tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post1792504268354905966..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: A fairly typical emailUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50297185365528381232011-08-12T14:29:23.691-05:002011-08-12T14:29:23.691-05:00Your response to the notion that God is "ener...Your response to the notion that God is "energy" was brilliant.Savihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15283382255891952732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27923191668141686252011-07-13T05:59:58.883-05:002011-07-13T05:59:58.883-05:00Μάλαμας said...
"My definition of god: a hum...Μάλαμας said... <br />"My definition of god: a human invention (people create god) to explain various phenomenons and for other psychological reasons."<br /><br />you forgot: <br />And to con credulous and/or frightened people out of their hard earned possessions.gswhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00464061976742965239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38184401091757289002011-07-08T03:29:29.578-05:002011-07-08T03:29:29.578-05:00(It seems as though I'm experiencing technical...(It seems as though I'm experiencing technical difficulties...)<br /><br />If someone wants to define god as, "energy," then I would request them to more clearly explain what they mean by energy. There are 3 common (and perhaps more uncommon) meanings to the word, "energy."<br /><br />As a nuclear scientist, the first definition for energy is quite clear. It is a physical quantity that can be measured, and converted to/from work, and has units of J (joules) or eV (electronvolt). A joule is how much energy one requires to move an object 1 meter against a force of 1 newton. An electronvolt is how much energy one requries (or gains, depending on signs) to move an electron (or proton) against an eletric potential field with a difference of 1 volt. This quantity can be measured, converted, and many other things. When people talk about the, "conservation of energy," this is what they're talking about. I have no problem whatsoever believing in this energy. I can quite easily test it in different method. I can roll a ball down a hill and up another ramp, and see that it goes almost up to the same height as it did before. If there were no friction or air resistance, it would likely go up to exactly the same height. I can measure the amount of friction by measuring the temperature increase of the system. I could also measure the speed of the ball at the bottom of the hill. There is plenty and overwhelming evidence for this, "energy," and for its conservation. (Except in extenuating circumstances relating to relativity and its conversion to and from matter. However, this it is a more advanced topic in physics, and is not particularly relevant to this discussion.) I do not feel that this is what someone means when they say that god is energy. If they did, then god is nothing more than a measurable quantity in nature.<br /><br />The second definition of energy is a generaly feeling of vigor or liveliness. For example, when I wake up in the morning, I do not really feel like doing much of anything. I do not have much liveliness at this point in time. If after a few minutes, I drink my coffee, and rike my bike for a bit, I have a bit more vigor and feel as though I can do more things. This energy is also quite real, at least in an abstract sense. I can see myself act slowly when I don't have much energy. I can see others act slwly when they don't have much energy.<br />The evidence for this kind of energy is not as strong. For example, it could just be a result of human psychology, and that in actuality, we are capable of putting our body to great tasks even in our sleep. This energy is not conserved. Sometimes I feel tired for no reason at all, and then feel full of vigor the next moment. I would say that there is enough evidence for the existence of this type of energy to say that it exists, at least in an abstract way. Every single person, and animal, and living thing, behaves in a way similar to me. It is not *just* myself, and there are not large groups of people or animals which are not affected by the existence or lack of this energy. <br /><br />The third definition of energy is a new-age belief in some sort of consciousness of the energy. Some "binding life-force" which makes things happen for a reason. It is a spiritual force which exists concurrently with nature.<br />If this is your definition of god, then I would say that there exists no reasonable evidence for its existence. This energy gives "meaning" to meaningless events, and "signs" for people to do things.<br />I have seen no evidence whatsoever for the existence of this, "energy." If you would like to present some, I'm all ears, but I have never once seen any evidence for this.<br /><br />These 3 meanings to the word "energy" are *distinct*. Just because the first one is neither created or destroyed does not mean the other two are neither created nor destroyed, and there is no benefit to mixing their usage, except to make communication and logic more difficult.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16473608175349718196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13496933729440263922011-07-08T03:28:19.958-05:002011-07-08T03:28:19.958-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16473608175349718196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66496814465987110352011-07-08T03:27:35.752-05:002011-07-08T03:27:35.752-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16473608175349718196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46585767993164052012011-07-08T03:26:56.345-05:002011-07-08T03:26:56.345-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16473608175349718196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2348976973654017452011-07-08T03:24:02.182-05:002011-07-08T03:24:02.182-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16473608175349718196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48612874800281408422011-07-08T03:22:25.989-05:002011-07-08T03:22:25.989-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16473608175349718196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16763891962463077462011-07-08T03:22:07.771-05:002011-07-08T03:22:07.771-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16473608175349718196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62234570930129320272011-07-08T03:19:00.008-05:002011-07-08T03:19:00.008-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16473608175349718196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21452622131657951212011-07-08T03:18:39.139-05:002011-07-08T03:18:39.139-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16473608175349718196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63915861359984604062011-07-01T07:37:29.688-05:002011-07-01T07:37:29.688-05:00@JT
That is a complaint I have had about epistemol...@JT<br />That is a complaint I have had about epistemology in general for a long time. I am glad I am not the only one who thinks it does not have to be quite so complicated all the time.John K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11579041716600940838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29340532996082262192011-06-30T20:51:08.452-05:002011-06-30T20:51:08.452-05:00@JT
OH yer. i rambled on and forgot to say my poi...@JT <br />OH yer. i rambled on and forgot to say my point. Apart from me the rest of the jury all swore on the Bible or the Koran.<br />So it go's to show that believers can be logically objective when it suits them.<br />They just put the blinkers on when they think about religion.tonyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11473370383814794320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1821483241908581322011-06-30T20:31:28.734-05:002011-06-30T20:31:28.734-05:00@JT
I liked your comment about evaluating evidence...@JT<br />I liked your comment about evaluating evidence.I was selected for Jury service last December.Obviously the Jury tries to be as honest and fair as possible. <br />When it was time to reach a verdict.I think everyone tried there best to look at the evidence and testimony in a logical manner.<br />I think in our discussions of the evidence presented we probably employed all your 6 steps.<br />With the addition that,"Presentation," of the evidence by witnesses also played a part.tonyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11473370383814794320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33059431904399147632011-06-30T15:23:07.461-05:002011-06-30T15:23:07.461-05:00I'm sort of waiting for someone to say, "...I'm sort of waiting for someone to say, "Oh, you want <b>hardcore</b> evidence!". <br /><br />I've been getting that a lot lately. It's almost like a burden of proof shift, where the implication is that I'm being unreasonable in having standards.<br /><br />... like demanding that they find a way to distinguish their "evidence" from schizophrenia is somehow "unreasonable".JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76404553141245681912011-06-30T15:10:33.142-05:002011-06-30T15:10:33.142-05:00@John
Let's just say it's my translated v...@John<br /><br />Let's just say it's my translated version. If you try to google the standards of evidence, you tend to get a lot of high level math stuff, or standards that apply to particular fields, like psychology.<br /><br />So I've been working on a basic generalized version.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25590141337174616562011-06-30T15:00:23.594-05:002011-06-30T15:00:23.594-05:00@ JT
That is a nice epistemology overview. Did yo...@ JT<br />That is a nice epistemology overview. Did you get it from somewhere? I'd like to see it if you did.<br /><br />If you made it yourself, all I can say is good job.John K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11579041716600940838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52372287882532776142011-06-30T14:11:10.247-05:002011-06-30T14:11:10.247-05:00I simply can't prove to you that God exists. I...<i> I simply can't prove to you that God exists. I can only give evidence of/for His existence</i><br /><br />The thing is, outside of math, "prove" just means "<i>demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt, with sufficient evidence</i>". The problem doesn't tend to be that no evidence is provided, but rather that the evidence provided does not even remotely meet the standards of science. <br /><br />If someone came to you sand said, "The evidence for Zeus is that lightning happens, and lightning comes from Zeus, therefore Zeus exists.", would you find that compelling evidence? That's about the level of "evidence" that we're given, typically. It's been our observation that <b>all</b> theistic claims to evidence include <i>at least</i> one logical fallacy. They can't seem to escape it.<br /><br />The first step is to realize that some evidence is better at helping to converge on the correct answer than others.<br /><br />1) <b>Objective evidence</b>. We need data drawn from reality, not from someone's mind. Objective evidence is demonstrably much more reliable that subjective. <br /><br />2) <b>Exclusitivity</b>. If a piece of evidence implicates 10,000,000 possibilities equallty... it's not that useful. If it implicates 2 possibilities equally, it's much better quality. Additional evidence that demonstrates that it was cause A over cause B, that helps narrow down the exclusion.<br /><br />3) <b>Logical connection</b>. A Snickers bar resting in middle of a desert doesn't logically implicate a tornado. A path of destruction through a field/forest, with trees knocked over and a twirling pattern on the ground, does.<br /><br />4) <b>Repeatibility</b>. If we only get one example of the evidence, it may just be a fluke. Bigger sample sets are better.<br /><br />5) <b>Presentability</b>. One can simply claim to have irrefutable evidence, but if no one can access or review it, it's useless.<br /><br />6) <b>Falsifiability</b>. It's possible to construct an argument that appears to be true, but can never be disproven, even if it really is false. Prayer for instance, follows this model. No matter the outcome, a theist will simply claim that it was supposed to come out that way, and thus, proves prayer works. Thus, unfalsifiable claims tend to be useless.