Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

10 Reasons Why Atheists Are Delusional

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Atheists/materialists/physicalist/naturalists are delusional. Here are 10 reasons why:

1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.

2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our body’s physical state and causative processing, yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity (like free will) exists.

3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.

4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.

5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.

6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural balance.

7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to “transcend” their “animal” nature.

8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like “transgenderism”.

9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all – either physically or intellectually.

10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.

Comments
daveS asks:
Yes. I’m asking whether it’s also an analytic proposition.
WRT to the subject of morality, no.William J Murray
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
It is the height of hypocrisy for a Darwinist to try to lecture anybody on the proper use of mathematics when they constantly ignore the math that is against Darwinian evolution:
"For many years I thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works." Gregory Chaitin - Proving Darwin 2012 - Highly Respected Mathematician Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 50 Years of Scientific Challenges to Evolution: Remembering The Wistar Symposium – Paul Nelson - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQy12X_Sm2k “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excellent excerpt from ‘Living Waters’ video) (2015) https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1161131450566453/?type=2&theater Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science - Mathematics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater
bornagain77
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Free Will That is the only question. All the people who write tomes about there being NO FREE WILL are either enslaved by some force higher than themselves or are using their own free will. I know that there is free will. I can always make a choice My choice is to enter this stream of comments God BlessGCS
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
WJM
If I subjectively believe that 2+2=2 in mod 4, is that valid? Or, is the way one processes equations in mod 4 accepted as objectively valid and universally binding?
2 + 2 = 2 mod 4 is an incorrect mathematical statement based on consensus of what the symbols mean. Stuff changes sometimes. Used to be, a long time ago, that people would have said that -2 was less than -5 but now we think it's the other way around. Also, when new notation is introduced it can take awhile to get accepted and common, IF it gets accepted and common. There's a lot to learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols Here's an example: [2.346] = 2. [ ] denotes the greatest integer function. The idea of that came about before the notation was agreed upon. I ASSUME that notation is now standard as I haven't seen anything different. Some symbols change their meaning depending on context. 2 x 3 = 6 (mod 10 of course). But if a and b are vectors then a x b means the cross-product of a and b. Then there are sometimes different symbols for the same thing:the operation of multiplication can be represented in several ways depending on the context. It can be a bit overwhelming until you get used to it. It is like a written language but not exactly.ellazimm
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
Folks, broken window theory. KFkairosfocus
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
EZ, the same. KFkairosfocus
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
WJM,
DaveS @101: Cruelty is self-evidently immoral. Do you understand what a “self-evident” truth is?
Yes. I'm asking whether it's also an analytic proposition.daveS
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
EZ said:
And 2 + 2 = 0 mod 4.
If I subjectively believe that 2+2=2 in mod 4, is that valid? Or, is the way one processes equations in mod 4 accepted as objectively valid and universally binding?William J Murray
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
ellazimm, you still have not learned anything from the salty old miner. I didn't think you would.Barry Arrington
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
DaveS @101: Cruelty is self-evidently immoral. Do you understand what a "self-evident" truth is?William J Murray
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Barry
I really don’t understand what you people think you are accomplishing when you say stuff like that. You puff out your intellectual chest and strut around like you’ve said something deeply profound, when all you’ve said is that if one arbitrarily changes the meaning of the terms used in a sentence, the meaning of the sentence will change. So what ellazimm?
Look, I'm just saying there are different kinds of arithmetic. You can look it up. And they're used in various situations. I didn't arbitrary change any meanings. That's part of the point. Meanings shift depending on context and the system being used. You don't have to respond to me. KF
EZ, shifting context. Modulo 4 addition is not standard.
Not for most folks. But modulo arithmetic is used and there's even a function in Excel for it which makes it pretty 'normal'.ellazimm
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
EZ, shifting context. Modulo 4 addition is not standard. KFkairosfocus
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
WJM,
“Cruelty is immoral” is as obviously, objectively true as “2 + 2 = 4”. Both are self-evidently true because (1) once one understands the concepts, they are immediately recognized as true by all sane people, and (2) the truth of those statement is necessary to prevent either subject from descending into absurdity.
Is that because cruelty is by definition immoral, so "cruelty is immoral" is an analytic proposition?daveS
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Barry:
assume a set with a cardinality of one. Assume a separate and distinct set with a cardinality of one. Now assume the first set is combined with the second set. True or false: The combined set will always without exception objectively and absolutely have a cardinality of two.
ellazimm:
Indisputably. But . . . if you do arithmetic mod 4 then 2 + 2 = 0.
I would have bet a million dollars that your response was going to be some variation of that. As I said above, all too drearily predicable and tiresome. I really don’t understand what you people think you are accomplishing when you say stuff like that. You puff out your intellectual chest and strut around like you've said something deeply profound, when all you’ve said is that if one arbitrarily changes the meaning of the terms used in a sentence, the meaning of the sentence will change. So what ellazimm? Years ago I attended a deposition in a mining dispute. The witness was a salty 80- something miner with more sense than the young lawyer taking the deposition. In response to an inane question that invited the miner to respond to a wildly improbable counterfactual, he averred: “Well, yes, and if a squirrel’s ass was square, he would shit bricks.” You could learn something from that old miner ellazimm.Barry Arrington
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
WJM
Apparently your inability to comprehend complex abstract arguments via categorical framings about the premised nature of the subject of a proposition (the nature of math as either being subjective or objective, binding or non-binding) and the logically consistent ramifications thereof wrt behavior (if we behave as if math is objective and binding or subjective and non-binding in it’s nature) is causing you to respond in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual argument I’ve presented here or in the other thread.
Like I said: I'm just talking about the mathematics. Mostly stuff beyond arithmetic. I'm leaving the rest to you. And 2 + 2 = 0 mod 4.
All sane people act as if at least some basic principles of logic and mathematics are objectively valid and universally binding. They couldn’t function otherwise. To insist or that such principles are not in fact objective in their nature and are not universally binding is to hold beliefs in direct conflict with how all sane people act.
Sure, but that's not the way mathematics is looked at by mathematicians. They're always tweaking and bending stuff around. Anyway, like I said, I'm not disagreeing with the main, central thrust of your argument so perhaps it's best to just let it go.ellazimm
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Aheists claim their belief or sense of knowing that there is no God, is derived from practicing intellectualism. If they are to apply critical reasoning to their beliefs, then the following questions should be answered without hypothesizing, speculating or assumption: 1. Which came first; DNA or the polymerase? 2. Cell function or ATP Synthase to power cell function? We have not even established how specified information (noted in the DNA) could have arose from an unguided natural process when science suggest that specified information has only ever been observed to originate from an intelligent source. If the atheist is unable to answer the above questions without having to resort to hypothesizing, speculating or assumption, it would then be reasonable to suggest that he/she does not possess perfect knowledge. Therefore, an atheist cannot rationally justify their belief that there is no God, without this justification containing some form of faith. Wasn't it Richard Dawkins who stated that "Faith is the great cop-out"? The irony appears to be lost on Mr Dawkins.Rennie
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
daveS said:
Is it fair to say that the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is more obviously objectively true than some or all objectively true moral propositions?
"Cruelty is immoral" is as obviously, objectively true as "2 + 2 = 4". Both are self-evidently true because (1) once one understands the concepts, they are immediately recognized as true by all sane people, and (2) the truth of those statement is necessary to prevent either subject from descending into absurdity.William J Murray
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Barry
We have seen this many times before, and it is all too drearily predicable and tiresome. The materialist demonstrates how terribly urbane and sophisticated they are, because unlike us ID rubes who believe that one plus one must always equal two, they can demonstrate that one plus one does not necessarily equal two.
I'm just saying: in nature stuff isn't necessarily modelled with simple arithmetic. And I'm saying that there's a whole lot of mathematics beyond arithmetic. Some of it can be applied to the real world, some can't.
Meh. ellazimm, assume a set with a cardinality of one. Assume a separate and distinct set with a cardinality of one. Now assume the first set is combined with the second set. True or false: The combined set will always without exception objectively and absolutely have a cardinality of two.
Indisputably. But . . . if you do arithmetic mod 4 then 2 + 2 = 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic Our system of measuring time of day is an example of modular arithmetic. 10 (o'clock) + 4 (hours) = 2 (o'clock) unless you're using a 24-hour clock.ellazimm
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
EZ said:
It’s an interesting question.
It's also a simple one which you apparently will go to any lengths not to answer.
I certainly think that some alien beings would have much the same basic kinds of mathematics: arithmetic, algebra probably, maybe even calculus. I’m not sure about number theory, combinatorics, complex analysis . . . there are people who think about stuff like that. Of course there’s no answer since we haven’t met any alien beings . . . yet.
My jaw literally dropped in disbelief when I read this. I have absolutely no idea how you think the above response has any remote bearing on what I asked you. What I asked you was a simple question that had nothing to do with anything other than your personal behavior.
Of course I expect people I deal with on a daily basis to use arithmetic as everyone else does.
This appears to be a "yes" to the question of whether or not you in daily life use mathematics in a way that suggest you hold it to provide objectively true and binding answers to certain problems and questions. Of course you do - everyone does. If there is a disagreement about how much a 20% tip is, you do the math or pull out a calculator - you don't ask for everyone's subjective opinion and then vote on it.
Is it binding on nature?
I didn't ask this question. I asked about how you act in day to day life, as if mathematics is binding in nature (not "on" nature), or do you act as if it is not objective and not binding in nature (in it's nature, not in the natural world's "nature")
In nature 1 man + 1 woman can equal 1 baby, sometimes 2 babies, sometimes 5 babies.
ROFL! Sure, if by the plus sign you mean "one man having sex wth 1 woman" and by "equals" you mean "can possibly result in". But then, that's not mathematics, EZ, and that's not what those symbols mean in mathematics.
In physics and chemistry stuff can get pretty weird. And quantum mechanics . . . relativity. There are mathematical models for those but I don’t think anyone would say that nature is bound by the math.
Apparently your inability to comprehend complex abstract arguments via categorical framings about the premised nature of the subject of a proposition (the nature of math as either being subjective or objective, binding or non-binding) and the logically consistent ramifications thereof wrt behavior (if we behave as if math is objective and binding or subjective and non-binding in it's nature) is causing you to respond in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual argument I've presented here or in the other thread. As I said there, you don't even understand the argument if you think most of the above is responsive to it. All sane people act as if at least some basic principles of logic and mathematics are objectively valid and universally binding. They couldn't function otherwise. To insist or that such principles are not in fact objective in their nature and are not universally binding is to hold beliefs in direct conflict with how all sane people act. Which is an indication of a delusion.William J Murray
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
daveS @ 93. Ask your fellow atheist ellazimm. He is busy trying to cast doubt on propositions like 2 + 2 = 4.Barry Arrington
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
KF, Is it fair to say that the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is more obviously objectively true than some or all objectively true moral propositions?daveS
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
ellazimm @91
In nature 1 man + 1 woman can equal 1 baby, sometimes 2 babies, sometimes 5 babies.
We have seen this many times before, and it is all too drearily predicable and tiresome. The materialist demonstrates how terribly urbane and sophisticated they are, because unlike us ID rubes who believe that one plus one must always equal two, they can demonstrate that one plus one does not necessarily equal two. Meh. ellazimm, assume a set with a cardinality of one. Assume a separate and distinct set with a cardinality of one. Now assume the first set is combined with the second set. True or false: The combined set will always without exception objectively and absolutely have a cardinality of two?Barry Arrington
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
WJM
In your day to day life – making purchases, balancing checkbooks, following recipes or instructions, planning your day in concert with others, etc., do you or do you not act as if, and expect others (like your bank teller, those you make plans with, the banker, the cashier, etc.) to behave as if the basic mathematics and logic involved are objectively true and binding in nature? Or do you act as if logic and mathematics are subjective in nature – a matter of personal preference, subjective values and not held as binding on others or upon the world in general?
It's an interesting question. I certainly think that some alien beings would have much the same basic kinds of mathematics: arithmetic, algebra probably, maybe even calculus. I'm not sure about number theory, combinatorics, complex analysis . . . there are people who think about stuff like that. Of course there's no answer since we haven't met any alien beings . . . yet. Of course I expect people I deal with on a daily basis to use arithmetic as everyone else does. Is it binding on nature? In nature 1 man + 1 woman can equal 1 baby, sometimes 2 babies, sometimes 5 babies. In physics and chemistry stuff can get pretty weird. And quantum mechanics . . . relativity. There are mathematical models for those but I don't think anyone would say that nature is bound by the math. KF
More than this, WJM’s point is that there are objective and even self evident facts and principles of mathematics that start with our experience of arithmetic. He gave examples of the order 2 + 2 = 4. That is all that is needed to establish a hard objective truth based core. The point being, there are objective and even self evident first truths of logic, of the logic of structure and quantity (= maths), and so also in our world. Where that is a case where we have objective, self evident truths about inherently abstract matters. In that context he has argued that there are also objective and even self evident moral truths, as I have also
Like I said: I was thinking about much more complicated stuff than arithmetic. Stuff like the Goldbach conjecture. Is it true or not? No one knows. We didn't know Fermat's Last Theorem was true 'til about 20 years ago. Didn't make a plumb bit of difference to normal folks. And it didn't tell us anything about the real world. Not yet anyway. I'll leave the moral discussions to y'all.ellazimm
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
I'm going to break down my response to Seversky's #66 into individual components to allow for more focus on specifics. WJM said:
1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.
Seversky responds:
Some atheists may take the position that they act as if morality is objective but I don’t. In my view, we choose to observe a moral code out of respect for our own interests and those of others. It is similar, in principle, to the way players of a particular sport will abide by its rules during a game. You could argue that they are acting as if the rules are objective but it’s really only because they want a good game. If everybody ignored the rules and did their own thing, there wouldn’t be a game, just a free-for-all.
Seversky is apparently contradicting himself by first claiming that he doesn't hold the view that atheists act as if morality is objective, then claiming that the players only act as if the rules are objective because they want a good game. Acting as if the rules are objective because one wants a good game is acting as if the rules are objective all the same. And yes, the players do indeed act as if the rules they are playing are objective. (Actually, the rules are objective; they're just not considered metaphysically absolute. There are referees at games whose job it is to enforce those objectively detailed rules and penalize anyone who doesn't obey them.) Seversky here admits that if people actually acted as if the rules were subjective, you'd have a free-for-all, and counters that they act as if morality is objective (1) in order to best pursue their own interests and (2) out of respect for other people pursuing their interests ((2) actually being a subset of (1) - seversky implies it's in your own best interest to respect others' pursuit of their own interests). IOW, Seversky is making the case that it is not delusional to act as if morality is objective in nature while believing it is not when you are acting that way in pursuit of your own interests. IOW, seversky is using a deceitful facade of acting as if morality is objective in order to pursue his self-interests. Extending that logic, Seversky will act as if morality is subjective when and where he thinks it is in his personal self-interest to do so. I agree with Seversky here. If an atheist is simply acting as if morality is objective (like players in sports do wrt game rules) in order to pursue their own self interests, this act doesn't represent delusion. It does, however, reveal a stunning capacity for deceit and an appalling devotion to self-interest above everything else. However, I don't believe any of it. Seversky, like the rest of us, deeply understands there is a right way and a wrong way to play the game of life regardless of what arbitrary rules and laws may say, and I'm sure he doesn't act for a second in his life as if morality was an arbitrary set of rules he can simply ignore for his own selfish self-interests. In fact, I'd wager Seversky is quite willing to ignore his own self-interests to obey certain moral principles even when there appears to be only potential negative ramifications in store for him for obeying moral obligations which conflict with the majority. Or, perhaps if a certain Muslim culture took over in the USA an passed corresponding laws, Seversky would be all too willing to treat women like property and sexually abuse children in order to "play the game" the masses have consented to. I sorta doubt it, though. I sorta think that, like me, Seversky would disregard and oppose those "arbitrary rules" to the death.William J Murray
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
The fact that there are an infinite number of mathematical theorems that do not describe the real world, compared to the few that do describe the real world, is actually a proof against the atheistic contention that they will someday find a purely mathematical 'theory of everything' without ever having to reference God: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/british-science-culture-and-science-festival-features-some-people-we-know/#comment-608603 Steven Weinberg, an atheist who had a hand in formulating the ‘standard model’ in the 1960’s, puts ‘the fix’ that atheists are in with mathematics like this:
“I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,” (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.” Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495
Of related note:
Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF25AA4dgGg 1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists.
bornagain77
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
EZ, I suspect anyone who has done primary school mathematics is familiar with factorisation down to prime number factors. They may not have learned the theorem you cite but they know the concept that numbers will be prime or reducible to primes. More than this, WJM's point is that there are objective and even self evident facts and principles of mathematics that start with our experience of arithmetic. He gave examples of the order 2 + 2 = 4. That is all that is needed to establish a hard objective truth based core. The point being, there are objective and even self evident first truths of logic, of the logic of structure and quantity (= maths), and so also in our world. Where that is a case where we have objective, self evident truths about inherently abstract matters. In that context he has argued that there are also objective and even self evident moral truths, as I have also. KFkairosfocus
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
Marfin, perhaps your question can be posed as: are we significantly, responsibly, rationally free? Sufficiently so that we can reason, warrant and know, as well as be subject to duty (without which there can be no genuine rights)? If so, atheists and agnostics need to answer, how can this be founded on evolutionary materialistic premises of matter and energy interacting by cumulative blind chance and necessity? If they can not, how then can we have a rational discussion -- or, does this all burn down to might and manipulation towards will to power and survival of the alleged fittest? On which it seems that the challenge that evolutionary materialistic scientism-based atheistical views are deeply self refuting by way of letting grand delusion loose on the life of the mind, like a bull in a china shop. KFkairosfocus
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
ellazimm, In your day to day life - making purchases, balancing checkbooks, following recipes or instructions, planning your day in concert with others, etc., do you or do you not act as if, and expect others (like your bank teller, those you make plans with, the banker, the cashier, etc.) to behave as if the basic mathematics and logic involved are objectively true and binding in nature? Or do you act as if logic and mathematics are subjective in nature - a matter of personal preference, subjective values and not held as binding on others or upon the world in general?William J Murray
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
WJM
When EZ balances her checkbook against bank records, then, and discovers that when the bank subtracted a check for $20 the balance, according to their records, went from $5000 to $3000, she won’t call the bank to inform them of their mathematical error because, as EZ says, he/she doesn’t think mathematics is “true’ or objectively binding in the real world.
I was thinking of stuff like topology, number theory, set theory, measure theory, complex analysis, graph theory, combinatorics and other topics. Some of them or parts of them are used to model real world situations, some are not. Arithmetic is, as you point out, one of the topics that is used all the time. But the fundamental theorem of arithmetic is something I'm sure most people are not familiar with. From Wikipedia: In number theory, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, also called the unique factorization theorem or the unique-prime-factorization theorem, states that every integer greater than 1 either is prime itself or is the product of prime numbers, and that this product is unique, up to the order of the factors. I will do better to be clear in the future. I admit to being a bit rude on the other thread. I apologise.ellazimm
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
Zeroseven said:
See above. There wouldn’t be a need to lie about it in NZ. If she did, I don’t know why.
She made the comment in 2003 after National leader Don Brash said she was an atheist.
Once she put her signature on a painting and lied that she had painted it. I don’t know why she did that either.
Probably to get undeserved credit for painting the picture, wouldn't you think?
And really, is there a big diff between Agnostic and atheist?
If there is no "big diff", why would she specifically say:
I am not going to have Dr Brash describe my personal beliefs. I'm not aware I have ever described myself as an atheist. I describe myself as an agnostic.
Your problem is you don’t like the messiness of being a human being.
No, my problem is when self-deluded atheists/materialists/physicalists/naturalists make claims of fact they cannot support, lie, dissemble and then attempt to make excuses for by claiming their inane, deceitful, self-contradictory BS is just part of being a normal "messy" human being when they are caught and exposed.William J Murray
June 9, 2016
June
06
Jun
9
09
2016
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply