Faith is necessary for Science to function

[9Westy9]

There is no [absolutely-necessary-entity] and everything in reality is universally sufficient.

That doesn't complete the set. It doesn't say what an atheist feels about slavery, homosexuality, abortion etc. Atheism isn't a very informative religion then.

It makes this assumption without attaining absolute-knowledge, and the limited knowledge it possess is plausible if not universally subjective because we can only conceive reality, not perceive it. :rainbow1:

How can you conceive reality without perceiving it. Also Science and atheism doesn't claim absolute knowledge.

 

[Kerr]

Refer to Wishful thinking.

I have already proven why with logic and reason.

And I just proved you wrong with logic and reason .

Ohhh, and please refer to Know-it-all - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mnemonicTonic]

That doesn't complete the set. It doesn't say what an atheist feels about slavery, homosexuality, abortion etc. Atheism isn't a very informative religion then.

Mind you this is a generalized definition towards an absolutely-necessary-entity. It would cause all sorts of ambiguities to arise if I were to add opinions on ill-informed topics. I'm sure there are atheist who are for homosexuality, and ones against.

How can you conceive reality without perceiving it. Also Science and atheism doesn't claim absolute knowledge.

We've been talking about this concept for the last week. I suggest you back track to the start and read through the forum post.

The basis for Science is objectivity. What do acknowledged Atheists use to determine the existence of a God-entity?

 

[PolyHedral]

The basis of Science is objectivity.

Science relies on repeatability. They aren't the same.

 

[mnemonicTonic]

Science relies on repeatability. They aren't the same.

I believe someone mentioned "intersubjective verifiability". Intersubjective verifiability is a subjective interpretation. How would one seek objectivity if all truth states are subjective to a standard? Would this not make Science a contradiction? Please enlighten me. :beach:

 

[9Westy9]

Mind you this is a generalized definition towards an absolutely-necessary-entity. It would cause all sorts of ambiguities to arise if I were to add opinions on ill-informed topics. I'm sure there are atheist who are for homosexuality, and ones against.

Indeed. It means atheism is a religion that tells you very little. If we use the definition of religion that you provided.

We've been talking about this concept for the last week. I suggest you back track to the start and read through the forum post.

Might have to do that then.

The basis for Science is objectivity. What do acknowledged Atheists use to determine the existence of a God-entity?

The basis for Science is to get as close to objectivity as possible. Well that varies. Some just shrug off the idea of god as irrational or crazy, just like the existence of unicorns. Some turn to Philosophy and logic and others science.

 

[mnemonicTonic]

Indeed. It means atheism is a religion that tells you very little. If we use the definition of religion that you provided.

So you admit to it? Acknowledged atheism is a religion! Welcome to the club!

Might have to do that then.

I'm not trying to be mean. I seek for resolute in this topic, and don't want it to turn into an infinite conundrum.

The basis for Science is to get as close to objectivity as possible. Well that varies. Some just shrug off the idea of god as irrational or crazy, just like the existence of unicorns. Some turn to Philosophy and logic and others science.

An approximate is still a subjective standard. Why use logic or reason if you cherry pick what you deem irrational or crazy?

 

[PolyHedral]

I believe someone mentioned "intersubjective verifiability". Intersubjective verifiability is a subjective interpretation. How would one seek objectivity if all truth states are subjective to a standard? Would this not make Science a contradiction? Please enlighten me. :beach:

Because there is a set of reliable criteria to determine what is true. These criteria are designed to be as objective as possible.

 

[mnemonicTonic]

Because there is a set of reliable criteria to determine what is true. These criteria are designed to be as objective as possible.

Are you referring to the Scientific method?

 

[riley2112]

:clap

And I just proved you wrong with logic and reason .

Ohhh, and please refer to Know-it-all - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mnemonicTonic]

Going to go out for lunch and do some errands. Post away! I'll reply to all in a timely manner.

 

[9Westy9]

So you admit to it? Acknowledged atheism is a religion! Welcome to the club!

Not sure if that's a good thing or not

I'm not trying to be mean. I seek for resolute in this topic, and don't want it to turn into an infinite conundrum.

It's fine. I disagree that we conceive rather than perceive.

An approximate is still a subjective standard. Why use logic or reason if you cherry pick what you deem irrational or crazy?

Subjective to what/ who? irrational or crazy is what deviates from what we know as reality and/ or possible. Believing in unicorns is crazy or irrational as we have never experienced Unicorns outside of fantasy/ dreams. Unicorns are nothing more than an idea until proven otherwise

 

[mnemonicTonic]

And I just proved you wrong with logic and reason .

Ohhh, and please refer to Know-it-all - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've merely been using logic and reason to refute your claims. Nice ad hominem. I never said I percieved, so technically "I cannot know-it-all". I can only "know-it-all" in this conceived-perceived state.

 

[Willamena]

I seek for resolute in this topic, and don't want it to turn into an infinite conundrum.

Do you mean resolution? The way you've arranged it, no resolution is possible (even "possible" is impossible).

 

[Kerr]

I've merely been using logic and reason to refute your claims.

I can say the same about your claims. To be honest, I can understand where you come from. From a specific perspective you can argue that no one can be an atheist because no one can hold on to a neutral standpoint. Thing is that even if I accepted that way to look at it, it would just ends up becoming a debate over semantics, since if your argument is correct the only difference would be the label I would apply to myself.

But I do not accept that perspective, that atheism is impossible because neutrality is impossible. From my perspective I have just not seen anything that makes me believe in the existence of deities. Doesnt mean that I actually oppose the idea, btw, I relate to it about the same way as I relate to string theory. Interesting, but I havent seen any proof of it.

Nice ad hominem. I never said I percieved, so technically "I cannot know-it-all". I can only "know-it-all" in this conceived-perceived state.

I was just trying out your tactic of throwing links in peoples faces .

 

[cablescavenger]

The basis for science is objectivity, yet the foundational premise for science is based on an assumption (existence of objects).

How do we even know objects exist in the first place if we don't perceive them. We might perceive them with our senses, but we are not aware of them until we conceive them in our minds. Reality is being conceived not perceived. Science might prove everything else to be true, but the original premise supporting everything else is an assumption. Science does not use science to prove the existence of objects. Science just assumes it (faith).

I take it you have heard the term standing on the shoulders of giants?

Little is left to the imagination.

 

[cablescavenger]

Atheism is as much a religion as theism is, which is to say neither are a religion because religion is a system of beliefs, and not a single belief.

But that is a discussion for another thread.

Ignorance is bliss, you must be very happy together.

 

[mnemonicTonic]

I can say the same about your claims. To be honest, I can understand where you come from. From a specific perspective you can argue that no one can be an atheist because no one can hold on to a neutral standpoint. Thing is that even if I accepted that way to look at it, it would just ends up becoming a debate over semantics, since if your argument is correct the only difference would be the label I would apply to myself. But I do not accept that perspective, that atheism is impossible because neutrality is impossible. From my perspective I have just not seen anything that makes me believe in the existence of deities. Doesnt mean that I actually oppose the idea, btw, I relate to it about the same way as I relate to string theory. Interesting, but I havent seen any proof of it.

But your Atheism doesn't pertain to a lack of belief. Does it? How do you define an unbelief? Why do you resist being called a religious-atheist?

I was just trying out your tactic of throwing links in peoples faces .

Do you prefer copypasta instead? I sometimes grow tired of repeating the same thing.

 

[mnemonicTonic]

Little is left to the imagination.

I tend to disagree. There is still a plausible perceived state where we would run amok beyond our wildest dreams.

 

[cablescavenger]

I tend to disagree. There is still a plausible perceived state where we would run amok beyond our wildest dreams.

You would not get the funding if it was a wild dream.