The biggest grievance atheists have against religious types is that naive assumption forms the very foundation of the livelihood of religion. Namely, it is that all these people have agreed on the giant assumption that a mythical, imaginary, hypothetical supreme being exists. Ingrained into this complaint is the assumption (heh) that math and science could not possibly do this.
Science and math do not involve pre-held assumptions or superstition? WRONG.
It is silly that atheists/liberals automatically assume this is not true of math or science.
Norms and constants in science that everyone simply agrees on, which are arbitrarily decided due to history and custom, and not because of material evidence.
360 degrees to a circle. Hearken back to high school algebra. This unit circle is the [[[foundation on which we derive trig functions-- remember sine, cosine, tangent, the other ones. 360 degrees round. But why 360°? Why not 350°? Or 300°? We are told it is 360° and we are not allowed to question this assertion. Anyway.
--we [[[derive]]] because we assume that the unit circle [[consists of___]]] And yet this *same* Cartesian coordinate plane is the [[springboard, foundation]]] on which to plot a wave function representing the oscillating angles of the unit circle.
Which leads me into the next one.
Cartesian Coordinate plane system. This one is a whopper.
All mathematics subtopics at higher degrees of difficulty than basic algebra are built on the previously agreed-upon assumption that such a concept exists. Higher algebra, trigonometry, calculus -- they are all predicated on the assumption that such an imaginary, theoretic manner of organization exists.
they [[[function___, rely upon ]]]] if and only if all [[[[operators, perpetrators,_____]]]]] agree that such a
The definite integral in calculus -- finding the space below a curve function. This is but one application of the coordinate plane.
Conic sections. Why do we assume that it is a double cone, not just a single cone? Answer: because without this double-decker structure, one major conic section function, the hyperbola, would not exist. Yet the other major conic sections could go about their merry ways just fine without the existence of the double cone. So why must we invent the existence of an imaginary inverted cone, simply to satisfy the needs of an imaginary conception?
it would break down
The foundation of all these so-called scientific academic disciplines would crumble if even one person pipes up and says, “Wait a minute. This thing does not actually exist. Why are we all just accepting without question that it does?”
Does the Cartesian coordinate plane exist in nature? Nope. Is it something tangible we can see or touch or feel? Nope. Was it discovered out in nature by a curious individual exploring a previously uncharted land territory? Nope. Was it invented? Yup. It came out of somebody’s corpus callosum.
This entire revelation, by the way, is a shot right in the kisser for me. Because I always [[[[have upheld____preached]]]]]] the notion that math and all branches of science are distinct, concrete absolutes. And that all the sub-branches of math are also absolutes and are not abstract or theoretical, never ever ever besties forever and ever.
***
Next atheist concern: religious types follow authority blindly and just assume that "authority" knows best.
Well, what about the fact that religious scholars say that oh, just because they are the authority, we all have to shut up and believe it. We all have no choice but to simply take their word for it.
Answer: Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is true of a lot of disciplines.
Medicine -- the general populace believes anything that doctors tell them. this is because we know that medical doctors have the expertise, they studied [[the rigorous]]]] languid
We rely on electricians to ensure that electrical wiring is [[assembled__]]] up to code
to make sure we don't all fry when we go to turn on the lights.
you might not be familiar with the [[[vast network_____ vast complex system in place for screening and vetting original research in peer reviewed scientific research journals
--you do know t
this means that they are well-aware that their own re-creation of the experimental methodologies are not going to work equally successfully for everybody. they factored this in.
****
Next atheist concern. How come it works better for some people and not for others? Why do only some people get to benefit and bask in God's glory while others are stuck in the dark?
This is not so farfetched. Witness kids in high school and middle school. One kid's lab experiment of putting a peanut into a metal calorimeter cup and setting said peanut on fire might work superbly, and another kid’s attempt will not. It works better for some people and not so great for other people.
To which the atheist might reply, "so what are you saying? Are you implying that 'GOD' or whatever divinity of choice, will choose to reveal himself/herself to some people and not to others?"
But a scientific experiment with all its controlled conditions could be recreated by anyone else on earth, theoretically. This is not the case with religion. Some people supposedly feel God's "inner light" filling their soul, yet other people are deprived of it. The same conditions cannot be recreated by everyone. This proves that it is arbitrary, is a matter of perception, and does not actually exist. How come some people are better at it than others?
Yep, maybe. That might very well be the case. More importantly, just because God did not choose to reveal Herself to you, is no reason for me to deny myself the peace of knowing spirituality. There is a certain calmness and tranquility that I can achieve by [[[[ allowing myself to bask in the realization????? awareness???? revelation
"That’s not fair."
No, it's not. Just like the rest of life.
"bb bb bBut that's not fair. Why should those people be allowed to revel in God's glory if other people can't?"
Erm, why shouldn't they? Just because you were not gifted with being happy, doesn’t mean other people should have to pay with their happiness out of some misguided notion of "equality." I'm sorry it sucks to be you.
This is a throwback to another thing I don’t like about liberals. Just because they are wallowing in self-pity and feeling sorry for themselves, they think everyone else has to also. Just because they are unhappy, they think everyone else should be forced to be unhappy also.
And now we conclude by pulverizing, smashing, and taking apart the final smug, self-satisfied argument that atheists have against religious people.
"Well, what actual proof are these blessed few going on, if any, that God truly exists? There is no solid, incontrovertible proof. Aren’t they then only going by their own experiences?"
To which I respond: Isn't that all that anyone has? All that anyone has to go on, including atheists, is their own life experience, their own human story.
Atheists defend their stance by saying that, all that the religious Christians have to go on -- to base their belief on god -- is their own experience. Their own perception. Their own psychology. Certain experiences that they have had, and this lends credence to the notion that god exists. This is the only thing that religious people have to go on. These small anecdotal stories and firsthand accounts manage to convince them that god exists. That is all they are basing their belief and spirituality on. "electrical signals interpreted by their brain."
The atheist was saying something to the effect of, "Christians can never know anything other than own experience." Nothing beyond their own first-hand anecdotal experiences. Or others' second-party stories/accounts told in secondhand style.
Well, isn't the same true for atheists? Don't they also have only their own experiences to rely on? and nothing else? All they can go on is their own experiences. Their own electrochemical signals interpreted by their sense organs, and then their brains.
Science and math do not involve pre-held assumptions or superstition? WRONG.
It is silly that atheists/liberals automatically assume this is not true of math or science.
Norms and constants in science that everyone simply agrees on, which are arbitrarily decided due to history and custom, and not because of material evidence.
360 degrees to a circle. Hearken back to high school algebra. This unit circle is the [[[foundation on which we derive trig functions-- remember sine, cosine, tangent, the other ones. 360 degrees round. But why 360°? Why not 350°? Or 300°? We are told it is 360° and we are not allowed to question this assertion. Anyway.
--we [[[derive]]] because we assume that the unit circle [[consists of___]]] And yet this *same* Cartesian coordinate plane is the [[springboard, foundation]]] on which to plot a wave function representing the oscillating angles of the unit circle.
Which leads me into the next one.
Cartesian Coordinate plane system. This one is a whopper.
All mathematics subtopics at higher degrees of difficulty than basic algebra are built on the previously agreed-upon assumption that such a concept exists. Higher algebra, trigonometry, calculus -- they are all predicated on the assumption that such an imaginary, theoretic manner of organization exists.
they [[[function___, rely upon ]]]] if and only if all [[[[operators, perpetrators,_____]]]]] agree that such a
The definite integral in calculus -- finding the space below a curve function. This is but one application of the coordinate plane.
Conic sections. Why do we assume that it is a double cone, not just a single cone? Answer: because without this double-decker structure, one major conic section function, the hyperbola, would not exist. Yet the other major conic sections could go about their merry ways just fine without the existence of the double cone. So why must we invent the existence of an imaginary inverted cone, simply to satisfy the needs of an imaginary conception?
it would break down
The foundation of all these so-called scientific academic disciplines would crumble if even one person pipes up and says, “Wait a minute. This thing does not actually exist. Why are we all just accepting without question that it does?”
Does the Cartesian coordinate plane exist in nature? Nope. Is it something tangible we can see or touch or feel? Nope. Was it discovered out in nature by a curious individual exploring a previously uncharted land territory? Nope. Was it invented? Yup. It came out of somebody’s corpus callosum.
This entire revelation, by the way, is a shot right in the kisser for me. Because I always [[[[have upheld____preached]]]]]] the notion that math and all branches of science are distinct, concrete absolutes. And that all the sub-branches of math are also absolutes and are not abstract or theoretical, never ever ever besties forever and ever.
***
Next atheist concern: religious types follow authority blindly and just assume that "authority" knows best.
Well, what about the fact that religious scholars say that oh, just because they are the authority, we all have to shut up and believe it. We all have no choice but to simply take their word for it.
Answer: Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is true of a lot of disciplines.
Medicine -- the general populace believes anything that doctors tell them. this is because we know that medical doctors have the expertise, they studied [[the rigorous]]]] languid
We rely on electricians to ensure that electrical wiring is [[assembled__]]] up to code
to make sure we don't all fry when we go to turn on the lights.
you might not be familiar with the [[[vast network_____ vast complex system in place for screening and vetting original research in peer reviewed scientific research journals
--you do know t
this means that they are well-aware that their own re-creation of the experimental methodologies are not going to work equally successfully for everybody. they factored this in.
****
Next atheist concern. How come it works better for some people and not for others? Why do only some people get to benefit and bask in God's glory while others are stuck in the dark?
This is not so farfetched. Witness kids in high school and middle school. One kid's lab experiment of putting a peanut into a metal calorimeter cup and setting said peanut on fire might work superbly, and another kid’s attempt will not. It works better for some people and not so great for other people.
To which the atheist might reply, "so what are you saying? Are you implying that 'GOD' or whatever divinity of choice, will choose to reveal himself/herself to some people and not to others?"
But a scientific experiment with all its controlled conditions could be recreated by anyone else on earth, theoretically. This is not the case with religion. Some people supposedly feel God's "inner light" filling their soul, yet other people are deprived of it. The same conditions cannot be recreated by everyone. This proves that it is arbitrary, is a matter of perception, and does not actually exist. How come some people are better at it than others?
Yep, maybe. That might very well be the case. More importantly, just because God did not choose to reveal Herself to you, is no reason for me to deny myself the peace of knowing spirituality. There is a certain calmness and tranquility that I can achieve by [[[[ allowing myself to bask in the realization????? awareness???? revelation
"That’s not fair."
No, it's not. Just like the rest of life.
"bb bb bBut that's not fair. Why should those people be allowed to revel in God's glory if other people can't?"
Erm, why shouldn't they? Just because you were not gifted with being happy, doesn’t mean other people should have to pay with their happiness out of some misguided notion of "equality." I'm sorry it sucks to be you.
This is a throwback to another thing I don’t like about liberals. Just because they are wallowing in self-pity and feeling sorry for themselves, they think everyone else has to also. Just because they are unhappy, they think everyone else should be forced to be unhappy also.
And now we conclude by pulverizing, smashing, and taking apart the final smug, self-satisfied argument that atheists have against religious people.
"Well, what actual proof are these blessed few going on, if any, that God truly exists? There is no solid, incontrovertible proof. Aren’t they then only going by their own experiences?"
To which I respond: Isn't that all that anyone has? All that anyone has to go on, including atheists, is their own life experience, their own human story.
Atheists defend their stance by saying that, all that the religious Christians have to go on -- to base their belief on god -- is their own experience. Their own perception. Their own psychology. Certain experiences that they have had, and this lends credence to the notion that god exists. This is the only thing that religious people have to go on. These small anecdotal stories and firsthand accounts manage to convince them that god exists. That is all they are basing their belief and spirituality on. "electrical signals interpreted by their brain."
The atheist was saying something to the effect of, "Christians can never know anything other than own experience." Nothing beyond their own first-hand anecdotal experiences. Or others' second-party stories/accounts told in secondhand style.
Well, isn't the same true for atheists? Don't they also have only their own experiences to rely on? and nothing else? All they can go on is their own experiences. Their own electrochemical signals interpreted by their sense organs, and then their brains.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment