Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 5:54 AM
37 online now:
Tangle, vimesey (2 members, 35 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,989 Year: 9,025/19,786 Month: 1,447/2,119 Week: 207/576 Day: 10/98 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   People - I /was/ a Christian
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 307 (421819)
09-14-2007 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Cold Foreign Object
09-14-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Trapped By His Own Argument
The logical flaws are self-evident: he could not have been a "real Christian" if Christ and/or God do not exist?

There's no contradiction. To be a real Christian is to have deluded oneself into belief in God - as opposed to a fake Christian, who proclaims a belief in God he does not feel to fit in with his peers. (I was one of those too, for a while, near the end.)

There's no such thing as a real Christian in real communion with God, because there's no such thing as God.

How does the Bible explain Crashfrog's admitted delusion?

The writers of the Bible weren't stupid. Naturally, they included verses you could use to mentally inoculate yourself from the testimony of ex-believers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-14-2007 3:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-15-2007 1:54 PM crashfrog has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 227 of 307 (421821)
09-14-2007 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Cold Foreign Object
09-14-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Trapped By His Own Argument
he could not have been a "real Christian" if Christ and/or God do not exist?

how could anyone be a "real christian" is if christ and/or god do not exist?

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-14-2007 3:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2092 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 228 of 307 (421823)
09-14-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by crashfrog
09-14-2007 4:19 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
Are you saying that, if I don't know everything, I don't know anything?

i said nothing of the sort. i said that a lack of positive evidence prevents a positive conclusion.

It's more than enough certainty to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster

only because spaghetti has a known date of origin in two disparate locations and there is no witness of his noodly greatness otherwise from that period of time.

Why aren't you sure?

existence is defined by perception. an entire population of blind creatures has no reason to believe in light or color. to them, they have every reason to believe that light and color are delusions. and i have little to no reason to believe that anything actually exists. my perceptions aren't very convincing.

It's hilariously wrong for you and others to say that I have "respect for nobody"

i didn't say that. i said that you have claimed in this thread that faith and belief are delusions and those who hold them are delusional. that's a serious accusation and a personal attack, not a criticism of a religion.

It's just easier to think of Crash as the asshole who never has anything good to say about anybody, because it makes it easier to ignore what I'm saying.

i never said that. you're difficult and frustrating, but an asshole? no more than anyone else here. except omni. he's amazing <3

you're the second person to act like I'm some kind of hateful imp

i've tried very hard to avoid those particular sentiments in my posts and instead discuss that the way that you describe people should be amended.

It's just an intellectual cruch the two of you use, and you should get over it.

i guess at least i'm consistent in my use of crutches. i should break my legs and get a trifecta!


i'm not going to capitalize my posts, get better eyes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 4:19 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 4:42 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 307 (421826)
09-14-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by macaroniandcheese
09-14-2007 4:31 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
i said that a lack of positive evidence prevents a positive conclusion.

But it doesn't prevent a strong conclusion. It doesn't prevent a confident conclusion. It only prevents an absolute conclusion, which I'm hardly asserting.

to them, they have every reason to believe that light and color are delusions.

Nonsense. If the color-blind wanted to honestly test if color-perception was actually possible, they might assemble a series of objects, and then, individually, ask color-sighted persons to identify the color.

If everybody who claimed to see color saw the same colors, that would be evidence that color-perception was actually an existing sense that some people had.

On the other hand, with 30,000 different sects of Christianity alone, it's abundantly obvious that everybody who claims to "experience God" experiences something completely different. Some people who pray for God's guidance conclude that homosexuals should not be tolerated. Some conclude that God has no opinion. Some conclude that God expects tolerance of all human beings.

Oddly enough, when people pray to God to guide their attitudes on any subject, they invariably find that God agrees with whatever attitude they already had. Invariably, everybody who hears God speak hears a different voice. That's indicative of delusion, not of a shared objective reality that I'm just not capable of seeing.

i said that you have claimed in this thread that faith and belief are delusions and those who hold them are delusional.

Just the first part. I've never said the second. And it's a violation of forum guidelines to accuse me of statements I haven't made. Belief in God is a delusion, by definition. Like belief that one is Napoleon Buonaparte when one is not.

Does that mean that the religious are delusional? No, I don't think it does. I think that this is a delusion that normal human beings are susceptible to. It's hardly likely that we evolved to be completely resistant to any sort of irrational thinking.

I don't think any less of the religious because I think less of religion. Indeed, I try to follow the only Christian principle I ever particularly liked - "hate the sin, love the sinner." Someone's religion doesn't obviate all the other positive characteristics that they may have.

i've tried very hard to avoid those particular sentiments in my posts

Oh, right Brenna, I forgot. You're the very soul of temperance and patience. I wasn't going to bring it up but come the fuck on - you have to realize how ridiculous it is for you of all people to complain about the contempt that I sometimes show. Is there anybody at all, besides Arach, at this board who you're not dripping with contempt for? You'd never know it from your posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-14-2007 4:31 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 5:15 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 236 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-14-2007 6:28 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 230 of 307 (421827)
09-14-2007 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by crashfrog
09-14-2007 3:17 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
I can't be an atheist for just me, Brenn. That doesn't make any sense. God either exists or doesn't. If there's no God, then by definition, any experience of God is inauthentic.

so you want, basically, to spread what you feel is the truth?

To the extent that I'm rejecting someone else's experience, I'm doing so because there's an objective reality that their experience contradicts. A surgeon who claims to have experienced that the position of the average human spleen is located where it says "lungs" on the anatomy chart is just plain wrong, and it's not wrong for the state medical board to reject his application for licensure because he's intent on denying physical reality.

i think it's a little hard to claim objectively that there is no god. that's another thread, anyways. certainly, it's a lot harder than an anatomy lesson. your analogy applies very well to creationists in the geosciences... but not so much to philosophical questions.

Believers aren't wrong because I'm an atheist. Believers are wrong for the same reason that I'm an atheist - there is, in all likelihood, no such things as Gods. There's a big difference.

likelihoods are bad arguments. creationists make the same kinds of arguments about beneficial mutations. "unlikely," "doesn't," and "impossible" are all very different statements.

And occasionally I am contemptful of individual religious people, but that's as a result of their behavior, not their religion.

that's just what brenna said to me earlier this afternoon. :P


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 3:17 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 5:20 PM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 231 of 307 (421829)
09-14-2007 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by crashfrog
09-14-2007 4:42 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
Nonsense. If the color-blind wanted to honestly test if color-perception was actually possible, they might assemble a series of objects, and then, individually, ask color-sighted persons to identify the color.

as you might know, i take a lot of art classes. i hear some fun stories from time to time from the professors about previous color-blind students.

for instance, my color theory prof told us about two color blind people who made it through the color-mixing portion of the class and did better than the people who could see a "full" range of color. a photo teach told me a similar story, about someone who could name all the color compositions of a particular color that she couldn't even see.

how, exactly, does the color blind person know that others aren't doing exactly the same thing they are, and that the color objectively exists? (ishihara tests maybe? i'm not sure what these people score on those...)

If everybody who claimed to see color saw the same colors, that would be evidence that color-perception was actually an existing sense that some people had.

what does red look like to me? what does red look like to you? are they the same thing?

if we want to be fairly objective about this, we can compare something like camera sensors and not our own eyes. i shoot with a nikon dslr nowadays, and it happens to see red really poorly. it has a tendency to shift them to orange and blow them. compared to a canon, the two see color differently. which one's the objective? neither look exactly like the way my eye sees, and both have the same sensor construction.

and fact is that everybody who sees color does NOT see the same colors. people have massively varying ranges of color vision. even the same person will see one color two different ways depending on the time of day and lighting conditions. or even just surrounding colors. i actually had a problem in my color theory class, because i couldn't see a color illusion i was supposed to duplicate. when you make a huge swath of a color, and then put a neutral gray square in it, it's supposed to appear slightly tinted with the compliment of the color of the surrounding, even if it's pure neutral gray. i don't see it, and i'm the only person the professor has ever taught that didn't. where everyone say a slightly blue square in the orange, i saw only gray.

curiously, i knew i was right, because i knew how i mixed my paint. that square was absolutely neutral gray, just like i saw it. everyone else was "deluded."


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 4:42 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 5:24 PM arachnophilia has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 307 (421831)
09-14-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by arachnophilia
09-14-2007 4:51 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
so you want, basically, to spread what you feel is the truth?

Arguments that convince myself do me no good if I keep them to myself. It's only in pitting them against others that their weaknesses, if any, are revealed. I talk about atheism because I want to hear the responses, because I'm under the impression that the existence of God and the validity of religion is an issue that's important.

Sometimes it takes me a while to realize I've been convinced. You may yet convince me in the Sodom thread. I'm still thinking about everything you've said - even the stuff you think I haven't read. You convinced me, all those years ago, in the "Gender of Objects" thread, if not completely; it took me a long time to absorb what you had said, and it inculcated an interest in feminist thought that persists to this day. And a wider understanding of the phenomenon of gender.

Of course, doubtless you'll simply interpret these remarks as me being an asshole, yet again. It's beyond possibility, I suspect, that I can ever convince you of anything but the most devious and degenerate intent on my part.

your analogy applies very well to creationists in the geosciences... but not so much to philosophical questions.

I don't think the existence of God is a philosophical question. I think it's every bit as practical a question as any in the geosciences. If an interventionist God exists, that has practical consequences in reality that we can look for - and, suspiciously, have never found.

that's just what brenna said to me earlier this afternoon.

So, what you're saying is, if I had tits, this thread would be 50 messages shorter? :) (That's a joke.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 4:51 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 6:25 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 307 (421832)
09-14-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by arachnophilia
09-14-2007 5:15 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
i actually had a problem in my color theory class, because i couldn't see a color illusion i was supposed to duplicate. when you make a huge swath of a color, and then put a neutral gray square in it, it's supposed to appear slightly tinted with the compliment of the color of the surrounding, even if it's pure neutral gray. i don't see it, and i'm the only person the professor has ever taught that didn't. where everyone say a slightly blue square in the orange, i saw only gray.

curiously, i knew i was right, because i knew how i mixed my paint. that square was absolutely neutral gray, just like i saw it. everyone else was "deluded."

So, what you're saying is - you were in a situation where everybody perceived something you knew was illusionary...

...and you think that undermines my position? Would it have been as invalid for you to insist that the square really was gray and that everyone else was mistaken... or deluded... as you now insist it is for me?

Why the double standard? If you can be so sure that everyone else is mistaken, is suffering from an illusion, why can't I?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 5:15 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 6:14 PM crashfrog has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 234 of 307 (421840)
09-14-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by crashfrog
09-14-2007 5:24 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
So, what you're saying is - you were in a situation where everybody perceived something you knew was illusionary...

...and you think that undermines my position?

i'm sorry, did you assume i was arguing against you?

Would it have been as invalid for you to insist that the square really was gray and that everyone else was mistaken... or deluded... as you now insist it is for me?

well, i suppose "deluded" was the wrong word. everyone else also knew the square was gray, because we all went through the same process. the idea was to demonstrate the illusion so we could learn to either use or avoid it in paintings.

but i don't happen to see that illusion, which makes me highly abnormal.

Why the double standard? If you can be so sure that everyone else is mistaken, is suffering from an illusion, why can't I?

well, this is more about different levels of perception. how do i really know that everyone else saw a blue square, when all i saw was gray? is the objective truth really that it's gray, or does the fact that everyone, everywhere, all the time (except me) sees blue make it blue? what is color, anyways? is it the composition of the pigments? is it the reflection of light? is it the electrical reaction in our eyes? or the processing in our brains?

you may argue that it was quite objectively gray. it may well be. but the lesson here was actually that if everyone sees it as slightly blue, you have to compensate for that fact. it doesn't matter that it *IS* gray, all that matters is how people see it.

another interesting example of perceptual differences can be had with sound. i happen to have an almost super-human hearing range. i can hear the electromagnetic fields created by things like televisions and computers, and even our air conditioning system. i worked in a department store's portrait studio for a while, and they had a store radio system. whenever they played music, there was this awful screeching noise. it would cut out when they came over the speakers for announcements and such. i was the only one in the store that could hear it, but it started to get so loud i would come home with migraines.

i talked to the store manager, and she treated me like i was insane. no one else had ever complained, she said. the one time a customer could hear, i got him to complain -- manager yelled at me, like i somehow made someone else crazy too. i couldn't be crazy, i knew a few other people that could hear it too (brenna could, some of my family could). but everyone there thought i was positively nuts until it got so loud they could hear it too.

what's the objective truth there? there was a noise, but it wasn't until a lot of people heard it that that fact mattered. and truth be told, there are lots of other noises that even i can't hear. they're there too.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 5:24 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 11:41 PM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 235 of 307 (421842)
09-14-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by crashfrog
09-14-2007 5:20 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
Arguments that convince myself do me no good if I keep them to myself.

quote:
this little light of mine,
i'm gonna let it shine...

It's only in pitting them against others that their weaknesses, if any, are revealed. I talk about atheism because I want to hear the responses, because I'm under the impression that the existence of God and the validity of religion is an issue that's important.

well, frankly, if you argue that way simply to gather debate (isn't that "baiting?") don't get too offended when you get debate.

Sometimes it takes me a while to realize I've been convinced. You may yet convince me in the Sodom thread. I'm still thinking about everything you've said - even the stuff you think I haven't read. You convinced me, all those years ago, in the "Gender of Objects" thread, if not completely; it took me a long time to absorb what you had said, and it inculcated an interest in feminist thought that persists to this day. And a wider understanding of the phenomenon of gender.

fair enough. i'm quite stubborn myself. i think we'll both fight just for the sake of the fight, but the learning takes a while to set in. i do think the sodom thing is worthy of discussion -- i'm fairly convinced on that matter for a number of reasons, most of which you haven't touched on in that thread. i see you are revisitting it.

Of course, doubtless you'll simply interpret these remarks as me being an asshole, yet again

no, quite the contrary. and i'm not saying that to be contrarian yet again. i'm glad we're being reasonable.

It's beyond possibility, I suspect, that I can ever convince you of anything but the most devious and degenerate intent on my part.

no, not at all. i'm sure there are a few fields that you are far more versed in than myself, and i am not beyond hope of being taught something. i don't recall any particular instance off the top of my head where you have convinced me of anything, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that you have before or will again.

I don't think the existence of God is a philosophical question. I think it's every bit as practical a question as any in the geosciences. If an interventionist God exists, that has practical consequences in reality that we can look for - and, suspiciously, have never found.

err, yes, but notice the qualifier: "interventionist." what if god does not intervene in any appreciable way?

that's just what brenna said to me earlier this afternoon.

So, what you're saying is, if I had tits, this thread would be 50 messages shorter? :) (That's a joke.)

lol, no i'm saying that you're both jerks. :P


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 5:20 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 11:45 PM arachnophilia has responded

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2092 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 236 of 307 (421843)
09-14-2007 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by crashfrog
09-14-2007 4:42 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
It only prevents an absolute conclusion, which I'm hardly asserting.

There's no such things as Gods.

that sure sounds like an absolute conclusion.

Nonsense. If the color-blind wanted to honestly test if color-perception was actually possible, they might assemble a series of objects, and then, individually, ask color-sighted persons to identify the color.

they've no way to know they aren't making it up.

On the other hand, with 30,000 different sects of Christianity alone, it's abundantly obvious that everybody who claims to "experience God" experiences something completely different.

not completely different. also, their moral codes can be explained by their cultural affiliations better than by their religious affiliations.

I've never said the second.

ok, perhaps not delusional, but actively deluding themselves, which sounds the same to me.

[qs]Belief in God is a delusion, by definition.[/s]

assuming god isn't real, which you haven't proven.

You're the very soul of temperance and patience.

i said i was trying to avoid that vibe in this particular exchange.

Is there anybody at all, besides Arach, at this board who you're not dripping with contempt for?

i'm not dripping with anything. in certain occasions, i get very irritated at specific individuals, much like you. and, i refuse to be squishy and nice to people who are assholes. but aside from those particular exchanges in question, i've no concern for any of it.

You'd never know it from your posts.

i happen to be a very disaffected and detached person, especially on the internet. what i am is blunt. what you see is grating and anti-social. i'm not scowling, i'm just not smiling. deal with it.

and i suppose this means this conversation is now over because of course we're no longer discussing your christian experience, but rather my personal "flaws". isn't that convenient.

Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.


i'm not going to capitalize my posts, get better eyes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 4:42 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 237 of 307 (421879)
09-14-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Hyroglyphx
09-14-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Biblical Fundamentalist
quote:
Probably because I've never seen Buz condemn all Muslims. I've seen him criticize those who are hypocritical and I've seen him speak out against Islam over its religious veracity-- all of which I do too.

When he characterizes Islam as a violent religion because of the violent behavior of a few of Islam's followers, he most certainly is condemning all Muslims.

He is doing exactly what you called "flawed reasoning" and "wrong".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2007 1:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 307 (421901)
09-14-2007 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by arachnophilia
09-14-2007 6:14 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
i'm sorry, did you assume i was arguing against you?

Yeah, I did. From context, it seemed like you were presenting an example in rebuttal.

Was I mistaken? Never mind, if so.

i talked to the store manager, and she treated me like i was insane. no one else had ever complained, she said. the one time a customer could hear, i got him to complain -- manager yelled at me, like i somehow made someone else crazy too. i couldn't be crazy, i knew a few other people that could hear it too (brenna could, some of my family could). but everyone there thought i was positively nuts until it got so loud they could hear it too.

I get that too. My TV has a failing flyback transformer, and the coil oscillation noise is mind-shattering, sometimes - but my wife can barely hear it, and neither my parents nor hers hear it at all. (Deafness runs in her family to some degree. No one's ever lived long enough in mine for us to know.)

An interesting aside, but again, in each case there exist tools that would have allowed you to demonstrate, without a doubt, that it wasn't just a matter of perception of subjective reality - that there was actually an objective reality that you were accurately perceiving and others were not. A simple spectrum analyzer would have shown a loud sound up around the 20 kHz range in your department store. A spectrometer would have shown the precise frequency of reflected light reflecting off your grey square.

The fact that humans differ in perceptive ability doesn't impeach the fact that there is an objective reality out there that it's possible to be wrong about. The fact that blind people exist doesn't mean that there's no such thing as light. On the flip side of the coin, the fact that people experience cotton-candy clouds and rivers of lemonade in their dreams doesn't mean that the Big Rock Candy Mountain is an actual place.

Your examples are interesting, but they don't impeach the conclusions I've already arrived at. We're not talking about detecting sounds at the extreme range of human hearing. We're talking about the existence of an infinitely creative and benevolent force who, if it existed, would profoundly change the face of the universe.

(That's not so much a refutation of your point as it is an attempt to draw all this back onto topic.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 6:14 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2007 12:22 AM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 307 (421903)
09-14-2007 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by arachnophilia
09-14-2007 6:25 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
i think we'll both fight just for the sake of the fight, but the learning takes a while to set in.

I clearly have a lot less interest in the eternal struggle than you. I'm all for debate but when parties are at loggerheads, I'd like it to come to an end before the really nasty attacks start happening. You know?

what if god does not intervene in any appreciable way?

Then who gives a shit about him? We might as well all just be atheists if we're saddled with a do-nothing God. What's the difference?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 6:25 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2007 12:25 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 240 of 307 (421910)
09-15-2007 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by crashfrog
09-14-2007 11:41 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
Yeah, I did. From context, it seemed like you were presenting an example in rebuttal.

Was I mistaken? Never mind, if so.

just providing more accurate and detailed information in the hopes of furthering discussion.

I get that too. My TV has a failing flyback transformer, and the coil oscillation noise is mind-shattering, sometimes - but my wife can barely hear it, and neither my parents nor hers hear it at all. (Deafness runs in her family to some degree. No one's ever lived long enough in mine for us to know.)

An interesting aside, but again, in each case there exist tools that would have allowed you to demonstrate, without a doubt, that it wasn't just a matter of perception of subjective reality - that there was actually an objective reality that you were accurately perceiving and others were not. A simple spectrum analyzer would have shown a loud sound up around the 20 kHz range in your department store.

it was closer to 30 -- i tried matching it to "you shouldn't be able to hear these" tones, to determine just how far out of normal hearing range it was. my best guess (from memory, now) was about 27 kHz (which yes, i can hear).

The fact that humans differ in perceptive ability doesn't impeach the fact that there is an objective reality out there that it's possible to be wrong about.

well, yes. i'm not arguing that objectivity does not exist. it does. it has to. i'm just arguing that experience and perception are quite subjective.

in the color example, i subjectively did not experience something everyone else did. objectively, what they saw was and illusion. in th sound example, i heard a sound that everyone else could not. objectively, the sound was there, but the people who could not hear it thought i was delusional. with the color, we can objectively test it with a densitometer* and with the sound, something like your spectrum analyzer. but what precisely is the objective test for god?

the subjective "i've seen no evidence" isn't really good enough. it wasn't good enough for the sound no one heard -- it was there, but nobody could hear it.

* actually, since i talked about cameras above, it's worth noting that densitometers have to be calibrated and such. what's to say they're really objective?

Your examples are interesting, but they don't impeach the conclusions I've already arrived at. We're not talking about detecting sounds at the extreme range of human hearing. We're talking about the existence of an infinitely creative and benevolent force who, if it existed, would profoundly change the face of the universe.

well, how exactly would it profoundly change the face of the universe? you might argue that by ockham's razor, a god that doesn't is irrelevent -- and you'd be right. but ockham's razor doesn't say the small variables eliminated for the sake of simplicity don't exist. you might not need lorentz contractions when calculated the speed of your highway travel on the way to work, but it still has an effect.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 11:41 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 12:32 AM arachnophilia has responded

RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019