Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2016, 08:13 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 08:03 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 07:33 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You seem to care Sita, if you didn't care I dare say you wouldn't take the time of the day replying to me. I'm sorry if I can't be of more help to you.

You're right, I'm totally wasting my time since you don't even understand basic words, logic or even reality and seem to think a baseless belief in spirits is the same as a reasoned scientific belief based on experimentation, observation and peer review.

Also you wrote that there "several billions of religions", that's such a false number it's not even funny. That would be almost one religion per person alive, the actual number is below 5,000 actually so you can see how off base you are but why should you care? I'm sure you have your own emotional justifications for believing that, you'll just have to be the only one believing it.

You say I don't understand words but you if we look at the word religion, we can come to see that truly using a broader definition than one you're probably using. That there really can be a religion for every single person on the planet.

Here's the definition of religion.

Using the definition of 1 or 6 we can thus use religion in the way that we did.

Its not that I don't know the definitions of words but perhaps I have a better grasp for the english vocabulary than you previously thought?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 08:38 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You say I don't understand words but you if we look at the word religion, we can come to see that truly using a broader definition than one you're probably using. That there really can be a religion for every single person on the planet.

Here's the definition of religion.

Using the definition of 1 or 6 we can thus use religion in the way that we did.

Its not that I don't know the definitions of words but perhaps I have a better grasp for the english vocabulary than you previously thought?

You're just trying to be cute now, I wonder if that smart ass routine you're working with actually fools people sometimes. We all know what the word religion means, it's a set of faith based beliefs that many people agree on, sometimes there is a holy book involved and rules/traditions. In my previous statement to you I said when I use the word religion I don't mean when someone says " I think Mother Earth is God!" or whatever, I mean the general term of religion and don't sit there and act like you don't know what that is.

A religion for every single person on the planet? So every Christian has their own religion and every atheist too? I've been studying religion and debating theists for years and you're the only person to ever say that every person who holds a religious belief is actually believing their own religion that no one else believes in.

So no, you don't have a better grasp of the English language, you're just using accepted basic words differently than most English speakers would and acting like it's correct but it's not and you know it.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SitaSky's post
18-11-2016, 09:00 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 08:38 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You say I don't understand words but you if we look at the word religion, we can come to see that truly using a broader definition than one you're probably using. That there really can be a religion for every single person on the planet.

Here's the definition of religion.

Using the definition of 1 or 6 we can thus use religion in the way that we did.

Its not that I don't know the definitions of words but perhaps I have a better grasp for the english vocabulary than you previously thought?

You're just trying to be cute now, I wonder if that smart ass routine you're working with actually fools people sometimes. We all know what the word religion means, it's a set of faith based beliefs that many people agree on, sometimes there is a holy book involved and rules/traditions. In my previous statement to you I said when I use the word religion I don't mean when someone says " I think Mother Earth is God!" or whatever, I mean the general term of religion and don't sit there and act like you don't know what that is.

A religion for every single person on the planet? So every Christian has their own religion and every atheist too? I've been studying religion and debating theists for years and you're the only person to ever say that every person who holds a religious belief is actually believing their own religion that no one else believes in.

So no, you don't have a better grasp of the English language, you're just using accepted basic words differently than most English speakers would and acting like it's correct but it's not and you know it.

Just because you don't use the word in the way that I use it doesn't mean most english speakers wouldn't understand what I was trying to say. If it wasn't correct to use words in their lesser used definitions we'd have separate words for those separate meanings. However I can not think of any words that have one particular definition to them.

I know you probably don't like being compared to religion as an atheist, but I didn't think you would mind the term so much as to actually try and rewrite the english language.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 09:38 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
For all my disgust at the continuing equivocation on the meaning of "belief" (when it comes to scientific facts accepted even by people who did not do the proofs themselves), I have to defend CW on one point.

When he wrote "7 billion religions", I immediately realized that he meant "because every single person on earth has a slightly different set of reasons to believe, and set of things that they believe". Now, I don't happen to consider that a true statement, even in the way he meant it, but I never took it to mean that there were literally seven billion religions.

CW, you need to realize that you really do sound like the guy in the It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia clip, posted a couple of pages back.

Watching that clip, I laughed out loud when he got to the point where he said, "Have you seen the evidence?"

Because I have. Not only have I seen numerous major elements that demonstrate basic principles of biology, chemistry, and physics, but all of my classes in those subjects were centered not simply around teaching me a list of facts to memorize, but on teaching me how to demonstrate each of the things for myself. Every one of those classes came with a "lab" class, on separate days (usually M/W/F for the class, then Wednesday night or Tu/Th for the labs) in which we literally set up experiments or did other things by which we had to demonstrate the principles we were being taught, and learn the process by which we would demonstrate future ideas/discoveries to other scientists in order to withstand scrutiny. Simply studying the world and making pronouncements about it doesn't make you a scientist; practicing the method Sitasky described a few posts back: "the scientific method of hypothesis, study, testing, observation, modification of hypothesis, theory and peer review" does.

It is THAT process upon which we rely, when we accept things from scientists in fields we don't necessarily have enough of a grasp to demonstrate for ourselves, because that process works the same way in all scientific fields.

It is completely dishonest to sit here and saying we are objecting to the word faith simply because we are atheists. We are objecting because you have utterly misrepresented the entire nature of science, and why we tentatively accept the discoveries of scientists-- with the degree of certainty varying in direct proportion to the degree of proof. Scientists are open about how good their evidence is, on any given subject, because they have to be, or their skeptical peers will rip them apart about it.

Since you "revere" Sagan (to borrow your phrase), perhaps you should listen to him explaining it:

(At 0:25 in the video.)




"Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along."

In other words, science doesn't accept anything because "the authorities in science" say so, and it is dishonest to pretend that it does. Whether or not people are capable of doing the proofs for themselves, anyone who understands what the Scientific Method is also understands that the consensus is not reached based on authority but upon ample demonstration of fact, on testable models of the world which consistently yield identical results no matter who runs the tests, and that they could go and learn how to demonstrate the same things for themselves, or falsify them and win great fame, if they wished to.

I once rejected evolution, due to my upbringing. Then, after losing a friend to a horrible disease and switching to biochemistry as a major, I learned how to prove for myself what the evolutionary biologists were telling us. I learned what you apparently have not: how the Scientific Method works, and why it works. So do I think that the physicists have managed to demonstrate their theories to a high enough degree of certainty that I can accept it without actually doing the proofs, myself?

[Image: giphy.gif]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-11-2016, 10:00 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
Oh, and while I was looking for that video, I stumbled across one of my Favorite Things Ever™, which I hadn't heard in nearly 20 years, since I was in college. Though I'd post it here for fun.

Hit 'em with that funky beat, MC Hawking!




"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 10:20 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 10:00 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Oh, and while I was looking for that video, I stumbled across one of my Favorite Things Ever™, which I hadn't heard in nearly 20 years, since I was in college. Though I'd post it here for fun.

Hit 'em with that funky beat, MC Hawking!




Thanks. That was hilarious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Wanderer's post
18-11-2016, 10:35 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
Right, so the poor Sagan doppelganger is still swinging 20 over par? Laughat

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2016, 12:57 AM (This post was last modified: 19-11-2016 01:01 AM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 09:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  For all my disgust at the continuing equivocation on the meaning of "belief" (when it comes to scientific facts accepted even by people who did not do the proofs themselves), I have to defend CW on one point.

When he wrote "7 billion religions", I immediately realized that he meant "because every single person on earth has a slightly different set of reasons to believe, and set of things that they believe". Now, I don't happen to consider that a true statement, even in the way he meant it, but I never took it to mean that there were literally seven billion religions.

CW, you need to realize that you really do sound like the guy in the It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia clip, posted a couple of pages back.

I can see the similarities yes.

Quote:Watching that clip, I laughed out loud when he got to the point where he said, "Have you seen the evidence?"

Because I have. Not only have I seen numerous major elements that demonstrate basic principles of biology, chemistry, and physics, but all of my classes in those subjects were centered not simply around teaching me a list of facts to memorize, but on teaching me how to demonstrate each of the things for myself. Every one of those classes came with a "lab" class, on separate days (usually M/W/F for the class, then Wednesday night or Tu/Th for the labs) in which we literally set up experiments or did other things by which we had to demonstrate the principles we were being taught, and learn the process by which we would demonstrate future ideas/discoveries to other scientists in order to withstand scrutiny. Simply studying the world and making pronouncements about it doesn't make you a scientist; practicing the method Sitasky described a few posts back: "the scientific method of hypothesis, study, testing, observation, modification of hypothesis, theory and peer review" does.

It is THAT process upon which we rely, when we accept things from scientists in fields we don't necessarily have enough of a grasp to demonstrate for ourselves, because that process works the same way in all scientific fields.

And I'm not doubting the method works, for those who can do it themselves, the rest of us are just along for a joy ride.

Quote:It is completely dishonest to sit here and saying we are objecting to the word faith simply because we are atheists. We are objecting because you have utterly misrepresented the entire nature of science, and why we tentatively accept the discoveries of scientists-- with the degree of certainty varying in direct proportion to the degree of proof. Scientists are open about how good their evidence is, on any given subject, because they have to be, or their skeptical peers will rip them apart about it.

Quote:Since you "revere" Sagan (to borrow your phrase), perhaps you should listen to him explaining it:

(At 0:25 in the video.)




"Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along."

The first part

We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science and technology. And this combustible mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is going to blow up in our faces. Who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it?

Quote:In other words, science doesn't accept anything because "the authorities in science" say so, and it is dishonest to pretend that it does.

The scientific method may not allow for that, but the people at the bottom of the totem pole will accept what the top totem pole says.

You seem to think that I am bastardizing how we understand science, yet what can I have said that Carl Sagan did not? Who questions himself openly the administration of the top echelons of the scientific community?

We take things without proof? That we have 'faith'? A wiser man would sooner admit his own ignorance than to try and come up with some excuse. I admit FULLY that I take things without proof, in this way I fortify myself against my own ignorance because I know my own faults.

I know that the way I've gone about this has not been the most effective way, indeed it seems that many others have tried the same method and got rebuked.

Carl Sagan even goes on about being skeptical of what is true and interrogating those in authority. This applies to science as well as it does for anything else. Though I would say here he is giving an emphasis on science. And he says if we are not able to be skeptical of those in authority that we are essentially perfect victims for manipulations by charlatans. More importantly he specifies that they can be more than just religious charlatans but also political ones.

Which is why I'm here, I'm hoping to find an effective way to convince atheists who revere Richard Dawkins, that he is nothing more than one of these charlatans.

Science today has almost become synonymous with atheism, and indeed many atheists feel strongly towards science and they embrace it because it is the best system we have for coming to know reality.

But science is not solely for atheists, science is for everyone.

Where religion is concerned our mindset should not be 'how to get religious to stop believing in god' our aspiration should be 'how to get the religious to conform with science'. Carl Sagan never tried to disprove god and he was a good margin more successful than Richard Dawkins will ever be at reaching people. When we try to dictate what others should believe in on a spiritual level that is when we will witness our greatest challenge. Because science does not deal in spirituality.

What does Richard Dawkins say we should do though? He says that we should mock religion, and ridicule others openly. And he goes on to say that Islam is the greatest force of evil in the world!

The entire western elites are hell bent right now at uprooting the political environment of the Middle East. This is the political manipulation that Carl Sagan was warning us about, Richard Dawkins is spreading this hatred and bigotry ALL in the name of 'Reason and Science'.

He has no real interest whatsoever in trying to reach the religious to give them the way of thinking that is science. Richard Dawkins was never a thing until the war 'on terror' started.

We're being played right now, because there isn't any communism left in the world, so a new enemy was created to keep us distracted from the real cause of inequity and suffering.

And what Richard Dawkins is doing is an outright travesty by segregating science.

Quote:Whether or not people are capable of doing the proofs for themselves, anyone who understands what the Scientific Method is also understands that the consensus is not reached based on authority but upon ample demonstration of fact, on testable models of the world which consistently yield identical results no matter who runs the tests, and that they could go and learn how to demonstrate the same things for themselves, or falsify them and win great fame, if they wished to.

I once rejected evolution, due to my upbringing. Then, after losing a friend to a horrible disease and switching to biochemistry as a major, I learned how to prove for myself what the evolutionary biologists were telling us. I learned what you apparently have not: how the Scientific Method works, and why it works. So do I think that the physicists have managed to demonstrate their theories to a high enough degree of certainty that I can accept it without actually doing the proofs, myself?

[Image: giphy.gif]

I must ask a very big favor of you, I need you to tell me perhaps once more where I went wrong, what I said to set you and the others off. I tried again and again saying that I wasn't arguing against the scientific method, but it seems this is how all of you have interpreted it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2016, 01:19 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(19-11-2016 12:57 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:In other words, science doesn't accept anything because "the authorities in science" say so, and it is dishonest to pretend that it does.

The scientific method may not allow for that, but the people at the bottom of the totem pole will accept what the top totem pole says.

You seem to think that I am bastardizing how we understand science, yet what can I have said that Carl Sagan did not? Who questions himself openly the administration of the top echelons of the scientific community?

We take things without proof? That we have 'faith'? A wiser man would sooner admit his own ignorance than to try and come up with some excuse. I admit FULLY that I take things without proof, in this way I fortify myself against my own ignorance because I know my own faults.

Because it is not on faith alone. We have evidence. We know what the scientific method is and how it works. We know it's history and it's application. We've seen it discard less accurate and fraudulent finding in the past. We know that it is the best system yet devised to finding the truth about anything.

We know, and can show, all of this. So our belief is well founded and scaled to the evidence. Our belief is dependent upon the evidence, and if someone devises a better or more accurate methodology? Well, if it proves itself to be better and more accurate, then we'll be happy to switch.

It is not blind faith. It is not belief without evidence. It is not absolute certainty. It most certainly is not belief in the face of contradictory evidence. Those are things that religions require, which is why all religions require faith.


So yeah, you can stop equivocating. Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-11-2016, 01:26 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(19-11-2016 01:19 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 12:57 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The scientific method may not allow for that, but the people at the bottom of the totem pole will accept what the top totem pole says.

You seem to think that I am bastardizing how we understand science, yet what can I have said that Carl Sagan did not? Who questions himself openly the administration of the top echelons of the scientific community?

We take things without proof? That we have 'faith'? A wiser man would sooner admit his own ignorance than to try and come up with some excuse. I admit FULLY that I take things without proof, in this way I fortify myself against my own ignorance because I know my own faults.

Because it is not on faith alone. We have evidence. We know what the scientific method is and how it works. We know it's history and it's application. We've seen it discard less accurate and fraudulent finding in the past. We know that it is the best system yet devised to finding the truth about anything.

We know, and can show, all of this. So our belief is well founded and scaled to the evidence. Our belief is dependent upon the evidence, and if someone devises a better or more accurate methodology? Well, if it proves itself to be better and more accurate, then we'll be happy to switch.

It is not blind faith. It is not belief without evidence. It is not absolute certainty. It most certainly is not belief in the face of contradictory evidence. Those are things that religions require, which is why all religions require faith.


So yeah, you can stop equivocating. Dodgy

Okay. I admit I was wrong. I shouldn't have tried using the word faith, and will try my best to make my explanations more clearer in the future and I apologize for using words that could be easily misunderstood.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: