20 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerCorrect.
So a lack of belief in God does not equal a [b]belief in the non-existance of God?[/b]
Do atheists not believe in atheism?
No, they do not. It is not a religion.
To understand it better, consider the fact that you probably do not believe in the existence fairies. You are not alone in that lack of belief, so lets call that lack of belief afairyism. Would you consider your self a follower of afairyism? Do you believe in afairyism? Do your afairyistic beliefs explain anything about the world?
So their explanations are based on what?
It depends on the atheist. We have nothing in common except that we do not happen to believe in a God or gods.
In my case, most of my explanations are based on science but this has nothing to do with atheism, it has to do with my belief that science is the only reliable way to explain anything. And any explanation I do have through scientific methods would not be limited to atheists. There could perfectly well be theists who agree with the given explanation.
In fact, I am not aware of a single scientific explanation that is not agreed to by at least one theist, and in most cases large numbers of theists.
20 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd 400 million Buddhists agree with what you just said. 🙂
Correct.
[b]Do atheists not believe in atheism?
No, they do not. It is not a religion.
To understand it better, consider the fact that you probably do not believe in the existence fairies. You are not alone in that lack of belief, so lets call that lack of belief afairyism. Would you consider your self a follower of afairyism? Do you believe in a ...[text shortened]... nation that is not agreed to by at least one theist, and in most cases large numbers of theists.[/b]
20 Mar 11
Originally posted by mikelomAlthough Buddha particularly told his followers that his teaching was not be given the name of a Religion and that He was not to be called God,more particularly that he was dying as a Hindu,his followers forgot his advice after his death and started calling their sect as a Religion distinct from Hinduism. That is how Buddhism was born,so his 400 million followers today will definitely disagree with you by saying that they believe in their Religion and that this Religion teaches atheism to them and at the same time saying their prayers in front of Buddha statues and giving offerings and lighting candles etc.
And 400 million Buddhists agree with what you just said. 🙂
21 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerAtheism is not about “believe in” something (excuse my bad grammar here).
[b]No, they do not. It is not a religion.
Ok. So what do you as an atheist believe in then?[/b]
As he just correctly stated to you:
“We have NOTHING in common except that we do not happen to believe in a God or gods.” (my emphasis)
Whatever he just happens to “believe in” (if anything, depending on what you mean by “believe in&rdquo😉 is a separate issue from his disbelief that there is a god.
21 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerI'm glad you are not running things...
A friend of mine had the following to say: "Religion dooms you atheism saves you. I'm not being philosophical here. I don't have all the answers, but something tells me that if christians, jews, and muslims agreed there was no god, poof! WORLD PEACE."
My question is" "From an atheistic point of view, why would war be wrong in the first place? If ...[text shortened]... ng? War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"."
21 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerI am not sure I would describe myself as believing "in" anything. On the other hand, I believe a lot of things. I believe science is the most reliable method we have for learning about the universe.
Ok. So what do you as an atheist believe in then?
Maybe the closest I can get to answering your question is: I believe in doing the best I can for my son and his future.
But none of the above is centered on or as a result of my atheism just as nothing you do or believe is likely centered on your afairyism.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe science is the most reliable method we have for learning about the universe.
I am not sure I would describe myself as believing "in" anything. On the other hand, I believe a lot of things. I believe science is the most reliable method we have for learning about the universe.
Maybe the closest I can get to answering your question is: I believe in doing the best I can for my son and his future.
But none of the above is centered ...[text shortened]... a result of my atheism just as nothing you do or believe is likely centered on your afairyism.
If Science were to find evidence for "God" would that change your belief, or lack of belief? Would you not be interpreting the evidence from the presupposition that God does not exist, and henceforth dismiss any scientific evidence for the existence of God as pseudo-science?
22 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerWould you not be interpreting the evidence from the presupposition that God does not exist, and henceforth dismiss any scientific evidence for the existence of God as pseudo-science?
If Science were to find evidence for "God" would that change your belief, or lack of belief?
Yes.
I think that the scientific method if followed correctly is very hard to dismiss as pseudo-science even when you don't like the implications. Yes, I would tend to be very skeptical of such results, but I believe that if a scientific result is valid it should be possible to explain that result to someone else in such a way that they have no choice but to accept it. So, if such results are found, the scientists involved should be able to convince skeptics like me.
A large part to the scientific process today involves scientists convincing other scientists that their experiments and/or results and/or conclusions are valid. Although there is often skepticism to wild claims (and rightly so), the skeptics too must be able to produce counter evidence or counter argument or show where the error is in the presented evidence or claim.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou don't think it's possible to use Science to prove whatever you want it to prove? And don't you think that two scientists with totally different (unprovable) philosophical pressupositions can examine the same evidence on origins and reach a different conclusion? Do you really think that science is not subjective? Why do you think the scientific community is divided on many different matters?
[b]Would you not be interpreting the evidence from the presupposition that God does not exist, and henceforth dismiss any scientific evidence for the existence of God as pseudo-science?
I think that the scientific method if followed correctly is very hard to dismiss as pseudo-science even when you don't like the implications. Yes, I would tend to be ...[text shortened]... ter evidence or counter argument or show where the error is in the presented evidence or claim.[/b]
22 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo
You don't think it's possible to use Science to prove whatever you want it to prove?
And don't you think that two scientists with totally different (unprovable) philosophical pressupositions can examine the same evidence on origins and reach a different conclusion?
This is certainly possible, but if the two scientists discuss their results then the correct one should be able to convince the incorrect one.
Do you really think that science is not subjective?
Yes, I really think that science is not subjective. I don't think my computer would work very well on subjectiveness.
Why do you think the scientific community is divided on many different matters?
I was not aware that they were. Which matters are those?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo
No
[b]And don't you think that two scientists with totally different (unprovable) philosophical pressupositions can examine the same evidence on origins and reach a different conclusion?
This is certainly possible, but if the two scientists discuss their results then the correct one should be able to convince the incorrect one.
Do you really vided on many different matters?
I was not aware that they were. Which matters are those?[/b]
Then maybe you should familiarlise yourself with the likes of Piltdown man.
This is certainly possible, but if the two scientists discuss their results then the correct one should be able to convince the incorrect one.
In your imaginary utopia maybe... Ever followed a scientific debate? Even when the work of two scientists work directly clashes, the debate is sometimes stamped out, and frequently heavily massaged as it passes through the research-and-publish pipelines. Debating somebody through scientific journal articles is like having an exchange with someone on another continent using 17th-century bureaucratic dispatches.
I was not aware that they were. Which matters are those?
On which planet do you live? Ever heard of black holes? Goecentricity?
Here are a couple hundred matters you might want to look at...
http://www.myastrospace.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24
http://thescientificdebateforum.aimoo.com/ForumID-20946/classicbbs.html
22 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhy? Does it prove whatever I want? In what way?
Then maybe you should familiarlise yourself with the likes of Piltdown man.
In your imaginary utopia maybe... Ever followed a scientific debate? Even when the work of two scientists work directly clashes, the debate is sometimes stamped out, and frequently heavily massaged as it passes through the research-and-publish pipelines. Debating somebody through scientific journal articles is like having an exchange with someone on another continent using 17th-century bureaucratic dispatches.
All that may be true, I wouldn't know, but that doesn't mean what I say is not true.
I do not dispute that people with different philosophies may in real life refuse to listen to each other or fail to reach an understanding, we see that all the time on these forums. But it is my belief that if both parties listen to each other, the correct view will win out (if a correct view exists).
But more importantly, I know of no better way of learning about the universe.
On which planet do you live? Ever heard of black holes? Goecentricity?
Yes I have heard about black holes, but not Goecentricity.
In what way is the scientific community divided on them?
Here are a couple hundred matters you might want to look at...
http://www.myastrospace.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24
http://thescientificdebateforum.aimoo.com/ForumID-20946/classicbbs.html
What am I meant to be looking for here?
22 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerdj2becker
[b]No
Then maybe you should familiarlise yourself with the likes of Piltdown man.
This is certainly possible, but if the two scientists discuss their results then the correct one should be able to convince the incorrect one.
In your imaginary utopia maybe... Ever followed a scientific debate? Even when the work of two scientists work d ...[text shortened]... s/forumdisplay.php?f=24
http://thescientificdebateforum.aimoo.com/ForumID-20946/classicbbs.html[/b]
Every profession has some of its people deviate from the basic principles of the profession and unfortunately science is no exception.
There is plenty of scientific fraud but scientific fraud is NOT, I repeat, NOT science! So you must not confuse one with the other!
Science is knowledge gained through vigorous scientific method. Anything short of knowledge gained through vigorous scientific method is, by definition of science, NOT science. Therefore, scientific fraud, no matter how common it may be, is NOT science nor part of real science.
If science was “subjective” as you imply then the knowledge gained through vigorous scientific method would be invalid in which case all the technology that relies on that knowledge being valid would not work in which case you would not have been able to send your post to this forum and your computer would not work etc.
if scientists always stack to vigorous scientific method (which they don't always do hence fraud, pseudo-science etc) then they would never be able to come to any conclusion they wish (as you said) because vigorous scientific method means that they can ONLY conclude whatever the evidence shows and NOTHING else! In fact, if always stack to vigorous scientific method, they would rarely disagree and, even when they do disagree (due to conflicting data that can sometimes happen), they would be able to quickly come to a common agreement by sharing their logical deductions and their conflicting data and rationally working out where the error in the analysis/data lies. The fact that they don't always do that in practice is not the fault of scientific method (hence not the fault of science) but the fault of human nature and the fact that scientists are only human with all their flaws and don't always stick strictly to vigorous scientific method (because of pride, preconceptions, etc) when they disagree with each other.
So when twhitehead said “...if the two scientists discuss their results then the correct one should be able to convince the incorrect one....” to be a bit more precise, he obviously meant something like: “...if the two reasonable scientists discuss their results calmly and with unflawed logic against the others position with each scientists willing to fully hear-out the other and admit that his position may be in error if logic/evidence/argument indicates so then the correct one should be able to convince the incorrect one....”. The fact that scientists are only human and so not always so reasonable in debates is why some scientific debates are so heated -but, again, that is NOT the fault of science but the fault of human nature and so the fact that some scientific debates are so heated is a totally different issue from the validity of science and scientific method and so the fact that some scientific debates are so heated is certainly not a mark against the validity of science and scientific method.
Scientific method and hence science is the best tool we have for rationally gaining the facts about the universe.