I've never quite understood why it is that somehow atheists are the ones that are egotistical. We don't believe we were created special from all other forms of life for some special purpose... we're here as a result of a whole bunch of different little steps. We're a result of an unplanned cosmic experiment. We don't believe that we're somehow special in the sense that we were created special, have a distinct purpose, and have some intelligent being that loves us over everything else. Who is really the egotist in these scenarios?
So, really... these quotes aren't putting atheists on a pedestal, they're just trying to knock the theists off of theirs.
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."-Steven Weinberg
Also saw this one recently:
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." - Mark Twain
I know this might be highly inappropriate, but I just thought I'll try and sneak in here my favorite theist quote also: >;) :D It has taken me too many years to begin to learn this – that the opposite of ideology is not freedom, at least not as freedom is conceived in any of its modern conceptions. The opposite of ideology is mercy. (source).
Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck. -- Thomas Jefferson
They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.
Ayn Rand, "For the New Intellectual" Galt’s Speech, 148.
Ayn Rand said, "To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm?"
Is it possible for something to exist that has never been identified? (Heck, most of the universe is still unknown.)
If Rand is trying to say that things that exist are identifiable (though, obviously most of it has yet to be identified in any significant way) then couldn't a superior realm (or divine being) simply be something that has yet to be identified?
Perhaps identifying these things requires faculties that human beings don't possess?
Rand said, "God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out."
There is a taoist saying "The tao that can be named is not the true tao."
Is our inability to define what is divine evidense of its non-existance or an indication of just how limited our vocabulary truly is.
I think my favourite atheist quote, partly because it has become almost a rallying cry against the dafter expressions of faith is this
"May you be touched by his noodley appendage"
It sums up perfectly for me the silliness of religion, the honest belief in fantastical beasts, acts and histories for which there is not one iota of evidence. And it perfectly denies calls for "teaching the controversy", "Respecting others faiths" and such like.
Its not an intellectual phrase, its a basic stab in the eye of silliness.
tigg13: "Is it possible for something to exist that has never been identified?"
Arguments from ignorance persuade only those who do not think.
tigg13: "obviously most of it has yet to be identified in any significant way"
Equivocations: define obviously, significant, identified? Objctivism defines what it means by all the terms Rand used. See OPAR and ITOE.
tigg13: "Perhaps identifying these things requires faculties that human beings don't possess?"
What faculties would those be? Depending on mere possibility, is no way to go through life. Can you identify what reality is? If not how do you know your real? Only a world view that acknowledges that existence actually exists can deliver you from extreme skepticism.
tigg13: "There is a taoist saying "The tao that can be named is not the true tao."
The TAO is as much a fantasy as Yahweh. If you wish to use Taoist saying, prove, in the strong evidence sense, TAO exists. First, though, you'll have to define it.
tigg13: "Is our inability to define what is divine evidense of its non-existance or an indication of just how limited our vocabulary truly is."
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence. We can and do know how the Big Bang went down. It was not magic. We know existence has always existed. There was no beginning and there will be no end. Reality is really real. Existence actually exists. What you take as your perceptional experience of the world is not a fantasy in the mind of Yahweh, TAO, or some other imagined god.
tigg13: "The tao that can be named is not the true tao."
I typed "First, though, you'll have to define it."
If you know nothing about it, then you do not know it exists. If you do not know it exists, how then do you presuppose it exists? To say TAO exists is to assert an ad-hoc, question begging, special pleading.
tigg13: "Is it possible for something to exist that has never been identified?"
rob: Arguments from ignorance persuade only those who do not think.
tigg13: Arguments based on erroneous definitions only persuade those who aren't willing to think for themselves.
If Rand was trying to say identity is a characteristic inherent in all things that exist regardless of whether or not they've been observed by any sentient being then a divine being which has never been observed could exist. Its identity would be "a divine being that has never been observed".
If Rand is trying to say that in order for something to exist we must be able to identify it then that leads to my question.
tigg13: "obviously most of it has yet to be identified in any significant way"
rob: Equivocations: define obviously, significant, identified? Objctivism defines what it means by all the terms Rand used. See OPAR and ITOE.
tigg13: obviously - to not need proof. significant - to have special value. identified - labelled.
I am absolutely cetain that Objectivism has nice, neat, self-serving, little definitions for everything and if you want to let Rand do all of your thinking for you that's ok by me.
Are you willing to respect that I have as much right to define and identify reality as Rand does?
tigg13: "Perhaps identifying these things requires faculties that human beings don't possess?"
rob: What faculties would those be? Depending on mere possibility, is no way to go through life. Can you identify what reality is? If not how do you know your real? Only a world view that acknowledges that existence actually exists can deliver you from extreme skepticism.
tigg13: I'm not questioning whether reality exists, I'm questioning our ability to perseive it fully and/or accurately.
You ask me how do I know that I'm real. How do you know that I'm real? There has long been an argument as to whether or not atheism requires faith. I would submit that atheists have a great deal of faith in the accurracy of their perceptions. Your whole world view depends on everything being exactly as it appears to be. But we are not perfect. Our ability to perseive is limited. For us to say that all we know is all there is to know is arrogant.
You say I'm depending on possibilities. I recognize possibilities because, to me, to discard them would be short-sighted and unimaginative. My life, by the way, is vivid, dynamic and fun and I wouldn't change a thing.
tigg13: "There is a taoist saying "The tao that can be named is not the true tao."
rob: The TAO is as much a fantasy as Yahweh. If you wish to use Taoist saying, prove, in the strong evidence sense, TAO exists. First, though, you'll have to define it.
tigg13: Ok, I just said that once you define the TAO you are no longer talking about the true TAO. It is undifinable. If you don't want to believe in it that's ok. If you don't want anybody else to believe in it, that's a crime.
tigg13: "Is our inability to define what is divine evidense of its non-existance or an indication of just how limited our vocabulary truly is."
rob: Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence. We can and do know how the Big Bang went down. It was not magic. We know existence has always existed. There was no beginning and there will be no end. Reality is really real. Existence actually exists. What you take as your perceptional experience of the world is not a fantasy in the mind of Yahweh, TAO, or some other imagined god.
tigg13: But is it a fantasy in your mind. Let me propose a completely hypothetical situation - a thought experiment, if you will.
Suppose there existed a small island inhabited by people who had never encountered any other civilized peoples. Many many years ago a disease of some sort left all of the inhabitants of this island blind and this condition was passed down from generation to generation.
Eventually the last sighted person on the island would die off leaving the island populated by people who had never known sight. Time passes and, since they would never be used, all words pertaining to sight (colors, brightness, darkeness, light shadow, etc.) would fade from these people's vocabulary.
Now, it just so happens that you find yourself marooned on this island and you learn their language. How do convince these people that rainbows exist? How would you even describe what a rainbow is? To them a rainbow would be non-existant, wouldn't it? And you would be someone given to fantasizing about some magical 5th sense.
Absence of evidence may be evidence of absence but it is not proof of absence.
tigg13: "The tao that can be named is not the true tao."
rob: I typed "First, though, you'll have to define it."
If you know nothing about it, then you do not know it exists. If you do not know it exists, how then do you presuppose it exists? To say TAO exists is to assert an ad-hoc, question begging, special pleading.
tigg13: He who knows, knows nothing. He who knows nothing, knows all.
From a song by Cursive: Now baby, baby, baby, this world must seem so immense Compared to the womb And baby, baby, your head must seem so much smaller Than you assumed Your whole world seems to center around you It’d be easy to make the mistake That maybe you’re why the world was made
I would submit that atheists have a great deal of faith in the accurracy of their perceptions. Your whole world view depends on everything being exactly as it appears to be.
Atheism != knowledge that gods do not exist
Atheism = lack of belief that gods exist
Really, is this so hard to understand? I don't believe that a 47 year old hot dog vendor named Javier Santoya lives in the building on the corner of 42nd and 8th Avenue in New York--I have no reason to believe such a person exists. However, I don't claim to KNOW he does not exist--my lack of belief is based on a lack of evidence combined with the statistical unliklihood that I could pull that name, age, occupation, and address out of my ass and have it be randomly right.
Similarly, if you pull out characteristics for a supernatural being out of your ass, I can't say I know for sure that such a being MUST NOT exist; I can say that, absent any positive evidence that such a being DOES exist, the liklihood of its existence is small enough to be not worth consideration. And the more characteristics you randomly pull out of your ass and assign to your gods, the less likely you are to be correct.
Now, it just so happens that you find yourself marooned on this island and you learn their language. How do convince these people that rainbows exist? How would you even describe what a rainbow is? To them a rainbow would be non-existant, wouldn't it?
Nope; I could create a rainbow using a prism, and use the different wavelengths of light to heat different materials with different efficiencies. The blind people could then determine by feel that, using this object, they could separate what once was a homogenous radiative heat source into a differential radiative heat source. I could then replicate the experiment with water vapor to show that water vapor can act as a radiative heat refractor, just like a prism. Finally, I can demonstrate that water vapor is present in the air, especially after rainfall. From this, they could induce that, under proper conditions, the air could refract radiative heat.
And you know why I can demonstrate the existance of rainbows to the blind, while theists remain unable to demonstrate the existence of gods to the "spiritually blind"? Because light refraction is real!
Absence of evidence may be evidence of absence but it is not proof of absence.
There is an invisible bomb implanted somewhere in your abdomen. Unless you cut your abdomen open right now and remove it, it will explode, killing you and your loved ones. What do you mean, you've never seen or felt this invisible bomb implanted in your abdomen? Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, and can you REALLY afford to take that chance? Ten bucks say you don't eviscerate yourself, because you know as well as I do that your line of argument is crap--you believe what you have evidence FOR, not whatever you don't have evidence AGAINST.
But is it a fantasy in your mind.
Let's do a simple experiment. Go into an empty room and set up a video recorder. Stand in the middle of the room and blindfold yourself. Now, spin around until you are incredibly dizzy and about to throw up. Now, pick a direction and sprint. If you are right, and reality is a fantasy driven by your perception, there is no reason that you will perceive that you would bump into the wall at the exact same time that the video camera perceives you actually reach the wall, so either you will feel yourself striking the wall when the camera sees you nowhere near the wall, or the camera will see you run right through the wall without slowing down. If I am right and reality is external to your mind, you will feel yourself hit the wall at the exact same time the camera sees you hit the wall, every time.
I have never had a strict metaphysical subjectivist take me up on this experiment. Every time you stub your toe unexpectedly, you refute the assertion that reality is just a fantasy and perception is the only true reality, and yet that stupid Keanu Reeves-level philosophy still persists among the college freshman crowd. Blech.
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence. We can and do know how the Big Bang went down. It was not magic. We know existence has always existed. There was no beginning and there will be no end. Reality is really real. Existence actually exists.
Just food for thought. "We can and do know how the Big Bang went down." So... are you saying you were there to watch or are you just believing another persons beliefs wrote in a book that you put faith in. Cause you know... can you actually see the atom that you believe in? We all live by faith, you just choose another person's book. Anything past a theory requires proof, redesign and create the big bang in your lab, then post that on youtube and converse on your blogs about debunking... THEN you will have a point, until then you really don't know how the Big Bang went down. Your science is debunked year after year as you do more studies.
There was no beginning and there will be no end. Reality is really real.
Okay, great point. So if there is no beginning and there is no end then how is that proving there can be no eternal God? Just as you ask for proof of eternal existence of God, I can also ask YOU to prove that there is NO eternal existence of God.
You know by now I am a firm believer. Why? Not because of warped views bashed into my brain over years, because I choose to believe within myself and not just another science book that in 100 years will have to be re written 1000 times because science always proves itself wrong. The Bible never changed. When I read it, it teaches me how to care about other people, love my family, be a MAN and take care of my household. It teaches me to love other people. And.... what's wrong with that? Just because YOU do not believe that way doesn't mean that I can't. It's the greatness of America. Read the Declaration of Independence if you really want to see why this country was founded.
Here is a quote from me.
Any true atheist. Any TRUE atheist would never care that I believe in God. That God would be spoke of or followed because any TRUE atheist really doesn't care.
The problem is atheists DO care. Your science is so strong within your heart that if it isn't accepted you resort to mockery, pulling quotes that have more meaning because you don't take the before and after quotes too, and simply because the human heart has a problem with accepting that we aren't in control.
Again.. To prove your Big Bang is amazing because for the first time in SCIENTIFIC history The Big Bang THEORY will actually be a PROOF. Prove it bud... I promise... just as the youtube posted what would make him BELIEVE in God... take dead tissue, strike it with lightning and once that tissue actually begins to live, then we can talk about big bang, evolution, and so forth... even you have faith my friend, it's just not in my book, it's in yours.
Just as you ask for proof of eternal existence of God, I can also ask YOU to prove that there is NO eternal existence of God.
There is an invisible bomb implanted in your abdomen. It will detonate and kill you and your loved ones unless you immediately cut it out. What!?! You don't believe me!?! PROVE it doesn't exist! And can you really take the chance? I mean, it's going to kill your family...shouldn't you eviscerate yourself now JUST IN CASE? After all, you can't PROVE it doesn't exist, and your whole family is in imminent danger!
If you are really dumb enough to go digging around in your intestines to find that bomb, then you get what you deserve. If you are not, then why do you insult me by assuming that I am?
So... are you saying you were there to watch or are you just believing another persons beliefs wrote in a book that you put faith in. Cause you know... can you actually see the atom that you believe in? We all live by faith, you just choose another person's book.
Er, no...I have done some of the experiments myself that establish the existence of atoms (such as X-ray diffraction and high resolution mass spectrometry), seen the evidence and followed the calculations first-hand of many others, and used still others to base my research on. The data I have not examined have been examined by qualified experts who have every motivation to debunk the original assertions--after all, that's how you make your career, by pointing out how your predecessors were wrong. These data have been used to DO things, REAL things, like make the computer you are using to project your ignorance to the world. Is there a global God communication network that can do the same? I thought not...all of God's promises are either metaphorical or conveniently untestable, at least until you're dead, and even then you aren't allowed to share your results.
The real peach is that you are INVITED to check our work. True, you have to actually get off your ass and do it, but the same nature the original scientists observed is still there--measure the background radiation yourself, learn enough math to check their calculations, SEE FOR YOURSELF!
Can you promise me the same thing from your religion? Can I see God for myself before I make my decision to believe? That's all I ask...but apparently it's too much.
Any TRUE atheist would never care that I believe in God. That God would be spoke of or followed because any TRUE atheist really doesn't care.
Any TRUE germ theory of disease believer wouldn't care that his doctor didn't believe in germs...as long as theists retain political and economic power and are willing to use it for irrational religious reasons, I have sufficient motive to try to reduce the influence of religion.
When I read it, it teaches me how to care about other people, love my family, be a MAN and take care of my household.
And yet I manage to be all of those things without it. Somewhat pathetic that you need a book to succeed in what even a dog can do by instinct.
Again.. To prove your Big Bang is amazing because for the first time in SCIENTIFIC history The Big Bang THEORY will actually be a PROOF.
OK, once more for those in the back...science does NOT go wild-ass guess -> theory -> proof. Science goes from collection of highly validated hypotheses -> theory. There is NO GREATER CONFIDENCE than theory. A theory NEVER becomes a "fact" because a theory is much MORE than a fact; it's an extremely well-tested explanation that brings together a large collection of facts. The Big Bang theory has been "proven", and it remains a theory.
even you have faith my friend, it's just not in my book, it's in yours.
And the computer is in my "book", but nowhere to be found in yours, so kindly stop using it. Ditto antibiotics, vaccines, modern agriculture, internal combustion, etc. So if you insist on contempt for my "book", stick to your book and stop using all of our stuff. Just to be fair, I'll agree to no longer pray to Yahweh or Jesus, since that pretty much originated with the authors of your book. But we all know where your faith truly lies.
And yet I manage to be all of those things without it. Somewhat pathetic that you need a book to succeed in what even a dog can do by instinct.
So after calling me names and insulting my personal thoughts... you manage to be all those things right? Sorry, I didn't see any respect there. I do respect you, I challenged you with a simple respectful challenge... I knew at the beginning of just the names and insults it would be just another upset atheist that would not read into what I was trying to say.
You know... I'm really sorry I busted in on your board. It's so easy to hide behind a computer screen and spit insults.. I have nothing to insult you about... you choose to believe... I choose to believe. As soon as you can prove to me there is No God... as soon as you can.. I promise, I will never ask another questions. You think after thousands of years of documented history of this ongoing fight that somewhere... just somewhere there would be some proof.... but yet again.. the age old question, do I want to believe or do I want to just die and become dirt... sigh... I am sorry your bitter.
Er, no...I have done some of the experiments myself that establish the existence of atoms (such as X-ray diffraction and high resolution mass spectrometry), seen the evidence and followed the calculations first-hand of many others, and used still others to base my research on. The data I have not examined have been examined by qualified experts who have every motivation to debunk the original assertions...
okay okay... now... I mean.. do I CHOOSE to believe you? I mean... you could be lying to me since there is no proof to me that you have done this... or you can be telling the truth... hmmm, amazing how we have to decide for ourselves based off what YOU are saying my friend.
-- cheesy quote from a movie time
Do you really think that is air your breathing? Soooo, I can't see the oxygen coming into my lungs when I look around... but you know.. I still think it's oxygen because that is what my science teacher told me... maybe, just maybe it's hydrogen... not oxygen... what do I choose to believe...
Just because you can't see the air doesn't mean it's not there. I feel the wind, I feel the breeze so I know it is something.
Just because I can't see God doesn't mean he isn't there. I feel it in my soul, I feel the peace.
Amazing how your belief in science and my belief in God go hand in hand... but the only thing...the absolute only thing I ever want to see you do is create life from empty space... and you can't use the line "some day" because I could show you God someday and you wont accept that answer now.. show me now. Right now.
Reminds me of a joke I heard once.
Scientists all around the world gathered and decided they were going to have a session with God to let him know they didn't need him anymore. God came by and the scientists were marveling in all of their accomplishments and basically showed God they didn't need him anymore. God says okay okay, if you don't need me, then I need one proof of you. I need you to grow me a tree. The scientists all laughed and mocked God saying that a tree is one of the easiest plants to grow. So they gathered their seeds and went out to plant the seeds in the ground. Just as they began to dig, God says... Wait.... use your own dirt.
What's the moral? If you personally can't create it, don't mock others because they have a different belief in it. You personally can't create anything. You can't make anything without using what is already around you whether its' mineral or herbs.. you can't.
Again... I am sorry I bothered you and challenged your belief, I mean.. you throw us in the trash everyday because we decided to say a prayer in your courtroom or bless our food in your restaurant... I mean... who needs the ten commandments anyways.. we all know it's better to Steal and Kill, Lie and Cheat... oh wait... you said you already lived that way... but yet, you just can't stand that what you fight against teaches the very same.
You are quite right. I should have made it clear that I was referring to Atheism!. But, how many times have people on this site made referrences to "christians" when they were really talking about "christian fundementalists"? (Hey I've done it.)
Me: Now, it just so happens that you find yourself marooned on this island and you learn their language. How do convince these people that rainbows exist? How would you even describe what a rainbow is? To them a rainbow would be non-existant, wouldn't it?
Shy: Nope; I could create a rainbow using a prism, and use the different wavelengths of light to heat different materials with different efficiencies. The blind people could then determine by feel that, using this object, they could separate what once was a homogenous radiative heat source into a differential radiative heat source. I could then replicate the experiment with water vapor to show that water vapor can act as a radiative heat refractor, just like a prism. Finally, I can demonstrate that water vapor is present in the air, especially after rainfall. From this, they could induce that, under proper conditions, the air could refract radiative heat.
Me: Whoopie! You've proven that heat exists. And from these little experiments (which you no doubt put together using coconuts and clam shells) these natives will all instantly know exactly what a rainbow (that is, an arc of different colors that seem to streak across the sky) is. Wow, you're amazing.
Shy: And you know why I can demonstrate the existance of rainbows to the blind, while theists remain unable to demonstrate the existence of gods to the "spiritually blind"? Because light refraction is real!
Me: And do you know why the native skeptics will still not believe in rainbows after your demonstration? Because they will still find no evidence for them - reality, as they perceive it, does not include rainbows.
Me: Absence of evidence may be evidence of absence but it is not proof of absence.
Shy: There is an invisible bomb implanted somewhere in your abdomen. Unless you cut your abdomen open right now and remove it, it will explode, killing you and your loved ones. What do you mean, you've never seen or felt this invisible bomb implanted in your abdomen? Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, and can you REALLY afford to take that chance? Ten bucks say you don't eviscerate yourself, because you know as well as I do that your line of argument is crap--you believe what you have evidence FOR, not whatever you don't have evidence AGAINST.
Me: Next time you are on a bus or in a shopping mall or some other public place, ask yourself if anybody around you might be carrying a concealed bomb on their person. It could be implanted in their abdomen or strapped to their chest or hidden in a backpack. Before 9/11 this might have seemed to be a ridiculous idea but would you say it couldn't possibly happen now?
Do you check out everyone you see, scan for unusual bulges, do quick racial profiles, listen closely for the sound of ticking? Do you hide in your basement, avoid all public places and keep your tv tuned to CNN waiting for news of any terrorist bombings? I"ll bet that same ten bucks that you don't.
But does that mean that a terrorist bombing couldn't possibly happen to you?
You are correct that we all live our lives as though improbable events couldn't possibly happen. If we didn't we would spend our whole lives obsessed with what could go wrong and never accomplish anything. But its still an illusion.
Imagine if you could go back in time to the morning of 9/11 and warn all of those victims of what was going to happen. Do you think any of them would believe you?
Me: But is it a fantasy in your mind.
Shy: Let's do a simple experiment. Go into an empty room and set up a video recorder. Stand in the middle of the room and blindfold yourself. Now, spin around until you are incredibly dizzy and about to throw up. Now, pick a direction and sprint. If you are right, and reality is a fantasy driven by your perception, there is no reason that you will perceive that you would bump into the wall at the exact same time that the video camera perceives you actually reach the wall, so either you will feel yourself striking the wall when the camera sees you nowhere near the wall, or the camera will see you run right through the wall without slowing down. If I am right and reality is external to your mind, you will feel yourself hit the wall at the exact same time the camera sees you hit the wall, every time.
Me: Has it occurred to you that your video camera is as much apart of your perceived reality as the walls?
Shy: I have never had a strict metaphysical subjectivist take me up on this experiment. Every time you stub your toe unexpectedly, you refute the assertion that reality is just a fantasy and perception is the only true reality, and yet that stupid Keanu Reeves-level philosophy still persists among the college freshman crowd. Blech.
Me: Is it that no one has ever taken you up on your challenge or is it that your mind has refused to allow you to remember being taken up on this challenge. Have you ever actuslly stubbed your toe or is that how you mind has chosen to interpret certain events that it cannot process any other way.
Forget for a moment about everything you've ever learned and look outside. Does the world look round or does it look flat? Look up in the sky for a few hours. Does the sun look stationary with respect to the Earth or does it look like its moving? Reach your hand out into the air. Does it feel like there's anything there?
We scoff at our ancient ancestors for coming up with the wrong answers to these questions. But weren't they doing exactly what you are doing - assuming that reality is as they perceived it to be?
The idea that reality might not be what we perceive it to be is very disconcerting, but how can we ever be certain that it is?
w3sson said: So after calling me names and insulting my personal thoughts... you manage to be all those things right? Sorry, I didn't see any respect there.
I DO respect you, and all other human beings...I respect you so much that I am convinced that you know the difference between right and wrong without having to read it in a book. Perhaps you mistook my respect for disrespect because your co-religionists never gave you the respect you deserve? Have they always told you that you were full of sin, and needed supernatural help to reach a stage of mere decency? And having bought in to that belief, you now find it downright insulting that someone would dare say that you and most other people were capable of such decency all on your own!?!
It is you who disrespect all human beings by saying that we have to read an instruction manual in order to do things that rats do by instinct. I am strongly suggesting that you respect yourself (and me) more than that.
And yes, I am all those things; I care about other people, I take care of my household, and I am at the very least an adequate father and husband (which I assume are the major components in your definition of being a MAN)...all without believing in your book. The same is true of literally BILLIONS of other human beings. And I have every confidence that you are capable of the same.
You think after thousands of years of documented history of this ongoing fight that somewhere... just somewhere there would be some proof....
Yes, you would, but Christianity (and every other religion) has never gotten around to providing any...oh, you were talking about atheism? Have you cut out that ticking time bomb in your abdomen yet? Good Lord, man, time is running out!
...but yet again.. the age old question, do I want to believe or do I want to just die and become dirt... sigh... I am sorry your bitter.
Wait a second...you think that the fact that your belief, in and of itself, will change reality? Does Santa really exist because your kids want him to? Whether or not you believe in Jesus has nothing to do with whether or not He exists. What you want has nothing to do with reality.
And what makes you think I am bitter? The fact that I do not defer to your church? It seems that we have very different definitions of "bitter". I am quite happy with my life, thank you very much.
Amazing how your belief in science and my belief in God go hand in hand... but the only thing...the absolute only thing I ever want to see you do is create life from empty space... and you can't use the line "some day" because I could show you God someday and you wont accept that answer now.. show me now. Right now.
Wow...I mean, just, wow. I want to see you build the Pyramids of Giza now. No, RIGHT NOW! Oh, you mean you can't do something that originally took decades with hundreds of millions of man-hours and huge amounts of resources to do instantaneously on demand with no budget to do so? But you think it's reasonable to expect me to do something that took BILLIONS of years with an entire universe-worth of resources at your whim? And you righteously demand respect for your views...
okay okay... now... I mean.. do I CHOOSE to believe you?
Don't take my word for it...no, I'm serious. Like I said...the unique thing about science is that it encourages you to go look for yourself. So don't take my word for it; learn how to see it for yourself, then do it. Like I said before, it takes effort; you have to get off your ass and go do it. But you DON'T have to take my word for it.
Just because you can't see the air doesn't mean it's not there. I feel the wind, I feel the breeze so I know it is something.
And if I shoved you into hard vaccuum, you would feel something. Doesn't mean there's air there. If I cut off your hand, you would well still feel pain in it; doesn't mean you really have a ghost arm still attached that's causing you pain.
Just because I can't see God doesn't mean he isn't there. I feel it in my soul, I feel the peace.
Ah, finally, a testable hypothesis! You're saying that you can know the truth about something because it gives you a feeling of "peace" in your "soul". Okay, call up James Randi and ask him to test your alternative way of knowing. He's offering a handsome cash reward to anyone who can demonstrate the paranormal, and the ability to discern truth by a "feeling of peace" would certainly qualify. So get to it...PROVE it to me that your "soul" is an accurate gauge of truth.
Oh, wait...you say it only works with telling the truth about God. Ohhhh...why is that again?
"I've been listening to my gut since I was 14 years old, and frankly speaking, I've come to the conclusion that my guts have shit for brains."--Rob, High Fidelity
I mean.. you throw us in the trash everyday because we decided to say a prayer in your courtroom or bless our food in your restaurant
A) I have never thrown anyone in the trash B) You may pray whenever and wherever you choose in this country--courtroom, classroom, restaurant, etc.; the First Amendment protects that right, and I defend it. You may NOT pray as an agent of the government, because the government may not sanction or prohibit religion--this protects you as much as me. Tell me the truth...if it came down to it, do you think for a SECOND that your particular flavor of Christianity would come out on top in a religious government, or do you admit that you would probably be forced to adhere to Catholicism, the largest and most powerful denomination? Unless you delude yourself into thinking that God would come down personally and smite the papists who outnumber you heftily in order to bring about your preferred type of dominionist government, then you should count your blessings that secularists like myself have been taking shit for protecting YOUR freedoms of worship for centuries in this country. It's a singularly thankless job.
What's the moral? If you personally can't create it, don't mock others because they have a different belief in it.
So you fully and soberly consider the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Parmesean Be Upon Him), invisible pink unicorns, fairies at the foot of the garden, psychic brain-eating butterflies, Time Cube, Xenu's genocide of aliens causing all of mankind's problems, the Raelians returning to take the faithful away in their spaceships, etc., etc., ad nauseum? All because you didn't create the universe, you have to lend credence to EVERY belief system? So what your philosophy boils down to is, if you're not omnipotent, then you can't know anything with any certainty at all. And yet, while firmly holding that belief, you manage to type on the computer even though some believe it will give you cancer.
Either you're an idiot of surprising magnitude (which I don't believe), you think I'm an idiot of surprising magnitude and are willing to lie to me, or you didn't really think your "moral" through.
I mean... who needs the ten commandments anyways.. we all know it's better to Steal and Kill, Lie and Cheat... oh wait... you said you already lived that way.
As do dogs and pretty much every other social animal...
but yet, you just can't stand that what you fight against teaches the very same.
You act as though all your religion teaches is "Be nice to each other". You should read your Bible more...the same book that tells you not to murder also tells you to kill people who gather sticks on Saturday, kill children who disrespect their parents, kill people who eat pork, kill gays (one of the VERY FEW that you guys seem to remember...what is it with you Christians and sex, anyway?) etc. The same God you worship is the one who commanded the deaths of every man, woman, child, and animal in Jericho (sparing only one family of traitors).
Again... I am sorry I bothered you and challenged your belief
Don't be sorry for challenging my beliefs (that's why we're here), and don't think that it bothered me...it didn't (which is why I hadn't bothered to check back until now...this exchange really was nothing). If you want to regret something, regret the poor arguments you put forth, and strive to do better next time. I have every confidence you can do so.
tigg13 said: You are quite right. I should have made it clear that I was referring to Atheism!.
No; != is formal logic notation for "not equal". Atheism does not equal "belief that god does not exist". That is a group called "strong atheists", which is almost wholly a fiction of the theists. The only strong atheist I have ever met was that way solely on a semantic basis; he did not believe that a coherent definition of God was possible, therefore he was convinced that God could not exist, as God could not be defined.
Whoopie! You've proven that heat exists. And from these little experiments (which you no doubt put together using coconuts and clam shells) these natives will all instantly know exactly what a rainbow (that is, an arc of different colors that seem to streak across the sky) is. Wow, you're amazing.
Nope, I proven that radiative heat exists, and can be refracted by a prism and water vapor. If you knew anything about physics, you'd know that radiative heat is light--the heat is carried by the photons, and transferred upon interaction of the photons with a material. The fact that they would perceive the rainbow as different heat properties instead of different color properties has no bearing on the fact that they would be able to detect and explain the rainbow. And, again, it's because the rainbow is actually real. And I'm not amazing, science is amazing; none of the experiments I proposed are novel.
And do you know why the native skeptics will still not believe in rainbows after your demonstration? Because they will still find no evidence for them - reality, as they perceive it, does not include rainbows.
Untrue...I will have provided them evidence that radiative heat can be diffracted into a heat spectrum, and that this diffraction can be accomplished with water vapor and air and a radiative heat source, and that water vapor and air and a radiative heat source are present during sunny periods after a rainstorm. Once I have shown them this, rainbows WILL be a part of their reality as they perceive it.
Next time you are on a bus or in a shopping mall or some other public place, ask yourself if anybody around you might be carrying a concealed bomb on their person...(continued terrorist attack scenario)
So do you cower in your basement, avoiding all human contact, because SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE A BOMB!!1!OHNOES!1!
That was the point of my scenario...it is irrational and impractical to entertain every fantasy that comes into your mind, no matter how unlikely or convoluted. Do I concede that it is a metaphysical possibility that gods exist, and these gods have screwed with the evidence in such a way as to convince us that they do not? Sure, I will concede that this is possible; but as I have no reason to believe this is so, I have no reason to entertain this idea. Someday, if you allow yourself to be educated, you will learn about the burden of proof in rational inquiry, and why it is necessary from both a philosophical and practical standpoint. For now, suffice it to say that, if you grant that you ought to believe that which is true and not believe that which is false, you have an obligation to justify your beliefs, and this justification requires a burden of proof to be laid upon the believer.
You are correct that we all live our lives as though improbable events couldn't possibly happen. If we didn't we would spend our whole lives obsessed with what could go wrong and never accomplish anything. But its still an illusion.
No, we live our lives as though improbable events RARELY happen, which is not an illusion but truth. For example, it is improbable that my house will be struck by lightning...yet it is still grounded, because while it is improbable for my house to be struck by lightning, it is cheap and easy to protect myself from it. It is even more improbable that my house will be struck by a giant meteor, and protection from giant meteors is neither cheap nor easy so I do NOT protect my house from it. Even so, there is evidence of giant meteors striking houses...there is ZERO evidence of the tripe that theists and strict metaphysical subjectivists spout. So, I grant it even LESS probability than a giant meteor striking my house.
Me: Has it occurred to you that your video camera is as much apart of your perceived reality as the walls?
Well sure it is; we could use a second observer if you prefer. I recommended this because it does not require outside help, and it usually gets my point across, but if you like you can use a second consciousness in place of the camera which, accordning to non-solipsistic metaphysical subjectivists, is just as "privileged" as they are.
Is it that no one has ever taken you up on your challenge or is it that your mind has refused to allow you to remember being taken up on this challenge.
Again, unless you're claiming solipsism, their experience is a privileged as mine. If we share the experience of them not taking me up on the challenge, then we can conclude that they did not. If you are concerned about that, we can relate our experiences through as many third parties as you like. The only escape from this is solipsism.
Have you ever actuslly stubbed your toe or is that how you mind has chosen to interpret certain events that it cannot process any other way.
In order for my mind to interpret "certain events" that way, there would have to be "certain events" external to my mind to interpret, which would render your metaphysical subjectivism moot. The point remains...in metaphysical subjectivism, it would be impossible to be surprised (as you are when you stub your toe in the dark), as everything would be internally controlled and initiated. People are surprised (often unpleasantly), therefore metaphysical subjectivism is wrong.
Forget for a moment about everything you've ever learned and look outside. Does the world look round or does it look flat?
From where I am, the world does NOT look flat...it looks hilly, and then it drops off over the horizon. If I look out over the ocean, the world looks curved.
Look up in the sky for a few hours. Does the sun look stationary with respect to the Earth or does it look like its moving?
It looks like it's moving...which it is with respect to the Earth. General relativity...check into it. It's neat.
Reach your hand out into the air. Does it feel like there's anything there?
Yep...I can feel the breeze when my hand moves, and the faster I move it the faster the breeze. (This really isn't turning out as you had hoped, is it?)
We scoff at our ancient ancestors for coming up with the wrong answers to these questions. But weren't they doing exactly what you are doing - assuming that reality is as they perceived it to be?
Actually, our ancestors by and large came up with the right answers within the scale of their experience. For example, people believed the Earth to be flat ONLY when their rate of travel was VERY slow...once people began to travel faster and more extensively, especially by sea, they quickly caught on to the notion of a curved Earth. And even today, for calculations covering small areas, we ASSUME the Earth to be flat because that assumption works within that scale! For example, take the basic freshman physics ballistics problem (you know, the one that usually starts with a boy throws a ball into the air...) Does this problem EVER take into account the curvature of the Earth? No...because the distances are small enough that the curvature of the Earth doesn't come into play, so flat-Earth physics WORKS.
The difference now is that we see over immense distances that rival the scale of the universe, across every speed possible, at energies both immensely high and terribly low, etc. The breadth of our experience has increased immensely, which means the accuracy of our models with regards to reality has also grown, because we are forced to develop models that work at every scale. We still get into trouble at scales outside of our experience (e.g. integration of gravity with quantum mechanics, as we are not familiar with gravity at quantum scales). But we do know that, for every scale that is within our experience, our models are DAMN good!
The idea that reality might not be what we perceive it to be is very disconcerting, but how can we ever be certain that it is?
Depends on what you mean by "certain". If you mean 100% sure with no possibility of doubt, you can't. If you mean "certain enough to stake the entire universe upon it", then we do so every day...I cannot prove with 100% certainty that sending this message will not destroy the entire universe, but I will send it anyway because I am certain enough that it won't that I'm willing to risk it. And we get this way by using rational empiricism and induction to repeatedly and accurately predict the future. Because, in the end, that's what scientists are...the world's only successful fortune-tellers.
27 comments:
Impressive. A bunch of atheist quotes so atheists can put themselves up on a pedestal. Maybe this is a God quote: "The joke's on you George."
@bugger_butt
It isn't.
I've never quite understood why it is that somehow atheists are the ones that are egotistical. We don't believe we were created special from all other forms of life for some special purpose... we're here as a result of a whole bunch of different little steps. We're a result of an unplanned cosmic experiment.
We don't believe that we're somehow special in the sense that we were created special, have a distinct purpose, and have some intelligent being that loves us over everything else. Who is really the egotist in these scenarios?
So, really... these quotes aren't putting atheists on a pedestal, they're just trying to knock the theists off of theirs.
The whole "does God really exist, or not?" debate could be put to rest if George Carlin would return for one last performance and let everyone know.
One of my favorites:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."-Steven Weinberg
Also saw this one recently:
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." - Mark Twain
I know this might be highly inappropriate, but I just thought I'll try and sneak in here my favorite theist quote also: >;) :D
It has taken me too many years to begin to learn this – that the opposite of ideology is not freedom, at least not as freedom is conceived in any of its modern conceptions. The opposite of ideology is mercy. (source).
Forgot this one:
No man is convinced the Bible means exactly what it says. He is convinced it says exactly what he means. -Mark Twain
I'm going to ask the guy what the music was. I love trance.
One of my favorite quotes is:
Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.
-- Thomas Jefferson
--S.
The quotes were great.
And really liked the music! Could you tell us what it is? I'd like to buy the CD.
"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh" -R.A. Heinlein
My fav is
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~Philip K. Dick
They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.
Ayn Rand, "For the New Intellectual" Galt’s Speech, 148.
Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.
Na rupam. Na veda. Na samjna. Na samskarah. Na vijnanam. :-)
Ayn Rand said, "To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm?"
Is it possible for something to exist that has never been identified? (Heck, most of the universe is still unknown.)
If Rand is trying to say that things that exist are identifiable (though, obviously most of it has yet to be identified in any significant way) then couldn't a superior realm (or divine being) simply be something that has yet to be identified?
Perhaps identifying these things requires faculties that human beings don't possess?
Rand said, "God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out."
There is a taoist saying "The tao that can be named is not the true tao."
Is our inability to define what is divine evidense of its non-existance or an indication of just how limited our vocabulary truly is.
I think my favourite atheist quote, partly because it has become almost a rallying cry against the dafter expressions of faith is this
"May you be touched by his noodley appendage"
It sums up perfectly for me the silliness of religion, the honest belief in fantastical beasts, acts and histories for which there is not one iota of evidence. And it perfectly denies calls for "teaching the controversy", "Respecting others faiths" and such like.
Its not an intellectual phrase, its a basic stab in the eye of silliness.
tigg13: "Is it possible for something to exist that has never been identified?"
Arguments from ignorance persuade only those who do not think.
tigg13: "obviously most of it has yet to be identified in any significant way"
Equivocations: define obviously, significant, identified? Objctivism defines what it means by all the terms Rand used. See OPAR and ITOE.
tigg13: "Perhaps identifying these things requires faculties that human beings don't possess?"
What faculties would those be? Depending on mere possibility, is no way to go through life. Can you identify what reality is? If not how do you know your real? Only a world view that acknowledges that existence actually exists can deliver you from extreme skepticism.
tigg13: "There is a taoist saying "The tao that can be named is not the true tao."
The TAO is as much a fantasy as Yahweh. If you wish to use Taoist saying, prove, in the strong evidence sense, TAO exists. First, though, you'll have to define it.
tigg13: "Is our inability to define what is divine evidense of its non-existance or an indication of just how limited our vocabulary truly is."
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence. We can and do know how the Big Bang went down. It was not magic. We know existence has always existed. There was no beginning and there will be no end. Reality is really real. Existence actually exists. What you take as your perceptional experience of the world is not a fantasy in the mind of Yahweh, TAO, or some other imagined god.
tigg13: "The tao that can be named is not the true tao."
I typed "First, though, you'll have to define it."
If you know nothing about it, then you do not know it exists. If you do not know it exists, how then do you presuppose it exists? To say TAO exists is to assert an ad-hoc, question begging, special pleading.
Rand: "To exist is to possess identity."
tigg13: "Is it possible for something to exist that has never been identified?"
rob: Arguments from ignorance persuade only those who do not think.
tigg13: Arguments based on erroneous definitions only persuade those who aren't willing to think for themselves.
If Rand was trying to say identity is a characteristic inherent in all things that exist regardless of whether or not they've been observed by any sentient being then a divine being which has never been observed could exist. Its identity would be "a divine being that has never been observed".
If Rand is trying to say that in order for something to exist we must be able to identify it then that leads to my question.
tigg13: "obviously most of it has yet to be identified in any significant way"
rob: Equivocations: define obviously, significant, identified? Objctivism defines what it means by all the terms Rand used. See OPAR and ITOE.
tigg13: obviously - to not need proof.
significant - to have special value.
identified - labelled.
I am absolutely cetain that Objectivism has nice, neat, self-serving, little definitions for everything and if you want to let Rand do all of your thinking for you that's ok by me.
Are you willing to respect that I have as much right to define and identify reality as Rand does?
tigg13: "Perhaps identifying these things requires faculties that human beings don't possess?"
rob: What faculties would those be?
Depending on mere possibility, is no way to go through life. Can you identify what reality is? If not how do you know your real? Only a world view that acknowledges that existence actually exists can deliver you from extreme skepticism.
tigg13: I'm not questioning whether reality exists, I'm questioning our ability to perseive it fully and/or accurately.
You ask me how do I know that I'm real. How do you know that I'm real? There has long been an argument as to whether or not atheism requires faith. I would submit that atheists have a great deal of faith in the accurracy of their perceptions. Your whole world view depends on everything being exactly as it appears to be.
But we are not perfect. Our ability to perseive is limited. For us to say that all we know is all there is to know is arrogant.
You say I'm depending on possibilities. I recognize possibilities because, to me, to discard them would be short-sighted and unimaginative. My life, by the way, is vivid, dynamic and fun and I wouldn't change a thing.
tigg13: "There is a taoist saying "The tao that can be named is not the true tao."
rob: The TAO is as much a fantasy as Yahweh. If you wish to use Taoist saying, prove, in the strong evidence sense, TAO exists. First, though, you'll have to define it.
tigg13: Ok, I just said that once you define the TAO you are no longer talking about the true TAO. It is undifinable. If you don't want to believe in it that's ok. If you don't want anybody else to believe in it, that's a crime.
tigg13: "Is our inability to define what is divine evidense of its non-existance or an indication of just how limited our vocabulary truly is."
rob: Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence. We can and do know how the Big Bang went down. It was not magic. We know existence has always existed. There was no beginning and there will be no end. Reality is really real. Existence actually exists. What you take as your perceptional experience of the world is not a fantasy in the mind of Yahweh, TAO, or some other imagined god.
tigg13: But is it a fantasy in your mind. Let me propose a completely hypothetical situation - a thought experiment, if you will.
Suppose there existed a small island inhabited by people who had never encountered any other civilized peoples. Many many years ago a disease of some sort left all of the inhabitants of this island blind and this condition was passed down from generation to generation.
Eventually the last sighted person on the island would die off leaving the island populated by people who had never known sight. Time passes and, since they would never be used, all words pertaining to sight (colors, brightness, darkeness, light shadow, etc.) would fade from these people's vocabulary.
Now, it just so happens that you find yourself marooned on this island and you learn their language. How do convince these people that rainbows exist? How would you even describe what a rainbow is? To them a rainbow would be non-existant, wouldn't it? And you would be someone given to fantasizing about some magical 5th sense.
Absence of evidence may be evidence of absence but it is not proof of absence.
tigg13: "The tao that can be named is not the true tao."
rob: I typed "First, though, you'll have to define it."
If you know nothing about it, then you do not know it exists. If you do not know it exists, how then do you presuppose it exists? To say TAO exists is to assert an ad-hoc, question begging, special pleading.
tigg13: He who knows, knows nothing. He who knows nothing, knows all.
From a song by Cursive:
Now baby, baby, baby, this world must seem so immense
Compared to the womb
And baby, baby, your head must seem so much smaller
Than you assumed
Your whole world seems to center around you
It’d be easy to make the mistake
That maybe you’re why the world was made
I would submit that atheists have a great deal of faith in the accurracy of their perceptions. Your whole world view depends on everything being exactly as it appears to be.
Atheism != knowledge that gods do not exist
Atheism = lack of belief that gods exist
Really, is this so hard to understand? I don't believe that a 47 year old hot dog vendor named Javier Santoya lives in the building on the corner of 42nd and 8th Avenue in New York--I have no reason to believe such a person exists. However, I don't claim to KNOW he does not exist--my lack of belief is based on a lack of evidence combined with the statistical unliklihood that I could pull that name, age, occupation, and address out of my ass and have it be randomly right.
Similarly, if you pull out characteristics for a supernatural being out of your ass, I can't say I know for sure that such a being MUST NOT exist; I can say that, absent any positive evidence that such a being DOES exist, the liklihood of its existence is small enough to be not worth consideration. And the more characteristics you randomly pull out of your ass and assign to your gods, the less likely you are to be correct.
Now, it just so happens that you find yourself marooned on this island and you learn their language. How do convince these people that rainbows exist? How would you even describe what a rainbow is? To them a rainbow would be non-existant, wouldn't it?
Nope; I could create a rainbow using a prism, and use the different wavelengths of light to heat different materials with different efficiencies. The blind people could then determine by feel that, using this object, they could separate what once was a homogenous radiative heat source into a differential radiative heat source. I could then replicate the experiment with water vapor to show that water vapor can act as a radiative heat refractor, just like a prism. Finally, I can demonstrate that water vapor is present in the air, especially after rainfall. From this, they could induce that, under proper conditions, the air could refract radiative heat.
And you know why I can demonstrate the existance of rainbows to the blind, while theists remain unable to demonstrate the existence of gods to the "spiritually blind"? Because light refraction is real!
Absence of evidence may be evidence of absence but it is not proof of absence.
There is an invisible bomb implanted somewhere in your abdomen. Unless you cut your abdomen open right now and remove it, it will explode, killing you and your loved ones. What do you mean, you've never seen or felt this invisible bomb implanted in your abdomen? Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, and can you REALLY afford to take that chance? Ten bucks say you don't eviscerate yourself, because you know as well as I do that your line of argument is crap--you believe what you have evidence FOR, not whatever you don't have evidence AGAINST.
But is it a fantasy in your mind.
Let's do a simple experiment. Go into an empty room and set up a video recorder. Stand in the middle of the room and blindfold yourself. Now, spin around until you are incredibly dizzy and about to throw up. Now, pick a direction and sprint. If you are right, and reality is a fantasy driven by your perception, there is no reason that you will perceive that you would bump into the wall at the exact same time that the video camera perceives you actually reach the wall, so either you will feel yourself striking the wall when the camera sees you nowhere near the wall, or the camera will see you run right through the wall without slowing down. If I am right and reality is external to your mind, you will feel yourself hit the wall at the exact same time the camera sees you hit the wall, every time.
I have never had a strict metaphysical subjectivist take me up on this experiment. Every time you stub your toe unexpectedly, you refute the assertion that reality is just a fantasy and perception is the only true reality, and yet that stupid Keanu Reeves-level philosophy still persists among the college freshman crowd. Blech.
Shygetz, I stand in awe.
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence. We can and do know how the Big Bang went down. It was not magic. We know existence has always existed. There was no beginning and there will be no end. Reality is really real. Existence actually exists.
Just food for thought. "We can and do know how the Big Bang went down." So... are you saying you were there to watch or are you just believing another persons beliefs wrote in a book that you put faith in. Cause you know... can you actually see the atom that you believe in? We all live by faith, you just choose another person's book. Anything past a theory requires proof, redesign and create the big bang in your lab, then post that on youtube and converse on your blogs about debunking... THEN you will have a point, until then you really don't know how the Big Bang went down. Your science is debunked year after year as you do more studies.
There was no beginning and there will be no end. Reality is really real.
Okay, great point. So if there is no beginning and there is no end then how is that proving there can be no eternal God? Just as you ask for proof of eternal existence of God, I can also ask YOU to prove that there is NO eternal existence of God.
You know by now I am a firm believer. Why? Not because of warped views bashed into my brain over years, because I choose to believe within myself and not just another science book that in 100 years will have to be re written 1000 times because science always proves itself wrong. The Bible never changed. When I read it, it teaches me how to care about other people, love my family, be a MAN and take care of my household. It teaches me to love other people. And.... what's wrong with that? Just because YOU do not believe that way doesn't mean that I can't. It's the greatness of America. Read the Declaration of Independence if you really want to see why this country was founded.
Here is a quote from me.
Any true atheist. Any TRUE atheist would never care that I believe in God. That God would be spoke of or followed because any TRUE atheist really doesn't care.
The problem is atheists DO care. Your science is so strong within your heart that if it isn't accepted you resort to mockery, pulling quotes that have more meaning because you don't take the before and after quotes too, and simply because the human heart has a problem with accepting that we aren't in control.
Again.. To prove your Big Bang is amazing because for the first time in SCIENTIFIC history The Big Bang THEORY will actually be a PROOF. Prove it bud... I promise... just as the youtube posted what would make him BELIEVE in God... take dead tissue, strike it with lightning and once that tissue actually begins to live, then we can talk about big bang, evolution, and so forth... even you have faith my friend, it's just not in my book, it's in yours.
Just as you ask for proof of eternal existence of God, I can also ask YOU to prove that there is NO eternal existence of God.
There is an invisible bomb implanted in your abdomen. It will detonate and kill you and your loved ones unless you immediately cut it out. What!?! You don't believe me!?! PROVE it doesn't exist! And can you really take the chance? I mean, it's going to kill your family...shouldn't you eviscerate yourself now JUST IN CASE? After all, you can't PROVE it doesn't exist, and your whole family is in imminent danger!
If you are really dumb enough to go digging around in your intestines to find that bomb, then you get what you deserve. If you are not, then why do you insult me by assuming that I am?
So... are you saying you were there to watch or are you just believing another persons beliefs wrote in a book that you put faith in. Cause you know... can you actually see the atom that you believe in? We all live by faith, you just choose another person's book.
Er, no...I have done some of the experiments myself that establish the existence of atoms (such as X-ray diffraction and high resolution mass spectrometry), seen the evidence and followed the calculations first-hand of many others, and used still others to base my research on. The data I have not examined have been examined by qualified experts who have every motivation to debunk the original assertions--after all, that's how you make your career, by pointing out how your predecessors were wrong. These data have been used to DO things, REAL things, like make the computer you are using to project your ignorance to the world. Is there a global God communication network that can do the same? I thought not...all of God's promises are either metaphorical or conveniently untestable, at least until you're dead, and even then you aren't allowed to share your results.
The real peach is that you are INVITED to check our work. True, you have to actually get off your ass and do it, but the same nature the original scientists observed is still there--measure the background radiation yourself, learn enough math to check their calculations, SEE FOR YOURSELF!
Can you promise me the same thing from your religion? Can I see God for myself before I make my decision to believe? That's all I ask...but apparently it's too much.
Any TRUE atheist would never care that I believe in God. That God would be spoke of or followed because any TRUE atheist really doesn't care.
Any TRUE germ theory of disease believer wouldn't care that his doctor didn't believe in germs...as long as theists retain political and economic power and are willing to use it for irrational religious reasons, I have sufficient motive to try to reduce the influence of religion.
When I read it, it teaches me how to care about other people, love my family, be a MAN and take care of my household.
And yet I manage to be all of those things without it. Somewhat pathetic that you need a book to succeed in what even a dog can do by instinct.
Again.. To prove your Big Bang is amazing because for the first time in SCIENTIFIC history The Big Bang THEORY will actually be a PROOF.
OK, once more for those in the back...science does NOT go wild-ass guess -> theory -> proof. Science goes from collection of highly validated hypotheses -> theory. There is NO GREATER CONFIDENCE than theory. A theory NEVER becomes a "fact" because a theory is much MORE than a fact; it's an extremely well-tested explanation that brings together a large collection of facts. The Big Bang theory has been "proven", and it remains a theory.
even you have faith my friend, it's just not in my book, it's in yours.
And the computer is in my "book", but nowhere to be found in yours, so kindly stop using it. Ditto antibiotics, vaccines, modern agriculture, internal combustion, etc. So if you insist on contempt for my "book", stick to your book and stop using all of our stuff. Just to be fair, I'll agree to no longer pray to Yahweh or Jesus, since that pretty much originated with the authors of your book. But we all know where your faith truly lies.
And yet I manage to be all of those things without it. Somewhat pathetic that you need a book to succeed in what even a dog can do by instinct.
So after calling me names and insulting my personal thoughts... you manage to be all those things right? Sorry, I didn't see any respect there. I do respect you, I challenged you with a simple respectful challenge... I knew at the beginning of just the names and insults it would be just another upset atheist that would not read into what I was trying to say.
You know... I'm really sorry I busted in on your board. It's so easy to hide behind a computer screen and spit insults.. I have nothing to insult you about... you choose to believe... I choose to believe. As soon as you can prove to me there is No God... as soon as you can.. I promise, I will never ask another questions. You think after thousands of years of documented history of this ongoing fight that somewhere... just somewhere there would be some proof.... but yet again.. the age old question, do I want to believe or do I want to just die and become dirt... sigh... I am sorry your bitter.
Er, no...I have done some of the experiments myself that establish the existence of atoms (such as X-ray diffraction and high resolution mass spectrometry), seen the evidence and followed the calculations first-hand of many others, and used still others to base my research on. The data I have not examined have been examined by qualified experts who have every motivation to debunk the original assertions...
okay okay... now... I mean.. do I CHOOSE to believe you? I mean... you could be lying to me since there is no proof to me that you have done this... or you can be telling the truth... hmmm, amazing how we have to decide for ourselves based off what YOU are saying my friend.
-- cheesy quote from a movie time
Do you really think that is air your breathing? Soooo, I can't see the oxygen coming into my lungs when I look around... but you know.. I still think it's oxygen because that is what my science teacher told me... maybe, just maybe it's hydrogen... not oxygen... what do I choose to believe...
Just because you can't see the air doesn't mean it's not there. I feel the wind, I feel the breeze so I know it is something.
Just because I can't see God doesn't mean he isn't there. I feel it in my soul, I feel the peace.
Amazing how your belief in science and my belief in God go hand in hand... but the only thing...the absolute only thing I ever want to see you do is create life from empty space... and you can't use the line "some day" because I could show you God someday and you wont accept that answer now.. show me now. Right now.
Reminds me of a joke I heard once.
Scientists all around the world gathered and decided they were going to have a session with God to let him know they didn't need him anymore. God came by and the scientists were marveling in all of their accomplishments and basically showed God they didn't need him anymore. God says okay okay, if you don't need me, then I need one proof of you. I need you to grow me a tree. The scientists all laughed and mocked God saying that a tree is one of the easiest plants to grow. So they gathered their seeds and went out to plant the seeds in the ground. Just as they began to dig, God says... Wait.... use your own dirt.
What's the moral? If you personally can't create it, don't mock others because they have a different belief in it. You personally can't create anything. You can't make anything without using what is already around you whether its' mineral or herbs.. you can't.
Again... I am sorry I bothered you and challenged your belief, I mean.. you throw us in the trash everyday because we decided to say a prayer in your courtroom or bless our food in your restaurant... I mean... who needs the ten commandments anyways.. we all know it's better to Steal and Kill, Lie and Cheat... oh wait... you said you already lived that way... but yet, you just can't stand that what you fight against teaches the very same.
Hi Shygetz.
"Atheism != knowledge that gods do not exist"
"Atheism = lack of belief that gods exist"
You are quite right. I should have made it clear that I was referring to Atheism!. But, how many times have people on this site made referrences to "christians" when they were really talking about "christian fundementalists"? (Hey I've done it.)
Me: Now, it just so happens that you find yourself marooned on this island and you learn their language. How do convince these people that rainbows exist? How would you even describe what a rainbow is? To them a rainbow would be non-existant, wouldn't it?
Shy: Nope; I could create a rainbow using a prism, and use the different wavelengths of light to heat different materials with different efficiencies. The blind people could then determine by feel that, using this object, they could separate what once was a homogenous radiative heat source into a differential radiative heat source. I could then replicate the experiment with water vapor to show that water vapor can act as a radiative heat refractor, just like a prism. Finally, I can demonstrate that water vapor is present in the air, especially after rainfall. From this, they could induce that, under proper conditions, the air could refract radiative heat.
Me: Whoopie! You've proven that heat exists. And from these little experiments (which you no doubt put together using coconuts and clam shells) these natives will all instantly know exactly what a rainbow (that is, an arc of different colors that seem to streak across the sky) is. Wow, you're amazing.
Shy: And you know why I can demonstrate the existance of rainbows to the blind, while theists remain unable to demonstrate the existence of gods to the "spiritually blind"? Because light refraction is real!
Me: And do you know why the native skeptics will still not believe in rainbows after your demonstration? Because they will still find no evidence for them - reality, as they perceive it, does not include rainbows.
Me: Absence of evidence may be evidence of absence but it is not proof of absence.
Shy: There is an invisible bomb implanted somewhere in your abdomen. Unless you cut your abdomen open right now and remove it, it will explode, killing you and your loved ones. What do you mean, you've never seen or felt this invisible bomb implanted in your abdomen? Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, and can you REALLY afford to take that chance? Ten bucks say you don't eviscerate yourself, because you know as well as I do that your line of argument is crap--you believe what you have evidence FOR, not whatever you don't have evidence AGAINST.
Me: Next time you are on a bus or in a shopping mall or some other public place, ask yourself if anybody around you might be carrying a concealed bomb on their person. It could be implanted in their abdomen or strapped to their chest or hidden in a backpack. Before 9/11 this might have seemed to be a ridiculous idea but would you say it couldn't possibly happen now?
Do you check out everyone you see, scan for unusual bulges, do quick racial profiles, listen closely for the sound of ticking? Do you hide in your basement, avoid all public places and keep your tv tuned to CNN waiting for news of any terrorist bombings? I"ll bet that same ten bucks that you don't.
But does that mean that a terrorist bombing couldn't possibly happen to you?
You are correct that we all live our lives as though improbable events couldn't possibly happen. If we didn't we would spend our whole lives obsessed with what could go wrong and never accomplish anything. But its still an illusion.
Imagine if you could go back in time to the morning of 9/11 and warn all of those victims of what was going to happen. Do you think any of them would believe you?
Me: But is it a fantasy in your mind.
Shy: Let's do a simple experiment. Go into an empty room and set up a video recorder. Stand in the middle of the room and blindfold yourself. Now, spin around until you are incredibly dizzy and about to throw up. Now, pick a direction and sprint. If you are right, and reality is a fantasy driven by your perception, there is no reason that you will perceive that you would bump into the wall at the exact same time that the video camera perceives you actually reach the wall, so either you will feel yourself striking the wall when the camera sees you nowhere near the wall, or the camera will see you run right through the wall without slowing down. If I am right and reality is external to your mind, you will feel yourself hit the wall at the exact same time the camera sees you hit the wall, every time.
Me: Has it occurred to you that your video camera is as much apart of your perceived reality as the walls?
Shy: I have never had a strict metaphysical subjectivist take me up on this experiment. Every time you stub your toe unexpectedly, you refute the assertion that reality is just a fantasy and perception is the only true reality, and yet that stupid Keanu Reeves-level philosophy still persists among the college freshman crowd. Blech.
Me: Is it that no one has ever taken you up on your challenge or is it that your mind has refused to allow you to remember being taken up on this challenge. Have you ever actuslly stubbed your toe or is that how you mind has chosen to interpret certain events that it cannot process any other way.
Forget for a moment about everything you've ever learned and look outside. Does the world look round or does it look flat? Look up in the sky for a few hours. Does the sun look stationary with respect to the Earth or does it look like its moving? Reach your hand out into the air. Does it feel like there's anything there?
We scoff at our ancient ancestors for coming up with the wrong answers to these questions. But weren't they doing exactly what you are doing - assuming that reality is as they perceived it to be?
The idea that reality might not be what we perceive it to be is very disconcerting, but how can we ever be certain that it is?
w3sson said: So after calling me names and insulting my personal thoughts... you manage to be all those things right? Sorry, I didn't see any respect there.
I DO respect you, and all other human beings...I respect you so much that I am convinced that you know the difference between right and wrong without having to read it in a book. Perhaps you mistook my respect for disrespect because your co-religionists never gave you the respect you deserve? Have they always told you that you were full of sin, and needed supernatural help to reach a stage of mere decency? And having bought in to that belief, you now find it downright insulting that someone would dare say that you and most other people were capable of such decency all on your own!?!
It is you who disrespect all human beings by saying that we have to read an instruction manual in order to do things that rats do by instinct. I am strongly suggesting that you respect yourself (and me) more than that.
And yes, I am all those things; I care about other people, I take care of my household, and I am at the very least an adequate father and husband (which I assume are the major components in your definition of being a MAN)...all without believing in your book. The same is true of literally BILLIONS of other human beings. And I have every confidence that you are capable of the same.
You think after thousands of years of documented history of this ongoing fight that somewhere... just somewhere there would be some proof....
Yes, you would, but Christianity (and every other religion) has never gotten around to providing any...oh, you were talking about atheism? Have you cut out that ticking time bomb in your abdomen yet? Good Lord, man, time is running out!
...but yet again.. the age old question, do I want to believe or do I want to just die and become dirt... sigh... I am sorry your bitter.
Wait a second...you think that the fact that your belief, in and of itself, will change reality? Does Santa really exist because your kids want him to? Whether or not you believe in Jesus has nothing to do with whether or not He exists. What you want has nothing to do with reality.
And what makes you think I am bitter? The fact that I do not defer to your church? It seems that we have very different definitions of "bitter". I am quite happy with my life, thank you very much.
Amazing how your belief in science and my belief in God go hand in hand... but the only thing...the absolute only thing I ever want to see you do is create life from empty space... and you can't use the line "some day" because I could show you God someday and you wont accept that answer now.. show me now. Right now.
Wow...I mean, just, wow. I want to see you build the Pyramids of Giza now. No, RIGHT NOW! Oh, you mean you can't do something that originally took decades with hundreds of millions of man-hours and huge amounts of resources to do instantaneously on demand with no budget to do so? But you think it's reasonable to expect me to do something that took BILLIONS of years with an entire universe-worth of resources at your whim? And you righteously demand respect for your views...
okay okay... now... I mean.. do I CHOOSE to believe you?
Don't take my word for it...no, I'm serious. Like I said...the unique thing about science is that it encourages you to go look for yourself. So don't take my word for it; learn how to see it for yourself, then do it. Like I said before, it takes effort; you have to get off your ass and go do it. But you DON'T have to take my word for it.
Just because you can't see the air doesn't mean it's not there. I feel the wind, I feel the breeze so I know it is something.
And if I shoved you into hard vaccuum, you would feel something. Doesn't mean there's air there. If I cut off your hand, you would well still feel pain in it; doesn't mean you really have a ghost arm still attached that's causing you pain.
Just because I can't see God doesn't mean he isn't there. I feel it in my soul, I feel the peace.
Ah, finally, a testable hypothesis! You're saying that you can know the truth about something because it gives you a feeling of "peace" in your "soul". Okay, call up James Randi and ask him to test your alternative way of knowing. He's offering a handsome cash reward to anyone who can demonstrate the paranormal, and the ability to discern truth by a "feeling of peace" would certainly qualify. So get to it...PROVE it to me that your "soul" is an accurate gauge of truth.
Oh, wait...you say it only works with telling the truth about God. Ohhhh...why is that again?
"I've been listening to my gut since I was 14 years old, and frankly speaking, I've come to the conclusion that my guts have shit for brains."--Rob, High Fidelity
I mean.. you throw us in the trash everyday because we decided to say a prayer in your courtroom or bless our food in your restaurant
A) I have never thrown anyone in the trash
B) You may pray whenever and wherever you choose in this country--courtroom, classroom, restaurant, etc.; the First Amendment protects that right, and I defend it. You may NOT pray as an agent of the government, because the government may not sanction or prohibit religion--this protects you as much as me. Tell me the truth...if it came down to it, do you think for a SECOND that your particular flavor of Christianity would come out on top in a religious government, or do you admit that you would probably be forced to adhere to Catholicism, the largest and most powerful denomination? Unless you delude yourself into thinking that God would come down personally and smite the papists who outnumber you heftily in order to bring about your preferred type of dominionist government, then you should count your blessings that secularists like myself have been taking shit for protecting YOUR freedoms of worship for centuries in this country. It's a singularly thankless job.
What's the moral? If you personally can't create it, don't mock others because they have a different belief in it.
So you fully and soberly consider the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Parmesean Be Upon Him), invisible pink unicorns, fairies at the foot of the garden, psychic brain-eating butterflies, Time Cube, Xenu's genocide of aliens causing all of mankind's problems, the Raelians returning to take the faithful away in their spaceships, etc., etc., ad nauseum? All because you didn't create the universe, you have to lend credence to EVERY belief system? So what your philosophy boils down to is, if you're not omnipotent, then you can't know anything with any certainty at all. And yet, while firmly holding that belief, you manage to type on the computer even though some believe it will give you cancer.
Either you're an idiot of surprising magnitude (which I don't believe), you think I'm an idiot of surprising magnitude and are willing to lie to me, or you didn't really think your "moral" through.
I mean... who needs the ten commandments anyways.. we all know it's better to Steal and Kill, Lie and Cheat... oh wait... you said you already lived that way.
As do dogs and pretty much every other social animal...
but yet, you just can't stand that what you fight against teaches the very same.
You act as though all your religion teaches is "Be nice to each other". You should read your Bible more...the same book that tells you not to murder also tells you to kill people who gather sticks on Saturday, kill children who disrespect their parents, kill people who eat pork, kill gays (one of the VERY FEW that you guys seem to remember...what is it with you Christians and sex, anyway?) etc. The same God you worship is the one who commanded the deaths of every man, woman, child, and animal in Jericho (sparing only one family of traitors).
Again... I am sorry I bothered you and challenged your belief
Don't be sorry for challenging my beliefs (that's why we're here), and don't think that it bothered me...it didn't (which is why I hadn't bothered to check back until now...this exchange really was nothing). If you want to regret something, regret the poor arguments you put forth, and strive to do better next time. I have every confidence you can do so.
tigg13 said: You are quite right. I should have made it clear that I was referring to Atheism!.
No; != is formal logic notation for "not equal". Atheism does not equal "belief that god does not exist". That is a group called "strong atheists", which is almost wholly a fiction of the theists. The only strong atheist I have ever met was that way solely on a semantic basis; he did not believe that a coherent definition of God was possible, therefore he was convinced that God could not exist, as God could not be defined.
Whoopie! You've proven that heat exists. And from these little experiments (which you no doubt put together using coconuts and clam shells) these natives will all instantly know exactly what a rainbow (that is, an arc of different colors that seem to streak across the sky) is. Wow, you're amazing.
Nope, I proven that radiative heat exists, and can be refracted by a prism and water vapor. If you knew anything about physics, you'd know that radiative heat is light--the heat is carried by the photons, and transferred upon interaction of the photons with a material. The fact that they would perceive the rainbow as different heat properties instead of different color properties has no bearing on the fact that they would be able to detect and explain the rainbow. And, again, it's because the rainbow is actually real. And I'm not amazing, science is amazing; none of the experiments I proposed are novel.
And do you know why the native skeptics will still not believe in rainbows after your demonstration? Because they will still find no evidence for them - reality, as they perceive it, does not include rainbows.
Untrue...I will have provided them evidence that radiative heat can be diffracted into a heat spectrum, and that this diffraction can be accomplished with water vapor and air and a radiative heat source, and that water vapor and air and a radiative heat source are present during sunny periods after a rainstorm. Once I have shown them this, rainbows WILL be a part of their reality as they perceive it.
Next time you are on a bus or in a shopping mall or some other public place, ask yourself if anybody around you might be carrying a concealed bomb on their person...(continued terrorist attack scenario)
So do you cower in your basement, avoiding all human contact, because SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE A BOMB!!1!OHNOES!1!
That was the point of my scenario...it is irrational and impractical to entertain every fantasy that comes into your mind, no matter how unlikely or convoluted. Do I concede that it is a metaphysical possibility that gods exist, and these gods have screwed with the evidence in such a way as to convince us that they do not? Sure, I will concede that this is possible; but as I have no reason to believe this is so, I have no reason to entertain this idea. Someday, if you allow yourself to be educated, you will learn about the burden of proof in rational inquiry, and why it is necessary from both a philosophical and practical standpoint. For now, suffice it to say that, if you grant that you ought to believe that which is true and not believe that which is false, you have an obligation to justify your beliefs, and this justification requires a burden of proof to be laid upon the believer.
You are correct that we all live our lives as though improbable events couldn't possibly happen. If we didn't we would spend our whole lives obsessed with what could go wrong and never accomplish anything. But its still an illusion.
No, we live our lives as though improbable events RARELY happen, which is not an illusion but truth. For example, it is improbable that my house will be struck by lightning...yet it is still grounded, because while it is improbable for my house to be struck by lightning, it is cheap and easy to protect myself from it. It is even more improbable that my house will be struck by a giant meteor, and protection from giant meteors is neither cheap nor easy so I do NOT protect my house from it. Even so, there is evidence of giant meteors striking houses...there is ZERO evidence of the tripe that theists and strict metaphysical subjectivists spout. So, I grant it even LESS probability than a giant meteor striking my house.
Me: Has it occurred to you that your video camera is as much apart of your perceived reality as the walls?
Well sure it is; we could use a second observer if you prefer. I recommended this because it does not require outside help, and it usually gets my point across, but if you like you can use a second consciousness in place of the camera which, accordning to non-solipsistic metaphysical subjectivists, is just as "privileged" as they are.
Is it that no one has ever taken you up on your challenge or is it that your mind has refused to allow you to remember being taken up on this challenge.
Again, unless you're claiming solipsism, their experience is a privileged as mine. If we share the experience of them not taking me up on the challenge, then we can conclude that they did not. If you are concerned about that, we can relate our experiences through as many third parties as you like. The only escape from this is solipsism.
Have you ever actuslly stubbed your toe or is that how you mind has chosen to interpret certain events that it cannot process any other way.
In order for my mind to interpret "certain events" that way, there would have to be "certain events" external to my mind to interpret, which would render your metaphysical subjectivism moot. The point remains...in metaphysical subjectivism, it would be impossible to be surprised (as you are when you stub your toe in the dark), as everything would be internally controlled and initiated. People are surprised (often unpleasantly), therefore metaphysical subjectivism is wrong.
Forget for a moment about everything you've ever learned and look outside. Does the world look round or does it look flat?
From where I am, the world does NOT look flat...it looks hilly, and then it drops off over the horizon. If I look out over the ocean, the world looks curved.
Look up in the sky for a few hours. Does the sun look stationary with respect to the Earth or does it look like its moving?
It looks like it's moving...which it is with respect to the Earth. General relativity...check into it. It's neat.
Reach your hand out into the air. Does it feel like there's anything there?
Yep...I can feel the breeze when my hand moves, and the faster I move it the faster the breeze. (This really isn't turning out as you had hoped, is it?)
We scoff at our ancient ancestors for coming up with the wrong answers to these questions. But weren't they doing exactly what you are doing - assuming that reality is as they perceived it to be?
Actually, our ancestors by and large came up with the right answers within the scale of their experience. For example, people believed the Earth to be flat ONLY when their rate of travel was VERY slow...once people began to travel faster and more extensively, especially by sea, they quickly caught on to the notion of a curved Earth. And even today, for calculations covering small areas, we ASSUME the Earth to be flat because that assumption works within that scale! For example, take the basic freshman physics ballistics problem (you know, the one that usually starts with a boy throws a ball into the air...) Does this problem EVER take into account the curvature of the Earth? No...because the distances are small enough that the curvature of the Earth doesn't come into play, so flat-Earth physics WORKS.
The difference now is that we see over immense distances that rival the scale of the universe, across every speed possible, at energies both immensely high and terribly low, etc. The breadth of our experience has increased immensely, which means the accuracy of our models with regards to reality has also grown, because we are forced to develop models that work at every scale. We still get into trouble at scales outside of our experience (e.g. integration of gravity with quantum mechanics, as we are not familiar with gravity at quantum scales). But we do know that, for every scale that is within our experience, our models are DAMN good!
The idea that reality might not be what we perceive it to be is very disconcerting, but how can we ever be certain that it is?
Depends on what you mean by "certain". If you mean 100% sure with no possibility of doubt, you can't. If you mean "certain enough to stake the entire universe upon it", then we do so every day...I cannot prove with 100% certainty that sending this message will not destroy the entire universe, but I will send it anyway because I am certain enough that it won't that I'm willing to risk it. And we get this way by using rational empiricism and induction to repeatedly and accurately predict the future. Because, in the end, that's what scientists are...the world's only successful fortune-tellers.
Post a Comment