Accepting/Rejecting "Atheism" as a label.

[Golbez]

And is there something wrong with that?

Not in a spiritual "I want to appreciate the universe in all its glory, so let's imagine each aspect of the world has a rich back-story behind who made what" sort of way. But in a literal interpretation, if truth is what you seek, it's unfounded, and realistically so far as anyone knows completely incorrect.

I don't see a point to providing evidence that a Biblical god exists, as I don't necessarily believe in said gods

I share this view. But there are many, many, many people who do believe it and who want to run our governance and make bad decisions because of it. So there's at least a point to showing the universe operates just fine without the imaginings of a great puppet master. That point is to have a better world with less suffering.

1. If miracles happen... then they are certainly evidence of various deities. 2. Did you know: All scientific evidence *ever* has been an incredibly lucky fluke... or a joke by a jester god.

1. Miracles are not defined simply as "good things with rare probability or explanations beyond a layman's grasp." There's no word for "bad things with rare probability." (Or *gasp* maybe it's the devil's work. A curse or pox!) And surely it's simply not just "rare things." Winning the lotto can't be a miraculous occurrence. Unless the government is cheating you, someone is going to win. And it doesn't require any supernatural force to make it happen.

That's what a miracle would require. If a miracle is to be evidence of the supernatural, it would require supernatural assistance. Then and only then would it be evidence. It would thus have to defy the laws of the universe. If an event happens in which a person has a 1/300 chance of surviving, and of 460 people, one of them does, that's not a miracle in a supernatural sense. If it were, it would be a miracle of incompetence that the supernatural couldn't save the other 459 people.

2. If you mean our existence, yes, yes it has been an incredibly lucky fluke. That's fairly objectively correct. But because of it's rarity, let's invent some rich back-story!

Faeries do exist. Every god ever surmised exists.

False. You misconstrue conception with existence. If I author a book with a rich cast of characters, the book exists. The concept of the characters exist. The characters are not real and do not exist.

Evidence simply is...

Evidence is something that points towards truth. Absent that ultimate truth that the evidence is meant to support, it is no longer evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Bold opinions? Knowledge is entirely rooted in faith.

Incorrect. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Knowledge is clearly (or at least should be clearly) the opposite.

Yes, it absolutely makes you blind to believe there is *only one way* to build a computer.

Straw man. I never argued this. We know how to build something that operates that we define as a computer. We are welcome to keep expanding our knowledge and find other ways. Knowing some stuff doesn't prevent us from knowing more stuff. That's what religion is for, to prevent us from looking at the fixes in stem cell research. Or to prevent us from understanding about evolution, or global warming. "You can't believe that knowledge! You have faith instead!" (hideous over-exaggeration while being pretty much on point).

1. Don't you see the condition you have? It is faith, concrete and unshakable. 2. Scientists have not sought knowledge by hypothesis: they conjectured.

1. Faith doesn't use evidence. So faith is not what I have. You must overcome that hangup if you wish to better understand the rationality of our position.
2. Hypothesis is conjecture. You see an observation, you come up with a falsifiable (able to be proven untrue) conjecture about its cause, and you go test it.

Knowledge is blind, hypothesis is the best that a limited creature is capable of

If by blind, you mean knowledge doesn't have bias, or that knowledge is what it is without the considerations of human projections upon it, then yes. Fine. But if not, this appears to be your problem. We have long laid to rest the theory that the sun travels around the earth, that the earth is the center of the solar system or universe. Those are hypothesis. They could still be hypothesis to this day. But they are flat wrong. And we know this. The knowledge of what actually is replaces the knowledge of mere hypothesis - which is anyone's random guess. Our knowledge has exploded in the past couple centuries. And hypothesis has been a great tool to get us there. But that is not the extent of our knowledge. To make this assertion is to ignore centuries of intellectual triumph. But yes, overturning bad science with better science (evidence, reason, consistency, etc) is a great thing. It's what keeps science honest and is a unique process that religion lacks.

Knowing is simple, it is an absolute faith that will never be questioned or further though about.

Knowledge is not faith. I feel like we should make you write it on the chalkboard like Bart Simpson. Faith is a lack of evidence. This is not what knowledge is. And further, it will be thought about (as opposed to "never.") Knowledge builds on knowledge. We teach this knowledge to children. They think about it. It can be used and reused, especially to dispel persisting myths. So another bold, unfounded conclusion. If you question everything, why didn't you question that assertion?

Have you considered that Jesus might have been an alien?

lol. What won't religion (or the religious) invent to try and save it from its inextricable contradictions? An alien, born of the virgin Mary, created in his image, etc, etc. Tell Christians that Jesus was an alien. And fine, they "believed" the sky was heaven. He certainly still didn't rise into it. People also "believed" the earth was flat. That was never true in any event. I'll just give you the cliffs notes and let you know that our caveman ancestors believed a lot of stupid shit. It does none of us any good to give merit to them now.

It really wouldn't be that easy to find a physical location of 'heaven'.

We wouldn't have to find it. We'd only have to watch other bodies rise up out of the ground and fly away. Quick body count: Earth: 7 billion. Heaven: 0.

He doesn't have a video of his birth, or he'd have mentioned it.

Right, he may not have a video. But births in general can be witnessed and known. And there's DNA for those who hadn't witnessed it. Religion (a supernatural god* I should say - religion certainly exists) lacks either option.

-- What is a religion based entirely on non metaphysical things? Jainism? There are some religions that are atheistic. But then, that's simply a way of life. Not really a religion. And proving that ... "true" doesn't do any favors for Jesus or Muhammad or any other theistic religion.

with great power comes great responsibility.

That great responsibility seems to be "never show up in any sense ever." And so there's no reason to pretend the myths of our great (to the power of 150) ancestors, with their terrible understanding of the planet at the time, are true.

(and infact most of the bible is).

This fact looks an awful lot like an opinion many Christians would disagree with. So concerning religion, what counts as fact? Apparently, anything, everything, and nothing simultaneously.

Well, in my interpretations, gods are amorphous entities... but you started using "he" first, so I continued along your lines of thought. This is because I'm mature enough to drop my understanding of the universe to communicate with others instead of rattling off what would appear to be nonsense to them.

This wasn't a dig at you. I do it too. Mostly conforming to the conventions people use when speaking about god. That's why I said "as an aside." But, in your "question everything" mantra that you say I don't live by, I was questioning why people have ascribed this to "him." But certainly, its gender is not decided by our thoughts. Unless it is fictional. And then we would control that, as we seem to do.

Bad morals are, I guess, lack of morals that are nevertheless preached as morals. The lack of repudiation of owning slaves. Killing gays. Stoning your wife if she's not a virgin when you marry. Policing your thoughts (coveting thy neighbor's anything). Worrying about petty shit like false idols - that one really stands the test of time. So critical is it, that it ought to be the 2nd commandment. Thanks, God! You've really set our priorities straight. Ugh.

I've already told you that if any of the text is perfect, it is only the original

You can only speculate. This original copy exists as much as god does. Or is it in the Pope's Smithsonian Museum?

The last two sentences were typed ... finger in hand (tongue in cheek?) because god seemed to author just one book (or three, depending on your religion, or if you accept that he wrote them all), but then stopped writing. Why write more? He's achieved perfection. No need to write a second. Or make a movie. Or code a program. Invent a recipe. Build a building. Etc. He had but one hobby on earth for a short stint, and has retired. He built the heavens and the earth in a week. But authoring a book us lowly humans can understand is hard work!

Sorry for the length. We're probably getting too carried away. I like discussions like this, but they don't seem to be proper etiquette in forums where people tend to wish threads stay on topic. Hopefully our discussion can continue. =P

[Confused Ape]

Faeries do exist. Every god ever surmised exists.

False. You misconstrue conception with existence.

These things do exist as experiences produced by the brain. This is the transcript from the documentary God On The Brain. It's about neuroscientists investigating what happens in the brains of people who have religious experiences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/200...rans.shtml

My own brain produces odd experiences such as a vision of a shadowy female form rising from a lake. (Some people would interpret this kind of thing as seeing a water spirit) I met the Greek god Apollo in a dream - he was an awesomely powerful figure so if I wasn't an atheist I'd now be worshipping a brain produced image.

This is a very interesting video by a Neuroanatomist who had a stroke which kept switching off signals from the left hemisphere of her brain. She describes the experiences produced by the right hemisphere of her brain - being at one with the universe etc. The way she describes it suggests that this is what mystics call God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzE...31&index=4

If a religious person says that they've felt the presence of God it's very possible that their brain produced an experience which they interpreted as God.

[Violet]

And is there something wrong with that?

Not in a spiritual "I want to appreciate the universe in all its glory, so let's imagine each aspect of the world has a rich back-story behind who made what" sort of way. But in a literal interpretation, if truth is what you seek, it's unfounded, and realistically so far as anyone knows completely incorrect.

???? Realistically: everything anyone knows is incorrect The universe might well be the result of an already existant being(s) causing the Big Bang (assuming it did happen, yes).

I love gods, as they are so mighty and yet nothing at all.

I don't see a point to providing evidence that a Biblical god exists, as I don't necessarily believe in said gods

I share this view. But there are many, many, many people who do believe it and who want to run our governance and make bad decisions because of it. So there's at least a point to showing the universe operates just fine without the imaginings of a great puppet master. That point is to have a better world with less suffering.[/quote]

What's your deal with suffering anyway? This is the second time you've noted it as a major point in your worldview.

(Anything to shift it away from the much more boring topics of existence, subjectivity, and ice cream)

1. Miracles are not defined simply as "good things with rare probability or explanations beyond a layman's grasp." There's no word for "bad things with rare probability." (Or *gasp* maybe it's the devil's work. A curse or pox!) And surely it's simply not just "rare things." Winning the lotto can't be a miraculous occurrence. Unless the government is cheating you, someone is going to win. And it doesn't require any supernatural force to make it happen.

Calamity is sometimes used for that, one might go so far as to describe it as cataclysmic. If you're looking for an antonym for the rareness of a miracle, then normalcy is for you.

Winning the lottery would be a miracle to me, I'd immediately go on a spiritual journey to identify the one(s) who made it happen and devote a small part of my life to them. I simply don't get good luck...

That's what a miracle would require. If a miracle is to be evidence of the supernatural, it would require supernatural assistance. Then and only then would it be evidence. It would thus have to defy the laws of the universe. If an event happens in which a person has a 1/300 chance of surviving, and of 460 people, one of them does, that's not a miracle in a supernatural sense. If it were, it would be a miracle of incompetence that the supernatural couldn't save the other 459 people.

Why does a miracle have to have to defy the laws of physics? If we're starting from the base point of 'deities made this planet and physics too', then why would they act against their own rules? In very few religions do the deities involved *care enough* to save a whole bunch of pointless people... but just the one that they have a role for or simply favor? Maybe they might be arsed, just this once

I rather do not believe that they would save people just to look good to you, because they really don't care about you... tis not necessarily incompetence (though lesser deities surely might not be able), but more likely that they've disregarded all those other people. Some of them might have even had a feast.

2. If you mean our existence, yes, yes it has been an incredibly lucky fluke. That's fairly objectively correct. But because of it's rarity, let's invent some rich back-story!

Oh, we could... mostly, I'm just waiting until Humans are arrogant enough to believe on the whole they they have become gods. The gods of their own little pathetic world~

Faeries do exist. Every god ever surmised exists.

False. You misconstrue conception with existence. If I author a book with a rich cast of characters, the book exists. The concept of the characters exist. The characters are not real and do not exist.

Actually dave, it's true. The book exists, the characters exist and are real. That which is cannot not be, that which has been made real shall forever be, if naught but a memory.

Everything exists, nothing exists, several somethings shall forever be. The world you know is no more real than the book you right, the movie you watch, or the game you play.

Evidence is something that points towards truth. Absent that ultimate truth that the evidence is meant to support, it is no longer evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Ummm, what? Evidence is something that points towards a thing being true. What the fuck *is* this 'truth' you speak of, and where can I find it? XD Evidence supports a conclusion, whatever anyone uses to support that conclusion is the evidence they have used for it. Conclusion being correct or incorrect has no bearing on whether evidence was a part of it.

And please... wikipedia for philosophy?

Bold opinions? Knowledge is entirely rooted in faith.

Incorrect. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Knowledge is clearly (or at least should be clearly) the opposite.

Let me get this straight... faith is a belief that applies to any type of "proof" or evidence... that isn't logical or material? What makes these non-applicable... they do remain evidential, do they not? Logic is inherently circular: that first mighty step to understanding our world takes quite a lot of faith Knowledge is presumptive and takes more faith than any other thing I can think of (Knowing that there is a god? Knowing where your daughter is? Knowing the answer to the problem? Oh please). Really, I don't get your insistence that knowledge, the worst offender of science sans righteousness... should be anything better than it is XD

Yes, it absolutely makes you blind to believe there is *only one way* to build a computer.

Straw man. I never argued this. We know how to build something that operates that we define as a computer. We are welcome to keep expanding our knowledge and find other ways. Knowing some stuff doesn't prevent us from knowing more stuff. That's what religion is for, to prevent us from looking at the fixes in stem cell research. Or to prevent us from understanding about evolution, or global warming. "You can't believe that knowledge! You have faith instead!" (hideous over-exaggeration while being pretty much on point).

Do we? I was using this "an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program." If it isn't based on electricity at all: it (by this definition) is not a computer. If it is for data processing but not storing, it (by this definition) is not a computer.

The more you know Knowing some stuff means that you have set it in your mind that anything that contradicts your faith in the truth of these things must automatically be false. Otherwise it wouldn't be knowledge (certainty), it would be hypothesis and conjecture (taken for granted until a better/more inclusive theory is suggested). Even scientists have been guilty of knowledge, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.

By the way... this form of mistake I call an 'argument from establishment'. You can have knowledge all you like, just recognize that it is only a measure of how strong your faith in a thing is, and there's nothing wrong with it. Well... nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

1. Faith doesn't use evidence. So faith is not what I have. You must overcome that hangup if you wish to better understand the rationality of our position.
2. Hypothesis is conjecture. You see an observation, you come up with a falsifiable (able to be proven untrue) conjecture about its cause, and you go test it.

Only pure as it can possibly be knowledgetical faith doesn't use evidence of any sort. Most people don't simply believe random things, they justify their beliefs or gain their beliefs from considering their experience and various evidences. There is no rationality in knowledge, not that 'rationality' means anything

Hypothesis is not conjecture. It is based upon conjecture, certainly... but a duck hunt and a duck are not identical.

If by blind, you mean knowledge doesn't have bias, or that knowledge is what it is without the considerations of human projections upon it, then yes. Fine. But if not, this appears to be your problem. We have long laid to rest the theory that the sun travels around the earth, that the earth is the center of the solar system or universe. Those are hypothesis. They could still be hypothesis to this day. But they are flat wrong. And we know this. The knowledge of what actually is replaces the knowledge of mere hypothesis - which is anyone's random guess. Our knowledge has exploded in the past couple centuries. And hypothesis has been a great tool to get us there. But that is not the extent of our knowledge. To make this assertion is to ignore centuries of intellectual triumph. But yes, overturning bad science with better science (evidence, reason, consistency, etc) is a great thing. It's what keeps science honest and is a unique process that religion lacks.

Considering that the world is perceived through our subjective eyes, knowledge not having bias is impossible. Human projections are the only thing that keeps knowledge around. "We have long laid to rest the theory that the sun travels around the earth"? Sounds like an argument from establishment to me. One day, we might well have to reconsider that belief. At its time, the argument that the sun travelled around the earth (center of the universe) was the common knowledge of the common man.

No, they are not 'flat wrong', they have been shown by scientific method to be inaccurate according to our intersubjective collaborative effort to understand the universe and ourselves. In some people's worlds: the sun actually does orbit the earth.

Considering that everything 'actually is'... it seems you enjoy using moot points ^_^ A hypothesis is not a *random* guess, it is a calculated one... sure, it can be a poorly calculated one, but it remains one nonetheless. Boy, won't it be lovely when "our exploding knowledge" fails us wholly and wipes our entire species out due to our certainty and readiness to believe?

Centuries of intellectual triumph might have happened, sure... but it depresses me to see that mighty legacy forgotten today by a massing of faithful fools. I love science for its readiness to adapt to new information... but knowledge does such adaptability no favors.

Knowing is simple, it is an absolute faith that will never be questioned or further though about.

Knowledge is not faith. I feel like we should make you write it on the chalkboard like Bart Simpson. Faith is a lack of evidence. This is not what knowledge is. And further, it will be thought about (as opposed to "never.") Knowledge builds on knowledge. We teach this knowledge to children. They think about it. It can be used and reused, especially to dispel persisting myths. So another bold, unfounded conclusion. If you question everything, why didn't you question that assertion?[/quote]

Yes, knowledge is faith, I feel like I should stick the 'Dunce' hat on you and stick you in the corner. Faith has *absolutely nothing to do* with whether there is evidence or not. This is exactly what knowledge is, and further, conjecture and hypothesis will be thought about (knowledge will be asserted only and ne'er reconsidered until one *no longer knows it*, the moment of it disbecoming knowledge and rebecoming conjecture). Knowledge certainly does build on knowledge, and we teach this to children, and then you have a stack of indoctrinated retards spreading misinformation that will be used and reused to "dispel persisting myths" that might actually be true... gods but I hate religion.

Another hilarious stupid person thinking I haven't questioned the assertion that I have made multiple times since I started this 'conversation'... if you were smarter, I'd let you in on a secret... but it'd take you recognizing knowledge as everything religion does to learn anything from this. And as we can see... you have entirely too much knowledge to consider yourself wrong

lol. What won't religion (or the religious) invent to try and save it from its inextricable contradictions? An alien, born of the virgin Mary, created in his image, etc, etc. Tell Christians that Jesus was an alien. And fine, they "believed" the sky was heaven. He certainly still didn't rise into it. People also "believed" the earth was flat. That was never true in any event. I'll just give you the cliffs notes and let you know that our caveman ancestors believed a lot of stupid shit. It does none of us any good to give merit to them now.

I mention it, because some people do infact rationalise Christ rising to heaven as 'Jesus was an alien'. Also for humor, but you seem to have missed that.

Perhaps the earth was flat 2000 years ago, and God only rather recently realized that humans would be technologically advanced enough to reach the edge, and being almighty: he made Earth seamless. Gives plate tectonics a whole new meaning.

I rather think it does anyone with a brain a lot of good to use it, to consider the various evidences, and to build our own unique understanding of the cosmos off of that which makes sense to us, which will surely be continually changing.

We wouldn't have to find it. We'd only have to watch other bodies rise up out of the ground and fly away. Quick body count: Earth: 7 billion. Heaven: 0.

Ever heard of this thing called 'a spirit' or 'soul'? Usually, they argue that souls rise up to heaven (a metaphysical plane 'in the sky').

Right, he may not have a video. But births in general can be witnessed and known. And there's DNA for those who hadn't witnessed it. Religion (a supernatural god* I should say - religion certainly exists) lacks either option.

-- What is a religion based entirely on non metaphysical things? Jainism? There are some religions that are atheistic. But then, that's simply a way of life. Not really a religion. And proving that ... "true" doesn't do any favors for Jesus or Muhammad or any other theistic religion.

Oh sure, they can be witnessed and known... but unless he has witnessed *his own birth*: he's taking it on a lot of faith. Still takes a certain amount of faith to believe that's really him being born, of course.

Jainism's pretty good as far as they go. Another nontheistic religion (but possibly metaphysical) is Scientology. And then there's my religion, for instance. I don't do the metaphysical

A religion does not disbecome a religion due to its subject matter. I'm going to ignore your last sentiment here, because I'm kind.

That great responsibility seems to be "never show up in any sense ever." And so there's no reason to pretend the myths of our great (to the power of 150) ancestors, with their terrible understanding of the planet at the time, are true.

Stopping the rain is big magic... the consequences for which can be tremendous. As ever, a responsible god is to be found in the small things, the details. Irresponsible gods would be the kind who burst on the scene and demonstrate to the world their might... as if this would be for *ANY OTHER PURPOSE* than enslaving the human species

There's no reason to think you know everything, doesn't stop some people from such retardation, though.

This fact looks an awful lot like an opinion many Christians would disagree with. So concerning religion, what counts as fact? Apparently, anything, everything, and nothing simultaneously.

