space.
Irrelevant. We can examine the passage of time in countable, discrete intervals.
Yes. And?
Only now I saw the deal offered! Yes, agreed. But that should hold for every alliance between worldview, culture and state. Including the scientific worldview, institutionalized and by law intruding into the lives of people without them asking. :smile:
Why would the lack of explanation be a weakness?
Dear brother Gregory is no longer with us, regrettably. It appears he said something wrong. About the evil left or something like that. So allow me to answer. In my humble opinion, it's absolutely no weakness not to believe in a reason for existence. If people want to live an irrational life it's completely up to them. It's not a question of being weak or strong and it might even be, get this, a sign of strength to choose for irrationality! So, no worries.
Well, the enduring strength and prodigeous achievements of modern natural sciences are the result of the interminable search for better explanations which we will always need. On the other hand, "God" is inexplicable – the ur-mystery that begs all questions – and, used to explain "the big picture", always functions as a crutch that cripples both minds and morals. Theists (& other woo-thumpers) are just not strong enough, not courageous enough, not honest enough – in most instances – to admit "I don't know of any good, evidence-based, ultimate explanations" or (more to the point) "the only ultimate explanation that does not entail an infinite regress and therefore requires an arbitrary, question-begging, terminus is There Is No Ultimate Explanation" ... and so they have to make shit up and persecute – often torture & murder – each other "in the name of" different interpretations of the same falsehood.
Just a value judgement.