By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The new Origin Of The Species! Get ready schools....

Kasz216 on 20 September 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
I gave up when he started listing historical scientists who believed in God. Newton believed in alchemy! It doesn't make it true!

Why historical scientists?  I mean you could go with current scientists.

Something like 62% of natual science scientists believe in god. 

Didn't actually watch the video though.

Still doesn't matter. A whole lot of people believing in something doesn't make it true. Emperical evidence is required.

Edit: Basically he was making an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.

It kinda does matter.  Since as you know scientists today make more sense then scientsits back then.

Claiming a need for emperical evidence is interesting considering the debate we just had a week or two back where you were for the Quantum mind theory though... considering its considerably less likely then other consiousness theories and has no emperical backing.

So if 70% of scientists believed little mustaches made them look sexy, then that makes it probable that it is objectively true that little mustaches are sexy, and they would be more correct now than a hundred years ago?

Ones "beliefs" as a scientist does not equate ones work as a scientist in trying to discover objective reality. What the majority of scientists believe does not make them right unless the majority has evidence to back up their claims. If the majority of scientists have a feeling about something that can neither be proven nor disproven as objectively true, then how they feel on a matter is irrelevant. The lay man is equally capable of making assertions based on feelings or beliefs rather than evidence, in which case I can say 80% of people working in meat packing plants believe in god and that has equal validity as a case, because both are coming the conclusions based on the same thing, a combination of culture, childhood indoctrination, emotion, and a feeling that there "has to be more".

I'm saying it makes a better "appeal to authority."   Not that it's nessisairly a great point.

Scientists when they have no proof for a theory one way or another tend to stick with the original theory until they get at least a slight indication leaning one way or another...

and there being a god more or less is this "first hypothisis" on whether there was one or not.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 20 September 2009
stof said:
Can I get a link to that scientist god belief stat Kasz?

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html



Kasz216 on 20 September 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Whenever I hear statistics about scientists I always think two things...

A. That the actual number of scientists that believe in god is significantly lower than the national average within their country.

B. Scientists who belong to a religion will most likely work in a field that is unconnected to their faith and so does not mean they have to compromise on their beliefs.

I would be willing to bet that both of these statements are true.

You would be wrong... well about B.... 59 percent of biologists believe in a god.

A is true.

Like Rath and his "quantum mind" theory.  Scientists stick to the first theory they come up with until there is some proof suggesting it isn't so.  Even when there is no empieracal evidence... and sometimes when there is empierical evidence to the opposite... like Rath's Quantum mind theory... which is actually less likely as it has stuff going against it and no empirical evidence.



dtewi on 20 September 2009

I need to go run around in the angry dome now!

(Saying the reference nets you a cookie)



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you

Rath on 20 September 2009
Kasz216 said:

It kinda does matter.  Since as you know scientists today make more sense then scientsits back then.

Claiming a need for emperical evidence is interesting considering the debate we just had a week or two back where you were for the Quantum mind theory though... considering its considerably less likely then other consiousness theories and has no emperical backing.

 

None of the theories of consciousness have emperical backing. I merely claimed that quantum mind is one hypothesis.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 20 September 2009
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
 

It kinda does matter.  Since as you know scientists today make more sense then scientsits back then.

Claiming a need for emperical evidence is interesting considering the debate we just had a week or two back where you were for the Quantum mind theory though... considering its considerably less likely then other consiousness theories and has no emperical backing.

 

None of the theories of consciousness have emperical backing. I merely claimed that quantum mind is one hypothesis.

How does what you state here differ with people who believe in a god?

Though there is empircal evidence against QMT.



Rath on 20 September 2009
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
 

It kinda does matter.  Since as you know scientists today make more sense then scientsits back then.

Claiming a need for emperical evidence is interesting considering the debate we just had a week or two back where you were for the Quantum mind theory though... considering its considerably less likely then other consiousness theories and has no emperical backing.

 

None of the theories of consciousness have emperical backing. I merely claimed that quantum mind is one hypothesis.

How does what you state here differ with people who believe in a god?

Though there is empircal evidence against QMT.

1). It is possible for quantum mind to be falsified. As such it is a valid scientific hypothesis, god isn't.

2). My belief that it is possibly true (I'm really not convinced) does not make it true any more than the beliefs of these scientists makes god true

3). There are well established scientific theories and scientific facts which contradict the literal interpretation of the bible. While these are not absolute they do seem to weigh the scales ridiculously heavily againts young earth creationism.

Also can you give me that emperical evidence? I'm really interested in the subject.



highwaystar101 on 20 September 2009
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Whenever I hear statistics about scientists I always think two things...

A. That the actual number of scientists that believe in god is significantly lower than the national average within their country.

B. Scientists who belong to a religion will most likely work in a field that is unconnected to their faith and so does not mean they have to compromise on their beliefs.

I would be willing to bet that both of these statements are true.

You would be wrong... well about B.... 59 percent of biologists believe in a god.

A is true.

Like Rath and his "quantum mind" theory.  Scientists stick to the first theory they come up with until there is some proof suggesting it isn't so.  Even when there is no empieracal evidence... and sometimes when there is empierical evidence to the opposite... like Rath's Quantum mind theory... which is actually less likely as it has stuff going against it and no empirical evidence.

59%? A lot more than 59% of biology has no reason to interfere with personal religious beliefs. You can work in most areas of biology and not compromise your religious beliefs, Slimebeast is a perfect example of this.

--Edit--

Kasz, I looked on the internet at specific areas of biology and as you would expect 79%  of evolutionary biologists don't believe a god exists. But that is because atheism plays much more of a key role in evolutionary biology. However if you working in a field such as biochemistry then it would rarely influence your religious beliefs.



stof on 21 September 2009

Ah. Interesting study. Though the article wasn't entirely clear, It seemed to suggest it's a study of American scientists, nes't pas?



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Zucas on 21 September 2009

Potentially one of the most disturbing things I've seen in awhile. I just couldn't believe someone could actually go up there and simply talk about other groups (atheists and agnostics) as if they were some inferior creature or something sent by ultimate evil to corrupt the world and bring it to ruins.

I just don't understand how people can be so blatantly rude, classless, and ugly to others simply based off disagreements in opinions. Saw the same thing at the recent tea parties, Joe Wilson, Serena, and Kanye West. People having no respect or sense that there are other people in this world than themselves. And yet nothing happens to these people... because the ones who speak out against that are the radicals... pathetic.

But yea as the OP stated, it's one huge ad hominem fallacy. Majority of the argument was rather attacking the other side than actually arguing what they have stated or written down. Also suppressed information fallacy. Stated a bunch of scientists who believe in a god but failed to mention whether or not they conformed to a religion or that any of them being modern day scientists. I'm sure if they had the information that we have today their ideas might be different. Also multiple cases of appeal to ridicule fallacies where he turned others argument into more of a joke rather than debating them.

And there are multiple other issues with the argument but it's simply disgusting that people in this time, in this country, can seriously speak like that and not have a second thought. People can believe whatever they want but don't make your personal mission to make everyone who disagrees with you the blunt of ever gunshot you fire.