WTF News stories

[dman11235]

I am a scientist (well, science education major, but scientist too).  I know that we can never be 100% sure of anything we test.  There is an inherent belief in science, because you can never prove something to be true.  You can show evidence suggesting things are a certain way, and the evidence can be astronomical, but that does not mean that the prevailing theory is correct.  We have gone through numerous theories for the atomic model, for instance, and now even that is changing again (last 20 years).

As for your statement that no evidence of it existing is the same as it not existing: what about the giant squid?  Or colossal squid?  There was no evidence that they existed, people thought they existed, and they did exist, then we found evidence.  When there was no evidence it didn't change the fact that they did exist.  We couldn't see any evidence of much of the cosmos until recently, does this mean that they didn't exist until now?  Even though there may be a better explanation, we cannot assume that there is only one explanation possible, or that the currently accepted explanation is absolutely correct.  Otherwise, we will stop advancing our scientific knowledge.  And that is a terrible thing.

Also:

If you can't show evidence of something, then it's a theory at best, not "most accepted".

This is wrong.  Theories are based on evidence and heavily scrutinized.  If you can't show evidence of something, then it is at best pseudo-science.  Theories are what happens when a hypothesis is tested and does not appear to be wrong.  Great example is the theory of natural selection.  This is how the world appears to work, and there is no evidence contradicting it, so it is an accepted theory.  Theories are the best anything can possibly get in science.

[Nanshork]

  There is a belief involved in even the most accepted science.

Religious BS. Science is based on experimentation. If you can't show evidence of something, then it's a theory at best, not "most accepted".

As for proving that a deity can't exist, it's redudant. If you can't show any proof your god is out there (or at least something observeable that can't be explained in a simpler manner by science), then it's the same as said god not existing.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm agnostic and not a member of any religion nor am I particularly fond of religious debates.

If God exists (any god really, Christian, Muslim, Hindi, whatever) then that god created the universe to follow scientific laws and thus you can't use science to disprove said god's existence.

[dman11235]

Pretty much that Nan.  Besides, depending on your definition of God, it might be required for one to exist.  If you define 'god' as the thing that caused the universe to begin, then one definitely exist(ed), it just might not intelligent.  The Big Bang would have been a deity.  Or rather, whatever caused it.  Even if it was just a spontaneous event caused by, say, a stray particle hitting another stray particle.  It gets weird.  If your definition is "intelligent being that governs the day to day, instant to instant phenomenon of the universe" then.....well, it's still possible, it just may be an incomprehensible being, and heck, one of the elementary particles might BE God.  We are governed by the interactions of these particles, why can't they be this thing we call God?  My point is, you cannot say that it does not exist merely because there is no evidence.  And heck, something we already know about might even be it, we just don't understand it enough and semantics gets in the way (again....).

Full disclosure, although I do not like discussing my actual beliefs in this sort of medium, I am not a theist, nor am I an atheist.  I hate saying I'm an agnostic, but that's about the closest to what I am.  Somewhere between atheist and agnostic, kind of.

[RobbyPants]

However, do note that to the religious, belief is proof, and that goes for atheists(!)* as well as theists.  So while the first half of that sentence is fine, I take issue with the second half.

*Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Also, while it's not easy to prove the existence of a deity, it's impossible to prove that one does not exist.  There is a belief even for those who do not believe a deity exists.  There is a belief involved in even the most accepted science.

Kind of.

There are lots of types of atheism. For this case, I'll split them into gnostic (strong) and agnostic (weak). A theist is someone who believes in one or more gods. An atheist is someone who doesn't. This is a straight-up dichotomy, with no third possibility. As for the two types of atheism, you have:

Gnostic/strong:
Believes there are no gods. This is an assertion that would also have to be backed. This is typically the type of atheism people mention when saying that atheism is a religion.

Agnostic/weak:
Does not have a belief in any gods. This is a rejection of the belief in gods based on the lack of evidence. It does not posit that there are no gods, but rather that there is no reason to believe in any gods. Functionally, this will play out a lot like gnostic atheism (in that the person doesn't believe in any gods), but the burden of proof is left on the theists to prove their case. Basically, it's not trying to disprove something that's non-falsifiable in the first place.


TL;DR: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


(It's the same principle our legal system is based on. Defendants don't have to prove their innocence.)

[RobbyPants]

Full disclosure, although I do not like discussing my actual beliefs in this sort of medium, I am not a theist, nor am I an atheist.  I hate saying I'm an agnostic, but that's about the closest to what I am.  Somewhere between atheist and agnostic, kind of.

I totally missed this went on to another page!

Regarding my above post, I'd consider you to be an agnostic atheist, then (which is what I consider myself). Theism and atheism are a dichotomy. You're either one or the other. Regardless of which you are, you can be gnostic or agnostic in your beliefs. For example: before I stopped believing, I would have considered myself an agnostic theist (I believed in God, but not in any way I felt was provable or even knowable).

Here's a chart:

(click to show/hide)

[Jackinthegreen]

I'm not so sure it can be called "legitimate" given the basis for it is people letting shit talk go to their heads.  The law probably wouldn't do much anyway given the sentiments about various religions.  Two of my favorite quotes are "If you are pained by an external thing, it is not the thing that pains you, but your own judgment about it" and "Judge not lest ye be judged."  I leave it at that for people to contemplate.

I stab you with a knife. Obviously it's not the metal piece stuck in your flesh hurting you, no sir.

A knife in my (or anyone else's) flesh is the very definition of an internal problem.  The quote mostly refers to physical damage or pain as internal, though there are some causes for those that are external sources and able to be overcome by not placing a judgment about the situation.  If one felt so strongly about a book being burnt that it caused a stress response for instance, that is an external force only causing an internal reaction because the person has made a judgment of "I can't stand it."


As for the whole deity discussion, I'm not sure if I fit on that chart.  I'm agnostic, that much is certain.  I believe there is a possibility that god(s) exist, but I cannot make a claim either way because the existence of a deity isn't provable or disprovable as far as I can see.

[RobbyPants]

As for the whole deity discussion, I'm not sure if I fit on that chart.  I'm agnostic, that much is certain.  I believe there is a possibility that god(s) exist, but I cannot make a claim either way because the existence of a deity isn't provable or disprovable as far as I can see.

If you lack the belief, you're atheist. If you're not certain of the belief, you're also agnostic.

As an agnostic atheist, I admit it's possible that a god exists. Or two. Or a flying monster made of spaghetti. Or a blue turtle in space ready to eat the planet. Or a purple turtle. Or literally an infinite number of other things that have no evidence. Just because it could exist doesn't mean you have to pay it any heed or that you believe in it.

[RedWarlock]

Hmm. Interesting discussion.

I'd say I'm in that agnostic theist bracket. Just because 5+5=10, doesn't mean that you can't also have 4b+(7x)^m=10. It just means there's more yet to explore.

[bhu]

Y'all have forgotten deism, apatheism, and modern antitheism

[sirpercival]

I'm a gnostic agnostic.  I can prove that I can't prove anything.

[RobbyPants]

Y'all have forgotten deism, apatheism, and modern antitheism

Yeah, there are a lot of ways to further divide it. I spelled out the division I did because I think it helps clear up terminology. A lot of people say "atheist" and mean "gnostic atheist", or "agnostic" and mean "agnostic atheist". I think a lot has to do with a combination of not knowing about all the different terms and the stigma of the word "atheist". A lot of people don't want to self-identify that way.

I'm a gnostic agnostic.  I can prove that I can't prove anything.

[Jackinthegreen]

Y'all have forgotten deism, apatheism, and modern antitheism

Deism is covered since it is basically saying a deity created the universe then said "Have fun! I've got other shit to do than babysit you all," which falls under theism.  Whether the person asserts it as true or simply thinks that it makes the most sense but doesn't claim it's definitely true is still the difference between being agnostic or gnostic.

Apatheism looks like it falls under agnosticism since saying "I don't care if a deity exists" also usually means the person doesn't know.  Saying that they know a deity exists likewise tends to mean the person is interested and is thus no apatheistic, but I can see some people saying they know a deity exists and don't care much like I know Brad Pitt exists but couldn't care less what he's up to.

Antitheism needs to be split into misotheism and strong atheism since there are different definitions.  Misotheism seems like it's actually gnostic theist since the person believes a deity exists and claims to know as such, but chooses to give that deity to proverbial bird.  Strong atheism can be either agnostic or gnostic since a person can strongly say he does know no gods exist as much as a person can strongly assert there is no way of knowing a god exists.

