Posts by Essan

139

Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

by bohm in

jw
friends

there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

Essan

That's a difficult question because then we have to define 'scientific' and this might never end. LOL.

I think to say "I believe X" when X cannot be categorically proven is necessarily to make a leap, to inject a degree of faith, no matter how seemingly small, and that there is no legitimate definition of "believe" in the English language that can remove this element of faith. Is that "unscientific"? I think it's contrary to strict principles of good science, and yet it is very common. So common, in fact, that someone who insisted on such accuracy would be something of an oddity as a scientist. But they would not be an oddity as an agnostic.

With whatever definition of "believe" you use, either as indicating acceptance as true because of perceived high probability/improbability or acceptance as true because we believe something to be absolutely true (or false), both require degrees of faith to reach "acceptance". Faith and belief are not - for me - part of good science, but I fully accept that they are operative within science (even if this is not always readily admitted). That makes them 'scientific' by virtue of being endemic within science and among scientists, but not 'scientific' if one believes good, pure science, involves being as accurate and unbiased as possible.

To sum up what I'm saying as simply as possible: no matter what definition you use of "believe", if you say "I believe X does/does not exist", you are a "believer", and if you can't categorically prove 100% that which you believe then your belief involves faith.

139

Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

by bohm in

jw
friends

there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

Essan

Bohm, what is the probability that we exist within an illusory "Matrix", some 'ancestor simulation', or suchlike?

What does it do to calculating probability when calculating probability might suggest 'realms' outside of the one in which the calculation is made and which are entirely unknown? How can calculations necessarily limited to the parameters of a possible simulation hope to accurately assess the probability of whatever else may exist outside of the simulation? If what may be outside the simulation created and has control over what is in it, how can we ever determine what may appear within the simulation?

What good is 'probability'?

139

Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

by bohm in

jw
friends

there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

Essan

"Does it take a leap of faith to say 'I believe Santa does not exist'"

You already know the answer. Can you absolutely prove he doesn't? Yes or no. If no, then your belief is faith based. You could say "I don't believe he exists", perhaps, but it would still need qualifying so as not to mislead. Do you think it unlikely he exists? Is that what you mean by "believe"? Then say what you mean. Can you prove it is unlikely? If not, you have no business claiming it is unlikely, you should qualify that it's only a belief that it's unlikely.

You're taking this to an extreme and we are far from discussing atheism but the principles are absolute. It's about accuracy or inaccuracy. Full knowledge or belief and degrees of faith. If you truly consider accuracy to be a mark of good science then you are compelled to abide by such principles. Few do. It's scary to face how little we know or can know and science is full of fallible human beings, stuffed full of conditioning, bias, preferences, opinions and agendas, just as the world's religions are.

139

Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

by bohm in

jw
friends

there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

Essan

Bohm, the problem was not the example,

The problem was which approach to the example should be used by Scientists to justify their referring to something being "probable" or "improbable" or suchlike, and the fact that relatively simple systems aren't analogous to calculating the probability of God's existence. It was all there in my earlier posts. First you referenced Iceland's crappy team (not scientific) then you crunched the numbers, or gave an example of how doing so might proceed (scientific).

A guess or mere opinion, even an informed one, regarding what someone thinks is 'probable' isn't 'calculating probability'. It's irrelevant. It becomes more and more irrelevant and subject to error the more complex the system and the more than is unknown to the point that, when discussing God, it's totally worthless. You might get away with it when dealing with something as simple as a football team, because so much is in the realm of the known that an opinion may me reasonably close to the result given by actually calculating the probability. But when it comes to things like God - not a chance. And as we know, it's not possible to accurately calculate the probability of God's existence. So, a scientist can never actually be referencing scientific 'probability' when discussing God, only an unscientific opinion, a belief, which they should not be indulging in and certainly not when they dress it up in language which falsely implies scientific procedure and reliable data.
With that in mind, what do you object to in the following statement?

"if a scientist has not established an accurate numerical value of a probability, then he has not 'calculated probability' (either because he didn't bother or because it can't be done) in which case he has no business referencing probability and all such claims of things being "almost certain", "highly probably" etc. are fraudulent."

139

Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

by bohm in

jw
friends

there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

Essan

With regard to 'probability', as an Agnostic I'm not that interested in probability, to me if anything isn't or can't be fully known, it's an unknown. You either know or you don't. The rest is interesting speculation.

So, in the case of God, not only do we not know for sure, but we can't even really make an informed guess.

PS. We don't seem to be discussing atheism anymore LOL.

139

Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

by bohm in

jw
friends

there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

Essan

No my point was that we can

1) guess at what we personally feel may be probable, (non-scientific, ad-hoc, influenced by preference and bias etc)

2) properly calculate probability (scientific, with all that implies)

Now, if a well respected scientist speaks in a scientific context of the supposed high 'probability' or 'improbability' of something, which are we expected to think he is using. 1 or 2? Would it be appropriate for a scientist to inject (1) into scientific investigation or discussion? Would it be appropriate for them to do so without making it clear to others that this was merely a personal opinion? Would it be fraudulent to pass off 1 as if it were 2, to deceptively lend the gravitas of 2, to 1, or allow such to happen?

And the error becomes more serious when we move from discussing probability within simple systems, where it can be calculated fairly easily, to questions such as God's existence or nonexistence, which is impossible.

Unlike 'belief', 'probability' as you know is a scientific term and it's investigation a distinct scientific process. Therefore, irresponsible use of terms isn't really acceptable because it's misleading or, at worst, deceptive.

139

Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

by bohm in

jw
friends

there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

Essan

0.01 > p(some god exist) > p(santa) > p(easter bunny) > 0.

Has this been peer reviewed?

139

Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

by bohm in

jw
friends

there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

Essan

Hi Bohm,

You said:

I would like to think i have quite a good grasp of probability theory, so this is a somewhat surprising statement since it would seem to limit the scope of probability theory quite a lot. Let me give you an example:

"It is highly probable Iceland will not win the 2022 world cup in soccer"

You will properly agree with me on this statement: Iceland has a really crappy soccer team, infact they have never even played in the world cup."

If feel you are making a switch here - it's like the earlier claim that "belief" was a special scientific term with a unique meaning when used by atheists, but now you are doing the opposite, which is lifting probability out of a scientific context and using it as the 'man on the street does" when our context was very specifically science and scientists.

The man on the street guesses at what he thinks is probable and renders his opinion based on his experience. It's not a scientific process.

The scientist calculates probability - or should - and this should be a scientific process.

You're blurring the two as it suits you, IMO: "belief" you try to pass a technical scientific language, "probability" as understood by the average man, even though the context is specifically science.

PS I use a wooden retractible probability measurer LOL. It's old school but it gets the job done LOL. :)

334

All the accusations- and no substance....how SHOCKING!

by theMadJW in

jw
friends

are there pretenders in our brotherhood- as in all religion- that do what is evil?.

yes.. have we made stupid guesses about some of the prophecies, as all churches do?.

yes.. does our "organization" make mistakes- as, you guessed it, all do?.

Essan

The funny thing is that there is so much substance just here, on JWN, to validate the many accusations against the Society that untold thousands have had their eyes opened to the deception and fraud of the WT Society and left the JW's after just a short time reading here. And this isn't even a structured site exposing the Society such as JWFacts.com.

So, make your baseless claims and advertise your site MadJW, but know that countless numbers of questioning JW's are quietly reading here every day and are leaving the JW's in droves because there is so much substance to the accusations.

139

Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

by bohm in

jw
friends

there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

Essan

Hi Bohm,

You said: "1) The scientists above - assuming he had made some field work to back up his statement - is using proper english, and he use believe in the sence of "there is a high probability". Your "yes" seem to imply you agree with me here.

2) The scientists has not in any way established the numerical value of that probabilty; how could he?"

Regarding 1, my 'yes' was qualified. Perhaps it would be more clear to say 'no' and qualify that. If a scientist says something to the effect of "I believe" then he may be indicating that as far as he is concerned " there is a high probability" - but unfortunately that is not all he is doing. He is also, as I said earlier, strengthening probability beyond what the data warrants. He is taking a leap, choosing a "side", exercising a degree of faith - literally expressing a "belief". It's based on data, but goes beyond it. This is not strictly scientific IMO. Hypotheses and theories are scientific, "beliefs" aren't. If he knows something is probable based on accurately calculated probability, then that is all the data allows him to say. If he says "I believe X is true to high degree of probability, then he reveals that he has faith based belief, because it leaps the gap left by the probability, to a conclusion: "I believe X is true". Actually, X is not proven "true", it's proven probable, and the scientist has gone too far. This happens all the time. But I am talking here about cases in which probability can be measured.

Regarding 1, if a scientist has not established an accurate numerical value of a probability, then he has not calculated probability (either because he didn't bother or because it can't be done) in which case he has no business referencing probability at all, and all such claims of things being "almost certain", "highly probable" etc. are bogus. They're mere beliefs, preferences and personal opinions masquerading as authoritative data driven conclusions.

Regarding Caedes comments: they were pretty explicit, I'm sure you'll agree. It's not really that they "could be read" to "imply". How else could they be read? They were clear, IMO. If that is somehow not what he meant then he expressed himself incredibly poorly. So if he answers "No" then the contradiction with his previous statements will also have to be explained. Or are you prepared to ignore previous comments as irrelevant if an Atheist recants outright denial under pressure? :)