Dawkins atheistic vision of society

Originally posted by agryson
It is in effect the philosophical equivalent, it's the application of Occams' Razor, if there is no way to see if time passes directly or indirectly, then why have time? You are inferring its existence because it existed at some point and there is no evidence that it no longer exists. But therein lies an assumption, which, to produce a hypothesis of my own, ...[text shortened]... ?" by A.F. Chalmers, I suggest it again, it goes into more detail on these differences.

You are making an assumption about time; you are saying it wasn't
there just as you are saying the Big Bang occurred the way it is
theorized to even have that discussion in the first place! Saying
something was there is a position just as saying something wasn’t
there, both promote a notion one way or another. It is a matter
of ‘belief’ about what was and is real, our abilities to grasp reality, and
properly identify all that is in it so that we have a clear understanding
about the universe and life in general.

I am a creationist not an ID person, for me it is faith I believe God
did it when it comes to universe and all that is in it, so I want to tell
you that I disagree with your assessment of the differences between
BB and ID. Having talked to several people here about both I can tell
you that everyone has come to the table with a point of view about
the universe including both camps of ID and the BB people who
believe they view the universe correctly and their assumptions/beliefs/opinions
are supported by the universe around them. BB people see the
universe as ID people do, both of them look at it and believe they
have the facts that support their conclusions, and they see evidence
to support their notions everywhere.

I will at your request read “What is this thing called Science?” by
Chalmers it is on my list as of today I’ll make it a Christmas request
to my wife. 🙂 I remember you saying that before.
Kelly

Originally posted by MissOleum
[b]I would define belief as an opinion unsupported by evidence.

Not to get in the middle of your conversation or even try to convince you to believe otherwise, however, I think you are being disingenious here. For example, he probably does not believe in Santa Clause. However, if people went around claiming that he existed and they interact with him regularly then it would be evidence that he existed, now would'nt it?

Originally posted by The Dude 84
[b]You don't know who put the earth here and neither do I! Nobody does. The only thing I KNOW with certainty is my parents brought me here and I love and respect them for that and everything they've done for me since.

But how do you know with certainty that your parents brought you into the world? Not to mess with your head or anything, but what if we are all aliens and you are merely a scientific experiment of ours. How would you ever know.....unless you had evidence for this belief?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are making an assumption about time; you are saying it wasn't
there just as you are saying the Big Bang occurred the way it is
theorized to even have that discussion in the first place! Saying
something was there is a position just as saying something wasn’t
there, both promote a notion one way or another. It is a matter
of ‘belief’ about what was ...[text shortened]... oday I’ll make it a Christmas request
to my wife. 🙂 I remember you saying that before.
Kelly

Maybe I need to clarify the position on time, I did not mean to suggest that I was saying scientists do not believe it existed before the big bang, merely that since there is no way of knowing whether it did or not, it is better not to lay claim to one position or the other. Since as scientists, we know that we cannot, as of yet, determine that it existed by a philosophically rigorous method, it is better not to make any assumptions about its existence or not.
Hence, scientists have a position of course, and, like a crafty politician, that position is that as of yet they have no position, until further evidence becomes available! I can see how this may cause confusion, but it is merely a device of ensuring rigorous scientific process, making no assumptions.
As for my points on BB vs ID, I need to clarify I think that both of course have or believe they have evidence for their views. There is evidence to support both sides, but the issue is moreso how that evidence is arrived at and used to support that worldview. In the case of BBers, the process is a fitting of model to observation, whereas with IDers, there is a model already in place and evidence in support of it is sought. As the ID theory can not be falsified, it by definition does not conform to the rigorous protocol which scientific theories must conform to. While this still allows it to be a worldview, or a position of belief backed up by certain supporting evidence, it cannot ever qualify as science because it is not supported by that evidence through scientific process. It is not just science that I am convinced by, it is the solid philosophical basis behind the methods science employs to seek out truth. These two things in tandem make it for me, as a personal view, but arguably from a more objective philosophical standpoint, the better method of investigating the universe.
As regards the book, I'm sure you'll enjoy it. It is currently in its third edition and is on the reading list of most philosophy of science students.

Originally posted by agryson
How you are viewing the evidence can be supported by evidence, philosophical logic, if the logic is solid, that supports your interpretive method, use that interpretive method without deviation, then tehre is no need for "belief" when viewing the evidence. See this link for the one possible chink in the armour...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism
which itself is defended in the very first chpater of that book I mentioned.

🙂 My point, you have to have a method you trust, something you are
putting your faith in, something you rely on, with this method we are
getting it right. Evidence supporting evidence only has you moving the
bar for bottoming out on this is 'true or right'. I read your link and
as struck by the number of methods we use to get it right, and we are
still refining our methods to do that, it is what we do. That isn't a bad
thing, but it should tell us 'getting it right' is the difficult thing we are
all facing. Believing we are doing it right is just that, an act of believing
and living out those beliefs is our faith, it is us walking out our world
view at the foundation what we think is true.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
🙂 My point, you have to have a method you trust, something you are
putting your faith in, something you rely on, with this method we are
getting it right. Evidence supporting evidence only has you moving the
bar for bottoming out on this is 'true or right'. I read your link and
as struck by the number of methods we use to get it right, and we are
stil faith, it is us walking out our world
view at the foundation what we think is true.
Kelly

I see what you mean, and yes, there's a plethora of methods, and I have looked into a lot of them (I won't claim all, there's far too many) but I find the arguments for popperian falsificationism much more logically satisfying compared to the alternatives I've seen. I don't know if you'd call that belief, conviction or algebraic rationale, we all like to think we can be objective, but I've never found the alternatives in any way convincing as a method for seeking truth.

Originally posted by agryson
I see what you mean, and yes, there's a plethora of methods, and I have looked into a lot of them (I won't claim all, there's far too many) but I find the arguments for popperian falsificationism much more logically satisfying compared to the alternatives I've seen. I don't know if you'd call that belief, conviction or algebraic rationale, we all like to thi ...[text shortened]... ut I've never found the alternatives in any way convincing as a method for seeking truth.

Well here is hoping we walk in truth and it sets us free from fear,
doubt, error, and misgivings. Wish you well.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well here is hoping we walk in truth and it sets us free from fear,
doubt, error, and misgivings. Wish you well.
Kelly

Which is all that anyone can ask. Same to you, enjoy the book. 🙂

Originally posted by The Dude 84
So many people have misinterpreted him and I agree with his vision so the basic conception of it at least should be made clear.

Let's imagine that a massive group of people believed we were put on this earth by benevolent aliens. This led some people to do charitable work and some people interpreted the aliens differently, and they started wars for i ...[text shortened]... , and can somebody save us from these religious nuts before they kill us all? DISCUSS!

You heathens and atheists are all alike: You're like the schizophrenic who decides he is all better now and decides not to take his medicine; at first there is no noticeable problem, but the longer you stay off your medications, the worse you become.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
You heathens and atheists are all alike: You're like the schizophrenic who decides he is all better now and decides not to take his medicine; at first there is no noticeable problem, but the longer you stay off your medications, the worse you become.

You should talk to eldragonfly, I think you guys would get on...

Originally posted by agryson
You should talk to eldragonfly, I think you guys would get on...

Why? Does he post similar thoughts in the Spirituality forum?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Why? Does he post similar thoughts in the Spirituality forum?

Uhm... I was thinking it'd be more a kind of matter meets antimatter kind of thing. Currently posting in the other god thread in Debates. Have a read...

Originally posted by whodey
But how do you know with certainty that your parents brought you into the world? Not to mess with your head or anything, but what if we are all aliens and you are merely a scientific experiment of ours. How would you ever know.....unless you had evidence for this belief?

Because I look and act like them. Not just in some ways similar but in unconscious mannerisms and things like that. I'm sure everyone can see things in their parents that they do that nobody else does... I see my aunt's behaviour, how similar her expressions are to my dads and notice someone else in my family and I KNOW for better or worse they are family!

Obviously I have no doubt that my parents are my real parents, I assure you you did not mess with my head! I am addressing the question as if there could be some doubt but there is none in reality.

If we are all here from aliens and any memories I have were implanted in my head by the aliens and there was really no human life until the aliens gave it to us then I guess they're not my real parents, but I'll take my chances!

Anyway, to me I see the odds of us being put here by aliens as being exactly equal to the likelihood that a God did. Like I said, I KNOW who my family is and there is equal amount of evidence for the God and Alien theory, just more people support the God one for some reason.