I'm a gnostic agnostic.  I can prove that I can't prove anything.

+ fucking 1!

[dman11235]

While that chart and those definitions are interesting (and true; I've seen it before, but forgot about it, thanks for reminding me about those differences), my statement still holds true.  See, Atheists (as you clarified, gnostic atheists) are believers, was my point.  They believe that they are correct, and even though they think they are 100% factually correct, guess what?  So do the gnostic theists.  So both sides are a belief system, and most hardcore atheists (again, gnostic atheists) are a part of a religion that practices anti-theism.  See: Penn Jillette of Penn and Teller.  The make-up of this religion is similar to the make-up of most other religions, in that a large portion stay out of the way of others, and then a vocal minority proselytize attempting to convert the non-believers (in this case, they would be called believers).  Again, Penn Jillette.  They can not use the logic they use to try and prove that they are right, because the logic that they use guarantees that nothing can be 100% sure to be correct, and thus: an element of belief.

Oh, and people say agnostic when they mean agnostic atheist because it's shorter.

[Nanshork]

I'm between an Agnostic Atheist and an Agnost Theist...

[oslecamo]

I am a scientist (well, science education major, but scientist too).  I know that we can never be 100% sure of anything we test.  There is an inherent belief in science, because you can never prove something to be false.

Except you can prove something is true until evidence in the contrary.

You can show evidence suggesting things are a certain way, and the evidence can be astronomical, but that does not mean that the prevailing theory is correct.  We have gone through numerous theories for the atomic model, for instance, and now even that is changing again (last 20 years).

Yeah, that's why they were called theories, because we couldn't properly test them and much of it was (and still is) speculation.

As for your statement that no evidence of it existing is the same as it not existing: what about the giant squid?  Or colossal squid?  There was no evidence that they existed, people thought they existed, and they did exist, then we found evidence.  When there was no evidence it didn't change the fact that they did exist.  We couldn't see any evidence of much of the cosmos until recently, does this mean that they didn't exist until now?  Even though there may be a better explanation, we cannot assume that there is only one explanation possible, or that the currently accepted explanation is absolutely correct.  Otherwise, we will stop advancing our scientific knowledge.  And that is a terrible thing.

You just said that Quantum Mechanics is terrible. Please burn your computer at your nearest witch burning, because its tecnology is indeed based on the principle of "If it wasn't observed, there was no result".

Altough QM indeed implies that there had to be an observer at the start. But then who observed the observer? Or maybe not. QM is funny like that, and still in development. QM still gave us computers instead of plain, silent stone altars tough.

Also:

If you can't show evidence of something, then it's a theory at best, not "most accepted".

This is wrong.  Theories are based on evidence and heavily scrutinized.  If you can't show evidence of something, then it is at best pseudo-science.  Theories are what happens when a hypothesis is tested and does not appear to be wrong.  Great example is the theory of natural selection.  This is how the world appears to work, and there is no evidence contradicting it, so it is an accepted theory.  Theories are the best anything can possibly get in science.

You call yourself a "scientist" and you don't even know Newton's 3 laws? You have no shame at all trying to defend religion to the bitter end have you?

Fact is, religion has been in decline for the last centuries, so many religious people are grasping at straws, indeed pretending they're "scientists", desesperately trying to chuck their gods at the holes science  hasn't managed to explain (and there's plenty of them left yet).

But at the end of the day QM and newton's 3 laws and all the other science laws discovered work and we can get pratical results out of them, while magic 6-handed blue gnomes operating from the background that conveniently evade all our detection methods are useless at best, so they may as well not be there.

I "believe" in results. What do you believe in?

[Nanshork]

I believe that I hate prejudice in all forms, including prejudice against religion and the religious.

[Prime32]

I am a scientist (well, science education major, but scientist too).  I know that we can never be 100% sure of anything we test.  There is an inherent belief in science, because you can never prove something to be false.

Except you can prove something is true until evidence in the contrary.

No, you cannot. You can say that something is the most probable explanation, but proving something means that it is absolutely true and no further data can change that. You can't prove what killed the dinosaurs, but you can prove that 1+1=2 since the properties of numbers are completely understood.

You can show evidence suggesting things are a certain way, and the evidence can be astronomical, but that does not mean that the prevailing theory is correct.  We have gone through numerous theories for the atomic model, for instance, and now even that is changing again (last 20 years).

Yeah, that's why they were called theories, because we couldn't properly test them and much of it was (and still is) speculation.

No. An untested explanation is a hypothesis. A theory is a explanation which

• Is phrased in such a way that an experiment could disprove it. (i.e. no invisible teapots)
• Has withstood years of rigorous attempts to disprove it.

Also:

If you can't show evidence of something, then it's a theory at best, not "most accepted".

This is wrong.  Theories are based on evidence and heavily scrutinized.  If you can't show evidence of something, then it is at best pseudo-science.  Theories are what happens when a hypothesis is tested and does not appear to be wrong.  Great example is the theory of natural selection.  This is how the world appears to work, and there is no evidence contradicting it, so it is an accepted theory.  Theories are the best anything can possibly get in science.

You call yourself a "scientist" and you don't even know Newton's 3 laws? You have no shame at all trying to defend religion to the bitter end have you?

A law is just another name for a theory. The Newtonian model of physics has long since been disproven.

[dman11235]

A law is NOT another name for a theory.  A law is a set of rules that can predict what will happen.  Example: law of gravity.  A theory is an attempted explanation for why something happens.  Example: theory of gravity.  Both of these things do different things and have different rules.  The law of gravity says that things with mass will attract each other based on the gravity equation (F=mmg/d^2), and the theory of gravity doesn't even exist because we don't know why it does that (there is more than one theory of gravity right now, my favorite is one that involve semi dimensional particles).

Oh, and while you can show that 1+1=2, it is impossible to prove why it's like that.

You call yourself a "scientist" and you don't even know Newton's 3 laws? You have no shame at all trying to defend religion to the bitter end have you?

...

 

Oh man, what?  What are you even talking about?

1: Newtonian physics is not correct (if you know quantum or relativistic physics at all you would have known that was true, but it does well at predicting macro-scale interactions)
2: I didn't even mention the laws.
3: Laws are different from theories (as I explained above).
4: I'm not even religious.  Well, I am, but my religion is SCIENCE.  Seriously, that's what I say, my religion is science.
5: Nothing we have today is guaranteed to work.  Einstein's theories are turning out to actually be wrong, if you haven't been keeping up (but right also, it's weird).  I brought up the atomic model: we were sure we had it right with the plum pudding model.  The Rutherford blasted that idea to shreds.  Then we had the orbiting electrons model, and quantum mechanics tore that to shreds.  Now we have the probability clouds, and that's not really set in stone, but it seems to best represent what we see.  But wait, what's this?  String theory says that we may have to change it yet again.

[bhu]

Deism is covered since it is basically saying a deity created the universe then said "Have fun! I've got other shit to do than babysit you all," which falls under theism.  Whether the person asserts it as true or simply thinks that it makes the most sense but doesn't claim it's definitely true is still the difference between being agnostic or gnostic.

Modern deists also don't believe in the supernatural or organized religion.  They see any prospective creator as more of an originating force than an intelligent being.

Apatheism looks like it falls under agnosticism since saying "I don't care if a deity exists" also usually means the person doesn't know.  Saying that they know a deity exists likewise tends to mean the person is interested and is thus no apatheistic, but I can see some people saying they know a deity exists and don't care much like I know Brad Pitt exists but couldn't care less what he's up to.

Apatheism is unique though in that their minds can't be changed.  If you could conclusively prove the existence/non-existence of the supernatural to a atheist/thesit you could get them to change their minds.  An Apatheist is still going to say 'who cares?'

Antitheism needs to be split into misotheism and strong atheism since there are different definitions.  Misotheism seems like it's actually gnostic theist since the person believes a deity exists and claims to know as such, but chooses to give that deity to proverbial bird.  Strong atheism can be either agnostic or gnostic since a person can strongly say he does know no gods exist as much as a person can strongly assert there is no way of knowing a god exists.

Modern Antitheism would be more like fundamentalist atheism.  In much the way that fundamentalist theists believe anyone who isn't of their religion is a potential danger to society, modern antitheists believe anyone who has a religion is a danger to society.  They believe religion is a form of collective delusion, a mental illness that gets a pass because it's popular and has too much social and political power for the psychiatric community to take on the way they should.

[zook1shoe]

Based on robby's chart, I'm an agnostic atheistic most of the time. Sometimes, I lean more gnostic atheistic.