Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Why atheists fail to persuade theists

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 06:45 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:08 PM
Gaza assault
Yesterday at 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Why atheists fail to persuade theists

 (Read 36367 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #120 - December 24, 2013, 02:20 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on December 23, 2013, 12:28 AM
    I can't prove there is no god, but I can give good arguments for why there's no allah

    I don't understand what you mean. If you have a good argument against the theory of Allah, then why don't you call that *proving that Allah doesn't exist*?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #121 - December 24, 2013, 02:22 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on December 23, 2013, 12:53 AM
    No, I believe you are wrong for the reasons I've explained at length in previous posts addressed to you.


    The reason you gave was that your understand is more nuanced. But you didn't explain the nuances. So you gave me an unexplained assertion.

    If you can't explain the nuances, then you don't have nuances.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #122 - December 24, 2013, 02:25 PM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 23, 2013, 12:58 AM
    The point was about your claim of that  "theist  god claim is not a scientific theory"??"

    My point is they do have a theory behind their existence of god claims., They may hide it from you but it is open book if you question them,  they will spill it.

    Do they claim that there theory is scientific one?

    A scientific theory is a theory that can, in principle, be ruled out by physical evidence. So if a theory can't be ruled out by physical evidence, then it's not a scientific theory.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #123 - December 24, 2013, 02:27 PM
    Quote from: bogart on December 23, 2013, 03:48 AM
    For example in the case of the Israelite origin theories. Pottery, settlement plans, housing plans, etc. If one creates a hypothesis that a site is of Israeli origin one must find evidence at this site which can be linked to these people.

    And do you agree that the link could be wrong? In other words, do you agree that sometimes people find links, and then other people later expose something wrong with that conclusion (of the link)?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #124 - December 24, 2013, 02:28 PM
    Quote from: bogart on December 23, 2013, 08:05 AM
    Also prosp for introducing me to Popper. I will have to read more of his work/

    If you want to learn Popper's epistemology, I can help you with that (with a reading list, and a list of people that understand him the best, and you can talk to me about it [publicly and/or privately]).
  • Re: Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #125 - December 24, 2013, 02:31 PM
    Quote from: movingfeet on December 23, 2013, 08:46 AM
    You evidently don't understand the nature of the scientific method. Which, by extension, means that you don't have a grasp on science at all. Don't preach to people about something that you know nothing about.

    Evidently? How do you know that? Did your feelings tell you? Or do you have an argument for your claim?

    The scientific method works like this:

    (1) (a) Create a testable theory. (b) Design an experiment that could refute it.

    (2) (a) Run the experiment and collect the result. (b) Interpret the result.

    If (2b) rules out the theory, then go back to (1a) and create another testable theory. One way to create another testable theory is to take the refuted one and change a part of it so that the new version doesn’t contradict the new evidence.

    Note that every step is fallible. So you want to critically question every step. So for (2a), that means that the experiment is repeated many times and by many people.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #126 - December 24, 2013, 02:34 PM
    Quote from: moi on December 23, 2013, 12:22 PM
    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

    So there are three ways to test if something is a scientific theory?

    No. Your quote is wrong. Falsifiability and testability are the same thing. It's about ruling out scientific theories.

    Refutability is referring to ALL theories, not just scientific ones.

    A (non-scientific) theory can be refuted by pointing out a flaw in it.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #127 - December 24, 2013, 02:37 PM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 23, 2013, 02:10 PM
    What I am looking  for is Mutations that are responsible  for the transition of one species to other.  In other words essentially I am looking for the Whole genome sequence  of a "Transitional species" in that Evolutionary tree .

    Well In science each answer leads to new questions..  That is life..


    Genetic evolution works like this: Variation and selection

    Variation of genes happens by mutation.

    Selection of genes happens by the death of the hosts. If a gene is unfit, then it's hosts dies, thus removing that gene from the gene pool.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #128 - December 24, 2013, 02:42 PM
    Quote from: bogart on December 23, 2013, 10:33 PM
    I hope this doesn't degenerate into in to a philosophy vs science thread. This kind of conflict happens much to often these days. Especially in the ever changing concept of what science is. Science is not philosophy free. Philosophy does not have a veto power to be the end all be all of science nor does science have such a veto power over philosophy. Both need to work together especially when science can be so blunt and ignorant of the ethical implications of it's work. I guess this would be a failure of many modern educational institutions in which philosophy is never required, or even suggested, as a fundamental part of science.

    Popper created a new epistemology FROM studying science.

    Science works like this: (1) (a) Create a testable theory. (b) Design an experiment that could refute it. (2) (a) Run the experiment and collect the result. (b) Interpret the result.  ~~~ [If (2b) rules out the theory, then go back to (1a) and create another testable theory — maybe from the refuted testable theory by changing a part of it so that the new version doesn’t contradict the existing evidence. Note that every step is fallible. So you want to critically question every step. So for (2a), that means that the experiment is repeated many times and by many people.]

    Philosophy works like this: (1) Create a theory. (2) Try to criticize the theory. [If (2) rules out the theory, then go back to (1) and create another theory -- maybe from the refuted theory by changing a part of it so that the new version doesn't contradict the existing criticism.]

    So do you see the parallel?

    Btw, even genetic knowledge evolves this way too.

    Genetic evolution works like this: (1) Create a gene. (2) Rule out the gene by death of it's host  [Creation of genes happens by mutation.]

  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #129 - December 24, 2013, 02:50 PM
    Quote from: bogart on December 23, 2013, 02:10 PM
    It is a flaw in the lack of a unified methodology which needs to be resolved. There are advocates for the use of Lakatos method of conjecture and refutation. Although now that I have read some of Popper's work it should be perhaps be called Popper\Lakatos. However such a movement is still hindered by the dying conflict between textual minimalist and maximist view points. For example view points of the Bible. Some of rabid Christian students of Ablright are still kicking up dirt in America due to the religious conflict in the nation. The Zionist movement and it's influence in Israeli also needs to die out. Also archaeology itself is slave to some many other fields of science and borrows so much to formulate a framework that can be debilitating at times. Be it anthropology or sociology. Archaeology at the moment is between science and history. It is a combination of both including the flaws in both which in turn create flaws in archaeology itself when used in combination to formulate a theory.

    Conjectures and Refutations. Smiley

    In other words:

    Guesses and Criticism.

    For genetic knowledge, it's Variation and Selection.

    For scientific theories, it's Scientific theories and Evidence.

    The point is that the 1st step is a positive claim, while the 2nd step is a negative one.

    The 1st step proposes an idea (conjecture/hypothesis/theory/new-gene), while the 2nd step tries to find a flaw in it (refutation/criticism/natural-selection/evidence).
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #130 - December 24, 2013, 02:55 PM
    Quote from: dr_sloth on December 23, 2013, 02:30 PM
    the problem i have in persuading theists of anything is that they don't understand a single point I make.
    They can always find a way of misinterpreting me.


    Sometimes people do that purposefully to make you out to be wrong. Sometimes they do it subconsciously, again to make you out to be wrong. It's a problem even in debate societies. They are taught to "win the argument" regardless of which side is on the side of truth.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #131 - December 24, 2013, 02:56 PM
    Quote from: movingfeet on December 23, 2013, 11:40 PM
    One doesn't need a phD to logically see the correlation between evidence and proving theories. Even most high school students have that concept downpact. He his good for debating philosophy, which he seems to be good at, but not science. If one doesn't understand the core basics of a subject then they have no leg to stand on. And sure, philosophy was the science of the past and a lot of theories that have been proven started from philosophical concepts. The fact remains that they have to proven over and over again, be subject to extreme scrutiny, to be ever considered a scientific theory. That's my point.

    Correlations don't mean causation. That's false logic. If you'd like an explanation, let me know.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #132 - December 24, 2013, 03:26 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 24, 2013, 02:22 PM
    The reason you gave was that your understand is more nuanced. But you didn't explain the nuances. So you gave me an unexplained assertion.

    If you can't explain the nuances, then you don't have nuances.

    ok
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #133 - December 24, 2013, 03:47 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 24, 2013, 02:20 PM
    I don't understand what you mean. If you have a good argument against the theory of Allah, then why don't you call that *proving that Allah doesn't exist*?


    Well as I said in the first part of what you quoted, a theist is easier to refute than a deist. A theist believes in a personal god. The vast majority of theists will identify as christians, muslims, etc. I can prove these don't exist by seeing if reality counters their holy books.

    If you have quranic claims, i.e. the creation of man, the great flood, we know that what's written in the quran is wrong. So as we can establish that the word of god isn't correct, it proves that the god in question (in this case allah) is also incorrect. For instance if I claimed to have magical powers and could use them to see everything, you could test that. You could ask me to describe your room, your clothes, etc. If I really do have magical powers and can see everything, then I will easily be able to tell you. If I get it wrong, it proves I was either lying or delusional.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #134 - December 24, 2013, 03:55 PM
    If someone lacks the capacity for critical and independent thought, then they're never be able to be convinced.  I learned this the hard way growing up among religious people.  But I don't understand why some atheists want to convert theists anyway?  I don't honestly see the point.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #135 - December 24, 2013, 04:07 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on December 24, 2013, 03:47 PM
    Well as I said in the first part of what you quoted, a theist is easier to refute than a deist. A theist believes in a personal god. The vast majority of theists will identify as christians, muslims, etc. I can prove these don't exist by seeing if reality counters their holy books.

    If you have quranic claims, i.e. the creation of man, the great flood, we know that what's written in the quran is wrong. So as we can establish that the word of god isn't correct, it proves that the god in question (in this case allah) is also incorrect. For instance if I claimed to have magical powers and could use them to see everything, you could test that. You could ask me to describe your room, your clothes, etc. If I really do have magical powers and can see everything, then I will easily be able to tell you. If I get it wrong, it proves I was either lying or delusional.

    I see. So you are equating "proving" with "proving with physical evidence".

    But why don't you also consider "proving without physical evidence"?

    I mean, if you can point out contradiction in an idea, then that idea is refuted (aka proved wrong). Do you agree?

    And do you agree that we don't need physical evidence in order to discover a contradiction in an idea?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #136 - December 24, 2013, 04:19 PM
    You forgot a few steps. Subject(findings), question(s), data collection and observations, hypothesis, experimentation and observation, analyse results, prediction, theory formulation, experimentation, review, publication.

    Archaeology can not always follow this methodology as many influences can restrict these steps. Be it political, scarcity of data, limitation of the timeline of findings and data. Archaeology has one foot in science and the other in history. This opens the field to criticism from a number of view points for various reasons. We have to tread lightly lest one too many toes are stepped on. Theories in archaeology vary from strong to weak as generalization and inductive thinking influences vary. Some are based on very weak data. For example some theories which attempt to resolve the same basic question vary between the level of textual analysis as evidence vs physical evidence. One theory is mostly based on historical texts with only minor physical evidence. Another is based almost solely physical evidence as there are few historical texts. Both theories can be criticized for the relying upon limited data. We also have to heavily rely on other fields for our data and interpretation of data. This develops in the issue as we become subject to flaws in other fields further weakening our theories.

    I think you misunderstood my tone or what I was trying to imply. I am not suggesting philosophy and science are disconnected with each in complete isolation from each other or should be. I am just point out there is a disconnect as many fields of science never integrate philosophy into it's programs at the university level. Another issue is the result driven mentality of funding of science in the public and private sectors. Many companies which fund development are more concerned with results along with the potential "profit" of these results. At times many companies and scientists ignore the real world impact of their work. Many of my courses teach history more than methodology behind the history. I have to go outside my major to see the larger picture so to speak.

    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 24, 2013, 02:27 PM
    And do you agree that the link could be wrong? In other words, do you agree that sometimes people find links, and then other people later expose something wrong with that conclusion (of the link)?


    The link could be wrong or the chain can be completely shattered. This has been repeated in archaeology for decades since it has become it's own discipline separate from general history, theology and anthropology.

    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 24, 2013, 02:28 PM
    If you want to learn Popper's epistemology, I can help you with that (with a reading list, and a list of people that understand him the best, and you can talk to me about it [publicly and/or privately]).


    I only have the entry level Critical Thinking course under my belt. http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/courses/1137/philxxx1b.html I admit some of Popper's work could be over my head. I will let you decide what the best approach would be to learn, and understand, his work.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #137 - December 24, 2013, 04:36 PM
    bogart said:

    //I only have the entry level Critical Thinking course under my belt. http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/courses/1137/philxxx1b.html I admit some of Popper's work could be over my head. I will let you decide what the best approach would be to learn, and understand, his work.//

    I suggest that you don't try to learn Popper from a philosophy department, and instead to learn it from the people that understand him the best. David Deutsch and Elliot Temple are the one's that understand him the best. David wrote two books on epistemology while Elliot wrote a bunch of essays on it (and like 1000 blog posts).

    Both of them are available for discussion (as am I and a bunch of other guys who understand Popper well). We discuss philosophy and everything else on the Fallible Ideas email list, and also The Beginning of Infinity email list.

    http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/info
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/beginning-of-infinity/join


    To start understanding Popper's epistemology, consider reading the essay I just posted this morning:

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=25492.0#new
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #138 - December 24, 2013, 05:07 PM
    Quote from: EzraJT on December 24, 2013, 03:55 PM
    If someone lacks the capacity for critical and independent thought, then they're never be able to be convinced.  I learned this the hard way growing up among religious people.  But I don't understand why some atheists want to convert theists anyway?  I don't honestly see the point.


    The way I see it is some atheists have merely switched the goal or position in which their sociological world view is based upon. If one's connection to other people is heavily influenced by their former religion a social vacuum is created in the religions absence. They are attempting to rebuild social circle by assimilation and group behavior. You can see the same behavior in colonization and cultural assimilation. At times this vacuum can be hard to overcome. It's part of human nature.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #139 - December 24, 2013, 05:09 PM
    I think the main place your argument stumbles is the fact that you're holding to a particularly rigid scientific doctrine of falsification (which is only really relevant in certain scientific circles) and then trying to apply that in principle across all human interaction and forms of debate. By your calculations, drawing upon your own reading of Popper et al, there is no such thing as evidence of something. As I understand it, you're applying that narrow context of scientific investigation and scrutiny to all contexts where people might expect evidence and justification. When you apply that narrow, specific scientific context to other endeavours of convincing people in a broad sense, it doesn't have its power any more.

    I don't particularly care if you don't like the idea of asking for evidence and justification. I happen to disagree, and think that requirement has broad utility and is a principle most people understand and respect. A principle that bears fruits. I want evidence and justification if I'm to believe a person who presents a claim that I doubt. I'm fine with producing evidence or explaining my reasoning when others ask it of me. There is no problem in this method that needs resolving.

    Your subjective appraisal of what is and isn't evidence or what it can and cannot do is irrelevant here. I'm talking about mine. I accept new strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria as supporting evidence of evolution over time by natural selection, for example. I am persuaded by it. This is the kind of thing I have in mind when I ask for evidence or justification. Clearly not the same kind of thing you have in mind. And that's ok. You're welcome to your own expectations.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #140 - December 24, 2013, 05:24 PM
    Quote
    The way I see it is some atheists have merely switched the goal or position in which their sociological world view is based upon. If one's connection to other people is heavily influenced by their former religion a social vacuum is created in the religions absence. They are attempting to rebuild social circle by assimilation and group behavior. You can see the same behavior in colonization and cultural assimilation. At times this vacuum can be hard to overcome. It's part of human nature.


    Fair enough.  I've always been an atheist, yet I've never really felt the need to hang around other atheists myself, though my two closest friends are atheists as well.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #141 - December 24, 2013, 05:53 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 24, 2013, 02:37 PM
    Genetic evolution works like this: Variation and selection

    Variation of genes happens by mutation.

    Selection of genes happens by the death of the hosts. If a gene is unfit, then it's hosts dies, thus removing that gene from the gene pool.

    well  RamiRustom., don't worry about that evolution nonsense., I casually drifted in to Biologic because I read something from Ishina.  Allah just revealed to me.. "Ohyee  yeezevee.. stop talking nonsense about the creation of allah.."  FEAR ALLAH.. fear  

    So no more biology in this thread for me..
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 24, 2013, 02:25 PM
    Do they claim that there theory is scientific one?

    well,  that is exactly the reason I asked you to watch that 3mt tube in that post.  but you don't like to watch.  These theists guys may or may not know what theory they have in their minds but many of them overtly and covertly  jump in to the fields of science with their theism .
    Quote
    A scientific theory is a theory that can, in principle, be ruled out by physical evidence. So if a theory can't be ruled out by physical evidence, then it's not a scientific theory.

    well then may be it is not even a theory.  it is just Voodoo doll  in the brain  and brain plasticity built by the  evolutionary forces..
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #142 - December 24, 2013, 06:55 PM
    Umm, I was quoting Popper!!!
    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #143 - December 24, 2013, 09:45 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on December 24, 2013, 05:09 PM
    I think the main place your argument stumbles is the fact that you're holding to a particularly rigid scientific doctrine of falsification (which is only really relevant in certain scientific circles)

    What's your argument for your conclusion that it's only really relevant in certain scientific circles?

    Since you didn't present your argument, that tells me you don't have one. So you're just assuming.

    Quote from: Ishina on December 24, 2013, 05:09 PM
    and then trying to apply that in principle across all human interaction and forms of debate.

    No that's not what I'm doing.

    Falsification only works on scientific theories -- since falsification is about using physical evidence to rule out theories.

    Refutation works on any theories, scientific or otherwise -- and it doesn't require physical evidence. It only needs to point out logical flaws.

    Quote from: Ishina on December 24, 2013, 05:09 PM
    By your calculations, drawing upon your own reading of Popper et al, there is no such thing as evidence of something.

    What does "evidence of something" mean?

    Do you mean "evidence ruling out somethings" or do you mean "evidence supporting something"?

    Quote from: Ishina on December 24, 2013, 05:09 PM
    I don't particularly care if you don't like the idea of asking for evidence and justification. I happen to disagree, and think that requirement has broad utility and is a principle most people understand and respect.

    You haven't understand my point. I'm saying that justification IS IMPOSSIBLE. And that evidence only works in the negative direction, to refute theories -- so evidence does not work in the positive direction, to CHOOSE ONE THEORY OUT OF MANY (aka support).

    Quote from: Ishina on December 24, 2013, 05:09 PM
    A principle that bears fruits. I want evidence and justification if I'm to believe a person who presents a claim that I doubt. I'm fine with producing evidence or explaining my reasoning when others ask it of me. There is no problem in this method that needs resolving.

    Your subjective appraisal of what is and isn't evidence or what it can and cannot do is irrelevant here. I'm talking about mine. I accept new strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria as supporting evidence of evolution over time by natural selection, for example. I am persuaded by it. This is the kind of thing I have in mind when I ask for evidence or justification. Clearly not the same kind of thing you have in mind. And that's ok. You're welcome to your own expectations.

    But your method of justification is false. If you disagree, then you can explain why I'm wrong. And if you can't explain why I'm wrong, then why do you disagree with me?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #144 - December 24, 2013, 09:47 PM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 24, 2013, 05:53 PM
    well  RamiRustom., don't worry about that evolution nonsense., I casually drifted in to Biologic because I read something from Ishina.  Allah just revealed to me.. "Ohyee  yeezevee.. stop talking nonsense about the creation of allah.."  FEAR ALLAH.. fear  

    So no more biology in this thread for me..well,  that is exactly the reason I asked you to watch that 3mt tube in that post.  but you don't like to watch.  These theists guys may or may not know what theory they have in their minds but many of them overtly and covertly  jump in to the fields of science with their theism . well then may be it is not even a theory.  it is just Voodoo doll  in the brain  and brain plasticity built by the  evolutionary forces..

    I think you're joking there, but just in case you're serious, no there are no evolutionary forces affecting our behavior. That's scientism.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #145 - December 25, 2013, 01:37 AM
    Scientism?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #146 - December 25, 2013, 02:09 AM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on December 25, 2013, 01:37 AM
    Scientism?

    well it is often defined as a "belief"   "that  science alone can render/find the  truth about the world".. essentially making it as another religious fundu ideology  QSE..
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #147 - December 25, 2013, 02:17 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 24, 2013, 09:47 PM
    I think you're joking there, but just in case you're serious, no there are no evolutionary forces affecting our behavior. That's scientism.

    well I do joke often RamiRustom.,  when I said this
     
    Quote
    it is just Voodoo doll  in the brain  and brain plasticity built by the  evolutionary forces..

    I was not speaking about  evolutionary forces affecting our behavior., But I was speaking about evolutionary forces affecting Genes and consequently the  brain plasticity .,

    You are absolutely right., If we take a kid and move out his religion/culture to a different religion/culture his genes and his neural net work  in the brain may be same but his behavior depends upon the cultural input that he/she  was raised in .. 
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #148 - December 25, 2013, 03:27 AM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on December 25, 2013, 01:37 AM
    Scientism?

    Scientism is stuff that claims to be science, but isn't.

    Science requires using the scientific method. So anything that claims to be science, but doesn't use the scientific method, is scientism.

    The scientific method goes like this:

    (1) (a) Create a testable/falsifiable theory. (b) Design an experiment that could falsify/refute it.

    (2) (a) Run the experiment and collect the result. (b) Interpret the result.

    - If (2b) rules out the theory, then go back to (1a) and create another testable theory — maybe one that is a variation from the old theory with a part of it changed so that the variation doesn’t contradict the existing evidence.

    - Note that every step is fallible. So you want to critically question every step. So for (2a), that means that the experiment is repeated many times and by many people.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #149 - December 25, 2013, 03:43 AM
    Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with the term (this is quite possible) but it seems to me to be a very vague word used mostly by creationists in an attempt to discredit. It comes across as more of a boo-word than a label for any coherent doctrine and I've yet to see anything other than the failure of 'scientism' critics to give examples of the sin.

    The impression I get is of those Americans who insist belief in evolution and man made climate change is a religion. And of course, atheism, the total lack of religion, is a religion. Roll Eyes

    Am I wrong?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »