Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bohandas]

Credibility is very important. In example, I recall that "Vaccine = Autism!" doctor that started that whole craze was found guilty of BS-ing nearly everything and was stripped of pretty much everything they could strip.

Isn't that almost exactly what they're doing to your mathfriend? With the added bonus that there's billions in the vaccine industry?
The problem here is that you can't trust anyone. I don't believe scientists anymore. Any of em. Egos are just as important roadblocks as money. I take it in as "information", but its truth is determined when I repeat the experiment myself.

I hate big corporations too, but even I know that vaccines=autism is bullshit.

(Furthermore, now that I think of it, don't you think that there's money behind the vaccines=autism claims too? The news media thrives on fearmongering and contrived controversy.)

[Siquo]

Honestly, you seem to have formed a kneejerk reaction classic in conspiracy theorists.  "There's a motive!  The big evil [insert real or imagined organization here] is crushing the little guy!".  Especially since there's rather a lot of evidence to suggest malpractise on Wakefield's part...

I hate big corporations too, but even I know that vaccines=autism is bullshit.

I never said I believed it  I'm just saying that unless you look at the research yourself (which leafsnail did, for instance), or even reproduce it, you can't be sure that media defamation is true. (yes, the media first proclaimed it as true, and afterwards as false, the point is you can't be sure unless you Really Check it Yourself)

That depends. "Good" is one such thing that is untestable and non-falsifiable.

Tautology.  A religion makes an objective claim about the world (that there is a god of some kind is often part of it), wheras "good" is a description.
[/quote]
No. The claim whether a claim is untestable and non-falsifiable is "good" or not, is untestable and non-falsifiable. He says "usually it is not very good", and I'm specifically attacking the "it is" portion of that statement, pointing out that it is his opinion, in a farfetchedfunny way.

[Leafsnail]

No. The claim whether a claim is untestable and non-falsifiable is "good" or not, is untestable and non-falsifiable. He says "usually it is not very good", and I'm specifically attacking the "it is" portion of that statement, pointing out that it is his opinion, in a farfetchedfunny way.

I suppose.  But actually if you're using good in that way there are plenty of ways to test it, since saying something is "good" makes the prediction that people will have positive outcomes as a result of it, which is something you can test through surveys and studies.

So even if it's an opinion, it's a testable one, and one that can conceivably be proven wrong.

[Siquo]

So even if it's an opinion, it's a testable one, and one that can conceivably be proven wrong.

"Positive outcomes" is impossible to test. "Positive" is just another opinion

[Muz]

Some people find that a religion makes claims on reality and are proven false, therefore that religion (and to an extension all religions) = false. My religion hasn't had any claims proven false, so there. That's all there is to it

This seems a little shaky to me. If all that's necessary is for no claims to be proven false, you can come up with an infinite number of potential valid religions; it's not an accurate measure of, well, accuracy.

In fact, it can sometimes speak ill of a claim if the claim cannot be proven false: Usually it's not very good when a claim is untestable or non-falsifiable.

Well, you have to go with something. There's actually no proof at all that God does not exist. So even minor proof is better than nothing. It's not like it's impossible to disprove. I mean, if a religion made 42 claims, and said that the earth revolved around the moon, it'd be clear that the religion is false when we find out that the earth really doesn't revolve around the moon. (and if such an example existed there will be some scientific stunting as people try to twist data into 'proving' that the earth revolved around the moon at least in one point in past present future)

But this guy who claims that God exists writes a book making other random claims, and many of those claims were true. If other religions made other claims which are also true, I'd follow those religions too. This person who thought up my religion was obviously a very intelligent person to have thought up a claim that can't be disproved, so I'm following him, whether or not he's right. If he tells me to do something silly like murder or give money or drink goat blood, without a proper reason, then it's probably not a right one.

I don't say atheism is false, but it seems as sort of a lazy path to take. You learn more from trying to discover say, aliens, than trying to sit around arguing that aliens don't exist before even looking for them. But unlike the search for aliens, searching for God(s) costs nothing but time and thought.

However, the point is Muz did not answer the question, he answered the question "Why do you not renounce your Religion?" instead of "Why do you believe in it in the first place?".

Because I'm no apatheist. I choose to believe in something, I'll pick that something at random, and if it happens to be the first thing I was brainwashed with, then that's my first choice. Of course, many claims from the first religion I was brainwashed with don't make sense, so I'm mixing and matching things from other sources, using my birth religion as the root inspiration.

[Leafsnail]

But this guy who claims that God exists writes a book making other random claims, and many of those claims were true. If other religions made other claims which are also true, I'd follow those religions too. This person who thought up my religion was obviously a very intelligent person to have thought up a claim that can't be disproved, so I'm following him, whether or not he's right. If he tells me to do something silly like murder or give money or drink goat blood, without a proper reason, then it's probably not a right one.

...It's not remotely difficult to come up with a claim that can't be disproved.  "There are invisible, intangible fairies at the bottom of your garden" is the classic one (invisible pink unicorn, FSM and so on are also examples).  I don't think any religions actually make testable predictions about the world (well, none which have been proven right, in any case - plenty have been proven wrong revealed to be metaphors).

[Muz]

Well, the point is that if Science finds invisible fairies under my garden following the descriptions exactly, it's decent evidence. Disbelievers will renounce it as a 'coincidence', believes raise it as a miracle.

Actually, now that I think of it, I should take a proper scientific approach to this. One of these days when I'm bored I'm going to make a site with a list of every religion and its claims, and assign them points based on the difficulty of those claims. No points for something obvious like "Rome is going to fall" or "Fire will rain from the sky", but more points on very specific ones, like "A being with 8 eyes made from gabbro will speak to the world of the existence of some treasure in [distant underwater location]", with lots of points docked if they were metaphorical like the 8 eyes really being round fingers.

[Leafsnail]

Well, the point is that if Science finds invisible fairies under my garden following the descriptions exactly, it's decent evidence. Disbelievers will renounce it as a 'coincidence', believes raise it as a miracle.

Firstly, there's still no way to disprove it.  Secondly, if we find the fairies mentioned in that example, they can't be the fairies I was talking about, since they're intangible.  Thirdly, even if there are intangible fairies that doesn't make any other claims I happen to attach to that any more valid.  Getting something right by chance doesn't make wholly irrelevant claims more viable.

Actually, now that I think of it, I should take a proper scientific approach to this. One of these days when I'm bored I'm going to make a site with a list of every religion and its claims, and assign them points based on the difficulty of those claims. No points for something obvious like "Rome is going to fall" or "Fire will rain from the sky", but more points on very specific ones, like "A being with 8 eyes made from gabbro will speak to the world of the existence of some treasure in [distant underwater location]", with lots of points docked if they were metaphorical like the 8 eyes really being round fingers.

The thing is, most modern day interpretations of religions don't have any claims.  Hence "You can't disprove God".  Even if you take something like the Rapture as a claim, that's meaningless since it has no deadline (and thus can't be disproved).

[G-Flex]

It's not like it's impossible to disprove.

Actually, it pretty much is impossible to disprove a being who can do literally anything. This is how you have some young-earth creationists saying things like "dinosaur bones were just put there to test our faith" and whatnot; God is the ultimate trump card.

But this guy who claims that God exists writes a book making other random claims, and many of those claims were true.

... So? To take the Bible as an example, things which are reasonable in the Bible can easily be reasonable for non-divinely-inspired reasons. As an atheist, there are a lot of things in the Bible that I think make sense, but does that mean I have to believe in God? Of course not, nor would that be the reasonable reaction, because the things in the Bible I agree with have nothing to do with God. The veracity of one claim doesn't necessarily affect the veracity of another.

This person who thought up my religion was obviously a very intelligent person to have thought up a claim that can't be disproved, so I'm following him, whether or not he's right.

This is the naive part, above all else. It is not hard to come up with a claim that can't be disproven, and such claims compose the majority of philosophical hoaxes and hogwash. One of the easiest ways to engage in pseudoscience, for instance, is to come up with claims that you know can't be easily tested, or tested at all, or disproven.

I don't say atheism is false, but it seems as sort of a lazy path to take. You learn more from trying to discover say, aliens, than trying to sit around arguing that aliens don't exist before even looking for them. But unlike the search for aliens, searching for God(s) costs nothing but time and thought.

You could say the same about anything. Do you call yourself lazy for not attempting to find every single other one of the infinite number of hypothetical entities out there? Do you also think I'm lazy for not trying to find fairies, unicorns, devils, flying purple people-eaters, hippogryphs, casinos on the Sun, planets made entirely out of beeswax, an immortality serum made from the tears and sweat of Thor, or a pill that makes you vomit confetti? Of course not, because there are an infinite number of arbitrary and baseless claims that one could make about the world, and the fact that they are so arbitrary is why you don't bother searching for them to begin with; without any form of evidence or at least an inkling that there might be a basis in reason, there's no reason to focus on one more than any of the others, and as I said, they are infinite in number. And no, my time and thought are not infinite resources, so I don't have time to look into every single probably-unprovable, mostly-mutually-exclusive, totally-arbitrary claim I can think of or that I read about, nor would it make much sense to do it.

So yeah, you might as well say I'm lazy because I don't believe in spectral werewolves who fight crime on Jupiter.

Actually, now that I think of it, I should take a proper scientific approach to this.

If you want to take a "proper scientific approach" to anything in life at all, you need to learn the value of testability, falsifiability, and the scientific method first.

[lemon10]

Well, you have to go with something. There's actually no proof at all that God does not exist. So even minor proof is better than nothing. It's not like it's impossible to disprove. I mean, if a religion made 42 claims, and said that the earth revolved around the moon, it'd be clear that the religion is false when we find out that the earth really doesn't revolve around the moon. (and if such an example existed there will be some scientific stunting as people try to twist data into 'proving' that the earth revolved around the moon at least in one point in past present future)

Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Rabbits don't chew cud.
How you can trace geneology in the bible back 6000 years from the modern day (7000? 8000? i'm not quite sure of the exact number), but evidence states the world is far far older then that.
Genesis 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
The moon isn't a light source, it only reflects light from the sun.
Leviticus 1:19 says the bat is a bird: it isn't (although this is minor I suppose)

There are other examples of simply being wrong and contradictions, and things that can be assumed from what the bible says but require a little bit of interpretation (or that I am too lazy to find and put here)

[ECrownofFire]

Well, you have to go with something. There's actually no proof at all that God does not exist. So even minor proof is better than nothing. It's not like it's impossible to disprove. I mean, if a religion made 42 claims, and said that the earth revolved around the moon, it'd be clear that the religion is false when we find out that the earth really doesn't revolve around the moon. (and if such an example existed there will be some scientific stunting as people try to twist data into 'proving' that the earth revolved around the moon at least in one point in past present future)

Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Rabbits don't chew cud.
How you can trace geneology in the bible back 6000 years from the modern day (7000? 8000? i'm not quite sure of the exact number), but evidence states the world is far far older then that.
Genesis 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
The moon isn't a light source, it only reflects light from the sun.
Leviticus 1:19 says the bat is a bird: it isn't (although this is minor I suppose)

There are other examples of simply being wrong and contradictions, and things that can be assumed from what the bible says but require a little bit of interpretation (or that I am too lazy to find and put here)

Most, if not all of those can be explained with one simple statement: The people that wrote the bible didn't know anything.

It was a lot different way back then, and the people didn't know as much as we do now, finding a few mistakes doesn't "disprove" anything. People are not perfect (and that's a fairly major point in the bible last I checked). Generally speaking, there's only two kinds of people that take examples like this in the bible as anything but mistakes or metaphors (or anything similar). Nutjob Christians, and people trying to "disprove" Christianity. (Also, just as a side note, I'm not actually Christian, but it bugs me when people attempt this)

[Siquo]

I concur with CoF: Trying to prove God's existence through nature (aka: Science) is just as nonsensical (and irritating) as trying to disprove his existence.

[G-Flex]

It was a lot different way back then, and the people didn't know as much as we do now, finding a few mistakes doesn't "disprove" anything.

Actually, plenty of Christians take the Bible as factually unerring word of God. So yeah, it doesn't disprove something as vague and arbitrary as the existence of some deity, but it certainly is evidence against the Bible as unerring. Of course, God being God and all, you can explain away basically anything. Maybe he stopped hares from chewing their cud in the 1200s just to screw with us!

[Urist McDerp]

Isn't that almost exactly what they're doing to your mathfriend?

Not quite. Their reaction towards her was needlessly hostile, defensive, and counter-productive. I don't understand her work, but from what I can tell, and from what I know of her, she wasn't fishing for results or anything. Judging from her reaction, I believe that she truly believed she was on to something. She wasn't fired or completely blacklisted or anything, and she told me if she kisses enough ass long enough, her situation is reversible. Then she'll try coming forward with it again once they'll take her seriously (though she knows it won't end well).

deliberately drew a conclusion that the (genuine) data could not remotely support

Yep, data manipulation. Varying degrees of this and fishing for significance are one of the worst things that plague both science and science journals.

One of the easiest ways to engage in pseudoscience, for instance, is to come up with claims that you know can't be easily tested, or tested at all, or disproven.

Even pseudoscience has an intended application. Like mending broken bones faster or extracting toxins. You can actually test them via those applications, which is why they end up labeled "pseudoscience".

I don't say atheism is false, but it seems as sort of a lazy path to take.

I wouldn't call it lazy. In my opinion, there's a bunch of technical issues in some details I have with it, but I have to agree with G-Flex about ignoring things that are untestable. It's a reasonable stance.

If you want to take a "proper scientific approach" to anything in life at all, you need to learn the value of testability, falsifiability, and the scientific method first.

Oh-ho-ho! Now there's the core disagreement between atheists and many other irreligious persons. How exactly to approach, reason with, and what conclusions you can draw in an absence of anything on a topic.

And I third CoF and Squio. "Disproving" religion is just as baseless as "proving" it.

[G-Flex]

One of the easiest ways to engage in pseudoscience, for instance, is to come up with claims that you know can't be easily tested, or tested at all, or disproven.

Even pseudoscience has an intended application. Like mending broken bones faster or extracting toxins. You can actually test them via those applications, which is why they end up labeled "pseudoscience".

No. I mean, yes, in those cases where the claim being made is testable, you are correct. There are many other claims which are not testable, and which are still pseudoscientific. All "pseudoscience" means it that you're taking something that isn't scientific and pretending it is.

Oh-ho-ho! Now there's the core disagreement between atheists and many other irreligious persons. How exactly to approach, reason with, and what conclusions you can draw in an absence of anything on a topic.

Can you elaborate further on this?

And I third CoF and Squio. "Disproving" religion is just as baseless as "proving" it.

This depends, of course, on the exact claims being made, but in cases where there is no evidence, there is no need to disprove regardless.