Religion
Related: About this forum"Atheism: A personal relationship with reality."
(San Diego, California, January 30, 2013) "Atheism: A personal relationship with reality."
These words appear over an image of a curtain, held open by a stack of books, that reveals an appealing natural scene. They are part of a prominent 14 ft x 48 ft billboard scheduled to go up today along the Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway (SR 94) near College Avenue. Its appearance is the product of a joint effort by the national American Atheists and the local San Diego Coalition of Reason. The latter is a cooperative network of 18 atheist, humanist, skeptic and church-state separation groups. These include student, military, parenting, support and social groups as well as lecture societies and congregationally-structured communities.
The billboard cost $4,000, paid for by American Atheists and local contributors, and will remain for the next four weeks. For a graphic art image of the billboard, free for media use, visit www.SDCoR.org.
http://atheists.org/new-billboard-san-diego-puts-atheism-positive-light
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)More than a few "liberal, tolerant" DU Christians will weigh in to say how horribly offensive and in-your-face this billboard is, and how it's no different than what religious fundies do.
zazen
(2,978 posts)If you're arguing that your belief system gives you the only true relationship with "reality," which by definition is larger than any one human, well, you're claiming you believe in a power greater than yourself that is superior to that of anyone else's.
Universal Consciousness, Universal Intelligence, the Tao, God, or Reality? What difference does the term make if the psychological function is the same?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Going from defining reality as something "larger than any one human" to being "a power greater than yourself that is superior to that of anyone else's."
I suppose as long as we go along with your slippery definitions, sure, it's the same exact thing. But that's not really an honest argument.
Iggo
(47,552 posts)
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)if liberal Christians on DU weighed in with how offensive and in your face it was, but alas, no such posts have appeared. Just swallow your disappointment.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Could you please go and berate that person, too? It would only be fair. Of course, if you don't, I will understand that you merely wanted to personally attack me. So much for Christian love.
On and on edit, you must have missed post #51.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)10 points just for that.
I like the message too. 
rug
(82,333 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Two thousand years ago?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Reality also includes human beings as well as every other living creature in the entire universe.
rug
(82,333 posts)Not even Manti Te'o could have a personal relationship with this.
The problem is personalizing and anthropomorphixing nature.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)If not then in order to have a personal relationship with Jesus you must anthropomorphize that portion you consider more than or different than human.
At least there's evidence that M31 exists, it can be seen quite well with the naked eye at a really dark site and it's visible in binoculars from suburban skies.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's the early Christian formulation of one person with two natures, one fully human, the other fully divine.
The notion of God become man is one of the foundations of Christianity.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)
(for the reality-impaired)
Rotten song, though.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Blah blah blah, divine part, blah blah blah, means more than just human, blah blah blah.
Your right, mr blur, that is one strong foundation he has there.
rug
(82,333 posts)Otherwise you're just nattering in the bleachers.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Otherwise, I could give two shits what you think I'm doing.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)It's pretty sad.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)It's really sad.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts) rug
(82,333 posts)And that smiley.
Chronologically speaking.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts) rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Feel better now that you have called me names?
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts) rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Don't go away mad, rug, jut go away.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts) rug
(82,333 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)But more than talking to you.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do us both a favor. Know what you're talking about first.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)To me anyway it just seems to be another way of trying unscrew the inscrutable.
rug
(82,333 posts)I don't know if it entirely achieved that but it's a good stab at it.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)There's no fossil record, no writings, no mention..........I suspect that Jesus is a composite of several people.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)as might many buddhists come to think of it. then there's this..
rug
(82,333 posts)Pantheists believe that god, theos, is in all, pan.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)it's always nice to be patronized.
rug
(82,333 posts) Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)that Jesus had a pet rock.
Peter.
You got me.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)being right about one thing does not mean you have a personal relationship with reality.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Such a straight forward message that couldn't possibly offend anyone. Yet, it does.
sanatanadharma
(3,705 posts)...dividing the Advaita into reality and the the maya-optic knower of that.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)some deep thinking.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)GOD DID IT.
Right back at ya', pal.
tama
(9,137 posts)absence of questions and explanations, but it's not the same as the real experience.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...and therefore useless.
Real knowledge is acquired through independent verification, not your personal feelings.
tama
(9,137 posts)is beside the point. As is anecdotal evidence, independent verification and all that. You can debate whether it's useless or useful, share anecdotal stories and refuse to believe those, fantasize methods of independent verification etc etc intellectual wankerism, but none of that is the real experience of orgasm. How it feels, at the moment of experiencing orgasm.
You can read all the books and scientific studies in the world and call that "real" and "knowledge", but you don't have faintest idea of orgasm until you experience orgasm. And there's endless variety of experiences that the word refers to, no two orgasms are exactly same.
And if you wan't to share those experiences with your friends, all you have is "anecdotal" descriptions of your experiences, no "independent verification" can tell how you experienced your first or latest or any orgasm.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The reason you know orgasms exist is precisely because of independent verification. Others have experienced the same the same thing, and because it can be demonstrated under controlled conditions, we have thereby outlined a specific criteria by which to identify it; ergo, we know to apply the term when we've experienced it ourselves.
The point I'm trying to make here, to use your example, is an learned person may experience a workaday orgasm yet believe they "felt" God. One is verifiable. The other is not.
tama
(9,137 posts)you know the difference between explaining orgasm and having one?
And more generally, difference between categorizing, classifying and naming an experience and just experiencing?
And that latter is not dependent from former, we can experience orgasm without having word for the experience?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Because at the end of the day, anyone can effectively demonstrate they've had an orgasm, while no one can effectively demonstrate they've felt God.
If you're going to make a point, please make it. I don't much care for rhetorical questions.
tama
(9,137 posts)as I find it curious that some people may actually believe that explanations and theories etc. conceptual structures are more "real" than what cannot be doubted, that experiencing happens. Even if we are or just I am just a brain in a vat.
I'm not arguing for (or against) "God", people are free to name their experiences as they want as far as I'm concerned. But I also think that eliminative materialism is very silly belief system.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)He will go away after you let him have the last word.
A fun game is to keep replying to him just so his compulsion to have the last word gets him all worked up, then go back and read his responses. Bizarre to say the least.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:38 AM - Edit history (1)
All one needs do is to check the list of anti-Christian/anti-religious threads bearing your name.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)A bit like "two wrongs make a right."
Not that it really matters. No one around here can object to religion in such a way that the hypersensitive peanut gallery doesn't get butthurt and start to scream about "bigotry".
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...since you're the only one I see here engaging in it.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)as a poke at those who rely on empiricism to determine reality. That is a 'thinking in the box mentality' and ridiculously restrictive and narrowly-focused.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Perhaps I should have been more explicit that I was mocking the overly simplified view of what is involved in arriving at the high certainty conclusion that God is fictional.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)There is no objective, empirical proof either way.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Here's a starting point. Explain how you evaluate evidence once you have decided that the supernatural is a vailid explanation for anything.
(And FYI: Proof is for math and alcohol. Science deals in evidence, NEVER proof.)
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Either way there is no objective, empirical evidence to indicate or falsify either argument. However, there is plenty of subjective evidence to suggest the existence of God. Science is severely limited in many respects. Nonetheless, it is an argument that cannot be won, as history well proves - woops! I mean as history evidences.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I asked you to explain how you evaluate ANY evidence given the inclusion of the supernatural in the set of allowable explanations for a given event/observation. You did not. Would you care to do so now?
Otherwise the claim that there is "plenty of subjective evidence" is meaningless twaddle.
For example: I have just observed a large rock roll past me down a hill.
Do explain to me how I might go about evaluating whether this is more likely to be evidence that:
A: Someone further up the hill may have pushed it.
B: Some random tremor or something else along those lines caused it to dislodge and roll down on its own.
C: God pushed it.
D: A witch sent it down the hill with a spell.
E... F... G......... ZZZZZZZZZZ : An endless number of other supernatural causes you could dream up.
I'm all ears.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Augustine, Aquinas, the first cause argument, the Bible, NOMA, or many, many other arguments. We are not talking about the likely causes of natural events. You are attempting a red herring. But in any case, there is no objective, empirical evidence for or against the existence of God. So stay on subject. Now, if you want to rehash the thousands of arguments for and against such existence that have been made over the centuries, then be my guest.
Who said the rock rolling down the hill was a natural event? If God pushed it it's supernatural. If a witch threw it with a spell it's supernatural. I asked you how we tell. Surely if you are claiming you are capable of evaluating evidence such that it can be concluded to indicate a supernatural explanation exists for some phenomena then you know how you do that... RIGHT?
But if you prefer to use some other example of evidence then by all means... PROVIDE IT and then explain how the heck you are evaluating what it is evidence of. "Augustine" is not an explanation of how you are evaluating evidence. "The bible" is not an explanation of how you are evaluating evidence. (And FYI, they are also not arguments. )
humblebum
(5,881 posts)arguing for the existence of God. All of your references are empirical, but their causes are subjective. But none of them can prove or are evidence for the existence or non-existence of God. The First Cause argument is a good argument, but is certainly not objective by any means. Personally I have no doubt that God exists. Proof? I never claimed any. Subjective evidence? Plenty. Objective? None.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And I repeat one last time... HOW are you evaluating evidence? How do you look at piece of evidence "A" and determine that that is evidence OF explanation "B"?
If you do not know that you are just making up the explanations you prefer then deciding that whatever you observe is "evidence" of it and calling that "subjective evidence" when it is nothing of the kind. You can repeat over and over that there's plenty of subjective evidence... produce it and show how it qualifies as evidence or you're full of crap.
(And the First Cause argument is the very definition of the logical fallacy of Special Pleading, and as such, no, is not a good argument... but that's beside the point because the subject is *evidence*... not arguments.)
humblebum
(5,881 posts)to do some research if you so choose. Now, if you choose to continue insisting that the arguments of all philosophers and scholars about religion through all of human history be rehashed, have a ball.
As far as first cause being a logical fallacy - no it is not, but it is an argument and has been recognized as such for a very long time. It is also known as the Cosmological Argument. It is no more special pleading than an argument using Logical Empiricism, which automatically eliminates the use of certain types logic, or rather makes a special pleading for the nonsensical nature of intuition, apriori, etc.
Epistemologies, ontological and teleological arguments can all be made and have been, but there is still no objective evidence empirical or otherwise for or against the existence of God. You referred to "high degree" of evidence, I believe. What standard do you use to determine what constitutes high degree?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)What I know is that this argument is never productive, because people like you don't know what the word "evidence" means and refuse to give it consideration... because that would involve critical analyzing how you arrived at the conclusion you have, and those conclusions are unlikely to survive that process.
As for First Cause: Everything that begins to exist must have a cause, therefore the universe has a cause...
1. Asserts without basis that the universe began to exist.
2: Asserts without basis that everything that begins to exist must be caused.
3: Invokes special pleading to declare that God does NOT need a cause by assigning him the property of being "eternal" based on... ummm... because he's GOD that's why (in other words.. BECAUSE HE'S SPECIAL). Provides no justification why the exact same thing can not just be done for the universe and cut out the extra step of tacking "God" onto the top of everything.
Yeah, you can call that an "argument" if you want. Your decision to do so tells me what I need to know about your intellectual standards.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)that your 'methodologies' are designed to eliminate types of reasoning that are deemed by people like you as unacceptable. IOW narrowly-focused, very exclusive, and applicable in a limited capacity. Yes, subjective evidence very much exists and is used often in many disciplines. And besides using red herring to argue, you now resort to ad hominems. Classy, I must say. Intellectual standards? I have a couple graduate degrees and I would certainly question intellectual standards that depend on methods you have used here.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You have dodged my request for that explanation, which I have futilely repeated in every single post in this discussion, since our exchange began. You have done so yet again. I have no doubt that you will continue to do so indefinitely, seeing as evaluating evidence in a supernatural framework is an impossibility. Something you appear to be incapable of facing directly since that would require you to take a good hard look at the reasons you have for holding to your belief a deity exists and concluding those reasons were totally lacking substance and in no way based on reason.
tama
(9,137 posts)No evidence has been provided.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)narrow definition of evidence, that is generally true. But given the existence of subjective evidence, the supernatural is easily reasoned. I haven't dodged anything but have merely decided not to engage in futile arguments with no clear answers.
You already told me not to tell you what you already know. If that's the case then you already know what I was talking about and there is no need to impart information on which you are already an expert. I already understand the framework for your arguments. I use them often, but there is so much more to reasoning than you would care to admit.
Tell me. Is there objective empirical "proof" that the floor you are standing on is really there? Or can that only be proven by math? Just curious. Can nothing come from nothing? Of course it can when one changes the definition of what constitutes nothing. LOL Can something create itself? No objective answers that I know of, but I am sure that you will think of some framework to answer that question. We both both know that there is one, but still no objective, empirical evidence of it.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"I haven't dodged... I've merely decided to behave in an evasive manner..."
Did I mention I had no doubt you would continue dodging the question indefinitely? Yes? Well, good, we've covered that then.
Oh, and did I mention the difference between proof and evidence? Yes? Good... i thought maybe I hadn't since you were acting as if that was the case here.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)explain what it was. But that's OK. I already know. What is also quite noticeable is that you are still using your very narrow-minded methodology, which was designed for a specific purpose to elicit specific results, and attempting to apply such method to other more unscientific disciplines or scenarios.
If judges and lawyers were engineers and scientists,or even the dreaded mathematician, then possibly no one would ever be found guilty of a crime because there would never be any "proof," and by your scientific standards, circumstantial evidence probably would not be considered evidence.
Fortunately though, scientific standards are not always the standards of the everyday world in which others live and reason and exist. Scientific standards are standards purposely designed for specific purposes. And that is a very good, useful, and necessary thing. And of course are being applied more and more in the courtroom. But, as we know your required degree of objectivity applied to any evidence means that nothing can be proven.
Yes, there is such a thing as scientific "proof" as it is understood by most, but that proof is subject to change if new evidence presented negating such proof. Science never quite arrives at a "proof" that is 100% objective, but very close. In that light, math is the only discipline to display 100% objectivity - actual "proof."
However, in the everyday world, different disciplines use varying degrees of objectivity when evaluating evidence to arrive at what they consider as "proof" - law, medicine, psychology, philosophy, and yes, religion.
And no, I have no intention of getting involved in endless debate in a forum such as this, just as you have merely stated that there is a difference between proof and evidence, but did not go into any lengthy explanation. The information is "out there" if one cares to examine it.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...while still refusing to explain how you evaluate evidence in a supernatural framework. Rendering every single meaningless bit of prattle you issue about the concept of evidence and how anyone treats it pointless. You clearly don't even *know* how you evaluate evidence, you invoke it like it's some kind of magic word justifying anything you want to believe in.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It is straightforward because the natural world has established and repeatable relationships of cause and effect. So if you see an effect, you can investigate and discover the possible causes. Thus establishing that the effect you observed was EVIDENCE OF the cause having occurred prior to it.
See where we run into a teeny little problem when people start invoking magic? Like, oh, an all powerful supernatural deity entity that can do ANYTHING IT WANTS and to which the laws of nature do not apply? So all relationships of predictable cause and effect are rendered null and void?
Now if you know a way around that problem, out with it. Otherwise you are full of crap every time you open your mouth about there being "evidence of" any supernatural claim.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)is your absolute claim that nothing can be considered in a supernatural framework, which is ridiculous. Your attitude that "I cannot understand it, I don't believe it, therefore, it is crap" mentality is about as narrow and limited as any reasoning can possibly be.
Never did I claim any objective evidence or proof of deity. However, history is replete episodes of people witnessing events they considered to be very supernatural in nature - individuals and groups of people alike. Many of these are not able to be explained by Science. And, in fact, Science does not have the capacity by its own self-imposed restrictions to neutrally evaluate such things, given their nature.
The subject you are attempting to debate is a very broad one. In any case, to those who have experienced, observed, or witnessed such events there is ample subjective evidence. Often such people really do not care if they are believed or not, and quite often they not believed. There is no objective empirical evidence available, but to those who have experienced such things, or observed such things - they are very real. Yes, in such cases there is/was indeed evidence, but not objective by any means, but very subjective to those to whom such things occur.
In any case, a religious argument can never be won, and if you want to keep pounding away at claiming that objective, empirical evidence is the only type of evidence, then there are others who know better, regardless of your in-the-box mentality.
Your desire to slam religious believers seems to be overriding any sense logical and civil debate. There is nothing wrong with utilizing logical empirical methodologies, but to say that such defines the limitations of human experiences and that everything must conform to such a "framework" is absolutely ridiculous.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)..is that you *don't have* a methodology. I've been asking you for it for a dozen posts now, your consistent desperate dodging around providing anything resembling an answer makes your lack of one abundantly clear.
You can repeat all day long that you think there is "evidence of" whatever supernatural event or entity you like. You are proving absolutely incapable of explaining how you determine that... unsurprising since in my experience the relationship between the thing someone is claiming as evidence of a supernatural event and the supernatural event in question is *entirely made up on the spot* by the person making the claim.
Typical form of such an exchange:
"Look! I saw a miracle! My aunt was sick and then someone prayed and then she got better"
"Oh? And how did you determine that her getting better has any relationship to someone having prayed that isn't a textbook example of post hoc ergo propter hoc?"
"....."
"So, nothing then?"
"Stop being so narrow minded! Someone prayed for her and then she got better! Clear evidence of a miracle! You just refuse to see what's right in front of your face!!"
Also, funny how abruptly we went from claiming I didn't know how to evaluate evidence to saying nobody was questing my methodology for evaluating evidence. But then this constant twisting and dodging and changing direction from you really doesn't have much of an element to surprise to it at this point does it?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)You never asked for a methodology. Not too much difference here. The Scientific Method can be applied to virtually any discipline, including religion. The major difference is that inductive inferences are broader. As I see it, you are the one who is constantly changing directions.
As I pointed out before, your prejudice against religion seems to be driving your poor arguing skills.
tama
(9,137 posts)is telling about your subjective experiences which you give theological interpretation. Which, I might add, I fully understand.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)my favorite foods, too.
But it seems that was what was being fished for, in order to ridicule those experiences. And that's the reason many if not most people seldom confide such experiences in public.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"You never asked for a methodology."
Do you know what a methodology is? It is, to put it in it's simplest terms... HOW YOU DO SOMETHING. Now let me quote myself from this exchange.
"Here's a starting point. Explain how you evaluate evidence once you have decided that the supernatural is a valid explanation for anything."
"I asked you to explain how you evaluate ANY evidence given the inclusion of the supernatural in the set of allowable explanations for a given event/observation. You did not. Would you care to do so now?"
"But if you prefer to use some other example of evidence then by all means... PROVIDE IT and then explain how the heck you are evaluating what it is evidence of."
"And I repeat one last time... HOW are you evaluating evidence? How do you look at piece of evidence "A" and determine that that is evidence OF explanation "B"?
"You babble on... ...while still refusing to explain how you evaluate evidence in a supernatural framework."
"You can repeat all day long that you think there is "evidence of" whatever supernatural event or entity you like. You are proving absolutely incapable of explaining how you determine that."
Asking for your methodology is the one and only single thing I have been asking you for this ENTIRE TIME Captain Perceptive. What kind of mental haze are you living in that you could have gone through this entire exchange, where all I do is ask over and over and over and over for you to provide your methodology for evaluating evidence, that come along at the end of it and claim I never asked for the ONLY THING I've been asking you for????? Am I on one side of a conversation between you and an imaginary friend where you're not actually responding to anything I say at all and just happen to be placing your imaginary friend responses on the board such that they LOOK like they're replies to me?
As for the claim you have dodged nothing? I never got an answer to that repeated question. You have posted ten separate responses and not ONE answer to that question. Do I also have to ask you if you know what the word "dodging" means?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)the existence of deity(ies), even to the point of explaining that there is no objective empirical evidence available, and yet you babble on and on about my lack of knowledge of such methodologies.
You have a one-track mind, sir, born either out of personal choice, mind conditioning processes, or of simple inability to grasp the possibility that there might be something or someone beyond the reach of human understanding or physical perception.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...let alone "very sufficient" explanation.
Declaring the evidence for it is subjective and not objective is not providing a methodology. No matter how many times you repeat it.
And what I have is a desire to have one simple question answered. Only your persistent refusal to do so results in me sticking with that question. I would happily move on if you would stop avoiding dealing with the single subject of our exchange.
Now, you have once again declared that the evidence is subjective. Now I will ONCE AGAIN ask you...
HOW DO YOU FREAKING EVALUATE IT?????
humblebum
(5,881 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)The Bible is as much an argument for the existence of God as "The Night Before Christmas" is proof of Santa Claus. The "first cause" argument is circular reasoning. Augustine and Aquinas are not evidence either.
There is plenty of evidence against the existence of God. The main one is that the world and the universe looks exactly as it does as if there were no God.
In addition, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Believers have NO proof.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)how do you know that? So then you evidently know what it looks like with a God, which of course means that you believe in a God.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Why do I believe neutrinos exist?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)their existence was finally observed.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Cool! A superhero in our midst!
humblebum
(5,881 posts)by observation of the evidence?
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)You do realize that post was sarcasm, don't you?
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)A group that I suspect might even include you.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)which has been empirically proven by observation. Last time I checked, observation can only be accomplished by use of one or more of the five senses, and it is generally considered that empiricism is an epistemology deriving knowledge from sensory experience.
So if you want to say that you believe in the evidence for neutrinos, but not neutrinos, you would look pretty foolish.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Observation is not limited to your five senses.
You can drop as many apples as you like, but you're never going to *see* gravity. Neither will you be able to taste an electromagnetic field, or smell a black hole. While not directly detectable with the five senses, evidence for these things' existence is nevertheless measurable by their effects on the perceivable universe.
So your silly assertion that we only believe in things which we can observe with our limited five senses is a straw man.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)but observation of the evidence of those things cannot be conducted without use of the senses. Tell me, how can a human being empirically observe anything without utilizing the senses? How do you examine data if you cannot observe it by use of the senses? And how is observation accomplished on anything but by use of the senses? That I would really like to know.
What I said was that if you cannot see, etc. "it." Did I specify what "it" was? Perhaps by "it" I meant evidence for something.
So I will again sarcastically state, " If you cannot see it, hear it, taste it, smell it, or touch it - then it doesn't exist."
tama
(9,137 posts)in everyday experience involves also introceptive senses (e.g. sense of balance) besides extroceptive senses, to be exact.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)There's a difference between detecting gravitation, and detecting gravity.
tama
(9,137 posts)My poor command of English language does not know that difference, I just know the difference between standing straight and staying bend, even eyes closed. So feel free to educate me.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)To put it simply:
Gravity is a noun. It is a thing.
Gravitation is a verb. It is an action.
You can feel the effects of gravity, but you can't actually observe gravity itself. You can feel yourself attracted to the Earth, but you can't see what is causing the attraction.
tama
(9,137 posts)Both are nouns. 'Gravitate' is verb, 'gravitation' is noun derived from the verb.
Also, I'm from different school of philosophy, I don't believe in "gravity itself" and consider that nonsensical mumbo jumbo that leads to fundamentally irrational contradictions. In terms of scientific research, quantum gravity remains open and interesting topic, which I keep following, but even in that field there is no presupposition of "gravity itself" but attempt to unify so called four basic forces in to more general theory. Based on our sensual participatory relation with natural world.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Frankly, it is difficult to tell.
If you really don't understand, I'll restate that which was previously stated rather clearly:
This is a Straw Man because it is not the position of atheists that only that which may be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled exists, yet you present this claim as if is.
A black hole is infinite mass compressed into zero space. Its gravitational pull is so strong, nothing--not even light--can escape. It cannot, therefore, observed with our senses.
How do we know they exist?
Because science is predictive. Using what was already known about how mass, gravity, and light interact, scientists were able to predict the existence of black holes in the first quarter of the twentieth century.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)or the motion of any other bodies in space, but simply claimed the existence of black holes without anything to indicate their existence? Interesting.
You say science is predictive, but what evidence are those predictions based upon? Something would have had to have been observed.
Science is based upon evidence, and evidence can only be evaluated by using the senses, whether they are applied to data, measurements, or physical evidence. If observation is conducted in any other manner, don't keep it a secret, because you are on to something.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Einstein observed gravity affected the motion of light, and that gravity was correlated to mass. Using Einstein's relativistic equations, scientists predicted that once an object reached a certain mass, light would be unable to escape. They didn't need to observe a black hole to predict their existence.
That you don't seem to understand that theoretical physics employs mathematical models--not experimentation--to explain and predict natural phenomena speaks to precisely how unqualified you are to continue this conversation. I haven't the time, the patience, nor the inclination to teach you what you would be more than capable of discovering yourself if you were as committed to learning as you are to contrarianism.
I wash my hands of this insanity. You have Google. You have five minutes. You look it up.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)to predict black holes, even though you have already stated that scientists examined mathematical evidence. And of course, we know that no other observations of bodies in space were made by them, which indicated the existence of black holes (SARCASM).
If I were you, I would take the time to look up the definitions of Empiricism and Logical Empiricism (basis for the modern SM). Both rely on observation (sensory), experience (sensory), and/or experimentation (sensory), and neither can be accomplished without using the senses.
BTW, who ever said, they need to observe a black hole to predict their existence? Certainly not me, nor did I suggest it.
tama
(9,137 posts)as category have nothing to do with the issue discussed, as atheists can have various world views and philosophical positions. The answer you refer to was to cleanhippie, not to atheists in general, AFAIK.
And no, we don't "know" that black holes "exist", except as objects of thought. Yes, based on certain empirical theories "black holes" have been deduced and "predicted", and it is possible that some empirical indirect observations so far support those predictions. But as a whole, the theorizing around and about black holes is almost purely speculative, especially in absence of theory of quantum gravity. Which does not mean it's worthless, as black hole -thought experiments are one way of thinking about quantum gravity and searching unified theory.
Edit: on second thought, it would seem in not in response to cleanhippie but to the bilboard text and humblebums interpretation of that. But the point remains, the text can be interpreted in many ways without assuming that any interpretations would be universally shared by all who identify as atheists.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The billboard read "A personal relationship with reality". That is all. It did not qualify the means by which "reality" is ascertained. humblebum came up with that crap on his own, and seeing as that the comment was not addressed to anyone in particular, one has to conclude it was a general statement.
As for black holes, etc., you are wandering off the reservation.
The point is Atheists don't simply reject the existence of any claim we cannot use our five senses to verify. Most will probably tell you they believe in black holes, because mathematical models predict their existence with a high degree of certainty. Most will probably tell you they believe in the Big Bang for the same reason. I'm not debating what we "know"; I'm merely pointing out atheism--while generally materialistic--is not as shallow as "I believe only what my five senses tell me to".
We tend to believe what is probable, based on a variety predictive models, including those which do not rely on direct observation.
That's all I'm trying to say.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)restriction to direct observation only. Nowhere have I suggested that. There is absolutely nothing so far that you have mentioned that does nor require some usage of sensory input. And are you saying that mathematical models are constructed without any prior observation or experimentation?
tama
(9,137 posts)and most honestly I'm looking for understanding, connection. And my real heart felt point is that our sensual experience is not limited to five external senses or their technological extensions, we have also fuzzy collection of "internal" body sesnses - gut feelings etc. And there's many that accept some sort of holographic interpretation of such internal sensual experiences, or rather, the whole field is really open.
And this level of experience for many of us is more meaningful and "real" than predictive explanations which is the level on which science as we know it works. And even further, we tend to recognize each other, those who have experienced "above" the explanatory level, and respect those experiences and their "spiritual" meaning.
And yes, its really difficult and "hell" with people who don't have experiences that connect with such experiences (that we don't talk about). Holier than thou? Hell yes and that's how cults and religions are born.
Hmm. Dunno what to say. All help welcome and aprecieted.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)simply restricting it to the five recognized external senses. And yes there are more than 5 senses, but for purposes of scientific evaluation I think that it is generally accepted that empirical inquiry depends on those 5. The others, while they may be perfectly valid, are difficult to use when trying to quantify results.
tama
(9,137 posts)if someone accepts the empirical data, but 1) interprets it differently by developing other theory that is consistent also with other empirical data or 2) does not give neutrinos ontological interpretation as object of belief but interprets the mathematical formalism in some other philosophical framework than philosophical realism. As also many scientists do.
tama
(9,137 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowan%E2%80%93Reines_neutrino_experiment
So, you believe in neutrinos because of hearsay (visual reading or auditory listening, to be more exact) of scientists first predicting neutrinos based on some at that time anomalous sensual data and it's theory dependent interpretation (Pauli) and then other scientists (Reines) creating experiment to gather other sensual (visual) data of the phenomenon/observable, and because as far as you know, subsequent tests have not falsified the theory. Technological extensions of five external senses do not exclude the senses, they are just extensions giving data that is perceived with human senses.
Your belief in ontological, epistemic, informational or other sort of realism, anti-realism or something between of neutrinos then depends from your more general metaphysical/philosophicla belief system or world view, which you have not so far stated.
That's my best guess why you believe in neutrinos, leaving open the question how you believe.
okasha
(11,573 posts)is couched in transparently Biblical imagery.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Telling, yes, but not about what you think.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Let me spell it out for you.
You have the Word (pile of books in the center) drawing back the veil (what you call a curtain) to show a pristine landscape of fair skies and two trees (Garden of Eden). What's telling about this is one of two things:
Either the Biblical imagery is so ingrained in our culture that the ad agency and client incorporated it without analyzing what they were about, or it's cheap manipulation that says "We promise you Paradise, knowlege--and oh, let's just forget about that immortality thing even if we leave it in the ad to draw you in, sucker."
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Biblical imagery is so ingrained in our culture that one can find it everywhere, even when it's not intended to be that.
Not unlike Pareidolia, a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant.
okasha
(11,573 posts)is identical to my option one.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You don't have to advertise atheism to atheists. They already know.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)which is to help atheists in particularly oppressive religious communities feel empowered and less isolated. san diego of course is a hotbed of right wing nuttery and atheists there likely feel pretty cut off.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)'Calif. Atheists Take a Swipe at Religion With This New Anti-God Billboard'
no link of course but here is a taste for the morbidly curious out there..
An atheist billboard set to display alongside a freeway in Lemon Grove, Calif., is already creating a stir. The message, which local non-believers hope will “shine a positive light on atheism,” will be posted today by the San Diego Coalition for Reason (SDCR). But the text on the billboard, clearly a swipe at people of faith, may do the opposite of what non-theists intend. It reads, “Atheism, a personal relationship with reality.”
While SDCR director Debbie Allen and other secularists may be hoping to help their image among the faithful, some locals are already less-than-content with the group’s choice of words. After all, the sign, which also features a picture of a pile of books, seems to indicate that those who embrace God’s existence aren’t living in reality.
at the very least i think we can all here agree that glenn beck crime syndicate isn't 'living in reality'
demosincebirth
(12,537 posts)be a medical term for this condition. Seriously.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...in a society where people are constantly trying to make you believe it, demonizing you for not believing it, passing laws based on their belief in it...
See how long your lack of understanding survives.
tama
(9,137 posts)understanding deepens.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...because religious groups believed that god thought it wrong and evil for them to marry--and scared enough voters in California into agreeing. That certainly didn't deepen my understanding of the religious--to see them taking away the civil rights of good, honest people for no logical, rational or realistic reason.
Sorry, but I don't think you've really experienced such a society at all if you think it deepens your understanding rather than wearing your understanding away.
I've struggled with hating the oppressive and self-destructive civilization, feeling lonely and excluded, all that emotional burden. I live in pretty much same society as you. Facing those emotions and dealing with them instead of staying attached to fear and hate deepens understanding, in my experience.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)
sdfernando
(4,935 posts)I rarely have reason to drive the 94 but I will make a special trip just to see this billboard.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Christians avoid reality. Because reality is we are going to die and that is the end. There is no floating around in the afterlife in perfect happiness. THIS is all we have. Too many Christians deny themselves any type of happiness while they are alive because they believe they will be happy after they die.
It's comforting to believe in God and heaven and an afterlife. But you are negating the experiences of the only real life you'll ever have if you believe in a God.
