House On Fire?

[superluminal]

This is a little dialog that tries to illustrate the position of the common garden varitety atheist. We atheists and theists can dissect it and have some fun if you want. Or not.

------------------------------------------------------------

“Look! That house is on fire!”

“Where?”

“Over on that island.”

“Oh. I don’t see any smoke.”

“But look! It’s glowing orange.”

“I don’t see any flames.”

“Bu t the glow. It’s definitely on fire.”

“Could it just be the warm lighting from the windows?”

“Don’t be rediculous. Lights don’t glow that color of orange. We must do something!”

“Well, I think we need to get some binoculars or a boat and get a closer look.”

“Look. I told you, it’s burning!”

“Umm... I don’t think so...”

“We need to call the fire department, The EMT’s, the news...”

“Woah there. No smoke? No flames?”

“You don’t believe me?”

“Well, I just don’t have enough evidence until we get a closer look. I think we need to prove that it’s burning before we alert the whole township. It looks just like a warm glow from the windows to me.”

“NO. Look. It’s obvious it’s burning. We need to alert everyone. And then we need to study this house to see how it contains the fire with no visible smoke or flames. Then we need to pass an ordinance that all houses shall be built according to the plan of this one.”

“Based on...?”

“Its amazing flame and smoke suppression design! Are you blind? Just look! It’s on fire, but no smoke or flames!”

“Err, that’s what I’ve been saying. It’s not on....”


“Look. If all you’re going to do is stand there while this house burns, I seriously question your morals and your sanity. What kind of person would want to keep such a house design from the public? I’m calling everyone. Just because you don’t believe the amazing properties of this house dosen’t make it untrue.”

“Ok. Right. All I’m asking is that we get some evidence that it’s really burning.”

“Evidence? Why don’t you just go and prove to me it’s not burning?”

“Huh? I never said...”

“Right! You can’t can you?”

“But I never claimed anything about the house! You came over and told me that a house that looks fine to me is burning. All I asked was that you show me some proof that it is before we...”

“Arrgghh! I can’t believe you! Do I look like I have a boat? Can I go over there and prove it’s burning? And you don’t have a boat either. You can’t prove it’s not.”

“But I’m not claiming it’s not, I just don’t see any signs that it is! It looks like an ordinary house to me. I just want to verify that it’s really burning so we don’t get everyone in an uproar and start forcing useless building codes on people and...”

“Look. Why don’t you quit claiming it’s not on fire and give me a hand calling the authorities? You’re can even help me with the legislation for the new house safety act.”

“I’m not claiming...”

“Fine. You won’t accept the obvious when it’s staring you in the face.”

“I just want you to give me some proof of your claims that the orange glow is really fire and that the house is amazingly constructed to contain the smoke and fire.”

“Why should I? Why don’t you just prove it’s not? If you can’t I rest my case.”

But you’re the one who started it. You’re the one who’s saying...”

[Cyperium]

Maybe...Too exaggerated...

The theist does have a better indication than that whatever you believe. If the theist knows what he is talking about the discussion wouldn't reflect the story.

[superluminal]

Too exaggerated...

The theist does have a better indication than that whatever you believe.
No. I think it's just that simple. Really. If you toss all of the hyperbole and window dressing, it's really just that simple.

The point however, was more to illustrate the position of atheists and why we ask for proof before enacting an entire societal regime based on houses that some people think might be burning.

[superluminal]

"If" the theist knows...
Isn't that "IF" at the heart of all theism? And pseudoscience? And superstition?

[Photizo]

Isn't that "IF" at the heart of all theism? And pseudoscience? And superstition?

No...at the heart of all Theism is the Word of God: "In the beginning God..."

[superluminal]

No...at the heart of all Theism is the Word of God: "In the beginning God..."
OK. And just how do you know this was anything more than just another myth, like thousands of others, written by bored or stoned (opium?) sheep herders? Seriously? What do you have other than a selfreferential loop of:

"It's god's word"

"How do you know?"

"The bible says so."

"How do you know the bible is true?"

"Because it's gods word".

Right? That's really all you have. Pretty rediculous when you clear out all of the fluff and hyperbole (my new favorite word).

[(Q)]

fluff and hyperbole (my new favorite word).

Innuendo and hyperbole work fine together. :)

[Nikelodeon]

fluff is my fav word too.

[Cyperium]

No. I think it's just that simple. Really. If you toss all of the hyperbole and window dressing, it's really just that simple.

The point however, was more to illustrate the position of atheists and why we ask for proof before enacting an entire societal regime based on houses that some people think might be burning.Society is about social interactions, not about science.

We have a lot of people that believe in God, obviously as society is a meeting place for these people too it should reflect that. There are people that aren't interested in books, but libraries are all over the place no matter what. If you aren't interested in books, you just don't go to the libraries (even if you are in some situations, like school, obliged to go to the libraries).

If you are an atheist, you might want to vote for someone supporting your view, or perhaps just ignore the "in God we trust" text on the dollar bills...

It's in society we live, there are a value in believing in God, that value is reflected in society, if it wasn't so the people believing in God would feel like it is not represented. Atheist who lack that value, are represented anyway by the parts of society that lacks that value.

[(Q)]

Society is about social interactions, not about science.

We have a lot of people that believe in God, obviously as society is a meeting place for these people too it should reflect that.

Then, you should have no problem whatsoever incorporating Sharia Law into your local and federal laws. A Muslim society in America should be reflected, as you say.

If you aren't interested in books, you just don't go to the libraries (even if you are in some situations, like school, obliged to go to the libraries).

Why wouldn't you be interested in books?

It's in society we live, there are a value in believing in God, that value is reflected in society, if it wasn't so the people believing in God would feel like it is not represented. Atheist who lack that value, are represented anyway by the parts of society that lacks that value.

Less violence and crime are represented in societies NOT dominant of theist mindset and decision making processes. If these are the values you hold to your god, then they are well represented in those societies.

[superluminal]

Society is about social interactions, not about science.

We have a lot of people that believe in God, obviously as society is a meeting place for these people too it should reflect that. There are people that aren't interested in books, but libraries are all over the place no matter what. If you aren't interested in books, you just don't go to the libraries (even if you are in some situations, like school, obliged to go to the libraries).

If you are an atheist, you might want to vote for someone supporting your view, or perhaps just ignore the "in God we trust" text on the dollar bills...

It's in society we live, there are a value in believing in God, that value is reflected in society, if it wasn't so the people believing in God would feel like it is not represented. Atheist who lack that value, are represented anyway by the parts of society that lacks that value.
Ok. That's all fine. But when society begins forcing you to go to the library? This is what non-believers are wary of and try to be vigilant against. Theocracies by definition force their populations to adopt many rules and regs that are completely defined by their "beliefs" and not by reason. They cannot be challenged on the basis of observations and are immutable.

Frightening, yes?

[Photizo]

OK. And just how do you know this was anything more than just another myth, like thousands of others, written by bored or stoned (opium?) sheep herders? Seriously? What do you have other than a selfreferential loop of:

"It's god's word"

"How do you know?"

"The bible says so."

"How do you know the bible is true?"

"Because it's gods word".

Right? That's really all you have. Pretty rediculous when you clear out all of the fluff and hyperbole (my new favorite word).

"That's all you really have"....hmmm. What do you have? Nothing. Silence. Your own thoughts and musings... exerted in complete total ignorance...the absence of sure knowledge and in its place: the 'testimony' of lifeless objects...objects which do not possess the ability to honestly tell where they are from or how they came to be. Anything you decipher coming from them is really lost in translation due to the limitations that occur in both 'transmitter' and 'receiver' by definition...again, ultimately you are alone with your own thoughts...

The reasoning you follow from what you consider 'data', 'evidence' etc. is essentially just as circular. What differs are the respective objects of our respective faith. You trust yourself and the testimony of dead, lifeless objects. I trust the Living God and testimony of His Incarnate/Written Word.

[Cyperium]

Then, you should have no problem whatsoever incorporating Sharia Law into your local and federal laws. A Muslim society in America should be reflected, as you say.It should be reflected. Perhaps not by incorporating Sharia Laws.



Why wouldn't you be interested in books?I don't know, some people just aren't interested in books...



Less violence and crime are represented in societies NOT dominant of theist mindset and decision making processes.I don't think so, why would it be so? Rather people in poor countries and that are in misery and war situations have a natural tendency to seek strength and support in God.

It's the poorness of these people that are the problem, and the inability of us in our wealth to give.

[Cyperium]

Ok. That's all fine. But when society begins forcing you to go to the library?This is what happens in schools. We just have to deal with it, but society doesn't drag you to church.

Society doesn't force you to believe in any religion if you don't want to.

This is what non-believers are wary of and try to be vigilant against. Theocracies by definition force their populations to adopt many rules and regs that are completely defined by their "beliefs" and not by reason. They cannot be challenged on the basis of observations and are immutable.

Frightening, yes?The rules and laws nearly allways have other purpouses than just religious ones.

[Cyperium]

Isn't that "IF" at the heart of all theism? And pseudoscience? And superstition?All theists doesn't have the same skills of arguing against atheists, and mind you, all atheists doesn't have the same skill of arguing with theists. Isn't that "IF" applicable to you too?

[superluminal]

"That's all you really have"....hmmm. What do you have? Nothing. Silence. Your own thoughts and musings... exerted in complete total ignorance...the absence of sure knowledge and in its place: the 'testimony' of lifeless objects...objects which do not possess the ability to honestly tell where they are from or how they came to be. Anything you decipher coming from them is really lost in translation due to the limitations that occur in both 'transmitter' and 'receiver' by definition...again, ultimately you are alone with your own thoughts...

The reasoning you follow from what you consider 'data', 'evidence' etc. is essentially just as circular. What differs are the respective objects of our respective faith. You trust yourself and the testimony of dead, lifeless objects. I trust the Living God and testimony of His Incarnate/Written Word.
Well, besides the fact that this isn't about me, what have you got that shows your "living god" to be anything less vacuous than what you propose that I have?

Maybe without the hyperbole this time?

[superluminal]

Isn't that "IF" applicable to you too?
Heh. No. I propose nothing but nature as it is. You are the one proposing an entire pantheon of entities, powers, attributes, etc.

Did you read my house story up there?

[superluminal]

This is what happens in schools. We just have to deal with it, but society doesn't drag you to church.

Society doesn't force you to believe in any religion if you don't want to.

The rules and laws nearly allways have other purpouses than just religious ones.
Really? History indicates that what we have here could easily be an anomaly. An eyeblink in the almost purely theocratic slavery of the human species.

I think we need to pay attention to it, don't you?

[Cyperium]

Heh. No. I propose nothing but nature as it is. You are the one proposing an entire pantheon of entities, powers, attributes, etc.

Did you read my house story up there?Then your ability to describe nature "as you see it" is dependant on how much you know of nature "as it is" and your ability to clearly show that to others. As is the theist discussion dependant on his ability to clearly show what he believe to others.

[Cyperium]

Really? History indicates that what we have here could easily be an anomaly. An eyeblink in the almost purely theocratic slavery of the human species.

I think we need to pay attention to it, don't you?Pay attention where attention is due. You don't live in the past, you live in the present.

Otherwise you change the entire framework of this thread to suit your needs, and take us to a discussion which belongs in the 19th century (and before).

[superluminal]

Then your ability to describe nature "as you see it" is dependant on how much you know of nature "as it is" and your ability to clearly show that to others.
Yes. That's why we use reason and science. Because we can clearly show our results to others and repeatedly demonstrate them. Even if you don't understand relativistic time dilation and how it is corrected for in GPS satellites, you can still use a GarminTM GPS to find your way out of the woods.

As is the theist discussion dependant on his ability to clearly show what he believe to others.
Exactly, which is why the theist position is nothing but a simple fantasy. Because what you are showing so clearly is simply what you believe. Not what is.

What I keep failing to understand is why theists continuously equate what they believe to what really is.

But that dosen't much matter. You can believe anything you want.

Which brings up the other thing theists seem to be confused about. When you state your belief as reality, you can then fairly be taken to task to show it as real. I.e. you must be able to demonstrate, scientifically (a simple way of saying evidence based) that your claim is real.

Obviously, we could descend into endless philosophical debates on what is real, etc. But we all know the difference between fantasy and reality. It just appears that some of us require more fantasy than others to get through the day.

[superluminal]

Pay attention where attention is due. You don't live in the past, you live in the present.

Otherwise you change the entire framework of this thread to suit your needs, and take us to a discussion which belongs in the 19th century (and before).
You don't think things can change for the worse, almost overnight, without vigilance?

[Cyperium]

Yes. That's why we use reason and science. Because we can clearly show our results to others and repeatedly demonstrate them. Even if you don't understand relativistic time dilation and how it is corrected for in GPS satellites, you can still use a GarminTM GPS to find your way out of the woods.That's nice, also if you have a star or the moon as reference you can walk in an almost straight line to keep you from running in circles in the woods...




Exactly, which is why the theist position is nothing but a simple fantasy. Because what you are showing so clearly is simply what you believe. Not what is.

What I keep failing to understand is why theists continuously equate what they believe to what really is.Because we believe that is what really is. Where we lack visual confirmation and evidence we have belief.

But that dosen't much matter. You can believe anything you want.Of course.

Which brings up the other thing theists seem to be confused about. When you state your belief as reality, you can then fairly be taken to task to show it as real. I.e. you must be able to demonstrate, scientifically (a simple way of saying evidence based) that your claim is real.No, I don't have to do that, since I never state that it is reality, but only that I believe it to be reality. I can also sometimes give reasons for why I believe in a way that scientists should understand.

Obviously, we could descend into endless philosophical debates on what is real, etc. But we all know the difference between fantasy and reality. It just appears that some of us require more fantasy than others to get through the day.Actually it doesn't have to do with fantasy, it has to do with a firm belief that there is more than we can see and that there is something beyond all this.

[Cyperium]

You don't think things can change for the worse, almost overnight, without vigilance?Well, I don't have any reason to think things will change over night, but I guess it is possible.

[superluminal]

That's nice, also if you have a star or the moon as reference you can walk in an almost straight line to keep you from running in circles in the woods...
Unless it's cloudy...

All beside the point.


Because we believe that is what really is. Where we lack visual confirmation and evidence we have belief.

Of course.

No, I don't have to do that, since I never state that it is reality, but only that I believe it to be reality. I can also sometimes give reasons for why I believe in a way that scientists should understand.

Actually it doesn't have to do with fantasy, it has to do with a firm belief that there is more than we can see and that there is something beyond all this.
The rest of what you say makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, some of your theistic compatriots think that just because they believe it. it's real. And they would have us accept all of the doctrine that goes along with this belief as necessary and required.

[lightgigantic]

This is a little dialog that tries to illustrate the position of the common garden varitety atheist. We atheists and theists can dissect it and have some fun if you want. Or not.

------------------------------------------------------------



for you analogy to be analogous you would have to first establish that the theist and the atheist are on the same epistemological footing.

IOW you would have to establish that discerning the nature of god is not subject to any prerequisites (such as practice based on theory for instance)

Since there are literally tons of normative descriptions in scripture, I think that would be a very difficult case to establish.

To shift back to your fire on the island scenario, to make it share parallels with atheist vs theist showdown, I would suggest that one person has binoculars and the other person refuses to look through them
(IOW one person is applying the practice and the other person is standing outside of the practice)

and it is this difference that leads to the difference in values or conclusion

[Cyperium]

for you analogy to be analogous you would have to first establish that the theist and the atheist are on the same epistemological footing.

IOW you would have to establish that discerning the nature of god is not subject to any prerequisites (such as practice based on theory for instance)

Since there are literally tons of normative descriptions in scripture, I think that would be a very difficult case to establish.

To shift back to your fire on the island scenario, to make it share parallels with atheist vs theist showdown, I would suggest that one person has binoculars and the other person refuses to look through them
(IOW one person is applying the practice and the other person is standing outside of the practice)

and it is this difference that leads to the difference in values or conclusionHowever, that wouldn't reflect it as well either, since there are no method for atheists to know that God doesn't exist, binoculars or not.

[lightgigantic]

However, that wouldn't reflect it as well either, since there are no method for atheists to know that God doesn't exist, binoculars or not.
true, but I think supe's gripe is that there is no reason to say god exists - which basically boils down to, in the island scenario, a person saying "show me the fire" yet refusing to look through the binoculars

[superluminal]

Is not the point that the theist has no factual basis, practice or not, to base the existence of go on? By never being able to demonstrate even a discernable effect attributable to none other than god almighty exclusively, does that not leave the theist at somewhat of a loss?

[Cyperium]

Unless it's cloudy...

All beside the point.Yes, a little sidetrack there...



The rest of what you say makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, some of your theistic compatriots think that just because they believe it. it's real. And they would have us accept all of the doctrine that goes along with this belief as necessary and required.I think people in general follow societies doctrine, and their own doctrine (which most of the time doesn't conflict with either mine doctrine or societies as far as I can tell).

So I don't understand really what you mean by that, are you forced to accept something you don't want to? Who is forcing you and by what means?

[superluminal]

true, but I think supe's gripe is that there is no reason to say god exists - which basically boils down to, in the island scenario, a person saying "show me the fire" yet refusing to look through the binoculars
Not really. If we did have binoculars in the story (which we don't) it would be the theist refusing to look through them, I think. However in the analogy there can be no binoculars because god is, by theistic definition, not observable with the tools of science - like telescopes.

There is no way to get a closer look at the island. But we're being asked to just accept that the house is on fire even though we see no smoke or flames, just something that may or may not suggest one (a dim orange glow).

You notice that I never deny the possibility of a fire. It certainly could be a smoldering log in the fireplace, ready to fall out and engulf the house. The point is, I don't know and neither does our character of the mighty certainty.

[snake river rufus]

No...at the heart of all Theism is the Word of God: "In the beginning God..."

You introduce the bible as evidence?:rolleyes: Let's look at that bible shall we?
According to each of the 4 gospels on what day did your jesus arive in jerusulum?
And according to each of the four gospels, how long was jesus on the cross?
What does the word 'gospel' mean in modern parlance?
Show your work.

[snake river rufus]

true, but I think supe's gripe is that there is no reason to say god exists - which basically boils down to, in the island scenario, a person saying "show me the fire" yet refusing to look through the binoculars

Most of us have looked through the binoculars- still no fire

[Jeff 152]

Most of us have looked through the binoculars- still no fire

Well put!
I was raised catholic and spent the first half of my life looking through the binoculars, still not seeing the fire, as everyone told me that there was something wrong with me for not seeing the fire

[snake river rufus]

Well put!
I was raised catholic and spent the first half of my life looking through the binoculars, still not seeing the fire, as everyone told me that there was something wrong with me for not seeing the fire

Man,:eek: you had some tough shackles to break.

[Enmos]

true, but I think supe's gripe is that there is no reason to say god exists - which basically boils down to, in the island scenario, a person saying "show me the fire" yet refusing to look through the binoculars

Isn't that like circular reasoning ? To practice religion don't you first have to believe. It's not like you practice it day in and day out and them one morning you know God exists...
So the binoculars can't be analogues with practice.

[lightgigantic]

Supe

Is not the point that the theist has no factual basis, practice or not, to base the existence of go on? By never being able to demonstrate even a discernable effect attributable to none other than god almighty exclusively, does that not leave the theist at somewhat of a loss?
well, no, its not the point
behind theistic claims is a process as indicated by normative descriptions in scripture
as such the claims are discernible by those that apply the procedure

Not really. If we did have binoculars in the story (which we don't) it would be the theist refusing to look through them, I think.
:confused:
you want to suggest that an atheist has a position for directly perceiving the non-existence of god?

However in the analogy there can be no binoculars because god is, by theistic definition, not observable with the tools of science - like telescopes.
I think you are mixing metaphors

for you analogy to be analogous you would have to first establish that the theist and the atheist are on the same epistemological footing.

IOW you would have to establish that discerning the nature of god is not subject to any prerequisites (such as practice based on theory for instance)

Since there are literally tons of normative descriptions in scripture, I think that would be a very difficult case to establish.

To shift back to your fire on the island scenario, to make it share parallels with atheist vs theist showdown, I would suggest that one person has binoculars and the other person refuses to look through them
(IOW one person is applying the practice and the other person is standing outside of the practice)

and it is this difference that leads to the difference in values or conclusion

IOW I am not saying that god can be seen through binoculars
I am saying that the claim for seeing god rests on prerequisites (just like claims in empirical science rest on prerequisites). So to make your analogy analogous you would have to introduce something about the fire on the island that makes verification dependent on prerequisites (like say, the prerequisite of seeing through a pair of binoculars for instance)



There is no way to get a closer look at the island. But we're being asked to just accept that the house is on fire even though we see no smoke or flames, just something that may or may not suggest one (a dim orange glow).

You notice that I never deny the possibility of a fire. It certainly could be a smoldering log in the fireplace, ready to fall out and engulf the house. The point is, I don't know and neither does our character of the mighty certainty.

If you insist that both participants be on the same epistemological footing then immediately your analogy bears no parallel to the claims of theists – on the contrary, as it stands, your analogy could be a successful tool in explaining what some scientists tend to do – namely make unverifiable supernatural claims. (eg Big Bang theory, the radius of the Milky way, Third law of thermodynamics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, square root of minus 1, punctuated equilibrium evolutionary theory etc etc)
;)

[lightgigantic]

Well put!
I was raised catholic and spent the first half of my life looking through the binoculars, still not seeing the fire, as everyone told me that there was something wrong with me for not seeing the fire

Most of us have looked through the binoculars- still no fire

really?
what do you understand (or rather, did you understand) the prerequisites to be behind theistic claims?

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
true, but I think supe's gripe is that there is no reason to say god exists - which basically boils down to, in the island scenario, a person saying "show me the fire" yet refusing to look through the binoculars
”
Isn't that like circular reasoning ? To practice religion don't you first have to believe. It's not like you practice it day in and day out and them one morning you know God exists...
So the binoculars can't be analogues with practice.
to begin with, all fields of knowledge have their origins in faith (or inductive knowledge if you prefer) - regardless whether we are talking about a lab set for 6 year olds or god
even to take the step to look through the binoculars requires faith

and with religion, yes it is a question of practice - movie producers tend to capitalize on people's weaknesses by producing action films that involve guys like bus drivers who turn out to be mavericks that can accomplish things that a hundred green berets can't, but generally we see in the real world behind unique feats are unique qualifications

[(Q)]

It should be reflected. Perhaps not by incorporating Sharia Laws.

It doesn't matter what you want, it's what Muslims want. And, incorporating Sharia Law is what they want.

I don't know, some people just aren't interested in books...

Or, maybe, only interested in one book? ;)

I don't think so, why would it be so?

There are many reasons why theist dominated societies have MUCH higher crime and violence rates than non-theist dominated societies. It is a fact many theists try to ignore or divert attention away. You tell me?

[snake river rufus]

really?
what do you understand (or rather, did you understand) the prerequisites to be behind theistic claims?

Firstly, you must believe the unbelievable.
Secondly, you must accept a written work as true even when it contradicts itself.

[lightgigantic]

Firstly, you must believe the unbelievable.
Secondly, you must accept a written work as true even when it contradicts itself.
if that forms your foundation for theism, small wonder that you are now an atheist

[snake river rufus]

I was born an atheist (like everyone is). The religous programming didn't take.

[lightgigantic]

I was born an atheist (like everyone is). The religous programming didn't take.

careful - you might sway me with that programming of yours
:D

[snake river rufus]

I'm not a cult member. It's the xians that go door to door looking for recruits.

[lightgigantic]

I'm not a cult member. It's the xians that go door to door looking for recruits.
you prefer different tactics?
;)

[snake river rufus]

I have this decal on my door
http://www.rof.com/No_Preaching_Zone_s/27.htm

Yet it still seems that everybody except the mormons feels themselves free to go ahead and ring the doorbell. I always ask if they saw the decal(it's at eyelevel, 6" from the doorbell) and the blankeyed xians say
" I didn't think you meant that"
"Surely you want to know jesus"
After physically removing one young man from my property his cult camped out at the end of my driveway to "pray for me". They only left after I reported the little handouts and prayer booklets that they would place in my mailbox to the postmaster.
The tatics that I would prefer is that xians,
Act in a rational manner!

Such a simple thing. You've had 2,000 years to practice and you still can't get it right.:shrug:

[lightgigantic]

I have this decal on my door
http://www.rof.com/No_Preaching_Zone_s/27.htm

Yet it still seems that everybody except the mormons feels themselves free to go ahead and ring the doorbell. I always ask if they saw the decal(it's at eyelevel, 6" from the doorbell) and the blankeyed xians say
" I didn't think you meant that"
"Surely you want to know jesus"
After physically removing one young man from my property his cult camped out at the end of my driveway to "pray for me". They only left after I reported the little handouts and prayer booklets that they would place in my mailbox to the postmaster.
The tatics that I would prefer is that xians,
Act in a rational manner!

Such a simply thing. You've had 2,000 years to practice and you still can't get it right.:shrug:

so are you saying that if rational theists cannot be encountered on your front door they cannot be encountered anywhere?

:confused:

[superluminal]

careful - you might sway me with that programming of yours
:D
Careful - you might sway and fall over from that programming of yours.

[lightgigantic]

Careful - you might sway and fall over from that programming of yours.

uuuuh - must ..... somehow -uuuuh - resist .... the programming ......nnngggghh of ..... supe uuuuhhhh



http://oquartodofelino.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/kryptonite.jpg

[superluminal]

uuuuh - must ..... somehow -uuuuh - resist .... the programming ......nnngggghh of ..... supe uuuuhhhh



http://wirelessdigest.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/robot_robbyrobot.jpg

Must... resist... mindless...ugghhh... babble of .... LG!

[snake river rufus]

so are you saying that if rational theists cannot be encountered on your front door they cannot be encountered anywhere?

:confused:

Yes, absolutely yes. The very belief system of a theist rules out rational thought. And if they act, following the rules of that system, then they are acting irrationally. I hope that I have made my point clear? Unless you can come up with a definition for the word/s 'logic' & 'rational thought' that includes believing in the supernatural? If you can then please post it. Until then I'll just note that it must be nice living a life completely unburdened by reality.

[snake river rufus]

Theist have weekly meetings, all sorts of study aids, An inerrrant guide book that is full of contradictions, a support system that includes their own brainwashing summer camps, their own TV channels! But an atheist who slips their bonds is programmed?
Oh logic, I feel like letting go:bugeye:

[superluminal]

Yes, absolutely yes. The very belief system of a theist rules out rational thought. And if they act, following the rules of that system, then they are acting irrationally. I hope that I have made my point clear? Unless you can come up with a definition for the word/s 'logic' & 'rational thought' that includes believing in the supernatural? If you can then please post it. Until then I'll just note that it must be nice living a life completely unburdened by reality.
How can you make such a judgement without the proper training in theistic matters? Are you a trained theologian? No? Then there is no reason for you not to believe in all matter of gods and amazing supernatural stuff.

LG can explain.

[superluminal]

Oh logic, I feel like letting go:bugeye:
I see. Attempting to use logic with LG. That was your first mistake...

[snake river rufus]

How can you make such a judgement without the proper training in theistic matters? Are you a trained theologian? No? Then there is no reason for you not to believe in all matter of gods and amazing supernatural stuff.

LG can explain.

Well I was trained as an engineer and I spent 30 years in the aerospace industry removing extraneous B.S. from real world problems be of more value than training in super oops theistic matters?
The reason not to believe in supernatural stuff is (pay attention LG;)) is that it is not rational.

[snake river rufus]

I see. Attempting to use logic with LG. That was your first mistake...

the actual lyric is Oh darkness I,,
I don't know if using logic is ever a mistake. Although it is useless with a theist such as LG

[lightgigantic]

Yes, absolutely yes. The very belief system of a theist rules out rational thought. And if they act, following the rules of that system, then they are acting irrationally. I hope that I have made my point clear?
No you haven't.
For a start, ALL systems of knowledge begin with belief (or inductive knowledge) and not all systems of theistic disciplines (in fact i would say hardly any of them) maintain that belief is the end in itself.

thus it's not clear why you say that if you follow the rules of that system it is irrational

[lightgigantic]

http://wirelessdigest.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/robot_robbyrobot.jpg

Must... resist... mindless...ugghhh... babble of .... LG!
lol
I see, so your programming can beat up my programming, eh?

[lightgigantic]

Theist have weekly meetings, all sorts of study aids, An inerrrant guide book that is full of contradictions, a support system that includes their own brainwashing summer camps, their own TV channels! But an atheist who slips their bonds is programmed?
Oh logic, I feel like letting go:bugeye:
anyone who says that atheism doesn't have an ideology to push is clearly out to lunch
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1471,The-Out-Campaign,Richard-Dawkins

[lightgigantic]

Well I was trained as an engineer and I spent 30 years in the aerospace industry removing extraneous B.S. from real world problems be of more value than training in super oops theistic matters?

The reason not to believe in supernatural stuff is (pay attention LG;)) is that it is not rational.

Is it rational to think that 30 years of experience in the aerospace industry lends any credibility to one's (personal) claims in the fields of geology or archeology?
How about theology or philosophy?

Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist at London's University College, writes that most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,
Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.
("The Unnatural Nature of Science")
:shrug:

[Gustav]

pardon
anyone hurt?

[Gustav]

the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic. ("The Unnatural Nature of Science")

/pats/head

i say
thats reiku to a tee

[lightgigantic]

the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic. ("The Unnatural Nature of Science")

/pats/head

i say
thats reiku to a tee
given the absence of philosophy in the curriculum of contemporary scientific training, its hardly unique.

Unfortunately this has predictable results

Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything
Benjamin Wooley - Virtual Worlds

:shrug:

[snake river rufus]

No you haven't.
For a start, ALL systems of knowledge begin with belief (or inductive knowledge) and not all systems of theistic disciplines (in fact i would say hardly any of them) maintain that belief is the end in itself.

thus it's not clear why you say that if you follow the rules of that system it is irrational

Yes most systems start with with belief. Theists stop at this point. All other seekers of knowledge test, and test and the offal falls to the wayside.
Theists are content to ignore every bit of evidence that contradicts their beliefs to the point of absurdity. " god did it", "we can't know the way of god". Those are pretty short biology lessons no? or anthropology or geology.
To grant credit to something that cannot be tested or examined, particulary when absolutely every shred of evidence points elsewhere is nothing but irrational. I cannot see any other word for it. But again I'll ask you to provide a definition for the word/s 'logic' & 'rational thought' that includes believing in the supernatural. It's one thing for bronze age people looking for ways to explain what they don't under stand. that justification no longer exists.

[lightgigantic]

Yes most systems start with with belief. Theists stop at this point.
if that is what you believe, no wonder that you are now an atheist

All other seekers of knowledge test, and test and the offal falls to the wayside.
Theists are content to ignore every bit of evidence that contradicts their beliefs to the point of absurdity. " god did it", "we can't know the way of god". Those are pretty short biology lessons no? or anthropology or geology.
To grant credit to something that cannot be tested or examined, particulary when absolutely every shred of evidence points elsewhere is nothing but irrational. I cannot see any other word for it. But again I'll ask you to provide a definition for the word/s 'logic' & 'rational thought' that includes believing in the supernatural. It's one thing for bronze age people looking for ways to explain what they don't under stand. that justification no longer exists.
I am not sure if I understand your argument, so I will try and play it back to you before I begin.

Is this your argument?

P1 All evidence points towards god's non existence
p2 All theistic claims are contradictory
p3 All theistic claims are attempts to compensate for lacks of knowledge
conclusion - therefore all theistic claims are irrational

[snake river rufus]

Is it rational to think that 30 years of experience in the aerospace industry lends any credibility to one's (personal) claims in the fields of geology or archeology?
How about theology or philosophy?

Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist at London's University College, writes that most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,
Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.
("The Unnatural Nature of Science")
:shrug:
Yes 30 years is enough for the real world. There is absolutely no reason to study theology any more than flint knapping. Philosophy,, I'll leave that to the likes of Depak. It is inane to think that a physicist needs a knowledge of philosophy.:rolleyes:

[lightgigantic]

Yes 30 years is enough for the real world. There is absolutely no reason to study theology any more than flint knapping. Philosophy,, I'll leave that to the likes of Depak. It is inane to think that a physicist needs a knowledge of philosophy.:rolleyes:
you are certainly fitting this quote to the letter


Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything
Benjamin Wooley - Virtual Worlds

[Gustav]

given the absence of philosophy in the curriculum of contemporary scientific training, its hardly unique.

you and the writer then presume too much..foo..

/pats both

[snake river rufus]

if that is what you believe, no wonder that you are now an atheist


No that is what I've observed. You may deny it, but you can't demonstrate it

I am not sure if I understand your argument, so I will try and play it back to you before I begin.

I'm up for the 2nd night with insomnia. But barring typos I'm sure that you get my point.


P1 All evidence points towards god's non existence
p2 All theistic claims are contradictory
p3 All theistic claims are attempts to compensate for lacks of knowledge
conclusion - therefore all theistic claims are irrational

P1 it certainly does
P2 the ones that can be tested are false or contradictory or meaningless.
P3 Lack of knowledge or desire to fit in with friends etc.
Until you can provide one shred of proof, yes. That is pretty much the definition of irrational.

[lightgigantic]

you and the writer then presume too much..foo..

/pats both
presuming one can make grand philosophical claims without some training or knowledge in philosophy can also be hazardous to your health ....

[lightgigantic]

if that is what you believe, no wonder that you are now an atheist


No that is what I've observed. You may deny it, but you can't demonstrate it

I am not sure if I understand your argument, so I will try and play it back to you before I begin.

I'm up for the 2nd night with insomnia. But barring typos I'm sure that you get my point.


P1 All evidence points towards god's non existence
p2 All theistic claims are contradictory
p3 All theistic claims are attempts to compensate for lacks of knowledge
conclusion - therefore all theistic claims are irrational

P1 it certainly does
P2 the ones that can be tested are false or contradictory or meaningless.
P3 Lack of knowledge or desire to fit in with friends etc.
Until you can provide one shred of proof, yes. That is pretty much the definition of irrational.

ok now before I begin, what evidence or bodies of work are you referencing for your three premises?

[Gustav]

ahh
psychophysics 101

[snake river rufus]

you are certainly fitting this quote to the letter


Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything
Benjamin Wooley - Virtual Worlds

Science most certainly not ask for all explainations. Just the natural ones. I'm too tired to google Wooley now, is there any reason to think a quote from Virtual Worlds or this man should mean anything to me?

[Gustav]

presuming one can make grand philosophical claims without some training or knowledge in philosophy can also be hazardous to your health ....

.............and environment

/piles it on with the best

[snake river rufus]

ok now before I begin, what evidence or bodies of work are you referencing for your three premises?

before you begin you are going to provide the definitions that I asked for. I'm going to hit the rack.

[lightgigantic]

ahh
psychophysics 101
argumentum ad hominem
:shrug:

[snake river rufus]

presuming one can make grand philosophical claims without some training or knowledge in philosophy can also be hazardous to your health ....

1 last one tonight
utter balderdash. Provide an example.

[lightgigantic]

Science most certainly not ask for all explainations. Just the natural ones. I'm too tired to google Wooley now, is there any reason to think a quote from Virtual Worlds or this man should mean anything to me?
I had hoped it may cause you to reconsider what you meant by saying science has superseded philosophy .....

[lightgigantic]

before you begin you are going to provide the definitions that I asked for. I'm going to hit the rack.

definitions of rationality are already established

this is a rational statement
p1 all pigs can fly
p2 all horses are pigs
therefore all horses can fly
(of course there are a few problems with the premises)

this is a truthful statement
p1 I am hungry
p2 it is almost night time
therefore it is thursday
(of course it has a few problems with rationality)

people often make the claims that theism is not rational, when actually they mean something else- at the moment I am just trying to help you form a coherent argument

[lightgigantic]

1 last one tonight
utter balderdash. Provide an example.

begging the question and ad homs are most frequent
;)

[Gustav]

eeek

/busted

[snake river rufus]

argumentum ad hominem
:shrug:

No it is not, it's an attack on the hominem's thinking and that is allowed

[snake river rufus]

begging the question and ad homs are most frequent
;)

again, it is not. Is this the tactic you plan to use to cut and run?

[snake river rufus]

I had hoped it may cause you to reconsider what you meant by saying science has superseded philosophy .....

Why should it? what authority does this man have? Why should anyone pay any attention to what he says, thinks, or does?
Although I do seem to recall his name. I guess I'll have to research his creds since you didn't establish them.

[snake river rufus]

definitions of rationality are already established

this is a rational statement
p1 all pigs can fly
p2 all horses are pigs
therefore all horses can fly
(of course there are a few problems with the premises)

this is a truthful statement
p1 I am hungry
p2 it is almost night time
therefore it is thursday
(of course it has a few problems with rationality)

people often make the claims that theism is not rational, when actually they mean something else- at the moment I am just trying to help you form a coherent argument

Those are examples, not definitions. We need definitions, and there are several dictionarys on line. You might want to copy a link to help establish Bona Fides

[snake river rufus]

Here are ny sources concerning physics and your alleged need to add philosophy.
Michele Besso
Paul Erhenfest
Niels Bohr
Max Born
Arthur Eddington
Philipp Frank
Werner Hiesenberger
David Hilbert
Banesh Hoffman
Philipp Lenard
Hendrik Lorentz
Mileva Maric
Robert Millikan
Herman Minkowski
Georg Nicolai
Abraham pais
Max Planc
Erwin Schrodinger ( check out his cat)
Leo Szilard

since the protocal has been established ( by you) I'll check your source, you may have the honour ofchecking mine.

[snake river rufus]

you are certainly fitting this quote to the letter


Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything
Benjamin Wooley - Virtual Worlds

The next time you quote an author please try to spell his name correctly, there are two l's in Woolley. Since he is simply an author and can demonstrate no expertise in either philosopy or physics. The quote is meaning less.

[snake river rufus]

Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist
Yes he seems to be as you advertised. Smart, certainly. But a biologist no demonstrated expertise in physics or philosophy.
Why should I pay any attention to them out side of their fields of studys/

[superluminal]

people often make the claims that theism is not rational, when actually they mean something else- at the moment I am just trying to help you form a coherent argument
I think that by rational, we mean based on sound premises, and following a logically consistent argument to it's conclusion.

Theism has as it's premise an unseen, sometimes unfathomable, and always supernatural entity/cause/god(s) that require what the catholics revere as the "mystery of faith". The arguments and constructions that follow are ambiguous, many times selfcontradictory and end with as many different conclusions as there are theologians.

This, I think, firmly places theism in the realm of the not-rational.

Theories like the expansive beginning of the universe as we know it (big bang) rest on solid and demonstrable physics. Where such theories break down represent opportunities for new understandings of physics or undiscovered phenomena. Not wild speculation and construction of entire baseless philosophies like religion.

Hopefully you can see the difference.

[snake river rufus]

Sl
I don't mean to side track your thread, would you like for me to ask a moderator to split this off?

[superluminal]

Sl
I don't mean to side track your thread, would you like for me to ask a moderator to split this off?
No, that's ok. I think it's going along just fine.

[snake river rufus]

OK. I moderate a forum on another board which I'm going to check now but I'll stop back before I spend some time with my family.

[snake river rufus]

begging the question and ad homs are most frequent
;)

there was no question asked. this is the second time you have referred to argumentum ad hominem, if you assert this again wrongfully be prepared to provide a definition.Ta, off to BAUT.

[snake river rufus]

And I came up with this
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

[lightgigantic]

No it is not, it's an attack on the hominem's thinking and that is allowed
well no its not thinking - if you were in the middle of discussing something scientific and someone just threw in "pseudo science clap trap" with out explaining anything further, what would you make of it?
(IOW it doesn't constitute a legitimate challenge to anything)

Those are examples, not definitions. We need definitions, and there are several dictionarys on line. You might want to copy a link to help establish Bona Fides
examples don't illustrate definitions?
rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion
truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true.

when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful

Here are ny sources concerning physics and your alleged need to add philosophy.
Michele Besso
Paul Erhenfest
Niels Bohr
Max Born
Arthur Eddington
Philipp Frank
Werner Hiesenberger
David Hilbert
Banesh Hoffman
Philipp Lenard
Hendrik Lorentz
Mileva Maric
Robert Millikan
Herman Minkowski
Georg Nicolai
Abraham pais
Max Planc
Erwin Schrodinger ( check out his cat)
Leo Szilard

since the protocal has been established ( by you) I'll check your source, you may have the honour ofchecking mine.
some of them had formal training in philosophy
what makes Dawkins unique however is that he is making bold philosophical claims (namely providing a definition of delusion and applying it to a field beyond his scope of expertise)

The next time you quote an author please try to spell his name correctly, there are two l's in Woolley. Since he is simply an author and can demonstrate no expertise in either philosopy or physics. The quote is meaning less.

his statement is not a philosophical one
his statement is an observation of the state of affairs in science

Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist
Yes he seems to be as you advertised. Smart, certainly. But a biologist no demonstrated expertise in physics or philosophy.
Why should I pay any attention to them out side of their fields of studys/
once again - he is not making a philosophical statement - he is however making a statement about the state of affairs in contemporary science however ....

[lightgigantic]

I think that by rational, we mean based on sound premises, and following a logically consistent argument to it's conclusion.
sound premises is an issue of truthfulness
a consistent argument is an issue of rationalism

Theism has as it's premise an unseen, sometimes unfathomable, and always supernatural entity/cause/god(s) that require what the catholics revere as the "mystery of faith".
electrons are also unseen.
What does it mean to be "sometimes unfathomable"?
Sometimes fathomable?
And as for "supernatural", a better word to use would be transcendental (ie superseding efforts of empiricism)

The arguments and constructions that follow are ambiguous, many times selfcontradictory and end with as many different conclusions as there are theologians.
if you want to write this off as a truthful premise I think you have to provide some sort of authority or body of work that you can reference

This, I think, firmly places theism in the realm of the not-rational.
provided your above premise is truthful, yes

Theories like the expansive beginning of the universe as we know it (big bang) rest on solid and demonstrable physics.
interesting that you refer to the big bang
aren't we hubbled, I mean huddled, around different ideas of the origin of the universe now (the arguments don't happen to be ambiguous, many times self contradictory and end with as many different conclusions as there are theorists do they?)

Where such theories break down represent opportunities for new understandings of physics or undiscovered phenomena. Not wild speculation and construction of entire baseless philosophies like religion.

Hopefully you can see the difference.
whats the difference between a new opportunity offered by a broken down theory and a wild speculation?
:confused:

[superluminal]

sound premises is an issue of truthfulness
a consistent argument is an issue of rationalism

No. Sound premises are also an issue of truthfulness. As in they are based on honest evaluations of the facts as presented by honest admissions of what we know and don't know (based on scientific rigor).

electrons are also unseen.
No. Electrons are "seen" but not directly observed. The effects they produce are entirely prevalent and observable. The explanation for these effects has been solidly and consistently proven to be a small particle called an electron. This can be thoroughly trusted by untrained but interested laymen with the smallest bit of research into basic science. Unlike researching basic theology (as I have) there is no coherency or compelling foundational logic visible whatsoever.

What does it mean to be "sometimes unfathomable"?
In some mythologies the entity is fathomable, like the greek gods. Their motives were well understood by those that subscribed to them.

if you want to write this off as a truthful premise I think you have to provide some sort of authority or body of work that you can referenceWhat? That religion as the explanation for the anything we see around us is baseless mythology? It's axiomatic my friend.

interesting that you refer to the big bang
aren't we hubbled, I mean huddled, around different ideas of the origin of the universe now (the arguments don't happen to be ambiguous, many times self contradictory and end with as many different conclusions as there are theorists do they?)
No my poor scientifically ignorant friend. All actual cosmologists accept that the universe was once in a hot, dense state and evolved according to physical law. Some of the mechanisms are in debate, but the conclusion is unanimous.

whats the difference between a new opportunity offered by a broken down theory and a wild speculation?
:confused:
One is guided by scientific rigor and the desire to find the actual reality of what is happening. The other is a hallmark of blind faith and wishful thinking.

Just a note. I brought up the BB because it is one of the greatest discoveries in science. And one of the most misunderstood by the general public. Despite what some nutters here may post, it's in fine shape and has extroadinary explanatory power. This does not mean that it is the be-all-end-all of the description of the universe. But whatever future descriptions arise, they won't be revealed by the bible, quran, or the BG.

[snake river rufus]

some of them had formal training in philosophy
what makes Dawkins unique however is that he is making bold philosophical claims (namely providing a definition of delusion and applying it to a field beyond his scope of expertise)


Really? which ones? Please be specific.
I'm apologize, but I missed the post that Dawkins was introduced. Could you provide the post#?

Beyond his scope of expertise? Considering the backgrounds of those that you have introduced, Is this a claim that you really want to make?

[snake river rufus]

"examples don't illustrate definitions?
rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion
truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true.

when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful"

Examples are ambiguous. Too open to different interpertations. If we cannot agree on the exact meaning of words,,

"rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion"
Not detailed enough. An insane man could make a wild guess that, accidently, turns out to be correct. But you could not call the person rational

"truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true."

Really? That is too broad to be meaningfull.
Before we go any further, I'll request that you provide definitions (with links).


"when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful"
You are mixing up to different meanings and trying to apply them 'willy nilly'. Unacceptable.

[snake river rufus]

if you want to write this off as a truthful premise I think you have to provide some sort of authority or body of work that you can reference



You have, to date, provided only 1 reference. You are in no posistion to demand references from others.

[snake river rufus]

Since you have not challenged my post #96 as accurate source materal, may we take it for granted that you do accept these definitions?

Up to this point, your debating seems to be to simply throw unsupported accusations, and never to make a cited reference. This is unacceptable. Make one or no more than two points. Support them. Otherwise this boils down to a confusing bedlam.

[snake river rufus]

For the record and from the first link in post 96

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

[lightgigantic]

For the record and from the first link in post 96

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

here's an eg (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1642554&postcount=59)

[lightgigantic]

You have, to date, provided only 1 reference. You are in no posistion to demand references from others.

Since you have not challenged my post #96 as accurate source materal, may we take it for granted that you do accept these definitions?

Up to this point, your debating seems to be to simply throw unsupported accusations, and never to make a cited reference. This is unacceptable. Make one or no more than two points. Support them. Otherwise this boils down to a confusing bedlam.
actually I have provided two - and if you examine the context they were made you would see that they are comments about general states of affairs (IOW the texts that they come from are more detailed accounts of the extent of the situtation)

still, if you want to argue that a lack of philosophical understanding somehow isn't an impediment for a scientist making philosophical claims or that science has not fallen into the state of thinking that it can explain EVERYTHING, feel free to offer a few suggestions why (aside from words to the effect "Yr stinky 'n funny lookin 'n so is yr brother" etc etc)

[lightgigantic]

"examples don't illustrate definitions?
rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion
truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true.

when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful"

Examples are ambiguous. Too open to different interpertations. If we cannot agree on the exact meaning of words,,

"rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion"
Not detailed enough. An insane man could make a wild guess that, accidently, turns out to be correct. But you could not call the person rational
then I guess he wouldn't be relying on premises like say a rational person would

"truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true."

Really? That is too broad to be meaningfull.
I would have thought most people could get it straight off the bat

Before we go any further, I'll request that you provide definitions (with links).


"when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful"
You are mixing up to different meanings and trying to apply them 'willy nilly'. Unacceptable.
perhaps I am being a bit simplistic bu then you seem to have a remarkable talent for making the straight forward incomprehensible so I guess it was done in good measure

anyway, for what its worth, try logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic) - preferably the syllogistic variety for the sake of simplicity and truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth).

After glancing at these, it appears that you have issues more with the truth of theism than the rationality of it ....

[lightgigantic]

Supe

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sound premises is an issue of truthfulness
a consistent argument is an issue of rationalism
”
No. Sound premises are also an issue of truthfulness. As in they are based on honest evaluations of the facts as presented by honest admissions of what we know and don't know (based on scientific rigor).
so IOW you are saying sound premises are an issue of truthfulness?
:confused:

“
electrons are also unseen.
”
No. Electrons are "seen" but not directly observed. The effects they produce are entirely prevalent and observable. The explanation for these effects has been solidly and consistently proven to be a small particle called an electron. This can be thoroughly trusted by untrained but interested laymen with the smallest bit of research into basic science. Unlike researching basic theology (as I have) there is no coherency or compelling foundational logic visible whatsoever.
glad you agree it involves issues of faith (for those outside of the arena of direct perception)


“
if you want to write this off as a truthful premise I think you have to provide some sort of authority or body of work that you can reference
”
What? That religion as the explanation for the anything we see around us is baseless mythology? It's axiomatic my friend.
so basically your argument is "the claims of different religions are contradictory because it is an axiomatic fact"
should I attempt to find the end of your regress or simply accept your opinions in confidence?

“
interesting that you refer to the big bang
aren't we hubbled, I mean huddled, around different ideas of the origin of the universe now (the arguments don't happen to be ambiguous, many times self contradictory and end with as many different conclusions as there are theorists do they?)
”
No my poor scientifically ignorant friend. All actual cosmologists accept that the universe was once in a hot, dense state and evolved according to physical law. Some of the mechanisms are in debate, but the conclusion is unanimous.
In the same general way, there is a consensus amongst theists about the nature of god, but for some reason (perhaps your bias or lack of familiarity with the said field) you tend to digress

“
whats the difference between a new opportunity offered by a broken down theory and a wild speculation?

”
One is guided by scientific rigor and the desire to find the actual reality of what is happening. The other is a hallmark of blind faith and wishful thinking.
Physics is a developing logical system of thinking whose foundations cannot be obtained by extraction from past experience according to some inductive methods, but come only by free fantasy.
-einstein

I see
:confused:

Just a note. I brought up the BB because it is one of the greatest discoveries in science. And one of the most misunderstood by the general public. Despite what some nutters here may post, it's in fine shape and has extroadinary explanatory power. This does not mean that it is the be-all-end-all of the description of the universe. But whatever future descriptions arise, they won't be revealed by the bible, quran, or the BG.
and how do you know this?

sounds like yet another post dated cheque

I am often amazed that people can hold themselves as intelligent in science by sitting on the maxim "we don't know but we know"

:shrug:

[superluminal]

Oh well LG. I'll stay in my corner (the one that has actual measurable effects in the world) and you in yours. Good luck and all that.

[lightgigantic]

Oh well LG. I'll stay in my corner (the one that has actual measurable effects in the world) and you in yours. Good luck and all that.
the next q is whether there are any effects in this world that have causes you can't measure
:D

[superluminal]

the next q is whether there are any effects in this world that have causes you can't measure
:D

Good q.

Lets say there are. Take string theory. This postulates that all particles are made of (caused by) tiny string-like things vibrating in different ways in up to 11 total dimensions. This is a serious candidate for a "theory of everything". Does any serious physicist claim that string theory is true? No.

Why? Becaue currently we have no way to measure these little strings. We can't come close to the energy required to pin down their properties and determine which solution to the maths of string theory (if any) is correct.

So, by your own admission, there is so much that you can't measure about whatever god/entity/force you subscribe to, why do you invest so much authority in it? And if you claim "direct perception via training" as your answer, what level of egomania does it take to think that your subjective experience is anything other than a delusion or some other medical condition?

The egotism of theists is one of their more outstanding characteristics. At least atheists admit what we do and don't know.

You claim that you are really the humble ones because you bow and submit and give all of the credit for any damn thing you do to some god. When in reality your ego is such that you exalt yourselves above all else as the one and only favored creations of a universal creator who made the entire cosmos for your benefit. Astounding egocentrism.

[lightgigantic]

Good q.

Lets say there are. Take string theory. This postulates that all particles are made of (caused by) tiny string-like things vibrating in different ways in up to 11 total dimensions. This is a serious candidate for a "theory of everything". Does any serious physicist claim that string theory is true? No.

Why? Becaue currently we have no way to measure these little strings. We can't come close to the energy required to pin down their properties and determine which solution to the maths of string theory (if any) is correct.

So, by your own admission, there is so much that you can't measure about whatever god/entity/force you subscribe to, why do you invest so much authority in it? And if you claim "direct perception via training" as your answer, what level of egomania does it take to think that your subjective experience is anything other than a delusion or some other medical condition?

The egotism of theists is one of their more outstanding characteristics. At least atheists admit what we do and don't know.

You claim that you are really the humble ones because you bow and submit and give all of the credit for any damn thing you do to some god. When in reality your ego is such that you exalt yourselves above all else as the one and only favored creations of a universal creator who made the entire cosmos for your benefit. Astounding egocentrism.
I think you have missed the point

considering that everything must be capable of being measured (ie empiricism is the truth the light and the way) indicates the very faults you are perceiving in theists - subjectivity, egocentricity, artificial monopolization of knowledge etc

I have repeated the argument numerous times already, but just to recap in case you have forgotten

The vedas does not deny

1) within nature there are regularities;
2) knowing the regularities, one can predict certain events in nature;
3) thus a reliable body of knowledge about nature is useful;
4) such knowledge is taught in a language of numerical measurement.

Such knowledge gleaned through these means is called pratyaksa

The problem is that the universe is a display of the unlimited supreme and that humans are inherently limited in the following ways


imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
a cheating propensity ... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc


Thus to hold the words "reality" and "measurable" as synonymous is foolishness. this is to say that pratyaksa (empiricism) is limited, somewhat distinct from the phrase "completely useless".

IOW empiricism works fine for our relative working environment but is useless when it attempts to fill the unlimited dimensions of the macro or microcosm

[superluminal]

IOW empiricism works fine for our relative working environment but is useless when it attempts to fill the unlimited dimensions of the macro or microcosm
So please repeat for me how your theistic approach (direct perception) is validated without resorting to measurement of some kind? And how, with an imperfect organ like the brain, you could hope to achieve such a pristine direct perception?

Why is the brain, which processe this perception, not subject to the same limitations as any other empirically limited "device"?

[lightgigantic]

So please repeat for me how your theistic approach (direct perception) is validated without resorting to measurement of some kind? And how, with an imperfect organ like the brain, you could hope to achieve such a pristine direct perception?

Why is the brain, which processe this perception, not subject to the same limitations as any other empirically limited "device"?
to reiterate again, higher than the senses (empiricism) is the mind (rationalism) and higher than the mind is consciousness.

IOW on the platform of consciousness the use of the mind and senses is there, but consciousness is not approachable by empirical processes (you can't see what you are seeing with, although consciousness enables one to express the nature of seeing)

with theistic processes, you have the noumena of our self (namely consciousness, and not the mind or the senses) interacting with the noumena of the cosmic manifestation (namely god, and not some feeble new territory of the macro/microcosm))

[superluminal]

to reiterate again, higher than the senses (empiricism) is the mind (rationalism) and higher than the mind is consciousness.

IOW on the platform of consciousness the use of the mind and senses is there, but consciousness is not approachable by empirical processes (you can't see what you are seeing with, although consciousness enables one to express the nature of seeing)

with theistic processes, you have the noumena of our self (namely consciousness, and not the mind or the senses) interacting with the noumena of the cosmic manifestation (namely god, and not some feeble new territory of the macro/microcosm))
I'm sorry LG, but unless you can stop using hyperbole and oblique wording, I can't assess that last sentence as anything other than unsupported mystical jibberish.

[lightgigantic]

I'm sorry LG, but unless you can stop using hyperbole and oblique wording, I can't assess that last sentence as anything other than unsupported mystical jibberish.
ok lets unpack it

with theistic processes, you have the noumena
noumena means ultimate cause


of our self (namely consciousness, and not the mind or the senses)
so this statement says that it is the theistic idea (lets keep things theoretical and friendly huh) that the ultimate cause of having senses and a mind is consciousness

interacting with the noumena of the cosmic manifestation (namely god, and not some feeble new territory of the macro/microcosm))
and this statement says that the ultimate cause of the cosmic manifestation is god, a conscious entity, and not some unknown aspect of the macro/microcosm)

so taken together, these statements explain why empiricism can't do the job of theism.

Empiricism takes the senses as the ultimate authority in knowledge and the latest adventures into charting the macro/microcosm as the ultimate in the knowable. theism says that there is a whole other dimension of reality that is behind (ie the noumena) not only the phenomenal (empirical) world but also the means (ie the senses) we use to collect information of the phenomenal world.

[superluminal]

noumena means ultimate cause
Nice new word for me. Thanks!

so this statement says that it is the theistic idea (lets keep things theoretical and friendly huh) that the ultimate cause of having senses and a mind is consciousness
I neat idea. Completely unsupported by facts though, you'll grant. Right?

and this statement says that the ultimate cause of the cosmic manifestation is god, a conscious entity, and not some unknown aspect of the macro/microcosm)
Another nifty idea without a shred of substance. Moving on...

so taken together, these statements explain why empiricism can't do the job of theism.
So, a couple of factually unsupported and substanceless statements say that empiricism can't assess factually unsupported and substanceless ideas. I completely agree.

Empiricism takes the senses as the ultimate authority in knowledge and the latest adventures into charting the macro/microcosm as the ultimate in the knowable.
Ok. First, I disagree that empiricism take the latest adventures in discovery as the ultimate in the knowable. There are always new frontiers and the current is not limited by empiricist philosophy.

Secondly, empiricism as I understand it does not take the senses alone as the ultimate authority, but the intellect as informed by the senses. Yes? Ideas generated by the intellect as based on sound, measurable or directly inferrable phenomena.

theism says that there is a whole other dimension of reality that is behind (ie the noumena) not only the phenomenal (empirical) world but also the means (ie the senses) we use to collect information of the phenomenal world.
That's all well and good, but how, without resort to measurement or objective verification of any kind, can you ever say any of your ideas are anything other than mental fabrications?

You can't. Well, you can say it, but you have no way to defend it in a world of senses and physical phenomena.

[lightgigantic]

Supe

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
noumena means ultimate cause
”
Nice new word for me. Thanks!
hopefully its taken the oblique slant off things

“
so this statement says that it is the theistic idea (lets keep things theoretical and friendly huh) that the ultimate cause of having senses and a mind is consciousness
”
I neat idea. Completely unsupported by facts though, you'll grant. Right?
and once again, facts are supported by practice and practice is supported by theory - hence my suggestion that we keep things civil by discussing the theory of it, since your current attempts at validating or invalidating anything on the topic are meaningless

“
and this statement says that the ultimate cause of the cosmic manifestation is god, a conscious entity, and not some unknown aspect of the macro/microcosm)
”
Another nifty idea without a shred of substance. Moving on...
ditto above

“
so taken together, these statements explain why empiricism can't do the job of theism.
”
So, a couple of factually unsupported and substanceless statements say that empiricism can't assess factually unsupported and substanceless ideas. I completely agree.
no

even if you examine empiricism on its own merits it doesn't do the job

.... unless you can explain how working out of these limitations

1. imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
2. tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
3. tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
4. a cheating propensity ... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc

enables entrance to the macro/microcosm
:shrug:

“
Empiricism takes the senses as the ultimate authority in knowledge and the latest adventures into charting the macro/microcosm as the ultimate in the knowable.
”
Ok. First, I disagree that empiricism take the latest adventures in discovery as the ultimate in the knowable. There are always new frontiers and the current is not limited by empiricist philosophy.
thus the new frontiers represent the latest version of the knowable

Secondly, empiricism as I understand it does not take the senses alone as the ultimate authority, but the intellect as informed by the senses. Yes? Ideas generated by the intellect as based on sound, measurable or directly inferrable phenomena.
the more it is inferred, the further it moves away from empiricism and into rationalism - ie dealing with concepts and not necessarily facts - for instance your inability to even discuss what are presented as theoretical concepts about god indicates that you are deeply dyed by empiricism and less by philosophy

“
theism says that there is a whole other dimension of reality that is behind (ie the noumena) not only the phenomenal (empirical) world but also the means (ie the senses) we use to collect information of the phenomenal world.
”
That's all well and good, but how, without resort to measurement or objective verification of any kind, can you ever say any of your ideas are anything other than mental fabrications?
there are lots of things that are verified without measurement - eg justice, love, etc

these things are qualified by their qualities, and in this way take on an objective form - for instance suppose someone punched you in the stomach and repeated kicked you in the teeth while you were on the floor in a pool of blood. If, when you asked them why they did that, they said "because I love you", you could detect something irregular between their activities and their words because "love" exists as an objective form

You can't. Well, you can say it, but you have no way to defend it in a world of senses and physical phenomena.
thats because the world of the senses and physical phenomena is not absolute or complete - the senses are limited and manifestations of a more subtle phenomena and so to is the physical world