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

  1. So how did belief enter science?
  2. How did scientists get to that belief?

  It did not, that was my point.

  Science have not investigate santa or the flying spaghettimonster either, to my knowledge at least.

  Science is not a entity that can hold a belief... It is a system we use to investigate the world, it has no beliefs.

  What I meant was that; maybe the reason for this is that most PEOPLE don't believe in them...

  And this conversation is again derailing, it is not about fairies. It is about; lack of evidence does not prove non existence.

  So lets forget about the fairies and get back on topic.

  One of the examples in the link I gave is that which the discussion started with. It should prove to you that you are incorrect in your understanding:

  I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
  	A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
  		Statement p is unproved. Not-p is true.		Statement not-p is unproved. p is true.
  	B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.

  I know you don't like Wikipedia, but since you apparently prefer to use Wikipedia's reference I thought I use it anyway:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

  
  

  A false dilemma may take the form:

  • If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
  • If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

  • "There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence

  There are plenty of examples of this fallacy, both on Wikipedia and it's sources.
• 
  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

  To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed

  Yeah, good quote. Thanks!
• 
  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

  On what basis can science dismiss fairies, or is stating that fairies don't exist unscientific?

  You can't prove the non existence of fairies, if that is what you are asking.

  But since the argument would stem from; "fairies exist" the burden of proof would be on the person making the claim, so we would not believe in fairies unless the evidence is provided.

  What we would not do is claim; "there is no evidence for fairies, therefor fairies can't/don't exist".

  It is really a waste of time to argue this since it has been established as a logical fallacy. Here is a short summery of what it is and how it works:

  http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

  
  

  As for it being a scientific question.

  Science deals with proving and disproving theories and hypothesis through evidence. And I don't think fairies qualify to be dealt with scientifically. Have some scientific paper or study been done about them? Since most don't believe in them it would be a waste of time.

  
  
• 
  26

  Photobombing the Ministerial Servant's incentive rewards at the Regional Convention

  by oppostate in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  watchtower marketing incentive rewards for young single baptized males in the 0rganization.. .

  the face of the photobombing brother in the background says it all.

  like a child in a candy shop.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Watchtower marketing incentive rewards for young single baptized males in the 0rganization.

  Just young once? Think of all the pedophiles this picture will attract, they might be a bit old for them, but still...

  Some of them might be under 18...

  
  
• 
  21

  Jehovah's Witnesses "Handling Child Abuse Matters" flowchart

  by jwleaks in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  jw leaks courtesy of the australian royal commission.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  So...

  1 Witness and Confession + no reporting laws + ecclesiastical privilege = no report

  2 Witnesses and Confession + no reporting laws + ecclesiastical privilege = no report

  Confession + no reporting laws + ecclesiastical privilege = no report

  
  

  If none of the above apply: check with society...
  

  
  

  So if you live somewhere where there are ecclesiastical privilege it will be better to confess because they will use this privilege to not report it...

  Quote:

  Note: We will claim this is part of confessional ritual where privilege is available
• 
  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.