a common atheist fallacy

[cuchulain]

too bad that ignore feature doesn't work on mods...

[Seeker]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

Ok. I have a meter stick. I can point to it and say "That is a meter." When you use meters in your measurements, that is ,essentially, my basis for comparison. This is how I, and the majority of the world, define a meter. Change the length of a meter and you have to change everyone's speedometerss, you know?

 

Yes. Your stick is good enough for all practical purposes. However for many scientific purposes it is necessary to be ridiculously precise, and so the scientific "stick" is chosen in a way which makes it consistent in as many circumstances as possible. If you raise or lower the temperature for example, your stick will be slightly longer or shorter, whereas a light-second and hence a scientific metre will remain constant. 

 

As to changing the speedos, remember I said 0.02 parts per billion? That's the equivalent of measuring the entire width of the continental US and being out by less that the width of a hair. The length of the SI metre been more accurately defined, but lies within the limits of accuracy of previous standards. No adjustment necessary.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Geordon said:

 

Lighthearted my ass.  That was a personal attack an you know it.

 

Thank you for the confirmation.  I was wondering if I had over reacted.

 

      

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

too bad that ignore feature doesn't work on mods...

 

 

The feature might not work.  "Ignore" is still an option.  

 

[Dan56]

On 6/3/2018 at 10:46 AM, mererdog said:

 a billboard says- Beyond A Reasonable Doubt JESUS IS ALIVE

 

On 6/3/2018 at 11:00 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

There is nothing new about fraudulent advertising, for misleading or defective products 

 

On 6/3/2018 at 11:34 AM, mererdog said:

I dont think it is fair to call it fraudulent. Most people who advertise Reiki honestly believe it works.

 

On 6/3/2018 at 6:15 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

meredog  knows from previous discussions that I have a background in Reiki.  From the manner in which meredog intrudes Reiki into this thread, it was clearly a shot at me.  This is personally insulting aimed at me.

 

Jonathan, your comment about "Jesus is Alive" being fraudulent, misleading, and defective could be construed as an attack against Christians... Mererdog was simply pointing out that you calling it fraudulent was no different than someone referring to something you believed in as fraudulent. Whereby, your response was tantamount to me writing something like; 'From the manner in which Jonathan intrudes Christianity into this thread, it was clearly a shot at me. This is personally insulting &  aimed at me" . Imo, meredog didn't say Reiki was fraudulent, so how could the comment be insulting? It was a simple illustration that the billboard was no more fraudulent or deceptive to those who believe Christ lives, than something you believe in (Reiki) is defective to you. Twas a valid point, no reason to be thin-skinned, jmo.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

 

 

Jonathan, your comment about "Jesus is Alive" being fraudulent, misleading, and defective could be construed as an attack against Christians... Mererdog was simply pointing out that you calling it fraudulent was no different than someone referring to something you believed in as fraudulent. Whereby, your response was tantamount to me writing something like; 'From the manner in which Jonathan intrudes Christianity into this thread, it was clearly a shot at me. This is personally insulting &  aimed at me" . Imo, meredog didn't say Reiki was fraudulent, so how could the comment be insulting? It was a simple illustration that the billboard was no more fraudulent or deceptive to those who believe Christ lives, than something you believe in (Reiki) is defective to you. Twas a valid point, no reason to be thin-skinned, jmo.

 

 

 

 

Free speech is an important right.  The people behind that billboard had every right to use it to proclaim their message.

 

The people that the message was aimed at, are under no obligation to respect the message.

 

Neither you nor meredog know anything about my understanding of Reiki.  Belief is misleading and insulting.  Having someone misrepresent my understanding, as belief, is very, very, annoying.  All the more so, when it comes from the man who cares about precise use of language. Or says he does.  This is the man who gets incensed over the use of a capital "A" for Agnostic -- talking about my beliefs.  

 

Billboards are a means of selling products to a potential customer.  If people want to sell Jesus in the same manner as a laundry product  --  the potential customer has the right to form an opinion, as to the quality and trustworthiness of that product.  To decide if the goods are genuine or fraudulent.  "Let the buyer beware."  This is not an attack on Christians.  It's a purchasing decision.

 

Yes.  I said that the product being sold on this particular billboard was fraudulent. Perhaps everybody would have been more happy, if I had said "shoddy" instead?  No fraud intended?  Just a bad product?  Unworthy of purchase, but not fraudulent?  Does that make you happy?  Probably not.  Does that make meredog happy?  Probably not.  But I will concede the point.  Shoddy would have been a better word.  

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

On 6/4/2018 at 10:12 AM, Geordon said:

Lighthearted my ass.  That was a personal attack an you know it.

The smiling winky face was an attempt to show that I was attempting a little ribbing between friends. I thought we were friends. I am not being treated as such, so I suppose I was wrong. Thank you for clarifying. I'll keep that in mind in the future. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 minutes ago, mererdog said:

The smiling winky face was an attempt to show that I was attempting a little ribbing between friends. I thought we were friends. I am not being treated as such, so I suppose I was wrong. Thank you for clarifying. I'll keep that in mind in the future. 

 

You think that emoji was smiling?  I took it as disdain.  

[mererdog]

22 hours ago, Seeker said:

 

Yes. Your stick is good enough for all practical purposes. However for many scientific purposes it is necessary to be ridiculously precise, and so the scientific "stick" is chosen in a way which makes it consistent in as many circumstances as possible.

Sure. But by basing the meter on a physical object, you have an objective, verifiable standard. You can hold things up to the stick and ask "How do these things compare?" Basing the the meter on its relationship to c means you can do no direct comparison. Instead, you have to build on a pile of inferences.

"This is true, so I infer that must be true. Since I infer that is true, I also infer the other is true. Therefore, I conclude that this physical object I am attempting to measure compares to c in this way."

Any bad inference in the chain destroys the accuracy of the conclusion. The more complex the chain, the easier it is for bad inferences to hide. And the more people who make the same bad inference, the harder it is for anyone to notice it is a bad inference.

A dozen people using the same warped meter stick to measure something a dozen times does not provide a more accurate measurement than one guy using a straight meter stick once. But if you cant tell the stick is bent, it will look accurate.

Edited June 5, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 I took it as disdain.  

Why? What is it about our relationship that makes you interpret my actions in the least flattering way possible? Why do you expect the worst from me? I have endeavored to treat you fairly. I have gone out of my way to be nice to you when you have been deliberately mean to me. I have extended olive branch after olive branch. But I keep getting cast as the villain. Why?

Is it somehow more comfortable to assume I am an abusive liar than to assume I was just teasing you because I mistakenly thought you would be amused?

 

The emoticon is smiling. It is a crooked smile, but it is a smile. A smile can be sarcastic, but I was not being sarcastic. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

This is the man who gets incensed over the use of a capital "A" for Agnostic -- talking about my beliefs.  

 

No. I don't care whether you use a capital letter. I got annoyed when you said that not using the capital letter is an insult against atheists. Because I don't capitalize the word and I am not insulting atheists by doing so.

You understand that it is annoying to get accused of doing stuff you aren't doing? You understand that it is personally insulting to have people use their lack of understanding of what you are doing to cast aspersions against your character?

Edited June 5, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, mererdog said:

No. I don't care whether you use a capital letter. I got annoyed when you said that not using the capital letter is an insult against atheists. Because I don't capitalize the word and I am not insulting atheists by doing so.

You understand that it is annoying to get accused of doing stuff you aren't doing? You understand that it is personally insulting to have people use their lack of understanding of what you are doing to cast aspersions against your character?

 

 

For this I apologize.  I seriously got your intentions all wrong.

 

 

[Seeker]

On 6/5/2018 at 3:34 PM, mererdog said:

Sure. But by basing the meter on a physical object, you have an objective, verifiable standard. You can hold things up to the stick and ask "How do these things compare?" Basing the the meter on its relationship to c means you can do no direct comparison. Instead, you have to build on a pile of inferences.

"This is true, so I infer that must be true. Since I infer that is true, I also infer the other is true. Therefore, I conclude that this physical object I am attempting to measure compares to c in this way."

Any bad inference in the chain destroys the accuracy of the conclusion. The more complex the chain, the easier it is for bad inferences to hide. And the more people who make the same bad inference, the harder it is for anyone to notice it is a bad inference.

A dozen people using the same warped meter stick to measure something a dozen times does not provide a more accurate measurement than one guy using a straight meter stick once. But if you cant tell the stick is bent, it will look accurate.

 

The new standard is objective and verifiable.

 

You seem to be deliberately ignoring what I said.  "Your stick is good enough for all practical purposes." You don't need an atomic clock to boil an egg, and I am not suggesting you record your mileage in fractions of a light-second.

 

However, when you and a friend both have metre sticks, which each of you think are accurate, but are of slightly different lengths, what then? The normal solution is to have a reference stick which is manufactured to higher tolerances, and it used to calibrate the everyday measures. You then have the same problem again if two of those reference measures disagree, and so on up the chain. The 19th century method which you seem to be advocating is to have a single physical object to which all the high-level references are compared. Unfortunately, physical objects vary with temperature, humidity,  corrosion, wear-and-tear, etc. The modern approach is to tie the standards directly to fundamental elements of the Universe.

 

Please note that there is none of your implied drift off into intellectual la-la land here. The comparisons are tricky, sure, but the derivation is measurement-by-measurement, not just inference-by-inference.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

This is starting to go off the rails.  Are we still talking about objective evidence for God?

[cuchulain]

it's difficult to speak to that which doesn't exist, i think.

[cuchulain]

i would say biblical contradiction is evidence against...but the christians find a way to make two opposite statements mesh in their minds, and insist there are none.  how 'do violence to no man' meshes with 'suffer not a witch to live' is beyond me.  just not made smart enough by god, i guess.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

i would say biblical contradiction is evidence against...but the christians find a way to make two opposite statements mesh in their minds, and insist there are none.  how 'do violence to no man' meshes with 'suffer not a witch to live' is beyond me.  just not made smart enough by god, i guess.

 

For me, it is enough to take the Bible off the table as evidence.  Life is short.  I can't be bothered dissecting every minor flaw.  Or every major flaw.  It doesn't matter.  If we start down the path of arguing each detail -- we will be at it forever and the argument will never end.  No.  It's not my burden and it's also not yours.  

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

41 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

it's difficult to speak to that which doesn't exist, i think.

 

 

We have come full circle in this argument.  I think more than once.  Since we are back where we started;  I will restate the original proposition.

 

There are no objective, verifiable facts about God.  None at all.

 

Some people choose to believe in God -- despite the total lack of objective, verifiable facts.  I say -- let them.  Truly, the beliefs of others are not my concern.  Neither do I need to tell anyone else what to believe or disbelieve.  It's not my problem  If someone chooses to believe in the absence of facts -- it's their issue.  Not mine.

 

The question behind this thread was simple -- and directed largely at you.  "Why don't you believe?"

 

We can keep the answer simple.  "Why would I believe?"

 

Beyond -- "I don't know" -- and -- "I don't believe" -- there is  -- "I don't care."  It works for me.

 

I'm ready to let it go.  If anybody wants to come up with real evidence --  Objective, verifiable, evidence -- we can always revisit.  We can also continue to ignore evidence which requires faith.  Anything which is "good enough" for those who "believe".

 

 

 

 

 

[mererdog]

On 6/6/2018 at 11:20 AM, Seeker said:

The comparisons are tricky, sure, but the derivation is measurement-by-measurement, not just inference-by-inference.

The thing is that you don't get to the answer without the inferences. This means the answer is inherently interpretive, thus not objective.

The bottom line is that we have not measured the speed of light. We have measured other things and inferred the speed of light from those measurements. This is how we deal with things we cannot interact with directly, whether things really big, things really small, or things in other time periods.

Indirect evidence. Subjective proof. Without it, science does not work. Yet when religons use indirect evidence and subjective proof, they are often ridiculed. Not simply for making bad inferences, but for relying on inference at all. See my point yet?

Edited June 11, 2018 by mererdog

[RevBogovac]

56 minutes ago, mererdog said:

[...] The bottom line is that we have not measured the speed of light. We have measured other things and inferred the speed of light from those measurements. [...]

 

Huh?!? AFAIK Evanson et al measured the speed of light in 1973 using lasers...

 

Twentieth Century Physics, Volume 2, IOP publishing / AIP press.