This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
HsR's Demographics of Wowhead: Religion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
xaratherus
I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe that we can ever definitively prove that gods do (or do not) exist, but in the meantime I lack belief in all deities based on my perception of the available, unambiguous evidence.
Based on the listed categories, I put myself down as atheist, although that is not the most accurate description.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe that we can ever definitively prove that gods do (or do not) exist, but in the meantime I lack belief in all deities based on my perception of the available, unambiguous evidence.
Based on the listed categories, I put myself down as atheist, although that is not the most accurate description.
That sounds agnostic to me.
Post by
xaratherus
I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe that we can ever definitively prove that gods do (or do not) exist, but in the meantime I lack belief in all deities based on my perception of the available, unambiguous evidence.
Based on the listed categories, I put myself down as atheist, although that is not the most accurate description.
That sounds agnostic to me.
Not sure how, when it's a dual statement of belief (or lack thereof) and knowledge, but many of you have already been arguing that for the past few pages and I've no desire to join the debate. Feel free to consider me whatever you want; I voted what is the most appropriate label based on my understanding.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe that we can ever definitively prove that gods do (or do not) exist, but in the meantime I lack belief in all deities based on my perception of the available, unambiguous evidence.
Based on the listed categories, I put myself down as atheist, although that is not the most accurate description.
That sounds agnostic to me.
Not sure how, when it's a dual statement of belief (or lack thereof) and knowledge, but you've already been arguing that for the past few pages and I've no desire to join the debate. Feel free to consider me whatever you want, and your consideration will be given all the weight it deserves.
Yet your claims of belief and knowledge are based on the exact same set of perceived, "available, unambiguous evidence." And thus it's not a real distinction to be making.
But if label is more important to you than actually relating your belief to a proposed understanding, that's fine. But I think epistemology trumps semantics.
Post by
xaratherus
I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe that we can ever definitively prove that gods do (or do not) exist, but in the meantime I lack belief in all deities based on my perception of the available, unambiguous evidence.
Based on the listed categories, I put myself down as atheist, although that is not the most accurate description.
That sounds agnostic to me.
Not sure how, when it's a dual statement of belief (or lack thereof) and knowledge, but you've already been arguing that for the past few pages and I've no desire to join the debate. Feel free to consider me whatever you want, and your consideration will be given all the weight it deserves.
Yet your claims of belief and knowledge are based on the exact same set of perceived, "available, unambiguous evidence." And thus it's not a real distinction to be making.
My statement of agnosticism is based on quantifiable data. My statement of atheism is based much on internal observation - personal anecdotal evidence and feelings that I will not propose toward anyone else as evidence, because that information is only available
to me
.
So no, they aren't based on the same set of evidence; some of the 'evidence' may apply in both cases, but not all.
But if label is more important to you than actually relating your belief to a proposed understanding, that's fine. But I think epistemology trumps semantics.
Actually, both are important to me. However, based on the prior pages, it seems that my understanding (and that of others) is different from your own, and you do not wish to debate it - only to show why our understanding is wrong - which is again why I have no desire to debate this. </exit>
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I like how this went from a poll to yet another Religion discussion thread......
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
On the contrary. The basis of science is to only infer the existence of particles/laws/object/gods if you can observe them. Also, the first step of science is NOT always observation. It is a requirement for a proof however. You can hypothesise what you like, but without a set of quantitive evidence (or a suggestion for gathering such evidence) to back up your hypothesis no scientist will take you seriously.
<I hypothesize that gubbicuzuck can hugflicking only when the furfunckluit is half way through its kupunk cycle>
If those are all unobservable (and thus scientifically undefinable) terms, the that is not a scientific hypothesis, and any scientist would laugh at anyone who proposed that.
That the Higgs boson model is a well working model is NOT evidence for its existence - it is evidence that the model has been built on a number of assumptions which allow the model to work. Without testing those assumptions, the model is meaningless. If I were to predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, and my model is based on the assumption that the sun is attached to a bit of string that makes it fly like a swingball around us, my observation - that the sun will rise tomorrow - is correct. That does not mean that the bit of string exists. Science is full of cases of a model fitting the pattern of behaviour but being incorrect when tested thoroughly.
That's not correct because we have a more coherent model.
Take phlogiston. There was evidence that phlogiston existed. And thus science could speak of it and do experiments. But once a better explanation was found for the oxidation of metals, then phlogiston was no longer taken as a valid explanation, and the evidence that it existed was instead used to demonstrate oxidation.
If someone claims the Higgs boson exists, it's because there is evidence that causes them to think it is the best explanation. That is is the most coherent and fitting explanation is valid evidence for its existence, and thus further scientific inquires can be made into its properties.
I like how this went from a poll to yet another Religion discussion thread......
Oh God, a thread about religion turning into a discussion of religion.
Wtf man?
Post by
Adamsm
I like how this went from a poll to yet another Religion discussion thread......
Oh God, a thread about religion turning into a discussion of religion.
Wtf man?
Yet, we have the Off-Topic thread for Religion; why do we need another one? I mean, a poll is fine, people can put what they believe and all....but why does it require discussion about it, as that discussion can be done in the thread that already exists for it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yet, we have the Off-Topic thread for Religion; why do we need another one? I mean, a poll is fine, people can put what they believe and all....but why does it require discussion about it, as that discussion can be done in the thread that already exists for it.
Because this thread is now better suited for it. In the perfect world, that thread would have a poll retroactively added to it, but since we can't do that, the discussion is shifted to the new and improved thread.
Post by
Adamsm
Wouldn't really call this a 'new' or 'improved' thread as it's the same stuff that was all through the other religion thread, only here, you see that a majority of the Wowhead users don't believe in any set deities or ideals. And it's not really that improved, as quite a few religions are missing from the poll and the poll itself penalizes those who don't believe in just one thing, as they are able to only vote for one choice.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Wouldn't really call this a 'new' or 'improved' thread as it's the same stuff that was all through the other religion thread, only here, you see that a majority of the Wowhead users don't believe in any set deities or ideals. And it's not really that improved, as quite a few religions are missing from the poll and the poll itself penalizes those who don't believe in just one thing, as they are able to only vote for one choice.
Come on, you're smarter than that.
The fact that it has some data on the users, regardless of how limited, is still something that can and has added to the discussion. I know you like being anal about duplicate threads, but that doesn't mean that there aren't cases where a new thread can replace an old one, and the addition of polls is a reason in this case.
Post by
Adamsm
Yes, but isn't the discussion right now, literally about how you define something, and the fact that everyone else defines it differently means they are wrong? I mean, look at your 'discussion' with xaratherus; you seem to hold that your definition of the term is the right, while his, based on his own experiences and thoughts that brought him to that point, are wrong apparently.
Sorry HSR, can see it as me being anal about dup threads if you want to, but the fact remains, it's the same thing, and I don't see it going any differently then the thread that exists.
And yes I am smarter then that...but I still feel saddened that you forgot one of the largest religions in the world in your poll; I mean really, leaving out Buddhism? And I do stand by the fact that you should have clicked the 'select multiple' options for making a choice for those who don't follow any one specific belief.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And yes I am smarter then that...but I still feel saddened that you forgot one of the largest religions in the world in your poll; I mean really, leaving out Buddhism?
As I already said. That was on my list. I didn't leave it out on purpose.
And I do stand by the fact that you should have clicked the 'select multiple' options for making a choice for those who don't follow any one specific belief.
I've made my argument against that option repeatedly. All it does it produce a statistical nightmare at the benefit of allowing people to generalize their opinion better, even though no one even sees the individual data. There is no point to a poll if you're not going to keep the data set consistent.
Yes, but isn't the discussion right now, literally about how you define something, and the fact that everyone else defines it differently means they are wrong? I mean, look at your 'discussion' with xaratherus; you seem to hold that your definition of the term is the right, while his, based on his own experiences and thoughts that brought him to that point, are wrong apparently.
Definitions aren't right or wrong. They're fitting or unfitting.
Sorry HSR, can see it as me being anal about dup threads if you want to, but the fact remains, it's the same thing, and I don't see it going any differently then the thread that exists.
What do you mean "going any differently"? It's the exact same topic. Of course we're discussing the same thing. But since it was impossible to add a poll to the other thread, a new one had to be made if that data was to be collected. And since it's inefficient to simultaneously have the same discussion in two threads, the religious debates were shifted over to this thread.
Post by
Squishalot
If there is no evidence for the existence of something, and it is not required by our best model for how things operate, there is no need to infer its existence, and it would be scientifically incorrect to suggest it 'might' exist, as you could apply the same logic to infer that anything might exist. Science is the process of providing a rational, sound and predictive model for the universe. If there is not a basis to make a claim, that claim is null; it is not the denial of the existence of whatever you might be talking about, it is that
it is completely irrelevant
to the model and therefore in the realm of pixies and unicorns.
For a scientist, any given thing
should be ignored as irrelevant
until evidence arises to suggest otherwise.
Did we just come around full circle?
I suppose you could argue that. However, if you ask any scientist if he thinks that elves exist, I think you can guess the answer.
And why is this? Consider the evidence:
a) Imagery of elves, pixies and unicorns (to address Berelain's statement as well) have been conjured by people in art (visual and literary) over the years, i.e. there is evidence that it is 'made up', and not based on reality.
b) No actual sightings of elves, pixies and unicorns exist.
Therefore, based on the theory posited in (a), and the lack of evidence supporting the alternate hypothesis, a scientist may conclude that elves, pixies and unicorns do not exist.
The problem that you and Berelain are making is that you're assuming scientists dismiss such 'foolery' out of hand without thinking about it. To dismiss it either requires you to have a theory and supporting evidence, or requires you to throw out the scientific method.
Going back to what you said yesterday:
For a scientist, any given thing
should be assumed to not exist
until evidence arises to suggest otherwise. A good scientist does not believe a theory if there is no evidence for it.
Why should something be assumed to not exist? Isn't that as baseless as assuming that it exists? Same way as those who believe God doesn't exist are as silly as those who believe God does?
They do not have to prove that something does not exist, because that is impossible.
They absolutely do. If you want to make a claim that something does not exist, you do have to provide evidence for it in exactly the same way you'd try to prove that something does exist. If you lack sufficient evidence to demonstrate either, you must conclude that you cannot tell conclusively one way or the other. This may lead you to ignore it in future models, but you can't claim that it doesn't exist.
@ Berelain: Think of it as a two-sided T-test. You can make a claim if you achieve a significant result on either side, but you can't conclude anything if you don't achieve a significant result. If you don't achieve a significant result in attempting to assess the existence or non-existence of God, any rational scientist must therefore conclude that they cannot tell whether he exists or not.
Post by
Monday
I'm Mormon, and I already mentioned this to HsR ;) As it is, Christianity - Other would suffice.
Yay Im not alone on here :D
I didn't think I would be, those chances are astronomical.
I know Rawveggie is one as well, as is one other user (although their name has left me for the moment).
Post by
Skreeran
And why is this? Consider the evidence:
a) Imagery of elves, pixies and unicorns (to address Berelain's statement as well) have been conjured by people in art (visual and literary) over the years, i.e. there is evidence that it is 'made up', and not based on reality.
b) No actual sightings of elves, pixies and unicorns exist.
Therefore, based on the theory posited in (a), and the lack of evidence supporting the alternate hypothesis, a scientist may conclude that elves, pixies and unicorns exist.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and wager that in your bottom statement there you meant "do not exist," because that's the only conclusion I could get to based on a) and b).
If that's the case, then the same could be said for angels or a theistic god.
And if I'm wrong and you're telling me to be agnostic about pixies and elves...
Well, I really am pretty sure they don't exist.
Why should something be assumed to not exist? Isn't that as baseless as assuming that it exists? Same way as those who believe God doesn't exist are as silly as those who believe God does?Because science is based on skepticism. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claims, and everyone else should try their best to falsify those claims.
There may be an infinite number of possible things, and there is only a finite amount of things that exist (at least, observably so). It only reasons that most possible things do not exist. After examining a theory that something exists, determining that there is no observable evidence to support it, one can toss it in the bin with the billions of other possible things that have no evidence to support their existence.
They absolutely do. If you want to make a claim that something does not exist, you do have to provide evidence for it in exactly the same way you'd try to prove that something does exist. If you lack sufficient evidence to demonstrate either, you must conclude that you cannot tell conclusively one way or the other. This may lead you to ignore it in future models, but you can't claim that it doesn't exist.Prove to me that there is not a teapot floating out in the Oort cloud.
If you cannot disprove the teapots existence, that does not mean that it has an exactly equal chance of existence or nonexistence. Using critical reasoning, we can conclude that there really probably isn't a teapot out there, even if we can't disprove it, and sitting on the fence and falsely weighting the possibility that it is out there just so that it can have an equal likelihood as it not being there is just silly. How did it get there? Humans are the only observed makers of teapots, and no humans have ever reached the Oort cloud. There is no reason it should be there. It's possible that atoms have reacted in exactly the right way to form a china teapot out in space, but that is very unlikely, and to give that unlikely possibility equal weighting as the much more likely probability that it is not just to prove a philosophical point is ridiculous.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm going to go out on a limb here and wager that in your bottom statement there you meant "do not exist," because that's the only conclusion I could get to based on a) and b).
Fixed.
If that's the case, then the same could be said for angels or a theistic god.
Not quite. Written records of angels and a theistic god are purported to be factual, not fictional.
Because science is based on skepticism. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claims, and everyone else should try their best to falsify those claims.
A claim of non-existence is still a claim.
Prove to me that there is not a teapot floating out in the Oort cloud.
I don't need to, I choose to ignore it. However, if I really needed to, I'd talk about the vacuum effect in space and how a conventional teapot wouldn't be capable of holding its shape outside of an Earth-like atmosphere, and thus, there is evidence to suggest that a conventional teapot would probably not be able to exist (in whole form) in the Oort cloud.
Now, let's look at what you said:
How did it get there? Humans are the only observed makers of teapots, and no humans have ever reached the Oort cloud. There is no reason it should be there. It's possible that atoms have reacted in exactly the right way to form a china teapot out in space, but that is very unlikely, and to give that unlikely possibility equal weighting as the much more likely probability that it is not just to prove a philosophical point is ridiculous.
You see? Theory ->
Evidence
-> Conclusion.
Key point is the 'evidence' bit. There's evidence to suggest that the teapot cannot exist there. There's no evidence for or against a god existing. Therefore, the only rational, scientific conclusion is to be agnostic to the possibility of it, and to say that a god 'probably does not exist' is to make assumptions based on faith, not evidence.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Prove to me that there is not a teapot floating out in the Oort cloud.
(1) We have yet to find a teapot naturally existing in the universe, (1a) with the only teapots we know being those made by man. (2) Thus there is very small probability that it there exists a naturally occurring teapot. (3) Human beings have not been around long enough with sufficient technology to send a teapot there, (4) therefore there is very small probability that there exists a man-made teapot out there. (5) Finally, we have yet to encounter another race of beings capable of producing something that could be clearly labeled as a teapot, (6) so the probability that there is a teapot out there is decreased by the probability thus far determined of the non-existence of life.
Thus based on (1) - (6) we can come to the probable conclusion that there does not exist a teapot in the Oort cloud. Everything used is evidence to some degree or another, and thus some probable conclusion can be drawn.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.