HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » "Atheism: A personal...

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:30 PM

"Atheism: A personal relationship with reality."

New Billboard in San Diego Puts Atheism in Positive Light


(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

156 replies, 16462 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 157 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Atheism: A personal relationship with reality." (Original post)
cleanhippie Jan 2013 OP
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #1
trotsky Jan 2013 #3
zazen Jan 2013 #5
trotsky Jan 2013 #7
Iggo Jan 2013 #14
Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #72
trotsky Feb 2013 #77
2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #112
Viva_La_Revolution Jan 2013 #11
rug Jan 2013 #2
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #4
cleanhippie Jan 2013 #6
rug Jan 2013 #8
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #9
rug Jan 2013 #10
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #12
rug Jan 2013 #13
mr blur Jan 2013 #15
cleanhippie Jan 2013 #16
rug Jan 2013 #18
cleanhippie Jan 2013 #21
rug Jan 2013 #22
cleanhippie Jan 2013 #23
rug Jan 2013 #24
cleanhippie Jan 2013 #40
rug Jan 2013 #43
cleanhippie Jan 2013 #44
rug Jan 2013 #45
cleanhippie Jan 2013 #46
rug Jan 2013 #47
cleanhippie Jan 2013 #48
rug Jan 2013 #49
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #55
rug Feb 2013 #56
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #57
rug Feb 2013 #58
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #59
rug Feb 2013 #83
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #85
rug Feb 2013 #86
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #63
rug Feb 2013 #82
rug Jan 2013 #17
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #19
rug Jan 2013 #20
PDJane Feb 2013 #152
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #25
rug Jan 2013 #28
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #30
rug Jan 2013 #31
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #39
okasha Jan 2013 #29
tama Jan 2013 #33
okasha Jan 2013 #35
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #26
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #27
sanatanadharma Jan 2013 #32
humblebum Jan 2013 #34
Act_of_Reparation Jan 2013 #37
tama Jan 2013 #38
Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #89
tama Feb 2013 #92
Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #96
tama Feb 2013 #97
Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #105
tama Feb 2013 #107
cleanhippie Jan 2013 #41
humblebum Feb 2013 #53
Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #91
gcomeau Feb 2013 #60
humblebum Feb 2013 #62
gcomeau Feb 2013 #66
humblebum Feb 2013 #67
gcomeau Feb 2013 #68
humblebum Feb 2013 #69
gcomeau Feb 2013 #73
humblebum Feb 2013 #74
gcomeau Feb 2013 #76
humblebum Feb 2013 #78
gcomeau Feb 2013 #80
humblebum Feb 2013 #81
gcomeau Feb 2013 #84
humblebum Feb 2013 #87
gcomeau Feb 2013 #90
tama Feb 2013 #93
rug Feb 2013 #95
humblebum Feb 2013 #94
gcomeau Feb 2013 #99
humblebum Feb 2013 #100
gcomeau Feb 2013 #103
humblebum Feb 2013 #106
gcomeau Feb 2013 #108
humblebum Feb 2013 #109
gcomeau Feb 2013 #110
humblebum Feb 2013 #111
tama Feb 2013 #131
humblebum Feb 2013 #133
tama Feb 2013 #136
gcomeau Feb 2013 #143
humblebum Feb 2013 #144
gcomeau Feb 2013 #145
humblebum Feb 2013 #146
gcomeau Feb 2013 #147
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #155
humblebum Feb 2013 #157
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #64
humblebum Feb 2013 #65
2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #113
humblebum Feb 2013 #114
2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #115
humblebum Feb 2013 #116
2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #117
humblebum Feb 2013 #118
2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #119
humblebum Feb 2013 #120
2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #121
humblebum Feb 2013 #122
2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #123
humblebum Feb 2013 #124
Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #125
humblebum Feb 2013 #127
tama Feb 2013 #130
Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #134
tama Feb 2013 #137
Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #139
tama Feb 2013 #140
Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #138
humblebum Feb 2013 #141
Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #148
humblebum Feb 2013 #150
tama Feb 2013 #142
Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #149
humblebum Feb 2013 #151
tama Feb 2013 #153
humblebum Feb 2013 #154
tama Feb 2013 #128
humblebum Feb 2013 #129
tama Feb 2013 #126
okasha Jan 2013 #36
cleanhippie Jan 2013 #42
okasha Feb 2013 #70
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #71
okasha Feb 2013 #98
Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #101
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #104
gcomeau Feb 2013 #61
Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #102
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #50
demosincebirth Jan 2013 #51
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #54
gcomeau Feb 2013 #75
tama Feb 2013 #88
Moonwalk Feb 2013 #132
tama Feb 2013 #135
lunasun Jan 2013 #52
sdfernando Feb 2013 #79
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #156

Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:39 PM

1. Here's the Billboard: Being positive won't make any difference, the radical theists will be outraged

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:45 PM

3. It won't just be the radical theists outraged.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:53 PM

5. I'm not offended--more like bemused

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zazen (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:01 PM

7. That's quite a stretch.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:28 PM

14. Don't forget the "I'm an atheist, but..." crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:10 PM

72. Maybe it would make you feel warm and fuzzy

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #72)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:39 PM

77. My post was actually a tongue-in-cheek response to this:

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=65011

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #77)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:20 PM

112. Passive-aggressive, rancorous posts are OK when you make them for GAWD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:30 PM

11. one of the prettiest billboards I've ever seen

10 points just for that.

I like the message too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:41 PM

2. How can one have a personal relationship with something inanimate?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:49 PM

4. The same way you can have a personal relationship with someone who may or may not have lived...

Two thousand years ago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:58 PM

6. Winner!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:05 PM

8. There's more sense to that that communing with a rock.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:15 PM

9. Is that all you think there is to reality?

Reality also includes human beings as well as every other living creature in the entire universe.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:25 PM

10. Reality is more than human beings. Everyone has personal relationships with people.

 

Not even Manti Te'o could have a personal relationship with this.



The problem is personalizing and anthropomorphixing nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:35 PM

12. Do you believe that Jesus is/was just another human being?

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:42 PM

13. No. Are you aware of the concept of the hypostatic union?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:34 PM

15. That's a strong foundation you've got there.

 

(for the reality-impaired)

Rotten song, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:42 PM

16. Sounds more like rationalization for disregarding reality.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:33 PM

18. If you have something to say to or about me, say so directly.

 

Otherwise you're just nattering in the bleachers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:26 PM

21. If I have something to say to you you will know it.

Otherwise, I could give two shits what you think I'm doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:30 PM

22. Good. Make sure you're looking at me when you say it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:57 PM

23. Are we playing "Things a priest might say" now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:58 PM

24. No, we're playing "Things cleanhippie doesn't like to get called on."

 

It's pretty sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:22 PM

40. Only in your mind.

It's really sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:40 PM

43. Ok, go look for some more cartoons now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:42 PM

44. Feel better now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:50 PM

45. Yes, the word is indeed sad.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:56 PM

46. Cool story, bro.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:10 PM

47. I think you're told old for that phrase.

 

And that smiley.

Chronologically speaking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:52 PM

48. You mad, bro?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:26 PM

49. No, engaging stupidity amuses me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #49)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:05 AM

55. Then by all means, continue talking with yourself.




Feel better now that you have called me names?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #55)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:29 AM

56. It would be far more productive.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #56)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:30 AM

57. Then go be productive. The only one stopping you is you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #57)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:31 AM

58. Fortunately, you only take a few seconds.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #58)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:16 AM

59. As with many things you say, it's just plain wrong. It's been a day now...



Don't go away mad, rug, jut go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #59)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:24 PM

83. Thare's a quick three seconds.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #83)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:32 PM

85. Do you hear that alot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #85)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:38 PM

86. Now it's two.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #49)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:44 PM

63. but does it fascinate you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #63)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:23 PM

82. Not as much as watching a toile flush.

 

But more than talking to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:33 PM

17. Feel free to try to deconstruct it.

 

Do us both a favor. Know what you're talking about first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:41 PM

19. Don't think I've heard the term but the concept is indeed familiar

To me anyway it just seems to be another way of trying unscrew the inscrutable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:50 PM

20. That's a good way to put it: "unscrew the unscrutable".

 

I don't know if it entirely achieved that but it's a good stab at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:30 PM

152. There's no evidence that Jesus existed. Outside of the bible,

There's no fossil record, no writings, no mention..........I suspect that Jesus is a composite of several people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:01 PM

25. animists and pantheists might disagree.

 

as might many buddhists come to think of it. then there's this..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:24 PM

28. Animists by nature believe everything has a soul, an anima.

 

Pantheists believe that god, theos, is in all, pan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:39 PM

30. thanks for the clarifying definitions

 

it's always nice to be patronized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:42 PM

31. Patronized comes from pater, son.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:43 AM

39. here i though it came from 'patron'. the booze. yuk.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:42 PM

29. I don't rhink that picture is meant to imply

that Jesus had a pet rock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:56 PM

33. He had,

 

Peter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:21 PM

35. Good one!

You got me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:04 PM

26. Even if there is no god, and I don't think there is one,

being right about one thing does not mean you have a personal relationship with reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:08 PM

27. I love it...

Such a straight forward message that couldn't possibly offend anyone. Yet, it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:55 PM

32. Splitting hairs seeking underlying reality...Sat...

...dividing the Advaita into reality and the the maya-optic knower of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:13 PM

34. If you cannot see it, hear it, taste it, smell it, or touch it - then it doesn't exist. Now that's

 

some deep thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:51 AM

37. If you can't explain something...

GOD DID IT.

Right back at ya', pal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:42 AM

38. You can try to explain

 

absence of questions and explanations, but it's not the same as the real experience.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #38)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:20 PM

89. "Real experience" is anecdotal...

...and therefore useless.

Real knowledge is acquired through independent verification, not your personal feelings.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #89)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:47 PM

92. Useless or usefull

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #92)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:16 PM

96. Decidedly Useless

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #96)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:40 PM

97. Just to make sure

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #97)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 06:16 PM

105. Is there a point to all of this?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #105)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 06:37 PM

107. It was not rhetorical but genuine question

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:25 PM

41. That's his usual schtick.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:51 AM

53. But my "usual schtick" isn't used nearly as often as your "usual schtick"

 

Last edited Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

All one needs do is to check the list of anti-Christian/anti-religious threads bearing your name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #53)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:28 PM

91. Sounds fallacious to me

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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:06 PM

60. Perhaps you should make more effort then...

 

...since you're the only one I see here engaging in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #60)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:56 PM

62. Perhaps I should have identified it as sarcasm. It was meant

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #62)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:47 PM

66. I recognized what it was.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #66)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:51 PM

67. It can also be reasoned that there is a high certainty that God is real. In any case,

 

There is no objective, empirical proof either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #67)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:55 PM

68. I dare you to even begin to so reason.

 

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #68)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:01 PM

69. Well. if you insist on being technical, then I will change the term "proof" to "evidence."

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #69)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:15 PM

73. "However, there is plenty of subjective evidence to suggest the existence of God. "

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #73)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:30 PM

74. Your argument, I believe, was for any evidence for the existence of God. One could use

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #74)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:35 PM

76. Wrong.

 

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. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #76)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:43 PM

78. Actually, they are arguments, but they are not arguments that you accept. And yes, we are discussing

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #78)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:55 PM

80. No, they aren't. They're names. Titles.

 

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #80)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:17 PM

81. You and I both know that these arguments can never be won. But you are more than welcome

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #81)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:30 PM

84. Don't tell me what I know.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #84)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:43 PM

87. Actually people like me realize that subjective evidence very much exists and we also realize

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #87)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:24 PM

90. And yet appear incapable of examining or explaining it. Interesting no?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #90)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:54 PM

93. Have you ever had an orgasm? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #93)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 06:37 PM

95. I must say no.

 

No evidence has been provided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #90)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 06:06 PM

94. "evaluating evidence in a supernatural framework is an impossibility" - well, considering your

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #94)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:39 AM

99. Uh-huh...

 

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #99)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 06:54 AM

100. Yes, you did mention that there is a difference between proof and evidence, but you failed to

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #100)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:33 AM

103. You babble on...

 

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #103)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 06:22 PM

106. It's quite obvious that you don't know how to evaluate it either.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #106)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:01 PM

108. Evaluating evidence in a natural framework is straightforward.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #108)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:11 PM

109. No one is debating your methodology and it is very straight forward. What is being debated now

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #109)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 03:56 PM

110. And what you are avoiding dealing with...

 

..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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #110)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:14 PM

111. I still say you don't know everything about evaluating evidence. And I have dodged nothing.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #111)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:25 AM

131. What you have dodged

 

is telling about your subjective experiences which you give theological interpretation. Which, I might add, I fully understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #131)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:40 AM

133. Well in that case, I guess I dodged commenting on the weather and revealing

 

my favorite foods, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #133)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:57 AM

136. Yup

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #111)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:05 AM

143. Good grief.

 

"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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #143)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:48 AM

144. You have received very sufficient explanations of methodologies used to determine

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #144)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:29 PM

145. I have not received ANY explanation of methodology...

 

...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?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #145)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:45 PM

146. Good night, Gracie! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #146)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:05 PM

147. Sure, run along now. Don't trip over the tail between your legs. -nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #74)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:23 PM

155. Completely wrong.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #155)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:30 PM

157. "...the universe looks exactly as it does as if there were no God." Really? And

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:45 PM

64. where exactly did you get that from?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #64)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:47 PM

65. Get what from?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #34)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:21 PM

113. Tell me:

Why do I believe neutrinos exist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #113)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:39 PM

114. Probably because after the existence of neutrinos was first postulated, evidence for

 

their existence was finally observed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #114)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:41 PM

115. Thanks for admitting your post 34 is a straw man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #115)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:46 PM

116. Just how do you figure that that post is a straw man? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #116)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:47 PM

117. Wow, you can see, hear, taste, smell, or touch neutrinos?

Cool! A superhero in our midst!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #117)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:51 PM

118. So are you saying that the existence of neutrinos was not empirically proven

 

by observation of the evidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #118)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:09 AM

119. Once again, you demolish your own original post in this subthread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #119)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:12 AM

120. You are making a lot of noise but no music. Explain yourself.

 

You do realize that post was sarcasm, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #120)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:15 AM

121. I am intelligible to those that have the ability to understand.

A group that I suspect might even include you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #121)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:16 AM

122. In that case, I will stand by my original post. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #122)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:20 AM

123. So you're decreeing I don't believe in neutrinos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #123)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:32 AM

124. It's more as if you are decreeing that you do not believe in the evidence of neutrinos,

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #124)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:49 AM

125. Incorrect.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #125)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:07 AM

127. I never said that you could see gravity or taste an electromagnetic field, nor implied such,

 

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #127)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:18 AM

130. Detecting gravity

 

in everyday experience involves also introceptive senses (e.g. sense of balance) besides extroceptive senses, to be exact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #130)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:45 AM

134. No

There's a difference between detecting gravitation, and detecting gravity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #134)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:04 AM

137. If you say so

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #137)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:25 AM

139. Will do

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #139)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:48 AM

140. Minor nitpick

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #127)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:10 AM

138. Do you not understand, or are you deliberately obstreporous?

Frankly, it is difficult to tell.

If you really don't understand, I'll restate that which was previously stated rather clearly:

If you cannot see it, hear it, taste it, smell it, or touch it - then it doesn't exist.


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.

And how is observation accomplished on anything but by use of the senses? That I would really like to know.


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #138)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:13 AM

141. "scientists were able to predict the existence of black holes" - so then they did not observe data,

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #141)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:19 PM

148. Wrong again, slick.

but simply claimed the existence of black holes without anything to indicate their existence? Interesting.


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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #148)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:37 PM

150. So you have now plainly stated that empiricism (or logical empiricism) were not used

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #138)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:34 AM

142. Atheists

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #142)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:33 PM

149. I sincerely doubt that

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #149)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:23 PM

151. "including those which do not rely on direct observation." - so who is talking about

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #149)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:35 PM

153. You say well

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #153)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:27 PM

154. That was beautifully put. I too feel that human experience is much more complex than

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #124)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:11 AM

128. I would not consider that foolish

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #128)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:16 AM

129. Agree.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #117)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:02 AM

126. Flashes of light

 

The gamma rays were detected by placing a scintillator material in a tank of water. The scintillator material gives off flashes of light in response to the gamma rays and the light flashes are detected by photomultiplier tubes.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:25 PM

36. It's rather teling that an ad for atheism

is couched in transparently Biblical imagery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:26 PM

42. Yeah, a curtain, books, and landscape is biblical imagery.




Telling, yes, but not about what you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #42)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:10 PM

70. So the Amazing Kreskin is still with us.

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #70)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:14 PM

71. Or option number three...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #71)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:30 PM

98. Your option three

is identical to my option one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #71)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:24 AM

101. you mean someone is seeing jesus in a pancake again?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #101)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:59 AM

104. Something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:07 PM

61. It's directed at the religious, why wouldn't it be?

 

You don't have to advertise atheism to atheists. They already know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #61)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:28 AM

102. that's not the intent of these billboard campaigns

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:10 PM

50. or as glenn beck's 'the blaze' puts it in their headline..

 

'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'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:22 PM

51. I can't understand why something someone (atheists) don't believe in upsets them so much. There must

be a medical term for this condition. Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #51)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:00 AM

54. That you don't understand the issue at all is quite obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #51)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:31 PM

75. Try living...

 

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #75)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:56 PM

88. In my experience

 

understanding deepens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #88)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:33 AM

132. Deepens? I watched Prop. 8 pass, watched gays and lesbians lose their civil rights...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moonwalk (Reply #132)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:48 AM

135. Oh boy

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:29 PM

52. I know the area, and will be out there in April - too late, but I would have liked to see it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:46 PM

79. Cool!

I rarely have reason to drive the 94 but I will make a special trip just to see this billboard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:25 PM

156. This is exactly right.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread