The problem with atheism – No rational connection between the methodology and object

[lightgigantic]

Raithere

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
or you are being seriously obtuse – I mean even straight and simple empiricism runs into a few pitfalls if it is incomplete of a few essentials ....
”
Okay, I'll make the point again. Complete knowledge is not necessary. In fact, complete knowledge seems to be an actual impossibility. I never said "an ant could know just as much about human affairs", an ant does not need to know anything about human affairs to understand that humans exist and have an effect upon its world.

Actually, I find your statements quite strange, are you actually asserting that we can ever know everything about God using any method? That's quite a boast.

to get back to the OP, claiming that there is no proof for god because there is no empirical evidence for it is absurd. My point about knowledge is that it crosses a certain threshold and it becomes distinct (like for instance knowing that something is a human is quite a step up from knowing the sum parts of a human) - and I use the example of an ant trying to surmise that a forearm belongs to a human to suggest the impossibility of that ever being bridged within the limited horizons of empiricism

“
then perhaps you won’t mind if we test your experience, yes?
”
Sure.

what is the first step in becoming devotional to god?

“
For some reason however you feel that there is no issue of normative descriptions in theistic comprehension
”
Quite the contrary actually. Of course, there is the problem that definition limits the subject. So the more we define god, the smaller he gets.

actually its the opposite - the more rigidly one insists on impersonal definitions of god, the less capable such definitions are able to house issues of omni-benevolence etc

But the problem, from my perspective anyway, is that theists can't seem to agree upon anything. Each group claims the other is wrong, even within groups there is significant dissent.

I agree with you in one sense - and I think that is due to a lot of misinformation being bandied about - kind of like what you could imagine discourses in medicine were like before medical practice became subject to competency based assessment
(but as a side point, not even competency based assessment makes for seamless discussion - there are still issues of contention, so it would be foolish to expect unanimously voiced discourse on all subjects on all levels)

 

[lightgigantic]

iceaura

Originally Posted by LG
you really think an ant is understanding some hairs and freckles as a human?
”
No, I think it is learning something about a human by investigating hair and freckles.

so if it doesn't recognize that the freckles belong to a human (or arguably anything more than the topography of a freckle) what is it that they are actually learning about humans?
“

Originally Posted by LG
If we are like ants and if another entity is like a human, we wouldn't know it even if we ran into them.
”
Ants are aware of the event of running into a human. They are then capable of learning something about that human.

so if an ant runs into a human, what do you suppose makes the event distinct (for the ant) from running into an elephant .. .or even running into the dismembered limb of a human?

Their methods are available to science.

hence the limitation of "science"

 

[Simon Anders]

Authority does not necessitate truth. It's the easy way out, to let someone do your thinking for you.

Which to some degree we all do. No need to reinvent the wheel. Hopefully there are ways to evaluate how good those authorities are. Sometimes we are to some degree at their mercy - the garage mechanic, the doctor. We can get second opinions, but then we are letting authorities combat each other. With religious or spiritual or psychological authorities there are several methods of testing the authorities while at the same time following their suggestions. On ongoing evaluation and reevaluation process. The radical individual who does not use authorities is more than likely simply rehashing pop psychology and the worst parts of common sense.

So then promises don't mean anything, it's results you're looking for. The next question is; how you do go about evaluating the results of any particular philosophy?

And how do you go about evaluating yours. How do you evaluate the following....

Happiness is not a goal to reach, it is a way of traveling. When you discover this, you find these things far less troublesome. It is a sad fact that religion often focuses people so completely upon an afterlife that they forget to live, which I find incredibly tragic.

How do you know this is true? especially the part in bold? are you sure you did not arrive at this hypothesis via authority? It sounds like statements I have heard a number of authorities say.

I think there is a lot of hubris when it comes to our ability to attribute the sources of our thoughts and conclusions
and
why they seem right to us.

 

[lightgigantic]

Raithere

Then you perhaps have more specific ambitions and goals than I do. My main goal is to be truly happy, a happiness that is beyond aging, illness and death. The only question is how to get there.
”
Happiness is not a goal to reach, it is a way of traveling. When you discover this, you find these things far less troublesome. It is a sad fact that religion often focuses people so completely upon an afterlife that they forget to live, which I find incredibly tragic.

aka moral relativism

 

[iceaura]

so if an ant runs into a human, what do you suppose makes the event distinct (for the ant) from running into an elephant .. .or even running into the dismembered limb of a human?

Dozens of possibilities: heat, motion, skin chemstry, etc.

Ants are famously capable of learning important details about dismembered body parts, including their availability as food for ants.

All irrelevant to the point, which is that an ant can learn something about a human.

Their methods are available to science.
”
hence the limitation of "science"

How does the capability of availing itself of ant methods limit science ? The more methods the fewer limitations, I would say.

 

[Simon Anders]

Dozens of possibilities: heat, motion, skin chemstry, etc.

Ants are famously capable of learning important details about dismembered body parts, including their availability as food for ants.

All irrelevant to the point, which is that an ant can learn something about a human.

It takes a smart or intuitive ant to piece together these different sensations or phenomena and grasp that it is one, very large creature that is aware of that ant.

With science there is often the assumption that if we cannot measure it with our tools it does not exist. Or, equally strong, it is best to assume that any intuition or insight that connects these phenomena and recognize a whole is false.

Both the former and the latter hypostheses are not tested.

 

[iceaura]

With science there is often the assumption that if we cannot measure it with our tools it does not exist.

There are two cases here: circumstantial incapability and theoretical impossibility. Scientists only start talking about assumed non-existence in the second case - and even there, an advance in theory can reset all the assumptions. This has happened enough times to create an appropriate humility, at least pro forma and institutional, among at least some.

Or, equally strong, it is best to assume that any intuition or insight that connects these phenomena and recognize a whole is false.

Again two cases: a recognized whole that can be comprehended or investigated in theory at least, and one that cannot be, even in theory.

In mathematics, for one clear example, an intuition that recognizes apparently disconnected phenomena as forming a whole is valued highly, a spur for great effort, and no one thinks it best to assume such an intuition false.

But the basic human condition is such that science has more trouble with assumed wholes and existences where they are not than failure to recognize them where they are. Getting rid of the assumptions of evil spirits and curses has often been the first step in learning about a disease, for example. Humans need little encouragement to see great patterns and wholes everywhere, and name them without having ascertained even their existence.

 

[Enmos]

then why do issues of whether a statement is objective or not matter to you?

Because I am a human.

 

[Enmos]

The whole damn thing is alive and pulsing with life. Just like the forest.

Yes it is.

 

[Enmos]

I cannot understand the point of statements like that. Obviously you cannot take a single element and view it as the whole but...a tennis ball? Come on....

I am sorry but that is like saying a 5ghz 64bit pc is just a grain of sand.

It is, just as dead as a grain of sand.

 

[lightgigantic]

Iceaura

Originally Posted by LG
so if an ant runs into a human, what do you suppose makes the event distinct (for the ant) from running into an elephant .. .or even running into the dismembered limb of a human?
”
Dozens of possibilities: heat, motion, skin chemstry, etc.

human, elephant, chimpanzee, lizard, fish?

Ants are famously capable of learning important details about dismembered body parts, including their availability as food for ants.

pity their knowledge also cannot extend to recognizing species

All irrelevant to the point, which is that an ant can learn something about a human.

"human" wouldn't even appear in an ant dictionary - if they had one
“

Originally Posted by LG
Their methods are available to science.
”
hence the limitation of "science"
”
How does the capability of availing itself of ant methods limit science ? The more methods the fewer limitations, I would say.

no matter what you do with your limited senses they remain limited. This especially becomes apparent when dealing with the problem how a cognitively inferior being can become aware of the affairs and nature of cognitively superior beings

 

[Enmos]

pity their knowledge also cannot extend to recognizing species

Please tell me you aren't serious..

"human" wouldn't even appear in an ant dictionary - if they had one

It's because humans are inferior to them.

 

[lightgigantic]

Because I am a human.

if you can't convince yourself that you are just dead matter, the chances of you convincing others greatly diminishes

 

[Enmos]

if you can't convince yourself that you are just dead matter, the chances of you convincing others greatly diminishes

:bugeye:

 

[lightgigantic]

Please tell me you aren't serious..

I found the whole topic of ants "knowing" about humans kind of absurd from the beginning - thats why I used it as an analogy

It's because humans are inferior to them.

please tell me you are not serious

 

[Enmos]

I found the whole topic of ants "knowing" about humans kind of absurd from the beginning - thats why I used it as an analogy

Ants can perfectly identify other species. I'm not sure.. are you denying that or not ?

please tell me you are not serious

In certain ways humans are definitely inferior to ants. Are you denying that ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Ants can perfectly identify other species. I'm not sure.. are you denying that or not ?

like they can distinguish between the forearm of a Mongoloid or a Caucasian?
hehe
I am saying that the scope of knowledge that an ant has for knowing a human is not actually"knowing a human" (per se) but rather knowing the topography of what ever part of a human they happen to be crawling over ... I mean most people would like to think they are something more than a few square cms of topography

In certain ways humans are definitely inferior to ants. Are you denying that ?

if you think that an aspect of that inferiority is cognitive ability, yes

 

[Enmos]

like they can distinguish between the forearm of a Mongoloid or a Caucasian?

Racist..

if you think that an aspect of that inferiority is cognitive ability, yes

cog·ni·tion
–noun
1. the act or process of knowing; perception.
2. the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognition

Ants can perceive things we cannot. Their chemical perception, for instance, far exceeds ours.

Also, I don't think you fully appreciate ants.

"Many animals can learn behaviours by imitation but ants may be the only group apart from mammals where interactive teaching has been observed. A knowledgeable forager of Temnothorax albipennis leads a naive nest-mate to newly discovered food by the excruciatingly slow process of tandem running. The follower obtains knowledge through its leading tutor. Both leader and follower are acutely sensitive to the progress of their partner with the leader slowing down when the follower lags, and speeding up when the follower gets too close.

Controlled experiments with colonies of Cerapachys biroi suggests that individuals may choose nest roles based on their previous experience. An entire generation of identical workers was divided into two groups whose outcome in food foraging was controlled. One group was continually rewarded with prey, while it was made certain that the other failed. As a result, members of the successful group intensified their foraging attempts while the unsuccessful group ventured out less and less. A month later, the successful foragers continued in their role while the others moved to specialise in brood care."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant

Also, ants are the only non-mammal that has agriculture.. just like us. And they have been doing it for 50 million years.

 

[Enmos]

like they can distinguish between the forearm of a Mongoloid or a Caucasian?
hehe
I am saying that the scope of knowledge that an ant has for knowing a human is not actually"knowing a human" (per se) but rather knowing the topography of what ever part of a human they happen to be crawling over ... I mean most people would like to think they are something more than a few square cms of topography

If you are saying that there are only ants and humans in the world.
Ants recognize a range of other animals and plants.. perhaps even more than you can.

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
like they can distinguish between the forearm of a Mongoloid or a Caucasian?
”
Racist..

it appears that you can also distinguish too

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you think that an aspect of that inferiority is cognitive ability, yes
”
cog·ni·tion
–noun
1. the act or process of knowing; perception.
2. the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognition

Ants can perceive things we cannot. Their chemical perception, for instance, far exceeds ours.

do you think that they can perceive our cognition that they can perceive chemicals more sensitively than we can?

Also, I don't think you fully appreciate ants.

"Many animals can learn behaviours by imitation but ants may be the only group apart from mammals where interactive teaching has been observed. A knowledgeable forager of Temnothorax albipennis leads a naive nest-mate to newly discovered food by the excruciatingly slow process of tandem running. The follower obtains knowledge through its leading tutor. Both leader and follower are acutely sensitive to the progress of their partner with the leader slowing down when the follower lags, and speeding up when the follower gets too close.

Controlled experiments with colonies of Cerapachys biroi suggests that individuals may choose nest roles based on their previous experience. An entire generation of identical workers was divided into two groups whose outcome in food foraging was controlled. One group was continually rewarded with prey, while it was made certain that the other failed. As a result, members of the successful group intensified their foraging attempts while the unsuccessful group ventured out less and less. A month later, the successful foragers continued in their role while the others moved to specialise in brood care."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant

Also, ants are the only non-mammal that has agriculture.. just like us. And they have been doing it for 50 million years.

as mentioned earlier, every species can do something unique
even a lemon tree can produce citric acid way better than we can