In league with Satan

Originally posted by KellyJay
If all the beginning assumptions are that there isn't a spiritural world that
runs long with this one, that there isn't a God or devil, that all there is, is
just that which we can monitor or test and so on....you may have a point.

If you believe as I do that isn't the case than some of your beginning
assumptions wouldn't be what they are.
Kelly

No that's not it at all.

The laws of physics that we have discovered are apparently inviolate.

They seem to always apply the same way everywhere every-when.

And believe me when I say that this is tested to unbelievable accuracy.

This includes doing things like checking spectral lines from chemicals in galaxies
on the other side of the universe to check that the electrons are following the
same laws of physics as here (they are). Which means that we are checking
across both vast distances and times.

There are countless tests that all show that the laws of physics are never violated
and are constant across the known universe (to a stupid number of decimal places).


Why is this relevant?

The 'evil demon' problem is that it is possible that all that we sense measure or observer
might be an illusion created by malicious evil demons.

Now Descartes way out of the problem of positing there existence and then asking how
we can know anything (other than I think therefore I am) was to assume that god exists
and then to assume that god was a nice guy who wouldn't allow evil demons to deceive us
like that thus everything is real.

This is a view based on faith and assumptions.


However there is a pragmatic way out which is to say that no matter how hard we look the
world around us appears to be consistent and runs on rules that are never broken.
The world thus appears to be indistinguishable from it really existing and running on rules.
And while it remains indistinguishable from being real and running on rules it is pointless to
treat it as being anything other than real.

We keep testing to check that the laws of physics always seem to hold and the as long as they do
the level of confidence we have that our 'trust' that they will always hold becomes higher and higher.
The way to quantify this is to do a Bayesian analysis of the relevant probabilities and evidence and
you basically come up with the probability of the universe not being real based on current evidence
being a number so close to zero as to be basically indistinguishable from it for all practical purposes.


So what you have is quantified trust that the universe is real. (not that this doesn't preclude the
universe being real and containing a god or gods, we have not at any point assumed that)

Starting then from the ever challenged and reaffirmed point of assuming that the universe IS real and
runs on rules you then use scientific rational inquiry to determine the nature of that universe or reality.
Whatever that nature is. (including gods, unicorns spirits and souls if the evidence points to their existence)

With this method you believe ONLY that which you have demonstrated to be backed by evidence and
your ONLY assumption (that you constantly challenge and test) is that the reality we inhabit actually exists and
runs on rules.

That is the sum total of assumptions and biases on which science is built.

You assume the universe is real and runs on rules and only believe things about the universe you can
provide evidence for.


If you think you can come up with a less biased system with fewer assumptions then you are welcome to try
and scientists would be the first to adopt it if you are successful.


Nowhere do I assume that the supernatural and/or gods don't exist.
I just don't believe in them until such a time as they are supported by evidence.

And nowhere do I presuppose anything about the nature of the universe other than its existence [and it's running on rules].


Now of course people come with biases and assumptions both inbuilt and learned as children but the scientific
method of enquiry is designed with the very aim and purpose of reducing and eliminating these biases and
correcting any mistakes that occur because of these and other human failings.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I really don't know what to make of this but to say that for the majority of atheists I know
OR where I come from this really doesn't apply.

While there are some atheists who used to be a member of some religion (including Christianity)
and had a really bad experience and thus left and became an atheist they are in the minority.


The majority ...[text shortened]... ly more visible to you?
But they are not rally representative of the majority of atheists.

those with an "axe to grind" usually join other religion rather than dropping all religion.

i think our friend is just making sh** up.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
those with an "axe to grind" usually join other religion rather than dropping all religion.

i think our friend is just making sh** up.

All I can say is that there is this stereotype image of the angry atheist who used to believe in god
but got screwed by the church or had a relative die or something and blamed god and thus became
an 'atheist' full of hate for their previous religion and god... (although quite how your supposed to hate
a god you don't believe in...)

But I have never met anyone who fits this or met anyone who has met anyone who fits this description.

And those atheists I see in media or bloggersphere when asked about this stereo type don't seem to
have mat any either so while they might exist they do appear to be a semi-mythical minority. (at least)

Originally posted by googlefudge
No that's not it at all.

The laws of physics that we have discovered are apparently inviolate.

They seem to always apply the same way everywhere every-when.

And believe me when I say that this is tested to unbelievable accuracy.

This includes doing things like checking spectral lines from chemicals in galaxies
on the other side of the unive es and
correcting any mistakes that occur because of these and other human failings.

Where did you get your degree in Physics? You need to get your money back.

P.S. See if you understand this.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Expanding-Universe-Violates-Conservation-Laws&id=5371834

Who made the rules?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Where did you get your degree in Physics? You need to get your money back.

P.S. See if you understand this.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Expanding-Universe-Violates-Conservation-Laws&id=5371834

Who made the rules?

Seriously? You think I am going to even attempt to debate science with you any more?

And yes I do understand what he is talking about and no it doesn't effect anything I was
talking about which you would know if you understood anything about how science works.


And nobody 'made the rules'.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Seriously? You think I am going to even attempt to debate science with you any more?

And yes I do understand what he is talking about and no it doesn't effect anything I was
talking about which you would know if you understood anything about how science works.


And nobody 'made the rules'.

So who cares if the rules are broken then?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So who cares if the rules are broken then?

Which part of "I am not going to debate science with you" did you not understand?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I really don't know what to make of this but to say that for the majority of atheists I know
OR where I come from this really doesn't apply.

While there are some atheists who used to be a member of some religion (including Christianity)
and had a really bad experience and thus left and became an atheist they are in the minority.


The majority ...[text shortened]... ly more visible to you?
But they are not rally representative of the majority of atheists.

They do tend to be the loudest, though.

Kind of like the fundies on our side.

Originally posted by Suzianne
They do tend to be the loudest, though.

Kind of like the fundies on our side.

i think he is fighting against himself, he knows deep down that there is intelligence in
creation, but it stands against everything that he was taught, thus he is on here
thrashing about like a fish out of water.

Originally posted by Suzianne
They do tend to be the loudest, though.

Kind of like the fundies on our side.

I am not even convinced they really exist.

It doesn't apply to any of the publicly visible atheists I know so I really don't know where
you might be meeting these people.

Plus you ARE one of the fundies.
You think the Armageddon is going to happen in our lifetime that makes you a fundie.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am not even convinced they really exist.

It doesn't apply to any of the publicly visible atheists I know so I really don't know where
you might be meeting these people.

Plus you ARE one of the fundies.
You think the Armageddon is going to happen in our lifetime that makes you a fundie.

However, I am not a proponent of the "religious right". Those are the people I'd count as the "fundies". They talk all the talk, but leave the actual walk to others.

Originally posted by Suzianne
However, I am not a proponent of the "religious right". Those are the people I'd count as the "fundies". They talk all the talk, but leave the actual walk to others.

Well your religious beliefs are 'fundamentalist' however I am perfectly prepared to accept that they are
differently fundamentalist from someone like (say) RJHinds and that your political stance is also different.

However there is a reason that the Republican rally cry is "god, gays, and guns".

Which is kind of what this thread is about.