Should Atheists Shut Up about God, since they don't believe in God?

[Troublemane]

Hey if i might throw my two cents in, I think Atheologian is being sketchy on a few definitions. First, Relativity is a term used generally to describe Einstein's scientific theory of that name, and refers to the relativity of perspective--- that two people will see the same object/event differently depending on their inertial frames of reference. It says nothing about the absolute objectivity of said event or object. In relativity, in fact, there is no absolute objectivity, no absolute inertial frame from which all else is inferred...all things are considered relative, thus the name.

Secondly, how exactly is all points of view objective? And how different is that from no points of view? Or are you being contrary simply to be argumentative?

It seems to me that having no point of view is essentially the same as having any/all point(s) of view. If you have no actual point of view on a thing, you may be said to have potentially any point of view, it just hasnt materialized out of the aethyr yet. :angel2:

 

[Erebus]

look forward to it I think some things aren't a matter of certainty as much as common sense. Like teaching kids the Earth is 10,000 years old or that Evolution is a myth, for example.

Well there's been a lot posted here since I last checked, but this did catch my attention.

"Common sense" is a really obscure concept in my opinion, simply because it is entirely subjective and based on a mix of personal experience and word of mouth, meaning that "common sense" differs from person to person and era to era.

For example, consider the viewpoint that the world is flat rather than spherical (well... roughly spherical) this viewpoint would be common sense if a person had never been told that the Earth is in fact not flat. Until they are told this, the person has only their experience to go on and it would be absurd to simply assume that the Earth is round (as it goes against all that they see). Now when a person is informed that the Earth is not flat, why would they accept this without any personal experience of this fact? You could argue that photographs and videos of the world should prove this, but bear in mind that there are plenty of photo's and videos of saints, angels and ghosts that are quickly dismissed by skeptics.

I would argue that at least on some level, a person accepts scientific canon the same way another person might accept religious canon... through faith. Now this notion could strike a few nerves, so I'll provide another example (bear in mind that I'm not doing this to belittle atheism, I consider it to be just as valid a path as theism, I just think it's good to "think outside the box" when it comes to any form of belief or disbelief).

Let's take a relatively well known scientific fact, say, the Earth being round. Now, have a go at proving this point whilst under the same restrictions theists are placed under:
1. You can't refer to scripture (science books in this instance)
2. You can't use pictures or videos (they are too easy to alter with technology or trick photography.)
3. You can't refer to personal experience (either your own or that of another person)
4. You can't refer to your "priests" (ok, not priests... scientists)

This may seem unfair... and it is... but this is the sort of situation theists are frequently put under by atheists. Under such restrictions it becomes easy to make any individual's "facts" (be they supernatural or scientific... and yes I do believe that "facts" are subjective) simply a matter of faith. More importantly, it (hopefully) shows that "common sense" is by no means a measure of truth. To tie this in with the OP as well, no atheists shouldn't shut up about religion (as I said before) but perhaps the few atheists who are keen to belittle religious thought would do well to test their own beliefs under these four restrictions they are so quick to place on the arguments of a theist.

For the record, I DO believe the Earth is roughly spherical, I DO believe in evolution and I DO believe in the big bang. Why is this? Most likely it's because I was taught this viewpoint as fact my whole life

 

[Atheologian]

Hey if i might throw my two cents in, I think Atheologian is being sketchy on a few definitions. First, Relativity is a term used generally to describe Einstein's scientific theory of that name, and refers to the relativity of perspective--- that two people will see the same object/event differently depending on their inertial frames of reference. It says nothing about the absolute objectivity of said event or object. In relativity, in fact, there is no absolute objectivity, no absolute inertial frame from which all else is inferred...all things are considered relative, thus the name.

Secondly, how exactly is all points of view objective? And how different is that from no points of view? Or are you being contrary simply to be argumentative?

It seems to me that having no point of view is essentially the same as having any/all point(s) of view. If you have no actual point of view on a thing, you may be said to have potentially any point of view, it just hasnt materialized out of the aethyr yet. :angel2:

Einstein's theory uses relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity can be used to prove you wrong though. It IS about absolutes. The theory of relativity says that the Speed of Light, or C, (299,792,458 miles a second) is the SAME TO ALL OBSERVERS. Your position in space time is relative to C. We compare what is relative to what IS absolute.


This whole no point all points has nothing to do with objectivity. Objectiviy is considering something in the real world, or the realm of matter, as an "object", or "real, To do that, you need to consider all states and conditions are POSSIBLE. While the question was posed subjectively, in that I took only ONE of those positions, it was an Objective question in the sense that the position was just one of many possible positions, not consistent with my own observations ( i don't necessarily agree, in other words), and requires you to possibly take a position not consistent with your own observations ( you might not agree).

 

[Troublemane]

Einstein's theory uses relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity can be used to prove you wrong though. It IS about absolutes. The theory of relativity says that the Speed of Light ( or C ) is the SAME TO ALL OBSERVERS. Therefore it is RELATIVE. Relative simply means the same to all observers.

I think you need to wiki theory of relativity, or read a book about it. It says no such thing. The speed of light is the only constant in the universe, and because of that, people will not see the same things. If you see an object flying away from you at near light speed, it will be doppler-shifted into the red spectrum, flying towards you be shifted into the blue. Two observers in different frames of reference see different things, so there is no absolute frame of reference. No absolute objectivity in the universe. No point of rest--all things are in motion relative to all other points. Not the same.

The reason the speed of light is measured the same to all observers is because of the Lorentz Contraction. If you can understand that point I'll give you a cookie

This whole no point all points has nothing to do with objectivity. Objectiviy is considering something in the real world, or the realm of matter, as an "object" To do that, you need to consider all states and conditions are POSSIBLE. While the question was posed subjuectively, in that I took only ONE of those positions, it was an Objective question in the sense that the position was just one of many possible positions, not consistent with my own observations ( i don't necessarily agree, in other words), and requires you to possibly take a position not consistent with your own observations ( you might not agree).

Define the "real world". :trampo:

 

[Atheologian]

Well there's been a lot posted here since I last checked, but this did catch my attention.

"Common sense" is a really obscure concept in my opinion, simply because it is entirely subjective and based on a mix of personal experience and word of mouth, meaning that "common sense" differs from person to person and era to era.

For example, consider the viewpoint that the world is flat rather than spherical (well... roughly spherical) this viewpoint would be common sense if a person had never been told that the Earth is in fact not flat. Until they are told this, the person has only their experience to go on and it would be absurd to simply assume that the Earth is round (as it goes against all that they see). Now when a person is informed that the Earth is not flat, why would they accept this without any personal experience of this fact? You could argue that photographs and videos of the world should prove this, but bear in mind that there are plenty of photo's and videos of saints, angels and ghosts that are quickly dismissed by skeptics.

I would argue that at least on some level, a person accepts scientific canon the same way another person might accept religious canon... through faith. Now this notion could strike a few nerves, so I'll provide another example (bear in mind that I'm not doing this to belittle atheism, I consider it to be just as valid a path as theism, I just think it's good to "think outside the box" when it comes to any form of belief or disbelief).

Let's take a relatively well known scientific fact, say, the Earth being round. Now, have a go at proving this point whilst under the same restrictions theists are placed under:
1. You can't refer to scripture (science books in this instance)
2. You can't use pictures or videos (they are too easy to alter with technology or trick photography.)
3. You can't refer to personal experience (either your own or that of another person)
4. You can't refer to your "priests" (ok, not priests... scientists)

This may seem unfair... and it is... but this is the sort of situation theists are frequently put under by atheists. Under such restrictions it becomes easy to make any individual's "facts" (be they supernatural or scientific... and yes I do believe that "facts" are subjective) simply a matter of faith. More importantly, it (hopefully) shows that "common sense" is by no means a measure of truth. To tie this in with the OP as well, no atheists shouldn't shut up about religion (as I said before) but perhaps the few atheists who are keen to belittle religious thought would do well to test their own beliefs under these four restrictions they are so quick to place on the arguments of a theist.

For the record, I DO believe the Earth is roughly spherical, I DO believe in evolution and I DO believe in the big bang. Why is this? Most likely it's because I was taught this viewpoint as fact my whole life

You had me until the scince and faith part. Science requires no faith. Only to test it yourself and verify.

 

[Atheologian]

I think you need to wiki theory of relativity, or read a book about it. It says no such thing. The speed of light is the only constant in the universe, and because of that, people will not see the same things. If you see an object flying away from you at near light speed, it will be doppler-shifted into the red spectrum, flying towards you be shifted into the blue. Two observers in different frames of reference see different things, so there is no absolute frame of reference. No absolute objectivity in the universe. No point of rest--all things are in motion relative to all other points. Not the same.

The reason the speed of light is measured the same to all observers is because of the Lorentz Contraction. If you can understand that point I'll give you a cookie



Define the "real world". :trampo:

reread the post, you jumped the gun

The speed of light IS absolute, and is the same to all observers. This IS the theory of Relativity.
Your position in space-time ( which IS VELOCITY AND POSITION ) is RELATIVE to the SPEED OF LIGHT.

I never suggested people will see the same thing all the time. Not sure how you came to that...

we are speaking of the definition of objectivity, anyway, not the theory of relativity. Also, relativity is a word, regardless of whether you are speaking of physics or not.
The duck example, again:
Relative means a duck that anyone could imagine, or the same to all observers. The idea of a duck. This is what relative means, it depends of the observer. The idea of a duck is absolute. No matter the observer, they will imagine Duck, albeit a duck of their own design.

Objectively, a duck can be in many different states, conditions, etc. flying, wet, dry, landing, dead, alive, honking, or a combination of many, but relatively, its a duck
relative: a duck
objective: a duck can fly
subjective: my duck is flying.

 

[Erebus]

You had me until the scince and faith part. Science requires no faith. Only to test it yourself and verify.

Fair enough, care to prove that the Earth is round then? Like I said, I think science requires more faith than people imagine (not that this is necessarily a bad thing )

 

[Atheologian]

I think you need to wiki theory of relativity, or read a book about it. It says no such thing. The speed of light is the only constant in the universe, and because of that, people will not see the same things. If you see an object flying away from you at near light speed, it will be doppler-shifted into the red spectrum, flying towards you be shifted into the blue. Two observers in different frames of reference see different things, so there is no absolute frame of reference. No absolute objectivity in the universe. No point of rest--all things are in motion relative to all other points. Not the same.

The reason the speed of light is measured the same to all observers is because of the Lorentz Contraction. If you can understand that point I'll give you a cookie



Define the "real world". :trampo:

I think you getting your definition from a wikki is the problem here...

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

That is the theory of special relativity per Stanford University. Try arguing with that.
Theory of relativity clearly says that
1 c is constant
2 laws of universe are UNIVERSAL to ALL observers, (or absolute)


BTW
all that Hendrik Lorentz was saying was that no matter how fast you go, you can't reach the speed of light. Velocities will never add up to greater than C
the red and blue shift you are talking about are simply distortion of the wavelength of the light.

 

[Atheologian]

Fair enough, care to prove that the Earth is round then? Like I said, I think science requires more faith than people imagine (not that this is necessarily a bad thing )

Ha! that argument is very old.
Yes, I can prove the Earth is round, simply by taking you up on a mountain, and pointing to the curvature of the horizon. You never said a sphere. you said round.
as far as a sphere, I can prove that too. I can hop on a plane, and fly one lap around the Earth. Presto.

 

[Troublemane]

reread the post, you jumped the gun

The speed of light IS absolute, and is the same to all observers. This IS the theory of Relativity.
Your position in space-time ( which IS VELOCITY AND POSITION ) is RELATIVE to the SPEED OF LIGHT.

I never suggested people will see the same thing all the time. Not sure how you came to that...

cuz you said "relative means the same to all observers", which is wrong. read post #83. Relative means each observer will see events/objects relative to them. Each point in the universe views each other point in the universe in a unique way. Relative does not mean "same for all observers," sorry dude.

Speaking objectively, your definition of relativity is just incorrect. Your position in spacetime isnt measured relative to the speed of light. What it says is, two observers at different speeds, will measure time differently due solely to their velocity. If you go the speed of light time actually, physically slows down for you. This means there is no objective "time" which exists for all observers. One second is not the same for everyone, everywhere. that is the entire point of the theory of relativity, that there is no preferred frame of reference.:sorry1:

we are speaking of the definition of objectivity, anyway, not the theory of relativity. Also relativity is a word, regardless of whether you are speaking of physics or not. Relative means a duck that anyone could imagine, or the same to all observers. The idea of a duck. This is what relative means, it depends of the observer. The idea of a duck is absolute. No matter the observer, they will imagine Duck, albeit a duck of their own design.

IMO,there is no absolute "duckness" or archetype from which all ducks are modelled after. plato may have thought so, but genetics has proven otherwise i believe. Our idea of what a duck is, comes from direct experience of ducks. When we encounter some strange bird which looks duck-like, we may be confused, and think is it a duck or not? And may have to turn to some authority, which has classified said bird as being a relative of the duck, perhaps in the family of Anatidae (like geese or swans). But not a mallard or drake. So our definition of ducks cannot be precisely absolute, as there are subtle variations based on subjective experiences.

I would argue that our idea of what constitutes "objectivity" is a generalization based on centuries of subjective experiences.:angel2:

 

[Erebus]

Ha! that argument is very old.
Yes, I can prove the Earth is round, simply by taking you up on a mountain, and pointing to the curvature of the horizon. You never said a sphere. you said round.
as far as a sphere, I can prove that too. I can hop on a plane, and fly one lap around the Earth. Presto.

Alright I'll let you have that one, though that particular example was too easy

How about the big bang?
Could you prove to me that the sun is in fact made of gas?
Show me that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round.

By the way, don't forget the rules.

 

[Atheologian]

cuz you said "relative means the same to all observers", which is wrong. read post #83. Relative means each observer will see events/objects relative to them. Each point in the universe views each other point in the universe in a unique way. Relative does not mean "same for all observers," sorry dude.

Speaking objectively, your definition of relativity is just incorrect. Your position in spacetime isnt measured relative to the speed of light. What it says is, two observers at different speeds, will measure time differently due solely to their velocity. If you go the speed of light time actually, physically slows down for you. This means there is no objective "time" which exists for all observers. One second is not the same for everyone, everywhere. that is the entire point of the theory of relativity, that there is no preferred frame of reference.:sorry1:




IMO,there is no absolute "duckness" or archetype from which all ducks are modelled after. plato may have thought so, but genetics has proven otherwise i believe. Our idea of what a duck is, comes from direct experience of ducks. When we encounter some strange bird which looks duck-like, we may be confused, and think is it a duck or not? And may have to turn to some authority, which has classified said bird as being a relative of the duck, perhaps in the family of Anatidae (like geese or swans). But not a mallard or drake. So our definition of ducks cannot be precisely absolute, as there are subtle variations based on subjective experiences.

I would argue that our idea of what constitutes "objectivity" is a generalization based on centuries of subjective experiences.:angel2:

exactly my point, meaning the idea of a duck is ABSOLUTE.

a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing is relative. In order for you to measure something, you measure it relation to something else. Since C is constant the theory of relativity asserts that our position in space-time (which is velocity and position) is relative to the speed of light, which is absolute.

Just because you can't come to the answer doesn't mean it's not right there in front of you. You can argue until you drop dead about the theory of special relativity, but this is what it says:

1. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
2. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.

Once again, however, this has nothing to do with the sense I used it in.If something is relative to you, it is in relation to you. If a duck is relative to you, it may not be doing the same thing a different duck is doing in front of me, but they are both ducks. The idea, that we both are looking at ducks, whether they are doing the same thing, or are even the same duck is irrelevant, the duck is relative in a sense that we are both looking at one. Objectively, the ducks could be doing a number of things. Flapping their wings, ********, pretending to know the theory of relativity but misreading the wikki, and swearing to me that the speed of light is not constant.
Subjectively, my duck is flapping his wings. My duck flapping his wings is relative to me, because your duck might not be. But, again, the idea of a duck here is relative, neither of our ducks is any less real than the other. Now, objectively, I know the duck can swim and will swim, and has been swimming, but subjectively, he is not, he is flying. Maybe a duck, relative to you, is swimming instead. Objectively, we know a duck can swim and fly. Subjectively, we only see the duck relative to each of us, doing one of those things

 

[Troublemane]

I think you getting your definition from a wikki is the problem here...

Theory: Special Relativity (SLAC VVC)

That is the theory of special relativity per Stanford University. Try arguing with that.
Theory of relativity clearly says that
1 c is constant
2 laws of universe are UNIVERSAL to ALL observers, (or absolute)

thats right, so you should read past the first paragraph of the link you posted to and see that einstein said quantiites such as length and time must change in order these be true.

BTW
all that Hendrik Lorentz was saying was that no matter how fast you go, you can't reach the speed of light. Velocities will never add up to greater than C
the red and blue shift you are talking about are simply distortion of the wavelength of the light.

the lorentz contraction shows how length and time distort as lightspeed is approached. however this does not apply to massless objects such as photons. which only distort in their wavelengths. you cannot make a photon go faster by putting more energy into it, you can only increase its frequency.

 

[Troublemane]

exactly my point, meaning the idea of a duck is RELATIVE.

now youre changing your words...you said a duck was a duck was a duck, therefore absolute. this is the complete opposite of the term relative. your illogic knows no bounds! (get it absolute means without bounds..oh nvm)

a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing is relative. In order for you to measure something, you measure it relation to something else. Since C is constant the theory of relativity asserts that our position in space-time (which is velocity and position) is relative to the speed of light, which is absolute.

ok, so maybe im not putting this right so you can think it through....why is it absolute? is it just because einstein or god said so?....why is it absolute? there must be an objective reason for it.

Just because you can't come to the answer doesn't mean it's not right there in front of you. You can argue until you drop dead about the theory of special relativity, but this is what it says:

1. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
2. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.

Im telling you you can quote all you want, or change what you said you said, but you have yet to make any consistent sense. Absolute and relative are TOTALLY opposite ideas. Nothing you say will change that fact.

 

[Atheologian]

thats right, so you should read past the first paragraph of the link you posted to and see that einstein said quantiites such as length and time must change in order these be true.



the lorentz contraction shows how length and time distort as lightspeed is approached. however this does not apply to massless objects such as photons. which only distort in their wavelengths. you cannot make a photon go faster by putting more energy into it, you can only increase its frequency.

I NEVER SAID that lenght of space OR time was absolute. I said they were relative to C, which is absolute. I said that we measure what is relative, in relation to what is absolute.

 

[Atheologian]

now youre changing your words...you said a duck was a duck was a duck, therefore absolute. this is the complete opposite of the term relative. your illogic knows no bounds! (get it absolute means without bounds..oh nvm)



ok, so maybe im not putting this right so you can think it through....why is it absolute? is it just because einstein or god said so?....why is it absolute? there must be an objective reason for it.



Im telling you you can quote all you want, or change what you said you said, but you have yet to make any consistent sense. Absolute and relative are TOTALLY opposite ideas. Nothing you say will change that fact.

Ive said the same thing the entire time. The IDEA of a duck is absolute. No matter who thinks of a duck, they think of a duck. You don't look at a duck and come to the conclusion that it is a cow, unless you came to that conlusion erronously
The problem is, you are confusing a duck with the laws of the universe, and relativity as something excusive to the laws of physics.
replace the DUCK with the IDEA of a perfect cirle
we know it exists, but the circle you draw is not perfect. However, relative to you, it is a circle, it has the shape necessary for you to regognize it as such. Objectively, your circle might be slightly odd shaped or not complete, maybe big, maybe small, but for all intents and purposes, it is a circle and will fill your need for a circle. Subjectively, the radius of MY circle is 3 inches. Subjectively, yours is 2.9. Relative to each of us, they are still both circles. A circle relative to me, is a circle relative to you, because of the IDEA of a circle, or what one should look like. Using theories applied to the perfect circle, the absolute, we can find the area of that circle, the one relative to you. What you keep trying to do is use this example like I'm implying it's a metaphor for general or special reletivity, and I clearly am not. You are the only one trying to turn a duck into a beam of light here.

 

[Willamena]

No it is entirely different than faith. It's simply the knowledge that we don't know everything. Faith has nothing to do with it.

It is belief that "we don't know everything," in other words belief in something we can't know for sure. That is exactly what "faith" is.

 

[Atheologian]

He must be referring back to his wikki...

maybe the mirriam webster this time?

I like how you tried to spin the word absolute, too. The reason the speed of light is considered "absolute" is because it is the same for all observers. That's all that matters, in any frame of reference. And frame of reference is the key to relativity. Any observer in any frame of reference can preform the same expirement, regardless of speed and direction, and get the same result. The reason space time is considered as a single aspect, is because the natural state of all objects is in motion, therefore you are never stationary relative to other objects. your speed and direction, or position in space time, is relative to the objects around you, and can only be measured against that which is absolute, or in other words, relative to the speed of light.
That's about as straightforward of an explanation as you can get.
The speed of light is absolute, meaning THE SAME TO ALL OBSERVERS.
the laws of physics work for any frame of reference.
they are absolute. The only condition you need to meet to be absolute is that it is constant, or the same for all observers.

 

[Erebus]

He must be referring back to his wikki...

While he's doing that, why not check out my last post again

 

[Willamena]

Alright I'll let you have that one, though that particular example was too easy

No. . . no, don't! It's not correct. A mountain is not high enough to demonstrate a "round" (circular) earth.

Edit: should have said (spherical)