Why are you Atheist? page 119

3495 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

DR
Dude, so how would you name an event, where loads of people were involved, yet it left no traceable stuff, other than in those people’s heads.
(Eg. Hitler’s Nazi-bent speeches, if they weren’t recorded. The effects are real, you can’t argue on that – yet you can’t trace anything outside of the “personal experience” of the people involved. Does it mean, that Hitler never spoke to Germans? Or replace him with ANY known recent leader, so what about his any single speech, that didn’t get recorded? SO?)

All recent know leaders left heaps of direct evidence, but even if you would remove all direct evidence. Indirect evidence from the life time of the leader from before the life time of the leader and from after the life time of the leader would make such a hard case that most of the life of the leader could be reconstructed.

But were talking about some very good indirect evidence. With huge amounts of evidence that can be compared with know events and so verified. Also the amount of verifiable evidence against the existence of said leader would be rather low. In Obamas case you would have some wacky conservative site saying Obama was not the 44th president because he was not american. But otherwise little.

 
Flag Post
but which obviously left no traceable signs, since it happened some 3300 years ago.

3300 years ago and it left no scientific sign? Bullshit. 3300 is nothing compared to what science can date back to. Also, an event with 3 million participants? Not only is that improbable given the small population at that time, but you must also remember that religious texts were not the only source of historical recordings even at that time, and the likelihood of such an event not being recorded by a single, relatively secular source and existing to this day is also quite small. Religious texts should not be taken as serious historical sources anyways, as there are plenty of other events recorded in the bible that have been falsified.

Scientifically, it can’t be proven

If something cannot be proven scientifically then it cannot have affected the natural world. There is a difference between proving that something happened and proving that a supernatural event happened.
I’m asking in order to show you and DR, that some events can’t be “proven”, even if they DID happen.

This is irrelevant, even if it were true, as if you cannot prove something to exist then it should not be assumed to exist. Unfalsifiable hypotheses are actually logical fallacies (but then you’ll just resort to the whole “well my logic differs from yours” bullshit).
You can change it to a visit by UFO under similar conditions also many centuries ago – so that you don’t think like “helping me prove myself”.

It’s funny that you bring UFOs up, as there are scientific ways to detect UFOs. Granted, we may have ignored them due to lack of proper scientific measures, but that reality does not give any credit to UFO claims. Also, there are such things such as lenticular clouds which are likely responsible for many UFO “sightings”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

You guys are aware that somebody is probably a troll right?

He never goes away. Don’t trolls typically just dip in and out?

I am studying the art of trolling, and the more persistant they are, the more angry they get. Generally yes, but the longer you stay, the more angry they tend to get.

Originally posted by somebody613:

I’m not a troll, I’m a religious nut, fighting all and any anti-religious nuts. :DDDDD

So you’re a Zealot like Ketsy said?

Trolls aren’t usually this tenacious.

I am learning more about trolling, and some are this tenacious.

 
Flag Post

The main difference between me and a troll:
I’m fighting for my OPINION, not just for FUN or to ANGER others.
All trolls I’ve ever encountered are there just to ANGER people with their usually stupid/provoking comments.
Trolls don’t GET angry, they MAKE others angry.
That’s their goal, and that’s why I also hate some of them.
As of discussion, there are situations, when two opinions are so different, that the people involved can’t find a common point, thus thinking stupid things about the other.
But in reality, it’s the difference of key opinions, that leads to it.
This isn’t trolling, this is the inability to find a consensus.
Happens a lot, you know… :D

 
Flag Post

Any reply yet?

 
Flag Post

In any two conflicting statements; only one can be true at any one time.

 
Flag Post

DR
The problem in our discussion is the difference in the definition of common sense.
For you, it’s primarily materialistic, until proven otherwise.
For me, not so strict, or even the opposite sometimes.
Thus, we view the SAME things differently, with attributing them opposite importance/credibility values.
Oh, and your claim of “scientific = objective” is but a result of your value system, cause it could be argued about.
As well as mine, of course.
That’s why I say, that we probably won’t come to a consensus under CURRENT situation.
So, should we waste our time, if we firmly know for sure, that we agree to disagree in a peaceful way (which IS the difference from “discussions”, that involve trolls)?

CC
Actually… More than often, the key is not how they can be true, but DO they disagree…

 
Flag Post

Two questions that should put an end to any of these sorts of arguments:

A. Can you prove that your god exists?

B. Can you prove that every other religion’s god does not exist?

 
Flag Post
B. Can you prove that every other religion’s god does not exist?

Any god except for a deistic one can (theoretically) be proven to not exist.

 
Flag Post

CC
C. Can you prove that all “other gods” AREN’T just “misconceptions” of the SAME, ONE GOD? Also happens to be the (“scientifically”) UNPROVABLE one. :D
Also, this would AGAIN go into “my way of defining and verifying things is different from yours, so how can we reconcile THAT”…
Meaning, I’m not gonna do it.
Another similar (and thus pointless) argument:
What’s “LIFE”?
Ask a dozen people, and you’ll get at least 7-10 definitions, if not 15… :DDD

 
Flag Post

The problem in our discussion is the difference in the definition of common sense.
For you, it’s primarily materialistic, until proven otherwise.
For me, not so strict, or even the opposite sometimes.

That’s word-play, stop trying to go semantics just so you can avoid a question. “Common sense” is thinking about what is more likely to be true (even if it’s not, just pretend it is). I’ve seen dogs before, I’ve never seen aliens before. What is more likely to be true, that I meet an alien tomorrow, or a dog? Don’t you dare say anything other than a dog. That would just make you sound like a joker.

The problem is that you try to evade discussions by going into semantics and then saying “see, we totally meant something different, so this discussion is useless”. At least try to answer the question, disregarding the problem you have with definitions (honestly, what is the problem?).

Oh, and your claim of “scientific = objective” is but a result of your value system, cause it could be argued about.

If it could, you would. Point out where it isn’t objective, as you haven’t done before. Science points out stuff like how, generally, things happen as a result of other things. This can be tested and verified, and even critics cannot deny the truth. This makes it objective. Again, do point out what isn’t objective about it.

That’s why I say, that we probably won’t come to a consensus under CURRENT situation.
So, should we waste our time, if we firmly know for sure, that we agree to disagree in a peaceful way

I would say we’re not reaching an understanding merely because you’re avoiding certain questions and not accepting certain evidence.

Can you prove that all “other gods” AREN’T just “misconceptions” of the SAME, ONE GOD? Also happens to be the (“scientifically”) UNPROVABLE one.

There’s only two ways this can be answered:

Scientifically: You must prove your god(s), it mustn’t be disproven by those who don’t believe in it.
Personal experience method: Everyone can say whatever the hell they want and lie in any way they like, making it a meaningless discussion.

Another similar (and thus pointless) argument:
What’s “LIFE”?

It’s pointless, because it’s a concept. It’s supposed to have a definition. If people start arguing about it, it already means they’re forfeiting the definition. This is very dangerous, as it means we may no longer be able to communicate properly.

 
Flag Post

DR
OK, back to numbered paragraphs for easier reading… :D
1. Our “common senses” are a “bit” different.
This is also circularly affected by what we view as the primary parameter of truth/proof.
More to come next.
2. I actually did.
In both meanings of “objective”, be it “a total of all subjectives” (my version) or “something real” (your version), it’s still based on the key assumption, that only material is REAL.
Which is a key ruler-out for anything spiritual, to the extent of putting the eternal proof burden on it.
As in “material is always true, spiritual is never true, until proven otherwise”.
(Showed by constantly/consistently calling spiritual experience “lies”.)
So, again, we differ in the primary premises, not so much “word-plays”.
3. Sure, like I just said above “material is true, spiritual is not, EVER”.
Thus, material stuff is “evidence”, spiritual stuff is “lies”.
Bias and premises, dude.
4. Same again, basically.
Is that non-existing cat in your room a personal or a scientific experience?
How can I reproduce it, without becoming yourself, going to your room and talking to myself?
Also, here we come to the “likelihood increases credibility” materialistic/deterministic BIAS, that I’m talking about ever since.
From an aborigen’s POV, computers and planes are witchcraft at best.
So, if one of them goes “to the big city”, then comes back and tells about a PLANE or a CAR, he’d get booed at, for TELLING LIES!
Point – it depends on the person and situation, there’s no “common” common sense.
(And this wasn’t due to the aborigens being “stupid”, they just lacked the knowledge of the plane and car. How can you be sure, your “science specialists” aren’t lacking the similar knowledge in SPIRITUAL stuff? Apart from being BIASED, of course…)
5. Life is an example of something “objective”, yet with SO many different definitions.
Who said, GOD isn’t the same?

 
Flag Post

In both meanings of “objective”, be it “a total of all subjectives” (my version)

Uh, yeah, this is where we go wrong. I have no problem with you inventing a new type of concept defined as “total of all subjectives”, but I have a problem with you defining it for science, or this discussion. If that’s the only problem you have, just realise what I talk about when I use the concept of objective, and I will try to remember your definition of your newly-created concept of “objective”.

it’s still based on the key assumption, that only material is REAL.
Which is a key ruler-out for anything spiritual, to the extent of putting the eternal proof burden on it.
As in “material is always true, spiritual is never true, until proven otherwise”.

I don’t understand. This is how it works. Everything has a burden of proof on it. Only I can’t really find pieces of evidence for spiritual issues. You can keep on saying how that’s unfair, but if the physical world has proven itself, why should we just automatically assume the spiritual world when it hasn’t? Also, you keep having that biased look on science. It doesn’t state the spiritual is never true. It simply cannot assume it to be true, since there is no evidence for it.

(Showed by constantly/consistently calling spiritual experience “lies”.)

That’s just what you want to read. In reality I’m telling you “people can lie” in relation to the concept of trusting people on their words. I’m not going to trust them automatically, especially not if I can’t reproduce or verify the information.

Thus, material stuff is “evidence”, spiritual stuff is “lies”.

I have never seen spiritual evidence. I’ve only seen random stories from random people having seen and heard God. You also have to realise that just as much I reject claims about people having seen a train crash against a tree if there is no physical evidence for this physical event. It is possible, under our scientific definitions, something like that would happen, but if I only have their word I will not believe them.

Is that non-existing cat in your room a personal or a scientific experience?
How can I reproduce it, without becoming yourself, going to your room and talking to myself?

The issue here isn’t that you’ll scientifically believe it, but merely won’t feel that I gain anything from lying about it, and that believing in it isn’t something you would find ridiculous (nobody would). Why? Because people have cats, they exist, and they get into rooms. It is not unlikely I would have one here right now.

Also, here we come to the “likelihood increases credibility” materialistic/deterministic BIAS, that I’m talking about ever since.

I’m truly astounded. Here you are implying that everything is equally likely. What you call supposed bias I call basic thinking a kid of four years old could achieve. Are you honestly going to tell me it’s equally likely tomorrow the universe implodes above you seeing an object?

From an aborigen’s POV, computers and planes are witchcraft at best.
So, if one of them goes “to the big city”, then comes back and tells about a PLANE or a CAR, he’d get booed at, for TELLING LIES!

You are only proving my point. The society of these people is much smaller, and within that society certain things have never been heard of (AKA: there is no evidence for them). Common sense tells them the person is lying, he’s assumed to be. It does not mean he is incorrect. Just as you won’t have to be incorrect for telling me you’ve heard God whisper to you in your sleep. But our society hasn’t verified such events as that society hasn’t verified cars or planes. You have to understand this key concept. It is important.

(And this wasn’t due to the aborigens being “stupid”, they just lacked the knowledge of the plane and car. How can you be sure, your “science specialists” aren’t lacking the similar knowledge in SPIRITUAL stuff? Apart from being BIASED, of course…)

We come to an interesting part of the discussion. Why should scientists automatically assume spiritual stuff if they, supposedly, aren’t knowledgeable in it? They don’t, because they don’t find scientific evidence (within the method of science). But, in fact, I’m agreeing the aboriginals you mention are clearly right in their own society. Their type of scientists have never seen or heard of planes and cars, meaning they honestly can only reject the idea of it. It is unlikely to be true, in their society, because it has never appeared there.

So, we come to spiritual stuff, from our society. It is really the same as cars and planes for their society. We have never verified or reproduced spiritual events in such a scientific way we can scientifically assume them to exist. This does not mean they don’t exist, it means they don’t scientifically exist. For the aboriginals, cars and planes don’t scientifically exist until they verify them. For us, aliens don’t scientifically exist until we verify them. Cars and planes were seen by a single aboriginal, but he could just as much be lying. Aliens were seen by many people, but they could just as much be drunk. Do you understand why we need more than just a story?

Life is an example of something “objective”, yet with SO many different definitions.
Who said, GOD isn’t the same?

I’d say it’s a problem life has so many definitions, this means discussions arise while they are not needed. God needs one definitions so we can have a much easier discussion about it.

 
Flag Post

DR
1. I’m really sorry, but I still fail to see the actual difference between your use of “objective” and “truthful”.
I mean, that’s the implied meaning I get from your talks.
Otherwise, the other option left, is mine, the sum of subjectives.
When I get your meaning of objective, we can truly talk in the same language.
But we aren’t as of now…
2. That’s exactly what I blame on the “scientific method” – it accepts as evidence only materialistic stuff, and since spiritual stuff is by definition beyond any materialistic evidence, the predefined outcome always is “can’t be ASSUMED to exist” aka NEVER.
BTW, I don’t understand/agree why you don’t accept as physical event, that left actual INDIRECT evidence, the clearly physical event of the Sinai revelation.
It happened at a specific PLACE, at a specific TIME, with specific PEOPLE, who had gotten specific physical OBJECT (the Tablets).
Yes, WE don’t have DIRECT remnants of that event, but we do have the clear description of it (the fact itself, at the least), which was upheld by uninterrupted tradition (another topic, which could become LOOONG, but let’s just skip it, while I say, that I’ve discussed it before and I have INDIRECT proof of how it’s really uninterrupted).
This is one clearly PHYSICAL event (unlike the “spiritual” ones you refer to, I’m not even sure what you mean by that…), that happened in this world, not in someone’s head.
Thus, it’s of a comparable reliability, as is any historical document, which wasn’t CLEARLY (not SUPPOSEDLY) forged.
Constitution is but a very nice example, but by this token, we have to have the same attitude towards ANY “book”/document, written 100+ years ago.
Or can you give me a “proof” on any random historically important document, that fits it, but doesn’t fit my example?
We can then discuss it from there.
3. You’re word-playing yourself now, actually.
Is there a Pluto (or any other similar space object you like more)?
Have you seen it?
Has anyone?
But you do believe it exists, right?
WHY?
4. Key words “under scientific definitions”.
Exactly my point – it’s taken for granted, as a “dogma”.
So how’s that more “common sense”, than any other method?
A choice, sure.
A must-have choice, no way.
5. Ridiculous is VERY subjective.
And very BIASED as well.
Thus, we are back to “my opinion vs yours”.
Also, “statistic is the biggest lie”, can be used here, even though it means a totally different thing normally (you do know, right?).
6. “Equally” isn’t a quantifiable thing here.
I’m actually against the other notion of “I never saw it, and 99% people never saw it, so it must be a lie”, which is often true, except it heavily depends on defining “saw”.
More than often, people tend to be “blind” to stuff, contradicting their biased premises.
Not when they don’t know the stuff or don’t understand.
No, I’m talking about “it can’t be, cause it just can’t”.
7. YOUR point?
More like MINE.
You do agree, that cars exist, while aboriginal scientists are honestly (and rightfully) rejecting them.
So, why is this ANY different for GOD?
Basically, your “key concept” is “society makes the rules of what is real”.
Kinda childish…
8. You see, you demand everything to adhere to “scientific method”, even though you clearly know and understand (and even tell it), that some REAL stuff is UNABLE to do so BY DEFINITION.
Dude, it’s like demanding from crocodiles to FLY, then claim based on their inability, that there are no BIRDS!
(Kinda similar to UN/US/etc demands from Israel about achieving peace, without crushing the destruction-bent enemy terrorists first…)
Also, and I mentioned it above, it’s NOT a “single” person I’m talking about.
The entire Jewish nation was the physical witness of that physical event, and they are firm in this claim till today.
Except, we don’t have any “back-up” from those, who WEREN’T there (aka everyone ELSE) – but YOU demand that we must have it, to “prove” anything.
Truly, a demand for a flying crocodile…
9. OK, life isn’t our topic now anyways, let’s just skip it.

Thanks for a DISCUSSION, you’re one of the FEW, who actually discuss SERIOUS stuff, not start trolling or “anti-trolling” (which is, hehehe, the SAME actually).

 
Flag Post

I’m really sorry, but I still fail to see the actual difference between your use of “objective” and “truthful”.

I’m not going to give an official definition, but a dumbed-down one. One I hope is easily understood. In one sentence, objective is when it is undeniable, verifiable/reproducible, and works regardless of human’s feelings about the topic. Your personal experience, as I’m guessing you’d agree on, isn’t objective as it usually isn’t verifiable/reproducible, it has personal twists in it making it deniable, and certainly is affected by a person’s feelings. Science tries to achieve objectivity by getting all independent scientists to test each other’s theories. They would love nothing more than to burn them down, and to make up their own theories. However, if even such people can’t touch a theory, we know we have enough evidence. This is not about being 100% sure, but as close as possible. It is objective, because basically anyone can verify/reproduce the information, and always come to the same result.

Something can be personally true, but that means it isn’t necessarily true for another person. If something is scientifically true, it is true for you regardless of whether you think it isn’t.

That’s exactly what I blame on the “scientific method” – it accepts as evidence only materialistic stuff, and since spiritual stuff is by definition beyond any materialistic evidence, the predefined outcome always is “can’t be ASSUMED to exist” aka NEVER.

Give me some spiritual evidence, and I’ll look it over with my personal view. I’ll likely tell you why it isn’t proper, or tell you it’s physical evidence. However, if I see many independent people agree with a same hypothesis relating to spirituality, I may just agree as well.

BTW, I don’t understand/agree why you don’t accept as physical event, that left actual INDIRECT evidence, the clearly physical event of the Sinai revelation.

The problem here is independence. I don’t know too much about this event, but it seems that (and you were saying as such) that it was only Jewish people. None of these seem to have the idea they want to prove each other wrong on the issue. And, naturally, while the event isn’t reproducible (meaning it’s quite hard to assume another such an event will come up), the verifiability may also be in trouble. How many independent documents were written? Who signed them? Did it look official or like random gibberish? This is all important.

Is there a Pluto (or any other similar space object you like more)?
Have you seen it?
Has anyone?

Yes, many objects in space have been seen by telescopes. I sure hope you know what those are, otherwise they may harm our little discussion here.

Key words “under scientific definitions”.
Exactly my point – it’s taken for granted, as a “dogma”.
So how’s that more “common sense”, than any other method?
A choice, sure.
A must-have choice, no way.

Are you implying things that are obvious on a day-to-day basis may be false, and we are living in the matrix? Because now you’re starting to ramble. Spiritual evidence is just as well handled as physical evidence.

Ridiculous is VERY subjective.
And very BIASED as well.
Thus, we are back to “my opinion vs yours”.

..so you are saying that there’s no way you would believe anyone telling you he has a cat in his room? Remember what we’re talking about here.

“Equally” isn’t a quantifiable thing here.
I’m actually against the other notion of “I never saw it, and 99% people never saw it, so it must be a lie”, which is often true, except it heavily depends on defining “saw”.
More than often, people tend to be “blind” to stuff, contradicting their biased premises.
Not when they don’t know the stuff or don’t understand.
No, I’m talking about “it can’t be, cause it just can’t”.

You’re not answering the question. Be more direct, instead of constantly rejecting the words I use. I’m talking about what’s more likely to be true based on observations. What’s more likely to be true, that I saw a cat today, or an alien? What do you base your answer on? Don’t work around it, give me a straight answer. The assumptions that we have to make are that what we observe generally must be described, and true as they are. When independent people observe the same thing, we can assume it to be true. If only a group of dependent people observe something, people will be suspicious. You will need independent people to verify the evidence. After that happens, it becomes more likely to be true. It is obvious that many independent people have seen cats, but have many independent people seen aliens? Until we get some more learned people with proper evidence, it doesn’t seem that reliable. Certainly not opposed to cats.

You do agree, that cars exist, while aboriginal scientists are honestly (and rightfully) rejecting them.
So, why is this ANY different for GOD?
Basically, your “key concept” is “society makes the rules of what is real”.

You are rushing to conclusions and making connections where there are none.

1. The aboriginals are a society, while we are one as well. Their society, apparently, don’t know of our society. We are like aliens to them, they don’t even know if we exist. One person randomly comes up and says he has seen cars and planes. They declare him to be mad, but more appropriately, they say he has no evidence. Why should they believe him? Nobody has seen them before, and he has no proper evidence of them. They have only three choices. One, to accept his claim. They basically state that his word is enough evidence to make something true. So, he can say there are pink monkeys with three arms that fling whole planets at bad kids during winters, and it’ll be true. Two, to accept neutrality. What they’ll do is say there may not be evidence for these cars and planes, but it’s still feasible. It can’t be assumed to be true, but not assumed to be incorrect either yet. Three, to reject the claim. This would be the case if cars and planes were physically impossible, or if there’s more evidence suggesting they don’t exist.
2. We, as a society with cars and planes, know they exist. You sneakily left out that part, as there is no anology with that towards God. There is no society we know of that has undeniable evidence of gods. We go to the three possible answers yet again. Do we accept the claim of the existence of God, even though there is not enough evidence? Do we stay neutral? Or do we reject the claim, due to the fact that the many features of God are already being disproven?
3. No, society does not make the rules on what is real, society makes the rules on how to properly examine and define reality. The reason why we don’t let staggering drunks define for us what is real is because you don’t have to be a critic to disagree with him. The reason why we let independent scientists do the same is because even many critics cannot disagree with them. Independence is so valuable.

You see, you demand everything to adhere to “scientific method”, even though you clearly know and understand (and even tell it), that some REAL stuff is UNABLE to do so BY DEFINITION.

I’ll give a really simple answer. If we started believing every drunk telling a story just because some stuff could be real, it’ll be meaningless to discuss reality. Everything’s real. Note that my story of a cat in my room is not scientifically true, even if it would be true for me. It is likely to be true, and probably people will believe me, but since there is no proper evidence it can’t be assumed to be correct. That is because of the burden of proof. And “oh, come on, this happens so often” won’t be a correct reply, even if it’s true. That’s the difference between the common man and science. The common man can believe things based on certain likelihoods, but science needs that evidence. But, what I’m teaching you is why certain things are more likely to be believed than others. In short, really, something isn’t “real stuff” just because you think it is. Liars can make up things and then tell the police it was “real stuff”. This is why we need evidence, to counter the liars.

Except, we don’t have any “back-up” from those, who WEREN’T there (aka everyone ELSE) – but YOU demand that we must have it, to “prove” anything.

Just a finishing note here: I, personally, sometimes believe stories without evidence if I believe they are likely to be correct. Or if it isn’t worth it to distrust, which would be the case with very minor claims. I don’t personally demand proof from spiritual events, but what would you expect me to do? I can choose to believe you or not believe you. Why should I take something for granted from a random person?

 
Flag Post

DR
I’m waiting for what you can say on “demanding flying crocodiles”, cause this is the key blocking point in ANY “proof” for something “scientifically unlikely/anti-common sense” aka “can’t cause can’t”, like before.
Meaning:
You accept any other documents, even as important as Constitution (which is VERY “useful” to be LIED about), with just some INDIRECT evidence of HAVING the STATE – but you reject an exactly similar document (which had basically close-to-none “usefulness value” in the face of non-Jews 3300 years AGO, and also contains many “negative” stories about JEWS, making it pretty “anti-bragging”; name me another religion, that claims to be made/adopted by SLAVES), although it has VERY similar INDIRECT evidence – the Jewish nation LIVING by it for the whole KNOWN/DOCUMENTED history (whenever it related to them), which is a documented fact.
Yes, it’s not a good evidence for GOD per se, but it’s a pretty good evidence for the fact of GETTING the book.
All the rest is just subsequent conclusions.

 
Flag Post

you gotta think about life, not to be restrained by a set of beliefs and rules set by some guy who maybe doesn’t exist(sorry if you do). you only live once, so make it count, don’t be restrained.

 
Flag Post

blobly
Wrong, you live TWICE, according to my belief.
The second one is the actual “game”, that you make yourself during the first “editor”. :DDD

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by blobly:

you only live once, so make it count, don’t be restrained.

Well, to be fair, that sentiment also echoes with religious people, which is why they want to live the best and most moral life they can the first (and only) time.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

blobly
Wrong, you live TWICE, according to my belief.
The second one is the actual “game”, that you make yourself during the first “editor”. :DDD

Depends on how you define “life”, somebody. Most of us think of it as what we can see, hear, and feel right now—in order words, the continuation (or termination) of our biological processes. Although I do understand that point of view—the Bible does mention “everlasting life”.

 
Flag Post

TN
Well, then we are talking about THREE lives. :D
One “here”, another one “up there” and then yet one more “down here, but like it was up there, kinda”. :DDD
HINT: Normal life, Paradise, Resurrection of the dead. :D

 
Flag Post

I’m waiting for what you can say on “demanding flying crocodiles”

I’ve deliberately ignored that “point”, because I honestly have no idea what you mean with it. This is generally what you say (it’s a direct quote from your last post):

Dude, it’s like demanding from crocodiles to FLY, then claim based on their inability, that there are no BIRDS!

This is directly underneath:

You see, you demand everything to adhere to “scientific method”, even though you clearly know and understand (and even tell it), that some REAL stuff is UNABLE to do so BY DEFINITION.

There are several problems here:

1. The scientific method is the only method I know that is currently capable of making objective claims. The personal experience method you point out only so much can make objective claims the more it nears the scientific method (the more independent people experience the same thing, the more likely it is to be true). I don’t necessarily want you to adhere to the scientific method, but I do when you want to convince me of something to be true. When you say “it’s true because I’ve seen it” or “it’s true because a dozen Jews saw it”, I am not convinced, scientifically. To be honest, even if I’d use the personal experience method I would not be convinced. I haven’t personally experienced it myself, and am not able to ever personally experience it (that was your initial problem with evolution, wasn’t it?).
2. “Some stuff is real without it being capable of adhering to the scientific method” is a rather vague sentence to make. I use the scientific method, so that by definition isn’t correct for me. However, even if I do use your personal experience method, like above, some stuff that wouldn’t be real through the scientific method still isn’t real to me.
3. The analogy really doesn’t fit any way.

cause this is the key blocking point in ANY “proof” for something “scientifically unlikely/anti-common sense” aka “can’t cause can’t”, like before.

That’s just your bias speaking, and I really wish to remove this before we move on. You have a false view of science that only hinders our discussion. It’s not “can’t cause can’t”, that’s stupid for both you and I. But it’s stupid for you because you think science says as such. It’s stupid for me because you think as such. Vast amounts of evidence point towards certain issues and that allows us to assume that’s correct, leading to “common sense” telling us they must be correct. Why assume? Because we don’t want to constantly repeat having to go through the evidence, unless someone wants to. When something is assumed to be unlikely, it is because evidence from the past pointed towards it. It’s up to you to disprove those theories now, because they are standing. People tried to disprove them, and failed.

You accept any other documents, even as important as Constitution

You don’t know what I accept. The constitution (of the Netherlands) is a set of basic rights and privileges that I more or less agree with. What should I possibly deny here? That it was written? That the person who signed was the person who’s name is on it? That it was really those rights they wanted, and they didn’t mean something else? I’m doubting all of those, but it matters not for what we currently do with it. We use them as our basic and undeniable rights. Why should any of those questions stop me from doing the same?

There is a vast difference between a constitution and your supposed document. It says “event X happened”. What am I supposed to do here? I don’t deny the document exists (if I’ve seen it, but I’m sure there’s no problem there), or that people wrote it, but I deny the event they describe. There’s no event described in the constitution that people constantly argue about. There is with your document. The importance of the constitution was not any event, the importance of your document is the event. Can you see the problem now?

although it has VERY similar INDIRECT evidence – the Jewish nation LIVING by it for the whole KNOWN/DOCUMENTED history (whenever it related to them), which is a documented fact.
Yes, it’s not a good evidence for GOD per se, but it’s a pretty good evidence for the fact of GETTING the book.

An entire nation living by a constitution demands no belief in any event. An entire nation living by your document demands the belief in a certain religious event that scientifically isn’t and can’t be proven to exist. The existence of the document is undeniable, but the event is very different. The event of the writing of the constitution is undeniable, just as the event of writing your document is undeniable. But the reasons why they were written have very different consequences.

 
Flag Post

DR
Oy… :D
The key disagreement between us is this phrase of yours:
“The scientific method is the only method I know that is currently capable of making objective claims.”
It has two downsides/problems/etc:
1. It’s centered around the “you”, whereas for other people it might be actually different (and it is).
2. Let’s look deeper into this of yours:
“In one sentence, objective is when it is undeniable, verifiable/reproducible, and works regardless of human’s feelings about the topic.”
a. Undeniable – OK, we can equate it to “I saw it”, at least indirectly.
b. Verifiable – dude, that’s already a clear reference to PERSONAL experience, cause it relies on a PERSON, not on something abstract.
I don’t see much difference between a. and b., but I’d think, you meant a. to be “self-convincing”, while b. is “making logical conclusions”.
Close, but yet different.
c. Reproducible – oh, man…
MOST events AREN’T!
Technically/physically speaking – NONE is.
Cause we should take into account ALL conditions, and this includes even positions of planets, though its importance is minuscule, but to TRULY reproduce, you MUST do it 100%.
So, HONESTLY speaking, it’s IMPOSSIBLE, except for an APPROXIMATION.
Usually, approximations work fine, but you can never know, WHAT caused a “sudden/random” difference in the results.
And speaking of PAST events, this requirement is simply absurd, cause you don’t even HAVE/KNOW the needed conditions.
d. Regardless of personal feelings – this is basically the “sum of subjectives” part, at least it feels like it.

NOW, I’d like to discuss a few examples.
1. Sun rises.
a. You saw the sunrise.
b. You saw the dark sunless night turn into the bright sunny day.
c. Ah-ah-ah! YOU can’t FORCE sun to do ANYTHING.
Thus, you can only OBSERVE, not AFFECT.
And I’m pretty sure, that reproducibility actually means FORCING the event to repeat the way YOU want.
So, it’s not so in this example.
d. Obvious.

2. “I have a cat in my room”.
a. Only for those, who saw it there, at the discussed moment.
If it was there yesterday, this is no proof for today.
b. Getting scratched by it, is enough. :D
c. Again, you’re only a watcher, cause it’s the cat, that constitutes the event, not you putting it there.
You can check, whether it is there NOW, but you can’t FORCE it to suddenly APPEAR.
d. I could call it a “dog”, but that would just be a stupid joke. :D

Oh, and this is plain weird:
“Something can be personally true, but that means it isn’t necessarily true for another person. If something is scientifically true, it is true for you regardless of whether you think it isn’t.”
The second part sounds kinda stupid: I disagree with something, but it works even according to myself.
It’s a circular contradiction…

As of crocs and wings.
I’m referring to the impossible demand for personal events having objective back-up.
They typically don’t have it, by the very clash of definitions.
Meaning, if someone WAS there, it automatically becomes his personal experience, which you rule out as “unscientific”.
If someone WASN’T there, how can he ever be a source to prove it, since he only has indirect evidence at best?
Also, you forget, that not everything ever gets written down for future generations, thus even the “outsiders-onlookers” had no urge to put it into writing, so that we could use it as “scientific evidence”.
You know, I could even use the “missing link” idea here:
We have the first stage, “totally Jewishless human”, turn into the last stage, “the Jew”.
We have real examples of both, but we don’t have a scientific proof on HOW the change took place.
Yes, we do have “personal” answer, but we discard it as “unscientific”.
Now, why croc-into-bird is considered to be more proved, than the very similar normalhuman-into-jew?
In both cases, we have the source and the outcome, both actual and objective.
So we believe OUR SPECULATIONS on the reasons of the FIRST case, yet we reject that SUBJECT’S CLAIM in the SECOND case.
Meaning, in the first, it’s WE who make up the “logic”, while in the second, “logic” comes together with the very event.
To be continued MUCH later, I don’t have time today.

 
Flag Post
1. It’s centered around the “you”, whereas for other people it might be actually different (and it is).

No, it does not differ for each person. That is why we call them objective claims.

a. Undeniable – OK, we can equate it to “I saw it”, at least indirectly.

You can’t. Hallucinogens have a track record of making you see things that aren’t really there…and the brain will sometimes produce hallucinogenic chemicals, regardless of whether you are a “drug user” or not. Not to mention that human memory is corrupted easily when it comes to details, and although your brain tells you that you saw something doesn’t mean it was actually there.
b. Verifiable – dude, that’s already a clear reference to PERSONAL experience, cause it relies on a PERSON, not on something abstract.

The human verification of scientific claims doesn’t have anything to do with personal experience. It is experience; if you are truly verifying something then you are experiencing the verification of the claims, but it is not personal. The scientific process dictates that before a hypothesis becomes theory, multiple experiments by different people must be done to confirm the hypothesis, i.e. reproducible results. What becomes scientific fact is not based on personal experience, rather the collective experiences of many different scientists and the observations which lie in common.
c. Reproducible – oh, man…
MOST events AREN’T!

In a very objective sense, you are right. The specific combinations of particles within even the simplest reaction are hard to reproduce perfectly. However, this does not discredit the scientific method. The point is not that an event is perfectly reproduced, but that a similar event yields very similar results each time. The specific circumstances of an experiment will never be absolutely the same as another, but they don’t have to be.

Even if the amounts used in an experiment such as a potassium+water reaction differ, the results will be very similar, albeit with less intensity, and the reaction size can be correlated directly with the amount of potassium, therefore implying that potassium does, indeed, react with water.

The statement that “no event can be really reproduced” is semantics, and has no real effect on the laws and theories of science.

And I’m pretty sure, that reproducibility actually means FORCING the event to repeat the way YOU want.

Not necessarily. Isn’t the sun constantly under the same conditions anyway? Obviously in a much larger timescale it isn’t, but relative to even the entire human existence the conditions of the sun relative to the Earth are almost completely constant. So the sunrise is reproducible. If the sun ceases to exist, the sunrise ceases to exist. If there is no potassium given, there is no potassium-water reaction.
“Something can be personally true, but that means it isn’t necessarily true for another person

This is called a subjective truth.
I’m referring to the impossible demand for personal events having objective back-up.

If something cannot in any way have objective back-up then it cannot be assumed to have existed.
If someone WASN’T there, how can he ever be a source to prove it, since he only has indirect evidence at best?

For all we know our own personal experiences are misinterpretations of real life. They hold no inherent superiority over scientific measures. That means that saying “carbon-dating is an invalid way of measuring the age of organic objects because nobody was there XXXX years ago to witness it” is illogical. Neither measures can be proven to be 100% accurate, but this is all in the realm of solipsism. I trust my own observations on a daily basis, and I trust the facts science has provided us.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator