| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Les Hellawell" |
| Date: |
06 Dec 2004 03:32:32 AM |
| Object: |
Belief or assumption V theory |
Why is a theoretical approach more sensible than jumping
to an instant conclusion or belief?
Lets assume I am a farmer and hear a commotion during the
night. The following morning I investigate and find a large hole
in the my chicken coup, lots of feathers all over the place and
no chickens or perhaps just a few dead ones.
I could either
1. Conclude a fox was responsible and go back inside for
my breakfast in the firm belief that a fox was in the area
or
2. Think about it and decide from the evidence before me
that a fox may be responsible and look for evidence to confirm
this
So I search the farmyard looking for foxprints. Clearly if I
find some along with a trail of feathers my theory has been
proved by this additional evidence and their is a fox neaby.
But supposing I don't find any foxprints? Well my theory has
been weakened as there should clearly be prints in the fresh
mud. If instead I find human prints along with a trail of feathers
then clearly a human thief has been in the night and my theory
was wrong.
Though my theory turned out to be wrong it was a valid theory
based on the initial evidence and it still remains a valid theory
even though in this instance it has been proved wrong. Unlike
1 above a theory is not a conclusion or proof but a logical
explanation of the evidence before me. It was quite logical to
think a fox might have been responsible therefore it was a valid
theory.
Lets assume on the other hand I had decided that it was possible
that the chickens had decided to escape by first making the
hole but had then had a fight to decide which one would go
first? Clearly this would not be a valid theory as chickens do
not have the intelligence or ability to make such a hole nor
would they likely fight one another to get out.
So a theory has to be a reasonable explanation of the evidence.
It demands further investigation and can be either proven right by
further evidence to confirm it or further evidence to disprove it. On
the other hand the farmer who jumped to the belief it was a fox
without seeling evidence remains in ignorance of what actually
happened
So which approach is the more sensible one? Investigation of
a theory formed from the evidence or a jumped to belief from
ignorance? Is is a case of Sherlock Holmes v inspector LeStrade?
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Belief or assumption V theory |
06 Dec 2004 07:20:07 AM |
|
|
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:ga88r0h0p1lmb3s64h24oohithbjbl0n9h@4ax.com...
Why is a theoretical approach more sensible than jumping
to an instant conclusion or belief?
Lets assume I am a farmer and hear a commotion during the
night. The following morning I investigate and find a large hole
in the my chicken coup, lots of feathers all over the place and
no chickens or perhaps just a few dead ones.
I could either
1. Conclude a fox was responsible and go back inside for
my breakfast in the firm belief that a fox was in the area
or
2. Think about it and decide from the evidence before me
that a fox may be responsible and look for evidence to confirm
this
So I search the farmyard looking for foxprints. Clearly if I
find some along with a trail of feathers my theory has been
proved by this additional evidence and their is a fox neaby.
But supposing I don't find any foxprints? Well my theory has
been weakened as there should clearly be prints in the fresh
mud. If instead I find human prints along with a trail of feathers
then clearly a human thief has been in the night and my theory
was wrong.
Though my theory turned out to be wrong it was a valid theory
based on the initial evidence and it still remains a valid theory
even though in this instance it has been proved wrong. Unlike
1 above a theory is not a conclusion or proof but a logical
explanation of the evidence before me. It was quite logical to
think a fox might have been responsible therefore it was a valid
theory.
Lets assume on the other hand I had decided that it was possible
that the chickens had decided to escape by first making the
hole but had then had a fight to decide which one would go
first? Clearly this would not be a valid theory as chickens do
not have the intelligence or ability to make such a hole nor
would they likely fight one another to get out.
So a theory has to be a reasonable explanation of the evidence.
It demands further investigation and can be either proven right by
further evidence to confirm it or further evidence to disprove it. On
the other hand the farmer who jumped to the belief it was a fox
without seeling evidence remains in ignorance of what actually
happened
So which approach is the more sensible one? Investigation of
a theory formed from the evidence or a jumped to belief from
ignorance? Is is a case of Sherlock Holmes v inspector LeStrade?
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Greetings form America. This has what to do with atheism?
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Belief or assumption V theory |
06 Dec 2004 08:38:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:20:07 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:ga88r0h0p1lmb3s64h24oohithbjbl0n9h@4ax.com...
Why is a theoretical approach more sensible than jumping
to an instant conclusion or belief?
Lets assume I am a farmer and hear a commotion during the
night. The following morning I investigate and find a large hole
in the my chicken coup, lots of feathers all over the place and
no chickens or perhaps just a few dead ones.
