On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:43:12 -0700, Midjis <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On 15 Oct, 04:01, Al Klein <ruk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not asking for a view, I'm asking for objective evidence. So far,
>> none has been presented. No one has even attempted to present any.
>
>Yet you keep on demanding it
In response to claims that people have it.
>To them, there IS evidence
The "to them" part makes it NOT *objective* evidence. Objective
evidence exists independent of opinion.
> - and my point is that if you hope to bring them round
Your point is wrong, then. All I'm attempting to do is to ask them to
post the objective evidence they claim they have.
>then you have misunderstood the nature of belief.
I'm not addressing belief - I'm asking them to post the OBJECTIVE
EVIDENCE they claim they have.
>I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be making the demand. I'm saying
>the making the demand will have absolutely no effect on anyone.
It may have an effect on someone reading the thread who isn't quite
convinced that there's something to believe in.
>> No, it's a matter of presenting objective evidence. Until that
>> happens, there's nothing to discuss about what might happen.
>And yet the discussions roll on and on and on and on and on and on
>and... on.
And you keep misrepresenting what I'm doing, and keep misrepresenting
what I'm doing, and keep misrepresenting what I'm doing ...
>> > Most of the 'crap', as you've pointed out, doesn't
>> >present objective evidence,
>> NONE of it does.
>Yes, Al - I'm agreeing with there... Read on...
>> > and doesn't require it.
>> ALL claims of objective reality DO.
>So you say.
So logic says. Existentially positive assertions bear the burden of
proof.
>And you're probably right. But the fact still remains
>that the absence of evidence is not... Like I said, you know the
>rest.
And I'm not inferring anything from lack of evidence other than lack
of evidence.
>> And that's all I'm asking for - objective evidence to back up claims
>> of objective existence.
>And you're not going to get it. Not now - not ever. And you know
>that.
But the claimants' refusal to present any might affect the undecided.
>So what now?
Nothing different now. I'll keep asking people who claim to have
objective evidence to post it, and you'll keep misrepresenting my
requests.
>> >What we have, if we
>> >look solely at the evidence we've got, is 'no reason to believe'.
>> Exactly. There isn't, and there never has been, any reason to make up
>> gods.
>Really? But by your argument that's exactly what everyone who
>believes in a god has done.
And, also by my argument, there's never been any reason to.
Oh, that would make religious belief irrational, wouldn't it?
>You're saying that all these disparate
>cultures throughout millennia of history have repeatedly done so for
>no reason?
Other than lack of psychological maturity, yes.
>There's no evidence of gods, Al. Therefore, there's no reason to
>believe in gods. But, as I've said, those who DO believe, believe
>they see reason.
And those who believe they're Napoleon see a reason to believe that
they're Napoleon.; But that doesn't make them sane.
>And that's precisely why this tactic of demanding
>evidence is onto a loser. You will only serve to convince those
>already convinced.
And the undecided.
>> Again - I'm asking for evidence, not viewing.
>You missed or ignored my point. Even objective evidence has to be
>viewed and interpreted through subjective perceptions.
That discussion is useless UNTIL there's some objective evidence
posted. THEN we'll see whether it can be "interpreted" in more than
one way. Remember, an omnipotent god *IS* capable of producing
evidence that can't be.
> Everything we
>perceive depends on the function of our perceptions.
Not when there's an omnipotent god in the equation.
>> If someone comes up
>> with some evidence we can THEN discuss other things about that
>> evidence. Until then there's nothing TO discuss.
>Yet - as I said - we continue to discuss. Logically, we should agree
>mutual silence.
I'll agree that you should be silent about my posts to others.
>> If you have some, post it. If not, there's nothing to discuss.
>I have never claimed to have any - yet we discuss.
And yet you misrepresent.
>> Of course. What an irrational person might do has little or no
>> bearing on what a rational person will do.
>And yet so much of our definition of 'irrational' depends on our
>subjective perceptions. You, for example, have suggested that
>religion in itself is a mark of insanity - yet psychological
>professionals do not generally agree with you.
RELIGIOUS psychological professionals. Would you ask the Pope whether
Lutheranism or ****nto is the one true religion?
>> The same thing you think of when someone says "Captain Kirk" - someone
>> else's fiction.
>I think you saw my question: how do you visualise the concept of
>'god'?
As someone else's fantasy. Do you need me to say it a few more times?
> I suspect you don't imagine a deity in a Starfleet uniform.
I don't imagine a deity, I imagine a person who thinks fantasy is
reality.
>> If your definition of 'god' is the one the dictionary uses, we don't
>> believe in your gods.
>>From dictionary.com: "any deified person or object".
You had to go all the way down to the SEVENTH definition?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
God
–noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular
attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding
over some ****tion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular
conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth,
Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
We don't believe in any of those.
>And yet Bill, for one, tells us repeatedly that God is a male creator
>of the world, all-powerful, who sits in Heaven and threatens us with
>Hell.
That's how Christianity defines their god, God.
>You can see why I ask the question of you. What do YOU see when
>someone says 'god'?
I see someone who, regardless of apparent chronological age is still a
little child. One thing I *don't* see is the thing he's referring to.
Maybe that's because I was never brainwashed - I've been an atheist
every day of my life, since the day I was conceived. Of course I
can't remember not accepting peoples' claims about "god" before I was
about 5, but once I understood what they were claiming, I thought they
were being silly. When I got a little older I thought they were
crazy. Then I matured and understood that calling people crazy was
impolite.
>> If you have objective evidence that your gods
>> objectively exist, post it.
>You see this is where we hit difficulties because you assume you know
>what a 'god' is to me.
If you're talking about anything supernatural that you believe
actually (not just in your mind) exists, post the evidence your claim
says you have.
If you're claiming something that you claim only exists in your mind,
so be it, but I'm not interested in your thoughts, and it's not what
I'm discussing.
> If I say to you that a 'god' to me is a
>representation of an element of nature, or human nature, personified,
>then you can see that I have objective evidence for those things which
>my gods personify. You can see the sea; the sky; the ground under
>your feet; the Sun, the Moon, and so on. You know that love exists;
>you know that hate exists; you know that all these powerful forces
>exist around us.
So you're using the word 'god' to mean 'existence'. Why? We have
words to describe nature, human nature, the sea, sky, etc. We don't
need another one. If you want one word for all of them combined, try
'everything'. There's no reason to invent a loaded word to describe
something we have many non-loaded words for.
>> >> You don't understand either 'evolution' or 'theories of evolution'.
An
>> >> evolutionary theory isn't necessarily a theory ABOUT evolution.
>>
>> >That's why I didn't SAY 'an evolutionary theory'. I said
>> >'evolutionary theory.
>>
>> Which may or may not have anything to do with evolution.
>
>So you need not have raised the objection above. But after your post
>above I do see why you did: I suspect you think I'm a Creationist.
I suspect that you know less than you claim you do.
>> > As in 'the Theory of Evolution'.
>> WHICH theory of evolution? There are many of them. But evolution
>> ISN'T a theory, it's an observation.
>Yes, Al - you don't need to play silly buggers with me. Evolution is
>an observed process; the Theory of Evolution is the current scientific
>explanation of why and how that process works.
Since there are MANY theories of evolution, the phrase "the theory of
evolution" is nonsense, so I *DO* have to play silly buggers with you.
When you stop saying silly things I'll stop playing silly buggers.
>Again, I'm not a Creationist.
No, you're someone who, under the belief that he understands the
subject, is misrepresenting the field of biological evolution.
>> Then you have a problem with English, because your words say that you
>> don't understand evolution. "The theory of evolution" expresses a
>> lack of knowledge of what evolution is and what theories of evolution
>> there are.
>I suspect that's more down to a need to argue with the Creationist on
>your part.
No, it's more a need to not give Creationists more ammunition.
>> Again - I'm not asking for perception, I'm asking for objective
>> evidence that the gods theists claim objectively exist really do.
>
>Perception, Al, is all you can have. Ever. That's the point I'm
>trying to make.
That's close to solipsism.
> Even 'objective evidence' has to be viewed through
>your eyes
Again - I'm not asking for a view, I'm asking for those who claim to
have evidence to post the evidence they claim to have. their refusal
to do so has nothing to do with perception.
>> I'm leaving all that up for those who aren't familiar with it. I'll
>> just say "the man in the moon". That irrational people aren't
>> rational isn't news.
>
>Nice dodge. C'mon, Al. You have got more about you than this,
>surely?
No, why? People claim to see things that aren't there, then claim
that, despite evidence to the contrary, it's has to be there because
they think it is. That's a good description of religion too.
> You can't honestly be telling me you don't see the
>comparison? That even objective evidence has to be passed through the
>filter of perception?
Again, I'm not asking for perception - I'm asking that those who claim
to have objective evidence post the objective evidence they claim to
have. Whatever they 'perceive'. I'm asking them to post the evidence
they claim to have and they're refusing to post it. Period.
> You're right: irrational people aren't
>rational, as you keep saying - but that doesn't change the fact that
>simply believing or not believing a thing
Claiming to have objective evidence of something isn't claiming to
believe it. It's more.
>> Again - all I'm asking is that people who make claims of objective
>> existence (which means that they're claiming that they have objective
>> evidence) post the evidence they're claiming to have. No one ever
>> has.
>
>And you know that they won't. So it's time, surely, for the next
>stage?
The next stage being, as I see it, for you to stop telling me to go on
to the next stage.
>
>> You're comparing apples to ducks. Rational people accept reality,
>> irrational people don't admit that anything that contradicts their
>> irrationality IS reality.
>
>And which category would you put yourself in?
I'm asking people who claim to have objective evidence to post it.
It's neither a rational statement nor an irrational statement, it's a
request.
>> >> I know so - because I know what 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' mean.
>> >> That an omniscient omnipotent god is impossible is irrelevant.
>> >Okay, I'll concede that such a being would be ABLE to do this.
>> >Perhaps I should have asked what reason we have to assume that 'he'
>> >would? It is, after all, the crux of many of Bill's arguments: that
>> >'God' is a jealous god and would want to crush belief in anyone else.
>>
>> He's also defined as being omnibenevolent. That doesn't square with
>> cru****ng belief.
>
>So don't we have an answer to Bill's question, then?
I wasn't asking Bill to post evidence, was I?
>
>> It's more that he's responding to the theists who post in alt.atheism
>> - aside from the occasional Moslem 'street-corner thunderer', all of
>> them are Christian of one sect or another.
>
>And I respond to Bill - from my point of view, HE is the initiator.
>But I respond not because he opposes Christianity, but because he
>posts into a group I'm in making sweeping claims about religion and
>the religious. That's me. And if someone turns up out of nowhere
>demanding something I've never offered and telling me I'm insane
>because I don't provide it, well... wouldn't YOU object?
I can't answer for Bill, I can only answer for myself. If the group
to which you're referring is alt.religion.gods, I would it refers to
'gods' in the way the vast majority of people does - a supernatural
creator of some kind. So my question, if you claim your god
objectively exists, remains the same. If you don't make the claim,
the question is irrelevant to your claim, whatever it may be.
>
>> God (upper-case G) is the name of the Christian god, so how can we be
>> talking about a non-Christian God?
>
>Might I introduce YHWH and Allah, both referred to on occasion as
>'God' and yet neither of them the Christian God?
Might I introduce you to 'to', referred to on occasion as a number one
greater than 1? Or as a synonym for 'also'? YHWH, Allah and El are
gods, not Gods. Are you a Steve? Some people are referred to as
'Steve'.
>
>> The nature of reality is that things that objectively exist leave
>> objective evidence. It doesn't matter whether the god is concerned
>> with providing it or not - his existence requires it, due to the
>> meanings of the words being used.
>
>Perhaps His existence DOES require it, and perhaps He leaves it - but
>why would we assume that we would be able to see it?
Ask those who claim to have it.
> Are we gods? Or
>are we simply organisms that have evolved to a particular biological
>specification?
'Specification', no. Maybe 'point'.
>
>Again, we return to the same point: absence of evidence blah blah
>blah.
Presence of claim of evidence. You're misrepresenting me again.
>
>> >Why would we assume we have such great im****tance in such a vast
universe?
>>
>> For rationality? For reality? Great im****tance for what?
>>
>> Why would we assume it was im****tant for him to conceal his existence
>> from us?
>
>When did you last make a specific effort to reveal yourself to an
>amoeba and explain what you are?
The last time one claimed to have objective evidence of my objective
existence.
You evidently don't understand a word I've said.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that
could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure
that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person
with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do
with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human
Side_, p. 39
|
