Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We can always rely on you for some razor sharp insight. Why have you never been invited on Question Time?
Why would an Atheist have an agenda? An Atheist has a lack of belief in a God. Atheism is not a positive statement, it is a null hypothesis.
For example I didn't belive the stories of giant squid just from old tales from sailors. I was therefore the Giant Squid equivalent of an Atheist.
I didn't believe Giant squids didn't exist either. I just wasn't going to believe they existed until I had evidence.
Once I saw news reports with videos of said Giant squids I believed they existed as I now had evidence. There was no bias on my front, just skepticism.I didn't watch the news report and say "Oh they must have faked it". That would be biased. This is quite rightly absurd, yet what you are accusing Atheists scientists of.
Science works by proposing a hypothesis and then testing the predictions of this hypothesis. I can't think of a better way of establishing the validity of a hypothesis.
So you don't think Richard Dawkins' hostility towards organised religion in any capacity suggests the he might have an agenda of some description?
I'm suggesting that biascould happen, and I believe that this is a possibility anytime you have a concentration of knowledge that is passed down from academia/ intelligensia to the general public.
Back in 2000 I began a Phd* on applying the theory of "social representations" (see Social representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and one aspect of this theory is to understand how information/ knowledge is integrated from it's source and evolves in to a wider social construct.
When you have a basic understand of how and where certain sources of information/ knowledge begin from, then you can see why what I'm suggesting is, in theory, a possibility......
(*NOTE: in case anyone is wondering I didn't complete this because my Phd tutor left the university and there wasn't suitable replacement for me who had a interest in my topic of study)
I agree, but this is just a very general point - is it relevant here??
Found this article which addresses this from a slightly different, but nevertheless still makes this same general point about bias:
Is There an Academic Bias against Religion? Appears so, at Least against Conservative Christians.
The great thing about science is that if done properly, ten ultra hardcore Chrisitans will come to the same conclusions as ten Atheists.
If there is any bias though this will come from the Christian, not the Atheist.
Remember, Atheism is just the lack of belief in the claim that there is a God and it makes no positive statement. I don't know any Atheistic Scientists that make the claim a God does definitely not exist.
If there was scientific evidence a God existed and scientists ignored it this would be biased. This has not happened yet.
A Christian scientist MUST leave his religious ideas at home when doing science. This is because there is no scientific evidence of a God. If there was almost all scientists would be deists, and this could and would then be incorporated into science.
This isn't limited to religion though, any believer in anything without evidence must leave these ideas at home.
Ian - I've glad you've written what you have as it shows where perhaps you have been going wrong.
Firstly - Atheism is not a positive statement. It is a lack of belief in the claim that there is a God. Without people such as yourself claiming there is a God, there would be no Atheists as there is no claim to reject. I'm very surprised you don't know this..
Atheism does not preclude Agnosticism.Ok, maybe my previous post wasn't clear because I'm entirely sure why you think I've indicated that atheism is a positive statement?
My understanding of the definition of atheism (atheos) is that is affirms the negative (alpha); 'a' about god (theos) therefore it equates to "negative god"; there is no god. This is a position that affirms a negative.
Actually I think I said this is my previous post that it affirms a negative, so why do you think I've said atheism is making a positive statement ??
Unless I've misunderstood something, then atheism acknowledges that a belief in god as a phenomena does indeed exist for some people (theism), but holds that this belief is rejected. Atheism acknowledges that this belief in God does exist objectively speaking, but rejects the components that form the basis of the belief for this claim.
Logically I can only see that holding an agnostic position works, since agnosticism doesn't make absolute claims unlike atheism which does. Atheism attempts to affirm that negative position (about the existence God) in an absolute sense which is impossible and therefore a logical contradiction.
Agnosticism makes more sense to me logically because it at least it is a position that has been (purportedly) reached analytically and doesn't make outright or absolute claims like atheism which as a system it cannot for one second support logically in any way, shape or form. When you actually understand the reality of what atheism can and cannot make claim to, then it is clear that any vaguely open minded person needs to hold an agnostic position to be taken seriously....
We can make 5 statements about the existence of something.
1 It does not exist
2 I haven't seen enough evidence to support the claim it exists, so I will disbelieve this until it does.
3 I don't know whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant the claim that it exists
4 There is sufficient evidence to believe the claim that it does exist.
5 It does exist
2 is Atheism, 3 Agnosticism and 4 Theism. 1 and 5 to me seem illogical. 1+2 and 4+5 get lumped into the same thing but they are different.
Razor sharp enough to see you're flogging a dead horse in regards to debating this issue with Danny.
I'm not a big fan of Dawkins' spectrum as I think it is impossible to put a numerical probability of existence of something, though in some parts it is making the same points as me.
Trust me, #2 is Atheism as I understand it.*
The point was that in #3 you cannot assess whether the evidence is sufficient or not.
With #2 you assess the evidence is not sufficient.
Neither position has actually made any statement to whether the thing actually exists. It is an assessment of the claim and associated evidence.
For example if I say my real name is Brian, you'd probably be #3**, whereas if I said I have an invisible magic dragon next to me you'd probably be #2. Neither of these positions require you to make any kind of assertion as to whether either of these things are actually true (you are just assessing the evidence), but they are different!
You would take position #3 as you know people are called Brian, and you know people don't always use their real name in forums. However you also know I maybe lying as I'm trying to make a hypothetical point. You could however have taken position 2#.
You have never had any evidence of magic dragons though and extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary evidence so you are going to be more inclined to think I am lying on point 2. You can't prove I'm lying, but you don't need to. You are just assessing the evidence you have, and my statement is not enough to meet the standards you require.
*There is a further term of strong and weak Atheism, whereas one asserts there is no God and one does not. I don't personally think one can be a strong Atheist and understand the logic I've already used and I've never heard anyone who understands it state this. I think #1 is strong Atheism.
** If I gave you my passport you'd probably be #4 as this to most people is good evidence. I might have a fake passport, but this is unlikely.
I hope that clears things up.
"Weak atheism" is basically agnostic atheism (which most atheists would likely fall under).Is weak atheism just another name for agnosticism?
#1 is what I consider atheism and what you've referred to as strong atheism, and from what I can make out there are many people who hold the position of strong atheism; Sam Harris certainly does...
There were about two dozen versions of the gospel but just four were approved at the Council of Nicea IIRC, and that is most we can claim to know or think we know about Jesus; basically one piece of writing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?