Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

[Michael]

then I guess we can disregard such fictional entities as "justice" "people's minds" etc etc

Justice is a concept. The God "concept" does exist. (actually that's part of a weak a priori proof of a real God).

Peoples "minds" as in consciousness is self evident. I think therefor I am. However, measuring or even defining consciousness is still up in the air and perhaps we'll be surprised by what we find. Perhaps we're not as conscious as we presume? Or under the proper definition not at all?!?!?

 

[SnakeLord]

how did you just go from "empiricism deals with empircism" to "anything outside empiricism doesn't exist/cannot be verifiable"

Where did I say anything doesn't exist? In fact, where did I say anything you've put in speech marks as if I said them?

I'm asking for an explanation why one would hold that something existing outside the empirical method would not exist

Holds that it does not exist or lacks a belief in its existence?

as opposed to yet another fundie atheist claim

It's not quite clear how my two questions can be considered a "claim" - they are, after all, questions.

 

[lightgigantic]

Justice is a concept. The God "concept" does exist. (actually that's part of a weak a priori proof of a real God).

Peoples "minds" as in consciousness is self evident. I think therefor I am. However, measuring or even defining consciousness is still up in the air and perhaps we'll be surprised by what we find. Perhaps we're not as conscious as we presume? Or under the proper definition not at all?!?!?

for something to physically exist, does it have to be measurable?

 

[superluminal]

All theists are hiding behind the fundamental premise that their god is, by it's very nature, either unknowable or untestable. Either way, making their claims impenetrable to anyone seeking the use their intellect to investigate them. And they are just soooo proud of this "achievement".

It's embarrassing. The sheer arrogance of people like LG, sam and Adstar et al... it's appalling.

Sam's position may be the worst of all. Her god is unknowable, untestable, and is in fact - nothing! It can't be described or even talked about (unless it's in original arabic I gather, because the poems only make sense then...).

But it sure does by golly exist. No fuckin doubt about it.

And of course, even being unknowable, untestable, unapproachable, unnatural, and in all other ways undetectable, this god thingy idea sure as heck beats the limited ability of science! Gosh yes!

They have no idea that they are all atheists regarding propositions that they never thought of or don't remotely entertain, like, hmmmm... atheism.

 

[superluminal]

for something to physically exist, does it have to be measurable?

Yes. Absolutely, 100% and in all other ways without a shadow of a doubt.

Why ask such a silly question?

BTW, The question is really backwards. If something is claimed, and can never be verified by measurement, then it DOES NOT EXIST. Not even theoretically. Better?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
how did you just go from "empiricism deals with empircism" to "anything outside empiricism doesn't exist/cannot be verifiable"
”
Where did I say anything doesn't exist? In fact, where did I say anything you've put in speech marks as if I said them?

I merely explained that those properly educated in science might possibly be dissuaded from having a belief in heaven and other things outside the scope of the scientific method because they are outside the scope of the scientific method.

Uhh.. no.. it seems quite standard and normal to lack a belief in something that has no supportive evidence regardless to what it is from drinking a cup of tea to crossing the road.

If something is claimed to exist outside the scope of scientific methods, what then?

I'm asking for an explanation why one would hold that something existing outside the empirical method would not exist
”
Holds that it does not exist or lacks a belief in its existence?

well ok let's get this straight
would a person who lacks a belief in something hold that it exists?

“
as opposed to yet another fundie atheist claim
”
It's not quite clear how my two questions can be considered a "claim" - they are, after all, questions.

your questions are loaded because they work out of the assumption that the terms "empircism" and "reality" are synonymous and are therefore exempt from classifications of "belief" - why would being trained in empiricism make one adverse to claims outside of empircism unless there were (fundamental) issues of belief at hand?

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes. Absolutely, 100% and in all other ways without a shadow of a doubt.

Why ask such a silly question?

BTW, The question is really backwards. If something is claimed, and can never be verified by measurement, then it DOES NOT EXIST. Not even theoretically. Better?

because it seems that Michael has just asserted that "justice" and an array of concepts (including god as a concept) physically exist.

I am not sure how one would go about measuring these things ....

 

[lightgigantic]

All theists are hiding behind the fundamental premise that their god is, by it's very nature, either unknowable or untestable. Either way, making their claims impenetrable to anyone seeking the use their intellect to investigate them.

actually the argument is that god is testable but not by empircism - kind of like you can't test volume with a thermometer (doesn't mean that your reading of the thermometer is wrong, just that you have the wrong tool for the task at hand)

And they are just soooo proud of this "achievement".

It seems you have missed the gist of the thread - I can't fathom how these details escaped your attention

It's embarrassing. The sheer arrogance of people like LG, sam and Adstar et al... it's appalling.

lol - O For shame!!

They have no idea that they are all atheists regarding propositions that they never thought of or don't remotely entertain, like, hmmmm... atheism.

since there is no basis of direct perception behind atheism, it all seems unknowable, untestable etc etc

 

[elsyarango]

This means you don't believe in God, not that you believe there is no God.. :shrug:

when somebody says that they dont believe god exists, they are usually saying they believe god doesnt exist. agnostics dont believe god exists. but in speech, they say they do not know if god exists nor does anybody nor can anybody.

a-theism = without belief

not in the world of academia most notably theology. atheism is accepted as without god. not without belief. any 'a' prefixing any 'ism' is intended be the direct antithesis of the ism. not intended for every single person that doesnt abide by the ism such as those who are undecided.

 

[Enmos]

when somebody says that they dont believe god exists, they are usually saying they believe god doesnt exist. agnostics dont believe god exists. but in speech, they say they do not know if god exists nor does anybody nor can anybody.

They just don't know, or believe they cannot know.

not in the world of academia most notably theology. atheism is accepted as without god. not without belief. any 'a' prefixing any 'ism' is intended be the direct antithesis of the ism. not intended for every single person that doesnt abide by the ism such as those who are undecided.

Of course theology, how convenient..

 

[superluminal]

actually the argument is that god is testable but not by empircism

No. You have no mechanism to test something without resorting to a real-world measurement of some sort. Direct perception is a... wait a second...

there is no basis of direct perception behind atheism, it all seems unknowable, untestable etc etc

Direct perception (in your mystical sense, as in percieving directly with the "mind") is just another delusion designed to shield theists from the fact that reality is the whole of the measurable cosmos and nothing more. You cannot directly percieve anything LG. You haven't, and nor has anyone else.

 

[Myles]

because it seems that Michael has just asserted that "justice" and an array of concepts (including god as a concept) physically exist.


Where does he say that concepts" physically exist ". I think you are seeing what you want to see rather than what he wrote

 

[SnakeLord]

If something is claimed to exist outside the scope of scientific methods, what then?

I think more pertinent is if something does exist outside the scope of the scientific method, what then? I dunno, maybe it's just my grounding in science, but I'd be dissuaded from having a belief in it.

No, that doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist.

I think that is quite clear an explanation to what I was saying earlier.

would a person who lacks a belief in something hold that it exists?

If evidence was presented to show that it did.

your questions are loaded because they work out of the assumption that the terms "empircism" and "reality" are synonymous

No it doesn't, this is a mistake on your part.

My question asked that "if one cannot find an answer to a claim where is the worth in believing that claim to be true.."

It doesn't in any way assert reality or non-reality of anything it is ultimately just asking why someone would believe in something that they can't verify the existence of. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

why would being trained in empiricism make one adverse to claims outside of empircism

Using the senses is the standard way of gaining knowledge from birth onwards and certainly holds more validity than not using them. Of course god might plug directly into your brain but that doesn't help anyone else and without being able to go through the scientific method on that god plugged in your brain you will never be able to confirm that you're not simply delusional.

 

[Myles]

not in the world of academia most notably theology. atheism is accepted as without god. not without belief. any 'a' prefixing any 'ism' is intended be the direct antithesis of the ism. not intended for every single person that doesnt abide by the ism such as those who are undecided.

As a non-academic can I ask you to help me with
Moral Amoral Immoral. Two anthitheses or one ?

 

[Michael]

Her god is unknowable, untestable, and is in fact - nothing!

pfff LOL

 

[Michael]

because it seems that Michael has just asserted that "justice" and an array of concepts (including god as a concept) physically exist.

I am not sure how one would go about measuring these things ....

Kant goes into great detail discussing this in Critique of Pure Reason. A famous quote (although obscure) was his remark: 'Existence is not a predicate' which was in regards to this idea of concept and existence.

What is the difference between a real hundred pounds and an imaginary hundred pounds? A hell of a lot! Now what is difference between them and the concept of a hundred pounds? None. The concept is the same. In the end Kant argues that existence is not part of concept but something which must be independently validated.

Bertrand Russell also talks about these ideas in "On Denoting". - The is of existence. He also repeats that 'existence is not a predicate'. Because we can intelligibly talk about things that do not exist it gives the impression they in fact do exist. example:
The king of France does not exist.
Who doens't exist?
The king of France.

this is attributing some sort of existence to the King of France.


Anyway, my point is - its complicated and more importantly, while the God concept can exist this doesn't then imply that God exists.

Michael

 

[lightgigantic]

Supe

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
actually the argument is that god is testable but not by empircism
”
No. You have no mechanism to test something without resorting to a real-world measurement of some sort. Direct perception is a... wait a second...

if you want to assert that the words "empircism" and "reality" are synonymous I will throw you in a pit of ravenous rationalists - lol

“
there is no basis of direct perception behind atheism, it all seems unknowable, untestable etc etc

”
Direct perception (in your mystical sense, as in percieving directly with the "mind") is just another delusion designed to shield theists from the fact that reality is the whole of the measurable cosmos and nothing more. You cannot directly percieve anything LG. You haven't, and nor has anyone else.

whatever floats your boat baby, but atheism still remains unknowable, untestable, etc
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

because it seems that Michael has just asserted that "justice" and an array of concepts (including god as a concept) physically exist.


Where does he say that concepts" physically exist ". I think you are seeing what you want to see rather than what he wrote

I'm not sure that he has said that - but given post 118 in the context of post 108, it seems to be where he is headed (or otherwise re-establishing definitions of "non-entity" and "physical existence")

 

[Michael]

lightgigantic,

I think post #136 clears it up.

Michael

 

[lightgigantic]

Kant goes into great detail discussing this in Critique of Pure Reason. A famous quote (although obscure) was his remark: 'Existence is not a predicate' which was in regards to this idea of concept and existence.

What is the difference between a real hundred pounds and an imaginary hundred pounds? A hell of a lot! Now what is difference between them and the concept of a hundred pounds? None. The concept is the same. In the end Kant argues that existence is not part of concept but something which must be independently validated.

Bertrand Russell also talks about these ideas in "On Denoting". - The is of existence. He also repeats that 'existence is not a predicate'. Because we can intelligibly talk about things that do not exist it gives the impression they in fact do exist. example:
The king of France does not exist.
Who doens't exist?
The king of France.

this is attributing some sort of existence to the King of France.


Anyway, my point is - its complicated and more importantly, while the God concept can exist this doesn't then imply that God exists.

Michael

so given your working definition of "non-entity", how do claims deeply lodged in rationalism (as you indicate) fare?

Are concepts to be held as "non-entities" since they cannot be measured?