Atheism and Faith

[Polymath257]

Cool! So, out of curiosity, do you believe that Einstein's theory of special relativity is true or false?

I believe it is a more accurate description of the universe than Newton's ideas.

 

[Left Coast]

Well, it's pretty clearly implied by the terms you are choosing to use. You are not referring to yourself as "undetermined", are you. You're referring to yourself as "unbelieving". As are nearly all your fellow atheists these days. So I am taking you all at your (chosen) word. And since choosing unbelief (in gods) IS choosing a position, it begs to be justified. Just as choosing "belief" (in gods) is a position, and likewise begs to be justified.

The justification I hear, constantly, from atheists is that "there is no evidence". But "no evidence" does not justify "unbelief". It only justifies "undetermined". Yet almost none of you EVER refer to yourselves as being "undetermined". And in fact, you nearly always INSIST on using the term "unbelief". So "unbelief" it is, but then your collective defense is just plain illogical nonsense. Which I suspect you all know deep in your hearts. Which is why you all are trying so hard to pretend that you're just "undetermined", when clearly you are not. Because being "undetermined" excuses you from having to justify your position.

From the other things you've posted at RF, you strike me as a pretty bright guy. And your misunderstanding here is so basic that it makes me question if you're just genuinely not understanding what we're saying.

If I want to claim that Bob murdered someone, it's my job to put forward the evidence that he did it, correct?

And if I put forward no evidence, or crap evidence, for his guilt, you're rationally justified in not believing it. Correct?

And the fact that you don't believe it because my evidence sucked doesn't mean that it's your job to prove Bob is innocent. Correct?

If you agree with all of the above, then the atheist position should be clear to you. We don't believe gods exist because the evidence we've seen sucks. That doesn't mean we have a burden of proof to show that no gods exist.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Faith cannot possibly be a path to truth. By faith, either of two mutually exclusive ideas can be believed to be true when at least one is not.

And as I wrote above, rational skepticism is one of man's greatest intellectual achievements ever, up there with ideas like justice and using language. Skepticism frees us from the bondage of superstition and received "wisdom."

Belief has the power to determine. The evil metaphysical is neither faith nor knowledge, but suffering. Skepticism could easily be the anti-christ, even non-violence is nihilistic. God is to the devil as love is to hate. Like a omnipotence force against a invincible object. Leading up to a final battle here on middle earth between God and the devil. And who ever lays claim to war has created destiny itself.

 

[Terry Sampson]

You are correct in your portrayal of the Light Sphere 'Paradox',

Thanks for the confirmation.

but why you think it is problematic is unclear.

The undeniable fact that I think it is problematic is unimportant because (a) I am nobody and (b) a goodly number of exchanges, since 2002, with proponents of relativity (with varying skills and predominantly greater offensiveness) have persuaded me that they reject any and every "But ..." that I have put forward, offering me nothing to replace my "Buts" except:statements along the line of:

I wouldn't use the words true or false to describe Einstein's theories. I would say that they work, and are thus useful and should be implemented where they can help.

BTW, ... having belatedly checked my dictionary for the meaning of "intuition", I recant my recent acceptance of ratiocinator's proposal that I reject Einstein's theory of special relativity based on my intuition. I was indeed perplexed by what I years later learned is called the Paradox of the Light Sphere, but intuition was not the basis for my perplexity. And when I finally met folks, in 2002-2004 after 15+ years of perplexed casual "self-study", who unintentionally "taught" me the little I know about the Lorentz Transformations, proceeded to offend me at every opportunity, my anti-relativity stance hardened. But it was not until I discovered the Loedel Diagram and how to draw one portraying my Double Triplets scenario, that I cast off the last bit of self-doubt.

So, do I believe that STR is false because I found it counterintuitive and still do? No. I may be a boob when it comes to math, but I have indeed given the matter far more consideration than the majority of folks who take "mainstream science's" word for it that the theory is true. It's useful, to be sure. But it ain't true. As for Newton's theory? I am not a Newtonian, although I affirm Absolute Space, Absolute Time, and Absolute Motion. And it's because I affirm them, that say Einstein's theories are not true.

That's my bias. But then, who cares? I'm nobody.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for the confirmation.

The undeniable fact that I think it is problematic is unimportant because (a) I am nobody and (b) a goodly number of exchanges, since 2002, with proponents of relativity (with varying skills and predominantly greater offensiveness) have persuaded me that they reject any and every "But ..." that I have put forward, offering me nothing to replace my "Buts" except:statements along the line of:

Well, the consistency of the two perspectives is a simple matter of using the Lorentz transformations and a bit of algebra. if you are interested, I can help you through the math,

BTW, ... having belatedly checked my dictionary for the meaning of "intuition", I recant my recent acceptance of ratiocinator's proposal that I reject Einstein's theory of special relativity based on my intuition. I was indeed perplexed by what I years later learned is called the Paradox of the Light Sphere, but intuition was not the basis for my perplexity. And when I finally met folks, in 2002-2004 after 15+ years of perplexed casual "self-study", who unintentionally "taught" me the little I know about the Lorentz Transformations, proceeded to offend me at every opportunity, my anti-relativity stance hardened. But it was not until I discovered the Loedel Diagram and how to draw one portraying my Double Triplets scenario, that I cast off the last bit of self-doubt.

And how does a Loedel diagram show a problem? if anything, it shows exactly why there is NOT a problem.

So, do I believe that STR is false because I found it counterintuitive and still do? No. I may be a boob when it comes to math, but I have indeed given the matter far more consideration than the majority of folks who take "mainstream science's" word for it that the theory is true. It's useful, to be sure. But it ain't true. As for Newton's theory? I am not a Newtonian, although I affirm Absolute Space, Absolute Time, and Absolute Motion. And it's because I affirm them, that say Einstein's theories are not true.

That's my bias. But then, who cares? I'm nobody.

Well, there are two aspects. In the first, you seem to think the theory is internally inconsistent. That is easily shown to be wrong by some mathematics (mostly high school algebra). The theory gives internally consistent results.

The other is whether the theory actually works in the real world. And, to the extent we have been able to test it over the last century, it does (except, of course, in the situations involving gravity, i.e, curved spacetime--but even there it works locally).

 

[Terry Sampson]

You do realize that you're talking to a nobody, don't you?

In the first, you seem to think the theory is internally inconsistent.

That is false, and you are mistaken to think that I do think the theory is internally inconsistent.

The other is whether the theory actually works in the real world.

(a) What "real world"? the one in which things contract in length because their "reference frame" has been rotated or the one in which the angle between the mirrors in my Hypothetical Experiment would actually change due to "real" length contraction?
(b) The theory works? Cool! Newton's now-antiquated theory used to "work" and, for day-to-day mundane purposes still "works". Now, Einstein's theory "works" better in less mundane circumstances. Are either "true"? No. Close and closer, but not true, in my book. You want to say that relativity works or has been proven to work? Be my guest, but don't waste your time trying to get me to say "Uncle. Relativity is true." I ain't a gonna do it.

 

[Polymath257]

You do realize that you're talking to a nobody, don't you?

That is false, and you are mistaken to think that I do think the theory is internally inconsistent.

OK, so the two paradoxes are actual results of the math of TSR. So they are NOT contradictions, just things that are initially counter-intuitive. Right?

(a) What "real world"? the one in which things contract in length because their "reference frame" has been rotated or the one in which the angle between the mirrors in my Hypothetical Experiment would actually change due to "real" length contraction?

No, the one in which, as TSR predicts, the angle of reflection is NOT the angle of incidence for a moving mirror.

(b) The theory works? Cool! Newton's now-antiquated theory used to "work" and, for day-to-day mundane purposes still "works". Now, Einstein's theory "works" better in less mundane circumstances. Are either "true"? No. Close and closer, but not true, in my book. You want to say that relativity works or has been proven to work? Be my guest, but don't waste your time trying to get me to say "Uncle. Relativity is true." I ain't a gonna do it.

The only standard for 'true' is that it works in practice. And, by that standard, TSR is true in the limit of zero curvature.

 

[Aupmanyav]

$50.00 (US) says I'll be waiting for you on the other side.

Alas! We are destined to different destinations. You will go to the Lord's kingdom, I will go to eternal hell.

I didn't see where you ever acknowledged the difference between asserting that something is untrue and withholding judgment for lack of sufficient evidence to believe, the latter of which is both rational and a good description of one of the best ideas man has ever had - rational skepticism, or the choice to believe nothing based on mere assertion, but to believe only that which is supported by evidence, and even then, only to a degree commensurate with the quality and quantity of available evidence, and always tentatively and with a willingness to adjust one's degree of belief (probable, very probable, as close to certain as is possible, etc.) as new relevant evidence surfaces making that belief less or more likely to be correct.

The six levels of truth, probability, the six sigmas. Beautiful post as I am going through it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Einstein. And all physicists since.

Sure, the speed is constant.
What I meant was that it would appear to be different to different observers. But most probably, I am wrong here too.

(a) What "real world"? the one in which things contract in length because their "reference frame" has been rotated or the one in which the angle between the mirrors in my Hypothetical Experiment would actually change due to "real" length contraction?

Yeah, that is the real world where things seem to contract and extend in length and particles appear from nowhere and dissolve in nowhere. This is 'maya'.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, the speed is constant.
What I meant was that it would appear to be different to different observers. But most probably, I am wrong here too.

Nope, the same speed for all observers. That's part of what the 'constant' means in context.

 

[Terry Sampson]

OK, so the two paradoxes are actual results of the math of TSR. So they are NOT contradictions, just things that are initially counter-intuitive. Right?

(a) There are no paradoxes in relativity except maybe one, IMO, which is the fact that in spite of many relativists' firm conviction that there are no paradoxes in relativity, they continue to refer to several items as paradoxes.
(b) There are no contradictions, just things that are initially surprising, then perplexing, then intriguing, then a pain in the arse to work through.

 

[Terry Sampson]

But it was not until I discovered the Loedel Diagram and how to draw one portraying my Double Triplets scenario, that I cast off the last bit of self-doubt.

And how does a Loedel diagram show a problem? if anything, it shows exactly why there is NOT a problem.

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps you can clear up something for me. Remember my previous "Two Spaceship, Double Sets of Triplets" scenario?
Below, I've posted four items:

• The first is a drawing of the two spaceships, each of which contains a set of triplets. All are at rest with respect to each other.
• Next is a Table listing nine events from two perspectives: the first from the POV of the red spaceship (SA) and red triplets, the second from the POV of the blue spaceship (SB) and blue triplets.
• On the next page is my version of a Loedel Diagram of events from the first spaceship and set of triplets' perspective.
• And finally, I've drawn my version of a Loedel Diagram of events from the second spaceship and set of triplets' perspective.

Capice? If so, did I draw my Loedel Diagrams adequately?

 

[PureX]

From the other things you've posted at RF, you strike me as a pretty bright guy. And your misunderstanding here is so basic that it makes me question if you're just genuinely not understanding what we're saying.

If I want to claim that Bob murdered someone, it's my job to put forward the evidence that he did it, correct?

And if I put forward no evidence, or crap evidence, for his guilt, you're rationally justified in not believing it. Correct?

And the fact that you don't believe it because my evidence sucked doesn't mean that it's your job to prove Bob is innocent. Correct?

If you agree with all of the above, then the atheist position should be clear to you. We don't believe gods exist because the evidence we've seen sucks. That doesn't mean we have a burden of proof to show that no gods exist.

 

[PureX]

From the other things you've posted at RF, you strike me as a pretty bright guy. And your misunderstanding here is so basic that it makes me question if you're just genuinely not understanding what we're saying.

If I want to claim that Bob murdered someone, it's my job to put forward the evidence that he did it, correct?

And if I put forward no evidence, or crap evidence, for his guilt, you're rationally justified in not believing it. Correct?

And the fact that you don't believe it because my evidence sucked doesn't mean that it's your job to prove Bob is innocent. Correct?

If you agree with all of the above, then the atheist position should be clear to you. We don't believe gods exist because the evidence we've seen sucks. That doesn't mean we have a burden of proof to show that no gods exist.

There is no logical reason to assume Bob is innocent just because he wasn't proven guilty (to "believe" he is innocent, or to "unbelieve in his guilt", as some fools might choose to say it). So why are those fools choosing to say that they, "unbelieve in his guilt"? Why the deliberately confusing and convoluted terminology?

I think we all know why. It's because they don't want to admit that they believe Bob is innocent, because they know it's an illogical conclusion to draw based only on the lack of a legal conviction.

Just because we treat people as being innocent until proven guilty under the law doesn't mean that we are obliged to BELIEVE that they're innocent. So for someone to assert this belief, even by the convoluted method of proclaiming their "unbelief in his guilt", is to take an unnecessary and unsupported position on the guilt or innocence of the accused. And once one has taken AND DECLARED such a position (by their insistence on proclaiming "belief/unbelief"), they are then obliged to justify it to the rest of us.

 

[Polymath257]

(a) There are no paradoxes in relativity except maybe one, IMO, which is the fact that in spite of many relativists' firm conviction that there are no paradoxes in relativity, they continue to refer to several items as paradoxes.
(b) There are no contradictions, just things that are initially surprising, then perplexing, then intriguing, then a pain in the arse to work through.

Paradoxes are paradoxes because they challenge intuitions. That gives an opportunity to learn--to change your intuition to correspond to the facts.

So, things like the 'twin paradox' are counter-intuitive the first time you see them because most people come to relativity with a classical (or even a pre-classical) set of intuitions on how things should work. The 'twin paradox' shows those intuitions to be wrong and, when you learn enough, you can change your intuitions to be more in line with what is known about the universe.

Why you expect the universe to NOT be surprising, perplexing, and a pain to deal with isn't clear to me.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps you can clear up something for me. Remember my previous "Two Spaceship, Double Sets of Triplets" scenario?
Below, I've posted four items:

• The first is a drawing of the two spaceships, each of which contains a set of triplets. All are at rest with respect to each other.
• Next is a Table listing nine events from two perspectives: the first from the POV of the red spaceship (SA) and red triplets, the second from the POV of the blue spaceship (SB) and blue triplets.
• On the next page is my version of a Loedel Diagram of events from the first spaceship and set of triplets' perspective.
• And finally, I've drawn my version of a Loedel Diagram of events from the second spaceship and set of triplets' perspective.

Capice? If so, did I draw my Loedel Diagrams adequately?

View attachment 34398 View attachment 34399 View attachment 34400 View attachment 34401

OK, you aren't understanding what a Loedel diagram is. The first diagram you gave *is* the Loedel diagram for this situation. There is not one for Spaceship A and a different one for spaceship B. The second one you gave makes no sense and you seem to have misunderstood what the first is saying.

The Loedel diagram for this situation is the spacetime picture of the reference frame where spaceship A and spaceship B are moving at the same speed in opposite directions. And we can read from that one diagram what happens in all three frames of reference.

So, successive times in the Loedel frame are given by horizontal parallel lines. Going from the bottom to the top, we find in the frame, 1 happens, then 2 and 4 are simultaneous, then 3,5, and 7 are simultaneous, then 6 and 8 are, and finally 9 happens. I'm using the numbering of events given in that first diagram, by the way. Your diagram doesn't show any of these horizontal lines, though.

Successive times for spaceship A are given by the blue parallel lines not marked with A1, A2, or A3. As we go from the bottom to the top, that sequence of parallel lines gives, in order, event 1, then 4, then 2 and 7 simultaneous, then 5, then 3 and 8 simultaneous, then 6 and finally 9. Your diagram only shows three of these, missing the pairs of simultaneous events.

Next, successive times for spaceship B are given by the red unlabeled lines. Going from the bottom to the top using these parallel lines gives the following sequence of events from that frame: first 1, then 2, then 3 and 4 simultaneous, then 5, then 6 and 7 simultaneous, then 8, and finally 9. Again, your diagram only shows three of these lines.

So, once again, given two observers (spaceships A and B), the Loedel diagram is the diagram from the frame of references where both A and B are moving at the same speed, but in opposite directions. This particular frame of reference has advantages in the analysis because it is easy to draw and gives the results from *three* different frames fairly easy. This allows us to compare what happens from the perspective of all three frames while also showing all points in spacetime.

The second diagram you gave isn't a Loedel diagram for this at all. And, truthfully, I have no idea how you came up with it.

 

[Polymath257]

Just to be clear, I am using the Loedel diagram here:
View attachment 34400

This is *the* Loedel diagram for this situation. And we have the following designations

Event 1: A1 and B1 are side by side
Event 2: A2 and B1 are side by side
Event 3: A3 and B1 are side by side
Event 4: A1 and B2 are side by side
Event 5: A2 and B2 are side by side
Event 6: A3 and B2 are side by side
Event 7: A1 and B3 are side by side
Event 8: A2 and B3 are side by side
Event 9: A3 and B3 are side by side.

We can then use this Loedel diagram to determine what happens in each of the three frames relevant here: that of spaceship A, that of spaceship B, and that of the Loedel frame where spaceship A and spaceship B are moving at the same speed in opposite directions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is no logical reason to assume Bob is innocent just because he wasn't proven guilty (to "believe" he is innocent, or to "unbelieve in his guilt", as some fools might choose to say it). So why are those fools choosing to say that they, "unbelieve in his guilt"? Why the deliberately confusing and convoluted terminology?

