Scipsy

Mandel was shocked to discover an alternate version of the world’s origins. He had been raised to believe that the world was less than 6,000 years old; he recalls his father telling him, on a rare family visit to the Museum of Natural History, that a dinosaur skeleton was “just rocks.”
A hasidic Jew reads science blogs and discover curiosity about what’s outside his religious beliefs.

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition.
↳ Albert Einstein, 1954. (via Letters of Note)

This follows (and hopefully closes), yesterday’s discussion.
@odditiesoflife: I didn’t dismiss your question you mispelled a word, I would be really stupid to do that, because English is not my first language, and it’s evident I don’t know it that well. I dismissed your question because you seemed to assume that the notion of a “collective unconscious” is so evidently real that if I say I think it doesn’t exist, it means I’m so so so wrong. But, I don’t just think it doesn’t exist, I know it doesn’t exist, I don’t even consider it to be an hypothesis that’s worth to take seriously.
You see, if someone comes here and says to me: ” Ah! You’re an atheist? You should be an agnostic!" than he continues arguing that I should believe in the existence of everything I didn’t disprove scientifically (like a mysterious island in the pacific ocean that can’t be detected by any instruments because it has a magnetic field that works like some sort of invisible cloak) and after that he thinks a good argument is "you’re too young to understand”, well, if someone like that comes here, I don’t take him seriously. I just can’t.
@anon#1: No I would not argue the same thing. Anyway, there’s a thing to consider: in your example the question is not if something exists or not. We know for sure life exists. The question is just if it exists somewhere else.
@reiderrabbitt: Thanks.
@anon#2: That’s just atheism.
@flowers-unicorns-rainbows: I really don’t know. It’s complicated. If I were you I’d try to talk with her, even if those things make you unconfortable, because it’s really the only way she can understand you don’t have the same belief.
@consciousperception: Theories can be fascinating, but I like the real world better.
@trixi-b: I’ve heard many times that there are levels of atheism or agnosticism. I don’t think so. You either believe or you don’t believe. There’s nothing like somewhat-not-believing.

This follows (and hopefully closes), yesterday’s discussion.

@odditiesoflife: I didn’t dismiss your question you mispelled a word, I would be really stupid to do that, because English is not my first language, and it’s evident I don’t know it that well. I dismissed your question because you seemed to assume that the notion of a “collective unconscious” is so evidently real that if I say I think it doesn’t exist, it means I’m so so so wrong. But, I don’t just think it doesn’t exist, I know it doesn’t exist, I don’t even consider it to be an hypothesis that’s worth to take seriously.

You see, if someone comes here and says to me: ” Ah! You’re an atheist? You should be an agnostic!" than he continues arguing that I should believe in the existence of everything I didn’t disprove scientifically (like a mysterious island in the pacific ocean that can’t be detected by any instruments because it has a magnetic field that works like some sort of invisible cloak) and after that he thinks a good argument is "you’re too young to understand”, well, if someone like that comes here, I don’t take him seriously. I just can’t.

@anon#1: No I would not argue the same thing. Anyway, there’s a thing to consider: in your example the question is not if something exists or not. We know for sure life exists. The question is just if it exists somewhere else.

@reiderrabbitt: Thanks.

@anon#2: That’s just atheism.

@flowers-unicorns-rainbows: I really don’t know. It’s complicated. If I were you I’d try to talk with her, even if those things make you unconfortable, because it’s really the only way she can understand you don’t have the same belief.

@consciousperception: Theories can be fascinating, but I like the real world better.

@trixi-b: I’ve heard many times that there are levels of atheism or agnosticism. I don’t think so. You either believe or you don’t believe. There’s nothing like somewhat-not-believing.

odditiesoflife

: The absense of evidence does not mean that something does not exist. It means that it has not been proven by science yet. Just because something is not provable at a given time does not automatically mean that something is not true. You did not address the concept of agnosticism. Would it be so hard to admit that you do not know? That seems a lot more plausible a choice. You have made the "choice" to not believe. And what about the collective unconscience? Does that not exist either?

I guess you mean “collective unconscious”. But, really? “Collective unconscious”? I thought we were serious…(it was just a moment).

odditiesoflife

: I noticed you stated you were an atheist. I believe that atheists should be agnostic. To state emphatically that there is no higher order or direction and that everything in the universe is random and based on action and consequence on matter is basically stating that you know this to be fact. Since being an atheist cannot be scientifically tested and proven, I would think a scientist would be open to all possibilities. Why would a scientist believe something that can't be proven using science?

I answered several times to this question, but I will answer again.

You’re obviously wrong when you say that being an atheist cannot be scientifically tested and proven. I guess you meant: “the non-existence of a god cannot be scientifically proven”.

My answer to this is very simple: you cannot disprove the existence of the famous Russel’s teapot or that of the invisible pink unicorn, you can’t even disprove the existence of the Olympus and all the ancient Greek gods. Does it mean you’re agnostic about the invisible pink unicorn? No, you’re an atheist about that, you don’t believe it exists, and you have good reasons to believe that. What are the reasons? There’s no evidence. In the absence of evidence, the most reasonable position is disbelief.

That is true also for scientists.

Imagine someone says: I know of the existence of a mysterious energy that permeates everything, but you have to trust me, because this energy is so mysterious it can’t be detected with any of our instruments. Are you willing to believe in this statement just because you can’t prove this energy doesn’t exist? I hope not. If you claim something exists, you should give me evidence.

If there are no evidence, I choose disbelief, because disbelief is the most reasonable position.

I was agnostic for most of my adult life, but then [Simpsons writer] Mike Reiss started giving me grief about it. He said, “Oh come on. Dive in. Go all the way. Be an atheist. The water’s fine.” I guess I started to realize that being an agnostic was such a wimpy position. I don’t know what the universe is all about, but to me, nothing is gained by slapping a God sticker on it. It has never been a comfort to me to believe there’s an all-seeing eye in the sky. And I don’t like the antagonism that most religions have for science and freedom and, frankly, individuality.
George Meyer writer and producer for The Simpsons

I have yet to see a successful prediction about the physical world that was inferred or extrapolated from the content of any religious document. Indeed, I can make an even stronger statement. Whenever people have tried to make accurate predictions about the physical world using religious documents they have been famously wrong.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Death by Black Hole and other cosmic quandaries.

As a scientist, one is trained to be skeptical, which is perhaps why many scientists find it difficult to accept blindly the existence of a deity. What is unfortunate is that this skepticism is taken by many among the faithful to be an attack not only on their beliefs, but also on their values, and therefore leads to the conclusion that science itself is suspect.
The faithful must learn to respect those who question their beliefs by Lawrence Krauss

Please, if you ask something, don’t use a fan mail, please use an ask, because it’s easier to reply to.
In a discourse, if you imply the existence of something (say god), you need to show evidence or proofs that it exists, in absence of evidence I really don’t need to disprove anything, I just can say your argument is groundless.
Also, I can use science to prove A, and in doing so, I prove the absence of B. For example I can prove that the Earth orbits the Sun, disproving the opposite.
I can disprove any claim about the supernatural when it comes to the physical world. Say you claim precognition is a real phenomenon, I can test your hypothesis and disprove it.
I can disprove (is really simple) any religious claim about the physical world. If you claim Earth is 4000 years old, I can prove you wrong; if you claim that all the creature were created with the same aspect we can see today, I prove you wrong. And so on.
When I can’t use science to disprove religion? When religion claims are about something that it’s completely unrelated to the physical world. If you say that some god exists, but that it isn’t in any way detectable in physical terms, I can’t disprove it. But since saying this you imply that you don’t (and you can’t) have any evidence or proofs, I can reply to your argument that it’s groundless (like I said before) and that accepting your argument I would not have any reason to doubt also the existence of a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars that is completely undetectable by any telescope. Of course nobody think this is sufficient to believe in the existence of said teapot.
I don’t see any difference if you replace the teapot with god.

Please, if you ask something, don’t use a fan mail, please use an ask, because it’s easier to reply to.

In a discourse, if you imply the existence of something (say god), you need to show evidence or proofs that it exists, in absence of evidence I really don’t need to disprove anything, I just can say your argument is groundless.

Also, I can use science to prove A, and in doing so, I prove the absence of B. For example I can prove that the Earth orbits the Sun, disproving the opposite.

I can disprove any claim about the supernatural when it comes to the physical world. Say you claim precognition is a real phenomenon, I can test your hypothesis and disprove it.

I can disprove (is really simple) any religious claim about the physical world. If you claim Earth is 4000 years old, I can prove you wrong; if you claim that all the creature were created with the same aspect we can see today, I prove you wrong. And so on.

When I can’t use science to disprove religion? When religion claims are about something that it’s completely unrelated to the physical world. If you say that some god exists, but that it isn’t in any way detectable in physical terms, I can’t disprove it. But since saying this you imply that you don’t (and you can’t) have any evidence or proofs, I can reply to your argument that it’s groundless (like I said before) and that accepting your argument I would not have any reason to doubt also the existence of a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars that is completely undetectable by any telescope. Of course nobody think this is sufficient to believe in the existence of said teapot.

I don’t see any difference if you replace the teapot with god.

@paulfrank987: No, it’s not really necessary. My use of the word is just fine.
@bigmouthlittlefists: My thought of god is real as my thought of dragons. The fact that my thought is real doesn’t imply that the subject of my thought is real. I can think of a beautiful island full of gorgeous girls who are in love with me, but my thinking doesn’t make it real (sadly).

@paulfrank987: No, it’s not really necessary. My use of the word is just fine.

@bigmouthlittlefists: My thought of god is real as my thought of dragons. The fact that my thought is real doesn’t imply that the subject of my thought is real. I can think of a beautiful island full of gorgeous girls who are in love with me, but my thinking doesn’t make it real (sadly).