I think debate on this thread has become entrenched and at cross purposes. There may be certain mindsets often (but not necessarily) associated with atheism that undermine knowledge of subjective states. In this sense, Chad may have a point to make. But obviously I think in trying to pin it on atheism per se he has missed the target. Rather than answer here I will begin a new thread in hopes of fresh ideas here:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-18724.html

(May 8, 2013 at 12:50 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Don’t be disappointed just because I didn’t high-5 you or address each and every point of yours. Many of my concerns have been ignored as well. This has been mostly a one-man show since I’m the only one (other than fr0d0) to shoulder the burden. That’s okay. I just wish I had more time. In some cases, though, I feel I already have addressed some points in previous replies. It doesn’t make sense to me to repeat myself with each new person presenting the same objection. Or it seems that my meaning is not getting across no matter how careful my wording. Moreover, I’m not the only one presenting red-herrings. Any average person on the street understands that the subjective experience of listening to music cannot be reduced to physical facts.

I probably should've been more specific, you point-jumped rather than red-herring'd, because that point WAS actually pertinent to what was being said. I mostly just stepped in to point out that musical experience and why masters like Johann Sebastian Bach and Ludwig Von Beethoven are so amazing to listen to. I should also add, on that note, that some people do not find classical music pleasing, and that's largely due to the fact that there are minor deviations in all human beings, especially in experience [where it is actually a major deviation, sometimes] that results in the sweet-spot of auditory pleasure being in different zones...though the wide aural range of classical masters of music's symphonies tends to result in, for the most part, many appreciating the music for its depth and beauty. Not always though. Sometimes you get people who are just plain uncultured fucks.

Quote:So your answer is "using observation and empirical evidence". Those are the presuppositions I am asking you to question, both in the OP and in my subsequent responses. We both know that the scientific method works. But that’s as far as you, or anyone else apparently, will go. You are correct that our ability to communicate on AF is a product of the scientific enterprise. At the same time you cannot ignore that the substance of our communication is the conveyance of meaning by means of signification and expressions of purpose and intent. Take away those and there is no science to be had.

Aye, communication is very necessary for it to work, but that is why communication developed amongst humans, because the sharing of ideas tended to benefit others. "Grunt, gruntgrunt, grumble snort grunt (translated as: "This how build fire! Now you show how spear mammoth to kill faster! This good!")!"The scientific method is largely an advanced version of communication, one that uses as many of the senses as possible to validate it. After all, the more senses you can demonstrate something in, the more valid it will become. I can TELL you my worcestershire-and-soy-and-wine-sauce chuck roast is fucking amazing, but that's not nearly as powerful as when you smell it, or hear it cooking, or, especially, when you taste it. Hearing about it is sort of convincing; experiencing it in every other sense is MUCH more so.

Quote:As for myself, I have made an existential choice to believe that inductive reasoning, the very basis of the scientific method, works for a reason. The other option is to maintain that it works for no reason at all. And if it works for no reason at all, then it could just as easily stop working.

Hm, I would go another step and state that even with a reason for something to work not existing, it will still work. Case in point is the universe. How many planets or stars have been born and have died in the course of the history of the universe, that served no purpose? No reason for their existence, yet they existed anyway. Lots of planets and stars that exist and yet there's no real reason for them; they have no value for resources or habitation, and may very well be destroyed or die or what have you without ever having an impact on any of us...or, well, any other possible alien race. The particles of a sun that died may get jettisoned outwards and never come to do anything ever again before the universe collapses in on itself [if indeed it does, and it probably will if the standard model has anything to it, and it kinda sorta really does]. More still may just float there in space and never do anything. No reason for them to exist, but they do. The simplest explanation is the best, according to Ockham's Razor, and that is, there was no real reason for everything that has happened, is happening, and/or will happen, other than what we make of it.

What will happen, I wonder, if we encounter other life-forms that have no supernatural beliefs? Or...what if they do? But their beliefs are even more wild than ours? Or more mundane? What would that add to the equation in matters of human faith? If an alien race proclaiming itself to be the collective agency of a one-thousand-god pantheon comes along and tells you that the monotheistic approach is wrong, would you believe it, even though it defies everything that monotheistic human faiths have proclaimed? And what of the nature of that pantheon? What if it's something that isn't omnipotent but apparently can act through some force, or at least, some claimed force? What if they say they can all hear their gods speaking to them, even if it's just the voice in the head that we humans hear and nothing more?

There's too many what-ifs here, which is why it's just simply illogical to come to a conclusion that we know something that in truth we cannot be certain of. If the only means of displaying the truth of something is to demonstrate it via the perceptive senses, and god cannot be demonstrated via the perceptive senses, then why bother considering the truth of god to begin with? It's foolish to come to a conclusive answer when you don't have conclusive information to reinforce it. I think it was Esquilax who mentioned the thing about the earth once being believed to being flat because our ancestors jumped to a conclusion with insufficient evidence, and it's a very good point; looking back on them we consider them all foolish individuals who were grasping for straws rather than just humbly stating that they simply did not know. Those who have said "I don't know" sound much more intelligent than those who brazenly make up explanations with insufficient evidence. It's not like they really harbored any doubt about the flatness of the earth, either; it was preached as if it were just a fact of life.

I've gone on record as stating that what is true and what is real are two very different things, and I must bring it up here again. What was true was that the earth was flat. It was true because everyone thought it so. "I think this is true, you think this is true, we all think this is true, so it MUST be true!" Except now we know better; in reality, the earth is round...well, roundish. There's a lotta bumps and cuts in it, but it's largely spherical in shape, and it's not set into a foundation, the sun doesn't revolve around it, nor does the universe, and we now can state this with certainty because we've learned a lot more about the universe since those times. The information explaining it is all actually very solid, there's no jumps to conclusions. We've tested this, and mathematics and models that are much, MUCH more advanced than previous information have been run against it, and the actual reality is now considered truth because, despite the complexity of the equations, it's all held together completely. Given that the more complex something is the more likely it will fail if it's flawed, and given the complexity of the mathematics and tests behind the understanding of the earth's position in the universe, and given how despite all this enormous amount of complexity it all holds up completely pretty much ensures that we've determined reality in this regard.

Compare this to, say, the bible. The bible is complex. VERY complex, in fact. But the thing is, it's also not very solid. It falls apart all over the place. There's a ton of entries in the bible that can be taken apart, either individually or in reference to the greater whole, such as the entire thing involving Genesis, or Exodus. If it were reality, despite its complexity it'd still hold up, but it doesn't. It constantly keeps breaking apart. People with faith in it have to keep rushing around trying to come up with new explanations to try to explain away the issues raised, and the problem is those new explanations then cause OTHER problems with other elements of the bible. I can only be forced to conclude that the bible just does not fit with reality. It was true at one point...but it wasn't real. True as in, people genuinely thought it was fact...but in REALITY...it wasn't.

If that's at all confusing, I apologize, this kind of went all over the place there and became a massive block of tl;dr, but I hope I conveyed my point adequately.

(May 9, 2013 at 12:44 pm)whateverist Wrote: I think debate on this thread has become entrenched and at cross purposes. There may be certain mindsets often (but not necessarily) associated with atheism that undermine knowledge of subjective states. In this sense, Chad may have a point to make. But obviously I think in trying to pin it on atheism per se he has missed the target. Rather than answer here I will begin a new thread in hopes of fresh ideas here:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-18724.html

Who would have thunk?

After all, when someone starts a post who is:

1. Entrenched enough in his need to believe to try to wiggle out of any constraints imposed by evidence, and

2. not entrenched enough to be satisfied without pestering everyone else for affirmation of both his need, and of his belief

There is very little chance the thread would take the trajectory it took, is there.

Shocking it would come to this.

I have a hypothesis of sorts, that the reason for such trains of thought is because of the validation of self one feels when others validate one's ideas or efforts. Human beings like being told they're right, or that they did good. It's the "I did good, right?" inquiry needing satisfaction. That question can be a persistent, niggling, and outright obnoxious sumbitch for anyone. Factor this in, too: The underlying desire involved with religion is that there is a reason and a point to our existence. We're a social species, which means we tend to be gregarious, and like in any other social mammal species, being the more acknowledged means to be the more successful in general, which improves the life of the successful individual in manners of comfort, socialization, mating, yadda yadda. We want to feel important. Seriously, there aren't a whole lot of people who are like "I work at McDonald's and DAMN do I feel like my life is terrific! It can't get any better!" We always strive for improvement. Then factor in our natural fear of death, and the fact humans are insatiably curious. And also factor in that we just hate being wrong [making admitting it a chore in itself]. So...yeah, I can see why the thread has gone where it's gone, definitely.

You gotta love human nature.

The only thing you can safely say when generalising atheists, is that they reject the believe of a god. That is the only criteria it takes to be an atheist. They can have any other views on politics, society, science, ethics, but they all share the disbelief in a god

(May 9, 2013 at 7:52 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 7:48 am)Maelstrom Wrote: God is not an answer. He is an excuse.

It kinda looks that way. I'd say that's your limited understanding and not accurate.

Explain anything, anything at all, by reference to god Frods, at your leisure.

Easy question Rhydd. Human potential is maximised given a just and loving God. Show me how that works any other way, and I'll show you another way of describing god.

(May 12, 2013 at 1:58 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Easy question Rhydd. Human potential is maximised given a just and loving God. Show me how that works any other way, and I'll show you another way of describing god.

Perhaps that would be true. The Christian god is neither just nor loving, which may perhaps explain why human potential in the west only began to improve once the Church's iron grip on Christendom slackened.

In your irrational fantasy of course Ryan.

(May 9, 2013 at 7:52 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Easy question Rhydd. Human potential is maximised given a just and loving God. Show me how that works any other way, and I'll show you another way of describing god.

How so, and in what way does god explain anything about human potential (just what is human potential anyway?) in the first place, let alone some "maximized" value of the same?

Did you really think that adding the word god to a sentence explained anything that preceded it? I think, Frodo, that if it were so easy to explain anything via god - you would have done a better job of it. By better, I mean any job at all - at the very least.