Herr_Garrett on 6/8/2009 at 07:11
Quote Posted by Vivian
Thing is, you've basically just thought yourself round to empiricism and the basis of the modern scientific method there, Herr_Garrett. Hence the whole falsification thing being considered the cornerstone of quote unquote knowledge - it would require observation of the entire universe to prove a statement about the universe, but only a single contrary instance to disprove it. As no one has come up with a satisfying condition for disproving the existence of god and shown it to be false, it still remains in the realms of imagination, beliefs or whatever, and not what might be termed knowledge. If you want to come up with a testable hypothesis about god, go ahead. It might be fun.
Astute. Science it totally relative and arbitrary. Two plus two equals four only because we chose it to do so.
I'm not saying it is a bad thing, just that it's false.
To fact that God exists is provable precisely because it has nothing to do with experience, only logic. Logic might be false, of course; but not in this case. There is nothing to prove that God doesn't exist. There are a priori proofs that, well, prove, that God exists. Well...?
Quote Posted by Vivian
And the category definition 'tree' is based on a collection of shared characters common to all trees. As are most such definitions - and why 'a tree' exists as a separate statement to just 'tree'. Why is that false?
How would you describe this:
Inline Image:
http://www.courtauld.ac.uk/gallery/exhibitions/2007/cranach/adam-eve5.jpgI would say: There's an apple tree with a serpent in its boughs against a gradient sky. Two humans, quite possibly Adam and Eve, are plucking apples from the tree. Their reproductive organs are covered by leaves. They also are surrounded with animals. There's a unicorn on the right side of the tree. Birds appear on this picture, too.
You would say roughly the same, wouldn't you?
Now, in reality, this is nothing more than a bunch of pixels on your screen which happened to have a particular information passed into it, representing a certain colour.
This "tree", has not the slightest in common the other "trees", which, while do indeed share characteristics, are all different, unique beings. It would be like saying, "Peter has a nose, two eyes, four limbs. Everyone who shares the same characteristics is a Peter." You can see how false is that. Every name we give, every noun we conjure up, is false. The fact that we share certain characteristics with Peter remains true, but for humans, it's names and nouns that make all the difference. And, names and nouns, as I said above, are essentially false.
It's really not a bad thing, otherwise we couldn't live, and I'm really happy with it, it's just a pure fact.
Vivian on 6/8/2009 at 07:56
What proof of gods existence are you talking about? And seriously, did you actually just pull that 'hah! It's a PICTURE of a tree' bullshit? Fucking hell. I'm not sure I can be bothered. That 'peter' is a perfect example of a useful, testable hypothesis actually - if remains true until you find a non peter with arms, at which stage it can safely be modified or considered false.
Vasquez on 6/8/2009 at 08:15
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
I have studied theology for a very small time (due to the modular study courses) and I've seen that the students there have a enormously better ability to analyse things, to think in abstract terms and to criticise their own than what I had seen in other fields of the – as you call them –
humanities.
Atheists are not allowed to make generalisations using Bible Belt rednecks, but you can use this as a proof that religious people are smarter than the average person?
How many other
humanities fields have you studied in depth, to make this comparison and give it some real substance? And do you know for certain that all theology students were also religious?
Quote Posted by Queue
it's only when those that believe also believe that they should impose their beliefs - or convert as many as possible to their belief as "suggested" by their church - onto others when I take issue
Amen.
Chimpy Chompy on 6/8/2009 at 08:29
Quote Posted by heywood
In the abstract sense, God is a metaphor for the unknowable or unexplainable.
I get that, but the term is rather loaded with associations - personal, maybe even anthropomorphic, took interest in one particular tribe of goatherders etc.
My recurring problem is that the Belegs out there argue for Stuff Beyond Our Comprehension, and love to poke holes in our capacity to understand everything, but all we end up at is something so undefined that just... I dunno what to do with that except shrug, move on and stick with the empirical.
rachel on 6/8/2009 at 09:07
Quote Posted by Herr_Garrett
You can't imagine a perfect, pristine island all by yourself. You can only visualise it because you've seen pictures of the Caribbean and the Pacific. A man who has never seen (even on pictures) the sea cannot grasp its idea, not to say to imagine an island.
I guess most of you, when you try to think up a pristine, untouched island, have a hammock in it somewhere. Or footsteps on the shore. Or you see it from an angle you could never see it from, only a camera. And that is already the sign of human intrusion.
Don't be too litteral, the Island is just an analogy. A "perfect" island will be different from person to person, you're missing the point. The point is that the idea of a perfect island (or a perfect anything for that matter) has nothing to do with that island being physically present somewhere in the world. Its existence is irrelevant to the thought process of imagining it.
Also, keep in mind that the Island refutation does not actually refute the existence of God (after all it was written by a monk), it just points out the flaws in Descartes's/Anselm's argument. (cf. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaunilo) wiki)
As for your tree argument, it's nothing new. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Magritte) Magritte did it before, and with more flair.
Inline Image:
http://www.freylia.net/300px-MagrittePipe.jpg;)
Beleg Cúthalion on 6/8/2009 at 09:53
Quote Posted by Vasquez
Atheists are not allowed to make generalisations using Bible Belt rednecks, but you can use this as a proof that religious people are smarter than the average person?
What I said is that religion/believers etc. isn't/aren't as dumb etc. as many in here suggest. When I say that atheist shouldn't throw them into one pot and when I give examples of bright believers I've met (just to put it simple) this is part of the same argument, now where do you see the discrepancy?
Quote:
How many other
humanities fields have you studied in depth, to make this comparison and give it some real substance? And do you know for certain that all theology students were also religious?
The last statement sounds incredibly like you want to doubt their intellectual potency because they are religious (or rather vice-versa). I've seen less spirit in discussions in the Arabic studies while the few history, economic history etc. classes didn't have too many places to check out the students' general intellectual potency. Heck, I was talking about people being more thoughtful than others I have seen, why do you get the idea this can be proved one way or the other? Where do you think we get if we question every persons background in this discussion?
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
My recurring problem is that the Belegs out there argue for Stuff Beyond Our Comprehension, and love to poke holes in our capacity to understand everything, but all we end up at is something so undefined that just... I dunno what to do with that except shrug, move on and stick with the empirical.
Oh, to me that's already better than the – sorry – crap that "academics" like Dawkins or Harris come up with and get money for.
AR Master on 6/8/2009 at 10:20
ive skimmed almost all this thread and i can say without question my posts are the only NON GAY ONES HERE
Queue on 6/8/2009 at 12:22
I love AR Master.
Vasquez on 6/8/2009 at 12:24
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
The last statement sounds incredibly like you want to doubt their intellectual potency because they are religious (or rather vice-versa).
No, it was a simple question. Since you were using them as an example of religious people who all were brighter than "other people", I just wanted to check if you really
know all of them were religious. (Because I've met many theology students who were atheists.)
Muzman on 6/8/2009 at 13:20
This was a little while ago, but whatever.
Quote Posted by SD
I know lots of atheists who don't consider themselves part of any "movement". And I don't like the idea that anyone espousing rationality and respect for people who use rationality in their beliefs (or lack of) must be part of some movement. Everyone is born an atheist, after all - newborns can hardly said to be adhering to any group identity.
If you ask me what I'm most conerned about, it's things like only 45% of Americans saying they would consider voting for an atheist politician. I think erasing the mindset that the other 55% have is a very noble goal.
Not believing you are part of a cause doesn't mean you aren't (all the same, the people you refer to might be completely casual). Being likeminded on matters religious with others like yourself and then promoting certain things is just about enough by itself. Human behaviour is not so cut and dried that once you call yourself a rationalist all the irrational social, tribal group think-ish aspects just disappear.
To be clear, not for a second do I want to see "Atheism" politicise itself in defense against those who want to wipe it out (and you will see people asking for exactly this: the secular cause doesn't need Prominent Atheist swearing so much or being rude and alienating people blah blah. Quite a lot lately in fact). No debates over who's a good atheist and gets to be in the club or any of that. The opponents are going to do the politicising themselves anyway. That's the old game, and a certain segment of atheists are going to want to play. That part is probably ok so long as its not the whole story.
The point though, is really that atheism will have its cranks and crusaders just like anything else. A self declared atheist is not necessarily a more rational person, nor thinking more rationally than anyone else at any given moment (deciding whose side they're on in a given issue, say), or even better a recognising their limitations in these areas.
(I'd like to point out that, regarding the remainder of the thread, the kind of brick wall epiricism v. pure logic sophistry we're getting now is precisely what I was trying to avoid on page 1. I may not have made much sense at the time but that was what was going on, so nya :p )
