Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[Strathos]

Not a dogma. Try again.

How is it not a dogma? You seem to be dogmatically denying that.

 

[Tinker Grey]

How is it not a dogma? You seem to be dogmatically denying that.

From Merriam-Webster: Definition of DOGMA

1a : something held as an established opinion especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets //pedagogical dogma
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

The only thing that makes an atheist an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. This is not a dogma; it's a definition. All other things that an atheist may believe or hold to has nothing to do with atheism. There are no authorities in atheism. There are no codes or tenets.

Whether I am "dogmatically" declaring something or not is about me and not about atheism.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Also, to say someone or statement is "dogmatic" is to say something about the subject's attitude. It says nothing about dogma, per se. The one who is "dogmatic" is so by way of metaphor.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How is it not a dogma? You seem to be dogmatically denying that.

There are atheists who believe in ghosts or astrology. They are not burned at the stake or kicked out of the club for denying the alleged dogma of naturalism.

 

[USincognito]

You are an atheist.
Do you BELIEVE that the first cell happened as a biochemical accident (or a sequence of them)
You must do as an atheist. Otherwise you would have to be an agnostic.

No atheist believes "the first cell" (whatever that's supposed to mean) happened as a biochemical accident. And you don't appear to understand what the word atheist means.

 

[Strathos]

From Merriam-Webster: Definition of DOGMA

1a : something held as an established opinion especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets //pedagogical dogma
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

The only thing that makes an atheist an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. This is not a dogma; it's a definition. All other things that an atheist may believe or hold to has nothing to do with atheism. There are no authorities in atheism. There are no codes or tenets.

Whether I am "dogmatically" declaring something or not is about me and not about atheism.

There are atheists who believe in ghosts or astrology. They are not burned at the stake or kicked out of the club for denying the alleged dogma of naturalism.

Last time I checked those atheists were not looked upon fondly by your group.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Last time I checked those atheists were not looked upon fondly by your group.

We are not a group. We are individuals that use the same label when it is pertinent.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Last time I checked those atheists were not looked upon fondly by your group.

My group? Which group is that? The only group of relevance to your claim is 'atheists'. Now we both agree that atheists do not adhere to this dogma. Atheists agree and disagree on all sorts of things.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yes, you understood me perfectly thank you!

So do I understand you.

You fudge to avoid admitting the reality that you believe in many things.

And you use science as a philosophical crutch.

 

[Mountainmike]

Then perhaps you might answer the questions posed.

Do you believe the moon exists whether or not you view it?
I wager you do, so do I, but science contradicts you.

Do you beLieve there are an infinite number of you in universes of all possible pasts and futures? I don't, but science does.

Do you believe consciousness is just a chemical process?

For avoidance of doubt, life as the product of one or more biochemical accidents is Not a valid hypothesis for the reasons I stated: A matter of Scientific definition. However you slice it or dice it, fudge it or obscure it, that statement remains true.

I have no doubt you BELIEVE it happened, but will not admit it, and if you do it is just belief. There's no shame in that, provide you admit it is just belief.

But like others, you will see admitting you have beliefs as a weakness, particularly when they contradict science so you will deny it.

Atheists are all the same. They create an illusion and veneer that their faith is based on critical thinking to hide that deep down their beliefs are strong, but are none the less a faith.

Background: My details show me as agnostic. This is accurate. However, in regard to the God of the Abrahamic religions I am an atheist.

You presented a series of options to vir optimus that were the equivalent of me asking you "Have you stopped beating your wife?" (By the way, have you? )

vir optimus rejected the trap and offered what he viewed as the correct response. You have then, either through poor reading comprehension or deliberate deceit, acted as if he voted for "hypothesis". He didn't. He made the quite reasonable observation that the statement "the first cell is the result of a biochemical accident, or a sequence of them" is a statement of speculation close to a hypothesis.

Your definition of hypothesis seems to have confused you. The hypotheses (note the plural) relating to abiogenesis are capable of being tested and such tests are ongoing. Had they been completed we would now be talking about theory (or theories) of abiogenesis.

Had you asked vir optimus to tell you what he thought abiogenesis were I suspect he might have said something like this. (vir optimus please correct me if I have this wrong in anyway.)

Abiogenesis is a concept relating to the origin of life by natural processes. It is anticipated that these processes will be complex and multi-staged. A number of speculative proposals have been made that describe the character of these processes. Hypotheses that address some of these have been established and tested, others have had tests proposed, but not yet carried out. Quite detailed scenarios, linking various stages, have been proposed and at least some of these merit the descriptor "hypothesis".

As to belief, and here I express my personal opinion only, I try to avoid all beliefs. To me a belief is an admission that we don't really know what's going on, so we are just going to take a wild stab in the dark. I don't believe in plate tectonics, or evolution, or a Conservative government* in the UK. However, I accept that plate tectonics is the best currently available explanation for observed geological phenomena. I accept that evolutionary theory provides the currently best available explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. I accept that a Conservative UK government is the best currently available explanation for the presence of Theresa May in No. 10 Downing Street. (But I find it really difficult to believe!)


*Other governments led by incompetent political parties are also available.

 

[Ophiolite]

So do I understand you.

You fudge to avoid admitting the reality that you believe in many things.

And you use science as a philosophical crutch.

My, how impressive. Your post graduate degrees in psychology and years of field studies of human behaviour allow you to deduce motivations from a handful of posts on an online forum! Quite a talent.

Or are you just pursuing a suite of stereotypical views of people who challenge your own belief system and make you uncomfortable. Or, is it one of thirty other possibilities that could explain your arrogant assignment of motives. You see I don't know why you are behaving in such a hostile, presumptive manner. I just know it is not the way to conduct a productive dialogue. Now, would you like to start again? You haven't even used one cheek yet, so you should have the capacity.

 

[Mountainmike]

Doesn't make me feel uncomfortable at all.

I think you should go back in the thread : I entered it only because of how he belittled others knowledge of science when as demonstrated his own is limited. I treat people as I find them.

In my view it is absurd to view science as a philosophical crutch of existence, when in reality it runs so counter to the beliefs of most who do so- which is the reasons for the questions I posed, and indeed I pose the same to you.

The problem is , as regards objective existence of the moon, you can only answer with a belief, and my experience of atheists is they avoid admitting they have such beliefs, or any beliefs, but those questions force them to confront the fact that hey do. And also confront the fact their beliefs run counter to their God of science.

It doesn't surprise me atheists understand each other's view on the world, so you agree with each other about your beliefs. They are still just beliefs.

My, how impressive. Your post graduate degrees in psychology and years of field studies of human behaviour allow you to deduce motivations from a handful of posts on an online forum! Quite a talent.

Or are you just pursuing a suite of stereotypical views of people who challenge your own belief system and make you uncomfortable. Or, is it one of thirty other possibilities that could explain your arrogant assignment of motives. You see I don't know why you are behaving in such a hostile, presumptive manner. I just know it is not the way to conduct a productive dialogue. Now, would you like to start again? You haven't even used one cheek yet, so you should have the capacity.

 

[Ophiolite]

Then perhaps you might answer the questions posed.

They were not directed at me, but I'm happy to oblige.

Do you believe the moon exists whether or not you view it?

I don't have a particular opinion on the matter. For practical purposes I work on the presumption that it is probably there. So far this has worked out OK for me.

I wager you do, so do I, but science contradicts you.

Well, you lost the wager. As to science contradicting me, you are mistaken. There is one minority interpretation of quantum mechanics that requires it to be observed by humans in order to collapse its waveform. Is that what you are refering to? If so it's not mainline science.

Do you beLieve there are an infinite number of you in universes of all possible pasts and futures? I don't, but science does.

I would like to offer you some sound advice: feel free to reject it. Stop getting your understanding of science from popular articles in books and magazines, or documentaries on the Discovery Channel! One interpretation of QM does suggest this as a possibility, however it is seriously misleading (i.e. untrue) to say that this is science's position.

Do you believe consciousness is just a chemical process?

I have almost no idea what consciousness is and I pay little attention to those who claim with certainty they understand it.

I find your use of the word "just" a bit strange. It's like saying Dali's painting of Christ of St.John of the Cross is just a bunch of chemicals on some canvas.

For avoidance of doubt, life as the product of one or more biochemical accidents is Not a valid hypothesis for the reasons I stated: A matter of Scientific definition. However you slice it or dice it, that statement remains true.

You are entitled to your opinion and your misunderstanding of what constitutes a hypothesis. However, making such assertions based upon poor grasp of nomenclature will not give your argument much traction among those properly educated in the sciences.

