Increasing Number of Atheists

Post Reply New Topic

When it comes to phenomenon that is experienced and cannot be physically measured; personal observation and subjective measurement becomes a personal tool of evidence. In this case it's all we currently have to rely on to navigate our way through life.

Science does suggest that our experiences and sensitivities to our environment vary as human beings, so while it is reasonable to suggest that some phenomenon do not exist in our personal experience, it is not reasonable to suggest that others don't experience phenomenon that is real, because others of us may simply not have the same human ability to experience the phenomenon.

I don't see a problem with stating there is no scientific physical evidence for phenomenon that can't be physically measured, but stating categorically that phenomenon doesn't exist, when we may not have the same ability to experience that phenomenon as others, is not accepting of the scientific fact that human beings are extremely diverse in their sensory and cognitive abilities, and the picture we are seeing of reality may be a smaller one than others.

A sufficiently-sound argument is proof, but only in a philosophical sense. In a more practical sense, a mere argument proves nothing, especially when countered with an opposing factual demonstration.

It's also a wild leap to go from "Evolution makes no sense to me" to "Intelligent design" - to do so is to commit the fallacy of Appeal to Incredulity, which occurs when someone simply can't believe a claim and declares that claim to be false based solely on their incredulity or disbelief.

"I can't believe evolution to be true, so there must be an intelligent designer!" is an example of this fallacy.

On the other hand it makes perfectly good sense to deny the existence of an entity if the nature of that entity contradicts established fact or well established physical laws. It would take an awful lot of evidence to convince me of the existence of an entity whose nature is such as to violate the conservation of energy or the conservation of momentum or the second law of thermodynamics.

ruveyn

There is also the idea that if the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from the non-existence of the same thing, then it can be said that the thing in question does not exist.

More accurately: It might as well not exist. I have in mind the aether which is a visco-elastic substance that fills all of space and supports transverse vibrations in the electromagnetic field (i.e. light or electromagnetic radiation). The 19th century physicists figure that if light is a vibration there must be something that vibrates, hence aether. But aether has never been detected by physical means and if you accept the Lorentz contraction it CANNOT be detected by physical means. So for all practical purposes, it does not exist.

ruveyn

I think evolution is true, but I think the process was probably began by some kind of designer. The theory of evolution has a lot to back it up evidence-wise; the idea the Universe is a product of randomness has no more evidence than the design theory.

Just because a system looks designed does not mean it was designed. The order in nature is the result of some underlying regularities which could have shaken out of the Big Bang.

ruveyn

It doesn't mean it was, but it doesn't mean it wasn't. The watchmaker design isn't a proof of God, but it is arguably an evidence.

no not when you take the way the universe and it's laws play out into account, that would actually make the look you see around you a neccesity in many cases and not "complexity for complexities sake"

I agree, I've always been extremely skeptical of anything that defied what I understood as my paradigm of reality, that was strongly influenced by science. The research of late, though, confirms some of the objective measurable behavior in others, I have personally witnessed, that defies my personal understanding of our abilities as humans to communicate and perceive reality.

If I had not personally witnessed some of the phenomenon in others, I'm quite sure my level of skepticism would merit a higher threshold of evidence. It may too be, that since I have witnessed some of the phenomenon, I am paying closer evidence to the results of research than some others are.

Specifically, anamalous cognition; the scientific evidence presented that the phenomenon can be reliably demonstrated, is consistent in the behavior in others that I have observed that I could not logically explain.

I am extremely interested in the whys of the phenomenon, rather than the ifs, at this point, because I am personally satisfied that the if has been scientifically satisfied, now that I am aware of the scientific evidence that Fnord, apparently, unwittingly provided in another thread.

The evidence provided so far this year didn't convince me because it wasn't replicated, but I had no idea that it had been replicated and independently reviewed as real phenomenon over the course of 20 years, in government related research. The behavior I have observed, is no more groundbreaking than the anamalous cognition phenomenon that has been reliably demonstrated.

In my personal opinion the real phenomenon of anamalous cognition that can be reliably scientifically demonstrated may be at the root of much of what is considered religious experience, just as a disabled child may have been at the root of the cultural development of an elf and a rhinoceros may be at the root of the cultural development of a unicorn.

Embellishment apparently has played a part in all three cultural developments, but a core of physical reality may be at the root of religion, elves, and unicorns.

What theory do you think means "the Universe being a product of randomness"?

Lack of strictly deterministic laws comes from quantum physics. Quantum theory gives us the odds.

ruveyn

But it doesn't matter.

Ocam's razor is a fallacy, but the reason we use Ocam's razor is not only that the simplest theory that fits the evidence tends to be the correct one or at least the least wrong. But also that it helps us to avoid believing in crap.

Just because we haven't looked through every corner of the universe for evidence of demonic possessed deers it does not mean we should worry about them. What science teaches us is that if there is a god, its effect on universe is so little that we have not found any of it yet and thus it is pointless to worry about it. Just like it is pointless to worry about elves and unicorns or dragons.



Maybe there is evidence for a unicorn. Hiding somewhere in just a remote island of earth. But until that evidence is found, we have no reason to care about unicorns.


Indeterminism means we cannot measure things. The probability is what we put in place as a tool to be able to estimate results because we cannot measure the true values.

I mean, the universe is a product of its laws. And its laws include probability. But that is not the same as saying the universe is a random product. At the end things like gravity work out regardless of the quantum variations and there are still laws.

I say this because it prevents the pseudoscientific argument of calculating the chance of this universe to exist, then show that it is very small and thus it "could not be produced by chance"-

Nonsense. Even if we can 'search any corner of the Universe', there simply isn't any falsifiable theory of god to tell us what to look FOR.

People are getting more enlightened.

It occurs to me that the number of a group as indicative of cultural change is not nearly so important as the percentage of a total.

So what if there's an increasing number of atheists?
There's an increasing number of people, a huge one, and we know religious ones have far more children than do skeptics, and rarely if ever reject their childhood indoctrinations.