Really, because the definition of ignorant is lacking knowledge or information. It appears that you were wrong in addition to Lennon.
You know damn well I know what it means. You're implying that the burden of proof naturally rests on the believers because it's unconventional (Kinda like weed evidently has to be proved good before legalization, even though it hasn't been proven bad). I'm not even taking a side. I'm saying in an objective society nobody should be obligated to prove anything if the opposition can't do the same. Do you and fuck what everybody else thinks. I just don't appreciate all the believers getting patronized. The way most atheists go about it is a "you don't have the right to believe it until you convince me" kind of attitude. Even if you're sure as the sunrise that there is absolutely nothing out there, why rip apart people's hope? Does it then make them a more reasonable and productive member of society if they "come to grips" that they are going to die and that's the end of it? Ya'll go around telling the kids Santa ain't real too?
I don't think you know what it means because when you were explaining why you didn't agree with it, you defined it incorrectly. Also, the definition of objective is believing in something based on evidence and not feeling or emotion. Therefore, in a SUBJECTIVE society, nobody should be obligated to prove anything. In an objective society, by the very definition of objective, a claim should not be accepted until proof has been established. Not once in my life have I said that a Christian didn't have the right to believe. Where you confuse the idea, is that while anybody has a right to believe in anything, no matter how ridiculous, you are not immune to having your idea mocked or ridiculed. Do you, YOLO, or whatever you kids are saying nowadays, but it's necessary for ideas to hold up to scrutiny. Ideas are not people and can be criticized.
I meant objective, as in unbiased. Completely valid. Not letting your feelings enter the mix. Understanding that others are going to believe what they want and it has no outcome on the rest of your life. And people have the right of course to mock and whatever, it just makes them a dick is all I'm saying. Now if somebody is trying to force their ideas on you, rip them to shreds.
Atheism has evolved from the belief in no God to something more like the belief in what is provable. Although this shows that there had been some willingness to adapt and be more "honest", I'd say that because of the constant opposition to Religion, over decades and decades, it has become what it set out to disprove, a religion onto itself. Scientific culture has had more than its fair share of opportunities to not only bridge the gap in what we ALL have in common from a material perspective, which it has, but more importantly what we ALL have in common from a non-material perspective as well. But despite its adherence to cutting edge science, Atheism has simply flailed about like Christianity's dark twin. It's a belief system in which progression is of no matter or of no importance. ------
Excellent insight man. It's all I was getting at. None of it matters. Religion is a personal battle and if you aren't being militant about it, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with anybody else.
Exactly. You just made a subjective argument. You feel a certain way about people that mock beliefs, and you have opinions as to how those arguments should be handled. The argument you are making is the opposite of objective. It's a subjective argument. I know exactly what you are saying, it's just that you are defining it incorrectly. I feel like you are attempting to turn this into a religious argument. Remember, you responded to me because I called someone out on false logic. I'm hoping that you aren't once again succumbing to false logic and moving the goalposts.
Believing based on evidence is not a good description of what objective means, at least not in a strict philosophical sense. Objective means something is true in absence of subjective experience. Example - the sun is a bright object. Apart from subjective observation this seemingly objective statement is meaningless. Not only that, we rely on circular reasoning of definitions. Based on our accepted definition of bright, measured by luminosity. P1 the sun is bright P2 when something is bright it has a high luminosity P3 the sun is highly luminous Therefore the sun is bright This is only subjectively true, as i said, based on circular reasoning of definitions. The sun is what it is, but we subjectively break it down into useful, yet subjective, catagories. Evidence requires subjective definitions and subjective opinions/interpretation of the observer.
I could not agree more. However, we should be careful in how we equate discourse and decency. I can't think of a day in my life, after the age of about 15, where I became mad at someone and thought that they were attacking me when they spoke about a belief that I had. Beliefs aren't people. If you get mad because somebody criticizes your belief, then it wasn't worth believing in in the first place.
I'm talking about Science and not philosophy. The reason that we look for evidence and submit to peer review is that those are ways that we know our hypothesis is true and we aren't submitting to subjectivity. Something can be present subjectively as well, but if I can objectively demonstrate it's true, then I know that it's true. Come on man. You know me. I'm a Scientist. I don't deal with that philosophical stuff. Philosophy is science without the objectivity.
I have not once met an atheist who advocated for believers "not having a right to believe until they convince me". One of the absolute main reasons many people are atheist is because they believe in freedom of thought. They just don't want others forcing their thought on them or their children via institution. History and the present are full of believers who not only believe atheists don't have the right to think what they think, but also murder them for it. In about 20 nations it is national law. In the US, and many other >first world< nations, an atheist couldn't dream to be elected to public office, which says a lot about how the voting constituency feels. One of the biggest misconceptions about atheists is that they claim 100% certainty about there not being a god. Richard Dawkins himself says on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is absolute certainty there is a god and 7 that there is no god, even he is a 6. Most atheists share that view, we just don't want to be lumped in with agnostics because their thought process is "I don't know, so it's a 50-50 likelihood. I'm going to take a nap." The burden of proof does not rest on the believers "because it is unconventional". It rests on the believers because they make the bigger, more fantastic claim, while at the same time proudly announcing that it takes "faith" to understand. We can either have faith or a logical argument. We cannot have both. This is why religions have been at each others' throat since recorded time while killing atheists along the way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkgYgJEH-e4
Lol i do know you which is why i explained myself with a reasoned example. I see where you are coming from but i personally dont hold what science discovers to be true. Science deals with probability. Take for example the higgs boson or gravitational waves. We thought we had evidence of both and the scientific community largely accepted the evidence. However a few were more cautious and withheld judgement, and didnt make fools of themselves. We 'probably' detected gravitational waves until we found out it there was more interstellar dark plasma than theh had previously predicted. This is a good example of the self-correcting mechanism of the scientific methid but also a lesson that its a probability game. No honest scientist should ever claim science is true or is searching for truth. I think science and philosophy go hand in hand and can keep each other in check so I educate myself in both.
In the example you listed, accurately, you showed how science corrected itself. It is not a probability game if it remains open to self correction. No real scientist would remain immovable in his stance, unless he allowed the ego to take over. The main reason science is the way to go is precisely because it is willing admit mistake, revise, rethink, improve. It does not claim to know the finite way of the universe. What it does in the meanwhile however, is find out better and better how things work. I'm a bit on the freak out lately regarding the potential rise of A.I. (So is Elon Musk, so I'm in good company), so I could definitely see where science can be the end of us. I do however see it as the most honest tool available to us to travel through this reality, understand it, and change it the way we see fit. Its track record demands it. PS. On the Higgs, I think it was just too much for those hypernerds to contain themselves. The idea was simply too sexy to resist.
Limited minds AKA Calcified Pineal glands (Hence the lack of imagination, Perfect examples of the project) @oni @vawaverider Back to watching TV or Get to work sheep, You have a lot of catching up to do. Choice is yours, However if you continue to consume junk then don't expect to comprehend what we talk about and feel free to find a more limited forum that suits your understandings.
Im glad you agree oni. My point was until we factored in plasma, it more probable it was gravity waves, after plasma, its vastly more probable its plasma not gravity (though something else could pop up and say its neither). So to say (vawave) objectivity is evidence based is meaningless. Often times there is evidence for and against X so are too opposites objectively true? Deifying science as truth is boneheaded imo. Its a useful tool though.