Concerning a lot more than just religion, actually. Anything, something, everything, and nothing are simultaneous and constant. It's a good thing I'm not a Christian, if you want to discuss christianity: there are many of them here who would be more than happy to. Mostly, I just find that level of certainty hilarious... it's as bad as yours XD

This wasn't a dig at you. I do it too. Mostly conforming to the conventions people use when speaking about god. That's why I said "as an aside." But, in your "question everything" mantra that you say I don't live by, I was questioning why people have ascribed this to "him." But certainly, its gender is not decided by our thoughts. Unless it is fictional. And then we would control that, as we seem to do.

Well, clearly you mustn't live by it, you've assumed 9/10s of your way through this post XD But I didn't say you were incapable of questioning things... infact I might even like you if you just question 1 more thing per day ^_^

I think every god ever written about is certainly fictional (in the writing), and probably not an accurate representation of them if they are manifest beyond the mind. Of course, I like kind feminine gods more, because I'm a biased bitch.

Bad morals are, I guess, lack of morals that are nevertheless preached as morals. The lack of repudiation of owning slaves. Killing gays. Stoning your wife if she's not a virgin when you marry. Policing your thoughts (coveting thy neighbor's anything). Worrying about petty shit like false idols - that one really stands the test of time. So critical is it, that it ought to be the 2nd commandment. Thanks, God! You've really set our priorities straight. Ugh.

Ummm... what? Lacking morals by definition cannot be bad morals, as morals they are not in the first place. I can think of several people whose very reason for doing these things is their morals, and they think them good.

You can only speculate. This original copy exists as much as god does. Or is it in the Pope's Smithsonian Museum?

The last two sentences were typed ... finger in hand (tongue in cheek?) because god seemed to author just one book (or three, depending on your religion, or if you accept that he wrote them all), but then stopped writing. Why write more? He's achieved perfection. No need to write a second. Or make a movie. Or code a program. Invent a recipe. Build a building. Etc. He had but one hobby on earth for a short stint, and has retired. He built the heavens and the earth in a week. But authoring a book us lowly humans can understand is hard work!

I don't believe it has survived the ages, and it's certainly deteriorated horribly if it has. There are a lot more than three religious books, even if there are only three primary abrahamic religions. God probably has done all of these things, haven't you met Morgan Freeman? Man's the best case of 'this could be God' there is...

Some people have an easier time doing than communicating... sometimes I'd much rather demonstrate than speak. Creating things is one of my favorite pastimes, in another life I'd have been an artist (a poor one, but an artist).

Sorry for the length. We're probably getting too carried away. I like discussions like this, but they don't seem to be proper etiquette in forums where people tend to wish threads stay on topic. Hopefully our discussion can continue. =P

Nah, it's fine. By the by: I don't actually mean any of the insults I throw at you, I'm just very expressive and think that you come off as such sometimes.

Or maybe I do mean them sometimes... at the least I had fun with them. That isn't proper insulting, Violet knows...

[Golbez]

There seem to be too many hangups really to proceed head on with your post. So let me understand what you mean with certain terms. Could I ask that you define for me what is meant by:
Truth
Knowledge
Facts
Evidence (again)
Existence

And what do you think about the laws of physics? Once we understand the mathematical expressions in which the world operates under, say for gravity or motion, do you think those can be radically violated in our day to day experiences? (So avoiding for the moment things like Pulsars, which are fascinating freaks of nature.) I can't begin to understand your opening gambit, that everything anyone knows is incorrect. Ironically, that sounds like something you claim to know. And it surely sounds incorrect. But maybe I can't know that, because then it would be incorrect. So I'll just have to "feel it" then in my gut. And now it's true...

EDIT - Sorry, wanted to add these terms as well:
Hypothesis
Conjecture

And I thought of another question. How do people learn information about our world through the process of science? What does that process entail? Basically - what is the scientific method?

[Violet]

Just a head's up, I'm going to be taking a break for a while, but I haven't forgotten this Back in a few days...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibk0LA3Unfk

[Zone]

I would just say I don't follow a religion there's no need to elaborate any further than that. I think as soon as you label yourself as something then you're making some kind of postive claim for or against some metaphysical position which I'm not doing myself.

As far as fairies and elves are concerned they would have the same chance of existing as angels and demons. Any kind of being that doesn't have a physical body of some kind and exists in some other dimension that intersects with our own but is beyond normal human perception. The myths we have are result from interactions between humans these extra dimensional entities passed into folklore of all human cultures. So I think it's reasonable to be agnostic toward fairies rather than flat out saying they couldn't possibly exist. Just like anything else you have no evidence for or couldn't possibly know.

[Violet]

Truth

That which is considered to be factual or genuine.

Knowledge

That which is wholly believed to be fact, true.

Facts

Things believed to be indisputably true. Don't you love dictionaries and their circular definitions?

Evidence (again)

Information indicating that a belief or proposition might be true.

Existence

That which is.

And what do you think about the laws of physics? Once we understand the mathematical expressions in which the world operates under, say for gravity or motion, do you think those can be radically violated in our day to day experiences? (So avoiding for the moment things like Pulsars, which are fascinating freaks of nature.) I can't begin to understand your opening gambit, that everything anyone knows is incorrect. Ironically, that sounds like something you claim to know. And it surely sounds incorrect. But maybe I can't know that, because then it would be incorrect. So I'll just have to "feel it" then in my gut. And now it's true...

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode...-play-dice

That's pretty much what I think of physics That we might well one day find that our entire understanding of them shatters in lieu of something that explains our observations even better.

Did you know: I know a great many things. I'm okay with simply knowing things usually, but I'm also usually ready to adapt to being wrong, allowing myself new knowledge. Sure, if I was extremely against using faith as anything but a starting point: I could not know anything, everything would be conjecture to me. Alas, I've a great deal more faith in the world than that

Everything anyone knows is incorrect because none of it can possibly be objective, ultimate truth cannot be observed by a subjective being, only assumed by that being, assumption of which would then be necessarily wrong.

It's funny how one's gut gets them into sketchy situations

Hypothesis

A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Conjecture

An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

^What a proper scientist should be doing, not a conclusion they outright know.

And I thought of another question. How do people learn information about our world through the process of science? What does that process entail? Basically - what is the scientific method?

People learn information through assuming it to be true, the scientific method being our 'best way' to find that which is true by introducing observations into an intersubjective realm where thus far results are verifiable or they are not.

The scientific method usually has all of these steps: make observation, ask question about observation, perform some research on the subject, construct a hypothesis, test via experiment, analyze results, form a conclusion, hypothesis is true/false according to experiment: report results, if hypothesis was false: rethink hypothesis.

Though it only ultimately needs these ones: observe, question, formulate hypothesis, test via experiment, analyze results and draw a conclusion, hypothesis is true/false: report results. But this shortened list leads to 'bad science'

[NonStampCollector]

I dislike the label, and this thread has served as a convenient illustration for why I dislike it. There is far too much confusion and disagreement about what atheism means.

I personally subscribe to the etymological definition, with it roots in the Greek "atheos":
-'a' meaning 'without'
-'theos' meaning 'a god'

Apply the same idea to the modern word theism (belief in a deity) and you get the etymological definition of atheism: lacking belief in a deity. That reflects my viewpoint perfectly. I don't unequivocally state that there is no god, because that would place a burden of proof on myself that I'm not interested in assuming. I simply lack belief in any god because there is currently no objective evidence to do so.

If everyone agreed on that meaning of the word, then I would be OK being labeled as such.

[Violet]

I simply lack belief in any god because there is currently no objective evidence to do so.

As there's no objective evidence for anything, I'm assuming you lack belief in everything.

Can't imagine you're that great at parties

[NonStampCollector]

I simply lack belief in any god because there is currently no objective evidence to do so.

As there's no objective evidence for anything, I'm assuming you lack belief in everything.

Can't imagine you're that great at parties

Objective as in able to be observed and repeated by multiple people, unaffected by personal belief.

I'm aware of philosophical viewpoints that propose that true objectivity can never totally be obtained. I'm not personally given to such thought.

From a practical viewpoint, many things in this world are supported by objective observation and experimentation. Theism is not one of them.