To the Anti-Religious

[PureX]

What you think does not alter what reality is or is not. What I think does not alter what reality is or is not.

Which reality are you referring to. There is the idea of reality that we all have in our minds, you included, and there is actual reality that surrounds and infuses us all. The idea of reality that you have in your mind can certainly be altered by what you think. And in fact it's happening constantly. The actual reality in which you exist, however, will not change just because your idea of it changes.

You are essentially arguing that using logic prescriptively is insufficient to rule out contradictions in reality (which is true), but you have ignored that it is through using logic as a descriptor that we conclude such contradictions don’t exist. You have conflated the two in this strawman.

Perhaps if you had put this in english, I'd have understood your quandary better. I don't have any idea what you mean by "using logic prescriptively", and "using logic descriptively". Maybe if you spent more time conveying your ideas, and a little less time on the insults, we'd both understand each other better.

The descriptors (that is the concepts we have created to describe what we find in reality) are determined by a combination of our cognitive faculties combined with the qualities and traits that we are trying to describe. So the concept I have of a tree is determined by both the accuracy of my senses and the actual traits and qualities possessed by that tree.

OK, but these "traits and qualities" are really nothing more than our experience of the tree, as determined by us.

The key thing to note here is that my five senses are independent of each other, and are independent of the senses of other people – which all work as a means of assessing accuracy of the tree’s qualities through empiricism.

Again, OK, but as humans our senses are all limited and biased in the same way. My point being that "empiricism" isn't all it might be cracked up to be.

When you try and draw the distinction between this tree concepts with your god idea then entire line of reasoning you are using falls apart. The “god-idea” is not a concept based upon using our senses to perceive an object like the tree. I’m actually astounded that I have to spell this obvious difference out to you.

I understand the difference. What I don't understand is this bizarre worship of some imagined "empiricism" that you all seem to think comes to you only from the scientific process. Mankind is biased by his own structure, there is no science in the universe that can make up for that bias. Science is NOT unbiased. Reality as you imagine it is no more or less accurate than reality as other people imagine it just because you choose to worship the scientific process. Science isn't a magical doorway to truth. It's just another tool. We have other tools. Some of those other tools work in a similar manner, but not exactly similar. What's so difficult to grasp about this? Trial and error is a tool that works in a similar manner as science does, but is not the same process as the scientific method. What's so difficult to understand about that? Like the scientific process, trial and error can and often does lead us to the same conclusions, because they both get the same results. What's so difficult to understand, here?

Can you show me a single instance, a single solitary theoretical example, wherein the concept of treating/assuming a given table is a real object in space has ever failed for any person? Because I am living proof of an example where the god-idea failed. The problem you have is that real things which really exist always ‘work’ in this sense (it is a necessary trait for existence), and it is here that the differentiation can be seen. The concept of a table has real physical thing upon which that concept is based – you have nothing even remotely close to this for your “god-idea”.

A table is a very simple idea. "God" is a very complex idea. A table is a relatively flat level surface to set things on. Now let's describe the idea of God in eight words that will include both a description and purpose. It couldn't be done. Lets describe other complex ideas like love, or honor, or righteous indignation in one sentence. Still can't be done.

And the more complex the idea, the more likely we will be to misapply it and get negative results. Some ideas are easy to test, some aren't. Some idea can be tested using the scientific process, and some can't. Some ideas can't be tested. I don't really see what's so difficult about any of this. I don't see why you're having such a hard time understanding it. Most of us still decide the authenticity of most ideas by trial and error, not by scientific method. I don't see why this should be hard to understand. And tested in this way, a lot of people have found that the idea of God works for them. It's experientially true for them.

Also – didn’t you once argue that you used god as a descriptor for mystery? There are some serious inconsistencies here.

No there aren't. The God concept is complex, and can be used in a lot of different ways. It can be tested experientially in a lot of different ways. I see no reason that this should be difficult to understand, or why it should be seen as contradictory or inconsistent.

Have you ever considered the much simpler explanation here? That maybe the reason these contradictions and paradoxes exist in your theology (because they don’t really exist in anything else proposed on this thread) is because your theology isn’t an accurate reflection of reality? Just saying. If you have to argue for the impossibly of accurately perceiving reality in order to defend your idea, then maybe your idea isn’t correct.

All the time.

Have you begun to see that science is not a truth-o-meter? Have you realized yet that logic kills your soul?

And why can't you atheists write a damn post without filling it full of insults? Where is all that bile coming from? And don't blame it on theists, they have no power over you.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Have you begun to see that science is not a truth-o-meter? Have you realized yet that logic kills your soul? "

I have NO idea what that is supposed to mean.

Logic kills my soul??? How? What in "my soul" cannot survive logic?

"Truth-o-meter"?? WHAT does that mean. Science is a method. It works. It produces real results that can be used to produce real things. If also produces errors- useful insight producing errors - that lead to MORE useful things.

And all this "kills my soul?"

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"And why can't you atheists write a damn post without filling it full of insults?"


I'm lost.

Perhaps in the interest of common understanding you could cite a specific example.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Mankind is biased by his own structure, there is no science in the universe that can make up for that bias."

If this is true in the basic unchangeable way you seem to imply - how would we ever KNOW?

 

[Commoner]

And why can't you atheists write a damn post without filling it full of insults? Where is all that bile coming from? And don't blame it on theists, they have no power over you.

Read your own posts once in a while. Go gack a couple of pages and read through them.

What you're saying is so ironic - that you can't see that is mind-boggling.

 

[themadhair]

Which reality are you referring to.

You know perfectly well. I am point blank refusing to entertain your subterfuge on this. When I say ‘reality’ I mean the world around us. Our perception of that reality is just that – a perception of it. Please stop equivocating the two as this distinction has already been pointed out to you, and it is pretty pointless of you to continue with such a meaningless equivocation.

Perhaps if you had put this in english, I'd have understood your quandary better.

Why not simply learn what the words ‘descriptive’ and ‘prescriptive’ mean? Usually when I read posts that contain words I am unfamiliar with I usually try looking them up in the dictionary before accusing the poster of not using English.

Descriptive is when logic is used to convey a concept. Prescriptive is when logic is used to determine a concept. The two are not the same.

OK, but these "traits and qualities" are really nothing more than our experience of the tree, as determined by us.

I won’t allow you try ignoring that the traits and qualities of the tree play a substantial role in determining our concept of the tree. It is a pretty pointless tactic to try ignoring this surely?

My point being that "empiricism" isn't all it might be cracked up to be.

And my point is that in the absence of any reasonable alternative, and given that whatever method you are currently employing appears to be failing horribly, it would seem that empiricism is the only game in town that has currently been offered. What you are essentially doing is claiming that nothing can be determined while offering a determination. This is contradictory and it is frankly laughable that you have then attempted to argue that such contradictions aren’t a problem.

I understand the difference.

Your comments would seem to offer strong evidence that you really don’t.

What I don't understand is this bizarre worship of some imagined "empiricism" that you all seem to think comes to you only from the scientific process.

You hypocrite. Pay attention now. YOU introduced science by attempting to draw parallels to YOUR theology. I, and others, pointed out the glaring deficiencies in such parallels. Your response is to then attack us for science worship???? Seriously????

Science is NOT unbiased.

Given that you don’t appear to know what it is I do not think you could even begin to offer a determination. Arguing that a particular tool for acquiring knowledge, to use your language, is biased offers no support whatsoever for the tool you are attempting to propose.

And given that you used science as a basis for attempting dubious parallels to strengthen your theology I suspect that you don’t really believe science to be as flawed as your are currently claiming. Which makes this line of attack you are currently embarking on all the more strange since it doesn’t address any of the myriad of failures in yours, and Dunemeisters, previous arguments that were pointed out.

Science isn't a magical doorway to truth. It's just another tool. We have other tools. Some of those other tools work in a similar manner, but not exactly similar. What's so difficult to grasp about this?

Here is the hilarity about all of this – you don’t have any other tools. Seriously, you don’t. The only thing seriously offered in this thread, and that was by Dunemeister, was IIHS which nobody appears to be able to differentiate quantitatively between my made-up concept of knowingness.

Trial and error is a tool that works in a similar manner as science does, but is not the same process as the scientific method. What's so difficult to understand about that?

I understand the difference – but since you don’t actually apply trial and error to your theology this seems another irrelevant attack on science that has no bearing on defending your argument.

Like the scientific process, trial and error can and often does lead us to the same conclusions, because they both get the same results. What's so difficult to understand, here?

And what trial and error was used to generate the god idea? Would that have been absolutely none and this is a completely red herring that you have been trying to shoe-horn into this debate for a number of posts now?

A table is a very simple idea. "God" is a very complex idea.

Let me get this straight. You equivocated your god idea with objects, and then when the deficiencies of this were pointed out to you this is your retort? You seem to be fond of drawing a comparison between two very different things only to later defend that comparison by arguing that they are two different things. Everytime you do this I literally facepalm.

Now let's describe the idea of God in eight words that will include both a description and purpose.

The fact that your idea of god seems to morph across threads and posts also doesn’t help.

Some ideas can't be tested. I don't really see what's so difficult about any of this. I don't see why you're having such a hard time understanding it.

The irony is that you were in fact the one who proposed such tests in another thread by butchering the concept of predictive power. So it appears you yourself are having difficulty understanding your own ideas.

Most of us still decide the authenticity of most ideas by trial and error, not by scientific method.

This is true. But since this is not what you appear to be doing with you god idea it is another irrelevancy.

And tested in this way, a lot of people have found that the idea of God works for them. It's experientially true for them.

But PureX, the quantifiers ‘true for them’ and ‘works for them’ have utterly nothing to do with what reality actually is. You have spent posts arguing that our concepts of reality don’t necessarily mean that reality corresponds to those concepts. Given that you are aware of this, and given that it is pretty clear that the folks arguing against you are interested in determining what the actual reality is, I can only describe this as a complete and utter cop out by someone who has run out of argument.

There are some folks who thing there was a mass genocide 75 million years ago, and the souls of those victims are the source of all out troubles. They sincerely believe this concept/idea works for them. That this concept works for them (and I use the term ‘works for them’ in the same meaningless way you are) has nothing to do with reality.

The God concept is complex, and can be used in a lot of different ways.
…
I see no reason that this should be difficult to understand, or why it should be seen as contradictory or inconsistent.

Unbelievable. Some folks use god to mean the unknown (as you have argued for once) and some use god as an attempt at a workable hypothesis for elevating one’s mood (as you have also argued for). This two concepts contradict each other. See the problem with using a concept that seems to change every five posts and how it leads to contradictions????? Seriously?????

Have you begun to see that science is not a truth-o-meter?

Given that science entered this discussion because YOU used it a basis for attempted parallels to strengthen your theology I am simply going to retort with calling you a hypocrite once again. You’re a hypocrite.

Have you realized yet that logic kills your soul?

I have realised no such thing. Seems a bit odd that you are trying to assassinate logic and science given that they have a demonstrably superior track record in the realm of determining fact from fiction than anything you have offered. It also seems a bit odd that, while you continue this assassination, you completely and utterly fail in demonstrating why your methodology of determining fact from fiction should be given the time of day.

And why can't you atheists write a damn post without filling it full of insults?

I do not believe my posts are insulting. They are blunt but truthful. But feel free to play this card. Not as if cogent argument is getting you anywhere so far.

Where is all that bile coming from?

Let me try and answer that for you. This isn’t be throwing bile. Mild irritation perhaps, but a far cry from bile.
So where does my irritation come from? Well let me offer a few sources.

It irritates me that people will **** all over science while simultaneously being utterly ignorant about it while using its fruits to deliver that ignorance.
It irritates me when people use terrible and flawed logic and reasoning, and then try to weasel out of their irrationality by attacking logic and reason.
It irritates me when people argue that nothing can be known while attempting to present an idea .
It irritates me when people try and defend an idea by deliberately trying to render it as vague as possible to remove it from the realm of scrutiny.
It irritates me when people use reasoning that is so hopelessly flawed only to cry foul and throw irrelevant sophistic verbiage when those flaws are pointed out.

 

[Dunemeister]

I haven't forgotten this thread. I've been busy lately, and I want to get back in here, but I also want to make sure that my responses to objections are well thought out and well expressed. That simply takes more time than I have ATM.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I haven't forgotten this thread. I've been busy lately, and I want to get back in here, but I also want to make sure that my responses to objections are well thought out and well expressed. That simply takes more time than I have ATM.

Yeah, I haven't had much time myself. But I'd be interested in your take on it.


I love reading your posts, themadhair lol. I'm doubling over in laughter at all the ownage dealt out lmao.

 

[PureX]

Science is a method. It works. It produces real results that can be used to produce real things. If also produces errors- useful insight producing errors - that lead to MORE useful things.[/COLOR]
Religions are also methods. And they work. They produce real results that can change people's lives for the better. They also can produce errors, that we can learn from, to further improve people's lives.

 

[PureX]

"Mankind is biased by his own structure, there is no science in the universe that can make up for that bias."

If this is true in the basic unchangeable way you seem to imply - how would we ever KNOW?

All we need to know is that we can't know it all. Therefor, we can't know that what we think we know, is true. But we're stuck with it, because it's all we have. And that's our perpetual bias.

 

[PureX]

Read your own posts once in a while. Go gack a couple of pages and read through them.

What you're saying is so ironic - that you can't see that is mind-boggling.

I admit that I've gotten sick of the insults and responded in kind. Who wouldn't? I'm trying not to do that but still all I get are more insults, post after post.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I admit that I've gotten sick of the insults and responded in kind. Who wouldn't? I'm trying not to do that but still all I get are more insults, post after post.

On the contrary, they look pretty sparse to me. Most of the perceived insult just seems to be from people pointing out flaws in your argument. Then again, I could be biased.

 

[ellenjanuary]

First of all, I don't know. Secondly, if one says "there's actual reality and your reality," and the other tosses it back... where is this actual reality?

If you see me sitting in this chair, but I'm all Schroedinger wave function; what is real? There are conveniences used for scientific advancement, logical structures for overfed intellects, religious types of all different stripes, and zero guarantee of not waking up on some alien's wall. The only certainty is Uncertainty.

 

[Willamena]

On the contrary, they look pretty sparse to me. Most of the perceived insult just seems to be from people pointing out flaws in your argument. Then again, I could be biased.

Um. . . yeah?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Even if you work under the assumption that all religions are completely and utterly impossibly untrue (that is to say that it is not possible for any religion to ever be true), then that still does not invalidate their use to society. Society developed religion exactly because it has sociological value. Some, and by some it can very easily be posited to be most, people are not able to comfortably exist in a world/universe which is apparently completely without order, meaning, and destination. This is easily seen when analyzing history and noting that during periods of social and economic unrest millennial and apocalyptic movements substantially increase in both number and influence. People are want to attach numerological significance (or some other order) to death and all the various other mysteries we cannot penetrate so as to gain comfort during uncertain times.

So religion makes people most people more comfortable. The million dollar question is can the majority of people do without this "teddy bear?" And even if you could do with your "teddy bear" are you a better person for keeping your "teddy bear?" If you are a more moral person for having faith in something, then it is a moral imperative that you do so.

MTF

 

[PureX]

You know perfectly well. I am point blank refusing to entertain your subterfuge on this. When I say ‘reality’ I mean the world around us.

The world around us according to whom? You have your idea about what reality is, and so does everyone else. Yet it's clear that we are not all conceptualizing it in the same way. So are you just refusing to recognize anyone else's concept of reality if it disagrees with yours?

Our perception of that reality is just that – a perception of it. Please stop equivocating the two as this distinction has already been pointed out to you, and it is pretty pointless of you to continue with such a meaningless equivocation.

I'm not "equivocating". I'm simply pointing out to you that NONE OF US has a full and accurate perception of realty. Consequently, NONE OF US has a full or accurate conceptualization of reality, either. And in fact, we all have somewhat different ideas about what reality is and how it works because we all have a unique and partial experience of reality. And it's very likely that YOUR concept of reality is no more accurate than anyone else's, including mine. And all the insults and ridicule you can sling won't change that.

And my point is that in the absence of any reasonable alternative, and given that whatever method you are currently employing appears to be failing horribly (more insults), it would seem that empiricism is the only game in town that has currently been offered. What you are essentially doing is claiming that nothing can be determined while offering a determination.

What I am doing is reminding you that the "only game in town" is hopelessly flawed, and that you might not want to put so much emphasis on it. In fact, we do have some other tools, and they do work each in their own way.

You hypocrite (more unnecessary insults). Pay attention now. YOU introduced science by attempting to draw parallels to YOUR theology. I, and others, pointed out the glaring deficiencies in such parallels.

There were no deficiencies in the analogy. I was simply using the term science in it's broad context, which I posted. But you're in such a hurry to ridicule me that you just ignored all that so you could shout "hypocrite!"

Given that you don’t appear to know what it is I do not think you could even begin to offer a determination. Arguing that a particular tool for acquiring knowledge, to use your language, is biased offers no support whatsoever for the tool you are attempting to propose.

It wasn't intended to.

And given that you used science as a basis for attempting dubious parallels to strengthen your theology I suspect that you don’t really believe science to be as flawed as your are currently claiming.

I was simply pointing out that you and the theists are using the same flawed set of tools to establish what true reality is. Therefor, you are as likely to be wrong as they are.

Which makes this line of attack you are currently embarking on all the more strange since it doesn’t address any of the myriad of failures in yours, and Dunemeisters, previous arguments that were pointed out.

No one is "attacking" you.

Here is the hilarity about all of this – you don’t have any other tools. Seriously, you don’t.

Sure we do. We have trial and error. We have acting on faith. We have the surrender of control. We have the practice of paradox, where you lead by following, learn by unlearning, etc. Religions offer a lot of these kinds of psychological/spiritual tools that work for people. You just have never tried them, so you think they don't exist.

The only thing seriously offered in this thread, and that was by Dunemeister, was IIHS which nobody appears to be able to differentiate quantitatively between my made-up concept of knowingness.

The thread isn't closed, yet. Maybe if you stop slinging insults and try asking some polite questions, you'd learn more.

You seem to be fond of drawing a comparison between two very different things only to later defend that comparison by arguing that they are two different things. Everytime you do this I literally facepalm.

That's because you can't seem to ever accept that from a human's perspective, everything is relative. Things are both alike and different, simultaneously, relative to the criteria one is choosing to make the determination.

The fact that your idea of god seems to morph across threads and posts also doesn’t help.

That's one of the reasons the idea of "God" works as well as it does.

But PureX, the quantifiers ‘true for them’ and ‘works for them’ have utterly nothing to do with what reality actually is.

You keep flying off to the extremes. Personal experience does not in itself prove that our concept of that experience is accurate. I agree. But as you pointed out, and so did I, it's about all we have to go on. So for us, it's stands as evidence in favor of truthfulness. And that's all I've ever claimed.

You have spent posts arguing that our concepts of reality don’t necessarily mean that reality corresponds to those concepts. Given that you are aware of this, and given that it is pretty clear that the folks arguing against you are interested in determining what the actual reality is, I can only describe this as a complete and utter cop out by someone who has run out of argument.

I wasn't presenting an "argument" intended to "win you over". All I was presenting was evidence in favor of the actuality of God.

There are some folks who thing there was a mass genocide 75 million years ago, and the souls of those victims are the source of all out troubles. They sincerely believe this concept/idea works for them. That this concept works for them (and I use the term ‘works for them’ in the same meaningless way you are) has nothing to do with reality.

Some ideas are more realistic than others. Some "work" for the wrong reasons. I have never met one of the people you refer to. So I have to conclude that this idea didn't work very well. Otherwise, people would still be using it.

Unbelievable. Some folks use god to mean the unknown (as you have argued for once) and some use god as an attempt at a workable hypothesis for elevating one’s mood (as you have also argued for). This two concepts contradict each other.

No they don't. Some folks use a hammer to pound nails in, and some folks use the hammer to pull them out. There is no contradiction, as the hammer is designed to do both. And anyway, there is nothing wrong with contradictions. It just means you're discussing an idea that's bigger than you're vision is.

See the problem with using a concept that seems to change every five posts and how it leads to contradictions????? Seriously?????

I see that YOU are having a lot of trouble grasping an idea that is dynamic.

Given that science entered this discussion because YOU used it a basis for attempted parallels to strengthen your theology I am simply going to retort with calling you a hypocrite once again. You’re a hypocrite.

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

I have realized no such thing. Seems a bit odd that you are trying to assassinate logic and science given that they have a demonstrably superior track record in the realm of determining fact from fiction than anything you have offered. It also seems a bit odd that, while you continue this assassination, you completely and utterly fail in demonstrating why your methodology of determining fact from fiction should be given the time of day.

I determine fact from fiction the same way you do. By trial and error.

I do not believe my posts are insulting. They are blunt but truthful. But feel free to play this card. Not as if cogent argument is getting you anywhere so far.

You're the one slinging the insults. I'm just asking why.

Let me try and answer that for you. This isn’t be throwing bile. Mild irritation perhaps, but a far cry from bile.
So where does my irritation come from? Well let me offer a few sources.

It irritates me that people will **** all over science while simultaneously being utterly ignorant about it while using its fruits to deliver that ignorance.
It irritates me when people use terrible and flawed logic and reasoning, and then try to weasel out of their irrationality by attacking logic and reason.
It irritates me when people argue that nothing can be known while attempting to present an idea .
It irritates me when people try and defend an idea by deliberately trying to render it as vague as possible to remove it from the realm of scrutiny.
It irritates me when people use reasoning that is so hopelessly flawed only to cry foul and throw irrelevant sophistic verbiage when those flaws are pointed out.

So basically, you're irritated by anyone who perceives the world differently from you, and dares to express those differences.

 

[Commoner]

Even if you work under the assumption that all religions are completely and utterly impossibly untrue (that is to say that it is not possible for any religion to ever be true), then that still does not invalidate their use to society. Society developed religion exactly because it has sociological value. Some, and by some it can very easily be posited to be most, people are not able to comfortably exist in a world/universe which is apparently completely without order, meaning, and destination. This is easily seen when analyzing history and noting that during periods of social and economic unrest millennial and apocalyptic movements substantially increase in both number and influence. People are want to attach numerological significance (or some other order) to death and all the various other mysteries we cannot penetrate so as to gain comfort during uncertain times.

So religion makes people most people more comfortable. The million dollar question is can the majority of people do without this "teddy bear?" And even if you could do with your "teddy bear" are you a better person for keeping your "teddy bear?" If you are a more moral person for having faith in something, then it is a moral imperative that you do so.

MTF

Wise you are, young MTF. :yoda:

Although I'd say it's more of a "loaded gun" than a "teddy bear".

 

[Smoke]

It irritates me that people will **** all over science while simultaneously being utterly ignorant about it while using its fruits to deliver that ignorance.
It irritates me when people use terrible and flawed logic and reasoning, and then try to weasel out of their irrationality by attacking logic and reason.
It irritates me when people argue that nothing can be known while attempting to present an idea .
It irritates me when people try and defend an idea by deliberately trying to render it as vague as possible to remove it from the realm of scrutiny.
It irritates me when people use reasoning that is so hopelessly flawed only to cry foul and throw irrelevant sophistic verbiage when those flaws are pointed out.

:clap

This deserves to be stickied. Or carved in stone.

 

[rageoftyrael]

I have a full and accurate perception of reality. Now prove me wrong, pureX.

 

[darkendless]

So basically, you're irritated by anyone who perceives the world differently from you, and dares to express those differences.

I share his irritation.

From my perspective (I do not wish to speak for him as well), it irritates me when people find fault in something that has been proven time and time again simply because they think its their job or their right to find fault with it, no matter how idiotic they sound in doing so. I don't know if you've seen the Noah's Ark thread, but it has caused me to become stupider as well. Slightly off topic, but its also amusing to see my posts ignored because they cannot be responded to using biblical nonsense. As i have keen interest in science and now, 2 years practical experience in geology, it annoys the hell out of me to see people reciprocate nonsense time and time again which is ignorant of geology, but claims superioirity over it.

But what takes the cake is people who will defend idiocy, and claim its someones right to be ignorant and stupid about science, whilst at the same time, the ignorant rip science to shreds as best they can. Religion does itself no favours by producing ******* idiots who make themselves look stupid by attacking natural concepts they do not understand.