Excess Superstition

[mauGR1]

Just now, attrayant said:

 

Thoughts are real but they are also subjective, like ideas and emotions.  Also, many thoughts are real but untrue.  If I think that, when I let go of this stone it will fall 'up' to the ceiling, my thought is real but it is clearly an error and I can discover this by simply experimenting with the stone.

 

Just because we have a real thought does not mean we have a correct, factual thought.

So, if i believe in God, and you don't, who is going to say who's right and who's wrong ?

[Berkshire]

8 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

So, if i believe in God, and you don't, who is going to say who's right and who's wrong ?

In the world that we live in today, science and religion are treated differently.

 

Science: I believe it and I will prove to you that it's true.

Religion: I believe it and you have to prove that it's not true. 

 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

In the world that we live in today, science and religion are treated differently.

 

Science: I believe it and I will prove to you that it's true.

Religion: I believe it and you have to prove that it's not true. 

 

Nice one. But religion cannot prove God, and science cannot disprove God.

[attrayant]

20 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Nice one. But religion cannot prove God, and science cannot disprove God.

 

It's not up to science to disprove anything.  It's up to the person making an extraordinary claim to provide evidence.  Science can then refute that evidence.  Don't want to provide evidence?  Fine, but then don't wonder why people think you should be confined to the loony bin.

 

Why embrace a belief that materialized out of thin air, if it can't be validated?

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

It's not up to science to disprove anything.  It's up to the person making an extraordinary claim to provide evidence.  Science can then refute that evidence.  Don't want to provide evidence?  Fine, but then don't wonder why people think you should be confined to the loony bin.

 

Why embrace a belief that materialized out of thin air, if it can't be validated?

First, i am not embracing any belief.

Second, if science "makes an extraordinary claim" that God doesn't exist, i expect it to prove it.

Third, if "people" think that i "should be confined to the loony bin", well, up to you.

[attrayant]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

First, i am not embracing any belief.

 

Firstly, don't make this personal.  I didn't say that YOU personally are embracing any particular belief.  We're speaking in the hypothetical sense, so that "you" means a hypothetical you.

 

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Second, if science "makes an extraordinary claim" that God doesn't exist, i expect it to prove it.

 

Did you not read what I said?  I said "It's not up to science to disprove anything."

 

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Third, if "people" think that i "should be confined to the loony bin", well, up to you.

 

Once again, that was the hypothetical "you", not you personally.  If it helps, read the sentence this way:

 

Fine, but then don't wonder why people think [those who don't want to provide evidence for their extraordinary beliefs] should be confined to the loony bin.

 

That's a bit wordy, isn't it?  Now you see why I used a hypothetical 'you' instead of the wordy 'those who...".

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Firstly, don't make this personal.  I didn't say that YOU personally are embracing any particular belief.  We're speaking in the hypothetical sense, so that "you" means a hypothetical you.

 

 

Did you not read what I said?  I said "It's not up to science to disprove anything."

 

 

Once again, that was the hypothetical "you", not you personally.  If it helps, read the sentence this way:

 

Fine, but then don't wonder why people think [those who don't want to provide evidence for their extraordinary beliefs] should be confined to the loony bin.

 

That's a bit wordy, isn't it?  Now you see why I used a hypothetical 'you' instead of the wordy 'those who...".

Fair enough, in fact i'm not taking it personal, and pls do the same.

I read what you say, we have to disagree on that point.

You said that it's not up to science to disprove anything, in that case you are admitting that you have not any right to ridicule God-believers.

[AYJAYDEE]

22 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Firstly, don't make this personal.  I didn't say that YOU personally are embracing any particular belief.  We're speaking in the hypothetical sense, so that "you" means a hypothetical you.

 

 

Did you not read what I said?  I said "It's not up to science to disprove anything."

 

 

Once again, that was the hypothetical "you", not you personally.  If it helps, read the sentence this way:

 

Fine, but then don't wonder why people think [those who don't want to provide evidence for their extraordinary beliefs] should be confined to the loony bin.

 

That's a bit wordy, isn't it?  Now you see why I used a hypothetical 'you' instead of the wordy 'those who...".

 

23 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Firstly, don't make this personal.  I didn't say that YOU personally are embracing any particular belief.  We're speaking in the hypothetical sense, so that "you" means a hypothetical you.

