The New Age Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2013, 03:03 PM
RE: The New Age Atheist
(10-12-2013 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 06:19 AM)Chippy Wrote:  That is just a bunch of your usual equivocation and sloppy thinking.
We little realize how much of secular stuff we inherited from Protestantism. One is capitalistic working morale (Max Weber's classy topic), another is a deep distrust of the sinful human nature. Both of them got secularized. I think modern skepticism is the result, it's more like default denialism. The classical skepticism was nothing like it.

If you don't like my subjective experience (or my subjective claims of objective reference), all you need is just to respond, "ah, you made that up." "You wished for the result so you imagined it and it came true." "You wished for the result without consciously realizing it. You have a deep need to feel special, so you keep making stuff up." "Brain just makes things up for no reason."
Is that your argument? You can't dismiss something as subjective, just because you don't like it. Subjective doesn't mean unreal, non-causal, uncontrolled, unconnected to other objective phenomena, and so on. Subjective is just another method of detection. It's statistically, culturally and neurologically valid at the very least, and a legitimate subject of study.

I lived for all my life with my subjective perception as the only method of detection and I learned how it works, I learned its quirks, to compensate for any intrusions from the subjective and how to set a threshold of what I consider a good observation. A decade or two of this life taught me. I turned my subjectivity into an instrument of detection, by training and practice. There is of course no standardization, but I use methods like Heron's Beard. There are methods to study even the qualitative, subjective side of life and get comparable results out of it.

Yes, we can dismiss your subjective experience as being evidence.

Until you can externalize something, you have no evidence of anything.

You have experiences that as far as anyone knows, including yourself, are only in your head. That seems to be the point you just can't understand.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
10-12-2013, 03:23 PM
RE: The New Age Atheist
(10-12-2013 02:36 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Speculations as to an ineffable God is often an attempt, by equivocation, to pre empt a god of standards suiting the creators of such.....
Existentially we cannot disprove cosmic critters of higher intelligence, and moral decency of a higher order than ours.

Essentially all Gordon is saying is(correct me if I'm wrong)....An eternal something is there, therefore it has to be there, based sententially on the primary assertion.This circular reasoning may be designed to argue,basically, that anything is possible, especially so in Cloud Cuckoo Land.Logic cannot deal with subject matter devoid of substance.
Well, theoretically why should that be wrong? Why do we have this peculiar notion of "nothing"? Why is not the basic fundamental state of the universe an eternal "something?" "Nothing" is just a category we invented for the purpose of our speech, but even the space vacuum has positive physical values.
If the basis of the universe is existence, then it would be a very elegant solution why is there something rather than nothing. The question never made sense in the first place, because "nothing" does not empirically exist. But neither it says that anything is possible. A hypothetical omnipotent "cosmic egg" is the most impotent thing of all, because it's all potential and no manifestation. Of course it's no religious God, that would be at most a pantheistic God.

When it comes to all things godly, I prefer a subjective experience. I can experience what many religious and mystical people of history called god, God, Jesus, or something like that. I know the experience and I can trace it in literature and culture, because it inspired hell a lot of it. So in that sense, "god" is a real, objective phenomenon. It just does not say that this is the creator of the universe. It just feels so good that some people think they commune with the Boss himself.

But I do not see it as some kind of imagination or simulation or delusion, not at all. Just because the same sensations can be induced by a magnetic helmet, that does not answer what is happening with all the people who don't have any magnetic helmet. It only proves that we have an objective capacity to have these sensations, but it does not say why this capacity gets sometimes used in some people. Of course, I ignore people who get high on emotions in megachurches, that is just pushing one's own emotional buttons and calling that god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 05:18 PM
RE: The New Age Atheist
(10-12-2013 03:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We little realize how much of secular stuff we inherited from Protestantism. One is capitalistic working morale (Max Weber's classy topic), another is a deep distrust of the sinful human nature. Both of them got secularized. I think modern skepticism is the result, it's more like default denialism. The classical skepticism was nothing like it.

If you don't like my subjective experience (or my subjective claims of objective reference), all you need is just to respond, "ah, you made that up." "You wished for the result so you imagined it and it came true." "You wished for the result without consciously realizing it. You have a deep need to feel special, so you keep making stuff up." "Brain just makes things up for no reason."
Is that your argument? You can't dismiss something as subjective, just because you don't like it. Subjective doesn't mean unreal, non-causal, uncontrolled, unconnected to other objective phenomena, and so on. Subjective is just another method of detection. It's statistically, culturally and neurologically valid at the very least, and a legitimate subject of study.

I lived for all my life with my subjective perception as the only method of detection and I learned how it works, I learned its quirks, to compensate for any intrusions from the subjective and how to set a threshold of what I consider a good observation. A decade or two of this life taught me. I turned my subjectivity into an instrument of detection, by training and practice. There is of course no standardization, but I use methods like Heron's Beard. There are methods to study even the qualitative, subjective side of life and get comparable results out of it.

Yes, we can dismiss your subjective experience as being evidence.

Until you can externalize something, you have no evidence of anything.

You have experiences that as far as anyone knows, including yourself, are only in your head. That seems to be the point you just can't understand.

Chas appears correct in terms of our secular decision making.
We can ponder out of body/mind personal experiences, but as far as codifying this in any way, it cannot be done.
This is where religion and our law can become very dangerous; in that metaphysical musings are given legal status, as in Islamic law........
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 05:37 PM
RE: The New Age Atheist
(10-12-2013 12:51 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  WaitWHAT????
"Southern Psychic Seminary", http://www.psychicseminary.com/ ?????????
"Degrees" in "PSYCHIC ARTS"????????
FUCK, I feel kind of dirty for even reading a single one of your posts....

The Triple "S" Ranch.
(You can't get in if you have a lisp). Well, maybe if you get yourself declared disabled, then they HAVE to let you in.

I'm thinking I want to take Alchemy there. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-12-2013, 06:45 PM
RE: The New Age Atheist
(10-12-2013 03:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, we can dismiss your subjective experience as being evidence.

Until you can externalize something, you have no evidence of anything.

You have experiences that as far as anyone knows, including yourself, are only in your head. That seems to be the point you just can't understand.
As I understand Kuhn, there is one worrying thing. Even if my experiences were objective and externalized, there is no guarantee that the science can recognize them as such. There is no observation without a theoretical framework, no conscious registering in human mind. Even in the mind of a scientist. If we don't know consciously what to look for and why, we don't see it. We don't see things as they are, we see them as we expect them to be in our paradigm. Any paradigm is better than none, but no paradigm is complete.

But even if we can make an observation, if it does not fit into the paradigm, nothing happens. There are always anomalies - we can always say it is a yet undiscovered part of the current paradigm. Even if it isn't, it would require such a make-over of the current paradigm, with so many projects going on, that it is just not worth of the effort. Scientists are very rigid and conservative and that allows them to go in deep research. They don't change a paradigm unless under very unscientific circumstances of a revolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 06:54 PM
RE: The New Age Atheist
(10-12-2013 06:45 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 03:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, we can dismiss your subjective experience as being evidence.

Until you can externalize something, you have no evidence of anything.

You have experiences that as far as anyone knows, including yourself, are only in your head. That seems to be the point you just can't understand.
As I understand Kuhn, there is one worrying thing. Even if my experiences were objective and externalized, there is no guarantee that the science can recognize them as such. There is no observation without a theoretical framework, no conscious registering in human mind. Even in the mind of a scientist. If we don't know consciously what to look for and why, we don't see it. We don't see things as they are, we see them as we expect them to be in our paradigm. Any paradigm is better than none, but no paradigm is complete.

But even if we can make an observation, if it does not fit into the paradigm, nothing happens. There are always anomalies - we can always say it is a yet undiscovered part of the current paradigm. Even if it isn't, it would require such a make-over of the current paradigm, with so many projects going on, that it is just not worth of the effort. Scientists are very rigid and conservative and that allows them to go in deep research. They don't change a paradigm unless under very unscientific circumstances of a revolution.


Bullshit. Utter crap. Baloney, balderdash, and bollocks.

This is that same "those scientists are against us" shit very thinly disguised with word salad.

New observations create new paradigms. Pulsars were not expected or explicable, but they were seen - the observation registered.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-12-2013, 07:05 PM
RE: The New Age Atheist
(10-12-2013 06:45 PM)Luminon Wrote:  As I understand Kuhn, there is one worrying thing. Even if my experiences were objective and externalized, there is no guarantee that the science can recognize them as such.

You don't understand Kuhn.

The vital point here is that your experiences are not objective and externalized so there is no point in appeling to Kuhn and paradigms.

Quote:There is no observation without a theoretical framework, no conscious registering in human mind. Even in the mind of a scientist. If we don't know consciously what to look for and why, we don't see it. We don't see things as they are, we see them as we expect them to be in our paradigm. Any paradigm is better than none, but no paradigm is complete.

The prevailing paradigm adequately accounts for the subjective experiences you have described.

Quote:But even if we can make an observation, if it does not fit into the paradigm, nothing happens. There are always anomalies - we can always say it is a yet undiscovered part of the current paradigm. Even if it isn't, it would require such a make-over of the current paradigm, with so many projects going on, that it is just not worth of the effort. Scientists are very rigid and conservative and that allows them to go in deep research. They don't change a paradigm unless under very unscientific circumstances of a revolution.

Your arguments is akin to me having a dream that I can float in the air and then arguing that my dream demands a scientific paradigm shift because physics can't account for my defiance of gravity in my dream. If I actually floated unassisted in the air that could potentially lead to a paradigm shift; if I imagined I floated that would be of no significance.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2013, 10:31 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2013 10:37 AM by Luminon.)
RE: The New Age Atheist
(10-12-2013 06:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  Bullshit. Utter crap. Baloney, balderdash, and bollocks.

This is that same "those scientists are against us" shit very thinly disguised with word salad.

New observations create new paradigms. Pulsars were not expected or explicable, but they were seen - the observation registered.
The discovery of pulsars was well within limits of the current paradigm.
"Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that this system should emit strong gravitational radiation, causing the orbit to continually contract as it loses orbital energy. Observations of the pulsar soon confirmed this prediction, providing the first ever evidence of the existence of gravitational waves."
But if it didn't, it might endanger all things Einsteinian and hell would break loose. Then the scientists would turn into bickering, scheming and plotting politicians for a brief period of the revolution.

Most of instruments of normal science are constructed along the lines of predictions, to confirm the paradigm. There's no other way to construct an instrument, anyway. We have to know exactly what we're looking for and paradigm is what we know.

(10-12-2013 07:05 PM)Chippy Wrote:  The vital point here is that your experiences are not objective and externalized so there is no point in appeling to Kuhn and paradigms.
The vital point here is, that you have no right to say that. The proper kind of skepticism would be neutrality. Learn to say "I don't know."

(10-12-2013 07:05 PM)Chippy Wrote:  The prevailing paradigm adequately accounts for the subjective experiences you have described.
No, it doesn't. If it did, I'd already find it. Normal science just doesn't study biologic fields, at most it studies electric properties of proteins as such, not of living organisms. So there's nothing that describes my experiences, except the people who coined the term New Age, who did a lot of work on comparative religions. Then there is some scientific research, which is clearly extra-paradigmatic and uses custom-made instruments to measure the things. I'm not sure if these instruments make sense to anyone in the dominant paradigm. After all, an instrument without theoretical background (or with a wildly different theoretical background) is just a box with a dial on it or a camera image with a bunch of color smears, even for a scientist.

(10-12-2013 07:05 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Your arguments is akin to me having a dream that I can float in the air and then arguing that my dream demands a scientific paradigm shift because physics can't account for my defiance of gravity in my dream. If I actually floated unassisted in the air that could potentially lead to a paradigm shift; if I imagined I floated that would be of no significance.
Well then, unless you can at least hypothetically consider that some people are able to tell whether they're dreaming or not, then you have a magical explanation that explains away everything that you don't like.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2013, 10:35 AM
RE: The New Age Atheist
double post
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 05:24 AM
RE: The New Age Atheist
(10-12-2013 12:51 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  WaitWHAT????

"Southern Psychic Seminary", http://www.psychicseminary.com/ ?????????

"Degrees" in "PSYCHIC ARTS"????????


FUCK, I feel kind of dirty for even reading a single one of your posts....

(1) Don't make fun of psychics - I are one. Buwwwaaahaaa
(2) Tell me again what's wrong with "dirty"? double Buwwwaaahaa


had to do it

(actually I just think you need a laugh this morning)

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: