Illogical atheists

Post Reply New Topic

Otaku's post was about the same as someone brandishing Stalin, Mao, and nihilism as their cudgels against atheists in favor of Christian smugness. Anymore when I see members emotionally offloading (at least in threads intended for discussion/debate) I skim over them because they don't really add anything.

Why, that's a hair away from a variation on No True Scotsman. See, if the vast majority of Christians are intolerant then the religion itself is indeed intolerant. Just because what the current, modern iteration does is inconsistent with it's primary source document is quite irrelevant to what "Christianity" is today.

Actually, logic is universal and objective.

While absolute certainty is rarely found in science, we can know things the way we know anything else. Will the sun rise tomorrow? I'm not absolutely certain, but I'm as certain as one can reasonably be. In the same sense, one can know there isn't a God, at least none as defined by most major religions.

That's where I don't find the orthodoxies particularly interesting anymore or to be even particularly good measures of what's either internal to us or perhaps beyond us in terms of consciousness. Unfortunately it seems like that's about all most people are really familiar with and that's a shame; the esoteric side of the coin is a lot more interesting.

Uncertainty is a fundamental scientific tenet in particle physics. Simply looking at an object changes the physical properties as light itself by way of photons can influence matter's atomic structure. Electrons are even jettisoned when you expose metal to light via the photoelectric effect. Although unlike science, Religion is accepts its tenets as principles that cannot be contested or question. Science seeks precisely the opposite, and corrects any assumptions that no longer reflect the preponderance of evidence.

Do you know if at the center of Pluto is an atom of gold? Yes or no! Is there an atom of Gold at the center of Pluto? If I say that I do not know,am I insecure? Seems to me,"I don't know" is the only honest answer.

Science is not 100% sure of anything. Does the earth go around the sun? 99.99999% likely. E.Ts? 78% likely. That they have visited us? 7% likely.Science is always evolving. 100% certainty is intellectual death and anti science. However, that does not mean that science cannot make predictions. I am 99.999% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. Am I 100% certain? Of course not. But 99.999% is close enough for me!

However, based on the measured properties and our tested knowledge about planets we can assess the probability of there being gold at the center.

Both religion and science exist because humans' best tool for survival is our ability to predict the future, and so we are driven to know as much as we can in order to guide our actions. Insofar as that goes, science & logic/critical thought is far better tested and proven and therefore suited to provide better tools for making practical choices. Flat out, religion sucks rotten oranges at real world, practical explanations and predictions.

The only realm in which religion is far better suited is the one it made up itself; that of the imaginary & irrational (such as the idea that after our bodies stop working, we don't stop existing). While that may give comfort to some, from the viewpoint of critical thought it is no more likely to be true than countless other imaginary, irrational (untestable) possibilities. This renders it not very useful and without a claim to anything we normally consider, "truth".

Agreed! We can determine the probability of there being gold at the center of Pluto. That was my point. One must be an agnostic about if there is gold at the center of Pluto. We cannot be 100% certain.
Interesting side issue. If we knew everything about a coin toss (wind speed, wind direction, aerodynamics of the coin...) we could predict if it will be heads or tails with 100%certainty. Therefore, probability is a measure of our ignorance!! But it can't be!

Actually, that's not quite accurate. If the mass & volume & speed & orbit of Pluto are such that it's density is outside the range that could include gold, we know with good certainty that it does not contain gold. Likewise, if we determine that it is comprised of elements not found with gold, the probability drops to the point that we consider gold not to be present. And when we aggregate multiple sources, we can indeed safely say it is not true that pluto contains gold.

In actuality, those do not turn out to be the case as it is likely Pluto may contain enough uranium to provide the astonishing levels of heat found & where there is uranium there is usually gold. Likewise, the density of the planet is in the range that gold is not improbable. Science and critical thought are well equipped to determine levels of probability in these grey areas and adjust them as needed when new data is found. But it is equally able to claim with 100% surety that other things - such as a cute fuzzy bunny rabbit living at the center of the sun - are indeed 100% false.

Are you making those percentages up?

How is there any doubt at all about the Earth going around the sun?

If I had to guess, I'd put a higher likelihood on the possibilities of E.T.s, but I'd put there odds of visiting us at very close to zero.

I'm 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Actually, all the elements were created in a star.( except hydrogen) Pluto's orbit has nothing to do with wether or not there is gold in it.
But anyway, you missed the point. The point is that we cannot be 100% certain that there is no gold on Pluto,even if somehow Pluto's orbit was a factor.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 03 Jan 2016, 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It is not 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. I said 99.999%. It is possible that some huge object will crash into the earth,destroying it in the next 12 hours. However, the odds of that are tiny.

Ah, but we could if its density (in part calculated by measuring its orbit) indicated gold is not a component. You can argue that there *could* be a single atom and therefore science can't be 100% sure, as well as the claim that 99.9999% is not *actually* being sure, but each falls under being a fallacy reductio ad absurdum, although it may also fall under false equivalency since for all practical purposes and all concerns of actual humans, 99.9% sure is just as good as 99.99999999% and regardless of how many places it is carried out, you could always claim,

"Ah-ha! But since you aren't 99.999999999% sure (an extra '9'), you have to say you don't actually know!! !"

Which, although sounding somewhat reasonable is actually quite ridiculous and in fact, false.

Even on earth the percentage of elements that are gold is so tiny that the earth's density is not significantly effected.
There is a difference between 99.999% probable and 100% certainty. There is a difference between saying it is highly probable that "1+1 equals 2" (it is 100% certain) and it is 99.999% certain that Bigfoot doesnt exist.

I believe you may be splitting hairs, or being too concrete/binary. In the Pluto example, no one would care if there was a 99.999% chance of not finding gold or 100%; it's not worth retrieving so for all practical intents and purposes (ie predicting the future occurrence of finding gold)...there is no gold on Pluto. Arguing over a trace amount is a fallacy.