Too broad of categories (Score: 4, Insightful)
by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 14:38 (#2TX6)
There are billions of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and Agnostics. I wouldn't automatically dismiss any research by any of them. Nor would I automatically trust it because it came from one of them.
Now, if I have more information about a particular group an individual comes from, I can certainly do that. Like, if it comes from The Institute for Creation Research I'm not trusting anything they say. Or if they are funded by a large oil company and do climate research...
Now, if I have more information about a particular group an individual comes from, I can certainly do that. Like, if it comes from The Institute for Creation Research I'm not trusting anything they say. Or if they are funded by a large oil company and do climate research...
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1, Insightful)
by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 15:14 (#2TX8)
Hmm... your point of view is valid. But there are others. For instance you wrote:
Of course, this is only statistics, there should not be an automatism to dismiss their research. There is no Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist hive mind. Cheating is always done by an individual.
Or if they are funded by a large oil company and do climate research...Yes, people have reasons to fake research results. They may be paid to do so. They may do it to get funding and/or fame. Those reasons are equally valid for religious and not religious people. However, unlike Atheists and perhaps Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists can have an extra incentive to fake results. One more kind of temptation. So statistically one should be more careful about what religious people say.
Of course, this is only statistics, there should not be an automatism to dismiss their research. There is no Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist hive mind. Cheating is always done by an individual.
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1)
by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 20:25 (#2TXE)
However, unlike Atheists and perhaps Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists can have an extra incentive to fake results.If you mean to say that Christians, Muslims & Buddhists have incentive to fake results to suit/support their religious beliefs, then atheists have the same problem. Their "extra incentive" would be to fake results to undercut evidence that might lend supports to any of those same beliefs, at every opportunity.
Swap Indian Jones with Richard Dawkins, and tell me that, upon discovering the ark or the grail, he wouldn't have just re-hidden the artifact, and never said a word about it to anyone...
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1, Insightful)
by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 21:01 (#2TXF)
There are concrete examples how religious people faked 'evidence' to support their religious world view.
A nice example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringer%27s_Lying_Stones
Since there isn't anything to 're-hide' for atheists, your statement is unprovable and therefore empty. Perhaps you could ask Richard Dawkins what he would do? For atheists it is not important whether a god exists or not. They just don't see any evidence for its existence so they don't care. Give only one irrefutable proof and most of them would immediately accept its existence. I would. Tough in that case I'd immediately try to enlist with Satan.
A nice example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringer%27s_Lying_Stones
Since there isn't anything to 're-hide' for atheists, your statement is unprovable and therefore empty. Perhaps you could ask Richard Dawkins what he would do? For atheists it is not important whether a god exists or not. They just don't see any evidence for its existence so they don't care. Give only one irrefutable proof and most of them would immediately accept its existence. I would. Tough in that case I'd immediately try to enlist with Satan.
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1)
by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 21:53 (#2TXG)
There are concrete examples how religious people faked 'evidence' to support their religious world view.Except that was a hoax intended to discredit someone, not to prove someone's beliefs. The hoax only just happened to have some religious connotations.
A nice example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringer%27s_Lying_Stones
Since there isn't anything to 're-hide' for atheistsThat's complete nonsense. There are a huge number of religious artifacts out there. Nothing that proves the existence of an all-powerful being, of course, but lots and lots of artifacts none-the-less.
Perhaps you could ask Richard Dawkins what he would do?Perhaps you could ask any Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist scientists what they'd do?
For atheists it is not important whether a god exists or not. They just don't see any evidence for its existence so they don't care. Give only one irrefutable proof and most of them would immediately accept its existence.Also complete nonsense. Like any other religious group, atheists are all across the spectrum.
I would.Your particular position on the spectrum is not the textbook definition of the term, nor typical of all adherents. In fact what you've described is closer to agnostic than atheist.
Even if you dismiss the dogma involved, any one of them who has a flourishing business publishing books or whatnot, would be hesitant to undermine their life's work and risk their highly lucrative business.
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1, Insightful)
by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 22:06 (#2TXH)
Your particular position on the spectrum is not the textbook definition of the term, nor typical of all adherents. In fact what you've described is closer to agnostic than atheist.I expected something like that. But no. An agnostic says it cannot be decided whether there exists a god or not. For an atheist there is not enough supporting evidence for one to even think about the possibility if its existence. Or in other words: For an agnostic the question cannot be answered. For an atheist the question does not even exist. Nevertheless, for an atheist it is not important that there is not a god. Therefore there is no incentive to fake one away. And those with a flourishing business publishing books, if they really find irrefutable evidence that against all probability god exists, I don't know how many of them would dare to go on denying him. ;-D
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 2, Insightful)
by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 23:57 (#2TXJ)
Nevertheless, for an atheist it is not important that there is not a god.Any by what process, pray, did you find this to be self-evident and universal?
What's important to an atheist is entirely dependent on the individual, no? Atheist just means they don't believe in god, or that they believe there is no god. It says nothing of how 'important' they consider this to be.
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1, Insightful)
by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-11-06 10:23 (#2TXM)
Any by what process, pray, did you find this to be self-evident and universal?For an atheist rationality is important, not dogma.
What's important to an atheist is entirely dependent on the individual, no?Sure. There might be some, who call themselves atheist, but don't really know what this means.
Atheist just means they don't believe in god, or that they believe there is no god.Yes, atheists come like all other groups in great variety. Some are smart, some are dumb. Some did think through what they believe, others just slap the atheist label on themselves. It is true, no atheist believes in god. However, only the simpler minded ones actively believe that there is no god. When a theist says 'There is a god' and the atheist says 'There is no good', both make an affirmative statement, which they have to prove. People, who make claims, have to prove these claims. The real atheist never says that there is no god, he just demands proves from the theist.
And this is not the same as agnosticism. As I wrote before: For an agnostic the question cannot be decided. For an atheist this question does not even exist.
It says nothing of how 'important' they consider this to be.It does. Atheism is a certain state of mind. Not believing in a god, because there is no positive proof that there is one, is only a part of this. True atheists also don't believe in the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or Russell's teapot. And a true atheist would immediately change his mind the very second he gets new informations, which prove that god, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or Russell's teapot exist. Atheism is less about believe, it is about dogmas. Atheists should be free of them, therefore it should not matter to them, if there is a god or not. Atheism is not a religion, but actively believing, that there is no god, is.
This is another difference between religion and atheism: Since religion is practically based on nothing, you can never say: 'You got it wrong'. At best it can be said that one got a certain 'colour' of religion wrong. For atheism there are no different colours. And one can get atheism wrong.
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1, Insightful)
by axsdenied@pipedot.org on 2014-11-06 07:35 (#2TXK)
Since there isn't anything to 're-hide' for atheists->
That's complete nonsense. There are a huge number of religious artifacts out there. Nothing that proves the existence of an all-powerful being, of course, but lots and lots of artifacts none-the-less.Your argument makes no sense. While there are lots of religious artifacts out there, atheist scientists have no interest in hiding them. As you said yourself, they do not prove the existence of god so why hide them? Even more they may have historical significance so not hiding them makes even more sense for a scientist.
But I can easily see a religious scientist hiding a religious artifact. For them religious artifacts may signify a proof of a deity which is great news if it is a proof for their God. But what if it is not...
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1)
by venkman@pipedot.org on 2014-11-06 13:07 (#2TXN)
I see two fallacies in the statement: "So statistically one should be more careful about what religious people say." First, I don't see any statistics. Is that an omission or is it a bias? Also your comment seems to have gone from believing research results from these groups to just a general "what religious people say." That technically isn't what was asked, and the result is over generalized.
Please feel free to throw in statistics and maybe narrow down the focus just to the question at hand. You can't fight bullshit with bullshit.
Please feel free to throw in statistics and maybe narrow down the focus just to the question at hand. You can't fight bullshit with bullshit.
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1)
by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-11-06 17:01 (#2TXV)
First, I don't see any statistics. Is that an omission or is it a bias?Neither nor. If you have two groups where one group can do more or has the incentive to do more, then there will be done more in this group. Good or bad. My hypothesis is that the group of religious people have one incentive more to cheat, which atheists don't have: To defend their believe. This has nothing to do with statistics? If you don't like the term 'statistic' in this context, what about 'theory of probability'?
Also your comment seems to have gone from believing research results from these groups to just a general "what religious people say."Perhaps, but does it matter? I could also claim that the question was too imprecise. What kind of research? I doubt religious people have any reason to manipulate the latest semi-conductor research results, or lie about the environmental effects of fracking any more than atheists. So, maybe I was in error to interpret it as 'research results, which in any way affect their believe system'. IMHO any other question does not really make sense.
That technically isn't what was asked, and the result is over generalized.Technically not, true. But over generalized? Perhaps generalized, but certainly not over generalized.
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 2, Insightful)
by venkman@pipedot.org on 2014-11-06 19:00 (#2TY0)
Even in a probabilistic sense, I could argue that an atheist's strongly held belief would be matched by the religious observer's strongly held belief, and in that way would have the two would have the same probability to lie.
This poll, though probably just for light amusement and discussion, brings up many questions about the philosophy of science. Science is a human endeavor and as such is very much limited to how the world is perceived by humans. There will always be bias, not all of it intentional. Data has no bias, though, so reproducibility is very important before putting too much stock in an observation.
This poll, though probably just for light amusement and discussion, brings up many questions about the philosophy of science. Science is a human endeavor and as such is very much limited to how the world is perceived by humans. There will always be bias, not all of it intentional. Data has no bias, though, so reproducibility is very important before putting too much stock in an observation.
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 2, Insightful)
by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2014-11-06 16:12 (#2TXR)
You're talking about BILLIONS of people. Call me old fashioned, but I don't think you can paint people with that broad of a brush.
Also, I don't think Religious belief is a separate category from other closely held beliefs. Try talking science to the crazy anti GMO or anti Vaccine crowd and see how far you get.
Also, I don't think Religious belief is a separate category from other closely held beliefs. Try talking science to the crazy anti GMO or anti Vaccine crowd and see how far you get.
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1)
by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-11-06 17:11 (#2TXW)
You're talking about BILLIONS of people. Call me old fashioned, but I don't think you can paint people with that broad of a brush.And I said: There is no Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist hive mind. Cheating is always done by an individual.
Also, I don't think Religious belief is a separate category from other closely held beliefs. Try talking science to the crazy anti GMO or anti Vaccine crowd and see how far you get.But I agree with you here. First crazy anti GMO or anti Vaccine crowd are not necessarily atheists. And second even if they are, it does not mean that they cannot be stupid. There are enough pseudo-atheists, which are 'proud' not to believe in a god, but happily replaced god with some other mumbo-jumbo. Stupidity is not bound to a certain religious belief.
Re: Too broad of categories (Score: -1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on 2014-11-07 14:30 (#2TYA)
You may not be able to but I can. I tar all muslims with the same brush. Having read their book and interacted with a great number of them I have no illusions or delusions about what they, as a group or singularly, are capable of.
Perhaps we will get to the point where we can evolve past the need for religion. This is unlikely to occur anytime soon. Meanwhile, WIRM is an option.
Perhaps we will get to the point where we can evolve past the need for religion. This is unlikely to occur anytime soon. Meanwhile, WIRM is an option.