Can explicit atheists ever really understand atheism?

[joe1776]

I take exactly the same attitude towards any other phenomenon that has not been demonstrated and is contrary to what we know of the laws of physics.

That explains your bias but what interests me is your position on probability. You supported another poster who, when I claimed to know that precognition and telepathy were real but was unable to demonstrate it (according to his rule), said that I had probably just fooled myself.

One simply can't make statements like that about a claim without knowing all the facts of the claim. Even if you are correct that most claims can be explained by mundane causes, it's still the small percentage that defy mundane explanations that matter.

I read the estimate that only 10% of UFO sightings could not be explained by mundane causes. That 90% factor carries no weight at all when weighing the evidence for a sighting included in the 10%.

 

[Polymath257]

That explains your bias but what interests me is your position on probability. You supported another poster who, when I claimed to know that precognition and telepathy were real but was unable to demonstrate it (according to his rule), said that I had probably just fooled myself.

One simply can't make statements like that about a claim without knowing all the facts of the claim. Even if you are correct that most claims can be explained by mundane causes, it's still the small percentage that defy mundane explanations that matter.

I read the estimate that only 10% of UFO sightings could not be explained by mundane causes. That 90% factor carries no weight at all when weighing the evidence for a sighting included in the 10%.

I disagree. The nature of physical laws is such that they have been extensively tested. That means the likelihood of a violation of those laws is small. In particular, we know enough about macroscopic phenomena to say that telepathy and precognition are violations of the known laws of physics. This puts the likelihood of such happening as *very* low: we would have to demonstrate those laws are wrong.

This makes the likelihood of delusion far, far larger than the likelihood of valid telepathy or precognition.

Now, it is *possible* the known laws are wrong? yes, indeed it is. But the probability of such, especially in cases from human-scale events is incredibly small.

So, I am NOT simply saying that there are explanations for most claims of telepathy and precognition. I am saying any actual cases would have to violate known physical laws. And, given the extent to which these laws have been tested, the probability of a violation at human scales is vanishingly low. And, contrariwise, the likelihood of delusion is known to be fairly high. So, of the two, delusion has the higher probability.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Everything. You probably do not even know where the colander goes.

oooh! That's easy: The colander goes on one's head, naturally! Especially for driver's licence photo-ops.

R'Amen!

And? Arrrrgh!

 

[Subduction Zone]

oooh! That's easy: The colander goes on one's head, naturally! Especially for driver's licence photo-ops.

R'Amen!

And? Arrrrgh!

I knew that someone would give the right answer. My faith in humanity is restored!

 

[Subduction Zone]

That explains your bias but what interests me is your position on probability. You supported another poster who, when I claimed to know that precognition and telepathy were real but was unable to demonstrate it (according to his rule), said that I had probably just fooled myself.

One simply can't make statements like that about a claim without knowing all the facts of the claim. Even if you are correct that most claims can be explained by mundane causes, it's still the small percentage that defy mundane explanations that matter.

I read the estimate that only 10% of UFO sightings could not be explained by mundane causes. That 90% factor carries no weight at all when weighing the evidence for a sighting included in the 10%.

Actually I said that you were probably fooling yourself. And you added to that conclusion when you gave the circumstances of that supposed vision.

You do realize that others have the same sort of vision as you had. Oddly enough the God that they always see is their own personal God. That should tell you something about the validity of such visions.

Meanwhile you made claims against another that you have yet to substantiate.

 

[joe1776]

I disagree. The nature of physical laws is such that they have been extensively tested. That means the likelihood of a violation of those laws is small. In particular, we know enough about macroscopic phenomena to say that telepathy and precognition are violations of the known laws of physics. This puts the likelihood of such happening as *very* low: we would have to demonstrate those laws are wrong.

This makes the likelihood of delusion far, far larger than the likelihood of valid telepathy or precognition.

Now, it is *possible* the known laws are wrong? yes, indeed it is. But the probability of such, especially in cases from human-scale events is incredibly small.

So, I am NOT simply saying that there are explanations for most claims of telepathy and precognition. I am saying any actual cases would have to violate known physical laws. And, given the extent to which these laws have been tested, the probability of a violation at human scales is vanishingly low. And, contrariwise, the likelihood of delusion is known to be fairly high. So, of the two, delusion has the higher probability.

I understand your position but I know you're wrong. You are falsely assuming that the laws of physics as you know them can fully explain reality.

It's obvious to me you must be wrong because I saw a vision of the finish of a horse race 20 minutes before it happened. The vision repeated itself a dozen times or more like a looped six-second video of poor quality but in color. I saw the first two-horses at the finish of a ten-horse race. The winner, a chestnut, wore a saddle blanket with a number five on it. The second horse was a bay which finished two lengths back on the outside.

Now, if I had simply had a hunch that included all these factors, I could have written off the experience as a truly remarkable coincidence. But it wasn't a hunch and I can't write off that repeating vision as delusion since it happened exactly as I foresaw it in reality 20 minutes later.

In your shoes, I'd consider the possibility that I'm lying. Even though I know that precognition is possible, I don't accept or reject anecdotal evidence for it from others. However, I know that I'm not lying so, for me, that possibility is ruled out.

I know that precognition exists but I can't demonstrate it to anyone else.

Bottom line: Subduction Zone's statement that if you can't demonstrate it, you can't know it is baloney.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand your position but I know you're wrong. You are falsely assuming that the laws of physics as you know them can fully explain reality.

No, I do not. But I want anything that shows they are wrong to be *demonstrated publicly*.

It's obvious to me you must be wrong because I saw a vision of the finish of a horse race 20 minutes before it happened. The vision repeated itself a dozen times or more like a looped six-second video of poor quality but in color. I saw the first two-horses at the finish of a ten-horse race. The winner, a chestnut, wore a saddle blanket with a number five on it. The second horse was a bay which finished two lengths back on the outside.

Now, if I had simply had a hunch that included all these factors, I could have written off the experience as a truly remarkable coincidence. But it wasn't a hunch and I can't write off that repeating vision as delusion since it happened exactly as I foresaw it in reality 20 minutes later.

In your shoes, I'd consider the possibility that I'm lying. Even though I know that precognition is possible, I don't accept anecdotal evidence for it from others. However, I know that I'm not lying so, for me, that possibility is ruled out.

I know that precognition exists but I can't demonstrate it to anyone else.

Bottom line: Subduction Zone's statement that if you can't demonstrate it, you can't know it is baloney.

In that case, you can take it as a working hypothesis. Until there is a demonstration, I will continue to think it more likely that you deluded yourself. And, by the way, unless it were publicly demonstrable, I'd feel the same way about an experience *I* had: that I was probably deluded.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No, it is muddling. Because you don't know that 'know' is a belief. You don't understand the word usage.

Agnostic = without knowledge of deities
Atheist = without belief in deities

One is not the other. One can be a gnostic atheist, which would be those who claim to know that there are no gods. One can be an agnostic atheist (like myself) who don't believe in gods but admit that we currently can't know if gods do not exist. There are agnostic theists who believe in a deity but recognize that they can't know if God truly exists. The believe through faith.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Are you saying that unless claims of precognition and telepathy have been demonstrated to be true, that precognition and telepathy are therefore impossible? If you are, that's nonsense.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Interesting. I've never considered atheism to be a passive regard of deities. Implicit atheism: "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Under the definitions given in your linked source I've always thought of atheism as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it." Thanks for the information.

.

Bigfoot might be a good example. I think it would actually be pretty cool if Bigfoot were real. An anthropomorphic and bipedal ape wandering around the woods would be a really cool species. However, I have seen a lot of bad evidence for Bigfoot, no real good evidence for Bigfoot, and a lot of human psychology that would drive groups of people to share a belief in Bigfoot even in the absence of evidence for Bigfoot. Therefore, I have no belief that Bigfoot is real.

To use a different analogy, it's kind of hard to believe in Santa Claus after you stop believing in Santa Claus.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Bigfoot might be a good example. I think it would actually be pretty cool if Bigfoot were real. An anthropomorphic and bipedal ape wandering around the woods would be a really cool species. However, I have seen a lot of bad evidence for Bigfoot, no real good evidence for Bigfoot, and a lot of human psychology that would drive groups of people to share a belief in Bigfoot even in the absence of evidence for Bigfoot. Therefore, I have no belief that Bigfoot is real.

To use a different analogy, it's kind of hard to believe in Santa Claus after you stop believing in Santa Claus.

Indeed. Even after witnessing 'Santa Claus' in the mall, it's kinda hard to go back to that degree of naivete.

On the third paw? Although I've not seen it myself, some tell me that the movie Bad Santa will make a believer out of you if watched--

-- of course, they do not specify "believer in what".... I expect it'll be something akin to "humans are mostly sh---"....

Which is one reason why I've not watched, myself.... I rather enjoy thinking (however wrong I may be) that humans are generally kind to one another. Mostly.

 

[joe1776]

And, by the way, unless it were publicly demonstrable, I'd feel the same way about an experience *I* had: that I was probably deluded.

I'm sure you believe that, but I doubt it. I think you're deluding yourself.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm sure you believe that, but I doubt it. I think you're deluding yourself.

I have experience....

 

[joe1776]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

So, if you're charged with murder but you can't show evidence that you didn't do it, should the court dismiss your claim of innocence as impossible based on your snappy Hitchens' quote?

And, based on the snappy Hitchens quote, should scientists have rejected Quantum Mechanics as impossible when there was no evidence to support it ?

 

[joe1776]

I have experience....

Experience in what?

 

[Polymath257]

So, if you're charged with murder but you can't show evidence that you didn't do it, should the court dismiss your claim of innocence as impossible based on your snappy Hitchens' quote?

This is why our system is 'innocent until proven guilty'. It is the job of the government to prove guilt, not the job of the accused to prove innocence.

And, based on the snappy Hitchens quote, should scientists have rejected Quantum Mechanics as impossible when there was no evidence to support it ?

If that were the case, yes. But QM originated because the evidence showed that classical theory failed. And it grew in stages over three/four decades, making sure the observations (evidence!) fit the predictions at each stage.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can explicit atheists ever really understand atheism?

I understand, Atheism is not any single ideology and Atheists have no collective stance. Right, please?
Regards

 

[Desert Snake]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

This hilarious quote is a can that scientism doesn't want to open.

 

[paarsurrey]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

Doesn't it appropriately fit on Atheism, please?

Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

No, it is muddling. Because you don't know that 'know' is a belief. You don't understand the word usage.

Knowing requires knowledge and is a subset of belief. It is possible to believe something without knowing it is true. That's why we have things like religion and "alternative" medicine.