Agnosticism is the more logical approach to the supernatural than Atheism. Claiming that something does not exist without any evidence is not scientific. It is better to simply claim ignorance in this case.

File: 18 KB, 390x320, mesoholy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:08:21 2011 No.3402569 [Reply] [Original]

Agnosticism is the more logical approach to the supernatural than Atheism.

Claiming that something does not exist without any evidence is not scientific. It is better to simply claim ignorance in this case.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:09:21 2011 No.3402577 Report submitted! This window will close in 5 seconds...

>>	TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 18:09:21 2011 No.3402578 File: 478 KB, 1000x1160, misconception.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:11:21 2011 No.3402590 >>3402578 Source?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:11:21 2011 No.3402591 File: 37 KB, 520x373, 478721_f520.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >supernatural >super >nature = everything that exists >super natural

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:13:21 2011 No.3402600 >>3402577 This isn't a religion vs. science thread. It's a thread about the scientific method.

TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 18:14:21 2011 No.3402604
File: 476 KB, 1275x3601, eU3bj.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3402590
Its been posted here lots of times, i dunno who made it. i have several more.
they all say pretty much the same thing
<<<

i'm an agnostic atheist, i dont believe in god, but i do not know for certain that he is fictional, but based on all likelyhood, i come to that conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:16:21 2011 No.3402612 File: 31 KB, 370x284, buddy-christ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3402577 You mad?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:17:21 2011 No.3402619
File: 40 KB, 378x480, 82the-terminator.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3402604

Well, here are some definitions:

Atheism:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Agnostic:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Source: Merriam Webster

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:19:21 2011 No.3402632 >>3402578 >>3402604 Too bad there are strict agnostics, who honestly don't know what to believe, and the belief that you "can't just be agnostic" is an idiotic, rigid misconception of the way human nature works.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:21:21 2011 No.3402642

I don't claim these things to be nonexistent axiomatically, I merely wish for evidence of supernatural phenomenon to be presented before I consider them in my worldview.

If I told you that there was a teacup in orbit of the sun between mars and that it is too small for our instruments to detect, does it make sense to consider such a thing a legitimate possibility?

If one can show me compelling evidence of the supernatural I, as a rational person, would need to take it into account. As of this date no evidence for such things have come forward that aren't better explained more reasonably by perfectly natural phenomenon.

Occams razor gives me a big stiffy, I can't help it.

TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 18:22:21 2011 No.3402650

>>3402619
any supernatural being that is imagined to be invisible/hiding/in another dimension/too far across the universe to be visible with telescopes
etc, cant be disproven. It could be there, you don't know, and it IS unknowable, but that doesn't mean it is likely.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:22:21 2011 No.3402654 >>3402578 >>3402604 I really hate these stupid images. Atheism and Agnosticism still exist, regardless what the person who made those tries to claim.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:23:21 2011 No.3402656 this is not science related sage, reported, hidden

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:25:21 2011 No.3402664 >>3402656 Do people still think that sage actually does anything?

TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 18:26:21 2011 No.3402674

>>3402654
words have definitions, the images use them correctly.
atheists dont believe in god, agnostics don't know if there is a god
they arnt mutually exclusive. im both.
God's existance is unlikely, a supremely intelligent conscious being that has no origin and has always existed, that can magically create complex things out of nothing, and can never be seen and is never seen to act.
very very unlikely to exist, but i cant be 100% sure, i'm still ALMOST certain.

>>	TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 18:27:21 2011 No.3402675 >>3402664 it posts without bumping the thread. it does do something, it stops the bumping action.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:27:21 2011 No.3402681

>>3402578
This doesn't change the fact that many self-identified Atheists claim that God doesn't exist and that there is no doubt about the issue.

The terms, atheist, agnostic, and theist aren't used properly in common conversation, and according to your own image claiming to be simply an 'atheist' doesn't rule out the possibility of you making an absolute statement on the existence of a god.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:28:21 2011 No.3402684 >>3402674 >words have definitions Yeah, and the definitions were provided:>>3402619 The images invent new definitions that aren't really relevant to the discussion of strict Atheism vs. Agnosticism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:28:21 2011 No.3402685 You cannot be anything other than an atheist if you agree with occam's razor.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:29:21 2011 No.3402691 >>3402675 A lot of people seem convinced that it actually does something more. I wish I had that comic about sage saved.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:30:21 2011 No.3402695 >>3402675 Except it actually helped the thread be bumped since people replied to it and began discussing it.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:36:21 2011 No.3402728

>>3402685
Occam's razor should in no way be considered as an absolute principle. Sure, the solution to a problem that involves the fewests new assumptions and is generally the simplest is often the correct, but one shouldn't completely deny the possibility of phenomena that are still undiscovered being the solution.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:36:21 2011 No.3402729

>Claiming that something does not exist without any evidence is not scientific.

I have evidence:

- Gods almost always have abilities that are impossible according to everything we know about the universe.

- Gods are almost always involved incidentally or by nature in historical accounts that we know are false.

- Gods are improbable. Complex intelligences show up late in the universe, not early.

- There is virtually no positive evidence of the existence of gods, and there is no evidence at all that isn't better addressed by naturalistic explanations.

- Gods are known to be fictional characters made up by men.

Pretty much any argument you could make that Harry Potter doesn't really exist is going to apply equally well to gods.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:40:21 2011 No.3402748

When I knock a glass off a table and it smashes I can describe why it happened, I can explain, based on the available evidence of the smashed glass, that the course of events, due to gravity, the hardness of the floor and the brittleness of glass resulted in it breaking.

While you could argue that I can't prove that the glass smashed because invisible elves broke it with tiny hammers in the split second it hit the ground it isn't a reasonable assumption to make and, in fact, it is fair to argue against the existence of these elves.

TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 18:40:21 2011 No.3402751

>>3402681
>This doesn't change the fact that many self-identified Atheists claim that God doesn't exist and that there is no doubt about the issue.

depends on the definition of god. certain characteristics when imagined in conjunction with one another mean that the supernatural being is logically impossible (eg. being omniscient and omnipotent at the same time)

other than that they cant be completely certain, but just lack belief in the being due to the lack of evidence and unlikelyness of supernatural characteristics it is supposed to possess.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:40:21 2011 No.3402755 >>3402729 None of that is hard evidence.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:43:21 2011 No.3402765

ignostic master race reporting in

the definition of "God" is by no means agreed upon by even a majority of people. arguing over the existence of an improperly-defined object seems pointless, at least until a concrete definition for the idea can be pinned down.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:50:21 2011 No.3402797

>>3402755

It's hard enough.

As I said, it's roughly the same evidence we use to disbelieve in leprechauns, celestial teapots, and Harry Potter.

Holding your beliefs up to a standard and being willing to change them as new evidence comes in are good things, but please, don't go full retard and tell me that disbelief in Harry Potter is not scientific.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:51:21 2011 No.3402801 >>3402797 It's not hard at all. Scientific evidence is completely different than what you gave us.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:54:21 2011 No.3402814
File: 230 KB, 500x346, 1310778492506.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Atheists think its more logical to believe that something came from nothing rather than coming from something.

My face when this contradicts all of science and you are just anti christian.

TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 18:57:21 2011 No.3402821

>>3402814
actually its the theists who think something came from nothing.
god magically exists/came from nothing/has always existed
and then made everything else out of nothing, just by wishing it into existence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHex9GDQ2S0#t=0m42s
^^ family guy reference: bad quality, sorry. ^^

>>	TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 18:58:21 2011 No.3402827 >>3402821 GOTO 42 seconds in, for 4chan+ users. for everyone else, its deeplinked

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:59:21 2011 No.3402829

>>3402821
No.
We say that the universe came from a supernatural being which means he didnt need to be created or he was created by something unimaginable.

We can say that because he is supernatural.
You cant say that because your universe requires a cause.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:02:21 2011 No.3402835 >>3402821 >family guy

>>	TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 19:04:21 2011 No.3402839 >>3402829 god doesnt need a creator just because you say so? How does that make any sense? Maybe the universe didnt need a creator, so there is no need for god.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:05:21 2011 No.3402844 Atheist to any god in particular, agnostic to any god at all. Because the gods yet proposed obviously do not exist; but gods yet to be conceived may exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:06:21 2011 No.3402849 >Claiming that something does not exist without any evidence is not scientific. Why does everyone act like atheists do this? Atheists don't claim that God doesn't exist. They simply don't believe it.

>>	TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 19:06:21 2011 No.3402851 >>3402844 Why obviously? what about the simple idea of a deistic god who made the universe but does not intervene with human afairs and does not make miracles/answer prayers/ judge humans etc? it could exist, you can't know for certain.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:07:21 2011 No.3402855 >>3402849 >Atheists don't claim that God doesn't exist. They do it ALL THE TIME. What are you talking about?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:07:21 2011 No.3402858

>>3402829

Why does the universe require a cause? And why would you think you can say what that cause is?

Making any claims about the nature of existence beyond the universe requires one to back it up. If the reason you think certain things exist out there is just your strong feelings in that direction, well, then why would you think anyone could take that seriously? And if you know it in any kind of real sense, the SHOW YOUR WORK.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:08:21 2011 No.3402859

>>3402839
>god doesnt need a creator just because you say so?

no, god is supernatural so its beyond me whether or not he was created or if things even get created in the supernatural world

>Maybe the universe didnt need a creator, so there is no need for god.

You cant say that though because you would have to throw away all the rest of science. You cant just pick when you want to apply science.

TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 19:09:21 2011 No.3402865

>>3402849
actually, not believing in something = believing it doesnt exist

i dont believe in santa claus, therfore i think santa claus is not a real person, he isnt alive and he doesnt give out presents.
im an atheist, i dont believe in god, so i believe that out of all the things alive in the universe, 'god' is not one of them.

..but i'm still an agnostic atheist because i dont claim to KNOW of his absence with absolute certainty

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:09:21 2011 No.3402868

>>3402851

That god is an exception, I suppose. But it is so distant, so subtle, as to be utterly indescribable, never mind demonstrable.

Theistic gods have been roundly and thoroughly discredited in so far as they are claimed to have any effect on reality; and are irrelevant and unknowable as the deistic god in so far as they are claimed to be inscrutable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:12:21 2011 No.3402874 You're right. As an atheist I'm agnostic about god just like I'm agnostic about the tooth fairy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:12:21 2011 No.3402877 >>3402674 No, those images spread propaganda.

TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 19:12:21 2011 No.3402880
File: 41 KB, 799x626, sciencevsfaith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3402859
>in the supernatural world
the supernatural world isn't real. in fact by defnition it isn't real. the natural world is about all things that actually are in existence, everything in this universe which is real and true. things that are supernatural are imaginary, things like ghosts, demons, fairys etc.

Why would you have to throw out science? I don't have to throw out anything. the scientific method is he best method we have for knowing things, it allows us to replace old inaccurate models with new more accurate ones. if its a choice between valuing evidence or faith, its no contest.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:12:31 2011 No.3402878 [DELETED]

<span class="math">\newcommand{\derp}[1]{{{#1} \atop {#1}{#1}}} \newcommand{\herp}{{{\Delta \atop \Delta \Delta}} } \newcommand{\herpderp}{{\derp{\herp}} } \newcommand{\derpderpderp}{\derp{\herpderp}} \newcommand{\derpderpderpderp}{\derp{\derpderpderp}} \newcommand{\derpderpderpderpderp}{\derp{\derpderpderpderp}} \newcommand{\derpderpderpderpderpderp}{\derp{\derpderpderpderpderp}} \newcommand{\derpderpderpderpderpderpderp}{\derp{\derpderpderpderpderpderp}} \newcommand{\derpderpderpderpderpderpderpderp}{\derp{\derpderpderpderpderpderpderp}} \derpderpderp\derpderpderpderp\derpderpderpderpderp\derpderpderpderpderpderp \derpderpderpderpderpderpderpderp[/spoiler]

<span class="math">\newcommand{\derp}[1]{{{#1} \atop {#1}{#1}}} \newcommand{\herp}{{{\Delta \atop \Delta \Delta}} } \newcommand{\herpderp}{{\derp{\herp}} } \newcommand{\derpderpderp}{\derp{\herpderp}} \newcommand{\derpderpderpderp}{\derp{\derpderpderp}} \newcommand{\derpderpderpderpderp}{\derp{\derpderpderpderp}} \newcommand{\derpderpderpderpderpderp}{\derp{\derpderpderpderpderp}} \newcommand{\derpderpderpderpderpderpderp}{\derp{\derpderpderpderpderpderp}} \newcommand{\derpderpderpderpderpderpderpderp}{\derp{\derpderpderpderpderpderpderp}} \derpderpderp\derpderpderpderp\derpderpderpderpderp\derpderpderpderpderpderp \derpderpderpderpderpderpderpderp[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:13:21 2011 No.3402882 >>3402877 Is god a somehow more intrinsically plausible concept than the tooth fairy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:13:21 2011 No.3402886 >>3402685 I find Occam's razor very useful, and I am not an atheist.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:14:21 2011 No.3402892

Has anyone considered that God might just be working his will through Quantum Mechanics? Considering the sheer amount of randomness and the fact that some properties of a particle can simply choose whether or not to exist based on that randomness and you have a pretty good case for divine intervention. If I were still Theist, I'd definitely make this argument.

TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 19:15:21 2011 No.3402895
File: 145 KB, 600x700, agnosticisntbeliefoption.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3402877
it isnt propaganda, its important to realise that a person can be both an atheist AND an agnostic, this is where the people who believe all atheists think they KNOW they are correct, fail.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:16:21 2011 No.3402900

>>3402880
Nope you are retarded.

You cant just say THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING without saying that everything you do happens for no reason. You cant just pick whatever you want. If you are going to apply science you have to apply it everywhere or you are a man of faith. You believe that the universe came from nothing. You are no better than a theist

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:17:21 2011 No.3402903 >>3402880 You've convinced yourself that your preferred method can encompass all of reality, but that doesn;t mean it can. Essentially you've merely hypnotized yourself. Just like a christian does.

TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 19:17:21 2011 No.3402905

>>3402892
speculation without evidence basically amounts to 'making shit up'
its the origin of religion, and it isnt a helpful way to know anything.
best to stay agnostic until you actually DO know, and have evidence. or if something is unknowable, then be content with not knowing it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:18:21 2011 No.3402906 >>3402895 But those images are incorrect. Atheism is gnostic, as is theism. Agnosticism is a third category entirely.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:18:21 2011 No.3402908

>>3402892

And then all one would have to do is show how events based on probabilistic causes conspire to provide positive outcomes for those who pray for it.

I would start by getting a fissile atom, and having people pray that it splits at a certain exact time, with the necessary controls to make it legitimate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:20:21 2011 No.3402915 >>3402906 If we're talking about them in terms of atheism, agnosticism and theism as single word terms to describe a position; there can be no argument that atheism and agnosticism are far closer positions than either is to theism.

TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 19:20:21 2011 No.3402919
File: 99 KB, 1260x648, arguepyramid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3402900
I don't know where the universe came from, and i dont pretend otherwise.
The big bang theory is the currently accepted theory for the origin of the universe, and there is evidence to back it up.
Obviously this raises the question of 'did the big bang come from nothing'? and i don't know that either, but me not knowing the origin of the universe does not mean that throwing in an unknowable untestable god hypothesis in its place has any merit at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:21:21 2011 No.3402921 >>3402915 No, actually atheism is closer to theism than it is to agnosticism.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:22:21 2011 No.3402924

>>3402903

I think he's only talking about the natural world.

If someone can present their methods for understanding the supernatural, and it doesn't need to be similar to science, by the way, then we can start to talk about that in the same way. But no such method exists that allows an accurate supernatural claim to be distinguished from a false supernatural claim.

TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 19:23:21 2011 No.3402931

>>3402906
no it isnt. one can have faith in god, or jesus or whatever, without feeling certain, but living their life presming that it is true, and one could doubt the truth of them, also with a feeling of uncertainty. they are agbostic in both cases, but they have still amde a judegment on the issue, its heir 'best guess' and they live their life accordingly.
a gnostic would be very rare, one who believes he is certain on the issue of whether god exists or not. only a very small minority of aheists think they are certain that god is definitely fictional, and only a very small percentage of theists feel they know for certain that god is real.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:23:21 2011 No.3402932 >>3402919 The God hypothesis does not originate in trying to explain the origin of the universe. You're being disingenuous.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:24:21 2011 No.3402934

>>3402921

How so?

Only theism actually claims any kind of knowledge.

As far as I can tell, the main difference between agnostics and atheists is that the former wants to troll atheists, appease theists or appear aloof, while the latter wants to make a statement about the absurdities of religions.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:25:21 2011 No.3402938

>>3402924
>If someone can present their methods for understanding the supernatural, and it doesn't need to be similar to science, by the way, then we can start to talk about that in the same way. But no such method exists that allows an accurate supernatural claim to be distinguished from a false supernatural claim.

There are in fact many such traditions throughout history that aim to do exactly that.

>>	TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 19:26:21 2011 No.3402939 >>3402915 >>3402921 'closer to' doesn't really have any meaning to any of this. there is no scale.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:27:21 2011 No.3402943

>>3402932

It seems to originate in apply agency to impersonal natural phenomenon, or patterns in unrelated phenomenon, passed down as fact thanks to a childlike deference to authority and response to peer pressure, and resolved over successive iterations of this into a single overarching agency rather than multiple, independent agencies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:28:21 2011 No.3402945 >>3402591 >Assume naturalism >Trying to define supernatural in terms of natural >therefore the supernatural doesn't exist Circular logic much?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:28:21 2011 No.3402947 >>3402919 Way to throw away my argument with a strawman

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:30:21 2011 No.3402952

>>3402931
Certainty is just the point where you stop doubting. It's subjective and irrelevant. The difference between belief and "knowledge" is a matter of degree of certainty.

>>3402934
Atheism: By my way of knowing, there does not appear to be a God.
Theism: By my way of knowing, there does appear to be a God.
Agnosticism: I don't have a way of knowing/there is no way of knowing if there is a God.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:30:21 2011 No.3402953

>>3402938

Yes, but none of them are successful. They always result in a permanent schism when an intractable dilemma is found. If they had a method that was accurate, one would find that they would be able to settle these disputes, and hone the method over time.

>>	TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 19:32:21 2011 No.3402960 >>3402947 not a strawman, but this is second to bottom tier: >"Nope you are retarded."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:32:21 2011 No.3402962 Atheism by definition is gnostic. It says you believe that god doesnt exist. It doesnt say "I believe that god doesnt exists AND it may be possible that he does" It doesnt say that. Faggots. Agnosticism is its own thing deal with it

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:32:21 2011 No.3402964

>>3402953
>Yes, but none of them are successful.
And how many of them have you mastered, exactly?
>They always result in a permanent schism when an intractable dilemma is found.
Science is in such a state now. Special Pleading.
>If they had a method that was accurate, one would find that they would be able to settle these disputes, and hone the method over time.
And they do so.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:33:21 2011 No.3402965

>>3402952

And yet if one discusses esoteric gods, suddenly all these atheists are agnostics, and if one discusses legacy gods, suddenly all these agnostics are atheists, and most of the theists to boot.

It doesn't work. You just don't find atheists who are willing to state categorically that they know there is no god at all; and you just don't find agnostics who are willing to go so far as total impartiality when it comes to every god yet proposed.

TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 19:33:21 2011 No.3402966

>>3402952
>Atheism: By my way of knowing, there does not appear to be a God.
>Agnosticism: I don't have a way of knowing/there is no way of knowing if there is a God.

I still hold both these opinions. they still are not mutually exclusive. i am still an agnostic atheist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:34:21 2011 No.3402969 >>3402964 Describe one method to distinguish between false claims about the supernatural and true claims? What issue is causing science to schism, exactly?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:34:21 2011 No.3402970 >>3402943 And atheism originates from deciding to apply impersonality and mechanistic functioning to an interactive, conscious universe, and ignorance of connection leading to claims of no connections.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:38:21 2011 No.3402974 >>3402966 >i am still an agnostic atheist. No you are not because that does not exist. That term was popularized by richard dawkins in the last few years so he could win arguments. It is invalid.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:39:21 2011 No.3402977

>>3402970

Explain why proto-science, earnestly trying to know the mind of god, found no evidence of agency in the action of the universe? Science did not reach the naturalistic position by fiat, it was centuries of working under an alternate set of assumptions.

But countless examples of phenomenon having natural explanations were found, and zero examples of phenomenon having supernatural explanations.

No, we all agree that science is just another branch of philosophy. It just so happens to be one that has immediate and obvious answers to questions in it's field, how the natural world works.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:39:21 2011 No.3402978

>>3402965
No, but almost all (of the new) atheists are quite set on the method of determining whether or not there is a God. That is what distinguishes it from agnosticism.

>>3402969
>Describe one method to distinguish between false claims about the supernatural and true claims?
Enlightenment.
>What issue is causing science to schism, exactly?
Gravity blah blah blah quantum blah blah blah.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:40:21 2011 No.3402982 >>3402977 Tides go in, tides go out. You can't explain that.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:41:21 2011 No.3402984

>>3402974

Even so. One does not reach the position of atheism by any other means but seeing through the claims of theism. We wouldn't even have a word for it if people did not say things about god that they refuse to support and cannot show their sources.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:42:21 2011 No.3402985

>>3402977
>Explain why proto-science, earnestly trying to know the mind of god, found no evidence of agency in the action of the universe? Science did not reach the naturalistic position by fiat, it was centuries of working under an alternate set of assumptions.

The assumptions they claimed were not the assumptions they held. The conclusions they came to were a logical outcome of the assumptions upon which their method if investigation were built.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:43:21 2011 No.3402989 >>3402978 Enlightenment? You have to explain further than that, I'm afraid. If you are referring to some version of a personal revelation, then you must account for other, contradictory revelations.

>>	TERELSECKY !TEREL//Tgg Sat Jul 16 19:45:21 2011 No.3402994 File: 166 KB, 801x801, atheismredundant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3402984 yep. :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:45:21 2011 No.3402999 >>3402985 I think you are misrepresenting the motivations and character of the earliest scientists. But still, how can it be that every attempt to know the mind of god comes to such dramatically different conclusions?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:46:21 2011 No.3403000

>>3402989
First of all, you're operating from an assumption that reality must be only objective and true explanations convergent. Contradictory revelations are not a problem if you do not hold to such an assumption.

Secondly, there's really not much about it that can be explained to someone who has never tried it. That's why I asked how many of those paths you have mastered.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:48:21 2011 No.3403007

>>3402999
>I think you are misrepresenting the motivations and character of the earliest scientists.

It has nothing to do with their motivations or character. If you take a low-res photo of the night sky, you'll only be able to count the stars that show up in a low-res photo.

>But still, how can it be that every attempt to know the mind of god comes to such dramatically different conclusions?

How can it be that every attempt to find love has such dramatically different results?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:53:21 2011 No.3403020

>>3403000

So there is no way to tell a real claim about the supernatural from a false one?

And I have never experienced anything that seemed supernatural. The people who claim to know about this stuff do not seem credible to me. They either cannot show that their claims are more than fiction, or they refuse to. So how would I even select one of their methods to start with, given that they are all equally unconvincing?

I mean, by your lights, are there ANY wrong ways to know about the supernatural? I am a scientist, and my findings on the supernatural are that it has no effect on the natural. You can have no basis to say that is a false statement, since your worldview allows for contradictory statements to be equally true. For me, the supernatural is not real in the same way that I am, or the Earth is, or electricity is. It may be real in the same way that a story, or a myth, or a poem is, but only conceptual, not physical.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:55:21 2011 No.3403025

>>3403007

But you say they did not have access to low res photos. That there were those with high res photos right there, alongside them.

And if you think the supernatural is just as real as love, then we have no quarrel. Many things exist in the mind with no existence beyond that.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Sat Jul 16 19:59:21 2011 No.3403036

>>3402569
I do not currently see my car. I have evidence that there is no invisible elephant in my car. Similarly, I have evidence that there is no regularly interfering god.

Also, there are two kinds of gods, the falsified and the unfalsifiable. Believing in either kind is retarded.

- The atheist position.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:01:21 2011 No.3403039

>>3403020
>So there is no way to tell a real claim about the supernatural from a false one?
That's the position most people are in when it comes to the supernatural, but it's also the position most people are in when it comes to high level physics. People who want to be able to judge for themselves rather than guess which claims about high level physics are really true master physics, and then they have the means to distinguish.
>And I have never experienced anything that seemed supernatural.
Bummer.
>The people who claim to know about this stuff do not seem credible to me.
Most of them don't seem credible to me, either, to be honest.
>They either cannot show that their claims are more than fiction, or they refuse to. So how would I even select one of their methods to start with, given that they are all equally unconvincing?
It's a problem, I agree.
>I am a scientist, and my findings on the supernatural are that it has no effect on the natural.
That's more an assumption than a finding, since as you say you've never even encountered it.
>It may be real in the same way that a story, or a myth, or a poem is, but only conceptual, not physical.
That's actually a good conception of how it works. The supernatural, like being super to nature, is meta to physical. It doesn't show up in the same way electricity does. It's more like a story or myth. But people live their lives by stories, so there is a connection to the physical.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:04:21 2011 No.3403043

>>3403036
Let me phrase that better.

I have evidence that there is no invisible dragon in my garage. Similarly I have evidence that there is no regularly interfering god.

The Dragon In My Garage, by Carl Sagan
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

Also, there are two kinds of gods, the falsified and the unfalsifiable. Believing in either kind is retarded.

- The atheist position.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:05:21 2011 No.3403045

>>3403025
>But you say they did not have access to low res photos. That there were those with high res photos right there, alongside them.

You investigate the world with a method that assumes mechanism and impersonality, you end up with a model of the world based on mechanism and impersonality.

>And if you think the supernatural is just as real as love, then we have no quarrel. Many things exist in the mind with no existence beyond that.

The experience of love differs between people, because *people* differ between people. Likewise the supernatural. This kind of potential avenue of investigation is rendered invisible if you assume reality is impersonal, objective, and convergent.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:08:21 2011 No.3403050

>>3403039

The difference between supernatural claims and those of high-level physics are just that high level physics works. I'm not being flippant.

Physicists have many different ideas about what might be going on. String theory is held by many, but as yet has made no experimental predictions, and so has not been tested. It is an idea that physicists disagree on, sometimes vehemently, but none of them claim it is settled until they actually test it. The things that they have put through the method, they all agree on, more or less. And this is from my position as a non-physicist.

I have seen no such things on the supernatural side. They don't agree on the fundamentals, they don't agree on the particulars. They agree on some things, that SOMETHING else exists, and that someone knows some things about it.

But this is not a problem if you think that the supernatural is unknowable, as you seem to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:09:21 2011 No.3403053 >>3403045 >You investigate the world with a method that assumes mechanism and impersonality, you end up with a model of the world based on mechanism and impersonality. The point is that they didn't. They assumed agency, and they found none.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:13:21 2011 No.3403062

>>3403050
>The difference between supernatural claims and those of high-level physics are just that high level physics works. I'm not being flippant.
I know. But so does the supernatural. It's not as reliable, but then again neither are relationships. Physics addresses the more reliable part of reality, religion, the more improvised.
>But this is not a problem if you think that the supernatural is unknowable, as you seem to.
It's a different kind of knowledge.

>>3403053
>The point is that they didn't. They assumed agency, and they found none.
Their methods of investigations assumed lack of agency.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:16:21 2011 No.3403069

>>3403062
> >The difference between supernatural claims and those of high-level physics are just that high level physics works. I'm not being flippant.
>I know. But so does the supernatural.
No, it doesn't. Prayer does not work. There is no "supernatural" forces in the natural world, aka there is no regularly interfering god. The evidence is quite clear on this.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:20:21 2011 No.3403081

>>3403062

I still find it odd that the only position on the supernatural you don't seem to be okay with is the 'I don't think the supernatural is real'.

I mean, contradictory statements about it are okay. Because it's unreliable, unexpected or absent results are compatible with any belief in it. But since they all agree there is some... thing... they are all sort of right? I say there isn't anything. That those who find something are seeing noise and finding patterns. Is this not just as valid?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:26:21 2011 No.3403099

>>3403069
And if you try to hold a relationship to the same standards of evidence as mechanics or optics, it will look as if there are no relationships in the world. And if you're a misogynist /adv/ dweller, you probably think you have access to all the evidence necessary to make that kind of judgement.

>>3403081
>I still find it odd that the only position on the supernatural you don't seem to be okay with is the 'I don't think the supernatural is real'.
Oh no, I'm fine with you not thinking the supernatural is real.
>I mean, contradictory statements about it are okay.
In the sense that they don't halt further investigation.
>I say there isn't anything. That those who find something are seeing noise and finding patterns. Is this not just as valid?
As an opinion, sure. It's about the same as the aforementioned /adv/ dwellers who think there are no faithful women, that love isn't real, things like that.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:29:21 2011 No.3403104

>>3403099
>And if you try to hold a relationship to the same standards of evidence as mechanics or optics, it will look as if there are no relationships in the world. And if you're a misogynist /adv/ dweller, you probably think you have access to all the evidence necessary to make that kind of judgement.
What does this even mean? What are you trying to say?

There is light. It obeys certain laws of physics, without (known) exception. We calls these rules "optics".

People like each other. They associate with each other, frequently in opposite sex pairs. Each such pair is said "to be in a relationship".

Seriously, wtf are you trying to say?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:32:21 2011 No.3403109

>>3403099
>In the sense that they don't halt further investigation.

Ah, but they do not halt investigation in science either. The theory, the observations, the method is reviewed until we can get at it.

Are you saying that two contradictory claims can both be correct, or is it that they are both equally incorrect.

And regarding love, well, that can be understood with the tools we use to understand other agencies, other human beings. To have this understanding of the supernatural, we'd have to actually meet them and get to know them, not just take someones word on it. I would not take someones word that my arranged wife was in love with me, since I had never met her.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:37:21 2011 No.3403120

>>3403104
There are aspects of reality in which indefinite replication is not possible, in which strict causality cannot be seen, in which outcomes cannot be predicted. Treating everything as if it were of the same character as something indefinitely replicable, like optics, does not work.

>>3403109
>Ah, but they do not halt investigation in science either. The theory, the observations, the method is reviewed until we can get at it.
For most people here, including you from what you've written, that there exist contradictory claims about the supernatural leads them to believe that it is not worth continuing investigating.
>Are you saying that two contradictory claims can both be correct, or is it that they are both equally incorrect.
Both seem to occur.
>And regarding love, well, that can be understood with the tools we use to understand other agencies, other human beings. To have this understanding of the supernatural, we'd have to actually meet them and get to know them, not just take someones word on it. I would not take someones word that my arranged wife was in love with me, since I had never met her.
And I certainly would not expect you to.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:42:21 2011 No.3403139

>>3403120
>There are aspects of reality in which indefinite replication is not possible, in which strict causality cannot be seen, in which outcomes cannot be predicted. Treating everything as if it were of the same character as something indefinitely replicable, like optics, does not work.

You assert the existence of such phenomena without explanation or evidence. Presumably there are such phenomena which are observable. Can you give an example of such a thing, please?

