Atheism and being Armenian

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

It's not a funny quote, you took it out of context.

And your own "Give us the child for 8 years..... " is what? That one is a actually a reworking of a Jesuit saying that refers to the early indoctrination of children with Christian dogma.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Let's say:
I believe in FSM. You don't. Both our positions are operating on faith? Is that what you think?

Exactly. You can't prove the FSM exists and I can't prove it doesn't exist. You believe it exists, I believe it doesn't exists. Both are based on a belief.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

And your own "Give us the child for 8 years..... " is what? That one is a actually a reworking of a Jesuit saying that refers to the early indoctrination of children with Christian dogma.

Someone with your vast knowledge has surely heard of Lenin and the Bolshevik party of Russia.

[Siggie]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Exactly. You can't prove the FSM exists and I can't prove it doesn't exist. You believe it exists, I believe it doesn't exists. Both are based on a belief.

Oh FFS... I guess I do need to spell it out.

1) You can't prove a negative. It's illogical.

2) The probability that he exists ≠ probability he does not.
Reminds me of the "science teacher" in this story and his grasp of probability (halfway into video).

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-30-2009/large-hadron-collider

[Yeznik]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

That's my point... Faith = belief without evidence
Atheism = lack of religious belief
There's simply not evidence for me to believe. If there was, I would be open to changing my mind.
That's why non-believers use FSM to illustrate. If you're told there's a plate of pasta that rules the universe, naturally you'd want evidence of that.
You hit on something else that's important as well... Believers like to attempt to get non-theists to concede it's possible as if that's some telling admission. Something with a near zero probability is still technically possible, but at some point, in order to be able to make sense of the world, we must require a minimum likelihood for accepting something as probably true and therefore changing your behavior, thoughts, etc accordingly.


Perhaps. If there was any interest early on it had more to do with rituals and things. It never provided enough or satisfactory answers for me.

The definition of Faith that you have is incorrect and technically Atheism is a faith.

Let me give you an example I have faith in my friends, there reason why I have faith in my friends is that there is some evidence that they are trustworthy. While I do agree blind faith is dangerous, but there is also reasonable faith.

[Siggie]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Someone with your vast knowledge has surely heard of Lenin and the Bolshevik party of Russia.

Ugh, again with this...

The fact that some people used religion or tried to eliminate religion with nefarious intent is irrelevant.

[Siggie]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

The definition of Faith that you have is incorrect and technically Atheism is a faith.

Let me give you an example I have faith in my friends, there reason why I have faith in my friends is that there is some evidence that they are trustworthy. While I do agree blind faith is dangerous, but there is also reasonable faith.

Colloquial usage of the word doesn't negate it's definition in the context of religious belief.

Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>

[KanadaHye]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Oh FFS... I guess I do need to spell it out.

1) You can't prove a negative. It's illogical.

2) The probability that he exists ≠ probability he does not.
Reminds me of the "science teacher" in this story and his grasp of probability (halfway into video).
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...adron-collider

You're trying to match wits of logic with an engineer.

You're saying "it's impossible to prove that something does not exist." Which is true in the technical sense -- but it's also technically true that it's impossible to prove that something exists.

In the real world, as opposed to say, math, you have to go based on probabilities. What science does is help improve probabilities that certain hypotheses are true. So when you say you can't "prove" a negative, not only is the word "prove" inaccurate, it's also incorrect. It's just harder to show beyond a reasonable doubt that something does not exist anywhere than to simply produce it.

A light switch has 2 positions, on and off. Proving it is off can be done by showing the absence of it being on. However, if you can't see the switch but you say the switch is off because the light is out then you still have no proof that the switch is off since the light bulb might be burned out. Confused yet?

[Siggie]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

You're trying to match wits of logic with an engineer.

Aww, cute. *pats you on the head*
Don't try the "I'm smarter than you" argument... You'll lose and it's a terrible argument anyway.

You're saying "it's impossible to prove that something does not exist." Which is true in the technical sense -- but it's also technically true that it's impossible to prove that something exists.

In the real world, as opposed to say, math, you have to go based on probabilities. What science does is help improve probabilities that certain hypotheses are true. So when you say you can't "prove" a negative, not only is the word "prove" inaccurate, it's also incorrect. It's just harder to show beyond a reasonable doubt that something does not exist anywhere than to simply produce it.

A light switch has 2 positions, on and off. Proving it is off can be done by showing the absence of it being on. However, if you can't see the switch but you say the switch is off because the light is out then you still have no proof that the switch is off since the light bulb might be burned out. Confused yet?

Yeah, we don't use the word prove. But at some point we decide it's probable enough to accept as true (until the next test).

This is what happens when you get science education from an engineer.
Science does no such thing. We do not manipulate the probabilities. We measure them. There's a critical distinction.
Further, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a legal standard of proof.
I've always maintained you don't quite grasp the scientific method. Here it is again.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Aww, cute. *pats you on the head*
Don't try the "I'm smarter than you" argument... You'll lose and it's not a terrible argument anyway.



Yeah, we don't use the word prove. But at some point we decide it's probable enough to accept as true (until the next test).

This is what happens when you get science education from an engineer.
Science does no such thing. We do not manipulate the probabilities. We measure them. There's a critical distinction.
Further, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a legal standard of proof.
I've always maintained you don't quite grasp the scientific method. Here it is again.

I just pointed out that you used "prove" incorrectly. I also said science is based on probability so applying science to something you can't measure is out of the realm of science.

Atheism is a dogma like all other isms, and you're using typical one liners like "you can't prove a negative".

Say your hair was on fire but I stated your hair was not on fire. If you quickly patted down the flame and deprived it of oxygen, your hair would not be on fire.... but it was on fire at one point. Would there be evidence of your hair being on fire 10 years from now?