Apostates versus converts

[Obtenebrator]

As I said, your "scientific" approach to atheism is identical to the "scientific" approach of religious people to gods.

No it is not. It is quite clear you didn't understand the discussion.

If you do not understand that, stop blocking it. It becomes clear when you open your mind.

Not sure why you have such a bee in your bonnet over atheism. You and Cypress get really bent when someone tries to talk about atheism. Why does it bother you so much?

 

[Cypress]

As I said, your "scientific" approach to atheism is identical to the "scientific" approach of religious people to gods.

If you do not understand that, stop blocking it. It becomes clear when you open your mind.

Radical materialism, or scientism is the belief that all truth and knowledge can only come from science.

I think it is a fairly discredited belief system because it violates it's own standards from the getgo. Scientism assumes at the front end, without any proof, that human experimental science is the only epistemological system that can provide true knowledge

 

[Ross Dolan]

No it is not. It is quite clear you didn't understand the discussion.

If you are trying to say that I consider you to be an asshole...and am not showing you as much deference as you want...

...you worded it incorrectly.

Not sure why you have such a bee in your bonnet over atheism. You and Cypress get really bent when someone tries to talk about atheism. Why does it bother you so much?

It doesn't. You, and people who argue atheism the way you do, are a pain in the ass...and I treat you as such. Except that I do not use Preparation H with you.

If atheists had any balls at all, they would never even use the word "atheist." They would explain their position so that it can be properly understood...the way I explain what is undoubtedly an agnostic position without using the word "agnostic."

I've invited you to do it...and you have done a piss poor job if at all.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Radical materialism, or scientism is the belief that all truth and knowledge can only come from science.

I think it is a fairly discredited belief system because it violates it's own standards from the getgo. Scientism assumes at the front end, without any proof, that human experimental science is the only epistemological system that can provide true knowledge

With Obtenabrator, I originally thought he might be an interesting discussion partner. But he has shown himself to be like Trump (a guy he dislikes) insofar, he is more interested in promoting himself than actually engaging in discussion.

 

[Hume]

With Obtenabrator, I originally thought he might be an interesting discussion partner. But he has shown himself to be like Trump (a guy he dislikes) insofar, he is more interested in promoting himself than actually engaging in discussion.

Sounds like you.

 

[Obtenebrator]

If you are trying to say that I consider you to be an asshole...and am not showing you as much deference as you want...

...you worded it incorrectly.

I worded it just fine. You are simply unfamiliar with how inferential statistics work in science. I can suggest some textbooks for you.

It doesn't. You, and people who argue atheism the way you do, are a pain in the ass

Insults is all you have.

...and I treat you as such. Except that I do not use Preparation H with you.

If atheists had any balls at all, they would never even use the word "atheist." They would explain their position so that it can be properly understood...the way I explain what is undoubtedly an agnostic position without using the word "agnostic."

I've invited you to do it...and you have done a piss poor job if at all.

You are beneath me. Your invitations mean nothing to me. You are incapable of understanding what I just wrote and you don't have the necessary background to be able to understand it.

Your job is to do a bit of learning before you try to talk to people who know more than you do.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Sounds like you.

Fuck you very much for that.

 

[Hume]

Fuck you very much for that.

More Obtenebrator.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I worded it just fine. You are simply unfamiliar with how inferential statistics work in science. I can suggest some textbooks for you.

Read them yourself. You need it more than I.

Insults is all you have.

Not all!

You are beneath me.

In your dreams.

Your invitations mean nothing to me. You are incapable of understanding what I just wrote and you don't have the necessary background to be able to understand it.

You just cannot clearly articulate your position. But...continue to pretend it has to do with others understanding. It'll make you feel better. But a hug from Mommy would do the job better.

Your job is to do a bit of learning before you try to talk to people who know more than you do.

And apparently your job is to promote yourself as much as possible.

Sorta like Trump.

 

[Obtenebrator]

With Obtenabrator, I originally thought he might be an interesting discussion partner. But he has shown himself to be like Trump (a guy he dislikes) insofar, he is more interested in promoting himself than actually engaging in discussion.

If you are having difficulty with this topic I suggest this as a starting point. It explains how hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis etc. are used in, for example, a court of law.

8. Hypothesis Testing 1

 

[Cypress]

Leaving religion does NOT lead to atheism.

I left my religion...and atheism never crossed my mind. I would be making the same mistake I had made while indulging in religion. My reason for leaving was that there was no way I could KNOW that a GOD existed in any form, let alone with all the attributes assigned to the one I was "worshiping."

I also knew that there was no way I could KNOW there were no gods.

So I adopted what I saw at the intelligent alternative...agnosticism.

I've since refined that to a description rather than just use a descriptor, which could easily be mistaken.

I stopped going regularly to church because I wanted to sleep in on Sunday! And I didn't see how weekly ritual was really going to be meaningful to me.

I was somewhat skeptical by that point, but I never achieved the certainty of the atheist.

And it wasn't after introspective soul searching and a deliberate program of research that my participation in church life came to a virtual standstill. Other priorities in life occupied my time.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Except there are. They have been explained ad nauseam on this forum.

the ravings of an irrational atheist are not explanations

 

[Obtenebrator]

I never achieved the certainty of the atheist.

You lump all forms of atheism in here and make a mistake.

Atheists such as my self merely use the same logic as a court trial. No one would say a "not guilty verdict" is an "agnostic" position. The person will be set free. That's a decision.

But the route to that decision goes through "hypothesis testing" which is how science makes decisions. The key being that at all points it is recognized that the decision could be in error and the only thing one can possibly do is attempt to minimize that error. Usually people seek to minimize a "false positive" (ie Type I error).

This is a rational approach to atheism. It posits no perfect knowledge nor does it posit perfect certainty. That would be absurd. But, by the same token, it is not merely a "I don't know". Just as the jury verdict is not an agnostic position on the facts of the case as presented.

 

[Obtenebrator]

the ravings of an irrational atheist are not explanations

My form of atheism is how juries work in court cases. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Obtenebrator]

You just cannot clearly articulate your position.

Actually my position is crystal clear. I even provided you with a link to how this approach is used in the justice system.

Surely you would agree that a "not guilty" verdict is NOT an agnostic position about the question of guilt, correct? Yet it is an imperfect decision since all human decisions on the merits of a case are based on imperfect knowledge.

We do the best we can.

But a not guilty verdict is NOT an agnostic position.

And apparently your job is to promote yourself as much as possible.

Sorta like Trump.

Just because I know more than you about a specific topic doesn't mean I'm "promoting myself" anymore than you promote yourself all the time on here.

 

[Obtenebrator]

More Obtenebrator.

Hume, right now I'm the ONLY person on this thread who is providing detailed, technical and philosophically robust support for my positions. You call that trolling but then all you ever do is scream insults at people.

Do better.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

My form of atheism is how juries work in court cases. Nothing more nothing less.

you claim to be a form of atheist which does not deny the existence of gods.......no such thing exists.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Hume, right now I'm the ONLY person on this thread who is providing detailed, technical and philosophically robust support for my positions. You call that trolling but then all you ever do is scream insults at people.

do you comprehend that "robust" is meaningless when you are so obviously and completely wrong?........your argument could as easily be...."I am a different type of atheist! One who was on a jury once".........totally inept, totally irrelevant....

 

[Obtenebrator]

you claim to be a form of atheist which does not deny the existence of gods.......no such thing exists.......

I claim to be an atheist who simply fails to believe in God. That is, indeed, a real thing. You can check it out for yourself. It is called "Weak Atheism".

It is how juries decide cases in court.

The jury starts with the null hypothesis of "not guilty" and they listen to the data presented by the prosecution and defense in the court and decide whether they have sufficient evidence to REJECT the null or FAIL TO REJECT the null. That is a court case in a nutshell.

The decision they make (verdict) is not one of "agnosticism" (ie they don't know) but rather one of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Reject the null or fail to reject the null.

Everyone understands that this decision can be and sometimes is flawed. The best any human can do is take the preponderance of the evidence given to them and apply a standard of evidence to make the decision.

The final verdict is a decision, not an agnostic position. However it is also a decision which everyone agrees can be incorrect.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I claim to be an atheist who simply fails to believe in God. That is, indeed, a real thing. You can check it out for yourself. It is called "Weak Atheism".

I've read about it......it was invented by atheists who realized how stupid they looked......the problem is, all you've done is pretend agnostics are "weak atheists' and "atheists" are "strong atheists"......it was more honest when atheists were stupid and agnostics were confused........