Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (284610)	12/4/2015 10:07:14 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541851

Look- I use the scientific method for most things. It was drilled in to me that you can't prove a negative. You don't even try. So with all things- the sun will rise tomorrow, the milk won't go off before I need it tonight, my car will be outside when I go to work- I act on assumptions, but I verify. That's all I need to go through life. If you ask me "What do you believe, with a big B"- I'd be very hard pressed to come up with anything. But I've got lots of little b's. And I've got nothing in the belief department I would kill anyone over. Nada.

To: neolib who wrote (284610)	12/4/2015 11:10:55 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541851

But we don't tend to be agnostic on the myriad possibilities of other things that have no evidence for existence. That is untrue. We are not able to live without a measure of faith, even if that faith is in "science". Suppose you want to draw a conclusion about something. You will make observations, then you organize and categorize those observations, then you analyze what you have, and from that you will draw a logical conclusion. And then you pat yourself on the back for being rational, evidence based, and "scientific." Yet in every step of the way you used an element of faith. There is no science in choosing how much evidence you should gather. You simply gathered as much evidence as you thought was enough. Nor did you look at the universe at large to collect that evidence. You had preconceptions about whether or not to include the phase of the moon, the quantum spin, geological formations, or the type of bacteria to put into your evidence. And although I made that list intentionally broad, there have been uncountable cases where the solution came from a field that everyone thought was unrelated to the problem. The same goes for how you categorized and analyzed the data. So in short there is no such thing as an objective reality or pure science. You are simply putting your faith in areas that agree with your disposition. ST

To: neolib who wrote (284610)

12/4/2015 12:45:01 PM

From: koan

Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 541851

I agree. When I say I do not believe, I am not saying I know. I am only saying the evidence does not allow me to believe it. I also do not believe that any large dinosaurs still exist on earth, or that this is the only universe, and that there are many more dimensions, but I could be wrong.

But until the evidence changes my mind, that is what I will believe and live my life accordingly. I think agnostics should be reserved for people that are truly in doubt. I am in a state of doubt, about whether the human species will survive, or if a Democrat will be elected president. Those are both pretty poor examples:)>.

A long time ago I posted a piece by Charles Pierce when he said everyone is in one of three states of mind: belief, disbelief or a state of doubt. And the person will stay in one of those three states until some new evidence, or event, comes in to move them out of one state of mind and to another state of mind.

He said we have no control over these states of mind. And as facts or events change, so can our states of mind change. With regard to conventional religion I am 99.999% sure it is wrong. But I leave a little room for my being wrong.

<<<


But we don't tend to be agnostic on the myriad possibilities of other things that have no evidence for existence. Atheism is more just staying true to the facts which is that there don't seem to be any in support of the Gods. Saying you are agnostic is like trying to strike a balance when there is 0 on one side.