These Atheists Don't Know Anything
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-04-2010, 03:42 PM
 
Lightbulb These Atheists Don't Know Anything
In olden times, if you wanted to be wise, you only had to know that you didn't know anything. In the digital present, that is a given: you can fake a record, a photo, even Hi-Def movies.

These one-time proofs were only trusted in the days of analog tech because the techniques themselves left their mark--do you remember that old, B&W, detective-genre movie--they actually proved someone used a particular typewriter by matching the characters on a note with the faces of typewriter keys! Even the old classic, fingerprints, has had to deal with forgeries and plants only recently made possible by advances in materials technology, laser scans, et.al.

Authenticity is obsolete. Sure, some disciplines may still be able to discern truth from CGI but that number is shrinking and will continue to shrink. There is a three-dimensional printer now available to laboratories who have the budget for it--it takes a three-dimensional scan and lays down layer after layer of some kind of vinyl or something, until the shape is ready to be removed from the 'printer'. I believe there's a scene in Juraisic Park III wherein such a device is shown creating part of a raptor's skull.

So, now we revise 'know that you don't know anything' to 'no one CAN know anything', always remembering, of course, that I don't know any of this (ha ha).

In addition, since 'not knowing anything' is relative to the times in which it is said, we must also allow for an immense increase in detail of our conception of existence--we used to think the solar system was All, then we thought the galaxy was All, and now we infer that the Universe is made up of countless galaxies, all immensely distant from each other, and that our Milky Way is just one of those galaxies. And when I slip in a term like 'countless', I'm not kidding; scientists and mathematicians agree that a 'google' is ten to the tenth power (a one with ten zeros) and that a google-plex (a google to the google-th power) is the largest numerical value of any significance to us, since it is so large that we can't really understand it (If written out 1,000,000... , the number would take up about a gazillion yards of paper) and, therefore, anything bigger is just 'bigger'.

So, now we further revise 'no one CAN know anything' to include 'nor even count the number of things we don't know, which grows exponentially with every scientific discovery'.

Beyond that, we have the religion issue--these people are cheaters; they say they know something for sure, an absolute certainty, because they have faith. That's all well and good but we atheists would appreciate it if you believers out there would stop confusing 'knowing' with 'having faith'. I would never deny you your faith--why would you want to mess with my knowledge? (Or lack thereof, to return to the subject at hand.)

We have our senses and we use them. But our senses were never meant to help us perceive reality--we evolved them to perceive life; whether it's prey or a predator or a mate or a rival; the need to ingest and its opposite; whether it's too cold or too warm. We perceive not reality but relativity--our place in the circle of life, how to nurture and keep life, how to make new life, and how to take life and, sometimes, consume it.

But reality is different--did you know that reality does not include color? It's true--our eyes evolved to differentiate wavelengths of visible light (which is, in turn, only a small section in the electromagnetic spectrum) as different colors--the reason we see green all around us is that we developed our eyesight to find food which, in the case of early hominids, was vegetation. This most sought-after material became the mid-point of visible lights' colors--they go higher until they reach infra-red and lower until they reach ultra-violet--what mankind most wants to see is, in a nutshell, lunch. Dogs, too--but dogs can smell their lunch from a distance, which is why they can get by with only black-and-white vision (dogs are color-blind).

Further, what we think of as an object's 'color' isn't something it gives off--it just sits there--the color of it only represents what parts of sunlight are absorbed and what parts of its wavelength bounce off and reach our eye. We could therefore think of 'something-absorbing-all-non-pink-light' (which is a 'pink-something', for you color-purists out there).

And reality is also almost completely devoid of substance! Think of the Science Channel telling you about an atom: it is a tiny nucleus with tinier electron(s) spinning 'round it. It resembles in some way the solar system--particles dancing with a lot of nothing in between them. And if Einstein's famous equation is true (Energy equals Matter times a Constant Speed), then sub-atomic particles are simply 'knots' of energy. As they dance around the outer limit of atoms, they form the solid-seeming matter we take for granted: tables, chairs, oceans, ourselves.... yet these 'objects' are only knots of energy spinning crazily within the voids that are the most-part of their atoms!

I figure that makes sense because the whole universe is supposed to have been contained in a very tiny singularity just prior to the Big Bang
--but who knows?

"Not I", said the duck.
"Nor me either", say the wise folk.Huh
Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2010, 09:53 PM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(12-04-2010 03:42 PM)xperdunn Wrote:  In olden times, if you wanted to be wise, you only had to know that you didn't know anything. In the digital present, that is a given: you can fake a record, a photo, even Hi-Def movies.

These one-time proofs were only trusted in the days of analog tech because the techniques themselves left their mark--do you remember that old, B&W, detective-genre movie--they actually proved someone used a particular typewriter by matching the characters on a note with the faces of typewriter keys! Even the old classic, fingerprints, has had to deal with forgeries and plants only recently made possible by advances in materials technology, laser scans, et.al.

Authenticity is obsolete. Sure, some disciplines may still be able to discern truth from CGI but that number is shrinking and will continue to shrink. There is a three-dimensional printer now available to laboratories who have the budget for it--it takes a three-dimensional scan and lays down layer after layer of some kind of vinyl or something, until the shape is ready to be removed from the 'printer'. I believe there's a scene in Juraisic Park III wherein such a device is shown creating part of a raptor's skull.

So, now we revise 'know that you don't know anything' to 'no one CAN know anything', always remembering, of course, that I don't know any of this (ha ha).

In addition, since 'not knowing anything' is relative to the times in which it is said, we must also allow for an immense increase in detail of our conception of existence--we used to think the solar system was All, then we thought the galaxy was All, and now we infer that the Universe is made up of countless galaxies, all immensely distant from each other, and that our Milky Way is just one of those galaxies. And when I slip in a term like 'countless', I'm not kidding; scientists and mathematicians agree that a 'google' is ten to the tenth power (a one with ten zeros) and that a google-plex (a google to the google-th power) is the largest numerical value of any significance to us, since it is so large that we can't really understand it (If written out 1,000,000... , the number would take up about a gazillion yards of paper) and, therefore, anything bigger is just 'bigger'.

So, now we further revise 'no one CAN know anything' to include 'nor even count the number of things we don't know, which grows exponentially with every scientific discovery'.

Beyond that, we have the religion issue--these people are cheaters; they say they know something for sure, an absolute certainty, because they have faith. That's all well and good but we atheists would appreciate it if you believers out there would stop confusing 'knowing' with 'having faith'. I would never deny you your faith--why would you want to mess with my knowledge? (Or lack thereof, to return to the subject at hand.)

We have our senses and we use them. But our senses were never meant to help us perceive reality--we evolved them to perceive life; whether it's prey or a predator or a mate or a rival; the need to ingest and its opposite; whether it's too cold or too warm. We perceive not reality but relativity--our place in the circle of life, how to nurture and keep life, how to make new life, and how to take life and, sometimes, consume it.

But reality is different--did you know that reality does not include color? It's true--our eyes evolved to differentiate wavelengths of visible light (which is, in turn, only a small section in the electromagnetic spectrum) as different colors--the reason we see green all around us is that we developed our eyesight to find food which, in the case of early hominids, was vegetation. This most sought-after material became the mid-point of visible lights' colors--they go higher until they reach infra-red and lower until they reach ultra-violet--what mankind most wants to see is, in a nutshell, lunch. Dogs, too--but dogs can smell their lunch from a distance, which is why they can get by with only black-and-white vision (dogs are color-blind).

Further, what we think of as an object's 'color' isn't something it gives off--it just sits there--the color of it only represents what parts of sunlight are absorbed and what parts of its wavelength bounce off and reach our eye. We could therefore think of 'something-absorbing-all-non-pink-light' (which is a 'pink-something', for you color-purists out there).

And reality is also almost completely devoid of substance! Think of the Science Channel telling you about an atom: it is a tiny nucleus with tinier electron(s) spinning 'round it. It resembles in some way the solar system--particles dancing with a lot of nothing in between them. And if Einstein's famous equation is true (Energy equals Matter times a Constant Speed), then sub-atomic particles are simply 'knots' of energy. As they dance around the outer limit of atoms, they form the solid-seeming matter we take for granted: tables, chairs, oceans, ourselves.... yet these 'objects' are only knots of energy spinning crazily within the voids that are the most-part of their atoms!

I figure that makes sense because the whole universe is supposed to have been contained in a very tiny singularity just prior to the Big Bang
--but who knows?

"Not I", said the duck.
"Nor me either", say the wise folk.Huh

Nicley done and nicley expressed. I wish you would have sent it to me first so I could post it and have Unbeliever tell me how many fallacies where in there. He won't because he is not intellectually honest. But I don't care about fallacies, If you wrote that yourself, how do we anything, you are smart enough to look up what "faith" means as it relates to the Bible. Most don't have the ability to understand it but you might. Good luck on your search if choose to do so. I look forward to your response.
Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 12:40 AM
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
That made for an interesting read... I'm also curious if you wrote that yourself. It's well written but I'm much too tired to be analyzing and picking things apart... Although I'm not a big fan of the term "reality"...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 05:59 AM
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(12-04-2010 09:53 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Nicley done and nicley expressed. I wish you would have sent it to me first so I could post it and have Unbeliever tell me how many fallacies where in there. He won't because he is not intellectually honest.

Must you turn every thread into an attack on me?
In any case, martin, if you had posted this, I wouldn't have had any issue with it. As you said, it's very nicely done and nicely expressed. I would have been slightly confused, though, that you used the phrase "we atheists". Tongue

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 08:13 AM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(12-04-2010 09:53 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(12-04-2010 03:42 PM)xperdunn Wrote:  In olden times, if you wanted to be wise, you only had to know that you didn't know anything. In the digital present, that is a given: you can fake a record, a photo, even Hi-Def movies.

These one-time proofs were only trusted in the days of analog tech because the techniques themselves left their mark--do you remember that old, B&W, detective-genre movie--they actually proved someone used a particular typewriter by matching the characters on a note with the faces of typewriter keys! Even the old classic, fingerprints, has had to deal with forgeries and plants only recently made possible by advances in materials technology, laser scans, et.al.

Authenticity is obsolete. Sure, some disciplines may still be able to discern truth from CGI but that number is shrinking and will continue to shrink. There is a three-dimensional printer now available to laboratories who have the budget for it--it takes a three-dimensional scan and lays down layer after layer of some kind of vinyl or something, until the shape is ready to be removed from the 'printer'. I believe there's a scene in Juraisic Park III wherein such a device is shown creating part of a raptor's skull.

So, now we revise 'know that you don't know anything' to 'no one CAN know anything', always remembering, of course, that I don't know any of this (ha ha).

In addition, since 'not knowing anything' is relative to the times in which it is said, we must also allow for an immense increase in detail of our conception of existence--we used to think the solar system was All, then we thought the galaxy was All, and now we infer that the Universe is made up of countless galaxies, all immensely distant from each other, and that our Milky Way is just one of those galaxies. And when I slip in a term like 'countless', I'm not kidding; scientists and mathematicians agree that a 'google' is ten to the tenth power (a one with ten zeros) and that a google-plex (a google to the google-th power) is the largest numerical value of any significance to us, since it is so large that we can't really understand it (If written out 1,000,000... , the number would take up about a gazillion yards of paper) and, therefore, anything bigger is just 'bigger'.

So, now we further revise 'no one CAN know anything' to include 'nor even count the number of things we don't know, which grows exponentially with every scientific discovery'.

Beyond that, we have the religion issue--these people are cheaters; they say they know something for sure, an absolute certainty, because they have faith. That's all well and good but we atheists would appreciate it if you believers out there would stop confusing 'knowing' with 'having faith'. I would never deny you your faith--why would you want to mess with my knowledge? (Or lack thereof, to return to the subject at hand.)

We have our senses and we use them. But our senses were never meant to help us perceive reality--we evolved them to perceive life; whether it's prey or a predator or a mate or a rival; the need to ingest and its opposite; whether it's too cold or too warm. We perceive not reality but relativity--our place in the circle of life, how to nurture and keep life, how to make new life, and how to take life and, sometimes, consume it.

But reality is different--did you know that reality does not include color? It's true--our eyes evolved to differentiate wavelengths of visible light (which is, in turn, only a small section in the electromagnetic spectrum) as different colors--the reason we see green all around us is that we developed our eyesight to find food which, in the case of early hominids, was vegetation. This most sought-after material became the mid-point of visible lights' colors--they go higher until they reach infra-red and lower until they reach ultra-violet--what mankind most wants to see is, in a nutshell, lunch. Dogs, too--but dogs can smell their lunch from a distance, which is why they can get by with only black-and-white vision (dogs are color-blind).

Further, what we think of as an object's 'color' isn't something it gives off--it just sits there--the color of it only represents what parts of sunlight are absorbed and what parts of its wavelength bounce off and reach our eye. We could therefore think of 'something-absorbing-all-non-pink-light' (which is a 'pink-something', for you color-purists out there).

And reality is also almost completely devoid of substance! Think of the Science Channel telling you about an atom: it is a tiny nucleus with tinier electron(s) spinning 'round it. It resembles in some way the solar system--particles dancing with a lot of nothing in between them. And if Einstein's famous equation is true (Energy equals Matter times a Constant Speed), then sub-atomic particles are simply 'knots' of energy. As they dance around the outer limit of atoms, they form the solid-seeming matter we take for granted: tables, chairs, oceans, ourselves.... yet these 'objects' are only knots of energy spinning crazily within the voids that are the most-part of their atoms!

I figure that makes sense because the whole universe is supposed to have been contained in a very tiny singularity just prior to the Big Bang
--but who knows?

"Not I", said the duck.
"Nor me either", say the wise folk.Huh

Nicley done and nicley expressed. I wish you would have sent it to me first so I could post it and have Unbeliever tell me how many fallacies where in there. He won't because he is not intellectually honest. But I don't care about fallacies, If you wrote that yourself, how do we anything, you are smart enough to look up what "faith" means as it relates to the Bible. Most don't have the ability to understand it but you might. Good luck on your search if choose to do so. I look forward to your response.

Thanks for complimenting me with your first sentence. I fear I have no idea what the rest of your post is trying to say, particularly 'if you wrote that yourself, how do we anything'--what does that mean? and who else is going to write my posts for me?
Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 08:25 AM
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
I think the question of whether you wrote that yourself was intended innocently enough. Likely its just because it was copied and pasted here (or at least appears to be, since it is a different font), so people were just wondering if you copied it from elsewhere, or from somewhere that you keep your own writing.

I also enjoyed reading this piece. Thanks for posting it.

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 08:25 AM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(13-04-2010 12:40 AM)Green Wrote:  That made for an interesting read... I'm also curious if you wrote that yourself. It's well written but I'm much too tired to be analyzing and picking things apart... Although I'm not a big fan of the term "reality"...

What the hell is this? Do people normally ask if posts have been plagiarized? Two doubters in a row--I suppose I ought to be flattered that my writing is 'too good to be true'(!?)

And what's the problem with 'reality' as a word? That it's misused a great deal? Sure, 'reality' is slippery and begs for a 'syntax-based' argument in which nothing is decided except that two people use the same word in different ways.

In my post the term is used as a counterpart to 'subjective' or 'perceptual'.
Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 08:41 AM
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(13-04-2010 08:25 AM)xperdunn Wrote:  What the hell is this? Do people normally ask if posts have been plagiarized? Two doubters in a row--I suppose I ought to be flattered that my writing is 'too good to be true'(!?)

No one was saying that you plagiarized it. Chillax, man. martin was just making the observation - and offhand insult towards the rest of us - that you being capable of writing something like this meant that you were smart enough to realize that faith is a good thing.
martin's our resident theist. He often makes comments like this in an effort to get us riled up - you know, apparently complimenting one poster while simultaneously insulting all the others. Don't worry about it.
Welcome to the forums, by the way! Glad to have you with us.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 08:41 AM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(13-04-2010 08:25 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I think the question of whether you wrote that yourself was intended innocently enough. Likely its just because it was copied and pasted here (or at least appears to be, since it is a different font), so people were just wondering if you copied it from elsewhere, or from somewhere that you keep your own writing.

I also enjoyed reading this piece. Thanks for posting it.

Thanks for explicating--that does make more sense. If you'll look at the thread-edit box controls you'll see buttons for FONT and SIZE--however, if you use them, be sure to also use the CLOSE BRACKETS button at the end of your text. and by the way--love the quote.
(13-04-2010 08:41 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(13-04-2010 08:25 AM)xperdunn Wrote:  What the hell is this? Do people normally ask if posts have been plagiarized? Two doubters in a row--I suppose I ought to be flattered that my writing is 'too good to be true'(!?)

No one was saying that you plagiarized it. Chillax, man. martin was just making the observation - and offhand insult towards the rest of us - that you being capable of writing something like this meant that you were smart enough to realize that faith is a good thing.
martin's our resident theist. He often makes comments like this in an effort to get us riled up - you know, apparently complimenting one poster while simultaneously insulting all the others. Don't worry about it.
Welcome to the forums, by the way! Glad to have you with us.

Thanks awfully for the insight into the group dynamic--I'm so used to talking to 'martins' that I forgot some actual atheists might join the discussion--can you also tell me why so many bible-thumpers are posting on the Thinking Atheist forum? Is it like those legislators who are secretly gay but push for anti-gay legislation?
Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 09:02 AM
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
As far as I know, Martin is the only theist posting on this forum at the moment.

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: