Do atheists fear traps?

Originally posted by twhitehead to Suzianne
I don't know. Can you give an example of such a thread?

Suzianne, just give some links to a few such threads, perhaps ones where you have been involved.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Good to know. Why does the same not apply to theists?

[b]#2 Theists only avoid questions when they know there's a trap, even though atheists don't realize they're laying one.
Why are there traps for theists and not atheists? What is different?[/b]

Originally posted by josephw
#1 Atheists can't be trapped.
Good to know. Why does the same not apply to theists?

Because theists have been set free. 😉

#2 Theists only avoid questions when they know there's a trap, even though atheists don't realize they're laying one.
Why are there traps for theists and not atheists? What is different?

Because traps are set to catch the free. Atheists are already caught by the trap called "there is no God", and hence don't need trapping. Can't trap the trapped. Not till they're set free, then they too will see the traps. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
I assume you mean that to be a trap for atheists? Why is science associated with atheism?
I would say that science is to be trusted - with a proper understanding of what science actually is. Scientists are not to be trusted - and the scientific method specifically states that scientists are not to be trusted. Scientific findings are only to be trusted w ...[text shortened]... iven a choice between science and any other method of discovery, I will pick science every time.

For one, which denomination of science is the "true" science, the one that is to be trusted?
Which scientific method are you espousing to be the "right" one?
Inductive?
Deductive?

What is the best, most purest form of science that can be trusted?

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is related to the thread on whether atheists answer questions.
I have often noticed that certain topics or questions result in avoidance by theists and one reason given by them is that they are afraid that atheists are trying to trap them. Does the same ever happen with atheists? Do you ever see atheists worrying about getting trapped and thus not a ...[text shortened]... hat if you are confident of your position/beliefs then you shouldn't be afraid of being trapped.

Why do you hate God?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why do you hate God?

How can you hate something that doesn't exist? I am referring to the bible god. I can with certainty say that god does not exist, only made up in the minds of men to control the ancient savages of the desert.

Theists point to bible verses as proof of god. All they are doing is being poster boys for circular reasoning. God exists because here in the bible it SAYS god exists, therefore god exists.

There certainly is the possibility of a real god existing, but maybe not even in this universe but lording it over some other universe, perhaps because of continued scientific development Making it lord over that universe. But we are not in that universe we are in this one and maybe it is just one of an infinity of universe, maybe not. To me, it is a solid fact the so-called god of the bible was just made up by men with an eye to control the ancient savages and just by accident *right* put women down to a lower level in society.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For one, which denomination of science is the "true" science, the one that is to be trusted?
Which scientific method are you espousing to be the "right" one?
Inductive?
Deductive?

What is the best, most purest form of science that can be trusted?

Still waiting for the one, true faith...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For one, which denomination of science is the "true" science, the one that is to be trusted?
Which scientific method are you espousing to be the "right" one?
Inductive?
Deductive?

What is the best, most purest form of science that can be trusted?

This is wrong and confused on so many levels.

You are begging the question so badly.... I don't even...


Ok, not that this is a 'science' thing per-say, but If you can use a deductive argument that is always
preferable [in that it's stronger and logically valid] to an inductive argument as a properly formulated
inductive argument is going to assert it's conclusion as probabilistically true to a given value of certainty.
Whereas a valid and sound deductive argument will give a conclusion that is conclusively and absolutely
true as long as the precepts upon which it is based are also true...

Which is the catch. Because if you are making an argument about reality at the end you will eventually have
a foundation that consists of logical absolutes that 'just are' and inductive proofs about the nature of reality.
We only know anything about reality probabilistically. Which is something that I, and many others here will
say one way or another quite frequently.

However the fact that all of our knowledge about reality is probabilistic doesn't mean that we cannot have real
confidence in that knowledge.

The knowledge that the world is an "irregular oblate spheroid" as opposed to a flat disk, is probabilistic.
But the probability that we are wrong about that is really really really really really astronomically tiny.
Incomprehensibly tiny, in a literal sense, we cannot comprehend probabilities that small.
For any and all possible practical purposes its a certainty and we can treat it as one.

So there is that...

There is no ONE scientific method.

There are "scientific methods" that apply to different areas of study and kinds of thing you are studying.

There is no one "true science" either. There is science, and not-science. [pseudo-science falls into the not-science
category]

I still don't know what you mean by "the one that is to be trusted"...

Science is a process, a set of methods and methodologies including checks and balances and self correcting
mechanisms that have been designed and developed over centuries to build models about reality that allow us
to understand, predict, and manipulate it to our advantage and betterment.
It works, you can see the massive advances in knowledge and technology and health and wellbeing and power
that science has developed in a couple of short centuries after thousands of years of pseudo-science and
superstition. More knowledge and technological progress happened between 1900 and 2000 than in the entirety
of human history before that. And we are well on the way to doubling that again.
However science is done by people, people who are just as fallible as everyone else, which is why science has so
many correction and checks built into it to correct for this. We slowly iterate towards the truth, never reaching it,
just perpetually getting less and less wrong.

For the details you would have to go back to school and learn stuff.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Still waiting for the one, true faith...

Belief without evidence or despite of it, and blind trust, are bad and to be avoided.

There is no true faith.

Originally posted by josephw
Because traps are set to catch the free. Atheists are already caught by the trap called "there is no God", and hence don't need trapping. Can't trap the trapped. Not till they're set free, then they too will see the traps. 🙂

So all you have is word games? I guess you are to scared of being trapped to give an honest answer.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For one, which denomination of science is the "true" science, the one that is to be trusted?

I am not aware of denominations. Did you read my response? You question suggests that you didn't.

Which scientific method are you espousing to be the "right" one?
Inductive?
Deductive?
I am not aware of there being two. Can you give a reference?

What is the best, most purest form of science that can be trusted?
Again, did you read my response to the last question?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not aware of denominations. Did you read my response? You question suggests that you didn't.

[b]Which scientific method are you espousing to be the "right" one?
Inductive?
Deductive?
I am not aware of there being two. Can you give a reference?

What is the best, most purest form of science that can be trusted?
Again, did you read my response to the last question?[/b]

I am not aware of denominations. Did you read my response? You question suggests that you didn't.
I don't like your tone.
It suggests you think you're better than me, and I know my mom can't be wrong.

I am not aware of there being two. Can you give a reference?
Are you laboring to say you don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning as it pertains to the scientific method and you wish for me to do your research for you?
Be clear, please: what are you asking me to do for you, exactly?

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is wrong and confused on so many levels.

You are begging the question so badly.... I don't even...


Ok, not that this is a 'science' thing per-say, but If you can use a deductive argument that is always
preferable [in that it's stronger and logically valid] to an inductive argument as a properly formulated
inductive argument is going to a ...[text shortened]... ing less and less wrong.

For the details you would have to go back to school and learn stuff.

This is wrong and confused on so many levels.
By all means, do tell.

You are begging the question so badly.... I don't even...
So edgy, so hip.
So boneheaded.
Do you even know what the phrase means?

But the probability that we are wrong about that is really really really really really astronomically tiny.
Incomprehensibly tiny, in a literal sense, we cannot comprehend probabilities that small.
So if we find out that the earth is really really really really really NOT an irregular oblate spheroid, would you have the same faith in science as you do this minute?

So there is that...
There is no ONE scientific method.
Yeah...
That's a load of crap, as you well know.
Which one do you subscribe to, again?

For the details you would have to go back to school and learn stuff.
I'm in class every day.
What's your excuse for your ignorance?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't like your tone.
It suggests you think you're better than me, and I know my mom can't be wrong.

I am better than you. Live with it.

Are you laboring to say you don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning as it pertains to the scientific method...
Not labouring at all. I essentially stated that outright. My understanding is that scientists use both, and that the scientific method does not specify which is to be used.
The Wikipedia page says that three types of reasoning are used, abductive, inductive and deductive. It says nothing about there being three different scientific methods. I suspect you are confused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

and you wish for me to do your research for you?
No research required. Your question implies you know the answer. Presumably you also know of a reference.
Be clear, please: what are you asking me to do for you, exactly?
Either explain what you are asking or give a reference.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am better than you. Live with it.

[b]Are you laboring to say you don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning as it pertains to the scientific method...
Not labouring at all. I essentially stated that outright. My understanding is that scientists use both, and that the scientific method does not specify which is to be use ...[text shortened]... u asking me to do for you, exactly?[/b]
Either explain what you are asking or give a reference.[/b]

I am better than you. Live with it.
I wouldn't believe your press, were I you.

Not labouring at all. I essentially stated that outright. My understanding is that scientists use both, and that the scientific method does not specify which is to be used.
Maybe you're not, but there is a definite wheezing making its way through.
There is (and has been) much discussion on how the scientific method is to be defined.
Literally books have been written on the topic, some taking one view while others insist the other is preferred.
Consensus has not been found.

The Wikipedia page says that three types of reasoning are used, abductive, inductive and deductive. It says nothing about there being three different scientific methods. I suspect you are confused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Confused... about what?
The scientific method is inductive in nature.
The scientific method is deductive in nature.
The scientific method is abductive in nature.
You do know each of these are in opposition to each other, don't you?

I will ask again: which scientific method is the one, true scientific method, the one we can all trust?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I am better than you. Live with it.
I wouldn't believe your press, were I you.

Not labouring at all. I essentially stated that outright. My understanding is that scientists use both, and that the scientific method does not specify which is to be used.
Maybe you're not, but there is a definite wheezing making its way through.
There is (a ...[text shortened]... in: which scientific method is the one, true scientific method, the one we can all trust?[/b]

Silence...






















of the cowards.