LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

View Poll Results: You are a...
firm believer 168 28.82%
Deist 18 3.09%
Theist 23 3.95%
Agnostic 120 20.58%
Atheist 254 43.57%
Voters: 583. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-24-2009, 06:23 AM   #856
jiml8
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,171

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quakeboy02 View Post
Let's review this again:


I suggest that you are being deliberately obtuse and selective in your response. Give me an answer, *in specific*, where a scientific theory is based on the "<make unfounded assertion> Prove me wrong" paradigm.
All scientific theories are based on that paradigm. "Unfounded" is too strong an assertion; the flat-earther might make the statement that "I know the earth is flat because I can see it is flat. My farm field is flat. It is only the forests over there and the mountains over there that obstruct my view so that I cannot see for a much greater distance. When I go to the ocean I can only see as far as I see because of haze in the atmosphere that prevents me from seeing further."

In this case, the flat earther has put forth a hypothesis based upon the facts he knows and his interpretation. The refutation consists of showing him how his facts are incomplete and how a greater set of facts demonstrates that the earth cannot be flat.
 
Old 02-24-2009, 05:16 PM   #857
easuter
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Portugal
Distribution: Slackware64 13.0, Slackware64 13.1
Posts: 538

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiml8 View Post
All scientific theories are based on that paradigm. "Unfounded" is too strong an assertion; the flat-earther might make the statement that "I know the earth is flat because I can see it is flat. My farm field is flat. It is only the forests over there and the mountains over there that obstruct my view so that I cannot see for a much greater distance. When I go to the ocean I can only see as far as I see because of haze in the atmosphere that prevents me from seeing further."

In this case, the flat earther has put forth a hypothesis based upon the facts he knows and his interpretation. The refutation consists of showing him how his facts are incomplete and how a greater set of facts demonstrates that the earth cannot be flat.
The case you cite is an earnest mistake that the "flat-earther" made.

However, the "prove me wrong" paradigm should never be used by the religious unless they have something concrete to offer to begin with!
Religious sorts make the most outrageous claims based on flimsy "evidence" or no evidence at all, but its somehow the responsibility of the naysayers have to "prove them wrong" every time?

We could easily play the same game with chimps and type-writers.
I'm going to claim that 1000 chimps working day and night on 1000 type-writers will be able to reproduce Camões' masterpiece Os Lusíadas.
You, the skeptic then come along and cry "hey, that's bullshit!". And I then say: "PROVE ME WRONG!!"
Even though I made the positive claim, you then run along and get a grant (from god knows where) to try to prove me wrong.

While you conduct your study, I the bullshitter, continue to preach to the world that its a known fact that 1000 chimps can reproduce one of the greatest collections of poetry in Portuguese literature.
Even though I have no evidence for my claim, you haven't proven me wrong, so by default I must be right!!

Later on, you present your evidence that I am wrong. But instead of backing down, I will simply shift the goalposts and say:
"Oh right, but I really meant to say 10000 chimps, not 1000. So now prove to me that 10000 chimps can't do it!"
And this can simply go on for all eternity.

Trying to prove someone's theory wrong only works if that theory had its origin in some actual tangible evidence to begin with, and if that person is willing to change their mind if their theory has been torn to shreds by independent review.

And this is why the goddamned burden of proof lies on the Christian, Muslim, or whatever. I dont want some anecdotal sob-stories, I demand tangible evidence to work with. An excellent example of this would be an amputee having his/her limbs restored after prayer. And this would have to be consistently observable: amputee has faith --> amputee prays to god --> limbs are restored.

But instead all we are given is subjective untestable and many times completely false "evidence" to work with, which would only lead to wasted time that could be better spent on real research.
 
Old 02-24-2009, 05:48 PM   #858
mostlyharmless
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 (multilib) with kernel 3.15.5
Posts: 1,550
Blog Entries: 12

Rep: Reputation: 177Reputation: 177
(1) easuter: I think the point has been made any number of times in this ridiculously long thread that it's not about evidence, it's about faith, for the faithful, and about evidence for those who don't have faith. "...and ne'er the twain shall meet."

(2) I can't believe this thread is still going and that I'm helping perpetuate it.
 
Old 02-24-2009, 05:48 PM   #859
jiml8
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,171

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
Quote:
However, the "prove me wrong" paradigm should never be used by the religious unless they have something concrete to offer to begin with!
Religious sorts make the most outrageous claims based on flimsy "evidence" or no evidence at all, but its somehow the responsibility of the naysayers have to "prove them wrong" every time?
No, it isn't.

Anyone who understands science understands that the claims for creationism do not satisfy the basic tests of a scientific theory - the most important of which is "falsifiability".

Creationism, or ID, or whatever the name du jour is, is not a theory because it cannot be falsified. Any aspect of it that does not agree with established evidence is waved away with "God made it that way". Now perhaps this is literally true. Perhaps God waved his hands, or nodded his head, and POOF the universe sprang into existence, already old, with fossils in place and light enroute from distant points. But if this IS true, then we'll never prove it (at least, not through science) because God The Deceiver has hidden his tracks perfectly. And, even if this is literally true, then the effect is as if it is not true at all because the history - which was also created - denies it.

My point was a narrower one than that; I was responding to a post where the poster implied it was absurd to put up a theory and say "prove me wrong", when in fact this is exactly what science does, and this is exactly how science works.
 
Old 02-24-2009, 06:38 PM   #860
Quakeboy02
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: Debian Squeeze 2.6.32.9 SMP AMD64
Posts: 3,245

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
Quote:
My point was a narrower one than that; I was responding to a post where the poster implied it was absurd to put up a theory and say "prove me wrong", when in fact this is exactly what science does, and this is exactly how science works.
If you're referring to my post, I made no such statement. Here is what I said. Note the use of the word "assertion".
Quote:
It is categorical. If you make an assertion in any endeavor, then it is up to you to prove it. It is nonsensical to make statements of the order "The earth is flat. Prove me wrong".
 
Old 05-18-2009, 09:59 AM   #861
newbiesforever
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2006
Location: Glendale, AZ
Distribution: Distro-homeless. Lost.
Posts: 1,875

Rep: Reputation: 62
I can't believe anyone answered this poll thread. They must enjoy the thought of being flamed, because even if they didn't, posting was like wearing a "please flame me" sign. And "rank your religiousness"? That's obviously a private matter. Anyone who would publicly rate themselves very religious might be like those people whom Christ said seek public esteem by trumpeting their religiousness.
 
Old 05-18-2009, 10:57 AM   #862
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64-bit with multilib
Posts: 2,076

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Actually it goes both ways, atheists and agnostics can be ridiculed just as much, and actually this thread could have been closed a long time ago, but has not because there was actual intelligent discussions and points of view from all sides, why else do you think the thread even lasted as long as it did?

A little friendly and interesting debate/discussion on LQ is always nice, and the users here all have contributed to this thread. To me LQ is a great place to hold other types of discussions, and the users here are living proof that can be done, without any real flaming.
 
Old 05-18-2009, 12:53 PM   #863
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Lubuntu
Posts: 19,176
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430
What Jeebizz said. If this thread had gone wrong, it would have safely disposed of in the receptacle provided. As it is, it has been polite and somewhat informative. In short, it has followed the rules.

A mature conversation about beliefs is possible and this thread goes a long way to showing that.
 
Old 05-19-2009, 12:41 AM   #864
yonnieboy
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: sw OR
Distribution: LMDE, PCLOS, Bodhi, Antix
Posts: 100

Rep: Reputation: 15
hmmm, does the concept of 'peer review' have any meaning here? Usually you right up a theory, post some really good arguments to support it, and then have your peers test it.
 
Old 05-19-2009, 01:49 AM   #865
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 130Reputation: 130
Who cares about peer reviews? They are only an interchange between (as a rule) blokes who are vying to get their head the furthest up their ass. Like this whole LHC thing over here in Europe. All designed by peers, all paid by the likes of us lesser mortals. No reviews by us lesser mortals, though. And then the thing has so far failed to even start up. So how about the social or ethical dimensions? Less relevant than the testosterone driven frolics of a bunch of peers?

Now you test my arguments ; D

Last edited by jay73; 05-19-2009 at 01:50 AM.
 
Old 05-19-2009, 01:52 AM   #866
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Lubuntu
Posts: 19,176
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430
This is a forum, not a place of scientificy stuff. We're having a conversation, not presenting to a panel of experts. As to the LHC, it's not a space laser, therefore it has no significance
 
Old 05-19-2009, 02:03 AM   #867
Ajit Gunge
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: Pune
Distribution: RHEL,fedora
Posts: 253
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 21
Just to take this discussion to a lighter side

Two little boys, ages 8 and 10, are extremely mischievous. They are
always getting into trouble and their parents know all about it. If any
mischief occurs in their town, the two boys are probably involved. The
boys' mother heard that a preacher in town had been successful in
disciplining children, so she asked if he would speak with her boys. The
preacher agreed, but he asked to see them individually.
So the mother sent the 8 year old first, in the morning, with the older boy
to see the preacher in the afternoon.
The preacher, a huge man with a booming voice, sat the younger boy down and
asked him sternly,
"Do you know where God is, son?"
The boy's mouth dropped open, but he made no response, sitting there
wide-eyed with his mouth hanging open.

So the preacher repeated the question in an even
sterner tone, "Where is God?!"
Again, the boy made no attempt to answer. The preacher
raised his voice even more and shook his finger in the boy's face and
bellowed,
"Where is God?!"
The boy screamed and bolted from the room, ran directly home and dove into
his closet, slamming the door behind him.When his older brother found him
in the closet, he asked, "what happened?"
The younger brother, gasping for breath, replied, "We
are in BIG trouble this time.







........scroll down........ ......... ...







("I really LOVED reading next line again and again")




............ ..scroll down........ ......... ..




............ ......... ......... ..




............ ......... ......







............ ........







............ ....







.......







....







....




.... GOD is missing, and they think we did it!!!!!!!!!! !!!!



Ajit
 
Old 05-19-2009, 05:12 AM   #868
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,049
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Very good
 
Old 05-19-2009, 06:46 PM   #869
SilversleevesX
Member
 
Registered: May 2009
Posts: 181
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 15
bakunin and shaw speak for me.

(Quotes recalled from faulty memory - inaccuracies likely)

"A Boss in Heaven is a perfect excuse for a boss on earth; therefore, if God did exist, he would have to be abolished." -MB

"If the Crucifixion could be proved a myth, and Christ accused of nothing more than dying of old age in comfortable circumstances, I believe Christianity would lose the great majority of its adherents." -GBS


And I sign myself,

BZT

@mostlyharmless -- Stand out in any Stanley lately?
 
Old 05-20-2009, 07:48 AM   #870
easuter
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Portugal
Distribution: Slackware64 13.0, Slackware64 13.1
Posts: 538

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73
No reviews by us lesser mortals, though.
I wasn't aware that you were a physicist.
What is it exactly about the LHC would you have liked to review"?
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 06:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 01:28 PM
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 9 02-13-2003 02:37 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration