Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1101

i have to disagree on this.

we are safe to say that a perception is always a perception of something. (even in the case of an illusion).
because perception is “transitive” by definition.

but there is nothing in the concept of “existence” which necessarily imply perceptibility.

there is many things that are not perceptible. eg abstract concepts, mathematical objects or … moral laws
but we aren’t allowed to say they are less “real” because they are not perceptible.

“esse est percipi” is a convenient but arbitrary reduction.

1102

The perceived universe is subjective, as it exists in the mind of the perceiver. But the universe itself remains objective. We can only guess at the true nature of the universe, through the lens of our subjective perception, but that doesn’t imply the true universe doesn’t exist. Clearly it does, or there would be nothing to be perceived nor anyone to perceive it.

1103

The inability to perceive something or its effects doesn’t prove it is a myth, but it does mean we have no reliable means to differentiate it from myth, and thus it is foolhardy to insist that it is real.

1104

[quote]forlife wrote:
I don’t get someone wanting to worship a god that condemns people to an eternity of torment because they don’t obey him. That’s the opposite of love. [/quote]

I don’t get someone making use daily use of zero knowledge proofs not believing in faith. That’s the opposite of rationality.

I don’t get someone firm in their knowledge of the existence of 0 denying the possibility of 1+1+1=3 and that three is one number. That’s the opposite of understanding.

I don’t get someone basing their life around rationality and skepticism who absolutely, undeniably knows nothing existed prior to the big bang. That’s the opposite of rationality and skepticism.

I don’t get how someone who fully acknowledges inconsistencies in their own application of liberte, egalite, and fraternite is confused by inconsistent applications of omnipotence, free will, and love.

I’ll raise my sons Christian and teach them science, if they marry a woman and raise their sons that way, I’ll love them. If they don’t marry, don’t have sons, and don’t raise their children that way, I’ll probably love them a little less, exert more influence over them and respect free will. If (pushing this thread in exactly the direction it needs to go in again) they kill six million people, my abject love for six million people and respect for their loss of free will compel what power I have into making a Hell for my sons. I will still love them.

1105

[quote]lucasa wrote:
<<< I don’t get how someone who fully acknowledges inconsistencies in their own application of liberte, egalite, and fraternite is confused by inconsistent applications of omnipotence, free will, and love. >>>[/quote]Finite man by definition, to say nothing of sinful fallen finite man, will always live with gaping holes in his knowledge and perception of reality. I defy anyone to deny that with a straight face.

I believe there is a God who suffers not from this limitation and fully accounts for those holes. I trust that whatever I cannot understand is resolved in His mind. All problems solved. Pagans will call this the grand poobah of all copouts. I don’t care. That problem is quickly solved too.

Threads like this one in which unbelievers parade their rock solid convictions about anything imaginable and nothing really in particular as long as it’s not what I just said are a fulfillment of scripture and serve to proclaim the flawless truth of the Word of God.

1106

[quote]forlife wrote:
The perceived universe is subjective, as it exists in the mind of the perceiver. But the universe itself remains objective. We can only guess at the true nature of the universe, through the lens of our subjective perception, but that doesn’t imply the true universe doesn’t exist. Clearly it does, or there would be nothing to be perceived nor anyone to perceive it.[/quote]

If you can answer the question; “When does an electron decay?” with anything objective, then you may be able to say that there is actually an objective universe.

Quantum physics are leading us to a place where subjectivity seems to be the only arbiter.

1107

[quote]kamui wrote:

or maybe it’s the contrary …

as soon as someone is informed by the universe, he becomes objective…

[/quote]

What do you mean?

1108

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
<<< Quantum physics are leading us to a place where subjectivity seems to be the only arbiter. >>>[/quote]Subjectivity has always been the only arbiter for the self perceived, self determining autonomous man.

My mysterious vanishing post from this morning was largely to you with a little tidbit at the end praising Ephrem for his brilliant concision and declaring how naked and open to a comprehensive arsenal of theistic weaponry he had left himself, even in your arena. Yes, I sincerely meant both of those.

I owe responses to a few people who I promise I am not ignoring. One guy asked what being “saved” means. A perfectly legitimate question I’ve typed dozens of posts addressing, but he sounded like he was honestly asking so I owe him one too, Man I need more hours in the day.

1109

[quote]kamui wrote:

i have to disagree on this.

we are safe to say that a perception is always a perception of something. (even in the case of an illusion).
because perception is “transitive” by definition.

but there is nothing in the concept of “existence” which necessarily imply perceptibility.

there is many things that are not perceptible. eg abstract concepts, mathematical objects or … moral laws
but we aren’t allowed to say they are less “real” because they are not perceptible.

“esse est percipi” is a convenient but arbitrary reduction. [/quote]

How can you define a “thing” if you can’t perceive it? I mentioned ideas and memes and included them in the sensory realm. They are a result of perception.

So imagine a situation where perception is absent. Where are you?

1110

I think he’s simply saying he believes in an objective universe in which objects or the universe as a whole exist whether perceived or not. If a tree falls in the woods…

1111

[quote]forlife wrote:
The perceived universe is subjective, as it exists in the mind of the perceiver. But the universe itself remains objective. We can only guess at the true nature of the universe, through the lens of our subjective perception, but that doesn’t imply the true universe doesn’t exist. Clearly it does, or there would be nothing to be perceived nor anyone to perceive it.[/quote]

That’s true, but i’ve always wondered how much our imagination played a part in constructing the way we perceive the universe. Before we could look far into space artists imagined distant worlds and constellations, and those ideas could’ve shaped our collective expectations of unseen places.

Bullshit ofcourse, yet cut off your head and it all ends. No perception = nothing.

1112

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I think he’s simply saying he believes in an objective universe in which objects or the universe as a whole exist whether perceived or not. If a tree falls in the woods… [/quote]

“How would you know if you’re not there to perceive it?”, is my point.

How goes it T?

1113

The current cosmological census is that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago with the Big Bang. But a legendary physicist says he’s found the first evidence of an eternal, cyclic cosmos.

1114

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

or maybe it’s the contrary …

as soon as someone is informed by the universe, he becomes objective…

[/quote]

What do you mean?
[/quote]

since Descartes, modern philosophy start with “I know I am”, before reintroducing percepts and concepts, and developing its epistemology.

i’m basically contesting this and saying we should start with “I am alive” instead.

which means that affects are anterior to percepts and concepts.

having an affect is being affected, informed ad changed by “something”.

this “something” is the world. and its existence is even more apodictic than the existence of “I”.

there is a world well before “I am” or “I know I am”.
there was already a world in utero.
there was already a world millions years ago, when we’re unicellular beings.

not because we perceived it. but because, before perceiving it, we were already informed and affected by it. (since a perception is always the perception of a change).

some consequences :
i am an object before i become a subject
i am passive before i become active
i am part of this world before i start representing it

and moral values may be more real than trees

1115

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

What do you mean?
[/quote]

since Descartes, modern philosophy start with “I know I am”, before reintroducing percepts and concepts, and developing its epistemology.

i’m basically contesting this and saying we should start with “I am alive” instead.

which means that affects are anterior to percepts and concepts.

having an affect is being affected, informed ad changed by “something”.

this “something” is the world. and its existence is even more apodictic than the existence of “I”.

there is a world well before “I am” or “I know I am”.
there was already a world in utero.
there was already a world millions years ago, when we’re unicellular beings.

not because we perceived it. but because, before perceiving it, we were already informed and affected by it. (since a perception is always the perception of a change).

some consequences :
i am an object before i become a subject
i am passive before i become active
i am part of this world before i start representing it

and moral values may be more real than trees
[/quote]

The validity of your premiss is founded on the essence of what “I am” actually is. Before we can continue i need to know what you think/believe the self, the “I am”, consists of.

1116

[quote]Cortes wrote:
It’s not that I’m not listening to you, it’s that I’m attempting to demonstrate to you that the foundation of your belief is built on wet sand.

If you admit that your moral code is “completely relative,” (your amusing words), then you might as well call it “arbitrary horseshit.” It is anything but. I’ll wager your morality just happens to follow many, probably most of the tenets of the Judeo-Christian morality (let me guess, in addition to murder, I’ll bet you try your best not to lie, cheat, steal, or kick old ladies, no?).

So, you’ve arrogated to yourself a morality largely based upon nothing less than the word of God as our predecessors understood it, and have the audacity to imply you came up with it yourself.

When I confront your contention that societies agree upon morality collectively, you dismiss it with an excuse that, well, that society didn’t agree collectively.

If you think I’m not getting what you are saying, it’s because it doesn’t make sense. If your entire point is, “hey man, I’m just saying that it’s all relative,” then I am challenging you to demonstrate that this is so, because I have so far not seen one single argument that has come close to convincing me that murder, cheating, greed, backstabbing, cowardice or theft can somehow be made into virtues, or that integrity, honesty, charity, bravery, neighborliness, or love can somehow be made into some kind of vice.

Please do not respond one more time saying that I am not getting your point. I’m making my own point here. I’m challenging you to provide some, any evidence that your premises are indeed correct. That you merely believe it to be so does not make it such. [/quote]

You guys have managed to post a lot in my absence. Wow.

Have you ever read anything written by an existential philosopher? Because this is not new. I came up with my ideas (about the nature of morality) on my own, but they’re not new. It was nice to see that some people came to the same conclusions that I did, I’ll give you that much. If I came up with something unheard of I’d feel much crazier than I do. But I mean, come on, how did everyone miss this shit? Read some Sartre, please. Crawl out of your ass.

The entire idea is that the only thing that matters, the only truth, is what’s important to you. Everyone has their own personal, RELATIVE truth. It’s nothing that you can force on other people.

I don’t believe that stealing is wrong, or for that matter lying, cheating or kicking old ladies. Even if I would choose not to do some of the aforementioned, that doesn’t mean I think they are WRONG.

Why is the burden on proof on me? You’re asking me to prove a negative, which you know I can’t do. You have to prove to the rest of us that there’s an objective reason for universal morality.

1117

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< The validity of your premiss is founded on the essence of what “I am” actually is. >>>[/quote]And THAT I am actually is. Seems a semantic distinction without a true substantive difference. Of course I start with “God is, therefore I am”. “but how can you perceive God… or anything else without first assuming your own existence?” And therein lies the very essence of biblical epistemology and it’s contrast with all others. I assume the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Jeremiah, Peter, James, Paul and John before all else and He provides the definitions of absolutely everything. I contend that even many truly redeemed Christian people greatly err in failing to grasp this and persisting in the arena of the old man in Adam. Your arena, the one they’ve been delivered from.

I am greatly blessed my friend, thanks for asking. How are things with my second favorite Hollander?

1118

[quote]kamui wrote:

or maybe it’s the contrary …

as soon as someone is informed by the universe, he becomes objective…

[/quote]

Hang on a minute there. I think my head just exploded. I’ll just pick up these pieces of my brain … and … I’m back.

Could you elaborate? Sounds interesting.

1119

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

or maybe it’s the contrary …

as soon as someone is informed by the universe, he becomes objective…

[/quote]

What do you mean?
[/quote]

since Descartes, modern philosophy start with “I know I am”, before reintroducing percepts and concepts, and developing its epistemology.

i’m basically contesting this and saying we should start with “I am alive” instead.

which means that affects are anterior to percepts and concepts.

having an affect is being affected, informed ad changed by “something”.

this “something” is the world. and its existence is even more apodictic than the existence of “I”.

there is a world well before “I am” or “I know I am”.
there was already a world in utero.
there was already a world millions years ago, when we’re unicellular beings.

not because we perceived it. but because, before perceiving it, we were already informed and affected by it. (since a perception is always the perception of a change).

some consequences :
i am an object before i become a subject
i am passive before i become active
i am part of this world before i start representing it

and moral values may be more real than trees
[/quote]

The observer effect in quantum mechanics makes this an incredibly more complex situation.

Even if it is difficult for us to grasp, since our cognitive faculties evolved from a necessary perspective of linearity of time and objectivity of the world, their is a critical interdependence between the observer and the observed.

1120

[quote]wfifer wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
It’s not that I’m not listening to you, it’s that I’m attempting to demonstrate to you that the foundation of your belief is built on wet sand.

If you admit that your moral code is “completely relative,” (your amusing words), then you might as well call it “arbitrary horseshit.” It is anything but. I’ll wager your morality just happens to follow many, probably most of the tenets of the Judeo-Christian morality (let me guess, in addition to murder, I’ll bet you try your best not to lie, cheat, steal, or kick old ladies, no?).

So, you’ve arrogated to yourself a morality largely based upon nothing less than the word of God as our predecessors understood it, and have the audacity to imply you came up with it yourself.

When I confront your contention that societies agree upon morality collectively, you dismiss it with an excuse that, well, that society didn’t agree collectively.

If you think I’m not getting what you are saying, it’s because it doesn’t make sense. If your entire point is, “hey man, I’m just saying that it’s all relative,” then I am challenging you to demonstrate that this is so, because I have so far not seen one single argument that has come close to convincing me that murder, cheating, greed, backstabbing, cowardice or theft can somehow be made into virtues, or that integrity, honesty, charity, bravery, neighborliness, or love can somehow be made into some kind of vice.

Please do not respond one more time saying that I am not getting your point. I’m making my own point here. I’m challenging you to provide some, any evidence that your premises are indeed correct. That you merely believe it to be so does not make it such. [/quote]

You guys have managed to post a lot in my absence. Wow.

Have you ever read anything written by an existential philosopher? Because this is not new. I came up with my ideas (about the nature of morality) on my own, but they’re not new. It was nice to see that some people came to the same conclusions that I did, I’ll give you that much. If I came up with something unheard of I’d feel much crazier than I do. But I mean, come on, how did everyone miss this shit? Read some Sartre, please. Crawl out of your ass.

The entire idea is that the only thing that matters, the only truth, is what’s important to you. Everyone has their own personal, RELATIVE truth. It’s nothing that you can force on other people.

I don’t believe that stealing is wrong, or for that matter lying, cheating or kicking old ladies. Even if I would choose not to do some of the aforementioned, that doesn’t mean I think they are WRONG.

Why is the burden on proof on me? You’re asking me to prove a negative, which you know I can’t do. You have to prove to the rest of us that there’s an objective reason for universal morality. [/quote]

  1. Was this the continuation of a conversation between you and me? I don’t even remember.

  2. Why on earth would you assume I had NOT read the existential philosophers?

  3. I would rather remain “in my ass” (huh?) than read any more Satre. Ugh. I’ve read plenty and understand his nihilism-lite position all too well. Reading Sartre is like watching Event Horizon. I watched it once. And now I never, ever, ever, ever, evereverevereverever want to watch it again.

  4. You claim kicking old ladies is not wrong and I’m the one who’s supposed to defend my position? What world is it you are posting from, again?