trouble

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh. OK. Why not?

I can't remember. You read the original post. I'm not going back to it.
We can't use the absence of anything as an argument against it.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[Seth]

Oh. OK. Why not?

I can't remember. You read the original post. I'm not going back to it.
We can't use the absence of anything as an argument against it.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

So, by your rather more than a little dubious reasoning, the absence of evidence of neutrons in 1650 means that in 1650, there was evidence that neutrons do not exist?

Fail.

Everybody (with any intelligence) knows that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It's a maxim it's so well known.

[Seth]

The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.

No it's no trouble at all. It would only be trouble if you engaged in earnest. Considering Seth's rationale I'm amazed people keep getting into it with him, all the time. We know in advance what he's going to say and in many cases it is hilarious, often at someone else's self inflicted expense but not always. It's not a debate, it's a preposterous polemic, a strawman erected to fight against other strawmen. The point is not to win, but to frustrate.

At least that's my take on it.

That's often the case in playing the role of devil's advocate, I think. Obviously, Seth isn't really convinced that a supernatural deity dicked around with the sun that day. AFAICT, his goal is to shake up our illusion of certainty and the resulting dogmatism about whether or not the scientific method/approach results in absolute, incontrovertible, eternal Truth, which, if you study it closely, it doesn't. In a previous post, I mentioned Hume's problem of induction. I'm not saying that Seth is another Hume, or even that he knows of Hume's work; I'm only pointing out that quite a few people who served as gadflies to those in dogmatic slumbers wound up being highly regarded and respected for their efforts. Gödel's incompleteness theorems made a lot of people unhappy at first, but he stuck to his guns despite the criticism and now...

Again, I'm not saying Seth is comparable to either Hume nor Gödel in intellectual sophistication, only that we might do well to recognize a game of devil's advocate for what it is: a challenge to critically self-examine.

Yes. People are good at pointing out and criticising others flaws and not so good at noting the same flaws themselves certainly. The problem as I see it though is that such confrontation only works with those who have unreasonable certainties, no matter what they are. The thing about here, which I've noticed that doesn't apply in some of the other "rationalist" site, is that most here seem old enough to have got by that adolescent stage of knowing absolutely everything with self righteous fury and therefore the tactic is not as effective as say against some of the more youthful firebrands who get up in arms about anything that challenges their spoon-fed world-view.

To be honest I think Seth does have a point with regards to the "Atheist" community though. It does seem to me to be a self congratulatory "oh aren't we all the illuminated ones" to the extent they called themselves "brights" without a shred of self conciousness or irony. It does seem in many cases to be an actual resentment (which may well be justified considering some of the actions of Religious Authorities) but also in many cases it seems like the same juvenile posturing as being "A goth" or "a satanist" is so far as being an atheist might seem a rebellious challenge against the status quo.

To me being an atheist is nothing more than non acceptance of a concept that it actually meaningless to me. That's it. Any railing or protesting I do against religion is nothing to do with my lack of belief in God. It is a political problem, in much the same way as I consider bailing out the banks or keeping peasants fed for doing nothing and not sterilising them is a political problem. The discourse has become too entrenched and too narrow whereupon a stereotype of ATHEIST emerges, smug, self satisfied, psuedo-intellectual left-centrist politics where everyone is tolerant of each other except those who don't fit. and THEIST is some bomb wearing child fucker who blows up abortion clinics in the Name of Allah.

In other words we are as we always do letting extremists define the discussion. Just like every other political group.

Its absurd and I think pointing out that absurdity is fine, when pointing it out does is not equally absurdist.

Very well put.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They had no evidence of neutrons in 1650, when you were a kid. Until they had evidence would you believe in them?

[Seth]

They had no evidence of neutrons in 1650, when you were a kid. Until they had evidence would you believe in them?

Strawman and red herring.

The absence of evidence of neutrons in 1650 did not mean that there was evidence of the absence of neutrons.

[Animavore]

I was at the bus stop today and the winter Sun was piercing overhead. I don't know the science behind it (I'm sure someone here can illuminate us) but the Sun at this time of year is particularly glarey. It never goes too far above the horizon and can be a nightmare if you're driving. So naturally, with this thread not too far from memory, I decided to stare directly at it.

My first attempt was quite casual. I didn't last more than three or four seconds before I had to shut my eyes and turn away. For about a minute a considered abandoning my experiment as not worth it, but as is the way of these things I stubbornly said, fuck it. I stood straight, planted my feet in the ground and stared hard. Even as my eyes welled with tears after just a few seconds I stared past that leaving the reservoir in my eyelids to make its own path out. It didn't take long. After only 20 seconds my vision was filled with light with the Sun's sphere in the centre, the world in my peripheral had dissolved. A couple more seconds and the sphere became a column, it was getting really hard to keep my stare but with all my strength I kept it fixed. It was then the Sun danced wildly seeming to eject purple coronas as it did so. It zig-zagged like Princess Diana's chauffeur driven car before it hit the tunnel wall. I had to break at this point. It was too intense.

Is this it? Is this your miracle? Colour me unimpressed. A simple wobble of eyes straining against the intense light combined with retinal imprints (which I can still see when I blink almost two hours later)

Now while it's true that we can't prove what the 'miracle' at Fatima probably (almost certainly IMO) wasn't (miracle from God, Satan tricking people into idolatry, aliens taking the piss, a potentially cataclysmic astronomical event unrecorded by astronomers somehow localised in one place on Earth), the fact that the 'miracle' can be replicated by anyone with eyes that can see and a bit of determination is some evidence to what it probably was.


NB. Most optomiterists agree it is not a good idea to stare at the sun as it can lead to permanent retinal damage. I take no responsibility for anyone who wants to try this themselves.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Thank you for your sacrifice in the name of science, Ani the Blind. I am sure that Lord Darwin would bestow great blessings upon you after your death if it weren't for the fact that you masturbate far too much to ever get to heaven - even an Atheist heaven!

[Animavore]

Then I shall go to Atheist hell (which is actually Christian heaven where I will no longer be able to masturbate but rather an eternity fellating God ).

[JimC]

"Do you believe in god?" almost always means, do you believe in a specific man-made god?

No, I don't believe in any of the man-made gods, they are too silly and there is no evidence that any of them will withstand the test of time. The current crop are popular at the moment through accident of history and will fade away with all the others in the past.

I suppose there could be some amorphous intelligence that hangs around in some as yet undiscovered dimension, and is holding all this together through force of will. But without a way to define it, there's still nothing to believe in.

So then I'm left with the natural world, which *could* be Spinoza's 'god'. But how does one believe in that, other than just living in existence?

'I don't know' is the most intellectually honest answer to the question of a generic undefined god that might have created everything, but the possibility that it exists raises the infinite regression problem of what created it, and it, and so on. Not probable, so doesn't really warrant belief, but agnostic is the only position on firm ground.

I'm an atheist when it comes to all the specific man-made gods. That is not a belief, but is arrived at by looking at the evidence and reaching a conclusion. It's certainly not a religious position.

[Rum]

I was at the bus stop today and the winter Sun was piercing overhead. I don't know the science behind it (I'm sure someone here can illuminate us) but the Sun at this time of year is particularly glarey. It never goes too far above the horizon and can be a nightmare if you're driving. So naturally, with this thread not too far from memory, I decided to stare directly at it.

My first attempt was quite casual. I didn't last more than three or first seconds before I had to shut my eyes and turn away. For about a minute a considered abandoning my experiment as not worth it, but as is the way of these things I stubbornly said, fuck it. I stood straight, planted my feet in the ground and stared hard. Even as my eyes welled with tears after just a few seconds I stared past that leaving the reservoir in my eyelids to make its own path out. It didn't take long. After only 20 seconds my vision was filled with light with the Sun's sphere in the centre, the world in my peripheral had dissolved. A couple more seconds and the sphere became a column, it was getting really hard to keep my stare but with all my strength I kept it fixed. It was then the Sun danced wildly seeming to eject purple coronas as it did so. It zig-zagged like Princess Diana's chauffeur driven car before it hit the tunnel wall. I had to break at this point. It was too intense.

Is this it? Is this your miracle? Colour me unimpressed. A simple wobble of eyes straining against the intense light combined with retinal imprints (which I can still see when I blink almost two hours later)

Now while it's true that we can't prove what the 'miracle' at Fatima probably (almost certainly IMO) wasn't (miracle from God, Satan tricking people into idolatry, aliens taking the piss, a potentially cataclysmic astronomical event unrecorded by astronomers somehow localised in one place on Earth), the fact that the 'miracle' can be replicated by anyone with eyes that can see and a bit of determination is some evidence to what it probably was.


NB. Most optomiterists agree it is not a good idea to stare at the sun as it can lead to permanent retinal damage. I take no responsibility for anyone who wants to try this themselves.

As to scientific esplunashun of low sun:- Northern hemisphere (Ireland) tilts away from sun in winter and towards in summer as per:-

[Animavore]

I know the reason for the low Sun. I meant the reason for the glare. It's far glare-ier than the summer Sun and the sun you get in places further south. I was thinking ice crystals in the atmosphere or something.

[JimC]

Could part of the reason simply be that it is so low in the sky you are more likely to be facing it fairly directly? In summer, you have to look up fair bit...

[apophenia]

Heaven is a place.. where nothing... ever happens...



Talking Heads. Heaven. Fear Of Music.

[Animavore]

Could part of the reason simply be that it is so low in the sky you are more likely to be facing it fairly directly? In summer, you have to look up fair bit...

No. You're not getting me. If you lie on the beach in the summer facing up the sun is not that glare-y. It has a brilliant shine to it in the winter. It looks more white than yellow. And the beams look sharper.

[apophenia]

Could part of the reason simply be that it is so low in the sky you are more likely to be facing it fairly directly? In summer, you have to look up fair bit...

No. You're not getting me. If you lie on the beach in the summer facing up the sun is not that glare-y. It has a brilliant shine to it in the winter. It looks more white than yellow. And the beams look sharper.

It's just God messin' with your head.