Yes, it really is that stupid

[Kaelik]

the bigotry of talking about "fake-atheists"

Atheism is a cancer on society.

See, that's bigotry. And factually correct, to boot.

But what the fuck is a "fake atheist"? That's what confuses me.

[virgil]

Maybe it's anti-Christian, which is what some atheists seem like?

I suspect it's using the version of atheism that just means "absence of belief in a God", as opposed to "denial of belief in a God." Some people think atheists are only the latter.

For my personal view on things.

I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.

[Username17]

This should be fun.

/pops some popcorn

Not really. PR is trolling again with his uninformed randroid bullshit. There's nothing to refute because he doesn't have any evidence for his assertions. Since he lives entirely in the No Facts Zone, there's nothing to say.

I mean, he's an example of the kind of bigotry atheists experience from uninformed godbots on a daily basis, but I think it's obvious that we've all gotten a thick enough skin that being compared to the second leading cause of death isn't enough to phase us.

-Username17

[Count Arioch the 28th]

This should be fun.

/pops some popcorn

Not really. PR is trolling again with his uninformed randroid bullshit. There's nothing to refute because he doesn't have any evidence for his assertions. Since he lives entirely in the No Facts Zone, there's nothing to say.

I mean, he's an example of the kind of bigotry atheists experience from uninformed godbots on a daily basis, but I think it's obvious that we've all gotten a thick enough skin that being compared to the second leading cause of death isn't enough to phase us.

-Username17

I am aware of this phenomenom, but I do know that too many people make the mistake of speaking to him as a human being instead of a personae developed to extract lulz. Which means it's likely that someone will start reacting to him, while he's saying further offensive things to make people even angrier.

[Sashi]

So Sashi is using a variation of the No True Scotman for the definition of God ?
If some definition of god is disprouved, then "Nope, that was Not True definition of God, some other god may still exist".

You've got it backwards. "No True Scotsman" is when someone says "I don't like apple pie" and then someone else says "Well then you're never tried REAL apple pie." What I am saying is that when you try some apple pie and don't like it, it's illogical and irrational to say "I don't like this apple pie, therefore it is impossible for an apple pie I like to exist."

A classic example is the "May god strike me down" challenge of the atheist. They think they're being so shocking by "disproving" god with this challenge, but all it does is disprove the presence of a god who responds to such challenges (god could be either compassionate enough not to randomly murderate people, or uncaring enough not to respond to challenges).

Disproving god by challenging the bible is like "disproving" the possibility of RPG balance by pointing at AD&D splatbooks. All you can do is show that the specific RPG you're examining is unbalanced, that doesn't refute the much more general concept of "RPG Balance".

[Surgo]

oops, I responded to something on page 3 that I thought was the last page. Nevermind.

edit: Wow, seems like I got to the last page and not only has Zinegata still not got it, but he's still doing it! Science and logic are not the same thing, buddy. And you're an idiot for trying to take someone to task for supposedly conflating rationality and logic (which they didn't do), while at the same time doing something substantially more stupid -- conflating science and deductive logic.

[Username17]

A classic example is the "May god strike me down" challenge of the atheist. They think they're being so shocking by "disproving" god with this challenge, but all it does is disprove the presence of a god who responds to such challenges (god could be either compassionate enough not to randomly murderate people, or uncaring enough not to respond to challenges).

Disproving god by challenging the bible is like "disproving" the possibility of RPG balance by pointing at AD&D splatbooks. All you can do is show that the specific RPG you're examining is unbalanced, that doesn't refute the much more general concept of "RPG Balance".

You have complete epistemological failure.

Something doesn't exist when it has no reason to exist. By claiming that we can't know that there is no god, you are in fact assuming that we live in a universe with a god shaped hole in it that may or may not be filled. We don't. We live in a universe that is run by natural processes. Deductive Logic is very persuasive sounding, but the reality is that it is an extremely weak tool - capable only of affirming your premises. All deductive arguments are inherently circular, so the fact that you have made a deductive argument that some god may exist is simply you hiding the idea that some god may exist (your conclusion) in your premises.

Two can play at that shitty game:

• Anything that exists is real.
• Anything real is part of the natural world.
• Nothing that is not natural exists.
• Gods are supernatural.
• Therefore gods do not and cannot exist.

There. Deductive proof that gods do not exist and will never exist. Are you happy? Of course not, because to make that argument, I had to make a set of assumptions that included gods not being able to exist, just as to make your deductive argument you had to make assumptions that they could.

The problem here is that while masturbation over philosophical points is all well and good, it doesn't actually matter. Because none of that shit is the scientific epistemology. And science doesn't give a fuck about your untestable double secret potential gods. For a good example of how science tells philosophy to go fuck itself, consider the Humble Electron. Yes, you can make a very apparently sound philosophical argument that it is impossible to know for sure that two electrons are "the same" and that argument would be wrong.

You can make philosophical argument after philosophical argument that some god somewhere could exist. And all that says is that epistemologically, you have no fucking clue how the universe works or what actually exists.

-Username17

[cthulhu]

Nope. They're currently not testable. But they may be in the future. Until we have enough knowledge or tech to prove one way or the other, agnostics totally have a leg to stand on.

No, things are always testable or not testable. You need to do three things to have a leg to stand on:

A) Come up with a hypothesis

B) Demonstrate how that hypothesis matches with current observations

C) Define tests for the points of uniqueness outlined by your hypothesis.

I don't care if it requires engineering that we haven't done yet, like an EVEN BIGGER LHC (The only reason string theory is tolerable), but imaginary science is not okay.

[Zinegata]

This is... nearly identical to what we have been saying.

No it isn't. This is just you hiding under your ill-defined term "scientifically sound".

Stop bullshiting and playing semantic games. Because right after you parrot science...

Did you even read the part of my article about the knowledge that God does not exist being a retractable claim of knowledge, like the claim "I know my mother is still alive."

You go back to your garbage article. Which is entirely a logical deduction at best (but most people would call it a "rant"). And yet it completely fails to take into account "The absence of proof is the proof of absence".

Why is your article not scientific? No null hypothesis. No direct observation and testing. It's not science. It's some guy being self-important.

So really, are you arguing based on the scientific method, or based on logical deduction?

Because either way, you have nothing to stand on.

And Sashi's "scientifically sound" was established as "supported by the scientific method", given that Frank and Akula both challenged Sashi to present evidence to overturn the null hypothesis (and therefore opening the door to the whole scientifc method).

But you're NOT supposed to present evidence to overturn the null hypothesis. You're supposed to present an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis. Which you can then test. The direct results of observation tell you whether or not this alternative hypothesis is right. And even if the alternative hypothesis is wrong, you can propose more alternatives to keep poking at the null.

So really, this is just an attempt at obsfucating, Kaelik. You're playing your semantic games again by selectively ignoring what everyone else has been arguing about.

And yet people here keep going "But you haven't proven God exists!"

I said "people", not "Kaelik". Notice the the ------- preceding that statement?

I was talking about people here in general, not you. Morever...

Ignoring for the moment the bigotry of talking about "fake-atheists" whatever the fuck that even means

Oh look, more intimidation tactics. Again Kaelik, do you have any debating method beside "intimidate and belittle the enemy" and "obsfucate the issue"?

There are lots of fake-atheists on this board who clearly aren't atheists because they really believe there is no God. They're atheists because they want to mock religious people. Atheism is a personal belief. Not a platform for you to be a bigot.

And yes, those people have cited science. Stop lying.

[Zinegata]

No, things are always testable or not testable. You need to do three things to have a leg to stand on:

A) Come up with a hypothesis

B) Demonstrate how that hypothesis matches with current observations

C) Define tests for the points of uniqueness outlined by your hypothesis.

I don't care if it requires engineering that we haven't done yet, like an EVEN BIGGER LHC (The only reason string theory is tolerable), but imaginary science is not okay.

You're forgetting the alternative and null hypothesis. The full method actually goes:

A) Null hypothesis - God does not exist.

B) Check current observations - Have we never contacted or seen God? Correct. Therefore, Null Hypothesis holds.

C) Propose Alternative Hypothesis - God is in the Center of the Universe.

D) Is Proposed Hypothesis testable? Yes. Send a rocket ship to the center of the universe to check.

The only hitch today is we don't have a rocket ship that can travel that far within our lifetimes. That's a technological limitation. Not a limitation imposed by the scientific method.

Sound crazy? Let's change it a bit then.

A) Null hypothesis - Intelligent alien life not exist.

B) Check current observations - Have we never contacted or seen signs of any intelligent life? Correct. Therefore, Null Hypothesis holds.

C) Propose Alternative Hypothesis - There is intelligent alien life in Alpha Centauri

D) Is Proposed Hypothesis testable? Yes. Send a rocket ship to Alpha Centauri to collect direct observations.

Again, as long as you don't have existing direct observations of a phenomenon (i.e. closeup shots of Alpha Centauri), it's open to testing.

[cthulhu]

Your not stating why your proposed hypothesis fits better with observed evidence. Let's bust out the actual test

* Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)

Fine, we can fly a rocket to the centre of the universe

* Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)

Fails: Why should there be a god at the centre of the universe?

* Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena

Fails: You're not even explaining a phenomena

* Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future

Fails: You're not even explaining a phenomena, see above.

* Conservatism – the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems

I'm not going to comment on this

So as we can see, you're getting up on 1 of 5 premises. Come back and try again. For a hypothesis to be worth acknowledging, it has to fit with some observable evidence, and explain some stuff in the future.

[Zinegata]

edit: Wow, seems like I got to the last page and not only has Zinegata still not got it, but he's still doing it! Science and logic are not the same thing, buddy.

That's always been my position. Stop listening to Kaelik's lies. Again:

* Logic doesn't care how impractical proving/disproving something is. If you haven't searched every corner of the universe, you can't say "Leprechauns do not exist".

* The scientific method isn't about repeating existing stuff it already knows. It's about testing out new stuff. Want to know if God exists in the Center of the universe? Let's build a rocket and find out.

* Rationality was developed to let us keep functioning based on what we already know and what we can see. It's simply everyday common sense to keep us doing crazy shit based on things we can't see and we can't help.

If you think I'm saying science = logic, even though I defined them as seperate concepts, then you're not just being mislead. You're outright ignoring what I actually said.

[Zinegata]

Your not stating why your proposed hypothesis fits better with observed evidence.

You're not supposed to with this particular alternative hypothesis - because there is "no observed evidence" yet.

Remember (and let's use the alien example), nobody's been to Alpha Centauri. We don't just have no observation of life of Alpha Centauri. We simply don't have any close-up observations of Alpha Centauri and any possible planets around it, period.

And again, the scientific method totally lets you do that. It may not be practical from a technological view. But science totally says "game!"

Edit: Missed your edit. But again, point's the same. We're talking more about observational science here anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science

So when you apply the principles you mentioned, it doesn't say "Let's not do the experiment". Instead, it tells you to find other ways of testing it out without needing to build an expensive rocket ship. Maybe by a giant telescope?

[cthulhu]

You're not supposed to with this particular alternative hypothesis - because there is "no observed evidence" yet.

Yes you are, it's not a scientific hypothesis if it doesn't fit with observable evidence and make future predictions. It doesn't get a free ride because it includes god in it.

Please try again. This theory doesn't get a 'free pass' - some people don't even think string theory is a scientific theory because it's observations arn't predictive enough and it's not testable enough.

So go! Hit me again! Pass all the tests of a hypothesis this time.

Edit: It's not about observational science. God at the centre of the universe is ALSO FAILING the


* Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)

FAILS: You're postulating a new entity that isn't needed

* Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena

FAILS: You don't even HAVE any phenomena you're trying to explain. This is why your entity isn't needed

* Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future

FAILS: You don't even HAVE any phenomena you're trying to explain, and your theory has no predictive power at all!

[Zinegata]

Yes you are, it's not a scientific hypothesis if it doesn't fit with observable evidence and make future predictions. It doesn't get a free ride because it includes god in it.

Please try again. This theory doesn't get a 'free pass' - some people don't even think string theory is a scientific theory because it's observations arn't predictive enough and it's not testable enough.

So go! Hit me again! Pass all the tests of a hypothesis this time.

Uh, I'm not out to create a theory cthulhu. Theory is not the same as hypothesis (God is in the center of the universe, where there are pearly white gates and jesus waves at you) that I scratched out in a couple of minutes largely for the purpose of humor .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A theory actually has complete sets of rules and systems. The reason why string theory isn't always regarded as a scientific theory is because it doesn't really have the required "rules and systems". In short, string theory isn't even internally consistent.

I'm not proposing a theory however. What I'm really proposing is to conduct some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science

Which revolves around getting new observations of previously unobserved phenomena. Since we haven't seen aliens, that's previously unobserved phenomena.

If you're saying that "You don't even HAVE any phenomena you're trying to explain. This is why your entity isn't needed", then you're actually also saying that we shouldn't look for aliens, or even new species of life in our own planet.

[cthulhu]

Yes you are!

You are trying to create the hypothesis 'God Exists'

[Zinegata]

Yes you are!

You are trying to create the hypothesis 'God Exists'

Theory not the same as hypothesis chthulhu. Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena

If I was proposing a theory, it wouldn't be "God exists!". I'd be writing a Bible .

[cthulhu]

When we're uncertain about the physical or natural laws that apply, we call our educated guess a conjecture or hypothesis.

However, I don't give a shit - here is the tests for hypothesis

* Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
* Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
* Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
* Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
* Conservatism – the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems


Please, state how your hypothesis weights up against the null hypothesis for

[Zinegata]

When we're uncertain about the physical or natural laws that apply, we call our educated guess a conjecture or hypothesis.

However, I don't give a shit - here is the tests for hypothesis

* Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
* Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
* Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
* Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
* Conservatism – the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems


Please, state how your hypothesis weights up against the null hypothesis for

*sigh*

You missed the "I scratched out in a couple of minutes largely for the purpose of humor" part again, did you?

Okay, if you really want to be serious about this, here we go:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... Hypotheses

Evaluating (empirical) hypotheses according to the hypothetico-deductive approach requires the use of a few methodological virtues. Philosophers of science have debated these virtues for many years, but they are still worth mentioning:

Testability
Empirical Adequacy
Simplicity
Scope
Fruitfulness
Internal and External Consistency

Those five things you keep mentioning? Not everyone in the scientific community actually agrees they're needed for a hypothesis. And you missed one - Empirical Adequacy.

The only one that is NEVER debated is testability. Because "Otherwise, there would be no difference between a hypothesis and a mere belief"

And for a hypothesis slapped together in a couple of minutes, I'm not gonna claim that I went further than satisfying testability. But given enough time, I'd probably be able to construct something where you can justify looking for aliens and otherwordly beings.

[cthulhu]

Right, but I've yet to see any hypothesis for god exists that is a functional hypothesis.

That's why the entire god exists thing is a giant pile of garbage up there with 'aliens have a mars base that they are using to spy on us'

Looking for aliens is easy though.

[Zinegata]

Right, but I've yet to see any hypothesis for god exists that is a functional hypothesis.

Actually, there's a reason why you haven't seen this yet:

Nobody has created a functional hypothesis for the null hypothesis ("God does not exist") that conforms to all of the virtues of making a hypothesis either.

And it again boils down to the problem with agnostic belief I mentioned earlier - it's kinda hard to disprove something when you can't even define what God *is* yet except in really general terms. Is God an immortal yet physical being (if so, how can we test immortality? Do we keep shooting him?) Does God span the entire universe? Stuff like that.

That's why the entire god exists thing is a giant pile of garbage up there with 'aliens have a mars base that they are using to spy on us'

Looking for aliens is easy though.

Not really. We have a multi-million dollar facility (developed as part of the SETI program) whose only purpose is to listen for radio waves coming from *possible* alien life. Again, it's part of observational science. You're looking for previously unobserved phenomena.

Note that we actually now know aliens doesn't exist on Mars based on this facility... because we haven't heard anyone broadcast radio waves from Mars.

[Surgo]

That's always been my position. Stop listening to Kaelik's lies.

Either you are very forgetful or you are making a bald-faced lie. There are two main lies/forgetful points:

Rationality is again very simple: You can only test a theory if you have evidence that you can evaluate. If you don't have evidence, the theory is irrational. There is no evidence proving God. Hence it is irrational.

However, this does not make the statement "God does not exist" logically correct. To prove this, you must actually search the entire cosmos, look under every nook and cranny, make sure there aren't alternate dimensions, etc.

Because again: The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. This is a consequence of humanity's lack of omniscience. We don't know *yet* what is actually true because we haven't collected all possible data.

This was in response to something that mentioned science with inductive logic, not deductive logic.

I'm out to prove that the agnostic position is based on logic and is actually scientifically sound.

Once again, you are talking about deductive logic -- which is quite different from the inductive epistemology of science. Reading your posts, I really get the sense that you do not know the difference between the two, as I end up reading things from you like this:

Logic states that the absence of proof is NOT the proof of absence.

Just because you haven't found it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As, in the inductive epistemology (which is what the person you responded to was talking about!), absence of evidence when you go looking for evidence is evidence of absence.

[Psychic Robot]

Not really. PR is trolling again with his uninformed randroid bullshit. There's nothing to refute because he doesn't have any evidence for his assertions. Since he lives entirely in the No Facts Zone, there's nothing to say.

I mean, he's an example of the kind of bigotry atheists experience from uninformed godbots on a daily basis, but I think it's obvious that we've all gotten a thick enough skin that being compared to the second leading cause of death isn't enough to phase us.

-Username17

Pick one, please. The two are mutually exclusive.

[cthulhu]

Right, but I've yet to see any hypothesis for god exists that is a functional hypothesis.

Actually, there's a reason why you haven't seen this yet:

Nobody has created a functional hypothesis for the null hypothesis ("God does not exist") that conforms to all of the virtues of making a hypothesis either.

Yes they have. God doesn't exist and everything obeys natural laws is predictive and fruitful that matches existing observations.

Seriously, try again.

[Zinegata]

Right, but I've yet to see any hypothesis for god exists that is a functional hypothesis.

Actually, there's a reason why you haven't seen this yet:

Nobody has created a functional hypothesis for the null hypothesis ("God does not exist") that conforms to all of the virtues of making a hypothesis either.

Yes they have. God doesn't exist and everything obeys natural laws is predictive and fruitful that matches existing observations.

Seriously, try again.

"God doesn't exist and everything obeys natural laws is predictive and fruitful that matches existing observations." isn't a null hypothesis that conforms to your five virtues. Because you have failed to define and scope several of the terms used in that statement and left them open-ended.

Your turn to start trying again.