Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

[ratiocinator]

I think after 25 pages we have clearly showed the atheists simply assume they have perfect understanding of how reality works on every level irregardless of any evidence supporting their belief system.

Is this a joke? Atheists don't need to understand anything about how reality works - all they have to do is observe that theists can't make their case.

 

[Thief]

Let me try to understand your point of view. You believe your words are the reality represent. You've never experience people having slightly different connotations to words so that your thoughts are interpreted the wrong way?

I think every word we use in a sentence has a certain amount of accuracy, completeness, and ambiguity built into it's meaning. People have different experiences. People have different subjective judgments and opinions. Do you think physicist who only knows Newtonian physics is going to have the same appreciation of the word "reality" compared to a physicist who knows Relativistic mechanics or Quantum mechanics as well as Classical mechanics?

no two people view ANY thing exactly the same way

as we stand side by side the item in front of us has a slight angle of perspective different
and for cause of that slight
you might have a sliver of glance......the item behind it

describe something …..red
and you might say.....fire engine red
and I for having painted cars......Chevy red
(Chevy red is very exact)

two tables in one large room
we leave and come back and a coin is on your table
a coin on mine
we know Someone has been there

we leave and come back and the coins are spinning on edge
we know Someone is very close

when they stop spinning.....will your coin land heads up?
how about mine?

but we cannot deny......Someone has been here

 

[Thief]

Is this a joke? Atheists don't need to understand anything about how reality works - all they have to do is observe that theists can't make their case.

duh

 

[dfnj]

when they stop spinning.....will your coin land heads up?
how about mine?
but we cannot deny......Someone has been here

I heard a really interesting answer to the old question, "If a tree falls down in the forest and nobody is around to hear it did it make a noise."

The interesting answer I heard was, "If no one is around then the forest does not exist." You cannot separate the observer from what is being observed. All your abstraction about reality do not exist reality. They only exist because you are there to experience them.

 

[Thief]

I heard a really interesting answer to the old question, "If a tree falls down in the forest and nobody is around to hear it did it make a noise."

The interesting answer I heard was, "If no one is around then the forest does not exist." You cannot separate the observer from what is being observed. All your abstraction about reality do not exist reality. They only exist because you are there to experience them.

that old line is a ploy
to expose thinkers who want to center reality around themselves

as if the sun will fail to rise if you're not there

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Philosophical materialism, or physicalism, is a perfectly respectable and defensible world view. ...

Yes and no.
Let us look at reductive physicalism as stated here:
(6) Reductionism is true iff for each mental predicate F, there is a physical predicate G such that a sentence of the form ‘ x is F iff x is G’ is analytically true.
Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now we accept that. We look for all cases X is physical as for the physical factors and then we make a true theory of everything based on physics.
Now we assume that we have such a ToE and then I answer: No!

What just happen? Remember the Toe is as physics go true for all the physical, so how can I answer no?
Think of it this way, everything is physical so this "no" as mental is physical as x is G.

So what is going on? Well, there is no single universal methodology, which only produces correct, true, accurate or otherwise positive answers.
How is that?
Well, it has to do with the foundation of logic and the law of non-contradiction in the ontological, formal and psychological sense:
It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections (1005b19–23).

It will be noted that this statement of the LNC is an explicitly modal claim about the incompatibility of opposed properties applying to the same object (with the appropriate provisos). Since Łukasiewicz (1910), this ontological version of the principle has been recognized as distinct from, and for Aristotle arguably prior to, the logical formulation (“The opinion that opposite assertions are not simultaneously true is the firmest of all”—Met. 1011b13–14) and the psychological formulation (“It is impossible for anyone to believe that the same thing is and is not, as some consider Heraclitus said”—Met. 1005b23–25)
Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now read it again and focus on this:
It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections (1005b19–23).

It will be noted that this statement of the LNC is an explicitly modal claim about the incompatibility of opposed properties applying to the same object (with the appropriate provisos). Since Łukasiewicz (1910), this ontological version of the principle has been recognized as distinct from, and for Aristotle arguably prior to, the logical formulation (“The opinion that opposite assertions are not simultaneously true is the firmest of all”—Met. 1011b13–14) and the psychological formulation (“It is impossible for anyone to believe that the same thing is and is not, as some consider Heraclitus said”—Met. 1005b23–25)

So here it is for everything as the same thing, same time, same object and same respect. Everything is not that and when I answer "No!" I do some different for another thing, time, object and respect.
So we can't as true reduce everything down to the same, because I just do differently.

Welcome to the weird la-la land of philosophy and the limit of logic. If you don't like that, then don't bring up philosophy.
I love it, because I am a skeptic and I love it when I find a limit using doubt to what humans claim they can do with the authority of truth. I.e. It has to be true!!! Well, no, sometimes false actually works.

I am skeptic, yet religious and as religious I believe in a god: The Wrong One. I am a skeptic after all.

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[PruePhillip]

Very well, since you ask -- let us begin.

"God created and heavens.... and the earth." You cannot even quite define what the difference is between "the heavens" and "the earth." Okay, let's assume that means "God created the earth -- plus everything else which is so astronomically much more as to make the earth look like an afterthought, a bit of leftover nothing." But there is nothing that you can use to show that this "creation" event -- if it even happened the way that you think it did -- is true. And in fact, the evidence from all the science done in cosmology over the last 100 -plus years strongly suggests that it's utter nonsense.

"This account is based upon you, the observer. To the observer the whole heavens revolve around the earth. It's all relative." Yes, well, wherever I am, I'm the centre of my universe, since I am the observe. That's relative to be sure, but for me to make the statement that "because this is how I observe it, the world must revolve around me" is simply ludicrous. It says, "I don't know how to think -- I cannot extrapolate."

"And then the land or earth appears above the water." You cannot begin to presume that's how this planet formed, and it is, in fact, scientifically, extremely unlikely. This planet, while it does come with a lot of ocean, and a great sea of atmosphere, is almost totally made of up of solid material. So to suggest that there was this big, watery thing that eventually heaved up land masses is nonsense. Much more realistic is to understand that our gravity is sufficient to hold an atmosphere, that atmosphere can contain much water vapour, which can condense and fall to earth, which earth can then support it's presence in various depressions...and so on. But to suggest that there was this big "water world" and lands (and cathedrals, a la Debussy's Cathedrale Engloutie, a favourite piece of mine) is silly.

"And man appeared, last." You claim that this is "the last fact." But it ain't true. I can tell you that cocker spaniels, AIDS and Caucasians all appeared long after "man" appeared.
​

It's strange that man appears as an afterthought on the earth, and the earth appears
as an afterthought in the "heavens." Yes to create an earth from physical laws you
need vast distances and vast time. It simply HAS to be this way - short time means
nothing much is happening, short distances is the same 'cos space/time is one. So
we need not be an "after thought."
Same with the creatures around us. We are one of several million species - and many
"human" species preceded us. Doesn't mean we are an afterthought.
Yes, the early earth was an "ocean world" This has been surmised for the last 20 or
so years, but only this year the first evidence via Oxygen isotopes. The granite continents
rose above the water line after a long process of subduction and metamorphism
.