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

[lightgigantic]

“ Phlogistician

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and?
I mean using allegory is a valuable tool in communication and making an issue comprehensible, don't you think? ”
No I don't think. I think you should make clear concise statements about the subject, not try and prove one thing by discussing another.

Even science uses allegory when presenting issues with persons who can’t/won’t accept concise statements eg “the earth is like an orange and the moon is like a ping pong ball and when it orbits the earth it ….. blah blah blah”
“

I know.
Yet for some reason they take it upon themselves ”
No, that's just you claiming they do.

Unless you have been busy deleting your 4000+ posts on sci, your claims on the subject are quite apparent
“

yet here you are, to inform the world

”
I'm just clearing up after you stuffing that straw man. You make claims about atheists that are false. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong.

…. and lo and behold, part of that enlightening gesture involves clearly explaining how god does not exist

“

tell me once again how god doesn't exist.


”
I haven't told you once before, so I cannot do it again. That's you making claims, and stuffing that straw man again.

Now, say something honest, and we'll see if we can find a debate here.

“ …. people who have never considered the existance of god are atheists”

Yet you spend your time on a religious forum to make this point clear?
seriously?
Give me a break ....

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

If we are to a god what an ant is to a human then there can be no mechanism for us to know such a god. The chasm is too huge.

Physically the chasm is too huge
Cognitively it isn’t (hence the eg of the graduate application)



“

The whole point of spirituality is to give you another method of knowing, not those things that are inferior to you and can be controlled by you, but a method that allows you to study things that are greater than you. ”
That’s fine but you have no mechanism that shows that spirituality contains any truth or is a viable mechanism for establishing knowledge.

What makes you say that?

Empiricism can.

Albeit to things cognitively and physically inferior to us

Why ever choose an alleged mechanism that has a zero track record of success over one that has been shown to be phenomenally successful?

It only scores a zero for as long as one is relying on empirical standards – kind of like a thermometer scores a zero for as long as one is trying to determine the time with it



“

How much more is the burden on us to make an impression on god? I mean suppose you entered an application interview for a graduate school and said “If you’re really lucky I may go here, and if you really want me, I’ll let you try and convince me that you are worth my trouble – go ahead I will give you five minutes” ... that’s probably not the best way.
Yet with something infinitely greater than graduate school , god, some people do exactly that. Like, “ ok if god exists I’ll give him two minutes.... I want to see a flash of light some thunder ... go ahead god , impress me” ”
And when that doesn’t work we move onto more appropriate questions of how do we even know this entity even exists if it won’t show itself?

We conduct an experiment based on what we would assume to be knowable about it – that is how it worked for brown dwarfs and that is how it doesn’t work with trying to tell the time from a thermometer.

There really is little point in trying to impress something where there is no meaningful degree of certainty that it actually exists.

There is even less point in trying to validate how something can’t possibly exist by methodologies that would fail to determine it even if it did.

The graduate school comparison fails in that we know its existence, protocol, and requirements is a certainty. Not so with an imagined entity.

That’s why we can determine that this approach ….

““If you’re really lucky I may go here, and if you really want me, I’ll let you try and convince me that you are worth my trouble – go ahead I will give you five minutes”

…. won’t work

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Deep Thought

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If you want to know what time it is, you can stare at a thermometer all day ...yet you will not be enlightened. ”

There's a problem with this analogy, as there is some relationship between time of day and temperature.

Actually there is a relationship between meteorology and temperature.
To say the least, if one wants to organize their day by thermometer readings it might be worthwhile to seriously consider one’s vocational choices

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Ice Aura

Originally Posted by LG
I mean seriously, you don't see how cognitive horizons of a dog make for a mostly incomplete picture of human affairs? ”
So? Who needs "complete" ?

Well if the next USA president starts sniffing other people’s butts and publicly urinating on lamp posts, don’t blame me

Your contention was that the cognitively and physically "greater" were forever completely beyond our investigations or reasoning, that we could learn nothing about them.

Actually the contention is that investigating things that are cognitively and physically greater than ourselves is forever completely beyond our investigation as long as we use empirical methods. The example of the graduate application offers an alternative, however

“

Originally Posted by LG
Empty question anyway - if we can't determine anything about its nature or even establish its existence, asserting that it is "cognitively and physically greater than ourselves" is obviously just talking.
”
the issue is that you can't establish that with the controlled experiment... s ”
No, the issue is that given such condition (claimed by you) you can't establish that in any way whatsoever. Hence "empty".

And once again, it only becomes an issue of “not in any way whatsoever” for as long as empiricism is the length and breadth of what one is prepared to investigate with.
And once again, the example of the graduate applicant offers an alternative

 

[greenberg]

That’s fine but you have no mechanism that shows that spirituality contains any truth or is a viable mechanism for establishing knowledge. Empiricism can.

Knowledge of what? What knowledge can I establish using the standard empirical approach? Does the standard empirical approach help me to find true happiness or a worthy meaning of life? So far it has failed completely.
The things that are the most important to me, traditional Western science barely addresses.

Why ever choose an alleged mechanism that has a zero track record of success over one that has been shown to be phenomenally successful?

It depends on what knowledge it is that one seeks.

If one seeks knowledge about how to find true happiness or a worthy meaning of life, for example, then some religious practices are more successful than anything else, as one can attest by witnessing advanced practitioners.

 

[Simon Anders]

LG,

That’s fine but you have no mechanism that shows that spirituality contains any truth or is a viable mechanism for establishing knowledge.

This is simply not the case. As the least controversial example: meditation has been shown to have all sort of benefits. Further, given that so many spiritual claims have to do with changes in the experience of participants in rituals, disciplines or other spiritual processes, it is without question false to say what you have said above.

 

[Kadark]

Magnificent post, lightgigantic. Magnificent.

Kadark the Spectacle

 

[iceaura]

Actually the contention is that investigating things that are cognitively and physically greater than ourselves is forever completely beyond our investigation as long as we use empirical methods.

And the observation was that dogs (and ants) are in fact capable of investigating humans, and learning something about them.

Now are you contending that such investigations are accomplished by other than "empirical methods" - graduate applications, of a kind, maybe?

 

[Myles]

This is simply not the case. As the least controversial example: meditation has been shown to have all sort of benefits. Further, given that so many spiritual claims have to do with changes in the experience of participants in rituals, disciplines or other spiritual processes, it is without question false to say what you have said above.

I understood that the question of truth was being discussed, not how to make oneself feel more comfortable. Drug users make similar claims abut altered states , insights and so on.

As Marx said, " religion is the opiate of the masses ". It's about fleeing from reality.

 

[Myles]

Magnificent post, lightgigantic. Magnificent.

Kadark the Spectacle

And he managed it without once quoting the Bhagavad Gita !

 

[Enmos]

Well if the next USA president starts sniffing other people’s butts and publicly urinating on lamp posts, don’t blame me

Actually the contention is that investigating things that are cognitively and physically greater than ourselves is forever completely beyond our investigation as long as we use empirical methods. The example of the graduate application offers an alternative, however

And once again, it only becomes an issue of “not in any way whatsoever” for as long as empiricism is the length and breadth of what one is prepared to investigate with.
And once again, the example of the graduate applicant offers an alternative

Exactly the same can be said for humans investigating ants. We we'll probably never know everything about them, we certainly do not now.
We don't even know all there is to know about ourselves..
Are ants greater than us ?
So where do you get the idea that there is such a being, that can know everything, in the first place ?

 

[lightgigantic]

And he managed it without once quoting the Bhagavad Gita !

Actually it was a discussion point arising from one line from the Gita

 

[lightgigantic]

And the observation was that dogs (and ants) are in fact capable of investigating humans, and learning something about them.

what have ants learned about humans?

Now are you contending that such investigations are accomplished by other than "empirical methods" - graduate applications, of a kind, maybe?

sure

 

[Enmos]

what have ants learned about humans?

Probably that they are evil motherfuckers.

 

[lightgigantic]

Exactly the same can be said for humans investigating ants. We we'll probably never know everything about them, we certainly do not now.

we can know enough about them to be manipulate them on an individual basis

We don't even know all there is to know about ourselves..
Are ants greater than us ?
So where do you get the idea that there is such a being, that can know everything, in the first place ?

If a person told you that you were being manipulated by an ant living under your house, what would you think?

 

[lightgigantic]

Probably that they are evil motherfuckers.

thats probably something you have learnt

 

[Enmos]

we can know enough about them to be manipulate them on an individual basis


If a person told you that you were being manipulated by an ant living under your house, what would you think?

How would you manipulate an ant ?

 

[Enmos]

thats probably something you have learnt

I don't believe in evil. So what have you learned ?

 

[Enmos]

Besides, God has to manipulate us all at once.
There is a "war" going on between humans and fire ants for years now, the fire ants are winning.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't believe in evil. So what have you learned ?

that you are either talking nonsense or have acquired the ability to determine social opinion in ant communities.
I will give you a chance to respond before I make up my mind.