I could either
1. Conclude a fox was responsible and go back inside for
my breakfast in the firm belief that a fox was in the area
or
2. Think about it and decide from the evidence before me
that a fox may be responsible and look for evidence to confirm
this
So I search the farmyard looking for foxprints. Clearly if I
find some along with a trail of feathers my theory has been
proved by this additional evidence and their is a fox neaby.
But supposing I don't find any foxprints? Well my theory has
been weakened as there should clearly be prints in the fresh
mud. If instead I find human prints along with a trail of feathers
then clearly a human thief has been in the night and my theory
was wrong.
Though my theory turned out to be wrong it was a valid theory
based on the initial evidence and it still remains a valid theory
even though in this instance it has been proved wrong. Unlike
1 above a theory is not a conclusion or proof but a logical
explanation of the evidence before me. It was quite logical to
think a fox might have been responsible therefore it was a valid
theory.
Lets assume on the other hand I had decided that it was possible
that the chickens had decided to escape by first making the
hole but had then had a fight to decide which one would go
first? Clearly this would not be a valid theory as chickens do
not have the intelligence or ability to make such a hole nor
would they likely fight one another to get out.
So a theory has to be a reasonable explanation of the evidence.
It demands further investigation and can be either proven right by
further evidence to confirm it or further evidence to disprove it. On
the other hand the farmer who jumped to the belief it was a fox
without seeling evidence remains in ignorance of what actually
happened
So which approach is the more sensible one? Investigation of
a theory formed from the evidence or a jumped to belief from
ignorance? Is is a case of Sherlock Holmes v inspector LeStrade?
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Greetings form America. This has what to do with atheism?
Good question, I was expecting it.
Belief and theory is usually central to discussions here on
this newsgroup. Both topics come up in almost every post.
I thought it therefore it might be a good idea to compare them
to see which is the better approach to understanding our world.
Do we jump to instant conclusions or belief and go blithly in for
breakfast without bothering to look for evidence or so we go
out and take the trouble to seek knowledge and the truth?
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Belief or assumption V theory |
06 Dec 2004 09:10:37 AM |
|
|
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:vmq8r0tgr8the9a401723819uq7656sc60@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:20:07 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:ga88r0h0p1lmb3s64h24oohithbjbl0n9h@4ax.com...
Why is a theoretical approach more sensible than jumping
to an instant conclusion or belief?
Lets assume I am a farmer and hear a commotion during the
night. The following morning I investigate and find a large hole
in the my chicken coup, lots of feathers all over the place and
no chickens or perhaps just a few dead ones.
I could either
1. Conclude a fox was responsible and go back inside for
my breakfast in the firm belief that a fox was in the area
or
2. Think about it and decide from the evidence before me
that a fox may be responsible and look for evidence to confirm
this
So I search the farmyard looking for foxprints. Clearly if I
find some along with a trail of feathers my theory has been
proved by this additional evidence and their is a fox neaby.
But supposing I don't find any foxprints? Well my theory has
been weakened as there should clearly be prints in the fresh
mud. If instead I find human prints along with a trail of feathers
then clearly a human thief has been in the night and my theory
was wrong.
Though my theory turned out to be wrong it was a valid theory
based on the initial evidence and it still remains a valid theory
even though in this instance it has been proved wrong. Unlike
1 above a theory is not a conclusion or proof but a logical
explanation of the evidence before me. It was quite logical to
think a fox might have been responsible therefore it was a valid
theory.
Lets assume on the other hand I had decided that it was possible
that the chickens had decided to escape by first making the
hole but had then had a fight to decide which one would go
first? Clearly this would not be a valid theory as chickens do
not have the intelligence or ability to make such a hole nor
would they likely fight one another to get out.
So a theory has to be a reasonable explanation of the evidence.
It demands further investigation and can be either proven right by
further evidence to confirm it or further evidence to disprove it. On
the other hand the farmer who jumped to the belief it was a fox
without seeling evidence remains in ignorance of what actually
happened
So which approach is the more sensible one? Investigation of
a theory formed from the evidence or a jumped to belief from
ignorance? Is is a case of Sherlock Holmes v inspector LeStrade?
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Greetings form America. This has what to do with atheism?
Good question, I was expecting it.
Belief and theory is usually central to discussions here on
this newsgroup. Both topics come up in almost every post.
I thought it therefore it might be a good idea to compare them
to see which is the better approach to understanding our world.
Do we jump to instant conclusions or belief and go blithly in for
breakfast without bothering to look for evidence or so we go
out and take the trouble to seek knowledge and the truth?
What *specifically* has that to do with atheism?
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Belief or assumption V theory |
06 Dec 2004 11:29:44 AM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ND_sd.2618$0r.1702@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:vmq8r0tgr8the9a401723819uq7656sc60@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:20:07 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:ga88r0h0p1lmb3s64h24oohithbjbl0n9h@4ax.com...
Why is a theoretical approach more sensible than jumping
to an instant conclusion or belief?
Lets assume I am a farmer and hear a commotion during the
night. The following morning I investigate and find a large hole
in the my chicken coup, lots of feathers all over the place and
no chickens or perhaps just a few dead ones.
I could either
1. Conclude a fox was responsible and go back inside for
my breakfast in the firm belief that a fox was in the area
or
2. Think about it and decide from the evidence before me
that a fox may be responsible and look for evidence to confirm
this
So I search the farmyard looking for foxprints. Clearly if I
find some along with a trail of feathers my theory has been
proved by this additional evidence and their is a fox neaby.
But supposing I don't find any foxprints? Well my theory has
been weakened as there should clearly be prints in the fresh
mud. If instead I find human prints along with a trail of feathers
then clearly a human thief has been in the night and my theory
was wrong.
Though my theory turned out to be wrong it was a valid theory
based on the initial evidence and it still remains a valid theory
even though in this instance it has been proved wrong. Unlike
1 above a theory is not a conclusion or proof but a logical
explanation of the evidence before me. It was quite logical to
think a fox might have been responsible therefore it was a valid
theory.
Lets assume on the other hand I had decided that it was possible
that the chickens had decided to escape by first making the
hole but had then had a fight to decide which one would go
first? Clearly this would not be a valid theory as chickens do
not have the intelligence or ability to make such a hole nor
would they likely fight one another to get out.
So a theory has to be a reasonable explanation of the evidence.
It demands further investigation and can be either proven right by
further evidence to confirm it or further evidence to disprove it. On
the other hand the farmer who jumped to the belief it was a fox
without seeling evidence remains in ignorance of what actually
happened
So which approach is the more sensible one? Investigation of
a theory formed from the evidence or a jumped to belief from
ignorance? Is is a case of Sherlock Holmes v inspector LeStrade?
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Greetings form America. This has what to do with atheism?
Good question, I was expecting it.
Belief and theory is usually central to discussions here on
this newsgroup. Both topics come up in almost every post.
I thought it therefore it might be a good idea to compare them
to see which is the better approach to understanding our world.
Do we jump to instant conclusions or belief and go blithly in for
breakfast without bothering to look for evidence or so we go
out and take the trouble to seek knowledge and the truth?
What *specifically* has that to do with atheism?
Oh, come on. Reading this group, one gets a lot of requests from atheists
for evidence concerning the claims of theists. This is clearly a message
dealing with the subject of evidence, and is thus on topic.
Well, both courses of action are based upon evidence because the missing
chickens and chickenhouse damage constitutes an observation, but one path is
more stringent, one is more concerned with accuracy. The problem with
comparing this to claims of gods is that the theists really have no
equivalent observation to the missing chickens and damaged chickenhouse.
They don't really have an observation that needs explaining. They claim that
the universe needs an explanation, but fail to point out why.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Belief or assumption V theory |
06 Dec 2004 07:45:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:29:44 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ND_sd.2618$0r.1702@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:vmq8r0tgr8the9a401723819uq7656sc60@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:20:07 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:ga88r0h0p1lmb3s64h24oohithbjbl0n9h@4ax.com...
Why is a theoretical approach more sensible than jumping
to an instant conclusion or belief?
Lets assume I am a farmer and hear a commotion during the
night. The following morning I investigate and find a large hole
in the my chicken coup, lots of feathers all over the place and
no chickens or perhaps just a few dead ones.
I could either
1. Conclude a fox was responsible and go back inside for
my breakfast in the firm belief that a fox was in the area
or
2. Think about it and decide from the evidence before me
that a fox may be responsible and look for evidence to confirm
this
So I search the farmyard looking for foxprints. Clearly if I
find some along with a trail of feathers my theory has been
proved by this additional evidence and their is a fox neaby.
But supposing I don't find any foxprints? Well my theory has
been weakened as there should clearly be prints in the fresh
mud. If instead I find human prints along with a trail of feathers
then clearly a human thief has been in the night and my theory
was wrong.
Though my theory turned out to be wrong it was a valid theory
based on the initial evidence and it still remains a valid theory
even though in this instance it has been proved wrong. Unlike
1 above a theory is not a conclusion or proof but a logical
explanation of the evidence before me. It was quite logical to
think a fox might have been responsible therefore it was a valid
theory.
Lets assume on the other hand I had decided that it was possible
that the chickens had decided to escape by first making the
hole but had then had a fight to decide which one would go
first? Clearly this would not be a valid theory as chickens do
not have the intelligence or ability to make such a hole nor
would they likely fight one another to get out.
So a theory has to be a reasonable explanation of the evidence.
It demands further investigation and can be either proven right by
further evidence to confirm it or further evidence to disprove it. On
the other hand the farmer who jumped to the belief it was a fox
without seeling evidence remains in ignorance of what actually
happened
So which approach is the more sensible one? Investigation of
a theory formed from the evidence or a jumped to belief from
ignorance? Is is a case of Sherlock Holmes v inspector LeStrade?
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Greetings form America. This has what to do with atheism?
Good question, I was expecting it.
Belief and theory is usually central to discussions here on
this newsgroup. Both topics come up in almost every post.
I thought it therefore it might be a good idea to compare them
to see which is the better approach to understanding our world.
Do we jump to instant conclusions or belief and go blithly in for
breakfast without bothering to look for evidence or so we go
out and take the trouble to seek knowledge and the truth?
What *specifically* has that to do with atheism?
Oh, come on. Reading this group, one gets a lot of requests from atheists
for evidence concerning the claims of theists. This is clearly a message
dealing with the subject of evidence, and is thus on topic.
Well, both courses of action are based upon evidence because the missing
chickens and chickenhouse damage constitutes an observation, but one path is
more stringent, one is more concerned with accuracy. The problem with
comparing this to claims of gods is that the theists really have no
equivalent observation to the missing chickens and damaged chickenhouse.
Nor, one might add, have they ever managed to produce any evidence for
the existence of foxes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Belief or assumption V theory |
07 Dec 2004 04:45:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 01:45:25 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:29:44 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ND_sd.2618$0r.1702@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:vmq8r0tgr8the9a401723819uq7656sc60@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:20:07 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:ga88r0h0p1lmb3s64h24oohithbjbl0n9h@4ax.com...
Why is a theoretical approach more sensible than jumping
to an instant conclusion or belief?
Lets assume I am a farmer and hear a commotion during the
night. The following morning I investigate and find a large hole
in the my chicken coup, lots of feathers all over the place and
no chickens or perhaps just a few dead ones.
I could either
1. Conclude a fox was responsible and go back inside for
my breakfast in the firm belief that a fox was in the area
or
2. Think about it and decide from the evidence before me
that a fox may be responsible and look for evidence to confirm
this
So I search the farmyard looking for foxprints. Clearly if I
find some along with a trail of feathers my theory has been
proved by this additional evidence and their is a fox neaby.
But supposing I don't find any foxprints? Well my theory has
been weakened as there should clearly be prints in the fresh
mud. If instead I find human prints along with a trail of feathers
then clearly a human thief has been in the night and my theory
was wrong.
Though my theory turned out to be wrong it was a valid theory
based on the initial evidence and it still remains a valid theory
even though in this instance it has been proved wrong. Unlike
1 above a theory is not a conclusion or proof but a logical
explanation of the evidence before me. It was quite logical to
think a fox might have been responsible therefore it was a valid
theory.
Lets assume on the other hand I had decided that it was possible
that the chickens had decided to escape by first making the
hole but had then had a fight to decide which one would go
first? Clearly this would not be a valid theory as chickens do
not have the intelligence or ability to make such a hole nor
would they likely fight one another to get out.
So a theory has to be a reasonable explanation of the evidence.
It demands further investigation and can be either proven right by
further evidence to confirm it or further evidence to disprove it. On
the other hand the farmer who jumped to the belief it was a fox
without seeling evidence remains in ignorance of what actually
happened
So which approach is the more sensible one? Investigation of
a theory formed from the evidence or a jumped to belief from
ignorance? Is is a case of Sherlock Holmes v inspector LeStrade?
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Greetings form America. This has what to do with atheism?
Good question, I was expecting it.
Belief and theory is usually central to discussions here on
this newsgroup. Both topics come up in almost every post.
I thought it therefore it might be a good idea to compare them
to see which is the better approach to understanding our world.
Do we jump to instant conclusions or belief and go blithly in for
breakfast without bothering to look for evidence or so we go
out and take the trouble to seek knowledge and the truth?
What *specifically* has that to do with atheism?
Oh, come on. Reading this group, one gets a lot of requests from atheists
for evidence concerning the claims of theists. This is clearly a message
dealing with the subject of evidence, and is thus on topic.
Well, both courses of action are based upon evidence because the missing
chickens and chickenhouse damage constitutes an observation, but one path is
more stringent, one is more concerned with accuracy. The problem with
comparing this to claims of gods is that the theists really have no
equivalent observation to the missing chickens and damaged chickenhouse.
Nor, one might add, have they ever managed to produce any evidence for
the existence of foxes.
Not in this isolated instance no. One did not even try, he jumped
to a belief.
The point of my original post is not that one approach is 'more
accurate' but that forming theories rather than jumping to a belief
is more likely to explain the evidence eventually so a correct
conclusion can be formed
This is the major difference between science and theology. Theology
jumps to a conclusion and then refuses to budge from that conclusion,
whilst the scientific approach is to look at the evidence and then
form a hypothesis to explain it. A further search is conducted to look
for proof of this hypothesis just as farmer 2 did above
Thus theologists used to see rainbows and concluded "Miracle of god
which shows his divine presence, he is reminding us of the flood"
Yes this is what they believed prior to the 13th C. Roger Bacon
decided to study light, following on from his teacher and eventually
managed to shock his pupils by demonstrating how to make a
rainbow. Naturally the theologist or believers did not like their
dogma being challenged like so he went to prison for ten years
for his heresy. Does anybody still believe rainbows show gods
divine presence or that they are miracles?
There are two ways to to prove or demonstrate something exists:
1 Evidence OF something:
This is something you can point to and say - "Look thats X"
Thus you can hear the characteristic song of a blackbird and
say there is a blackbird outside, or, perhaps see a foxes
footprints (and know what a foxes footprint looks like). To date
we have discovered no way to directly observe Gravity.
2 Evidence FOR something
Some evidence that infers the existence of something
Thus: If X then Y
Thus an apple falls from which I conclude there is some
force which we call "Gravity" to make it fall.
Thus both farmers observed their chicken Coop and
inferred "A thief". One jumped to the conclusion that a 'fox'
was the thief the other investigated
If somebody claims the existence of X but has no evidence
OF X and no evidence FOR X that he can present to show
this how can he know this X exists? He must have invented this
X and therefore X does not exist.
Unicorns, tooth faries, and other magic pixies fall into
this category for none of the claimers of these phenomena
have been able to point to either type of evidence and tell
us that this is how they know X exists so clearly they must be
pure invention and hence false.
But what of a 'god' or a creator?
There is no evidence OF a god, none whatsover but theologist
claim evidence FOR god.
Just as the farmer saw a chicken coop and said "A fox"
so the theists observe mankind and conclude "there must be a
creator" and refuse to consider any alternate option.
Science does not jump to such irrational beliefs which may
be wrong (just as farmer 1 was wrong) . It sees the evidence
and looks for a hypothesis that makes sense of the evidence and
then tries to form a theory how how we became man.
Certainly a theory that "Man was created by an intelligence, hence
a creator" is a valid hypothesis of the evidence as it does make
sense of the evidence but it is seriously flawed as a proof
because all it does is add further evidence which also needs
explaining. All this hypothesis has done is replace one piece of
evidence 'man' with another 'a creator' leaving us with the problem
how do we explain the creator - oh no problem - the creator was
created by an intelligeng being hence a creator creator. but
how do we explain the creator creator.. ad inf.
This theory is not the only theory though, the chickens were not
necessarily stolen by a fox, there is another possible explanation
which also needs elimination or proof. That explanation is that
mankind evolved from simpler life. Again this is a perfectly valid
theory from the evidence but like the above theory is not proof.
Science has not jumped to a conclusion "Evolution" but offered
instead a possible explanation.
Of course once evolution has been established, and it has not
been yet all we have done is replace one item of evidence 'man'
with 'simple life' and this 'simple life' has to be simple enough to
come into existence without a guiding hand and yet have the
mechanism to be able to evolve. This is a very tall order indeed.
We have yet to come up with a hypothesis to explain that let alone
provide evidence to prove it and until we do we cannot entirely
eliminate the 'created by an intelligence' idea.
One thing is certain. If we do eventually demonstrate that simple
life can begin naturally and without a guiding hand, all of religion
will collapse faster than the Twin Towers. The religious know this
that is why they fear it and seek to undermine and stop it. They
cannot. Whatever they say, no matter how much they will try to
burn our science books, no matter how many scientists they
imprison or excommunicate, the search for the truth will continue
and religion will be brought down. That happy religious
armageddon will not come in my time but I am fairly certain
it will come some day.
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Belief or assumption V theory |
07 Dec 2004 03:17:24 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
as expecting it.
Belief and theory is usually central to discussions here on
this newsgroup. Both topics come up in almost every post.
I thought it therefore it might be a good idea to compare them
to see which is the better approach to understanding our world.
Do we jump to instant conclusions or belief and go blithly in for
breakfast without bothering to look for evidence or so we go
out and take the trouble to seek knowledge and the truth?
What *specifically* has that to do with atheism?
Oh, come on. Reading this group, one gets a lot of requests from atheists
for evidence concerning the claims of theists. This is clearly a message
dealing with the subject of evidence, and is thus on topic.
Well, both courses of action are based upon evidence because the missing
chickens and chickenhouse damage constitutes an observation, but one path
is more stringent, one is more concerned with accuracy. The problem with
comparing this to claims of gods is that the theists really have no
equivalent observation to the missing chickens and damaged chickenhouse.
Nor, one might add, have they ever managed to produce any evidence for
the existence of foxes.
The problem is with religion its sort of like immediately jumping
to the conclusion Satan stole your chickens, or devils.
One then ignores the coyote tracks and coyote droppings
with the chicken bones in them found around the area.
And then wasting time with the OT looking for passages that can be
tortured into a 'prophecy' of stolen chickens to convince the faithful
and confound the sceptics.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: AA AQOTM nomination: was Re: Belief or assumption V theory |
07 Dec 2004 09:40:53 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
I think this would make a good addition to our list of notable
passages.
(begin nomination)
The problem is with religion its sort of like immediately jumping
to the conclusion Satan stole your chickens, or devils.
One then ignores the coyote tracks and coyote droppings
with the chicken bones in them found around the area.
And then wasting time with the OT looking for passages that can be
tortured into a 'prophecy' of stolen chickens to convince the faithful
and confound the sceptics.
(end nomination)
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AA AQOTM nomination: was Re: Belief or assumption V theory |
07 Dec 2004 10:14:37 AM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
I think this would make a good addition to our list of notable
passages.
(begin nomination)
The problem is with religion its sort of like immediately jumping
to the conclusion Satan stole your chickens, or devils.
One then ignores the coyote tracks and coyote droppings
with the chicken bones in them found around the area.
And then wasting time with the OT looking for passages that can be
tortured into a 'prophecy' of stolen chickens to convince the faithful
and confound the sceptics.
(end nomination)
second
---
eggs@nospam
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, off his meds again? |
07 Dec 2004 03:03:42 PM |
|
|
In article <NFktd.151872$V41.35012@attbi_s52>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods
Not according to Thomas Huxley, who shold know, as he coined the word
"aganotic".
According to Huxley, it is not religious beliefs which are to be denied
out of hand, but the claim even when when made by clerics that that
certain things ought to be believed without any objective evidence.
Further, Huxley repudiated all claims anywhere, religiously connected or
not, that anyone ought to believe any statement without evidence.
Agnostics, go one step further than others to deny and repudiate
equally, on principle, claims of knowledge of either the existence OR
the impossibility of gods:
Thomas Huxley, from "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1899
"This principle may be stated in various ways,
but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to
say that he is certain of the objective truth of any
proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically
justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts;
and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.
That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the
contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men
ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence."
Now where in that statement does anythiing about religion appear?
It doesn't, so that Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, is seeing things
that aren't there again. Probably off his meds!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: AA AQOTM nomination: was Re: Belief or assumption V theory |
14 Dec 2004 05:39:02 AM |
|
|
In article <NFktd.151872$V41.35012@attbi_s52>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
I think this would make a good addition to our list of notable
passages.
(begin nomination)
The problem is with religion its sort of like immediately jumping
to the conclusion Satan stole your chickens, or devils.
One then ignores the coyote tracks and coyote droppings
with the chicken bones in them found around the area.
And then wasting time with the OT looking for passages that can be
tortured into a 'prophecy' of stolen chickens to convince the faithful
and confound the sceptics.
(end nomination)
second
Recorded.
---
eggs@nospam
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
