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

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 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 36480 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 5 6 78 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #180 - December 25, 2013, 03:46 PM
    Quod Sum Eris

    what dictionary did you use? this is what merriam webster has for idea:

    #5 seems to be how I'm using 'idea'.


    1
    a :  a transcendent entity that is a real pattern of which existing things are imperfect representations
    b :  a standard of perfection :  ideal
    c :  a plan for action :  design
    2
    archaic :  a visible representation of a conception :  a replica of a pattern
    3
    a obsolete :  an image recalled by memory
    b :  an indefinite or unformed conception
    c :  an entity (as a thought, concept, sensation, or image) actually or potentially present to consciousness
    4
    :  a formulated thought or opinion
    5
    :  whatever is known or supposed about something <a child's idea of time>
    6
    :  the central meaning or chief end of a particular action or situation
    7
    Christian Science :  an image in Mind
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #181 - December 25, 2013, 03:46 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 25, 2013, 03:31 PM
    Ok. I wrote a science article criticizing an example of stuff claiming to be science but doesn't use the scientific method.

    _Why the gender gap on physics assessments_
    http://ramisciencetech.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-gender-gap-on-physics-assessments.html


    Basically what you've been saying all along.
    `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 #182 - December 25, 2013, 03:51 PM
    Quote
    Scientism

    Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality


    I was under the impression this is true?  What else could discover the truth about the world and reality?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #183 - December 25, 2013, 03:52 PM
     Cheesy
    `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 #184 - December 25, 2013, 03:53 PM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 25, 2013, 03:36 PM
    no...No,   I was commenting/thinking..,   why many cultures use/used/represent "god "  as "HE"..  

    your words.."Its not worth it. easier to write 'he'."  appears to have an answer for that question..  any way don't worry about that..

    Well, our cultures are very sexist. So it makes sense that if a group of people are going to create God, they would create him as a male.

    I mean, back then, women were slaves to their husbands and fathers. And if you are raised as a slave, you don't really learn how to think for yourself -- so you're kinda stupid (compared to people not raised as slaves). And since people had the wrong idea about how intelligence works, they just assumed that women are stupid because they are women, rather than realizing that they are stupid because they were raised as slaves.

    And since they thought women were stupid because they were women, of course they are going to create their god as a man since god "knows everything".
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #185 - December 25, 2013, 03:59 PM
    Quote from: EzraJT on December 25, 2013, 03:51 PM
    I was under the impression this is true?  What else could discover the truth about the world and reality?

    I think you're missing the point. Lets say somebody created a theory of how the world works. And lets say his theory makes testable predictions, and he created an experiment that could possibly rule out the theory by contradicting the prediction. Then this theory is a scientific one.

    Now, when the experimental result is collected, the scientist might make a mistake in his interpretation of the result.

    And if somebody comes along and gives a devastating criticism of the interpretation, then the interpretation is wrong. Which raises the question: Was this criticism science? No. It's philosophy. So philosophy played a role in refuting an interpretation created by a scientist. [So scientists also do philosophy.]
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #186 - December 25, 2013, 04:01 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on December 25, 2013, 03:46 PM
    Basically what you've been saying all along.

    Yes. Do you agree or disagree?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #187 - December 25, 2013, 04:06 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 25, 2013, 03:59 PM
    And if somebody comes along and gives a devastating criticism of the interpretation, then the interpretation is wrong. Which raises the question: Was this criticism science? No. It's philosophy. So philosophy played a role in refuting an interpretation created by a scientist. [So scientists also do philosophy.]


    How is it philosophy?
    `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 #188 - December 25, 2013, 04:09 PM
    Well here's the definitions of science and philosophy I'm using:

    Quote
    Philosophy:

        Through logic and argumentation

    Science:

        Empirical observation
        The testing of hypotheses
        Peer review of methods, data, and conclusion

    Philosophy and science, on the other hand, are acknowledged as purely human endeavors. We view philosophy today somewhat differently than the ancient Greeks and Romans did. The ancient Greeks did not have the word science. For them "philosophy" included the concepts that we label as science today. For the ancient Greeks philosophers were both abstract thinkers as well as people who made empirical observations and performed tests.

    Today, however, we relegate philosophy purely to the realm of logic, argumentation, and abstract thinking. Philosophy is used to answer questions by thinking about them logically and discussing the conclusions with others to see if they agree.

    Science is a methodology that is used by people in an attempt to answer questions through empirical observation and naturalistic reasoning. The scientific method has been developed based on a few major premises:

        We can only know what we can observe
        People's powers of observation are imperfect
        There are laws of nature that are consistent throughout space and time, and thus conclusions drawn from experiments or observations in the present can be used to develop explanations for things that occurred in the past and can be used to make predictions about the future

    These premises are significant. Science acknowledges that we can only know what we can observe, but by the same token we can never fully trust our observations. This makes science a necessarily social endeavor. Science requires the verification of one person's observations by other people. If multiple people can agree that they observe the same thing, then we agree that the observation may be classified as "objectively real". Science acknowledges that people are flawed and seeks to work around this problem by requiring that observations and conclusions be agreed upon by more than one person.


    (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm#Science_vs._Religion)

    So I still can't see how one can determine reality without science.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #189 - December 25, 2013, 04:14 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on December 25, 2013, 04:06 PM
    How is it philosophy?

    Interpretation of experimental results is philosophy.

    It requires philosophical knowledge.

    It requires guesses and criticism.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #190 - December 25, 2013, 04:16 PM
    Quote from: EzraJT on December 25, 2013, 04:09 PM
    So I still can't see how one can determine reality without science.

    Who said anything about creating knowledge about reality without science?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #191 - December 25, 2013, 04:31 PM
    Quote
    Who said anything about creating knowledge about reality without science?


    The definition given of "scientism"
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #192 - December 25, 2013, 04:41 PM
    Quote
    Quote
    Who said anything about creating knowledge about reality without science?

    The definition given of "scientism"

    I don't know what you're talking about. Can you clarify?

    I didn't say that we can create knowledge about reality without science.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #193 - December 25, 2013, 04:55 PM
    Quote from: EzraJT on December 25, 2013, 04:09 PM
    So I still can't see how one can determine reality without science.


    We can't even determine what words mean,
    `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 #194 - December 25, 2013, 05:00 PM
    Quote
    I don't know what you're talking about. Can you clarify?

    I didn't say that we can create knowledge about reality without science.


    "Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality" 

    This is implying there are other means to "render truth about the world and reality".  I just want to know what they are.

    Quote
    We can't even determine what words mean,


    That's where Merriam-Webster comes in.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #195 - December 25, 2013, 05:00 PM
    Quod Sum Eris said: //We can't even determine what words mean,//

    What do you mean by that? We can agree on what words mean by using dictionaries.

    Also we can ask each other what we mean by the words we use.

    So why do you say that we CAN'T determine what words mean?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #196 - December 25, 2013, 05:04 PM
    It was meant in a humorous way in consideration of the above posts.
    `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 #197 - December 25, 2013, 05:05 PM
    Quote from: EzraJT on December 25, 2013, 05:00 PM
    "Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality"  

    This is implying there are other means to "render truth about the world and reality".  I just want to know what they are.

    No you misinterpreted. Scientism (according to the definition you're using) says that science is the only way to determine the truth about the world and reality.

    And I criticized that idea by saying this:

    Quote
    To clarify, science is not the only way to determine the truth.

    If I have a non-scientific idea, and if there are no criticisms of my idea to my knowledge, then my idea is unrefuted, and I will act on my idea.

    Btw, everybody already does this. All of us have non-scientific ideas in our minds, and all of us act on these ideas, which raises the question: Why are we doing that? It's because that's the best knowledge we have to date, and we will act on our best knowledge. Is that knowledge flawed? Yes. Is that knowledge useless? No.

  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #198 - December 25, 2013, 05:07 PM
    And then disagreed with me on what the words idea and knowledge mean.
    `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 #199 - December 25, 2013, 05:08 PM
    Quote
    It was meant in a humorous way in consideration of the above posts.


    Well, I knew, and was giving a cheeky response Tongue

    Quote
    Scientism (according to the definition you're using)


    This is the definition someone used on the thread, I'm simply quoting them, that's all.  If there's any confusion here, it's because of that.

    Quote
    If I have a non-scientific idea, and if there are no criticisms of my idea to my knowledge, then my idea is unrefuted, and I will act on my idea.


    I can't think of anything, any idea that can't be analyzed via science though.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #200 - December 25, 2013, 05:12 PM
    EzraJT said:

    //I can't think of anything, any idea that can't be analyzed via science though.//

    I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that ALL ideas can be analyzed via science?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #201 - December 25, 2013, 05:25 PM
    Quote
    I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that ALL ideas can be analyzed via science?


    Well yeah.  Ideas are simply the product of the human mind, are they not?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #202 - December 25, 2013, 05:35 PM
    EzraJT said: //Well yeah.  Ideas are simply the product of the human mind, are they not?//

    But science works 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.


    And not all our ideas are scientific theories -- since not all of them make testable predictions about the physical world. Do you agree?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #203 - December 25, 2013, 05:46 PM
    Quoting the article I linked to again, which gives a pretty detailed definition of science, this is the scientific method:

    Quote
    Science is a methodology that is used by people in an attempt to answer questions through empirical observation and naturalistic reasoning. The scientific method has been developed based on a few major premises:

        We can only know what we can observe
        People's powers of observation are imperfect
        There are laws of nature that are consistent throughout space and time, and thus conclusions drawn from experiments or observations in the present can be used to develop explanations for things that occurred in the past and can be used to make predictions about the future


    What idea couldn't be analyzed through such a process? 
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #204 - December 25, 2013, 06:19 PM
    EzraJT

    you didn't describe a PROCESS. you listed some premises, which does not constitute a process.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #205 - December 25, 2013, 06:22 PM
    It's a simplistic explanation, but if you really need it broken down step by step, here it is:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Overview

    You still haven't given an example of an idea that can't be tested and examined via science.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #206 - December 25, 2013, 06:26 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on December 25, 2013, 05:07 PM
    And then disagreed with me on what the words idea and knowledge mean.

    No I didn't. I asked you HOW they are different. And you answered with the wrong definition of "idea".
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #207 - December 25, 2013, 06:28 PM
    Quote from: EzraJT on December 25, 2013, 06:22 PM
    It's a simplistic explanation, but if you really need it broken down step by step, here it is:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Overview

    You still haven't given an example of an idea that can't be tested and examined via science.

    What? You completely ignored what I said.

    I said that the scientific method only applies to scientific theories. And that not all one's ideas are scientific theories.

    And then I asked you if you agree, and you didn't answer.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #208 - December 25, 2013, 06:29 PM
    Quote
    No I didn't. I asked you HOW they are different. And you answered with the wrong definition of "idea".


    Scientism! finmad
    `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 #209 - December 25, 2013, 06:30 PM
     Good.. good..



    something good going on here...
    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     
  • Previous page 1 ... 5 6 78 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »