Deism?

[Guest]

----
to believe in the unobservable is irrational.
----


Yeah, I guess we will just have to cancel SETI then, right Ken?

I guess those famous explorers of the past were irrational nitwit woo-woo's, eh Ken?

I bet those people who predicted germ theory, DNA, and atomic structures before seeing them were woo-woo's.


----
To believe and speculate on things unobserved is simply going on faith and false assumptions, it's these type of beliefs that get people to fly planes into buildings.
----


Those atheist groups are always so damn active with their food drives, donations, and help in the communitiy. YEAH RIGHT!

They must be too rational to waste their money and time on people who it will barely benefit. Who knows what they are thinking.


----
Which is exactly why objective scientific method is much more rational than subjective beliefs and philosophy.
----


You must have never had a philosophy of science class Ken.

If you think the scientific method is objective, whooo boy...


1) You ASSUME things are caused by natural causes.
(you also ASSUME cause and effect holds)

2) You ASSUME there is uniformity in space and time.

3) You ASSUME common perception.

2) and 3) give the supposed objectiveness.

On to the method itself:

1) observe, and form a question
(you do this with your senses or interpret machine data through your senses, right?)

2) make a hypothesis, a tentative answer to the question, an educated guess in the form of a statement
(an educated guess is still a guess, different people come up with different hypotheses)

3) experiment to test the hypothesis, carefully structured observations that involve some form of manipulation or intervention by the investigator
(by the investigator or another human, always bias present, differnet people come up with different experiments)

4) Conclusions, human logic
(different people come up with different conclusions)

5) further observations, predictions, etc.

6) theory, a hypothesis that has passed many tests

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

to believe in the unobservable is irrational.
----

Yeah, I guess we will just have to cancel SETI then, right Ken?

I guess those famous explorers of the past were irrational nitwit woo-woo's, eh Ken?

I bet those people who predicted germ theory, DNA, and atomic structures before seeing them were woo-woo's.

Since when does attempting to observe something that has not been observed constitute believing in the unobservable? If you already believe your theory is true, why even bother testing it?

The biggest mistake you can make in science is to believe that your theories are true before you have substantial evidence to back them up.

To believe and speculate on things unobserved is simply going on faith and false assumptions, it's these type of beliefs that get people to fly planes into buildings.
----

Those atheist groups are always so damn active with their food drives, donations, and help in the community. YEAH RIGHT!

They must be too rational to waste their money and time on people who it will barely benefit. Who knows what they are thinking.

Do you have any evidence that atheists are less generous than theists? The fact that the few atheist groups that exist, exist for the purpose of protecting freedom of religion, church-state separation, is completely beside the point. Your post clearly indicates that you are asserting that atheists are less generous, and less concerned for the well-being of their fellow man, than atheists. Where is you evidence for this assertion?

Which is exactly why objective scientific method is much more rational than subjective beliefs and philosophy.
----

You must have never had a philosophy of science class Ken.

If you think the scientific method is objective, whooo boy...


1) You ASSUME things are caused by natural causes.
(you also ASSUME cause and effect holds)

2) You ASSUME there is uniformity in space and time.

3) You ASSUME common perception.

2) and 3) give the supposed objectiveness.

And you must have never had a basic logic class, if you don't realize that all logical frameworks must be based on assumptions.

On to the method itself:

1) observe, and form a question
(you do this with your senses or interpret machine data through your senses, right?)

2) make a hypothesis, a tentative answer to the question, an educated guess in the form of a statement
(an educated guess is still a guess, different people come up with different hypotheses)

So what? The "guess" is not accepted as anything more than that, until such time as it is supported by reliable empirical evidence.

3) experiment to test the hypothesis, carefully structured observations that involve some form of manipulation or intervention by the investigator
(by the investigator or another human, always bias present, differnet people come up with different experiments)

Which is why experiments are repeated by different people, and done in different ways. Science is all about taking those subjective biases into account, and making sure that they have not skewed the results.

4) Conclusions, human logic
(different people come up with different conclusions)

Which is why the conclusions are only accepted as scientific facts when they can be demonstrated to be based on formal logic, and that they are not based on subjective interpretation.

5) further observations, predictions, etc.

6) theory, a hypothesis that has passed many tests

And it is that final extensively tested theory that can be accepted as objective knowledge. So what is the problem?

For somebody who has "studied the philosophy of science", you seem to have a pretty poor understanding of it, and of basic epistemology, for that matter.

What's more, your points don't support the idea that believing in the unobservable is rational. on the contrary, if you claims about science were true, that would not make believing in the unobservable rational. It would make science incoherent. Even if science is complete and utter bullsh*t, that in no way indicates that belief in the unobservable is rational. All it does is render it impossible to reliably observe anything.

This is nothing more than the tired old woowoo tactic of attacking the scientific position, rather than defending your own position.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Checkmite]

As far as observation and the knowable universe goes, I think the Scientific Method happens to be the best protocol we have.

By the way, Whodini, it is interesting to note that despite the different biases different people may have, or the different "approaches" they make to the scientific method, people often reach the same conclusions. Indeed, it is only when several independent entities arrive at the same conclusions repeatedly that an item is considered as probable fact. The reason for this, of course, is to weed out any oddities that may have resulted from personal bias, or bad experimental planning.

 

[Tricky]

Deism, at least the way Joshua presents it, has no significant difference in its methodology from atheism. The reason I reject it is because it is less parsimonious. While both atheists and deists agree that they are unsure about the origin of the universe, deists add another thing, a "god", to be unsure about as well. The presence of this non-interfering god adds no key to solving the puzzle of origins, and thus is unnecessary. Sorry Josh.

 

[wraith]

Deism, at least the way Joshua presents it, has no significant difference in its methodology from atheism. The reason I reject it is because it is less parsimonious. While both atheists and deists agree that they are unsure about the origin of the universe, deists add another thing, a "god", to be unsure about as well. The presence of this non-interfering god adds no key to solving the puzzle of origins, and thus is unnecessary. Sorry Josh.

Non-conscious TLOP creating life is more parsimonious than conscious TLOP creatiing life?

Tricky, atheists tend to have this free-willy god belief

Whats with the double standard?

 

[Tricky]

Non-conscious TLOP creating life is more parsimonious than conscious TLOP creatiing life?

Why yes it is, wraith. If each conscious thing must be created by a conscious thing, then you just keep going backwards until you have an initial conscious thing that wasn't created by any other conscious thing (the Progenitor Solipsist, in LD). This means that LD has presumed several conscious things (PS, LG, TLOP) with no evidence for any of them. (And before you complain, I am only saying that there is no evidence that TLOP are conscious, not that they don't exist.)

So it is evident that atheists, like theists and LDeists, think that it is possible for consciousness to arise without a pre-existing consciousness. We simply disregard all the unprovable intermediaries. This is what is meant by parsimony, throwing out things which add nothing to the solution of a problem.

Tricky, atheists tend to have this free-willy god belief

Actually, this discussion has nothing to do with free will. You really should stop obsessing about it.

Whats with the double standard?

You mean the double standard that human consciousness cannot arise on its own, but that the PS consciousness can? I don't know what's with that. Maybe you could tell me.

 

[BobM]

And you must have never had a basic logic class, if you don't realize that all logical frameworks must be based on assumptions.

It's not Whodini that doesn't understand this, it's Ken and Dark Cobra. The current local amateur atheists.

 

[Graham]

Most concepts of "God" require that god to be necessarily seperate from the universe. The rub is, the scientific method has one restriction - it's limited to the observable universe. Something outside the universe is unobservable; therefore, attempting to approach the problem from a standpoint of scientific empiricism will always be doomed to run you into brick walls.

Something which is outside the universe is not just unobservable it's inconcievable. The universe contains everything - hence the name.

Therefore, if you contend that "God" is outside the universe, then you are arguing that he does not exist.

There may well be things in the universe which, as yet we (meaning scientific method) have not yet or cannot yet observe (meaning detect by any possible method) but there is no grounds to believe that there is anything within the universe that cannot be observed. Observation is carrie dout by measuring the effects of a thing (e.g. how much light it reflects) - no effects, no thing. What is unobservable, therefore, does not exist.

Therefore, if you contend that "God" is within the universe but unobservable you are arguing that he does not exist.

Perhaps this is yet another tired old argument that has escaped my education and I'm boring you with it but is there some problem with my reasoning here?

Graham

 

[Graham]

It's not Whodini that doesn't understand this, it's Ken and Dark Cobra. The current local amateur atheists.

You're a bit rude aren't you? I think that las t comment was unnecessary.

Graham

 

[Franko]

Joshie K.

it's also why science and philosophy are two different things.

What exactly is different about them?

My point is, the scientific method was not designed to be applied to philosophy.

Sounds like you are claiming that “Philosophy” is illogical by design?

the scientific method [i.e. Logic] was not designed to be applied to philosophy.

 

[Franko]

You're a bit rude aren't you? I think that las t comment was unnecessary.

Hitting the nail of the head (speaking the Truth) is rude?

Graham, are you an Atheist by any chance ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

What exactly is different about them?

Science is testable, philosophy is not. Both are logical. (A logic argument is not a scientific test).

Hitting the nail of the head (speaking the Truth) is rude?

Graham, are you an Atheist by any chance ?

People who dont think there are consequences for their actions are more polite than .... wait... how was it?

Hans

 

[Franko]

Stimpson:

Since when does attempting to observe something that has not been observed constitute believing in the unobservable? If you already believe your theory is true, why even bother testing it?

The biggest mistake you can make in science is to believe that your theories are true before you have substantial evidence to back them up.

I agree with what you say here Stimpson, but it sounds to me like you are contradicting what you told me specifically the other day.

You told me that “assumptions” (theories you just believe are true before you have substantial evidence to back them up) were absolutely necessary to “science”.

If you are claiming this is not the case why don’t you tell us how you proved the theory that I am real (not a figment of your imagination) as True?

Do you have any evidence that atheists are less generous than theists?

You mean aside from the fact that that don’t believe in the concept of Rewards and Punishment??? If you are unwilling to accept that evidence, what evidence would convince you?

The fact that the few atheist groups that exist, exist for the purpose of protecting freedom of religion, church-state separation, is completely beside the point.

The only thing that I have ever observed A-Theist groups doing is prohibiting Free-speech, invoking censorship (anyone remember the pledge), and promoting Religious Intolerance and Hatred. The A-Theists are a bunch of desperately cynical pessimist, and pessimism is all that their religion spreads.

Your post clearly indicates that you are asserting that atheists are less generous, and less concerned for the well-being of their fellow man, than atheists. Where is you evidence for this assertion?

That A-Theists don’t believe in consequences for their actions. Obviously they will behave as if this is what they believe.

And you must have never had a basic logic class, if you don't realize that all logical frameworks must be based on assumptions.

No Logic is based on Self-consistency, Parsimony, and observation. “Assumptions”, and “frameworks” are just code words for Religious Dogma, and Pessimistic Wishful Thinking.

So what? The "guess" is not accepted as anything more than that, until such time as it is supported by reliable empirical evidence.

What exactly is your empirical observation that proves the Universes is NOT simply the product of your imagination?

Which is why experiments are repeated by different people, and done in different ways. Science is all about taking those subjective biases into account, and making sure that they have not skewed the results.

What about the part where you add in some “assumptions” and then mix in a “framework”?

Which is why the conclusions are only accepted as scientific facts when they can be demonstrated to be based on formal logic, and that they are not based on subjective interpretation.

Your proof that Solipsism is False seems very much based on subjective interpretation. Can you demonstrate that your conclusion is actually based on “formal logic”?

This is nothing more than the tired old woowoo tactic of attacking the scientific position, rather than defending your own position.

Who dies and said that what you believe is “scientific”? Or is what you believe “scientific” because Solipsism is true, and no one else exist anyway?

 

[Franko]

MRC,

Science is testable, philosophy is not.

What does that mean? Aren't all philosophies based on observations of reality. Why can't they be tested.

 

[BobM]

It's not Whodini that doesn't understand this, it's Ken and Dark Cobra. The current local amateur atheists.

You're a bit rude aren't you? I think that last comment was unnecessary.

But mom! They started it!

 

[Graham]

Hitting the nail of the head (speaking the Truth) is rude?

Graham, are you an Atheist by any chance ?

You asked me this question in a PM, franko and I replied to it as best I could. Am I to assume you didn't bother to read that reply?

I'll repeat it for you, if you like:

On to the hard question: do I consider myself an Atheist? I don’t know. I think technically I’m an agnostic but I find the standard ideas of God pretty ludicrous and so hugely unlikely that I’m definitely towards the Atheist end of the scale. According to my father I’m apparently “some kind of heathen” but I think he was just mad at me for refusing to go to church!

Ultimately, “atheist” and “agnostic” are just words. Without words, of course, all philosophy would be hopeless. At the same time, however, it’s unfortunate how often we all end up arguing about the words rather than the philosophy.

There are many ways to phrase the truth, Franko, there's rarely a need to be dismissive of others which, yes, I would consider rude.

Graham

 

[Graham]

But mom! They started it!

Don't give me that, young man, I don't want to hear it. Now, you apologise to your friend, right this minute!

Graham-possibly-an-atheist-but-definitely-not-your-mom (sorry)

 

[Franko]

Graham:
I find the standard ideas of God pretty ludicrous and so hugely unlikely that I’m definitely towards the Atheist end of the scale

I found the Flat-Earth models of the solar system pretty ludicrous and hugely unlikely. Fortunately the existence of those theories, didn't entirely cause me to abandon trying to comprehend the subject of Astronomy. But perhaps an A-Theist mind just works differently?

 

[Graham]

I found the Flat-Earth models of the solar system pretty ludicrous and hugely unlikely. Fortunately the existence of those theories, didn't entirely cause me to abandon trying to comprehend the subject of Astronomy. But perhaps an A-Theist mind just works differently?

Perhaps . . .

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Franko,

I agree with what you say here Stimpson, but it sounds to me like you are contradicting what you told me specifically the other day.

You told me that “assumptions” (theories you just believe are true before you have substantial evidence to back them up) were absolutely necessary to “science”.

Wrong. I never told you that the assumptions that are absolutely necessary to science are theories that you believe are true without substantial evidence to back them up. On the contrary, I went to great pains to explain exactly how the axioms of science, when combined, constitute a falsifiable hypothesis, and why the success of the scientific method constitutes supporting evidence for the belief that those axioms are true.

If you are claiming this is not the case why don’t you tell us how you proved the theory that I am real (not a figment of your imagination) as True?

It can't be proven true. But there is substantial supporting evidence for it.

Do you have any evidence that atheists are less generous than theists?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean aside from the fact that that don’t believe in the concept of Rewards and Punishment??? If you are unwilling to accept that evidence, what evidence would convince you?

Pure nonsense. I have never met an atheist who did not believe in the concept of rewards and punishment. That is just stupid. Not only is it stupid, it is irrelevant, because most of the most generous people I know aren't generous out of any belief that they are going to be rewarded for it.

For that matter, I am a pretty generous person, and not because I think I am going to be rewarded for it.

The fact that the few atheist groups that exist, exist for the purpose of protecting freedom of religion, church-state separation, is completely beside the point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only thing that I have ever observed A-Theist groups doing is prohibiting Free-speech, invoking censorship (anyone remember the pledge), and promoting Religious Intolerance and Hatred. The A-Theists are a bunch of desperately cynical pessimist, and pessimism is all that their religion spreads.

More utter and complete nonsense. I don't know of any atheist organizations that are opposed to free-speech. The movement to have "under God" removed from the pledge had nothing to do with censorship. Theists are free to praise their imaginary friends all they want. They just can't force the rest of us to do it too. By the way, a lot of Theists oppose the use of "under God" in the pledge too. Some because they feel it is blasphemous, and some because they are clear-headed enough to realize that the God being referred to in the pledge is not the one they worship.

As usual, you have nothing substantial to say. Just the same old mindless repetition of your strawman fallacies and insults. Why do you even bother?

Dr. Stupid