What's confusing or convoluted about it?

You don't have to assume someone's innocent in order to not be convinced of their guilt. How is that confusing?

I think we all know why. It's because they don't want to admit that they believe Bob is innocent, because they know it's an illogical conclusion to draw based only on the lack of a legal conviction.

Purex, the moment you start an argument with "We all know.." and then follow it up by making an entirely unfounded assumption about the beliefs or intents of millions of people; stop and ask yourself why you feel you have to deliberately assume bad faith of people who just don't happen to share the same position as you.

Left Coast's explanation was honest, open and highly complimentary to you and assumed no ill will on your part. Why do you have assume bad faith on theirs (and of millions of other atheists)?

Just because we treat people as being innocent until proven guilty under the law doesn't mean that we are obliged to BELIEVE that they're innocent. So for someone to assert this belief, even by the convoluted method of proclaiming their "unbelief in his guilt", is to take an unnecessary and unsupported position on the guilt or innocence of the accused. And once one has taken AND DECLARED such a position (by their insistence on proclaiming "belief/unbelief"), they are then obliged to justify it to the rest of us.

What is it about the simple distinction between "I believe this person is innocent" and "I don't believe this person is guilty" are you not understanding?

Is this lack of understanding as deliberate as the insinuations you accuse atheists of?

 

[Terry Sampson]

Alas! We are destined to different destinations.

Personally? I'm inclined to believe we're destined for the same destination. To the extent that some residual sense of "self" remains, whether that destination is heaven or hell will depend on our desire to be there. I suspect that if there is no remnant of "self", then heaven and hell would be irrelevant, wouldn't they? If, on the other hand, each of finds our self somewhere, it will be heaven for those who want to be there, ... and hell for those who don't. IMO.

Sure, the speed is constant. What I meant was that it would appear to be different to different observers. But most probably, I am wrong here too.

LOL! Give it up! Relativists have a penchant for rejecting any attempt to state the "law" if it doesn't parrot their statement of it.

 

[Left Coast]

There is no logical reason to assume Bob is innocent just because he wasn't proven guilty

Correct, and saying you aren't convinced he's guilty doesn't mean you're saying he's innocent.

(to "believe" he is innocent, or to "unbelieve in his guilt", as some fools might choose to say it).

Again, those two phrases are not equivalent. The fact that you don't believe Bob is guilty (because the evidence sucks) doesn't mean you're convinced he's innocent either.

So why are those fools choosing to say that they, "unbelieve in his guilt"? Why the deliberately confusing and convoluted terminology?

For the same reason that in a court of law we find people "not guilty" instead of declaring them, "innocent." When people are declared, "not guilty" that doesn't mean the jury is convinced the person is innocent. It means the evidence presented was insufficient to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is in fact guilty.

A theist is a person who is convinced that God exists. An atheist is a person who isn't. That doesn't mean they are convinced he doesn't exist.

I think we all know why. It's because they don't want to admit that they believe Bob is innocent, because they know it's an illogical conclusion to draw based only on the lack of a legal conviction.

For some that may be the case. Some people may truly think Bob is innocent. And if they think so, they do adopt a burden of proof. But that's not the lowest common denominator among those who agree with the not guilty verdict. The LCD is that the evidence is insufficient to draw a guilty verdict, and therefore we remain unconvinced of Bob's guilt.

Just because we treat people as being innocent until proven guilty under the law doesn't mean that we are obliged to BELIEVE that they're innocent.

Agreed. That's my whole point.

So for someone to assert this belief, even by the convoluted method of proclaiming their "unbelief in his guilt", is to take an unnecessary and unsupported position on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

But we're not asserting this belief. You are attempting to mind read. We're telling you exactly what we're asserting. You just admitted that one doesn't have to believe in Bob's guilt or innocence. You have taken a position that Bob is guilty. Your evidence sucks. We're telling you your evidence sucks, and therefore we're unconvinced he's guilty. We don't believe it. That's the beginning and end of it.

And once one has taken AND DECLARED such a position (by their insistence on proclaiming "belief/unbelief"), they are then obliged to justify it to the rest of us.

If I declared Bob is innocent, you'd be right. But I haven't. I'm simply unconvinced he's guilty. I'm not a believer in his guilt.

So instead of griping about our particular word choice, here's an idea: show us some decent evidence that Bob is guilty. Then this whole thing can be put to rest.