Limbo

[Jaster Mereel]

Rather than giving the illusional of impartiality you should just advoacte those things that you perceive as truthful - the world has a greater variety than you have magnanimity - you will just end up falling short by neglecting norweigien lesbian pro anti neo post modern fascists or something

Actually, I was trying to be fair by defending theists from rampant militant atheism. I am an atheist, although I do not consider religion to be a mind virus/stupid/illogical/irrational/dangerous/delusional, etc... Now I'm allowing myself common ground with atheists around here.

So in other words perceiving evidence is more than just a sense gathering exercise

No, interpreting evidence is more than just a sense gathering exercise. Nice try, though.

That doesn't appear to be what he is saying - he appeasr to be saying that empirical science ( which is currently lead by reductionists) is the most popular method therefore it is the best in all matters - if however he is saying something more in line with what you are suggesting, then I wouldn't disagree, since it would suggest that theistic truths are dependant on theistic processes to perceive them

Alright, we'll wait for him to clarify for us.

Although, I would like to you define "theistic processes".

 

[lightgigantic]

Jaster Mereel

No, interpreting evidence is more than just a sense gathering exercise. Nice try, though.

do you want to clarify your earlier statement
Everyone has the ability to gather evidence about reality. That's what the senses are for.
before we proceed any further?

Although, I would like to you define "theistic processes".

Basically it boils down to this : in reductionist science you are dealing with matter while in theism you are dealing with consciousness - so understanding god is dependant not on the ability to examine dull matter with one's senses (since we cannot even perceive what we are seeing with by such processes) but on coming to a position of correct behaviour attitude etc where we are suitable candidates for seeing god - just like for instance the ability to directly perceive the president isnot dependant on one's own will but on the will of the president to grant us his direct audience - you cannot demand to see the president -you have to appeal to his common interests and qualify yourself to make it past the first of his 10 000 secretaries

 

[lightgigantic]

Jaster Mereel

Actually, I was trying to be fair by defending theists from rampant militant atheism. I am an atheist, although I do not consider religion to be a mind virus/stupid/illogical/irrational/dangerous/delusional, etc... Now I'm allowing myself common ground with atheists around here.

Save yourself the headache and just go with what you understand - even the UN can do nothing but add more flags out the front of its embassies as things fragment further

 

[Fire]

for instance if there is a god with omnipotent potencies, don't you think it would be possible for him to empower anyone with any level of knowledge? (Of course you being an atheist I am only asking you theoretically)

You're basically saying (since there is no evidence of god) that theists know there is one because it is divinely revealed and not because they are being delusional and wishfulthinkers. Well this is just silly for so many reasons.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

do you want to clarify your earlier statement
Everyone has the ability to gather evidence about reality. That's what the senses are for.
before we proceed any further?

Certainly. Your senses are designed to give you a suitable picture of reality in order to function properly in the real world. They have no other purpose. How you perceive the world is how you were meant to perceive it. Although, obviously, what you sense isn't what is real, but it is a good enough approximation to be useful. To distrust the senses wholesale in perceiving the world around you is silly, since they wouldn't be there unless they had a practical function. That function is, as I have said, to give you a coherent, useful picture of the world.

Evidence does not define truth, it alludes to it. It supports it. We gather evidence through the senses, and that evidence is interpreted by us and turned into a picture of what the world consists of so that we may use it to give ourselves understanding, and through understanding, advantage. If you need more from me on this, feel free to ask. I don't feel quite finished, but I've run out of steam on this particular subject line.

Basically it boils down to this : in reductionist science you are dealing with matter while in theism you are dealing with consciousness -

Sort of. I guess if you want to use the word "consciousness" in this manner, it would work, but I tend to shy away from such usage since it gives this portion of the argument a "New Age" feel.

Aside from the needless tangent, I'd say you're close but not quite there. Science deals with what things are made of, and how all of these components interract with one another. I don't think that your characterization of what theism deals with is quite correct. You seem to be saying that "consciousness" is just another kind of matter with different properties. That may not be what you're thinking, but the way you're phrasing the idea makes it sound like that, and I think that sells short the beauty of religion by turning it into another kind of naturalist philosophy, when it's not.

Theism deals with the subjective (which doesn't imply a lack of reality, which seems to be the way that some of you treat the word). In this way, you are right. "Consciousness", or the mind (forgive the momentary dualism, but I find it necessary to illustrate my point), is what you perceive the world with. Because you are not omni-experiencing, or for the sake of simplicity we'll say omniscient, you have a perspective. A very narrow perspective. It's natural, because the "size", or amount of experience which the mind is capable of undergoing, is quite limited in relation to the rest of existence as a whole, and because of this you are individually incapable of any kind of truly objective knowledge.

This may sound silly for some, but think about it for a moment. You might say that scientific inquiry finds objective knowledge, and it does. But no one is capable of knowing these things in an objective way themselves. They take this vision of reality that the scientific method comes up with, which is of the objective part of reality, and it gets filtered through their own perspective. What was objective has now become subjective because that knowledge is now filtered through the mind of a person. As I said before, if you'd like me to continue, feel free to ask.

so understanding god is dependant not on the ability to examine dull matter with one's senses (since we cannot even perceive what we are seeing with by such processes) but on coming to a position of correct behaviour attitude etc where we are suitable candidates for seeing god - just like for instance the ability to directly perceive the president isnot dependant on one's own will but on the will of the president to grant us his direct audience - you cannot demand to see the president -you have to appeal to his common interests and qualify yourself to make it past the first of his 10 000 secretaries

I'm going to say that your usage of the adjective "dull" to describe matter is unnecessary.

As to the rest, if this is indeed the case (and you may be right that it is), then why are we discussing this at all? What's the point of debate if you can't know the answers without permission? If that's what you believe, then you should stop trying to discuss the topic, because right now all you're doing is telling people that there is no way that they can understand without first accepting the doctrines laid down by authorities.

 

[superluminal]

Well, I think that's a rather crude comparison, but ok. I don't find it to be about as compelling as the idea of eating an african dung beetle. I like to discuss it in the same manner that I discuss great works of literature, and that's not just cocktail party-talk either. It has real implications for the way people live their lives.

Well, useless for predicting nature, but you can use it for other things. I mean, the Mona Lisa isn't very useful, is it? Religious ideas are beautiful, which is why they persist, and moreso they are obviously the result of inherent human tendencies, since it has happened everywhere without exception, and even non-religious people show religious tendencies.

I guess my point is that it's really just life as art. It doesn't seem to bother me because I don't think that there is any inherently proper way for people to live. A religiously focused life, to me, is as fruitful as a secularly focused life.

Very rational and compelling. Unfortunately, I don't find religious ideas beautiful in the least. One thing I'm certain of is that they don't persist because of their beauty.

I would be interested in what you classify as religious tendencies.

and moreso they are obviously the result of inherent human tendencies, since it has happened everywhere without exception, and even non-religious people show religious tendencies.

I completely agree.

 

[superluminal]

JM,

Thanks for supporting me, but taking sides is a bit silly.

LG,

O ye great of warping words, intentions, and implications.

 

[superluminal]

Jaster Mereel



do you want to clarify your earlier statement
Everyone has the ability to gather evidence about reality. That's what the senses are for.
before we proceed any further?



Basically it boils down to this : in reductionist science you are dealing with matter while in theism you are dealing with consciousness - so understanding god is dependant not on the ability to examine dull matter with one's senses (since we cannot even perceive what we are seeing with by such processes) but on coming to a position of correct behaviour attitude etc where we are suitable candidates for seeing god - just like for instance the ability to directly perceive the president isnot dependant on one's own will but on the will of the president to grant us his direct audience - you cannot demand to see the president -you have to appeal to his common interests and qualify yourself to make it past the first of his 10 000 secretaries

All of these words. What do you undertand of god? Can you share? Or do you refuse on grounds of epistemological unpreparedness on the part of your audience?

I claim that you are completely epistemologically unprepared to see the truth of the absence of god(s). I may be able to help you.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Very rational and compelling. Unfortunately, I don't find religious ideas beautiful in the least. One thing I'm certain of is that they don't persist because of their beauty.

Well, perhaps you don't fine traditional religious ideas to be beautiful, or maybe it's mythology? I bet the problem that most people who are hostile towards religion have is mythology, because they see fanatics taking it literally and doing insane stuff over whatever is written in what is, essentially, a book of poetry, or a set of oral traditions. Even if that is what atheists have a problem with, it doesn't really bother me. As I said, I don't think that there is any one proper way for people to live, so living it based off of a really well written, well composed song seems perfectly reasonable to me.

And you may be right about religious ideas not persisting because of their beauty, at least for the majority of people. I guess I was just talking about intellectuals. The reason why so many intellectuals are still religious is because they find the ideas attractive in an artistic way (not consciously, of course).

I would be interested in what you classify as religious tendencies.

Drawing causal connections where none exist (superstitious behavior), becoming emotional when core belief systems are challenged, ritual behavior (which is just regimented living), etc... basically, I consider human behavior in general to be religious behavior. All people are religious. This is why I created the Secular Humanism thread. Atheists are just rejecting traditional religion, because that's always what they cite when you ask them what religion is.

I completely agree.

I thought you would. You're a reasonable guy, and you missing something so obvious would surprise the hell out of me.

 

[lightgigantic]

You're basically saying (since there is no evidence of god) that theists know there is one because it is divinely revealed and not because they are being delusional and wishfulthinkers. Well this is just silly for so many reasons.

There is evidence of god - just like there is evidence of the president - if you insist on coming to the platform of direct perception there is no avoiding of coming to the platform of being properly qualified - like for instance suppose a militiant islamic fundamentalist wanted to take direct audience of the president of the USA - do you think it would be possible? It raises the question of attitude, shared interests etc - this is distinct from materialistic pursuits in science which revolve around the observation of phenomena that is inferior to us

 

[lightgigantic]

All of these words. What do you undertand of god? Can you share? Or do you refuse on grounds of epistemological unpreparedness on the part of your audience?

I claim that you are completely epistemologically unprepared to see the truth of the absence of god(s). I may be able to help you.

Before there can be any serious discussion of god all atheistic arguments have to be exhausted - so if you don't have anything further evidence why god does not exist I guess we could proceed ......

 

[baumgarten]

There is evidence of god - just like there is evidence of the president - if you insist on coming to the platform of direct perception there is no avoiding of coming to the platform of being properly qualified - like for instance suppose a militiant islamic fundamentalist wanted to take direct audience of the president of the USA - do you think it would be possible? It raises the question of attitude, shared interests etc - this is distinct from materialistic pursuits in science which revolve around the observation of phenomena that is inferior to us

Inferior? Superior? What do these words mean?

The only evidence of the president is anecdote. We suppose there is a president, but it can't be proven.

 

[lightgigantic]

baumgarten

Inferior? Superior? What do these words mean?

Inferior in this sense means that we can submit the article in question (like a water molecule for eg) to a controlled environment for observation - superior means that we cannot do this (like we cannot demand that the president of the USA come to our personal office just to prove he exists - on the contrary he only comes to such places where his functional capacity is required or appreciated or where he has personal relationships with people who not only think he really exists but actually interact with him)

The only evidence of the president is anecdote. We suppose there is a president, but it can't be proven.

So you are saying that it is reasonable to suppose that the president doesn't exist?

 

[baumgarten]

baumgarten


Inferior in this sense means that we can submit the article in question (like a water molecule for eg) to a controlled environment for observation - superior means that we cannot do this (like we cannot demand that the president of the USA come to our personal office just to prove he exists - on the contrary he only comes to such places where his functional capacity is required or appreciated or where he has personal relationships with people who not only think he really exists but actually interact with him)

Good enough. I'll agree to that for this thread.

So you are saying that it is reasonable to suppose that the president doesn't exist?

Do I find any evidence that the president doesn't exist? No. But if you find the lack of evidence for the president's existence to be the same as evidence for the lack of his existence, then the reasonable thing to do would be to believe he doesn't exist. The real question is what constitutes evidence.

 

[Fire]

There is evidence of god - just like there is evidence of the president

Evidence of people believing in god? Or evidence of the actual existence of god?

if you insist on coming to the platform of direct perception there is no avoiding of coming to the platform of being properly qualified

Again, nobody is 'properly qualified' to judge the existence of something that is beyond us all. Religion has a reputation for being wrong in what can be perceived and so enjoy trying to fill gaps of genuine knowledge with god. Which raises the question of how good they are at judging what can't be perceived.

Being 'properly qualified' to judge the existence of god, is just another one of your frail copouts. I could turn the copout around on your ass and say that judging gods non-existence is something you must be qualified in too. However, I have a little more sense than that. Richard Dawkins for example, is no more qualified to state god doesn't exist than anyone is to state god does exist.

It raises the question of attitude, shared interests etc - this is distinct from materialistic pursuits in science which revolve around the observation of phenomena that is inferior to us

Inferior to us... heh... does that not just sum up the attitude of a theist who states with confidence what is inferior and what is not? There is no rank in this universe, what you always purposely call 'dull matter' is what you are. It's a system to be respected and is no way 'inferior'... let alone to us.

 

[lightgigantic]

Good enough. I'll agree to that for this thread.



Do I find any evidence that the president doesn't exist? No. But if you find the lack of evidence for the president's existence to be the same as evidence for the lack of his existence, then the reasonable thing to do would be to believe he doesn't exist. The real question is what constitutes evidence.

agreed - so there is the idea of things being evident in principle because there are many things we do not directly perceive

 

[baumgarten]

agreed - so there is the idea of things being evident in principle because there are many things we do not directly perceive

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you rephrase it?

 

[lightgigantic]

Fire

Evidence of people believing in god? Or evidence of the actual existence of god?

Both - just like the president

Again, nobody is 'properly qualified' to judge the existence of something that is beyond us all.

the president is also beyond us all (in one sense) but nonetheless there ar epersons who have directly perceived him - if revolutionaries in theism actually thought that god was beyond us all they would have nothing to advocate

Religion has a reputation for being wrong in what can be perceived and so enjoy trying to fill gaps of genuine knowledge with god.

Not sure of that reputation, however anyway it requires an analysis of what constitutes real religion - BTW it appears that you use the terms "religion" and "xtianity" synonomously - be aware that the xtianity is a sub catergory of religion

Which raises the question of how good they are at judging what can't be perceived.

Who is "they" - scripture? Saintly people? Political persons who are situated in a religious medium of society?

Being 'properly qualified' to judge the existence of god, is just another one of your frail copouts. I could turn the copout around on your ass and say that judging gods non-existence is something you must be qualified in too.

However, I have a little more sense than that. Richard Dawkins for example, is no more qualified to state god doesn't exist than anyone is to state god does exist.

The moment you try and seperate qualification from knowledge you are just left with standard animal propensities (sleeping eating mating defending etc) to discuss which are more or less uniform to everyone

Inferior to us... heh... does that not just sum up the attitude of a theist who states with confidence what is inferior and what is not? There is no rank in this universe, what you always purposely call 'dull matter' is what you are. It's a system to be respected and is no way 'inferior'... let alone to us.

actually this is what I replied to baum when he inquired intelligently (in the post beneath yours) why I was using these words

“ Inferior? Superior? What do these words mean? ”

Inferior in this sense means that we can submit the article in question (like a water molecule for eg) to a controlled environment for observation - superior means that we cannot do this (like we cannot demand that the president of the USA come to our personal office just to prove he exists - on the contrary he only comes to such places where his functional capacity is required or appreciated or where he has personal relationships with people who not only think he really exists but actually interact with him)

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you rephrase it?

at the risk of using the word ontology, just because we may be in england we would not give a greater ontological status to england over china, just because we don't see china at the moment

 

[Fire]

I'm really starting to doubt your intelligence, or at least, your honesty... Which I guess, genereally speaking rings true for theists anyway.

Fire

Both - just like the president

the president is also beyond us all (in one sense) but nonetheless there ar epersons who have directly perceived him - if revolutionaries in theism actually thought that god was beyond us all they would have nothing to advocate

Anybody who has had access to a form of media over the past 6 years has directly percieved the existence of Bush. Since this is your latest strawman argument, I look forward to you putting George W Bush on an equal footing with god, so if you have any media footage of god stepping off Airforce 1 and walking through the pearly gates, I would dearly love to see that footage.

Not sure of that reputation....

You know, when theists (including those that wrote scripture) made claims they were confident would not be proven false? Oh, now all of a sudden Adam and Eve are allegory

Who is "they" - scripture? Saintly people? Political persons who are situated in a religious medium of society?

Whoever it is you claim (falsely) are 'qualified' to judge gods existence.

The moment you try and seperate qualification from knowledge you are just left with standard animal propensities (sleeping eating mating defending etc) to discuss which are more or less uniform to everyone

Well this is very thinly related to the specific subject we were talking about.

Inferior in this sense means that we can submit the article in question (like a water molecule for eg) to a controlled environment for observation - superior means that we cannot do this (like we cannot demand that the president of the USA come to our personal office just to prove he exists - on the contrary he only comes to such places where his functional capacity is required or appreciated or where he has personal relationships with people who not only think he really exists but actually interact with him)

But we've already established we don't need the president to be in a petri dish to establish his existence. Your analogies are equally as bad as yoru arguments.