The Black Cat Analogy

[Silent3]

[progressoid]

1. heh...

[Silent3]

2. +1 n/t

[Berlum]

3. Hip Hip Hooray for Scientific Materialists !

For their tireless efforts to inspire the epic descriptor: "arrogant dipwads."

Where would be without them?

[Fumesucker]

4. He ironically typed on his computer connected to millions of other computers in a great web".

Edited fer speling.

[trotsky]

49. +1000 n/t

[Silent3]

5. A retort with all of the wit and humor of a Tea Party rally.

Not to mention the sophisticated style of the Drudge Report.

[mr blur]

8. The Middle Ages, probably.

Along with Muslims, the Fundies, the Orthodox Jews and the Catholics.

[whathehell]

51. +1 n/t

[AlbertCat]

96. The Berlin Wall

has nothing to do with science (except maybe the engineering to build it)

It was POLITICAL.

Can you not discern the difference?

If you're gonna now retort with something about Communism being atheistic, the USSR replaced an infallible god with an infallible party.... that's not atheism.

And even if it was... neither the wall or the USSR exist anymore... but a lot more atheists do!

[Brickbat]

6. I'd say "religion" instead of "theology."

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. Religion is telling others there is a black cat and a dark room for money.

[edhopper]

7. As a "scientific materialist"

I think this is a bit harsh.
Philosophy is very useful in determining how to live one's life.
I never really understood what Metaphysics is actually is.
I would say Theology would be more like discussing a black cat that isn't there.
Religion is shouting "I found it".

[Silent3]

30. I consider this more a fun analogy that a highly accurate one.

I agree that philosophy can be useful -- the scientific approach itself can certainly be classified as a school of philosophy.

[zeemike]

9. And dogma is like being in a black room

and telling everyone to stop looking for black cats cause they don't exist in dark rooms and anyone who looks is a fool.
And foolishness is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat by shinning the flashlight in your eyes and calling it science.

[edhopper]

13. And religion

is when you turn the light's on and show people that there is no black cat, they tell you it's invisible and you just have to believe in it.

[Silent3]

14. +1 n/t

[zeemike]

16. And science like the person that did not have electricity

And insisted that the flashlight is the only way to discover the black cat and points it in your eyes or at the ceiling and tells you that is proof there is no black cat in the room.
The analogy can work both ways...cause in the real world there is no light that shines in every corner....if it were so there would be no need for science or religion.

[Silent3]

21. The "light" of science, however, produces fairly consistent results...

...which have definite consequences in people's lives whether they "believe" in science or not.

The "light" of religion, however, is a curious insider-only light, where you have to believe in it before you see anything by it. There are a dizzying array of lights to choose from, which oddly reveal many mutually exclusive, even mutually contradictory things. It's curiously similar to people simply believing in imaginative incarnations of their hopes and fears.

[zeemike]

24. Religion does not have a light.

And never tries to shine it anywhere.
Science does, and it is a flashlight with a narrow beam that only reveals what the user wants it to reveal....and sense they believe there can be no black cat in the dark room they don't shine it there....dogma controls where the light shines.

[Silent3]

27. Science involves both directed and non-directed searches

And plenty of times when you accidentally drop the "flashlight" and find things you weren't looking for.

For the analogy to work, you have to realize it's a very, very big "room" we're talking about, and all that a scientific viewpoint asks is not giving much credence to wild speculation about what might exist in the many parts of the room that haven't been searched yet, being cautious about misinterpreting spooky shadows.

As for you now saying "Religion does not have a light", since you likened science to not having electricity, that sounds an awful lot like you were saying that religion does have it, and then you'd be implying religions produces much more "light" than poor, hobbled, narrow-beam science.

[zeemike]

29. No I meant what I said...religion does not have a light and does not want one.

Religion is the co opting of spiritual belief and has no interest in the truth...it is about power and control and money and they don't give a shit about black cats.
And neither does science because they take the opposing side and don't want to shine their narrow beam on anything that could help religion in any way.
Conflict is all part of the game and is used by both sides.

[Silent3]

32. I don't buy the idea that there's much distinction between...

...religion and "spiritual belief". "Spiritual belief" is frequently just as evidence-free as religion, less dogmatic perhaps, but often entertaining more unanchored vapidity.

[zeemike]

37. Perhaps just as evidence free as string theory.

But no one says that that theory is made up by fools.
And there are may other examples of it....like the dogma that Jesus never existed and was just made up by religion to fool people with...show me some evidence that proves he never existed....but it has become the dogma of some who claim science knows things they can't possibly know.
Those kind of conclusions are not science but they are accepted as such by far too many.

[Silent3]

40. String theorists know, however...

...that they can only expect to get so far until their work produces results that can be tested. In the meantime, at least, they are building on top of established science and using mathematically sound models which have to agree with what has been experimentally verified.

That's very, very different than speculating on various pantheons and supposed god-given rules of conduct and places were already-speculative immortal souls go when people die.

As for the idea that Jesus never existed... how does that constitute "dogma"? Do people build shrines to the emphatic non-existence of Jesus, build organizations where you have to solemnly swear that Jesus never existed in order to join?

There's also a matter of the distinction between the existence of an ordinary man named Jesus, and a son-of-God Jesus. I personally think evidence of even just a mortal man upon whom Christianity is based is a bit shaky, and the evidence for divinity is non-existent. But that's no more dogma than a lack of belief in unicorns and werewolves.

[zeemike]

43. Well you confuse religion with spiritual beliefs.

They are not the same thing...never have been.
Spiritual belief says that you believe in a world outside of what we see and can measure...and religion is an organization that you belong to if you accept the dogma's that they accept as true.
Jesus did not create the Christian religion as we know it...and Siddhartha did not create Buddhism the way we know it today....that came after by those seeking to make it an organization...in the case of Christianity that was done by Paul...who never met Jesus, but created a religion acceptable to the Roman empire.
But sense when dose dogma require a shrine?

Can one joining an atheist organization and not accept the non existence of a spiritual world?...or post things in the atheist forum that promotes the idea of a spiritual world?...no you must accept that dogma or you are out.

According to the bible Jesus never claimed to be the god man that religion says he is...he called himself the Son of Man....and said that he and the father are one...which goes way back into eastern mysticism and native American culture that says we are all of the same spirit...something lost to most of us today, and totally not understood by many.

[bongbong]

48. Definitions

> Spiritual belief says that you believe in a world outside of what we see and can measure

No, you're confusing "spirituality" with "we haven't invented the technology to measure that phenomena yet".

[tama]

102. Yup

both cases of "world outside" seem to be referring to some version of philosophical realism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

However:

Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism'—a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality. Here we show by both theory and experiment that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations. In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html

[bongbong]

38. Chemistry

> neither does science because they take the opposing side and don't want to shine their narrow beam on anything that could help religion in any way.

That's not true in the slightest. Many studies by biologists, psychologists, neurologists & other specialists have pinpointed, or at least narrowed down, the origin of religious FEELINGS as arising from peculiarities in brain structure & chemistry. As for religious BELIEFS, you get those from the dogma you are exposed to and choose to follow.

IOW, you get your religion from chemicals and teachers.

[zeemike]

41. And perhaps you get yours from the same chemistry.

Chemistry does not know truth and can never know truth...cause it is chemistry not philosophy.
So show me the proof that how I feel is just my chemistry...cause it apparently has changed over my lifetime, cause I don't believe and feel the way I did when I was a kid or a young man....I guess my brain structure has gone through many changes....but some think that is learning.
Perhaps brain chemistry also determines who will learn new things and who won't.

[bongbong]

42. ????

> Chemistry does not know truth and can never know truth...cause it is chemistry not philosophy.

followed by

> So show me the proof that how I feel is just my chemistry

So that means, using your own argument, that only philosophy can provide proof. So you made my job easy! Here it is: "Philosophically speaking, and using the vast philosophical knowledge which I have, your feelings come from your chemistry."

Easy as pie.

[zeemike]

45. I did not say that.

Philosophy is not truth and neither is chemistry....philosophy seeks to understand truth that cannot be shown by chemistry or other physical science...
The part you don't understand is that there ARE things that cannot be proven by physical reality....like string theory tries to understand the physical world....cause the physical world is far from compleatly understood.

[bongbong]

47. ????????????????????????

> philosophy seeks to understand truth that cannot be shown by chemistry or other physical science...

OK, so let's just call the truths revealed by chemistry and other hard sciences "truth*". Will that make you happy?

> The part you don't understand is that there ARE things that cannot be proven by physical reality.

Sounds like you want to get into some kind of epistemological argument about "what is proof?" Since there are libraries filled with books discussing that topic, let's skip it. And, not to mention, you're moving the goalposts from chemistry to, like, everything.

> compleatly

I don't know if a guy who misspells completely is up to discussing Philosophy. Note that simple spelling errors like that don't disqualify you from discussing politics, but Philosophy ain't politics.

[zeemike]

53. As usual with this kind of discussion, you will run us in circles until you find something.

like a misspelled word to declare victory cause the other person is stupid and you have proof of that.

But no this does not have to be an epistemological discussion if you don't want it to be...but let's talk real....a fact in chemistry does not prove anything about the cosmos and can never answer the weightier questions of existence...even if you pile up every truth that we have learned about the physical world it still falls fall short of the over all truth....and can never answer it.
And what this is really about is those that think they can answer it because they have it all figured out...
This world would work far better if people were not so caught up in their own view of things that they truly believe that they have the answer and the other people are just stupid....which is the opposite of true scientific inquiry

[bongbong]

56. Hi yo silver

> ike a misspelled word to declare victory cause the other person is stupid and you have proof of that.

I don't know if you know it, but discussions about subjects like philosophy and Truth don't have "victors". My post made no such claim of victory, only that the intellectual horsepower needed to discuss weighty subjects is best found in people who have mastered basic English. It's not going to stop lesser lights from talking about anything, and I would be the last to say it should, but the conclusions & reasoning expounded by those folks might likely be ones that have already been examined & found wanting by the prospective counter-party to the discussion.

> a fact in chemistry does not prove anything about the cosmos

Well, there you see we have a basic disagreement about science. Methinks very little in the way of presenting facts that are labeled "accepted 100,000% factual truth" by legions of both theoretical & applied chemists would change your opinion in this area. Thus, let's just agree to disagree about this "nature of proof" or "nature of truth" or whatever it is you are attempting to expound upon.

> can never answer the weightier questions of existence

That would depend on how you define "answer". Again, it appears one person's "answer" is not satisfactory for you since, perhaps, it wouldn't sound "mystical" or "metaphysical" enough. I don't know.

> what this is really about is those that think they can answer it because they have it all figured out

What I find marvelous are those people who think that by calling something "unknowable", that they have it all figured out.

> This world would work far better if people were not so caught up in their own view of things that they truly believe that they have the answer and the other people are just stupid

Well, there are differences between people, and the ability of people to think. I would never have a car mechanic do brain surgery on me, and I'd never have a brain surgeon repair my car. The quote about apes reading philosophy vs. apes understanding philosophy from "A Fish Called Wanda" is appropriate here (it appeared recently in another DU post)

Have a great day!

[zeemike]

68. Yep here we go...

This is a load of crap;
"only that the intellectual horsepower needed to discuss weighty subjects is best found in people who have mastered basic English."
There is no evidence that spelling has anything to do with "intellectual horsepower", what ever the fuck that means.

But from hear on out it will just become circular with comments like this;

"That would depend on how you define "answer". Again, it appears one person's "answer" is not satisfactory for you since, perhaps, it wouldn't sound "mystical" or "metaphysical" enough."

Step one disassemble.the statement..step two imply a motive.
And round we go...you making the charges and me defending my words.
It follows the same pattern each time I have this conversation...especially if points are made against a world view.
Belief in science does not exempt one from dogmatic belief in it just because it is science..

[cleanhippie]

75. This has to be one of the greatest conversations I have ever read on DU.

It seems you are talking with a person who has read the inside cover of a philosophy book, and perhaps a couple of internet articles on debating, and is attempting to pass this all off as intelligence and expertise on the subject at hand.

Or he is just fucking with you.

Either way, its been a shit show of incoherence, and its one of the funniest things Ive read in a long time. Thanks for fighting the good fight for as long as you did. Well done.

[AlbertCat]

94. and sense they believe there can be no black cat

Because there is no food or water bowl for the cat and the litter box is still, after thousands of years, undisturbed. Also that there is no need for the black cat to explain any of the stuff that narrow beam....which gets wider all the time, BTW.... has shown. So it's not dogma at all.... or catma... badda bing!


There is no dogma in science, things must literally be detected, and then confirmed repeatedly.

Why don't people get this?

[zeemike]

101. Because what they say does not match what they do.

No doubt that science has no dogma in it's ideals, but in reality that is far from the truth.

[AlbertCat]

105. Because what they say does not match what they do.

Nonsense.

You only say that because you don't like what science tells you.

[zeemike]

108. Wrong, I do like what science tells me

What I don't like is dogmatic theories that claim to be science.

I would bet that before the discovery of electromagnetic force if you would have posted a theory of it the community of science would have ridiculed you for believing in an unseen force...and you would be laughed at for believing in magic.

[cleanhippie]

109. And thats the beauty of science.

One can postulate many ideas, and if observations support it, science accepts it. Why? Evidence. Something religion lacks.

[zeemike]

112. You mean credible evidence.

And what is credible to one is not credible to others.
All the written material about the existence of spirit is not credible to you because your dogma says it could have never have happened...so volumes of written work is impeached.
And all phenomenon that could be used is impeached because it sounds impossible to you....just as impossible as a computer to the 15th century scientist...and anyone believing things out of the Orthodox view must be a loon.

That is the problem I have, and it is not with science...true science has no dogma, and does not tell people they are stupid for thinking out of the box.

[cleanhippie]

115. Allow me to clarify...FACTUAL evidence.

There’s an old phrase among critical thinkers: you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts*. The idea is that these are two different things: opinions are matters of taste or subjective conclusions, while facts stand outside that, independent of what you think or how you may be biased.

You can have an opinion that Quisp cereal is, to you, the best breakfast food of all time. But you can’t have the opinion that evolution isn’t real. That latter is not an opinion; it’s objectively wrong. You can have the opinion that the evidence for evolution doesn’t satisfy you, or that evolution feels wrong to you. But disbelieving evolution is not an opinion.

The same can be said for many other topics of critical thinking.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/09/vaccines-opinions-are-not-facts/

[zeemike]

116. "But you can’t have the opinion that evolution isn’t real"

That is what I am talking about...the authoritarian command that all must believe like you cause your facts are real and other facts are not.
And then if you are in for a penny you are in for a pound...and the penny is that some of evolution is real but not all of it and certainly not all the conclusions that flow from it.
So then if your fact can be proved...you can breed dogs of all sizes and colors and traits...that proves genetic change true enough...but to then take that and use it to explain all life forms on the earth were created by this process is reaching way to far and the facts that show you this are thin at best....and go even farther and say it proves that chemistry and matter is all there is seems ridiculous to me...that is what real critical thinking is about...it is not about being critical of the unbelievers.

[cleanhippie]

118. You can have your own opinions but not your own facts. Evolution is factual.

And your grasp of science, the scientific method, Natural Selection, and Evolution is equivalent to that of an 8 year old or a Young Earth Creationist, so I'm not gonna waste my time trying to convince you. Go learn about these things then we can talk.

You have a nice day.

[zeemike]

119. Well good then, neither of us have to waste our time.

Sense no point I could make will ever be considered by you...much less discussed in any reasonable manner...

[cleanhippie]

120. I would give any point you made consideration, but since you have demonstrated a below average

Understanding of science, the scientific method, natural selection, and evolution, IOW you have no idea what you are talking about (your arguments can be found on any third rate creationists web page), you have given nothing at all for me to consider.

[zeemike]

121. That is total fucking bullshit

You have no idea what I know about science natural selection and evolution because you never bothered to find out...to busy telling me how stupid I am because I apply my critical thinking skills to your dogmatic ideas about them.
FYI I am almost 70 years old and I read many books on science and science fiction before I was 18...and many on anthropology and history before I was 30...and I had a subscription to Scientific America for years...and National Geographic too....I have been interested in science all of my life.
But your scale of judging stupid is based on whether it agrees with what you believe....and I suggest that that is what stupid is IMHO.

[cleanhippie]

122. I only know what you posted. And I never called you stupid.

Don't know what else to tell you zeemike, my last post summed it up, and was based on the things you yourself actually posted.

[zeemike]

123. The understanding of an 8 year old?....well that is not stupid i guess.

The things i posted were never discussed and you never sought to understand my point or make one on your own...just insisting that people who have different views of things are ignorant of the facts as you see them...and that you must be right because you see the facts that way.
It is not your belief or ideas that bother me...it is the attempt to intimidate people who see it different with ridicule...that is not in the spirit of science at all...but all to common when dogma is adopted in place of free inquiry.

[cleanhippie]

124. If one's argument is rediculous, then one should expect ridicule.

The "points" you tried to make are the exact same arguments one can find on any creationist website. Certainly we can agree that the arguments made on creationist websites ARE ridiculous, right?

[zeemike]

125. Well I don't know because I have never been to a creationist web site.

so I don't know what arguments they are using.
But the argument you are using is one of the authoritarian that insists that anyone who dissents from the official dogma is and idiot, uneducated or just plane stupid....that I do know because you encounter them all the time in all places.

I don't think creationist are any closer to the truth than are atheist....and are no more likely to want substantive discussion pf their beliefs as some atheist do...and for the same reasons.

[cleanhippie]

126. Then go to one or fifty and read what they have to say.

Perhaps you need to see it for yourself.

[zeemike]

127. Now why would I want to do that?

their simplistic explanations for things are probably not much worse than yours.

There is no simple explanation for the universe and most science shows that clearly to us....and that is why string theory is being pondered...to try to explain the vast complexity of our existence....and string theory does not conflict with my own understanding of the nature of reality...in fact it shows it is possible.

[cleanhippie]

128. Uhm, to see what is is I am talking about?

Creationist arguments stand alone. If your arguments are perceived to stand with them, it may be time to reevaluate your argument.

[zeemike]

129. How about you reevaluate your with us or against us notions.

I am not a group...my ideas are my own...and I suggest that you have no real idea what my arguments are because you just rejected them by the with us or against us dogma.
Things are not just black and white....life is Kodachrome

[cleanhippie]

131. What you DID present is a regurgitation of a typical creationist argument.

Until you present something different, what else is there to discuss?

Let's call it a draw and move on, shall we?

[zeemike]

132. consider it done.

It has never been a game of winning and losing to me so a draw is a moot point.

[Silent3]

130. There is such thing as *good* authority...

...and not all authority is "dogma".

It's impossible for each individual to dig up thousands of fossils for themselves, build their own orbital telescopes, design their own laboratories and particle accelerators from the ground up just to make sure they aren't being "authoritarian" when they refer to someone else's work.

"Appeal to authority" is often listed as a logical fallacy, but that's only because in and of itself such appeals are insufficient. If you can argue for the track record and the rational soundness of an authority, however, not only is there nothing wrong with making an appeal to such an authority, but for any complex issue for which none of us can possibly have all the direct experience we need, such appeals are absolutely essential.

By categorically rejecting all appeals to any authority, by hand-waving it all away as dogma, you're pretty much saying that the only way to be "open" or "fair" is to leave every issue, every question, in a vague limbo of personal opinion where no one's hard work and research really matters, where stands on issues become nothing more than personal fashion statements.

[Thats my opinion]

65. Science has produced constant results?

Any elementary history of science would have fun with that one.

[Silent3]

66. I said consistent, not constant.

And if your view of the history of science is the sensationalized, popularized one of constant turmoil and revolutions which completely overturn previous results, then you don't understand the history of science very well.

[skepticscott]

72. One has to wonder why

you would deliberately misrepresent what someone has posted, especially when all anyone (including you) has to do is scroll up half a page to see what was really said. Is that what "meaningful discussion" means to you, Charles? Just a code word for blatant intellectual dishonesty? Apparently

[cleanhippie]

73. Flashlights do use electricity, you know. Your analogy is quite incoherent.

[zeemike]

86. You mean there is such a thing as a coherent analogy?

You could say that about any analogy if you don't like the point...I could have said it about the OP here.
You know...like how do you know the cat was black if the room were dark?...it just don't make any sense does it?
There is no analogy that cannot be picked apart.

[cleanhippie]

87. If we're using yours as the exams, them no.

But you know that already.

[zeemike]

88. Well yes you told me

but it was clear to me and I bet I am not the only one that thinks like that...And that is the problem really...not everyone thinks alike, and some people think they should.

[cleanhippie]

89. Yet in this case, there is a clear definition, and yours comes up well short of the mark.

[zeemike]

92. This is about rhetoric.

Rhetoric
An analogy can be a spoken or textual comparison between two words (or sets of words) to highlight some form of semantic similarity between them. Such analogies can be used to strengthen political and philosophical arguments, even when the semantic similarity is weak or non-existent (if crafted carefully for the audience). Analogies are sometimes used to persuade those that cannot detect the flawed or non-existent arguments.

[cleanhippie]

93. No, this is about coherence.

And now I'm bored.

Have a nice evening.

[cbayer]

44. Let me know when you get those lights turned on, because it's still very black in this room.

[Silent3]

18. To which "dogma" do you refer?

Do you understand the definition of that word? Hint: It doesn't mean "anything strongly stated that I don't like".

[zeemike]

25. And it don't mean only religion ether.

Noun:
A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true:

Science as the authoritative figure can and does have it's dogmas, because science has become the authoritative figure in many peoples minds...just as it has in religion.

[Silent3]

28. Dogma, however, is insisted upon without evidence

Science produces reliable results, and when it fails is good at correctly mistakes. That's not at all anything like dogma. The authority of science is earned, not merely proclaimed.

[zeemike]

31. Even religion can produce evidence.to support dogma.

And so can science...but like the elephant in the above they don't have the whole picture...neither of them do.
And you cannot say that dogma does not exist because it was corrected before and now it must be true and therefore not dogma.

[Silent3]

36. You aren't making sense

What constitutes evidence for dogma? (I don't mean evidence that dogma exists. Evidence of various dogmatic claims.)

And who's talking about having "the whole picture"? Are you perhaps claiming that one would need the "whole picture" to in order find science much more useful and consistent and successful than religion or "spiritual belief"?

[zeemike]

39. Well perhaps because dogma does not make sense

For instance the evidence for spiritual existence can be shown by volume of literature dating back thousands of years and many personal testimonies about it...but that is not proof in science cause they can't measure it and repeat it.

But often the other side of this claims that they know things they can't possibly know and have only the same kind of evidence that the spiritual believers have...and they accept this dogma as not a dogma at all but the truth...And tell us that if you don't buy it you must be a fool or an uneducated idiot.

[AlbertCat]

95. the evidence for spiritual existence ....

.... can be shown by volume of literature dating back thousands of years and many personal testimonies about it."



Argumentum ad antiquitum

and

Argumentum ad populum


two classic fallacies of logic.

[zeemike]

100. So saying it in Latin makes it sound more convincing.

But what then of the logic of science that tells us that the Pharaohs ruled Egypt for thousands of years because they read it on a temple wall, written by antiquitum and believed bu the populum of the scholarly community?

Is that not also a fallacy of logic?

[AlbertCat]

106. logic of science that tells us that the Pharaohs ruled Egypt for thousands

Well, there ARE the cities they built and the mummies in their tombs.... not just some writing. (unlike Moses or Jesus)

pretty lame rebuttal.

Now try some critical thinking instead of fairy tale thinking.


BTW... the fallacies are still fallacies in English , Latin or even Klingon.

[zeemike]

107. What physical evidence is there for Plato, or Socrates?

Or Voltaire or Isaac Newton?...or a host of others who you do believe in...all we have is old writing to show that they did.
But it is not the existence of the pharaohs I am talking about but the claim they know all about the society they lived in that is speculation.

But critical thinking?...I thought that was what I was doing when I questioned just how much they really know about what they say?...or is there some definition of it that I don't know about?
And I thought a fallacy was something that did not have facts to back it up but was claimed to be true?...what facts do you have that Moses or Jesus did not exist?....what facts do you have that Plato did other than old writing and the popularity of the belief?

Here is the point I am making...you have to be consistent...if you accept evidence for one thing then you have to accept it for others too or you are letting your own dogmas get in the way of objectivity...that too is a scientific principle.

[AlbertCat]

114. You're obviously joking

now... let us go make our gardens grow in this best of all possible worlds.

[zeemike]

117. And you have no response to any point I made.

So call it a joke then...and say I am to dense to understand your principles that you would explain and I would understand if I were not so dense...better to leave it as a joke.

[cleanhippie]

110. I think he is fucking with you. No one can be that obtuse.

And if he really is that dense, you are simply conducting an exercise in futility.

[AlbertCat]

113. you are simply conducting an exercise in futility.

Oh...I'm done. It's all just so boring arguing with, as Bernie Sanders put it, a "coffee table".

[AlbertCat]

97. things they can't possibly know

Like what?


"And tell us that if you don't buy it you must be a fool or an uneducated idiot."

Oh... so you just feel dumb. I'm sure you're not. Read a book! I suggest "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.

Or I really liked Richard Dawkins' "Unweaving the Rainbow".

[zeemike]

99. Oh the examples are legion.

From the macro to the micro...
for instance they can't possibly know that the universe is all there is....and in the micro, that all the lifeforms are understood to be carbon based.
But the most egregious of it is in the field of archaeology where they will tell you they know how man evolved on the earth...they cannot possibly know that...all of that is theory, but they treat it as fact.

And no I don't feel dumb, because I don't buy the crap that flows from the attempt to intimidate by calling me dumb...and in fact makes me more certain of being right because truth does not have to intimidate people into belief or non belief.

But I have read many books...hundreds I am sure, and many of them that supports your ideas...but I did not limit my reading to just that, and I could also recommend books for you to read, but I suggest that you would not read them past the first thing that contradicts your own view of things...that is the way dogma suppresses the intellect.

[AlbertCat]

104. You don't know what a theory is

Or how science works.

No scientists says that the universe is all there is. There's a whole multi-verse theory! And they keep finding new stuff like dark matter and dark energy, which they admit they don't have a clue what it is... but they know it's there because they can see it's effects.

And evolution is quite well documented.... not just in fossils but now in the your very DNA. This ain't the 1920's y'know. I suggest you do some scientific catching up. Read a hundred more books.

A hypothesis is an educated guess.

A Theory make predictions that later turn out to be true. Evolution is a champion at this! Darwin knew nothing of genetics but his theory predicts (through observation) some mechanism for passing on tiny traits. And there it is: genetics. And evolution is confirmed by other disciplines, like chemistry and geology and plate tectonics.
Nowadays, reading the very DNA code confirms mutations and shows as steady rate of mutation.... making it possible to determine when species diverged to a high degree of accuracy. All science shows is what can be concluded with the huge mountain of evidence available. No scientist says "this is it, period" but merely follows the current consensus.... which adjusts when new evidence arises.

You're all worried about evidence. What evidence do we have of anything supernatural? None.

Y'know, if you're not a dummy with a big chip on your shoulder, don't act like one.

