Posts by C0ntr013r

65

[Day 4 - 31/7]The Royal Commissions investigation of child sexual abuse within Jehovah’s Witnesses. + VIDEO

by C0ntr013r in

by popular demand i give you day 4, and i will finally get a couple of days to sleep .

part 1 has been uploaded and part 2,3 and 4 will soon be available.. part 1:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmlcdqesa0&list=plpq6kz-aghvqbadlzmqn26dvmpzddxlui&index=11.

C0ntr013r

GUIDELINES FOR BRANCH OFFICE SERVICE DESKS - 2013

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

I think the thread has been derailed enough too, so lets forget about the multiverse for now.

The points on which I disagree with you are:

Lack of evidence automatically discards a hypothesis in science.

I don't think that is how science works.

I re-iterate: Atheism is scientific.
Science is Atheistic, Aelveistic etc...

I disagree with this because Atheism deals with belief, or the lack of it to be precise. Hence not science.

Absence of evidence is good enough to discount ALL of the above for any practical and scientific purpose.

I disagree with this because it is a logical fallacy

You can disregard the derailment.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

thiest: "you cant prove god dosent exist therefore he does! I see what i want to and therefore you cant me convince otherwise! Also people who dont believe exactly as i do suck!"
athiests: " but we are simply being logical. We just want some reason and evidence" (repeat pointlessly ad infinitum)
i would like to believe my summary will save some time and effort but history suggests it wont..

This is actually a discussion of Gnostic vs Agnostic now thou

EDIT: I am also trying to show that Atheism is not science.

And it is actually the reverse:

atheist: you cant prove that god exist therefore he does not!

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

Exactly. The reason being a model has to correspond to physical observation. So how does it become evidence? Because it can now make predictions which correspond to experiment and observation.

Yes, and I suggested that "something" within science can be a hypotheses without evidence. If the multiverse has evidence my example was a bad one, but you are completely missing the point.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

That is why I used the word "suggest". Mathematics suggests a way the universe could work. It IS a proof IF it is corroborated by observation. WHY? Because it can now make PREDICTIONS. This is not controversial.

I agree, and we can call it a theory when we have enough observable evidence. Before that we call it a hypothesis.

If you merely meant "suggest", what is "obvious proof" doing in this context?
Mathematics suggests a way the universe could work. It IS a proof IF it is corroborated by observation. What the mathematics now allow you to do is to make PREDICTIONS. This is not controversial.

There is no proof of a Multiverse, and how could there be? If there are other universes outside of our own, how would we know about it? Still it is a thought entertained in science and in some of our models.
1. Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse.

You say there is obvious proof of a multiverse, do you not? Or how am i supposed to interpret this comment?

Remedial: You're still doing it wrong. You don't quote an encyclopedia. You quote the source within the Article.

LOL, did you look up the source? It is a few book that are not available online, or do you want us to buy some book on ebay for this discussion?

Please see: The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Raphael Bousso, Leonard Susskind

I will look into it, did you read the entire book yourself?

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

Please see: How to Prove It A Structured Approach - Daniel J Velleman

I looked thought it. And again, I don't deny the existence of proof by mathematics. I simply say that there are mathematical models which are not considered evidence within themselves.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

Not at all. That is why it is called a "mathematical proof". Example: When Einstein suggested special relativity in 1905 it was a revelation.

Are you making straw man arguments now? I think you know that I don't reject the idea of "mathematical proof". I reject the idea that every mathematical model is proof of that model. Especially when you take into consideration all the guess work that goes into such a model.

Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse.

If you merely meant "suggest", what is "obvious proof" doing in this context? You have to forgive me for misunderstanding that phrasing if you meant something else than "obvious proof".

Papers for mathematical multiverses and unified theories abound. This is not controversial and multiverse and unified theories discussions are derailing this thread.

Sure, you don't have to show that such a mathematical multiverse model exist, to my knowledge it does not.

Also please don't quote Wikipedia as an authoritative reference.

It is not really a contested area but ill be happy to provide other sources.

http://global.britannica.com/topic/atheism

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

You know, if I understand you correctly, your position is that of a Gnostic Atheist, hence you actually have the burden of proof. So if you can, please prove the non existence of god.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

By the way, according to this mantra - give me one practical example where this has worked.

It refers to you being guilty of a logical fallacy...

The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam) is a logical fallacy, you can google that to. It is usually refuted by: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse. Therefore it is worth investigation. HOWEVER the only way any of these models would be accepted would be through experiment. Until then none will be accepted.

You clearly don't understand what the word "proof" means or you mean something different than me. To me "proof" is evidence and that must be observable, testable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable.

I don't know what models you have looked at and I would like you to give an example of such a model, one I heard about goes something along the lines of; A multiverse could be a explanation of the big bang, mathematical formulas show how such a model would work and how the universe could have been formed under such conditions.

No evidence for a multiverse, no proof... But this is a hypothesis alongside many others.

There are ALSO tens of mathematical models that suggest a unified theory. So there is a mathematical evidence for these theories which merit investigation.

Study this a little and you will see that such "mathematical models" are by no means evidence. Or prove me wrong and link one that do.

Lets say we lived a few thousand years ago and we thought that everything had a God. And I came up with the hypnosis that the God of rain was in love with the God of the rainbow. I did many observations to show that this could be the case. This would not be proof, it would just be a way to explain what I saw.

It is the same way with these models, we come up with reasons for what we see, try to make sense of them with hypothesis, but the calculations that built the hypnosis is in no way evidence for that hypothesis...

There is no mathematical model as yet that suggests God. So why would it merit investigation?

I have no idea, you tell me.

I re-iterate: Atheism is scientific.

Atheism is in no way, shape or form science. Wikipedia it if you don't believe me... Neither is Theism, Deism or any other belief system.