ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th November 2018, 01:24 PM   #201
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 925
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post

"Real in the subjective sense" is a nonsense phrase.

.
Depends on the meaning of this phrase. Regarding experience, we don't experience a subject and object . . . I can use the expression 'I see the tree.', but the experience of seeing a tree does not incluse an object nor subject or any kind of line of demarkation between the two.
Subject and Object are just the artifacts of a model we use to describe and discuss experiences, or subject/object is simply a product of language.
In this case the phrase "Real in the subjective sense" is nonsense.
However, regarding the experience of seeing the tree, the 'substance' we are experiencing is the experience itself - we don't experience the 'substance' of reality. What we experience and what we know are are perceptions, sensations, etc.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 01:25 PM   #202
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
...
Incorrect. The fact that you believe in things is very much part of reality.
...
And those beliefs can lead to further behavior. That is a fact and a part of reality. How I think/believe, let me to write this and if you choose, it will lead you to answer.
Both are based on thinking and thinking is not just passive. Even a belief who doesn't match what it is about; i.e. the belief in witches, can lead to further behavior; i.e the killing of humans.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 01:42 PM   #203
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Depends on the meaning of this phrase.
No, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Regarding experience, we don't experience a subject and object . . .
Yes, we do.

Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
I can use the expression 'I see the tree.', but the experience of seeing a tree does not incluse an object nor subject or any kind of line of demarkation between the two.
Yes, it does.

Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Subject and Object are just the artifacts of a model we use to describe and discuss experiences, or subject/object is simply a product of language.
No, they aren't.

You are the subject. What you experience is the object.

Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
However, regarding the experience of seeing the tree, the 'substance' we are experiencing is the experience itself - we don't experience the 'substance' of reality. What we experience and what we know are are perceptions, sensations, etc.
...which is irrelevant to the above.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
And those beliefs can lead to further behavior. That is a fact and a part of reality. How I think/believe, let me to write this and if you choose, it will lead you to answer.
Both are based on thinking and thinking is not just passive. Even a belief who doesn't match what it is about; i.e. the belief in witches, can lead to further behavior; i.e the killing of humans.
...and this leads to "real" and "unreal" being subjective... how, exactly?
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 01:45 PM   #204
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
...
...and this leads to "real" and "unreal" being subjective... how, exactly?
The belief in witches is subjective and yet it leads to objective results, the killing of other humans.
Yes or no?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 01:52 PM   #205
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
The belief in witches is subjective
Not in the sense that you require it to be to establish "real" and "unreal" as subjective.

The fact that Person X believes in witches is entirely objective.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 02:01 PM   #206
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
Not in the sense that you require it to be to establish "real" and "unreal" as subjective.

The fact that Person X believes in witches is entirely objective.
Objective, 1: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
2: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
3: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

A belief in witches is not objective in any of these senses of the word "objective".
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 02:15 PM   #207
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Objective, 1: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
2: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
3: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

A belief in witches is not objective in any of these senses of the word "objective".
Read what I said, Tommy. Read it. Do not assume that you know what I am saying. You made a very simple, basic mistake in interpreting what was said to you. Try again. Read.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 02:36 PM   #208
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
Read what I said, Tommy. Read it. Do not assume that you know what I am saying. You made a very simple, basic mistake in interpreting what was said to you. Try again. Read.
Quote:
The fact that Person X believes in witches is entirely objective.
No, the belief is a subjective fact. It is objective that it can be observed.
The act of believing is not an objective fact. It is a subjective fact.
It is natural, real, true and so on as something subjective.

You just subjectively don't consider subjectivity a fact. But that is subjective.
There are 3 kinds of facts:
Gravity. (Objective through observation)
2+2=4. (Objective as it is abstract though process)
I believe in humanity. (Subjective as it requires belief)
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 02:44 PM   #209
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
No, the belief is a subjective fact. It is objective that it can be observed.
A belief is not a fact. A belief is a claim. Its existence is objective fact.

This is all that is required for "real" and "unreal" to be objective.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
The act of believing is not an objective fact. It is a subjective fact.
The act of believing is not a fact. It is an action, which has objective existence.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
There are 3 kinds of facts
No. There is one kind of fact: that which is verifiable through observation.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 02:49 PM   #210
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
...

No. There is one kind of fact: that which is verifiable through observation.
But that is not a fact. That is a subjective belief based on how you think. This sentence " There is one kind of fact: that which is verifiable through observation" is not a fact, it is a belief, because it can't be observed. It requires thinking that it is so.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 02:51 PM   #211
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 925
experience does not include a subject and object - it is seamless.
We use the concepts of subject and object as a concession to conversation, or in modeling experience, and as such, a belief in subject and object can arise, and be believed without being questioned. However, a line of demarkation between subject and object can not be found, there is no object, there is no subject in experience..
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 03:48 PM   #212
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
But that is not a fact.
Yes, it is. That is what being a fact means.

Words have definitions, Tommy.

Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
experience does not include a subject and object
Yes, it does.

Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
it is seamless.
Not unless you have the ability to psychically read the minds of others, it isn't.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2018, 11:43 PM   #213
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
Yes, it is. That is what being a fact means.

Words have definitions, Tommy.

...
Atheism means amoral, so if you are an atheist, you are amoral.

The definition of God is the first unmoved mover creator of the universe.
I have just proved that God exists. That was easy.

Now something simple, just because I say something, doesn't mean that it is so.
With you that is different. When you say something, it is so.
But that is not how words work.
Just because you say that "There is one kind of fact: that which is verifiable through observation" doesn't mean that it is so. What you say is not true*.
How words are used, is not the same as if the words are true.
In effect you have made a rule. I don't follow your rule of what makes a fact a fact.
It is a form of magical thinking to believe that simply saying something, makes it so.
That also applies to you.

*Truth here as the correspondence theory of truth. That words match what they claim to be about.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 04:39 AM   #214
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,057
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Atheism means amoral, so if you are an atheist, you are amoral.
No it doesn't.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 04:47 AM   #215
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No it doesn't.
It says to in at least one dictionary. Then meaning of atheist is in part to be amoral. It says so, so that is true.
The meaning of Darat is non-existence. You don't exist, because I have defined Darat to mean non-existence.
What I say, words mean, is true. That is how definitions of words work. You just say the words and magically it is so.

You should know better, you claim you do.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 04:49 AM   #216
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,057
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
It says to in at least one dictionary. Then meaning of atheist is in part to be amoral. It says so, so that is true.
The meaning of Darat is non-existence. You don't exist, because I have defined Darat to mean non-existence.
What I say, words mean, is true. That is how definitions of words work. You just say the words and magically it is so.

You should know better, you claim you do.
There is no dictionary that says atheist means amoral.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 06:25 AM   #217
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
There is no dictionary that says atheist means amoral.
Correct, I misremembered:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS

So no current, yet if you find an old dictionary it will say the above.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 07:39 AM   #218
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
So no current, yet if you find an old dictionary it will say the above.
Find us that old dictionary, please, so that we can see the context. "Atheist" applied by the faithful as an epithet doesn't really count, so we'll want to exclude that particular usage. Or are you claiming that atheists in antiquity identified themselves as wicked whereas nowadays they don't?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 07:39 AM   #219
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,057
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Correct, I misremembered:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS

So no current, yet if you find an old dictionary it will say the above.
There is no dictionary that says atheism means amoral.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 08:01 AM   #220
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
There is no dictionary that says atheism means amoral.
Yeah, i admitted that. But if you find an old one it says that atheism is wickedness and through ungodlyness: contrary to moral law : SINFUL, WICKED

So atheism is sinful, it says so.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 08:12 AM   #221
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
But if you find an old one it says...
Have you found an old one?

Quote:
So atheism is sinful, it says so.
"Sinful" is not the same as "amoral." You've changed horses. And you sidestepped an important check on your theory: did the first people to be called atheists self-identify as wicked, amoral, or sinful? Or was it what other people decided to call them?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 08:14 AM   #222
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,547
Tommy could you at least not cross post your Gibberish across multiple threads?

We have an atheism thread where you are spewing Gibberish.

This is your "Reality isn't real" thread which is totally different Gibberish.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 08:22 AM   #223
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Have you found an old one?



"Sinful" is not the same as "amoral." You've changed horses. And you sidestepped an important check on your theory: did the first people to be called atheists self-identify as wicked, amoral, or sinful? Or was it what other people decided to call them?
Yes, I admitted so much.

Quote:
Moral: Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/moral

You know what, take this part - "did the first people to be called atheists self-identify as wicked, amoral, or sinful?" - up with Thor 2. He knows what other humans are, his favorite word is deluded.

I know I am in a limited sense crazy and I know that means something else to some other people than it means to me.
Long live cognitive relativism.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 14th November 2018 at 08:24 AM.
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 08:23 AM   #224
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Tommy could you at least not cross post your Gibberish across multiple threads?

We have an atheism thread where you are spewing Gibberish.

This is your "Reality isn't real" thread which is totally different Gibberish.
What reality really is unknown. That is not the same as not real.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 08:39 AM   #225
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Yes, I admitted so much.
Simple yes-or-no question, Tommy. Have you found an old dictionary that defines "atheism" as you claim?

Quote:
You know what, take this part - "did the first people to be called atheists self-identify as wicked, amoral, or sinful?" - up with Thor 2.
No, I'm taking it up with you since you made the claim. If being an atheist is defined as being amoral (as you claim), then did the first people to identify as atheists also identify as amoral? Or did I just reduce your claim to absurdity?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 08:56 AM   #226
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 925
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
What reality really is unknown. That is not the same as not real.


being unknowable is essentially the same as unreal, or put another way, being real means being knowable.
The article is not suggesting that reality is unknowable, but that no single model, theory, or property/attribute, or set of properties or attributes, can completely describe or encompass reality.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 10:13 AM   #227
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Atheism means amoral, so if you are an atheist, you are amoral.
No, it doesn't.

And this has nothing to do with the actual discussion in hand, so I don't care whether or not you want to continue pushing this line.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
The definition of God is the first unmoved mover creator of the universe.
I have just proved that God exists. That was easy.
No, you haven't.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Now something simple, just because I say something, doesn't mean that it is so.
With you that is different. When you say something, it is so.
The difference between us, Tommy, is that what I say is actually justifiable, coherent, and well-defined.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Just because you say that "There is one kind of fact: that which is verifiable through observation" doesn't mean that it is so. What you say is not true*.
Yes, it is. Because that is what a fact is, Tommy. That is what the word means.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 10:17 AM   #228
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,443
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Atheism means amoral, so if you are an atheist, you are amoral.
Of all the stupid parroted dumbness I have seen on the forum, this is consistently one of teh top five stupid things people say.

I don't need a stupid ******* god to be moral and have a sense of ethics.
Plenty of people who claim to believe in gods are the worst most demented amoral **** ups ever
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 10:24 AM   #229
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
I don't need a stupid ******* god to be moral and have a sense of ethics.
Was it Penn Jillette who quipped that if one needs the promise of heaven and/or the threat of hell in order to do the right thing, that's probably not the guy whose moral compass you should trust?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 10:30 AM   #230
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 72,175
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Was it Penn Jillette who quipped that if one needs the promise of heaven and/or the threat of hell in order to do the right thing, that's probably not the guy whose moral compass you should trust?
That's great.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 10:54 AM   #231
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,550
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
The article is not suggesting that reality is unknowable, but that no single model, theory, or property/attribute, or set of properties or attributes, can completely describe or encompass reality.
When writing profoundly and sanctimoniously about "reality" for consumption by the general public, the typical invocation of quantum mechanics is simply to note that no description in the classical sense is possible until the wave function has been collapsed. That does not occur until involvement from the observer. Prior to that, the observand is described in quantum mechanics probabilistically. However, as Schrödinger noted -- and as Hawking et al. remind us -- the probability is not what is really happening any more than the statistical blending is really what is happening when a steel girder bends under load. The state of a particle is not unknowable if unobserved. It is not unreal or nonexistent if unobserved. It is simply not known in the quantum mechanics model, and so must be describe probabilistically. Attempts to make it any more profound than that are exactly the sort of useless philosophy that Hawking rejected. Quantum-level knowledge is also unimportant in classical physics. Yet each, in its sphere, remains suitably predictive, hence -- according to Hawking -- remains useful and well-founded.

None of this has the slightest to do with general concepts of knowledge. It's a curious feature of one corner of theoretical physics. While lofty extensions of it to "reality" play well in popular magazines and web sites, it's not something that really shakes the foundations anywhere else.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 05:59 PM   #232
Phlegm
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post

You know what, take this part - "did the first people to be called atheists self-identify as wicked, amoral, or sinful?" - up with Thor 2. He knows what other humans are, his favorite word is deluded.

I know I am in a limited sense crazy and I know that means something else to some other people than it means to me.
Long live cognitive relativism.
To my knowledge, which is admittedly limited, the first people to be called atheist were the early Christians; so, no, they did not self-identify as wicked, amoral, or sinful -- quite the opposite.

Though, I suppose it depends on which group of early Christians were meant.
Phlegm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 07:14 PM   #233
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
To be fair to Tommy regarding the "atheist means amoral" bit, I don't think he meant it to be taken literally. I think he was trying to make a rhetorical point regarding definitions, since I've been hounding him about not knowing them.

I'm damned if I know what that point he was trying to make was, but still.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 05:38 AM   #234
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
To be fair to Tommy regarding the "atheist means amoral" bit, I don't think he meant it to be taken literally. I think he was trying to make a rhetorical point regarding definitions, since I've been hounding him about not knowing them.

I'm damned if I know what that point he was trying to make was, but still.
The point is that if a dictionary list a definition, it only tells you how a word is used, not if it is true.

Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
That leads to a false dichotomy and thus is not true. The problem is where are the idealistic or notional ideas, if they are not in reality? Are they in non-reality? What is non-reality?
Reality is everything, including the non-real, unreal, false, wrong, pointless, meaningless, absurd, irrelevant and all those words. If they are not a part of reality, then how can we use them, if we are a part of reality?

Read this and see if you can spot the absurdities?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logic.html
Quote:
... A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 16th November 2018 at 05:40 AM.
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 05:56 AM   #235
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,580
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
The belief in witches is subjective and yet it leads to objective results, the killing of other humans.
Yes or no?
No.

The belief is an objective thing. The subject of the belief is not.

Kid's stuff.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 06:00 AM   #236
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,580
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Just because you say that "There is one kind of fact: that which is verifiable through observation" doesn't mean that it is so.
You're correct. It doesn't mean that it is so. But it is so, regardless. It's just not so because he said it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 06:31 AM   #237
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No.

The belief is an objective thing. The subject of the belief is not.

Kid's stuff.
Okay, the subject of the belief is not an objective thing, yet real, so everything/reality/the universe/the world is not objective nor a thing.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 07:21 AM   #238
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,580
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Okay, the subject of the belief is not an objective thing, yet real, so everything/reality/the universe/the world is not objective nor a thing.
No. It's neither objective nor real. You seem to have a really hard time understanding basic concepts. I perceive that this is deliberate.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 07:26 AM   #239
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,547
So basically we're at "Objective doesn't mean objective if we just totally ignore what words mean."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 07:29 AM   #240
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No. It's neither objective nor real. You seem to have a really hard time understanding basic concepts. I perceive that this is deliberate.
It has to be real, otherwise we couldn't talk about.
Quote:
Austin highlights the complexities proper to the uses of ‘real’ by observing that it is (i) a substantive-hungry word that often plays the role of (ii) adjuster-word, a word by means of which “other words are adjusted to meet the innumerable and unforeseeable demands of world upon language” (Austin 1962a, 73). Like ‘good,’ it is (iii) a dimension-word, that is, “the most general and comprehensive term in a whole group of terms of the same kind, terms that fulfil the same function” (Austin 1962a, 71): that is, ‘true,’ ‘proper,’ ‘genuine,’ ‘live,’ ‘natural,’ ‘authentic,’ as opposed to terms such as ‘false,’ ‘artificial,’ ‘fake,’ ‘bogus,’ ‘synthetic,’ ‘toy,’ but also to nouns like ‘dream,’ ‘illusion,’ ‘mirage,’ ‘hallucination.’ ‘Real,’ is also (iv) a word whose negative use “wears the trousers” (a trouser-word)
You don't understand that real and not real are concepts in the brain and not properties of things.
No thing has a property of being real. Real is in your brain.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.