Why does science work?

ughaibu · **#281** by **ughaibu** » Dec 23, 2015 3:04 am

Macdoc wrote:
Atheism is the stance that there are no gods
rather there is no evidence for gods

There is no inconsistency in holding that there is at least one god but that there is no evidence for any god. So, either atheism is not the stance that "there is no evidence for gods" or there can be an atheist who is a theist. No atheist is a theist, so atheism is not just the stance, or even the "positive claim", that "there is no evidence for gods".

Macdoc · **#282** by **Macdoc** » Dec 23, 2015 3:06 am

Bullshit.,...more philobabble...

there is no evidence .....for any diety, tooth fairy call it whatever the fuck you want .....science works because it correctly puts shite like that on ignore.

ughaibu · **#283** by **ughaibu** » Dec 23, 2015 3:07 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Just because some dickhead idiot at Stanford does not know what atheism is. . .

HIFUCKINGLARIOUS!!

Macdoc · **#284** by **Macdoc** » Dec 23, 2015 3:09 am

reads like a term paper for Philo 101.
You are another that thinks sentence contruct proves anything about the world. Masturbation is all it is.

ughaibu · **#285** by **ughaibu** » Dec 23, 2015 3:12 am

Macdoc wrote:Bullshit.,...more philobabble...

Haven't you noticed that you're posting in a forum for philosophical discussion?

ughaibu wrote:There is no inconsistency in holding that there is at least one god but that there is no evidence for any god. So, either atheism is not the stance that "there is no evidence for gods" or there can be an atheist who is a theist. No atheist is a theist, so atheism is not just the stance, or even the "positive claim", that "there is no evidence for gods".

And this is about as simple as arguments get. If you can't get your head around it, tough shit.

Darwinsbulldog · **#286** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Dec 23, 2015 3:14 am

ughaibu wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:Just because some dickhead idiot at Stanford does not know what atheism is. . .
HIFUCKINGLARIOUS!!

I can't help it if some morons compiling a dictionary at Stanford U don't know their Greek and Latin roots to the English language. What pisses me off about you is that you don't read critically, and insult people for your lack of understanding. Grow up.

ughaibu · **#287** by **ughaibu** » Dec 23, 2015 3:24 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I can't help it if some morons compiling a dictionary at Stanford U don't know their Greek and Latin roots to the English language.

"The assumption that the present day meaning of a word should be/is similar to the historical meaning. This fallacy ignores the evolution of language and heart of linguistics. This fallacy is usually committed when one finds the historical meaning of a word more palatable or conducive to his or her argument."

Darwinsbulldog wrote:insult people for your lack of understanding

Now this is incoherent gobbledegook, whether it's "trolling" or not, I leave for others to judge.

Boyle · **#288** by **Boyle** » Dec 23, 2015 4:31 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Boyle wrote:
ScholasticSpastic wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
As an aside, what about science's most embarrassing fuck ups? Was it how-questions that were behind them?

Science doesn't fuck up. Scientists fuck up. I suppose the same could be said of philosophy, so I am happy to retroactively apply that qualification as well.

I'd say the school of natural science, and science, that came from philosophy is due entirely to "Why" questions.

While philosophy is certainly the birthplace of science and the scientific method that does not mean or demonstrate that 'why' questions were the pivotal connection.
Especially not since 'why' questions beg a teleological question as Animavore pointed out above.

Let's accept that for a moment: How did philosophy give rise to natural science without asking "Why?"

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Boyle wrote:The way we go about utilizing falsification is due to philosophy asking "Why?"

Care to demonstrate that?

Sure: Why should we trust induction? I suppose we could also just ask "Is induction trustworthy?", but I'm not sure I see a distinction between those two questions.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Boyle wrote: Philosophy asking "Why" is the entire reason atheism can be defended considering atheism is a philosophical position sometimes based upon lack of evidence or, in many cases, emotional distress in a person's life.

Utter nonsense.
First of all atheism isn't a positive claim and as such doesn't require a defence in the first place.
It's the status quo, it's theism that needs defending and that begs the question that 'why' is a valid question to ask in relation to the universe and existence itself.
I've been an atheist all my life, it has nothing to do with any emotional stress or any why questions.

Wait, why doesn't atheism require a defense? Says who? You? Why does something being status quo or not determine whether it requires defending?

Darwinsbulldog · **#289** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Dec 23, 2015 6:54 am

ughaibu wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:I can't help it if some morons compiling a dictionary at Stanford U don't know their Greek and Latin roots to the English language.
"The assumption that the present day meaning of a word should be/is similar to the historical meaning. This fallacy ignores the evolution of language and heart of linguistics. This fallacy is usually committed when one finds the historical meaning of a word more palatable or conducive to his or her argument."
Darwinsbulldog wrote:insult people for your lack of understanding
Now this is incoherent gobbledegook, whether it's "trolling" or not, I leave for others to judge.

No, it is about the facts. I don't care if people believe atheists are something they are not because they take a religious magic fairy seriously. Theists are often not particularly renowned for their grasp of reality. In fact this situation is so bad is some countries you can be beheaded for not believing in a sky fairy, or even the "right" sky fairy.
Atheism is not like the denial of an amputee that he has lost a limb. Atheism is, by fucking definition, a lack of belief in gods.
Gnosticism or agnosticism is a statement about claims to knowledge, in this case, about gods.
There is NO credible evidence for gods, no working models for them, no mechanisms on how interactions of gods with worlds are supposed to interact.
Some atheists detest religions, but not religious people. Some atheists may hate gods, but in doing so they are illogical. Atheists hold a very wide range of opinions which have nothing to do with gods.

ughaibu · **#290** by **ughaibu** » Dec 23, 2015 7:01 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I don't care if people believe atheists are something they are not because they take a religious magic fairy seriously.

What the fuck are you wittering on about? People define "atheism" as the stance that there are no gods, because that is what people mean by the word "atheism". It has fuck all to do with religion or magic sky fairies, whether taken seriously or not. Naturally, because it is what atheists mean by "atheism"!

THWOTH · **#291** by **THWOTH** » Dec 23, 2015 7:13 am

ughaibu wrote:Atheism is the stance that there are no gods, so of course it's a positive claim. Whether you want to get involved in defending it or not, is up to you.

Nope. Atheism is a response to the claims and assertions of others. That's all it is; that's all it can be. Without those claims atheism would have no coherence or meaningful context - what would be the rational motive for declaring that that which is not claimed to be does not exist? Therefore, atheism cannot stand as a position in itself independent of religious assertia, that position being that the claims and assertions of the religiously inclined are, essentially, unbelievable.

Whether or not you want to get involved in supporting your claim, that atheism represents a stand-alone positive claim, is up to you.

:coffee:

THWOTH · **#292** by **THWOTH** » Dec 23, 2015 7:15 am

ughaibu wrote:... It has fuck all to do with religion or magic sky fairies, whether taken seriously or not. Naturally, because it is what atheists mean by "atheism"!

You should really listen to what being said to you then shouldn't you?

ughaibu · **#293** by **ughaibu** » Dec 23, 2015 7:19 am

THWOTH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:Atheism is the stance that there are no gods, so of course it's a positive claim.
Nope. Atheism is a response to the claims and assertions of others.

What do you mean "nope"? As a response to the claim that there is at least one god, it is a denial of that claim. In short, it is the claim that there are at most zero gods.
If you're accused of shoplifting and you deny your guilt, you make a positive claim of innocence, don't you?

Where did this bullshit of pretending that atheism is a vacuous term that makes no statement originate and why in the living fuck does any atheist think it worth perpetuating?

ughaibu · **#294** by **ughaibu** » Dec 23, 2015 7:20 am

THWOTH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:... It has fuck all to do with religion or magic sky fairies, whether taken seriously or not. Naturally, because it is what atheists mean by "atheism"!
You should really listen to what being said to you then shouldn't you?

What on Earth is this intended to convey?

THWOTH · **#295** by **THWOTH** » Dec 23, 2015 7:32 am

ughaibu wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:Atheism is the stance that there are no gods, so of course it's a positive claim.
Nope. Atheism is a response to the claims and assertions of others.
What do you mean "nope"? As a response to the claim that there is at least one god, it is a denial of that claim. In short, it is the claim that there are at most zero gods.
If you're accused of shoplifting and you deny your guilt, you make a positive claim of innocence, don't you?

Where did this bullshit of pretending that atheism is a vacuous term that makes no statement originate and why in the living fuck does any atheist think it worth perpetuating?

By 'Nope' I mean, 'No, you are incorrect.' I went on to qualify that negation - perhaps you'd care to address that now? As for what you've added here...

If you make a claim for at least one god the burden of support is on you. Considering whatever support you bring to the claim the atheist is the one who does not believe you. The atheist does not have to 'deny' or refuse to admit the truth or existence of this particular god to validate that disbelief - the claim's own failure of support is all that is required to justify the atheists rational disbelief. You'll note that the actual objective existence of this particular god has not been touched on, the atheist is merely addressing the claims and assertions made on it's behalf.

:coffee:

Darwinsbulldog · **#296** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Dec 23, 2015 7:32 am

ughaibu wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:I don't care if people believe atheists are something they are not because they take a religious magic fairy seriously.
What the fuck are you wittering on about? People define "atheism" as the stance that there are no gods, because that is what people mean by the word "atheism". It has fuck all to do with religion or magic sky fairies, whether taken seriously or not. Naturally, because it is what atheists mean by "atheism"!

No, atheists don't. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, and in itself has nothing to do with whether there are gods or not. For example, say a god did exist. A person might still be an atheist, despite absolute proof of that god's existence. However, in such a case the atheist would be denying the presence of the god. Likewise, theists who believe in god is not in itself any evidence whether such gods exist or not.
Rational atheists have sound reasons for not believing in deities. First a total lack of evidence. Second, no credible mechanisms by which these gods can interact with the world [including prayer], and indeed no model or clear concept of a god that does not degenerate into incoherence. For example, the problem of evil for a good and omnipotent god.
A cat is not a dog, irrespective if people believe cats are dogs. People who believe that cats are dogs are about as irrational as people who believe atheists are defined as claiming there are no gods. You might find many atheists who say gods are utterly improbably, and a few that absolutely deny that gods exist. [But absolute disproof of gods would seem to require omniscience, so I would disagree with an absolute denial of gods].
Rather than read something out of a book, start thinking. Humans have largely created a social "reality" that contains gods. Such beliefs have nothing to do with gods existing or not. That is why we come across dickhead dictionary definitions of things like atheism, which has very little to do with what atheists believe. Because for the last time, atheism is a lack of belief in gods. No, if, buts or maybes. Got it?

THWOTH · **#297** by **THWOTH** » Dec 23, 2015 7:34 am

ughaibu wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:... It has fuck all to do with religion or magic sky fairies, whether taken seriously or not. Naturally, because it is what atheists mean by "atheism"!
You should really listen to what being said to you then shouldn't you?
What on Earth is this intended to convey?

That you're not really listening to what atheists mean by 'atheism', and that therefore your assertions about what atheists really are and what atheism really entails are rather hollow.

Cito di Pense · **#298** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 23, 2015 7:37 am

THWOTH wrote:Atheism is a response to the claims and assertions of others. That's all it is; that's all it can be.

That's true. The response "don't be ridiculous" just covers so much more than claims about deities, so it can't be called 'anti-theism'. Do we see a pattern developing? Everything that isn't a belief in someone's (unsupported) pet idea is read as an insult.

You can always precede "don't be ridiculous" with a perfunctory request for support of the argument, but patience wears quickly thin these days, especially when facing the hardy perennials of the wibble wars.

THWOTH · **#299** by **THWOTH** » Dec 23, 2015 7:39 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
THWOTH wrote:Atheism is a response to the claims and assertions of others. That's all it is; that's all it can be.

That's true. The response "don't be ridiculous" just covers so much more than claims about deities, so it can't be called 'anti-theism'. Do we see a pattern developing? Everything that isn't a belief in someone's (unsupported) pet idea is read as an insult.

But my beliefs are special and, goddammitdave, sacred. :lay:

Darwinsbulldog · **#300** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Dec 23, 2015 7:40 am

ughaibu wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:Atheism is the stance that there are no gods, so of course it's a positive claim.
Nope. Atheism is a response to the claims and assertions of others.
What do you mean "nope"? As a response to the claim that there is at least one god, it is a denial of that claim. In short, it is the claim that there are at most zero gods.
If you're accused of shoplifting and you deny your guilt, you make a positive claim of innocence, don't you?

Where did this bullshit of pretending that atheism is a vacuous term that makes no statement originate and why in the living fuck does any atheist think it worth perpetuating?

You are indeed correct that atheism is in one sense absurd. A person who collects stamps is a stamp collector. A person who does not collect stamps is a non-stamp collector. Technically, a philatelist studies stamps, but not necessarily collects stamps, though they often do.

Of course, people do not usually get jailed or tortured or murdered for not collecting stamps. But atheists often do get jailed, tortured or murdered by regimes or individuals or don't like their lack of belief. Point to a piss-weak deity IMHO. That humans have to do the dirty work for these mighty gods. :lol:

Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Re: Why does science work?

Who is online