I do not believe that you understand the implications of what you're saying, but I will humor you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:45:21 2011 No.3403144 >>3403139 A relationship, as I have been saying for several posts now.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:46:21 2011 No.3403147

>>3403120
>For most people here, including you from what you've written, that there exist contradictory claims about the supernatural leads them to believe that it is not worth continuing investigating.

Not so. It's they have no method, or are unwilling to share the method, of resolving these claims.

Multiple, contradictory schools of thought does call the whole thing into question, though. It leads one to think that they have no real purchase on the supernatural, not enough understanding to tell the real from the imaginary.

If we had two or more different sciences, with incompatible claims about the natural world, who both felt they had passed their own methods and described the world accurately, in the same way, it would also call that into question.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:51:21 2011 No.3403157

>>3403144
First, I need to get something out of the way. Protein folding is a presumably rather deterministic process, and it is simply the result of the fundamental laws of physics. I am advocating a reductionist argument here. Protein folding is predictable in principle. However, it is not predictable in practice. We lack sufficient computing power to reliably and cheaply do the protein folding calculations. This does not change the established fact that protein folding can be explained solely in terms of fundamental physics.

As for you claim, I do not understand it. What aspect of relationships is unexplainable by science? The human brain can be explained in terms of the fundamental forces of physical, again in principle but not in practice. We can then explain the human mind in terms of the human brain, and we can explain human behavior in terms of the human mind and brain. From that, we can explain the existence and observable properties of human relationships.

I am not seeing your point at all. If you could please be more clear in your assertions as to how science is "inadequate" to explain and predict the observables of human relationships.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:52:21 2011 No.3403162 >>3403157 Are you in a relationship?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:53:21 2011 No.3403163 >>3403162 Many. I have friends, family. I talk to colleagues at work. Do you mean a romantic relationship? No.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:54:21 2011 No.3403168 >>3403163 Can you imagine for the moment that you are in a romantic relationship?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:55:21 2011 No.3403176 >>3403168 All the time. And?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:56:21 2011 No.3403179 >>3403176 Great. For purposes of pronouns, would this be with a woman or a man? If you had to choose one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:57:21 2011 No.3403182 >>3403179 You're being rather obnoxious. Can you just get to the point? Man seeking woman.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 20:58:21 2011 No.3403187

>>3403168

not that guy, but...

I see where you are going here. No, I can't prove my girlfriend loves me. I can't prove mathematically what her motivations are. I can however, prove she exists, if I am called on to do so, Not here, obviously, since she's fictional, but you get my meaning. If I had a girlfriend right now, I could prove she existed.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 21:01:21 2011 No.3403198

>>3403187
Except that's wrong. You can prove that she loves you, in principle. "Love" is a loosely defined condition of the human mind. You could examine the human mind through various methods, such as talking to the human body, observing the speech and actions of the human body, using polygraphs, using fMRIs, and so on.

There's nothing magic about love nor the human mind. They are materialistic things in a materialistic universe.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 21:02:21 2011 No.3403201

>>3403182
I've tried getting to the point, and when I got there found that you didn't. So I figured I'd try a dialogue instead and see if that worked better. So far, it is working better. If you don't want to continue it, then don't.

But if you can bear my obnoxiousness a little longer:

Great! How would you go about finding out if she loves you?

>>3403187
>I see where you are going here.
It goes deeper than that.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 21:06:21 2011 No.3403211

>>3403201
As explained elsethread, if I wanted to determine if she loved me, I have various means at my disposal.

I could ask her. I could watch her behavior for an extended period of time and determine if it's consistent with love. I could question her with a polygraph, a fMRI, and so on.

Going beyond practicable, we have in principle. In principle, I could examine her brain with as of yet undiscovered technology, going through her feelings and motivations, and thereby discover whether she is in love (with me).

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 21:07:21 2011 No.3403216

>>3403201

How deeper?

You are saying that the supernatural is something just like love, ie, a concept. A thing of the mind.

Until I actually know the agency exists, I will not be second-guessing it's motivations. The supernatural, if it could interact with the natural in some way, could prove it's existence with ease. Until it does, discussing the motivations of whatever supernatural beings may or may not exist, based on the word of people who may or may not actually be in contact with the supernatural, is asinine.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 21:07:21 2011 No.3403220 >>3403211 >I could ask her. Great. She says "yes". Do you now know that she loves you?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 21:09:21 2011 No.3403229

>>3403220
Depending on her past track record of lying, aka her trustworthiness, then yes, I have good evidence that she does love me. Eye witness testimony is still evidence.

Also, nice job ignoring my discussion of polygraphs, fMRIs, and future not yet discovered tech which will be better able to peer into someone's head.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math