Science - What is it? Can it be trusted?

[TheGodBen]

Nor is this?

You mean the article that contains this paragraph?

"Dawkins has said that the title The Root of All Evil? was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy. The sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous."

He almost seems somewhat reasonable.

Wouldn't you be offended if somebody called your atheism a delusion?

Not really, no. But that's largely because the accuser would just be proving my point that they don't really understand atheism by saying such a thing.

How might Dawkins himself feel?

He, his profession and his worldview have been called far, far worse on many occasions and he laughs it off. Example:

[yt]v=-ZuowNcuGsc[/yt]

 

[Amaris]

The burden of proof, however, is on you.

Well, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. The very essence of faith is belief in things NOT seen. I'm sorry that's not enough for you all. But it's the best I can do.

Yet you have a problem when I make a comment that it's all in your mind. What do you want? For me to acknowledge that it's real even though there is no verifiable proof that it is real?

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Well, too late.

Again, your beliefs are so dear to you, that the most mild form of discussion about their validity causes you to react hastily and with offense.

 

[iguana_tonante]

And also, your definition equally applies to him as well. Just because you and he are atheists does not PROVE there is no god, nor does it require me to believe that.

Of course it doesn't prove it. That's the point. I don't think there is a God. I claim to know it. Mine is a rational stance, based on the evidences at hand and my own personal experiences, not a dogmatic belief.

You think there is a God. Good for you. I think there is no God. Good for me. So far, the evidences lean in our favour, but I'll be willing to reconsider my position if presented with overwhelming evidences of the contrary.

Also, since people like me (and Dawkins) get reminded everyday that we will burn in Hell for being an unbeliever, and usually we just laugh it off, I don't think you can lecture people about what it means to be insulted.

Look, guys, I know you don't want people like me in a thread like this, but I can't deny what *I* feel.

You are as welcome as any other in any thread. Personally, the more the merrier. Just don't ask to be treated with kid gloves because just the slightest hint that your beliefs might be wrong offends you.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Also, since people like me (and Dawkins) get reminded everyday that we will burn in Hell for being an unbeliever, and usually we just laugh it off, I don't think you can lecture people about what it means to be insulted.

This may not mean either jack OR shit to you, but I have never told anyone here they would burn in hell, nor would I ever want to. I

*slaps self on face*

uh oh, I almost said "That's not how I roll, dawg". I must be getting old.

 

[Jadzia]

The burden of proof...

I've never liked this expression. It defaults to a denial, and creates a stand-off.

If we're interested in being productive, I think there are better ways of handling conjectures.

There are three states of truth (a trichotomy):

1. X is proven to be true.
2. X is proven to be false.
3. We have no proof either way. We default to admitting that we don't know.

In the context of deities, I think we are all in group 3.

 

[FlyingLemons]

Science is the best way we have of understanding the facts of the natural world. Trying to discern any inherent meaning that it has to you is down to your own philosophical viewpoint, which varies with the individual.

If you try and tell me that say, Christianity, is the universal truth of the universe and that it applies to me as well as you, then I'll view that notion through my own lens, which disagress with that. That's the viewpoint of quite a lot of other people too.

 

[Pingfah]

Why is it not sufficient for religious people just to believe and not worry about what everyone else thinks of it?

We'd sort of like to be able to *continue* to believe, that's why.

In what way is your ability to believe being threatened?

 

[Amaris]

I've never liked this expression. It defaults to a denial, and creates a stand-off.

If we're interested in being productive, I think there are better ways of handling conjectures.

There are three states of truth (a trichotomy):

1. X is proven to be true.
2. X is proven to be false.
3. We have no proof either way. We default to admitting that we don't know.

In the context of deities, I think we are all in group 3.

I agree, but we're being informal in this thread, so I just default to the language I normally use in such situations. I see it as the same when someone says "I can fly, but only when no one is watching." The burden of proof for such a claim falls on that person. It's not adversarial in nature, it's interrogative. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, or insist that something is true when no evidence seems to exist for such a claim, then the burden of proof falls on them to produce it. I could soften it by saying, "How can it be true?" or "What brought you to that conclusion?", but the end result is the same.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If anything, you were the one that broached the subject on Dawkins and your feelings toward his books.

I did not bring up Dawkins, no, but I did give my opinion on him and his writings. Looks like THAT was a mistake.

 

[FlyingLemons]

Why is it not sufficient for religious people just to believe and not worry about what everyone else thinks of it?

We'd sort of like to be able to *continue* to believe, that's why.

In what way is your ability to believe being threatened?

Sometimes "I don't believe in God" can be conflated with "I don't believe in a God, and therefore you shouldn't", perhaps. They're two different notions, but some maintain they're both the same thing.

 

[Amaris]

If anything, you were the one that broached the subject on Dawkins and your feelings toward his books.

I did not bring up Dawkins, no, but I did give my opinion on him and his writings. Looks like THAT was a mistake.

Why is that a mistake? No one here is ridiculing you for your beliefs.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

If anything, you were the one that broached the subject on Dawkins and your feelings toward his books.

I did not bring up Dawkins, no, but I did give my opinion on him and his writings. Looks like THAT was a mistake.

Considering you don't appear to have read any of his books, you are hardly in a position to give your opinion on his writings.

 

[Pingfah]

We'd sort of like to be able to *continue* to believe, that's why.

In what way is your ability to believe being threatened?

Sometimes "I don't believe in God" can be conflated with "I don't believe in a God, and therefore you shouldn't", perhaps. They're two different notions, but some maintain they're both the same thing.

Probably true. But in reality, short of killing you, there's nothing anyone can do to stop you believing anything you want.

 

[TheGodBen]

There are three states of truth (a trichotomy):

1. X is proven to be true.
2. X is proven to be false.
3. We have no proof either way. We default to admitting that we don't know.

In the context of deities, I think we are all in group 3.

In the general context of deities, I agree, we probably should default to group 3 because we can't know that there wasn't some God behind the creation of the universe or the evolution of life on Earth. We shouldn't believe that such a being exists due to the lack of evidence for one, but we shouldn't rule it out entirely.

However, when you get into the specifics you can can claim to know that certain Gods don't exist. For example, I know quite a lot about the Christian God and I would go as far as to say that the God that's described in the Bible does not exist as it is a contradiction in terms. I'm not going to randomly attack Christians for believing in that God, but I'm also not going to say that there's a possibility such a God exists when there's not.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Sometimes "I don't believe in God" can be conflated with "I don't believe in a God, and therefore you shouldn't", perhaps. They're two different notions, but some maintain they're both the same thing.

Quite.

Just how it's two different things to say "I believe in God" versus "I believe in God, and therefore you must". I am not expressing the latter of those two points.

I did not bring up Dawkins, no, but I did give my opinion on him and his writings. Looks like THAT was a mistake.

Why is that a mistake? No one here is ridiculing you for your beliefs.

Looks like we're operating on different definitions of words like "hallucination", then...

 

[Amaris]

Looks like we're operating on different definitions of words like "hallucination", then...

We apparently are. I go by the dictionary definition of the word.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But in reality, short of killing you, there's nothing anyone can do to stop you believing anything you want.

And even then, it won't work.

 

[Pingfah]

Sometimes "I don't believe in God" can be conflated with "I don't believe in a God, and therefore you shouldn't", perhaps. They're two different notions, but some maintain they're both the same thing.

Quite.

So you are saying you conflate these two points yourself?

Either way, how does an atheist saying you shouldn't believe in god prevent you from doing so? And on what planet does Richard Dawkins have this amazing power to force you not to believe?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Get enough of them together, and then it becomes a problem...

Looks like we're operating on different definitions of words like "hallucination", then...

We apparently are. I go by the dictionary definition of the word.

Ah yes, the definition like this?

1.
a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
2.
the sensation caused by a hallucinatory condition or the object or scene visualized.
3.
a false notion, belief, or impression; illusion; delusion.

 

[iguana_tonante]

We'd sort of like to be able to *continue* to believe, that's why.

Drop the persecution complex. Leave it to people who are actually under threats and attacks for their own beliefs (or lack of them), which are unfortunately already too many in the world. Crying persecution when there is none, only cheapens the dangers they are facing.