Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
And there you go, starting an epistemological debate on the nature of sensation and perception and how it relates to the external world.
I hope you realize that the pendulum swings towards vision being indirect. Or did you forget about this little dress.
The idea that objects give us a direct perception is called naïve realism, and I'll let you figure out why its naïve lol.
A guy named J.J. Gibson actually proposed that those waves you are referring to contained all the mental information infused into them. By putting the information inside the light, there was no need for cognitive processing or the use of prior experiences to interpret the information, we just have to perceive. Light and observation could exist at a 1:1 ratio, and we could make a direct observation.
Good luck defending your "direct observation" hypothesis for the dog, in light of modern psychology. But then again, you "don't care either way," since you always hide behind the semantics of words while ignoring its pragmatics.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Hypotheses non fingo (I feign no hypothesis, a quote from Newton); you are the one who said you could directly observe a dog, not I.
Of course! My addition of the word duh should have shown the childish humor I found in giving that answer.
Your question didn't make sense in light of the conversation. The "detailed" answer you wanted would immediately agree with my position. So I gave the pragmatic answer, and then warned you that to challenge it and go into those details would land you on my side of the fence.
And here we are, essentially stating by evasion that a "dog can only be observed indirectly." Ironically enough if you keep that phrase the same, and simply switch the letters of the noun around, you get the statement "God can only be observed indirectly." Which has been my point from the beginning.
I am going to walk a dog in a minute. I can see her, feel her wet nose on my leg, hear her, feel her weight pulling on the leash. No indirect or direct evidence do any of my senses detect of any gods though. Just other people with fairy tales.
I suppose you're not familiar with the Umwelt.
Here's a bit a education for you: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11498
Just a fancy word for reality as we perceive it. Most of the article repeated itself, it was a word salad for the most part.
It is a fancy word for reality as we perceive, I'm glad you've at least understood that much.
I was extremely careful to never make that statement; yet you saw fit to strawman me anyway. You are better than that John.
Agreed, you never stated anything. That's the problem, there's no purpose to your comment other than to comment. There's only two options, either you believe dogs are observed directly or indirectly, how can both things be strawmen the moment I attempt to understand your position?
You have no position. Period.
That is not accurate: I have no idea which is the case; since what exactly is meant by your usage of the words directly and indirectly in this context is not clear. I asked you to explain them in detail, but your explanation seemed to contradict what you said earlier; which makes the matter even more unclear.
If you have no idea which is the case, then my statement is accurate. You have no position.
Any apparent contradiction of mine is explained by my statement: "you always hide behind the semantics of words while ignoring its pragmatics." I'll be happy to explain, once you actually get a position. Otherwise you're going to continue strawman-ing me by switching between pragmatics and semantics.
Your description of how you directly observe a dog looks suspiciously similar to how black holes are observed, which you told us can not be directly observed. Making it impossible for me to know what you mean by directly observed . How am I supposed to "get a position"; when I can't tell what the words mean? You tell me what EXACTLY what a direct observation is, and maybe then I can get a position.
Ok.
Semantically (literally) speaking, there is a distinction between our senses and the external world. So there is no such thing as a direct observation. When you switched the conversation to observing a dog by invoking waves of light, you are asking for the semantic definition of direct.
However, in the conversations I was having with everyone else, we were using the word direct pragmatically, or practically. In this sense, I do observe a dog directly. Its the "everyday" "common sense" definition of directly.
If I observe a dogs footprint after he has gone, or I see his shadow on the wall, I'm observing him indirectly. I'm also observing him indirectly, if I look at the waves he creates when he jumps on the pool.
Tools can also observe things directly that we can't, like infrared radiation. But they can also observe things indirectly that we also cant, like gravitational waves, when black holes "jump in the pool" so to speak.
That was you; I asked how you do it, and you told me you looked at it.
-----------------------------------------------
BTW: You don't need a tool to detect infrared radiation.
-----------------------------------------------
Why are you classifying some electromagnetic waves as direct observation, while you are classifying others (electromagnetic and others) as indirect?
-----------------------------------------------
I'm not playing a semantics game, I can't understand what you are saying when you contradict yourself like this.
You are playing the semantics game. If you aren't then the solution is pretty simple. Either we agree to use "direct" at its most literal sense, at which point we conclude that no observation in science or brain is every direct.
Or we stick with the pragmatic definition, at which point we can say we observe a dog directly, but then you can't break down vision into its literal components of wavelengths and retinas.
Which you seem unwilling to disclose.
Disclosed here: "However, in the conversations I was having with everyone else, we were using the word direct pragmatically, or PRACTICALLY. In this sense, I DO observe a dog DIRECTLY. Its the "EVERYDAY" "COMMON SENSE" definition of directly."
I can't teach common sense unfortunately. Either you know it or you don't.
If you don't then lets stick with the literal definition, and conclude all observations are indirect.
"and conclude all observations are indirect"
fine with me; it is the only consistent thing you have suggested.
Anyway seems my internet connection keeps dropping out, thus the double posts. Won't let me delet the superfluious post.
So on that note I'm calling it a night. Work tomorrow. But will try to pick this up next opertunity. Though that might be my next day of in two days time.
So TTFN - stand free & keep safe.
#1. DOES GOD EXIST OR NOT?
ANSWER: NEITHER CAN BE PROVED IN EXACT FORM EMPIRICALLY OR SCIENTIFICALLY! THEREFORE BY DEFAULT, NO GOD EXISTS!
#2 WHY DOESN'T GOD EXIST? NO VIABLE "PROVEN EVIDENCE SEE #1
NEXT QUESTION?
Drivenone, I disagree with your response. There is no reason to assert that gods do not exist. This shifts to burden of proof to the atheist rather than leaving the burden of proof with the person asserting that gods or god exists... which is of course exactly where it belongs.
Drivenone:
#1. DOES GOD EXIST OR NOT?
ANSWER: NEITHER CAN BE PROVED IN EXACT FORM EMPIRICALLY OR SCIENTIFICALLY! THEREFORE BY DEFAULT, NO GOD EXISTS!
#2 WHY DOESN'T GOD EXIST? NO VIABLE "PROVEN EVIDENCE SEE #1
NEXT QUESTION?
__________________________
MCD:
"Drivenone, I disagree with your response. There is no reason to assert that gods do not exist. This shifts to burden of proof to the atheist rather than leaving the burden of proof with the person asserting that gods or god exists... which is of course exactly where it belongs."
________________________________
"Proof, proof, proof." Atheists incessantly demand "proof" when in fact science does NOT do "proof."
As Professor John Lennox says, "You only get proofs in mathematics."
Carl Sagan, no less, a famous agnostic beloved by all atheists, said, "Almost nothing is known for certain."
Except that there is no God. All atheists swear to that certainty.
Now as to the original question of this thread, why must there be one "best argument" when evidence in courts of law, and halls of science is always given abundantly, from multiple sources.
There are scores if not hundreds of "best arguments," not the least of which are personal testimonies, historical documentation, archaeology, medicine, biochemistry, physics, and the science contained in the Holy Bible which is clearly unparalleled in any other historical religious document.
To profess atheism, one has to believe in and worship nothing because of course atheists claim that nothing made everything.
No empirical evidence exists nor will it ever exist in this outlandish pretense.
"... atheists claim that nothing made everything."
Every person identified as atheist does this?
"Atheists incessantly demand "proof" "
Every person identified as atheist does this?
@geniusisdisruptive
Absence of evidence, where there should be evidence, IS evidence of absence.
re: Carl Sagan - All answers in science are tentative.
re: 'best argument' I understood it to mean 'your'.
In science, 'something from nothing' is 'something from something' as explained by Lawrence Krauss in his book, 'A Universe From Nothing'.
Your position is an argument from ignorance.
I'll throw this one out there...so a poor carpenter's Son is born in a barn, makes friends with a bunch of illiterate nobody's and preaches sacrifice and servitude and offers nearly 0 reward in this life. He becomes an outcast in his own society, and is tortured to death. There's no mass communication, many close followers are forced into hiding and some are murdered. Many hundreds more are murdered, humiliated and tortured for several hundred years. Even if you want to only consider early Christianity up to Constantine's acceptance, I would argue the mere fact that Christianity even exists as a proof...
@Sinner .....
"some are murdered. Many hundreds more are murdered, humiliated and tortured for several hundred years........"
" I would argue the mere fact that Christianity even exists as a proof..."
Of course YOU would argue that wouldn't you...?
But then you don't seem to actually KNOW very much about early Christianity do you ?
I recommend the book "The Myth of Persecution" by Candida Moss.....
Not to give too much away...but the stories of thousands or tens of thousands of early Christian martyrs are just that...... stories...
Apparently the actual number is closer to ...... 9 (yup...that's nine)
"We know that Christians weren't persecuted empire-wide until the middle of the 3rd century. Until then, persecution was “sporadic and local,” and Christians greatly exaggerated the extent of the persecution.
In fact, it seems that the myth of a constantly persecuted early church didn't fully develop until after Constantine converted the empire to Christianity.
The myth was also driven in part by competing Christian factions who would use stories of martyrs to bolster their authority, by claiming the martyrs had supported their side."
link :http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/03/review-candida-moss-the-myth-...
Further it would seem that some early Christians actually colluded in their own destruction.... or at least tried to....
"In a famous episode in Asia Minor around 185, a mob of Christians marched to the home of C. Arrius Antoninus, the governor of Asia, and demanded to be executed. The governor, no doubt irritated by the interruption, sent the Christians away, telling them that if they wanted to die, they had cliffs to leap off and ropes with which to hang themselves"
So...martyrdom.?......just another myth. as it seems it always was.
And just before you try to refute this...you might want to read the following thread....where it has all been thrashed out before....
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/disciples-werent-lying...
@Sinner....
Oh ! ......... just one small point.....
Why do you think Jesus was born in a barn ?
So you're saying there WAS mass persecution in the times prior to Constantine?
@Sinner...
Like I said...
"you don't seem to actually KNOW very much about early Christianity do you ?"
Watchman- ok, replace "barn" with "hospital suite" - rest stays the same.
Pages