Do Atheists pick on others (Off Topic version)

[TubbyTubby]

if it was sound and founded on evidence then it would be a fact, changing the definition doesnt work with me, a theory is a theory

Not in the scientific world it isn't. It doesn't matter much what you think a scientific theory is, it matters in science because it explains the natural world correctly. The wiki entry is suitable enough to explain;

"A*scientific theory*is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the*scientific method*andrepeatedly tested and confirmed*through*observationand*experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific*knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the*disciplines of science*is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the commonvernacular*usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,*conjecture, or*hypothesis;*such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science (less ambiguously called a "scientific prediction") versus "prediction" in non-scientific vernacular speech, the latter of which may even imply a mere hope."

 

[psalms 91]

Not in the scientific world it isn't. It doesn't matter much what you think a scientific theory is, it matters in science because it explains the natural world correctly. The wiki entry is suitable enough to explain;

"A*scientific theory*is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the*scientific method*andrepeatedly tested and confirmed*through*observationand*experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific*knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the*disciplines of science*is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the commonvernacular*usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,*conjecture, or*hypothesis;*such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science (less ambiguously called a "scientific prediction") versus "prediction" in non-scientific vernacular speech, the latter of which may even imply a mere hope."

OK say I accept this, how many theories in science have been disproved later byu evidence? A few I think. How many teories are there as to how the universe came into existance, they all cant be right can they? Thus why I say a theory is just a theory not backed up by conclusive proof.

 

[TubbyTubby]

OK say I accept this, how many theories in science have been disproved later byu evidence? A few I think. How many teories are there as to how the universe came into existance, they all cant be right can they? Thus why I say a theory is just a theory not backed up by conclusive proof.

Theories can be modified in light of new evidence, yes. I don't see why that is a problem though.

The only theory I know of about the beginnings of the Universe is the expansion theory of the big bang but that only goes back to a finite time after the expansion begins. It doesn't say anything or make predictions about how the Universe came to be.

There are no theories about how the Universe came into existence as far as I'm aware, at least in the scientific sense.

You shouldn't see it as a threat, you have your faith in god creating the world so stick with it. Science really doesn't care about your god, it has no bearing on observations or theories.

 

[TubbyTubby]

How many teories are there as to how the universe came into existance, they all cant be right can they? Thus why I say a theory is just a theory not backed up by conclusive proof.

How many creation accounts by different gods have there been? They can't all be right can they? I say that a creation story is just a story not backed up by conclusive proof.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

if it was sound and founded on evidence then it would be a fact, changing the definition doesnt work with me, a theory is a theory

Something being "sound and founded on evidence" does not make something "fact" in the realm of science. it only makes it more likely than not, based on evidence at hand, that what was observed in a controlled environment can be applied outside that environment.

 

[psalms 91]

Something being "sound and founded on evidence" does not make something "fact" in the realm of science. it only makes it more likely than not, based on evidence at hand, that what was observed in a controlled environment can be applied outside that environment.

In other words they are never sure of anything?

 

[TubbyTubby]

In other words they are never sure of anything?

If it makes you feel better then fine.

Scientific theories are no conspiracy, your distrust is misplaced.

 

[psalms 91]

I dont distrust what is known fact but I do distrust things that keep shifting, the one constant is that there has to be a higher power that created everything.

 

[TubbyTubby]

I dont distrust what is known fact but I do distrust things that keep shifting, the one constant is that there has to be a higher power that created everything.

Maybe in your world, certainly not in the arena of astrophysics. If there's a 'higher power' then it does a very good job of keeping itself hidden. Almost as though it doesn't exist.

It would be quite a discovery if evidence of an omnipotent creator were seen, unfortunately I think you'll have to stick with your faith for that one.

 

[Josiah]

As one with a doctorate in physics, I'm going to stay out of the "does science KNOW" issue...... It's complex, lol.

But I've always found it... well..... silly..... to insist that the supernatural must be proven (another "interesting" word!) by the natural. Silly, by definition. Kind of like saying you are restricted in proving if there's something on Mars by only looking on the Earth. I think by definition, the supernatural is going to be... well.... SUPER natural. If it was natural.... um..... wouldn't it be disqualified as supernatural? If you could prove (oh, I'm smiling at that word) something via the natural, wouldn't you have just proven that it's NOT supernatural?

 

[psalms 91]

Maybe in your world, certainly not in the arena of astrophysics. If there's a 'higher power' then it does a very good job of keeping itself hidden. Almost as though it doesn't exist.

It would be quite a discovery if evidence of an omnipotent creator were seen, unfortunately I think you'll have to stick with your faith for that one.

If there was evidence then it wouldnt be faith

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am glad you are here TubbyTubby

 

[tango]

I think a good summary would be that until evidence suggests otherwise, I dismiss all claims of gods existing which would meet your first part in a roundabout way.

Sure, that's fair enough. It's good to know what it is you believe - it helps nobody to talk to you assuming you believe something if you don't actually believe it at all. I always like to deal with individuals rather than someone who just fits a bunch of preconceived pigeonholes.

Active belief in the non-existence of gods is a bit confusing though, I'm not sure it's relevant to the atheist position? That would just be ' I don't care and I don't think about it'. Which I do.

What might be called a gnostic atheist would be somebody who does hold an active belief that God does not exist. In many ways your position is one that I'd call more agnostic than atheist, although some would call it agnostic atheism. We're talking about the difference between "I don't know, I don't care, I don't think about it much" and "I've considered the evidence and have concluded there is no God". If your stance is fundamentally "I don't really know" it doesn't make any sense to go out and promote it, but for those who have come to a specific decision that there is no God it makes more sense to push their viewpoint.


What sort of evidence would you be looking for to convince you that one or more gods did exist?

 

[tango]

Maybe in your world, certainly not in the arena of astrophysics. If there's a 'higher power' then it does a very good job of keeping itself hidden. Almost as though it doesn't exist.

It would be quite a discovery if evidence of an omnipotent creator were seen, unfortunately I think you'll have to stick with your faith for that one.

A higher power that is inherently supernatural is, pretty much by definition, outside the natural realm. So on that basis I wouldn't expect to be able to see it or measure it.

I know it's a hideously crude analogy but it's a bit like the old children's cartoons about flatlanders and how they couldn't comprehend anything that happened in the third dimension.

 

[TubbyTubby]

What sort of evidence would you be looking for to convince you that one or more gods did exist?

I've no idea really, I'm not even sure that I know what a 'god' is if I'm honest.

If you say that a supernatural being cannot be detected or measured then there will never be evidence.

 

[psalms 91]

nope that is why it is called faith

 

[tango]

I've no idea really, I'm not even sure that I know what a 'god' is if I'm honest.

If you say that a supernatural being cannot be detected or measured then there will never be evidence.

A supernatural being is, pretty much by definition, outside the scope of natural measurement.

If we look at the first four words of the Bible, "In the beginning God" we've pretty much got one key attribute of god right there (I'm using a small g intentionally, to cater for the possibility of a god that isn't the Christian God). In the beginning, god. God was, is, always will be, an eternal being with no beginning and no ending. Either god does exist, or god does not exist. To avoid ambiguity let's allow this term "god" to refer to one or more eternal beings. Either such beings exist, or such beings don't exist. It's one or the other.

The alternative to the Bible (allowing for a more generic definition of god) is "In the beginning not-god". In other words, in the beginning there either was god, or there was nothing. No other options exist. It's not possible to have started with nothing and for god to have come into being because if that were the case god had a beginning and therefore isn't eternal and therefore isn't god.

For me the first step in the walk was to consider those two options and figure which one I found more plausible.

 

[tango]

nope that is why it is called faith

If I might expand on this, it's faith but based on what we can see and what we believe is the case when we fill in the gaps. It's not the kind of blind faith where we roll the dice and the dice tell us which god we follow, it's a kind of faith where we look at what evidence we can see and draw a specific considered conclusion from it.

In a way it's kind of like a court of law where the jury is presented with the evidence and have to decide whether the accused is guilty or not. There will generally not be 100% irrefutable evidence (such cases rarely go to trial). The question is what level of certainty is required to conclude that the evidence points to the guilt of the accused. In the UK the term "beyond reasonable doubt" was used for many years where criminal trials where concerned; for civil trials it was typically "on the balance of probability". The latter is a far easier case to prove - it's one thing to say that it's more likely than not that the accused is guilty but a far higher hurdle to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

Here's a scenario where things may not be as they seem. You find a woman lying the street, dead with multiple stab wounds. Kneeling beside him is a man covered in the dead woman's blood, holding a knife that matches the stab wounds and is also covered in the victim's blood. Is the man holding the knife the killer?

The scenario we'd probably think of first, is that the murderer has been caught more or less in the act. But maybe the man came across the woman being attacked, chased away her attacker and tried to save her. Maybe he's covered in her blood because he was desperately trying to dress her wounds and was planning to use the knife to cut strips of cloth to stem the bleeding. Which is true? Maybe the evidence wouldn't prove to be entirely conclusive either way, so as the juror you have to decide whether the man before you is a ruthless killer or a Good Samaritan desperately trying to save a life.

In the same way where the existence or otherwise of God is concerned you'll almost certainly never see concrete scientific evidence that you can replicate in a lab of your choosing that conclusively proves "God exists" or "God does not exist". But if you put the pieces together I believe the most logical conclusion is that some kind of deity does exist, and from there the next step is to attempt to determine its nature.

 

[TubbyTubby]

A supernatural being is, pretty much by definition, outside the scope of natural measurement.

If we look at the first four words of the Bible, "In the beginning God" we've pretty much got one key attribute of god right there (I'm using a small g intentionally, to cater for the possibility of a god that isn't the Christian God). In the beginning, god. God was, is, always will be, an eternal being with no beginning and no ending. Either god does exist, or god does not exist. To avoid ambiguity let's allow this term "god" to refer to one or more eternal beings. Either such beings exist, or such beings don't exist. It's one or the other.

The alternative to the Bible (allowing for a more generic definition of god) is "In the beginning not-god". In other words, in the beginning there either was god, or there was nothing. No other options exist. It's not possible to have started with nothing and for god to have come into being because if that were the case god had a beginning and therefore isn't eternal and therefore isn't god.

For me the first step in the walk was to consider those two options and figure which one I found more plausible.

If there was an eternal god, why did he decide to create life 6000 years ago after waiting for eternity without creating anything? Did it just get bored all of a sudden?

From a deistic point of view it seems pretty improbable. If you try to fit the Abrahamic god of the bible into the picture it seems even less likely.

 

[TubbyTubby]

The alternative to the Bible (allowing for a more generic definition of god) is "In the beginning not-god". In other words, in the beginning there either was god, or there was nothing. No other options exist. It's not possible to have started with nothing and for god to have come into being because if that were the case god had a beginning and therefore isn't eternal and therefore isn't god.

For me the first step in the walk was to consider those two options and figure which one I found more plausible.

Who says there was nothing? If you propose a supernatural being that existed eternally before anything of the known Universe came to be then where did it exist and what form did it take? Why did it deliver life, and it's message from prophets only to a small outpost of a medium sized galaxy of 100 billion star systems amongst billions of other galaxies after 14 billion years?