atheists

[Kev]

An no, a hypothesis does NOT require any evidence to support it at all. None what so ever.

You've got to be kidding me.

 

[JDawg1536]

who cares if 1000 people steal?
who cares if 1 million people get raped?
who cares of 1 billion people die?
who cares of 2 billion universes get destroyed?
who cares...?

What does atheism have to do with stealing and rape?

 

[IGemini]

Not all atheists are nihilists.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

What does atheism have to do with stealing and rape?

Nothing. Some people are just so brainwashed and stupid that they can't fathom the idea that humans can have morality and/or empathy without religion.

 

[HumblePie]

You've got to be kidding me.

No, it doesn't. I am not kidding you.

For example, say I know nothing about dish washing detergents except that they are used to clean dishes. When asked which dish washing detergent I think is the best I can put forth a guess, which is a hypothesis, that X brand is the best. Do I know it to be so? No. Do I have any evidence at that point to support my hypothesis that X brand is the best when I am putting forth my hypothesis? No. Is my supposition that X brand is the best dish washing detergent a valid hypothesis? YES!

Now, using that hypothesis I can determine tests to support or disprove it. I can devise any test I wish based on the parameters I wish to test for.

Am I looking for the best cleaning detergent? Maybe my criteria for determining what is best is something beyond cleaning. Does it have the best odor? Color? Name?

All those questions I can then put to tests to validate in one way or another.


See how the scientific method works? You can put forth ANY hypothesis regardless if you have any evidence previously to support a claim a given hypothesis may make. A better hypothesis to start with does typically have some evidence to back them up, but it is NOT required. You fail science. Go back to 5th grade and retake the basics of the scientific method. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

 

[sandorski]

No, it doesn't. I am not kidding you.

For example, say I know nothing about dish washing detergents except that they are used to clean dishes. When asked which dish washing detergent I think is the best I can put forth a guess, which is a hypothesis, that X brand is the best. Do I know it to be so? No. Do I have any evidence at that point to support my hypothesis that X brand is the best when I am putting forth my hypothesis? No. Is my supposition that X brand is the best dish washing detergent a valid hypothesis? YES!

Now, using that hypothesis I can determine tests to support or disprove it. I can devise any test I wish based on the parameters I wish to test for.

Am I looking for the best cleaning detergent? Maybe my criteria for determining what is best is something beyond cleaning. Does it have the best odor? Color? Name?

All those questions I can then put to tests to validate in one way or another.


See how the scientific method works? You can put forth ANY hypothesis regardless if you have any evidence previously to support a claim a given hypothesis may make. A better hypothesis to start with does typically have some evidence to back them up, but it is NOT required. You fail science. Go back to 5th grade and retake the basics of the scientific method. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Hypothesis(es/i) are based upon some kind of evidence, often Indirect. An Affect is observed and/or must exist, because current Theories are not quite explaining some observation. So begins the investigation of that Affect through the use of a Hypothesis. It's not just some randomly chosen Guess or something done just for the hell of it.

Take you Dishwashing Liquid example: You already know what Dishwashing Liquid is/does, this part of the Evidence upon which you begin to form your Hypothesis. Other parts include your experience with various Dishwashing Liquids. From there you must now perform experimentation and whatnot before you can choose the "Best".

 

[SMOGZINN]

Go re-read my analogy to the post above.

An no, a hypothesis does NOT require any evidence to support it at all. None what so ever. A good working scientific hypothesis typically does have some evidence to support it and help formulate more tests for it, but it is not required to have evidence what so ever to form a hypothesis. That's why it's called a guess, or some like to think it's an "educated" guess when they are trying to form a hypothesis based on some previous evidence.

Hypothesis(es/i) are based upon some kind of evidence, often Indirect.

When you talk about Hypothesis, I am assuming you mean a Scientific Hypothesis. A Scientific Hypothesis does not require any evidence. I can sit right here and make the hypothesis that 'all blue thing can fit into a mailbox' and it is a valid hypothesis (but would fail as a theory.) But, what a Scientific Hypothesis does require is that it can be tested. HumblePie's flying spaghetti monster analogy fails the Scientific Hypothesis requirements simply because it can not be tested.

Religion does not require that it be testable, and in fact often requires that is be untestable as a point of faith.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The world is far more complex, and strange than you think it is. Quantum mechanics would like to have a word with you about things being pre-determined.

But yes what you think isn't magic, but based on experience, brain chemistry, genetic influence, and a host of other things.

If you want to appeal to quantum physics for magical thinking then there's not limit to that appeal.

 

[Paul98]

If you want to appeal to quantum physics for magical thinking then there's not limit to that appeal.

I am not sure what you mean by this sentence? and what is "magical thinking"?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Hypothesis(es/i) are based upon some kind of evidence, often Indirect. An Affect is observed and/or must exist, because current Theories are not quite explaining some observation. So begins the investigation of that Affect through the use of a Hypothesis. It's not just some randomly chosen Guess or something done just for the hell of it.

Take you Dishwashing Liquid example: You already know what Dishwashing Liquid is/does, this part of the Evidence upon which you begin to form your Hypothesis. Other parts include your experience with various Dishwashing Liquids. From there you must now perform experimentation and whatnot before you can choose the "Best".

Hypotheses are not necessarily informed by any evidence. Usually they are, since 1) no human being arrives at anything without preconceptions or biases, and 2) some form of preliminary evidence is usually the means by which a person decides to formulate a hypothesis in the first place. But not always. The point of experiments is to test hypotheses, to create or discover evidence where there previously was none (or minimal amounts).

 

[sandorski]

When you talk about Hypothesis, I am assuming you mean a Scientific Hypothesis. A Scientific Hypothesis does not require any evidence. I can sit right here and make the hypothesis that 'all blue thing can fit into a mailbox' and it is a valid hypothesis (but would fail as a theory.) But, what a Scientific Hypothesis does require is that it can be tested. HumblePie's flying spaghetti monster analogy fails the Scientific Hypothesis requirements simply because it can not be tested.

Religion does not require that it be testable, and in fact often requires that is be untestable as a point of faith.

Hypotheses are not necessarily informed by any evidence. Usually they are, since 1) no human being arrives at anything without preconceptions or biases, and 2) some form of preliminary evidence is usually the means by which a person decides to formulate a hypothesis in the first place. But not always. The point of experiments is to test hypotheses, to create or discover evidence where there previously was none (or minimal amounts).

Good points and clarifications.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I am not sure what you mean by this sentence? and what is "magical thinking"?

Attributing behavior of any phenomenon to anything outside of the necessarily determinism of positive science.

 

[Mike Gayner]

If you want to appeal to quantum physics for magical thinking then there's not limit to that appeal.

As opposed to turning to magical sky fairies?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

As opposed to turning to magical sky fairies?

Magical thinking is magical thinking; sky faeries fly around using quantum entanglement: don't you know?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Religion doesn't come from God, it comes from your parents.

 

[HumblePie]

When you talk about Hypothesis, I am assuming you mean a Scientific Hypothesis. A Scientific Hypothesis does not require any evidence. I can sit right here and make the hypothesis that 'all blue thing can fit into a mailbox' and it is a valid hypothesis (but would fail as a theory.) But, what a Scientific Hypothesis does require is that it can be tested. HumblePie's flying spaghetti monster analogy fails the Scientific Hypothesis requirements simply because it can not be tested.

Religion does not require that it be testable, and in fact often requires that is be untestable as a point of faith.

And no. You fail too. Read that wiki page I linked on what a hypothesis is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

A GOOD scientific hypothesis is testable, falsifiable, parsimony and all that other jazz. A scientific hypothesis does not require that though. It just makes it a less than good. Not that it's bad, just not all that great.

As for my Spaghetti monster theory creating the big bang I CAN draw test parameters up for proving or disproving. The problem? I can't execute on those test parameters at this time. Such things happen ALL THE TIME in science. For example the hypothesis involving dark matter. It was a hypothesis that had zero evidence to come up with. Actually speaking, it was the LEAST logical hypothesis explanation for the problem the scientists were trying to solve. They could devise test parameters from the hypothesis but it took 40 years before they could actually test their hypothesis. I can put out parameters and devise tests as well for my Spaghetti monster hypothesis. However, if may take a millennium or longer before those tests can be done. That DOES NOT MEAN THE HYPOTHESIS IS INCORRECT OR CORRECT. It just means it can't be tested due to current constraints.

It's really simple you guys. A hypothesis is a guess of an answer to a problem. By making the guess you can devise tests. With tests you can start to obtain evidence. With evidence you can refine the hypothesis to fit in with the evidence found. Once refined and all tests that can currently be thought of now supports the hypothesis then it becomes a working theory.

Seriously folks, the scientific method is not that hard to understand.


As far as my scientific hypothesis about the flying Spaghetti monster, my test is to obtain observational evidence by looking back towards the center of the galaxy using a telescope large enough to do so. From there observational evidence can be gathered to draw more tests from.

See how easy it was to devise a test for a "religious" hypothesis? Can we currently execute upon this test case I devised right now? Nope. Now if I continue to have faith that my hypothesis is the right answer, despite the fact I have no supporting evidence from which to base my faith upon... Viola! I now have religion. See how this works folks? Now if I assert that my hypothesis is the completely correct without any evidence, then I become a religious nut case.

 

[DrPizza]

No... pagans are those that historically believed in polytheism. The kelts, norse, romans, greeks, and what not were pagans. They had a religious belief that included multiple supernatural beings. THAT is the definition of pagan.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pagan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

Atheism as a definition means a lack of ANY religious belief. How you arrive at that lack of belief can be that A) you were never exposed or taught any form of religion and thus never formed a religious belief or B) You were exposed to religious ideas and have chosen not to believe in them.

Neither of which is Anti-theist, which is a whole nother can of worms, and is typically what gets theists riled up. These are atheists who actively oppose religious people in some way even if it is just speaking out to discredit religious ideas at every turn.

You know, if you're going to link to something, perhaps you shouldn't link to something that supports the person's argument that you're trying to refute??

one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person

Anyway, back to my point that generally, the term atheism is applied not necessarily to those who haven't got a clue about religion, but to those who have rejected the idea of a God.

wikipedia: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
dictionary .com: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
freedictionary: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
merriam-webster: the doctrine that there is no deity


Like it or not, it is a belief system.

 

[HumblePie]

You know, if you're going to link to something, perhaps you shouldn't link to something that supports the person's argument that you're trying to refute??



Anyway, back to my point that generally, the term atheism is applied not necessarily to those who haven't got a clue about religion, but to those who have rejected the idea of a God.

wikipedia: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
dictionary .com: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
freedictionary: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
merriam-webster: the doctrine that there is no deity


Like it or not, it is a belief system.

and you don't know how definitions from a dictionary work do you? Look at the first one. That definition is the most used one and is the most historical one.

Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller", "rustic"[1]) is a blanket term, typically used to refer to non-Abrahamic, indigenous polytheistic religious traditions.
Isis holding a sistrum and an oinochoe. (Roman artwork from the Hadrian period (117–138 CE).)

It is primarily used in a historical context, referring to Greco-Roman polytheism as well as the polytheistic traditions of Europe and North Africa before Christianization. In a wider sense, extended to contemporary religions, it includes most of the Eastern religions and the indigenous traditions of the Americas, Central Asia, Australia and Africa; as well as non-Abrahamic folk religion in general. More narrow definitions will not include any of the world religions and restrict the term to local or rural currents not organized as civil religions. Characteristic of Pagan traditions is the absence of proselytism and the presence of a living mythology, which explains religious practice.

You are the one who stated to use the historical accuracy of the word. You fail.


as for the definition of atheism, try listing the first definition and the most used sense of the word's definition.

Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist

also try using the unabridged definitions which don't typically include synonymous definitions of contemporary and usually erroneous word usage.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

And no. You fail too. Read that wiki page I linked on what a hypothesis is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

A GOOD scientific hypothesis is testable, falsifiable, parsimony and all that other jazz. A scientific hypothesis does not require that though. It just makes it a less than good. Not that it's bad, just not all that great.

As for my Spaghetti monster theory creating the big bang I CAN draw test parameters up for proving or disproving. The problem? I can't execute on those test parameters at this time. Such things happen ALL THE TIME in science. For example the hypothesis involving dark matter. It was a hypothesis that had zero evidence to come up with. Actually speaking, it was the LEAST logical hypothesis explanation for the problem the scientists were trying to solve. They could devise test parameters from the hypothesis but it took 40 years before they could actually test their hypothesis. I can put out parameters and devise tests as well for my Spaghetti monster hypothesis. However, if may take a millennium or longer before those tests can be done. That DOES NOT MEAN THE HYPOTHESIS IS INCORRECT OR CORRECT. It just means it can't be tested due to current constraints.

It's really simple you guys. A hypothesis is a guess of an answer to a problem. By making the guess you can devise tests. With tests you can start to obtain evidence. With evidence you can refine the hypothesis to fit in with the evidence found. Once refined and all tests that can currently be thought of now supports the hypothesis then it becomes a working theory.

Seriously folks, the scientific method is not that hard to understand.


As far as my scientific hypothesis about the flying Spaghetti monster, my test is to obtain observational evidence by looking back towards the center of the galaxy using a telescope large enough to do so. From there observational evidence can be gathered to draw more tests from.

See how easy it was to devise a test for a "religious" hypothesis? Can we currently execute upon this test case I devised right now? Nope. Now if I continue to have faith that my hypothesis is the right answer, despite the fact I have no supporting evidence from which to base my faith upon... Viola! I now have religion. See how this works folks? Now if I assert that my hypothesis is the completely correct without any evidence, then I become a religious nut case.

You talking about this.

There is no evidence for or against X, therefore there should be no belief or disbelief in X. Now fill in the X with either the Flying Spaghetti Monster or God.

 

[HumblePie]

You talking about this.

There is no evidence for or against X, therefore there should be no belief or disbelief in X. Now fill in the X with either the Flying Spaghetti Monster or God.

Ummm... the point I was trying to make is having belief in a hypothesis that is an answer to the nature of the universe despite having no evidence to prove or disprove is the very definition of religion. But by having faith, devising tests, and doing tests we are able to obtain more knowledge about the universe around us. In this case, that faith or belief in the hypothesis is a useful tool.

The problem occurs when people make the hypothesis and just assume it is the right answer and either never test for it or out right reject evidence that disproves their hypothesis. All people, not just religious nut bags, are capable of doing this. It actually happens quite often even with actual scientists. Need an example? Take the answer to the formation of ulcers and excess stomach acid problems. For a LONG time the hypothesis was that nothing could survive within the acidic environment of the human stomach. That is was too inhospitable and anything in there would dissolve. That the only direct cause for ulcers and stomach acid problems was that the mucus lining of the stomach would thin out. It was the hypothesis that since no organism could survive the stomach's acid level, that the reason for the thinning of the mucus lining was due to stress. There were some tests devised towards this, and evidence was found to support that stress in humans does indeed cause the mucus lining in the stomach to thin out to eventually cause ulcers. That because it was stress related, there was no direct cure and that the only thing to do was to treat the symptoms of too much stomach acid with antacids and acid reducing medicines.

This became BIG BUSINESS. Talking multi billion dollars a year to make people take only medicine that would only treat the symptoms and not be a cure.

One scientist from Australia didn't buy the hypothesis that nothing could survive the acidic environment in the human stomach. He put his hypothesis forward that there were indeed micro-organisms that could survive stomach acid and these micro organisms may eat the mucus lining in the stomach. That by taking certain anti bodies the micro organisms could be eradicated and that people suffering from ulcers or stomach problems incurred by the micro organisms would be cured.

So what was the problem? Big business didn't want the cure. A cure would stop people from constantly buying medications to treat the symptoms instead. If someone is cured they don't need medicine anymore. So when this scientist from Australia applied to licensing to do human testing for his hypothesis he was denied those permits. Instead he was forced to test upon himself to prove his hypothesis was the correct one. Which got him in a lot of trouble in some ways, but the rest of humanity was able to benefit from his faith in his hypothesis being correct despite the pervading "theory" that was counter to his hypothesis.

I hope you see what I'm trying to show here with my examples.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Ummm... the point I was trying to make is having belief in a hypothesis that is an answer to the nature of the universe despite having no evidence to prove or disprove is the very definition of religion. But by having faith, devising tests, and doing tests we are able to obtain more knowledge about the universe around us. In this case, that faith or belief in the hypothesis is a useful tool.

The problem occurs when people make the hypothesis and just assume it is the right answer and either never test for it or out right reject evidence that disproves their hypothesis. All people, not just religious nut bags, are capable of doing this. It actually happens quite often even with actual scientists. Need an example? Take the answer to the formation of ulcers and excess stomach acid problems. For a LONG time the hypothesis was that nothing could survive within the acidic environment of the human stomach. That is was too inhospitable and anything in there would dissolve. That the only direct cause for ulcers and stomach acid problems was that the mucus lining of the stomach would thin out. It was the hypothesis that since no organism could survive the stomach's acid level, that the reason for the thinning of the mucus lining was due to stress. There were some tests devised towards this, and evidence was found to support that stress in humans does indeed cause the mucus lining in the stomach to thin out to eventually cause ulcers. That because it was stress related, there was no direct cure and that the only thing to do was to treat the symptoms of too much stomach acid with antacids and acid reducing medicines.

This became BIG BUSINESS. Talking multi billion dollars a year to make people take only medicine that would only treat the symptoms and not be a cure.

One scientist from Australia didn't buy the hypothesis that nothing could survive the acidic environment in the human stomach. He put his hypothesis forward that there were indeed micro-organisms that could survive stomach acid and these micro organisms may eat the mucus lining in the stomach. That by taking certain anti bodies the micro organisms could be eradicated and that people suffering from ulcers or stomach problems incurred by the micro organisms would be cured.

So what was the problem? Big business didn't want the cure. A cure would stop people from constantly buying medications to treat the symptoms instead. If someone is cured they don't need medicine anymore. So when this scientist from Australia applied to licensing to do human testing for his hypothesis he was denied those permits. Instead he was forced to test upon himself to prove his hypothesis was the correct one. Which got him in a lot of trouble in some ways, but the rest of humanity was able to benefit from his faith in his hypothesis being correct despite the pervading "theory" that was counter to his hypothesis.

I hope you see what I'm trying to show here with my examples.

Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science

 

[Mike Gayner]

LOL this thread is still going.

 

[sandorski]

Ummm... the point I was trying to make is having belief in a hypothesis that is an answer to the nature of the universe despite having no evidence to prove or disprove is the very definition of religion. But by having faith, devising tests, and doing tests we are able to obtain more knowledge about the universe around us. In this case, that faith or belief in the hypothesis is a useful tool.

The problem occurs when people make the hypothesis and just assume it is the right answer and either never test for it or out right reject evidence that disproves their hypothesis. All people, not just religious nut bags, are capable of doing this. It actually happens quite often even with actual scientists. Need an example? Take the answer to the formation of ulcers and excess stomach acid problems. For a LONG time the hypothesis was that nothing could survive within the acidic environment of the human stomach. That is was too inhospitable and anything in there would dissolve. That the only direct cause for ulcers and stomach acid problems was that the mucus lining of the stomach would thin out. It was the hypothesis that since no organism could survive the stomach's acid level, that the reason for the thinning of the mucus lining was due to stress. There were some tests devised towards this, and evidence was found to support that stress in humans does indeed cause the mucus lining in the stomach to thin out to eventually cause ulcers. That because it was stress related, there was no direct cure and that the only thing to do was to treat the symptoms of too much stomach acid with antacids and acid reducing medicines.

This became BIG BUSINESS. Talking multi billion dollars a year to make people take only medicine that would only treat the symptoms and not be a cure.

One scientist from Australia didn't buy the hypothesis that nothing could survive the acidic environment in the human stomach. He put his hypothesis forward that there were indeed micro-organisms that could survive stomach acid and these micro organisms may eat the mucus lining in the stomach. That by taking certain anti bodies the micro organisms could be eradicated and that people suffering from ulcers or stomach problems incurred by the micro organisms would be cured.

So what was the problem? Big business didn't want the cure. A cure would stop people from constantly buying medications to treat the symptoms instead. If someone is cured they don't need medicine anymore. So when this scientist from Australia applied to licensing to do human testing for his hypothesis he was denied those permits. Instead he was forced to test upon himself to prove his hypothesis was the correct one. Which got him in a lot of trouble in some ways, but the rest of humanity was able to benefit from his faith in his hypothesis being correct despite the pervading "theory" that was counter to his hypothesis.

I hope you see what I'm trying to show here with my examples.

You are conflating issues.

Big Business does not operate with Scientific Principles. They may use Science to produce a product, but that's about it. Hell, most of the Theoretical part of the Science they don't even do, they just do what is necessary to bring an established property of something to Market.

Your example invariably shows why Science works. Certainly there was an assumption that pervaded Medicine about the guys idea, but it seemed that there was Corporate Political interference going on as well. Once he provided Data showing his Hypothesis had merit, the Scientific Community quickly opened up to it. If there was a Religious/Dogmatic aspect involved, he would have continued to be ignored.

 

[slayer202]

Like it or not, it is a belief system.

Yes, just like not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief system.

All the definitions you linked would fit a person who has never been exposed to religion. Read two sentences further in the wiki page and that will clear things up as well.

It's getting useless arguing the point though, because you and others are just being stubborn and dense. Atheist is a very broad term in the way it's used today, but it basically means non-theist.