Atheism's Missionaries

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Yes, you are. You're making up things about how atheists treat the theory of evolution.

I assure you I am not making things up, it is quite obvious and self-evident...

Please demonstrate your claims then.

Atheism's #1 tool when choosing to do battle with Theist or Creation Scientist for that matter is Darwin and the theory of Evolution.

When dealing with theists? ...no. I've yet to see a scientist that actually says evolution disproves any deity. In fact, even Richard Dawkins says that evolution, like all scientific theories is something that can be accepted by anyone.

When dealing with creationists (as they are not scientists, unless you can point me to a body of 'creation science' literature), we argue that the position they're espousing is incorrect and there is furthermore a better, naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life.

Not all theists are creationists (though nearly all creationists are theists).

in my opinion what would make a more interesting conversation from atheists would be physics or anything other than evolution theory, in my opinion of course.

I've actually brought up physics in discussions on creationism (namely that we could have a universe without the weak nuclear force), though never on issues of theism. Why? Theism is a philosophical issue until theists present scientific evidence.

start a topic that claims Theist are ignorant of physics and prove me wrong...

Most people are ignorant of physics. Were my father not a physicist I would be ignorant of physics. Hell, I still am a bit ignorant of physics (though not entirely).

I've never claimed that theists are ignorant, though I'm guessing some are and some aren't, just like any other segment of the population. I've claimed that creationists are ignorant.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
There are very few bases in philosophy. It's one of the things you learn early on.

yes there are, but one established base is "Majority Rules"

No, that's incorrect. Can you please demonstrate to me where in philosophy the concept of 'majority rules' is prevalent? Hell, you've even claimed this of science, which is incorrect. Scientific consensus is secondary to evidence in scientific endeavors as it is based upon the evidence.

So...evidence for your claim that philosophy is based on majority rule.

Um... you are so confusing sometimes, what do you want to claim Theists are ignorant of, philosophy or science ?

No, just that you are ignorant of philosophy, science, and the philosophy of science in particular.

because Science is but a Philosophy...

No, science started out as a philosophy. Science is a methodology by which we acquire knowledge.

reply to post by Annee


I tend to mention two, simply because I admire their work in science and their promotion of science:

Kenneth Miller (also known as the expert witness in the Kitzmiller trial)
and
Robert T. Bakker (a Pentecostal preacher no less, and he has an awesome beard)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Annee

 

I tend to mention two, simply because I admire their work in science and their promotion of science:

Kenneth Miller (also known as the expert witness in the Kitzmiller trial)
and
Robert T. Bakker (a Pentecostal preacher no less, and he has an awesome beard)

I'm a big follower of Bakker. It does seem he has also evolved in his Spiritual thoughts.

I know there is a Catholic priest who is a scientist.

Anyway - - - I do remember you did mention them.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity...

Christianity...really...what about all the other religions in the world? You do realize the Chinese weren't Christian and were years ahead of us in terms of science at one point. Same with Muslims in the Middle East...they had hospitals before we did. What about the Mayans and Egyptians?

You are so focused on Christianity, but it just shows how ignorant you are towards other religions or atheism. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about if you believe science is based on Christianity.

You know what Christianity did to science????

- You said the earth isn't flat => death
- You said the sun doesn't go around the earth => death
- You used some herbs to cure someone => witch => death
- You opened up a human body => death

Do you really wanna claim Christianity helped science progress, ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!! We have Christians outlawing microchips because they are the "mark of the beast" for crying out loud.

This has to be the dumbest statement I read on ATS today...seriously, I'm baffled.

Sorry, I have to say that you're completely wrong. First, define "the church' - which one? Catholic, Coptic, Greek or Russian Orthodox, Protestant (and which variety?)
Second : - You said the earth isn't flat => death - that people in the Middle Ages believed the earth was flat is a complete myth.
- You said the sun doesn't go around the earth => death - Wrong. If you're referring to the Catholic church imprisoning Galileo, the operative word is imprisoning - he was not executed - and further, the whole issue was political - his advocacy of Copernicus' heliocentrism was just an excuse.
- You used some herbs to cure someone => witch => death - please elaborate
- You opened up a human body => death - complete nonsense.
Regarding Flat earth belief
Vicky

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Please demonstrate your claims then.

I present to you, well... you

I will leave it at that, but I have expressed repeatedly this as observed by me.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
No, that's incorrect. Can you please demonstrate to me where in philosophy the concept of 'majority rules' is prevalent? Hell, you've even claimed this of science, which is incorrect. Scientific consensus is secondary to evidence in scientific endeavors as it is based upon the evidence

lets use the proposition of a fictitious trial by jury... how does the jury reach a final verdict ?

So...evidence for your claim that philosophy is based on majority rule.

my claim is the establishment of "fact" is determined by "majority"

the sky is blue...

time exists... (to the majority)

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Please demonstrate your claims then.

I present to you, well... you

Except that isn't a demonstration, that is simply claiming I'm an example without even showing how I'm an example. I asked you to demonstrate your claims, not point a finger and claim that something is an example without demonstrating how that is actually an example of what you are claiming.

I will leave it at that, but I have expressed repeatedly this as observed by me.

And I have expressed repeatedly that you are wrong.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
lets use the proposition of a fictitious trial by jury... how does the jury reach a final verdict ?

Law is neither philosophy nor is it science. Furthermore, your example is incorrect because there are certain aspects that actually go beyond the power of the jury. A judge can declare the jury's decision invalid due to improper procedure, tainted jury pool, or many other variations of mistrial. Even further, a judge can overturn a sentence if evidence turns up years later.

So...evidence for your claim that philosophy is based on majority rule.

my claim is the establishment of "fact" is determined by "majority"

No, your claim was that a basis of philosophy is majority rule. That was incorrect.
Furthermore, fact is not determined by philosophy.

the sky is blue...

That is a description, not a fact. The fact would be that light passes through our atmosphere leaving a reflection at a certain wavelength that hits our eyes.

time exists... (to the majority)

Except that the majority wouldn't be able to define time.


Here's the great thing about science and philosophy: you get to have your own opinion, but you don't get to have your own facts. The facts are facts.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Except that isn't a demonstration

well see in a sense this is my way about some truths...

it is better others or the one discovers their own truth on their own and in their own way.

that's just the way it is...

like when it comes to religion, I have not tried to force anything on you or anyone else here for that matter, simply because I myself yes, do know that much atleast. But it would seem atheists demand truth and evidence...

this is very "rational" considering the opening of your reply which I have quoted and choose to leave it at that.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
lets use the proposition of a fictitious trial by jury... how does the jury reach a final verdict ?

Law is neither philosophy nor is it science.

philosophy overlooks the all.

No, your claim was that a basis of philosophy is majority rule.

my claim was and is, "fact" is determined by majority, can you post my quote where I have said what you state I claim ? I seem to have forgot.

That is a description, not a fact.

does the majority of people claim the sky is blue ? what color do you claim it is ?

Except that the majority wouldn't be able to define time.

the majority where I work and in my world around me all seem to agree at which time of the day it is. I get stuck in rush-hour all the time.

Here's the great thing about science and philosophy:

yes the great thing about science is... that it is but a philosophy, by which the majority establishes fact.

you can read up on it here...

What is Real ?
Your Personal Reality is Unique

Re Cosmic.Artifact

You wrote:

["it is better others or the one discovers their own truth on their own and in their own way."]

Concerning such, by general definition and by self-definition, as subjective, faith etc. Naturally.

Except in totalitarian political systems or in theocracies the individual's right to subjective opinions is protected.


Quote: ["like when it comes to religion, I have not tried to force anything on you or anyone else here for that matter, simply because I myself yes, do know that much atleast. But it would seem atheists demand truth and evidence..."]

Define 'force' as an expression of your personal attitude (my comment: Try push, maybe?). Or as an expression of the general, PUBLIC religious system you maybe or maybe adhere to.

Quote: ["philosophy overlooks the all."]

It's a methodology, or rather different sets of methodologies, relating to the concept 'truth', picking information from many sources. But not claiming any exclusive 'facts'.


Quote: ["my claim was and is, "fact" is determined by majority, .........."]

From which position will you support this idea? Epistemological, co-sensus, subjective relativism or from the position of logic or scientific methodology. If you choose the last option, your claim is plain nonsense. Scientific facts are at the level of actual science being independant of the individual.


Quote: ["does the majority of people claim the sky is blue ? what color do you claim it is ?"]

You are flitting between various models of how to describe existence, without specifying which model you use and which model an answer should refer to. To my knowledge ancient Greece had the same word for blue and green. To most contemporary people the word blue would probably come to mind. The scientific answer is a specific wavelength originating from which atomic 'shell'-layer electrons are operating from. Three answers. What LEVEL of 'answer' are you asking for?


Quote: ["the majority where I work and in my world around me all seem to agree at which time of the day it is. I get stuck in rush-hour all the time."]

According to the Copenhagen interpretation as expressed by Niels Bohr: "Time is what we measure by clocks". In other words a co-sensus agreement, until better answers turn up. It's a useful tool in many contexts, but 'time' does not represent an explained 'fact' in the scientific sense, it's only a description.

Quote: [" yes the great thing about science is... that it is but a philosophy, by which the majority establishes fact."]

Science defines itself rather precisely. If you want to redefine it, or put it into a special pigeon-hole, you'll need some observation-point, perspective or whatever, which sofar hasn't manifested in your posts.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
lets use the proposition of a fictitious trial by jury... how does the jury reach a final verdict ?

Law is neither philosophy nor is it science.

philosophy overlooks the all.

What?

Philosophy might attempt to deal with questions in many fields, but it isn't everything. Philosophy of law isn't law. Philosophy of science isn't science. Law is law and science is science.

No, your claim was that a basis of philosophy is majority rule.

my claim was and is, "fact" is determined by majority, can you post my quote where I have said what you state I claim ? I seem to have forgot.

Easily:

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
There are very few bases in philosophy. It's one of the things you learn early on.

yes there are, but one established base is "Majority Rules"

And once more, fact is not determined by majority rule. The Earth was round and revolving around the Sun well before humanity thought that was true. Life evolved for eons prior to Darwin's publications. Rainbows were caused by light refraction rather than a deity before we realized it. The stars in the sky were sustained fusion reactions billions of light years away when we still thought that they were merely points of light that a deity placed in the sky to make it look pretty at night.

And so on, and so forth.

That is a description, not a fact.

does the majority of people claim the sky is blue ? what color do you claim it is ?

You're not addressing my statement. The sky isn't 'blue', blue is a concept, not a fact. It's a label we ascribe to a physical phenomenon.

Blue is light at a wavelength from 440–490 nm and a Frequency of 680–610 THz. Blue itself doesn't exist independently. The wavelength and frequency of light refracted from our sky wouldn't change if people all agreed that the sky was red.

Except that the majority wouldn't be able to define time.

the majority where I work and in my world around me all seem to agree at which time of the day it is. I get stuck in rush-hour all the time.

Rush our and the time of day aren't descriptions of time as a concept or a scientific reality, they're measurements. That's like saying that everyone can describe the foundations of mathematics because they can count to ten.

Here's the great thing about science and philosophy:

yes the great thing about science is... that it is but a philosophy, by which the majority establishes fact.

you can read up on it here...

What is Real ?

Ah, consensus reality, that idea which I always have to talk to the random new age hippies at my University about. Reality is not based upon consensus. Or are you stating that humanity could force a change in wavelength of light by agreeing that something was red rather than blue?

I mean, the idea of consensus reality simply shoots itself in the foot right out of the gate.

Your Personal Reality is Unique

Except that it isn't. The way you experience the world is unique, but reality is unchanged. There is a baseline and humans are a filter, but the filter doesn't actually change what that reality is.

Originally posted by bogomil
Science defines itself rather precisely. If you want to redefine it, or put it into a special pigeon-hole, you'll need some observation-point, perspective or whatever, which sofar hasn't manifested in your posts.

(sci·ence) -noun

1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

"keep our eyes on #3 above"

(phi·los·o·phy) -noun

1. all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : physical science (2) : ethics c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2. pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3. a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought
4. the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

"keeping our eyes on the emboldened in #1"

(physical science) -noun

1. any of the natural sciences (as physics, chemistry, and astronomy) that deal primarily with nonliving materials.


yes I can read and apparently have atleast a 5th grade level of the understanding of definition of words in the English language...

sources
Dictionary.com - Science
Merriam Webster Dictionary - Philosophy

"more Greek than the Greek" yet I am a simpleton... all I know is I know nothing

Re Cosmic.Artifact

You wrote:

["yes I can read and apparently have atleast a 5th grade level of the understanding of definition of words in the English language..."]

A suggested next step would be application of such definitions, so they actually relate in a meaningful way to the context. As for example just now; .....I'm not even sure why you sent me the definitions in your latest post, as they don't add to or subtract anything from, what I said earlier.

reply to post by bogomil


I was just trying to say science is but philosophy, then provided the dictionary evidence for it... there are others claiming that it is not so I provided the definitions for them.

methodology is observable and documented, judged upon by a majority consensus and either written into law or being held as true by this consensus of each time period.

there are just some basic things that have not changed since the dawn of this documenting imo...

I will move on to say minorities in belief systems need to be observed, the intent and justness of Atheism can be observed by other past belief systems which are similar, and also by its present adherents to the structure of their belief.

this moves into the realm of psychology I think but is also scientific methods can be used to gather evidence... Intuition plays a keynote and can not be cast aside either, even a majority when confronted with any type of scenario use their gut-instinct.

take three blind men in a fictitious scenario, and the problem is presented to them to explain the color red, how would one go about explaining the color to them ? and then moving after explaining to them how would one get them to describe it ?

for Atheism's #1 missionary (Mr Dawkins) it is quite observable there is a lack of empathy but also there are other intentions behind his reasoning. He not having this sense of empathy is quite disturbing to alot of folks across the pond here.

for we know and have observed in history those who lack empathy and a moral compass so to say, we have alot of them in our prison system.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Yay, more *SNIP* posting of single words from my posts rather than the entirety of the post which discredits the entirety of what you've said.

The "What?" was due to your sentence not being grammatically correct. So apparently your statement:

yes I can read and apparently have atleast a 5th grade level of the understanding of definition of words in the English language...

Is a bit ironic.

Anyway, I made several points, please address them. Or am I going to have to revive the list of questions I've asked you and you've not answered?

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Common use dictionaries aren't useful for defining terms like 'philosophy' or 'science'. I'm actually studying philosophy at a University level (it's a secondary area for my degree). I'm not learning anything about science beyond the philosophical questions of it. I'm not learning anything about medicine at all. I'm not learning about physics, engineering, etc.