Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/12/09 04:15 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 3/11/09 07:25 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I didn't say that's what motivates Atheists. [. . .]

Oh ok. I read it with emphasis in the wrong place. Apologies.

No problem.

At 3/12/09 07:46 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/12/09 07:31 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

but saying that there's no evidence is just more misapplied/dishonest word usage from you.

There's evidence?
Shit, go claim your Nobel Prize!

There's evidence, or at least things that people will claim as being evidence. But just because there is some small bits and pieces of evidence doesn't mean that it is correct. Take a murder trial for example. The defendant can have some evidence that supports him not committing the crime. And there is plenty of evidence saying that he did. Then more than likely the defendant's evidence was either tampered with, taken out of context, or could also mean numerous other things as well.

At 3/12/09 06:33 AM, poxpower wrote: I JUST told you EXACTLY why one affects the other.

Good Christ.....

You're right. Science breeds Atheism. Without science there would be fewer atheists.

Or is it the other way around? Atheism breeds science? Without atheism there would be fewer scientists. Because see, they affect each other in that way.....

Just like how the amount of peanut butter in the world directly affects how good jelly tastes.

I'd explain it, but we both know it'd be a waste of my time.

Maybe I'll have to draw a picture and communicate in a language you actually understand.

At 3/12/09 03:07 PM, Imperator wrote:

You're right. Science breeds Atheism. Without science there would be fewer atheists.

Yep.

Or is it the other way around?

Nope.

I'd explain it, but we both know it'd be a waste of my time.

You're still doing that, huh?
hahaha

At 3/12/09 03:29 PM, poxpower wrote: Yep.

Proof?

You're still doing that, huh?
hahaha

Still calling you and idjuit? Yeah, I am.
If your head wasn't stuck so far up your own ass you'd notice that it's not just me "doing that". Most people aren't so arrogant as to believe that when 15 people point something out, they're all wrong.....but you're apparently some kind of genius the world just hasn't discovered yet.

At 3/12/09 04:47 PM, Imperator wrote:

Proof?

What kind of proof?
What's a proof that would convince you?

At 3/12/09 03:07 PM, Imperator wrote:
You're right. Science breeds Atheism. Without science there would be fewer atheists.

According to his statement, there would be no science. (since one equals another)

Without atheism there would be fewer scientists. Because see, they affect each other in that way.....

there would be no scientists.

At 3/12/09 05:05 PM, poxpower wrote: What kind of proof?
What's a proof that would convince you?

Any sort of evidence that when there is no science, there is no atheism.
Or vice versa.

Measure scientific progress in a nation and compare it to the prevalence of atheism maybe.
Is there a higher population of scientists in denmark than in USA?

That would be good proof.

At 3/12/09 06:28 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: According to his statement, there would be no science. (since one equals another)

He most certainly is not. He's said himself there are cases of theist scientists and atheist non-scientists.

If he is, he's a moron, because how anyone could say science=atheism is beyond me.

there would be no scientists.

Again, I doubt that sincerely. I think Pox cannot tell his ass from his nose, but if he's really saying that no atheism means no scientists, I'll personally bend backwards and eat my own ass.

At 3/12/09 05:14 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 3/12/09 01:44 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 3/11/09 09:50 PM, poxpower wrote: I really don't see why this is hard to understand. If you believe that science is the best tool to understand the universe, then it's logical to assume you'll be atheist too since science doesn't support any religion or God or anything supernatural.

Actually, it would make the most sense to be an Agnostic. Scientists aren't supposed to take one position as truth without experimental verification; given by its very nature that God can't be proven or disproven, a truly unbiased scientist would have to admit that neither position suits his observations.

One doesn't have to be an anti-theist to be an atheist. Atheism isn't necessary just strict denial to the idea that there is a God. It can also be what's called "weak atheism", where one lacks belief in God without holding the belief that he doesn't exist.

I don't follow. I guess I've been given the impression that the definition of agnosticism is simply not professing to know one way or the other (which could encompass a weak predilection to one opinion).

Atheism being taught in schools.

That made me laugh. How could you structure that in a curriculum?

"Take a seats students. Today we'll be talking about Atheism. There is no God. See you next week"

At 3/12/09 06:47 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 3/12/09 05:05 PM, poxpower wrote: What kind of proof?
What's a proof that would convince you?

Any sort of evidence that when there is no science, there is no atheism.
Or vice versa.

Measure scientific progress in a nation and compare it to the prevalence of atheism maybe.
Is there a higher population of scientists in denmark than in USA?

That would be good proof.

Just to clarify, how is this different to comparing demographics of atheism as they relate to level of scientific training?

At 3/12/09 07:48 PM, Elfer wrote: Just to clarify, how is this different to comparing demographics of atheism as they relate to level of scientific training?

Now that I think about it, it doesn't.
Bad way to find proof.

I can't think of any ways right now to show a stronger causal relationship between atheism and science, partly because I don't think such a relationship exists.

I think just like PB&J or orange flavored things there's a common trend that makes it more likely for an atheist to be a scientist (or vice versa?) , however I do not see any other relationship beyond this indicating cause.

I do not envision that without atheism science would not exist, in the same way I do not envision that becoming old automatically makes you a Republican.

At 3/12/09 04:38 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 3/12/09 04:15 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Correlation IS a relationship. It's just not a direct one. Two things can be related without a direct causal relationship between the two.

Didn't he already describe that with his "peanut butter and jelly" example?

He would have had he not ended the example by basically saying 'peanut butter and jelly have jack shit to do with each other'.

I also didn't want to get into the analogy too deeply, because I'd most likely be putting words in Imperator's mouth. The first order of business would be to find the parallels to science and atheism in peanut butter and jelly. There's really no way to make this work without expanding the analogy (and then I'd be putting words in imp's mouth). Besides, all analogies break down at some point.

Suffice to say: the example of peanut butter and jelly is an example of a much much looser relationship than science and atheism.

Science and atheism have much to do with each other.

Besides the idea of physicalism... what?

I'll assume there are plenty of atheists out there with some level of blind zeal regarding physicalism. However, I'm also sure there are plenty who've rationalized why physicalism is a more valid base for some kinds of judgment than the alternative. So what you've listed as one item... I think is alittle more intricate... alittle.

Then there's the issue of value vs quantity. I'd characterize what you call physicalism as a strong link, so maybe a hundred word list isn't really necessary to establish a strong link between science and atheism.

And wouldn't someone with pantheistic views technically be holding to the same core philosophy?

Thank you for bringing this up, because I think this might be what Imperator is getting stuck on.

To answer your question. Yes.

But this doesn't kick atheism out of the picture. Neither an alternative born of an equivelant generative factor nor an absence of one generative factor remove the possibility of generating a derivative philosophy. Specifically: Neither pantheism nor a lack of science would prevent atheism from existing. All this means is that there are other reasons to become an atheist. It doesn't mean science and atheism have hardly anything to do with each other.

At 3/13/09 03:10 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: All this means is that there are other reasons to become an atheist.

Wait. I can be more holistic.

All this means is that...
1. there are other reasons to become atheist
2. a similar set of reasons (the same core reason) can lead a person to pantheism

At 3/13/09 12:34 AM, Imperator wrote:

I think just like PB&J or orange flavored things there's a common trend that makes it more likely for an atheist to be a scientist (or vice versa?) ,

however I do not see any other relationship beyond this indicating cause.

So you reject the "atheism is based on the fact there's no evidence and scientists are the ones who usually work in the fields that make people aware of the lack of evidence" explanation?

Why?

It's not a coincidence that evolutionary biologists and geologists don't believe in shit like Noah's Ark. They KNOW the evidence isn't there. They work directly with the data that conclusively destroys many many creation stories.
And scientists are taught to be skeptical. To question their own results and other scientist's results. They understand quite easily that the people who claim to have evidence for God are full of crap. They know what evidence is.

I think this is a pretty good explanation.

And being a scientist causes atheism, not the other way around. Being an atheist doesn't really cause anything that I know of.

At 3/13/09 08:00 AM, poxpower wrote: And being a scientist causes atheism, not the other way around. Being an atheist doesn't really cause anything that I know of.

I do~

Lower teen pregnancy and divorce rate. :p

At 3/13/09 08:00 AM, poxpower wrote:
So you reject the "atheism is based on the fact there's no evidence and scientists are the ones who usually work in the fields that make people aware of the lack of evidence" explanation?

