Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yeah. Well, like. Whatevs.
Batboy could have put it at the center of the
moon or fill everyone's mind with confusion rays
so they can't remember why they are there.

If you feel that " islam" or " Noah's ark" or the
gold books of Mormon are possible Truth goWhatever.

I see nothing sensible to discuss.

I do not think they are true, but there are aspects of Islam (and Christianity) that I cannot rule out as impossible. That is all my comment was about.

 

[Polymath257]

We don't "know" any of that. This is your 'scientism' coming out. Some cosmologists postulate this based on an axtraordinarily small bit of data. This does not equate to "knowledge" by anyone's definition.

The data is sufficient to know those things. We don't know a great deal, I would agree. But we do know some things.

Name 5.

I've listed several. We know that dark matter produces gravitational lensing. We know it alters the rates at which stars orbit in galaxies. We know it affects motion in galaxy clusters. We know it separates from ordinary matter in collisions. We know it doesn't interact strongly with light. We know it isn't baryonic matter. We can map it out in some circumstances using gravitational lensing. We know dark matter isn't made from neutrinos (it's too 'cold' to be so).

The problem is (and it's getting worse these days) that the "scientism crowd" thinks that if any scientific "evidence" exist to suggest an hypothesis, then it has automatically become incontestable "knowledge". Much as you are doing, here. And this idiotic chain of thought is becoming commonplace on so many of these threads and among so many posters that I am having to try and point out the absurdity of it constantly. And mostly to no avail, because the habit of it is becoming epidemic as the cult of "scientism" is spreading.

Oh, there is a great deal we don't know and don't understand. But to deny those things we have managed to pull out of the data is wrong as well.

This is an absurd analogy.

Why so?

A quorum of top cosmologists estimated a few years ago that the sum total of all we know about the universe is about 13% of all there is to be known about it.

I would make it a smaller number, actually. Ordinary matter is about 4% of the total energy balance. Dark matter is about that 13%. Dark energy is the rest.

And that figure is so small that it logically implies it's own inaccuracy in favor of an exaggerated degree. And now imagine what the likelihood is that if we were to know all that we currently do not know about the universe, how drastically our idea of it would change. And yet here you are presuming that we "know" what is and isn't possible in an area of the universe that we know virtually nothing about.

And I agree, there are many, many things we don't know about these things. That is why those few things we do know are so precious.

And doing so "automatically" because you have adopted the atheist's religion of believing that if a scientist says he has some "objective evidence" of "X", then "X" must be true.

No, it is important to remain skeptical. And it is *possible* that dark matter and dark energy will evaporate in the same way the ether did a bit over 100 years ago. I've seen a couple of papers saying that the non-linear aspects of GR explain the observations. I am skeptical about those claims as well.

Physicality has become their replacement God, and the "evidence of science" has become it's prophet of truth. And the true believers believe this all automatically, without skepticism or doubt. Just like their counterparts do the old God and his prophets of truth.

Yes, evidence is what helps us determine what is true and what is not.

No, we don't know that either. We guess. We hypothesize. We extrapolate from data that we aren't even sure relates. This is not "knowing".

Once again, we can see the gravitational lensing. That tells us how much there is and how it is distributed. This isn't even deep physics. But it gives at least some information.

But evidence is not truth. And "based on" is not knowing anything. Why can't you see this? Are you that afraid of being wrong?

Evidence is the *only* path to truth we have found.

Well, actually, no. The fact that light has to bend around it implies that it does not interact with it. That whatever this is, it does not offer itself as a medium. Implying that it does not exist by the same "rules".

It shows that dark matter interacts via gravity. if it did not, light would not bend at all.

We don't know anything. All of what you're posting is just hypothetical speculation based on questionably relative observations that you are foolishly labeling "knowledge".

The data is solid. And the conclusions, say about the Bullet cluster, show that dark matter exists and can be separated from ordinary matter.

What you are calling "interaction" is not the proper terminology. It's just re-action, not interaction.

That you say this only shows you don't know what you are talking about here. Yes, to react is to interact.

When a wave bounces off a solid object they are not "interacting".

Absolutely that sound wave is interacting with that object. Your terminology is, at the very least, extremely non-standard for this topic.

The wave is simply re-acting to that which it cannot "interact" with. If the wave moves the object, then they are interacting. But in this instance, we have no information whatever that there is any actual interaction taking place.

The light is moved. So it has interacted.

You need to take into account how much of the information is coming from inside your own mind, and is then effecting your conclusions. You are viewing this as if it's part of this universe, and therefor subject to all the same "rules" that you think you know to govern this universe. But so far it appears NOT to be part of this universe, nor to obey the same "rules". In which case it's anyone's guess what rules it would obey. And we don't even know, yet, what rules THIS universe obeys.

On the contrary, it clearly obeys *some* of the same rules. And the rules it breaks are ones that aren't too difficult to find in our physics. If WIMPS exist, for example, they would be a prime candidate for the composition of dark matter. If axions exist, they would as well. We don't know whether either exists as yet. But we do know enough properties of dark matter to know that it isn't made of, say, neutrinos (another type of WIMP).

 

[Polymath257]

ergo, liking and believing,, are in general not correlated in rational people. Actually, the correlation should be inverted. The more we like an idea, the more skeptical we should be about it. Personally, I tend to not believe ides that I like, without compensating evidence.

- viole

This is perhaps the central idea more people should adopt. The more we *like* an idea, the more we should be *skeptical* of it.

The easiest person to fool is yourself.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've noticed that, among a large cohort of non-Christians and especially atheists on here, many of them take disbelief to what I would consider an extreme. There are many issues so this will likely be a wide-ranging thread.

I. 'Christian martyr stories are made up.' Why? Yes, there are many apocryphal tales but it is absolutely true that Christians were at times persecuted and put to all kinds of terrible deaths by the Roman state. These figures are exaggerated but why should this mean that the whole idea behind Christian martyrs be questioned?

II. 'Paul was xyz.' (A Roman spy, a false Christian, didn't really see Jesus etc.) Please prove it. Paul probably had more enemies than friends, but the same might be said of Jesus.

III. 'Jesus didn't exist.'

IV. Sources that never seem to be good enough. Yet other histories are not questioned (ex. our best information for Alexander the great comes about 200 years after the fact and almost nothing contemporary survives). Ancient written histories and biographies are full of what modern folks would now consider nonsense and are yet still cited as acceptable histories and especially biographies, yet when one goes to the Gospels all of a sudden it's different, despite the fact that the Gospels are now squarely classed as Greco-Roman biography written in the style of every other such biography (ex. miraculous birth narratives, missing out childhoods, not in chronological order etc.)

The minute something is classed as 'religious' it seems far too many people are willing to write it off as a complete waste of space.

@Augustus @exchemist @RestlessSoul @Brickjectivity

I believe you resorting to extreme non-factual assertions to justify your extreme view of others who believe differently. Most of the above are exaggerations and biased generalizations.

Example III. Jesus did not exist. There are a number of variable beliefs and understanding of this. Most historians, of varying views and beliefs consider Jesus (Joshua) existed in the times described in the gospels. It is accepted that he was a Nazarine Jew and claimed to be the fulfillment of the MEssianic prophesies and the King of the Jews. He was convicted of rebellion against Rome in a Court of Pontius Pilate and crucified based on Roman Law. many of varied beliefs including atheists agree with this. There is also the Christian belief i the the Divine Jesus Christ based on the New Testament Jews and of course atheists and others of varying beliefs that reject this view of Jesus. Other Theistic beliefs like Muslims and Baha'is believe somewhat differently from the traditional Christin beliefs.

Yes some believe that Jesus in reality never existed and is created composite of Messianic figures that lived at the time of Jesus. but this is a minority view regardless of beliefs.. Conclusion this is an exaggeration and dishonest view of what atheists and others believe.

 

[Zwing]

We don't know anything of the sort.

We can know that by extrapolation. When a person dies, there is no mind because the brain no longer functions, and for no other reason. From this, I can determine well enough to my own satisfaction that where there is no functioning brain, there is no mind. I find it a bit strange that your epistemic scruples are so stringent with respect to this, when they seem to be so lax with respect to the question of the existence of gods.

 

[Zwing]

My point is that if we maintain the proposition that reality is the set of all things that exist, then how do we account for those process abstractions?

They are real, but they are not real things; they are real abstractions…types of relational processes which have labels like “quantum mechanics” and “home run”.

 

[Audie]

I do not think they are true, but there are aspects of Islam (and Christianity) that I cannot rule out as impossible. That is all my comment was about.

So like the commandment " dont steal"
is a good one. Awful lot of superstructure
for the lille messages, imo

 

[Ella S.]

My point is that if we maintain the proposition that reality is the set of all things that exist, then how do we account for those process abstractions?

I do not accept that reality is the set of all things that exist.

The very notion demands that reality be more than material, but ineffable as well.

To me, this seems like you're equivocating the objects in the set with the very concept of the set itself. I don't think it's illogical to make a distinction between those.

The only logical conclusion to draw from the statement that reality is the set of all things that exist, is that it is both the subset as well as the powerset of itself.

You are missing some steps here. Most sets are not both the subset and the powerset of itself. In fact, that is ordinarily counter to set theory.

It sounds to me like you're adopting the language of Christopher Langan, but Langan has been criticized by mathematicians on a number of occasions precisely due to his misuse of set theory in his arguments for CTMU.

Langan frequently uses technical language in idiosyncratic ways, which means his writings are outright false on the face of them but, once you dig deeper, they're fractally wrong because his persuasive definitions rely heavily on equivocating unrelated concepts between different fields of study.

Don't listen to the guy. He's fallen into what's known as the "intelligence trap." He's too emotionally committed to recognize the errors in his logic, but you might not be yet. Treat him as a cautionary tale. You're smarter than this.

On the topic of words and their meaningful implications...

We can see that the words "reality" and "exists" may be interchangeable, but we then see that some words possess greater generality than others, such as "matter" and "material", or even "physical". Therefore, it leads us to ask, what is reality if not matter? Is it Being?

"Reality" and "exists" are not interchangeable. One is a noun and the other is a verb. "Reality" and "existence" are also not quite interchangeable. Fictional narratives and simulations exist, but they are not real. Likewise, the past is real, but it does not exist.

Neither are "material" and "physical" interchangeable. Gravity is physical, but it is immaterial, for example. Concepts emerge from material neuronal activity, but they themselves are usually treated as non-physical.

I might accept "physical" and "real" as synonyms, though.

The evidence would rely on the nature of reality and the limitations of the senses. I for one have seen God, but once. He was not material. He appeared before me in the form of a transparent, non-material, transmorgriphying yet intelligent, Being. This was after I boldly darted through my basement in the pitch blackness of the dark, thus inspiring fear in the surrounding demons during my ineffable transcendent reality-generating experience.

That sounds like the Ganzfeld Effect. It's been used by mystics for thousands of years to have supposed dialogues with spirits. I have a tome of ancient Greco-Roman Necromancy that uses the same trick to summon shades of the dead in dimly lit caves.

If you're suggestible, sleep deprived, and hungry, then the effect can be quite dramatic. Summonings in grimoiric tradition often advised fasting and an entire night of prayer before evoking spirits for this reason. Mages figured out that it could reliably produce mystical experiences and believed it was a form of magic.

It's not. It's just a way of tricking the pattern-recognition part of our brains.

Did God speak to you? That would be a more interesting point of discussion. And I don't mean speaking to you in your head as a mental voice, because that's fairly easy to trigger. The tulpa community and many chaos magick practices with thoughtforms have that down to almost a science now. I mean, did God make audible noise that you heard with your ears?

If not, then your experience means basically nothing.

This is because any respected philosopher who is a theist has failed to prove the existence of God. Langan and I have.

Oh wow, I was right about Langan. I hadn't read this part yet when I wrote my earlier response. I was going to get all of my ideas out as they came to me and then revise them after re-reading your post in full.

I guess that entire portion of my reply can remain intact, then. Suffice to say

 

[Zwing]

I do not accept that reality is the set of all things that exist.

The semantics can get hairy in ontological discussions. Fictitious things do not exist, but the fictions about them exist… Ontology can drive ya nuts!

 

[Audie]

The semantics can get hairy in ontological discussions. Fictitious things do not exist, but the fictions about them exist… Ontology can drive ya nuts!

Specially ifn ya figures ta recapitulate
phylogeny.

 

[Polymath257]

The semantics can get hairy in ontological discussions. Fictitious things do not exist, but the fictions about them exist… Ontology can drive ya nuts!

I find myself debating with myself in what sense the game of chess exists. It seems like it is merely an invention of our minds. But then, in a particular position, can you say that mate exists in 5 moves? The analogies with formal math are manifold.

 

[dybmh]

Being convinced of what makes sense to one in no way preempts or negates logical fallacy. It made sense to David Koresh of the Waco cult that he was a god, was he not subject to logical fallacy? It seems to make sense to Tom Cruise and John Travolta that they will inherit their own planets (or some such nonsense) someday, are they not under the delusion of a logical fallacy?

Ah. Thank you.

For me, I wouldn't consider those the entry points. That was where they landed.

I've never had a convo with someone like Tom Cruise. But I have spoken with someone who thought they were god. Not here. Away from here. And, ya know, it's was a little weird for me. They were asking me questions. I didn't approach them. And we did begin from what made sense to them. Which was, for them "I am one of many gods, all people can become a god. I love being me, and I want you to love being you."

I still don't see the logical fallacy of starting with that god concept, and then using that to explain the Genesis story. That's literally what they asked me about. All the classic questions. What's up with 1:26, "let us create?", What's up with "Elohim? Isn't it plural" "What's up with image and likeness of God?" "What's up with the serpent? It didn't lie?"

And I explained the chapters 1-3, it took awhile, and we began with the god concept that made sense to them. I didnt try to convince them of anything. Although they were very impressed

 

[Augustus]

The minute something is classed as 'religious' it seems far too many people are willing to write it off as a complete waste of space.

One of the oddest, but that is quite common, is when people think religion was started cynically as a scam to exploit people and control the masses.

Obviously there have been religious charlatans and religion has frequently been used to help the powerful achieve their ends, but the idea that this has been a primary driving force behind such a ubiquitous human phenomenon is completely delusional.

To be honest it's not really that odd, it fits into a nice salvation narrative where satan devious religious charlatans trick people into error, and by freeing them from this error we will live rationally ever after. If it's all pretty natural and ingrained into us irrational animals it's hard to sustain a belief in salvation through reason.

 

[PureX]

That would entail that atheists are such because they do not like the idea. is that so?

that does not obtain. I know at least an atheist who likes the idea of eternal blissful life. Maybe many do. Alas, they would be like me liking the idea that drinking a lot of vodka will make me live until 120. when it would be totally irrational to believe that.

1. We aren't discussion an afterlife.
2. Belief is just the ego presuming to know what it can't know.
3. "Rationale" is whatever you make it. It is just as rational to adhere to theism as to adhere to atheism.

ergo, liking and believing,, are in general not correlated in rational people.

That's just your own baseless bias.

 

[PureX]

You only apply "we don't know" to things in science that we DO know, but never religious ideas that not only lack evidence but are also inconsistent with what we DO know about reality.

I don't hold any religious ideas as I am not religious. And I have stated many, many times that I have no idea what God is or even if God even exists. But you all read whatever you want and ignore whatever you don't like.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That would entail that atheists are such because they do not like the idea. is that so?

that does not obtain. I know at least an atheist who likes the idea of eternal blissful life. Maybe many do. Alas, they would be like me liking the idea that drinking a lot of vodka will make me live until 120. when it would be totally irrational to believe that.

ergo, liking and believing,, are in general not correlated in rational people. Actually, the correlation should be inverted. The more we like an idea, the more skeptical we should be about it. Personally, I tend to not believe ides that I like, without compensating evidence.

But your reply begs the next question: do theists believe in God because they like the idea?

ciao

- viole

That is impossible as per modern cognitive science as no human have only formal cogntion, but rather we also use the emotional parts of our brains.
In effect if you were brain scanned, you would have a brain, that would have no emotional parts and your actual brain structure would make you functionally different from all other humans.

 

[ratiocinator]

2. Belief is just the ego presuming to know what it can't know.
3. "Rationale" is whatever you make it. It is just as rational to adhere to theism as to adhere to atheism.

Since 3 appears to be your belief, I assume 2 applies to it?

 

[PureX]

We can know that by extrapolation. When a person dies, there is no mind because the brain no longer functions, and for no other reason. From this, I can determine well enough to my own satisfaction that where there is no functioning brain, there is no mind. I find it a bit strange that your epistemic scruples are so stringent with respect to this, when they seem to be so lax with respect to the question of the existence of gods.

You are presuming to know that there is no mind apart from the brain. We don't know this. You are a materialist so you believe this. But philosophical materialism is a long ago failed ideology that most people have rightly rejected. So your proclamations have no weight except in your own mind.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are resuming to know that there is no mind apart from the brain. We don't know this. You are a materialist so you believe this.

Another belief, therefore just your ego presuming to know what it can't know? Ref. #474.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Another belief, therefore just your ego presuming to know what it can't know? Ref. #474.

There are other versions than just physicalism and idealism possible.