Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

[GeoffP]

Like I said, you can't even tell the difference between no and I don't know. I had an epiphany about this in a thread last week, and I realised why so many discussions with atheists are so puzzling.

Because you're completely stunned?

Sam, the flat world is not a reasonable argument. You're arguing some kind of bizarre complete reductionist thinking whereby we can't know anything since we don't really know anything. This is absurd. We know the earth is round, and we know that it turns in the heavens. These are not things we have much real question about. If you want to say we know them to a certain probability approaching 1, fine. But you can't say with any reasonability that we don't know if the earth is round. You're using "I don't know" as an excuse for something or other, but excusing silliness on the premise of non-existent ignorance is ridiculous.

 

[S.A.M.]

The flat world is an analogy for the limitations of perception. To the caveman, there is no evidence of anything else. As an athiest, he does not believe in possibilities not described by evidence.

 

[GeoffP]

You might have said that it's an allegory. You're implying that even though we know the world isn't flat, it still might be.

 

[S.A.M.]

I thought the analogy was pretty clear.

 

[iceaura]

The flat world is an analogy for the limitations of perception. To the caveman, there is no evidence of anything else. As an athiest, he does not believe in possibilities not described by evidence.

Why wouldn't an atheist - such as a good many of the people who first recognized the earth as a sphere - enjoy entertaining possibilities not immediately evident ?

The flat world is an analogy for the limitations of perception.

It's kind of a poor one. The world does not, for example, look flat - not from any vantage allowing a view of a good share of it.

It wasn't perception that told the ancients (especially the ancient theists, who violently defended the notion on theological grounds) that the world was flat.

The common credit-capturing of institutionalized theism is really getting out of hand, if human curiosity and imagination are claimed as products of belief in a deity.

 

[S.A.M.]

You have evidence that cavemen did not consider the world flat?

 

[iceaura]

You have evidence that cavemen did not consider the world flat?

No, I have evidence that the world does not look flat from suitable vantage points - places of long view and smoother horizon. It's a matter of imagination and interpretation, not perception.

Do you have evidence that theistic beliefs are necessary for human curiosity and imagination ?

 

[S.A.M.]

No, I have evidence that the world does not look flat from suitable vantage points - places of long view and smoother horizon. It's a matter of imagination and interpretation, not perception.
Do you have evidence that theistic beliefs are necessary for human curiosity and imagination ?

Yes, its called natural selection.

 

[iceaura]

Do you have evidence that theistic beliefs are necessary for human curiosity and imagination ?
”
Yes, its called natural selection.

Logically backwards, Dawkins memes, or joke. I can't tell which.

 

[S.A.M.]

Logically backwards, Dawkins memes, or joke. I can't tell which.

Just observation. I see all societies beginning theistic and ending atheistic. Then it starts over. The only ones that appear to persist are the ones that understand the role of both.

 

[GeoffP]

I thought the analogy was pretty clear.

So did I, unfortunately for your point.

 

[S.A.M.]

Considering your point was lost on me, I guess so.

 

[iceaura]

Just observation. I see all societies beginning theistic and ending atheistic. Then it starts over.

You might find Hegel a good read - same basic approach.

American society, with its waxing and waning theism currently (and generally over time) at wax, might be hard to force into that mold. But that's only because it's not over yet - after it ends, it should be easy to find a theistic beginning and choose the ending to fit. The Roman empire can be fitted that way, I'm sure, despite the rise of Christianity coincident with its collapse.

I'm still a bit struck by that order of development that has curiosity and imagination emerging as byproducts of belief in a deity. The term for that sleight of mind in various analyses of bureaucracy is "kudos capture".

 

[S.A.M.]

You might find Hegel a good read - same basic approach.

America, with its waxing and waning theism currently (and generally over time) at wax, might be hard to force into that mold.

I'm still a bit struck by that order of development that has curiosity and imagination emerging as byproducts of belief in a deity. The term for that sleight of mind in various analyses of bureaucracy is "kudos capture".

I think the lack of imagination of athiests is ingrained in the fact that they define absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

 

[iceaura]

I think the lack of imagination of athiests is ingrained in the fact that they define absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

What would a stubborn insistence on making nonsensical claims about misunderstood worldviews indicate, in the realm of imagination ?

 

[S.A.M.]

What would a stubborn insistence on making nonsensical claims about misunderstood worldviews indicate, in the realm of imagination ?

Its like the dynamics of a lab. When the PI is young he has ideas, at some point, he reaches a threshold and has only method. Then, he stagnates, and fresh new ideas need to be brought in.

Imagination is what you see beyond the visible. When you lack the very ability to see beyond absence of evidence, what hope is there for the future?

 

[GeoffP]

Considering your point was lost on me, I guess so.

My point being that in the existence of data contradicting fantasy, fantasy must be treated equally with reality? You're easily lost, then.

 

[GeoffP]

When you lack the very ability to see beyond absence of evidence, what hope is there for the future?

When you are unable to see the very evidence of absence, not very much at all.

(PS: if you want to indirectly argue God, you have to use a different metric than the Flat Earth argument.)

 

[S.A.M.]

My point being that in the existence of data contradicting fantasy, fantasy must be treated equally with reality? You're easily lost, then.

No that in arguing the reality of perception, one must not forget that perception is artificial reality.

When you are unable to see the very evidence of absence, not very much at all.

That is an assumption that there is none. But every null hypothesis must be falsified or at least falsifiable, that is both its strength and its weakness. But the hypothesis itself? That must be born of imagination, not evidence.

 

[GeoffP]

No that in arguing the reality of perception, one must not forget that perception is artificial reality.

So, irrespective of evidence, we can argue whatever we want with equal merit.

The dying gasp of logic.

That is an assumption that there is none. But every null hypothesis must be falsified or at least falsifiable, that is both its strength and its weakness. But the hypothesis itself? That must be born of imagination, not evidence.

Yes - and when that birth, so tremulously heralded but completely unsupported, turns out to be a stillbirth, shall we carrying on pretending the exquisite corpse breathes still? In your version of logic, apparently so.