LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
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 206 29.90%
Deist 21 3.05%
Theist 26 3.77%
Agnostic 135 19.59%
Atheist 301 43.69%
Voters: 689. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 06-28-2019, 03:32 AM   #8416
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,434

Rep: Reputation: 273Reputation: 273Reputation: 273

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntubski View Post
You guys are just using different definitions for "prove". Honestly, I've already explained this, like 100 pages ago
Honestly, I'm not.

Anyone who claims that a scientific theory is even meant to be proven has all definitions wrong.
How else can contradictory theories exist on the same subject?

Scientific theories are based on facts and NOT the other way around.

Example: The "historicity of Jesus".
*Bart d'Ehrman has a peer reviewed "scientific theory" stating there was a Jesus of Nazareth.
*Richard Carrier has a peer reviewed "scientific theory" stating it was all a myth.

Both are only using proven facts while it's impossible for both theories to be correct.

Last edited by jens; 06-28-2019 at 03:43 AM.
 
Old 06-28-2019, 05:43 AM   #8417
Philip Lacroix
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Distribution: Slackware, BSD
Posts: 422

Rep: Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539
@enorbet - Thanks. Regarding the confirmation or falsification of theories, I like how general relativity allowed the team of researchers at the EHT Collaboration to predict, with a surprising accuracy, the shape of the M87 supermassive black hole's shadow, before the data were actually processed. In turn, the data confirmed the validity of general relativity even in such extreme conditions, while some alternative teories of gravity could be ruled out, as they predicted a different geometry for the shadow. Of course the whole process was complex and demanding, as a look at the published papers suggests, but IMHO this is Science at its best.

By the way, the EHT press conference from the European Council (Apr 10, 2019) is still available, and definitely worth watching:

Breakthrough discovery in astronomy: first ever image of a black hole
 
Old 06-28-2019, 06:10 AM   #8418
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,434

Rep: Reputation: 273Reputation: 273Reputation: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix View Post

Oh. I should check my atheism then.
Indeed.
 
Old 06-28-2019, 06:53 AM   #8419
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,509

Rep: Reputation: 1811Reputation: 1811Reputation: 1811Reputation: 1811Reputation: 1811Reputation: 1811Reputation: 1811Reputation: 1811Reputation: 1811Reputation: 1811Reputation: 1811
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens View Post
Quote:
You guys are just using different definitions for "prove".
Honestly, I'm not.

Anyone who claims that a scientific theory is even meant to be proven has all definitions wrong.
"Wrong" - "different", "potayto" - "potahto".

Quote:
Scientific theories are based on facts and NOT the other way around.
Sure, but often theories are needed to interpret the facts. For example, people used to think that the stars were a lot closer and/or larger than we do now, because they didn't know about the Airy disk phenomenom. And then the "fact" of the stars' distance + no observable parallax was seen as evidence against Heliocentric models.
 
Old 06-28-2019, 08:52 AM   #8420
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,852
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312
Arrow

I'm still waiting to hear religions-explanations(/military-intelligence :oxymorons) on why their "gods" or whatever insist on us pooping? I could do without...

Last edited by jamison20000e; 06-28-2019 at 10:10 AM. Reason: spello
 
Old 06-28-2019, 10:06 AM   #8421
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,448

Rep: Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens View Post
Honestly, I'm not.

Anyone who claims that a scientific theory is even meant to be proven has all definitions wrong.
How else can contradictory theories exist on the same subject?

Scientific theories are based on facts and NOT the other way around.

Example: The "historicity of Jesus".
*Bart d'Ehrman has a peer reviewed "scientific theory" stating there was a Jesus of Nazareth.
*Richard Carrier has a peer reviewed "scientific theory" stating it was all a myth.

Both are only using proven facts while it's impossible for both theories to be correct.
Hold on a sec. jens. I mean I'm glad you chose to put scientific theory in quotes but still you are stretching the meaning to worthlessness here, don't you think? First of all just because a "theory" is peer reviewed doesn't automatically give that theory any weight by itself. It just means it has been reviewed by some people considered credible in the field, but even the absolute pinnacle of expertise can only work with the evidence and so far the evidence is beyond scarce, barely reliable and hardly objective regarding the historicity of Jesus and it is extremely likely little new reliable data will ever surface.

From my POV it is a non-issue and worthy of note that Carrier is considered "fringe" at best by his peers.

Those two documents are not in direct conflict nor are they of any remarkable (let alone scientific) value to anyone since it is so unlikely, absent a publicly available time machine, anyone can ever do more than discuss likelihood, another word for "probability". No proof is possible in this.

Bottom Line - It seems we have records from Roman legal documents iirc that a person named "Jesus" did exist around the appropriate time but that's about all we have actual historical records for. The only "scientific" part of Carrier's "theory" has to do with prevailing reliability of almost ALL History from that time and especially given the bent of the time for superstition and mythology.
 
Old 06-28-2019, 10:13 AM   #8422
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,852
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312
1 is not 1
 
Old 06-28-2019, 10:58 AM   #8423
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,448

Rep: Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473Reputation: 2473
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
1 is not 1
jamison20000e, ol' buddy, you do realize that a conversation or debate requires clear, cogent context, right?
 
Old 06-28-2019, 04:41 PM   #8424
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,852
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312
That was just a dig at past posts which you happen to be involved... tho you're right and 1 is not 1.
 
Old 06-28-2019, 05:32 PM   #8425
Philip Lacroix
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Distribution: Slackware, BSD
Posts: 422

Rep: Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
1 is not 1
Regarding the contents of religions that's more or less my view, if I can take your comment as an example of a contradiction. From contradictions, anything follows, which is not good. It seems that approaches such as paraconsistent logic try to limit their unpleasant consequences, but I guess that striving for consistency is still a noble goal, after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jens View Post
Indeed.
My comment was tongue in cheek. I don't see why atheism should imply any degree of certainty (the definitions below might help) or even the denial of (an alleged) belief... in what? On the other hand, I have noticed that your handling of negations has some problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jens View Post
It's simply about the proposition of p, where p means theist (knowing god exist) and -p means atheist (knowing god doesn't exist).
The way you are trying to take that statement and turn it into its negation is wrong. If p is «Bob knows that apples and oranges exist», then ¬p would be «It is not true that Bob knows that apples and oranges exist». It is NOT, as in your example, «Bob knows that apples and oranges don't exist».

Quote:
Originally Posted by jens View Post
claiming Atheism is the lack of belief (instead of the denial of a belief) while it's obviously not. No academic will ever agree with that.
I don't know what kind of academics you are referring to, but let's trust the good old dictionary once again:

Quote:
atheism noun

athe·​ism | \ ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm

1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2 archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness

Source: Merriam Webster
 
Old 06-28-2019, 06:14 PM   #8426
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,852
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312
Don't trust "the dictionary" for too long though, not to mentioned check the definition under stereotype...
 
Old 06-28-2019, 06:29 PM   #8427
Philip Lacroix
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Distribution: Slackware, BSD
Posts: 422

Rep: Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539
But if I trusted the stereotyped definition of atheism I would have to prove that I'm not an atheist. Which would give me a fierce headache.
 
Old 06-28-2019, 07:28 PM   #8428
BW-userx
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Sep 2013
Location: Somewhere in my head.
Distribution: FreeBSD/Slackware-14.2+/ArcoLinux
Posts: 9,146

Rep: Reputation: 1948Reputation: 1948Reputation: 1948Reputation: 1948Reputation: 1948Reputation: 1948Reputation: 1948Reputation: 1948Reputation: 1948Reputation: 1948Reputation: 1948
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntubski View Post
"Wrong" - "different", "potayto" - "potahto".

Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
Quote:
You guys are just using different definitions for "prove".
Honestly, I'm not.

Anyone who claims that a scientific theory is even meant to be proven has all definitions wrong.
Sure, but often theories are needed to interpret the facts. For example, people used to think that the stars were a lot closer and/or larger than we do now, because they didn't know about the Airy disk phenomenom. And then the "fact" of the stars' distance + no observable parallax was seen as evidence against Heliocentric models.
better to try to know your words and what they really mean. or look them up first before using them if needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A dictionary duh
the·o·ry
/ˈTHirē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
plural noun: theories

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.


sup·po·si·tion
/ˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: supposition; plural noun: suppositions
an uncertain belief.

in·de·pend·ent
/ˌindəˈpendənt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: independent

1.
free from outside control; not depending on another's authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntubski
Sure, but often theories are needed to interpret the facts.
theories do not use facts, nor do facts use theories. they are independent of each other.

A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

Last edited by BW-userx; 06-28-2019 at 07:38 PM.
 
Old 06-29-2019, 04:43 AM   #8429
Philip Lacroix
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Distribution: Slackware, BSD
Posts: 422

Rep: Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by BW-userx View Post
theories do not use facts, nor do facts use theories. they are independent of each other.
I'm sorry, but this is plain silly. Perhaps that happens in theology. However, what would scientific theories be about, if they were not based on something? Would they be Platonic (i.e. useless) theories? And what usefulness would they have, if they couldn't help us to interpret and understand new facts, and make predictions? And what would you say about new facts that allowed a theory to be confirmed, or improved, or even falsified?

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Gleiser
Much popular confusion could be avoided if the word theory would be understood within the right context. The often-used trap of exploring the double meaning of the word theory to confuse or willfully misguide popular opinion should only catch those who don't know, or choose to neglect, what theory means within its scientific or subjective context.

Source: Why Is 'Theory' Such A Confusing Word?

Last edited by Philip Lacroix; 06-29-2019 at 05:21 AM.
 
Old 06-29-2019, 06:11 AM   #8430
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,852
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312Reputation: 1312
It was a mathematical Theory that we'd be communicating wirelessly... until that fact came to play.
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, poser, 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
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 16 07-11-2016 01:48 PM
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

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:17 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
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
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration