The Advantage of Being an Athiest

[Snoopy]

Hi,

Here's another moral. The very reason I put black swans as one of my examples is EXACTLY because it is a famous example cited when discussing philosophy.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was just going to move on to the idea of falsifiability and post this very link (which refers to white and black swans) so in fact you've anticipated me! If someone wishes to assert the existence of black swans it is up to that person to provide proof to support their claim. If they can, fine they exist, if they can't....

I was not saying "black swans" do or do not exist, I was pointing out where the onus of responsibility lies.

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi,

Here's another moral. The very reason I put black swans as one of my examples is EXACTLY because it is a famous example cited when discussing philosophy.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was just going to move on to the idea of falsifiability and post this very link (which refers to white and black swans) so in fact you've anticipated me! If someone wishes to assert the existence of black swans it is up to that person to provide proof to support their claim. If they can, fine they exist, if they can't....

I was not saying "black swans" do or do not exist, I was pointing out where the onus of responsibility lies.

s.

Well, there is one other responsibility to consider:
Those who adamantly deny the existence of salmon should not take it personally when someone slaps them acrossed the face with one!

[Snoopy]

sg,

You've given me a slap with a fish once before, I seem to recall. Do you have some sort of fish fetish?

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

sg,

You've given me a slap with a fish once before, I seem to recall. Do you have some sort of fish fetish?

s.

Nope. The onus is upon you to prove it, if you can.

If someone wishes to assert the existence of black swans {or fish fetishes} it is up to that person to provide proof to support their claim. If they can, fine they exist, if they can't....

[Snoopy]

Strangely enough, my piscine-infatuated friend, I did attempt to provide the appropriate link to provide such evidence but have discovered that GuL appears to be defunkt. (At least when I try to access the site). Any news?

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

I really meant "red" (subjective) not "electromagnetic spectrum" (objective).

I think this is at the crux of what I am trying to say!

Objective matters can be investigated and claims asserted, investigated, proof sought and possibly discovered and so on. So for example I can claim that pink swans exist. This is something that is open to investigation, proof sought and possibly found or not…

Subjective matters are not ones that are open to investigation to provide proof to support them. They are, by definition, experiential and personal. So my experience of the “pinkness” of the swans I claim to have seen cannot be tested, proven or disproven.

The difficulty is when in matters of belief, it is claimed the truth of the beliefs is proven by whatever means is cited. I don’t mean believing if Jesus, the Buddha or Mohammed lived or not, I mean metaphysical issues. These surely are subjective and cannot be proven or disproven. It is not to invalidate them, merely to put them in the appropriate arena of dialogue. We may all have such beliefs (some religious, some irrational, some maybe even sensible) but they are not the stuff of proving. They are unfalsifiable.

To give one final, non-religious example, it can be proven that Bartok wrote a number of string quartets but when I say the sixth one is the best this can be neither proven nor disproven because it is a personal, experiential statement. It is valid, and it may be a factual statement of my honest opinion but the world does not accept it as a proven fact that his sixth was his best.

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Strangely enough, my piscine-infatuated friend, I did attempt to provide the appropriate link to provide such evidence but have discovered that GuL appears to be defunkt. (At least when I try to access the site). Any news?

s.

I'm sure there must be a rational explaination. {It would be difficult to believe that there is a conspiracy to cover up any evidence of my having a possible fish-fetish.}

In order to spare you any possible madness and/or vexation that might arise due to your inability to provide supporting evidence for your theory of my having a fish-fetish, I assure you that I will keep a diligent watch out for any signs that I might be repressing a fish-fetish, and thank you for opening my mind to the possibility.

[Snoopy]

yes, but what about GuL?

[wil]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I'm sure there must be a rational explaination. {It would be difficult to believe that there is a conspiracy to cover up any evidence of my having a possible fish-fetish.}

In order to spare you any possible madness and/or vexation that might arise due to your inability to provide supporting evidence for your theory of my having a fish-fetish, I assure you that I will keep a diligent watch out for any signs that I might be repressing a fish-fetish, and thank you for opening my mind to the possibility.

vWe HaV fOtos oV U @ pIkE PlACe 4 a pHEe

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by wil

vWe HaV fOtos oV U @ pIkE PlACe 4 a pHEe

{rollingonfloorlaughing-gasp-tryingdesperatelytocatchmybreath-
-gasp-beforeIcompletelypassout-gasp-}

[flowperson]

FISH FETISH ?

Proving a fish fetish would, by definition, be a subjective exercise ( you could likely engage Dr Phil or a guy I know named Charley as possible expert witnesses, but Charley would require special environmental considerations on the part of the court), whilst smacking one across the face with a mackerel or...ahem... possibly a barracuda would definitely be an exercise in provable objectivity.

Really SL are you known to hang out at Pike Place once in a while trying to get lucky?

And anyhow...why in hell wasn't I consulted on this fish fetish stuff ?

flow....

[Ciel]

And ...... I heard it through the grape vine - the fish is on the line.

- c -

[flowperson]

Blub...Blub

flow....

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Not believing in god, doesn't mean I have to proove a thing. When I am dead I am dead thats it my corpse is rotting for the maggots... there is your proof... I think it also is supported by logic. When I die I go back to what I came from nothing rest.... Hmm seems reasonable... OR When I die I become a floaty being floating all over the place like casper the friendly ghost.... lol suuuure you do... *get the medicine boys*

Imagine a world where everything is recorded. Imagine that everything you have ever done at any time in your life has been recorded. Imagine that the state of your flesh at every instance in time: before you fell down, during, and after was all recorded. Everything you ate, everything you saw, everything you heard, everything you said, everything you thought, everything you did... absolutely everything has been recorded in perfect detail. A giant Memorex tape. A recordable CD. A giant hard-drive the size of the Universe. Would that change your perspective? All those thoughts you have had, the good and bad... the secrets... the lies you told... they have all been perfectly recorded... physically, in this very world. In fact it is possible that someone is rewinding and watching it over and over. Ok stop imagining because that is the world you live in.

Don't believe me? Write a secret down on a piece of paper. Put the paper in a shredder. Crumple the paper up. Burn the paper. Spread the ashes as far apart as possible. The secret is gone right? Ooops, one copy left... dispose of the secret in your brain. Now the secret is gone right? Nope. I tell you that at every stage the information was perfectly recorded. The piece of paper, the secret, the reason you wrote the secret, the way you disposed of the secret... everything. How? In the very particles... in the location and momentum of particles. It is all there. Don't believe me because you can't see it? Can you look at the surface of a DVD and see the movie that is on it? Can you open up the hard drive and see the MS Windows sitting there on the hard drive? Can you see the radio waves that materialize in the TV? Study the physics, the chemistry, the thermodynamics, communication and information theory of this world, and you will see that all the information is still there... physically, in this very Universe. The history is not lost, it was just spread apart and hidden from you. It has been hidden behind a curtain.

Those maggots that feed on the flesh will just be spreading apart and carrying away the very last piece of information... the state you were in when your flesh died. Kind of like taking the old car to the junkyard. The cylinders won't fire but the metal atoms are all still there. So... where does the driver go? Who was the driver?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards all! Welcome to CR, Snoopy!

I am enjoying the banter here immensely, although the subject sounds a little fishy...

If I may interject a couple of observations:

Originally Posted by Snoopy

The difficulty is when in matters of belief, it is claimed the truth of the beliefs is proven by whatever means is cited. I don’t mean believing if Jesus, the Buddha or Mohammed lived or not, I mean metaphysical issues. These surely are subjective and cannot be proven or disproven. It is not to invalidate them, merely to put them in the appropriate arena of dialogue. We may all have such beliefs (some religious, some irrational, some maybe even sensible) but they are not the stuff of proving. They are unfalsifiable.

Gotta go with the agnostic argument here. If I read this correctly, atheists then have no business criticising theists, by the standards of this argument, because the theist arguments are outside "the appropriate arena of dialogue." Sounds to me like Gould's separate magisteria. IOW, arguing apples and oranges.

To give one final, non-religious example, it can be proven that Bartok wrote a number of string quartets but when I say the sixth one is the best this can be neither proven nor disproven because it is a personal, experiential statement. It is valid, and it may be a factual statement of my honest opinion but the world does not accept it as a proven fact that his sixth was his best.

I'm having some difficulty with the term "experiential." I agree with the basic concept, yet even experiments must be experienced. The difference being, presumably, that an experiment is a "reproducable" and "shared" experience. However, a metaphysical experience can (theorhetically) be reproducable and shared, just not necessarily at will and not among "unbelievers." Of course, an unwilling observer to an experiment is just as likely to not believe (criticise, invalidate, debunk) the results...so we are back to square one with this argument. A (wo)man hears what s/he wants to hear, and disregards the rest...-to paraphrase Paul Simon.

G-d cannot be proven, nor can "He" be disproven. All we have is experience. Without such experience the best one could argue, so it would seem to me, is that there is no way to know for certain. However, with the experience (of G-d, the metaphysical, Spirit), the rest of the arguments are moot, pointless and wasted time.

What fundamental or foundational difference is there between "experience my experiment in my laboratory" and "experience my experiment in my prayer closet (church, Temple, synagogue, mosque, circle)?" With the possible exception of the actual nomenclature and methods used...