Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2015, 07:41 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:39 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  concluding without proof = faith

Concluding where there is no possible proof available = knowledge.

One can observe the non existence of anything by simply staring at the empty space.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
24-08-2015, 07:42 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:39 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  concluding without proof = faith

Seriously, you should just stop No

You don't know what logical fallacies are.

You don't actually admit when you're wrong, even when you say you will (meaning you fail to realize your blatant dishonesty).

You don't understand how misrepresenting people's words/arguments and making straw men are dishonest.

And you are trying to explain what a regression is when you clearly don't fucking know what a regression is.

And you try to argue that you know science better than a scientist.

Whatever credibility you had coming into this thread, has quickly evaporated.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 07:47 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:39 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  concluding without proof = faith

No, that is not the definition of faith. Don't try to weasel in a flawed definition.

Conclusions are based on evidence.

Faith is belief without evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-08-2015, 07:47 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:42 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:39 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  concluding without proof = faith

Seriously, you should just stop No

You don't know what logical fallacies are.

You don't actually admit when you're wrong, even when you say you will (meaning you fail to realize your blatant dishonesty).

You don't understand how misrepresenting people's words/arguments and making straw men are dishonest.

And you are trying to explain what a regression is when you clearly don't fucking know what a regression is.

And you try to argue that you know science better than a scientist.

Whatever credibility you had coming into this thread, has quickly evaporated.

Right, here's how good of a scientist you are. You looked out your window, didn't see any aliens, and concluded that aliens don't exist. Most elementary school kids can see that error, but somehow you're blind to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 07:48 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, there has been quite a bit of tripping and fumbling by all of us with word choices. So, yeah, reaching a conclusion (or not) is what one does after weighing the evidence.

What I suppose I'm trying to say is that concluding that there are no aliens is not really a very good conclusion based on what we know about the universe.
A stronger logical conclusion is that we don't know.


Well, yeah. That's what makes us atheists. But concluding is not proving.


Well, I am equating the 7.0 on the Dawkins Scale with 'knowing'.

As the evidence mounts, we approach 7.0 asymptotically.

"What I suppose I'm trying to say is that concluding that there are no aliens is not really a very good conclusion based on what we know about the universe.
A stronger logical conclusion is that we don't know."


Based on what we know, all we can conclude at this point in time is that there are no aliens. Aliens are plausible to exist, but not known to exist. (I remain careful to not say "known not to exist" since we know they are plausible to exist)

" But concluding is not proving."

I don't believe I have ever equated proving with concluding.

"Well, I am equating the 7.0 on the Dawkins Scale with 'knowing'."

And I am not, because if knowledge is only ever defined strictly as 100% certainty, then the words "know" or "knowing" have no realistic meaning.

Knowledge isn't only that definition but the scale should have a further stance if 7 isn't taken as more close to the absolute knowledge type of Knowing. Otherwise it's rather odd to not include a further step on the scale

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 07:48 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:41 PM)Free Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:39 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  concluding without proof = faith

Concluding where there is no possible proof available = knowledge.

One can observe the non existence of anything by simply staring at the empty space.

The problem with that is you have to stare at every last bit of space to know it.

Sampling of space provides evidence, not knowledge.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-08-2015, 07:48 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:39 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  concluding without proof = faith

No, that is not the definition of faith. Don't try to weasel in a flawed definition.

Conclusions are based on evidence.

Faith is belief without evidence.

It's illogical to come to a conclusion without it being proven.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 07:51 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:47 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:42 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Seriously, you should just stop No

You don't know what logical fallacies are.

You don't actually admit when you're wrong, even when you say you will (meaning you fail to realize your blatant dishonesty).

You don't understand how misrepresenting people's words/arguments and making straw men are dishonest.

And you are trying to explain what a regression is when you clearly don't fucking know what a regression is.

And you try to argue that you know science better than a scientist.

Whatever credibility you had coming into this thread, has quickly evaporated.

Right, here's how good of a scientist you are. You looked out your window, didn't see any aliens, and concluded that aliens don't exist. Most elementary school kids can see that error, but somehow you're blind to it.

Dude ... like what the fuck are you doing?

Do you not fucking understand that quoting him out of context with something that does not reflect the truth of his statements in their entirety is a strawman fallacy and is grossly intellectually dishonest?

You are making yourself look like a fucking retard.

Dismissed!

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
24-08-2015, 07:54 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:47 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:42 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Seriously, you should just stop No

You don't know what logical fallacies are.

You don't actually admit when you're wrong, even when you say you will (meaning you fail to realize your blatant dishonesty).

You don't understand how misrepresenting people's words/arguments and making straw men are dishonest.

And you are trying to explain what a regression is when you clearly don't fucking know what a regression is.

And you try to argue that you know science better than a scientist.

Whatever credibility you had coming into this thread, has quickly evaporated.

Right, here's how good of a scientist you are. You looked out your window, didn't see any aliens, and concluded that aliens don't exist. Most elementary school kids can see that error, but somehow you're blind to it.

[Image: hqdefault.jpg]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
24-08-2015, 07:55 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "What I suppose I'm trying to say is that concluding that there are no aliens is not really a very good conclusion based on what we know about the universe.
A stronger logical conclusion is that we don't know."


Based on what we know, all we can conclude at this point in time is that there are no aliens. Aliens are plausible to exist, but not known to exist. (I remain careful to not say "known not to exist" since we know they are plausible to exist)

" But concluding is not proving."

I don't believe I have ever equated proving with concluding.

"Well, I am equating the 7.0 on the Dawkins Scale with 'knowing'."

And I am not, because if knowledge is only ever defined strictly as 100% certainty, then the words "know" or "knowing" have no realistic meaning.

Knowledge isn't only that definition but the scale should have a further stance if 7 isn't taken as more close to the absolute knowledge type of Knowing. Otherwise it's rather odd to not include a further step on the scale

I realize knowledge isn't only that definition, but that definition of knowledge (100% certainty) is not representative of reality.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: