Thread: Just a question for the atheists

What exactly was the question?
Nevermind, I thought the post at the top of this page was the opening post.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you are going to talk about a subject like this, you can't be so sensitive. My question completely related to what you are talking about. I used "god of thunder" because people did used to believe in such a god and I assume you do not. That is why I thought it made a good analogy.

My point is that not being able to explain something does not intellectually justify making up something unsupported as an explanation. That is what the god of thunder was, and it is what I think the God of modern Western religion is now.

So, you don't think people should have assumed the existence of the god of thunder before science explained lightning? If not, then why do you think people today should assume the god of the universe just because we don't have a full explanation of its source? I am not giving an opinion on going out and eradicating religion. That is a separate issue. I am asking why people should make such an assumption in the first place.

Have you ever heard of super string theory? Assuming that you have, you might also know that there is no supporting physical evidence for its validity. Those that use the physical sciences to seek knowledge fabricate explanations too. They just have more information to base their assumptions on. The only advantage that the realm of science holds over most of the realm of religion is its store of information with which to base its guesses on.

The only reason why few if any people believe in a god of thunder now is because we have ways of gathering information that surpass the methods of the past. Do you honestly think that you would be the one to claim that tiny particles called electrons were jumping between other particles called atoms because there was a build up in the clouds and a defficiency in the ground when you had absolutely no evidence of the fact and had no way to check?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Believe what you want to believe, just don't mistake Science as being a system of belief...

Science may not be a 'system of belief' but it incorporates a very specific language that does not allow for speaking about certain types of beliefs. In this way, science excludes the possible validity of some ideas.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Science may not be a 'system of belief' but it incorporates a very specific language that does not allow for speaking about certain types of beliefs. In this way, science excludes the possible validity of some ideas.

Science is effectively a meritocracy, and a rather harsh one at that. If you can't provide a decent hypothesis, from which you can make testable predictions and have tested thoroughly through either observation or experimentation (or even both in certain cases), then of course your idea won't be regarded. Scientists spend years researching and carefully collecting data for all sorts of applications and research, and a lot of money goes into it. You have to produce the goods if you want to be taken seriously.

If you don't like that system, fine, your call. But it was thanks to Science we have all the technological advancements around us. Remember, Science does not care for subjective matters. It only cares for things it can objectively observe and categorise, in order to construct a better of understanding of the natural world around us.

Originally Posted by Arthurium

1. Exodus 9:23
   When Moses stretched out his staff toward the sky, the LORD sent thunder and hail, and lightning flashed down to the ground. So the LORD rained hail on the land of Egypt;

There you go, right there in your first example and about half of the others. God caused it. Why didn't the Bible explain the scientific process behind lightning/thunder before scientists could prove it?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Have you ever heard of super string theory? Assuming that you have, you might also know that there is no supporting physical evidence for its validity. Those that use the physical sciences to seek knowledge fabricate explanations too. They just have more information to base their assumptions on. The only advantage that the realm of science holds over most of the realm of religion is its store of information with which to base its guesses on.

The only reason why few if any people believe in a god of thunder now is because we have ways of gathering information that surpass the methods of the past. Do you honestly think that you would be the one to claim that tiny particles called electrons were jumping between other particles called atoms because there was a build up in the clouds and a defficiency in the ground when you had absolutely no evidence of the fact and had no way to check?

Uh, exactly. They couldn't explain it, so... magic!

Theories are not assumptions.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Science is effectively a meritocracy, and a rather harsh one at that. If you can't provide a decent hypothesis, from which you can make testable predictions and have tested thoroughly through either observation or experimentation (or even both in certain cases), then of course your idea won't be regarded. Scientists spend years researching and carefully collecting data for all sorts of applications and research, and a lot of money goes into it. You have to produce the goods if you want to be taken seriously.

If you don't like that system, fine, your call. But it was thanks to Science we have all the technological advancements around us. Remember, Science does not care for subjective matters. It only cares for things it can objectively observe and categorise, in order to construct a better of understanding of the natural world around us.

Who said I didn't like science? What I said was, the language of science is such that it can only be applied to certain questions. Because of this, the methods of science will never be equipped to paint a full and accurate picture of human experience.

Science 'regards' ideas that have no validity and rejects those that do all of the time. If I may repeat my previous example, string theory has no observed or experimentally verifiable components and yet remains one of the most popular theories in modern physics. Many theories must only be mathematically consistent with other popular theories to gain attention. In some respects, as the physical sciences attempt to cross the threshold of humanities capability to measure they lose most of the scientific method completely and this is something that has been happening in the realm of science since its birth.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Who said I didn't like science? What I said was, the language of science is such that it can only be applied to certain questions. Because of this, the methods of science will never be equipped to paint a full and accurate picture of human experience.

Science 'regards' ideas that have no validity and rejects those that do all of the time. If I may repeat my previous example, string theory has no observed or experimentally verifiable components and yet remains one of the most popular theories in modern physics. Many theories must only be mathematically consistent with other popular theories to gain attention. In some respects, as the physical sciences attempt to cross the threshold of humanities capability to measure they lose most of the scientific method completely and this is something that has been happening in the realm of science since its birth.

Okay, misread you a little, but from what so far stands in science, mathematics alone can only get you so far. Pretty maths which has no observable or experimental data to back it up will remain to be just what it started off to be... pretty maths. The scientific method is only but one means to weed out bad ideas or untestable claims, but it is far from perfect. Thankfully, there is the whole peer-review system, and then the attempt to replicate results by third parties after that, which is very effective at calling bullshit on bad science.

Also, as far as string theory is concerned, I think the problem also lies within it's name. So far, it is nothing more than a hypothesis, and has yet to go through the whole scientific method in order to present a case that can be peer-reviewed.

On the human experience thing. Of course science won't be able to explain every aspect of the human experience, because it is a subjective experience and differs from person to person. Science can only accept objective means by which it collect and analyses data, from which it builds conclusions on what the data is collected from.

Humans seem to take part in the concept of science but rarely are humans flawless or entirely scientific in nature.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Humans seem to take part in the concept of science but rarely are humans flawless or entirely scientific in nature.

What a person believes and what a person knows through science are different things. One can be very scientific or not, or have a bunch of beliefs and still be scientific when it comes to research. A human's flaw doesn't necessarily make science any less valid or one's knowledge of science any less valid.

A human's flaw doesn't necessarily make science any less valid or one's knowledge of science any less valid.

If it's a flaw. It necessarily does. I like my quote better.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

If it's a flaw. It necessarily does. I like my quote better.

How? There are specific concepts and procedures one goes through when presenting anything new to science which are there to ensure that bad science is weeded out from everything else.

The Scientific Method includes:

• The Formulation of a hypothesis
• Proposal of predictions that will act as evidence for the hypothesis
• Rigorous experimentation and observation so to collect data.
• Drawing conclusions from the data to see whether the predictions fit the results.
• With data collected, one creates a thesis detailing the hypothesis, the predictions and the experiments. The thesis is then submitted for Peer Review

Peer review is probably one of the harshest gauntlets any scientific proposal has to go through. Any inconsistencies and poor methodology are brutally examined and highlighted. And if the thesis passes peer review, other scientists will attempt to repeat the results you've had. If they can't replicate it, then bullshit is called. If the results are repeatable, then you repeat the process by gathering more evidence to build up a more comprehensive idea of what your hypothesis is about. It takes a lot of work before something becomes accepted as a theory in the scientific community. This is how bad science is weeded out (very effectively too).

What one believes and how one person may be flawed has nothing to do with the knowledge that science imparts.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

If the universe responded to intention all of that procedure would be invalid.

And yet, how can you discern that the universe responds to intention? Even such an assertion can be tested and verified by applying the scientific method. Remember, Science is a collective effort, not an individual one, therefore if your assumption is correct, then the scepticism of hundreds of individual scientists would have caused the results for certain theories to be nullified to due the universe's reaction to their intentions. Of course, this is not the case.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

It is already demonstrated and proven. See the link for verification.

http://www.pureinsight.org/pi/index.php?news=1405

Ummm, okay, skimmed over that. One thing to ask you though. How come no one else has heard about this? Something like that would have such a huge impact upon what we know, that surely such a discovery should have made at least mainstream news media. One article, written in a rather unknown website with little scientific credentials, and I'm supposed to take it as evidence of an intention-reactive universe? Allow me to add an extra heavy dose of scepticism to this post.

Oh, wait the post was deleted... heh, at least I got it quoted

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

The media is not what you think is is my friend.

I like to save space. If it's quoted. It doesn't have to be posted anymore.

Or it means it can't be verified when a person decides to call bullshit. Seriously, this shit is not sticking at the moment

Yet you have never proven these experiments invalid. It's not just that article or experiment there is many. You just don't like the idea. Is that right?

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Yet you have never proven these experiments invalid. It's not just that article or experiment there is many. You just don't like the idea. Is that right?

As a sceptic, it is not up to me to disprove the claim, it is upon the proposer of the claim to provide objective and verifiable evidence in order to substantiate his claim. And even if the idea was true, it would make no difference, as the world around still exists in the way it is. I don't see myself jumping out of windows with the intention to fly and being able to do so though...

What you are suggesting is what sceptics call, a confirmation bias. "Oh, but if you believe, then you'll see that it is true!"

That is not free thought, that is bullshit and a logical fallacy. I have no obligation to have to believe your claims, nor do I have to substantiate my criticisms when you can't substantiate yours.

It seems then you have no ability to respond and explain the article as it relates to your own beliefs. You are just ignoring it and saying it's not your responsibility.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

It seems then you have no ability to respond and explain the article as it relates to your own beliefs. You are just ignoring it and saying it's not your responsibility.

The article does nothing to provide objective insight into what it is claiming. Something that appears on some obscure web-page with no other references elsewhere should always be given a healthy dose of scepticism.

This is very amateur skepticism. This experiment is well known. Not just from one internet page. You did not summarize or respond to the article that shows you understand it at all. You did not provide anything of equal value than demonstrates your understanding of this experiment or what it means to you. Secondly you did not give any reason for your skepticism. Other than your prejudice.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

This is very amateur skepticism. This experiment is well known. Not just from one internet page. You did not summarize or respond to the article that shows you understand it at all. You did not provide anything of equal value than demonstrates your understanding of this experiment or what it means to you. Secondly you did not give any reason for your skepticism. Other than your prejudice.

Oh noes! Teh pursecushunz!1!11 ("Oh no! The persecution!" for the grammar nazis out there).

How is it well known? The reason for my scepticism is based on a knowledge of reality, not wishful thinking, and therefore I question claims which are extraordinary with implications that can change the way we view science or even reality completely. The fact you've only linked me to one article (a rather fluffy one to boot) does nothing to sway my opinion.

You assume that you are correct and that I'm being prejudiced. No shit Sherlock, I tend to be 'prejudiced' to anything which cannot deliver what it claims. Let's take your argument and summarise it in terms of snake-oil:

Snake Oil Salesman: Hear ye! Hear ye! My Snake oil will cure all ailments! Try it today and see the results!

Sceptic: Umm, that's quite a claim there. Can you substantiate it?

Snake Oil Salesman: Of course! All my customers' testimonials show that my snake-oil works! Here's even an article about it!

Sceptic: I see... but the article doesn't reference a proper, scientific study, and testimonials are hardly reliable.

Snake Oil Salesman: Oh yeah? Prove me wrong!

Sceptic: Why should I? You haven't even provided proper evidence to back up your claims. You haven't provided me with a peer-reviewed article nor have you referenced studies done by third-parties to show your product cures all ailments as you so claim. It is unreasonable for me to have to bare the burden of proof when you aren't even meeting the burden of proof on your behalf.

Snake Oil Salesman: You need to try it to see that it really works!

[ad nauseam]

Overall, if you can't construct a convincing case for whatever you are arguing for, and providing nothing credible to substantiate it, I can completely disregard it. I don't have to agree with you, nor do I have to prove you wrong until your case provides me with a reason to have to prove you wrong.

Don't like my scepticism? Great. I'm fine with that. Want to convince me? Come back with some solid evidence and a coherent case. Then maybe, just maybe, I might take you more seriously.

Are you trying to say that what is captured from the frozen water crystals in photographs that present a glimpse into the mysterious response of water to thoughts. Is all invalid? How is snake oil relevant? How is anything you said relevant to the results?

Dr. Emoto has been called to lecture around the world as a result and has conducted live experiments both in Japan and Europe as well as in the US to show how indeed our thoughts, attitudes, and emotions as humans deeply impact the environment. He is a graduate of the Yokohama Municipal University and the Open International University as a Doctor of Alternative Medicine.

Emoto has already been offered 1 million dollars by the JREF and has yet to show up there to present his little experiment. So much for that.

Maybe it's not all about money and the people who are offering are probably not even legitimate and just using it as an excuse to discredit him so ofcourse you can't co-operate with them when that's the case. That's the easiest way to discredit someone just say you offered them a million and they didn't take it. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that scenario. You still have the problem of actually doing the experiments yourself, rather than complaining about them without any experience.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Are you trying to say that what is captured from the frozen water crystals in photographs that present a glimpse into the mysterious response of water to thoughts. Is all invalid? How is snake oil relevant? How is anything you said relevant to the results? Your response reminds me of some kid that is arguing with father that there is no convincing evidence the oncoming train can't stop and wait for him to finish his Barbie doll house in the middle of the train tracks. Your not even tuned into reality boy.

Dr. Emoto has been called to lecture around the world as a result and has conducted live experiments both in Japan and Europe as well as in the US to show how indeed our thoughts, attitudes, and emotions as humans deeply impact the environment. He is a graduate of the Yokohama Municipal University and the Open International University as a Doctor of Alternative Medicine.

You do not have anything over him, or his results. Your naive disrespect for real science is out of control. ok. You are not thinking straight at all.

Cite me the studies done by accredited third parties (not just the first-party which came up with the hypothesis) which substantiate these claims then! And as something which deals with Alternative Medicine, it is often grounded in a lot of fluff and nebulous concepts. Just like I have every reason to be sceptical of someone who claims to be able to cure my colds through homeopathy, I have every reason to be sceptical of your claims.

I am actively asking for more source material and citation. I am actively asking you to meet the burden of proof. I am here, waiting to see if you can provide anything conclusive that might not only convince me, but be able to meet the standards to make it into a peer-review journal. Are you going to deny my requests for more evidence?

Plus, real science? Come on, let's not fall back to logical fallacies such as the No True Scotsman fallacy. Don't disappoint me here.

This has gone too far off topic. The end.