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

[Logicman]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Observation is NOT part of science..

I don't agree. But you're welcome to your views.

https://sciencing.com/types-observation-scientific-method-8295233.html

 

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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

We all are. My wife and I are about to celebrate our 26th wedding anniversary. We've been loving without faith for more than a quarter century.

 

[Daisy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You have to have faith in a person to fall in love with them...when/if that faith in them fades away, so does the love...I speak from personal experience...

 

[Peter King]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Actually, it is.

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

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.

Atheism is not religion, that is nonsense.

 

[pinqy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You have to have faith in a person to fall in love with them...when/if that faith in them fades away, so does the love...I speak from personal experience...

Nope. You can fall in love with someone you know you can’t trust, who you know is bad for you, or who will never love ou back.

 

[it's just me]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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.

I guess Socrates wasn't real either, then.

 

[Daisy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Nope. You can fall in love with someone you know you can’t trust, who you know is bad for you, or who will never love ou back.

Speak for yourself...:2razz:

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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.

So does a corporation author a dictionary, or do individual people? Who puts the definitions in the dictionary? Dictionaries do not spring into existence on their own. Who creates dictionaries? Is that too hard to answer?

Who said anyone redefines a word? No one but you. Now you are digging a deeper hole.

We all know that dictionaries are inanimate objects. We know that dictionaries don't "do" anything. But you don't seem to know where the definitions written in dictionaries come from. Take a guess.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You have to have faith in a person to fall in love with them...when/if that faith in them fades away, so does the love...I speak from personal experience...

Once again, with the word games. "Faith" and "having faith" are two different usages of the word faith. You could use the word trust instead.

But then this brings up the problem of defining what is meant by the word love. There are a lot of things that we use the word love for, and they don't all mean the same thing.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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

Any real life examples? Or just another empty claim?

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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

If it isn't your definition, what is the source of it?

 

[Daisy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Once again, with the word games. "Faith" and "having faith" are two different usages of the word faith. You could use the word trust instead.

But then this brings up the problem of defining what is meant by the word love. There are a lot of things that we use the word love for, and they don't all mean the same thing.

The words are very similar...I trust my spouse, therefore I have faith in him...

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I guess Socrates wasn't real either, then.

That is a good possibility, although the references we have are more current to his lifetime. There is also the fact that there are no supernatural claims about Socrates, just events that are well within the realms of possibility. We have the testimony of Plato and Xenophon. Xenophon was known to be a reliable source, and was contemporary to Plato. The character of Plato Socrates is probably at least a bit fictionalized, but between that, and the writings from Xeonophane makes is probably that the basic story is true.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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

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?

I'll address the rest of your comment at another time, but the bolded parts stick out like a sore thumb...

Welcome to Paradox City, once again...

1) Into The Night disagrees with you.
2) You and Into The Night seem to be the same person.

You're being irrational...

Also, he doesn't disagree with me in that particular comment. He said that science doesn't make use of supporting evidence. He didn't mention conflicting evidence at all in that post of his. There IS a difference between the two... He's on record for arguing that science only makes use of conflicting evidence (NOT supporting evidence) and he is correct about that.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Atheism is not religion, that is nonsense.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

Yes, atheism is a religion. It makes arguments which happen to stem from an initial circular argument [that no god(s) exist].

 

[pinqy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I'll address the rest of your comment at another time, but the bolded parts stick out like a sore thumb...

Welcome to Paradox City, once again...

1) Into The Night disagrees with you.
2) You and Into The Night seem to be the same person.

You're being irrational...

Also, he doesn't disagree with me in that particular comment. He said that science doesn't make use of supporting evidence. He didn't mention conflicting evidence at all in that post of his. There IS a difference between the two... He's on record for arguing that science only makes use of conflicting evidence (NOT supporting evidence) and he is correct about that.

You really need to look up the word paradox. You keep using it when contradiction would be the correct word (not all contradictions are paradoxes). And I neither contradicted myself nor created a paradox.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I'll address the rest of your comment at another time, but the bolded parts stick out like a sore thumb...

Welcome to Paradox City, once again...

1) Into The Night disagrees with you.
2) You and Into The Night seem to be the same person.

You're being irrational...

Also, he doesn't disagree with me in that particular comment. He said that science doesn't make use of supporting evidence. He didn't mention conflicting evidence at all in that post of his. There IS a difference between the two... He's on record for arguing that science only makes use of conflicting evidence (NOT supporting evidence) and he is correct about that.

How can evidence conflict if it doesn't support or refute?

 

[Peter King]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

Yes, atheism is a religion. It makes arguments which happen to stem from an initial circular argument [that no god(s) exist].

atheism is not a religion.

definition of religion from Merriam Webster

1 The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.


1.A particular system of faith and worship.

1.2 A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

You might have made up your own definition but that one is bogus, nonsense, BS. Atheism is the lack of having any religious beliefs.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You really need to look up the word paradox. You keep using it when contradiction would be the correct word (not all contradictions are paradoxes). And I neither contradicted myself nor created a paradox.

He doesn't know what a paradox is.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

Yes, atheism is a religion. It makes arguments which happen to stem from an initial circular argument [that no god(s) exist].

Atheism doesn't make arguments at all. Belief and lack of belief in gods are not arguments. They are states of mind. When children believe in Santa Claus it is not an argument. When people believe in the powers of voodoo it is not an argument. When kids are afraid of monsters under their bed it is not an argument. You have no idea what an argument is and that it has nothing to do with beliefs. Arguments are made in an attempt to justify beliefs, not to create the belief. You've put the cart before the horse.

 

[marke]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

Yes, atheism is a religion. It makes arguments which happen to stem from an initial circular argument [that no god(s) exist].

Atheists despise religious beliefs, not knowing they have their own.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

...addressing the parts of your response which I ignored earlier this morning...

Are we getting bogged down with semantics again?

Not sure about you, but I'm not...

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.

The experience and interpretation of sensory stimuli.

Basic method, different models (variations) of that basic method...
You apparently didn’t notice the uses of “method” and “model”...
There is a basic, generic “scientific method” of form a hypothesis, make predictions, test, form a theory, test and keep testing.

Fine, I'll just address the "generic scientific method" which you propose.

1) [FORM A HYPOTHESIS] You can't form a hypothesis unless you first have a theory to form it around. You are getting ahead of yourself.
2) [MAKE PREDICTIONS] Science doesn't "make predictions". Science doesn't have that power, as it is an open functional system. Scientific theories must be converted into laws (by way of a closed functional system such as mathematics) in order to gain predictive powers.
3) [TEST] Yes, a theory gets tested against its null hypothesis.
4) [FORM A THEORY] You already HAVE your theory (from the beginning). At this point, if your theory from the beginning survived null hypothesis testing, then it is a theory of science.
5) [TEST AND KEEP TESTING] If your theory of science continues to survive null hypothesis testing, then it continues to be a theory of science. If, at any point, it fails null hypothesis testing (due to conflicting evidence), then your theory of science has been utterly destroyed and is no longer a theory of science.

Like you have made yourself familiar with how scientists and the scientific community view science?

I have, actually. I am quite aware of the argument which you have presented above regarding how science works. That's why I can easily combat it like I did above (and I never seem to receive a counterargument in response).

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?

Appeal to the Masses Fallacy.
Argument by RandU Fallacy. You are making up numbers.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You really need to look up the word paradox. You keep using it when contradiction would be the correct word (not all contradictions are paradoxes). And I neither contradicted myself nor created a paradox.

A paradox is simultaneously arguing two conflicting views. That's what you have done here. In one breath, you argue that Into The Night disagrees with me, and in the next breath you argue that Into The Night and I are the same person. Those two views can't simultaneously be true, as one can't disagree with oneself.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

atheism is not a religion.

Yes, it is.

You might have made up your own definition

Not my definition... It comes from Philosophy.

but that one is bogus, nonsense, BS.

Philosophy is not bogus, nonsense, BS.

...continued Argument of the Stone Fallacy...

Atheism is the lack of having any religious beliefs.

Wrong. It, itself, is a religious belief. It is accepting (as a true) the circular argument that 'god(s) do not exist'.