Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

[lightgigantic]

No. Whitness is a contingent property of some objects. It cannot exist independently of them.


If you continue to disagree about this then the onus is on you to say in what sense whitness has an independent existence and how it may be perceived

i never said it was independent
I said (for the second time now) that it is beyond it
I said that all empiricism can fathom is the contingent property (the phenomena) and not "whiteness" (the noumena)
despite this inability of empiricism to approach the topic of "whiteness" we can determine that it is objective

 

[Myles]

i never said it was independent
I said (for the second time now) that it is beyond it
I said that all empiricism can fathom is the contingent property (the phenomena) and not "whiteness" (the noumena)
despite this inability of empiricism to approach the topic of "whiteness" we can determine that it is objective

So whiteness is BEYOND sensory experience . How, then, does one perceive it. And how did you find out it is beyond sensoey perception.

 

[lightgigantic]

So whiteness is BEYOND sensory experience . How, then, does one perceive it. And how did you find out it is beyond sensoey perception.

your question is how can the senses (which are restricted to dealing with phenomena) approach the noumena.
The answer is that the senses can't

Instead we rely on a value ("the universe is objective" and/or "behind ever effect is a cause") and determine (via rationalism, aka the mind) that if something "appears" white, there must be an objective state of being (or "whiteness") that enables such a phenomena to manifest

If we don't rely on the values above, we get a different conclusion.
For instance if we have the value that the phenomenal world is a creation of my mind (which is a popular standard for seeking psychiatric treatment) we would say that there is no objective state of being white ("the only reason it looks white is because my mind wants it to look white - my mind could just as easily make it yellow")

 

[SnakeLord]

you seem to be using the word "non-sense" to mean knowledge

I'm not using it in any way other than "not using the senses" - which is what you're espousing here for one to get to detect this god entity. I need to know what non-senses must be used. "Knowledge" is insufficient given that without "knowledge" that this entity exists I cannot have "knowledge" that this entity exists.

the president is also an existing thing - still, on account of his special position, you have no direct perception of him (you have never - most likely - seen him in the flesh).

Ok, so we now bring together all existing entities of which one has not directly seen. I only consider the president as existing based upon empirical factors so let's be honest and use a different entity that one does not have direct perception of. Let's say.. a mermaid. I do not have direct perception of a mermaid. Now, tell me how by using whatever methods it is you would espouse, that I can come to direct perception of mermaids. If you want to espouse non-existence, (I would be careful trying to do that), kindly inform me again what methods were used.

what must we know in order to directly perceive the president?

Well, having eyes is probably the first thing one must have..

For instance there are lots of people researching the nature of justice, despite justice remaining outside of empiricism.

Ok, justice is a mental concept.. we too are discussing a mental concept and there is no harm in that. Trying to change that mental concept to an existing object takes slightly more work lg... get to it.

IOW to flat out reject something because it doesn't fit into existing empirical frameworks is not only impractical but absurd

Nothing has been rejected at all. I'll happily espouse that mermaids exist if you can show me mermaids. Same thing applies here. What does not apply are mental concepts.

if both the janitor and the forensic scientist have equal levels of vision, why can one "see" somethings that the other cannot?

Because they have undergone more training in certain empirical methods?

 

[Myles]

LG

You distorted my my question to suit your own purposes. It was how does one perceive it ( whitness ) and how did you find out. I never mentioned the senses, so don't put words in my mouth.

How do you know that noumena exist ? How are they perceived ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

you seem to be using the word "non-sense" to mean knowledge
”
I'm not using it in any way other than "not using the senses" - which is what you're espousing here for one to get to detect this god entity. I need to know what non-senses must be used. "Knowledge" is insufficient given that without "knowledge" that this entity exists I cannot have "knowledge" that this entity exists.

ok to take a mundane example - if I tell you how to do something new(ie give you the knowledge how to do it) are you now capable of using your senses in a way that you couldn't do beforehand?

Its not that you need to know how to use your non-senses.
Its that you need to know how to use your senses.
No doubt you will say that you just don't want to do whatever I tell you, hence before coming to the platform of practice, we might have an extensive philosophical (theoretical) discussion

“
the president is also an existing thing - still, on account of his special position, you have no direct perception of him (you have never - most likely - seen him in the flesh).
”
Ok, so we now bring together all existing entities of which one has not directly seen. I only consider the president as existing based upon empirical factors so let's be honest and use a different entity that one does not have direct perception of.

the standards you accept for knowing the president are not strictly empirical (unless he has been to your place for lunch or something)
you rely on the empirical verifications of others (eg TV) or some mental concept (the nation of america must have some leader since it exhibits a high degree of structure)

If you disregard the empirical standards (TV is a lie) and/or don't accept a concept about america's structure (The GPI is actually formed by random forces of chaos and given that the universe is infinite, there are infinite opportunities for chaos to give the illusion of functional order) you have a platform for completely disregarding the existence of the president

Let's say.. a mermaid. I do not have direct perception of a mermaid. Now, tell me how by using whatever methods it is you would espouse, that I can come to direct perception of mermaids.

I guess you would have to ask a person who is advocating that they have a process on how to directly perceive mermaids

“
what must we know in order to directly perceive the president?
”
Well, having eyes is probably the first thing one must have..

so the reason you have not directly perceived the president is because you don't have eyes?

“
For instance there are lots of people researching the nature of justice, despite justice remaining outside of empiricism.
”
Ok, justice is a mental concept.. we too are discussing a mental concept and there is no harm in that. Trying to change that mental concept to an existing object takes slightly more work lg... get to it.

no need to reply to that since the bit in bold addresses the actual issue

“
IOW to flat out reject something because it doesn't fit into existing empirical frameworks is not only impractical but absurd
”
Nothing has been rejected at all.

make up your mind
you just espoused god as mental concept above

I'll happily espouse that mermaids exist if you can show me mermaids. Same thing applies here. What does not apply are mental concepts.

once again, perhaps you should discuss these things with a person proposing a way to directly perceive mermaids

“
if both the janitor and the forensic scientist have equal levels of vision, why can one "see" somethings that the other cannot?
”
Because they have undergone more training in certain empirical methods?

and the fruit of that training (knowledge) is not an empirical phenomena, hence your argument ("if its not empirical its an imagination") keels over and dies from the onset
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

LG

You distorted my my question to suit your own purposes. It was how does one perceive it ( whitness ) and how did you find out. I never mentioned the senses, so don't put words in my mouth.

How do you know that noumena exists ? How are they perceived ?

I already explained that

Instead we rely on a value ("the universe is objective" and/or "behind ever effect is a cause") and determine (via rationalism, aka the mind) that if something "appears" white, there must be an objective state of being (or "whiteness") that enables such a phenomena to manifest

If we don't rely on the values above, we get a different conclusion.
For instance if we have the value that the phenomenal world is a creation of my mind (which is a popular standard for seeking psychiatric treatment) we would say that there is no objective state of being white ("the only reason it looks white is because my mind wants it to look white - my mind could just as easily make it yellow")

these things are (commonly) understood by adopting a pre-existing value which lies outside of empiricism
How do you propose to empirical test the objectivity of these values?

I made a thread discussing this specifically some time back

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71900

these objective values that are intrinsic to science were actually inherited from religion

 

[SnakeLord]

No doubt you will say that you just don't want to do whatever I tell you

Ignorant and rude. I keep asking you to tell me what I must use or do to come to perception of this claimed entity. You stated that I should get free from lust etc etc which I have done. Alas I still don't have direct perception of this claimed entity but despite requests you've failed to tell me the next step.

you rely on the empirical verifications of others (eg TV)

That's a start. Do you have any video feeds of god?

make up your mind
you just espoused god as mental concept above

It's difficult not to considering you spend the best part of the last dozen posts comparing it to one. "But.. you can't see justice!" (pfft). You have to put some effort in if you want to espouse that it exists as an object.

 

[Myles]

I already explained that

Instead we rely on a value ("the universe is objective" and/or "behind ever effect is a cause") and determine (via rationalism, aka the mind) that if something "appears" white, there must be an objective state of being (or "whiteness") that enables such a phenomena to manifest

If we don't rely on the values above, we get a different conclusion.
For instance if we have the value that the phenomenal world is a creation of my mind (which is a popular standard for seeking psychiatric treatment) we would say that there is no objective state of being white ("the only reason it looks white is because my mind wants it to look white - my mind could just as easily make it yellow")

these things are (commonly) understood by adopting a pre-existing value which lies outside of empiricism
How do you propose to empirical test the objectivity of these values?

I made a thread discussing this specifically some time back

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71900

these objective values that are intrinsic to science were actually inherited from religion

You have explained nothing. You are simply making statements.

When we perceive an object , lets stick with a white one, our eyes transmit signals through optic nerves to the brain. Our brain interprets it as being a white object. That's it. We are still with sensory perception.

To attempt to go beyond this and argue that there is a "whitness" elsewhere is perverse. You can not produce a shred of evidence to support your belief in the existence of noumena. We have moved on since Plato and his theory of forms/ideas.

As I said, you are explaining nothing. You just make statements that such and such is the case.

Tell us how you perceive whitness without using your senses, or by going beyond them or whatever

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

No doubt you will say that you just don't want to do whatever I tell you
”
Ignorant and rude. I keep asking you to tell me what I must use or do to come to perception of this claimed entity.

you've expressed your contempt of normative/prescriptive descriptions in scriptures numerous times already - I am just running with the notion that you haven't undergone a dramatic change of heart ...

You stated that I should get free from lust etc etc which I have done.

really?
just like I am on par with einstein because I know something of physics?

Alas I still don't have direct perception of this claimed entity but despite requests you've failed to tell me the next step.

if I run into impasses in my attempt to be on par with einstein I could trace my way back to the foundations of physics and see if there is any disparity - or alternatively I could just conclude "einstein? Pfffft!! Physics is a joke"

“
you rely on the empirical verifications of others (eg TV)
”
That's a start. Do you have any video feeds of god?

no
but if you don't have a problem accepting authoritative empirical verifications of others I could make a few suggestions to your reading list

“
make up your mind
you just espoused god as mental concept above
”
It's difficult not to considering you spend the best part of the last dozen posts comparing it to one. "But.. you can't see justice!" (pfft). You have to put some effort in if you want to espouse that it exists as an object.

as I mentioned earlier, if you can't understand how issues like justice are outside of empirical verification, there is not much use in progressing with the nature of god
IOW if you can't dump the empirical holy cow "If it is real it must fit within the folds of classical empiricism" there's no point of indicating discussion established beyond that point

 

[lightgigantic]

You have explained nothing. You are simply making statements.

When we perceive an object , lets stick with a white one, our eyes transmit signals through optic nerves to the brain. Our brain interprets it as being a white object. That's it. We are still with sensory perception.

To attempt to go beyond this and argue that there is a "whitness" elsewhere is perverse.

its perverse to contemplate what makes a white object white?

You can not produce a shred of evidence to support your belief in the existence of noumena.

perhaps to one who places more value on empirical standards than is healthy

We have moved on since Plato and his theory of forms/ideas.

well, from your post, it seems to have regressed since at least by plato's standard, discussing what may cause a white object to be white was not considered perverse

As I said, you are explaining nothing. You just make statements that such and such is the case.

Tell us how you perceive whitness without using your senses, or by going beyond them or whatever

maybe you can try and explain what makes a white object white, since your refusal to discuss anything I brought makes your view thoroughly perplexing

 

[SnakeLord]

you've expressed your contempt of normative/prescriptive descriptions in scriptures numerous times already

O...k. I think perhaps more to the point, as you've been told already by others, is your vague and generally quite bizarre way of saying things. We've been down this road before and yet to date I still haven't got you to give me a straight example of these so called 'normative descriptions' of yours. You have once or twice mentioned getting free from envy etc, and I've just told you that I have. I ask for the next step and you run back into your shelter of vagueness.

I still wont get a straight answer, instead you'll give me some more vague and meaningless statements about Norwegian pig farmers.

really?

Yes really. I am completely devoid of envy, wrath, and lust - except lust for knowledge of this god entity. I take it that doesn't count?

but if you don't have a problem accepting authoritative empirical verifications of others

It depends whether methods to verify it for yourself are included. The problem with religious claims is that the process is so vague and undefined to render the whole thing meaningless. As an example: "To know god open your heart". Someone proceeds to 'open their heart', (even though it's too vague to mean anything). Upon doing so the religious delusion/knowledge, (whatever you prefer), is protected if the person fails because of the methods vagueness. "Oh, you clearly didn't open your heart enough". It's worthless gibberish.

You come along with your own brand of this gibberish: "get rid of envy". I am as rid as rid can be, and yet if I don't happen to see this entity in the sky it's because I have some unseen blob of envy stuck in my left leg or something.

If science worked in such manner we'd still be stuck in caves.

"Examine the chemical with your cosmic mind."

"Sorry boss, I can't discern anything"

"You're not using your cosmic mind enough..."

It's meaningless, worthless woo-woo.

if you can't understand how issues like justice are outside of empirical verification, there is not much use in progressing with the nature of god

*watches tumbleweed go past*

Umm.. I have continually had to explain to you why justice is outside of empirical verification as has Myles. It is because 'justice' is not an object, it's a mental concept. This is now perhaps the dozenth time you have compared your god to a mental concept. I have raised this before but you just go back to your "but you can't empirically verify justice". We seem to be stuck in a time loop or something.

Justice is a mental concept and thus cannot be empirically verified. Is god a mental concept?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

you've expressed your contempt of normative/prescriptive descriptions in scriptures numerous times already
”
O...k. I think perhaps more to the point, as you've been told already by others, is your vague and generally quite bizarre way of saying things. We've been down this road before and yet to date I still haven't got you to give me a straight example of these so called 'normative descriptions' of yours.

we have discussed being free from envy/lust/wrath etc - problem is that you think you are already qualified in that regard so there is not much room for discussion ....

You have once or twice mentioned getting free from envy etc,

once or twice?

and I've just told you that I have. I ask for the next step and you run back into your shelter of vagueness.

I guess we could either further examine the context in which these normative descriptions are given or accept your self assessment

I still wont get a straight answer, instead you'll give me some more vague and meaningless statements about Norwegian pig farmers.

the problem is that you cannot properly discuss scripture, the source of the normative descriptions that you deem yourself qualified in - imagine trying to discuss something in physics with a person who throws a wobbly everytime some reference is made to information existing in phsyics text books
IOW you have a serious attitude problem towards the existing framework that you are trying to establish yourself as qualified in - there is a scriptural standard of being free from lust, etc, ... but due to your contempt of scripture, you never really seriously examine it and are therefore not in a position to properly understand much about it

“
really?
”
Yes really. I am completely devoid of envy, wrath, and lust - except lust for knowledge of this god entity. I take it that doesn't count?

:bravo:

“
but if you don't have a problem accepting authoritative empirical verifications of others
”
It depends whether methods to verify it for yourself are included.

and I guess that would depend on one's ability to properly apply oneself to prescriptive descriptions ...

The problem with religious claims is that the process is so vague and undefined to render the whole thing meaningless.

some people find physics gobbledygook too
probably reflects their understanding of physics texts ....

As an example: "To know god open your heart". Someone proceeds to 'open their heart', (even though it's too vague to mean anything). Upon doing so the religious delusion/knowledge, (whatever you prefer), is protected if the person fails because of the methods vagueness. "Oh, you clearly didn't open your heart enough". It's worthless gibberish.

so serious investigation would involve investigating the context in which it was recommended one open one's heart
If you have as a prerequisite that you are only going to take on board 2/3 sentences to understand a field of knowledge, you kind of limit yourself form the onset

You come along with your own brand of this gibberish: "get rid of envy".

yep
totally unconnected to the "open your heart" thing, eh?

I am as rid as rid can be,

well gee I guess that settles it then

and yet if I don't happen to see this entity in the sky it's because I have some unseen blob of envy stuck in my left leg or something.

I can see you have thought this out thoroughly

If science worked in such manner we'd still be stuck in caves.

certainly
fortunately persons who applied themselves to science display more fortitude than you do towards religion

"Examine the chemical with your cosmic mind."

"Sorry boss, I can't discern anything"

"You're not using your cosmic mind enough..."

It's meaningless, worthless woo-woo.

and you wonder why I constantly bring up the issue of the high school drop out vs the physics professor?
:shrug:

“
if you can't understand how issues like justice are outside of empirical verification, there is not much use in progressing with the nature of god
”
*watches tumbleweed go past*

Umm.. I have continually had to explain to you why justice is outside of empirical verification as has Myles.

the problem is that solely on the basis of being outside of empiricism, you assign it an inferior role

It is because 'justice' is not an object, it's a mental concept.

so does that mean justice exists or not?

This is now perhaps the dozenth time you have compared your god to a mental concept. I have raised this before but you just go back to your "but you can't empirically verify justice". We seem to be stuck in a time loop or something.

the justice eg is all about clearly displaying the inherent limitations of relying on empiricism as an absolute mechanism for discerning truth or reality

Justice is a mental concept and thus cannot be empirically verified. Is god a mental concept?

no, god is not a mental concept, but like a mental concept, god cannot be approached by classical empiricism
(for more details see the analogy of the president)

 

[iceaura]

the problem is that you cannot properly discuss scripture, the source of the normative descriptions that you deem yourself qualified in - imagine trying to discuss something in physics with a person who throws a wobbly everytime some reference is made to information existing in phsyics text books

The odd conviction that expertise in the Bible - in English translation, no less - somehow validates claims about Gods or atheism or "empiricism" or science, is unshakable among those who make evident no other reason for confidence in their understandings.

I am not sure what the "empiricism" being thrown around here actually means, but "whiteness" is something science can define, measure, and investigate.

And "justice" is of course a human-defined concept, with no reality outside of human terms and understandings.

the problem is that solely on the basis of being outside of empiricism, you assign it an inferior role

So what are you saying: is it the exclusion of Gods from the "empirical" world that offends, or the overrating of the empirical world in some kind of status competition ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Iceaura
“

Originally Posted by light
the problem is that you cannot properly discuss scripture, the source of the normative descriptions that you deem yourself qualified in - imagine trying to discuss something in physics with a person who throws a wobbly everytime some reference is made to information existing in phsyics text books
”
The odd conviction that expertise in the Bible - in English translation, no less - somehow validates claims about Gods or atheism or "empiricism" or science, is unshakable among those who make evident no other reason for confidence in their understandings.

even if we were discussing say physics, if you don't apply the prescriptive requirements for "doing" physics, it is also simply leading one up the garden path

I am not sure what the "empiricism" being thrown around here actually means, but "whiteness" is something science can define, measure, and investigate.

science can explain something of the phenomena of whiteness but can venture nothing of the noumena of whiteness - empiricism means the senses and the playing field of the senses is the phenomenal (and not the noumenal) world

And "justice" is of course a human-defined concept, with no reality outside of human terms and understandings.

as explained elsewhere, justice is a contingent quality of power/management
our understanding of the extent of "justice" extends as far as our understanding of power/management
the only way for your statement to be valid is if you can verify that humanity is the final last word of power/management in the universe

“
Originally Posted by light
the problem is that solely on the basis of being outside of empiricism, you assign it an inferior role
”
So what are you saying: is it the exclusion of Gods from the "empirical" world that offends, or the overrating of the empirical world in some kind of status competition ?

in short, defining the words "empirical" as synonymous with "the final last word in reality" is not only impractical but absurd

 

[Myles]

its perverse to contemplate what makes a white object white?


I have explained what makes a white object white, so why the need for further conteplation ? If, in your view, my explanation is deficient then tell me what I omitted. I don't want yet another statement about noumena, I want you to EXPLAIN why you think I'm wrong

perhaps to one who places more value on empirical standards than is healthy

And you, no doubt, can explain what is healthy in this respect.

well, from your post, it seems to have regressed since at least by plato's standard, discussing what may cause a white object to be white was not considered perverse

So you are recommending a return to pantheism, not to mention a flat earth.


maybe you can try and explain what makes a white object white, since your refusal to discuss anything I brought makes your view thoroughly perplexing

I have explained it. Don't blame me if you cannot understand my explanation.

You still don't seem to understand what it means to explain something. You seem to believe that by making one fatuous statement after another you are telling me something. Stop making statements and using analogies. Simply tell me how you became aware of the existence of noumena.

 

[lightgigantic]

its perverse to contemplate what makes a white object white?
::

I have explained what makes a white object white, so why the need for further conteplation ? If, in your view, my explanation is deficient then tell me what I omitted. I don't want yet another statement about noumena, I want you to EXPLAIN why you think I'm wrong

erm - do you know what a noumena is?

perhaps to one who places more value on empirical standards than is healthy

And you, no doubt, can explain what is healthy in this respect.

in short - steering clear of absurdity

well, from your post, it seems to have regressed since at least by plato's standard, discussing what may cause a white object to be white was not considered perverse

So you are recommending a return to pantheism, not to mention a flat earth.

plato challenged pantheism actually ....
needless to say, I didn't mention anything about a flat earth

:shrug:

maybe you can try and explain what makes a white object white, since your refusal to discuss anything I brought makes your view thoroughly perplexing

I have explained it. Don't blame me if you cannot understand my explanation.

lol - ok fine - forget I ever asked

You still don't seem to understand what it means to explain something. You seem to believe that by making one fatuous statement after another you are telling me something. Stop making statements and using analogies. Simply tell me how you became aware of the existence of noumena.

actually analogy is a method of explaining ...
anyway, I am sure you have strong points, but philosophical discussion doesn't appear to be one of them
:shrug:

 

[Myles]

erm - do you know what a noumena is?

No, but I am familiar with the concept of a NOUMENON. Noumena is plural but you don't seem to have found that out. I find that interesting, given your claim to be aware of such things.By the way ,noumenon" means an unknown thing , so how come YOU know ?



My question was: How did you become aware of noumena ?


in short - steering clear of absurdity

Again, you are simply making a statement which invites further questions.
What do you mean by absurdity ? How have you avoided it and how do you know that I haven't



plato challenged pantheism I didn't mention anything about a flat earth

Is that because you consider it unnecessary to explain the obvious. i.e., that the earth is flat ?


Please provide a reference for Plato's challenge to pantheism. In the opening of the " Republic " he explains how he has been down to Piraeus with Glaucon ,to worship the goddess. The goddess was Bendis, a Thracian goddess who had recently been introduced to Athens. In function and form she was similar to Artemis.So he had two for the price of one, so to speak.



actually analogy is a method of explaining ...
anyway, I am sure you have strong points, but philosophical discussion doesn't appear to be one of them

Analogies have a habit of confusing things if pushed too far. Take your analogy of the forensic scientis and the janitor. I have pointed out that the only difference between them, given equal intelligence, is that the scientist has had a particular sort of training; he was not born an expert. The janitor could be trained but it would be on the basis of improving his sensory perceptions.

You are hinting that the scientist has access to knowledge which remains hidden from the janitor, beyond that which he can acquire empirically. That is where yor analogy falls down.

As to whether philosophical discussion is one of my strong points, I will leave that for others to judge.

You have been given several opportunities to explain how you became aware of noumena, but have yet to tell us. Can you do so now, or will you continue to avoid giving an answer because you are on shaky ground ?

 

[lightgigantic]

erm - do you know what a noumena is?

No, but I am familiar with the concept of a NOUMENON. Noumena is plural but you don't seem to have found that out. I find that interesting, given your claim to be aware of such things.By the way ,noumenon" means an unknown thing , so how come YOU know ?

is it possible for phenomena not to have a noumena?
(the only one I can think of is something that is attributed as the cause of reality itself - somehow a white object doesn't cut the mustard ...)

My question was: How did you become aware of noumena ?

see above

in short - steering clear of absurdity

Again, you are simply making a statement which invites further questions.
What do you mean by absurdity ? How have you avoided it and how do you know that I haven't

If you want to argue that something phenomenal is the final last word in something and any further discussion is perverse, it certainly seems absurd

plato challenged pantheism I didn't mention anything about a flat earth

Is that because you consider it unnecessary to explain the obvious. i.e., that the earth is flat ?

no - its because I consider it necessary to remind you that plato is appreciated for his contribution to logic (as opposed to empirical observation)

Please provide a reference for Plato's challenge to pantheism. In the opening of the " Republic " he explains how he has been down to Piraeus with Glaucon ,to worship the goddess. The goddess was Bendis, a Thracian goddess who had recently been introduced to Athens. In function and form she was similar to Artemis.So he had two for the price of one, so to speak.

Plato initiated the first wave of rejection of the theogeny - he did this by philosophizing on the nature of the "chos" ("void") which is attributed as the cause of the greek pantheon.

A few radical philosophers like Xenophanes of Colophon were already beginning to label the poets' tales as blasphemous lies in the 6th century BC; Xenophanes had complained that Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods "all that is shameful and disgraceful among men; they steal, commit adultery, and deceive one another".[67] This line of thought found its most sweeping expression in Plato's Republic and Laws. Plato created his own allegorical myths (such as the vision of Er in the Republic), attacked the traditional tales of the gods' tricks, thefts and adulteries as immoral, and objected to their central role in literature.[6] Plato's criticism (he called the myths "old wives' chatter")[68] was the first serious challenge to the Homeric mythological tradition.[65]
wiki

actually analogy is a method of explaining ...
anyway, I am sure you have strong points, but philosophical discussion doesn't appear to be one of them

Analogies have a habit of confusing things if pushed too far. Take your analogy of the forensic scientis and the janitor. I have pointed out that the only difference between them, given equal intelligence, is that the scientist has had a particular sort of training; he was not born an expert. The janitor could be trained but it would be on the basis of improving his sensory perceptions.

and lo and behold this is the point I wished to illustrate with the analogy

You are hinting that the scientist has access to knowledge which remains hidden from the janitor, beyond that which he can acquire empirically. That is where yor analogy falls down.

well the janitor cannot inquire empirically - why?
because he has neglected the prescriptive requirements for inquiry
thus sense perception is not the final authority since the senses only become potent when empowered by knowledge (and "knowledge", per se, is not an empirical phenomema)

As to whether philosophical discussion is one of my strong points, I will leave that for others to judge.

You have been given several opportunities to explain how you became aware of noumena, but have yet to tell us. Can you do so now, or will you continue to avoid giving an answer because you are on shaky ground ?

I have indicated that noumena play an integral role in discerning objective reality - if you can't approach something noumenal, you have no claim to objectivity. If you can't understand that empiricism is fundamentally incapable of discerning objective truths, any further discussion cannot proceed

 

[elsyarango]

I will agree with this to an extent in that the general population are either theists, (and thus vastly misguided), or those that incorrectly find the distinction in the words atheist and agnostic. Unfortunately it is a common misconception. I don't argue against you that it's common understanding, but it is a misconception.

As an example I will state that I am not an agnostic. I am of the view that if a god entity exists that it is, or will be, possible to know that it exists. If for instance the OT is an accurate depiction of history then it is safe to say that many humans - Noah, Moses etc actually "knew" god existed because they apparently had conversations directly with it. Many modern day christians claim the same thing - that they have knowledge of this entity in that they communicate with each other. In saying I cannot be labelled an agnostic.

The problem is that the "common understanding" is that an agnostic is what we call weak atheism.

I concur with common definition, my argument number 1 states that those common definitions are misguided.



This seems to be an identical argument to number 1. I will not argue commonality with you, but commonality does not mean accurate.



Your argument number 3 contains a contradiction in the form of "definitely" and being open to alternate possibility.

As for one other statement: "Any rational individual is reasonable enough to be open to the possibility that they can be proven wrong and admit it."

Needless to say, the world is not full of rational individuals. There must, and is, a line that distinguishes the differences in views.

It need to be said that if you're half human, half fish you can be called neither a fish or a human. A term must exist to distinguish you from the other two. It is commonly held that the term is agnostic, but as explained that is inaccurate.



Seemingly it is a contention of disagreement between the strong atheists, the theists and those that are ultimately neither. Strong and weak atheism is not a new thing, indeed it stretches back decades - albeit under different terms, (negative/positive atheism).

Dawkins actually disagrees with the strong/weak terminology but still categorises himself as a "de facto atheist" and not a strong atheist - thus a distinction in itself. That such a distinction exists and needs to exist is undeniable, but yes... we can argue over what specific words would please you and the general population best.

You use the term "non theist", but that applies to everyone, yourself included that is not a theist even though we have our differences. It is simply insufficient.



Not at all - and it also seems a tad unfair to blame infidel when the distinction between atheists has been in use since 1949.



If you read my first post you'll see I stated this has all been done before. A search would have saved time and hassle.

I don't think you have properly interpreted my argument.

My argument is that those various categories are not the proper accurate standard definitions of atheism. My argument is that all those categories and those definitions are misconceptions.

My argument is that the only proper definition of atheism is what you and many others refer to as strong atheism. As such, my argument is that the information on the infedel website misdefines the term atheism.

Furthermore, theists and atheists alike may or may not be open to the possibility of being wrong. It is up to them how reasonable they are. I'm not sure exactly how you would interpret being open to the possibility of being wrong.