Jo believes in unicorns and fairies.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I said the proper distance between the ends of a board are objective; you said proper distance is a value judgement.
While you're here, and since you claim objective facts don't exist, is it an objective fact that the world is not flat?
1. You always cherry pick a simple example with a high degree of confidence. Then you expect people to assume all claims have the same degree of confidence. Prove that all claims are of a high degree of confidence such as the earth is a sphere. that's the problem you keep over looking. The claim that statements have to be empirically verified to be meaningful was never empirically verified.
2. the establishment of facts assume that the method employed to establish them is reliable. Some facts get sent to the rubbish pile. While other facts are more static. For example, in the 1950's it was an evolutionary fact that humans came from the apes. That fact is now non-operative, and sent to the rubbish pile. But the fact that the earth is a sphere has staying power. It is important to distinguish between degrees of confidence and how reliable is the method that the fact relies on? Of course I know what facts are and they are not all like 'the earth is a sphere".
3. So here is what you are telling me: due to the fact that the earth is not flat, disbelief in God is empirically reliable and valid. Its not coherent. Perhaps you should try a different fact with a high degree of confidence and see if disbelief in God is justified by that fact. Give me some facts that support disbelief in God. Again, I don't care that you are an atheist. suit yourself. It would be interesting if you would justify it, however.
And I would still like to know what books you have read written by positivist/empiricists on the subject of objectivity. I doubt you or anyone atheist on this forum have read any which explains your naive perspective.
Groovy, but I have no interest in your subjective opinion on the shape of the earth. I asked a simple question that you refuse to answer, is it an objective fact that the earth is not flat? It either is supported by objective evidence or it is not, those claims are logical negations of each other. Do try and grasp that a fact does not, indeed cannot involve the misnomer of 100% certainty, it is not an accident I have used this example. Just how much of objective reality are you prepared to deny, in order to maintain a delusion in an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition?
Even if the shape of this earth was proven to be an Octahedron, the scientific process proven false, and Chimpanzees are actually from Planet Banana, that does not prove a god.
Another straw man fallacy from you, I have never claimed to be objective, only to set the same objective standard for all claims and beliefs.
Other than your religious beliefs, can you list half a dozen beliefs you hold for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated?
For instance, is it, or is it not, an objective fact that the world is not flat?
If objective truth doesn't exist this would render all scientific facts mere subjective opinion.
That position is demonstrably absurd, and it's the position you have championed.
1. OK, so you now no longer claim to be objective. That's encouraging.
2. You claim to set the same standard for all claims and beliefs. OK. So far so good.
3. One belief I hold for which I have no direct evidence is "I believe atoms exist". I have no direct observation of atoms, but I am told they exist, and I believe it. I believe sub atomic items such as electrons and neutrons exist, although I recognized these are theoretical models of phenomenon that no one has directly seen. How's that? and So what? and Oh, I believe the earth is a sphere, and not flat, but I have no direct observation of that fact. I believe it based on indirect means.
4. According to an atheist poster here, science doesn't prove anything. I agreed with him. Theories can never be proven. In principle, everything scientists believe could be false.
5. What is subjectivity? Epistemology portrays the problem of knowledge in terms of the subject - object relation.
the subject is the sensing thinking knower. The object is the entity the subject is observing and thinking about. Teh object doesn't have to be a physical object. It can be an idea as well.
With simple things such as 'the subject is sitting on the chair' we don't really notice any problem between the subject and the object (the chair).
Too, with other simple examples such as 'we observed through a telescope and saw that the planet is mountainous.' No obvious problem there.
However, problems arise when we want to explain something we could not see directly. For example, a subject sees a huge deep canyon. How did that canyon form, he wonders. Some say it eroded over many thousands, maybe millions of years. Another claims it formed very quickly at the end of an ice age. When the ice age ended a huge volume of water flowed over the area and eroded the ground in a matter of years. Another says there was an underground river that eroded the ceiling of the river until the ceiling collapsed forming the canyon.
So we have three theories. Lets suppose that the underground river theory gets accepted as fact due to better coherence with what is observed. In the other two theories we note that the subjects are reasoning correctly within a false theory. That's subjectivity. With the theory taken as fact, the underground river one, the subject is reasoning correctly with in a true theory. That's true knowledge. The subject has made contact with reality.
Definition of subjectivity: a correct inference within a false theory or system.
Definition of knowledge: a correct inference within a true theory or system. This is neither subjective nor objective because the subject has made contact with reality.
Of course we have to keep in mind that an atheist poster here correctly insisted that theories can't be proven. Theories are models of reality, and there is no absolute proof that a theory, taken as fact, is indeed reality. So the idea that a subject has made contact with reality is ultimately a belief.
1. I never claimed this, it was a lie you posted as a straw man fallacy.
2. Not a standard, the same standard, and more significantly you don't set the same open minded standard, but favour one belief with obvious bias, or can you list beliefs you hold that are no part of your religious beliefs, and for which there is no objective evidence? Evasion from you again..
3. There is objective evidence for atoms you clown. This was demonstrated in 1897 by British physicist JJ Thomson. Einstein developed a mathematical formula to predict Brownian motion...etc etc..
"Einstein’s theory was that that the particles from the pollen grains were being moved around because they were constantly crashing into millions of tinier molecules of water – molecules that were made of atoms." "By 1908, observations backed with calculations had confirmed that atoms were real. Within about a decade, physicists would be able to go further. By pulling apart individual atoms they began to get a sense of their internal structure."
I'm starting to think you might have issues...
4. So you're saying the earth could be flat then, so are you claiming that it is not an objective fact that the earth is flat?
1. the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
As opposed to objective evidence see, note the word subjectivity is meaningless, or even redundant without the existence of objective fact, else everything is mere opinion, and we wouldn't need a word for it.
So the idea the earth is not flat is a belief, ok, but is that belief supported by objective evidence, or is it based on mere opinion? Do take your time...
Sheldon, notice that this poster has shifted from debating numbers and science to ad hominem attacks?
"According to an atheist poster here, science doesn't prove anything. I agreed with him. Theories can never be proven. In principle, everything scientists believe could be false."
All science does is offer the best explanation based on the current level of knowledge. Science, unlike religion, never claims anything as 100% certain. Science does not posses the arrogance of religion.
Apollo is using the same tired old specious nonsense, that because science is a fallible human method it is no more valid than the unevidenced superstitious bronze age myths that are touted as support for the existence of a deity.
All he will see is science is not 100% reliable, he can't understand that this doesn't negate science producing objective facts, or that nothing humans believe can ever be 100% reliable. In his wriggle goal post moving post above he talks about "facts" varying in reliability, but doesn't seem to understand what produces the most reliable results by a very very large margin, and yes that is objective evidence, and objective methods like science.
Spot on, because science's most basic premise is that we are ignorant, and must try to correct this by searching for the objective truth, whereas religious superstition claims to possess inerrant truth, and eschews the idea any new evidence can alter it in any way.
@ Sheldon and David, well said.
I feel a build up .... Apollo “ Theories can never be proven.”. Jesus fuckin’Christ! Did you really just write that?!?! Really!?!?!!!! WTF! It’s a “theory” BECAUSE it was proven and the DOOR is always open to be built upon/added to - corrected?!?! Because it has proof! Evidence!
Goddamnit...if DNA evidence proved that some asshole murdered your kid (if you have any) would you accept that?!?! Think of science as cops at a crime scene... or you are “a judge” deciding for either a plaintiff or a defendant.
To get a basic understanding of reason watch ‘fuckin ‘Judge Judy...
Fuck, I hate it when I get a build up...
"One belief I hold for which I have no direct evidence is "I believe atoms exist". I have no direct observation of atoms, but I am told they exist, and I believe it. I believe sub atomic items such as electrons and neutrons exist, although I recognized these are theoretical models of phenomenon that no one has directly seen. How's that? and So what? and Oh, I believe the earth is a sphere, and not flat, but I have no direct observation of that fact. I believe it based on indirect means."
You really need to get out more, and catch up with what has happened since they invented anal lubricant.
FYI, the image is Hydrogen
"Apollo - For example, in the 1950's it was an evolutionary fact that humans came from the apes. That fact is now non-operative, and sent to the rubbish pile."
Pickle me grandmother, you really have no idea do you. Have you ever actually read any Darwin?
All humans are in fact descended from apes. We belong to the genus primate .
"Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.
Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea).
This ape group can be further subdivided into the Great Apes and Lesser Apes. Humans have bodies that are genetically and structurally very similar to those of the Great Apes and so we are classified in the Great Apes sub-group which is also known as the hominids (Family Hominidae)."
So Apollo doesn't understand the most basic concepts of science, he doesn't even understand what a scientific theory is, or the weight of objective evidence that underpins an established theory like evolution. Is anyone really surprised?
@Apollo, is it an objective fact that world is not flat?
Why do we suppose that despite his vapid verbiage, he is unable to answer the simplest of questions with a yes, no or an I don't know?
I think that last question need only be rhetorical. My guess is that Apollo is about to run away as he has done everytime before, only to return when he thinks we've all forgotten his past nonsense.
...there are all sorts of smarts and there are all sorts of dumbs... :)