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

Question for Athiests and church bashers

Options
1…151617181921»

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    Facts dont change, thats why they are called facts.
    Ok, theory. :p


  • Options
    #603
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    pagancornflake wrote: »
    And scientifically verifiable interpretations are lovely to have; but they don't fully constitute evidence imo.

    Is it reasonable to look at fossils of sea creatures on the top of mountains and hypothesize that these mountains were once a sea bed?

    Other paleontologists in other continents could verify that it was not a hoax or some pre-historic tribe that liked to collect fossils from the coast and secrete them on mountain tops - would that not be evidence for the hypothesis that mountain tops can be ancient sea beds?

    Genuine question.


  • Options
    #604
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    That's a very strange statement. If something is scientifically verifiable then it must have been proven beyond reasonable doubt otherwise it wouldn't be scientifically verifiable.

    It depends what that something is. A system can be scientifically verified for coherence and still give skewed conclusions, or be extended beyond its rightful scope.

    "Reasonable doubt" is a pain in the a$$


  • Options
    #605
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Your original point,
    Is completely invalid in this instance

    No, it isn't. I've already explained why it isn't.
    Seachmall wrote: »
    and so there's no basis in arguing with willful ignorance.

    I agree. Come back with an argument and stop the baseless declaratives, or don't come back at all.
    Seachmall wrote: »
    Either read the linked studies on the hypothesis or don't.

    As I said, I prefer to deal with limits and bases, rather than trawling through potentially irrelevant data.


  • Options
    #606
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Is it reasonable to look at fossils of sea creatures on the top of mountains and hypothesize that these mountains were once a sea bed?

    Other paleontologists in other continents could verify that it was not a hoax or some pre-historic tribe that liked to collect fossils from the coast and secrete them on mountain tops - would that not be evidence for the hypothesis that mountain tops can be ancient sea beds?

    Genuine question.

    Yup


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    Facts dont change, thats why they are called facts.

    They do actually. "Fact" merely corresponds to the status of something as objective. The conception or understanding of its nature can easily change over time


  • Options
    #608
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    pagancornflake wrote: »
    No, it isn't. I've already explained why it isn't.
    No, you didn't.
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    Yep, as I said, the people reading the information formulate the hypothesis to frame a correlation.

    You are incorrect.

    It is a baseless assumption.

    Had you any interest in reading the paper you would understand the origin of the hypothesis, the predictions it made and reasoning for such predictions. As well as the findings that support the hypothesis.

    You are EXPLICITLY refusing to even try and understand it to identify a flaw. Instead you're using a generic, and baseless, one with no relevance to what is being discussed.


  • Options
    #609
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Ok, theory. :p

    Theory's are so well established that it takes mountains to move them. what you're thinking about is hypothesis.


  • Options
    #610
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It's unreasonable to believe in a God, simple as that, your "feeling in your heart" is just a notion that has been planted in your head.

    The issue is arguing with people that believe in God, they're belief is unreasonable, so reasoning with them is pretty impossible and pretty futile.

    However, hope is not lost as education and knowledge become more widespread, religion becomes less so.


  • Options
    #611
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    Seachmall wrote: »
    No, you didn't.

    Yeah, I did; here it is again in case you missed it:
    raw data has no object to prove or disprove entailed by it from first principles. This is done by a hypothesis which defines an objective and a common metric.

    I said that many posts ago and you've offered no rebuttal. Point carries.
    Seachmall wrote: »
    It is a baseless assumption.

    What is?
    Seachmall wrote: »
    Had you any interest in reading the paper you would understand the origin of the hypothesis, the predictions it made and reasoning for such predictions.

    I already am; I've studied the internal logic of empiricism and its concomitants extensively. I've given my thoughts, justified them, and you've offered no rebuttal. My points carry.

    Seachmall wrote: »
    You are EXPLICITLY refusing to even try and understand it to identify a flaw. Instead you're using a generic, and baseless, one with no relevance to what is being discussed.

    Baseless platitude - disregarded


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    RichieC wrote: »
    Theory's are so well established that it takes mountains to move them. what you're thinking about is hypothesis.

    This is a good representation of the actual case. Thousands of years of study, collection and interpretation have formulated coherent sets of theories that correspond to the actual states of nature so accurately that it takes a huge shift in understanding to eliminate the coherence and motivate a shift to a new set.


  • Options
    #613
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    RichieC wrote: »
    Theory's are so well established that it takes mountains to move them. what you're thinking about is hypothesis.
    Can you not have a theory on anything? Even if it is crazy.


  • Options
    #614
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Can you not have a theory on anything? Even if it is crazy.

    in real life, yes, in science, no.


  • Options
    #615
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    pagancornflake wrote: »
    Yeah, I did; here it is again in case you missed it:
    raw data has no object to prove or disprove entailed by it from first principles. This is done by a hypothesis which defines an objective and a common metric.
    The hypothesis was not formulated to "frame a correlation." It is derived from the Savanna Principle and the Evolution of Intelligence theories.

    The hypothesis poses predictions, the statistics confirm them.


  • Options
    #616
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    Seachmall wrote: »
    The hypothesis was not formulated to "frame a correlation." It is derived from the Savanna Principle and the Evolution of Intelligence theories.

    The Savanna principle? Are you kidding me? No-one follows a linear-triune brain theory, your understanding of the projection of scientific processes was inconsistent as long ago as the late 70's.
    Seachmall wrote: »
    The hypothesis poses predictions, the statistics confirm them.

    The framing of a correlation subsists in the category of posed predictions.

    Statistics are required to both form a hypothesis, and are needed in a specified area to confirm them.


  • Options
    #617
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    Seachmall wrote: »
    The hypothesis was not formulated to "frame a correlation." It is derived from the Savanna Principle and the Evolution of Intelligence theories.

    The hypothesis poses predictions, the statistics confirm them.

    This response also does nothing whatsoever to deal with the point that you quoted. You don;t even make reference to it. You are quoting a phrase I used in another post


  • Options
    #618
    theillest
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭theillest


    My grandparents were so religious because of how the Cathlioc church kept all of Ireland ignorant until the internet came around really. Once an abundance of information because availble to the masses people stopped going to church,saying prayers etc....I reckon the bible is a guide for living,not something to worship.


  • Options
    #619
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    I'm going to have to concede. I clearly don't know enough about the topic to continue.

    Apologies to any heated remarks.

    gg

    Also, the Savanna Principle is referring to it's use in Evolutionary Psychology, i.e. Mismatch or Evolutionary Legacy.

    I'm still not entirely sure what you're arguing.

    Are you suggesting it is invalid as a hypothesis or incorrect to suggest it is more than a hypothesis? (Earlier posts imply the latter, later posts imply the former).


  • Options
    #620
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    RichieC wrote: »
    in real life, yes, in science, no.
    Does Science not represent real life? Everything we do involves science to some degree.


  • Options
    #621
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Does Science not represent real life? Everything we do involves science to some degree.

    The Scientific definition for a theory is different from the casual use.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    Caulego
    Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭Caulego


    robp wrote: »
    Really.. Fact Huh? can you back that up?

    You attempt to describe a innate tendancy for belief systems..not religions per see. yet belief systems describes atheistism quite succintly. It can be just as self serving as any deistist based ideaology.

    There is an enormous amount of misplaced smugness by atheists on this thread.

    But I'm not an atheist, as I don't believe in the non-existence of deities any more than I belive in the non-existence of a galaxy full of electric rabbits. There are many word games played with the label of 'atheist', just like 'religious' and 'believer'.

    I have no evidence to show that deities exist, and much indication of lack of evidence to very strongly suggest that they don't, so until I know the affirmative, by direct proofs, then I have no need to consider the issue at all.
    Beliefs are basically ideas based on mental and emotional impressions, and all beliefs are opinions based on the inability to confirm what is merely thought or expressed as fact.
    A belief may turn out to be true, but it's not the believing that it is true that makes it true, as it is true by way of its factual existence anyway. For that reason, I keep away from making evaluations based on believed-in ideas, as they are not a reliable method of determining truths/facts. I find that's a pretty good way to avoid 'smugness', which is a form of notional superiority anyway.


  • Options
    #623
    Caulego
    Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭Caulego


    Seachmall wrote: »
    The Scientific definition for a theory is different from the casual use.


    Theories...different types link link

    Scientific theories are essentially accepted sets of judgements that can be tested and repeated without giving rise to contradictory results i.e. they are dependable. The may be modified to some degree in certain circumstances where the variables change, but still retain the intrinsic values of the primary theory itself.

    Airy-fairy 'theories', on the other hand, are just speculations or beliefs.


  • Options
    #624
    Caulego
    Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭Caulego


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Scientific facts change all the time with new information. I thought that was the beauty of science.

    Well, facts themselves don't change, only the way we perceive them, according to further reasoned study.
    We may improve upon our understanding of the facts of a thing, but the original thing doesn't change itself, as the truth of it is constant at all times, regardless of what we might wish to think.


  • Options
    #625
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Does Science not represent real life? Everything we do involves science to some degree.

    Come off it Keith, you're incredibly disingenuous.


  • Options
    #626
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Does Science not represent real life? Everything we do involves science to some degree.
    Religion?


  • Options
    #627
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,242 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Does Science not represent real life? Everything we do involves science to some degree.

    If everything everyone did involved the scientific method to some degree I seriously doubt there'd be so much "do you believe in the paranormal?" threads in AH :D


Advertisement