There are those who find no reason to have any faith in God, so they have have reason to have faith in non God...
You "is" one of them...
You "is" one of them...
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
A string of facts don't draw a conclusion on their own, just as a set of numbers don't yield a sum on their own.
Facts are not in dispute, the conclusions drawn by the adding of those facts together to reach a conclusion is disputable...not a proof of a conclusion...it is just an opinion of the scientist, not a scientific fact.
You do understand the difference, yes?
Yes, the thread is about Hitchens and his flawed reasoning. Is Hitchens alone is drawing speculative conclusions from facts?
Yes, he is not alone.
Do you disagree that a majority opinion of scientific speculations is not in itself a scientific conclusion?
"Far more credible" is whose opinion? Yours? Other scientists? Perhaps, but being more "credible" is an opinion, not a scientific fact, no?
I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion, people should be free to hold any particular opinion about any speculation of anyone else...but please, let's not confuse scientific fact with speculations based on limited data and limited scientific facts that on their own do not reach any particular conclusion.
You will not that I think jem is wrong in his conclusions as much as I think the atheists are wrong in their conclusions...thinking their conclusions are "more probable" than their counterparts, when there is no reasonable manner in which to determine what actually is the real conclusion.
Just guessing in the wind...
Yes, Popper is right that a theory that is unfalsifiable is a weaker than a theory that can be falsified, but when theories show no method to falsify them, like cosmological theories, or theories of unguided evolution...simply because a guided pattern cannot be found...are equally weak.
Many people out there are a lot smarter than all of us, some believe in God, some believe in non God, some have no belief in God or non God...but they are all human beings and fallible.
So why subscribe to any of their opinions and hold their beliefs?
Personal choice, which is everyone's right to have and to hold, but no one's right to force down the throats of anyone else, or use a political process to demand they agree with the opinion of another, whether that opinion is based on the ideas of a scientist/scientists or a theist/theists.
What is the real crux of these arguments?
That "my thinking" is better than your thinking...in an arena where there can be no proof?
Seems silly, doesn't it?
p.s. Since you admit Popper is smarter than you are, and even though you have read his books, that would yield you not in a position to evaluate his work actually...you might admire it, but you are not on a level where you could possibly evaluate its truth on the scientific level...as you don't have that level of understanding, right?
How can a lesser man judge the intelligence or a greater man? He can't really...only one on the same level could be in a position to evaluate the ideas properly...
So just as jem selectively picks some scientists that agree with his basic premise, the atheists select and choose scientists that agree with their basic premise...which suggests that neither side is practicing science, merely voting in a popularity poll for the side they are attracted to...because they already agree with that side or point of view.
Facts are not in dispute, the conclusions drawn by the adding of those facts together to reach a conclusion is disputable...not a proof of a conclusion...it is just an opinion of the scientist, not a scientific fact.
You do understand the difference, yes?
Yes, the thread is about Hitchens and his flawed reasoning. Is Hitchens alone is drawing speculative conclusions from facts?
Yes, he is not alone.
Do you disagree that a majority opinion of scientific speculations is not in itself a scientific conclusion?
"Far more credible" is whose opinion? Yours? Other scientists? Perhaps, but being more "credible" is an opinion, not a scientific fact, no?
I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion, people should be free to hold any particular opinion about any speculation of anyone else...but please, let's not confuse scientific fact with speculations based on limited data and limited scientific facts that on their own do not reach any particular conclusion.
You will not that I think jem is wrong in his conclusions as much as I think the atheists are wrong in their conclusions...thinking their conclusions are "more probable" than their counterparts, when there is no reasonable manner in which to determine what actually is the real conclusion.
Just guessing in the wind...
Yes, Popper is right that a theory that is unfalsifiable is a weaker than a theory that can be falsified, but when theories show no method to falsify them, like cosmological theories, or theories of unguided evolution...simply because a guided pattern cannot be found...are equally weak.
Many people out there are a lot smarter than all of us, some believe in God, some believe in non God, some have no belief in God or non God...but they are all human beings and fallible.
So why subscribe to any of their opinions and hold their beliefs?
Personal choice, which is everyone's right to have and to hold, but no one's right to force down the throats of anyone else, or use a political process to demand they agree with the opinion of another, whether that opinion is based on the ideas of a scientist/scientists or a theist/theists.
What is the real crux of these arguments?
That "my thinking" is better than your thinking...in an arena where there can be no proof?
Seems silly, doesn't it?
p.s. Since you admit Popper is smarter than you are, and even though you have read his books, that would yield you not in a position to evaluate his work actually...you might admire it, but you are not on a level where you could possibly evaluate its truth on the scientific level...as you don't have that level of understanding, right?
How can a lesser man judge the intelligence or a greater man? He can't really...only one on the same level could be in a position to evaluate the ideas properly...
So just as jem selectively picks some scientists that agree with his basic premise, the atheists select and choose scientists that agree with their basic premise...which suggests that neither side is practicing science, merely voting in a popularity poll for the side they are attracted to...because they already agree with that side or point of view.
Some "real" scientists say that...does that make it true?
No.
No.
If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color
lol
lol
Nothing is a religion until someone invests their belief in it...
You have invested your belief in non God, you have not invested your belief in "I don't now if there is or is not a God."
So your your belief system when it comes to the your concept of God is non God...
Your freedom of religion practiced is the belief in non God.
You have invested your belief in non God, you have not invested your belief in "I don't now if there is or is not a God."
So your your belief system when it comes to the your concept of God is non God...
Your freedom of religion practiced is the belief in non God.
Quote from killthesunshine:
If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color
lol
This is the manner you declare yourself a winner in debates?
Did you go to the Sarah Palin school of winning debates?
Did you go to the Sarah Palin school of winning debates?