Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
A broken clock is right twice a day.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Anti-Theism in America
- Thread starter GenSeneca
- Start date
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
You find it preposterous because you do not believe in the supernatural. But there is no evidence against the existence of the supernatural. While there is at least some evidence for it. Every good empiricists should only base what he believes on what can be seen. To deny what has not even had any evidence presented against is the preposterous thing.
A-THEIST HISTORY AND A-THEIST PHILOSOPHY
It was not an a-theist who betrayed the Christ God for money.
It was not a-theists who tried the Christ God.
It was not a-theists who condemned the Christ God.
The basic difference between theist and a-theist is that the theist believes is a second life and the a-theist believes in one life.
In the ongoing American Cultural Revolution, the patriotic theists and the patriotic a-theists fight side by side for the preservation of their sacred Constitutional Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
It was not an a-theist who betrayed the Christ God for money.
It was not a-theists who tried the Christ God.
It was not a-theists who condemned the Christ God.
The basic difference between theist and a-theist is that the theist believes is a second life and the a-theist believes in one life.
In the ongoing American Cultural Revolution, the patriotic theists and the patriotic a-theists fight side by side for the preservation of their sacred Constitutional Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
"That's all there is to it"... in your bazaaro can't prove anything "faith only" world.
I don't believe I'm trying to get you to be less religious. You on the other hand seem to feel that Anti-Theism is somehow hurting you.
Why does it threaten you that I can say that none of your "faith" is provable in anyway? But it does not threaten me in anyway that you have said faith?
Your whole Anti-Theism complaint revolves around the fact others don't believe in something that you can't prove. That's not "anti" anything. That's being open to being convinced with any evidence at all... but not by just you saying it is so.
You're not a victim. Let people believe whatever they want and you just do the same. What's the problem?
Do you even stop Holy Rolling for even just one minute and think how stupid and behind the rest of the civilized world we and our children would be if we followed your advice?
Believe nothing of science or biology or anything else because there may be some new discovery. That's ridiculous and you know it. We do learn new things almost every day. But if you notice those things show some pattern. We add on to what we know with what we learn.
If you in all the thousands of years of your "faith" could scientifically prove one thing... then you might get into the rotation. But that goes to the core of your problem. Man made up stories will never be scientifically proven as supernatural... simply because they are not.
As well as the Hindu belief that you are reincarnated back to earth in a form that rewards or condemns your previous actions on earth... right? OF COURSE NOT!!!
We teach what we know scientifically and explain the processes that bring us to those conclusions.
You just want kids to be as dumb as a rock don't you? There are religions of the world elective classes in some school districts. It's certainly not a necessity since there are already churches expressly for that purpose. But nothing unscientific should required in SCIENCE CLASS.
That would be like saying to kids... Now study this... but it could also just all be supernatural hocus pocus. Come on dude... just let it go. Religious believers are not victims of our education system. They just would like to force in their personal religious beliefs... and that would be wrong.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
If you are at all honest then you know that science is based on assumptions and it is a faith. It is a highly pragmatic one. And there is a high level of certainty but still at it's core there are assumptions. Most of the time they make no difference whatsoever in regards to the conclusions that will be reached. But at the fringes of reality these assumptions just might make the difference between drawing a wrong conclusion and a right one.
You have described the atheist view point at it's best very well. If you look back at where I have interacted with people when they simple state their personal opinions or their legitimate doubt in my faith I gloss right over that.
It is when people get all dogmatic about a positive assertion that there is no God, could be no God, never was, never will be, bla bla bla... that is when I tell people straight out that they are making claims that are inconsistent with naturalism and science and logic.
the athiest is very happy to live and let live. It is the anti-theist who makes it a crusade to squash my point of view.
I ama not asking people to give up science and the advances it has brought us. Just to recognize that it has limits. It can only discuss the natural world and nothing more.
So who ever said I believe nothing of science? I just recognize that it cannot ever address the supernatural.
man made up stories will never be proven as supernatural. Well if they are man made then of course they would not be. But what if they are not mad made. You certainly would not draw that conclusion without asking the question first. You would not decide that they are not true without presenting some evidence would you? That wouldnt be very scientific.
I said that we should discuss the limits of science not the advancement of hinduism. BIG difference.
That is what should be done in science class.
If you go back and read you will see that I thought this should be in some class and really thought you would understand that it would not be a science class.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
1) There is no evidence for the existence of god. The bible is full of silly stories like the Red Sea parting and the flood, none of which have happened since or been reproducable so the book is evdentially worthless.
2) God is illogical. Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive and you cannot get round this just by redefining omniscience. God either knows everything or he doesn't.
It is quite common to assert that certain things don't exist and christians do this routinely too. Faries, father xmas etc. People have claimed to see faries and books have been written about them.
But it is perfectly reasonable to say they don't exist and it is perfectly reasonable to say that god does not exist.
In fact asserting that god does exist is very bizarre.
You might even say it is a delusion
2) God is illogical. Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive and you cannot get round this just by redefining omniscience. God either knows everything or he doesn't.
It is quite common to assert that certain things don't exist and christians do this routinely too. Faries, father xmas etc. People have claimed to see faries and books have been written about them.
But it is perfectly reasonable to say they don't exist and it is perfectly reasonable to say that god does not exist.
In fact asserting that god does exist is very bizarre.
You might even say it is a delusion
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
You mean a God Delusion? Like that laid out by the famous anti-theist BIGOT known as Richard Dawkins?
Feel free to start a thread about his book (Your bible) and we'll be glad to decimate his flacid arguments and expose them as FAITH BASED assertions.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
There is lots of evidence.
Your inability to reproduce miracles falsifies the other evidence how?
You are right. He either 1) knows everything or 2) he does not know everything. I choose answer number two. He does not know everything. He knows more than me and he knows a whole lot just not everything. I would say that he knows virtually everything. This is not a redefining of the words since the words omniscient and omnipotent never appear in the bible. This would be an accurate description of what the bible actually says. When we take the words that do appear in the bible and we talk about them we are prone to use words like omni... and if we want to be really accurate then we need to use the alternate and less strict definitions that have existed for a long time.
" * inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known
and
* total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
Some modern theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscient
There is virtually no evidence for all of those things whereas there is plenty of evidence for God.
Oddly enough though you are in the tiny minority and the God believers are in the huge majority.
I can only assume you did very poorly in science class.
Because by far the lion's share of scientific principle is test proven. Sure we can get way out to string theory the big bang theory and such and that as of yet is not testable. But even that will one day be. New technology just recently developed such as the Super Collider will lead to even more knowledge. Previously untestable things have become scientifically testable all throughout history. But let's take a second and contrast that to "faith". Faith is worse than the mirror opposite of science. Where science provides provable testable actions most all the time faith offers none.
To say science and "faith" are on the same plain is like saying the Space Shuttle & a ghost are on the same plain of credibility because you say ghosts can fly too. I totally understand you being faith based cannot allow yourself to admit that... but none the less that's the truth.
Actually I was raised up and into my early twenties was a pretty devoted Lutheran. Now I could be fine with a number of titles. I could be an Atheist and say I just don't believe in any such thing as God. I could be an Agnostic and say I leave open the possibility of a God but have seen no proof (this is probably the most similar to me actually). Or I could be a Deist like Thomas Jefferson and many of the founding fathers and believe that there once was a God that created everything... but after that everything is up to man with no particular religious sect, no heaven, no hell.
But the leap to any man made religious belief is just not logical and in my opinion can never be proven as anything other than a story.
Supernatural, Supernatural. We could spend our time talking about ghost, goblins and witches too... but that's and equal waste of time as well isn't it?
I'm sure you would like to bring some Christian based philosophy forward. Hence the problem. There are other religions that completely contradict everything about that. So to be fair they would all have to be let in. How would you feel about a part of "science class" being devoted to the in depth study of Satanism and the devils creation of our world? Doesn't really sound science like does it?
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I can only assume you did very poorly in science class.
Regarding my academic career you would be mistaken. I always did very well in school. I majored in Chemistry at first and got all A's/ I then switched to psychology also receiving all A' in the classes related to my major and presently hold a Psy D. and just before that an MA in clinical psychology which is a highly research oriented degree. I have also been published for scientific work.
And no I am not suggesting that science is very strong except for a few isolated areas like string theory. I am suggesting that science is very strong except at it most foundational level where it relies 100% on inducting reasoning.
Let's first take an example of inductive reasoning: in everyday life people make all sorts of assumptions. For example I can say that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has always risen before. That sounds like a pretty safe bet, and it is. But science tells us that some day the sun will burn out so some day it will not rise and that bet will fail. Some of you will have difficulty believing that the sun failing to rise is destined and that it is an example of inductive reasoning. Another example is that if everyday on my way to work I see the same person waiting for the bus at the same time that tomorrow I will see that person again. Obviously all sorts of events could intervene to stop that person from being there tomorrow - He cold just take a sick day.
Every Law of Nature is based on the assumption that since we have not observed anything other than what we have observed that our observations must be absolutely right about what they describe.
For example the Law of Gravity: we have always observed that all objects fall at the same acceleration. We have measured the acceleration and all objects we observe obey the law. But just because all objects that we have ever seen have obeyed the law up to now there is no reason other than an assumption that they will continue to do so. Tomorrow just might be the day that something intervenes and causes some object to not obey the law of gravity. It just might even be that people have witnessed such an event but because it is so rare very few people believe it. Is that how Jesus walked on water?
If you disagree then feel free to name any Law of Nature that is not based on inductive reasoning.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I thought I was pretty clear that science belongs in science class. One thing that is not taught in science class but should be is the fact mentioned above that all the laws of nature are based on inductive reasoning.
All science is based on a particular philosophy. The first science class should discuss that philosophy.
See these articles is if you care, I have included the first paragraph:
"Philosophy of science is the study of assumptions, foundations, and implications of science. The field is defined by an interest in one of a set of "traditional" problems or an interest in central or foundational concerns in science. In addition to these central problems for science as a whole, many philosophers of science consider these problems as they apply to particular sciences"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
"Scientists are unbiased observers who use the scientific method to conclusively confirm and conclusively falsify various theories. These experts have no preconceptions in gathering the data and logically derive theories from these objective observations. One great strength of science is that it’s self-correcting, because scientists readily abandon theories when they are shown to be irrational. Although such eminent views of science have been accepted by many people, they are almost completely untrue. Data can neither conclusively confirm nor conclusively falsify theories, there really is no such thing as the scientific method, data become somewhat subjective in practice, and scientists have displayed a surprisingly fierce loyalty to their theories. There have been many misconceptions of what science is and is not. I’ll discuss why these misconstruals are inaccurate later, but first I’d like to begin by talking about some of the basics of what science is. "
http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html
Boil everything you've said down and you could easily abandon your "theory" for the biggest self-correction of all... thousands of years of ZERO proof.
But on the science/faith issue in schools. Some schools have a religions of the world class and all discuss religious differences in geography & world history classes.
Use all those big tax free buildings all over the place and if you can get 'em in the door teach 'em whatever you want.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Dr Who wrote
''all the laws of nature are based on inductive reasoning''
Take say the law of gravity and explain the inductive reasoning involved.
To me it looks very much as though it is based on observation and deduction
''all the laws of nature are based on inductive reasoning''
Take say the law of gravity and explain the inductive reasoning involved.
To me it looks very much as though it is based on observation and deduction
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Here is a good definition and discussion of deductive reasoning:
A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.
Here is an example:
There are 32 books on the top-shelf of the bookcase, and 12 on the lower shelf of the bookcase. There are no books anywhere else in my bookcase. Therefore, there are 44 books in the bookcase.
Here is a good definition and discussion of inductive reasoning:
An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.
It has snowed in Massachusetts every December in recorded history.
Therefore, it will snow in Massachusetts this coming December.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/ded-ind.htm
The premise and conclusion of gravity can be stated thus:
Every time we have observed falling objects they move at a particular acceleration.
Therefore, all falling objects will behave the same way.
This is clearly an inductive argument rather than a deductive one.
Here is another example of inductive reasoning:
"But we must be careful of success. Inductive reasoning does not guarantee an ironclad result. I’m indebted to Martin Gardner for this paradoxical example. Assume you have ten cards consisting of ace through ten. The cards are shuffled and placed face down. You turn over the first card and see that it is not the ace. You turn over the next card and it is not the deuce. At this point you propose that no card in the stack has a value equivalent to its location in the stack. Obviously you do not have much support for this statement, so you turn over the third card and by gosh, it is not a three! Your hypothesis is being validated! You formulated a statement based on inductive reasoning. You successfully tested that statement by turning over another card. But you still do not feel comfortable with the truth of your statement about the order of cards. You continue to turn them over. You turn over nine cards and find that not one of them had a value equivalent to the position in the pile. Ninety percent success. Pretty good. Then you notice that the ten is not in the pile of cards that have been turned over. That is, every measurement you took supports your hypothesis, but the ensemble of measurements taken together disprove the statement that each one supports individually! The ten is the tenth card. Your hypothesis is refuted."
http://www.lockergnome.com/it/2006/08/23/inductive-reasoning-and-why-we-must-be-careful-of-success/
Here is a discussion of inductive reasoning in science:
http://adamkemp.newsvine.com/_news/...ature-of-science-why-gravity-is-just-a-theory
Here is a discussion of inductive and deductive reasoning that just happens to say:
"Given the inductive generalization of Newton that bodies attract each ..."
http://falcon.jmu.edu/~omearawm/deduction.html
Here is another discussion of inductive and deductive reasoning and it also says:
"Besides mathematics and the everyday use of inductive reasoning, it is used in Science extensively. Most scientific conclusions are in fact examples of inductive reasoning. For example, Gravity is an example of inductive reasoning- "All Objects that I have seen fell, so therefore the next object that I drop will fall"."
http://plainmath.net/index.php?page=inductive
As you can see there is no guarantee that every time we test the law of gravity it will by supported, there is just a probability.
But how high is that probability? It depends on how many observations we have made compared to how many events there are in total. So if ten things have ever fallen in all of history and we had observed nine on them then the probability would be 90%. So tell me, how many things have ever fallen in all of the history of the universe and how many of them have we seen?
Werbung:
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Nope.
Gravity is a probablity, like everything.
If you want to get scientific and philosophical here is what a scientific law really states.
As a result of observation and deduction it is very probably that xyz will result next time that abc conditions occur.
But we don't like to get bogged down by this cumbersome language and so we say express the laws more succinctly.
And so far they all ****ing well work really well.
But the idea of god is without substance, logic, evidence or anything other than the desperate fantsay of the weak.
Gravity is a probablity, like everything.
If you want to get scientific and philosophical here is what a scientific law really states.
As a result of observation and deduction it is very probably that xyz will result next time that abc conditions occur.
But we don't like to get bogged down by this cumbersome language and so we say express the laws more succinctly.
And so far they all ****ing well work really well.
But the idea of god is without substance, logic, evidence or anything other than the desperate fantsay of the weak.
Similar threads