<br /><br /> <br />If you managed to uphold all those standards, you've then generated <b>one</b> pieces of evidence. Like a jigsaw puzzle, you need to assemble <i>lots</i> of individual pieces before you can reasonably accurately discern what the picture is. Pointing at one pieces that appears grey and furry, and declaring that the image is that of a cat is premature.<br /><br />So it'd take mounds of non-conflicting, validated, confirmed, peer reviewed evidence that consistently builds a model before you remotely have anything resembling a demonstrated claim.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4457029469548760152011-06-30T11:58:55.157-05:002011-06-30T11:58:55.157-05:00I've copied and pasted the comment (below) I a...I've copied and pasted the comment (below) I appreciate. As a Protestant Christian, I do believe in God, but "coincidences" are not necessarily evidence for the existence of God since they can be explained in other ways. And the bottom line is this: as a Christian, I simply can't prove to you that God exists. I can only give evidence of/for His existence, and rationale for the likelihood or probability of God's existence, but I can't irrefragably prove His existence, as though I could take you to Him and say, "Look, here He is!" Even if I did, you could doubt.<br /><br />"...the evidence that people give for believing in God is nowhere near that interesting. As you said, people generally rely on "faith," which obviously wouldn't be necessary if there was anything approaching a good reason to believe in God. When they do try to present convincing evidence, it tends to be of a very mundane sort: They couldn't find their car keys and then they turned up; an earthquake happened in a place full of people they don't like; somebody was very sick and then got better; and so on. It's not enough. Not even close."Josh Littonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08344128055161554659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49814812926457947452011-06-28T21:11:40.342-05:002011-06-28T21:11:40.342-05:00"Since when does not believing in something r..."Since when does not believing in something require 100% certainty?"<br /><br />Since theists defined the word 'atheist' to such an impossibly high standard that they knew full well that few would dare make such a leap. Advantage: theism. <br /><br />Aron Ra commented in Ireland a few weeks back that he didn't even know he was an 'atheist' for years because he had been indoctrinated to think that the term meant absolute certainty in no gods.ABhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15536547131562840293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80931986529112024842011-06-28T10:33:34.217-05:002011-06-28T10:33:34.217-05:00Ugh! Another delusional twit mangling the word &qu...Ugh! Another delusional twit mangling the word "energy" to serve their superstition. Energy is only a measurement of a physical system's ability to do work. The word has a very specific linguistic and mathematical definition. Energy IS NOT conscious, intelligent, or some glowing, amorphous mote of light that harasses the crew of the USS Enterprise.Mark Sieferthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14409314388156575545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43784478422391224352011-06-28T10:06:01.647-05:002011-06-28T10:06:01.647-05:00ah, the old "God Is Energy" fallacy eh?
...ah, the old "God Is Energy" fallacy eh?<br /><br /><br />where the fock are my keys?? where. the. fock!?!?!? are. my. focking keys???!! they must be in this room. they musssssst beeeee! where where where... they just have to be in the room. they. are. here. sooooooomewhereeeeee! keeeeeeyssSSssS! aaaahhhh!<br /><br /><br />i suppose you could replace keys with god and room with universe.Sparfiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00856133278974136947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89109794034857908372011-06-27T17:26:18.080-05:002011-06-27T17:26:18.080-05:00His god is energy? But this conflicts with the cal...His god is energy? But this conflicts with the caller from a while back who told us that his god was "ultimate strategy" (then did a horrible job of explaining what the hell that meant). And didn't we have another who claimed that his god was "the sum of human creativity"? Then we have all of those who claim that their god is "love", despite the fact that it keeps killing people who don't want to be killed.<br /><br />Can you blame us for being confused?Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08435379042731604819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26844303028584831242011-06-27T10:20:20.331-05:002011-06-27T10:20:20.331-05:00If you seek to know the truth, then you shouldn...If you seek to know the truth, then you shouldn't accept something without evidence. <br /><br />There are ways to measure energy and we don't have doubts about the existence of energy. This doesn't apply to god. If you believe in god you should be more specific about his (or her) nature. <br /><br />My definition of god: a human invention (people create god) to explain various phenomenons and for other psychological reasons. Usually gods look like human beings but they have supernatural powers. In monotheistic religions god is the creator of the universe. <br /><br />What we get from theists when we ask them about god is a set of myths. When you don't accept these myths then you seek for the truth without faith in god (or gods).Marios Theofanidishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18032982989516611343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-18593859503897031912011-06-27T08:08:48.786-05:002011-06-27T08:08:48.786-05:00@Anna Bucci
This whole thread is nothing more tha...@Anna Bucci<br /><br />This whole thread is nothing more than an<br /><br />adhocsliperyslopestrawmanequivocationflaseanalogy <br />fallacyRaymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16439248183580550162noreply@blogger.com