[W:1303]***To Believe or Not To Believe

[Logicman]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

There are historical figures of which actual documents are available.

We're talking about your empirical evidence statement, not historical documents.

Empirical evidence is information developed by observation and/or experimentation. The process is an integral part of the scientific method. You don't have this on individuals from antiquity.

 

[artii]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

The Equivocation of Ambiguity​

Do you remember your Shakespeare?

To believe, or not to believe, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The fools and frauds of delusional godlessness,
Or to take manure fork to a pile of horse flops,
And by tossing clean out the barn:
--William Shakespeare, The Cockalorum of Chester​

This thread was inspired by post exchanges with "I Lack Belief" Atheists in this forum.

Amphiboly​

Logical Fallacy: Amphiboly

Thesis

To have a belief is to believe.
To lack a belief is not to believe.
To believe or not to believe. That is the question.
Think.

The "I Lack Belief" Atheist is merely equivocating with an ambiguity in order to avoid commitment
This is Bad Faith Atheism
Shun it.​

To be or not to be? To have blood living, to have thought, and to claim love which is by faith? Or to be a living body with only a brain and deny love for a wife?

 

[artii]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Without faith you cannot love and without love we are only beast of the field which die!

 

[artii]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

To dwell on it or not to dwell on it...that is the question...I say not...let 'em be...

To dwell on it or not to dwell on it: It doesn't matter we can never understand the maximum or minimum of love, because love is blind: Even God said: I am that I am, so there is no beginning or ending, nor is the tree of life written with knowledge. Love just is, unless you prefer knowledge and spirit with Satan.

 

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

There are historical figures of which actual documents are available.

Quite a few of them, in fact. Add to that demonstrable eyewitness accounts, none of which Jesus has. You know, for a God that supposedly wants us all to believe he exists, he did a terrible job providing evidence for himself.

 

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Without faith you cannot love and without love we are only beast of the field which die!

Most of us do just fine. What's wrong with you?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Without faith you cannot love and without love we are only beast of the field which die!

I've loved and love very well without religious faith.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Most of us do just fine. What's wrong with you?

Insecurity?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Thinking of something is not experience.

Yes it is.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

At least he doesn't invent his own incorrect definition of science, as you do.

Not my definition. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

So, are the authors people?

Usually corporations. Corporations are people. They do not redefine words. No dictionary defines any word. The 'definitions' you see in a dictionary are just examples on using a word.

Dictionaries are used to standardize spelling and pronunciation.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I own ten different dictionaries and they all have the same definitions of words. How can that be?!!!

They actually don't, not unless you own ten different dictionaries from the same publisher.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Well, that is nice, as stated there might have been someone called Jesus, but who can prove that his was the son of god? And still that does not mean any of it stated in the bible ever happened with regard to Jesus. That people believe in something to begin with and then start looking for evidence to suit their already existing believes is not a historical study.

Actually, it is.

Historical studies are based on empirical evidence, not on people who are not looking for what they already see as the truth but for something that suits their faith,

It is based on both. All observations, including those made by historians, are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

that tries to destroy christianity by claiming there is no god or to create social change.

They have the right to believe in atheism, just as Christians have the right to believe in Christ. They are both religions. As far as social change is concerned, both religions try to implement that. When it exceeds the boundaries set by the Constitution, or tries to force a religion upon another, it becomes a problem. Both Christians and atheists have tried to do this.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Philosophy doesn't have branches. It just is.

Denial of philosophy, probably because of your own illiteracy. Yes, philosophy has branches of study.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

There are historical figures of which actual documents are available.

Documents can be faked. Who is to say they that such documents are a proof of anything?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

We're talking about your empirical evidence statement, not historical documents.

Empirical evidence is information developed by observation and/or experimentation. The process is an integral part of the scientific method. You don't have this on individuals from antiquity.

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Observation is NOT part of science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory requires or stores any observation. Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only.

Science does not use supporting evidence at all.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I've loved and love very well without religious faith.

Really? So you great faith in the ones you love, right?

 

[Rich2018]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

...science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Says who ?

 

[pinqy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

WRONG. Observation is not a proof. It IS subjective. It IS based on opinion and belief. It is subject to the problems of phenomenology. It is evidence only.

Consider the simple event of the observation of a sunrise:

To one, it is a god rising up to warm the world.
To another, it is a vehicle for such a god.
To another, it is a the result of a god placing a source of warmth over the Earth.
To another, it is a ball of fire that orbits the stationary Earth.
To another, it is a plasma that is stationary, and the Earth's rotation causes the day/night cycle.
To another, it is a plasma that is not stationary, and the Earth and the Sun move together through space
To another, it is a plasma that is orbiting the Earth, and the Earth orbits it, and nothing is stationary.
To another, it is a simple appreciation of the warmth the Sun provides every day and it doesn't matter why it's there.

One event, eight different interpretations of that event. Eight different observations of that event.

One observation. Jus gone: a bright light coming up from the horizon on a predictable schedule.
Nothing else you wrote was an observation.

Observation must necessarily require interpreting the stimuli from your senses. You see a dog. It looks lost.

No. The observation would be that there is s dog and a description of its behavior. “Lost” is a conclusion, not an observation.

Science isn't observation. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Observation is part of no theory, though an observation may have inspired one. Some theories of science were not even inspired by observation at all, such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

“Science” is the study of the natural world. I never claimed science was observation so I have no idea what your point there is

Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'.

But there is a generalized “scientific method” used in science:
Start with a question about a phenomenon.
Form a hypothesis to answer the question.
Test the hypothesis by making predictions(here’s where your falsifiability comes in)
Form a generalized theory that has explanatory power.
Keep testing.

Your version of science doesn’t require any testing or evidence.

 

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Insecurity?

That's probably pretty accurate.

 

[pinqy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You seem to be denying your argument here.

Which argument, and how so?

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

One observation. Jus gone: a bright light coming up from the horizon on a predictable schedule.
Nothing else you wrote was an observation.

Nope. Everything that he wrote in that sunset example was an observation. One event yielded multiple differing observations...

But there is a generalized “scientific method” used in science:
Start with a question about a phenomenon.
Form a hypothesis to answer the question.
Test the hypothesis by making predictions(here’s where your falsifiability comes in)
Form a generalized theory that has explanatory power.
Keep testing.

You are in paradox here, given past correspondence with me in this thread (posts #193, #229, and #273 are examples of this paradox you've argued):

1) There is one "scientific method" (The "scientific method").
2) There are many "scientific methods". (Different branches of science make use of different "methods").

You need to clear this paradox before arguing rationally about this.

Your version of science doesn’t require any testing or evidence.

Actually, it makes use of both... It requires null hypothesis testing and it requires the existence or non-existence of conflicting evidence.

Please make yourself familiar with the position ITN is taking before attempting to attack it.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Without faith you cannot love and without love we are only beast of the field which die!

The claim 'without faith you cannot love' is unsupported. Please support that claim. Let's see you show that to be true.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

The claim 'without faith you cannot love' is unsupported. Please support that claim. Let's see you show that to be true.

I am living proof of being able to love without faith. The claim is nonsensical.

 

[pinqy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Nope. Everything that he wrote in that sunset example was an observation. One event yielded multiple differing observations...

Are we getting bogged down with semantics again? What definition of “observation” are you using? Off the top of my head I can think of two different common meanings, and s third technical meaning.

You are in paradox here, given past correspondence with me in this thread (posts #193, #229, and #273 are examples of this paradox you've argued):

1) There is one "scientific method" (The "scientific method").
2) There are many "scientific methods". (Different branches of science make use of different "methods").

You need to clear this paradox before arguing rationally about this.

Post 193: “The basic scientific method (and there are different models) is...”
Basic method, different models (variations) of that basic method.

Post 229 I addressed your confusion: “You are aware there are different branches of science? And they require different approaches. You can’t have one model that works for astronomy, economics, chemistry, cultural anthropology, microbiology, etc.”
You apparently didn’t notice the uses of “method” and “model”

I didn’t write post 273.

There is a basic, generic “scientific method” of form a hypothesis, make predictions, test, form a theory, test and keep testing.
In chemistry and psychology you can do laboratory experiments, but not the same kind. You can’t do lab experiments in astronomy. Etc. you cannot do the same kind of testing or the same kind of predictions in all the different fields.

Analogy: poaching is a method of cooking. But for different ingredients you use different liquids, different equipment etc. still one method.

Actually, it makes use of both... It requires null hypothesis testing and it requires the existence or non-existence of conflicting evidence.

Into the Night disagrees with you: post 566. And how is null hypothesis testing not a method or procedure?

Please make yourself familiar with the position ITN is taking before attempting to attack it.

Like you have made yourself familiar with how scientists and the scientific community view science? Where you and Into the Night (if you are not the same person) are the only two people who claim that science is only a set of falsifiable theories and there is no method?