Am 19.01.2014 09:29, schrieb Warp:

> It seems to be a lost battle to try to explain to people that "atheism"
> is not a movement, a world view, a set of dogmas, or anything, really.
...
> I'd even go so far as to say that theism isn't a world view either,
> and for the exact same reason: It deals with the same question and does
> not imply anything else beyond that.

While you have a point there, you're wrong in your conclusion.

Theism /is/ a world view: The view that there is a supreme being (or a 
multitude thereof); and this assumption /is/ typically held as a dogma.

Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/ 
supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as well.


If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being 
is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the 
existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we 
simply can't know for sure.

Such a person may still lean towards theism or atheism - believing in 
the existence or absence of a supreme being based on "gut feeling" - but 
either way they won't carry this belief as a dogma.


It should be noted that in common parlance the atheist and agnostic 
views are often poorly distinguished, with both being labeled as "atheist".

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 14:33, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the study of
>>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>>
>> Erm... no, not really.
>>
>> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
>> manner that allows for reliable predictions.
>
> Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)

Cross-examination, your honor.

Mr. Quantum dynamics, did you, or did you not, as early as 1924-25, lead 
Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein to the prediction of a 
previously unknown state of matter, now known as Bose-Einstein-concensate?

Mr. Quantum dynamics, has this Bose-Einstein-concensate, or has it not, 
been proposed by Fritz London in 1938 as an explanation for both 
superfluidity in Helium as well as superconductivity?

Mr. Quantum dynamics, has this Bose-Einstein-concensate, or has it not, 
been confirmed experimentally, no sooner than 1995, 70 years after it 
was first predicted?

No further questions, your honor.


> Your definition makes it sound like knowledge is only science if it has
> immediate real-world applications. Which isn't the case.

No, that's what Warp's definition invokes. Prediction is a 
/prerequisite/ for real-world application, but it can well come without.


> A useful example is String Theory. It's very sciency, it has lots of
> impressive-looking equations, it's a highly active area of research...
> but it's not science. It hasn't made a single *testable* prediction yet.

See? You're invoking the "prediction" thing yourself here. And as for 
the "reliable", I think that's pretty much congruent to "testable".

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Theism /is/ a world view: The view that there is a supreme being (or a 
> multitude thereof); and this assumption /is/ typically held as a dogma.

> Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/ 
> supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as well.

> If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being 
> is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the 
> existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we 
> simply can't know for sure.

You are making the typical category error that so many people make.

Many people think that we have a wide spectrum of belief, with theism
and atheism being on the extremes and agnosticism being right in the
middle. However, that's not what the concepts mean at all.

Theism/atheism is a true dichotomy that deals with one question: Do you
believe in the existence of a god?

Gnosticism/agnosticism is a philosophical view on knowledge. The gnostic
view is that absolute knowledge is possible and obtainable, while the
agnostic view is that it is not.

These two things are independent and not mutually exclusive. All four
combinations are possible and sensible:

A gnostic theist is one who is certain of the knowledge that a god exists
(or, at the very least, thinks it's possible to know it for certain.)

An agnostic theist is one who believes in the existence of a god, but
doesn't believe complete certainty is possible.

A gnostic atheist is one who does not believe in a god and is certain of
it (or believes it's possible to acquire the knowledge of this.) This is
more or less what "strong atheism" means.

An agnostic atheist is one who does not have a belief in gods but doesn't
assert it with certainty.

People who classify themselves as "agnostics" are atheists by definition.
That's because they would not say "I believe a god exists."

The common claim "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is an oxymoron.
It's like saying "I'm not European, I'm Finnish."

The term "atheism" in common parlance carries with itself a ton of baggage
that it shouldn't really have. People immediately think of *strong* atheism
(even though the word doesn't carry that implication), in addition to all
kinds of other views, such as naturalism, skepticism, anti-religious
sentiments and so on.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 6:10 AM, clipka wrote:
>> God may
>> actually exist - but since it is impossible to prove or disprove this,
>> the question is outside the remit of science.
>
> Fully agree on that one.
>
> In my above definition of science however, it's not because we can't
> prove or disprove his/her/their existence, but because that matter
> doesn't get us anywhere in our predictions. (There's even a lot of
> scripture on this matter.)
>
I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable 
something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is 
invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always, 
later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the 
time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of 
the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc., 
and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes. 
The problem for the people believing in that version, while claiming, 
when cornered, that its the other vague one they really believe in, is 
that people *do* test those claims, including even some religious 
believers (like the whole prayers in hospitals fiasco), and the "god" 
involved spectacularly fails them.

So, no. The one people actually follow, actual practice their religion 
at, and actually believe in, when not trying to wiggle out of it, "is" 
testable using the scientific method. Its just the ones that don't, 
don't appear to, or don't currently, do anything, at all, that are 
"untestable". And, no one actually follows those.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 6:33 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the study of
>>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>>
>> Erm... no, not really.
>>
>> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
>> manner that allows for reliable predictions.
>
> Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)
>
I suppose, it depends on how many decimal places you are talking about. 
Even stuff in quantum mechanics is still "predictable", as long as you 
know the initiating state well enough, with some level of certainty, 
even if.. the only certainty you have is that your test apparatus won't 
suddenly turn into a lemon custard (and, usually, its more like there 
being a x% chance that you will get A result, instead of B). 
Creationism, and other "Biblical" claims... all bets are off. After all, 
god might decide you "need" a lemon custard.


-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 10:13 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/19/2014 6:33 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the
>>>> study of
>>>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>>>
>>> Erm... no, not really.
>>>
>>> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
>>> manner that allows for reliable predictions.
>>
>> Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)
>>
> I suppose, it depends on how many decimal places you are talking about.
> Even stuff in quantum mechanics is still "predictable", as long as you
> know the initiating state well enough, with some level of certainty,
> even if.. the only certainty you have is that your test apparatus won't
> suddenly turn into a lemon custard (and, usually, its more like there
> being a x% chance that you will get A result, instead of B).
> Creationism, and other "Biblical" claims... all bets are off. After all,
> god might decide you "need" a lemon custard.
>
>
Uh, misread that slightly, and yeah, finding the 
Bose-Einstein-concensate kind of clinches things.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 16:57, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Theism /is/ a world view: The view that there is a supreme being (or a
>> multitude thereof); and this assumption /is/ typically held as a dogma.
>
>> Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/
>> supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as well.
>
>> If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being
>> is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the
>> existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we
>> simply can't know for sure.
>
> You are making the typical category error that so many people make.

Am I?

You failed to quote the following paragraph:

"Such a person may still lean towards theism or atheism - believing in 
the existence or absence of a supreme being based on 'gut feeling' - but 
either way they won't carry this belief as a dogma."


> Gnosticism/agnosticism is a philosophical view on knowledge. The gnostic
> view is that absolute knowledge is possible and obtainable, while the
> agnostic view is that it is not.

Be aware that the term gnosticism does /not/ denote the opposite view of 
agnosticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism


> A gnostic theist is one who is certain of the knowledge that a god exists
> (or, at the very least, thinks it's possible to know it for certain.)
>
> An agnostic theist is one who believes in the existence of a god, but
> doesn't believe complete certainty is possible.
>
> A gnostic atheist is one who does not believe in a god and is certain of
> it (or believes it's possible to acquire the knowledge of this.) This is
> more or less what "strong atheism" means.
>
> An agnostic atheist is one who does not have a belief in gods but doesn't
> assert it with certainty.
>
> People who classify themselves as "agnostics" are atheists by definition.
> That's because they would not say "I believe a god exists."

Are they?

I personally do believe in the existence of a supreme something - and at 
the same time I do believe that "the only entirely rational stance 
towards a supreme being is that of an /agnostic/", so it may come to you 
as no big surprise that I would classify myself as an agnostic.

Though, to be more precise, I should indeed not call myself an agnostic, 
but rather a "meta-agnostic": Not only do I lean towards the agnostic 
stance that the existence or non-existence cannot be known for sure - I 
also lean towards the belief that we cannot even known for sure whether 
the agnostic stance in its strict sense is true. In other words, I 
suspect (but yet don't know for sure) that we cannot know whether we can 
know whether there is a supreme entity.

Or, to use the words of that famous Reborn Christian mantra: "I don't 
know whether we can know whether we can know..."


Also note that non-agnosticism only comes in the flavors of theism and 
atheism, while agnosticism does come in all shades of grey - theists, 
atheists, people who aren't sure but tend towards one or the other, 
people who have no idea and are still trying to figure out - and people 
who don't bother because they believe that it has no practical 
implication anyway.


> The common claim "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is an oxymoron.
> It's like saying "I'm not European, I'm Finnish."

That's nonsense, because all Finnish are European, but not all agnostics 
are atheists.

The claim is usually made in the sense, "I'm not an atheist, I'm 
[merely] an agnostic [theist or somewhere in between theist and atheist]"

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 18:09, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable
> something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is
> invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always,
> later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the
> time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of
> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc.,
> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes.

No, it doesn't - because the Bible /explicitly/ denies this testability, 
saying we can't / shall not put God to the test. (And then there's 
plenty of scripture that can be interpreted to implicitly affirm this.)

> The problem for the people believing in that version, while claiming,
> when cornered, that its the other vague one they really believe in, is
> that people *do* test those claims, including even some religious
> believers (like the whole prayers in hospitals fiasco), and the "god"
> involved spectacularly fails them.

... in which case they invoke - guess what - that we cannot put God to 
the test, and they may even reinterpret the "data" to confirm this 
aspect of God, rather than the one they intended to test for in the 
first place.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:09:12 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Nothing I can say will *ever* change his mind.  Hence, no point in
>> debating with him about it.  He's never going to see the reality of the
>> situation, because it contradicts his deeply held belief that the bible
>> is never wrong.  In his mind, the only way he agrees is if I agree with
>> him that everything I know to be factual is wrong.
> 
> This wouldn't be so bad if they just kept to themselves with their world
> view. After all, everybody's free to believe whatever they want.

Yep.  I'm find with people believing things I consider to be crazy, so 
long as they don't use that belief to influence the world around them in 
a negative way.

So I'm find with young earth creationists believing the earth is 6000 
years old and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted - until they get 
elected to positions in the Texas Board of Education and use that belief 
to push this nonsense into public schools around the country and have it 
taught as a "fact."

> I once had a long email conversation with a young-earth creationist
> about the subject of honesty, and why most creationist arguments and
> tactics are not. For example, I tried to explain to him why quote-mining
> is a really dishonest tactic.

That's actually a very interesting point.  Context matters, and usually 
people like my brother's friend "F" does just that to try to make his 
point.  He also tries to use latin phrases he's heard (he goes on and on 
about how "ex nihilo" is impossible and only explainable by the 
introduction of *his* God - not even "just any deity," but explicitly the 
one he believes in) to convince people who are less educated that he 
knows what he's talking about.  Quite a dishonest tactic.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0500, Warp wrote:

> A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind

"BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!" (From a video rebutting 
Hovind's dismissal of radiocarbon dating as unreliable - a dismissal 
based on an inability to use radiocarbon dating on objects that - you 
guessed it - have no carbon in them.)

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message