Why?

I don't "reject" it. It's not an explanation of cause.
How do you not see the 3rd factor linking the other two?
Atheism and science in this case linked by that scruitiny.

I think this is a pretty good explanation.

Of a non-causal, correlational link.

And being a scientist causes atheism, not the other way around. Being an atheist doesn't really cause anything that I know of.

And then you do this, and call it a causal relationship.....

God damnit Poxpower, stop being intentionally dense.

PROVE to me that being a scientist automatically turns one into an atheist. PROVE that automatic causal relationship.

Being old doesn't automatically cause you to become a Republican. The correlation is still there because of a 3rd factor that links the two. Just like Atheism and science.

PROVE that 3rd variable isn't the link, PROVE that when you become a scientist, you become an atheist automatically, just by virtue of being a scientist.

This whole thing is really dependent on what you consider a God. My theory is that because 3rd demesional beings are sentient and make decisions every day that affect their universes, we live in a world where each demension is distributed a certain amount of control over other demensions and are therefore in ways, gods in other dimensions. Humans make decisions that affect their individual lives, this means that the 4th dimension being (entire expanse of your life) is changed and therefore the 3rd dimension has a god-like power over the 4th dimension.

However, the 4th dimension must exist for a 3rd dimensional object to exist because the object must exist within time and space. So the 4th dimensional being must be a complete being. And so while our decisions influence the paths in our lives we take, the paths themselves are already drawn out, existing as 4th dimensional objects in the 5th dimension.

We all have a million different destinies that are set in stone, and our decisions affect which destiny we will arrive at. The 4th dimension controls us always, like a god, but us as 3rd dimensional beings get to choose which 4th dimensional being we serve under.

Lemme try it this way:

Heat and H2O is a causal relationship.
Cold and H2O is a causal relationship.
Photosynthesis is causal.
The Earth's rotation around the sun is causal.
fire and gasoline, causal.

Republicans and old age? Correlational.
Atheism and science? Correlational.
Peanut butter and jelly? Correlational.

Positively correlated. Being a scientist makes it more likely that one will also be an atheist, due to the traits they share in common, but does not CAUSE the occurrence.

And the proof is in the pudding. There are scientists who are not atheists, and there are atheists who are not scientists (most notably POX). That indicates that they are not causal, but correlational, based on shared traits or other variables.

Get it now? If you're gonna use terms, then use them appropriately. These are scientific terms that you need to know before just saying them.

Science does NOT cause atheism.
Science is positively correlated to atheism, but does not CAUSE atheism to occur.

It's the same thing all the time Pox; you talk science, use scientific terms, and then FUCKUP all the defninitions.

And being a scientist causes atheism

No. No it doesn't, and go fuck yourself.
Heat causes water to evaporate.
Cold causes water to freeze.
Fire causes gas to explode.

But being a scientist causes you to be an atheist? I don't fucking think so.
More likely? More probable? Is there a link between the two? Yeah.

CAUSAL? No.

And scientists are taught to be skeptical. To question their own results and other scientist's results. They understand quite easily that the people who claim to have evidence for God are full of crap. They know what evidence is.

I'm skeptical. I'm questioning your results. And I easily understand that your "evidence" for a causal relationship between science and atheism is full of crap.

So to repeat:
There is no stronger relationship between atheism and science than correlation. There is no causal relationship between the two.

At 3/13/09 03:10 PM, Imperator wrote:

PROVE to me that being a scientist automatically turns one into an atheist.

Huh I never said that.
One thing can have MANY things that cause it or CAN cause it. Being a scientist is just one of the many factors that can bring someone to atheism or strengthen the atheism of a person.

At 3/13/09 04:06 PM, Imperator wrote:

Being a scientist makes it more likely that one will also be an atheist, due to the traits they share in common, but does not CAUSE the occurrence.

For your theory to be true, there would have to always have been a set number of atheists throughout history/time and places.
And just now they would branch off into sciences.

But the number of atheist is on the rise.

What does this mean for your theory? Why are there suddenly more people with the "traits to be atheist" with also happens to be the "traits to be a scientist"??

I'll tell you: scientific education.

CAUSAL? No.

You've said that a lot but you still don't tell anyone what you base this on.
So far it's "well I don't think so because...huh... I doubt it". You even admit to not knowing what could convince you otherwise.

Your argument boils down to "I'm right because I am right".

At 3/13/09 03:34 PM, EKublai wrote: This whole thing is really dependent on what you consider a God. My theory is that because 3rd demesional beings are sentient and make decisions every day that affect their universes

And how do you account for objects that are not sentient that exist as 3-d objects?

Also... We are 3 dimensional because we exist in three geometric dimensions. We don't solely exist in some abstract 3rd dimension.

However, the 4th dimension must exist for a 3rd dimensional object to exist because the object must exist within time and space.

Choose a context eh? The fourth dimension isn't always time.

So the 4th dimensional being must be a complete being.

Why must it be a being to begin with?

You've said that a lot but you still don't tell anyone what you base this on.

You are denser than a fucking titanium wall.

What happens when H2O is exposed to heat? It evaporates.
Every time, barring extraneous conditions.

100% of the time, that water will evaporate.

Thus, heat causes water to evaporate.

What happens when a scientist is exposed to education?
they have a chance to become atheist.

Say 95% of the time.

Does that mean scientific education causes one to become atheist?
No, because it doesn't account for that 5% in cases where it doesn't happen.

When you boil water, it's not like there's some % chance it won't evaporate.
When you cool water, it freezes into ice. There's not some % chance where it doesn't.

When you expose a person to science, there's a chance they will become atheist.
THERE'S ALSO A CHANCE THEY WON'T.

Account for the chance that they won't become atheist, otherwise you're just ignoring other factors.

Your argument boils down to "I'm right because I am right".

seems more like it's your argument.....
Kinda like the way you ignore everything that doesn't fit that view.

I dunno who's worse, you or shaggy.
You both have the same loose definitions for "evidence", largely based around whatever the fuck you say.
You both come up with crackpot theories that any rational person would throw out the window.
You both refuse to concede when you're wrong.
You both argue the same false points in a vain attempt to be credited.

That 5% of non-atheist scientists is my proof. There must be SOME OTHER FACTOR, that you have routinely ignored throughout this argument, that accounts for it.

Since you still don't get it, lemme rephrase everything.

Learn English.
Learn the definitions of the words you use.
Learn the difference between correlation and causation.

And rephrase your argument as to not sound like a fucking idiot.

My point:
There is no causal relationship between science and atheism.
There is a strong positive correlation between the two, but no causal link.

My proof:
There are scientists who are not atheist. Therefore, science cannot give one to become atheist.
Other examples include demographics on Democrats and Republicans; old age does not make one a Republican.

Your point:
There is a causal relationship, because I say so. Most scientists are atheist, therefore science causes one to become atheist.

"Trouble me not with facts"; there are scientists who are not atheist, but don't point that out to me.

Your proof:
A shitty attack on my argument over something you clearly do not understand, man-o-science though you claim to be......

What does this mean for your theory? Why are there suddenly more people with the "traits to be atheist" with also happens to be the "traits to be a scientist"??

My theory is that they were positively correlated. So....it helps it.
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You use terms that you don't understand. I use them correctly, and then somehow you think something like this would HURT my argument?
This AIDS my argument genius.

Positive correlation.
# of people who are scientifically educated goes up--># of atheists goes up.

I'll tell you: scientific education.

Still not causal.
Course, this all has to do with the fact that you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

You know, those SCIENTIFIC words and SCIENTIFIC definiions you've been throwing around randomly.....

So far it's "well I don't think so because...huh... I doubt it". You even admit to not knowing what could convince you otherwise.

Remove the extraneous variables.

Show me that when nothing else can be considered, scientists become atheists.

I'm not asking for the causes of atheism. I'm asking you to prove science causes atheism.
BIG difference.

Account for the times that scientists DON'T become atheist, and show that when those variables are removed, scientists will become atheists 100% of the time.

Just like how heat causes water to evaporate 100% of the time.

That's what "cause", the SCIENTIFIC TERM, means.

So prove your own argument, and stop proving mine.....as you so often do.....

At 3/13/09 12:34 AM, Imperator wrote: I think just like PB&J or orange flavored things there's a common trend that makes it more likely for an atheist to be a scientist (or vice versa?) , however I do not see any other relationship beyond this indicating cause.

I think they're probably both closely linked to skepticism. People who don't believe things that can't be proven to them make good scientists.

At 3/13/09 08:09 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 3/13/09 08:00 AM, poxpower wrote: And being a scientist causes atheism, not the other way around. Being an atheist doesn't really cause anything that I know of.

I do~

Lower teen pregnancy and divorce rate. :p

Do you get what I'm saying Drakim? I need a 3rd party here. Make sure what I'm saying is coherent, and it's just Pox who doesn't get it. Otherwise I need to rephrase things if I'm not making sense to anyone.

I'm saying science and atheism are positively correlated.
I'm also saying there is no stronger causal relationship between the two.

I'm using the definitions of correlation and causation as used by science.
Science cannot be a "cause" of atheism using these definitions, because learning science and becoming a scientist doesn't automatically mean one becomes an atheist. There are other variables in play.

The example I use to show cause is water and temperature.
When no other variables are in play, heat will cause water to evaporate, and cold will cause it to freeze. It happens every time, no matter how many times you do the experiment. Just like gravity; it happens every single time, 100%, always.

Becoming a scientist does not mean one becomes atheist though. It does NOT happen every time.
It may be as high as 95%, but the other 5% shows that there are other unseen variables. This means science cannot be shown to cause atheism, until those other factors (extraneous variables) are removed. There must be other variables that account for atheism, and until those are removed, it cannot be said that science is a cause, because we don't know how those other factors are influencing the situation.

People choose science as a career for various reasons. Those reasons that compel people to don white lab coats may also be the same reasons people subsequently become atheists. Maybe it's elitism. Scientists are elite in their fields, and atheists are constantly boasting of having more brains than theists, so perhaps elitism is a cause of atheism, and of people becoming scientists.

At 3/13/09 08:09 PM, Elfer wrote:
I think they're probably both closely linked to skepticism. People who don't believe things that can't be proven to them make good scientists.

Agree. Having a skeptical mind and desiring to find out the truth is a compelling factor that makes people scientists. It's also a compelling factor that makes people atheists.

Perhaps then skepticism is a cause of atheism.

I might also suspect a strong desire in academics is at least correlated to atheism, since in terms of its presentation, atheism seems a lot more "academic" than any religion.

Strong desire in academics is certainly a cause of one becoming a scientist, so perhaps the correlation holds true for atheism as well.

At 3/13/09 07:46 PM, Imperator wrote:

That's what "cause", the SCIENTIFIC TERM, means.

Huh we're talking about social studies here, not a chemistry paper.
It's pretty damn clear that when it comes to humans, the word is applied a lot more loosely.

And I'm not the only one. Medicine is based entirely on trying to establish cause/effect relationships in humans. They have tons of data that shows that thing X causes cancer in 15% of people. What do you think they call that? A cause? Or a coincidence?

As far as I know, Historians also deal with that, using the word "cause" to say "oh this war was caused by blablabla".

And the same with psychology, economics, politics and tons of other shit.
Man, why waste time with me? You should be writing angry emails to everyone at Berkeley to inform them that they've been using the word "cause" wrong while they were conducting studies on what causes inflation or economic depressions.

I love the way you ignored everything I wrote to make an attack. I love the way you ignored the facts, ignored the argument, ignored the link, and ignored the reply.

all it would take is for you to read that link.

You'd know exactly what I mean, everything would become clear. 5 minutes of your time, could save 20 minutes of tying.

I'm not the only one who tells you these things. I'm not the only one who's informed you you've used a word inappropriately. I'm not the only one to bring this to your attention, and yet, you repeat doing it.

But I guess ignoring things that don't fit your view is how you live your life poxpower. You're not here to debate, learn, or educate anyone, you're here to troll, cause havok, and generally be an annoyance.

Maybe next time I'll just draw a doodle, that way it'd be in a language you understand.

At 3/13/09 09:37 PM, Imperator wrote: I love the way you ignored everything I wrote to make an attack.

Actually... he's making the point that your argument is somewhat of a strawman.

He was using "cause" in a casual sense. You swoop in and tell him he's wrong for using "cause" in a scientific sense.

I'm not sure you've noticed... but you've changed your argument too.