15 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeAre you one of those that see science and religon merging, as id do?
It doesn't matter which it is because there is no difference from the perspective of the person trying to tell them apart.
If there were a difference that you could detect then it might matter, but until then it is a distinction without difference.
And 'personal experience' is a lousy way of detecting 'truth'. People make causal links all over the ...[text shortened]... chains and 'personal experience'.
the best way of attaining 'truth' is science.
The meanings of words like religon and science are changing, as are the meanings of nearly all words. This rate of changie is getting quicker,imo.
I believe one should strive to attain personal truth,ie that which is true for them, and if it fits in with science then even better. Ususally theories can be cross referenced and checked to test their validity.
With a lot of new age theories we simply have no reference point yet on how to check our perspectives on these new theories.
I see the necessity of understanding the basic linguistics/language in a universal way bnefore we can proceed to have any meaningful dialogue,scientific or not.
It seems science is always one step behind the real truth.
16 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudge
Right... Well it couldn't be clearer that we disagree on what the terms and words we are using mean.
We are arguing without a common reference frame.
i don't think there is anything wrong with the reference frame.
As far as I can tell your definition of knowledge and belief make those words almost totally useless for all practical purposes.
no, only belief is totally useless for all practical purposes. knowledge has a temporary practical value. it's practically lasts only until better information is discovered and new knowledge replaces the old.
One of the (straw man) arguments against atheism is to define atheism as 'the knowledge (absolute certainty) of the non-existence of god/s'
... [snip]
this argument has no relevance to the discussion. neither atheism nor theism make a statement of faith. individuals from both schools of thought may have faith, indeed they do so if they hold beliefs of any kind, since all beliefs are faith-based. in that respect, theist aren't far off the mark.
My point here is that you seem to be defining knowledge to be something absolute, perfect and immutable.... which works for some areas we would use the
word for, but no others.
that is not what i have done at all. what i did say is that the state of knowledge (or knowing) is an illusion. i thought i was quiet clear on this.
It basically restricts the use of the word knowledge to a very limited field, mathematics and logic, where rules and results can be 'known' with certainty.
2+2 will always be 4, I can be absolutely certain about this.
no you can't. 2+2=4 only if 1+1=2; you answers depend on an agreed upon set of axioms, base notation and measurement scale. mathematics is firmly in the realm of logic. logic is not dependent on knowledge nor is knowledge dependent on logic.
But this means that knowledge can't ever be used for real world ideas, concepts and objects, and their properties.
This is an unhelpful definition of knowledge because now you have to invent new words to do what we traditionally use the word knowledge for.
not really, you don't have to invent new terms, you need only acknowledge the limitations of the existing terms. knowledge is not infallible, ergo formulating beliefs based on knowledge is a fallacy.
knowledge is just a place holder, a stepping stone. it its very basic essence, it is the sum total of our current ability to comprehend the universe around us.
I will argue, that there is more than one kind of knowledge, and thus definition for it, and that it is inexorably linked with the concept of belief.
i hope you bring up better arguments. up to this point, you have brought up a couple of scenarios of belief and both were based on ignorance (a state or not knowing) rather than on knowledge.
A lot of the confusion with this comes from the use of knowledge and belief in religion and superstition.
there is no confusion. superstition is simply beliefs left over from a previous state of knowledge. i hope you will begin to appreciate the fallacy of formulating beliefs based on knowledge. while knowledge moves on as it must, beliefs have a tendency of sticking around and infecting minds anew for many centuries to come.
People talking about 'belief' often mean religious belief and possibly interchangeably with religious faith.
i make no distinctions. all beliefs are interchangeable with religious faith.
For my purposes I am talking about the words more generally, and I will specify, if I ever mean religious belief or faith by explicitly saying religious belief
or religious faith. The reason being that in those contexts the words are generally being used differently from normal usage and allot of arguments and
discussions get sidetracked by people trying to win arguments with different meanings of those words (which is where i suspect you get your viewpoint from)
my viewpoint is not based on mistranslations of words. beliefs are convictions of truth of a statement or a reality or phenomenon and may or may not be based on examination of evidence. this is pretty much the dictionary equivalent of the term. if you are using something different, it's best to tell me now.
I will start in a new post with A discussion about how we know things...
if you must... you haven't been very convincing so far 🙂
-=-as i have noticed, you have much to say on the topic and will revisit it as time permits-=-
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudge
My first axiom, We [humans] all inhabit a common universe/reality that we can observe and experiment on.
not granted. this axiom requires a prerequisite axiom, one that establishes 'reality'
We might be in the matrix, or be the products of a hyper detailed computer simulation, or the whole of reality could be a fiction fed to us by evil demons,
but as it appears to be self constant reality where actions have consequences, until such a time as any experiment can be made that would be able to
differentiate between the options (and even then, you may be getting into distinction without a difference territory) there is no practical or rational reason
to not act and even rely on the above axiom being true.
You can hold the possibility that it might all be an illusion in the back of your mind if you like, but for all practical purposes, the reality we live in is real and should
be treated as such.
so this then, is your first axiom, that the limited ability of humans to comprehend the condition of their existence through their senses, instruments and mind should be treated as real.
then your initial axiom may follow as the second axiom.
If your argument (for anything) comes down to the universe might not exist, it could all be an illusion, I dismiss it as silly and impractical.
while such an argument can be made, i agree that it would not be practical for this discussion.
This is relevant as the universe, our reality, is the thing against which I hold that knowledge and ideas should be tested.
sounds reasonable.
If you say "well the universe might not be real, heck I can't even prove you exist" then everything built on the idea the universe exists falls down.
but if you go back to the revised 1st axiom, you can already detect that the entire thing is on shaky ground. if you don't accept the revised 1st axiom, we will have difficulties proceeding. i'll await your response before continuing.
[note to self: "My response, as stated" ]
16 Sep 11
I think that I will respectfully disagree with you, in your assertion that the burden of proof rests on the believer's shoulders.
It seems to me that there may be a little, "lady doth protest too much..." in your post. Maybe you are so insistent that I prove to you that God exists, because you want to believe and if that is the case, maybe you need to do some soul searching. ;-)
Sorry I'm not trying to be inflammatory, just having a little fun. You and I will probably never see eye to eye, but that's OK. The world would be a very boring place without different viewpoints.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by rickgarelI don't know to whom you are speaking as you are not responding to any particular post, or mention anyone by name.
I think that I will respectfully disagree with you, in your assertion that the burden of proof rests on the believer's shoulders.
It seems to me that there may be a little, "lady doth protest too much..." in your post. Maybe you are so insistent that I prove to you that God exists, because you want to believe and if that is the case, maybe you need to ...[text shortened]... to eye, but that's OK. The world would be a very boring place without different viewpoints.
However, I would state that the burden of proof is definitely on the theists shoulders as they make a positive claim that god exists.
they have a positive belief IN something, that should be justified.
Atheism however is non-belief. It is the lack of belief in something.
You only have to justify the lack of belief in something if there is strong available evidence that it is true/exists.
This is not true in the case of god/s
The default position for belief has to be non-belief as there are an infinite number of things that there is no evidence for and believing in
all of them on the grounds that there is no proof they are not true/don't exist, so might possibly exist, so you should believe just in case is
both intellectually suspect and practically impossible.
If you claim a belief that a proposition is true you should have a justified reason for that belief.
Without such a justification the default position is non-belief (atheism in the case of belief in god/s) which should only be changed in the
face of evidence that a positive belief in either direction is now justified.
As an example, you don't (presumably) believe in the Norse god's, Allah, or the FSM.
There is no proof that any of these Don't exist.
So why do you not believe in these god's on the basis of no proof along with the Christian god you believe in with no proof?
Again I do not know to whom you were talking, but in my case, I have never believed in a god, and never felt any desire to.
I want to as far as possible only believe things that are verifiably, justifiably true.
As their is no evidence, or reasonable, justifiable, reason for belief in god I don't, and am thus an atheist.
And given I don't live in a religious family, and am in pretty much the most secular nation on the planet (give or take).
Religion is not a feature of my everyday life, almost the only time I think/talk about it is when talking to people on this site.
Or when some news item makes it relevant.
Anyhow, I would be interested as to whom you were actually talking, and what the post was that you refer to.
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by rickgarelI have a suggestion for you in improving your rating on RHP.com. When I
I think that I will respectfully disagree with you, in your assertion that the burden of proof rests on the believer's shoulders.
It seems to me that there may be a little, "lady doth protest too much..." in your post. Maybe you are so insistent that I prove to you that God exists, because you want to believe and if that is the case, maybe you need to ...[text shortened]... to eye, but that's OK. The world would be a very boring place without different viewpoints.
last played OTB years ago my rating was 1817. When I first started playing
here I played the games much the same as I would OTB but then I saw the
"analyze board" and clicked on it and found out I could experiment by
moving the pieces around before deciding on my actual move. By doing
this I can see where the pieces might be more moves ahead than I could
actually do in my head (the way you must do OTB). My rating now on RHP
is 2075, which I am sure is much higher than if I were playing OTB under
the US Chess Federation rules. So If as you say your OTB rating is 1900
then you might be able to reach 2100 on RHP.com
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsimproving your chess rating of course the quickest way to maxing out your
I have a suggestion for you in improving your rating on RHP.com. When I
last played OTB years ago my rating was 1817. When I first started playing
here I played the games much the same as I would OTB but then I saw the
"analyze board" and clicked on it and found out I could experiment by
moving the pieces around before deciding on my actual move. By d ...[text shortened]... s. So If as you say your OTB rating is 1900
then you might be able to reach 2100 on RHP.com
spirituality level and getting to spend eternity with the big beardy bloke in the sky....
Nice on topic post there ;-p
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by rickgarelalso try this link...
I think that I will respectfully disagree with you, in your assertion that the burden of proof rests on the believer's shoulders.
It seems to me that there may be a little, "lady doth protest too much..." in your post. Maybe you are so insistent that I prove to you that God exists, because you want to believe and if that is the case, maybe you need to ...[text shortened]... to eye, but that's OK. The world would be a very boring place without different viewpoints.
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2011/09/we-get-email-brains-evidence-and-burden.html
16 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeSorry. I saw rickgarel was a new poster, so I decided to see if he had
improving your chess rating of course the quickest way to maxing out your
spirituality level and getting to spend eternity with the big beardy bloke in the sky....
Nice on topic post there ;-p
written a profile. Then I saw that he said his OTB rating is sometimes
in the mid 1900's but it is in the 1800's on this site even after playing
here a couple years. So I thought the advice might help. But you are
right I should have sent a personal message.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsnp, it just amused me is all.
Sorry. I saw rickgarel was a new poster, so I decided to see if he had
written a profile. Then I saw that he said his OTB rating is sometimes
in the mid 1900's but it is in the 1800's on this site even after playing
here a couple years. So I thought the advice might help. But you are
right I should have sent a personal message.
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeInfallibilism and reliabilism? Ok, that's nuts, never mind. For some reason I thought you had a background in epistemology.
I think that it is possible to use elements of both where applicable,. but if your going to be picky, I would tend towards Infallibilism and indefesability,
with a little reliabilism thrown in.... not helpful? ;-) sorry, but my criterion is what works for the situation at hand.
I am a pragmatist, more than a philosopher. the point gettier was making i ...[text shortened]... oint i could go to those memories and say, yes I know I have this memory.
17 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeBut that is not what the quote says.
Ahh I see. Well in that case I would say that the fact you disagree with something else
someone has said has no baring on the accuracy of any of their other statements.
The point of his quote as I understand it, is that you should believe it if someone tells you
that they are searching for the truth, but be suspicious if they tell you they have fo ...[text shortened]... n authority.
Dasa claims to have the ultimate truth, yet I suspect you doubt him quite a bit.
17 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadChina has become more capitalist than communist now. I don't see how you can say Cuba is successful and the Soviet Union is no longer in existence.
Maybe that is because you don't know of any truly communist countries.
But of those claiming to be communist, how do you measure success? The USSR was very successful by some accounts, so is China, and even Cuba.
But I am not trying to support communism, all I said was that capitalism results in scarcity. Pure capitalism always results in the richer getting richer and the poorer getting poorer.
17 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen I lived in Zambia, many of our doctors were on loan from Cuba. My sister in law went to University in Cuba. For a tiny country like that to provide doctors and University scholarships to Zambia despite the way they have been treated by the US, to me, is a measure of success that the US cannot live up to.
I don't see how you can say Cuba is successful and the Soviet Union is no longer in existence.
The Soviet Union did not collapse because of communism directly, it collapsed because of the cold war.