I have no doubt you BELIEVE it happened, but will not admit it, and if you do it is just belief.

I have explained my position on belief previously. Are you calling me a liar?

But like others, you will see admitting you have beliefs as a weakness, particularly when they contradict science so you will deny it.

In my experience most people regardless of their attitude to theism are quite comfortable talking about beliefs. I believe that in everday colloquial terms I often talk of belief: I believe it could rain today; I believe I shall have fish for dinner; I believe the second Godfather film is the best of the Trilogy.
However, in matters of philosophy and science I do not think that the word belief is a useful or meaningful one, so no - you are mistaken. And you really should stop telling other people what their motives are - you are not very good at it.

Atheists are all the same.

Of course they are, my dear. Of course they are.

They create an illusion of critical thinking to hide that deep down their beliefs are strong, but are none the less a faith.

You are at it again and its still not working out for you.

 

[LightLoveHope]

My, how impressive. Your post graduate degrees in psychology and years of field studies of human behaviour allow you to deduce motivations from a handful of posts on an online forum! Quite a talent.

Or are you just pursuing a suite of stereotypical views of people who challenge your own belief system and make you uncomfortable. Or, is it one of thirty other possibilities that could explain your arrogant assignment of motives. You see I don't know why you are behaving in such a hostile, presumptive manner. I just know it is not the way to conduct a productive dialogue. Now, would you like to start again? You haven't even used one cheek yet, so you should have the capacity.

I do sympathise with people who get annoyed at a well worked out position, based on science and philosophy is dismissed like it is a childs toy.

But then well crafted positions tend to only be appreciated by people who have created their own well crafted outlook.

But maybe we are not facing post modernists here, just traditional materialists who still hold to a humanistic outlook. Post modernism tends to push power groups and reduce everything down into victimised minorities. There are now so many complaining groups, complaining is probably our new real culture, the spoilt whiners generation.

 

[Ophiolite]

It doesn't surprise me atheists understand each other's view on the world, so you agree with each other about your beliefs. They are still just beliefs.

I think you may find that I, an agnostic, understood the views of VirOptimus because I took the trouble to listen to what he was saying, and did my level best not to colour it with my own prejudices.

Earlier you said "All atheists are the same". I am trying desparately not to reach the conclusion as to what this appears to say about your character, or rather lack of it. Your post here has not helped me in that attempt. I'll assume you are just having a bad day and wish you a better one tomorrow.

Since it is already tomorrow here and I have to go out and check on the moon I'm unlikely to reply to anything in the immediate future.

 

[Mountainmike]

I will stop right here.

Copenhagen and bell are the mainstream view of science. I am a professional electronic physicist. So since you are substituting your own opinion of what is minority there is no point in further discussion.

The multiverse is the prime method used to explain away one irrational paradox by using another. Frying pan to fire in causality and objectivity. All of which proves what those who take the trouble to understand the philosophy of science already know : that science is just a limited observation model with no greater fundamental significance. The paradoxes are therefore not real, nor can you use science as absolute truth. Even the model cannot be unique, Hawkings view not just mine, THAT was the point I was making first off. Science is a strange tool for those who seek a philosophy of existence, despite many atheists trying to use it as a philosophical crutch for their beliefs or as a stick to beat theists with.

But if you wont accept the true mainstream view of science, end of conversation.

They were not directed at me, but I'm happy to oblige.

I don't have a particular opinion on the matter. For practical purposes I work on the presumption that it is probably there. So far this has worked out OK for me.

Well, you lost the wager. As to science contradicting me, you are mistaken. There is one minority interpretation of quantum mechanics that requires it to be observed by humans in order to collapse its waveform. Is that what you are refering to? If so it's not mainline science.

I would like to offer you some sound advice: feel free to reject it. Stop getting your understanding of science from popular articles in books and magazines, or documentaries on the Discovery Channel! One interpretation of QM does suggest this as a possibility, however it is seriously misleading (i.e. untrue) to say that this is science's position.

I have almost no idea what consciousness is and I pay little attention to those who claim with certainty they understand it.

I find your use of the word "just" a bit strange. It's like saying Dali's painting of Christ of St.John of the Cross is just a bunch of chemicals on some canvas.

You are entitled to your opinion and your misunderstanding of what constitutes a hypothesis. However, making such assertions based upon poor grasp of nomenclature will not give your argument much traction among those properly educated in the sciences.

