Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 430. (Read 901367 times)

the joint, isn't empiricism the basis of metaphysics? After all, without our brain and subsequent five senses, there'd be no way of even coming up with metaphysical ideas.

Do you agree with Descartes or David Hume?

The margin-of-error can only be calculated based upon the number of trials.  If I've been alive for 3,000 days and the sun hasn't exploded yet, then based upon 3,000 "trials" I can predict with very high statistical confidence that the sun will not explode tomorrow due to a very small margin-of-error.  Of course, that confidence does no good if the sun goes nova tomorrow.  The margin-of-error exists specifically because you always have access to a limited data set.  The margin-of-error could be eliminated completely if you somehow had knowledge of all trials that ever were, are, and ever will be, but obviously we don't have this ability.

And correct, mathematical proofs are fully abstract, internally consistent, and (at least) to that extent, sound.  Whether or not (and how) they actually apply to physical reality is another issue.  But regardless, they constitute 'a priori' knowledge and are knowable at a 100% level of confidence, without any margin-of-error.


Yes, your understanding is basically correct, and also correct about the "perfect machine."  Sensory technology seems to function as a 2nd-order observer.  In the double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics, the suggestive collapse of the wave function occurred in the presence of both human and technological observers.

Your question about whether Intelligent Design is the "necessary" mechanism by which reality is created/defined is fantastic.  You are correct to imply that conclusion didn't necessarily follow.

The best model one can theoretically come up with to explain something must meet a few criteria:  It must 1) Be internally consistent, 2) Comprehensively and soundly explain all information it attempts to do so, and 3) Introduce the fewest number of assumptions, ideally zero.  Falsification of the model can happen on two levels.  At a lower level, the model can be rendered internally invalid if new information is introduced which should be explained by it, but isn't.  At a higher level, the model can be rendered externally invalid if another model, which is broader in its scope, not only explains all information in the original model, but synthesizes this knowledge with other information unexplained by the original model (the result being a deeper understanding which predicates any topological understanding).

That being said, could reality have "always existed," independent of metrics?  From an empirical perspective, maybe, but there's no possible way to know without introducing some unnecessary assumptions.  This actually gets right back to the Positivistic Universe assumption, as your question yields to the same impossible means of empirical falsification, i.e. you would need to somehow collect metric data via observation in a Universe totally void of observers and metrics.  What we do know, however, is that the data suggest that in 100% of cases where reality has been affirmed to exist, perception and metrics were present, and in exactly 0 cases has reality been affirmed to exist in the absence of perception and metrics.  That's why the Positivistic Universe assumption exists in the first place; it's as practical to adhere to this assumption as it is to assume the sun won't go nova tomorrow.

From a philosophical perspective, no lol, reality could not have existed independent of metrics.  One reason is we have the sameness-in-difference tautology of logic to turn to, which states that all relational entities must necessarily reduce to a common medium.  Because what is real and unreal are relational entities, it follows they, too, reduce to a common medium.  Metrics axiomatically create the distinction between real and unreal according to a simple difference metric (i.e. 1 vs. 0).  No metric --> no distinction between what's real and unreal.

Sounds to me like you are lazy and want things handed to you.  You want strength?  Go work out (physical) or mediate (mental).

Two working hands can accomplish more than a million clasped in prayer.

That's is wrong and doesn't work (rich case). Have you people not been taught properly? Even I, who consider myself somewhere partially agnostic and an atheist know that. No, I don't have hate religions though.
Praying does have some physiological benefits, but meditation has physical ones (changes in the brain that are quite helpful).

No problem, and good clarification. I think the problem that bugs me the most, is that this "margin-of-error" attached to conclusions derived from the Scientific Method is inherently impossible to calculate (as far as I can tell).

I agree that certain things can be proven absolutely, I suppose certain mathematical proofs would be examples of a priori knowledge, and could be proven logically with no need for inductive reasoning? When I said "nothing can ever be proven" I meant things based on inductive reasoning (lazy writing from me).


This is interesting stuff. I'd be lying if I said I understood it all, but I would like to question your final point.

I think I agree on everything up to that. If I'm understanding correctly, metrics are inherently abstract because they rely on perception to exist. Even if you had a perfect machine which used the binary metric to ask whether something existed or not, the result must be perceived by a "mind", so even this binary metric is abstract.

On to your last paragraph. Now, I agree that "metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an intelligent mind, and that all real definition is a product of these metrics", but why should that mean that "Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined."?

Why is it not possible that, for example, reality always existed, and the metrics that we use to define it are of our own making? Or in other words, why should our logical definition of reality have anything to do with how it was created? Just because we need metrics to understand reality, why does that mean that said reality has to have an Intelligent Designer using the same metrics?

(sorry, finding it hard to explain myself...  )

And it's perfectly OK for you to believe in a god.  We're just asking that you don't brainwash your vulnerable children before they are old enough to think for themselves. 

Don't be like BADecker - head in the sand forcing HIS god on other's beliefs.  That is just wrong and out dated.

Good luck to you friend! 

I like that... getting something from nothing.

Before you came into existence, did you wish yourself into existence?

Consider your body. Where did it come from? You received it virtually free.

If you lost an arm in a car accident, and it was damaged so badly that it couldn't be repaired and reattached, where could you get another that was exactly the same or better? You probably couldn't. The best you might do is pay $millions for a bionic arm that was reasonably good, but never quite the same. Yet how much did your first arm cost you? Nothing!

Isn't life strange. Often the best in life comes to us for free, but the inferior things that we make often cost $millions.

Where do people get their life? It might seem that they get it from their parents. But in a person's own eyes and understanding, until he is taught that he received his life from his parents, he received it from nothing. Suddenly there was this whole universe created for him from nothing.

I pray to get strength to face all of my problems. But, the other people said that praying is the shortcut to success. As a example, there is a person who pray to get rich directly, but for me, I pray to stay strong in my job and work hardly, so I can get rich in my way.

Praying.. In hope to gain something from something that does not exist.

Meditation.. Getting something from nothing.

But you didn't imply that at all.  Saying that it is idiotic to believe in something without evidence is completely different from saying that an atheist has a good reason to not believe in religion.  These are two separate things.

Also, I would argue that Buddism in its purest form is anti-bullshit.  It even provides a replicable method to test some of its most fundamental claims.  This is somewhat beside the point, though.

Here we go again. Please stop posting because you aren't making any sense and are very much deluded.
Mediation =/= praying.
Praying isn't that similar to meditation. It's up to the individual to choose, however he or she doesn't decide which one is the best. Stop living a subjective life. Although you see people quite often choosing the irrational path.

Exactly. The interpretation could be completely wrong.

Yes, meditation is the best way. I think everything that could make your mind be refresh is meditation. But, my meditation is praying. Everyone can take anything that he like to calm and strengthen himself, just choose the best.  

Same applies to atheists who believe that all the wrong done in this world is because of religion and their belief in God. For them, evil people are evil because of religion. They say that because they get abused by people who are theists (although it's wrong that those people abuse them and they are bad people) but that doesn't mean that those bad people do the same because of their belief. They are just plain bad/evil.

And there I'll play the english is not my native language card.

I only implied that there's a good reason why an "atheist" rejects religion. There is no religion which is not based on bullshit (I see we can agree on that). Science on the other hand is all about seeking more knowledge without underlying agendas, delusions or criminal intent.

It really comes down to how these react to unknowns.

Scientific example:

(first solar eclipse happening)

"hmm, WTF is happening, let's investigate to understand what is causing this phenomenon"

Religious:

(first solar eclipse happening)

"IT MUST BE IMAGINARY SKYWIZARDS DOING SHIT BECAUSE X MADE UP REASON, YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE (waves hands)"

While you could say that science uses beliefs but they cannot be compared to religious delusions in their nature.

The best thing in ancient writings is that you can interpret and explain it as you want.

I can agree that praying will make YOU feel better but it will not help anyone.
As said above, meditation should be the best way

That's only what they want you to believe. It is quite hard to interpret ancient writings the way that suits the people. Belief in nature and the supernatural probably did; religions like Christianity did not.

That's quite irrational. Praying doesn't strengthen anything besides you thinking it does. That's where the delusion comes in. Has anyone ever written a scientific paper on the benefits of praying on the body? (besides the nonsense of being calmer/nicer and what-not) I doubt it; case solved.
If you really want to strengthen your persona you should take up something that actually works. Meditation (it actually has health benefits).

Scientific *conclusions* rely on available empirical information.  The scientific method relies solely upon philosophical reasoning supporting empirical epistemology.

To this extent, the scientific method *does* rely upon belief, just not idiotic ones.  Specifically, it relies on the belief in the validity of logical inference as it relates to inductive reasoning.  This validity is established entirely by logic, and not by physical evidence whatsoever.

The behaviour of some scientists doesn't have anything to do with the fundamentals of science.

The scientific method relies on deduction first, then generalizing the results and finally creating rules depending on the success of the generalization attempt. Actually this could be just as misleading as any religious beliefs, and scientists can be as dogmatic as the most hardcore members of the Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei .