The Problem with Atheism

Topic: The Problem with Atheism (Read 205341 times)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #375 – 2014-06-28, 23:35:24

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-28, 08:56:24

I am just trying to point out that science is a never ending process

So science too goes beyond the confines of science…?

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-28, 08:56:24

Science doesn't promise that any of its postulates are true, so what's to not like?

"I don't really know what I'm saying and I won't stick by it anyway" so buy in now, while shares are cheap!?

I've used up my allotment of Smileys for this post, so I'll put it plainly: You don't believe in science, James.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #376 – 2014-06-29, 12:00:16

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-28, 23:35:24

So science too goes beyond the confines of science…?

If scientific theories and laws are always open to the possibility of revision, then the principle of testability will only end when humans stop doing science. Does that please your little nit-picking butt better?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-28, 23:35:24

I'll put it plainly: You don't believe in science, James.

Yes I do.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #377 – 2014-06-29, 12:56:03

Any science is defined by its object of study and its methodology before anything else.

I know no scientist (or science) that had ever declared God as his object of study and presented any methodology for doing such a task.

I know some scientists that alternates between their jobs and selling books about the nonexistence of God as well as dealing intensively with their self promotion career.

And I know much more scientists that have absolutely no problem at all with conjugating science and a belief in God. Most of them do so.
Science/Religion is an artificial dilemma. There's no antagonism at all.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #378 – 2014-06-29, 15:30:00

black and white is for sure a logical fallacy .

on the other hand ..

IMHO

God thingy have it own benefit ---> Unlimited BS

that are the ingredients of science --> Science is started with BS , and criticism about the BS

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #379 – 2014-06-30, 02:55:30

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-06-29, 12:56:03

I know no scientist (or science) that had ever declared God as his object of study and presented any methodology for doing such a task.

The principle of falsifiability in science prevents them from doing so. God cannot be tested by science because of his allegedly supernatural nature and therefore, it is not a falsifiable hypothesis for science. Science is now denying the existence of a god (or anything else), prior to the big bang because time had not yet begun. Nevertheless, this will not keep believers from updating their gods to being able to transcend the beginning of time (without explanation, of course), because with the supernatural, anythingleberry goes.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #380 – 2014-06-30, 08:46:16

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-30, 02:55:30

God cannot be tested by science because of his allegedly supernatural nature

Very well. In that case the nonexistence of God as something demonstrated by science is definitely closed as a fallacy. Basically, science has nothing to say about God and that's all.

Science, as an human intellectual activity, based in reason, it's directed to the material side of things. Philosophy, another human intellectual activity also based in reason, it's directed for the non material side of life.
For some reason, aesthetics and emotions, not based in reason, are equally important to our lives, if not more.

The conscience of God it's easier if people don't slice themselves, pick a slice and disregards the rest. That's the problem, people mutilating themselves in order to "fit" into man made social structures.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #381 – 2014-06-30, 09:28:06

@Bel .. "the nonexistence of God as something demonstrated by science is definitely closed as a fallacy"

Not really; such would be no different (lack of testing) should God not exist.

Also: ... "The conscience of God it's easier if people don't slice themselves, pick a slice and disregards the rest. That's the problem, people mutilating themselves in order to "fit" into man made social structures."

The implication being that the non-religious ignore feelings? You know that's not true; they just don't ascribe them to a god-origin.

Also, regarding man-made social structures; you realise that describes churches perfectly! Anthropomorphic thinking also describes the man shape given to God, the obsession with Earth by some as being the sole host to life and numerous other examples where human attributes are ascribed to gods, prophets and the like.

@jseaton - the intrusion of anthropomorphic thinking also intrudes into the concept of there having been a "start" at the time of the big bang. It's an assumption which is used also by the religious who like to ask "who caused the big bang". But the concept of there being a beginning and an end is itself a human concept, based on our experience of the way things are perceived by us. But suppose that time does not have that characteristic; suppose that the big bang was merely preceded by the energy state that follows an eventual collapse of the Universe into itself and that these cycles are all there is. In other words that time itself was simply a circle with no beginning and no end. We simply don't know but I merely point out that anthropomorphic thinking is all around us.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #382 – 2014-06-30, 09:46:24

Quote from: string on 2014-06-30, 09:28:06

Also, regarding man-made social structures; you realise that describes churches perfectly!

That can describe many man made social structures. In context, meaning regarding atheists, never can refer to churches.

Quote from: string on 2014-06-30, 09:28:06

@Bel .. "the nonexistence of God as something demonstrated by science is definitely closed as a fallacy"

Not really; such would be no different (lack of testing) should God not exist.

I suppose what you want to say is that science also doesn't proof the existence of God. Course not, by the same reason I said.

Quote from: string on 2014-06-30, 09:28:06

Anthropomorphic thinking [..]

You are extending anthropomorphism way beyond what it means. There's nothing of anthropomorphic at the logical necessarily required characteristics of God.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #383 – 2014-06-30, 11:14:00

something interesting are ..

Why is thread about science never get much attention .

while thread about Labels n/or selling labes .

i/e God thingy , atheism , religion , race , politics , etc

is always take some people attention and lure them to reply n/or comments .

this kind of situation really challenging and disturbing my Scientia .

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #384 – 2014-06-30, 11:37:49

@Sparta
Didn't James explain convincingly enough that science has no truth to tell, indeed nothing conclusive at all. Science is a set of statements of alleged fact under constant revision. Therefore, if you are interested in truth, there's absolutely nothing to do in science thread.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #385 – 2014-06-30, 11:40:45

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-28, 03:19:05

There's a slight bit more to be considered: Read Andy Bannister's post here and get back to me…
The short version is that atheism is a belief and thus needs evidence and argument. (Before anyone says No! read the linked-to post…)

I've read it all (well, not really needed). The same old straw man as usual. If someone refuses to believe in Sweden, then let it be. (However, if someone wants to convince anyone that Sweden does not exist, then there is a problem.)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #386 – 2014-06-30, 16:12:50

Quote from: Barulheira on 2014-06-30, 11:40:45

I've read it all (well, not really needed).

Glancing over there, it seems like most of the piece is essentially a "reaction" to a horrible misrepresentation of what Hitchens wrote. I can barely even call it a quote mine for how obvious it is.

Quote from: 'Lying for Jesus' Andy

As one atheist put it recently: “I don’t believe in God and I don’t need to justify this, just as I don’t need to give reasons for my non-belief in the tooth fairy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” The late New Atheist writer, Christopher Hitchens, put it even more succinctly when he wrote:
Quote
Our belief is not a belief.[1]

Am I sure? Well, I decided to find some context just in case.

Quote from: Hitchens

Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.

I am assuming but didn't check that the Twitter quotes are actually accurate—although within 140 characters only an idiot would expect much nuance. Basically the article would've been fine using those Twitter quotes, but instead he tried to shovel in a lie about Hitchens hoping we wouldn't notice. (And Hitchens actually wrote and said plenty of objectionable stuff without having to force any ridiculous interpretations…)

Besides that, superficially it seems alright but superfluous.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #387 – 2014-06-30, 16:19:26

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-06-30, 08:46:16

Very well. In that case the nonexistence of God as something demonstrated by science is definitely closed as a fallacy. Basically, science has nothing to say about God and that's all.

Don't put words in the mouth out science. Saying that god is a fallacy is a judgment and not a scientific one at that. If something is not testable by science, it is simply dismissed without comment.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-06-30, 11:37:49

Didn't James explain convincingly enough that science has no truth to tell, nothing conclusive at all. Science is a set of statements of fact under constant revision. Therefore, if you are interested in truth, there's absolutely nothing to do in science thread.

Some people assume that scientists have generated a body of knowledge that is sure to be true, some people like you take the truth of scientific discoveries to an absurd opposite extreme (I know you are just teasing anyway). No one has observed the Earth orbiting the sun--it is a theory--what degree of reliability do you put in that...99.999% or more? That is the same degree of certainty that is given to the existence of the Higgs boson as well and science spent almost 30 years and $8 billion US dollars just to say "It's probably true", when they have known for 50 years that it simply had to exist or atoms couldn't form in the universe. A waste of money? Science just had to do it to move on and there were many contributing countries who agreed.

Science withholds a final verdict of absolute truth on all its discoveries so that science can be more flexible and adjust easier when new evidence is introduced. Philosophy is tyrannical about its findings in comparison, yet philosophy has been proven wrong countless times.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #388 – 2014-06-30, 17:05:34

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-30, 16:19:26

Philosophy is tyrannical about its findings in comparison, yet philosophy has been proven wrong countless times.

Flesh this one out please. By what standard of right and wrong has philosophy been proven wrong? Any specific example?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #389 – 2014-06-30, 18:06:03

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-30, 08:19:26

Science withholds a final verdict of absolute truth on all its discoveries so that science can be more flexible and adjust easier when new evidence is introduced.

The anthropomorphism aside, Science "withholds a final verdict of absolute truth" because its methods preclude such… In other words, you can't get there from here. As in Can Not — not as in It Is Prudent To Say or It Is Preferable (for some reason…)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #390 – 2014-06-30, 18:57:23

Quote from: ersi on 2014-06-30, 17:05:34

Flesh this one out please. By what standard of right and wrong has philosophy been proven wrong? Any specific example?

I knew the word 'wrong' was inappropriate for what I wanted to say, but I was in a hurry and on my way out. Metaphysical philosophies cannot be empirically proven right, wrong or otherwise because they are not falsifiable (except perhaps by other philosophies). Philosophies can be rejected or revised by other philosophy in the same way science has done with many of its hypotheses. Philosophies can be popular one day and nearly obsolete the next. Everybody probably has some sort of philosophy of life that is--for them--suitable, but not necessarily for anyone else. Philosophies are not testable, but that doesn't mean they can't be dismissed as inadequate or inappropriate, unacceptable, go out of fashion or simply become obsolete. I say that philosophies are on shakier ground than scientific postulates, theorems and laws.

Nothing stays the same and science knows that, so it makes itself flexible enough to accommodate for inevitable changes. Science theorizes that the sun will come up tomorrow because it has been doing that exact same thing for the last 4.5 billion years, but there is always a touch of uncertainty in all science--and science wants to keep it that way--because science realizes that one day...the sun will not come up.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #391 – 2014-06-30, 20:33:34

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-30, 18:06:03

In other words, you can't get there from here.

Depends on where you're going. Science has laws that have never changed and probably never will. Science simply doesn't see the need to etch anything in stone and pound their chests about it. I will say that science does rely on its laws and theories to establish other laws and theories and so on, therefore, if a major law of science such as say, gravity, is proven false--the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. Are you seriously worried about that? Science is a united global effort, yet you seem to have no faith in mankind's accomplishments or perhaps you just feel the need to bitch about something. I know science's track record doesn't impress you--but you depend on science everyday. That's neither here, nor there, but science does seem to be stumbling along pretty well today--and seems to always get to where it's going from anywhere.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #392 – 2014-06-30, 22:44:08

I take it, James, that you've never read (or read of) David Hume...
—————————————————————

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-30, 12:33:34

I know science's track record doesn't impress you--

You know no such thing.

It's pseudo-sciences and scientism that rankle… And the naive sci-doliters who readily and credulously accept such.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #393 – 2014-07-01, 04:16:04

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-30, 18:57:23

Quote from: ersi on 2014-06-30, 17:05:34
Flesh this one out please. By what standard of right and wrong has philosophy been proven wrong? Any specific example?

I knew the word 'wrong' was inappropriate for what I wanted to say, ...

So, no standard, no example, and your "wrong" was itself inappropriate. Noted.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-30, 18:57:23

Metaphysical philosophies cannot be empirically proven right, wrong or otherwise because they are not falsifiable (except perhaps by other philosophies).

What's this thing with falsifiability that you keep pressing it as if it mattered somehow? Can you falsify the principle of falsifiability? You always had, and by now it's safe to say that you always will have, the wrong and false idea about philosophy. (And of science too, really.)

Philosophy has the nature of mathematics. Do you have multiple mathematics cancelling each other out? No, you don't.

What is mathematics? It's the precondition of physics. When you measure anything, you use mathematics for it. Do you falsify mathematics empirically? This question itself is inapplicable, yet you keep hammering it as if it mattered somehow.

Philosophy is the same way. Philosophy is that with which you reason. Philosophy equals logic and rationality. When you deny that, you deny the very means with which to do science in the first place. And this overboard denialism and self-defeating scientism is all you have demonstrated. In the long run it's not even funny.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-30, 18:57:23

I say that philosophies are on shakier ground than scientific postulates, theorems and laws.

Given that philosophy has the nature of mathematics, it's the other way round. Naturally. And I don't expect you to get it.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #394 – 2014-07-01, 04:37:28

Philosophy is Science .

it's Cognitive Science Branch .

hence , i have no idea who put that as part of Cognitive Science, and since when .

but at least , i'm not too stupid to understand

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #395 – 2014-07-01, 05:53:46

Wikipedia, however, is… Well, if you don't know, Sparta, I wouldn't tell you.

————————————————
@ersi: Falsifiability was Popper's repudiation of the Vienna Circle's logical-positivism…

In short, they claimed that scientific theories were supported by empirical evidence via their predictions. A correct prediction was evidence that the theory was true… And also that propositions not so connected were simply nonsensical verbiage; e.g., all of metaphysics…
But there are logical problems with induction that mock scientific theories thus conceived unmercifully!

To wit: That Caesar crossed the Rubicon is evidence that all crows are black; as is the fact that I once lost a toe-nail and it grew back. So, something is wrong with this conception…
Popper thought to remedy this by substituting well-, critically- or seriously-tested; in jargon-less words, the predictions of a scientific theory had to be such that they could be false, and if they passed some unspecified number of such tests then they were (sort-of) okay — to believe. (see here)

You likely see the problem Popper elided…

(Anyone else?)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #396 – 2014-07-01, 09:15:22

Something interesting here --->
Theory of Knowledge , is Popper want to say something like .

scientists with mental health issues , and trapped in Logical fallacies is an epic fail ?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #397 – 2014-07-01, 10:37:52

@Oakdale
I know well what falsifiability is and who Popper is. The little point I am making is that it's inapplicable. You don't get 2+2=4 after some number of tests. Moreover, you don't consider ways to falsify it or to make the measurement more precise or whatever. This kind of thinking is flat-out inapplicable in math, logic, and philosophy.

@Sparta
You are not even wrong.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #398 – 2014-07-01, 10:51:12

I possibly got it wrong. 2+2=4 is falsifiable because joining 2 things and 2 other things and getting something other than 4 things would prove it false. It couldn't be more simple.
Philosophy, on the other hand, cannot be falsified. If something seems wrong, all it takes is philosophizing a little more.
The same applies to the concept of God. That's the reason why God cannot be a scientific issue. The most science can say is that, in the realm of nature, it is not needed.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #399 – 2014-07-01, 11:10:03

i maybe Wrong ...

but Afaik , something simple will be Very Complicated .

When -- injected with selling / Promoting labels , Labeling , claimism ( what's the English for that ? ) etc.

That will Create a Black and White World , an epic Fallacy .

i/e -->

-- atheism is always right, the best , another believes are Wrong and evil

--religion is always Right, another believes are Wrong .

--God is always Right , Another believes are Wrong .

--My partij , is always right , the best , another partijs are wrong and bad

etc..

the real problem is in the labels ( Religion , atheism , God , partij , etc )