A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Hmmm. Mighty Quiet From Our Voidist Friends...
Maybe their voids are black holes...
68 comments:
Anonymous
said...
This blog definetly needs more article reviews and political talk nowadays.
"Voidism is the philosophy held by voidists, people who aspire to find themselves at the bottom of the following ladder:
# Polytheism - belief in many gods.
# Monotheism - belief in one god.
# Atheism - absence of belief in gods.
# Nihilism - absence of belief in gods, morality and purpose.
# Voidism - absence of belief in gods, morality, purpose and conciousness.
As a voidist, one considers that conciousness is an illusion, a very good illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.
Since the term 'nihilism' already implies a sense of 'nothingness', when looking to coin a term for this philosophy it was necessary to find a word which would imply an even purer sense of emptyness. The phrase 'null and void' led to the idea of calling it voidism. "
This seems to fit, if purpose means teleology, which I suspect it does for these folks. Morality is not absolute and is highly debated by Atheists as "ethics", because morality doesn't exist. Most Atheist philosophers consider consciousness to be a delusion, otherwise the human would be an "uncaused causer" which is not allowed under Philosophical Materialism.
So, as attactive as the term Avoidism is, I will stick with Voidism. They have no position on anything, and therefore cannot discuss anything rationally.
And you are way behind in using those definitions. Voidists have been using those for decades. So if you are unhappy with my use of the "new" definition, why should you expect me to accept the "new" definition of Atheism (Voids)? Especially when the new definition of Atheism is an obvious lie?
If a lie is repeated often enough, the liar will start to believe it. But not necessarily anyone else, who will merely distrust the liar in future dealings.
It's curious that Atheists would choose to be known as untrustworthy, merely by choosing to promote such dishonesty as their (non) position.
In a sense it is unavoidable, because they cannot live up to their claims of being evidence-based; their logic is defeated by their necessary attachment to Philosophical Materialism; yet they maintain their attitude of superior intellect and morality in the face of their necessary failures. Self-delusion is a form of dishonesty that is apparent to everyone but the self-deluded. That's why dependence upon the rigors of disciplined logic is necessary. And it's why Atheists refuse to use actual logical discplined procedures.
Sorry if my posts 'poked your buttons' but I wanted to see how you'd react to certain situations.
I guess that piece of "science" is now disproved.
I've asked the same question of thirty theists and almost fifty atheists. Almost every atheist says $5 and almost every theist says $10.
Looking at the last week of your posts and using the tests for analytic reasoning versus intuitive reasoning we can see that your posts are filled with intuitive reasoning. There is also a high level of emotional language (which seems to be directed at atheists). I'd love to do a more rigorous study of your way of thinking but I don't have time to test all your posts. (Quotations have to be edited out so they don't poison the results which complicates the process).
I can also make some guesses at who you are using the data for your last two weeks worth of posts. You are male. You are white. You're old enough to retire. You worked in a technical field and are proud of it. You have not studied philosophy at college level. You pride yourself at reading books and likely feel that colleges impose viewpoints on students. You have a sense of being superior to those you disagree with. You fear lack of control and order.
I'll never know if these guesses are correct or not but it's been funny running these tests. I'll check back for a reply but after 24 hours I may not post again. Thanks for participating.
trying to convince me to write again or what? it's not by presenting ridiculous strawman that you will achieve this. take your 'voidist' this for instance. isnt it ironic that you decided to post that AFTER i put a list of things i actually believe in as an atheist. isnt ironic that you say that atheist dont offer rebutal to your arguments when you actually ban people who persist in trying to discuss with you? isnt ironic that i had to remind you several times that i actually replied to your arguments, only for you to mock the multiple replies? isnt ironic that you say that atheist only look for material evidence and material existence AFTER i told you that this or that are examples of non-material evidence and non-material existence?
but wait... by writing here i just proved that it works, dam!! lol!
MY study shows that Atheists are "analytical" and Theists are stupid.
Well, your study need not be believed just because you show up here mouthing it. I disproved it anyway, right before your very eyes; that must sting a little. And of course it does, because you proceed from there with a personal attack:
Looking at the last week of your posts and using the tests for analytic reasoning versus intuitive reasoning we can see that your posts are filled with intuitive reasoning.
Your "tests" are completely undefined and probably nonexistent; they seem not to make room for hypothesis – deduction; you have your own definitions, of course, which you need not share, because this is a personal attack sort of message, in response to calling out Atheism for what it is; the only possible response is Ad Hominem or some other fallacy, because you cannot provide either logic or evidence for actual Atheist beliefs.
By asking Atheists for the analysis of Lourdes we saw them produce what? Hint: dodging wildly.
By asking Athiests for evidence to back up their Atheism we saw them produce what? Hint: a new non-Atheism (Voidism).
Now you are making claims concerning my reasoning with no analytical basis for your statements, only your opinion and implications. You are really only capable of attempts at Ad Hominem, and poorly constructed, at that, because you have no arguments to put forward in your favor.
”There is also a high level of emotional language (which seems to be directed at atheists).”
Oh my yes. It is highly emotional to ask Atheists to be intellectually honest and to address their rejectionism.
”I can also make some guesses at who you are using the data for your last two weeks worth of posts. You are male. You are white. You're old enough to retire. You worked in a technical field and are proud of it. You have not studied philosophy at college level. You pride yourself at reading books and likely feel that colleges impose viewpoints on students. You have a sense of being superior to those you disagree with. You fear lack of control and order.”
And you are not a psychic, you are a quack who has read just enough of this blog to have pulled out things I admit to. And then you added some opinions of how things are in your universe. Pretty sad stuff, really.
”trying to convince me to write again or what? it's not by presenting ridiculous strawman that you will achieve this. take your 'voidist' this for instance. isnt it ironic that you decided to post that AFTER i put a list of things i actually believe in as an atheist. “
What you believe is not a result of your Atheism, no matter what it is. Atheism is a void; revisit the above conversation you yourself had. So what you believe is a-Atheist, since it is not contained in Atheism in any way - especially not in your Voidist version, which contains no knowledge whatsoever since it is an intellectual dodge. So whatever your list contains, it is not relevant to Atheism as a category.
You had best look up the definition of Straw Man; it refers to a mechanism to derail a conversation by creating a false structure to attack. That is obviously not the case here. Atheists seem to know just one accusation, “Straw Man”, and they seem to think that it applies to any logic that makes them hurt.
”isnt ironic that you say that atheist dont offer rebutal to your arguments when you actually ban people who persist in trying to discuss with you?”
False to the point of being a direct lie. I ban people who will absolutely not accept that their logic is based on known, demonstrable fallacies, and insist on maintaining obstructive tactics which are anathema to logical discourse. This is what happened and is what I said about it at the time. What you claim is false and not reflective of actuality. As it happens, I have the discipline of logic on my side; Atheists think that anything they utter is logical and must therefore be truth and has to be acceptable in logical conversations. That is not the case. Your accusations are not true just because you say them out loud.
” isnt ironic that i had to remind you several times that i actually replied to your arguments, only for you to mock the multiple replies?”
If by mock, you mean that I said your replies needed evidence and support, then that is the case, and it is just too bad, I guess. If a player shows up and can’t take the effort to prepare a real case, then he should be ashamed; but in reality the players here for the past week chose instead to blame the opposition which is holding the players’ feet to the fire. These Atheists cannot produce any reason for anyone to accept their position. When placed on a podium and declaring that Atheism is just – nothing – and nothing requires no evidence or logic - you would experience the response that that position deserves.
” isnt ironic that you say that atheist only look for material evidence and material existence AFTER i told you that this or that are examples of non-material evidence and non-material existence?
Maybe you should mention a specific issue, rather than just making open, empty complaints as if you are some sort of poor, abused victim. So far you have not stood up for anything here, taking only the Voidist position regarding Atheism. Atheism provides no knowledge about anything, nor does it provide guidance regarding any other beliefs. Any beliefs an Atheist has, he gotten somewhere besides from Atheism, either adopting from somewhere or making them up. So if you think otherwise, then make your case. So far you have not done so. And you have not done so because if you do, you will have to defend them as part of Atheism.
Wow... Whay a way to conduct a study about how a theist is not intelligent enough to solve an Algebra problem.
Show your data... how is your sampling.
If you are statistically talking about the superior intelligence atheists have, "almost every" is not an objective way of statistical or stochastic measurement of the variables you present. So from that perspective, your data, along with your premise of atheists' superior intelligence, remains flawed.
If you're going to objectively analize something, please look for a technical definition of measurement.
"Q: If a hat and coat cost $110, and the coat costs $100 more than the hat, how much does the hat cost?"
Here you have a theist, showing you the steps to solve it:
1) Propose the algebraic equation:
PriceCoat + PriceHat = 110
2) Because it has been proposed, as a boundary condition, that the Coat costs $100 more than the hat, then:
PriceCoat = PriceHat + 100
OR
PriceHat = PriceCoat - 100
3)There are at least two ways to solve it, being by replacing PriceHat in the equation, or replacing PriceCoat in the equation.
This is just a simple operation of simultaneous equations, when one variable is defined as linearly dependent from the other one. Without that given contidion, it would not be possible to accomplish the result to be asked.
--> Method 1: Replacing PriceHat:
PriceCoat + PriceCoat - 100 = 110
2*PriceCoat - 100 = 110
PriceCoat = 105
Then, replacing PriceCoat's value:
110 - PriceCoat = PriceHat
110 - 105 = PriceHat, then PriceHat = 5
-->Method 2: Replacing PriceCoat:
PriceHat + 100 + PriceHat = 110
2*PriceHat + 100 = 110
PriceHat = (110-100)/2, then,
PriceHat = 5, so,
PriceCoat + 5 = 110
PriceCoat = 105
"I'll never know if these guesses are correct or not but it's been funny running these tests. I'll check back for a reply but after 24 hours I may not post again. Thanks for participating"
With the hopes, that you will refine your experiment...
As for the article from psychologytoday, as it is there, where you get that conclusion from, it is not enough to prove your conlusion.
Until I see raw data and a bigger range of samples, I won't believe everything what the article says.
I want a peer-reviewed article, about why intuitive thinking is bad and why analytical thinking is better, just look at the conlusions of the cited article.
At least with me, analytical thinking does not reduce my belief in a greater, divine reality.
But of course, I hope my belief is not anything of big concern, regarding your way to prove, why are atheists better than us because they are "more analytical". Again, that's not an objective measurement from your part, and that also implies manipulating and twisting the focus of the actual study, not surprisingly.
It would not be necessary to be there reviewing the whole process, with the people doing the study... just to find out that the question is not an adequate source of stimuli for addressing all the possible factors, to get to the kind of conclusions you, A1, had just arrived. Although I did find this correlation rather weird but also interesting.
Don't let your experiment just backfire at you like that again.
If you come back, I'll give you some information about a reason Why IQ is rather a measurement of getting used to solve abstract reasoning problems, and about the academic culture you recieve in your file, rather than a measurement to show you hoy to measure the ability to solve everything else. IQs are more for classifing people's cultural level, rather than know aspects about what are best people's abilities to solve an specific problem.
MY study shows that Atheists are "analytical" and Theists are stupid.
Where does he say that? All it says is that believers and disbelievers often have different thinking styles. And then: "Reynolds and Norenzayan agree that analytic reasoning is not superior to intuitive reasoning. "They both have their costs and benefits," "
Well, your study need not be believed just because you show up here mouthing it. I disproved it anyway, right before your very eyes; that must sting a little. And of course it does, because you proceed from there with a personal attack:
Disproved? The study doesn't say every believer uses intuitive reasoning. What did you perceive as a personal attack?
yonose said... @A1:
Wow... Whay a way to conduct a study about how a theist is not intelligent enough to solve an Algebra problem.
Why would you think that what the study is about? Nowhere does anyone come close to saying that.
your premise of atheists' superior intelligence, remains flawed.
Again, where are you coming up with this?
why are atheists better than us because they are "more analytical".
A1 doesn't say this and neither does the article.
I've been lurking without posting for a while, I'm actually on a short trip to Australia. Hello from Down Under from Nats!
yonose, I think it works like this: if Atheists are said to have quality Q, while non-Atheists are said to have quality S, then Q is the superior quality merely because Atheists have it. Atheist self-endowed superiority always trumps logic.
In fact, kierkegaard took the position that analytical thinking, taken by itself, is useless because it cannot reveal any objective truth. This is the case with empiricism, which provides only contingent knowledge of purely material issues, and cannot provide any knowledge of an ethical nature, of even a mathematical nature or the nature of logic, much less the nature of non-material existence.
Atheists self-limit their thinking in such a manner that other knowledge types are transparent to them, under their own evidentiary theory. But they do not stick to their own evidentiary theory, of course, and they proceed to make metaphysical Truth statements which they cannot support. This just demonstrates that Atheists are confused pups, and little more.
Atheists in general do not consider there to be any "intuition" anyway, but the suspicious article which mentions "intuitive thinking" suddenly has meaning to them. Atheists are radical skeptics when convenient, and credulous blind believers where convenient. Again, confused pups.
Nats, I'm afraid I hit the delete button instead of the publish button which I intended to hit, so your comment is gone. I hope you saved it or can restore it, I will publish it if you can get it back to me. Sorry.
I've clarified it further. Look at way A1 manipulates information:
A1's Quotes:
"The question is tangentially related to religion:
Q: If a hat and coat cost $110, and the coat costs $100 more than the hat, how much does the hat cost?"
"I've asked the same question of thirty theists and almost fifty atheists. Almost every atheist says $5 and almost every theist says $10.
Looking at the last week of your posts and using the tests for analytic reasoning versus intuitive reasoning we can see that your posts are filled with intuitive reasoning. There is also a high level of emotional language (which seems to be directed at atheists). I'd love to do a more rigorous study of your way of thinking but I don't have time to test all your posts. (Quotations have to be edited out so they don't poison the results which complicates the process). "
[emphasis in bold added]
As you can see, there is not a serious, objective study. A1 manipulated the information. And as you can see in the article coming from psychologytoday, at least I, already know that's not the issue.
So I'm quoting myself here again:
" As for the article from psychologytoday, as it is there, where you get that conclusion from, it is not enough to prove your conlusion.
Until I see raw data and a bigger range of samples, I won't believe everything what the article says.
I want a peer-reviewed article, about why intuitive thinking is bad and why analytical thinking is better, just look at the conlusions of the cited article."
"A1 says, MY study shows that Atheists are "analytical" and Theists are stupid."
Nowhere were theists ever called stupid. I don't care about atheism or theism. I'm agnostic and while I occasionally laugh at what both sides do I could care less about Gods. All I care about is groups that produce large amounts of text that I can use software to analyse. The application of computer aided sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics and narrative analysis are basically my only interests.
"you are a quack..."
Ouch!
Yonose said: "your premise of atheists' superior intelligence,"
I never said that but why do you feel that is my premise?
I want a peer-reviewed article, about why intuitive thinking is bad and why analytical thinking is better,
Nowhere is it stated the intuitive thinking is bad and analytical thinking is good. They are both useful and every human uses combinations of both everyday.
Yonose: Latest results of my informal test. 3 out of 36 theists say $5, 44 out 56 atheists say $5. All I'm doing is keeping a spreadsheet of who I've asked where, their theism status and their answer. I don't record the answers from the same website after the first person has answered because the first person's answer will affect the second's.
A1, So far here's what we know about you and your "test".
The test shows that some people are better at algebraic/mathematical questions than other people, and/or are suspicious of trick questions where one answer appears obvious but is incorrect. This is interpreted to have a meaning of intuitive vs. analytical, and is taken as a final decision on the issue, so conclusive that magazine articles declare the results as having religious significance, and you show up here declaring the religious significance, despite it not having worked here.
You are engaged in putting people into boxes based on their answers to a single question.
Then, you take the extra time to glean any personal information you can from the blog and make a psychological "analysis" on me, without ever having met me or knowing anything about me, except what you read here.
In Kaplan & Sadock's "Synopsis of Pshychiatry: Behavioral Sciences / Clinical Psychiatry, 10th Ed., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Pubs", which includes the DSM, there is exactly no mention of intuitive thought or thinking, period, much less as a differentiator between human types.
From the article in PT: ”Reynolds and Norenzayan agree that analytic reasoning is not superior to intuitive reasoning. "They both have their costs and benefits," Norenzayan says. One of the consequences of the costs and benefits is one's tendency to believe in religion. So whether you answered $5 or $10 provides insight into what you believe and how your beliefs are formed.”
In real science, correlation is not causation.
The correlations with other possible contributors are ignored. They do not mention how strong the correlation is with regard to sex, age, education, personal problems at home or work, size of family, position in sibling group, position in social or peer group, position in work group, relationship with mother, relationship with father, degree of crisis in their present life, previous religious or anti-religious encounters, amount of math in their backgrounds, training in principles of logical analysis, credulousness / suspiciousness in other situations, tendency toward cynicism; drugs, depression, sleep deprivation other DSM-related issues, &c, for numerous known and unknown factors.
When you get that all straightened out with all possible variables eliminated, come on back and let us know.
I repeat this from above: You are engaged in putting people into boxes based on their answers to a single question.
Perhaps you might explain why this is science and not quackery.
I was a strong agnostic that turned into a weak atheist for some time, before converting to a specific strand of theism.
You could have mention those numbers and avoid the versus word in the first place. I felt a bit ridiculed in the way you exposed you hypothesis at first... you could've spare me some trouble.
About the quetion, I just feel that it is not the right stimuli to identify important factors about religious belief, because is about classification and differentation of kinds, rather than a deeper understanding of that particular factor, you know, like one of those "quick" studies for a grad or undergrad thesis or something of the sort (I'm an undergrad, but have seen enough samples of those documents, specially from science undergrads, that do similar stuff).
If there's a correlation about inclinations of answering a problem at first hand, that's OK, but an alegra problem like that is rather a mechanical process to do once you know about it rather than a question that needs to be addressed from an analytical prospect. The possible answers are just TWO: One correct, One incorrect.
So the question is rather for, if you remember how to solve an specific problem rather than anything else.
Axiomatically proved theoretical questions are to be addressed from an analytical prospect, rather than solving some mathematical problems where the boundary conditions are just set.
When there's something people don't know well about, people tend to answer "intituively"; some prior remembrance or knowledge from people and they tend to answer "analytically"... there's no mystery about that.
There are notable differences, at least from a mathematical perspective, of what is analysis and what is an abstraction. In engineering, those concepts in the practical sense converge a little more, and the difference between analysis and abstraccion vary from discipline to discipline, but the definitions should be there, clearly stated so they are to be used in the right manner.
In that study, there's not an objective, specific definition of what is analytical, or abstract, or intuitive, and when do the concepts regarding the actions taken converge and/or diverge.
If you want to keep your study not for the sake of ridiculing theists and aheists, please consider in changing the questions, making new ones, make some statistical calculations, widen the spectrum of possible answers, so even a simple hystogram would help (you would have more frequency samples to use). Stochastical analysis is always recommended.
Then, just calculate an FFT to every sample (just joking).
The self proclaimed study published in the PsychologyToday journal is interesting, but still not conclusive. The environmental variables of the experiment do not ensure unbiased results while assembled, and this is still why I don't believe that the study alone is conclusive, but rather tells me a lot, about how some scientists are "bred" nowadays.
I'm a bit in a hurry right now, so the I'll expose a single but conclusive excerpt about the issues of classifying people because of IQ, on another time.
stan, i think you might be starting to get it!! but at the same time, you are reallllllllly confused!!
you said...
...Atheism provides no knowledge about anything, nor does it provide guidance regarding any other beliefs. Any beliefs an Atheist has, he gotten somewhere besides from Atheism...
that is so true!! yet, you don’t seem to understand what it implies because, before, in another post about that ‘voidist’ crazy non-sense you said:
... So now they claim not to have a position, it is merely a void regarding the subject. Yet even a void as a worldview has consequences....
... If Voidism is the complete lack of a concept or position, then what is the basis for their worldview?
... Further, a worldview which starts with a void as its base axiomatic truth proposition cannot be thought to produce anything of value. There is nothing in Voidism, literally, to direct thought processes, for example (and this is shown here daily)...
there is something fascinating going on here. clearly stan you are not seeing it; perhaps others will?
it is as if it were inconceivable to have a worldview that does not start with a god! that is the void you are talking about! actually it’s worse; it’s as if a worldview cannot start with anything but an acceptance OR rejection of gods. THAT IS THE VOID YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
stan, you are so incapable of processing that that it makes you attack some sort of voidist position, that you confuse with having no beliefs at all! strangest thing ever.
I mean, for god sake (pun intended), you ask what is the basis for their worldview!! how can you ask such question!?
you have been writing this blog for over 4 years you say, you have been an atheist for 40 years you say, yet, you are unable to answer that question yourself ?!?!
you are not even able to imagine various basis for worldviews NOT BASED ON GODS???
this is hilarious!
of course, your reaction to this is quite easy to predict, you will come back saying that atheists reject any form of logic, any basis, any fundamental principles, any firm knowledge and all that jazz, even if it’s completely false...
you will then go on to say the same thing you just wrote, that atheists deny knowledge, prefer skepticism, bla bla bla, yet again you do it yourself, saying that it’s probabilistic, that we cannot prove with 100% most of the things we are justified to believe in, and so on.... running in circles again and again... attacking those who don't agree with you just because they don't, saying they are wrong just because YOU use logic PERFECTLY!
seriously, it's not even possible to be slightly rational in your eyes if we don't start with a god. how ridiculous is that?
so go on stan, keep attacking strawman (YES YOU ATTACK STRAWMAN ALL THE TIME) your blog is just for that; it’s your playground. you asked for more precise examples? just go read the comments again because people are specific when they attack your claims; you just cant deal with that for some reason. you prefer to claim that your views are correct; your logic is infallible; your rationality is unquestionable; your knowledge is sufficient for all the answers you need regarding the entire freaking universe and even what existed BEFORE it was created (the non-material entity, right???)
but keep going please, it’s so much fun to read you :)
Whether they admit it or not, almost everyone I meet who labels themselves as "lacking belief in gods" does have a positive worldview. That of materialism, or naturalism. The only things that exist are what the science of physics tells us exists, and that's it.
This is inherent in almost everything they say, whether they readily admit it or not.
Why not just be a naturalist or materialist, then? Why all the hiding behind semantics?
”it is as if it were inconceivable to have a worldview that does not start with a god! that is the void you are talking about! actually it’s worse; it’s as if a worldview cannot start with anything but an acceptance OR rejection of gods. THAT IS THE VOID YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
stan, you are so incapable of processing that that it makes you attack some sort of voidist position, that you confuse with having no beliefs at all! strangest thing ever.
I mean, for god sake (pun intended), you ask what is the basis for their worldview!! how can you ask such question!?”
Ah yes, the unaskable question. Those which are sacrosanct, or so absurd that the Atheist is the only one wise enough to detect that they have no meaning, while others detect actual meaning within. More focused ignorance.
Let’s try this: If there is no objective basis for a worldview, then the basis must be subjective, purely self-derived, self-authorized, self-justified, self-assured and self-focused. It is subject to the momentary whim of the self; it is totally changeable and malleable to fit the situation. That is part of the freedom which Atheists crave and claim: the freedom of total narcissism, justifiable under the denial of objective absolutes external to themselves. And the freedom to slip and slide into any different position on a moment’s notice.
There is no objective, outside demand for character development (except to obey laws when cops are looking). There is no objective demand for consistency of behavior or thinking which would induce others to trust the Atheist. There is no objective anything, except Material stuff, which came from nowhere, for no reason, with no inducement, and shouldn’t be questioned. There are no objective rules for thinking disciplined thoughts; the superior Atheist is more rational and therefore thinks correctly all the time, by his own subjective definition of rationality, which is just whatever an Atheist thinks at the moment.
”you have been writing this blog for over 4 years you say, you have been an atheist for 40 years you say, yet, you are unable to answer that question yourself ?!?!
you are not even able to imagine various basis for worldviews NOT BASED ON GODS???
this is hilarious!”
Your Silliness, you do not recognize rhetorical questions, so you ridicule them? And of course I repeat and repeat the answer for you.
”of course, your reaction to this is quite easy to predict, you will come back saying that atheists reject any form of logic, any basis, any fundamental principles, any firm knowledge and all that jazz, even if it’s completely false...”
You provide no evidence to the contrary; you have provided only a continuous stream of absurd silliness. I suggest that you provide something meaningful, with actual logic behind it. Can you do that?
”you will then go on to say the same thing you just wrote, that atheists deny knowledge, prefer skepticism, bla bla bla, yet again you do it yourself, saying that it’s probabilistic, that we cannot prove with 100% most of the things we are justified to believe in, and so on.... running in circles again and again... attacking those who don't agree with you just because they don't, saying they are wrong just because YOU use logic PERFECTLY!”
What is your argument here? That things actually are 100% probable, or that using probabilistic acceptability is false? You do not prove that, you merely ridicule it in your typical fashion. Show that it is incorrect, make even the smallest case which is not just ridicule. Even the smallest case whatsoever.
” attacking those who don't agree with you just because they don't, saying they are wrong just because YOU use logic PERFECTLY!”
They disagree just because they don’t? Just because they don’t? And you expect that to be a respected position, and come here to argue it, expecting that it would be a conclusive argument against which logic should not be used, or evidence required? If anything deserves ridicule, that is definitely it.
” seriously, it's not even possible to be slightly rational in your eyes if we don't start with a god. how ridiculous is that?”
FALSE, absolutely. A rational person has reasons for his positions. Atheists claim rationality and evidence as their own characteristics. So the rational approach for someone who claims rationality and evidence for his own would be to provide rational, logical reasons and/or evidence for same. Atheists do not and cannot do that. That is why they cannot own the claim of rationality. When you can do that, then you can own your claim to be rational, but not until you can do the rational hard work first.
” so go on stan, keep attacking strawman (YES YOU ATTACK STRAWMAN ALL THE TIME) your blog is just for that; it’s your playground. you asked for more precise examples?”
Yes, you constantly make accusations which you do not support with specific instances, demonstrating the specific fallacy.
” just go read the comments again because people are specific when they attack your claims; you just cant deal with that for some reason.
You are dodging again; come out from behind the skirt and make an actual specific claim regarding a specific instance. You are being intellectually cowardly.
” you prefer to claim that your views are correct; your logic is infallible; your rationality is unquestionable; your knowledge is sufficient for all the answers you need regarding the entire freaking universe and even what existed BEFORE it was created (the non-material entity, right???)”
Actually I have asked for you to refute it, many, many times. And this is your typical response: nothing but blather and personal attacks.
Refute it. Go ahead. Make a syllogistic case. Do it. Do it!
DO IT!
This is reaching the usual final point where Atheists frequently become too irrational to tolerate. Rather than engage using logical, syllogistic refutation, they become enraged and engage in personal attacks, and name calling, and weak attempts to ridicule that which they cannot disprove using logic or evidence. The above is a constant stream of this, using every dodge that can be summoned in order not to engage the issue with actual logic and certainly no material evidence.
Eternal, I suggest that you resort to disciplined logic or material evidence to support your case. If you continue not to do so, and you would rather use personal attacks and name-call instead, then your time here will be up.
This blog is intended for rational conversation, using disciplined rational processes of logic and axiomatic grounded rational hypothesis – deduction propositions and cases. Those who wish to invade with the intent to interrupt, disrupt and interfere with rational discussion rather than to participate in a rational manner will not be allowed to continue to comment here.
Whether they admit it or not, almost everyone I meet who labels themselves as "lacking belief in gods" does have a positive worldview. That of materialism, or naturalism. The only things that exist are what the science of physics tells us exists, and that's it.
This is inherent in almost everything they say, whether they readily admit it or not.
Why not just be a naturalist or materialist, then? Why all the hiding behind semantics?"
lol martin, admit this, admit that, why not just be this or that, why hide behind semantics? what the heck are you talking about martin? if someone lacks a belief in god they lack a belief in god ok? that's it. it's not my problem if you lump in a bunch of other things with it.
yes, i personnaly don't, as in DO NOT, believe that there is anything beyond the natural world, but does that make me someone who has a 'natruralism' worldview? hardly, because what stan, oh sorry martin, what you say, is that naturalism is the view that all that exists is space/time-matter/energy; which is not the same. you call this hidding behing semantics? i call this "calling you out on your bullshit", on your abuse of semantics.
it is precisely for the same reason that you try to support these ridiculous infographics in which you play with semantics. if i hide behind semantics, then you are beating the shit out of semantics until he screams what you want to hear. a positive belief that something does not exist is not the same as a disbelief that this 'something' exists. deal with it.
you ask what is the basis for their worldview!! how can you ask such question!?
to which stan replied...
Ah yes, the unaskable question. Those which are sacrosanct, or so absurd that the Atheist is the only one wise enough to detect that they have no meaning, while others detect actual meaning within. More focused ignorance.
hilarious, as if my comment meant that the quetsion had no answer. IT IS THE OPPOSITE. the point was that you should know the answer, or at least have ideas on what the answer is! funny funny funny.
wait, that was just part of the answer...
Let’s try this: If there is no objective basis for a worldview, then [...] it is totally changeable and malleable to fit the situation. [...] denial of objective absolutes external to themselves[...] There is no objective anything, except Material stuff[...] There are no objective rules for thinking disciplined thoughts
BINGO! Thanks for proving me right stan. if we don't have a god as a basis, we cannot have any OBJECTIVE basis for a worldview.
pathetic but still so funny. what about accepting reality as an objective basis? it is an assumption of course, i cannot prove to you that reality is real... but i find it absurd to even consider the scenario in which we are part of a virtual reality that hides the real reality from us...
...You provide no evidence to the contrary...
DONE ALREADY. read your blog!
...Rather than engage using logical, syllogistic refutation, they become enraged and engage in personal attacks, and name calling, and weak attempts to ridicule that which they cannot disprove using logic or evidence...
you bring up RAGE again??? why do you insist on making me laugh? why do you insist on proving me right? :-) i told you that you are the one who gets enraged here... you have a blog created for the sole purpose of attacking a group of people... are you telling me that this was made out of compassion for that group of people?
oh wait, that's so sweat of you stan, i never realized that; i was under the impression that you have some rage against these people and prefer to attack them as much as you can so that they look like fools.
This blog is intended for rational conversation, using disciplined rational processes of logic and axiomatic grounded rational hypothesis – deduction propositions and cases. Those who wish to invade with the intent to interrupt, disrupt and interfere with rational discussion rather than to participate in a rational manner will not be allowed to continue to comment here.
when i did that, on several occasions, i had to remind you to go answer my comments, and ironically, you did not understand the context and ridiculed my answers...
so again, DONE ALREADY. read your blog! plus, somebody else commented on the only argumentation you provide for your god, and since i don't have time to comment much, i guess i will look forward to see how long it will take before you ban him for showing the flaws..........
"BINGO! Thanks for proving me right stan. if we don't have a god as a basis, we cannot have any OBJECTIVE basis for a worldview.
pathetic but still so funny. what about accepting reality as an objective basis? it is an assumption of course, i cannot prove to you that reality is real... but i find it absurd to even consider the scenario in which we are part of a virtual reality that hides the real reality from us..."
This is always the part where the Atheist takes a metaphysical position against Quantum Theory. And that is actually science. Atheists invoke science but virtually never know anything about it.
"...You provide no evidence to the contrary...
DONE ALREADY. read your blog!"
You now have one more day to provide something of substance in your defense. Deadline: 5/5/12.
"you bring up RAGE again??? why do you insist on making me laugh? why do you insist on proving me right? :-) i told you that you are the one who gets enraged here... you have a blog created for the sole purpose of attacking a group of people... are you telling me that this was made out of compassion for that group of people?"
I attack mental processes which fail logical processes, or which are merely intentionally disruptive and/or inflammatory. If that applies to a person or group, then so be it. If you or they as a group need compassion for your affliction, then you should look elsewhere.
"oh wait, that's so sweat of you stan, i never realized that; i was under the impression that you have some rage against these people and prefer to attack them as much as you can so that they look like fools."
If you/they do not wish to appear to be foolish, then you/they need to provide actual arguments with actual premises based on actual axioms and/or provide empirical evidence to support your claims; that is part of rationality, and it is what rational people do.
"when i did that, on several occasions, i had to remind you to go answer my comments, and ironically, you did not understand the context and ridiculed my answers..."
Bullshit. For the Nth time: Bullshit. You cannot call "context" an excuse for falseness. And it is not necessary to ridicule falseness, so I did not.
"so again, DONE ALREADY. read your blog! plus, somebody else commented on the only argumentation you provide for your god, and since i don't have time to comment much, i guess i will look forward to see how long it will take before you ban him for showing the flaws.........."
You have plenty of time, you spent a lot of time whining here just today, but as always there is no content other than that. You provide no logic or evidence. Yes, there is another critic, one who is actually addressing portions of the argument, which you did not do, despite all your complaining.
Nor did you ever defend your position; you are a chronic complainer and Ad Hominem flinger and have no other contributions beyond that; perhaps that is your worldview, based on the void of Atheism or whatever you call your unstated, undefended belief system.
You are merely a disrupter and nothing more, at least as shown by your performance here.
yes, i personnaly don't, as in DO NOT, believe that there is anything beyond the natural world, but does that make me someone who has a 'natruralism' worldview?,
That's what naturalism IS.
it is precisely for the same reason that you try to support these ridiculous infographics in which you play with semantics.
Never specifics. What SPECIFICALLY is semantic play that you find in my infographic? Every time I press, for example, Jeremy, he just throws a hissy fit and then disappears. It's almost like you guys don't WANT the argument to work. Like you are starting with you conclusions and working backwards from it.
There are markers for identifying the irrational challengers who show up here.
1. They refuse to acknowledge their position.
2. They refuse to defend their position.
3. They refuse to be specific in their charges against their opposition.
4. They refuse to acknowledge logical errors they make over and over.
5. They refuse to make syllogistic arguments, and in the rare cases where one of them does try it, the situation devolves into them making counter charges that logic is situational and not subject to discipline or rules, at least ones that they like.
6. They quickly resort to assuming that a subject is refuted if they call it "ridiculous" or "mental masturbation" or "semantic manipulation" etc, rather than to make specific charges.
This is because they cannot make specific charges, and they cannot because (a) they cannot figure them out; (b) they are dogmatists, and (c) they are completely irrational by accepted standards of disciplined logic and reasoning.
7. They think that making an argument using any or all of the deviational Fallacies is clever.
So they argue definitions ad infinitum in order not to get to any logical case, because they have none.
They construct false analogies and use them as Straw Men as if that were a path to falsifying that which they cannot argue directly.
They actually think that using undisciplined asymmetrical skepticism is a proof of some kind.
They think that if they deny something, that everyone should accept that as truth, rather than everyone understanding the obvious: the blatant lie is used to escape responsibility for making a thoughtful case for themselves.
8. They will object to all this with even more of the same tactics, as if no one can see them when they are used over and over and over and...
9. One of my favorites is when all of the points which the Atheist refused to address are listed for him (and everyone) to see. The Atheist then charges Gish Gallop and races away.
10. Of all the hundreds of times that I have specifically charged the Atheists here with providing disciplined logic and/or material empirical evidence, none has ever done so. Usually there is a stark silence or the Atheist will whine as if my dog has him by the crotch. They have nothing to offer, but they also refuse to admit it and also refuse to admit that they are not, repeat: not, logic based, nor evidence based.
Atheist dogmatists have only irrationality and insults to offer, when making a case. They do it with passion because they need to defend their independence from disciplined thinking and moral principles - they are free from all that, and don't want it in their lives. And they want everyone to be just like them, which is why they are intolerant of the Other.
you insist to get some argument from me... here's something... a few points on what 'objective' means first...
- an objective statement does not depend on an opinion. something objective is based on facts rather than feelings or opinions
now a few points on what 'real' means...
- the world we perceive through our senses is either real, or not. - if it is not real, it means that what we perceive is an illusion. our minds are fed these sensory information not through the body we perceive, but through some other means - if it is real, it means that what we perceive can be analyzed, compared, discussed in such a way that objective facts can be determined. we can be confused or wrong, but ultimately there is an objective reality that does not depend on our opinion
now the basic assumption for my worldview...
the world i perceive through my senses is real, and i can learn something from it.
that's pretty much it; not much more to start with.... i call it an assumption because i assume it to be true. i cannot prove it to be true since if i were to live in an illusion, then i would not be able to know it. i can thus safely start with the idea that what we usually call reality is there for us all to observe, and statements about that reality are either true or false. whether the statements are true or false is not dependant on the opinion of people, the truth statements are thus objective
ok but that's not an argument, right?
now here's an argument: P1) if it can be shown that a non-whit swan exists, then the statement "all swans are white" is false P2) a non-white swan was found Conclusion) "all swans are white" is false
here's another one: P1) stan said this about atheists' worldviews: "...denial of objective absolutes external to themselves[...] There is no objective anything, except Material stuff[...] There are no objective rules for thinking disciplined thoughts" if it can be shown that an atheist as objective basis for his worldview, then stan's statement is false. P2) eternal, an atheist, provided an objective basis for his worldview Conclusion) stan's statement is false.
you say things like 'all things that change have a cause for their change' that's a dishonest starting point, as you use the meaning of 'change' as we do in everyday life then, you use the same word 'change' and apply it to the entire universe changing into its current form. it's dishonest because the first use of 'change' implies that there are things that change,and others that don't your second usage of change though applies to everything physical we know of, everything is constantly changing so you use this to claim that everything that exists, physically, needs a first cause, something that does not change that's a fallacy; special pleading
”- an objective statement does not depend on an opinion. something objective is based on facts rather than feelings or opinions”
Before you proceed further, you must define what you mean by facts, how they relate to truth, certainty, and how they are obtained.
Typically “objective” refers to information related to objects, which are exterior to the subject.
But I doubt that your definitions will correspond.
And now your definition of real, which is not a definition of real, but a definition of what you think is real:
” - the world we perceive through our senses is either real, or not. - if it is not real, it means that what we perceive is an illusion. our minds are fed these sensory information not through the body we perceive, but through some other means - if it is real, it means that what we perceive can be analyzed, compared, discussed in such a way that objective facts can be determined. we can be confused or wrong, but ultimately there is an objective reality that does not depend on our opinion.”
This is not a definition of “real”; it is circular, using the term in the definition at the start. Why not use an actual dictionary definition?
Real, n. 1. A realist. 2. Anything that exists, or reality in general. Webster’s Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary.
Now you must decide if “exists” means purely physical existence or not. And you will need to define “objective” as to its testability requirements and validation, if you insist that objective is part of the definition.
You assert, ” the world i perceive through my senses is real, and i can learn something from it.”
There is no issue here, unless you accept the position that senses can and do deceive. Then the reality of your perceptions is questionable. Can you prove that your senses are infallible?
” i call it an assumption because i assume it to be true. i cannot prove it to be true since if i were to live in an illusion, then i would not be able to know it. i can thus safely start with the idea that what we usually call reality is there for us all to observe, and statements about that reality are either true or false. whether the statements are true or false is not dependant on the opinion of people, the truth statements are thus objective”
Since I don’t engage in Radical Skepticism, tempting though it is, I will offer just this: by reality you are apparently asserting a physical-only reality without actually specifying that you are doing so. Physical-only reality is limited to the Inductive Fallacy, and therefore is never more certain than its contingency can provide: it is always contingent on the next experiment or observation which might falsify it. So the objectivity which you might associate with certainty is not ever certain for physical-only “facts”; it is always contingent.
True and False, therefore, are not characteristics of physical knowledge, they are logical states. (more below).
you say things like 'all things that change have a cause for their change' that's a dishonest starting point, as you use the meaning of 'change' as we do in everyday life
It's not a starting point, it's the 2nd premise of the argument and it is ARGUED to, not just asserted. Aquinas says that something cannot be both potentially a certain way and actually a certain way at the same time and in the same respect. E.g., a piece of wood cannot simultaneously be actually on fire and potentially on fire; it's either one or the other.
In addition to all that, a potential state is merely potential, and not actual, and so cannot cause anything. A potential rose (an actual seed) cannot attract bees, or be picked for it's lovely petals.
Therefore, it is impossible that something be both changer and changed, i.e. that it should change itself. Therefore, whatever is changed is changed by something else.
then, you use the same word 'change' and apply it to the entire universe changing into its current form.
There is no premise in the argument about the universe. There are only three premises:
1. Some things are changing 2. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else 3. A chain of concurrent changers must contain at least one unchanged changer
that's a fallacy; special pleading
Special pleading is where a rule is postulated, and then one member is allowed to break this rule WITH NO JUSTIFICATION. Aquinas' argument says that whatever is changING is being changed by something else. Or more specifically whatever is a mixture of potential and actual requires something else actual to change it. Which implies that if something is NOT a mixture of potential and actual, then it is immune to this rule.
” now here's an argument: P1) if it can be shown that a non-whit swan exists, then the statement "all swans are white" is false P2) a non-white swan was found Conclusion) "all swans are white" is false”
Yes. This argument is both valid and true, being structurally correct, and grounded in fact.
” P1) stan said this about atheists' worldviews: "...denial of objective absolutes external to themselves[...] There is no objective anything, except Material stuff[...] There are no objective rules for thinking disciplined thoughts" if it can be shown that an atheist as objective basis for his worldview, then stan's statement is false. P2) eternal, an atheist, provided an objective basis for his worldview Conclusion) stan's statement is false.
Nice try. The statements I made are regarding honest Atheist rejection of absolutes, resulting in an ungrounded base for their worldview.
Your worldview is dishonest because it does not address the rejection which Atheism contains, so the comments don't address your worldview and don't belong in your syllogism.
You maintain that your personal definition of Atheism cancels the actual definition, and is rather an intellectual void which does not contain any acknowledgement of theism nor any rejection of theism. It is thus ignorant of theism, having never made the intellectual attempt to ascertain a truth value connected with theism, yet you are calling yourself Atheist and you are engaging theists as if you actually had a concealed position which you fear to betray but which you wish to use to defeat theism.
Further, your definition of “real” is a statement which contains a concealed presupposition of Philosophical Materialism, which is rejectionism idealized as a philosophical base. So you claim that you are able to take a position on physical existence as the only existence, but unable to take a position on non-physical existence.
So you are here: do you deny that there is non-physical existence, period? Or do you not take a position on that either?
You must use caution in answering here, because if you deny its existence you must give reasons containing either disciplined logic, or material empirical evidence to support that position.
If you do not deny its existence, then you will be pressed to explain how you can take that position and not the position regarding non-physical existence containing agency.
I suspect that your failure to take a position on the exact subject of discussion is dishonest, and it reflects seriously on your intellectual honesty, not to mention the integrity of your worldview.
If you have no reason to take a position, why not? Give a reason for your inability.
Why are you unable to make any syllogistic assertion regarding the existence or non-existence of non-physical existence?
It can't be because you don't care, because you call yourself an Atheist and you came here to argue Atheism.
It seems much more likely that you actually have a position. It seems completely likely that you could develop a position. Your refusal is therefore taken as very highly likely to be dishonest.
It is that sort of dishonesty that brings these conversations to a close.
Perhaps I must be more blunt.
Make a case for NOT accepting that reality is not limited to physical existence.
Said another way,
Demonstrate that your definition of reality and what you think you can learn from it is the total extent of existence, and that all that exists for you to learn about is physical because there is no non-physical existence. Because that is what you are asserting. So logic and evidence are required, not mere assertion.
P1: IF [ X is "true" ], THEN [reality is only physical];
P2: [X is true];
C: therefore [reality is only physical].
This can be justified only by completely defining and proving X.
What is X, in your universe?
Similarly,
P1: IF [ Q is true ], THEN [there is no non-physical agency];
P2: [ Q is true ];
C: THEREFORE [ there is no non-physical agency ].
What is Q in your universe?
If you deny that X and Q are issues, then you will need to explain how you know that, objectively and physically, and how you might conclude that such a rejection can produce objective morality and objective thought and any certainty which you might think you have.
'fact' and 'objective truth statement' are thus synonym basically. i am not sure why this seems to create confusion or disagreement??
"And now your definition of real [...] it is circular, using the term in the definition at the start. Why not use an actual dictionary definition?"
i don't get what the problem is. the definition of 'real' or 'reality' i use is not made up or personal (why not look here; your one-liner is quite simplistic...) also, why call it circular as if it were an argument? the argument was after that......
what i actually worte is what i use as starting point for my worldview. it is nothing more than:
- the world we perceive through our senses is either real, or not. - i assume it is real
this version is simpler than what i wrote before but means exactly the same. is it better that way?
also is 'real' the wrong word here?!?! let me know... all i mean is that this place around us, the computer i use, the air i breathe, the noises i hear, all of that, they are part of this thing we usually call 'reality'. it's the physical world that our bodies are part of.
the only thing I am saying is that this thing, philosophically speaking, could be a big scam, an illusion, but of course i mention this option only to dismiss it right away, since this is the FIRST ASSUMPTION of my entire worldview. you actually agree when you say: ...I don’t engage in Radical Skepticism...
i do the same, i don't engage in Radical Skepticism because i say that it is either 'real or 'not real' but i pick 'real' as my starting point, as an assumption.
in other words, can we prove that Radical Skepticism is false? i don't think we can, by definition, but it makes sense to assume that it is false so that we can say that this thing i call reality (call it whatever you want...) offers a framework that does not depend on my opinion, or yours, or the preson next door.
this reality has characteristics that we can describe. when we describe reality, we make statements about it. these statements can be true or false. the truthfulness of the statement is not subjective, it does not depend on an opinion, it is universally true/false, regardless of what we think: they are facts, objectively true statements.
i will now move on to try to address the rest of your loooooong comment anyway, even if it started from a misunderstanding of what i said i believe.... but it might help clarify......
Now you must decide if “exists” means purely physical existence or not.
no, never mentionned anything about that
And you will need to define “objective” as to its testability requirements and validation, if you insist that objective is part of the definition.
'objective' refers to the truth statements we can make about reality (or whatever you call it): whether they are true or false does not depend on our opinion.
testing and validation depend on the type of statements and the context; there cannot be any general rules and we are limited by induction reasoning as you like to remind us
You assert, ” the world i perceive through my senses is real, and i can learn something from it.”
There is no issue here, unless you accept the position that senses can and do deceive. Then the reality of your perceptions is questionable. Can you prove that your senses are infallible?
the reality is NOT questionable, but YES we can be deceive sometimes. we are NOT infallible and that cannot be proved
...by reality you are apparently asserting a physical-only reality without actually specifying that you are doing so...
correct, but that does not mean that nothing exists out of it. it's just a starting point.
...Physical-only reality is limited to the Inductive Fallacy, and therefore is never more certain than its contingency can provide: it is always contingent on the next experiment or observation which might falsify it.
yes of course, what's the problem? ohhhh, it's what you wrote after...
So the objectivity which you might associate with certainty is not ever certain for physical-only “facts”; it is always contingent.
of course objectivity is not certainty, where did you get that from? and why do you put facts in quotes, as if there were no physical-only facts!? all facts about reality are physical-only, because they describe the physical world........... it is a fact that my height is 6'0"... of course it is contingent on the fact that i am not dead and that my height remains constant, which it will not throughout my life. but it's still a fact.
True and False, therefore, are not characteristics of physical knowledge, they are logical states.
i am not sure what that means.... true and false describe the logical state of statements, 'this apple is red' is a statement that can be true or false. if the apple in front of me is green, then the statement 'this apple is red' is false. this is a fact. this is physical knowledge. why are you trying to dissociate these things from each other? i don't understand your point i am afraid....
jumping a bit...
Nice try. The statements I made are regarding honest Atheist rejection of absolutes, resulting in an ungrounded base for their worldview.
like logical absolutes? why would anyone reject that? i did not specifically mentionned them but they are assumed of course, since we are having a discussion using logic........
not sure if there is an order to consider. i assume both logic to work and reality to be real. they are tautologies at the base of my worldview. other beliefs are constructed from these assumptions.
Your worldview is dishonest because it does not address the rejection which Atheism contains, so the comments don't address your worldview and don't belong in your syllogism.
that does not make any sense. i am telling you how my worldview starts without mentionning atheism and it makes it dishonest?!? and the comments will not adress my worldview? so you prefer to attack something else? ok, we'll see if i got that correctly......
You maintain that your personal definition of Atheism... i dont' get what this paragraph means. you go to extreme all the time... i said before that i do reject certain gods completely, like Zeus as the common example, but don't pretend that gods cannot exist since it's impossible to prove that alllllll gods don't exist. what part of this is hard for you to get? why do you say that this is a void? you exagerate.....
Further, your definition of “real” is a statement which contains a concealed presupposition of Philosophical Materialism, which is rejectionism idealized as a philosophical base. So you claim that you are able to take a position on physical existence as the only existence, but unable to take a position on non-physical existence.
hahaha, noooooo, that is such a lie. you keeo going to extremes again. you keep pushing what you think alllll atheists need to believe to be "real" atheists. will you ever drop this ridiculous Philosophical Materialism non-sense when people tell you they don't adhere to this ridiculous caricature you are putting out there? go back to the beginning of my comment, right here, where does it say that physical existence is the only existence? where did i reject non-physical existence? my mind is non-physical and it exists, for sure, that's not enough for you? what else do you want me to say to convince you?
So you are here: do you deny that there is non-physical existence, period? Or do you not take a position on that either?
i already answered but you seem to have a hard time with that, so i will repeat........
NO I DONT DENY THERE IS NON-PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.
YES THAT IS THE POSITION I TAKE
lol, so funny....
You must use caution in answering here, because if you deny its existence you must give reasons containing either disciplined logic, or material empirical evidence to support that position.
no need to be cautious. it's out there, in plain sight. no secret, no dancing around, it's there and has always been there.
If you do not deny its existence, then you will be pressed to explain how you can take that position and not the position regarding non-physical existence containing agency.
we are all agents that exist as non-physical things, we have minds. there could be other minds somewhere, outside the universe, or in it but undetected, they could have bodies, or not, they could create universes perhaps, i don't have any biased to start with but was also never convinced that it must be the case; still an atheist for now.......
cant pursue this further for now, but i can assure you that i have no intention to:
Make a case for NOT accepting that reality is not limited to physical existence.
Eternal, Already we have a problem, right up front. This is why I don’t use the term “real”; it has extra baggage which leads to separate understandings for the term.
You said, ”- the world we perceive through our senses is either real, or not. - if it is not real, it means that what we perceive is an illusion.”
Then, ”it's the physical world that our bodies are part of.”
And then, ”Now you must decide if “exists” means purely physical existence or not.
no, never mentionned anything about that”
That very strongly implies that you are using the term “real” to mean just physical existence, even though later you deny that you are discussing existence. So if it is not existence which is physical and therefore perceptible via our senses, then what are you talking about?
Now, ”...by reality you are apparently asserting a physical-only reality without actually specifying that you are doing so...
correct, but that does not mean that nothing exists out of it. it's just a starting point.”
But see, you contradict yourself with the terms “real” and “reality”, because if reality is “physical only”, then you have defined not-physical as not real, or not reality. In other words you have established the non-existence of non-physical existence merely by defining it away. Merely defining it away is not an argument.
”all facts about reality are physical-only, because they describe the physical world...........”
The reason I put “facts” in quotes is that what you are describing here does not match your definition of objective. Information about the physical world is obtained empirically and is never
”a fact is simply an objectively true statement, but what's objective...
and,
”'fact' and 'objective truth statement' are thus synonym basically. i am not sure why this seems to create confusion or disagreement??”
This will become a problem soon. There is a difference between the use of “objective truth statement” as used in axiomatic truths which are universal and not contingent, and the use of “objective truth statement” as used for empirical findings, which are not axiomatic, not universalf and are contingent.
Let’s press on, and come back to this if necessary.
”i am not sure what that means.... true and false describe the logical state of statements, 'this apple is red' is a statement that can be true or false. if the apple in front of me is green, then the statement 'this apple is red' is false. this is a fact. this is physical knowledge. why are you trying to dissociate these things from each other? i don't understand your point i am afraid....”
There is a difference between truth and fact which is crucial. As you have agreed, facts are contingent, and they even change as your height will change with time. Truth does not change; if it did, then axiomatic grounding of propositions could not occur, rationality would not be possible. There are two competing definitions for truth:
(a) Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is that the proposition corresponds to an external condition or existence, which can change (this is what you were using);
(b) Axiomatic Truth, which is the universal, unchanging and unchangeable features of our universe, such as the First Principles which are necessary for grounded logic and rational thought.
”not sure if there is an order to consider. i assume both logic to work and reality to be real. they are tautologies at the base of my worldview. other beliefs are constructed from these assumptions.”
I’ve outlined the issues raised here, but let’s charge on.
”You maintain that your personal definition of Atheism... i dont' get what this paragraph means. you go to extreme all the time... i said before that i do reject certain gods completely, like Zeus as the common example, but don't pretend that gods cannot exist since it's impossible to prove that alllllll gods don't exist. what part of this is hard for you to get? why do you say that this is a void? you exagerate.....”
You came here claiming that your Atheism was just no position; you made quite a big deal of it. You refused to define it other than having no position. So it was (then) a void. Now it is not a void, it is apparently an agreement that you cannot prove that all gods don’t exist, which one might presume to be a statement that possibly a god might exist, which is quite different from your original position.
What is hard to get is what your current position is, because you change it as required.
”Further, your definition of “real” is a statement which contains a concealed presupposition of Philosophical Materialism, which is rejectionism idealized as a philosophical base. So you claim that you are able to take a position on physical existence as the only existence, but unable to take a position on non-physical existence.
hahaha, noooooo, that is such a lie. you keeo going to extremes again.”
This was demonstrated quite succinctly just above; it is not a lie, nor is it extreme to hold you to your own statements. Consistency is essential for coherence.
”go back to the beginning of my comment, right here, where does it say that physical existence is the only existence? where did i reject non-physical existence? my mind is non-physical and it exists, for sure, that's not enough for you? what else do you want me to say to convince you?”
Go back above and see the dilemma you created.
So, OK; if you can stick to this instead of the “real” reality stuff, then go ahead. I'll hold you to it, though.
”we are all agents that exist as non-physical things, we have minds. there could be other minds somewhere, outside the universe, or in it but undetected, they could have bodies, or not, they could create universes perhaps, i don't have any biased to start with but was also never convinced that it must be the case; still an atheist for now.......”
See, this is what makes it difficult to believe what you say. Just above you denied disbelieving in gods you can’t disprove (btw, where is your data which disproves Zeus?). Now a few sentences later, you are an Atheist again.
”Make a case for NOT accepting that reality is not limited to physical existence.
...since i don't believe that. it's silly....”
OK. Charge on, full steam. Might I summarize what I think your premises are to this point? Of course I might.
1. Physical existence is a justifiable belief.
2. Accessible via the senses, one can learn about physical existence.
3. Since we have agency and minds, "we are all agents that exist as non-physical things". So non-physical existence is a justifiable belief.
1. Physical existence is an assumption, not a justifiable belief.
2. Accessible via the senses, one can learn about physical existence.
3. 3. Since we have agency and minds, "we are all agents that exist as non-physical things". So non-physical existence is an assumption, not a justifiable belief.
Well, it seemed to make sense before; now it doesn't really say anything. And #2 can't be a real premise if #1 is only an unproven assumption.
It would be nice if you would use the standard syllogistic lingo: IF[ ], THEN [ ]; THEREFORE [ ].
hello!!!! sorry to be so slow these days..........
you said... Already we have a problem, right up front. This is why I don’t use the term “real”; it has extra baggage which leads to separate understandings for the term. [quoted me] strongly implies that you are using the term “real” to mean just physical existence, even though later you deny that you are discussing existence. So if it is not existence which is physical and therefore perceptible via our senses, then what are you talking about?
i told you already that i don't care what word you want to use. you are the weirdo who does not like to describe reality with the term reality. call it whatever you want. yes i am talking about that thing we detect with our senses. yes i am talking about the physical world. but no, i never ever assume that this is all there is.
But see, you contradict yourself with the terms “real” and “reality”, because if reality is “physical only”, then you have defined not-physical as not real, or not reality. In other words you have established the non-existence of non-physical existence merely by defining it away. Merely defining it away is not an argument.
what about you defining actual as whatever exists and then claiming that non-physical things exist because they are actual, regardless of them being real or not? i mean, again, use whatever words you want, but what i am telling you is that my worldview starts with the real world that i perceive. this causes problem to you for some reason, as we see later....
The reason I put “facts” in quotes is that what you are describing here does not match your definition of objective. Information about the physical world is obtained empirically and is never
”a fact is simply an objectively true statement, but what's objective...
and,
”'fact' and 'objective truth statement' are thus synonym basically. i am not sure why this seems to create confusion or disagreement??”
This will become a problem soon. There is a difference between the use of “objective truth statement” as used in axiomatic truths which are universal and not contingent, and the use of “objective truth statement” as used for empirical findings, which are not axiomatic, not universalf and are contingent.
yes i agree that we have a problem here, a realllllly big one. you also said:
There is a difference between truth and fact which is crucial. As you have agreed, facts are contingent, and they even change as your height will change with time. Truth does not change; if it did, then axiomatic grounding of propositions could not occur, rationality would not be possible.
here's the problem. you seem to not care about facts, while i base my worldview on facts. you cannot simply wish them away by saying that they are not 'true' enough for you. all facts are contingent, yes, but some of them are 'true' enough to be as close to absolute truth as possible.
moreover, this has nothing to do with your initial complain that the basis for my worldview is not OBJECTIVE. absolute truth and objectivity are not the same. you seem to have confused the two here. i don't undertstand why. did i miss something??
(a) Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is that the proposition corresponds to an external condition or existence, which can change (this is what you were using);
(b) Axiomatic Truth, which is the universal, unchanging and unchangeable features of our universe, such as the First Principles which are necessary for grounded logic and rational thought.
correct, so what's the problem with having both kinds of truth as basis?
i am telling you that i assume logic to work, that's the axiomatic truth, we could not even discuss without them, but i am also assuming certain facts to be true, facts that depend on extrenal conditions.
moreover, the axiomatic truth are not even truly absolute, and I thought you agreed with that yourself. you said before that the reason why they are universal and absolute is because our universe would not make sense if they were false. that's fine, but that means that they are themselves contingent on the fact that the universe is the way it is. they are universal because they relate to the universe we experience, both in thoughts and in the material world.
in other words, i don't get where we disagree anymore. i don't get why this leads you to conclude that people like me have a non-objective basis for their worldview. we use the same things, except that you refuse to consider reality as an objective framework, even if that makes you a radical skeptic, ironically..............
You came here claiming that your Atheism was just no position; you made quite a big deal of it. You refused to define it other than having no position. So it was (then) a void. Now it is not a void, it is apparently an agreement that you cannot prove that all gods don’t exist, which one might presume to be a statement that possibly a god might exist, which is quite different from your original position.
What is hard to get is what your current position is, because you change it as required.
it's hardly my fault that you don't understand and always go to extremes. i keep telling you that it's wrong to do so. atheism is not as black&white as you describe it. that's why you keep lumping people together under that label. my position never changed. atheism means that i don't believe in a god, that's the void. but i dot reject certain gods, i told you that many times; that's not a void, that's not a dodge, that's something i can justify. the example comes right after that actually....
as a side note, consider this for a minute. among people who actually stop here to have a discussion with you, do they often say things like 'theists do this, theists do that...'? no they don't, they tell you: Stan, you are wrong. the idiots who generalize are people who just pass by and we all agree that they contribute to nothing. some are christians who leave ridiculous comments on how atheists hate gods, while others are ridiculous atheists who think that all christians are stupid.
See, this is what makes it difficult to believe what you say. Just above you denied disbelieving in gods you can’t disprove (btw, where is your data which disproves Zeus?). Now a few sentences later, you are an Atheist again.
if Zeus is defined as something like: then ya, i can prove to you that it does not exist, by simply explaining how ligtnings actually work, as a natrual process. was it that hard???? i find you so hypocrite to even ask for that, as if you did not have an explanation for Zeus yourself. come on stan......
finally, new version of what you called the modified premises:
1. Physical existence is an assumption, not a justifiable belief.
2. Accessible via the senses, one can learn about physical existence.
3. 3. Since we have agency and minds, "we are all agents that exist as non-physical things". So non-physical existence is an assumption, not a justifiable belief.
Well, it seemed to make sense before; now it doesn't really say anything. And #2 can't be a real premise if #1 is only an unproven assumption.
i know it does not make sense to you, because you never were an atheist who cares about what he believes in. you said it yourself, you never thought of your belief system for all these years, and it's quite obvious by the way you conduct this blog. i am not saying you were lying; i believe that fact that you were an atheist because you did not actively believe in gods, you more or less ignored the questions i suppose?
anyway, the point of #1 is that we cannot prove that the physical existence we experience is not an illusion. it's the famous Matrix example, or mad genius for previous generations, whatever you wan to call it. the point is only that we cannot prove that we are really experienceing what appears to be a natural world. it could be something fake put in front of our senses by some powerful device. we could be humans 600 feet tall, on a planet 100 times bigger, going around a sun 100 times bigger, hookep up to machines that make us perceive a world 100 times smaller, etc etc etc.... you know what i mean no!? i don't even get why i need to explain all this.....................
for #2, you wrote it stan, and I said it's fine, so what's your problem??
for #3, same exact principle as #1, but the other way around. we could be machines that have the illusion of sentience, but that's pointless to even consider since even if we were machines, we would still be who we are, still have free wil, a personnality and all that jazz.... the point is just that we cannot prove it. actually, i think you did prove it in your free will posts so that's even better. it does not change anything for me since an assumnption that ends up being proven true just confirms that it was rational to have the assumption in the first place.
”There is a difference between truth and fact which is crucial. As you have agreed, facts are contingent, and they even change as your height will change with time. Truth does not change; if it did, then axiomatic grounding of propositions could not occur, rationality would not be possible.
here's the problem. you seem to not care about facts, while i base my worldview on facts. you cannot simply wish them away by saying that they are not 'true' enough for you. all facts are contingent, yes, but some of them are 'true' enough to be as close to absolute truth as possible.”
And the problem as I see it is that you want to ignore truth in favor of facts. Your height is a fact; it is not truth, it is contingent and relevant only to today. So relying on facts cannot be a valid approach to a worldview, unless you can define some of them as universal truths. You imply that to be the case, but you insist on using the term “facts”, which confuses the issue because of its breadth which includes probable false understandings. This is a similar problem as wanting “Atheism” to define all sorts of different things, rather than have a single understanding.
” in other words, i don't get where we disagree anymore. i don't get why this leads you to conclude that people like me have a non-objective basis for their worldview. we use the same things, except that you refuse to consider reality as an objective framework, even if that makes you a radical skeptic, ironically..............”
I have chased Atheists around this semantic tree so many times that I am reluctant to let it go; the tendency is to use the word “reality” to mean everything which possibly could exist, even after having denied that they are doing so. The following anti-definitional position seems to confirm my concern:
” it's hardly my fault that you don't understand and always go to extremes. i keep telling you that it's wrong to do so. atheism is not as black&white as you describe it. that's why you keep lumping people together under that label. my position never changed. atheism means that i don't believe in a god, that's the void. but i dot reject certain gods, i told you that many times; that's not a void, that's not a dodge, that's something i can justify. the example comes right after that actually....”
This is the crux of the issue. You want to change the definition of Atheism to make it encompass whatever you wish it to, depending upon your need. So the term “Atheism” no longer has any meaning, since it can mean anything, anytime; some gods, not all; something, and nothing. But terminology is not your personal plaything, some sort of silly putty to be formed into your argument at your will. There can be no rational discourse when one of the parties wants special pleading for a non-descriptive definition.
This you call going to extremes: wanting to define a term to have a specific meaning. I understand perfectly why you want to have your own personal definition(s) of terminology. But that won’t get you any leverage, because I will be referring to a standard.
So I don’t think we can get beyond this.
” as a side note, consider this for a minute. among people who actually stop here to have a discussion with you, do they often say things like 'theists do this, theists do that...'? no they don't, they tell you: Stan, you are wrong. the idiots who generalize are people who just pass by and we all agree that they contribute to nothing. some are christians who leave ridiculous comments on how atheists hate gods, while others are ridiculous atheists who think that all christians are stupid.”
Ummm, is this a defense for having a non-descriptive, all inclusive definition? (continued)
” if Zeus is defined as something like: then ya, i can prove to you that it does not exist, by simply explaining how ligtnings actually work, as a natrual process. was it that hard???? i find you so hypocrite to even ask for that, as if you did not have an explanation for Zeus yourself. come on stan......”
Giving an explanation for lightening does not disprove Zeus. How Zeus makes lightening is not the point.
Do not call me names. It will get you banned.
” i know it does not make sense to you, because you never were an atheist who cares about what he believes in. you said it yourself, you never thought of your belief system for all these years, and it's quite obvious by the way you conduct this blog. i am not saying you were lying; i believe that fact that you were an atheist because you did not actively believe in gods, you more or less ignored the questions i suppose?”
This is not an argument designed to create “sense” where it does not exist, it is merely an attack on me. If you cannot produce axiom-based hypothesis-deduction, then you make personal attacks.
This is the third personal attack here, and I’m not half way through.
What I said, and you did not understand, is that I did not question what I believed, not that I had no beliefs. I was not so irrational as to claim that I had no beliefs.
At this point you might want to skip down to the end, where syllogistic argumentation is discussed.
” anyway, the point of #1 is that we cannot prove that the physical existence we experience is not an illusion. it's the famous Matrix example, or mad genius for previous generations, whatever you wan to call it. the point is only that we cannot prove that we are really experienceing what appears to be a natural world. it could be something fake put in front of our senses by some powerful device. we could be humans 600 feet tall, on a planet 100 times bigger, going around a sun 100 times bigger, hookep up to machines that make us perceive a world 100 times smaller, etc etc etc.... you know what i mean no!? i don't even get why i need to explain all this.....................”
This is a clear statement of Radical Skepticism. That is why I said, and repeat, that it really doesn’t say anything. Claiming Radical Skepticism is a claim to “no knowledge” in the spirit of solipsism. So there is no sense to be made.
You are making claims and then wanting them to be accepted without question. What you actually seem to not “get” is that your claims/premises are not leading to knowledge, because they are rejecting sources of knowledge (which knowledge you actually claimed to exist earlier).
” for #2, you wrote it stan, and I said it's fine, so what's your problem??”
Do you seriously not comprehend that if you change #1, it affects #2? I repeat: “And #2 can't be a real premise if #1 is only an unproven assumption.” Knowledge is not generated by assumptions of Radical Skepticism. Radical Skepticism, as assumed in #1, denies ultimately that any external knowledge can be had; i.e. none whatsoever. So #2 can’t be valid. (continued)
” for #3, same exact principle as #1, but the other way around. we could be machines that have the illusion of sentience, but that's pointless to even consider since even if we were machines, we would still be who we are, still have free wil, a personnality and all that jazz.... the point is just that we cannot prove it. actually, i think you did prove it in your free will posts so that's even better. it does not change anything for me since an assumnption that ends up being proven true just confirms that it was rational to have the assumption in the first place.”
This paragraph is confusing, because in one breath you say that the point is that we cannot prove that we are not machines, and the next breath you say it was proven, thereby justifying your claim that it could not be proven whether we are merely machines… or something like that.
Let’s try this: how ‘bout you write up your first three premises yourself, so that I am not a factor in their creation?
First, though, let’s discuss logical, syllogistic arguments and their premises, what they are and what is required of them, both the argument and the premises. You might object that you know all this, but you are not using that knowledge if you do in fact have it. There are standards for logical deductive arguments, which if not met, preclude an argument from being logical or rational.
A deductive syllogism looks like this:
P1: IF [ W is true ], THEN [ F is true ];
P2: [ W is true ];
C: THEREFORE [ F is true ].
Three things must be valid simultaneously in order for the argument to be considered a truth statement:
1. The form of the argument must be correct.
2. The relationship in P1 must be demonstrated to be causal without exception.
3. P2 must be shown to be grounded axiomatically and neither circular nor an infinite regress; in other words an incorrigible truth.
If your argument cannot pass these requirements, then it is not a logical deduction. That is why starting out with the presumption of Radical Skepticism does not lead deductively to knowledge and is not a proper premise.
And the problem as I see it is that you want to ignore truth in favor of facts.
no. i said:
"i am telling you that i assume logic to work, that's the axiomatic truth, we could not even discuss without them"
why do you say that i ignore truth?
So relying on facts cannot be a valid approach to a worldview, unless you can define some of them as universal truths.
there are tons of them. a simple principle to give examples would be that any facts which can be proven to be true now, and for at least the rest of my lifespan, is useful as a basis for a worldview.
one example: the universe we live in is at least 13 billion years old, the milkay galaxy is around 100,000 light years wide, the sun and earth are at least 4 billion years old. these things were proven true and will never change. the only thing that will change is the precision of the measurements we make. that's why i say 'at least' and now 'is exactly'.
This is a similar problem as wanting “Atheism” to define all sorts of different things, rather than have a single understanding.
you have a hard time with this...... let me repeat:
atheism is simple: it means 'no belief in a god'
atheists are complex: some believe certain non-material things exist, some believe that no gods can possible exist, some believe that certain types of gods perhaps exist but not others. some really just don't care. some think that they can prove to you that you're god does not exist. some think that it's foolish to even try so. etc.....
GOT IT?????
the tendency is to use the word “reality” to mean everything which possibly could exist, even after having denied that they are doing so. The following anti-definitional position seems to confirm my concern:
what comes after this, the quote you put, has nothing to do with reality. what's relevant is what i said before:
"i told you already that i don't care what word you want to use. you are the weirdo who does not like to describe reality with the term reality. call it whatever you want. yes i am talking about that thing we detect with our senses. yes i am talking about the physical world. but no, i never ever assume that this is all there is."
i repeat, "reality" DOES NOT mean 'everything which possibly could exist' in any comment i write here
after a comment on the generalization you make, you replied:
Ummm, is this a defense for having a non-descriptive, all inclusive definition?
i don't know what you mean by this at all. the point was really just that:
"they tell you: Stan, you are wrong"
while you, on the other hand, insist on having a blog on alllllll atheits. you lump them together. i am telling you that it's wrong to do so. but i am also telling you, don't worry stan, atheists who say 'all christians are...' are equally wrong.
GOT IT???????
Giving an explanation for lightening does not disprove Zeus. How Zeus makes lightening is not the point.
if Zeus is defined as 'god that shoots lightnings' then yes, it is sufficient to explain lightnings...... what's wrong with that!?
Do not call me names. It will get you banned.
LOL i couldnt care less.... go ahead ban me at any point you want. whats funny is that each time you ban someone, it proves that the only thing you care about is being right. you don't care about helping people understand what is supposed to be the most important belief in their life. you basically give up on them, saying they are too irrational. very selfish of you... not very christian, lol
What I said, and you did not understand, is that I did not question what I believed, not that I had no beliefs. I was not so irrational as to claim that I had no beliefs.
exactly my point actually. you did not question what you believed. because of that, you seem to think that all atheists are like that.
newsflash. if people are willing to write on your blog to correct your misconceptions, it`s precisely because they do care..........
thanks for proving me right once more.
This is a clear statement of Radical Skepticism. That is why I said, and repeat, that it really doesn’t say anything. Claiming Radical Skepticism is a claim to “no knowledge” in the spirit of solipsism. So there is no sense to be made.
yes this was a clear statement of Radical Skepticism... that i reject!!! GOT IT????
it's futile pointless but it's still an assumption..... don't you understand what an assumption is?
You are making claims and then wanting them to be accepted without question.
no..... i am telling you that there are certain things, ASSUMPTIONS, that i do accept without question. if you think the assumptions are irrational, let me know! but no, what`s weird is that you say that by making the assumption that Radical Skepticism is false, i am considering it and that's wrong. it's weird. you really don't seem to get what an assumption is.........
What you actually seem to not “get” is that your claims/premises are not leading to knowledge, because they are rejecting sources of knowledge (which knowledge you actually claimed to exist earlier).
what source of knowledge is rejected in anything i write!? no idea what you are talking about................
Do you seriously not comprehend that if you change #1, it affects #2? I repeat: “And #2 can't be a real premise if #1 is only an unproven assumption.” Knowledge is not generated by assumptions of Radical Skepticism. Radical Skepticism, as assumed in #1, denies ultimately that any external knowledge can be had; i.e. none whatsoever. So #2 can’t be valid.
you are so off that there is not much to reply to this. you talkk about 'assumptions of Radical Skepticism' when the assumption is that Radical Skepticism is false...........
This paragraph is confusing, because in one breath you say that the point is that we cannot prove that we are not machines, and the next breath you say it was proven, thereby justifying your claim that it could not be proven whether we are merely machines… or something like that.
yes it's confusing for someone who does not understand what an assumption is........ it's also confusing because you lumped together being a machine and havinf free will, which i purposely separated in my comment. read it again; i don`t know how to write it differently.
Let’s try this: how ‘bout you write up your first three premises yourself, so that I am not a factor in their creation?
premises to prove what?
all i was trying to convince you of here is that you are wrong to say that atheists don't have objective basis for their worldview.
the justification i submit to you is that my worldview is based on objective facts. these facts can be used to justify beliefs. none of these beliefs are based on a disbelief in gods. so i am an atheist, but i don't start with atheism at any point, for anything.
that's it...
so ban me if you want because you seem to have nothing to reply to that and don't seem to want to discuss your own assumptions, as if you had none..... or you really don't understand what assumptions are... i really don't know at this point to be frank.....
I stopped reading at your first arrogant shouting insult. I have no need to accept insults. I went directly to the end. (so your keyboard actually does have a CAPs key... you just save it for insults apparently)
Let's cut to the chase:
"Let’s try this: how ‘bout you write up your first three premises yourself, so that I am not a factor in their creation?
premises to prove what?
all i was trying to convince you of here is that you are wrong to say that atheists don't have objective basis for their worldview."
You have no intention of making a disciplined argument here. If you cannot even create premises, you have nothing to contribute. The original premises were, in fact, statements of Radical Skepticism, which you accepted but subsequently denied in arrogant and rude terms.
You insist on your own personal definition, which you claim describes all Atheists, but also describes toads, fungus, dirt and sub-atomic particles: it is a failure due to its non-descrimination. Moreover, it is not descriptive of actual Atheist rejectionism, which you admit to having, at least in part. This slanting of the playing field in your direction is a premise - rule you insist must be accepted in order for you to play: you cannot make your case without it.
You have no case for any theory of anything which is generated under your own personal definition of Atheism. A void contains nothing, certainly not a germ of "objective truth". Any philosophical conclusions which you reach, you reach outside of Atheism, based on your own personal opinion. So the void leads to opinions based on contingent factoids. You admit to this, but claim that these opinions are "objective", when in fact they are self-created and subjective.
You make claims such as "logic works and is an axiom", but then you both claim an original premise set of anti-rational Radical Skepticism, and now you don't want any premises at all. This is anti-rational behavior.
"the justification i submit to you is that my worldview is based on objective facts. these facts can be used to justify beliefs. none of these beliefs are based on a disbelief in gods. so i am an atheist, but i don't start with atheism at any point, for anything."
Because material, physical existence is a subset of all existence, and because you accept only the subset and not the set, and because you claim to have no knowledge of the full set yet decline to use the full set in your thinking (behavior which admits to knowledge of the full set and its rejection contrary to your claims), your attempts to claim objectivity can't be accepted: they are biased a priori toward values and conclusions which are contrary to those projected in the superset. So your vision of the subset removes it from the superset, and that is the basis for your thinking.
Because you can't excise the subset from the superset rationally, you deny any knowledge or opinion of the superset.
So the following conclusions are necessary:
(1) Your opinion of the meaning of "objective" derives from your rejection (or ignoring of) the superset; in other words, you fail to recognize the logical failure of promoting the subset to superset. That promotion is a function of Atheism / Materialism, and it biases the thought process, whether you admit to it or not.
(2) Your claim of having no opinion regarding the superset cannot be accepted. By insisting upon a void, you take a position on the existence of a superset: you reject it. Denying that is anti-rational.
(3) Whatever beliefs you think you have justified are not incorrigible truths, they are contingent factoids, which you have admitted, even though you object to having this pointed out.
(4) You claim to accept logic, but decline to use rigorous, logical procedures to create a disciplined argument. This is non-coherent behavior.
if you dismiss what i write and then reply to the exact opposite, there is nothing to talk about. what i get from this is that you refuse these as objective facts:
- the universe we live in is at least 13 billion years old - the milkay galaxy is around 100,000 light years wide - the sun and earth are at least 4 billion years old
what i get also is that after i say this: "the assumption is that Radical Skepticism is false" you reply: The original premises were, in fact, statements of Radical Skepticism, which you accepted but subsequently denied in arrogant and rude terms.
if i say this: "atheism is simple: it means 'no belief in a god' atheists are complex: some believe [certain things, others don't]"" you reply: You insist on your own personal definition which you claim describes all Atheists, but also describes toads, fungus, dirt and sub-atomic particles: it is a failure due to its non-descrimination.
more on definition usage. i said this about 'reality', just to give an example: i told you already that i don't care what word you want to use [...] yes i am talking about the physical world. but no, i never ever assume that this is all there is. and now you wrote in your last comment: material, physical existence is a subset of all existence, and because you accept only the subset and not the set
you also complain about....
You have no intention of making a disciplined argument here. If you cannot even create premises, you have nothing to contribute.
told you one already. we are arguing the premises already.....
you insist that alllll atheists have a non-objective basis for their worldview. it is a case of 'all swans of white'. if it can be shown that a swan is not white, then the statement is false.... remember? want me to put it in syllogism form again?
- if at least some atheists have an objective basis for their worldview, then the statement 'all atheists have a non-objective basis for their worldview' is false - it is the case that same atheists have an objective basis for their worldview - the statement 'all atheists have a non-objective basis for their worldview' is false
The original premises were, in fact, statements of Radical Skepticism, which you accepted but subsequently denied in arrogant and rude terms.
merely considering something is accepting it according to you? what part of: "the assumption is that Radical Skepticism is false" do you not understand stan?
let's make this one personal:
- if a worldview starts with the assumption that Radical Skepticism is false, then that worldview is not one of a Radical Skeptic - my worldview starts with the assumption that Radical Skepticism is false - i am not a Radical Skeptic
it is not descriptive of actual Atheist rejectionism, which you admit to having, at least in part
- if zeus is described as the god that produces lightning, then finding an explanation for lightings disproves zeus - lightings have a non-zeus explanation - zeus is disproved
that kind of rejection you mean? please, feel free to provide another verison for zeus if you think it's irrational to deny his existence based on this simple principle...........
You have no case for any theory of anything which is generated under your own personal definition of Atheism. A void contains nothing, certainly not a germ of "objective truth". Any philosophical conclusions which you reach, you reach outside of Atheism, based on your own personal opinion.
yes i already told you that: the justification i submit to you is that my worldview is based on objective facts. these facts can be used to justify beliefs. none of these beliefs are based on a disbelief in gods. so i am an atheist, but i don't start with atheism at any point, for anything.
So the void leads to opinions based on contingent factoids. You admit to this, but claim that these opinions are "objective", when in fact they are self-created and subjective.
so let me get this straight.... for you, contingent is opposite to objective? i guess i should have started with that...........
moreover, yes, my beliefs are self-created and subjective. so are yours, because they are BELIEFS! we have free will, right? so of course we create our beliefs. it's the facts that they are based on that are objective. what's wrong with that?
finally you ignore the notion of ASSUMPTIONS. nothing to say about that?
OK, here's my current understanding of your current position:
You currently claim: 1. You are not asserting any sort of Skepticism.
2. You wish to disprove my contention, made long, long ago, that Atheists have no objective basis for their worldview, being based on Atheism.
3. You assert that Atheism must only be defined by your personal criterion.
4. Your definition of "objective" apparently means "physical", although you also claim not to restrict to physical existence.
5. You believe that Zeus could not be in control of the forces which induce lightning.
6. Since you claim to be an "Atheist" (only under your specific and personal definition, not under traditional definitions) who has an "objective" (physical) basis for his worldview, Stan is wrong and victory has been achieved.
7. You deny that the "lack of belief" in higher power influences your worldview as an axiom basis, which would mean that if you accepted a belief in a higher power your belief system would not change in the least, because it is not influenced at all by that belief.
I don't assert what you call Radical Skepticism (Solipsism); but I am skeptic of lost of things that other people believe without too much question. i don't believe in astrology or homeopathy for example.........
2. You wish to disprove my contention, made long, long ago, that Atheists have no objective basis for their worldview, being based on Atheism.
What the....... you said it in the current comment thread on May 3rd and I have been arguing about it since then.......
...if there is no objective basis for a worldview, then the basis must be subjective, purely self-derived, self-authorized, self-justified, self-assured and self-focused [...] There is no objective anything, except Material stuff [...] There are no objective rules for thinking disciplined thoughts
3. You assert that Atheism must only be defined by your personal criterion.
No. I said: "atheism is simple: it means 'no belief in a god' atheists are complex: some believe certain things, others don't"
What's wrong with that?
4. Your definition of "objective" apparently means "physical", although you also claim not to restrict to physical existence.
No! Again, what the........ !?!?
I am talking about objective vs subjective.
Subjective: I prefer strawberries over chocolate. Objective: Strawberries are fruits found in nature. Chocolate is a by-product of cacao beans.
Can you prove me right or wrong on my 'subjective' statement? No, because it's an opinion, it's subjective.
Can you prove me right or wrong on my 'objective' statement? Yes, because if I had said that strawberries are a by-product of apples and that chocolate grows in the field, that would have been objectively wrong.
5. You believe that Zeus could not be in control of the forces which induce lightning.
Againnnnnnn, what kind of question is this!? Of course I don't believe Zeus controls the forces which induce lightning. You say this as if it were an incredible claim that I should prove to you!?
6. Since you claim to be an "Atheist" (only under your specific and personal definition, not under traditional definitions) who has an "objective" (physical) basis for his worldview, Stan is wrong and victory has been achieved.
After what I wrote above.... obviously no.
7. You deny that the "lack of belief" in higher power influences your worldview as an axiom basis, which would mean that if you accepted a belief in a higher power your belief system would not change in the least, because it is not influenced at all by that belief.
At least you got that one correct I think. But I take it the other way around. The day I stopped believing in God, nothing changed. So yes, if I were to start believing again, almost nothing would change. And yes, I "deny" that it is an axiom basis. I don't assume there is no god.
It's interesting that you mention it though. It tells a lot more about you. You basically concede that you start with your belief in God as an axiom. You basically finally admitted that you don't really care whether you can justify your belief in God or not. You have it as an axiom in your worldview.
Is this correct?
No... and seriously.... I really mean it: WTH was that all about? And you have yet to discuss the notion of assumptions... as if you had none... or just don't get what it means...
So here we are; you deny that what I understand is what you mean. So there is no common ground for communication.
Let’s take a couple of examples, starting with your personal definition of Atheism, which you insist must be used and not the standard definitions:
” 3. You assert that Atheism must only be defined by your personal criterion.
No. I said: "atheism is simple: it means 'no belief in a god' atheists are complex: some believe certain things, others don't"
What's wrong with that?”
We’ve been around this too many times. Your claim is just your own personal requirement, and it is dishonest because it denies any differentiation regarding rejection: this is dishonest because you want to gloss over the basic tenet of Atheism just because you say so. It doesn’t matter to you how Cambridge University defines it, or how the big dog philosopher define it, or how dictionaries define it – only your own personal definition can be used in discussions with you.
So the dishonesty of that position alone is enough grounds to cease discussion with you.
Let’s take #4 next.
” 4. Your definition of "objective" apparently means "physical", although you also claim not to restrict to physical existence.
No! Again, what the........ !?!?
I am talking about objective vs subjective.
Subjective: I prefer strawberries over chocolate. Objective: Strawberries are fruits found in nature. Chocolate is a by-product of cacao beans.”
Objective in your example is obviously describing: objects; physical objects. Physical objects found in nature. Physical objects which can be seen and tested by others and thereby inductively and experimentally confirmed, and hence called “objective”, because they refer to objects – external physical objects.
But your reaction is: ” No! Again, what the........ !?!?”
I find no possible way to communicate with you, because your word usage / definitions are of your own concoction.
So the one place you agree is the place where you make the most egregious claim: that nothing would change in your worldview if God were found to exist in terms acceptable to you. You would not be subservient to a greater creature, one which created you and has the moral authority to actually dictate proper / improper behaviors to you? You would not change your behaviors in any way, because your personal moral theory right now is perfect? You would not consider teleology? You would not consider humans to have a different value than under Atheism? You would not reconsider your definition of “real”? Or your definition of “life”? Or your definition of “mind”? You would encounter no change whatsoever?
This is impossible to believe, and it appears to be a product of either self-deception or outright dishonesty.
So seriously, I think we are done here. There is no point in pursuing a conversation where neither of us agrees on even the most basic terminology. But even more to the point, your dishonesty here makes any communication attempts a waste of time. So we are done. Feel free to try to convince other readers here, and to converse with them. And kindly observe the rules of the blog when you do.
Anyway I agree that communication does not work, but I want to try one last thing. Ignore if you want but I know you have a hard time doing that ;)
I really don't understand the confusion with 'objective'. Your response to the strawberry example baffles me. I am simply talking about opinions (subjective) versus facts (objective)? How do do you call these things?
It is not the "calling" of these things that is the issue. The issue is that the term "objective" as you apparently mean it connotes anything outside the mind but restricted to "facts" which are physical, such as strawberry existence. And that is one definition. But you then claim that not to be the case, where even though you use physical factoids in your explanation, you claim that not to be limited to the physical.
Definition:
Objective, a, of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking.
So you are using a physical definition, which is valid, but claiming it not to be physically limited.
Here is another definition: objective, n, anything external to, or independent of the mind; something objective; reality.
And reality is reality, n, 1. quality or state of being real; 2. a person or thing that is real; a fact; 3. the quality of being true to life; fidelity to nature.
Dictionaries and definitions are necessarily circular, using words to give meaning to words, and in this case, "fact" circles back to be defined as "objective".
(both from Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary)
Because this blog is about distinctions between physical existence and non-physical existence, any terminology confusion sinks the conversation from the get go.
So if "objective" is defined as a characteristic of physical existence - and it is - and fact is defined the same way, then there are no remaining words to describe non-physical existence purely due to the prejudice inserted by the vocabulary, not by any reasoning.
Vocabulary differences place a barrier to communication, especially when non-standard definitions are inserted into the mix.
I would love to hear what you think of the 7 points Stan mentioned above... where do you stand on these points? More specifically, do you think it's wrong to have a worldview based on facts and logic?
I also never replied to your last comment, sorry!!!! But it's because you wrote the exact word salad I was talking about... the semantic abuse about 'change' you used in the past....
There is no premise in the argument about the universe. There are only three premises:
1. Some things are changing 2. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else 3. A chain of concurrent changers must contain at least one unchanged changer
1. 'some' things are changing but you will never name something that does not change. Right? 2. Not everything we observe is changed by something else; some appear to change by themselves from our point of view. 3. To justify this premise you would need to be able to demonstrate that all chains of concurrent changers have a beginning, when you cannot even give one example of a chain that has a beginning.
In short, the premises are useless when applied to the universe. So even if you say that they don't mention it, that's fine, but the point is to prove that the cause of the universe has to be a unique changer... unless perhaps you have another conclusion in mind?
Well, all I can say is that rather than change your lingo to describe specifics, you choose to keep the generality which is defined by another generality.
You could define things in terms of physical and non-physical (that being the issue) but you don't; you choose to defend definitions which don't do that.
I should have been more direct: the term "conditions" is even more ambiguous than "objective"; there are definitely object-related conditions. But are there really non-physically related conditions? If so then how are they measured? How are they detected? And how do they relate to the other definitions of "objective"?
So why are you adverse to letting go of this definitional disaster and trying to specify what you actually mean with specifics?
So why are you adverse to letting go of this definitional disaster and trying to specify what you actually mean with specifics?
I told you that the words used are not important: it's the concepts, ideas, thoughts that matter.
The concept I am trying to share with you in this thread, well tried to since you ran away, is that some truth statements depend on opinions (I called them subjective) and others don't (I called them objective).
You refuse to tell me what words you would rather use for this. You refuse to acknowledge that I don't restrict 'truth statements' to material existence.
A specific example would be scientific theories. They are non-material body of knowledge that provide non-material explanations. They use facts that are related to material existence but the theories themselves are not material, as they are conceptual only. They can be right or wrong, and that 'condition' is non-material. The 'condition' of a theory does not depend on the opinion of the creator of the theory. A theory can be correct or incorrect, regardless of our opinion. That's what I call objective; tell me what the correct word would be....
What's weird also is that you are the one who insisted that Atheists DON'T have an objective basis for their worldview, now you argues that the objective basis is pointless because it refers to material things only.
You said: ...if there is no objective basis for a worldview, then the basis must be subjective, purely self-derived, self-authorized, self-justified, self-assured and self-focused [...] There is no objective anything, except Material stuff [...] There are no objective rules for thinking disciplined thoughts
68 comments:
This blog definetly needs more article reviews and political talk nowadays.
Looks like you've never studied Eastern philosophy. Google "voidist philosophy".
Voidists do not believe in the material world. (Or they think it's an illusion.)
I was the person who freaked you out with an anonymous question.
The question is tangentially related to religion:
Q: If a hat and coat cost $110, and the coat costs $100 more than the hat, how much does the hat cost?
The hat is $5, and the coat is $105.
(algebra spoken here).
As for Voidism, I was trying to avoid the appellation, Zeroes.
So it looks like these Atheists would be Avoidists. Fits like a glove.
OK. I found this definition:
"Voidism is the philosophy held by voidists, people who aspire to find themselves at the bottom of the following ladder:
# Polytheism - belief in many gods.
# Monotheism - belief in one god.
# Atheism - absence of belief in
gods.
# Nihilism - absence of belief in gods, morality and purpose.
# Voidism - absence of belief in gods, morality, purpose and conciousness.
As a voidist, one considers that conciousness is an illusion, a very good illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.
Since the term 'nihilism' already implies a sense of 'nothingness', when looking to coin a term for this philosophy it was necessary to find a word which would imply an even purer sense of emptyness. The phrase 'null and void' led to the idea of calling it voidism. "
This seems to fit, if purpose means teleology, which I suspect it does for these folks. Morality is not absolute and is highly debated by Atheists as "ethics", because morality doesn't exist. Most Atheist philosophers consider consciousness to be a delusion, otherwise the human would be an "uncaused causer" which is not allowed under Philosophical Materialism.
So, as attactive as the term Avoidism is, I will stick with Voidism. They have no position on anything, and therefore cannot discuss anything rationally.
But you can buy Voidism mugs and shirts.
"I was trying to avoid the appellation, Zeroes."
So that makes Muslims "ones" and Christians "Threes"?
About the math question:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201204/religion-and-reason
Urban Dictionary?
Here's some other definitions from Urban Dictionary that I might start using:
"God
-An entity whose opinions on the consumption of pork has been a matter of hot debate amongst the world's religions."
"bible
-An ancient novel full of murder, corruption, homosexuality, bestiality, incest and cruelty. It is often read to children on Sunday."
I guess that piece of "science" is now disproved.
And you are way behind in using those definitions. Voidists have been using those for decades. So if you are unhappy with my use of the "new" definition, why should you expect me to accept the "new" definition of Atheism (Voids)? Especially when the new definition of Atheism is an obvious lie?
If a lie is repeated often enough, the liar will start to believe it. But not necessarily anyone else, who will merely distrust the liar in future dealings.
It's curious that Atheists would choose to be known as untrustworthy, merely by choosing to promote such dishonesty as their (non) position.
In a sense it is unavoidable, because they cannot live up to their claims of being evidence-based; their logic is defeated by their necessary attachment to Philosophical Materialism; yet they maintain their attitude of superior intellect and morality in the face of their necessary failures. Self-delusion is a form of dishonesty that is apparent to everyone but the self-deluded. That's why dependence upon the rigors of disciplined logic is necessary. And it's why Atheists refuse to use actual logical discplined procedures.
Sorry if my posts 'poked your buttons' but I wanted to see how you'd react to certain situations.
I guess that piece of "science" is now disproved.
I've asked the same question of thirty theists and almost fifty atheists.
Almost every atheist says $5 and almost every theist says $10.
Looking at the last week of your posts and using the tests for analytic reasoning versus intuitive reasoning we can see that your posts are filled with intuitive reasoning. There is also a high level of emotional language (which seems to be directed at atheists). I'd love to do a more rigorous study of your way of thinking but I don't have time to test all your posts. (Quotations have to be edited out so they don't poison the results which complicates the process).
I can also make some guesses at who you are using the data for your last two weeks worth of posts.
You are male. You are white. You're old enough to retire. You worked in a technical field and are proud of it. You have not studied philosophy at college level. You pride yourself at reading books and likely feel that colleges impose viewpoints on students. You have a sense of being superior to those you disagree with. You fear lack of control and order.
I'll never know if these guesses are correct or not but it's been funny running these tests. I'll check back for a reply but after 24 hours I may not post again.
Thanks for participating.
stan....
trying to convince me to write again or what? it's not by presenting ridiculous strawman that you will achieve this. take your 'voidist' this for instance. isnt it ironic that you decided to post that AFTER i put a list of things i actually believe in as an atheist. isnt ironic that you say that atheist dont offer rebutal to your arguments when you actually ban people who persist in trying to discuss with you? isnt ironic that i had to remind you several times that i actually replied to your arguments, only for you to mock the multiple replies? isnt ironic that you say that atheist only look for material evidence and material existence AFTER i told you that this or that are examples of non-material evidence and non-material existence?
but wait... by writing here i just proved that it works, dam!! lol!
A1 says,
MY study shows that Atheists are "analytical" and Theists are stupid.
Well, your study need not be believed just because you show up here mouthing it. I disproved it anyway, right before your very eyes; that must sting a little. And of course it does, because you proceed from there with a personal attack:
Looking at the last week of your posts and using the tests for analytic reasoning versus intuitive reasoning we can see that your posts are filled with intuitive reasoning.
Your "tests" are completely undefined and probably nonexistent; they seem not to make room for hypothesis – deduction; you have your own definitions, of course, which you need not share, because this is a personal attack sort of message, in response to calling out Atheism for what it is; the only possible response is Ad Hominem or some other fallacy, because you cannot provide either logic or evidence for actual Atheist beliefs.
By asking Atheists for the analysis of Lourdes we saw them produce what? Hint: dodging wildly.
By asking Athiests for evidence to back up their Atheism we saw them produce what? Hint: a new non-Atheism (Voidism).
Now you are making claims concerning my reasoning with no analytical basis for your statements, only your opinion and implications. You are really only capable of attempts at Ad Hominem, and poorly constructed, at that, because you have no arguments to put forward in your favor.
”There is also a high level of emotional language (which seems to be directed at atheists).”
Oh my yes. It is highly emotional to ask Atheists to be intellectually honest and to address their rejectionism.
”I can also make some guesses at who you are using the data for your last two weeks worth of posts.
You are male. You are white. You're old enough to retire. You worked in a technical field and are proud of it. You have not studied philosophy at college level. You pride yourself at reading books and likely feel that colleges impose viewpoints on students. You have a sense of being superior to those you disagree with. You fear lack of control and order.”
And you are not a psychic, you are a quack who has read just enough of this blog to have pulled out things I admit to. And then you added some opinions of how things are in your universe. Pretty sad stuff, really.
eternal is miffed:
”trying to convince me to write again or what? it's not by presenting ridiculous strawman that you will achieve this. take your 'voidist' this for instance. isnt it ironic that you decided to post that AFTER i put a list of things i actually believe in as an atheist. “
What you believe is not a result of your Atheism, no matter what it is. Atheism is a void; revisit the above conversation you yourself had. So what you believe is a-Atheist, since it is not contained in Atheism in any way - especially not in your Voidist version, which contains no knowledge whatsoever since it is an intellectual dodge. So whatever your list contains, it is not relevant to Atheism as a category.
You had best look up the definition of Straw Man; it refers to a mechanism to derail a conversation by creating a false structure to attack. That is obviously not the case here. Atheists seem to know just one accusation, “Straw Man”, and they seem to think that it applies to any logic that makes them hurt.
”isnt ironic that you say that atheist dont offer rebutal to your arguments when you actually ban people who persist in trying to discuss with you?”
False to the point of being a direct lie. I ban people who will absolutely not accept that their logic is based on known, demonstrable fallacies, and insist on maintaining obstructive tactics which are anathema to logical discourse. This is what happened and is what I said about it at the time. What you claim is false and not reflective of actuality. As it happens, I have the discipline of logic on my side; Atheists think that anything they utter is logical and must therefore be truth and has to be acceptable in logical conversations. That is not the case. Your accusations are not true just because you say them out loud.
” isnt ironic that i had to remind you several times that i actually replied to your arguments, only for you to mock the multiple replies?”
If by mock, you mean that I said your replies needed evidence and support, then that is the case, and it is just too bad, I guess. If a player shows up and can’t take the effort to prepare a real case, then he should be ashamed; but in reality the players here for the past week chose instead to blame the opposition which is holding the players’ feet to the fire. These Atheists cannot produce any reason for anyone to accept their position. When placed on a podium and declaring that Atheism is just – nothing – and nothing requires no evidence or logic - you would experience the response that that position deserves.
” isnt ironic that you say that atheist only look for material evidence and material existence AFTER i told you that this or that are examples of non-material evidence and non-material existence?
Maybe you should mention a specific issue, rather than just making open, empty complaints as if you are some sort of poor, abused victim. So far you have not stood up for anything here, taking only the Voidist position regarding Atheism. Atheism provides no knowledge about anything, nor does it provide guidance regarding any other beliefs. Any beliefs an Atheist has, he gotten somewhere besides from Atheism, either adopting from somewhere or making them up. So if you think otherwise, then make your case. So far you have not done so. And you have not done so because if you do, you will have to defend them as part of Atheism.
@A1:
Wow... Whay a way to conduct a study about how a theist is not intelligent enough to solve an Algebra problem.
Show your data... how is your sampling.
If you are statistically talking about the superior intelligence atheists have, "almost every" is not an objective way of statistical or stochastic measurement of the variables you present. So from that perspective, your data, along with your premise of atheists' superior intelligence, remains flawed.
If you're going to objectively analize something, please look for a technical definition of measurement.
"Q: If a hat and coat cost $110, and the coat costs $100 more than the hat, how much does the hat cost?"
Here you have a theist, showing you the steps to solve it:
1) Propose the algebraic equation:
PriceCoat + PriceHat = 110
2) Because it has been proposed, as a boundary condition, that the Coat costs $100 more than the hat, then:
PriceCoat = PriceHat + 100
OR
PriceHat = PriceCoat - 100
3)There are at least two ways to solve it, being by replacing PriceHat in the equation, or replacing PriceCoat in the equation.
This is just a simple operation of simultaneous equations, when one variable is defined as linearly dependent from the other one. Without that given contidion, it would not be possible to accomplish the result to be asked.
--> Method 1: Replacing PriceHat:
PriceCoat + PriceCoat - 100 = 110
2*PriceCoat - 100 = 110
PriceCoat = 105
Then, replacing PriceCoat's value:
110 - PriceCoat = PriceHat
110 - 105 = PriceHat, then PriceHat = 5
-->Method 2: Replacing PriceCoat:
PriceHat + 100 + PriceHat = 110
2*PriceHat + 100 = 110
PriceHat = (110-100)/2, then,
PriceHat = 5, so,
PriceCoat + 5 = 110
PriceCoat = 105
"I'll never know if these guesses are correct or not but it's been funny running these tests. I'll check back for a reply but after 24 hours I may not post again.
Thanks for participating"
With the hopes, that you will refine your experiment...
As for the article from psychologytoday, as it is there, where you get that conclusion from, it is not enough to prove your conlusion.
Until I see raw data and a bigger range of samples, I won't believe everything what the article says.
I want a peer-reviewed article, about why intuitive thinking is bad and why analytical thinking is better, just look at the conlusions of the cited article.
At least with me, analytical thinking does not reduce my belief in a greater, divine reality.
But of course, I hope my belief is not anything of big concern, regarding your way to prove, why are atheists better than us because they are "more analytical". Again, that's not an objective measurement from your part, and that also implies manipulating and twisting the focus of the actual study, not surprisingly.
It would not be necessary to be there reviewing the whole process, with the people doing the study... just to find out that the question is not an adequate source of stimuli for addressing all the possible factors, to get to the kind of conclusions you, A1, had just arrived. Although I did find this correlation rather weird but also interesting.
Don't let your experiment just backfire at you like that again.
If you come back, I'll give you some information about a reason Why IQ is rather a measurement of getting used to solve abstract reasoning problems, and about the academic culture you recieve in your file, rather than a measurement to show you hoy to measure the ability to solve everything else. IQs are more for classifing people's cultural level, rather than know aspects about what are best people's abilities to solve an specific problem.
Kind Regards.
A1 says,
MY study shows that Atheists are "analytical" and Theists are stupid.
Where does he say that? All it says is that believers and disbelievers often have different thinking styles. And then: "Reynolds and Norenzayan agree that analytic reasoning is not superior to intuitive reasoning. "They both have their costs and benefits," "
Well, your study need not be believed just because you show up here mouthing it. I disproved it anyway, right before your very eyes; that must sting a little. And of course it does, because you proceed from there with a personal attack:
Disproved? The study doesn't say every believer uses intuitive reasoning. What did you perceive as a personal attack?
yonose said...
@A1:
Wow... Whay a way to conduct a study about how a theist is not intelligent enough to solve an Algebra problem.
Why would you think that what the study is about? Nowhere does anyone come close to saying that.
your premise of atheists' superior intelligence, remains flawed.
Again, where are you coming up with this?
why are atheists better than us because they are "more analytical".
A1 doesn't say this and neither does the article.
I've been lurking without posting for a while, I'm actually on a short trip to Australia. Hello from Down Under from Nats!
yonose,
I think it works like this: if Atheists are said to have quality Q, while non-Atheists are said to have quality S, then Q is the superior quality merely because Atheists have it. Atheist self-endowed superiority always trumps logic.
In fact, kierkegaard took the position that analytical thinking, taken by itself, is useless because it cannot reveal any objective truth. This is the case with empiricism, which provides only contingent knowledge of purely material issues, and cannot provide any knowledge of an ethical nature, of even a mathematical nature or the nature of logic, much less the nature of non-material existence.
Atheists self-limit their thinking in such a manner that other knowledge types are transparent to them, under their own evidentiary theory. But they do not stick to their own evidentiary theory, of course, and they proceed to make metaphysical Truth statements which they cannot support. This just demonstrates that Atheists are confused pups, and little more.
Atheists in general do not consider there to be any "intuition" anyway, but the suspicious article which mentions "intuitive thinking" suddenly has meaning to them. Atheists are radical skeptics when convenient, and credulous blind believers where convenient. Again, confused pups.
Nats,
I'm afraid I hit the delete button instead of the publish button which I intended to hit, so your comment is gone. I hope you saved it or can restore it, I will publish it if you can get it back to me. Sorry.
Stan
Nats
Nevermind. It did show up.
Nats,
You seem alright for atheist.
Nats,
The personal attack was quoted. He made no attempt to justify his statement, as is the new commenting standard for internet Atheists these days.
Nats,
I've clarified it further. Look at way A1 manipulates information:
A1's Quotes:
"The question is tangentially related to religion:
Q: If a hat and coat cost $110, and the coat costs $100 more than the hat, how much does the hat cost?"
"I've asked the same question of thirty theists and almost fifty atheists.
Almost every atheist says $5 and almost every theist says $10.
Looking at the last week of your posts and using the tests for analytic reasoning versus intuitive reasoning we can see that your posts are filled with intuitive reasoning. There is also a high level of emotional language (which seems to be directed at atheists). I'd love to do a more rigorous study of your way of thinking but I don't have time to test all your posts. (Quotations have to be edited out so they don't poison the results which complicates the process). "
[emphasis in bold added]
As you can see, there is not a serious, objective study. A1 manipulated the information. And as you can see in the article coming from psychologytoday, at least I, already know that's not the issue.
So I'm quoting myself here again:
"
As for the article from psychologytoday, as it is there, where you get that conclusion from, it is not enough to prove your conlusion.
Until I see raw data and a bigger range of samples, I won't believe everything what the article says.
I want a peer-reviewed article, about why intuitive thinking is bad and why analytical thinking is better, just look at the conlusions of the cited article."
A1's Bias is just quite evident.
Kind Regards.
"A1 says, MY study shows that Atheists are "analytical" and Theists are stupid."
Nowhere were theists ever called stupid. I don't care about atheism or theism. I'm agnostic and while I occasionally laugh at what both sides do I could care less about Gods. All I care about is groups that produce large amounts of text that I can use software to analyse. The application of computer aided sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics and narrative analysis are basically my only interests.
"you are a quack..."
Ouch!
Yonose said: "your premise of atheists' superior intelligence,"
I never said that but why do you feel that is my premise?
I want a peer-reviewed article, about why intuitive thinking is bad and why analytical thinking is better,
Nowhere is it stated the intuitive thinking is bad and analytical thinking is good. They are both useful and every human uses combinations of both everyday.
Yonose:
Latest results of my informal test.
3 out of 36 theists say $5, 44 out 56 atheists say $5.
All I'm doing is keeping a spreadsheet of who I've asked where, their theism status and their answer. I don't record the answers from the same website after the first person has answered because the first person's answer will affect the second's.
A1,
So far here's what we know about you and your "test".
The test shows that some people are better at algebraic/mathematical questions than other people, and/or are suspicious of trick questions where one answer appears obvious but is incorrect. This is interpreted to have a meaning of intuitive vs. analytical, and is taken as a final decision on the issue, so conclusive that magazine articles declare the results as having religious significance, and you show up here declaring the religious significance, despite it not having worked here.
You are engaged in putting people into boxes based on their answers to a single question.
Then, you take the extra time to glean any personal information you can from the blog and make a psychological "analysis" on me, without ever having met me or knowing anything about me, except what you read here.
In Kaplan & Sadock's "Synopsis of Pshychiatry: Behavioral Sciences / Clinical Psychiatry, 10th Ed., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Pubs", which includes the DSM, there is exactly no mention of intuitive thought or thinking, period, much less as a differentiator between human types.
From the article in PT:
”Reynolds and Norenzayan agree that analytic reasoning is not superior to intuitive reasoning. "They both have their costs and benefits," Norenzayan says. One of the consequences of the costs and benefits is one's tendency to believe in religion. So whether you answered $5 or $10 provides insight into what you believe and how your beliefs are formed.”
In real science, correlation is not causation.
The correlations with other possible contributors are ignored. They do not mention how strong the correlation is with regard to sex, age, education, personal problems at home or work, size of family, position in sibling group, position in social or peer group, position in work group, relationship with mother, relationship with father, degree of crisis in their present life, previous religious or anti-religious encounters, amount of math in their backgrounds, training in principles of logical analysis, credulousness / suspiciousness in other situations, tendency toward cynicism; drugs, depression, sleep deprivation other DSM-related issues, &c, for numerous known and unknown factors.
When you get that all straightened out with all possible variables eliminated, come on back and let us know.
I repeat this from above:
You are engaged in putting people into boxes based on their answers to a single question.
Perhaps you might explain why this is science and not quackery.
A1,
I was a strong agnostic that turned into a weak atheist for some time, before converting to a specific strand of theism.
You could have mention those numbers and avoid the versus word in the first place. I felt a bit ridiculed in the way you exposed you hypothesis at first... you could've spare me some trouble.
About the quetion, I just feel that it is not the right stimuli to identify important factors about religious belief, because is about classification and differentation of kinds, rather than a deeper understanding of that particular factor, you know, like one of those "quick" studies for a grad or undergrad thesis or something of the sort (I'm an undergrad, but have seen enough samples of those documents, specially from science undergrads, that do similar stuff).
If there's a correlation about inclinations of answering a problem at first hand, that's OK, but an alegra problem like that is rather a mechanical process to do once you know about it rather than a
question that needs to be addressed from an analytical prospect. The possible answers are just TWO:
One correct, One incorrect.
So the question is rather for, if you remember how to solve an specific problem rather than anything else.
Axiomatically proved theoretical questions are to be addressed from an analytical prospect, rather than solving some mathematical problems where the boundary conditions are just set.
When there's something people don't know well about, people tend to answer "intituively"; some prior remembrance or knowledge from people and they tend to answer "analytically"... there's no mystery about that.
There are notable differences, at least from a mathematical perspective, of what is analysis and what is an abstraction. In engineering, those concepts in the practical sense converge a little more, and the difference between analysis and abstraccion vary from discipline to discipline, but the definitions should be there, clearly stated so they are to be used in the right manner.
In that study, there's not an objective, specific definition of what is analytical, or abstract, or intuitive, and when do the concepts regarding the actions taken converge and/or diverge.
If you want to keep your study not for the sake of ridiculing theists and aheists, please consider in changing the questions, making new ones, make some statistical calculations, widen the spectrum of possible answers, so even a simple hystogram would help (you would have more frequency samples to use). Stochastical analysis is always recommended.
Then, just calculate an FFT to every sample (just joking).
The self proclaimed study published in the PsychologyToday journal is interesting, but still not conclusive. The environmental variables of the experiment do not ensure unbiased results while assembled, and this is still why I don't believe that the study alone is conclusive, but rather tells me a lot, about how some scientists are "bred" nowadays.
I'm a bit in a hurry right now, so the I'll expose a single but conclusive excerpt about the issues of classifying people because of IQ, on another time.
Kind Regards.
stan, i think you might be starting to get it!! but at the same time, you are reallllllllly confused!!
you said...
...Atheism provides no knowledge about anything, nor does it provide guidance regarding any other beliefs. Any beliefs an Atheist has, he gotten somewhere besides from Atheism...
that is so true!! yet, you don’t seem to understand what it implies because, before, in another post about that ‘voidist’ crazy non-sense you said:
... So now they claim not to have a position, it is merely a void regarding the subject. Yet even a void as a worldview has consequences....
... If Voidism is the complete lack of a concept or position, then what is the basis for their worldview?
... Further, a worldview which starts with a void as its base axiomatic truth proposition cannot be thought to produce anything of value. There is nothing in Voidism, literally, to direct thought processes, for example (and this is shown here daily)...
there is something fascinating going on here. clearly stan you are not seeing it; perhaps others will?
it is as if it were inconceivable to have a worldview that does not start with a god! that is the void you are talking about! actually it’s worse; it’s as if a worldview cannot start with anything but an acceptance OR rejection of gods. THAT IS THE VOID YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
stan, you are so incapable of processing that that it makes you attack some sort of voidist position, that you confuse with having no beliefs at all! strangest thing ever.
I mean, for god sake (pun intended), you ask what is the basis for their worldview!! how can you ask such question!?
you have been writing this blog for over 4 years you say, you have been an atheist for 40 years you say, yet, you are unable to answer that question yourself ?!?!
you are not even able to imagine various basis for worldviews NOT BASED ON GODS???
this is hilarious!
of course, your reaction to this is quite easy to predict, you will come back saying that atheists reject any form of logic, any basis, any fundamental principles, any firm knowledge and all that jazz, even if it’s completely false...
you will then go on to say the same thing you just wrote, that atheists deny knowledge, prefer skepticism, bla bla bla, yet again you do it yourself, saying that it’s probabilistic, that we cannot prove with 100% most of the things we are justified to believe in, and so on.... running in circles again and again... attacking those who don't agree with you just because they don't, saying they are wrong just because YOU use logic PERFECTLY!
seriously, it's not even possible to be slightly rational in your eyes if we don't start with a god. how ridiculous is that?
so go on stan, keep attacking strawman (YES YOU ATTACK STRAWMAN ALL THE TIME) your blog is just for that; it’s your playground. you asked for more precise examples? just go read the comments again because people are specific when they attack your claims; you just cant deal with that for some reason. you prefer to claim that your views are correct; your logic is infallible; your rationality is unquestionable; your knowledge is sufficient for all the answers you need regarding the entire freaking universe and even what existed BEFORE it was created (the non-material entity, right???)
but keep going please, it’s so much fun to read you :)
eternal,
Whether they admit it or not, almost everyone I meet who labels themselves as "lacking belief in gods" does have a positive worldview. That of materialism, or naturalism. The only things that exist are what the science of physics tells us exists, and that's it.
This is inherent in almost everything they say, whether they readily admit it or not.
Why not just be a naturalist or materialist, then? Why all the hiding behind semantics?
”it is as if it were inconceivable to have a worldview that does not start with a god! that is the void you are talking about! actually it’s worse; it’s as if a worldview cannot start with anything but an acceptance OR rejection of gods. THAT IS THE VOID YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
stan, you are so incapable of processing that that it makes you attack some sort of voidist position, that you confuse with having no beliefs at all! strangest thing ever.
I mean, for god sake (pun intended), you ask what is the basis for their worldview!! how can you ask such question!?”
Ah yes, the unaskable question. Those which are sacrosanct, or so absurd that the Atheist is the only one wise enough to detect that they have no meaning, while others detect actual meaning within. More focused ignorance.
Let’s try this: If there is no objective basis for a worldview, then the basis must be subjective, purely self-derived, self-authorized, self-justified, self-assured and self-focused. It is subject to the momentary whim of the self; it is totally changeable and malleable to fit the situation. That is part of the freedom which Atheists crave and claim: the freedom of total narcissism, justifiable under the denial of objective absolutes external to themselves. And the freedom to slip and slide into any different position on a moment’s notice.
There is no objective, outside demand for character development (except to obey laws when cops are looking). There is no objective demand for consistency of behavior or thinking which would induce others to trust the Atheist. There is no objective anything, except Material stuff, which came from nowhere, for no reason, with no inducement, and shouldn’t be questioned. There are no objective rules for thinking disciplined thoughts; the superior Atheist is more rational and therefore thinks correctly all the time, by his own subjective definition of rationality, which is just whatever an Atheist thinks at the moment.
”you have been writing this blog for over 4 years you say, you have been an atheist for 40 years you say, yet, you are unable to answer that question yourself ?!?!
you are not even able to imagine various basis for worldviews NOT BASED ON GODS???
this is hilarious!”
Your Silliness, you do not recognize rhetorical questions, so you ridicule them? And of course I repeat and repeat the answer for you.
”of course, your reaction to this is quite easy to predict, you will come back saying that atheists reject any form of logic, any basis, any fundamental principles, any firm knowledge and all that jazz, even if it’s completely false...”
You provide no evidence to the contrary; you have provided only a continuous stream of absurd silliness. I suggest that you provide something meaningful, with actual logic behind it. Can you do that?
”you will then go on to say the same thing you just wrote, that atheists deny knowledge, prefer skepticism, bla bla bla, yet again you do it yourself, saying that it’s probabilistic, that we cannot prove with 100% most of the things we are justified to believe in, and so on.... running in circles again and again... attacking those who don't agree with you just because they don't, saying they are wrong just because YOU use logic PERFECTLY!”
What is your argument here? That things actually are 100% probable, or that using probabilistic acceptability is false? You do not prove that, you merely ridicule it in your typical fashion. Show that it is incorrect, make even the smallest case which is not just ridicule. Even the smallest case whatsoever.
And this statement has got to take the prize:
” attacking those who don't agree with you just because they don't, saying they are wrong just because YOU use logic PERFECTLY!”
They disagree just because they don’t? Just because they don’t? And you expect that to be a respected position, and come here to argue it, expecting that it would be a conclusive argument against which logic should not be used, or evidence required? If anything deserves ridicule, that is definitely it.
” seriously, it's not even possible to be slightly rational in your eyes if we don't start with a god. how ridiculous is that?”
FALSE, absolutely. A rational person has reasons for his positions. Atheists claim rationality and evidence as their own characteristics. So the rational approach for someone who claims rationality and evidence for his own would be to provide rational, logical reasons and/or evidence for same. Atheists do not and cannot do that. That is why they cannot own the claim of rationality. When you can do that, then you can own your claim to be rational, but not until you can do the rational hard work first.
” so go on stan, keep attacking strawman (YES YOU ATTACK STRAWMAN ALL THE TIME) your blog is just for that; it’s your playground. you asked for more precise examples?”
Yes, you constantly make accusations which you do not support with specific instances, demonstrating the specific fallacy.
” just go read the comments again because people are specific when they attack your claims; you just cant deal with that for some reason.
You are dodging again; come out from behind the skirt and make an actual specific claim regarding a specific instance. You are being intellectually cowardly.
” you prefer to claim that your views are correct; your logic is infallible; your rationality is unquestionable; your knowledge is sufficient for all the answers you need regarding the entire freaking universe and even what existed BEFORE it was created (the non-material entity, right???)”
Actually I have asked for you to refute it, many, many times. And this is your typical response: nothing but blather and personal attacks.
Refute it. Go ahead. Make a syllogistic case. Do it. Do it!
DO IT!
This is reaching the usual final point where Atheists frequently become too irrational to tolerate. Rather than engage using logical, syllogistic refutation, they become enraged and engage in personal attacks, and name calling, and weak attempts to ridicule that which they cannot disprove using logic or evidence. The above is a constant stream of this, using every dodge that can be summoned in order not to engage the issue with actual logic and certainly no material evidence.
Eternal, I suggest that you resort to disciplined logic or material evidence to support your case. If you continue not to do so, and you would rather use personal attacks and name-call instead, then your time here will be up.
This blog is intended for rational conversation, using disciplined rational processes of logic and axiomatic grounded rational hypothesis – deduction propositions and cases. Those who wish to invade with the intent to interrupt, disrupt and interfere with rational discussion rather than to participate in a rational manner will not be allowed to continue to comment here.
martin said:
"eternal,
Whether they admit it or not, almost everyone I meet who labels themselves as "lacking belief in gods" does have a positive worldview. That of materialism, or naturalism. The only things that exist are what the science of physics tells us exists, and that's it.
This is inherent in almost everything they say, whether they readily admit it or not.
Why not just be a naturalist or materialist, then? Why all the hiding behind semantics?"
lol martin, admit this, admit that, why not just be this or that, why hide behind semantics? what the heck are you talking about martin? if someone lacks a belief in god they lack a belief in god ok? that's it. it's not my problem if you lump in a bunch of other things with it.
yes, i personnaly don't, as in DO NOT, believe that there is anything beyond the natural world, but does that make me someone who has a 'natruralism' worldview? hardly, because what stan, oh sorry martin, what you say, is that naturalism is the view that all that exists is space/time-matter/energy; which is not the same. you call this hidding behing semantics? i call this "calling you out on your bullshit", on your abuse of semantics.
it is precisely for the same reason that you try to support these ridiculous infographics in which you play with semantics. if i hide behind semantics, then you are beating the shit out of semantics until he screams what you want to hear. a positive belief that something does not exist is not the same as a disbelief that this 'something' exists. deal with it.
i said....
you ask what is the basis for their worldview!! how can you ask such question!?
to which stan replied...
Ah yes, the unaskable question. Those which are sacrosanct, or so absurd that the Atheist is the only one wise enough to detect that they have no meaning, while others detect actual meaning within. More focused ignorance.
hilarious, as if my comment meant that the quetsion had no answer. IT IS THE OPPOSITE. the point was that you should know the answer, or at least have ideas on what the answer is! funny funny funny.
wait, that was just part of the answer...
Let’s try this: If there is no objective basis for a worldview, then [...]
it is totally changeable and malleable to fit the situation. [...]
denial of objective absolutes external to themselves[...]
There is no objective anything, except Material stuff[...]
There are no objective rules for thinking disciplined thoughts
BINGO! Thanks for proving me right stan. if we don't have a god as a basis, we cannot have any OBJECTIVE basis for a worldview.
pathetic but still so funny. what about accepting reality as an objective basis? it is an assumption of course, i cannot prove to you that reality is real... but i find it absurd to even consider the scenario in which we are part of a virtual reality that hides the real reality from us...
...You provide no evidence to the contrary...
DONE ALREADY. read your blog!
...Rather than engage using logical, syllogistic refutation, they become enraged and engage in personal attacks, and name calling, and weak attempts to ridicule that which they cannot disprove using logic or evidence...
you bring up RAGE again??? why do you insist on making me laugh? why do you insist on proving me right? :-)
i told you that you are the one who gets enraged here... you have a blog created for the sole purpose of attacking a group of people... are you telling me that this was made out of compassion for that group of people?
oh wait, that's so sweat of you stan, i never realized that; i was under the impression that you have some rage against these people and prefer to attack them as much as you can so that they look like fools.
This blog is intended for rational conversation, using disciplined rational processes of logic and axiomatic grounded rational hypothesis – deduction propositions and cases. Those who wish to invade with the intent to interrupt, disrupt and interfere with rational discussion rather than to participate in a rational manner will not be allowed to continue to comment here.
when i did that, on several occasions, i had to remind you to go answer my comments, and ironically, you did not understand the context and ridiculed my answers...
so again, DONE ALREADY. read your blog! plus, somebody else commented on the only argumentation you provide for your god, and since i don't have time to comment much, i guess i will look forward to see how long it will take before you ban him for showing the flaws..........
take care!
"BINGO! Thanks for proving me right stan. if we don't have a god as a basis, we cannot have any OBJECTIVE basis for a worldview.
pathetic but still so funny. what about accepting reality as an objective basis? it is an assumption of course, i cannot prove to you that reality is real... but i find it absurd to even consider the scenario in which we are part of a virtual reality that hides the real reality from us..."
This is always the part where the Atheist takes a metaphysical position against Quantum Theory. And that is actually science. Atheists invoke science but virtually never know anything about it.
"...You provide no evidence to the contrary...
DONE ALREADY. read your blog!"
You now have one more day to provide something of substance in your defense. Deadline: 5/5/12.
"you bring up RAGE again??? why do you insist on making me laugh? why do you insist on proving me right? :-)
i told you that you are the one who gets enraged here... you have a blog created for the sole purpose of attacking a group of people... are you telling me that this was made out of compassion for that group of people?"
I attack mental processes which fail logical processes, or which are merely intentionally disruptive and/or inflammatory. If that applies to a person or group, then so be it. If you or they as a group need compassion for your affliction, then you should look elsewhere.
"oh wait, that's so sweat of you stan, i never realized that; i was under the impression that you have some rage against these people and prefer to attack them as much as you can so that they look like fools."
If you/they do not wish to appear to be foolish, then you/they need to provide actual arguments with actual premises based on actual axioms and/or provide empirical evidence to support your claims; that is part of rationality, and it is what rational people do.
"when i did that, on several occasions, i had to remind you to go answer my comments, and ironically, you did not understand the context and ridiculed my answers..."
Bullshit. For the Nth time: Bullshit. You cannot call "context" an excuse for falseness. And it is not necessary to ridicule falseness, so I did not.
"so again, DONE ALREADY. read your blog! plus, somebody else commented on the only argumentation you provide for your god, and since i don't have time to comment much, i guess i will look forward to see how long it will take before you ban him for showing the flaws.........."
You have plenty of time, you spent a lot of time whining here just today, but as always there is no content other than that. You provide no logic or evidence. Yes, there is another critic, one who is actually addressing portions of the argument, which you did not do, despite all your complaining.
Nor did you ever defend your position; you are a chronic complainer and Ad Hominem flinger and have no other contributions beyond that; perhaps that is your worldview, based on the void of Atheism or whatever you call your unstated, undefended belief system.
You are merely a disrupter and nothing more, at least as shown by your performance here.
Deadline, 5/5/12.
if the weather is nice, i won`t write here
the weather is nice
i won`t write here
(except that of course ! ;-))))
eternal,
yes, i personnaly don't, as in DO NOT, believe that there is anything beyond the natural world, but does that make me someone who has a 'natruralism' worldview?,
That's what naturalism IS.
it is precisely for the same reason that you try to support these ridiculous infographics in which you play with semantics.
Never specifics. What SPECIFICALLY is semantic play that you find in my infographic? Every time I press, for example, Jeremy, he just throws a hissy fit and then disappears. It's almost like you guys don't WANT the argument to work. Like you are starting with you conclusions and working backwards from it.
There are markers for identifying the irrational challengers who show up here.
1. They refuse to acknowledge their position.
2. They refuse to defend their position.
3. They refuse to be specific in their charges against their opposition.
4. They refuse to acknowledge logical errors they make over and over.
5. They refuse to make syllogistic arguments, and in the rare cases where one of them does try it, the situation devolves into them making counter charges that logic is situational and not subject to discipline or rules, at least ones that they like.
6. They quickly resort to assuming that a subject is refuted if they call it "ridiculous" or "mental masturbation" or "semantic manipulation" etc, rather than to make specific charges.
This is because they cannot make specific charges, and they cannot because (a) they cannot figure them out; (b) they are dogmatists, and (c) they are completely irrational by accepted standards of disciplined logic and reasoning.
7. They think that making an argument using any or all of the deviational Fallacies is clever.
So they argue definitions ad infinitum in order not to get to any logical case, because they have none.
They construct false analogies and use them as Straw Men as if that were a path to falsifying that which they cannot argue directly.
They actually think that using undisciplined asymmetrical skepticism is a proof of some kind.
They think that if they deny something, that everyone should accept that as truth, rather than everyone understanding the obvious: the blatant lie is used to escape responsibility for making a thoughtful case for themselves.
8. They will object to all this with even more of the same tactics, as if no one can see them when they are used over and over and over and...
9. One of my favorites is when all of the points which the Atheist refused to address are listed for him (and everyone) to see. The Atheist then charges Gish Gallop and races away.
10. Of all the hundreds of times that I have specifically charged the Atheists here with providing disciplined logic and/or material empirical evidence, none has ever done so. Usually there is a stark silence or the Atheist will whine as if my dog has him by the crotch. They have nothing to offer, but they also refuse to admit it and also refuse to admit that they are not, repeat: not, logic based, nor evidence based.
Atheist dogmatists have only irrationality and insults to offer, when making a case. They do it with passion because they need to defend their independence from disciplined thinking and moral principles - they are free from all that, and don't want it in their lives. And they want everyone to be just like them, which is why they are intolerant of the Other.
stan,
you insist to get some argument from me... here's something... a few points on what 'objective' means first...
- an objective statement does not depend on an opinion. something objective is based on facts rather than feelings or opinions
now a few points on what 'real' means...
- the world we perceive through our senses is either real, or not.
- if it is not real, it means that what we perceive is an illusion. our minds are fed these sensory information not through the body we perceive, but through some other means
- if it is real, it means that what we perceive can be analyzed, compared, discussed in such a way that objective facts can be determined. we can be confused or wrong, but ultimately there is an objective reality that does not depend on our opinion
now the basic assumption for my worldview...
the world i perceive through my senses is real, and i can learn something from it.
that's pretty much it; not much more to start with.... i call it an assumption because i assume it to be true. i cannot prove it to be true since if i were to live in an illusion, then i would not be able to know it. i can thus safely start with the idea that what we usually call reality is there for us all to observe, and statements about that reality are either true or false. whether the statements are true or false is not dependant on the opinion of people, the truth statements are thus objective
ok but that's not an argument, right?
now here's an argument:
P1) if it can be shown that a non-whit swan exists, then the statement "all swans are white" is false
P2) a non-white swan was found
Conclusion) "all swans are white" is false
here's another one:
P1) stan said this about atheists' worldviews:
"...denial of objective absolutes external to themselves[...]
There is no objective anything, except Material stuff[...]
There are no objective rules for thinking disciplined thoughts"
if it can be shown that an atheist as objective basis for his worldview, then stan's statement is false.
P2) eternal, an atheist, provided an objective basis for his worldview
Conclusion) stan's statement is false.
@martin
you say things like 'all things that change have a cause for their change'
that's a dishonest starting point, as you use the meaning of 'change' as we do in everyday life
then, you use the same word 'change' and apply it to the entire universe changing into its current form.
it's dishonest because the first use of 'change' implies that there are things that change,and others that don't
your second usage of change though applies to everything physical we know of, everything is constantly changing
so you use this to claim that everything that exists, physically, needs a first cause, something that does not change
that's a fallacy; special pleading
”- an objective statement does not depend on an opinion. something objective is based on facts rather than feelings or opinions”
Before you proceed further, you must define what you mean by facts, how they relate to truth, certainty, and how they are obtained.
Typically “objective” refers to information related to objects, which are exterior to the subject.
But I doubt that your definitions will correspond.
And now your definition of real, which is not a definition of real, but a definition of what you think is real:
” - the world we perceive through our senses is either real, or not.
- if it is not real, it means that what we perceive is an illusion. our minds are fed these sensory information not through the body we perceive, but through some other means
- if it is real, it means that what we perceive can be analyzed, compared, discussed in such a way that objective facts can be determined. we can be confused or wrong, but ultimately there is an objective reality that does not depend on our opinion.”
This is not a definition of “real”; it is circular, using the term in the definition at the start. Why not use an actual dictionary definition?
Real, n. 1. A realist. 2. Anything that exists, or reality in general. Webster’s Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary.
Now you must decide if “exists” means purely physical existence or not. And you will need to define “objective” as to its testability requirements and validation, if you insist that objective is part of the definition.
You assert,
” the world i perceive through my senses is real, and i can learn something from it.”
There is no issue here, unless you accept the position that senses can and do deceive. Then the reality of your perceptions is questionable. Can you prove that your senses are infallible?
” i call it an assumption because i assume it to be true. i cannot prove it to be true since if i were to live in an illusion, then i would not be able to know it. i can thus safely start with the idea that what we usually call reality is there for us all to observe, and statements about that reality are either true or false. whether the statements are true or false is not dependant on the opinion of people, the truth statements are thus objective”
Since I don’t engage in Radical Skepticism, tempting though it is, I will offer just this: by reality you are apparently asserting a physical-only reality without actually specifying that you are doing so. Physical-only reality is limited to the Inductive Fallacy, and therefore is never more certain than its contingency can provide: it is always contingent on the next experiment or observation which might falsify it. So the objectivity which you might associate with certainty is not ever certain for physical-only “facts”; it is always contingent.
True and False, therefore, are not characteristics of physical knowledge, they are logical states.
(more below).
eternal,
you say things like 'all things that change have a cause for their change'
that's a dishonest starting point, as you use the meaning of 'change' as we do in everyday life
It's not a starting point, it's the 2nd premise of the argument and it is ARGUED to, not just asserted. Aquinas says that something cannot be both potentially a certain way and actually a certain way at the same time and in the same respect. E.g., a piece of wood cannot simultaneously be actually on fire and potentially on fire; it's either one or the other.
In addition to all that, a potential state is merely potential, and not actual, and so cannot cause anything. A potential rose (an actual seed) cannot attract bees, or be picked for it's lovely petals.
Therefore, it is impossible that something be both changer and changed, i.e. that it should change itself. Therefore, whatever is changed is changed by something else.
then, you use the same word 'change' and apply it to the entire universe changing into its current form.
There is no premise in the argument about the universe. There are only three premises:
1. Some things are changing
2. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else
3. A chain of concurrent changers must contain at least one unchanged changer
that's a fallacy; special pleading
Special pleading is where a rule is postulated, and then one member is allowed to break this rule WITH NO JUSTIFICATION. Aquinas' argument says that whatever is changING is being changed by something else. Or more specifically whatever is a mixture of potential and actual requires something else actual to change it. Which implies that if something is NOT a mixture of potential and actual, then it is immune to this rule.
” now here's an argument:
P1) if it can be shown that a non-whit swan exists, then the statement "all swans are white" is false
P2) a non-white swan was found
Conclusion) "all swans are white" is false”
Yes. This argument is both valid and true, being structurally correct, and grounded in fact.
” P1) stan said this about atheists' worldviews:
"...denial of objective absolutes external to themselves[...]
There is no objective anything, except Material stuff[...]
There are no objective rules for thinking disciplined thoughts"
if it can be shown that an atheist as objective basis for his worldview, then stan's statement is false.
P2) eternal, an atheist, provided an objective basis for his worldview
Conclusion) stan's statement is false.
Nice try. The statements I made are regarding honest Atheist rejection of absolutes, resulting in an ungrounded base for their worldview.
Your worldview is dishonest because it does not address the rejection which Atheism contains, so the comments don't address your worldview and don't belong in your syllogism.
You maintain that your personal definition of Atheism cancels the actual definition, and is rather an intellectual void which does not contain any acknowledgement of theism nor any rejection of theism. It is thus ignorant of theism, having never made the intellectual attempt to ascertain a truth value connected with theism, yet you are calling yourself Atheist and you are engaging theists as if you actually had a concealed position which you fear to betray but which you wish to use to defeat theism.
Further, your definition of “real” is a statement which contains a concealed presupposition of Philosophical Materialism, which is rejectionism idealized as a philosophical base. So you claim that you are able to take a position on physical existence as the only existence, but unable to take a position on non-physical existence.
(continued below)
So you are here: do you deny that there is non-physical existence, period? Or do you not take a position on that either?
You must use caution in answering here, because if you deny its existence you must give reasons containing either disciplined logic, or material empirical evidence to support that position.
If you do not deny its existence, then you will be pressed to explain how you can take that position and not the position regarding non-physical existence containing agency.
I suspect that your failure to take a position on the exact subject of discussion is dishonest, and it reflects seriously on your intellectual honesty, not to mention the integrity of your worldview.
If you have no reason to take a position, why not? Give a reason for your inability.
Why are you unable to make any syllogistic assertion regarding the existence or non-existence of non-physical existence?
It can't be because you don't care, because you call yourself an Atheist and you came here to argue Atheism.
It seems much more likely that you actually have a position. It seems completely likely that you could develop a position. Your refusal is therefore taken as very highly likely to be dishonest.
It is that sort of dishonesty that brings these conversations to a close.
Perhaps I must be more blunt.
Make a case for NOT accepting that reality is not limited to physical existence.
Said another way,
Demonstrate that your definition of reality and what you think you can learn from it is the total extent of existence, and that all that exists for you to learn about is physical because there is no non-physical existence. Because that is what you are asserting. So logic and evidence are required, not mere assertion.
P1: IF [ X is "true" ], THEN [reality is only physical];
P2: [X is true];
C: therefore [reality is only physical].
This can be justified only by completely defining and proving X.
What is X, in your universe?
Similarly,
P1: IF [ Q is true ], THEN [there is no non-physical agency];
P2: [ Q is true ];
C: THEREFORE [ there is no non-physical agency ].
What is Q in your universe?
If you deny that X and Q are issues, then you will need to explain how you know that, objectively and physically, and how you might conclude that such a rejection can produce objective morality and objective thought and any certainty which you might think you have.
stan... general comment; you extrapolate too much.......
you must define what you mean by facts, how they relate to truth, certainty, and how they are obtained.
a fact is simply an objectively true statement, but what's objective...
Typically “objective” refers to information related to objects, which are exterior to the subject.
But I doubt that your definitions will correspond.
i mean objective in the sense that it's "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts"
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective)
'fact' and 'objective truth statement' are thus synonym basically. i am not sure why this seems to create confusion or disagreement??
"And now your definition of real [...]
it is circular, using the term in the definition at the start. Why not use an actual dictionary definition?"
i don't get what the problem is. the definition of 'real' or 'reality' i use is not made up or personal (why not look here; your one-liner is quite simplistic...)
also, why call it circular as if it were an argument? the argument was after that......
what i actually worte is what i use as starting point for my worldview. it is nothing more than:
- the world we perceive through our senses is either real, or not.
- i assume it is real
this version is simpler than what i wrote before but means exactly the same. is it better that way?
also is 'real' the wrong word here?!?! let me know... all i mean is that this place around us, the computer i use, the air i breathe, the noises i hear, all of that, they are part of this thing we usually call 'reality'. it's the physical world that our bodies are part of.
the only thing I am saying is that this thing, philosophically speaking, could be a big scam, an illusion, but of course i mention this option only to dismiss it right away, since this is the FIRST ASSUMPTION of my entire worldview. you actually agree when you say:
...I don’t engage in Radical Skepticism...
i do the same, i don't engage in Radical Skepticism because i say that it is either 'real or 'not real' but i pick 'real' as my starting point, as an assumption.
in other words, can we prove that Radical Skepticism is false? i don't think we can, by definition, but it makes sense to assume that it is false so that we can say that this thing i call reality (call it whatever you want...) offers a framework that does not depend on my opinion, or yours, or the preson next door.
this reality has characteristics that we can describe. when we describe reality, we make statements about it. these statements can be true or false. the truthfulness of the statement is not subjective, it does not depend on an opinion, it is universally true/false, regardless of what we think: they are facts, objectively true statements.
i will now move on to try to address the rest of your loooooong comment anyway, even if it started from a misunderstanding of what i said i believe.... but it might help clarify......
...2/3.....
Now you must decide if “exists” means purely physical existence or not.
no, never mentionned anything about that
And you will need to define “objective” as to its testability requirements and validation, if you insist that objective is part of the definition.
'objective' refers to the truth statements we can make about reality (or whatever you call it): whether they are true or false does not depend on our opinion.
testing and validation depend on the type of statements and the context; there cannot be any general rules and we are limited by induction reasoning as you like to remind us
You assert,
” the world i perceive through my senses is real, and i can learn something from it.”
There is no issue here, unless you accept the position that senses can and do deceive. Then the reality of your perceptions is questionable. Can you prove that your senses are infallible?
the reality is NOT questionable, but YES we can be deceive sometimes. we are NOT infallible and that cannot be proved
...by reality you are apparently asserting a physical-only reality without actually specifying that you are doing so...
correct, but that does not mean that nothing exists out of it. it's just a starting point.
...Physical-only reality is limited to the Inductive Fallacy, and therefore is never more certain than its contingency can provide: it is always contingent on the next experiment or observation which might falsify it.
yes of course, what's the problem? ohhhh, it's what you wrote after...
So the objectivity which you might associate with certainty is not ever certain for physical-only “facts”; it is always contingent.
of course objectivity is not certainty, where did you get that from?
and why do you put facts in quotes, as if there were no physical-only facts!? all facts about reality are physical-only, because they describe the physical world...........
it is a fact that my height is 6'0"... of course it is contingent on the fact that i am not dead and that my height remains constant, which it will not throughout my life. but it's still a fact.
True and False, therefore, are not characteristics of physical knowledge, they are logical states.
i am not sure what that means.... true and false describe the logical state of statements, 'this apple is red' is a statement that can be true or false. if the apple in front of me is green, then the statement 'this apple is red' is false. this is a fact. this is physical knowledge. why are you trying to dissociate these things from each other? i don't understand your point i am afraid....
jumping a bit...
Nice try. The statements I made are regarding honest Atheist rejection of absolutes, resulting in an ungrounded base for their worldview.
like logical absolutes? why would anyone reject that? i did not specifically mentionned them but they are assumed of course, since we are having a discussion using logic........
not sure if there is an order to consider. i assume both logic to work and reality to be real. they are tautologies at the base of my worldview. other beliefs are constructed from these assumptions.
....3/3.....
Your worldview is dishonest because it does not address the rejection which Atheism contains, so the comments don't address your worldview and don't belong in your syllogism.
that does not make any sense. i am telling you how my worldview starts without mentionning atheism and it makes it dishonest?!?
and the comments will not adress my worldview? so you prefer to attack something else?
ok, we'll see if i got that correctly......
You maintain that your personal definition of Atheism...
i dont' get what this paragraph means. you go to extreme all the time... i said before that i do reject certain gods completely, like Zeus as the common example, but don't pretend that gods cannot exist since it's impossible to prove that alllllll gods don't exist. what part of this is hard for you to get? why do you say that this is a void? you exagerate.....
Further, your definition of “real” is a statement which contains a concealed presupposition of Philosophical Materialism, which is rejectionism idealized as a philosophical base. So you claim that you are able to take a position on physical existence as the only existence, but unable to take a position on non-physical existence.
hahaha, noooooo, that is such a lie. you keeo going to extremes again. you keep pushing what you think alllll atheists need to believe to be "real" atheists. will you ever drop this ridiculous Philosophical Materialism non-sense when people tell you they don't adhere to this ridiculous caricature you are putting out there? go back to the beginning of my comment, right here, where does it say that physical existence is the only existence? where did i reject non-physical existence? my mind is non-physical and it exists, for sure, that's not enough for you? what else do you want me to say to convince you?
So you are here: do you deny that there is non-physical existence, period? Or do you not take a position on that either?
i already answered but you seem to have a hard time with that, so i will repeat........
NO I DONT DENY THERE IS NON-PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.
YES THAT IS THE POSITION I TAKE
lol, so funny....
You must use caution in answering here, because if you deny its existence you must give reasons containing either disciplined logic, or material empirical evidence to support that position.
no need to be cautious. it's out there, in plain sight. no secret, no dancing around, it's there and has always been there.
If you do not deny its existence, then you will be pressed to explain how you can take that position and not the position regarding non-physical existence containing agency.
we are all agents that exist as non-physical things, we have minds.
there could be other minds somewhere, outside the universe, or in it but undetected, they could have bodies, or not, they could create universes perhaps, i don't have any biased to start with but was also never convinced that it must be the case; still an atheist for now.......
cant pursue this further for now, but i can assure you that i have no intention to:
Make a case for NOT accepting that reality is not limited to physical existence.
since i don't believe that. it's silly....
Eternal,
Already we have a problem, right up front. This is why I don’t use the term “real”; it has extra baggage which leads to separate understandings for the term.
You said,
”- the world we perceive through our senses is either real, or not.
- if it is not real, it means that what we perceive is an illusion.”
Then,
”it's the physical world that our bodies are part of.”
And then,
”Now you must decide if “exists” means purely physical existence or not.
no, never mentionned anything about that”
That very strongly implies that you are using the term “real” to mean just physical existence, even though later you deny that you are discussing existence. So if it is not existence which is physical and therefore perceptible via our senses, then what are you talking about?
Now,
”...by reality you are apparently asserting a physical-only reality without actually specifying that you are doing so...
correct, but that does not mean that nothing exists out of it. it's just a starting point.”
But see, you contradict yourself with the terms “real” and “reality”, because if reality is “physical only”, then you have defined not-physical as not real, or not reality. In other words you have established the non-existence of non-physical existence merely by defining it away. Merely defining it away is not an argument.
”all facts about reality are physical-only, because they describe the physical world...........”
The reason I put “facts” in quotes is that what you are describing here does not match your definition of objective. Information about the physical world is obtained empirically and is never
”a fact is simply an objectively true statement, but what's objective...
and,
”'fact' and 'objective truth statement' are thus synonym basically. i am not sure why this seems to create confusion or disagreement??”
This will become a problem soon. There is a difference between the use of “objective truth statement” as used in axiomatic truths which are universal and not contingent, and the use of “objective truth statement” as used for empirical findings, which are not axiomatic, not universalf and are contingent.
Let’s press on, and come back to this if necessary.
”i am not sure what that means.... true and false describe the logical state of statements, 'this apple is red' is a statement that can be true or false. if the apple in front of me is green, then the statement 'this apple is red' is false. this is a fact. this is physical knowledge. why are you trying to dissociate these things from each other? i don't understand your point i am afraid....”
There is a difference between truth and fact which is crucial. As you have agreed, facts are contingent, and they even change as your height will change with time. Truth does not change; if it did, then axiomatic grounding of propositions could not occur, rationality would not be possible. There are two competing definitions for truth:
(a) Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is that the proposition corresponds to an external condition or existence, which can change (this is what you were using);
(b) Axiomatic Truth, which is the universal, unchanging and unchangeable features of our universe, such as the First Principles which are necessary for grounded logic and rational thought.
”not sure if there is an order to consider. i assume both logic to work and reality to be real. they are tautologies at the base of my worldview. other beliefs are constructed from these assumptions.”
I’ve outlined the issues raised here, but let’s charge on.
”You maintain that your personal definition of Atheism...
i dont' get what this paragraph means. you go to extreme all the time... i said before that i do reject certain gods completely, like Zeus as the common example, but don't pretend that gods cannot exist since it's impossible to prove that alllllll gods don't exist. what part of this is hard for you to get? why do you say that this is a void? you exagerate.....”
You came here claiming that your Atheism was just no position; you made quite a big deal of it. You refused to define it other than having no position. So it was (then) a void. Now it is not a void, it is apparently an agreement that you cannot prove that all gods don’t exist, which one might presume to be a statement that possibly a god might exist, which is quite different from your original position.
What is hard to get is what your current position is, because you change it as required.
”Further, your definition of “real” is a statement which contains a concealed presupposition of Philosophical Materialism, which is rejectionism idealized as a philosophical base. So you claim that you are able to take a position on physical existence as the only existence, but unable to take a position on non-physical existence.
hahaha, noooooo, that is such a lie. you keeo going to extremes again.”
This was demonstrated quite succinctly just above; it is not a lie, nor is it extreme to hold you to your own statements. Consistency is essential for coherence.
”go back to the beginning of my comment, right here, where does it say that physical existence is the only existence? where did i reject non-physical existence? my mind is non-physical and it exists, for sure, that's not enough for you? what else do you want me to say to convince you?”
Go back above and see the dilemma you created.
So, OK; if you can stick to this instead of the “real” reality stuff, then go ahead. I'll hold you to it, though.
”we are all agents that exist as non-physical things, we have minds.
there could be other minds somewhere, outside the universe, or in it but undetected, they could have bodies, or not, they could create universes perhaps, i don't have any biased to start with but was also never convinced that it must be the case; still an atheist for now.......”
See, this is what makes it difficult to believe what you say. Just above you denied disbelieving in gods you can’t disprove (btw, where is your data which disproves Zeus?). Now a few sentences later, you are an Atheist again.
”Make a case for NOT accepting that reality is not limited to physical existence.
...since i don't believe that. it's silly....”
OK. Charge on, full steam. Might I summarize what I think your premises are to this point? Of course I might.
1. Physical existence is a justifiable belief.
2. Accessible via the senses, one can learn about physical existence.
3. Since we have agency and minds, "we are all agents that exist as non-physical things". So non-physical existence is a justifiable belief.
Correct, subtract or add whatever I got wrong.
quickly......
OK. Charge on, full steam. Might I summarize what I think your premises are to this point? Of course I might.
noooo!!! haha, of course yes.
1. Physical existence is a justifiable belief.
no, it's an assumption
2. Accessible via the senses, one can learn about physical existence.
yes...
3. Since we have agency and minds, "we are all agents that exist as non-physical things". So non-physical existence is a justifiable belief.
no, it's an assumption
Modified premises:
1. Physical existence is an assumption, not a justifiable belief.
2. Accessible via the senses, one can learn about physical existence.
3. 3. Since we have agency and minds, "we are all agents that exist as non-physical things". So non-physical existence is an assumption, not a justifiable belief.
Well, it seemed to make sense before; now it doesn't really say anything. And #2 can't be a real premise if #1 is only an unproven assumption.
It would be nice if you would use the standard syllogistic lingo: IF[ ], THEN [ ]; THEREFORE [ ].
Well, forward ho...
hello!!!! sorry to be so slow these days..........
you said...
Already we have a problem, right up front. This is why I don’t use the term “real”; it has extra baggage which leads to separate understandings for the term.
[quoted me]
strongly implies that you are using the term “real” to mean just physical existence, even though later you deny that you are discussing existence. So if it is not existence which is physical and therefore perceptible via our senses, then what are you talking about?
i told you already that i don't care what word you want to use. you are the weirdo who does not like to describe reality with the term reality. call it whatever you want. yes i am talking about that thing we detect with our senses. yes i am talking about the physical world. but no, i never ever assume that this is all there is.
But see, you contradict yourself with the terms “real” and “reality”, because if reality is “physical only”, then you have defined not-physical as not real, or not reality. In other words you have established the non-existence of non-physical existence merely by defining it away. Merely defining it away is not an argument.
what about you defining actual as whatever exists and then claiming that non-physical things exist because they are actual, regardless of them being real or not? i mean, again, use whatever words you want, but what i am telling you is that my worldview starts with the real world that i perceive. this causes problem to you for some reason, as we see later....
The reason I put “facts” in quotes is that what you are describing here does not match your definition of objective. Information about the physical world is obtained empirically and is never
”a fact is simply an objectively true statement, but what's objective...
and,
”'fact' and 'objective truth statement' are thus synonym basically. i am not sure why this seems to create confusion or disagreement??”
This will become a problem soon. There is a difference between the use of “objective truth statement” as used in axiomatic truths which are universal and not contingent, and the use of “objective truth statement” as used for empirical findings, which are not axiomatic, not universalf and are contingent.
yes i agree that we have a problem here, a realllllly big one. you also said:
There is a difference between truth and fact which is crucial. As you have agreed, facts are contingent, and they even change as your height will change with time. Truth does not change; if it did, then axiomatic grounding of propositions could not occur, rationality would not be possible.
here's the problem. you seem to not care about facts, while i base my worldview on facts. you cannot simply wish them away by saying that they are not 'true' enough for you. all facts are contingent, yes, but some of them are 'true' enough to be as close to absolute truth as possible.
moreover, this has nothing to do with your initial complain that the basis for my worldview is not OBJECTIVE. absolute truth and objectivity are not the same. you seem to have confused the two here. i don't undertstand why. did i miss something??
*********
2/3
***********
There are two competing definitions for truth:
(a) Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is that the proposition corresponds to an external condition or existence, which can change (this is what you were using);
(b) Axiomatic Truth, which is the universal, unchanging and unchangeable features of our universe, such as the First Principles which are necessary for grounded logic and rational thought.
correct, so what's the problem with having both kinds of truth as basis?
i am telling you that i assume logic to work, that's the axiomatic truth, we could not even discuss without them, but i am also assuming certain facts to be true, facts that depend on extrenal conditions.
moreover, the axiomatic truth are not even truly absolute, and I thought you agreed with that yourself. you said before that the reason why they are universal and absolute is because our universe would not make sense if they were false. that's fine, but that means that they are themselves contingent on the fact that the universe is the way it is. they are universal because they relate to the universe we experience, both in thoughts and in the material world.
in other words, i don't get where we disagree anymore. i don't get why this leads you to conclude that people like me have a non-objective basis for their worldview. we use the same things, except that you refuse to consider reality as an objective framework, even if that makes you a radical skeptic, ironically..............
You came here claiming that your Atheism was just no position; you made quite a big deal of it. You refused to define it other than having no position. So it was (then) a void. Now it is not a void, it is apparently an agreement that you cannot prove that all gods don’t exist, which one might presume to be a statement that possibly a god might exist, which is quite different from your original position.
What is hard to get is what your current position is, because you change it as required.
it's hardly my fault that you don't understand and always go to extremes. i keep telling you that it's wrong to do so. atheism is not as black&white as you describe it. that's why you keep lumping people together under that label. my position never changed. atheism means that i don't believe in a god, that's the void. but i dot reject certain gods, i told you that many times; that's not a void, that's not a dodge, that's something i can justify. the example comes right after that actually....
as a side note, consider this for a minute. among people who actually stop here to have a discussion with you, do they often say things like 'theists do this, theists do that...'? no they don't, they tell you: Stan, you are wrong. the idiots who generalize are people who just pass by and we all agree that they contribute to nothing. some are christians who leave ridiculous comments on how atheists hate gods, while others are ridiculous atheists who think that all christians are stupid.
See, this is what makes it difficult to believe what you say. Just above you denied disbelieving in gods you can’t disprove (btw, where is your data which disproves Zeus?). Now a few sentences later, you are an Atheist again.
if Zeus is defined as something like: then ya, i can prove to you that it does not exist, by simply explaining how ligtnings actually work, as a natrual process. was it that hard???? i find you so hypocrite to even ask for that, as if you did not have an explanation for Zeus yourself. come on stan......
********
3/3
********
finally, new version of what you called the modified premises:
1. Physical existence is an assumption, not a justifiable belief.
2. Accessible via the senses, one can learn about physical existence.
3. 3. Since we have agency and minds, "we are all agents that exist as non-physical things". So non-physical existence is an assumption, not a justifiable belief.
Well, it seemed to make sense before; now it doesn't really say anything. And #2 can't be a real premise if #1 is only an unproven assumption.
i know it does not make sense to you, because you never were an atheist who cares about what he believes in. you said it yourself, you never thought of your belief system for all these years, and it's quite obvious by the way you conduct this blog. i am not saying you were lying; i believe that fact that you were an atheist because you did not actively believe in gods, you more or less ignored the questions i suppose?
anyway, the point of #1 is that we cannot prove that the physical existence we experience is not an illusion. it's the famous Matrix example, or mad genius for previous generations, whatever you wan to call it. the point is only that we cannot prove that we are really experienceing what appears to be a natural world. it could be something fake put in front of our senses by some powerful device. we could be humans 600 feet tall, on a planet 100 times bigger, going around a sun 100 times bigger, hookep up to machines that make us perceive a world 100 times smaller, etc etc etc.... you know what i mean no!? i don't even get why i need to explain all this.....................
for #2, you wrote it stan, and I said it's fine, so what's your problem??
for #3, same exact principle as #1, but the other way around. we could be machines that have the illusion of sentience, but that's pointless to even consider since even if we were machines, we would still be who we are, still have free wil, a personnality and all that jazz.... the point is just that we cannot prove it. actually, i think you did prove it in your free will posts so that's even better. it does not change anything for me since an assumnption that ends up being proven true just confirms that it was rational to have the assumption in the first place.
”There is a difference between truth and fact which is crucial. As you have agreed, facts are contingent, and they even change as your height will change with time. Truth does not change; if it did, then axiomatic grounding of propositions could not occur, rationality would not be possible.
here's the problem. you seem to not care about facts, while i base my worldview on facts. you cannot simply wish them away by saying that they are not 'true' enough for you. all facts are contingent, yes, but some of them are 'true' enough to be as close to absolute truth as possible.”
And the problem as I see it is that you want to ignore truth in favor of facts. Your height is a fact; it is not truth, it is contingent and relevant only to today. So relying on facts cannot be a valid approach to a worldview, unless you can define some of them as universal truths. You imply that to be the case, but you insist on using the term “facts”, which confuses the issue because of its breadth which includes probable false understandings. This is a similar problem as wanting “Atheism” to define all sorts of different things, rather than have a single understanding.
” in other words, i don't get where we disagree anymore. i don't get why this leads you to conclude that people like me have a non-objective basis for their worldview. we use the same things, except that you refuse to consider reality as an objective framework, even if that makes you a radical skeptic, ironically..............”
I have chased Atheists around this semantic tree so many times that I am reluctant to let it go; the tendency is to use the word “reality” to mean everything which possibly could exist, even after having denied that they are doing so. The following anti-definitional position seems to confirm my concern:
” it's hardly my fault that you don't understand and always go to extremes. i keep telling you that it's wrong to do so. atheism is not as black&white as you describe it. that's why you keep lumping people together under that label. my position never changed. atheism means that i don't believe in a god, that's the void. but i dot reject certain gods, i told you that many times; that's not a void, that's not a dodge, that's something i can justify. the example comes right after that actually....”
This is the crux of the issue. You want to change the definition of Atheism to make it encompass whatever you wish it to, depending upon your need. So the term “Atheism” no longer has any meaning, since it can mean anything, anytime; some gods, not all; something, and nothing. But terminology is not your personal plaything, some sort of silly putty to be formed into your argument at your will. There can be no rational discourse when one of the parties wants special pleading for a non-descriptive definition.
This you call going to extremes: wanting to define a term to have a specific meaning. I understand perfectly why you want to have your own personal definition(s) of terminology. But that won’t get you any leverage, because I will be referring to a standard.
So I don’t think we can get beyond this.
” as a side note, consider this for a minute. among people who actually stop here to have a discussion with you, do they often say things like 'theists do this, theists do that...'? no they don't, they tell you: Stan, you are wrong. the idiots who generalize are people who just pass by and we all agree that they contribute to nothing. some are christians who leave ridiculous comments on how atheists hate gods, while others are ridiculous atheists who think that all christians are stupid.”
Ummm, is this a defense for having a non-descriptive, all inclusive definition?
(continued)
” if Zeus is defined as something like: then ya, i can prove to you that it does not exist, by simply explaining how ligtnings actually work, as a natrual process. was it that hard???? i find you so hypocrite to even ask for that, as if you did not have an explanation for Zeus yourself. come on stan......”
Giving an explanation for lightening does not disprove Zeus. How Zeus makes lightening is not the point.
Do not call me names. It will get you banned.
” i know it does not make sense to you, because you never were an atheist who cares about what he believes in. you said it yourself, you never thought of your belief system for all these years, and it's quite obvious by the way you conduct this blog. i am not saying you were lying; i believe that fact that you were an atheist because you did not actively believe in gods, you more or less ignored the questions i suppose?”
This is not an argument designed to create “sense” where it does not exist, it is merely an attack on me. If you cannot produce axiom-based hypothesis-deduction, then you make personal attacks.
This is the third personal attack here, and I’m not half way through.
What I said, and you did not understand, is that I did not question what I believed, not that I had no beliefs. I was not so irrational as to claim that I had no beliefs.
At this point you might want to skip down to the end, where syllogistic argumentation is discussed.
” anyway, the point of #1 is that we cannot prove that the physical existence we experience is not an illusion. it's the famous Matrix example, or mad genius for previous generations, whatever you wan to call it. the point is only that we cannot prove that we are really experienceing what appears to be a natural world. it could be something fake put in front of our senses by some powerful device. we could be humans 600 feet tall, on a planet 100 times bigger, going around a sun 100 times bigger, hookep up to machines that make us perceive a world 100 times smaller, etc etc etc.... you know what i mean no!? i don't even get why i need to explain all this.....................”
This is a clear statement of Radical Skepticism. That is why I said, and repeat, that it really doesn’t say anything. Claiming Radical Skepticism is a claim to “no knowledge” in the spirit of solipsism. So there is no sense to be made.
You are making claims and then wanting them to be accepted without question. What you actually seem to not “get” is that your claims/premises are not leading to knowledge, because they are rejecting sources of knowledge (which knowledge you actually claimed to exist earlier).
” for #2, you wrote it stan, and I said it's fine, so what's your problem??”
Do you seriously not comprehend that if you change #1, it affects #2? I repeat: “And #2 can't be a real premise if #1 is only an unproven assumption.” Knowledge is not generated by assumptions of Radical Skepticism. Radical Skepticism, as assumed in #1, denies ultimately that any external knowledge can be had; i.e. none whatsoever. So #2 can’t be valid.
(continued)
” for #3, same exact principle as #1, but the other way around. we could be machines that have the illusion of sentience, but that's pointless to even consider since even if we were machines, we would still be who we are, still have free wil, a personnality and all that jazz.... the point is just that we cannot prove it. actually, i think you did prove it in your free will posts so that's even better. it does not change anything for me since an assumnption that ends up being proven true just confirms that it was rational to have the assumption in the first place.”
This paragraph is confusing, because in one breath you say that the point is that we cannot prove that we are not machines, and the next breath you say it was proven, thereby justifying your claim that it could not be proven whether we are merely machines… or something like that.
Let’s try this: how ‘bout you write up your first three premises yourself, so that I am not a factor in their creation?
First, though, let’s discuss logical, syllogistic arguments and their premises, what they are and what is required of them, both the argument and the premises. You might object that you know all this, but you are not using that knowledge if you do in fact have it. There are standards for logical deductive arguments, which if not met, preclude an argument from being logical or rational.
A deductive syllogism looks like this:
P1: IF [ W is true ], THEN [ F is true ];
P2: [ W is true ];
C: THEREFORE [ F is true ].
Three things must be valid simultaneously in order for the argument to be considered a truth statement:
1. The form of the argument must be correct.
2. The relationship in P1 must be demonstrated to be causal without exception.
3. P2 must be shown to be grounded axiomatically and neither circular nor an infinite regress; in other words an incorrigible truth.
If your argument cannot pass these requirements, then it is not a logical deduction. That is why starting out with the presumption of Radical Skepticism does not lead deductively to knowledge and is not a proper premise.
**********
1/3
*************
hello stan
And the problem as I see it is that you want to ignore truth in favor of facts.
no. i said:
"i am telling you that i assume logic to work, that's the axiomatic truth, we could not even discuss without them"
why do you say that i ignore truth?
So relying on facts cannot be a valid approach to a worldview, unless you can define some of them as universal truths.
there are tons of them. a simple principle to give examples would be that any facts which can be proven to be true now, and for at least the rest of my lifespan, is useful as a basis for a worldview.
one example: the universe we live in is at least 13 billion years old, the milkay galaxy is around 100,000 light years wide, the sun and earth are at least 4 billion years old. these things were proven true and will never change. the only thing that will change is the precision of the measurements we make. that's why i say 'at least' and now 'is exactly'.
This is a similar problem as wanting “Atheism” to define all sorts of different things, rather than have a single understanding.
you have a hard time with this...... let me repeat:
atheism is simple: it means 'no belief in a god'
atheists are complex: some believe certain non-material things exist, some believe that no gods can possible exist, some believe that certain types of gods perhaps exist but not others. some really just don't care. some think that they can prove to you that you're god does not exist. some think that it's foolish to even try so. etc.....
GOT IT?????
the tendency is to use the word “reality” to mean everything which possibly could exist, even after having denied that they are doing so. The following anti-definitional position seems to confirm my concern:
what comes after this, the quote you put, has nothing to do with reality. what's relevant is what i said before:
"i told you already that i don't care what word you want to use. you are the weirdo who does not like to describe reality with the term reality. call it whatever you want. yes i am talking about that thing we detect with our senses. yes i am talking about the physical world. but no, i never ever assume that this is all there is."
i repeat, "reality" DOES NOT mean 'everything which possibly could exist' in any comment i write here
GOT IT???????
****************************
2/3
***********************
after a comment on the generalization you make, you replied:
Ummm, is this a defense for having a non-descriptive, all inclusive definition?
i don't know what you mean by this at all. the point was really just that:
"they tell you: Stan, you are wrong"
while you, on the other hand, insist on having a blog on alllllll atheits. you lump them together. i am telling you that it's wrong to do so. but i am also telling you, don't worry stan, atheists who say 'all christians are...' are equally wrong.
GOT IT???????
Giving an explanation for lightening does not disprove Zeus. How Zeus makes lightening is not the point.
if Zeus is defined as 'god that shoots lightnings' then yes, it is sufficient to explain lightnings...... what's wrong with that!?
Do not call me names. It will get you banned.
LOL i couldnt care less....
go ahead ban me at any point you want. whats funny is that each time you ban someone, it proves that the only thing you care about is being right. you don't care about helping people understand what is supposed to be the most important belief in their life. you basically give up on them, saying they are too irrational. very selfish of you... not very christian, lol
What I said, and you did not understand, is that I did not question what I believed, not that I had no beliefs. I was not so irrational as to claim that I had no beliefs.
exactly my point actually. you did not question what you believed. because of that, you seem to think that all atheists are like that.
newsflash. if people are willing to write on your blog to correct your misconceptions, it`s precisely because they do care..........
thanks for proving me right once more.
This is a clear statement of Radical Skepticism. That is why I said, and repeat, that it really doesn’t say anything. Claiming Radical Skepticism is a claim to “no knowledge” in the spirit of solipsism. So there is no sense to be made.
yes this was a clear statement of Radical Skepticism... that i reject!!! GOT IT????
it's futile pointless but it's still an assumption..... don't you understand what an assumption is?
*********************************
3/3
**********************
You are making claims and then wanting them to be accepted without question.
no..... i am telling you that there are certain things, ASSUMPTIONS, that i do accept without question. if you think the assumptions are irrational, let me know! but no, what`s weird is that you say that by making the assumption that Radical Skepticism is false, i am considering it and that's wrong. it's weird. you really don't seem to get what an assumption is.........
What you actually seem to not “get” is that your claims/premises are not leading to knowledge, because they are rejecting sources of knowledge (which knowledge you actually claimed to exist earlier).
what source of knowledge is rejected in anything i write!? no idea what you are talking about................
Do you seriously not comprehend that if you change #1, it affects #2? I repeat: “And #2 can't be a real premise if #1 is only an unproven assumption.” Knowledge is not generated by assumptions of Radical Skepticism. Radical Skepticism, as assumed in #1, denies ultimately that any external knowledge can be had; i.e. none whatsoever. So #2 can’t be valid.
you are so off that there is not much to reply to this. you talkk about 'assumptions of Radical Skepticism' when the assumption is that Radical Skepticism is false...........
This paragraph is confusing, because in one breath you say that the point is that we cannot prove that we are not machines, and the next breath you say it was proven, thereby justifying your claim that it could not be proven whether we are merely machines… or something like that.
yes it's confusing for someone who does not understand what an assumption is........ it's also confusing because you lumped together being a machine and havinf free will, which i purposely separated in my comment. read it again; i don`t know how to write it differently.
Let’s try this: how ‘bout you write up your first three premises yourself, so that I am not a factor in their creation?
premises to prove what?
all i was trying to convince you of here is that you are wrong to say that atheists don't have objective basis for their worldview.
the justification i submit to you is that my worldview is based on objective facts. these facts can be used to justify beliefs. none of these beliefs are based on a disbelief in gods. so i am an atheist, but i don't start with atheism at any point, for anything.
that's it...
so ban me if you want because you seem to have nothing to reply to that and don't seem to want to discuss your own assumptions, as if you had none..... or you really don't understand what assumptions are... i really don't know at this point to be frank.....
eternal,
I stopped reading at your first arrogant shouting insult. I have no need to accept insults. I went directly to the end. (so your keyboard actually does have a CAPs key... you just save it for insults apparently)
Let's cut to the chase:
"Let’s try this: how ‘bout you write up your first three premises yourself, so that I am not a factor in their creation?
premises to prove what?
all i was trying to convince you of here is that you are wrong to say that atheists don't have objective basis for their worldview."
You have no intention of making a disciplined argument here. If you cannot even create premises, you have nothing to contribute. The original premises were, in fact, statements of Radical Skepticism, which you accepted but subsequently denied in arrogant and rude terms.
You insist on your own personal definition, which you claim describes all Atheists, but also describes toads, fungus, dirt and sub-atomic particles: it is a failure due to its non-descrimination. Moreover, it is not descriptive of actual Atheist rejectionism, which you admit to having, at least in part. This slanting of the playing field in your direction is a premise - rule you insist must be accepted in order for you to play: you cannot make your case without it.
You have no case for any theory of anything which is generated under your own personal definition of Atheism. A void contains nothing, certainly not a germ of "objective truth". Any philosophical conclusions which you reach, you reach outside of Atheism, based on your own personal opinion. So the void leads to opinions based on contingent factoids. You admit to this, but claim that these opinions are "objective", when in fact they are self-created and subjective.
You make claims such as "logic works and is an axiom", but then you both claim an original premise set of anti-rational Radical Skepticism, and now you don't want any premises at all. This is anti-rational behavior.
"the justification i submit to you is that my worldview is based on objective facts. these facts can be used to justify beliefs. none of these beliefs are based on a disbelief in gods. so i am an atheist, but i don't start with atheism at any point, for anything."
Because material, physical existence is a subset of all existence, and because you accept only the subset and not the set, and because you claim to have no knowledge of the full set yet decline to use the full set in your thinking (behavior which admits to knowledge of the full set and its rejection contrary to your claims), your attempts to claim objectivity can't be accepted: they are biased a priori toward values and conclusions which are contrary to those projected in the superset. So your vision of the subset removes it from the superset, and that is the basis for your thinking.
Because you can't excise the subset from the superset rationally, you deny any knowledge or opinion of the superset.
So the following conclusions are necessary:
(1) Your opinion of the meaning of "objective" derives from your rejection (or ignoring of) the superset; in other words, you fail to recognize the logical failure of promoting the subset to superset. That promotion is a function of Atheism / Materialism, and it biases the thought process, whether you admit to it or not.
(2) Your claim of having no opinion regarding the superset cannot be accepted. By insisting upon a void, you take a position on the existence of a superset: you reject it. Denying that is anti-rational.
(3) Whatever beliefs you think you have justified are not incorrigible truths, they are contingent factoids, which you have admitted, even though you object to having this pointed out.
(4) You claim to accept logic, but decline to use rigorous, logical procedures to create a disciplined argument. This is non-coherent behavior.
So you explain to me why this should continue.
So you explain to me why this should continue.
if you dismiss what i write and then reply to the exact opposite, there is nothing to talk about. what i get from this is that you refuse these as objective facts:
- the universe we live in is at least 13 billion years old
- the milkay galaxy is around 100,000 light years wide
- the sun and earth are at least 4 billion years old
what i get also is that after i say this:
"the assumption is that Radical Skepticism is false"
you reply:
The original premises were, in fact, statements of Radical Skepticism, which you accepted but subsequently denied in arrogant and rude terms.
if i say this:
"atheism is simple: it means 'no belief in a god'
atheists are complex: some believe [certain things, others don't]""
you reply:
You insist on your own personal definition which you claim describes all Atheists, but also describes toads, fungus, dirt and sub-atomic particles: it is a failure due to its non-descrimination.
more on definition usage. i said this about 'reality', just to give an example:
i told you already that i don't care what word you want to use [...] yes i am talking about the physical world. but no, i never ever assume that this is all there is.
and now you wrote in your last comment:
material, physical existence is a subset of all existence, and because you accept only the subset and not the set
you also complain about....
You have no intention of making a disciplined argument here. If you cannot even create premises, you have nothing to contribute.
told you one already. we are arguing the premises already.....
you insist that alllll atheists have a non-objective basis for their worldview. it is a case of 'all swans of white'. if it can be shown that a swan is not white, then the statement is false.... remember? want me to put it in syllogism form again?
- if at least some atheists have an objective basis for their worldview, then the statement 'all atheists have a non-objective basis for their worldview' is false
- it is the case that same atheists have an objective basis for their worldview
- the statement 'all atheists have a non-objective basis for their worldview' is false
The original premises were, in fact, statements of Radical Skepticism, which you accepted but subsequently denied in arrogant and rude terms.
merely considering something is accepting it according to you?
what part of:
"the assumption is that Radical Skepticism is false"
do you not understand stan?
let's make this one personal:
- if a worldview starts with the assumption that Radical Skepticism is false, then that worldview is not one of a Radical Skeptic
- my worldview starts with the assumption that Radical Skepticism is false
- i am not a Radical Skeptic
it is not descriptive of actual Atheist rejectionism, which you admit to having, at least in part
- if zeus is described as the god that produces lightning, then finding an explanation for lightings disproves zeus
- lightings have a non-zeus explanation
- zeus is disproved
that kind of rejection you mean? please, feel free to provide another verison for zeus if you think it's irrational to deny his existence based on this simple principle...........
You have no case for any theory of anything which is generated under your own personal definition of Atheism. A void contains nothing, certainly not a germ of "objective truth". Any philosophical conclusions which you reach, you reach outside of Atheism, based on your own personal opinion.
yes i already told you that:
the justification i submit to you is that my worldview is based on objective facts. these facts can be used to justify beliefs. none of these beliefs are based on a disbelief in gods. so i am an atheist, but i don't start with atheism at any point, for anything.
So the void leads to opinions based on contingent factoids. You admit to this, but claim that these opinions are "objective", when in fact they are self-created and subjective.
so let me get this straight.... for you, contingent is opposite to objective? i guess i should have started with that...........
moreover, yes, my beliefs are self-created and subjective. so are yours, because they are BELIEFS! we have free will, right? so of course we create our beliefs. it's the facts that they are based on that are objective. what's wrong with that?
finally you ignore the notion of ASSUMPTIONS. nothing to say about that?
OK, here's my current understanding of your current position:
You currently claim:
1. You are not asserting any sort of Skepticism.
2. You wish to disprove my contention, made long, long ago, that Atheists have no objective basis for their worldview, being based on Atheism.
3. You assert that Atheism must only be defined by your personal criterion.
4. Your definition of "objective" apparently means "physical", although you also claim not to restrict to physical existence.
5. You believe that Zeus could not be in control of the forces which induce lightning.
6. Since you claim to be an "Atheist" (only under your specific and personal definition, not under traditional definitions) who has an "objective" (physical) basis for his worldview, Stan is wrong and victory has been achieved.
7. You deny that the "lack of belief" in higher power influences your worldview as an axiom basis, which would mean that if you accepted a belief in a higher power your belief system would not change in the least, because it is not influenced at all by that belief.
Is this correct?
Stan.......
1. You are not asserting any sort of Skepticism.
I don't assert what you call Radical Skepticism (Solipsism); but I am skeptic of lost of things that other people believe without too much question. i don't believe in astrology or homeopathy for example.........
2. You wish to disprove my contention, made long, long ago, that Atheists have no objective basis for their worldview, being based on Atheism.
What the....... you said it in the current comment thread on May 3rd and I have been arguing about it since then.......
...if there is no objective basis for a worldview, then the basis must be subjective, purely self-derived, self-authorized, self-justified, self-assured and self-focused [...] There is no objective anything, except Material stuff [...] There are no objective rules for thinking disciplined thoughts
3. You assert that Atheism must only be defined by your personal criterion.
No. I said:
"atheism is simple: it means 'no belief in a god'
atheists are complex: some believe certain things, others don't"
What's wrong with that?
4. Your definition of "objective" apparently means "physical", although you also claim not to restrict to physical existence.
No! Again, what the........ !?!?
I am talking about objective vs subjective.
Subjective: I prefer strawberries over chocolate.
Objective: Strawberries are fruits found in nature. Chocolate is a by-product of cacao beans.
Can you prove me right or wrong on my 'subjective' statement? No, because it's an opinion, it's subjective.
Can you prove me right or wrong on my 'objective' statement? Yes, because if I had said that strawberries are a by-product of apples and that chocolate grows in the field, that would have been objectively wrong.
5. You believe that Zeus could not be in control of the forces which induce lightning.
Againnnnnnn, what kind of question is this!? Of course I don't believe Zeus controls the forces which induce lightning. You say this as if it were an incredible claim that I should prove to you!?
6. Since you claim to be an "Atheist" (only under your specific and personal definition, not under traditional definitions) who has an "objective" (physical) basis for his worldview, Stan is wrong and victory has been achieved.
After what I wrote above.... obviously no.
7. You deny that the "lack of belief" in higher power influences your worldview as an axiom basis, which would mean that if you accepted a belief in a higher power your belief system would not change in the least, because it is not influenced at all by that belief.
At least you got that one correct I think. But I take it the other way around. The day I stopped believing in God, nothing changed. So yes, if I were to start believing again, almost nothing would change. And yes, I "deny" that it is an axiom basis. I don't assume there is no god.
It's interesting that you mention it though. It tells a lot more about you. You basically concede that you start with your belief in God as an axiom. You basically finally admitted that you don't really care whether you can justify your belief in God or not. You have it as an axiom in your worldview.
Is this correct?
No... and seriously.... I really mean it: WTH was that all about?
And you have yet to discuss the notion of assumptions... as if you had none... or just don't get what it means...
I even used caps to get your attention, haha!
So here we are; you deny that what I understand is what you mean. So there is no common ground for communication.
Let’s take a couple of examples, starting with your personal definition of Atheism, which you insist must be used and not the standard definitions:
” 3. You assert that Atheism must only be defined by your personal criterion.
No. I said:
"atheism is simple: it means 'no belief in a god'
atheists are complex: some believe certain things, others don't"
What's wrong with that?”
We’ve been around this too many times. Your claim is just your own personal requirement, and it is dishonest because it denies any differentiation regarding rejection: this is dishonest because you want to gloss over the basic tenet of Atheism just because you say so. It doesn’t matter to you how Cambridge University defines it, or how the big dog philosopher define it, or how dictionaries define it – only your own personal definition can be used in discussions with you.
So the dishonesty of that position alone is enough grounds to cease discussion with you.
Let’s take #4 next.
” 4. Your definition of "objective" apparently means "physical", although you also claim not to restrict to physical existence.
No! Again, what the........ !?!?
I am talking about objective vs subjective.
Subjective: I prefer strawberries over chocolate.
Objective: Strawberries are fruits found in nature. Chocolate is a by-product of cacao beans.”
Objective in your example is obviously describing: objects; physical objects. Physical objects found in nature. Physical objects which can be seen and tested by others and thereby inductively and experimentally confirmed, and hence called “objective”, because they refer to objects – external physical objects.
But your reaction is:
” No! Again, what the........ !?!?”
I find no possible way to communicate with you, because your word usage / definitions are of your own concoction.
So the one place you agree is the place where you make the most egregious claim: that nothing would change in your worldview if God were found to exist in terms acceptable to you. You would not be subservient to a greater creature, one which created you and has the moral authority to actually dictate proper / improper behaviors to you? You would not change your behaviors in any way, because your personal moral theory right now is perfect? You would not consider teleology? You would not consider humans to have a different value than under Atheism? You would not reconsider your definition of “real”? Or your definition of “life”? Or your definition of “mind”? You would encounter no change whatsoever?
This is impossible to believe, and it appears to be a product of either self-deception or outright dishonesty.
So seriously, I think we are done here. There is no point in pursuing a conversation where neither of us agrees on even the most basic terminology. But even more to the point, your dishonesty here makes any communication attempts a waste of time. So we are done. Feel free to try to convince other readers here, and to converse with them. And kindly observe the rules of the blog when you do.
You always give up stan......
Anyway I agree that communication does not work, but I want to try one last thing. Ignore if you want but I know you have a hard time doing that ;)
I really don't understand the confusion with 'objective'. Your response to the strawberry example baffles me. I am simply talking about opinions (subjective) versus facts (objective)? How do do you call these things?
It is not the "calling" of these things that is the issue. The issue is that the term "objective" as you apparently mean it connotes anything outside the mind but restricted to "facts" which are physical, such as strawberry existence. And that is one definition. But you then claim that not to be the case, where even though you use physical factoids in your explanation, you claim that not to be limited to the physical.
Definition:
Objective, a, of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking.
So you are using a physical definition, which is valid, but claiming it not to be physically limited.
Here is another definition:
objective, n, anything external to, or independent of the mind; something objective; reality.
And reality is
reality, n, 1. quality or state of being real; 2. a person or thing that is real; a fact; 3. the quality of being true to life; fidelity to nature.
Dictionaries and definitions are necessarily circular, using words to give meaning to words, and in this case, "fact" circles back to be defined as "objective".
(both from Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary)
Because this blog is about distinctions between physical existence and non-physical existence, any terminology confusion sinks the conversation from the get go.
So if "objective" is defined as a characteristic of physical existence - and it is - and fact is defined the same way, then there are no remaining words to describe non-physical existence purely due to the prejudice inserted by the vocabulary, not by any reasoning.
Vocabulary differences place a barrier to communication, especially when non-standard definitions are inserted into the mix.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
You talk about 1.
I talk about 3.
I don't talk about physical existence.
I talk about objectivity when assessing propositions.
3. expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
That definition has no value for you? What do you use to describe something non-subjective? Any other synonym?
Eternal, for cryin’ out loud. I know you don’t talk about physical existence. What you do is smuggle it into place via the terminology.
Even your “more friendly definition” is focused on material things:
” 3. expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”
"Facts or conditions" are related only to physical things. The concept is self-limited to physical objects.
Do you truly not see that, even in your own definition?
This is why there is no conversation to be had.
"Facts or conditions" are related only to physical things. The concept is self-limited to physical objects.
Do you truly not see that, even in your own definition?
No, because 'Conditions' are not related only to physical things...
That would make you a Materialist. No?
( purposely cutting my comment to ease communication; it's hard ;) )
Martin,
still following this thread?
I would love to hear what you think of the 7 points Stan mentioned above... where do you stand on these points? More specifically, do you think it's wrong to have a worldview based on facts and logic?
I also never replied to your last comment, sorry!!!! But it's because you wrote the exact word salad I was talking about... the semantic abuse about 'change' you used in the past....
There is no premise in the argument about the universe. There are only three premises:
1. Some things are changing
2. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else
3. A chain of concurrent changers must contain at least one unchanged changer
1. 'some' things are changing but you will never name something that does not change. Right?
2. Not everything we observe is changed by something else; some appear to change by themselves from our point of view.
3. To justify this premise you would need to be able to demonstrate that all chains of concurrent changers have a beginning, when you cannot even give one example of a chain that has a beginning.
In short, the premises are useless when applied to the universe. So even if you say that they don't mention it, that's fine, but the point is to prove that the cause of the universe has to be a unique changer... unless perhaps you have another conclusion in mind?
Well, all I can say is that rather than change your lingo to describe specifics, you choose to keep the generality which is defined by another generality.
You could define things in terms of physical and non-physical (that being the issue) but you don't; you choose to defend definitions which don't do that.
This is where I get off of your turn-table.
I should have been more direct: the term "conditions" is even more ambiguous than "objective"; there are definitely object-related conditions. But are there really non-physically related conditions? If so then how are they measured? How are they detected? And how do they relate to the other definitions of "objective"?
So why are you adverse to letting go of this definitional disaster and trying to specify what you actually mean with specifics?
Never mind. I'm out. You and Martin have a go.
So why are you adverse to letting go of this definitional disaster and trying to specify what you actually mean with specifics?
I told you that the words used are not important: it's the concepts, ideas, thoughts that matter.
The concept I am trying to share with you in this thread, well tried to since you ran away, is that some truth statements depend on opinions (I called them subjective) and others don't (I called them objective).
You refuse to tell me what words you would rather use for this.
You refuse to acknowledge that I don't restrict 'truth statements' to material existence.
A specific example would be scientific theories. They are non-material body of knowledge that provide non-material explanations. They use facts that are related to material existence but the theories themselves are not material, as they are conceptual only. They can be right or wrong, and that 'condition' is non-material. The 'condition' of a theory does not depend on the opinion of the creator of the theory. A theory can be correct or incorrect, regardless of our opinion. That's what I call objective; tell me what the correct word would be....
What's weird also is that you are the one who insisted that Atheists DON'T have an objective basis for their worldview, now you argues that the objective basis is pointless because it refers to material things only.
You said:
...if there is no objective basis for a worldview, then the basis must be subjective, purely self-derived, self-authorized, self-justified, self-assured and self-focused [...] There is no objective anything, except Material stuff [...] There are no objective rules for thinking disciplined thoughts
Post a Comment