 

 

Did you not read what I said?  I said "It's not up to science to disprove anything."

 

 

Once again, that was the hypothetical "you", not you personally.  If it helps, read the sentence this way:

 

Fine, but then don't wonder why people think [those who don't want to provide evidence for their extraordinary beliefs] should be confined to the loony bin.

 

That's a bit wordy, isn't it?  Now you see why I used a hypothetical 'you' instead of the wordy 'those who...".

If someone makes a claim that something does not exist, he should at least provide us with the basis of this claim.

[ravip]

[attrayant]

39 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You said that it's not up to science to disprove anything, in that case you are admitting that you have not any right to ridicule God-believers.

 

Beliefs (not people) deserve to be ridiculed in direct proportion with how ridiculous the claims are.  It's the same rule that applies in formal debate: attack the belief, assertion or idea; not the person making it.

 

 

18 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

If someone makes a claim that something does not exist

 

You too?  Please read what I have said (twice now) more carefully: Science does not attempt to disprove negative statements.  Science is a tool for evaluating the evidence that is presented in support of a hypothesis.  Nobody can disprove that I am receiving telepathic transmissions from a walrus on Pluto, and they shouldn't have to disprove it.  It should be my burden to prove such a ridiculous statement.

 

The burden of proof falls upon the shoulders of those who make extraordinary claims; it's not upon others to refute such claims.  Since this misunderstanding seems to keep popping up again and again, I would appreciate it if anyone whop still does not understand what the burden of proof means to please watch this explainer video on the burden of proof in logical debate (where you'll see the walrus claim examined in greater detail):

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by attrayant

[AYJAYDEE]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Beliefs (not people) deserve to be ridiculed in direct proportion with how ridiculous the claims are.  It's the same rule that applies in formal debate: attack the belief, assertion or idea; not the person making it.

 

 

 

You too?  Please read what I have said (twice now) more carefully: Science does not attempt to disprove negative statements.  Science is a tool for evaluating the evidence that is presented in support of a hypothesis.  Nobody can disprove that I am receiving telepathic transmissions from a walrus on Pluto, and they shouldn't have to disprove it.  It should be my burden to prove such a ridiculous statement.

 

The burden of proof falls upon the shoulders of those who make extraordinary claims; it's not upon others to refute such claims.  Since this misunderstanding seems to keep popping up again and again, I would appreciate it if anyone whop still does not understand what the burden of proof means to please watch this explainer video on the burden of proof in logical debate (where you'll see the walrus claim examined in greater detail):

 

 

 

 

 

I know science does not have to disprove negative statements but that doesnt mean that science can declare that something does not exist just because they have found no evidence of it

[Nyezhov]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Of course.  Ignorance is bliss.

 

 

Guess that depends on what side of the political spectrum you are on. One could view "science based solutions" as comforting lies, and the inability to explain it all without "god" as an unpleasant truth.

 

Me: I dont walk under ladders, I respect spirit houses, I give a slight respectful nod to buddha, jesus and the torah and wait with bated breath for Ethan Siegel to explain what came before the "Big Bang". I try not to overthink to much as I understand why mathemeticians are usually crazy

[Nyezhov]

6 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

The burden of proof falls upon the shoulders of those who make extraordinary claims; it's not upon others to refute such claims.

So if someone claims God does not exist, they should be able to prove it? 

 

I ask the same question, in all my various incarnations,  everytime these threads pop up on the internet, to wit: how did the universe start? 

 

Until that question is answered, Ill hedge my bets and Im skeptical of everything.

[AYJAYDEE]

4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

So if someone claims God does not exist, they should be able to prove it? 

 

I ask the same question, in all my various incarnations,  everytime these threads pop up on the internet, to wit: how did the universe start? 

 

Until that question is answered, Ill hedge my bets and Im skeptical of everything.

I said no such thing!

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

I know science does not have to disprove negative statements but that doesnt mean that science can declare that something does not exist just because they have found no evidence of it

Actually, in a very scientific way, i can claim that, as there are "inferior beings" ( ants, microbes, bacteria) there must be "superior beings".

In the same way, if there is life on 1 planet, there must be countless lives in countless planets.

The fact that we cannot see something is NOT evidence that something doesn't exist.

Those scientists, more often than not, are as arrogant as old Catholic priests, they speak as they know everything, while the reality is they know very little.

[AYJAYDEE]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Actually, in a very scientific way, i can claim that, as there are "inferior beings" ( ants, microbes, bacteria) there must be "superior beings".

In the same way, if there is life on 1 planet, there must be countless lives in countless planets.

The fact that we cannot see something is NOT evidence that something doesn't exist.

Those scientists, more often than not, are as arrogant as old Catholic priests, they speak as they know everything, while the reality is they know very little.

You could claim so but I wont feel I have to believe you to be right

 

[mauGR1]

14 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

So if someone claims God does not exist, they should be able to prove it? 

 

I ask the same question, in all my various incarnations,  everytime these threads pop up on the internet, to wit: how did the universe start? 

 

Until that question is answered, Ill hedge my bets and Im skeptical of everything.

Being skeptical is the proper scientific approach.

I am very skeptical of self proclaimed scientists.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

You could claim so but I wont feel I have to believe you to be right

 

Whatever makes you happy, the world needs happy people to get by.

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

that doesn't mean that science can declare that something does not exist

 

Science does not do this.  The only time we hear the word "false" in science is when somebody makes an unsupported claim about something for which we already have a solid understanding with lots of strong, supporting evidence.  If you say that rainbows are caused by a leprechaun's pot of gold, that claim will be labeled false because we have a good understanding of the laws of light propagation and refraction.

 

If somebody makes an extraordinary claim, that claim is not automatically accepted as true until it is validated by evidence.  There are three buckets we can put claims in:
 

True: statements go into this bucket when we have established good, factual evidence for them and they can be validated and repeated by others. Examples: 

•  Germ theory
•  Gravity
•  Spherical Earth

 

Pending: claims that are unsubstantiated by evidence and for which there are no better explanations:

•  Deities
•  Ghosts
•  Cryptozoology (Bigfoot, Nessie)

 

False: statements or claims that have been made for which there are other, more rational and verifiable explanations:

•  Rainbows are caused by leprechauns
•  Mysterious floating globes in nighttime flash photography are "spirit orbs"
•  Ouija Boards

 

Some people might reply "false" about claims that are pending evidence, because the statistical likelihood of the claim being true is so infinitesimally small as to warrant no serious consideration (UFOs are aliens visiting Earth, David Icke claims, etc).

[AYJAYDEE]

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Science does not do this.  The only time we hear the word "false" in science is when somebody makes an unsupported claim about something for which we already have a solid understanding with lots of strong, supporting evidence.  If you say that rainbows are caused by a leprechaun's pot of gold, that claim will be labeled false because we have a good understanding of the laws of light propagation and refraction.

 

If somebody makes an extraordinary claim, that claim is not automatically accepted as true until it is validated by evidence.  There are three buckets we can put claims in:
 

True: statements go into this bucket when we have established good, factual evidence for them and they can be validated and repeated by others. Examples: 

•  Germ theory
•  Gravity
•  Spherical Earth

 

Pending: claims that are unsubstantiated by evidence and for which there are no better explanations:

•  Deities
•  Ghosts
•  Cryptozoology (Bigfoot, Nessie)

 

False: statements or claims that have been made for which there are other, more rational and verifiable explanations:

•  Rainbows are caused by leprechauns
•  Mysterious floating globes in nighttime flash photography are "spirit orbs"
•  Ouija Boards

 

Some people might reply "false" about claims that are pending evidence, because the statistical likelihood of the claim being true is so infinitesimally small as to warrant no serious consideration (UFOs are aliens visiting Earth, David Icke claims, etc).

Some scientists most certainly DO declare that God does not exist.

 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Some people might reply "false" about claims that are pending evidence, because the statistical likelihood of the claim being true is so infinitesimally small as to warrant no serious consideration (UFOs are aliens visiting Earth, David Icke claims, etc).

I think this point is worth discussing.

We base our knowledge on the physical senses, would you agree that the physical senses are very limited, and , if you apply some logic to it, they give you an infinitesimally small understanding of what's going on around us ?

[The Deerhunter]

On 9/28/2018 at 9:13 PM, MaksimMislavsky said:

Had anyone ever fallen into the channel before you cleaned it?

Yeah but they never survived to suffer bad luck.  P.S.  Welcome to Thailand.  It is all about this crazy stuff.  Leave while you are still sane or just ignore it.   Buddhism adopted all these ancient animist superstitions in the same way Christianity adopted Christmas and Easter.  The people were doing it.  It was a big deal for them so adopt it own it and subvert it to your new religion.  Get the money it brings.

Edited November 1, 2018 by The Deerhunter

[attrayant]

28 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

So if someone claims God does not exist, they should be able to prove it?

 

That claim is negative, and I have already said that negative statements do not get disproved.  It's up to the person who asserts that a deity exists to prove it.  Until then, such a claim goes into the 'pending' bucket with the world's other 4000+ deities.

 

28 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

I ask the same question, in all my various incarnations,  everytime these threads pop up on the internet, to wit: how did the universe start?

 

Why do you ask this question?  I recommend you find a cosmology forum if you want a deep discussion like that.

 

28 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Until that question is answered, Ill hedge my bets and Im skeptical of everything.

 

So because we don't have the answers to everything, we can't know the answers to anything?  That's the Mona Lisa puzzle dilemma!

 

 

Look - we're missing a few pieces of the puzzle, therefore it's impossible to know if this is the Mona Lisa!

 

[AYJAYDEE]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

That claim is negative, and I have already said that negative statements do not get disproved.  It's up to the person who asserts that a deity exists to prove it.  Until then, such a claim goes into the 'pending' bucket with the world's other 4000+ deities.

 

 

Why do you ask this question?  I recommend you find a cosmology forum if you want a deep discussion like that.

 

 

So because we don't have the answers to everything, we can't know the answers to anything?  That's the Mona Lisa puzzle dilemma!

 

 

Look - we're missing a few pieces of the puzzle, therefore it's impossible to know if this is the Mona Lisa!

 

he didnt say someone should disprove it, he said they should prove it

 

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

 

 

So because we don't have the answers to everything, we can't know the answers to anything?  That's the Mona Lisa puzzle dilemma!

 

 

Look - we're missing a few pieces of the puzzle, therefore it's impossible to know if this is the Mona Lisa!

 

Sorry, but that's a very poor analogy, it's like claiming that science is answering everything, apart from some useless details.

I believe you can do better that that.

[BigT73]

On 9/28/2018 at 5:36 PM, Maybole said:

Yesterday, my sister-in-law's pal, trying to fill a watering can, fell into the chanel. It was a simple case of her overreaching, but she got wet and muddy, so did I while helping her out

I think the important question is, was she wearing a white shirt and a bra?? 

I was out Surin way last holidays and there def is some hotties running around.

[attrayant]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

We base our knowledge on the physical senses, would you agree that the physical senses are very limited, and , if you apply some logic to it, they give you an infinitesimally small understanding of what's going on around us ?

 

I agree with conditions.  We have made instruments that are extremely sensitive and can detect particles, forces and energy levels that are far outside of our human detection abilities.  This has greatly increased our understanding of the natural world and provided explanations to many, previously unsupported claims.  The rainbow is a good example.  If we still relied only on our meager senses, we might still today believe that rainbows are manifestations created by magical beings, merely because there would be no better explanation.

[attrayant]

41 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

he didnt say someone should disprove it, he said they should prove it

 

 

He said "So if someone claims God does not exist, they should be able to prove it?"

 

Proving non-existence is the same as disproving existence.  To avoid all this semantic mucking about with the language, we simply state that we can't prove a negative.  The negative statement he made is "god does not exist".

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

I agree with conditions.  We have made instruments that are extremely sensitive and can detect particles, forces and energy levels that are far outside of our human detection abilities.  This has greatly increased our understanding of the natural world and provided explanations to many, previously unsupported claims.  The rainbow is a good example.  If we still relied only on our meager senses, we might still today believe that rainbows are manifestations created by magical beings, merely because there would be no better explanation.

So, thanks to the human ability, we can detect something which is undetectable by our meager senses.

But, if humans can produce those instruments, can you honestly expect me to believe that the human mind is the result of an accident ?

[Nyezhov]

55 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Why do you ask this question?  I recommend you find a cosmology forum if you want a deep discussion like that

becasue its germane to the issue at hand. Glad to see you view your fellows here of being incapable of a deep discussion....