[zeemike]

111. You have not told me anything I did not already know.

Except for the statement that evolution is quite well documented...I take issue with that.
If you through a net into the sea and drag out some fish you have not well documented the life in the sea.
But it is even worse than that with evolution because you are not only dealing with the immensity of the world but the immensity of time as well...and it completely eliminates any anomalous happenings....like great floods and rapid change in the earth crust...
For instance the Grand Canyon is said to have taken millions of years to make as the river eroded it...but that time cold be wrong completely because it is calculated on steady state erosion...one inch every 100 years and you got the time.
But that could be wrong if there was an inland sea...like we know there was...and it flowed out to the Gulf in just a matter of a few years because of a great earthquake...But that is crazy though right?....because we KNOW that there are never any big events like that, and our evidence is that we have never seen them in our very short time recording them and so they can't be true.
And you will say there is no evidence of this...but that is not exactly true...there is Homer and his story of Atlantis...and the biblical flood...and in every culture all around the world stories of a great calamity and a flood.....so then it must be qualified by saying credible evidence...and that evidence can't be credible because you already believe it could never happen...
And that is how dogma clouds science.

[cleanhippie]

19. I don't think you are using your metaphors correctly.

[zeemike]

26. I did not know there is a correct way to use metaphors.

But if so who made the rules up?

[cleanhippie]

33. Well, for starters, they need to be coherent and related to what is being compared.

You should start there. But don't take my word for it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

[zeemike]

34. I stuck with the black cat analogy didn't I ?

"A metaphor is a literary figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object. Metaphor is a type of analogy and is closely related to other rhetorical figures of speech that achieve their effects via association, comparison or resemblance including allegory, hyperbole, and simile"

Can't see where I did anything wrong.

[cleanhippie]

35. It was your additions to the Black Cat analogy that is lacking coherence.

Whatever. It's not this important. Gotta get to work. Maybe we can continue this is the English Language group sometime.

[Berlum]

11. Scientific PROOF: when you enter the religion forum and cast Flame Bait

like chum upon the water, then start fuming & weeping & whining humorlessly because a fish took a playful nip at your pointless Crap Float, then that is ABSOLUTE PROOF. As the preponderance of peer-reviewed papers makes plain: YOU LOVE TO DISH IT OUT BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE IT.

[Silent3]

15. Fuming & weeping & whining?

I merely scoffed at your unimaginative response. It wasn't interesting enough to warrant any intensity beyond that.

Projection much?

[whathehell]

55. THANK YOU !

That was long, LONG overdue!

[Berlum]

58. Your welcome whatthehell

The whiney victims bathos is WAY over the top.

[whathehell]

84. It certainly needs to be said

Especially when the "whiney victims" so often act like bullies.

[rug]

12. The Bilind Men and the Elephant

John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend,

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

After you've found a cat, you've only found a cat.

[Silent3]

17. I've seen that old tale rolled out before...

...as a way of saying "everyone has a piece of the truth", but I never thought it really worked very well that way, since each blind man has, at best, a distorted version of the truth, as would be especially disastrous if the tree guy decided to try to build a table out of the elephant.

The effectiveness of the story also suffers from the fact that it assumes a narrative perspective where the whole "elephant" can be seen, where some wry observer can know that each blind man is relating only one aspect of a unified whole. In real life, we don't have that narrative luxury.

[rug]

20. I don't think it illustrates everyone has a piece of truth.

I think it demonstrates that drawing conclusions from a partial observation leads one into false conclusions, often laughably false conclusions. Such as, the goal of philosophy and theology is to find a cat. I don't think that is even the purpose of science.

[Silent3]

22. It could be that the purpose of the entire universe...

...was to generate lolcats. Seems as good a purpose as any to me.

[rug]

23. Lol, there seems to be evidence to support that position.

[cbayer]

46. Yes, some who see the world one way are vastly superior to those who see if differently.

Let me add one more thing here. Anti-theism is like being in a dark room so large that it can't be searched, shouting that there is absolutely no black cat and anyone who thinks there is is a delusional idiot.

[trotsky]

50. You mean like those who call others "dumbasses" when they merely see the world differently?

That kind of person would feel comfortable telling others they are delusional idiots for thinking there is a black dog in the unsearchable room, but that it's definitely reasonable to think there's a black cat. How is that position any more rational?

[Silent3]

52. If they do more than merely entertain the possibility of the black cat in such a situation...

...and in fact go forward with making plans around the cat and involving the cat and depending upon the cat that no one has seen, then yes, I'd call that delusional.

[cbayer]

54. A delusion is a firmly held false belief.

As the beliefs that theists hold are not yet shown to be false, it is not, by definition, a delusion.

Did not those who explored regions unknown go forward with their beliefs, make plans around their beliefs and had faith that they were going to find what they were looking for?

Happy Columbus Day!

[trotsky]

57. Except Columbus didn't find what he was looking for.

He found something else. You're aware of that, right?

[Silent3]

60. One can't be said to have avoided delusion...

...simply by carefully choosing beliefs that are difficult or impossible to explicitly disprove.

If my crazy uncle says he has to rearrange the furniture every time aliens send him a psychic signal telling him that the ongoing stability of the universe depends their on requested new floor plan, it's not my job or anyone else's to disprove the existence of his alien friends before concluding that my uncle is almost certainly delusional.

Further, taking a calculated risk, like exploring unexplored seas and lands, is a very different thing from religious faith.

[cbayer]

61. Another requirement for delusion is that it is a belief generally held by no one

else or by only a few other people.

If one is wanting to call the beliefs of very large populations delusional, then they certainly should have proof that what they believe is patently untrue.

You can't do that, so you are completely misusing the word.

But it's easy to label those one disagrees with as having psychiatric conditions. It's easy, but it is without substance.

[trotsky]

62. I can find no definition of delusion(al) that says what you are claiming.

Perhaps you can provide a link to the definition that says large groups of people can't be deluded?

If you can't do that, you would appear to be completely misusing the word. Your silence will be taken as an admission of error.

[skepticscott]

63. It's even easier to label them as dumbasses, isn't it?

Last edited Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:27 PM - Edit history (1)

And did you just make up that requirement for something being a "delusion", or is that a family heirloom? How many people have to believe something before it cannot possibly be a delusion? Is the belief that the Judeo-Christian god is an anthropomorphic being who rules over the universe and will raise all believers and take them to heaven a delusion? Your father certainly thinks so, and claims that the "insights" of "modern theologians" have shown that this is silliness, even though quite a lot of people believe it.

You have no earthly clue, do you?

[trotsky]

64. Good catch.

Blatantly contradicting her dear old dad. No consistency whatsoever!

[Silent3]

67. Delusions aren't, at least necessarily, "psychiatric conditions"

To say someone is harbors a delusion is not necessarily a mental health diagnosis.

I'd call the witch hunts in places such as Salem delusional behavior, even though that fear of neighbors secretly in league with the devil was "a belief generally held" by many people in various times and places.

[cbayer]

74. So when you use the word, you have some unique definition not shared by others?

I guess you should make that clear, so those that use the word correctly know what you are saying.

[cleanhippie]

79. I think that is the question you should be asking YOURSELF!

You are creating definitions and parameters that seem to only exist for you. Just WHERE are you getting these definitions of "delusion?"

[Silent3]

80. I don't know about you, but I checked a dictionary.

I think that's a pretty good source of definitions shared by others.

[cbayer]

81. Which one? OED?

noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder:

[Silent3]

82. Note "typically", not "always"

The definitions I found online didn't even mention mental disorder.

So given the weak and non-obligatory connection to mental disorders for the word "delusion", and the perfectly reasonable narrative perspective of standing back from a culture, even one's own, and realizing that many things people do collectively and with full social support are nevertheless crazy.

I stand by my use of the word "delusion" here, and I strongly suspect even you would happily use the word the same way when describing irrational beliefs that lead to practices and behavior that you aren't quite so eager to defend as religion.

[cbayer]

83. Go for it, but I think it weakens your argument to do so.

When you label all believers as "delusional", you have made a judgement based on your personal POV. But the fact is that many, if not most, people see the world differently than you do. That does not make them delusional, even if you say so.

[trotsky]

85. It makes them delusional if the belief is wrong.

But I'm having a hard time finding where exactly Silent3 "label(ed) all believers as 'delusional'," as you are claiming. Can you please point out where that was stated? If not, will you retract yet another false claim in what is becoming a clearly disturbing pattern in your behavior?

[cleanhippie]

78. Wow, a triple-lindy of rationalization!

Where DO you get these definitions?

[cleanhippie]

76. Wow, that is one AMAZING feat of rationalization!

[Warpy]

59. And Zen

is sitting quietly in that dark room, knowing if there's a cat in there, it will come to you.

[zeemike]

69. that is insightful in so many ways.

But few will get it.

[tama]

103. Chickens and rabbits

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Fight/Fight-SheldrakeOnPresentiment&Psychokinesis.html

[Hamlette]

70. love this

[dimbear]

71. If you encounter this problem in real life, make a noise like a can opener. n/t

[Hamlette]

90. lol but I'm taking the flashlight!

[lalalu]

77. Science also invented the flashlight

used to search for the black cat and the truth. Well done.

[meti57b]

91. Intuition is like a black cat looking for you and after finding you, sits on your lap and purrs.

[Nihil]

98. And English is like ....

... wondering why the F*ck the black cat is using a flashlight ...?