Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

i never said it was independent
I said (for the second time now) that it is beyond it
I said that all empiricism can fathom is the contingent property (the phenomena) and not "whiteness" (the noumena)
despite this inability of empiricism to approach the topic of "whiteness" we can determine that it is objective

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So whiteness is BEYOND sensory experience . How, then, does one perceive it. And how did you find out it is beyond sensoey perception.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

your question is how can the senses (which are restricted to dealing with phenomena) approach the noumena.
The answer is that the senses can't

Instead we rely on a value ("the universe is objective" and/or "behind ever effect is a cause") and determine (via rationalism, aka the mind) that if something "appears" white, there must be an objective state of being (or "whiteness") that enables such a phenomena to manifest

If we don't rely on the values above, we get a different conclusion.
For instance if we have the value that the phenomenal world is a creation of my mind (which is a popular standard for seeking psychiatric treatment) we would say that there is no objective state of being white ("the only reason it looks white is because my mind wants it to look white - my mind could just as easily make it yellow")

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not using it in any way other than "not using the senses" - which is what you're espousing here for one to get to detect this god entity. I need to know what non-senses must be used. "Knowledge" is insufficient given that without "knowledge" that this entity exists I cannot have "knowledge" that this entity exists.

Ok, so we now bring together all existing entities of which one has not directly seen. I only consider the president as existing based upon empirical factors so let's be honest and use a different entity that one does not have direct perception of. Let's say.. a mermaid. I do not have direct perception of a mermaid. Now, tell me how by using whatever methods it is you would espouse, that I can come to direct perception of mermaids. If you want to espouse non-existence, (I would be careful trying to do that), kindly inform me again what methods were used.

Well, having eyes is probably the first thing one must have..

Ok, justice is a mental concept.. we too are discussing a mental concept and there is no harm in that. Trying to change that mental concept to an existing object takes slightly more work lg... get to it.

Nothing has been rejected at all. I'll happily espouse that mermaids exist if you can show me mermaids. Same thing applies here. What does not apply are mental concepts.

Because they have undergone more training in certain empirical methods?

 

LG

You distorted my my question to suit your own purposes. It was how does one perceive it ( whitness ) and how did you find out. I never mentioned the senses, so don't put words in my mouth.

How do you know that noumena exist ? How are they perceived ?

 

Snakelord
“

ok to take a mundane example - if I tell you how to do something new(ie give you the knowledge how to do it) are you now capable of using your senses in a way that you couldn't do beforehand?

Its not that you need to know how to use your non-senses.
Its that you need to know how to use your senses.
No doubt you will say that you just don't want to do whatever I tell you, hence before coming to the platform of practice, we might have an extensive philosophical (theoretical) discussion

the standards you accept for knowing the president are not strictly empirical (unless he has been to your place for lunch or something)
you rely on the empirical verifications of others (eg TV) or some mental concept (the nation of america must have some leader since it exhibits a high degree of structure)

If you disregard the empirical standards (TV is a lie) and/or don't accept a concept about america's structure (The GPI is actually formed by random forces of chaos and given that the universe is infinite, there are infinite opportunities for chaos to give the illusion of functional order) you have a platform for completely disregarding the existence of the president

I guess you would have to ask a person who is advocating that they have a process on how to directly perceive mermaids

so the reason you have not directly perceived the president is because you don't have eyes?

no need to reply to that since the bit in bold addresses the actual issue

make up your mind
you just espoused god as mental concept above

once again, perhaps you should discuss these things with a person proposing a way to directly perceive mermaids

and the fruit of that training (knowledge) is not an empirical phenomena, hence your argument ("if its not empirical its an imagination") keels over and dies from the onset
:shrug:

 

I already explained that

Instead we rely on a value ("the universe is objective" and/or "behind ever effect is a cause") and determine (via rationalism, aka the mind) that if something "appears" white, there must be an objective state of being (or "whiteness") that enables such a phenomena to manifest

If we don't rely on the values above, we get a different conclusion.
For instance if we have the value that the phenomenal world is a creation of my mind (which is a popular standard for seeking psychiatric treatment) we would say that there is no objective state of being white ("the only reason it looks white is because my mind wants it to look white - my mind could just as easily make it yellow")

these things are (commonly) understood by adopting a pre-existing value which lies outside of empiricism
How do you propose to empirical test the objectivity of these values?