I have explained my position on belief previously. Are you calling me a liar?

In my experience most people regardless of their attitude to theism are quite comfortable talking about beliefs. I believe that in everday colloquial terms I often talk of belief: I believe it could rain today; I believe I shall have fish for dinner; I believe the second Godfather film is the best of the Trilogy.
However, in matters of philosophy and science I do not think that the word belief is a useful or meaningful one, so no - you are mistaken. And you really should stop telling other people what their motives are - you are not very good at it.

Of course they are, my dear. Of course they are.

You are at it again and its still not working out for you.

 

[LightLoveHope]

A post christian culture.

Most young people do not regard themselves as having any position and barely understand Christian belief language or even the rejection of it.

It kind of invalidates the term atheist. It is probably better to use terms like materialist or determinst, becaues this positively defines their belief system and how they wake up every morning and make sense of their lives.

One clear problem is if you believe the world is truly random, you are actually insane, because you would do nothing consistenly or even be a part of society. And I suppose that is the problem when you become a major position held accross a culture and society starts to found their lifestyles upon such ideas. So you get christian atheists, or atheists to meditate and perform Buddist practices.

When I grew up people where rebelling against conformity to rules and roles. Today people are struggling to avoid depression and meaninglessness. Welcome to the fruit of rebellion against conformity and morality.

 

[Mountainmike]

There is indeed a sad futility and nihilism creeping through young generations, together with a moral relativism.

Shrinking " God of the gaps" whilst a falasy is almost a part of accepted wisdom now. That as science is conjectured to " explain " more there is conjectured to be less room for God. I wish schools would put effort into philosophy of science so it's context would be better understood, as answering other , not the same questions.

I don't blame the kids.

Here in EU a faulty Eurozone guarded jealously by the beneficiaries of the faulty design, has condemned even 30 percent of youngsters to pepetual unemployment, in numerous countries, and the demographic time bomb of birth rate will even destroy hope of retirement. The populist nightmare that is such as Corbyns proposed " spend it all, for a wave of votes and destroy tomorrow " ( which is what destroyed Greece forever) is as sympathetic as a parent who spends it all in the toy shop, then can't afford to feed the kids later that month. Which is the problem with populism. Greece , Detroit, Venezuela can never escape. Nor will the Uk if Corbyn gets in. He will Condemn us to penury, all equal with equally nothing.
The talks of war are getting scary. Maybe we are in the end times.

Point is I can understand the despair of young generations, and the sad symptoms like suicide rate.

In my view Until we kill the false God status of science ,and put it back where it reality belongs. it is hard to reinstate hope.

A post christian culture.

Most young people do not regard themselves as having any position and barely understand Christian belief language or even the rejection of it.

It kind of invalidates the term atheist. It is probably better to use terms like materialist or determinst, becaues this positively defines their belief system and how they wake up every morning and make sense of their lives.

One clear problem is if you believe the world is truly random, you are actually insane, because you would do nothing consistenly or even be a part of society. And I suppose that is the problem when you become a major position held accross a culture and society starts to found their lifestyles upon such ideas. So you get christian atheists, or atheists to meditate and perform Buddist practices.

When I grew up people where rebelling against conformity to rules and roles. Today people are struggling to avoid depression and meaninglessness. Welcome to the fruit of rebellion against conformity and morality.

 

[Gene2memE]

Last time I checked those atheists were not looked upon fondly by your group.

It's a mixed bag. Some denigrate such beliefs, others celebrate them. Some are ambivalent.

One of my close friends is an atheist. She also believes in ghosts, astral projection, crystal healing and past lives. She didn't arrive at atheism via skepticism (like I did), but rather and experiential process joining various groups and seeing if she "felt" anything. No religion or religious experience managed to make it over the hurdle of her particular standard.

I don't feel like she's any less of an atheist than I am - but our worldviews are VERY different.

Atheist and skeptic aren't synonymous. Not even on the internet.

 

[Strathos]

We are not a group. We are individuals that use the same label when it is pertinent.

My group? Which group is that? The only group of relevance to your claim is 'atheists'. Now we both agree that atheists do not adhere to this dogma. Atheists agree and disagree on all sorts of things.

You don't see how you're in lockstep with each other? You're practically a hive mind. If your usernames and avatars weren't there I couldn't tell which one of you posted what.