Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

if you can't determine the real foundation of abstractions, you can't determine the real foundation of god
”
Doesn't leave you in the best of positions then given the fact that you can't even work out the difference between a concept and an object

I don't know what makes you think that
every since we started discussing this I have been quite clear that empircism can define objects but not concepts.
you on the other hand .....

“
then there could also be a case for a gradation amongst persons free from the influence of avarice/envy/etc
”
I see, and how does one determine these levels? Is there an envyometer or wrathometer that detects specific levels and then determines specific grades?

you mean like empirically discern a concept?

Can you and I compare somehow to see who is more qualified in this regard?

yes, but not with empiricism as the medium

“
well we have been discussing how having a bit of knowledge (like say forensic science) can enable one person to see something that another person cannot (like say a janitor)
”
Well no, you have. I've been pointing out the error in your statement. However, as is typical of you, it doesn't address what was said.. You must concur that if you gain experience or evidence using methods that do not utilise any senses then it can be accurately described as a non-sense method, or no-sense method if you prefer.

and what do you concur about the nature of experience?
Can the experience of "gaining knowledge" be empirically reduced or does it stand outside of such a model of definition?

“
call upon the skills of a janitor when you actually require a forensic scientist
”
Where is anything here not utilising the senses?

Where is there anything that says you are prohibited from using your senses?

Well? If the janitor starts looking for forensic evidence, then he is using his senses - regardless to whether he knows what he's looking for. Now explain to me this mystical non-sense of yours.

as your choice in language indicates, you still haven't understood that I was introducing the notion of a hierarchy as opposed to mutually exclusive terms.

IOW you are speaking nonsense.

“
my statement was that it isn't rational
your statement was that it isn't truthful
”
Uhh.. no, I merely repeated what you said.

read it and weep

me - If I say X is made of A and B yet I am unable to produce X with A and B, I am simply talking about some mental concept that solely exists in my mind
”
(notice that I am contending the rational basis that, A+B=X, as opposed to actual existence of A & B)


you - You say there's a god (x) which is comprised of omnipotence (a), omnipresence (b), and omniscience (c), exists in a spiritual realm (d)... the list goes on, unfortunately I'll run out of letters to use come z.

You are simply talking about some mental concept that exists solely in your mind. Glad we agree.
(notice that you are contending the validity of (a) to (z) as components)


:shrug: :bawl:

 

[Myles]

there's a difference between saying things like "justice is blind" and discussing, say, platonic idealism

Today's Tip: READ LESS, STUDY MORE.

I was about to explain Plato's theory of forms, or ideas. but decided against doing so. I am beginning to suspect that what you really want is a free education.

As you are so keen on justice, I recommend that you STUDY Plato's Republic in which you will be treated to a long discourse on what constitutes justice.You may also like to study a few of the numerous commentaries on "The Republic"

Meanwhile, as you cannot show me "whiteness", explain the difference between saying "justice is blind and discussing, say, Platonic idealism ". You obviously have a clear answer. I can't wait to hear it.

 

[lightgigantic]

there's a difference between saying things like "justice is blind" and discussing, say, platonic idealism

Today's Tip: READ LESS, STUDY MORE.

I was about to explain Plato's theory of forms, or ideas. but decided against doing so. I am beginning to suspect that what you really want is a free education.

just as well you didn't
I only brought up platonic idealism as an eg

As you are so keen on justice, I recommend that you read Plato's Republic in which you will be treated to a long discourse on what constitutes justice.

probably not necessary
in short, justice is a concomitant quality of power
for instance if a country has some centralized authority (government) there is some sort of justice
carried through to ideas of the phenomenal world, if it is maintained by some centralized authority (god) there is some sort of justice

Meanwhile, as you cannot show me "whiteness", explain the difference between saying "justice is blind and discussing, say, Platonic idealism ". You obviously have a clear answer. I can't wait to hear it.

To say justice is blind does not mean that it should be taken to an optometrist
rather, it could be examined to see how it could fit into more objective models

 

[Myles]

just as well you didn't
I only brought up platonic idealism as an eg

probably not necessary
in short, justice is a concomitant quality of power
for instance if a country has some centralized authority (government) there is some sort of justice
carried through to ideas of the phenomenal world, if it is maintained by some centralized authority (god) there is some sort of justice



To say justice is blind does not mean that it should be taken to an optometrist
rather, it could be examined to see how it could fit into more objective models

Today's Tip: Do not speak of what you don't know , lest you be suspected when you speak of what you do know.


You have still not explained what you were asked to explain about justice and Plato's Idealism. Will you please do so.

How do you reconcile Palto's Idealism and objective models of anything ?

 

[lightgigantic]

just as well you didn't
I only brought up platonic idealism as an eg

probably not necessary
in short, justice is a concomitant quality of power
for instance if a country has some centralized authority (government) there is some sort of justice
carried through to ideas of the phenomenal world, if it is maintained by some centralized authority (god) there is some sort of justice



To say justice is blind does not mean that it should be taken to an optometrist
rather, it could be examined to see how it could fit into more objective models

Today's Tip: Do not speak of what you don't know , lest you be suspected when you speak of what you do know.


You have still not explained what you were asked to explain about justice and Plato's Idealism. Will you please do so.

How do you reconcile Palto's Idealism and objective models of anything ?

I only brought it up to indicate that there are a range of philosophies that deal with notions of universals behind abstractions
Plato is one
Jung is another
Doesn't mean I personally advocate them but I think it does indicate that abstractions can be discussed outside of mere reifications

 

[Myles]

I only brought it up to indicate that there are a range of philosophies that deal with notions of universals behind abstractions
Plato is one
Jung is another


Doesn't mean I personally advocate them but I think it does indicate that abstractions can be discussed outside of mere reifications

I didn't ask whether you advocated anything; I asked you to explain the meaning of your statement. You have not done so. Try again or accept that you talk without understanding what you are saying.

 

[Photizo]

How did you arrive at the view that someone is unwilling to believe what he knows to be true?

By denying myself.

Wouldn't it be closer to the truth if you said that someone was unwilling to believe what YOU KNOW TO BE TRUE

No. All Humanity has been created in the Image of God.

 

[Spud Emperor]

By denying myself.



No. All Humanity has been created in the Image of God.

Can I be Victor Mature?

 

[Photizo]

Can I be Victor Mature?

How about Jesus?

 

[Myles]

By denying myself.


No. All Humanity has been created in the Image of God.


If you deny yourself then you cast doubt on your existence. Anybody there ?

You should know by now that mankind wasn't created; we evolved.

Have you knocked on any good doors lately ?

 

[Myles]

How about Jesus?



You took the words out of my mouth. Well. how about Jesus?

 

[Myles]

Can I be Victor Mature?

Only if I get to be John Wayne

 

[SnakeLord]

every since we started discussing this I have been quite clear that empircism can define objects but not concepts.

Really? Would seem then that you can use empiricism to detect this god, unless you now concur that it is merely a concept?

The subject at hand is you showing me this god. Must you continually evade?

you mean like empirically discern a concept?

I didn't "mean" like anything, I asked a question. So lg, how does one determine these levels?

yes, but not with empiricism as the medium

Understood. So how?

and what do you concur about the nature of experience?

I don't see the relevance of the question. If experience is gained without utilising the senses then it is non-sense experience. You thought I was being rude, I was being accurate.

Where is there anything that says you are prohibited from using your senses?

Wtf?

<Snake> You'll have to explain that non-sense to me if you want me to accept non-sense as the way to establish truths.

<lg> call upon the skills of a janitor when you actually require a forensic scientist

<Snake> Where is anything here not utilising the senses?

<lg> Where does anything say you can't use your senses?

Lol, are you smoking dope? :m:

I said explain non-sense to me, not nonsense. :bugeye:

 

[Myles]

Would you please not interrupt. I asked a question, post #306 and I'm still waiting for an answer LG is panting to give me. Please have the decency to wait in line.

For your information "decency" is a concept which can only be understood by reading Plato, Descartes and Karl GUstav Jung. Don't believe me ? Just ask JG and all will become clear.

 

[SkinWalker]

There is no "line." This is a discussion forum. If you want your own private audience with LG, use the PM system.

Otherwise, everyone is free to post whatever comments they choose within the rules guidelines. You can, however, choose not to answer or even read those comments. You can also use the Ignore feature should they be overly bothersome

Thank you.

 

[SnakeLord]

It's ok Skin, he was messing with me

 

[Myles]

There is no "line." This is a discussion forum. If you want your own private audience with LG, use the PM system.

Otherwise, everyone is free to post whatever comments they choose within the rules guidelines. You can, however, choose not to answer or even read those comments. You can also use the Ignore feature should they be overly bothersome

Thank you.

Have you a thread on humour ?

 

[lightgigantic]

I only brought it up to indicate that there are a range of philosophies that deal with notions of universals behind abstractions
Plato is one
Jung is another


Doesn't mean I personally advocate them but I think it does indicate that abstractions can be discussed outside of mere reifications

I didn't ask whether you advocated anything; I asked you to explain the meaning of your statement. You have not done so. Try again or accept that you talk without understanding what you are saying.

already done

discussion of universals can be made without taking shelter of reifications
eg platonic idealism

If you don't understand how that is possible, perhaps we could discuss platonic idealism, but I would have thought it was quite straightforward

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

every since we started discussing this I have been quite clear that empircism can define objects but not concepts.
”
Really? Would seem then that you can use empiricism to detect this god, unless you now concur that it is merely a concept?

sorry
perhaps it should have read
every since we started discussing this I have been quite clear that empircism can define dull matter but not concepts, what to speak of god.

The subject at hand is you showing me this god. Must you continually evade?

its not so much an issue of constant evasion but constant reiteration and clarification

“
you mean like empirically discern a concept?
”
I didn't "mean" like anything,

then why did you write this

Is there an envyometer or wrathometer that detects specific levels and then determines specific grades?

I asked a question. So lg, how does one determine these levels?

do you mean to say that you are totally stumped how to determine different levels of states of being?
eg lust, wrath, envy happiness, etc

“
and what do you concur about the nature of experience?
”
I don't see the relevance of the question. If experience is gained without utilising the senses then it is non-sense experience. You thought I was being rude, I was being accurate.

the relevance is that, yes, experience grants knowledge, but, no, such experience cannot be empirically reduced (if it could be, there would be no need to go to school)
hence knowledge (that dynamic element that empowers the senses) is not within the purview of the senses.

so your original statement about empiricism and us being all the same on some level (aka knowledge acquiring) is contradictory, since the very thing you indicate is a non-empirical phenomena

“

Where is there anything that says you are prohibited from using your senses?
”
Wtf?

<Snake> You'll have to explain that non-sense to me if you want me to accept non-sense as the way to establish truths.

<lg> call upon the skills of a janitor when you actually require a forensic scientist

<Snake> Where is anything here not utilising the senses?

<lg> Where does anything say you can't use your senses?

Lol, are you smoking dope?

I said explain non-sense to me, not nonsense.

ok let me put it another way
if a janitor is called upon to do the work of a forensic scientist, does he use his senses?
if a forensic scientist is called in, does he use his senses?
If the answer to both these questions is yes, why are you introducing the notion that one of them is using his non-senses?

It seems you are just using primitive language, by talking about knowledge as a non-sense - kind of like describing the rest of the planets in the universe as non-earths

Obviously the special benefits of utilizing a forensic scientist is that he has senses plus knowledge, as opposed to just the average run of the mill knowledge of the janitor

Do you understand how I am talking about something that operates on hierarchical/concomitant rather than mutually exclusive principles?

 

[Godless]

Have you a thread on humour ?

What do you mean? This whole thread has been one big joke from the start!
Just look at the oxymoron; Atheist-Fundamentalism.