Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group

It all comes back to the "evolution is random" fallacy, really.

If rocks had a habit of arranging themselves into patterns and those patterns were selected for based on how well they matched the language of local creatures and their accuracy regarding geographical information then we'd totally buy that the rocks formed that way on their own.

In the same way, going back to the argument that this was clearly inspired by, nobody would assume a watchmaker if watches sprouted out of the ground where you planted a few cogs.

edited 21st Jul '16 7:22:45 AM by Elfive

Forgive me if I wrong but isn't the whole "you can't trust your senses" argument borderline postmodern. Like I think the "reality is subjective" thing can only take you so far; in order to be logical you have to put a sort of ironic faith in your senses.

Stand up against pinkwashing, don't fall for propoganda

Actually, can you trust your senses is a foundational question of western philosophy. All theories of existence are identified in part by how they answer this question. It has been a long time since I looked at the details, but most of them, including the most mainstream ones, say no, you can't.

edited 21st Jul '16 4:46:21 PM by war877

So basically, senses and numbers should be best buds, at least in scientific discussion.

That's reasonable.

Stand up against pinkwashing, don't fall for propoganda

That depends on who you ask. If you ask me, the answer that you get is, numbers are absolute. Senses are we don't really know.

If you are wondering whether my position is mainstream, it is. Amongst professional philosophers. It is not amongst the general population.

To be fair, though, I don't feel like there's much harm in putting faith in your senses every once in a while.

Nobody crosses the road going "I estimate that car is traveling 40 km an hour, so therefore I can just dodge him if I walk at a particular speed".

Stand up against pinkwashing, don't fall for propoganda

When talking philosophically, senses are not just one concept. There's what's typically thought of as senses, then there is the senses, sensory information, sensory perception, and qualia.

Sensory information is probably what we want to look at for thinking about the trustworthiness of our senses. And auditory hallucinations are an example of sensory information that does not reflect reality.

Could you explain what all these terms mean and what the differences between them are? Can't say I'm familiar with them.

This "faculty lot" you speak of sounds like a place of great power...

Ironically this is from a piece critiquing one notion based on the invalidity of much sense experience, philosophical idealism.

edited 21st Jul '16 5:41:48 PM by Fireblood

Going backwards:

• Qualia: the colour of red. To understand this one. Tell me what red looks like.
• Sensory perception: the art of seeing stuff. It is what we learn from using our senses
• Sensory information: what sense is made out of. Could be a lot of things.
• The senses. Sight, touch, taste, smell, hearing, magnetic, gravitational, kinesthetic.
• What most people think sense is: intuition. Or gut feelings.

edited 21st Jul '16 6:53:46 PM by war877

Qualia is one of those "there's a word for that?!" words, isn't it?

Stand up against pinkwashing, don't fall for propoganda

Not sure what that means, but qualia is what you get when you split experience in half with the other half being communicable information. Or to put it the other way, it is the part of sensation that you can't tell other people about.

It's not really that big outside of philosophy, as it has no practical use.

Qualia is often cited against physicalist philosophy of mind, though I'm not sure why. How does not being able to describe some sensation mean they aren't physical?

We have a philosophy thread, you know.

What do you guys think of 'taking the lords name in vain'? My mom gets upset whenever I say 'God damnit ' or 'Oh my god', claiming its disrespectful. But I'm an atheist so the only thing I'd conceivably be disrespecting is her beliefs. But I'm not obliged to follow them.

His name's not "God".

Technically, that is a common misuse of the lord's name in vain.

Oh. My. God. — Not vain.

God thinks transexuals are evil — Vain.

I've seen stuff like "G*d d*mn" online. Or "The D*evil will enjoy your soul in H*ll". I think in the former case it's just a common expression meaning nothing, so there's no point being sensitive about it and censoring it; and in the latter, the sentiment expressed is much more offensive than either of the censored words. (By the way, both Satan and Hell are used as proper swearwords in Finnish.)

I don't think it's OK for religious groups to demand that others "respect" their taboos, but it's also not cool to go breaking them just for giggles. If you're making a point or it would be seriously inconvenient to observe someone else's religious taboos I think it's reasonable to go ahead and break them.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Once, I was around the Mexican-American border after visiting family, and we picked up some modern rock radio station or something, and it started playing "I Write Sins, Not Tragedies" by Panic At the Disco (this was the first time I'd ever listened to them, BTW). They censored it by silencing the part where the singer says "god" in the line "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door", and it just ruined the flow of the song.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?

So saying 'damn' is dandy but when you prefix it with 'god' it's not?

Would stuff like drawing Muhammed cartoons count as "making a point"?

Also, can't we talk philosophy here too?

I've always seen "using the lord's name in vain" as a really petty thing to get upset about; I mean, even my teachers at my old Catholic school used phrases like "Oh My God" and "God damn"; like, I always take some being offended about using the word God as someone being borderline fundamentalists.

I mean, the only people I know closely that get offended are my infamous Christian cousins (who like to bitch about my supposedly "sinful lifestyle" behind my back)..

Stand up against pinkwashing, don't fall for propoganda

I'm not a geologist or anything, but it wouldn't surprise me if you could use a naturally formed rock formation to tell if you're approaching Wales or not.

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

Only if you memorised the geology of Wales. Which means, there is still no message in the rocks.

As to the lord's name in vain, pretty sure that is a commandment or something. But you use the lord's name in vain by invoking the name of the lord for the wrong reason. A meaningless curse does not count. Examples of invocations may include swearing by god that you are telling the truth when you aren't, putting words in god's mouth, attempting to summon god (which probably requires their real name), printing the name on your currency, stuff like that.

It can do, in my opinion. I'm not really fond of the "Draw Mohammed Day" stuff but I'm less fond of anyone who'd try to outright ban it. Most cases of people drawing Mohammed are probably just ignorance/racism/trolling, but I'm sure there are cases that are more nuanced than that.

For instance, if someone was making an arts installation that featured depictions of mythological, religious, or historical characters and had Mohammed as one of them I don't think it would make sense to complain about it. It would arguably be more ignorant/racist/wrong to leave Mohammed out, if the context otherwise is such that he'd be expected to feature.

I do think there should be an artistic or philosophical point being made, though. Doing it without any context - just a drawing of Mohammed and nothing else - would almost certainly be stupid and pointless, and while I wouldn't ever ban that sort of thing I wouldn't endorse it, either.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.