Accepting/Rejecting "Atheism" as a label.

[Violet]

Objective as in able to be observed and repeated by multiple people, unaffected by personal belief.

That's intersubjective, and quite literally so

Of course... it would be wrong to state that personal belief doesn't enter into it, because as long as there are people involved there will always be belief, and it will always be personal, even if it looks like the same belief another has.

I'm aware of philosophical viewpoints that propose that true objectivity can never totally be obtained. I'm not personally given to such thought.

That would explain why you propose retarded things, then

From a practical viewpoint, many things in this world are supported by objective observation and experimentation. Theism is not one of them.

From a practical viewpoint: nothing is supported by objective observation or experimentation, and if it was: theism might well be one of them.

That's why we use the scientific method, not the impossible method. Practicality, yknow?

[NonStampCollector]

That's intersubjective, and quite literally so

As I said, I'm not really interested in such debates. I'm well aware of the idea of intersubjectivity, and that some people like to apply it to just about everything in our world. If it's useful for you to analyze the world in that way, then by all means do so.

Of course... it would be wrong to state that personal belief doesn't enter into it, because as long as there are people involved there will always be belief, and it will always be personal, even if it looks like the same belief another has.

I personally find it simpler and more enjoyable to operate on the assumption that people are usually capable of perceiving an objective reality. If my eyes see something, and your eyes see the same thing, then I'm comfortable believing in the existence of that thing.

That would explain why you propose retarded things, then .

Charming.

From a practical viewpoint: nothing is supported by objective observation or experimentation, and if it was: theism might well be one of them.

I don't find that to be a practical viewpoint at all. I find it to be rather convoluted and unnecessarily frivolous. It would be practical to accept our ability to perceive reality through, at the very least, our basic senses. It's impractical to try and bury everything in a layer of never-ending doubt by slapping a label like "intersubjective" on everything a person sees, smells, hears, or touches.

[Violet]

As I said, I'm not really interested in such debates. I'm well aware of the idea of intersubjectivity, and that some people like to apply it to just about everything in our world. If it's useful for you to analyze the world in that way, then by all means do so.

If you're not interested in debates, don't assert anything. Ever.

How does one apply the concept of intersubjectivity to just about everything in our world? Wouldn't that depend upon us communicating just about everything in our world with each other? Here I thought we forgot at least 99% of everything in our day after experiencing it ourselves.

I personally find it simpler and more enjoyable to operate on the assumption that people are usually capable of perceiving an objective reality. If my eyes see something, and your eyes see the same thing, then I'm comfortable believing in the existence of that thing.

Then you'd have to recognize that you are technically incorrect to do so. I'm a fan of simplifying complex tasks too, but at least I observe that doing so is not an accurate representation of how the world works

Every thing exists. Does that make you uncomfortable?

Charming.

I am probably the most charming person I know of

I don't find that to be a practical viewpoint at all. I find it to be rather convoluted and unnecessarily frivolous. It would be practical to accept our ability to perceive reality through, at the very least, our basic senses. It's impractical to try and bury everything in a layer of never-ending doubt by slapping a label like "intersubjective" on everything a person sees, smells, hears, or touches.

Doubt and observing subjectivity are not one and the same... a person might well recognize that things as they see them aren't necessarily the same as another might see them... but *100%* certain that they remain valid as they see them.

It's impractical to *even think* of ways to do something, practicality is only in the doing. It is wholly separated from mental tasks, as otherwise it wouldn't be practical (that which is concerned with action). Ultimately, being on this forum is grossly impractical and a fucking waste of your time... but you already knew that.

I think practicality is a load of crock, and stupid to engage in... and I'm right

[NonStampCollector]

If you're not interested in debates, don't assert anything. Ever.

The only thing I asserted was that there is no objective evidence supporting the belief in a god. And with your statement that "nothing is supported by objective observation," you apparently agree with that.

The rest of what I've said has been my explanation that I choose to operate with the assumption that humans are able to perceive objective reality, and I that I live my life accordingly.

Is it possible that I'm wrong on that assumption? Of course. But I'd rather spend my time thinking about and analyzing other things. If what I perceive is not reality, but only my own subjective interpretation of it, then fine. It's the only reality I've got, and I'm going to live as if it were, in fact, objective.

I didn't say that I'm not interested in debates, so I'll politely decline your demand that I never again assert anything. What I did say was that I wasn't interested in that particular debate.

[Violet]

The only thing I asserted was that there is no objective evidence supporting the belief in a god. And with your statement that "nothing is supported by objective observation," you apparently agree with that.

I wouldn't say you've asserted only one thing, I just haven't cared to correct any of your other assertions. I care, which is why I try to steer the silly upon the banana road to happiness.

The rest of what I've said has been my explanation that I choose to operate with the assumption that humans are able to perceive objective reality, and I that I live my life accordingly.

In other words, you spent the rest of your posts *debating*. Gotta love it.

Is it possible that I'm wrong on that assumption? Of course. But I'd rather spend my time thinking about and analyzing other things. If what I perceive is not reality, but only my own subjective interpretation of it, then fine. It's the only reality I've got, and I'm going to live as if it were, in fact, objective.

Well, I'd rather spend my time playing video games than giving two shits about reality, but unfortunately: video games aren't everything.

No... there are also books YOLO! (What the fuck is objectivity? Seems like a pretty hilarious way to live to me)

I didn't say that I'm not interested in debates, so I'll politely decline your demand that I never again assert anything. What I did say was that I wasn't interested in that particular debate.

"As I said, I'm not really interested in such debates.", you branded every single philosophical debate under that, which is primarily the type of debate you'll find here...

Pluralization's a bitch, ain't it?

[NonStampCollector]

In other words, you spent the rest of your posts *debating*. Gotta love it.

I wasn't debating anything. I was clarifying my point of view. If you can't see the difference between those two things, I can't help you.

Fact is, on several occasions I explicitly said that I could be wrong, and acknowledged viewpoints alternate to my own, and didn't say that any of them were wrong. I simply said I prefer to view the world a certain way and tried explaining why.

What the fuck is objectivity? Seems like a pretty hilarious way to live to me)

I already defined that. And I find it pragmatic (probably should have used that word instead of practical throughout my posts) to live as if objective reality if perceptible to humans.

you branded every single philosophical debate under that, which is primarily the type of debate you'll find here...

Pluralization's a bitch, ain't it?

First, by "such debates," I wasn't referring to all philosophical debate, rather debates about objectivity. To put it simply (maybe overly so, but it'll suffice): I have no interest at all in debating intersubjectivity vs. objectivity. You're the one that made a leap from that to telling me that I am "not interested in debates."

But for the sake of conversation here, even if I did say that I wasn't interested in all philosophical debates, that still wouldn't apply to this thread. The OT was not a philosophical debate, and my original response to it wasn't either. Why you're trying to drag me into one right now, I've no idea.

[Violet]

I wasn't debating anything. I was clarifying my point of view. If you can't see the difference between those two things, I can't help you.

And look at you, busy refuting everything I say. Is it a wonder I can't see the difference between what you're doing and what you're doing? Objectivity, mate.

Fact is, on several occasions I explicitly said that I could be wrong, and acknowledged viewpoints alternate to my own, and didn't say that any of them were wrong. I simply said I prefer to view the world a certain way and tried explaining why.

Fact is you've misrepresented several things, but then considering that you believe in objectivity as it is applied to your life... you have stated exactly what they are, and I have therefore stated them retarded.

I've been demonstrating, if you haven't noticed

I already defined that. And I find it pragmatic (probably should have used that word instead of practical throughout my posts) to live as if objective reality if perceptible to humans.

Well, you've defined it poorly if you can state it to be one thing that is wholly separate from perpective and then applied it as one's perspective and then wondered why issue was taken when a second perspective is introduced and ALSO objectively true even if both stand juxtaposed (props on pragmatic, by the way).

First, by "such debates," I wasn't referring to all philosophical debate, rather debates about objectivity. To put it simply (maybe overly so, but it'll suffice): I have no interest at all in debating intersubjectivity vs. objectivity. You're the one that made a leap from that to telling me that I am "not interested in debates."

See... THIS is clarification^. What you've been doing is debating, not clarifying. Clarification saves time on other people assuming you mean things that you look to be saying by restating them more clearly.

I apologize for simply taking occam's razor when faced with your apparent hate for philosophy.

But for the sake of conversation here, even if I did say that I wasn't interested in all philosophical debates, that still wouldn't apply to this thread. The OT was not a philosophical debate, and my original response to it wasn't either. Why you're trying to drag me into one right now, I've no idea.

The original topic is whether one should accept or reject something as a label... which *is* a philosophical question

Also, if you've read the last several pages of the thread you *just now* posted in, you would see that the topic is *currently* wholly philosophical.

Turns out that after 9 pages, one's posts are so far from the OP that they tend to cease to be associated with that post, and instead say... the ones more recently made. Out of sight, out of mind... this bit is purely educational for your future posts (as in: try not to post a response without a quote to the OP in a thread where 17 pages separate you and the OP... it's generally a faux pas).

[Golbez]

Truth - That which is considered to be factual or genuine.
Knowledge - That which is wholly believed to be fact, true.
Facts - Things believed to be indisputably true. Don't you love dictionaries and their circular definitions?
Evidence - Information indicating that a belief or proposition might be true.
Existence - That which is.
Hypothesis - A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Conjecture - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

^What a proper scientist should be doing, not a conclusion they outright know.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode...-play-dice

That's pretty much what I think of physics That we might well one day find that our entire understanding of them shatters in lieu of something that explains our observations even better.

Everything anyone knows is incorrect because none of it can possibly be objective, ultimate truth cannot be observed by a subjective being, only assumed by that being, assumption of which would then be necessarily wrong.

Wow, I've been out of the PA loop for awhile. They're on season 5 of videos? Didn't know they were making them at all. That was a pretty good video, and I think it did a pretty good job to illustrate where you're coming from.

Concerning your definitions, it is important to know that opinions don't count in determining how the universe operates. So considerations and beliefs are out. The world was never flat, nevermind that a vast majority decidedly believed it to be the case. The earth never was the center of the solar system. Gravity never affected objects at different rates. It doesn't matter that people believed them to be true. My belief of what is true is not necessarily truth. But it might be. I might happen to believe the earth is a sphere. That this happens to be the case makes my belief correct. It doesn't mean that my belief dictated what was the case. Truth is unaffected by belief. Truth is what actually is the case. Science can be wrong by not accurately describing the truth. But it doesn't simply validate beliefs.

Re:evidence:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence
And again, despite your laughter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Now, there are multiple definitions for this, all of which are related. But they are not all identical, which is a non-flexible term meaning "the same."

From Dictionary.com's link:
1.that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

I'm sure your eyes are lighting up at the term "belief" in example no. 1. But note the emphasis on proof. A proof is something that asserts it in the affirmative and cannot be disproved.

Definition 2 is, in my estimation, what you use as evidence for religion. Interpretations that might be construed as to suggest a creator. But it is not proof.

Definition 3 again emphasizes proof of facts. This is evidence. This is at least what I mean when I use the term. So things like beautiful skies, mountains, occurrences of rare odds, etc are not evidence. They might satisfy definition 2, but they don't fully satisfy definitions 1 or 3.

Existence is good enough. But you then misconstrue that to interpret thoughts as "is." So let's clarify that further. A thought might truly exist. But the contents of that thought still wouldn't exist in nature as a result of that thought. I can't simply imagine a big pile of money into existence. You must be playing devil's advocate with that idea. Mental ideas can exist. Material things can exist. Mental thoughts don't bring material things into true existence. Eg - 2,700 dead gods.

Here's the rest of google's info on conjecture:

con·jec·ture
/kənˈjekCHər/
Noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Verb
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
Synonyms
noun. guess - surmise - supposition - presumption - assumption
verb. guess - surmise - presume - suppose - assume - speculate

This is the same as a hypothesis. If you've learned nothing as a result of your experiment, then your conclusion might simply be left as your starting hypothesis. Otherwise they should be decidedly different.

Your method is pretty much on. The shortened method seems to omit research and rethink. Just to point out, you don't need to rethink a hypothesis to publish your results. It doesn't impact the findings at all. Although you could suggest how mistakes might be corrected. But that is something you can keep personal so no one scoops your work/ideas. Doesn't mean it's bad science. And the "research" is really part of the observation. It doesn't necessarily need its own step.

I think until and unless we clarify and agree to these distinctions we have here, we will gain no ground on discussing evidence for religion.

---

If everyone agreed on that meaning of the word, then I would be OK being labeled as such.

As long as you know and understand what the term means, who cares whether others do? By this standard, you could not adopt any label ever for fear that someone may get it wrong. That just seems unnecessary. No one could be a "teenager" or a "boy" or "girl" etc. Even though they are defined terms, people could potentially screw it up. But if the term is clear, and its clear meaning applies to you, you could just educate those who misconstrue it in your presence. Otherwise, why bother what they think?

---

I personally find it simpler and more enjoyable to operate on the assumption that people are usually capable of perceiving an objective reality. If my eyes see something, and your eyes see the same thing, then I'm comfortable believing in the existence of that thing.

http://youtu.be/9X68dm92HVI?t=2m26s
^ this is supposed to have a time stamp of 2:26.

There are visual illusions and so it requires all of our senses. But even those illusions can be objectively acknowledged.

[Violet]

I don't just go with whatever a dictionary tells me, since they are only lists of words and how they would define them. Just one look at atheism in M-Webster can demonstrate why: "the theory or belief that God does not exist."

And it's the same reason I don't use wikipedia for philosophy. If your only concern is to do a basic pass over a matter, it'll give you one... but if you want to actually look into something, it's simply not going to cut it.

The Extra Credits video came a long time after I established where I'm coming from, and it was a genuine surprise for me to see it, since people as a whole tend to simply not agree with my extremely specific definitions because 'reasons'.

Concerning your definitions, it is important to know that opinions don't count in determining how the universe operates. So considerations and beliefs are out. The world was never flat, nevermind that a vast majority decidedly believed it to be the case. The earth never was the center of the solar system. Gravity never affected objects at different rates. It doesn't matter that people believed them to be true. My belief of what is true is not necessarily truth. But it might be. I might happen to believe the earth is a sphere. That this happens to be the case makes my belief correct. It doesn't mean that my belief dictated what was the case. Truth is unaffected by belief. Truth is what actually is the case. Science can be wrong by not accurately describing the truth. But it doesn't simply validate beliefs.

Is it important to know that? Considering that we have no concept of how the universe might actually operate on an objective scale, it might well be that our universe is 'The Fade', a metaphysical realm where thoughts and emotions are reality and hold more power than the nonsentient particles of that universe. We really cannot observe this.

Also, though we have observed the world as 4 dimensional, it isn't necessarily so. In a 2D observation of it, 'earth' is flat. The earth might even be the center of the solar system AND the universe... current scientific thought states this as unlikely, but we really can't observe what the future holds in store for us.

I happen to believe that this planet is not a sphere, as you'll notice it is larger one way than it is another (damn gravity and that whole 'spinning disk' effect). As for gravity, it might well affect objects at different rates, we simply haven't observed it yet (or maybe we have, i'm not in the loop).

But it absolutely does matter that people believe them to be true... at least, if you think it does. Importance is subjective, and it's subject to an individual's valuing system. Babies don't matter to some people, to others they come first and foremost.

It's true, your subjective belief of what is true is not an objective observation of that with is... however, it is not made wholly invalid because of this, as WITHIN YOUR PERSPECTIVE... it might well be absolute truth. If the systems that are part of larger systems meant nothing, then your organ systems mean nothing, the parasites living within you mean nothing, *this universe itself* might even mean nothing. If the only truth that can be is that which is absolutely true *only* in the largest of the largest systems, then truth is ultimately impossible in every event and the word might as well disappear from usage immediately. Instead, we identify how things are true 'logically true', 'personally true', 'experimentally true', 'obviously true', 'socially true', 'culturally true', 'religiously true', 'emotionally true', etc... and these are simply assumed withing the statement of truth itself... lingually true

Truth is not unaffected by belief: it is the manifestation of it. Truth only being that which is actual makes it unapproachable to any who are not gods to the gods to the gods to the gods, and even they may not be able to observe truth. Science is always wrong until it is not, as truth is beyond its reach at this time... and the whole process starts with a little belief. A little belief in yourself, and in the method you're using, and in its ability to eventually (if you're lucky) discern precisely what is true.

Now, there are multiple definitions for this, all of which are related. But they are not all identical, which is a non-flexible term meaning "the same."

From Dictionary.com's link:
1.that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

I'm sure your eyes are lighting up at the term "belief" in example no. 1. But note the emphasis on proof. A proof is something that asserts it in the affirmative and cannot be disproved.

I'm aware that there are multiple definitions for various words. And I'm also aware that many of those definitions are redundant, ridiculous, self-defeating, and even wholly circular (I demonstrated this).

No, my eyes actually state that this first is the second worst of these definitions. One first has to have belief *in* the evidence's 'truth' for it to pave the way to 'proof', it does not serve as the ground for that belief. Rather, it is the evidence which may or may not be grounds for proof of a thing.

Definition 2 is, in my estimation, what you use as evidence for religion. Interpretations that might be construed as to suggest a creator. But it is not proof.

Definition two is also incorrect, but is the best of these three by its *intent*. Evidence is something that helps to make (more) plain or clear, serving as indication or sign... of a conclusion's validity.

Definition 3 again emphasizes proof of facts. This is evidence. This is at least what I mean when I use the term. So things like beautiful skies, mountains, occurrences of rare odds, etc are not evidence. They might satisfy definition 2, but they don't fully satisfy definitions 1 or 3.

Definition three is the worst, as firstly courts that assume the crime was committed by the accused and seek evidence *for* that conclusion (not for finding out 'who really did' commit the crime, if the crime is committed at all (false rape cases, for instance)), secondly: the data often comes from a biased prosecutor, and far less often from the defendant or third party sources, sometimes leading to someone being Shawshanked or executed though they were innocent. Finally, that which is proof according to law is not the same as proof according to science, as the entire thing takes place in the vague realm of "beyond reasonable doubt", while jurors are not allowed to speak to one another, legalese is spoken to prevent anything from actually being known to the jury, and most key: ASKING QUESTIONS IS TYPICALLY NOT PERMITTED.

That last bit it kind of important when it comes to your argument, as if definition 3 was applied to religion: it might well be proven in an instant and without a single drop of the scientific method OR observation AT ALL taking place.

---

Existence is good enough. But you then misconstrue that to interpret thoughts as "is." So let's clarify that further. A thought might truly exist. But the contents of that thought still wouldn't exist in nature as a result of that thought. I can't simply imagine a big pile of money into existence. You must be playing devil's advocate with that idea. Mental ideas can exist. Material things can exist. Mental thoughts don't bring material things into true existence. Eg - 2,700 dead gods.

Thoughts are, aren't they? The question you're asking is not whether something exists (everything does, including nothing)... but 'how' and 'where' and 'in what form' do things exist?

If you're a god, or if you know Grey Magic, your thoughts might well manifest physically. Humans, luckily, cannot yet do so without tools. ALL ideas ever thought exist, and ALL material things that ever were exist... AND YES: mental thoughts can bring material things into existence (don't pull a no true scottsman, I'll let you off the hook this once).

Observe:

Every book ever made, every letter typed upon a page, every song ever recorded, every piece of art ever put upon display, every word ever spoken: all of these material things were brought into existence by *thought* being allowed to draw upon the universe.

To disarm thought's ability to exist in a realm outside of neurons: one must disarm any way in which they might be put there... the mouths of humans cemented shut, the limbs hacked off, the eyes blinded, the ear's deafened, the ability to feel ripped from their body, all emotion wiped from their minds. And then, you would have committed art upon the world yourself.

---

This is the same as a hypothesis. If you've learned nothing as a result of your experiment, then your conclusion might simply be left as your starting hypothesis. Otherwise they should be decidedly different.

Cute, every synonym now means EXACTLY the same thing. Loathe, detest, despise, dislike, abhor, execrate; be repelled by, be unable to bear/stand, find intolerable, recoil from, shrink from, abominate... all of these mean *exactly* what hate means. None of them have any specific implied meanings, none of them specify a certain attribute in the definition of hate, none of them mean a lick different from one another.

That which you loathe is the same as that which you shrink from... that which abominates is the same as that which repels.



No. Please, don't use a synonym chart as the basis behind whether a word is identical to another word... It *can* be that, but it can also mean something which is "nearly" the same. Similar.

Your method is pretty much on. The shortened method seems to omit research and rethink. Just to point out, you don't need to rethink a hypothesis to publish your results. It doesn't impact the findings at all. Although you could suggest how mistakes might be corrected. But that is something you can keep personal so no one scoops your work/ideas. Doesn't mean it's bad science. And the "research" is really part of the observation. It doesn't necessarily need its own step.

I think until and unless we clarify and agree to these distinctions we have here, we will gain no ground on discussing evidence for religion.

That's because research is only needed if you intend to see whether anyone ese has tried it before and perhaps to adjust your experiment if still curious, also it might help you understand something that you otherwise might have overlooked in starting your experiment. Ultimately, it's optional... but it can help one to be even more accurate and to devise a more specific experiment that does more for science than it otherwise would have.

As for rethink... you simply don't have to rethink something if you find that the hypothesis was false... you could stop there. Publishing results is needed only if one intends to contribute to the 'greater' scientific method, and if one doesn't find their hypothesis to have been true: giving up on the question originally asked is a valid answer if one has lost interest

And the reason it's poor science is because science is an intersubjective system... the scientific method, on the other hand, is not necessarily such.

[Golbez]

So it appears this is the fundamental nexus in this discussion. And now I have to decide whether it's worthwhile going point by point through your post again, or if your refusal to separate truths from beliefs makes the rest of the discussion moot.

Concerning gravity, I was actually a little unclear in explaining its relationship. Loosely, it is a product of the masses divided by the square of the distance between them. So the rates do change depending on distance, and mass of the two objects being considered. But the rates at which objects fall towards surface of the earth, for example, are the same regardless of the object involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

I'd recommend watching the "minute physics" channel on youtube. I suspect you'd disagree with much of that as well. And thus, we really don't have much to discuss. But if you'd like to take it for a test spin:
http://www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics