(May 9, 2013 at 8:16 am)Faith No More Wrote: ...what we're trying to explain to you is that your question demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what exactly atheism entails.

I believe it, atheism, entails much more than you currently allow. Even just the lack of belief influences the beliefs you do have. The exclusion of God, gods, divine influences and transcendent principles all have logical conclusions. While such exclusions make a good working methodology for science, it is an impoverished way to approach all of life.

(May 9, 2013 at 11:43 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 8:16 am)Faith No More Wrote: ...what we're trying to explain to you is that your question demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what exactly atheism entails.

I believe it entails much more than you are willing allow. Even just the lack of belief influences the beliefs you do have. The exclusion of God, gods, divine influences and transcendent principles all have logical conclusions. While such exclusions make for a good working methodology for science, it is an impoverished way to approach all of life.

But if exclusion of those principals makes good for science, why would it impoverish life? After all, science is the study of the natural.

Whats good for science is good for life. Therefore, excluding these principals will, in fact, lead to living a more intellectually honest life based on what is actually true, not what we want to be true.

(May 9, 2013 at 11:48 am)Baalzebutt Wrote: But if exclusion of those principals makes good for science, why would it impoverish life? After all, science is the study of the natural.

A purely scientific description of a tree would include only quantifiable facts: weight, material composition, number of leaves, etc. Any references to tree qualities would not be strictly scientific: reference to uses, symbolic associations and signification, sensable qualities. That doesn't even mention the pre-scientific ability to classify things and events with common features as identical.

(May 9, 2013 at 11:48 am)Baalzebutt Wrote: Whats good for science is good for life.

Like the development of nuclear weapons? Science, both as a means of inquiry and its conclusions, does not exist in a vacuum. Science falls within a larger context, a world of values and meaning, even if those values and meanings are provisional.

And I have to throw the bullshit flag on "intellectual honesty." You may have an honest opinion, but that doesn't exclude others from also honestly holding their contrary opinion.

(May 9, 2013 at 11:43 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I believe it, atheism, entails much more than you currently allow.

What exactly do I allow?

(May 9, 2013 at 11:43 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Even just the lack of belief influences the beliefs you do have. The exclusion of God, gods, divine influences and transcendent principles all have logical conclusions.

Sure, it affects other beliefs. Mainly it precludes me from believing god is the source of anything.

(May 9, 2013 at 11:43 am)ChadWooters Wrote: While such exclusions make a good working methodology for science, it is an impoverished way to approach all of life.

Only in your eyes, Chad. It has led me to an enriching and fulfilling life while simultaneously allowing me to overcome much adversity.

Perhaps that line of thinking is what led you to become a theist?

(May 9, 2013 at 12:01 pm)Faith No More Wrote: What exactly do I allow?

All I'm talking about is what you do not allow.

(May 9, 2013 at 12:01 pm)Faith No More Wrote: It [science] has led me to an enriching and fulfilling life while simultaneously allowing me to overcome much adversity.

And that's wonderful. Good for you. Is it at least conceivable that your life could be even more enriched by expanding into other areas?

(May 9, 2013 at 12:01 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Perhaps that line of thinking is what led you to become a theist?

It truly is. I have loved science since I was a child. I used to play hooky from school just so I could watch the science shows on PBS, instead of having to read "Ramona" and "Boxcar Children" stories. When I was eight years old, I surprised my immunologist aunt, because I knew about DNA and actually understood the basics. When I was 12, I saved my allowance to get a subscription to OMNI magazine. And I taught myself how to to write programs for our school's Apple I. I love science.

Even though I was an Architecture student in college, I used every elective to study philosophy. At one point I had wittled away every theistic idea from my thinking. Even then I had many things I puzzled over that defied all my attempts to find solutions without appeal to transcendent principles. For me it didn't work. Something was always missing. I found the alternate approach much more fruitful.

Now if questions of value and quality do not interest you, then atheism works just fine. Who am I to say what you need to find purpose and joy in life? At the same time, I think trying to address those issues without stepping outside of purely physical explanations is a fool's errand (figure of speech, not implying anyone is a fool.)

(May 9, 2013 at 12:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: And that's wonderful. Good for you. Is it at least conceivable that your life could be even more enriched by expanding into other areas?

Such as?

(May 9, 2013 at 12:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Now if questions of value and quality do not interest you, then atheism works just fine. Who am I to say what you need to find purpose and joy in life?

Atheism does not preclude determining quality and value. It simply precludes objective value from a divine source. It leaves me free to determine those answers on my own. Not only has that led me to joy, it led me to purpose as well.

Now, I will be the first to admit that this was not an easy, instantaneous journey. It took many years of struggling to figure out who I was and what I needed in my life.

(May 9, 2013 at 12:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: At the same time, I think try to address those issues without stepping outside of purely physical explanations is a fool's errand (figure of speech, not implying anyone is a fool.)

How so? I can find meaning and value while simultaneously believing they are physical properties of the brain.

(May 8, 2013 at 7:21 pm)ebg Wrote: Atheist or religious persons would't know what scientific proof IS if it was thrown in their faces!! 75% of you all didn't even take Trig...let alone calculas...maybe got B+ in High School chemistry. Oh, yes I know there's smart people from Harvard that are atheist, but their also religious people too from Harvard. Most atheist replace biblical gods with scholastic ones. Atheist always argue for scientific proof, but most of them don't have the education or only have a psuedo knowledge from wikapedia to know what exactly is scientific proof. Just keeping attributing you reasoning to your scholastic gods because obviously the majority just don't have the brains to for reasoning or contemplation

You are Cletus from the Simpsons and I claim my prize!

(May 9, 2013 at 12:37 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I can find meaning and value while simultaneously believing they are physical properties of the brain.

In this particular case, I do not believe correlation justifies belief in causation, since other factors are at play. For example, my saying, "The brilliant magenta blooms on the crab trees make me happy, " is much different than saying, "a high saturation of photons at n-angstroms correlates with electrical impulses that stimulate the visual cortex resulting in Chad reporting a state he calls happy." Something meaningful gets left out.

While I know of a few ways to deal with the difference between subjective and objective experiences. I do not find them compelling. One theory is nominalism; that these are just different ways of describing the same thing. This seems the most common opinion among AF members. To me that answer begs the question. By saying that subjective/objective distinctions refer to the same aspect of reality is to presume that one description reduces to the other without leaving any form of knowledge behind. But the objective description in no way coveys any of the qualitative aspects of the subjective experience. So I am of the opinion that nominalism fails.

(May 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: In this particular case, I do not believe correlation justifies belief in causation, since other factors are at play. For example, my saying, "The brilliant magenta blooms on the crab trees make me happy, " is much different than saying, "a high saturation of photons at n-angstroms correlates with electrical impulses that stimulate the visual cortex resulting in Chad reporting a state he calls happy." Something meaningful gets left out.

I see no difference between the two statements, except that one does a better job at communicating the significance you have personally applied to the experience. What is left out is the importance you have placed upon experiencing beauty and happiness.

(May 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: While I know of a few ways to deal with the difference between subjective and objective experiences. I do not find them compelling. One theory is nominalism; that these are just different ways of describing the same thing. This seems the most common opinion among AF members. To me that answer begs the question. By saying that subjective/objective distinctions refer to the same aspect of reality is to presume that one description reduces to the other without leaving any form of knowledge behind. But the objective description in no way coveys any of the qualitative aspects of the subjective experience. So I am of the opinion that nominalism fails.

Hmm...can't really comment on that. Have to do further reading when I get the chance.

(May 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Hmm...can't really comment on that. Have to do further reading when I get the chance.

I'm going to thread hop over to Whateverist's poll thread. That seems like a better place for continuing this line of thought.