I made a thread discussing this specifically some time back

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71900

these objective values that are intrinsic to science were actually inherited from religion

 

Ignorant and rude. I keep asking you to tell me what I must use or do to come to perception of this claimed entity. You stated that I should get free from lust etc etc which I have done. Alas I still don't have direct perception of this claimed entity but despite requests you've failed to tell me the next step.

That's a start. Do you have any video feeds of god?

It's difficult not to considering you spend the best part of the last dozen posts comparing it to one. "But.. you can't see justice!" (pfft). You have to put some effort in if you want to espouse that it exists as an object.

 

You have explained nothing. You are simply making statements.

When we perceive an object , lets stick with a white one, our eyes transmit signals through optic nerves to the brain. Our brain interprets it as being a white object. That's it. We are still with sensory perception.

To attempt to go beyond this and argue that there is a "whitness" elsewhere is perverse. You can not produce a shred of evidence to support your belief in the existence of noumena. We have moved on since Plato and his theory of forms/ideas.

As I said, you are explaining nothing. You just make statements that such and such is the case.

Tell us how you perceive whitness without using your senses, or by going beyond them or whatever

 

Snakelord
“

you've expressed your contempt of normative/prescriptive descriptions in scriptures numerous times already - I am just running with the notion that you haven't undergone a dramatic change of heart ...

really?
just like I am on par with einstein because I know something of physics?

if I run into impasses in my attempt to be on par with einstein I could trace my way back to the foundations of physics and see if there is any disparity - or alternatively I could just conclude "einstein? Pfffft!! Physics is a joke"

no
but if you don't have a problem accepting authoritative empirical verifications of others I could make a few suggestions to your reading list

as I mentioned earlier, if you can't understand how issues like justice are outside of empirical verification, there is not much use in progressing with the nature of god
IOW if you can't dump the empirical holy cow "If it is real it must fit within the folds of classical empiricism" there's no point of indicating discussion established beyond that point

 

its perverse to contemplate what makes a white object white?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

perhaps to one who places more value on empirical standards than is healthy

well, from your post, it seems to have regressed since at least by plato's standard, discussing what may cause a white object to be white was not considered perverse

maybe you can try and explain what makes a white object white, since your refusal to discuss anything I brought makes your view thoroughly perplexing

 

O...k. I think perhaps more to the point, as you've been told already by others, is your vague and generally quite bizarre way of saying things. We've been down this road before and yet to date I still haven't got you to give me a straight example of these so called 'normative descriptions' of yours. You have once or twice mentioned getting free from envy etc, and I've just told you that I have. I ask for the next step and you run back into your shelter of vagueness.

I still wont get a straight answer, instead you'll give me some more vague and meaningless statements about Norwegian pig farmers.

Yes really. I am completely devoid of envy, wrath, and lust - except lust for knowledge of this god entity. I take it that doesn't count?

It depends whether methods to verify it for yourself are included. The problem with religious claims is that the process is so vague and undefined to render the whole thing meaningless. As an example: "To know god open your heart". Someone proceeds to 'open their heart', (even though it's too vague to mean anything). Upon doing so the religious delusion/knowledge, (whatever you prefer), is protected if the person fails because of the methods vagueness. "Oh, you clearly didn't open your heart enough". It's worthless gibberish.

You come along with your own brand of this gibberish: "get rid of envy". I am as rid as rid can be, and yet if I don't happen to see this entity in the sky it's because I have some unseen blob of envy stuck in my left leg or something.

If science worked in such manner we'd still be stuck in caves.

"Examine the chemical with your cosmic mind."

"Sorry boss, I can't discern anything"

"You're not using your cosmic mind enough..."

It's meaningless, worthless woo-woo.

*watches tumbleweed go past*

Umm.. I have continually had to explain to you why justice is outside of empirical verification as has Myles. It is because 'justice' is not an object, it's a mental concept. This is now perhaps the dozenth time you have compared your god to a mental concept. I have raised this before but you just go back to your "but you can't empirically verify justice". We seem to be stuck in a time loop or something.

Justice is a mental concept and thus cannot be empirically verified. Is god a mental concept?

 

Snakelord
“

we have discussed being free from envy/lust/wrath etc - problem is that you think you are already qualified in that regard so there is not much room for discussion ....

once or twice?

I guess we could either further examine the context in which these normative descriptions are given or accept your self assessment

the problem is that you cannot properly discuss scripture, the source of the normative descriptions that you deem yourself qualified in - imagine trying to discuss something in physics with a person who throws a wobbly everytime some reference is made to information existing in phsyics text books
IOW you have a serious attitude problem towards the existing framework that you are trying to establish yourself as qualified in - there is a scriptural standard of being free from lust, etc, ... but due to your contempt of scripture, you never really seriously examine it and are therefore not in a position to properly understand much about it

:bravo:

and I guess that would depend on one's ability to properly apply oneself to prescriptive descriptions ...

some people find physics gobbledygook too
probably reflects their understanding of physics texts ....

so serious investigation would involve investigating the context in which it was recommended one open one's heart
If you have as a prerequisite that you are only going to take on board 2/3 sentences to understand a field of knowledge, you kind of limit yourself form the onset

yep
totally unconnected to the "open your heart" thing, eh?

well gee I guess that settles it then

I can see you have thought this out thoroughly

certainly
fortunately persons who applied themselves to science display more fortitude than you do towards religion

and you wonder why I constantly bring up the issue of the high school drop out vs the physics professor?
:shrug:

the problem is that solely on the basis of being outside of empiricism, you assign it an inferior role

so does that mean justice exists or not?

the justice eg is all about clearly displaying the inherent limitations of relying on empiricism as an absolute mechanism for discerning truth or reality

no, god is not a mental concept, but like a mental concept, god cannot be approached by classical empiricism
(for more details see the analogy of the president)

 

The odd conviction that expertise in the Bible - in English translation, no less - somehow validates claims about Gods or atheism or "empiricism" or science, is unshakable among those who make evident no other reason for confidence in their understandings.

I am not sure what the "empiricism" being thrown around here actually means, but "whiteness" is something science can define, measure, and investigate.

And "justice" is of course a human-defined concept, with no reality outside of human terms and understandings.

So what are you saying: is it the exclusion of Gods from the "empirical" world that offends, or the overrating of the empirical world in some kind of status competition ?

 

Iceaura
“

even if we were discussing say physics, if you don't apply the prescriptive requirements for "doing" physics, it is also simply leading one up the garden path

science can explain something of the phenomena of whiteness but can venture nothing of the noumena of whiteness - empiricism means the senses and the playing field of the senses is the phenomenal (and not the noumenal) world

as explained elsewhere, justice is a contingent quality of power/management
our understanding of the extent of "justice" extends as far as our understanding of power/management
the only way for your statement to be valid is if you can verify that humanity is the final last word of power/management in the universe

in short, defining the words "empirical" as synonymous with "the final last word in reality" is not only impractical but absurd

 

I don't think you have properly interpreted my argument.

My argument is that those various categories are not the proper accurate standard definitions of atheism. My argument is that all those categories and those definitions are misconceptions.

My argument is that the only proper definition of atheism is what you and many others refer to as strong atheism. As such, my argument is that the information on the infedel website misdefines the term atheism.

Furthermore, theists and atheists alike may or may not be open to the possibility of being wrong. It is up to them how reasonable they are. I'm not sure exactly how you would interpret being open to the possibility of being wrong.