Einstein on the train

[Logik]

The term 'atheist' refers to a human being with a BELIEF.

No, it doesn't. It refers to a human being with a DISBELIEF.

[surreptitious57]

Atheism is the non acceptance of the proposition that God exists
But it is not the rejection of the proposition and while the distinction is subtle it is also an important one
Most atheists are agnostic so while they may say they dont believe in God that is not an absolute position

[Logik]

Atheism is the non acceptance of the proposition that God exists
But it is not the rejection of the proposition and while the distinction is subtle it is also an important one
Most atheists are agnostic so while they may say they dont believe in God that is not an absolute position

No. atheism and agnosticism are distinct.

Using the decibel scale an agnostic is at precisely 0 decibels ( I don't know )
An atheist is at <0 decibels ( I disbelieve )
A theist is at > 0 decibels ( I believe )

short intro to the basic concept of Bayesian inference

the actual book: Probability theory - the logic of science

Different definitions of "God" should evoke different degrees of belief, but all untestable/unfalsifiable definitions should evoke 0 decibels.
This is the principle of maximum entropy.

[surreptitious57]

Most atheists are agnostic atheists - they dont think God exists but are not absolutely certain
As opposed to gnostic atheists - who also dont think God exists but are absolutely certain [ even though they can not be ]
The agnostic / gnostic distinction also applies to theists though there are more gnostics among them than among atheists

[Logik]

Most atheists are agnostic atheists - they dont think God exists but are not absolutely certain
As opposed to gnostic atheists - who also dont think God exists but are absolutely certain [ even though they can not be ]
The agnostic / gnostic distinction also applies to theists though there are more gnostics among them than among atheists

It's still a dualism. A dualism offers you a choice of A or B. A false dichotomy.

The decibel scale is a continuum: -∞ <----- 0 -----> +∞

While atheists and theists are having a go at each other, I'll just ride the fence at 0 decibels.

My epistemology is one of agnosticism. Not just about "god" but about everything in general.

[uwot]

To me, human beings are worth human beings. AND, salt is worth salt. I am NOT sure what you could consider to be an 'assumption' or a 'belief' here.

I rest my case.

Is it just possible that I actually have NO assumption nor belief here at all, but I just wrote in a way KNOWING how to make you assume and/or believe some thing?

No.

...you are just making an accusation about what I have NOT yet "got" without any actual 'evidence' to support what you are thinking/believing. We do NOT even, in real terms, actually yet KNOW what you are actually talking about EXACTLY.

Age, if yer gonna carry on with this idiot savant schtick, sooner or later ya gotta move beyond the idiot bit.

Oh and by the way you not to long ago expressed: Oh and by the way, this is what this f@€king thread is about: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com NOW, would you like to discuss this? OR, would you just like to carry on LOOKING AT 'me' instead?

You have made it clear that you BELIEVE that the Universe is expanding. Now, would you like to clear up for me what ACTUAL 'evidence' is there that the Universe IS expanding?

It's in the f@€king book.

[surreptitious57]

My epistemology is one of agnosticism

This is the natural default position where knowledge in general is concerned
But is it not possible that falsification is arrived at whenever knowledge is absolutely true ?
And what about knowledge arrived at through deduction - is that not also absolutely true ?

[Age]

To me, human beings are worth human beings. AND, salt is worth salt. I am NOT sure what you could consider to be an 'assumption' or a 'belief' here.

I rest my case.

Is it just possible that I actually have NO assumption nor belief here at all, but I just wrote in a way KNOWING how to make you assume and/or believe some thing?

No.

...you are just making an accusation about what I have NOT yet "got" without any actual 'evidence' to support what you are thinking/believing. We do NOT even, in real terms, actually yet KNOW what you are actually talking about EXACTLY.

Age, if yer gonna carry on with this idiot savant schtick, sooner or later ya gotta move beyond the idiot bit.

Oh and by the way you not to long ago expressed: Oh and by the way, this is what this f@€king thread is about: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com NOW, would you like to discuss this? OR, would you just like to carry on LOOKING AT 'me' instead?

You have made it clear that you BELIEVE that the Universe is expanding. Now, would you like to clear up for me what ACTUAL 'evidence' is there that the Universe IS expanding?

It's in the f@€king book.

That is the whole point, there is NO evidence in that book. That book just expresses the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS of the writer, without any actual evidence provided to support those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

[uwot]

That is the whole point, there is NO evidence in that book. That book just expresses the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS of the writer, without any actual evidence provided to support those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

That's an infamous slur, you scoundrel!
Ladies and gentlemen, let me assure you that the evidence that resulted in the big bang theory is very clearly laid out. Pages 6-14, since you ask: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

[Logik]

That is the whole point, there is NO evidence in that book.

Every time I ask you what 'evidence' is you keep dodging the question.

If you don't state your own expectations how is anybody supposed to meet them?

[Logik]

This is the natural default position where knowledge in general is concerned
But is it not possible that falsification is arrived at whenever knowledge is absolutely true ?
And what about knowledge arrived at through deduction - is that not also absolutely true ?

Why is 'absolute truth' so damn important anyway?

Everyone keeps looking for it like Christians keep looking for Jesus.

What are you going to do with it when you find it?

[surreptitious57]

Maybe it doesnt exist but it is an ideal that should be strived for as much as possible
For better knowledge produces better models which in turn provide more knowledge

[Logik]

Maybe it doesnt exist but it is an ideal that should be strived for as much as possible
For better knowledge produces better models which in turn provide more knowledge

And when you take the pursuit a little too seriously you end up like Age.

Drowning in the metaphysical swamp.

[surreptitious57]

Not sure how the pursuit of knowledge by empirical means can ever become metaphysical
Given that the scientific method is as far removed from metaphysics as it is possible to be

[Logik]

Not sure how the pursuit of knowledge by empirical means can ever become metaphysical
Given that the scientific method is as far removed from metaphysics as it is possible to be

The fundamental problem with empiricism is the Ceteris paribus principle. Outside of a lab all things are most definitely not equal.

It's one thing acquiring knowledge in the idealised setting of a lab. It's another making said knowledge generally applicable.
Erroneously generalising scientific models with a narrow domain of applicability has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy

Context/domain of applicability matters.