Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #41  
Old 24-08-2013, 08:47 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by phobos View Post
It can be argued that they failed to apply their critical thinking skills and skeptism to their religious beliefs.
That would only be true if atheists can prove or show evidence that God doesn't exist, in which case your statement is perfectly valid.
The reality is atheists can't do either. Believers are in the same boat for the converse case.

The existence or non existence of God isn't a mathematical problem that can be proved using logic or rational thinking and is unfalsifiable as there is no evidence that can disprove either position.

Hence critical thinking cannot play a significant role as a conclusion cannot be reached and both sides use opinion or faith based arguments to support their positions.

Regards

Steven
  #42  
Old 24-08-2013, 09:43 AM
Zaps
Registered User

Zaps is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 349
Not falsifiable = not interesting. At least, not to scientists. Philosophers maybe.

Science and scientists have no time for junk like UFOs, ghosts, gods, sea monsters, invisible fairy princesses and any other silly nonsense that can only be defended by claiming, "Oh, it's real, you just can't see it and refuse to believe!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
The existence or non existence of God isn't a mathematical problem that can be proved using logic or rational thinking and is unfalsifiable as there is no evidence that can disprove either position.

Hence critical thinking cannot play a significant role as a conclusion cannot be reached and both sides use opinion or faith based arguments to support their positions.
  #43  
Old 24-08-2013, 11:55 AM
Zaps
Registered User

Zaps is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 349
You have no understanding of what true science really is.

But in response to your last comment, remember that there are a lot of people who live their lives as virtuously as any religious cult adherent and in most cases more virtuously, with far less hypocrisy; they don't live that way due to a mortal fear of "divine retribution." They live that way because they are decent and honest people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rcheshire View Post
I love science and what it brings to our lives, but it will not be my moral compass. Guided by men - God forbid - I don't think so!
  #44  
Old 24-08-2013, 05:56 PM
rally
Registered User

rally is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 896
This is a thread about about Helium isn't it ?
  #45  
Old 24-08-2013, 08:52 PM
phobos's Avatar
phobos (John)
caffeine addict

phobos is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
That would only be true if atheists can prove or show evidence that God doesn't exist, in which case your statement is perfectly valid.
The reality is atheists can't do either. Believers are in the same boat for the converse case.

The existence or non existence of God isn't a mathematical problem that can be proved using logic or rational thinking and is unfalsifiable as there is no evidence that can disprove either position.

Hence critical thinking cannot play a significant role as a conclusion cannot be reached and both sides use opinion or faith based arguments to support their positions.

Regards

Steven
Atheists have nothing to prove, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that gods exist. Take Russell's teapot for example, if I tell you there is a teapot in orbit around the sun and you can't prove me wrong should you believe my claim?

Critical thinking can easily be applied to religious claims. Many believers compartmentalize their irrational beliefs and don't apply their skeptical tools to them.
  #46  
Old 25-08-2013, 10:35 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by phobos View Post
Atheists have nothing to prove, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that gods exist. Take Russell's teapot for example, if I tell you there is a teapot in orbit around the sun and you can't prove me wrong should you believe my claim?
A teapot in orbit is in fact falsifiable, it can be proved or disproved through observation.
The existence or non existence of God is however unfalsifiable. Whether I choose to believe one way or another is based on faith.

Shifting the burden of proof is symptomatic of faith based arguments. Creationists do it all the time in evolution debates.
Expecting believers to prove the existence of God is doomed to failure and at the same time doesn't strengthen the Atheist position as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Atheism vs Religion debates seem to get bogged down in false dichotomies, namely "You're wrong automatically proves me right" type arguments.

Quote:
Critical thinking can easily be applied to religious claims. Many believers compartmentalize their irrational beliefs and don't apply their skeptical tools to them.
Then it wouldn't be critical thinking.

Regards

Steven

Last edited by sjastro; 25-08-2013 at 10:59 AM. Reason: Additions
  #47  
Old 25-08-2013, 11:30 AM
LAW (Murphy)
Registered User

LAW is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 204
I think He would be disappointed by the ignoble nature of this debate. It's frankly Boron.
  #48  
Old 25-08-2013, 11:40 AM
Camelopardalis's Avatar
Camelopardalis (Dunk)
Drifting from the pole

Camelopardalis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5,478
Athiests might be pretty skeptical of other people's faith, but they tend not to start religious wars, go suicide bombing or anything in between.

Helium is a lot more fun
  #49  
Old 25-08-2013, 11:51 AM
rcheshire's Avatar
rcheshire (Rowland)
Registered User

rcheshire is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Geelong
Posts: 2,617
Thank you Steven. I have deleted my posts to keep within the protocols, but I am glad that you have pointed out the fallacy.
  #50  
Old 25-08-2013, 12:52 PM
Zaps
Registered User

Zaps is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
A teapot in orbit is in fact falsifiable, it can be proved or disproved through observation.
What if it's a magic invisible teapot? What if it can jump between orbits whenever anyone attempts to observe it? What if only True Believers can see it?
  #51  
Old 25-08-2013, 01:47 PM
multiweb's Avatar
multiweb (Marc)
ze frogginator

multiweb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaps View Post
What if it's a magic invisible teapot? What if it can jump between orbits whenever anyone attempts to observe it? What if only True Believers can see it?
Too much Helium sniffing around here.
  #52  
Old 25-08-2013, 02:21 PM
Shark Bait's Avatar
Shark Bait (Stu)
'ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha'

Shark Bait is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
The existence or non existence of God is however unfalsifiable. Whether I choose to believe one way or another is based on faith.
I have to quote Douglas Adams from The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, so . . . .......

'The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says He, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Bable fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says He, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

'Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys ..... . . . .

CH 6:V21-V24

The world is a poorer place without Douglas Adams.

Last edited by Shark Bait; 25-08-2013 at 03:39 PM.
  #53  
Old 25-08-2013, 02:25 PM
Lee's Avatar
Lee
Colour is over-rated

Lee is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopardalis View Post
Athiests might be pretty skeptical of other people's faith, but they tend not to start religious wars, go suicide bombing or anything in between.

Helium is a lot more fun
+1
We also don't go door knocking to spread the joy of atheism....
  #54  
Old 25-08-2013, 04:10 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaps View Post
What if it's a magic invisible teapot? What if it can jump between orbits whenever anyone attempts to observe it? What if only True Believers can see it?
You obviously don't know that Schrödinger addressed this very issue by gassing teapots with He.

Regards

Steven
  #55  
Old 25-08-2013, 04:51 PM
phobos's Avatar
phobos (John)
caffeine addict

phobos is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
A teapot in orbit is in fact falsifiable, it can be proved or disproved through observation. <snipped>
I wasn't clear and you have misunderstood the teapot analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
  #56  
Old 25-08-2013, 05:05 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by phobos View Post
I wasn't clear and you have misunderstood the teapot analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
I'm aware of the teapot analogy and its counterarguments.

From the Wiki article.

Quote:
One counter-argument, advanced by philosopher Eric Reitan,[8] is that belief in God is different from belief in a teapot because teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable, and that given what we know about the physical world we have no good reason to think that belief in Russell's teapot is justified and at least some reason to think it not.[9]
Regards

Steven
  #57  
Old 25-08-2013, 05:15 PM
Zaps
Registered User

Zaps is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 349
This is why people can claim to believe in the existence of absolutely anything. And frequently do.
  #58  
Old 25-08-2013, 05:16 PM
Zaps
Registered User

Zaps is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 349
I'm pretty sure that would contravene the Geneva Conventions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
You obviously don't know that Schrödinger addressed this very issue by gassing teapots with He.
  #59  
Old 25-08-2013, 05:19 PM
rat156's Avatar
rat156
Registered User

rat156 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,696
Whilst I like the OPs first post, I find it strange that he should have had to add the bit about the TOS, it's a simple set of scientific facts.

However, the post by a moderator of the site, which is little more than religious dogma, is offensive. Not for the content, as you don't have to watch it (I only got halfway through before the religiousness became overpowering and I stopped it), but for the fact that a moderator of the site can post something which so flagrantly contravenes the site's TOS.

Enough said, close the thread.

Cheers
Stuart
  #60  
Old 25-08-2013, 05:24 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaps View Post
I'm pretty sure that would contravene the Geneva Conventions.
I suppose you are going to tell me Geneva is the capital of Denmark.

Regards

Steven
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 09:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement