Supernatural and Atheism

[Thumpalumpacus]

Probably has to do with the fact that the word "atheism" refers specifically to the idea of gods being extant.

As a young atheist, I was someone who did not believe in gods but believed in stuff like psychic powers etc. That's because being atheist is no guarantee of being rational.

The unspoken premise of your point here is that all atheism arises from the application of rationality by the atheist to all aspects of his or her life. It's not correct.

That's how most atheists see themselves, as paragons of rational thinking and intellectual excellence. It's not correct.

And no one said it was correct. Why, then, do you adhere to it in your professed image of atheists, even though you know it's incorrect?

[Anomalocaris]

Do you say those things are beyond doubt as well?  What if, for example, we find that dark matter is attributed to a modification of General Relativity that kicks in when space-time is sufficiently flat, such as in intergalactic space?  If GR is beyond doubt then such modifications would never be entertained.

In my opinion, some things are facts, and therefore, are beyond any (reasonable) doubt.  As Isaac Asimov stated,

John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Isaac Asimov - The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 14 No. 1, Fall 1989

Scientific theory is only of value if it accurately predicts something otherwise unknown.     To say the theory is fact merely because it seems to have worked as well as can be expected upon what is already known doesn’t exactly guaranty  its on-going value.     Whether the theory would work as well in a new place where one previously have not looked can and should always be doubted and then tested.      To assert that just because a theory worked in all cases hitherto tested therefore it is an all encompassing fact everywhere else as well is frequently the beginning of folly.

[Jehanne]

In my opinion, some things are facts, and therefore, are beyond any (reasonable) doubt.  As Isaac Asimov stated,



Isaac Asimov - The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 14 No. 1, Fall 1989

Scientific theory is only of value if it accurately predicts something otherwise unknown.     To say the theory is fact merely because it seems to have worked as well as can be expected upon what is already known doesn’t exactly guaranty  its on-going value.     Whether the theory would work as well in a new place where one previously have not looked can and should always be doubted and then tested.      To assert that just because a theory worked in all cases hitherto tested therefore it is an all encompassing fact everywhere else as well is frequently the beginning of folly.

That our World is approximately 4.5 billion years old is a fact; such will never change, and it is unreasonable, in my opinion, to conclude otherwise.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who is doing this?  Do you think that trans people are recruiting first graders?

 Same thing happened with crt.  All it ever actually was, was a graduate level subject in law.  As soon as you start yelling at clouds and banning books, boom - now it bleeds over into every facet of life and school board meetings..and suddenly teachers are talking about the thing they weren't before and kids are reading books that The Man has decided ought to be verboten.

Fucking idiots. Every accusation is a confession. They imagine that everyone must be doing the thing they desperately want to do, and this explains why people hate them - rather than the simpler and more accurate cause. That they're soulless unlikeable pricks without a single shred of decency.

[LinuxGal]

That our World is approximately 4.5 billion years old is a fact; such will never change, and it is unreasonable, in my opinion, to conclude otherwise.

“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”


― Richard Feynman

[Thumpalumpacus]

Scientific theory is only of value if it accurately predicts something otherwise unknown.     To say the theory is fact merely because it seems to have worked as well as can be expected upon what is already known doesn’t exactly guaranty  its on-going value.     Whether the theory would work as well in a new place where one previously have not looked can and should always be doubted and then tested.      To assert that just because a theory worked in all cases hitherto tested therefore it is an all encompassing fact everywhere else as well is frequently the beginning of folly.

That our World is approximately 4.5 billion years old is a fact; such will never change, and it is unreasonable, in my opinion, to conclude otherwise.

I think that all knowledge is tentative. If we're unwilling to change what we think of as facts, then we will be unable to learn. Sometimes hose changes are revolutionary (Copernicus), sometimes they're evolutionary (Einstein refining Newtonian mechanics).

But learning relies upon the willingness to consider oneself in error.

[Angrboda]

Just out of curiosity, what is your theory about how cisgendered individuals determine that they are cisgendered?  Obviously, not all people of a biological sex do identify their birth sex as correlating with their gender.  How do the others, the normies, come to their conclusion about their gender?

I looked in the mirror. I never had any desires or thoughts about questioning my gender. By the way, I used a stereotypical image of a typical male earlier in the thread. I never watch football or any other sports on TV. I'm also prone to feel bittersweet about past events.

What about people who lack obvious external genitalia, or are intersexed? Are you suggesting that they don't know their gender?

[Jehanne]

That our World is approximately 4.5 billion years old is a fact; such will never change, and it is unreasonable, in my opinion, to conclude otherwise.

I think that all knowledge is tentative. If we're unwilling to change what we think of as facts, then we will be unable to learn. Sometimes hose changes are revolutionary (Copernicus), sometimes they're evolutionary (Einstein refining Newtonian mechanics).

But learning relies upon the willingness to consider oneself in error.

I disagree. Sometimes evidence reaches a "critical mass" that it becomes unreasonable to deny it. The fact that George Washington was the first US President is an immutable, eternal fact of Nature.

[Angrboda]

I think that all knowledge is tentative. If we're unwilling to change what we think of as facts, then we will be unable to learn. Sometimes hose changes are revolutionary (Copernicus), sometimes they're evolutionary (Einstein refining Newtonian mechanics).

But learning relies upon the willingness to consider oneself in error.

I disagree.  Sometimes evidence reaches a "critical mass" that it becomes unreasonable to deny it.  The fact that George Washington was the first US President is an immutable, eternal fact of Nature.

In the face of incompleteness, even the reasonable must, tentatively, be denied.

[LinuxGal]

It's easy to remember.  Sex is objective.  Gender is relative.  Identity is subjective.