My signature

Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
My signature

What do you guys think of my signature?

I was considering making a forum post about it to discuss its topic more in depth, but then I decided that I want to make sure everyone I engage in discussion knows where I'm coming from.

In case my signature changes in the future, here it is for this thread:

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting logical thinking.

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm still partial to

I'm still partial to "Success is the slow judge of right and wrong" and my own "I maintain nonetheless that Homo Sapiens is, by definition, an apex predator; our natural philosophy is born of the wolf, not of the sheep" HOWEVER:

Quote:

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting logical thinking.

 

 is almost perfect save for the "Logic" part, because "Logic" is such a rigid concept that it all most CERTAINLY rejects the manner in which most civilizations have progressed. It rejects creative reasoning- to which our species owes many of its greatest achievements.

My suggestion: replace "logical" with "rational". Much more precise in intent and portrayal of theists, I think.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:I'm still

Kapkao wrote:

I'm still partial to "Success is the slow judge of right and wrong" and my own "I maintain nonetheless that Homo Sapiens is, by definition, an apex predator; our natural philosophy is born of the wolf, not of the sheep" HOWEVER:

Quote:

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting logical thinking.

 

 is almost perfect save for the "Logic" part, because "Logic" is such a rigid concept that it all most CERTAINLY rejects the manner in which most civilizations have progressed. It rejects creative reasoning- to which our species owes many of its greatest achievements.

My suggestion: replace "logical" with "rational". Much more precise in intent and portrayal of theists, I think.

There is something to that, as we see in the threads with the 'wall of logic' supposed to prove God, as if logic could prove anything not 'built-in' to the presuppositions you start with.

Basic logic is necessary for valid reasoning, but nowhere near sufficient. You have to have a way to handle probabilistic assessments, weigh up the evidence, etc, since in most things we have nowhere near enough solid info to base a strong logical argument, and many things are inherently too 'fuzzy' or informally defined or too multi-facetted or complex to practically manage with basic logic.

And the logics intended to handle situations beyond basic propositional logic become less clear and more open to dispute, which is the case with the variations of modal logic. The 'real world' doesn't lend itself to such simplified models in most situations.

This is why science uses a combination of math and empiricism, and some form of probability calculus to manage the more uncertain data.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2385
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
while..........

 

 

 

              .........we are on the topic. Gang can I get a consenses from one and all: ?  Is it time for me to change my signature?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:There is

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is something to that, as we see in the threads with the 'wall of logic' supposed to prove God, as if logic could prove anything not 'built-in' to the presuppositions you start with.

Basic logic is necessary for valid reasoning, but nowhere near sufficient. You have to have a way to handle probabilistic assessments, weigh up the evidence, etc, since in most things we have nowhere near enough solid info to base a strong logical argument, and many things are inherently too 'fuzzy' or informally defined or too multi-facetted or complex to practically manage with basic logic.

And the logics intended to handle situations beyond basic propositional logic become less clear and more open to dispute, which is the case with the variations of modal logic. The 'real world' doesn't lend itself to such simplified models in most situations.

This is why science uses a combination of math and empiricism, and some form of probability calculus to manage the more uncertain data.

modal. logic. Okay... I'm going to... study that? I don't know yet. Modal. Logic. ....HRRRMMM! It's a new entry in my vocabulary, that is for sure.

But in addition to all of what you just suggested (highly valid though it may be)...  if you want to go "Immanuel Kant" (sans theism!), you have to think outside the math, because it operates (in nearly all human brains) on such a linear pattern. The same is generally true of empiricism, as well.

The basic concept of "transcendental advancement of knowledge" requires creative thinking, to jump beyond the more constricting establishments and guidelines of so-called "fact finding". The reasoning has to be practical and intuitive, rather than linear, rigid, and often poorly conceived 'Scientifically acceptable' logic.

The dilemma in what I suggest, is that these same ideals can be used in justifying and 'explaining' *WILD* theisms and associated concepts... but it's a pretty easy dilemma to overcome.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

              .........we are on the topic. Gang can I get a consenses from one and all: ?  Is it time for me to change my signature?

I like it just the way it is.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
thanks for the input, I

thanks for the input, I changed logical to rational.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

              .........we are on the topic. Gang can I get a consenses from one and all: ?  Is it time for me to change my signature?

 

I repeated the last part of yours to a East Indian friend.  She about coughed a lung out.  You have two votes from me for keeping it as is.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Whatthedeuce wrote:thanks

Whatthedeuce wrote:

thanks for the input, I changed logical to rational.

and now it has gone *POOF* in to thin air

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:BobSpence1

Kapkao wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is something to that, as we see in the threads with the 'wall of logic' supposed to prove God, as if logic could prove anything not 'built-in' to the presuppositions you start with.

Basic logic is necessary for valid reasoning, but nowhere near sufficient. You have to have a way to handle probabilistic assessments, weigh up the evidence, etc, since in most things we have nowhere near enough solid info to base a strong logical argument, and many things are inherently too 'fuzzy' or informally defined or too multi-facetted or complex to practically manage with basic logic.

And the logics intended to handle situations beyond basic propositional logic become less clear and more open to dispute, which is the case with the variations of modal logic. The 'real world' doesn't lend itself to such simplified models in most situations.

This is why science uses a combination of math and empiricism, and some form of probability calculus to manage the more uncertain data.

modal. logic. Okay... I'm going to... study that? I don't know yet. Modal. Logic. ....HRRRMMM! It's a new entry in my vocabulary, that is for sure.

But in addition to all of what you just suggested (highly valid though it may be)...  if you want to go "Immanuel Kant" (sans theism!), you have to think outside the math, because it operates (in nearly all human brains) on such a linear pattern. The same is generally true of empiricism, as well.

The basic concept of "transcendental advancement of knowledge" requires creative thinking, to jump beyond the more constricting establishments and guidelines of so-called "fact finding". The reasoning has to be practical and intuitive, rather than linear, rigid, and often poorly conceived 'Scientifically acceptable' logic.

The dilemma in what I suggest, is that these same ideals can be used in justifying and 'explaining' *WILD* theisms and associated concepts... but it's a pretty easy dilemma to overcome.

Scientists use the same creative processes everyone else does to come up with new ideas, new possible explanations (hypotheses), and so on.

It also uses such processes to devise new experiments, ways to explore and test new ideas. But crucially, it adds the step of systematic checking of any new ideas against existing knowledge, to decide whether they seem to offer a better explanation for some problem, or represent a genuine new insight into reality, before treating them as representing 'real' knowledge.

Without this additional step, people just run with anything that seems to work for them psychologically, like 'God', demons, magic, whatever, regardless of  whether it actually holds up to a more considered examination.

The 'scientist' has more often been the one breaking out of the shackles of established ideas and assumptions, to show that astronomical objects don't all orbit the Earth, that heavy objects don't fall correspondingly faster than light objects, that Time is not Absolute, that the stars are distant objects like our Sun, that distant fuzzy smudges in the night sky are whole independent collections of stars, that many diseases are due to tiny life-forms, not bad smells and 'vapours', that our blood actually circulates around our body, and so on and on.

So I think you have it backwards to some extent at least. The crucial issue is that speculation and creative thinking and 'wild ideas' from someone lacking a background in scientific understanding of a subject are less likely than those of someone with a deeper understanding of science to lead to really fresh new insights into reality.

Without the new insights of science, gained from deep and systematic study of reality, all the wild 'creative' speculation in the world is ultimately just re-hashing the same limited set of intuitions and ideas we are born with and acquire from our parents and from society's traditions.

The ultimate source of genuinely new ideas is from uncovering fresh new aspects of reality, IOW from reality beyond our brain.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Scientists

BobSpence1 wrote:

Scientists use the same creative processes everyone else does to come up with new ideas, new possible explanations (hypotheses), and so on.

It also uses such processes to devise new experiments, ways to explore and test new ideas. But crucially, it adds the step of systematic checking of any new ideas against existing knowledge, to decide whether they seem to offer a better explanation for some problem, or represent a genuine new insight into reality, before treating them as representing 'real' knowledge.

Without this additional step, people just run with anything that seems to work for them psychologically, like 'God', demons, magic, whatever, regardless of  whether it actually holds up to a more considered examination.

The 'scientist' has more often been the one breaking out of the shackles of established ideas and assumptions, to show that astronomical objects don't all orbit the Earth, that heavy objects don't fall correspondingly faster than light objects, that Time is not Absolute, that the stars are distant objects like our Sun, that distant fuzzy smudges in the night sky are whole independent collections of stars, that many diseases are due to tiny life-forms, not bad smells and 'vapours', that our blood actually circulates around our body, and so on and on.

So I think you have it backwards to some extent at least. The crucial issue is that speculation and creative thinking and 'wild ideas' from someone lacking a background in scientific understanding of a subject are less likely than those of someone with a deeper understanding of science to lead to really fresh new insights into reality.

Without the new insights of science, gained from deep and systematic study of reality, all the wild 'creative' speculation in the world is ultimately just re-hashing the same limited set of intuitions and ideas we are born with and acquire from our parents and from society's traditions.

The ultimate source of genuinely new ideas is from uncovering fresh new aspects of reality, IOW from reality beyond our brain.

Yes, I believe you're correct. (I'm too sleep deprived to be able to tell)

I've now completely dropped whatever ridiculous point I trying to make in favor of... well, figuring out why someone thinks I'm solipsistic, of all things!

*groan*

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)