Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheistic Beliefs?

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Svenolsen wrote: »
    The onus should be on the people who "believe" to prove what they claim.

    If I believe that my cat "Fluffy" created the whole Universe it is up to me to show what evidence is there to back up my claim.

    Atheists are portrayed as "oddballs" by believers.

    All the evidence indicates that it is the believers who are the oddballs..
    .

    I cant see anyone portraying atheists as oddballs -just saying that your scientific proof thing wants everything in a nice neat scientific theory of everything- and it doesnt work like that.

    IMHO - I think you have an unhealthy respect for your cat.


  • Options
    #153
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    CDfm wrote: »
    ....a nice neat scientific theory of everything- and it doesnt work like that...

    What doesn't?


  • Options
    #154
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,258 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    CDfm wrote: »
    Occams razor would suggest the easiest answer you have is the correct one -so if you take that logic you discount ingenuity or thinking outside the box.
    I doubt that Occam's Razor suggests that "you discount ingenuity or thinking outside the box." I thought that what Occam was really addressing were the necessary and sufficient conditions to produce an effect; i.e., in a cause-and-effect relationship? Conditions that were not necessary to produce the effect were considered spurious, and should be eliminated from consideration.

    In terms of this thread, Occam's Razor fits well with the scientific method, as well as with theory construction. I tend to believe (or accept, if you have a problem with the use of the word believe) that Occam's Razor is a useful paradigm when attempting to examine the world we live in, or nature, or the universe (or whatever you want to call phenomena we are attempting to explain and understand).
    CDfm wrote: »
    just saying that your scientific proof thing wants everything in a nice neat scientific theory of everything- and it doesnt work like that.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of science (based on the scientific method) never proves anything (you used "proof"), but only suggests something with caution in light of existing theory, measurement, analysis, and the continued replication of results (all within acceptable limits for potential error).


  • Options
    #155
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    I doubt that Occam's Razor suggests that "you discount ingenuity or thinking outside the box." I thought that what Occam was really addressing were the necessary and sufficient conditions to produce an effect; i.e., in a cause-and-effect relationship? Conditions that were not necessary to produce the effect were considered spurious, and should be eliminated from consideration.

    In terms of this thread, Occam's Razor fits well with the scientific method, as well as with theory construction. I tend to believe (or accept, if you have a problem with the use of the word believe) that Occam's Razor is a useful paradigm when attempting to examine the world we live in, or nature, or the universe (or whatever you want to call phenomena we are attempting to explain and understand).

    Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of science (based on the scientific method) never proves anything (you used "proof"), but only suggests with caution in light of existing theory, measurement, analysis, and the continued replication of results (all within acceptable limits for potential error).
    Occams razor as a theory is much abused.

    Its like a poster saying black holes exist because I can produce X effect in laboratory conditions as proof black holes exist - I have only proven what I can create in a lab. As an economist I can understand theories in a "perfect" conditions and the need to make assumptions. So in specific scientific experiments it is valid to use Occams Razor and its logic - you are reading far too wide to quote Occams Razor to justify an Anti-God Bias.Simply say its an Anti-God bias.


  • Options
    #156
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,258 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    CDfm wrote: »
    Occams razor as a theory is much abused.
    Not sure I could classify Occam's Razor as a theory, per se. Something a bit less comprehensive, but never the less useful. A paradigm or model to be used with the scientific method, or as one of many guides in theory construction? In another domain, Thomas Merton addressed this in terms of levels of theoretical complexity and comprehensiveness when he discussed theories of the middle range (although I would not consider Occam's Razor even at the level of a middle range theory per Merton...something less).
    CDfm wrote: »
    you are reading far too wide to quote Occams Razor to justify an Anti-God Bias.
    Where have I specifically quoted "Occam's Razor to justify an Anti-God Bias?" Link? You must be confusing me with someone else?

    Once again your use the word "proof" in your post, which I do not believe they do in science. Perhaps in law or logic or math, but I do not recall it being used appropriately in science. My understanding of the language appropriate to scientific research informed by the scientific method is that results suggest conclusions and do not attempt to "prove" anything, and those results are held with caution.

    **Where is Jeremiah 16:1 the chemist? He knows this stuff better than I!**


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    Occams razor would suggest the easiest answer you have is the correct one

    Did you actually read PH post?

    Because he just explained why it doesn't suggest that.


  • Options
    #158
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    A paradigm and model are the same. Occams razor is more about logically ntesting things in Lab conditions.Its not really for complex models in an open system.

    Creating a black hole model inm a lab just confirms a theory that bcan be created in a lab. It doesnt actually tell us anything or prove it.


  • Options
    #159
    UU
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭UU


    Just because you don't believe in god/gods and follow religion doesn't mean you don't believe in anything, that is you don't have any values in your life. The reality is the only value of your life if the value you assign to certain things. We define our own existence through our choices we are faced with everyday. If there is something i believe in it is precisely that, the whole concept of existentialist thought. Some of the greatest philosophers were atheist or at least sceptical. I think having this freedom knowing that there is no god and that we are responsible for our lives is an enlightening experience but it also very anguishing. Even if a god did exist, it still wouldn't alter the fact that we are here and we still have to do what we do. Atheists have values in their lives just like religious do. Many might feel strongly for the environment or politics or philosophy or ethics, whatever. Even for many people's lives, religion only plays a small part and we value many different things.


  • Options
    #160
    eoin5
    Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    cavedave wrote: »
    It is naive to think that atheists do not take anything on faith. I have all sorts of biases and odd beliefs most of which are such a part of my thinking i don't even realise they exist.

    Taleb here says

    "To me, anybody who invested in the stock market who is critical of religion is a hypocrite".

    Its in the signature. Faith is a part of what we do and its a nice thing to show, I dont know where we would get without some trust each other. Unfortunately though some think that faith is an undeniable virtue and use it as a way around thinking about anything. This kind of stubborn dogmatic crap is whats messing things up for the rest of us.


  • Options
    #161
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,258 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    UU wrote: »
    Just because you don't believe in god/gods and follow religion doesn't mean you don't believe in anything,
    The OP restated, and the purpose of this thread. What do persons that claim to be atheists believe (or accept without direct experience to confirm what they accept)?
    CDfm wrote: »
    A paradigm and model are the same.
    Agree. Often we restate things in order to provide greater clarity when addressing the vastly diverse audience found in a public forum.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Occams razor is more about logically ntesting things in Lab conditions.Its not really for complex models in an open system.
    It certainly has use for lab, but many researchers would not agree to your limiting of this model to controlled lab experiments or closed system applications. One example (although there are many others for other research domains) would be survey research, which attempts to measure some phenomena in a population, when they go beyond description, test hypotheses, and do inferences using parametric statistical models for data analysis, estimating population parameters, or projecting future contexts, conditions, behaviours, etc., all within acceptable confidence levels and confidence intervals, and with appropriate cautions. These researches are typically open system, often complex, and you will often find Occum's Razor cited and used within their research designs, especially if they are theory testing or theory building.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Creating a black hole model inm a lab just confirms a theory that bcan be created in a lab. It doesnt actually tell us anything or prove it.
    For the 3rd time in this thread, my understanding of the scientific method is that it does not "prove" anything, only suggests with caution.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Authorize
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭Authorize


    UU wrote: »
    Just because you don't believe in god/gods and follow religion doesn't mean you don't believe in anything, that is you don't have any values in your life. The reality is the only value of your life if the value you assign to certain things.

    I agree. I just don't get why people feel the need to change others' beliefs. I don't go around asking people to not believe in god.


  • Options
    #163
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    Occams razor is more about logically ntesting things in Lab conditions.

    No it is not. Occam's Razor is about humans not introducing unnecessary assumptions when attempting to explain something.

    It can be used in a lab, it can be used outside of a lab, it doesn't matter.


  • Options
    #164
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    CDfm wrote: »
    Occams razor as a theory is much abused.

    Ya you do it all the time.


Advertisement