(split) Atheism and acceptance of science

Status
Not open for further replies.
*facepalm*

What you've done here is change the claim to being "some swans are white."

No, I simply said "swans are white". The statement could be disproved by showing a swan of any other hue except white.

And if the claim had been "some swans are white," what would that have even pertained to? It's not an inductive claim, it's not a negative claim, it has nothing to do with anything in this thread!

So yes -- they are the same claim.

No, the claims :

there are no pink swans
there are no blue swans
there are no green swans

are not equal to the claim

swans are white.

This whole section:

I'm beginning to fear what people like you will do with science.
 
No, I simply said "swans are white". The statement could be disproved by showing a swan of any other hue except white.
Yeah, I noticed. "Swans are white" is a logically ambiguous claim which can be -- and must be -- interpreted in one of two ways:
A) "all" swans are white
B) "some" swans are white
It is clear that you mean A. After all, showing a swan of of a hue other than white would disprove A but not B. So like I've already said, the claim we are working with is that "all swans are white." So far so good.

the claims :

there are no pink swans
there are no blue swans
there are no green swans

are not equal to the claim

swans are white.
Actually they are, since we have established that the claim under consideration is that all swans are white. A swan cannot be simultaneously white and pink, nor white and blue, nor white and green. It is one or the other. Thus, the top three claims can all be logically deduced from the claim "all swans are white."

So to summarize what we've established so far:
  • You cannot prove an inductive claim.
  • You can prove a negative claim (provided that it is not an inductive claim).

I'm beginning to fear what people like you will do with science.
I noticed that you avoided addressing the issue.
 
Actually they are, since we have established that the claim under consideration is that all swans are white.

You're assuming the claims are simultaneous. "There are no pink swans" [There is no God] does not come with an accompanying claim of "Swans are white" [There is ????]
 
No, the claims :

there are no pink swans
there are no blue swans
there are no green swans

are not equal to the claim

swans are white.

No, but if you continue along that line and find there aren't swans of any color.. well..
 
SAM:

My chances of winning the lottery this Saturday aren't 50-50 SAM, even if for some bizarre reason you think they are. In fact, they are more like 50 million to one against.

You don't say?

This is why I advised you never to gamble. This is news to you, is it?

What you are saying is that you are incapable of saying what is more likely: that I will or will not win the lottery this Saturday.

No I am saying that I can wait till Saturday to find out if its true.

Fine. Atheists can wait till Saturday to find out if God exists. In the meantime, it's fair enough to assume that God doesn't exist. Right?

You must find this inability to grasp basic probability to be a severe impediment in your daily life. How do you cope?

I believe.

Many a true word is said in jest.

Not if unicorns look anything like that picture. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of pictures like that before, and every time I've seen one somebody has said it is a picture of a unicorn.

So if your kid was to show you that picture and ask you what it is, what would you say?

I'd say it was a unicorn, on the assumption that my child understands the difference between an image of a thing and the thing the image references.

Are you going anywhere with this, or just spinning your wheels?

Did you miss the TWO explanations of the error in this? It is an error of logic - a fallacy - known as "affirming the consequent". Here's another example, in positive form:

1. Birds have legs.
2. My dog has legs.
3. Therefore, my dog is a bird.

Statement #1 can be written:

"If X is a bird, then X has legs."

The converse of this is:

"If X has legs, then X is a bird."

Quite clearly, the statement does not imply its converse, but this is what is assumed in the faulty example above.

A statement in which the converse MUST apply would be of the form:

"X has legs IF AND ONLY IF it is a bird."

which is equivalent to:

"X is a bird IF AND ONLY IF it has legs."

(Beware of misconstruing the language of formal logic in the term "IF AND ONLY IF", by the way. This can be given a very clear and precise mathematical definition, where the logical operator "IF AND ONLY IF" is called "equivalence", whereas the simple "IF" is called "implication".)

I agree. Now try all of the above with negative claims.

Ok.

Did you miss the TWO explanations of the error in this? It is an error of logic - a fallacy - known as "affirming the consequent". Here's another example, in negative form:

1. Birds have no antlers.
2. My dog has no antlers.
3. Therefore, my dog is a bird.

Statement #1 can be written:

"If X is a bird, then X has no antlers."

The converse of this is:

"If X has no antlers, then X is a bird."

Quite clearly, the statement does not imply its converse, but this is what is assumed in the faulty example above.

A statement in which the converse MUST apply would be of the form:

"X has no antlers IF AND ONLY IF it is a bird."

which is equivalent to:

"X is a bird IF AND ONLY IF it has no antlers."

(Beware of misconstruing the language of formal logic in the term "IF AND ONLY IF", by the way. This can be given a very clear and precise mathematical definition, where the logical operator "IF AND ONLY IF" is called "equivalence", whereas the simple "IF" is called "implication".)

Happy?
 
You're assuming the claims are simultaneous. "There are no pink swans" [There is no God] does not come with an accompanying claim of "Swans are white" [There is ????]
"Simultaneous" has nothing to do with it -- this is about the formal axioms of logic, axioms of which it is becoming increasingly clear you haven't the faintest grasp.

It's true that "swans are white" cannot be logically deduced from "there are no pink swans." Not only did I never state this at any point, but it's completely irrelevant and nonsensical. You seem to think that a deduction has to work in both directions. But that's simply not how logical deduction works. Deducing a claim from a set of premises is not the same as restating that claim in terms of its negation. Do not confuse the two.

In any case, we are considering the claim "[all] swans are white." The statement "There are no pink swans" can be logically deduced from this claim, as can the statement "there are no blue swans," as can statements against swans of any color other than white. Thus, "[all] swans are white" is logically equivalent to "There are no swans that are not white" -- i.e., the negation of the original claim. So like I continue to say, the two swan claims you originally presented are equal. And you can prove a negative, etc. etc.

Finally, I'll ask you one more time: will you return to the topic of the "incompatibility" of science and atheism and address my points in post #28?
 
"Simultaneous" has nothing to do with it -- this is about the formal axioms of logic, axioms of which it is becoming increasingly clear you haven't the faintest grasp.

I guess she meant synonymous.
 
You're assuming the claims are simultaneous. "There are no pink swans" [There is no God] does not come with an accompanying claim of "Swans are white" [There is ????]

"There is no object or being fitting the definition of 'God' that exists."

or

"There does not exist any being or object fitting the definition of 'God'."
 
"There is no object or being fitting the definition of 'God' that exists."

or

"There does not exist any being or object fitting the definition of 'God'."

Whats the definition of God?

I guess she meant synonymous.

No I meant simultaneous. If I told you there is no pink shirt in the closet, it does not mean all shirts are white.
 
SAM:

This is why I advised you never to gamble. This is news to you, is it?

Fine. Atheists can wait till Saturday to find out if God exists. In the meantime, it's fair enough to assume that God doesn't exist. Right?

"There is no God" doesn't sound like an assumption.

I'd say it was a unicorn, on the assumption that my child understands the difference between an image of a thing and the thing the image references.

Are you going anywhere with this, or just spinning your wheels?

Yes, I am showing you that unicorns exist. You recognise one when you see it. Not only that, you are willing to identify it for others to recognise in the future.



Did you miss the TWO explanations of the error in this? It is an error of logic - a fallacy - known as "affirming the consequent". Here's another example, in negative form:

1. Birds have no antlers.
2. My dog has no antlers.
3. Therefore, my dog is a bird.

Statement #1 can be written:

"If X is a bird, then X has no antlers."

The converse of this is:

"If X has no antlers, then X is a bird."

Quite clearly, the statement does not imply its converse, but this is what is assumed in the faulty example above.

A statement in which the converse MUST apply would be of the form:

"X has no antlers IF AND ONLY IF it is a bird."

which is equivalent to:

"X is a bird IF AND ONLY IF it has no antlers."

(Beware of misconstruing the language of formal logic in the term "IF AND ONLY IF", by the way. This can be given a very clear and precise mathematical definition, where the logical operator "IF AND ONLY IF" is called "equivalence", whereas the simple "IF" is called "implication".)

Happy?


I still see lots of positive claims in there, which are the ones being disproven. Try and do it ONLY with negative claims. Atheism if you recall has NO positive claims.
 
This is the GST forum. In case you thought it was Religion.
Fine. I hope James R doesn't mind me answering responses directed to him. Do not take these in any way other than that I said them. Time to start disproving :\.
"There is no God" doesn't sound like an assumption.



Yes, I am showing you that unicorns exist. You recognise one when you see it. Not only that, you are willing to identify it for others to recognise in the future.






I still see lots of positive claims in there, which are the ones being disproven. Try and do it ONLY with negative claims. Atheism if you recall has NO positive claims.

Actually lawl that conversation went nowhere. I feel sorry for James R, as there really isn't a point for him to keep talking. And yes, atheism has no positive claims, it has one negative claim. One. :\

Look, there are two possibilities, one that God exists and one that God does not. In scenario A, we have to remove all Laws and theories in Classical physics and probably a lot of other fields. There is also no evidence for the affirmative claim. When there is no evidence for an affirmative claim, especially one that REQUIRES it (as one that claims that all/most classical and other types of physics are/is wrong), you must default to the negative. I don't know why I typed that all out, since this seems to be entirely off topic.

I might as well respond to whatever I can remember from the OP.

Uh, the more science you know the higher chance it is you are an atheist. Does that sound like a real answer to the OP's question? :\

Edit: Fuck it. I'm multiquoting all of SAM's posts and answering them all. It's 7:30 on a OMG IT'S SATURDAY TIME FOR CARTOONS morning anyway. :\
 
Maybe we need more atheists proposing how science is incompatible with religion. That should increase the number of people favoring science as a career.

It's not. Well, there goes this thread. Although, every religion I can think of is incompatible with science. It's a well known proposition anyway.

Is atheism compatible with science? What would you think if atheists were asked to resign their posts because they were atheists?

Yes. Atheism is compatible with everything, except theism. Also some random beliefs that are theistic in nature anyway. I'd be in uproar, not believing in things without evidence is what science is about/

I think the practice of equating atheism with science is one of the leading causes of the disfavouring of science and its image in the west today. More and more, you see interest in science being equated with being a proponent of atheism. While this may win a few converts to the cult of militant atheists, its primary and lasting effects will be on the deterioration of scientific thought and investment in scientific research.

Perhaps atheists might want to consider how that plays out. This forum is an excellent microcosm of such thought processes and how they impact interest in and discussion of science.



Then please change the name to athiestforums to avoid any confusion that this is a science forum.

Nobody cares about people too religious that they get offended at the idea that science is secular. They will not contribute anyway. No, atheists shouldn't reconsider. This is a terrible idea.

Changing the name to atheistforums (how the hell is that a word?) would be completely unnecessary. Although, it is pretty funny how it's called SciForums. It's supposed to be a science forum. Science entails atheism, unless you feel like being hypocritical. Fairly simple. Name it after what it's about, not what it entails or implies. You are terrible with the ideas.

I couldn't get through the rest of this thread. I wish you guys the best.
 
Look up two posts. The very bottom of it is part of the basis I'm sure James R would agree upon.
 
Doesn't that depend on how "far" someone's belief goes for something?

I'm not sure about this but doesn't it play a role that most forms of theism have a "set of rules" which you have to believe in, and/or follow in order to be a part of said religion. Sadly most of those rules and beliefs would be in contradiction with Sciences' practices, wouldn't they?

Theism in the unspecific sense would be probably okay. If you believe in a God without having to follow a doctrine that would unnecessarily block you then it's fine.

Atheism itself is probably more compatible with Sciences since it doesn't limit a person to an extent where he would have to wash his feet before performing a surgery. (Oh f*ck I forgot to wash my hands?! Bah doesn't matter as long as my feet are clean *proceeds with plunging hands into guts*).
I was always wondering how come that theists don't feel bad when experimenting with corpses and God's creations. Isn't it a bit unchristian? (random...just curious)

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there are good scientists from both cateogories; atheism and theism.
All that matters is how much does your belief limit you in your work as a scientist. Atheism is probably because of that accepted as the more compatible of the two since atheism doesn't involve doctrines, or anything that would limit a scientist.
 
All that matters is how much does your belief limit you in your work as a scientist. Atheism is probably because of that accepted as the more compatible of the two since atheism doesn't involve doctrines, or anything that would limit a scientist.
wrong.
simply, flatly wrong.
there is not one shred of evidence that points to a "natural" origin of life.
there is no evidence at all that macro evolution has occurred.
the fossil record, to my knowledge, does not confirm macro evolution.

in my opinion this is why the scientific law of biogenesis was ousted from its rightful place of an undisputed law and replaced with the hypothesis* of abiogenesis, so "they" could push macro evolution.

a better word would be "guess" or "conjecture".
 
I noticed, SAM, that you are avoiding addressing my last post. Should I take this as an indication that I have soundly refuted your malformed ideas?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top