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

5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer

12357…11

Comments

  • #122
    TedB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 166 ✭✭TedB


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Again, just because an answer is textbook does not mean it's wrong. And yawning doesn't make you right either. Care to explain the flaw in his reasoning that the fact of the internet's existence means that "faith" in the science that produced the internet and faith in an invisible man in the sky are not comparable?

    What on earth? Do you even understand that post?

    All I'm saying is that the 'thanks from' is very revealing. Atheism has its saints, its martyrs, its high priests and its organisational process just as much as any religion.

    The fact that you feel the need to post regularly and 'thank' others on an 'atheist' forum as some sort of support group speaks volumes. I'm just commenting on your church pew, sheeplike qualities.


  • #123
    DJ Dodgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 113 ✭✭DJ Dodgy


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No it doesn't. Science does not prove things.

    I seem to remember saying that 20 posts ago. Does everyone have me on ignore? I'm annoying but I didn't think I was that annoying :(

    Apologies just joined the thread last night and didn't read all pages.



    Science has given us a view of the universe that is united under core fundamental principles. The processes that govern life are the same that govern stars or atoms. The processes that hold galaxies together hold water droplets together.

    How is that leaving behind a holistic presence (you do know holistic means "whole" and not "holy")? :confused::confused:

    holistic actually relates to 'holism'. This is from wiki

    Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.
    The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" (1045a10).
    Reductionism is sometimes seen as the opposite of holism. Reductionism in science says that a complex system can be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts. For example, the processes of biology are reducible to chemistry and the laws of chemistry are explained by physics.


    Modern science has discovered that everything in the universe comes back to 4 fundamental forces and they themselves are probably related. I can't think of anything more holistic than that.

    I can't think of anything less holistic than reducing the universe down to 4 fundamental forces, they're not earth, wind, fire and water by any chance?


    Science is a conclusion of philosophy so it is not possible to do science without doing philosophy (see the philosophy of science).

    But as for religion and the spiritual, considering their track record at getting things totally wrong I'm not exactly going to shed a tear if they disappear as serious areas of study in our future.

    Religion and spirituality will (or should) be replaced by psychology, since they are simply the products of the human mind and do not appear to relate to reality. We will study them in the same way we study bird mating calls.

    The sciences left the central philosophical journey to head out along it's various branches. Without answering the deep ontological questions that better men and women than us have struggle with for thousands of year some would have us believe science has all the answers we need. Science just convieniently assumes that all the questions it can't answer aren't relevant and drives on.

    Philosophy is a search for the way of truth, not of facts.


  • #124
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    TedB wrote: »
    What on earth? Do you even understand that post?

    All I'm saying is that the 'thanks from' is very revealing. Atheism has its saints, its martyrs, its high priests and its organisational process just as much as any religion.
    1. No it doesn't
    2. Atheism is not a religion
    TedB wrote: »
    The fact that you feel the need to post regularly and 'thank' others on an 'atheist' forum as some sort of support group speaks volumes. I'm just commenting on your church pew, sheeplike qualities.
    In fact all it means is that Dades made a very good point. There's nothing wrong or "sheep-like" with agreeing with someone who is correct. Do you want us to say he's wrong just for the sake of an argument or something?

    So again, rather than insulting us for agreeing with him could you explain why he's wrong to point out that posting on the internet to talk about having "blind faith" in science is ironic? I can see the proof of the validity of the scientific method all around me, it does not require faith, blind or otherwise


  • #125
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    The sciences left the central philosophical journey to head out along it's various branches. Without answering the deep ontological questions that better men and women than us have struggle with for thousands of year some would have us believe science has all the answers we need. Science just convieniently assumes that all the questions it can't answer aren't relevant and drives on.
    In fact no, science spends all of its time trying to answer the questions that it can't answer. The difference between it and philosophy is that if it can't answer a question, it doesn't pretend it can. It sticks it in the "I don't know" category and keeps searching for the answer.

    I'm assuming the questions you're talking about are things like "why are we here?" and "what is the reason for existence?". The problem with both of those questions is that they make the assumption that there is a reason for existence. Who's to say there is one?
    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    Philosophy is a search for the way of truth, not of facts.

    But how do you know it's truth and not something you just made up if you have no evidence of its truth?


  • #126
    TedB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 166 ✭✭TedB


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    1. No it doesn't
    2. Atheism is not a religion


    In fact all it means is that Dades made a very good point. There's nothing wrong or "sheep-like" with agreeing with someone who is correct. Do you want us to say he's wrong just for the sake of an argument or something?

    So again, rather than insulting us for agreeing with him could you explain why he's wrong to point out that posting on the internet to talk about how having "blind faith" in science is ironic? I can see the proof of the validity of the scientific method all around me, it does not require faith

    Basically he came up with a half witty remark and a lot of people thought it was very funny. It was endemic of your herd mentality - I do not question the validity of science, I question the validity of people. I cannot open a closed mind, all I can do is point out that there are questions you are unable to answer. The way you people go on is sheer arrogance and dangerously close to the manner in which organised religion behaves. You need and crave a group of like minded 'non believers' - the truth is that you are people of belief just as blatant as any follower of religion. You echo the rituals and idiosyncracies of religion and the hilarious thing is that you don't seem to realise it.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    The sciences left the central philosophical journey to head out along it's various branches. Without answering the deep ontological questions that better men and women than us have struggle with for thousands of year some would have us believe science has all the answers we need. Science just convieniently assumes that all the questions it can't answer aren't relevant and drives on.

    Philosophy is a search for the way of truth, not of facts.

    Thats just waffly nonsense. How can something be true if it isn't supported by all the facts?


  • #128
    TedB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 166 ✭✭TedB


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Thats just waffly nonsense. How can something be true if it isn't supported by all the facts?

    It is basic human nature for the strongest male to have sexual intercourse with the most attractive female. Why do human beings therefore behave in a way contrary to our most fundamental genetical process? Science has a go at answering questions like that, but all it can ever do is speculate.


  • #129
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    TedB wrote: »
    Basically he came up with a half witty remark and a lot of people thought it was very funny. It was endemic of your herd mentality - I do not question the validity of science, I question the validity of people. I cannot open a closed mind, all I can do is point out that there are questions you are unable to answer. The way you people go on is sheer arrogance and dangerously close to the manner in which organised religion behaves. You need and crave a group of like minded 'non believers' - the truth is that you are people of belief just as blatant as any follower of religion. You echo the rituals and idiosyncracies of religion and the hilarious thing is that you don't seem to realise it.

    But it was a dozen people thanked his post, it is hardly representative of every atheist. Not even every atheist in this forum. And you'll find a mix of believers and non-believers in every forum. Does that mean every post that is thanked (because you agree with them/were just about to say the same thing/have provided you with advice or information you are looking for) is echoing religion?

    I don't really understand what you are saying. That atheists are not allowed think the same way? Because many don't. I don't "crave" a group of like-minded people, but it's interesting to discuss topics on the nature of secularism, humanism, religious discrimination, humour with posters I know are also interested in that. Same as I discuss sport in the various sport forums, recipes in the cooking forum. Doesn't make it religious.


  • #130
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    TedB wrote: »
    Basically he came up with a half witty remark and a lot of people thought it was very funny. It was endemic of your herd mentality
    So you agree that the remark was witty but you think that only people with a herd mentality would have considered it witty enough to thank it :confused:

    When a lot of people accept something as true which is not true or without any evidence of its truth it's called a herd mentality but when a lot of people accept something as true and it actually is true it's not called a herd mentality, it's called being correct.

    Everyone on the planet thinks the world is round, is that a herd mentality?

    Basically all you're doing here is an ad hominem attack. He made your argument look ridiculous and you can't respond so instead you're attacking us for agreeing with him. That's 'endemic' of a very common thing religious people do, brand people as arrogant because they keep proving them wrong.


    TedB wrote: »
    - I do not question the validity of science, I question the validity of people. I cannot open a closed mind, all I can do is point out that there are questions you are unable to answer. The way you people go on is sheer arrogance and dangerously close to the manner in which organised religion behaves. You need and crave a group of like minded 'non believers' - the truth is that you are people of belief just as blatant as any follower of religion. You echo the rituals and idiosyncracies of religion and the hilarious thing is that you don't seem to realise it.

    In what way are we being arrogant? Arrogance is declaring that I'm right and you're wrong whereas we have thoroughly and comprehensively explained why you are wrong. And as I said above and as is depressingly common, you know your point has been blown out of the water so you've descended to insulting us.

    If you think we're wrong, explain to us why we're wrong. We are more than willing to listen to someone who gives a rational and reasonable argument. Just because everyone here can see the large flaws in your point does not mean we have a herd mentality, it just means the flaws are very obvious. And insulting us for seeing the flaws in your argument isn't going to get you anywhere


  • #131
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    TedB wrote: »
    It is basic human nature for the strongest male to have sexual intercourse with the most attractive female. Why do human beings therefore behave in a way contrary to our most fundamental genetical process? Science has a go at answering questions like that, but all it can ever do is speculate.

    There are lots of things science can only speculate over but the difference between science and philosophy/religion is that science doesn't declare speculation to be the truth. The only thing that philosophy can do is speculate


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,592 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    TedB wrote: »
    Basically he came up with a half witty remark
    Why thank you! I was really just highlighting a little irony. :)
    TedB wrote: »
    I do not question the validity of science, I question the validity of people. I cannot open a closed mind, all I can do is point out that there are questions you are unable to answer.
    It's questioning the validity of 'people' that leads individuals to become atheists in the first place. People who claim to have the answers that science has never claimed to have.


  • #133
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    TedB wrote: »
    It is basic human nature for the strongest male to have sexual intercourse with the most attractive female. Why do human beings therefore behave in a way contrary to our most fundamental genetical process? Science has a go at answering questions like that, but all it can ever do is speculate.

    How do human beings behave in a way contrary to our most fundamental genetic processes?
    TedB wrote: »
    Science has a go at answering questions like that, but all it can ever do is speculate.

    Well, by modelling science can at least try to test its speculations and improve them. What can philosophy do?


  • #134
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Good post Dades. Can I thank it or is agreeing with you 'endemic of a herd mentality' whether you're right or not?


  • #135
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    TedB wrote: »
    Basically he came up with a half witty remark and a lot of people thought it was very funny.

    Is it not possible that that is why people thanked his post? I know I like witty remarks and that, from time to time, I will even "thank" the poster if they are clever or witty enough. What type of posts do you thank?


  • #136
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    TedB wrote: »
    It is basic human nature for the strongest male to have sexual intercourse with the most attractive female.
    Wow, it's difficult to know how to respond to something which is so far from what modern biology says.

    Like, have you ever been to a nightclub? :confused:

    .


  • #137
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,592 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Good post Dades. Can I thank it or is agreeing with you 'endemic of a herd mentality' whether you're right or not?
    Better check with TedB.


  • #138
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    TedB, this is our point of view summarised. Please explain where we are wrong without insulting us:


    Scientific approach to explaining the universe:
    1. You have a question
    2. You get an idea for a possible answer
    3. You figure out how to test the validity of the idea
    4. You test the idea
    5. If the test succeeds, you publish your findings and ask other people to test the idea who may see things that you didn't
    6. If they find flaws, you either throw the idea out or improve it
    7. You repeat this process iteratively until the idea is as solid as possible


    Philosophical approach to explaining the universe:
    1. You have a question
    2. You get an idea for a possible answer
    3. You publish the idea and see if people agree
    4. If they don't agree, you either throw out the idea or improve it
    5. You repeat this process iteratively until the idea is as solid as possible
    Similar to the scientific approach except it's only based on the number of people that agree and there is no way of knowing if they're right

    Religious approach to explaining the universe:
    1. You have a question
    2. You get an idea for a possible answer
    3. You declare it to be true
    4. You ignore everything to the contrary

    The scientific approach begins with and encompasses the philosophical approach but adds an extra level of certainty because ideas are objectively tested for validity, rather than accepted simply because a lot of people agree with it.

    So why are we wrong to continue trying to find the answers after everyone else has stopped because they've accepted an answer that has not been proven to be true?


  • #139
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,536 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    robindch wrote: »
    Wow, it's difficult to know how to respond to something which is so far from what modern biology says.

    Like, have you ever been to a nightclub? :confused:

    .

    It's ever so simple is it?
    The Nash equilibrium is a good example why:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium


  • #140
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    5uspect wrote: »
    It's ever so simple is it?
    The Nash equilibrium is a good example why:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

    That's never going to work on the dancefloor.


  • #141
    togster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭togster


    Is it fair to say, that wothout philosophy or airy-fairy thinking Science would not have come about?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    togster wrote: »
    Is it fair to say, that wothout philosophy or airy-fairy thinking Science would not have come about?

    Philosophy = thinking about things

    Science = finding out if these things we have thought of have any validity


    So yes that would be fair to say


  • #143
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,536 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    That's never going to work on the dancefloor.

    Go give it a try and let us know how you get on!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srgdg5tgPJk&feature=related


  • #144
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    An example: People tend to intuitively think that heavy things fall faster than light things but actually they accelerate at exactly the same 9.8m/s^2. The only thing that changes this is wind resistance, so a heavy object in the shape of a parachute will fall slower than a marble and if they were in a vacuum they would fall at exactly the same speed.

    Philosophers all believed this incorrect idea because it seems to make sense and it wasn't until Galileo dropped two objects from the leaning tower of Pisa that they were proven wrong.

    Another example would be the idea that the earth was at the centre of the universe. It made sense that we would be at the centre because we're God's creation after all and it took Copernicus and his telescope to prove it wrong.

    And a modern example would be the continued resistance to evolution. The idea that complexity can come from simplicity without an intelligence guiding it is not intuitive so some people continue to reject it despite the fact that it has been proven for 150 years.

    Science takes philosophy and finds out which parts of it are true.


  • #145
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    An example: People tend to intuitively think that heavy things fall faster than light things but actually they accelerate at exactly the same 9.8m/s^2. The only thing that changes this is wind resistance, so a heavy object in the shape of a parachute will fall slower than a marble and if they were in a vacuum they would fall at exactly the same speed.

    Philosophers all believed this incorrect idea because it seems to make sense and it wasn't until Galileo dropped two objects from the leaning tower of Pisa that they were proven wrong.

    I may be wrong but I think that story is a myth.
    He did however roll two balls down an inclined plane for a similar experiment.


  • #146
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    I may be wrong but I think that story is a myth.
    He did however roll two balls down an inclined plane for a similar experiment.

    It probably is a myth but it still illustrates the point ;)


  • #147
    TedB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 166 ✭✭TedB


    I hold up my hands. I lost control near the end...


  • #148
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,592 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Don't you know - A&A threads have no end!
    Plenty of time to get back on track. There's some good points to address. :)


  • #149
    togster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭togster


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Science takes philosophy and finds out which parts of it are true.

    QFT.

    The idea (philosophy) comes first though? Science tests it. The philosophy is proven/disproven and instigates more philosophy.


  • #150
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    togster wrote: »
    QFT.

    The idea (philosophy) comes first though? Science tests it. The philosophy is proven/disproven and instigates more philosophy.

    Pretty much yeah :)


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    togster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭togster


    Can Science exist without idea?

    I'm starting to see why science is so important tbh. An idea without science is just an idea.

    But Science without an idea is just....?


Advertisement