Question for Atheists...

[F1fan]

How do you detect the word means? How do you test the word means?
Just as you can't point to God, you can't point to meaning.

Now golves off. If you actual think that the defintion as per meaning that the universe is physical as per the defition makes the universe physical, because the defnition causes the universe to be physical, you are delusional.
All the definition means as means, is that to you in your mind, you treat the universe as physical. But that doesn't mean the universe has the property of being physical.
All words are signs as standins for understanding and a possible referent. You conflate understanding with referent.

This sounds deliberately confusing, and smacks of Matrixism. I can't understand how you even function with this attitude. How do you even think you are writing words on your computer and then submitting them to other computers so any of us can access and read them IF your beliefs above are true?

 

[F1fan]

Yes. I had to memorize the designations in school to pass. But really...I always wondered...even if I got the right answers . Really?

Did you ever apply such doubt to what people in religion told you was true?

 

[anna.]

Sure, spirituality sees shadows on the wall while the scientist leaves to cave to go out and investigate regardless of how much the sun hurts their eyes.

A non-believer told me recently they didn't see how someone could be a scientist and believe in God or a higher power or a life after this. I wondered if that was accurate, or maybe if belief/nonbelief varied by what kind of scientist one was. Like, would an astrologist or a neurologist be more or less likely to believe in God or a higher power. Frances Collins, Owen Gingrich, Ben Alexander are a few who came to mind. I poked around a bit looking for information but a lot of what I found was outdated, in the early aughts. Anyone have any info they can provide?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This sounds deliberately confusing, and smacks of Matrixism. I can't understand how you even function with this attitude. How do you even think you are writing words on your computer and then submitting them to other computers so any of us can access and read them IF your beliefs above are true?

Well, I took out my objective scientific instrument calibrated to the scientific standard of the unit "meaning" and made a measuremt of the meaning of the text in your post. How do you do it? What kind of method for test and detectable of meaning do you use?

 

[Audie]

A non-believer told me recently they didn't see how someone could be a scientist and believe in God or a higher power or a life after this. I wondered if that was accurate, or maybe if belief/nonbelief varied by what kind of scientist one was. Like, would an astrologist or a neurologist be more or less likely to believe in God or a higher power. Frances Collins, Owen Gingrich, Ben Alexander are a few who came to mind. I poked around a bit looking for information but a lot of what I found was outdated, in the early aughts. Anyone have any info they can provide?

It's just that it's impossible to be well informed
and believe certain religious notions.
Like flood, the six day poof, or many another such.

Those who may be informed but bitterly cling to, say,
Yec* are into cognitive dissonance and intellectual
dishonesty.

Not believing blatant falsehoods abut such God
as there may be is not disbelief in god,
It's showing some respect


* one of many rather simple minded versions of
believing in God.

 

[Heyo]

I think 1213 is a bit confused since layers by year is a bit abstract and perhaps not absolute. It's not like snow falls in one major layer once a year, and that's the layer, like rings of a tree. It's more of a sublte accumulation marked with distinct layers from major events, like a volcano dumping ash. But what do I know? There could be an annual pattern of climate behavior that allows experts to identify year to year in layers of ice.

Snowfall in the Arctic and Antarctic is greatly seasonal. Snow converts to firn at the surface during the dry season which is clear while the underlying snow keeps opaque.

 

[Audie]

I think 1213 is a bit confused since layers by year is a bit abstract and perhaps not absolute. It's not like snow falls in one major layer once a year, and that's the layer, like rings of a tree. It's more of a sublte accumulation marked with distinct layers from major events, like a volcano dumping ash. But what do I know? There could be an annual pattern of climate behavior that allows experts to identify year to year in layers of ice.

Confused thrashing about trying to find
something, anything, to avoid facing what
100,000 plus years of polar ice means.

 

[F1fan]

Well, I took out my objective scientific instrument calibrated to the scientific standard of the unit "meaning" and made a measuremt of the meaning of the text in your post. How do you do it? What kind of method for test and detectable of meaning do you use?

My first impulse is wondering what kind of dressing goes on that word salad.

 

[F1fan]

Snowfall in the Arctic and Antarctic is greatly seasonal. Snow converts to firn at the surface during the dry season which is clear while the underlying snow keeps opaque.

There you go. Let's hope some of our creationist friends will acknowledge this.

 

[ChristineM]

There you go. Let's hope some of our creationist friends will acknowledge this.

Where is the OPTIMISTIC frube when you need it

 

[Nakosis]

A non-believer told me recently they didn't see how someone could be a scientist and believe in God or a higher power or a life after this. I wondered if that was accurate, or maybe if belief/nonbelief varied by what kind of scientist one was. Like, would an astrologist or a neurologist be more or less likely to believe in God or a higher power. Frances Collins, Owen Gingrich, Ben Alexander are a few who came to mind. I poked around a bit looking for information but a lot of what I found was outdated, in the early aughts. Anyone have any info they can provide?

Well some folks are dualists. They believe there is a separate non-physical reality. I'd imagine there are scientists who can keep these to ideas separate from each other in their mind.

Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).
Leading scientists still reject God - Nature

Keeping in mind this is from 1998.

 

[ChristineM]

A non-believer told me recently they didn't see how someone could be a scientist and believe in God or a higher power or a life after this. I wondered if that was accurate, or maybe if belief/nonbelief varied by what kind of scientist one was. Like, would an astrologist or a neurologist be more or less likely to believe in God or a higher power. Frances Collins, Owen Gingrich, Ben Alexander are a few who came to mind. I poked around a bit looking for information but a lot of what I found was outdated, in the early aughts. Anyone have any info they can provide?

There is at least one scientist on RF who holds a belief in God. He's an entomologist.

 

[F1fan]

There is at least one scientist on RF who holds a belief in God. He's an entomologist.

Well if any expert in a science is going to believe in a hell (and a God to deliver from evil) it is going to be someone studying all throse frightening bugs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My first impulse is wondering what kind of dressing goes on that word salad.

How do you detect your impulse? What does it look like, what is its color or form? Or it is more a taste, sweet or sour? I mean you must be objective and use your 5 external senses, right? Or a scientific measuerment instrument.
Your impluse is only real and in the real world as physical if it is testable and detectable using the 5 sense or a sceintific instrument.

Remeber everything is physical and it is only real for the real physical world if testable and detecable as describe above.
Remember everything you do is with objective evidence as described above and even that you are rational, is with objective evidence.
You don't use any subjective phrases like word salad or any subjective emotions. You are rational, objective and always use natural sceince.

BTW my last post was a reductio ad absurdum in the broad sense as done with saitre. And so is this one.

 

[F1fan]

How do you detect your impulse? What does it look like, what is its color or form? Or it is more a taste, sweet or sour? I mean you must be objective and use your 5 external senses, right? Or a scientific measuerment instrument.
Your impluse is only real and in the real world as physical if it is testable and detectable using the 5 sense or a sceintific instrument.

Remeber everything is physical and it is only real for the real physical world if testable and detecable as describe above.
Remember everything you do is with objective evidence as described above and even that you are rational, is with objective evidence.
You don't use any subjective phrases like word salad or any subjective emotions. You are rational, objective and always use natural sceince.

BTW my last post was a reductio ad absurdum in the broad sense as done with saitre. And so is this one.

I think a nice vinaigarette would be nice.

 

[ChristineM]

I think a nice vinaigarette would be nice.

Balsamic, honey and mustard in equal quantities, helps word salad go down a treat

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think a nice vinaigarette would be nice.

Yeah, feelings is where it always ends. One thing is what there is and what it is. But it always ends in how it matters and what makes sense. And the latter is subjective and non-physical as rather being mental as of the mind.

 

[ppp]

Balsamic, honey and mustard in equal quantities, helps word salad go down a treat

An immersion blender. doesn't hurt.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

An immersion blender. doesn't hurt.

How come it always ends it in feelings?

 

[Polymath257]

How do you detect the word means? How do you test the word means?
Just as you can't point to God, you can't point to meaning.

What a word means is a convention. It is ultimately an agreement between people.

So the meaning of a word is not a scientific question. I don't find that to be a problem because conventions are not questions of truth.

Now golves off. If you actual think that the defintion as per meaning that the universe is physical as per the defition makes the universe physical, because the defnition causes the universe to be physical, you are delusional.

Well, what do *you* mean when you use the word 'physical'? What do you mean when you use the word 'exists'? What is an example of something that actually exists and is not physical?

All the definition means as means, is that to you in your mind, you treat the universe as physical. But that doesn't mean the universe has the property of being physical.
All words are signs as standins for understanding and a possible referent. You conflate understanding with referent.

Again, what a word means is a convention. There is nothing connecting the word 'cat', either as a sequence of letters, or as a sound produced, to the animal *except* that some people have agreed to use that sequence of letters and those sounds to represent that type of animal.

Conventions are not scientific questions. Since definitions are types of conventions, definitions are not scientific questions.

Once the definitions have been agreed to, we can then ask is the universe as a whole, or parts thereof, have the properties.

So, if you don't like my definitions, give yours and explain why they are more appropriate. That is an appropriate use of philosophy.