Schizoid Personality Disorder and Buddhism

Excuse me... what? Where's the Buddhism in any of this, all I see is a strange personal amalgamation of beliefs and almost what seems like contempt towards science and atheism. How is your position any different from presuppositional apologetics without the Bible thumping? You merely assert that the world is rational and so are our senses, how is that in itself rational or even a defendable position when you agree that the matrix scenario is possible, though unlikely in your own opinion? At least you do use the term "I believe" or "we have grounds to believe" rather than stating for a fact.

Atheism is merely a single bit, an on/off position on the question of "do you believe in a deity/deities?" with an answer of NO. Just one god less than a monotheist. It would be easy to argue that any possible deity or combination of deities conjured up by the imaginations of any number of people could be correct. Therefore, quite simply, any other mental constructs and worldviews derived thereof, such as the rationality of the universe, are irrelevant to the very basic question of whether or not you believe. Further philosophical musings around the notion of atheism, or the fact that there are apatheists that simply don't care whether or not there may or may not be a deity or deities, you should probably take up with them instead of dogmatically asserting inherent errors in their worldview without even bothering to understand it on an individual level.

Science relies entirely on the assumption that natural laws are constant and "materialistic" and can not be randomly turned on or off through supernatural means. It also relies on the assumption that whatever can be measured, verified, quantified and repeated reliably has to be inherently true no matter how irrational or unintuitive it may seem. Such as quantum physics and time dilation due relativism where GPS satellites wouldn't work properly if they didn't adjust for it. We can not even begin to understand any of this with our limited senses, without a leap towards the irrational and simply trusting a materialistic externalization of our senses, such as the large hadron collider that relies entirely on previous mathematical and physical findings.

As it is with atheism, science in on itself has nothing what so ever to do with how people might possibly adjust their worldviews based on the evidence represented to them in a scientific (or religious) light, just as theism in on itself has ultimately nothing to do with the particulars of the beliefs, creeds and dogmas one might formulate around the notion of there being a supreme mind, or minds out there that might or might not have created this whole mess in the first place. Even if someone asserts that theism is religion, it doesn't make it so when the very definition of theism is merely a part of what makes up the definition of religion, which requires a collected system of belief, cultural constructs, possibly moral values that are not inherent to theism. Belief, theism, religion, they're all different animals, but you can interbreed them into quite the strange animals. Corruption of science (whatever you mean by that) does nothing to change this and it's just cringe-worthy to read such nonsense. Individual people have ideas and act upon them, not institutions of science or atheism, do you get that? Don't generalize please, would help greatly with representing yourself in a more positive light unless you're just speaking out your mind without any intention of persuading anyone.

Science and philosophy are two separate issues and people should understand this. Philosophy is NOT logic, but it utilizes logic in the search for wisdom. Just as skepticism and rationalism are fundamental to philosophy, so they are to science. Science is merely the extension of philosophy into the study of the physical instead of the methaphysical using the same framework, while philosophy can also extend into an ethical and moral framework and arts. They're not exclusive, however, falsifiability is the very fundamental basis of science, while philosophy doesn't require it, just like your assertions.

Where is the rationality in relying on conflicting personal accounts in the way of measuring or quantifying the supernatural aside from using argumentum ad populum fallacies?

Miyuki wrote:(1)Excuse me... what? Where's the Buddhism in any of this, all I see is a strange personal amalgamation of beliefs and almost what seems like contempt towards science and atheism. How is your position any different from presuppositional apologetics without the Bible thumping? You merely assert that the world is rational and so are our senses, how is that in itself rational or even a defendable position when you agree that the matrix scenario is possible, though unlikely in your own opinion? At least you do use the term "I believe" or "we have grounds to believe" rather than stating for a fact.

(2)Atheism is merely a single bit, an on/off position on the question of "do you believe in a deity/deities?" with an answer of NO. Just one god less than a monotheist. It would be easy to argue that any possible deity or combination of deities conjured up by the imaginations of any number of people could be correct. Therefore, quite simply, any other mental constructs and worldviews derived thereof, such as the rationality of the universe, are irrelevant to the very basic question of whether or not you believe. Further philosophical musings around the notion of atheism, or the fact that there are apatheists that simply don't care whether or not there may or may not be a deity or deities, you should probably take up with them instead of dogmatically asserting inherent errors in their worldview without even bothering to understand it on an individual level.

(3)Science relies entirely on the assumption that natural laws are constant and "materialistic" and can not be randomly turned on or off through supernatural means. It also relies on the assumption that whatever can be measured, verified, quantified and repeated reliably has to be inherently true no matter how irrational or unintuitive it may seem. Such as quantum physics and time dilation due relativism where GPS satellites wouldn't work properly if they didn't adjust for it. We can not even begin to understand any of this with our limited senses, without a leap towards the irrational and simply trusting a materialistic externalization of our senses, such as the large hadron collider that relies entirely on previous mathematical and physical findings.

(4)As it is with atheism, science in on itself has nothing what so ever to do with how people might possibly adjust their worldviews based on the evidence represented to them in a scientific (or religious) light, just as theism in on itself has ultimately nothing to do with the particulars of the beliefs, creeds and dogmas one might formulate around the notion of there being a supreme mind, or minds out there that might or might not have created this whole mess in the first place. Even if someone asserts that theism is religion, it doesn't make it so when the very definition of theism is merely a part of what makes up the definition of religion, which requires a collected system of belief, cultural constructs, possibly moral values that are not inherent to theism. Belief, theism, religion, they're all different animals, but you can interbreed them into quite the strange animals. Corruption of science (whatever you mean by that) does nothing to change this and it's just cringe-worthy to read such nonsense. Individual people have ideas and act upon them, not institutions of science or atheism, do you get that? Don't generalize please, would help greatly with representing yourself in a more positive light unless you're just speaking out your mind without any intention of persuading anyone.

(5)Science and philosophy are two separate issues and people should understand this. Philosophy is NOT logic, but it utilizes logic in the search for wisdom. Just as skepticism and rationalism are fundamental to philosophy, so they are to science. Science is merely the extension of philosophy into the study of the physical instead of the methaphysical using the same framework, while philosophy can also extend into an ethical and moral framework and arts. They're not exclusive, however, falsifiability is the very fundamental basis of science, while philosophy doesn't require it, just like your assertions.

(6)Where is the rationality in relying on conflicting personal accounts in the way of measuring or quantifying the supernatural aside from using argumentum ad populum fallacies?

(1)That's rather rude. We were simply having a friendly discussion, no need to act up.
I already stated my ignorance on the basis of Buddhism, I needn't do this again, or perhaps I do?
This has NOTHING to do with the Christian or Judaic bibles, never said it did either.
I said everything IS rational. Everything IS rational, since we can sit here and argue - and scientists can do science. Since I am educated in CS, I can firmly call myself a scientist. The reason I CAN do science is because the world is rational. If it were irrational, then science would be impossible.
It is possible that we are in a matrix (or virtual) reality, but it is unlikely to believe, since we have reasons which go against this. And yes, you may be excused.

(2)Atheism is the affirmation to the falsity of theism. Monotheism, polytheism, and so forth, are all subsets to theism in itself. Being an atheist means you believe that theism is false in its entirety, thence you discard supernaturalism and so on.
Atheism consists of doctrines, as do theism. These doctrines make science IMPOSSIBLE if true. THIS is what you simply don't understand - or don't want to understand.

(3)Science relays on the world being rational. Science can co-exist with supernaturalism, as both naturalism AND supernaturalism have deterministic functions.
Science can NOT work IF naturalism IS true. Naturalism is a doctrine and incorporated philosophy of atheism.
NOTHING in the rational world is random - if it WERE random, then science would be impossible.
And if you believe in randomness, then you're fortunately not an atheist, since determinism is another doctrine and incorporated philosophy into atheism.
You can't test things without logic, and you can't test things if they occur randomly!

(4)Are you asserting that theism is not a religion, but it's religious?
Religion is mass belief in anything (whether natural or supernatural) with its own set of doctrines, such as atheism's Humanism, or theism's Christianity.
What I mean by the corruption of science has already been clarified plenty of times if you read or skim through; the notion of randomness is one corruption in itself, created by imbeciles and their lazy minds.
Something which is random is also uncaused, hence, if random things DO occur, then we would see things popping into existence constantly - but we don't. Randomness is a concept, not an actual thing.

(5) Of course philosophy isn't logic. If it were, then logic would be a human construct--but that's nonsense. What I meant was philosophy's principles - such as out of nothing, nothing comes - makes science possible. If you thought that nothing actually had potentialities, why not construct a theory where nothing is actually the first cause of the universe--nonsense. Yes, scientists have actually made this mistake, although the Big Bang model is NOT based on nothingness as a first cause... Morons like Peter Atkins like to think so, though.

(6)Come again? I don't seem to understand what you mean here.

1) Act up? I stated my point of view...

2) Who are you to tell anyone what they believe, suppose this could be a reason why I "acted up" by responding?
Now riddle me this: imagine a world where no one would have ever even heard the claim that there is some supernatural deity out there or anything at all besides the natural world. Does that mean they're taking an affirmative position on the falsehood of the opposite view that doesn't exist anywhere in their worldview? Lack of theistic views in on itself is still not an affirmation on the falsehood of any opposite views. Aside from theism and atheism, there's still gnosticism to contend with along with the reasons behind anyone's personal stance on theism or lack of thereof. Where is the fundamental flaw?

3) Sure, natural and supernatural worldviews can co-exist, in some people at the same time, your point is?

Science relies on the assumption that the entire universe works based on the same natural framework and that anything that happens within the natural world by very definition can not be of supernatural origin. How does that mean that it relies on the world actually being rational since we could not possibly know that for a certainty and to claim otherwise is akin to claiming to be omniscient. You assert that science doesn't work if naturalism is correct, but did I miss some memo or something where this was accepted to be universally true when it conflicts with all the achievements brought forth by the scientific method?

"Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe." Anything that is supernatural simply cannot logically affect the natural, or it would be a part of the natural. How does this conflict with science or logic?

Quantum uncertainty principles allow for "randomness," but you seem to be more tangled on the words and their definitions in the common parlance than how they might be understood in their scientific context. I doubt anyone is claiming that there could be a total lack of cause and effect anywhere in the universe as that would conflict with the prime tenets of science, but for a lack of better term, statistically quantifiable uncertainty that we call randomness is a reality that scientists can make very accurate predictions with.

The very fact that we seem to exist in this universe in any form at all is an excellent example of such unequivocal uncertainty where infinite spans of "time" and "nothingness" (again, lack of better description) still coalesced into a tangible universe for all we know. Even the supposed presence of any deity that pops anything out into existence isn't a certainty. Schrödinger's cat highlights quite well the contradictions with common sense when trying to understand the apparent paradoxes present in the quantum world. Try and apply Occam's razor on any of that. Sure, you can argue all you like about how we simply do not understand the underlying mechanisms well enough to make a proper accurate predictions instead of having to rely on statistical analysis and likelihoods. But that IS within the scope of the definition of random in the Oxford dictionary.

4) Theism simply means that one believes that some form of deity or deities exist. Religion by its definition has a social aspect to it, simple faith or a belief system doesn't necessarily have that social component to it. Humanism? Not all atheists are humanists and theistic people can be humanists, see religious humanism. Are you just throwing around buzzwords here without fully understanding their basis, or did you just intentionally twist them to suit your own worldview? I hold secular values, I'm not much of a humanist, I don't care whether or not there's supernatural out there, since it wouldn't affect my natural life and any belief contradicting this that I might somehow form, would be indistinguishable from having become psychotic.

5) I somehow find it more likely that you've just gotten tangled with definitions rather than actually tried to understand what these people actually mean when they use a limited vocabulary to describe things not yet fully understood. Even if they truly mean what you think they mean, what is that to you?

6) Apparently my line of thinking was cut off before I finished the paragraph and can't seem to remember what it was about at this moment.

All in all, you seem to have a tendency to read between or even besides the lines quite a lot and jump into conclusions and form your questions in ways that betray presuppositions and assumptions. I also noticed a tendency to use arguments from authority with the implication of superiority, as well as demanding the kind respect towards your opinions that isn't apparent in the way you yourself have responded. As it stands, computer sciences, or anyone's lack of such education, hardly makes you any more or less qualified on matters of the tangible universe. Not too convincingly rational.

Miyuki wrote:1) Act up? I stated my point of view...

2) Who are you to tell anyone what they believe, suppose this could be a reason why I "acted up" by responding?
Now riddle me this: imagine a world where no one would have ever even heard the claim that there is some supernatural deity out there or anything at all besides the natural world. Does that mean they're taking an affirmative position on the falsehood of the opposite view that doesn't exist anywhere in their worldview? Lack of theistic views in on itself is still not an affirmation on the falsehood of any opposite views. Aside from theism and atheism, there's still gnosticism to contend with along with the reasons behind anyone's personal stance on theism or lack of thereof. Where is the fundamental flaw?

3) Sure, natural and supernatural worldviews can co-exist, in some people at the same time, your point is?

Science relies on the assumption that the entire universe works based on the same natural framework and that anything that happens within the natural world by very definition can not be of supernatural origin. How does that mean that it relies on the world actually being rational since we could not possibly know that for a certainty and to claim otherwise is akin to claiming to be omniscient. You assert that science doesn't work if naturalism is correct, but did I miss some memo or something where this was accepted to be universally true when it conflicts with all the achievements brought forth by the scientific method?

"Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe." Anything that is supernatural simply cannot logically affect the natural, or it would be a part of the natural. How does this conflict with science or logic?

Quantum uncertainty principles allow for "randomness," but you seem to be more tangled on the words and their definitions in the common parlance than how they might be understood in their scientific context. I doubt anyone is claiming that there could be a total lack of cause and effect anywhere in the universe as that would conflict with the prime tenets of science, but for a lack of better term, statistically quantifiable uncertainty that we call randomness is a reality that scientists can make very accurate predictions with.

The very fact that we seem to exist in this universe in any form at all is an excellent example of such unequivocal uncertainty where infinite spans of "time" and "nothingness" (again, lack of better description) still coalesced into a tangible universe for all we know. Even the supposed presence of any deity that pops anything out into existence isn't a certainty. Schrödinger's cat highlights quite well the contradictions with common sense when trying to understand the apparent paradoxes present in the quantum world. Try and apply Occam's razor on any of that. Sure, you can argue all you like about how we simply do not understand the underlying mechanisms well enough to make a proper accurate predictions instead of having to rely on statistical analysis and likelihoods. But that IS within the scope of the definition of random in the Oxford dictionary.

4) Theism simply means that one believes that some form of deity or deities exist. Religion by its definition has a social aspect to it, simple faith or a belief system doesn't necessarily have that social component to it. Humanism? Not all atheists are humanists and theistic people can be humanists, see religious humanism. Are you just throwing around buzzwords here without fully understanding their basis, or did you just intentionally twist them to suit your own worldview? I hold secular values, I'm not much of a humanist, I don't care whether or not there's supernatural out there, since it wouldn't affect my natural life and any belief contradicting this that I might somehow form, would be indistinguishable from having become psychotic.

5) I somehow find it more likely that you've just gotten tangled with definitions rather than actually tried to understand what these people actually mean when they use a limited vocabulary to describe things not yet fully understood. Even if they truly mean what you think they mean, what is that to you?

6) Apparently my line of thinking was cut off before I finished the paragraph and can't seem to remember what it was about at this moment.

All in all, you seem to have a tendency to read between or even besides the lines quite a lot and jump into conclusions and form your questions in ways that betray presuppositions and assumptions. I also noticed a tendency to use arguments from authority with the implication of superiority, as well as demanding the kind respect towards your opinions that isn't apparent in the way you yourself have responded. As it stands, computer sciences, or anyone's lack of such education, hardly makes you any more or less qualified on matters of the tangible universe. Not too convincingly rational.

(1)That is not what is meant by acting up. If you want a friendly discussion, then that's great, however, I don't want any "acting up" - as in behaving inappropriate because of our different views.
If this doesn't make sense to you, then you can skip ahead to the next paragraph.

2)I am not telling anyone what THEY believe.. If you are referring to my definitions of atheism and the underlying philosophy, then that is simply a matter of the truth, as an oppose to opinions.
I understand your question, but I don't think you understand what you are asking, because you seem to presuppose that atheism is a neutral position.
Atheism is a position you hold if you believe that theism is false. It's the absence of theism in your philosophical position.
However, if you do not know about theism NOR atheism, then you are by default an agnostic. The default position is agnosticism.
I must point out, though, that research has been carried out and it turns out that people actually believe in theism by their own existence; people who lived at an isolated island away from all foreign human activity were asked whether they believe in the existence of a creator (or creators) outside of the universe, and it turns out they did believe in a creator. I recognize the possibility of the people who believe these things being psychotic or schizophrenic, but in doing so I wish that you'd recognize the same possibility about your own position, and furthermore understand that even if they were ill, thus making them believe these things, then that doesn't conclude the falsity of their beliefs.
You are right, where IS the flaw. I do not know the answer to that.

3)
My point was that science can be done with both worldviews, being naturalism and supernaturalism - as long as you presuppose that the law of logic is external to the universe. However, IF naturalism is true, then science is LITERALLY impossible. It follows by itself.

Science does NOT assume that the events taking place in the natural world is only natural. This is complete nonsense. Supernatural events could take place, and science would equally be possible.
As I already stated: supernatural events ALSO have rationality in them.
Supernatural ONLY means something which is above the nature.. Supernaturalism IS NOT MAGIC!
The sentences which follow hereafter don't make sense when I am reading it.. If you could clarify your question in a second reply, and possibly narrow it down.
Are you asking me how, that science relays on the natural world being natural, makes it rational? I still can not understand the question--or statement rather.
Does it really matter whether people accept truth? I thought truth was objective, as an oppose to a socio-cultural fact.. Perhaps you think that truth to some may not be truth to all, if so, tell me.

I don't know where you got that definition from, as it's flawed. true naturalism means that all which exists is natural to the universe. Supernaturalism is the opposite to this, that there exists something objective to the universe.
If logic is a part of the universe, then there are no rules which define what is possible BY the universe. If there are no rules which define what is possible by the universe, then there is NO logical order in the universe. If there is no logical order in the universe, then it cannot logically be studied. If it cannot be logically studied, then it cannot be scientifically studied. If it cannot be scientifically studied, then it is irrational.

Supernaturalism assumes that - at least in a common theistic sense - that the law of logic is external to the universe, i.e., it is SUPER-natural (ABOVE the natural).

Quantum mechanics does not assume randomness, it is you and other people who do not understand what randomness means. Something which is random does not have a preceding event which defines its functioning. If it does not have a preceding event which defines its functioning, then it is not deterministic, and henceforth it is uncaused. It logically follows.
Science presupposes determinism.
You can not predict a random event. I OF COURSE understand what scientists mean, and what you mean in this case, the problem is that they are using it out of context for their ignorance. When they say something is random, they are saying, "This is really complex. Boy, I wonder how it works! Well, if I don't understand it, then it can't be understood. It is random!" Everything, even down to the molecular level, must be deterministic for it to be scientifically studied.

4)You can NOT be a Humanist and a theist. Have you ever read the humanistic doctrines? Humanism presupposes the falsity of theism, and therefore validity of atheism. It is a religion of atheism. And I KNOW that Humanism isn't a natural position for an atheist.. I never said so either.


5)I can not recall what you are replying to, but I'll assume that you are referring to my criticism of Peter Atkins, correct? As for your question, I am not misusing definitions. I am pertaining to the valid definitions. I am neither misunderstanding this person. However, having seen Peter Atkins debate, I can only say that this person isn't too bright. He LITERALLY affirms that nothing can create something, despite being told numerous times how ridiculous this is, the man still tries to make sense out of it, asserting over and over that nothing IS something--but it's nothing! Of course, this doesn't make sense. I shouldn't criticize him so harshly, as he's done a lot of scientific work, which I'd probably not do in my lifetime, but as for the things he say.. I can't accept him as an intellect, or at least I can't accept him as a clear thinker.
A clear thinker should by nature be able to form logical thoughts.

I have not once presented an argument to you. We are discussing, NOT arguing. Remember! An argument has premises...
I am of course not inferring that my education should qualify me for having all the right answers. If you read the context which it has been used within, I never used it that way either.

If I have made myself out to be annoyed by your replies, then let me clarify that I find these types of discussions entertaining, as long as they are friendly in nature.

Is there a language barrier? All I can say is, some of your definitions are so fundamentally different from the ones I use and find accepted as per their dictionary definitions that it isn't even remotely funny. Especially when you interpret what I've said to mean the opposite of what I thought I quite clearly meant. For example, argument doesn't really mean what you seem to think it means in the context I used it:

1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.
2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.
3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.
4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.
5. an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.

Ignore 1 for a moment and consider 2 through 5. Differing points of view, check. Couldn't follow each others' reasoning, check. I tried to reason against your points, check. Both have made statements against the others' points. I addressed you with the intent of persuading you to answer, check.

1. Act up: to misbehave or act in a troublesome manner. What else do you suppose I should think you meant by it?

2. You explicitly stated:

Being an atheist means you believe that theism is false in its entirety, thence you discard supernaturalism and so on.

If that's not telling someone what they believe, then I guess you simply truly believe this to be true? I am an agnostic apatheist, I do not know for certain that there is no supernatural and think it's unknowable but even if there was supernatural, then I don't care since it still wouldn't affect me by its very definition of being outside the scope of the natural. The supernatural is neither falsifiable, nor verifiable, thus my naturalism, since it's actually useful. Can the supernatural be used to make any predictions?

People are born without intrinsic knowledge of the supernatural, or the natural but yes, people do seem to have a tendency to form beliefs, though it does not speak for the voracity of any of them.

Science and the scientist that uses the scientific method, as well as their worldviews are entirely different. I did not say that science assumes anything, science cannot assume anything, it does not have any mind of its own. Aside from what any of the scientists, whether secular, atheistic, naturalistic or whatever however rely on the assumption that their findings can't suddenly be changed by some supernatural means.
Supernatural events also have rationality? Assertion without evidence?
Supernatural isn't magic, magic can be supernatural. Gods and deities are generally attributed as being supernatural, don't berate me if your definition of supernatural goes against what is commonly accepted as such.
Yes, truth is objective, opinions subjective, where exactly did I assert anything to the contrary?
Just to clarify before I reiterate that question, what is your definition of rational?

Flawed definition huh? Well, I suppose you're free to use whatever definition you like, but here's something to read. I see no conflict with your definition of "true naturalism" in that definition I copy-pasted.
Supernaturalism and objectivity? WHAT? Yeah, I see now where things get fundamentally awry. You see, I doubt anyone could say for certain that there is or is not a supernatural out there. Hell, it's very likely that this universe is just a bubble within a much larger universe, multiverse or whatever, but what is usually meant by supernatural is indeed the spooky, ghostly, godly, angels and demons kind of stuff.
Logic is a human construct, it isn't an intrinsic value of the universe. The universe might work in a logical manner, but that doesn't mean there is any absolute logic behind it, nor do I see the importance of there being one.

I didn't at any point state that quantum mechanics assumes randomness, nor did I claim that it is possible to predict random events, I said scientics can make pretty darned accurate predictions based on uncertainty principles and statistics. I explicitly stated that, I doubt anyone means total lack of causality when they say random. I suppose you simply know better than most any scientist that uses the term out of their ignorance then? Fine, but your example stinks as that is more common to theists, where you simply need to switch random with god. It's not random of the gaps, since scientists generally seem to understand quite well that even without an apparent causality, there still has to be one. I doubt they'd simply attribute it to anything supernatural or impossibly and inderterminately random, but simply agree that they have yet more things to discover. That would be just intellectual lazyness.

4) Humanistic doctrines? Wow... Just like naturalism, there are different views on humanism, but they usually boil down to simply putting more emphasis on the individual and collective values of humans as persons, instead of faiths, beliefs or any ethics or morals derived from the latter two. Whatever else you tack onto the label humanistic world view is just bonus and people can still value humans more than their beliefs while maintaining a mainly theistic world view. Just as there are religious scientists that do legitimate science instead of ID.

5) "These people" I was referring to atheists, scientists and Atkins alike, though I wasn't specifically referring to your criticism about Atkins. I'm not too familiar with him, aside from a video on youtube about the joy of science or something, I'm bad with names so I might have mixed up.

You are not misusing definitions? I suppose only you (and other select individuals) seem to have this ultimate knowledge and understanding? I suppose you also divined that you couldn't possibly misunderstand something Atkins or someone else has said, when you've misinterpreted and misunderstood what I've said multiple times in only two responses.

You make assertions, lots of them, are they supposed to be self-evident somehow?
Unfortunately I can't remember and don't really have the time to go through videos of Atkins talking to find out whether or not your assertions about him are even remotely correct, nor do I care. He's only representative of himself as an individual, though admittedly, quite often people seem to generalize. Just look at what happened with that certain movie that triggered yet another anti-American outbreak in communities of a certain faith group.

I started with how you misuse the meaning of "argument," but really...
Yes the context...
The way I saw it, you whipped around your education in CS as an attempt in validification of your position, ("hey, I study sciences, I should know") but perhaps I had a bit of bias from the schizoid people, what would you think about... thread.

under ice wrote:I respect people's opinions all right, as long as they don't present them as universal truths.

Addendum:
Random number generators based radioactive decay. No one will claim that there is no cause for the nuclei to decay, but it is not predictable, thus random. Yet we have charts on the half-lives of stable isotopes with half-lives that span in the thousands of years based on predictions.
Atheism doesn't have a say in someone's beliefs on the supernatural, it is simply the lack of theism. If you look at all the strange beliefs that aren't based on the notion of the existence of a deity or deities, it should be obvious that these things are separate. Besides, the human brain can rationalize and hold onto dichotomies.

Someone born without a belief in a deity, or lives in a world where no one has even thought of anything supernatural, is by the simplest definition an atheist; lacking theistic beliefs. This is regardless of the reasons behind their reaching this state of lacking a belief. They're also in a state of neither having belief or disbelief in said theistic views, so I suppose one could say that everyone is born an agnostic atheist, but since you and so many others seem to like to load additional meanings and assumptions onto these simple words, so someone might use the term "strong atheist" or "anti-theist" to describe their conviction against theism. Still has nothing to do with any other magical beliefs or something possibly existing beyond our natural observable universe.

Buddhism turned me into a schizoid.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:Just to clarify, your question is also known as: "Can we trust our senses?"

Actually, my question is more subtle than that. I know we can trust our senses and that there is something out there. Or at least it is common sense. I am quite realistic.

No, the actual question is whether our senses are designed to perceived everything there is to know, with or without help.

Like for example, we cannot see some of the light spectrum. But we can with some instruments. But there is the definite possibility that there are a lot of things out there that we cannot perceive at all. Not now, and not tomorrow. Our theories are devised to solve things we stumble upon, so close to our natural senses. There might be things that have no effect on us, or so subtle we have no hope of ever discovering them.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:Now, I realize that this is circular logic - since I am presupposing that the world is rational, and that I can logically derive truth from my own senses. I am actually presupposing a lot of things to answer your question.

Yeah, that is the problem. I don't think you can presuppose that the world is rational. The logically derived truth might very well be gross approximations due to the limitations of our brain structure and how it organizes data. Like your vision is not totally accurate and does not give you things as they are. The input has to be processed and generalized before you are even conscious of it. There is a buffer there that takes out irrelevant information to your immediate functioning. I know you can derive truth that helps you manipulate the world better, but that does not mean it is true. I guess you could say it is true enough.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:However, most atheists would argue that the best explanation is the one to take serious, when they are arguing against theism. Logically, this suits here as well.
There's a possibility that everything is irrational, that we live in a matrix, and so on - but we shouldn't necessarily take these possibilities seriously.

I don't think you have to be in a matrix in order to be ignorant. Also, some things could be rational and some others irrational.

For example, since you like theism. The Gods of Olympus represented rationality, but the Titans represented irrationality. The primal forces in Greek mythos are quite irrational. It is when you start counting time (Kronos), that you start having rationality. And the Gods are all children of Kronos, except I think Aphrodite.

That is basically my position, and has been for awhile. Both are true. Order comes from Chaos. This order can be studied logically. Maybe not all of it, but some of it. The chaos is trickier.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:This is, as I explained in my last post, why atheism makes everything impossible, thence why theism must be true.

Atheists worship Titans.
They just don't know it.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:The world is intelligently designed by a designer, and only a fool (with all respect) would deny this.

Well, I don't know. If you look at scholastic philosophy, even they never claimed to be able to prove that the world was created by desigh, even though they believed it. They said it was an act of faith, due to the Bible.

Because they were monotheist, they equated God with existence, and were able to prove that in order to be something, there had to be some sort of basic existence that had some characteristics like rationality.

But due to the problem of proving the world had a beginning (instead of being eternal), they had to settle for a simple belief, and not from a lack of trying.

OneRinger wrote:Actually, my question is more subtle than that. I know we can trust our senses and that there is something out there. Or at least it is common sense. I am quite realistic.

No, the actual question is whether our senses are designed to perceive everything there is to know, with or without help.

Yes, but this invokes the previous question. How do we know that which we perceive is objective in nature? We can't KNOW, because we have to assume that our senses can perceive objective truth, for us to even find out - thence being circular logic.

We can, however, show how it's ridiculous to assume otherwise, since we have all the reasons to believe that we can.

OneRinger wrote:Like for example, we cannot see some of the light spectrum. But we can with some instruments. But there is the definite possibility that there are a lot of things out there that we cannot perceive at all. Not now, and not tomorrow. Our theories are devised to solve things we stumble upon, so close to our natural senses. There might be things that have no effect on us, or so subtle we have no hope of ever discovering them.

I'd have to correct you here. It is true that we can only study that which we can perceive - we ARE only studying what we perceive. But theories tend to go into the realm of imagination. What makes them theories rather than mere beliefs is that they can be supported by either logic or mathematical formulas - making them more probable, or even necessary.

OneRinger wrote:Yeah, that is the problem. I don't think you can presuppose that the world is rational. The logically derived truth might very well be gross approximations due to the limitations of our brain structure and how it organizes data. Like your vision is not totally accurate and does not give you things as they are. The input has to be processed and generalized before you are even conscious of it. There is a buffer there that takes out irrelevant information to your immediate functioning. I know you can derive truth that helps you manipulate the world better, but that does not mean it is true. I guess you could say it is true enough.

The problem is the previous two questions. We need to assume a foundation for truth before we can study truth. But how can we study truth if we can't define truth, because we can't with certainty know truth? We're looking in pitch blackness, seeing everything in brightness, because we assume things to be a certain way.
And this is where we get to theism... If theism is true, then we have a foundation for which we can know truth.

OneRinger wrote:Well, I don't know. If you look at scholastic philosophy, even they never claimed to be able to prove that the world was created by design, even though they believed it. They said it was an act of faith, due to the Bible.

Never take a person seriously who claims he can't (even) argue for his beliefs, but that they are surely true.
And don't listen to Christians who claim that the existence of a creator can't be proven - they're morons, with all respect.

OneRinger wrote:But due to the problem of proving the world had a beginning (instead of being eternal), they had to settle for a simple belief, and not from a lack of trying.

It's interesting when someone asserts that the universe is eternal, to make the existence of a creator seem less likely. Since what the person is doing is making the existence of a creator MORE probable.

If the past is eternal, then it is illogical to assume that order was evolved. It requires blind faith.
And hence we can easily make the existence of a creator seem more probable, since it only makes sense that order was derived from a presence which had the greatest order, but was not limited to start this evolution of order at any given time.

If, however, the past is finite - which we have all the reasons to believe that it is - then it logically follows that there must be an intelligent cause outside of the universe which brought it into being.

-- Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:41 pm --

umadcuzimstylin wrote:Buddhism turned me into a schizoid.

That's interesting...

Miyuki wrote:Is there a language barrier? All I can say is, some of your definitions are so fundamentally different from the ones I use and find accepted as per their dictionary definitions that it isn't even remotely funny. Especially when you interpret what I've said to mean the opposite of what I thought I quite clearly meant. For example, argument doesn't really mean what you seem to think it means in the context I used it:

When I refer to an argument, I am not referring to a childish discussion between two individuals, nor to disagree, nor presenting things to the opponent and giving reasons why it is true.
What I mean is a properly basic argument, which consists of premises. You may call it a philosophical argument.
As to the definitions the laymen uses now, yes, we ARE arguing. You are correct.

Miyuki wrote:If that's not telling someone what they believe, then I guess you simply truly believe this to be true? I am an agnostic apatheist, I do not know for certain that there is no supernatural and think it's unknowable

Then it follows that you are not an atheist. An atheist maintains the falsity of theism, which includes the underlaying philosophies of theism.

Miyuki wrote:The supernatural is neither falsifiable, nor verifiable

It logically follows from science that supernaturalism is true to some extent.
There must be a law of logic external to the universe, and a cause so too.

Miyuki wrote:I did not say that science assumes anything, science cannot assume anything, it does not have any mind of its own.

For science to be possible, logically, certain things have to be assumed. Thus, science presupposes the existence of [...].

Miyuki wrote:Supernatural events also have rationality? Assertion without evidence?

It logically follows, since the law of logic is external to the universe. The law of logic is in its nature logical, thus it defines the logical and makes up the reasonable.
Supernaturalism stands for the existence of the super-natural; in this case, it is the law of logic which I use supernaturalism to stand for.

Miyuki wrote:what is your definition of rational?

Rational is used to mean within the scope of logical.
That is, something which is rational is something which has [logical] order.

Miyuki wrote:Flawed definition huh? Well, I suppose you're free to use whatever definition you like, but here's something to read. I see no conflict with your definition of "true naturalism" in that definition I copy-pasted.

Naturalism in its basic sense is the philosophical position that all which exists is natural to the universe.

Miyuki wrote:You see, I doubt anyone could say for certain that there is or is not a supernatural out there. Hell, it's very likely that this universe is just a bubble within a much larger universe, multiverse or whatever,

It logically follows that there must be a transcendent law of logic for my statement to be true, and for yours to be false.

Miyuki wrote:but what is usually meant by supernatural is indeed the spooky, ghostly, godly, angels and demons kind of stuff.

If you're not educated, supernaturalism can mean anything - even the natural.

Miyuki wrote:Logic is a human construct, it isn't an intrinsic value of the universe. The universe might work in a logical manner, but that doesn't mean there is any absolute logic behind it, nor do I see the importance of there being one.

That's a self-refuting statement.
If your statement is true, then you cannot know if your statement is true, and your statement cannot be true for nothing defines what is possible and not.

Miyuki wrote:I didn't at any point state that quantum mechanics assumes randomness, nor did I claim that it is possible to predict random events, I said scientics can make pretty darned accurate predictions based on uncertainty principles and statistics. I explicitly stated that, I doubt anyone means total lack of causality when they say random. I suppose you simply know better than most any scientist that uses the term out of their ignorance then?

I could go on for a while about the idiocy and illiteracy of most scientists these days.
I just read an article about how infinity is not really infinity, since it comes in quantities.
You can have a large, a small, a medium, and so on, infinity.
The morons think that because they can calculate with infinity, then infinity can also be non-infinity.
Infinity simply means an undefined length of start or end.

Miyuki wrote:Fine, but your example stinks as that is more common to theists, where you simply need to switch random with god.

Please refrain from making the strawman fallacy. I have never used God as for my lack of knowledge. That would be an argument from ignorance - a fallacies argument.
I have also never said I believe in the existence of God.

Miyuki wrote:Humanistic doctrines? Wow... Just like naturalism, there are different views on humanism

All religions have doctrines. Humanism is a religion. Therefore humanism has doctrines.
Simple as that.

Miyuki wrote:I suppose you also divined that you couldn't possibly misunderstand something Atkins or someone else has said, when you've misinterpreted and misunderstood what I've said multiple times in only two responses.

If you watch the debate with Peter Atkins and William Lane Craig - the later debate - then hopefully you'll see the obvious.
Peter Atkins is NOT a clear thinker. His beliefs may be true, but he's not very good at showing why.

Miyuki wrote:You make assertions, lots of them, are they supposed to be self-evident somehow?

Most of the things I've made clear logically follows - i.e., it has to be true.

Miyuki wrote:Just look at what happened with that certain movie that triggered yet another anti-American outbreak in communities of a certain faith group.

This has nothing to do with Islam, it has to do with the world-dominance of America, and the attempt to fight back by the rational people in the middle east.
I may offend Americans, but I sincerely wish for the destruction of the nation of America.

Miyuki wrote:Random number generators based radioactive decay. No one will claim that there is no cause for the nuclei to decay, but it is not predictable, thus random.

That which cannot be predicted is irrational. That which is irrational is anti-scientific.
I needn't go over this again... Nothing is random. Random is a word used by people who are ignorant, or don't know its meaning.
For something to be random, it HAS to be uncaused.

Miyuki wrote:Atheism is simply the lack of theism.

If atheism is a lack of belief, then atheism is not a philosophical position.
If atheism is not a philosophical position, then atheism cannot be held.
If atheism can not be held, then you can not be an atheist.

Miyuki wrote:Someone born without a belief in a deity, or lives in a world where no one has even thought of anything supernatural, is by the simplest definition an atheist;

The reason atheism has been [wrongfully] redefined is so moronic, lazy-minded imbeciles do not have to philosophically argue for their position.
If one has no knowledge of theism, then one can not be an atheist.
Agnosticism is the neutral position.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:Yes, but this invokes the previous question. How do we know that which we perceive is objective in nature? We can't KNOW, because we have to assume that our senses can perceive objective truth, for us to even find out - thence being circular logic.

We can, however, show how it's ridiculous to assume otherwise, since we have all the reasons to believe that we can.

Well, it is not just a belief. If you want to be more objective, you ask someone else's opinion. And if you want to be totally objective, you use a commonly agreed upon measurement. Those things have been ironed out a long time ago. Like I said, it is common sense. Many things cannot be measured, so cannot be totally opined objectively. Truth is another matter.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:

OneRinger wrote:Like for example, we cannot see some of the light spectrum. But we can with some instruments. But there is the definite possibility that there are a lot of things out there that we cannot perceive at all. Not now, and not tomorrow. Our theories are devised to solve things we stumble upon, so close to our natural senses. There might be things that have no effect on us, or so subtle we have no hope of ever discovering them.

I'd have to correct you here. It is true that we can only study that which we can perceive - we ARE only studying what we perceive. But theories tend to go into the realm of imagination. What makes them theories rather than mere beliefs is that they can be supported by either logic or mathematical formulas - making them more probable, or even necessary.

Except that it has to be based on perceptions at some point, otherwise it has no bearing.
Like someone said, I can imagine the biggest island possible, but it does not mean it is real.
What you are talking about is deductions, which is fine. But the further you go away from the senses, the less real it becomes.
Even in a field like physics, a lot of people are pointing out that too many theories are based on unproven basis that are not necessary, like the idea of symmetry. Those type of esthetical preferences tend to make the end theory less solid. Nobody ever proved that there was a principle of symmetry in the world, but it is used all the times to choose between theories or "predict" new particles. I put "predict" in brackets, because a lot of people suspect there might be a confirmation bias, since it is not possible to prove any other way.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:The problem is the previous two questions. We need to assume a foundation for truth before we can study truth. But how can we study truth if we can't define truth, because we can't with certainty know truth? We're looking in pitch blackness, seeing everything in brightness, because we assume things to be a certain way.
And this is where we get to theism... If theism is true, then we have a foundation for which we can know truth.

I think you are making an error here by confusing the word truth.
You have to distinguish between truth as truth, and the content of truth.
Classically, truth has been defined as "that which is real", or "that which conforms to reality". And by reality is meant the world we experience.

When you start talking about a foundation, you are talking about the content of truth, which is different. The content is common sense. The senses that we share. The experiences that we share. That is the true basis that people go about every day, and the most convincing one.

If you are taking the word theism, as I think you are, as the unseen cause of something, then that is a deduction we make from our experience, due to a repetition through time and confirmation with others and/or an ability to predict a behavior. For theism to be true, you have to not only use common sense, but also add what is now called "time". So you are adding a layer already: it is not primary.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:Never take a person seriously who claims he can't (even) argue for his beliefs, but that they are surely true.
And don't listen to Christians who claim that the existence of a creator can't be proven - they're morons, with all respect.

They did not say the existence could not be proven, they said that you could not prove a beginning to the world, and therefore could not prove that it was created by anybody (out of nothing).
We are talking about creation out of nothing here, which you claimed to disagree with anyhow.
Those people were the apex of theoretical philosophy. They went as far as they could with logic alone.
The only way to go further in knowledge was to go in the field and search and experiment. But that cannot answer all questions.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:If the past is eternal, then it is illogical to assume that order was evolved.

Not illogical, chaos theory in mathematics proved otherwise.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:And hence we can easily make the existence of a creator seem more probable, since it only makes sense that order was derived from a presence which had the greatest order, but was not limited to start this evolution of order at any given time.

That is the classical argument, that order comes from a greater order. Most people agree with that. The question was whether that creator was really a creator and created out of nothing, or was simply shaping. The Greeks held that the Gods were only shaping, like the story of Genesis describes. The Christians held there was a real creator, because of some passage in a Psalm or somewhere.
But this greater order can be time too, which is the classical answer.
So time is eternal, and was not created, because it always was. Order comes from the repetition of movement. Those repetitions are what is called theos. This repetition can create a stable environment for smaller orders to evolve out of it.

HeWhoNeverWere wrote:If, however, the past is finite - which we have all the reasons to believe that it is - then it logically follows that there must be an intelligent cause outside of the universe which brought it into being.

Sure, if there is a beginning, someone has to create out of nothing, not only matter, but time as well. What is your demonstration that the past is finite?