C0ntr013r

Joined

• started 35 topics
• posted 547 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by C0ntr013r

• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  The problem isn't a lack of evidence full stop.
  The problem is a lack of evidence where there should be evidence.
  Do you agree that there is a difference between those two statements?

  Who is this addressed to?
• 
  65

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

  by C0ntr013r in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  GUIDELINES FOR BRANCH OFFICE SERVICE DESKS - 2013
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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".