"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."

[Balerion]

At the bare minimum, you must admit that any atheism is a result of, or directly justified by, a specific world view.

Not at all. Reason and logic are not world views, and they are what atheism directly results from and is justified by. I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of a god. What about that statement is dependent on a particular worldview?

Denying the impact of one's world view on an atheistic opinion is moot.

My worldview has nothing to do with atheism. And what exactly is an "atheistic opinion?" I get the feeling this is just another attempt to broaden the definition of the word.

 

[keith1]

...As to the perspective of who is being isolated:

An infinitely long fence has a point where, a locked gate separates two persons.
Question: How does an observer of this scene establish which person is inside and which person is outside the caging fence.
Answer:The person with the key to the lock...

Which you believe is who?

Odds favor the lock opens without a key. The fence is more likely not a fence but a membrane. Similar to other natural configurations as osmotic systems, placental barriers, dimensional variances, light-speed barrier, distinct individuality, etc.

The two factions atheist and non-atheist are not polar opposites, but if both are wrong, then no amount of time will solve the schism, even with a complete censorship of either faction, then to lessen the odds.
A day was reached, where ship navigators no longer scared the crew and merchandisers with stories of sea-monsters and a flat earth. That kind of day is always coming to the paradigms...
The only urges to continue a belief system beyond it's "likely odds of someday being validated", is it's "lucrative synergy", or it's exposure to the "unanimous consensus of it's unlikeliness".

 

[Syne]

Not at all. Reason and logic are not world views, and they are what atheism directly results from and is justified by. I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of a god. What about that statement is dependent on a particular worldview?

Does reason and logic inform your perspective on nature, values, and ethics? Your perspective is your world view.

world·view
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.​

Do you believe in any speculative science without conclusive evidence? Abiogenesis?

My worldview has nothing to do with atheism. And what exactly is an "atheistic opinion?" I get the feeling this is just another attempt to broaden the definition of the word.

Really?! :bugeye: Didn't you just say, "reason and logic are ... what atheism directly results from"?

Atheism is obviously an opinion, as it cannot be proven conclusively by fact.

 

[DaveC426913]

Atheism is obviously an opinion, as it cannot be proven conclusively by fact.

It certainly can.

I can prove conclusively the following claim: - that I do not accept that there is compelling evidence of a god -

You misunderstand the core tenet of atheism. It is not that there is no god; it is that atheists do not accept god as granted. True, some atheists have a stronger belief - that there is indeed no god. But that extreme stance is not a required tenet of atheism.

 

[Syne]

It certainly can.

I can prove conclusively the following claim: - that I do not accept that there is compelling evidence of a god -

You misunderstand the core tenet of atheism. It is not that there is no god; it is that atheists do not accept god as granted. True, some atheists have a stronger belief - that there is indeed no god. But that extreme stance is not a required tenet of atheism.

What you find compelling is subjective opinion, short of conclusive evidence. To argue against the existence of a god requires a bit more than an agnostic nonacceptance. Qualifiers such as "granted" seem superfluous or equivocal.

 

[wynn]

My point is that one cannot accept the testimony of others regarding theism and atheism, as a definate.

What else, aside from personal testimony of one kind or another, is there?

An ordinary person who does not have a personal revelation from God, necessarily has to depend on other people for any input on the topic of "God."

And that which is referred to as "scriptures" is still effectively nothing but personal testimony, to a person who does not have some extraordinary means to establish that the scriptures are more than that.

 

[Trooper]

Atheism is obviously an opinion, as it cannot be proven conclusively by fact.

So it is.

All animals accumulate information, but for most, that information dies with them. We humans however, can pass on information that accumulates from generation to generation. As a species, we are continually learning. There is no reason to assume that ancient knowledge is foreknowledge, something to be recovered rather than discovered.

Of course, we all have biases at some level but cherry picking ancient text is a sure fire way of confirming them. When you have to tell yourself that, some parts are only meant to be taken figuratively, symbolically, or metaphorically then it’s time to exercise a little bias awareness.

Like Richard Dawkins, I too, feel that belief may have had an evolutionary advantage, but religious beliefs are simply a byproduct, and merely a consequence of something that had an evolutionary advantage. For our own protection, as children, we had to listen to our parents, and believe whatever they told us.

Not believing in something does not guarantee accuracy, but it does help to clear away superstitions and falsehoods.

What’s your opinion? Do you think it is better to believe, or not to believe in something that appears incoherent, unjustifiable, and unprovable?

"Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities.
The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and
the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High
Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you
stop thinking about it."
--Robert A. Wilson

 

[wynn]

So it is.

All animals accumulate information, but for most, that information dies with them. We humans however, can pass on information that accumulates from generation to generation. As a species, we are continually learning. There is no reason to assume that ancient knowledge is foreknowledge, something to be recovered rather than discovered.

Of course, we all have biases at some level but cherry picking ancient text is a sure fire way of confirming them. When you have to tell yourself that, some parts are only meant to be taken figuratively, symbolically, or metaphorically then it’s time to exercise a little bias awareness.

Like Richard Dawkins, I too, feel that belief may have had an evolutionary advantage, but religious beliefs are simply a byproduct, and merely a consequence of something that had an evolutionary advantage. For our own protection, as children, we had to listen to our parents, and believe whatever they told us.

Not believing in something does not guarantee accuracy, but it does help to clear away superstitions and falsehoods.

What’s your opinion? Do you think it is better to believe, or not to believe in something that appears incoherent, unjustifiable, and unprovable?

"Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities.
The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and
the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High
Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you
stop thinking about it."
--Robert A. Wilson

What if we apply this kind of skepticism to everything you just said above, and to what Wilson is saying in the passage you quote?

What if you were to apply
"Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities.
The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and
the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High
Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you
stop thinking about it."

to
"All animals accumulate information, but for most, that information dies with them. We humans however, can pass on information that accumulates from generation to generation. As a species, we are continually learning."

- ?

Clearly, you believe that "As a species, we are continually learning" and other claims you've made.

But why do you believe them? Why aren't you skeptical about them?

 

[Trooper]

Clearly, you believe that "As a species, we are continually learning" and other claims you've made.

But why do you believe them? Why aren't you skeptical about them?

Evidence.

Goodnite, wynn. :sleep:

 

[lightgigantic]

You keep saying this, or some variety of this, but never provide one working example of these supposedly non-evidenced and reductionist claims.

Nonsense.

I talk about them all the time : abiogenesis, life as nothing but a sum total of chemical reactions, etc etc

Read Sam Harris and try to say that atheists exclusively believe that there is no such thing as transcendence. Hell, even reading Hitchens will show you the contrary.

sure ... by dumbing down the term

Nonsense. And again, atheism is not a worldview.

Then I suggest you better back down now from any political/ontological suggestions that might further embarrass you ... (the statement you give below being but one grand example)

You say that as if "faith" offers a workable alternative.

You say that as if it isn't (edit with quotation marks mine)

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes, because religion is political. If stamp collection or astrology were political, us non-stamp collectors and non-horoscopers would be political too. Atheism is a rectionary stance, not a definitive one.

If that was the case they wouldn't constantly be talking about what isn't on the (non-evidenced) strength of what is (eg : abiogenesis, reductionist views of life, religion as a purely culturally defined phenomena arising out of imagination and falsity, etc etc)

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

When you use the word reductionist, I assume you mean science, which is evidence based.

Then clearly I am (and you too for that matter ...) not talking about science since reductionist views of reality are not only non-evidenced but also logically incapable of being successful (on account of being epistemologically bound to a metonymic scope between the micro and macrocosm - IOW the further one goes into the grander scheme of things, whether via the telescope or microscope, the hazier it gets - to the point of fading out to nothing - on account of the intrinsic limitation of the senses, the core tool of empiricism)

If there is no evidence for the transcedent, then it has no logical basis in objective reality.

If one relegates issues of evidence to empiricism, one has for all intents and purposes, prohibited one's self from actually investigating the claim ... much like the deeper mysteries of temperature are lost to a fool who insists that a tape measure is the number one tool for the job.

I acknowledge that it might still be a useful concept in philosophy, but it speaks more to a subjective mental experience. Such ideas are not reality, they are aspects of the mind, which is illusory.

On the contrary, a philosophical investigation of empiricism clearly reveals why it is not a capable tool for the job ...

You can't assert the reality of the transcedent without evidence.

Sure ... not to a person who insists empiricism has a monopoly on all claims of evidence ... much like the reality of temperature cannot be asserted to a fool who insists that all issues of evidence are determined by tape measures

You can't just invent a special class of phenomenon and say it cannot be proven with science. That's a form of logical fallacy called special pleading:

On the contrary, you cannot invent a special dimension to empiricism that lies technically beyond its capacity to even hope to have the glimmer of investigating ... which is also called special pleading, so I will leave you this piece of information to ruminate on ...

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption {wiki}​

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

Does reason and logic inform your perspective on nature, values, and ethics? Your perspective is your world view.

So my worldview is reason and logic? I've always understood "worldview" to imply preconceptions about the world that are not necessarily based on anything. But then, I suppose if I believe there is nothing after death, that would be part of a worldview, wouldn't it? Alright then. But that still doesn't mean atheism is a world view. It would be a consequence of rational thinking. I can't bring myself to say that "atheism is a result of my worldview," because it implies a rigidity or inflexibility that simply isn't there, but if that's what it is, that's what it is.

Really?! :bugeye: Didn't you just say, "reason and logic are ... what atheism directly results from"?

Yeah, but I wasn't considering logic and reason as a worldview, because logic and reason are not preconceptions.

Atheism is obviously an opinion, as it cannot be proven conclusively by fact.

I misunderstood you at first. But "I do not believe in God" is not an opinion, it's a fact. If I were to say "Yahweh does not exist," then you're getting into opinions, and some atheists define it as the latter, rather than the former.

And at any rate, there's enough evidence to say with certainty that the God character of the Bible is not an historical figure. There are enough contradictions and signs of low birth, so to speak, to be able to say without a doubt that Yahweh is a mythical character. I mean, is it an opinion that Zeus doesn't exist? C'mon.

 

[Jan Ardena]

aaqucnaona

Strong atheism + reactionary anti-theism is a definitive world-view, but I wonder if you can call it a religion. Semantics in not my subject, take it up with FR if you wish. But Agnostic/weak Atheism + Passive apatheism is not a definitve world-view and cannot in any sense be termed a religion. Either way, at least Dawkins are doing a better thing than burning witches and suppressing progress.

Everything that leads to performing an action is a world view, unless you act without reason. If you are athiest for a reason, it means you see the world through atheist eyes, and every thought, and action is filtered through that.
It has most definately become a world view, and becoming more anti-theistic, which is now synonamous with atheism, and that's exactly what folk like Dawkins are doing. They are rallying people to jump on the anti-theism bandwagon to gain more support so that they can achieve the destruction of God, and religion.

The term ''religion'' is not a term that is used in scripture, it's use is very similar to ''yoga'' (i mean the real stuff), which mean ''link'' or ''ladder''. One meaning of the word ''religion'' stems the latin word ''re-ligare''. The prefix ''re-'' meaning ''again'', and ''ligare'' which means to ''connect with'' or ''to bind''. It doesn't stipulate what it is that we connect or bind, with. So ''religion'' is merely a process used to acheive a goal. The actions we perform determines our religion, but that process is an ongoing scenario, and we merely change it according to our state of mind.

Interesting assertion. Any elaboration?

Because you don't talk about ''religion'' it self. You focus mainly on the Christian evangelical side, using that as a blueprint for what is religion.
If you were serious about it, you would really look into it, and you wouldn't be trying to rebutt everything, based on Christian. If God is real, then it is of vital importance, so I'll look into it. In that way your understand would increase, because your mind would be free, and ready to accept.

By ''accept'', I don't mean you agree with it, and just fall head first into it.
It means that once you accept something for what it is, you are in a far position to understand it, than if you don't accept it.
I don't get this freedom of mind from you, I sense that you are not prepared to go past a certain point, even if your point of view is proven to be lacking.
You simply look for something else that may suffice, or you try and switch back to the asker. A symptom, IMO, of some kind of indoctrination that kicks in when challenged.

In bold - explain/elaborate/substantiate pls before this para can be discussed further.

Not sure what you're question pertains to.

It is in relation to scripture.

It like that idea, is a person's actions/ideas/behaviour really what he really is? It doesnt actually matter because it is not relevant right now. Right now, I am in all sense, an atheist. Thats what I really am. I might become a theist someday but that wouldnt make me a theist right now.

You don't believe in God, because you don't see, or know of any evidence for His actual existence. Yes? Weak--agnostic/atheist, yes?

When I look at this position, I don't see ''weak atheism'', or even ''agnosticism, I see full on, strong atheism, and I'll tell you why.
There is a strong implication here that the person knows what the evidence is, that he may actually one day come to believe in God if such evidence is presented. But when asked to provide what they would regard as evidence, they settle for some supernatural event that THEY can't explain (therefore it must be God). So already, they have an idea of what God should be for them to accept, and that ideal is not God, the supreme being.

They have already rendered a trancendenta being, the ultimate kick start to theism therefore atheism, non existent, by dint of not accepting any form trancendance, knowing full well that trancendance, by it's definition, is beyond particle matter, and cannot be verified, or proven using our gross senses. Therefore, even if such a being did exist, there is no difference from our perspective, to such a being not existing. Therefore God does NOT exist.

Do tell me the bigger picture then.

For a start, part of it is comprised in some of the other aspects of religion spoken of here, not just the generalised Christian, evangelical world view.

Again, you are not making your point clear. I do get your argument, but I can neither argue nor agree until you lay out your version of what God, religion and theism [in your sense] really is.

God, is the Supreme Being, the Absolute and Ultimate Truth, God is the origin of everything we percieve, what we don't percieve. God is One without a second, and the the abode of all soulls, both conditioned and not conditioned.
God is the Original Person, from whom everything emanates, via His different energies.

Religion, is the steps we take to come to the realisation that we are, at our essence, pure-spirit beings, who for whatever reason, desired to lord it, like God, and as a result fell into the trap of material existence, which ends up being a struggle for existence at one end of the scale, and a false sense of security, ownership, and identity, at the other.

Theism is a belief in God.


How's that?

Ah, straight answers. Once more the double standards reveal themselves. But perhaps I do you an injustice, maybe religion and theism are inherently systemic in their vaugeness. But onto the question, the real question is, show us that these things were really known by them [and understood] and arent projected or updated in translation or interpretation. Then we can take on the job of explaining how they knew the alleged things.

Well gee! The entire vedic literature, interpolated, secretly, after and during the introduction of modern science. And nobody suspected anything.
They sure are sneaky!


As I thought, you are not prepared to answer that, because to do so would mean you have to accept something that directly contradicts your position.


jan.

 

[wynn]

Evidence.

Your skepticism is inconsistent.

 

[aaqucnaona]

If that was the case they wouldn't constantly be talking about what isn't on the (non-evidenced) strength of what is (eg : abiogenesis, reductionist views of life, religion as a purely culturally defined phenomena arising out of imagination and falsity, etc etc)

:shrug:

And why does that have to be so?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Everything that leads to performing an action is a world view, unless you act without reason.

No, and situaitional decisions based on the the circumstances rather than ideologies are a good example of my point.

If you are athiest for a reason, it means you see the world through atheist eyes, and every thought, and action is filtered through that.

Do your views on environmentalism [or any other topic] define every thought and action of yours? How can you assert the same for my non-theism?

It has most definately become a world view, and becoming more anti-theistic, which is now synonamous with atheism, and that's exactly what folk like Dawkins are doing. They are rallying people to jump on the anti-theism bandwagon to gain more support so that they can achieve the destruction of God, and religion.

No, the public debasement of religion is the goal, not the personal destruction of religion or its potentiality. And that is a goal I have aligned with and argued for the link above, so fell free to discuss this there.

The term ''religion'' is not a term that is used in scripture, it's use is very similar to ''yoga'' (i mean the real stuff), which mean ''link'' or ''ladder''. One meaning of the word ''religion'' stems the latin word ''re-ligare''. The prefix ''re-'' meaning ''again'', and ''ligare'' which means to ''connect with'' or ''to bind''. It doesn't stipulate what it is that we connect or bind, with. So ''religion'' is merely a process used to acheive a goal. The actions we perform determines our religion, but that process is an ongoing scenario, and we merely change it according to our state of mind.

I dont care about the semantics of religion, Jan. I care about what is generally considered 'the world religions' and what they do to science, culture, safety, politics, progress and humanity. You must know that I am extreme pragmatist - the practical causality is the most important thing for me.

Because you don't talk about ''religion'' it self. You focus mainly on the Christian evangelical side, using that as a blueprint for what is religion.
If you were serious about it, you would really look into it, and you wouldn't be trying to rebutt everything, based on Christian. If God is real, then it is of vital importance, so I'll look into it. In that way your understand would increase, because your mind would be free, and ready to accept.

So I bais myself on a 'if God exists', which would prime my mind to be dragged into irrational beliefs and unsubstantiated claims [not theological or philosophical speculations - religions are about as much about philosophy as porn is about storytelling]. Hardly free and open minded, is it Jan?

As to why I focus on christianity in my opposition to religion, lets do a roll call, shall we - Buddish is the real nice guy, apart for some archaic woo-woo, it comes closest to what a real religion [IMO] would be like. So no issues with it. As far is hinduism is concerned, its neither possible for us to yet influence it nor are its billion tops followers ready yet for non-belief. Besides, Hinduism does only the mildly bad, like castes and sexism and oppression of sexuality, etc. Besides, Indians are one of the most tolerant people I have ever met. As for Jews, dont fuck with the bankers! No seriously, I sympatise with them. Tossed around by Christians and muslims for a long time, I almost feel thats its not their fault that they have been rendered stupid, ignorant or both. Coming to muslims, well, you dont mess around with guys ready to blow themselves up for their imaginary friend, simple as that! And leave the tribes alone please. But when you come to christains, they are a group most previledged by history and politics, perhaps the religion with the most advanced members [or residents of advanced places] - and when they, of all people, instead of leading the progress of humanity, waste their times fundamentally sticking onto the myths of desert nomads on a hunger trip, thats when I get disappointed. Add to that the active suppression of science and a drive to spread their insanity to the rest of us, much less impose it on our children [and our future] thorught dishonest tactics and political crap, its a fight I simply cant stand out on. Besides, if or when the tide turns, this* is where it will begin.

*the west

By ''accept'', I don't mean you agree with it, and just fall head first into it.
It means that once you accept something for what it is, you are in a far position to understand it, than if you don't accept it.
I don't get this freedom of mind from you, I sense that you are not prepared to go past a certain point, even if your point of view is proven to be lacking.
You simply look for something else that may suffice, or you try and switch back to the asker. A symptom, IMO, of some kind of indoctrination that kicks in when challenged.

The reason is simple Jan, I extend the same standards for knowledge claims in religion as I do for everything else. Accepting it would mean lowering my rational guard against woo-woo, and as a former New-ager, I know where that can go. If religion is real, why does it need me to accept it to understand it to be true? Kinda weak for an assertion of the great unanswered questions in the world, dont you think?

It is in relation to scripture.

Thank you for contextualising it. Now onto the elaboration please?

You don't believe in God, because you don't see, or know of any evidence for His actual existence. Yes? Weak--agnostic/atheist, yes?

Yes.

When I look at this position, I don't see ''weak atheism'', or even ''agnosticism, I see full on, strong atheism, and I'll tell you why.
There is a strong implication here that the person knows what the evidence is, that he may actually one day come to believe in God if such evidence is presented. But when asked to provide what they would regard as evidence, they settle for some supernatural event that THEY can't explain (therefore it must be God). So already, they have an idea of what God should be for them to accept, and that ideal is not God, the supreme being.

They have already rendered a trancendenta being, the ultimate kick start to theism therefore atheism, non existent, by dint of not accepting any form trancendance, knowing full well that trancendance, by it's definition, is beyond particle matter, and cannot be verified, or proven using our gross senses. Therefore, even if such a being did exist, there is no difference from our perspective, to such a being not existing. Therefore God does NOT exist.

First Jan, no, unless I dont claim that "There is no GOD", no semantic acrobatics would qualify me as a strong atheist. Second, I dont have an Idea of what God is actually, that is on the theists to claim and then substantiate, to which I apply my usual scepticism. Its not on me to know what god is, neither is it on me to tell me what can change my mind, for I dont know that. All I can tell is whether or not something a theist suggests can or cannot convince, other than that, I cannot set a bar, for I have already thought of the problem you describe and have decided not the subject myself to it, which is why stance is carefully formed and well expressed as "Agnostic atheistic apatheism".

For a start, part of it is comprised in some of the other aspects of religion spoken of here, not just the generalised Christian, evangelical world view.

And beyond the start?

Ok, some refining needed here, to cut out the poetic and understand the epistemic:

God, is the Supreme Being

,

What does it mean for God to be a 'being'? Is he a being in the sense we are beings? Is he one in the sense of natural order or beauty or maybe like gravity?

the Absolute and Ultimate Truth

,

What does it even mean to for a being to not only be a source of absolute and ultimate truth [the existence of which itself is still debated] but also be that truth?

God is the origin of everything we percieve

,

Meaning what? That god makes it or works by intervening it all that happens, that He made it all?

what we don't percieve.

Which is something we can assert nothing about, even anything about its relation to God.

God is One without a second,

Why so? Why not a pantheon of Gods?

and the the abode of all soulls,

But he is a being, if is a being, he can either be seperate from all souls [whose existence is unsubstantiated] or he can not be a being at all and be something+collection of souls. He cannot both be a being and an abode of souls.

both conditioned and not conditioned.

What is that supposed to mean?

God is the Original Person,

So he is not only a being but also a person, a being with individuality and personality?

from whom everything emanates,

Said that once already.

via His different energies.

Oooh, moving towards new age and mysticism, are we? And how do you know, must less define, nevermind understand, any of the above? How can you assert, or even proclaim it?

Religion, is the steps we take to come to the realisation that we are, at our essence, pure-spirit beings, who for whatever reason, desired to lord it, like God, and as a result fell into the trap of material existence, which ends up being a struggle for existence at one end of the scale, and a false sense of security, ownership, and identity, at the other.

And we know that that 'realisation' is not a delusional ideology because?

Theism is a belief in God.

Agreed.

How's that?

:shrug:

Well gee! The entire vedic literature, interpolated, secretly, after and during the introduction of modern science. And nobody suspected anything.
They sure are sneaky!

Ignorine a cheap shot at humour, I didnt suggest a conspiracy, did I? Being malicious isnt a requisite for being baised.

As I thought, you are not prepared to answer that, because to do so would mean you have to accept something that directly contradicts your position.

Actually Jan, I am not yet ready to answer that because you have not asked a definitive question. You have not given me examples of knowledge objectively evident in ancient times that cannot have been achieved without modern science. Unless you do give me said examples, what am I supposed to respond to? You want a good answer, ask a clear question!

 

[lightgigantic]

And why does that have to be so?

In order to ardently stand by the precept that the universe is bereft of sentient orchestration of course

 

[spidergoat]

Then clearly I am (and you too for that matter ...) not talking about science since reductionist views of reality are not only non-evidenced but also logically incapable of being successful (on account of being epistemologically bound to a metonymic scope between the micro and macrocosm - IOW the further one goes into the grander scheme of things, whether via the telescope or microscope, the hazier it gets - to the point of fading out to nothing - on account of the intrinsic limitation of the senses, the core tool of empiricism)

If one relegates issues of evidence to empiricism, one has for all intents and purposes, prohibited one's self from actually investigating the claim ... much like the deeper mysteries of temperature are lost to a fool who insists that a tape measure is the number one tool for the job.


On the contrary, a philosophical investigation of empiricism clearly reveals why it is not a capable tool for the job ...


Sure ... not to a person who insists empiricism has a monopoly on all claims of evidence ... much like the reality of temperature cannot be asserted to a fool who insists that all issues of evidence are determined by tape measures


On the contrary, you cannot invent a special dimension to empiricism that lies technically beyond its capacity to even hope to have the glimmer of investigating ... which is also called special pleading, so I will leave you this piece of information to ruminate on ...

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption {wiki}​

:shrug:

Reductionist explanations for reality have demonstrated their effectiveness. Ever watch a TV? We can do that because we understand the electron.

Also, science is not completely reductionist. We don't look to the atom to explain evolutionary psychology, for instance. So, science works on many levels.

Seeing as how I can prove science works, and you cannot prove your transcendental investigations work, I have clearly made the superior argument.

Furthermore, I have pointed out the logical fallacy of your argument, that you cannot assert a transcendent realm without having any objective evidence for it. The origin of this realm must then be merely the literary tradition of the supernatural. Empiricism is not applicable or necessary to explain fiction. This fiction is haziness personified, and has no explanatory power for anything other than the workings of one's imagination. This is the pit out of which you must crawl if you reject empirical investigation. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Tell us again why you keep talking?

 

[lightgigantic]

Reductionist explanations for reality have demonstrated their effectiveness. Ever watch a TV? We can do that because we understand the electron.

Also, science is not completely reductionist. We don't look to the atom to explain evolutionary psychology, for instance. So, science works on many levels.

Seeing as how I can prove science works, and you cannot prove your transcendental investigations work, I have clearly made the superior argument.

Proving the effectiveness of a tape measure in certain scenarios doesn't make it effective in all scenarios any more than proving the effectiveness of reductionist models in certain scenarios makes it effective in all scenarios.

And if you want to start talking about the authority of soft science then it becomes the slippery slope of the softer the science, the more the evidence is malleable and open to interpretation

Furthermore, I have pointed out the logical fallacy of your argument, that you cannot assert a transcendent realm without having any objective evidence for it. The origin of this realm must then be merely the literary tradition of the supernatural. Empiricism is not applicable or necessary to explain fiction. This fiction is haziness personified, and has no explanatory power for anything other than the workings of one's imagination. This is the pit out of which you must crawl if you reject empirical investigation. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Tell us again why you keep talking?

If one keeps on insisting (merely for the sake of upholding their world view ... so it seems) that empiricism has a monopoly on all claims of evidence a few key points of discussion (such as the complete ineffectiveness of empiricism even on a theoretical level) have to be gone through before one can even hope to begin to advance anything further
:shrug: