An Atheist's Manifesto...

[Cleobulus]

I'm an Atheist, I believe in one important thing, doubt. I'm not sure of anything, not even the existence of a god, however, from the lack of evidence for such a being or beings existing in the present universe, I believe in none of them, not Yahweh or El or Zeus or Baal.

I believe that science is the best way to figure out how and why the world works the way it does, for the same reason, science is based on doubt, if you want reassurance and quick answers, even if they are the wrong ones, fine, but please don't interfere with the pursuits of science.

Science has evidence to back it up, that it WORKS, in the western world we have eliminated or found ways to control or prevent the spread of diseases, we have increased the human lifespan, nearly doubled it, in just the past century alone. We have increased the living standards of people, increased food production, and even are helping the blind see and the deaf hear through science.

This manifest hatred of intellectual pursuits through skepticism that is science permeates this board, and its frankly disgusting. No better than book burners, to claim that humanity should place limits on its own pursuits. As a species we have always pushed the envelope, sometimes painfully, and have fallen back as well, I do not wish for us to fall back into another dark age simply because of the fear and hatred of some among us who claim we know enough, or that there are things that we can never know.

I shall make an extraordinary claim right now, I know more than Isaac Newton ever did, and so does the average high school graduate in this country. A combination of the advances in knowledge that science pursued, and a robust public education system gave me tools that Isaac Newton never had. He was born in a time of superstition and ignorance, a time where alchemy was considered real, and even he practiced it, something I hope even the most ignorant among us laugh at. We exalt him as a genius, but we should temper it by stating he was a genius of his time, and a product of it as well. He had ideas and beliefs that were manifestly wrong, no different than that famous astrologer Johann Kepler, and so many others. Yes they advanced the causes of science, but that doesn't mean they were even close to right about everything else they believed in. Their tested theories and observations are what we need to concentrate on, their disproven beliefs and practices should be discarded.

This is what science does, it disproves hypotheses, it creates doubt in even the most fundamental of all questions. This is what is so frightening to so many people, but it shouldn't be. Its better to live in doubt than to live in certainty that cannot be proven. One way to live is honest, the other a lie.

What science doesn't do is answer all questions, but this is because all questions are not created equal. Is their such a thing as a square circle? Of course not, you don't need science to answer this question, just logic. Indeed, this question is itself nonsensical. As are most theological questions about divine beings, when the definition of such divine beings are inconsistent and logically nonsensical, they should be dismissed. I have yet to encounter a definition of gods that isn't any more logically consistent than a square circle.

[DonCoquixote]

1. Manifest hatred

I agree that some people here do choose to hate atheists or anyone that disagrees with them. I have more than my fair share of fights with Luddites, especially those who think that the solution is to somehow roll back knowledge to some time that, to quote Tariq Ali "thankfully never was." There is no reason to hate an atheist any more than a Muslim, Hindu, or a Jew.

However, just like there are a small minority of each religious faith that thinks they have a right to mistreat people because they do not share their belief, there are some (note I say some, not a majority) that believe they can mistreat others who disagree. I am not just talking about some Marxists on here, whose faith in their doctrine is every bit as devout as any Catholic clutching a rosary. I mean people who would throw Martin Luther King into the same furnace as George Bush because they are religious.

If anything, Science should humble people, not make them arrogant, because, when you embrace true science, you will come face to face with the fact that, even if you are your age's answer to an Issac Newton, you will be only be able to learn so much, and your grandchildren will know things about reality that make your understanding look like some caveman. It sounds like you understand this, but there are some here who have make the mistake of thinking that just because there is no "god" as defined by previous thought, thjat they know everything there is to know, and have a right to be arrogant because of it.

There is a quote that comes to mind, which I am paraphrasing: "You should strive to surround yourself with seekers of truth, but if anyone you know claims they have found it, RUN!"

[trotsky]

2. Hi.

Could you point me to just one post that anyone made in which they claim "thjat (sic) they know everything there is to know"?

Thanks much!

[DonCoquixote]

3. first off

You know calling out other people is a way to get tombstoned.. one the other hand, go ahead an look at signatures where lines like "if it cannot be measured, it cannot exist." You will find plenty, and you will also find plenty of people who say people who disagree with them need to be punished.

[trotsky]

4. But you wouldn't be calling anyone out.

Just verifying a claim you made. Namely, that someone (multiple someones, evidently) said they know everything. I'd just like a cite for what you said. Thanks!

P.S. If you can't back up your claim, you should probably rescind it - or maybe just admit that you're exaggerating by using strawmen.

[ironbark]

6. “If you can't back up your claim, you should probably rescind it”

What a wonderful principle!

Is that not what is commonly referred to as ‘substantiation’….the provision of evidence to back a knowledge claim…the putting forward of ‘cite’, ‘quote’ and justifying ‘example’ when an accusation is made regarding what another is supposed to have said?

It is, as I understand it, a principle that has a great deal in common with the scientific method and the provision of evidence.

And yet……..this principle is continually and consistently rejected, ignored, refused, mocked, ridiculed and dismissed as some kind of “game”.

"Substantiate or retract" I believe the expression goes.

How nice to see it so openly advocated.

Perhaps....after all these years.....it will catch on.

[trotsky]

13. Let me echo Goblinmonger's post below.

Please PM me the links - you certainly can't get tombstoned for that. I eagerly await proof of your claim. If you can't produce it in, say, 48 hours, may I post here that you were unable to document it and other readers should consider it false?

Thanks and have a great day! :hi:

[ironbark]

30. LOL! “48 hours” to provide substantiation…Is that now universally applicable policy?

Applying equally to all…or will some remain more equal than others? ;-)

[Goblinmonger]

47. Since you are dredging up old threads in here

I'm still waiting for your proof that someone has claimed that "agnosticism is a subset of atheism." Haven't seen that little gem yet.

Or do you just like this 48 hours because you can use it as a tool against others and yet you, yourself, won't provide the substantiation of your claims that others call for?

[ironbark]

58. I made no mention of or reference to “old threads”

But seeing as >you< raise specific issues here…I’ll respond.

According to you “We are all atheists to some extent”

That makes (to your “some extent”) both agnostics and theists a sub set of atheism.

Unless you wish to argue that We are all agnostics to some extent and/or We are all theists to some extent?

If not agnosticism must be (in your eyes “to some extent”) a sub set of atheism.

(And, heading off the ongoing absurdity at the pass…The issue/question was >never< about anyone using the exact words “sub set”….language and logic does not require that the exact words “sub set” to be used for a sub set to be established)

eg-
“An agnostic claiming that they don't know if God exists or not donk't believe in that god either, do they? That makes them an atheist.”

>That< presents agnosticism as a >sub set< of atheism….agnosticism incorporated and contained by atheism… “That makes them {an agnostic} an atheist”...and that makes agnosticism a sub set of atheism.

Job done…substantiation provided in under 24 hours! ;-)

How many weeks/months will go by before you come up with >anything< that I said, suggested or inferred that depicts atheists as “evil”?

Crickets on that one.

[Goblinmonger]

62. Wow, you just don't understand

what mutually exclusive means. I am a male. I am also white. Does that mean that white is a subset of male? Or vice versa? Because that is EXACTLY what I have been saying about gnosticism vs. theism.

You said that atheists have said that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. I asked you for the post where that was said. I am applying your standards that you get to at the end of your post. You are still looking for the post with the word "evil" in it. I am waiting for the post with subset in it. You remember the whole "you set the standard now live with it" discussion. So put up the subset post or admit you lied.

Crickets, I'm sure.

[ironbark]

64. Why you cut ignore the evidence you ask for? Nope. It's a mystery.

Cutting the evidence does not make it disappear.

You asked for substantiation…I give it to you…you cut and ignore it.
Go figure.

#35 ‘Agnostic Manifesto’
“An agnostic claiming that they don't know if God exists or not donk't believe in that god either, do they? That makes them an atheist.”

>That< presents agnosticism as a >sub set< of atheism….agnosticism incorporated and contained by atheism… “That makes them {an agnostic} an atheist”...and that makes agnosticism a sub set of atheism.

Your prior gambit was to pretend that the clear statement “That makes them an atheist” reflects some obscure “… attitudes of the person calling themself an agnostic is actually displaying characteristics of atheism”.
Obscurism at it's best.

“ I am applying your standards that you get to at the end of your post. You are still looking for the post with the word "evil" in it.”

No your not, your playing an absurd and increasingly boring game of semantics and obfuscation.
I never asked for “the post with the word "evil" in it” and you know it because it is the 4-5 time I have set that straight since the beginning-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x255244#255327

“So the expectation of the provision of evidence is a “game”?
And its played by you alleging I’ve ever said or suggested anything like- “…atheists are evil and trying to take over the world”….and you fly under the ROC with that blatant falsification and I’m not even allowed to call it what it is?”

“said or suggested anything like” is what I asked for, Jul-28-10 05:26, and nothing, absolutely nothing except ongoing crap about expecting “word "evil" in it”.

Cut it, ignore it, evade it, obfuscate it………….doesn’t change the fact your 48 hours was up last month.
You had nothing then……You’ve got nothing now……..nothing has changed...not even your obfuscation.


“I am waiting for the post with subset in it”

Good for you….you had it…you cut it…you have it again...I never claimed an atheist used the words 'sub set' I claimed athiests have presented agnosticism as a sub set of atheism...“That makes them {an agnostic} an atheist”...and that makes agnosticism a sub set of atheism....
cut it, ignore it, then sit there and wait for it again.


“Crickets, I'm sure.”
“…said or suggested anything like- “…atheists are evil and trying to take over the world”….”

Crickets, nothing but Crickets....and >nothing like< what you alledge I said in evidence.

[Goblinmonger]

87. That's just bullshit and you know it.

trotsky has given you the things you asked for as to why atheists view you the way the do on DU. I have given you those same things. Others have as well. Every time it is presented to you, you respond with "but did I say 'x' like you claimed? No." You won't accept a valid interpretation by others of what you say but you want to feel free to interpret what others have said. That is a double standard and people are tired of it. You might call it obfuscation, but I am just trying to show you how idiotic your standard it. If you don't like it, then change it.

[DonCoquixote]

40. OK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x254479

Note, per DU rules, I cannot call anyone out, but this thread has some of the worst arguing, admittedly on both sides. Note the purpose of the op was to discuss what they thought a bible verse meant, but then people poo-pooed the thread because "you might as well ask how osiris did" yadda, or that the questions were irrelevant because the people did not know what the sun actually meant, therefore it was useless to discuss the op. Also note where one person asks "why can't you handle discussing it as metaphor?" to which to the person responded "Ijust can't see using them as metaphor."

The problem in this thread was, there were people who tried to interpret genesis in different ways, some as literal myth, some as a metaphor, but when any anybody offered different ways to interpret things, there was a shout of "strawmen! Strawmen!" because in the eyes of some atheists, and note I say some, there was only ONE way to interpret things, THEIR way.

[trotsky]

42. Sorry, but fail.

Nowhere in that thread does someone say they know everything there is to know. That was your specific claim. Have some intellectual honesty and just admit you exaggerated, and I'll be willing to drop this.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Yeah, I'm with trotsky

Pretty epic fail. You made a claim that you can't back up. Just admit it.

[ironbark]

65. Pot……Kettle………..you know the rest. nt.

[ZombieHorde]

73. I am proud of my post in that thread, but of course it was ignored. nt

[Goblinmonger]

10. I call bullshit.

PM me the links to the "some" people who claim that they know everything because of their atheism. I'll post the links in here for you so you don't risk getting tombstoned. I have some more work to do outside, so I'll be working with anticipation to see what is in my inbox when I get done.

[Cleobulus]

17. I didn't mention hatred of atheists or even atheism, but hatred of science and knowledge in general.

Which is, in my opinion far worse, you can hate me all you want, but hatred of knowledge can lead you to advocating for the destruction of knowledge, something that has had horrendous consequences throughout history.

[ironbark]

29. You think that what you >actually said< actually matters in the court of condemnation

by assumption, projection and fabrication?

[Cleobulus]

35. What's fabricated here? Anyone who exalts their subjective "truth"...

above even the most basic of objective facts are showing an complete rejection of rational inquiry, particularly of science.

[ironbark]

38. “ hatred of atheists or even atheism “ is a frequently fabricated accusation

put forward without any cite, quote, substantiation, justification or explanation.

“Anyone who exalts their subjective "truth"... above even the most basic of objective facts are showing an complete rejection of rational inquiry, particularly of science.”

Couldn’t agree more….Which is why >any< accusation of “hatred” towards >any group< ought be immediately accompanied by “the most basic of objective facts”- the cite, quote, substantiation of the “hatred” that was supposedly expressed.

Ask for such substantiation and the request is ignored, mocked, ridiculed and rejected as some kind of “game”…. “showing a complete rejection of rational inquiry, particularly of {Natural Justice}.”

[Cleobulus]

45. But I didn't mention hatred of atheists or atheism, the other poster did...

I simply said that it wasn't part of the body of my OP.

[ironbark]

67. Yes. I know. And all I said still stands. nt.

[dmallind]

5. False equivalency is as bad as manifest hatred

The ones who come out blatantly anti-science are the obvious clumsy blundering fools who are only cannon-fodder in any "war" on science. They are there to make noise and pretend that it's normal to think the earth is only 6000 years old or that angels watch over us.

The people who matter and who are much more dangerous are the ones who pretend that there are simply two equally important and useful ways to look at the world and that they simply ask separate questions or show two sides of the same reality. The idea that there is a scientific truth and a "spiritual" truth, but both are true.

They will generally use dense and pompous jargon about "inner truth" or "pure wisdom" or other completely unsupported claims. They will react to any expectation of epistemoological validity by saying that's only how "materialists" establish knowledge, but the truth is obvious - they cannot point to, demonstrate, explain or even consistently describe one single new fact or capability that has been introduced by non-empirical non-materialist sources. No meditation technique has been shown to cure a disease. Plenty of pharmmaceuticals have. No "spiritual hourney" has been shown to have discovered a new fact of history, anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology, physics ior chemistry. Plenty of experiments have. No gnosis has been shown to explain new data about how the brain works or how the body works or how the world works. Plenty of double-blind studies have,

With apologies to Ingersoll, show us one fact. One measly fact. One piece of new objective applicable knowledge that came from a religion, or a meditation, or a new-age fad, or a communication with spirits or the astral plane or guardian angels or the universal will to become.

Until then, false equivalency claims are just empty mewling noise, but oh so tempting for the gullible and those who prey on them, because they WANT there to be something else, something that it doesn't take years of hard study and a fortunate blessing of intellect to understand, that can explain the world to them and give them that warm special feeling of thinking they know something others do not (another give away for the dangerous kind of anti-science operator, who will alwyas be relied upon to claim that he COULD explain all this special knowledge to you, but you are not equipped to understand it). Here again though the distinction is clear. My knowledge of physics for example is strictly undergrad level (and not physics major undergrad either). I have not the slightest clue how to assess competing claims on string theory. But those who do can explain it to me, and explain why they think X or Y is the right answer, and why somebody else is wrong in choosing the other option. I still of course have no idea if the expert advocating X or the one advocating Y is correct, and for all I know, and all they cheerfully admit they know, there might be an even more correct Z nobody is talking about yet, but I can understand, at my limited level, what and why the dispute concerns. Nobody has evert been able to explain in understandable terms even what, for example, an aura is and how one can be told from another. A pretty basic woo idea that those far more advanced in that "pure wisdom" are unable to explain as well as physicists can explain some damned high level stuff in their expertise, to the same person. Wonder why?

[trotsky]

7. +1 brazillion n/t

[onager]

8. +1 googazillion more

That was great. Thanks for making my day a little better. I may have to save that and steal borrow from it in the future .

They will generally use dense and pompous jargon about "inner truth" or "pure wisdom" or other completely unsupported claims.

:popcorn:

Batten down the hatches, kids. Judging from past experience - we're about to be served a giant Word Salad with generous side-orders of Google.

[Goblinmonger]

9. I always like my Google on the side.

Unfortunately, I think the server you are talking about is just going to dump it all over the post and not let me decide how much to use.

[rrneck]

11. God won't put ice in your scotch.

But do you like Scotch? Whiskey? Gin? Coke? Pepsi? Water was just fine for most of human history, then somebody came up with beer (or was it wine?). Alcohol reduces inhibitive behavior and acts as a social lubricant. It helps people get along with each other. Unless it is abused, then it can have the opposite effect.

It seems to me that "spiritual truth" and empirical truth are both true, but they are true about two different things. Empirical truth is pretty easy to define, especially in this culture. "Spiritual truth" is incredibly elusive if not non existent. Fifteen thousand years or so ago the two were probably reversed.

I like modern medicine, adversarial court proceedings based on evidence, popular votes and ice in my scotch. I'm not too thrilled with global warming, acid rain, and declining species diversity. We are have become a craven, greedy, materialistic people and it may destroy us if we don't find a way to counter that impulse. Religion has failed miserably in that task. The worst of it is exacerbating the problem. Those are the first group you mentioned who include the prosperity gospel crowd.

Are scientific truth and spiritual truth both true? I think so. But they both seem to be true about two different things, and you can't use one to support the other. Scientific truth is the truth with which we are most familiar. It keeps ice in our scotch. Spiritual truth has been overwhelmed by the advances in science and technology and has had to struggle to make it itself relevant against that onslaught. I think that is where we get all the absurd word salad from religious apologists and new age gurus who try to use language to prove what is really just emotion. The language that is best suited to that task is called literature.

People need to agree on what they know. Again, that keeps ice in our scotch. They also need to agree on how they feel. Without that they will never cooperate on finding out what they know, and they won't have ice in their scotch. It is interesting that someone has written an atheist manifesto. It gives atheists something to agree (or disagree) on to find common ground about how they feel about something. But what really attracted my attention is the response to your post, where trotsky agrees with you "+1 brazallion". That's literature. It's also a sort of emotional synchronicity, and it's how people find common cause to overcome the vicissitudes of living in the real world.

[trotsky]

12. So what are the methods or procedures for determining whether something is spiritually "true"?

And can you give an example of a spiritual truth?

[rrneck]

14. Nope.

Anybody that tries is producing word salad. But there is such a thing as being true to yourself.

[trotsky]

15. Alright then, what's the difference between a spiritual truth and a kyrtncmrpx truth? n/t

[rrneck]

16. You'd have to ask somebody

that agrees with the truth of kyrtncmrpxism a brazillion or a googazillion times.

[trotsky]

18. So, you got nothin'.

Alrighty.

[rrneck]

19. Nothing that matters to you.

But that's not a great concern to anybody but you.

[trotsky]

20. Hey, you said there was such a thing as spiritual truth.

I merely asked you to demonstrate. Sorry for asking!

[rrneck]

21. No worries.

I don't mind you asking. I'm not on some kind of crusade here. Far from it. I'm here to test ideas against the ideas of others, most of whom are a lot smarter than me.

Although nobody likes to be told "they got nothin'", maybe it's a little more disconcerting to be told they had something they didn't know or wouldn't admit they had. How much is a brazillion? Or a googazillion? So what are the methods or procedures for determining a brazillion? It's an emotional term. A literary term. And we both know what it means. You agreed heartily with dmallind's post. Now, you probably agree with him or you might have been just trying to make him feel good. What's the difference? Only you would know that. Understanding your own motives might be considered a spiritual truth.

After your hearty agreement, how do you think he would feel if you proceeded to rip his position apart point by point? He might feel a little bit betrayed. Especially if you have been agreeing with him for a long time. He might get a little pissed off and put you on ignore, which ain't much here on the internet. But if you're both squatting around a fire in the middle of nowhere with predators all around it can mean the difference between life and death.

Feelings are real. They serve a purpose. They can be quantified, but not with numbers. We seem to use words like "brazillion" to do it.

[trotsky]

23. Did anyone say feelings weren't real?

Certainly they're real - at least to the person experiencing them. And you are absolutely free to call that personal experience a "spiritual truth," but in that case, "spiritual truth" has absolutely relevance to anyone else. In that regard, things like gods would also be "spiritual truths," holding no meaning or existence outside the mind of the believer. That I can certainly agree with. And it positively puts "spiritual truth" on a wholly different plane than scientific truth.

[rrneck]

31. Yep. Sounds good. nt

[ironbark]

33. The same “methods and procedures” for determining if something is ‘really’ funny.

It’s a matter of insight, understanding, appreciation, identification.

If you ‘get it’ it’s funny for you.
If you ‘get it’ it’s true for you.

If you don’t get it no amount of explaining or “methods and procedures” is going to make something funny or spiritually true for you.

It’s a Human thing…..Vulcans don’t get it.

"And can you give an example of a spiritual truth?"

All that is gold does not glitter
Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither
Deep roots are not touched by the frost.

;-) Keep on truckin Bilbo!

[DonCoquixote]

36. ok, try this

We know that when we talk about "fairy tales" that we do not expect them to be literally true. Some may be based on something that happened, others may have been nothing more than the telling of Hans Christian Andersen or the Brothers Grimm, however, the truth and morals that the stories illustrate are patterns that show themselves again and again. For example,"the Emperor's New Clothes" As far as I know, there was never a literal emperor that got tricked into believing in invisible thread, and thus, walked down a street naked. Not that History is not full of rulers who were indeed, that crazy and worse, from Caligula to King Ludwig of Bavaria to Kim il-Jung.. However, if you read the tale, you will read that the way the "tailors" pulled their heist off was to convince people that anyone that could not see the thread was either stupid, or incompetent for his job. This, all the learned men and noble ladies bought into this, and at the end of the tale, only one person bothers to call out the lie.

Now, is the "Emperor's New Clothes" literal fact, no. Is it a pattern that plays itself again and again, proven by experience, oh yes. So, fairy tales can illustrate a spiritual truth, in that there is no way to use empirical data to measure whether the "Emperor's New Clothes" phenomena is real, but any read through a history book, or for that matter, the daily news, will show hard evidence that this "pattern" makes itself manifest, again and again. Now, the Social Scientists will try to boil this sort of thing down into things like "archetypes" or "memes" and indeed, perhaps one day we will be able to map out human behavior the way we do stars in the sky, but right now, we are not anywhere near that point.

Does this mean that we should tell science to hang, no, but it does acknowledge the fact that, at the moment, we cannot lay out our life like coordinates on a Cartesian plane, so we have to use estimates, which, in the end, is all any myth is. But to bring up your question again, I humbly define spiritual truths as:

"Aspects of our existence that, at the moment, cannot be proven or measured with empirical means, but nonetheless manifest themselves in our lives consistently."

[trotsky]

41. Ah, you've redefined "spiritual truth" to simply mean "a common feature of human behavior."

So "spiritual truth" doesn't really mean anything by itself anymore. In fact, what you describe is perfectly within the realm of scientific truth. We can observe it, we understand the phenomena at work, we can even predict it.

"Aspects of our existence that, at the moment, cannot be proven or measured with empirical means, but nonetheless manifest themselves in our lives consistently."

God of the gaps! Honestly, theists have had a few millenia to hone their craft, and they keep coming back to the same flawed arguments. All you did was broaden your definition of "spiritual truth" to mean "something I don't think science explains adequately enough."

Okey dokey. Every day the realm of "spiritual truth" gets smaller and smaller and smaller.

[DonCoquixote]

57. not really

You said:
"In fact, what you describe is perfectly within the realm of scientific truth. We can observe it, we understand the phenomena at work, we can even predict it."

Not really. Ask any of your friend that try to work within the realm of social science, especially psychology. We do not understand everything that goes into making someone "buy" one item and not another. Madison Avenue is littered with the graves of ideas and campaigns that made perfect sense, yet failed miserably. From the Edsel to "McPizza" to "New Coke" to Robert Plant's solo career, there were ideas that were researched throughly, where statistic after statistic, poll after poll, test after test was done, and lo and behold, the ideas that seemed to be "sure things" that had a ton of data backing them, FLOPPED. The same could be said of much more serious matters (like why was Stalin able to defeat your namesake, when many people would have picked Trotsky to win) but I use Madison Avenue because it is a clear example where good, solid logic and statistics get smashed to dust every day.

We are talking about concepts that were based upon phenomena that were observed and proven every single day (i.e. In Coke's case, Pepsi was outselling it, something which boiled down to hard numbers. Coke spent money for surveys, and the customer feedback was that "we buy Pepsi because it tastes sweeter than Coke." Logic then dictated "Let's make the product taste sweeter so that the public will buy more of our product, add more sugar!" Perfectly sound logic, based on some of the best statistics social science could compile. And it still flopped. The only way Coke recovered was, oddly enough, to return to the old formula which the numbers proved was getting beaten by Pepsi. As of right now, Coke Outsells Pepsi, though that may change.


The point was not to make a Coke commercial, but to show that while Logic can explain a lot of phenomena, it cannot explain everything about us. We as human beings do not add up neatly to "2 + 2 =4." Granted, the social sciences are indeed making progress, finding out which areas of the brain light up when someone sees a favorite color, and linking it to phenomena. Indeed, that is being used by both governments and Madison Avenue. However, as of this point, you cannot make a math equation that says "This formula of soft drink will outsell Coke" and say it with the certainty you can say "2+2 =4." Yes, we can as you say Observe the phenomena, have SOME understanding of the phenomena at work (about as much as Coke execs understand the soft drink business, which is not perfect, though pretty good) and to some extent, predict it (again, about as well as Coca Cola execs do). Fortunately for us, Coca Cola does not have the formula down to where they can control us as reliably as 2 + 2=4, or else they would be able to blast every other drink out of existence, to say nothing of Snapple or Pepsi.

I will not deny that as your "few millenia" occur, many things that were once thought of spiritual do get explained, however, for every question we answer, a new one gets asked. MY complaint is not with people who seek after truth, but with people who think they have found it, and then make the conclusion that what other people have to say is useless. We will see a lot of areas becoming smaller and bigger as years go on; the key is to be flexible enough to hang on since we know the waves are going to get choppy.

[trotsky]

68. What?

I didn't say these things can be predicted PERFECTLY, only that we do have a significant amount of insight into various social phenomena. So given the rest of your post is addressing the strawman you created, I don't think I need to waste any more time on it.

P.S. My username, as I have had to mention a few hundred times in this forum, has nothing to do with the historical Trotsky. Go enjoy your Coke, and your god of the gaps.

P.P.S. Still waiting for you to document your claim that someone said they "know everything there is to know". It is very weasely to leave that hanging there. The "Christian" thing to do, the honest thing to do, would be to retract it. Sad that the morally corrupt atheist has to tell the Christian how to behave. :eyes:

[humblebum]

22. It's hard not to just shake my head when an atheist comes along

and makes a declaration that his or her epistemology is the only one there is and all others are "inconsistent and logically nonsensical, they should be dismissed." This immediately identifies that atheist as narrow-minded and intolerant of competing ideas.
Many people have arrived at their belief in dieties by the process of reason, too. The difference is that they do not discount nor limit such methods as ontological and teleological inquiry, which can establish a strong probability of diety's existence.

Whether or not you agree is really no concern of mine, but you need to know that there are some intelligent rational people out there who simply do not share your POV.

[skepticscott]

25. Do you ever get tired of blatant

intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation? What the OP said was :

"As are most theological questions about divine beings, when the definition of such divine beings are inconsistent and logically nonsensical, they should be dismissed. (emphasis added)

To say, as you did, that the poster actually declared that "his or her epistemology is the only one there is and all others are 'inconsistent and logically nonsensical, they should be dismissed.'" is so far from the truth as to be beyond belief.

Tell us why anyone here should take you seriously after something like that.

[humblebum]

26. In order to make such a statement requires the person to

reason using one defined epistemology. So, there was no misrepresentation nor misunderstanding as far as I am concerned. Now if you care to enlighten me - by all means....

[skepticscott]

27. And your point would be what, exactly?

that because someone dismissed one theological notion as illogical that they are declaring their entire way of thinking and knowing to be absolutely and unquestionably the only one there is?

If I ever doubted that you were a waste of bandwidth, I don't any more.

[LAGC]

28. "ontological and teleological inquiry which can establish a strong probability of diety's existence"

Really? Please enlighten us with which methods of ontological and teleological inquiry can establish "a strong probability" of a diety's existence. Feel free to start a new OP if you need to.

[onager]

32. "Establish a strong probability" of deity's existence?

Really? So what's the mathematical probability of a deity existing?

You seem to be confusing probability with possibility. Just like "many people" who go to Las Vegas or play the lottery every week.

There's a possibility you will win the Powerball lottery this week. But the probability of you winning that lottery is roughly 1 in 180 million.

IOW, probablilities can be calculated. Possibilities are mostly just wishful thinking.

And yes, this is a cheap shot, but I'm a cheap kind of guy - if "many people's" belief in something could establish its existence, then Santa Claus must definitely walk among us. Unfortunately (for the believers), reality doesn't work that way. If millions of people believe a dumb idea, it's still a dumb idea.

...such methods as ontological and teleological inquiry...

Both of which only seem to work if the inquirer is already predisposed to believe. From St. Anselm right down to horrible hacks like C.S. Lewis and Josh MacDowell, those methods of inquiry have produced mainly reams of vague, windy mental flatulence. A load of what-ifs and maybes and possibilities that are never applied in any other area of intellectual inquiry, because they all come down to special pleading.

Strictly IMO, of course.

[ironbark]

39. “probablilities can be calculated” and should be considered.

See bottom of #23 ‘An Agnostic Manifesto’ and subsequent posts-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=256481&mesg_id=256623

Deals with establishing probabilities and identifying anomalies.

“probablilities can be calculated”

Yes, they can be calculated according to strict mathematical principles and they can be calculated in the light of events that are highly suspicious and require further examination. Motive, opportunity and means are also all contributors to the calculation of probability.

[onager]

60. Imagine a bunny with a pancake on its head...

n/t

[ironbark]

66. Will that help me identify who I'm talking to? nt.

[humblebum]

75. You can call it probability or possibility or anything in between, but

if you are going to limit your reasoning to one epistemology, then you are severely limiting the probability of your beliefs being true. Also, it can safely be said that either a diety exists or it does not. All of the theories, all of the opinions, all of the expletives change nothing. It might be just me, but I do not hold to the idea that something comes from nothing, nor that something can create itself. These points have been debated forever and will continue as such. So if you say that you discount such methods as ontological and teleological inquiry, you are merely qualifying what type thought is the right type, and if you have a need to do that to justify your position - then yours is hanging from a thread and has no real credibility.

[skepticscott]

76. Then list some objective facts

(in which category the existence or non-existence of a deity certainly falls) that your other epistemologies have provided. What explanations for things have your other epistemologies shown to be objectively the best and most likely ones? What do we understand and what can we accomplish as a result of ontological and teleological inquiry that we did not understand and could not accomplish 50 or 100 years ago?

Oh, and for the record, in the scientific naturalism that you're so fond of bashing, there are no "beliefs" that matter. You are either convinced of something by objective evidence or you aren't.

And however you parse the problem of infinite regress and first causes, the concept of "god" does not solve it, unless you define "god" in a tortured, special pleading way.

[humblebum]

80. I should be surprised, but I am not, that

you don't even have a comprehension of what I am talking about. You know as well as I do that total objectivity is ONLY possible in science and math and that all other disciplines rely on subjective input to varying degrees. You are seeing things through the lens of the epistemology that I pointed out. Call it logical empiricism or logical positivism, but it is the one that the modern SM was based upon and it absolutely excludes anything religious or metaphysical. And yet here you are seeking objective validation for religion. To the believer there is all the evidence needed to believe, and to the non-believer there is no evidence of diety or anything supernatural - but any such "evidence" is purely subjective. Science, as great as it is,cannot provide objective proof of anything religious. It's like trying to understand the anatomy of an aardvark by reading the phone book.

[skepticscott]

81. I know nothing of the kind

and if you think that total objectivity (or certainty) is possible in science, you understand even less of what you're talking about than I thought. Science strives to be as objective and as certain as possible, but never gets there 100%. And religious believers are only too happy to use the methods of science when they think it will make their belief appear rational (as they've tried to with studies on the effectiveness of intercessory prayer, among other things), but then when the empirical evidence ultimately fails to support their preconceived notions (as it invariably does), they simply go back to saying "I don't care about evidence...my belief is a matter of faith." Guess you can't lose that way, can you?

And where you get the idea that the scientific method "absolutely excludes anything religious" is a total mystery. Most religions make truth claims about the physical world, which are absolutely amenable to scientific inquiry, as is any "god" that is alleged to influence and be influenced by events in the physical world. Not a new or a difficult concept, frankly. Science hasn't found objective proof of anything religious, but not for lack of trying (and perverting of the scientific method) by religious folk. Folk like you, of course, are still playing the god-of-the-gaps game, constantly morphing and redefining your "god" to fit into the ever-shrinking spaces left by science and trying to keep the question of his existence outside the realm of rational inquiry.

You yourself stated that ontological and teleological inquiry can establish a strong probability of diety's existence, and that such existence is an objective fact ("either a diety exists or it does not", according to you). So again, tell us how your other treasured epistemologies establish objective fact, and how they do so better than science.

[humblebum]

82. You have absolutely no knowledge about how the Scientific Method

as we know it today was developed. I suggest that you read up on logical positivism (logical empiricism), the Vienna Circle, and just how all of this fits together. I would challenge you to show me anywhere in the deductive steps of the Scientific Method,as it pertains to the "hard sciences" where anything other than objective, measurable data is utilized. Nowhere in there will you find anything pertaining to religion, or metaphysics, or intuition, or emotions. And wherever did I say that ontological and teleological inquiry produces objective fact? Even a man like Stephen Hawking, who is a positivist admittedly, states that his methods have limitations and that he cannot determine with certainty that diety does not exist, even though he is an atheist. Good man, honest man.
And if you are intent upon splitting the finest hairs, you are right about science not always being 100% objective, but other than mathemaics,it is as close as we will ever come. And for that very reason, the SM has a built in method of correction to be used on the submission of conflicting evidence.

[darkstar3]

83. Just stop, you're embarrasing yourself.

Here are 3 things you should think about:

1. The Scientific Method we know and use today has its roots in antiquity, long LONG before the Vienna Circle and the establishment of the logical position known as empiricism.
2. It's not "ontological and teleological inquiry". They are known, separately, as the ontological argument and the teleological argument. There is no inquiry involved. Both of these arguments start from the premise that God exists and attempt to support that fact, and both have failed to do so for centuries. The ontological argument is futile simply because it is too reminiscent of Zeno's Paradox, and the teleological argument is just a fancy name for the failed argument from design.
3. I care nothing for the way in which you twist Hawking's words, the bottom line is that NOMA is a crap argument and always has been.

Oi..."ontological and teleological inquiry"...:rofl:

[skepticscott]

84. Darkstar is right

you're just embarrassing yourself now. The scientific method is primarily inductive, not deductive. And I specified where you claimed that "ontological and teleological inquiry" produces objective fact in the last post. You've been challenged to justify that statement several times and have avoided doing so. Apparently you can't even comprehend your own arguments any more (if you ever could), which isn't surprising when you apparently just make things up.

[humblebum]

85. Um, yeh? The SM is both inductive (conceptual) and deductive(empirical) by necessity, but

once you have developed your hypothesis by inductive means, deduction is required to prove the hypothesis. BTW, that is usually always accomplished through a process of observation, which of course is empirical in its nature (but you have already disclaimed that fact , too). And no, nowhere in my last post did I say "ontological and teleological inquiry" produces objective fact. Stop misquoting me. That would make no sense. But one thing it does show is that contrary to the atheist's opinion that they are very free-thought oriented, they, in fact, object to and reject any type of reasoning that would challenge their ideas.

[darkstar3]

86. Ontological and teleological arguments are not reasoning.

Are you perhaps in divinity school?

[skepticscott]

88. Sheesh, do you have to be spoon fed EVERYTHING?

I said that in the last post (#81) before you answered I cited what you asked for. Here is it again:

"You yourself stated that ontological and teleological inquiry can establish a strong probability of diety's existence, and that such existence is an objective fact ("either a diety exists or it does not", according to you)."

Now do you need me to show you where you said those things, or are you going to deny that you ever said them and accuse me of "misquoting" you, while you duck the issue yet again?

And you really need to stop making a fool of yourself by talking about the scientific method. You test hypotheses primarily by inductive means. If you could "prove" hypotheses deductively, then you would have the same kind of certainty in science that you do in mathematics. You do realize that the uncertainty of scientific knowledge stems in large part from the inductive nature of scientific inquiry, don't you? No, of course you don't.

[humblebum]

89. deleted

[humblebum]

90. These are my words:

"ontological and teleological inquiry, which can establish a strong probability of diety's existence."

You said: "You yourself stated that ontological and teleological inquiry can establish a strong probability of diety's existence, and that such existence is an objective fact ("either a diety exists or it does not", according to you)."

You added: "...and that such existence is an objective fact."

The statement:"either a diety exists or it does not", according to you" - is subjective, not objective and nowhere did I say that it was ontologically nor teleologically derived.

[skepticscott]

91. Saying that

"either X exists or it does not" is the definition of objective, dude. If the existence of something doesn't depend on what anybody thinks, feels or believes (your argument AGAIN:"it can safely be said that either a diety exists or it does not. All of the theories, all of the opinions, all of the expletives change nothing"), then it's existence (or non-existence) is an objective fact.

Try again...or better yet, don't. Tiresome is about the kindest word I can think of to describe your posts.

[humblebum]

92. It is subjective for 2 reasons.

1. It was said by me without offering any justification or objective proof.
2. The statement has a qualification that makes it subjective. "either A diety exists, or it does not" - If I had said "either a diety or multiple dieties exist or they do not exist" - then the statement would have been objective because all possibilities would have been accounted for. As it is, if multiple dieties exist, both A diety and NO diety are not valid and therefore the original statement is subjective.

That's another thing you have trouble understanding besides deductive logic and you are still guilty of purposely misquoting me.

[Goblinmonger]

49. Bravo. Congrats.

You MUST have gotten an A in your strawman building class.

[struggle4progress]

24. "I know more than Isaac Newton ever did" kinda tells me everything I need to know about your POV

[Cleobulus]

34. He was an alchemist, believed he could turn lead into gold...

he believed there were four elements, rather than the periodic table, even his theories on the motion of bodies and gravity were refined and replaced by theories from Einstein, which are more accurate in their predictions. Any average high school student knows more about these subjects and many others than Isaac Newton.

[struggle4progress]

37. I think that when you say "any average high school student knows more .. than Isaac Newton"

what you really mean is something like "an average high school student can parrot words that reflect that fact that we are today more technologically advanced than we were three hundred years ago." If you could somehow drop an average American high school student into Newton's time, much of this supposed superiority in "knowledge" would seem to people then as complete fantasy: the technological and industrial base simply didn't exist to make use of such "knowledge," and so the student could only exhibit "superiority" by babbling ineffectual nonsense. The situation would be even clearer if one could drop this supposedly superior student into times for which you presumably have even more contempt: say, the ninth century or the stone age, where the student would show no aptitude for farming or blacksmithing with crude tools. Even some potentially useful but simple insight -- say, that bubonic plague is spread by rats and their fleas -- is useless without the social organization and technology necessary for rat and flea control

Real scientific knowledge is always the ability to do something with the tools at hand: if you can't potentially do something with your "knowledge" then it's probably something other than science -- maybe it's just speculative philosophy. So your sneer at the past seems vacuous to me.

[Cleobulus]

46. I didn't say anyting about intelligence, simply knowledge, they are two separate things...

I didn't call Isaac Newton stupid, just a product of his time.

[struggle4progress]

59. Yes, well, I dispute your notion of what it means to "know" something in a scientific sense:

it is rather more than simply being able to report back what someone else has said

[Goblinmonger]

50. My f'in irony meter just exploded.

BAM!

"parrot words that reflect"

:rofl:

Only about 1 way that could have been more delicious.

[struggle4progress]

53. Hard to get good quality irony meters nowadays, isn't it? Yours explode frequently

[Goblinmonger]

63. Well, when you,

the King of the Google search, uses in a derogatory manner the phrase "parroting" I would imagine anyone whose irony meter didn't explode needs to get theirs retuned.

[struggle4progress]

71. And despite all my googley prowess, I somehow humbly manage not to vaunt my superiority over Newton.

:D

I know everybody in this thread wants to know how I can do that

[Jim__]

43. "What is it like to be a bat?"

That is a question that was famously asked by the philosopher Thomas Nagel. It is important with respect to your claim:

What science doesn't do is answer all questions, but this is because all questions are not created equal. Is their such a thing as a square circle? Of course not, you don't need science to answer this question, just logic. Indeed, this question is itself nonsensical. As are most theological questions about divine beings, when the definition of such divine beings are inconsistent and logically nonsensical, they should be dismissed. I have yet to encounter a definition of gods that isn't any more logically consistent than a square circle.

So, no, not all questions are created equal. But, not all questions that are unanswerable by science are nonsense questions. Currently, science can't tell us what it is like to be a bat. Not interested in that question? The clear implication, of course, is that science also can't tell us what it is like to be a person. Science can demonstrate that we have cells in our eyes that react differently to different wavelengths of light, that these reactions are transmitted to our brain and processed via separate neural paths. But science can't tell us how we experience these different sensations. They don't know if you experience them differently than I do or not. Yet, the sum of these experiences is what we call our life. So, yes, science can answer a lot of important questions. But, there are also a lot of important questions that science has not been, and may never be, able to answer. And, of course, in coming to a full understanding of the universe it may be necessary to ask certain questions that the human mind is incapable of forming.

[trotsky]

44. "... a lot of important questions that science has not been, and may never be, able to answer"

Is there any indication whatsoever that any other system of inquiry can or will?

[dmallind]

51. A good question to which I eagerly await an answer. However

we can certainly go further here.

What method or system tells us MORE about what it's like to be a bat?

Did mystical revelation tell us that bats used sonar?

Did prayer reveal that they are not, in fact, as blind as a bat?

Was it religion or science that considered them birds?

So even when we come to questions science does not answer, what questions exist wehere science does not do a better job of getting us closer to those answers?

[trotsky]

52. Ah yes, we see there is much to explore regarding science's woeful limitations.

Surely the many alternate ways of acquiring knowledge will help us out. I hope the other poster has some answers for us.

[Jim__]

54. The post was in response to a claim in the OP.

Specifically:

What science doesn't do is answer all questions, but this is because all questions are not created equal. Is their such a thing as a square circle? Of course not, you don't need science to answer this question, just logic. Indeed, this question is itself nonsensical. As are most theological questions about divine beings, when the definition of such divine beings are inconsistent and logically nonsensical, they should be dismissed. I have yet to encounter a definition of gods that isn't any more logically consistent than a square circle.

The clear inference from the statement that not all questions are createed equal and then presenting us with a nonsense question as an example of the type of question that science can't answser is that science can answer any sensible question. But, life to any of us is clearly life as we experience it. However, any non-human using our science to learn about us would learn next to nothing about us.

If science cannot tell us anything about human consciousness, it clearly is not doing a better job at this than any other system. Consciousness is not some minor concern.

[trotsky]

55. And the point you're painfully missing...

is that despite the limitations science has faced studying something like consciousness, NO OTHER SYSTEM has even come close to even the modest progress science has made.

[dmallind]

69. Why do you think science can tell us nothing about consciousness?

It can certainly tell us far more than any "competing" epistemology. It can tell us about neurons and synapses and all the wonderful biochemistry of the brain for a start. What nonscioentfic approach can do half so well. I have no idea why anyone would consider that out of the realm of science. It only becomes so by special pleading that there must be "something else" beyond the inner workings of our brains. But making up something and then saying science fails because it can't explain what that something is and how it works is foolish.

[Jim__]

72. What does science tell us about consciousness?

And, as to: It can certainly tell us far more than any "competing" epistemology. Really? Are humans conscious? How do we know? Did science tell us? Does human perception count as a "competing" epistemology? Because it is simple, unscientific, human perception that has taught us about consciousness? Should we dismiss it because it doesn't follow the scientific method? Should we deny consciousness because we don't have any empirical evidence, but rather only personal experience and anecdotal tales?

I don't consider consciousness to be out of the realm of science, I merely note that, so far, science hasn't told us anything about it. I expect that someday, science will tell us about which brain structures play various roles in consciousness - there are already ideas about that. I'm not sure it will ever explain how we actually experience "red", or "green", or "pain" - not note the neural circuits involved, but detail how the experience comes about.

I also am not claiming that science fails. My point, as already stated twice in this subthread (post #43 and post #54), is that just because science cannot answer certain questions does not relegate those questions to being nonsense questions - the clear inference of the statement (also noted in posts #43 and #54) made in the OP.

[trotsky]

74. Ah, but "simple, unscientific, human perception" is the beginning of nearly all science.

Newton saw the apple fall, you know.

Should we deny consciousness because we don't have any empirical evidence, but rather only personal experience and anecdotal tales?

But we DO have empirical evidence for consciousness. I don't know why you insist on saying we don't. Well, scratch that, I know why - because it doesn't suit your pathetic argument.

I'm not sure it will ever explain how we actually experience "red", or "green", or "pain" - not note the neural circuits involved, but detail how the experience comes about.

"I'm not sure" is the argument from personal incredulity. Got anything besides logical fallacies to back you up here? And you STILL won't answer the obvious question - if science won't explain these things, WHAT WILL?

Your refusal not only to answer the question, but even acknowledge it at all, is hilarious. You hate the tough questions, so you ignore them.

[dmallind]

77. I do not think that word means what you think it means Vezzini

What about consciousness do you think science has told us nothing about? How do you define consciousness? Any way I have ever seen it defined science has told us plenty about it.

And again what YOU are being asked to do is show us a better epistemology even for your unanswered questions. Tell me what part of "human perception" is outside science for a start.

[Jim__]

78. Rather than repeat what I've already said, I'll refer you to the article linked in post #43.

That article has a detailed description of what I am speaking about - that's why I linked to it.

And again what YOU are being asked to do is show us a better epistemology even for your unanswered questions.

You are free to ask any questions you want. However, before we go off on some tangent, I want my original point either affirmed or denied. My point, as already stated thrice in this subthread (post #43, #54, and #72), is that just because science cannot answer certain questions does not relegate those questions to being nonsense questions - the clear inference of the statement (also noted in posts #43, #54, and #72) made in the OP.

So, do you agree that just because science can't answer a question does not imply that the question is nonsense?

Tell me what part of "human perception" is outside science for a start.

So far, questions about human experience as described in the paper referenced in post #43.

[trotsky]

79. Which is a red herring answer to a strawman.

Or perhaps you could point out where in the OP it was precisely stated that if "science can't answer a question ... the question is nonsense"?

Thanks!

[Leontius]

56. "This manifest hatred of intellectual pursuits through skepticism

that is science permeates this board, and is frankly disgusting." I may have missed a few examples but "permeates this board", where the hell does that come from?

[dmallind]

70. Start with any thread mentioning vaccines

Continue with anything presenting accurate information about homeopathy. Look for the words "indigo children" or "rape the moon". That should be enough to see some serious permeation.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

61. It's all those physicists that are NOT reading the Bible!

According to the noted son-of-a-bitch Andrew Schlafly.

At conservapedia.

They're reading Big Al Einstein, NOT Jeebus.

Sacre bleu!


:wtf:

[dimbear]

93. Speaking as one, I respectfully submit that an atheist manifesto

would more properly consist of a blank sheet of paper. I say that because they are issued inherently by organized groups, of the which atheists are not one.