Thread 24464187

lazy, pig-ignorant drivel

>>24464187 (OP)
>atheists are titans of intellect
>[but expect you to be impressed they don't believe in Santa]
>atheists stand for free-thinking
>[but demand you adhere to Scientism]
>atheists are champions of reason
>[but have strong opinions about things of which they're uneducated]
>atheists are anti-dogmatic
>[but insist you interpret scripture only according to their ideas of it]
Atheism is an intelligence LARP that retards indoctrinate themselves into. Being an atheist is ridiculously easy; their main weak point is their unearned pride and if you poke at their (entirely self-perceived) intelligence they become reactive and break down. Reminder that the legacy of Nu Atheism is pic-related: homosexual rape/cuck furry fetish cartoons.

>>24464187 (OP)
>>24464211
t. americuck

dawkins is a pseudointellectual fag but so are all the christcuck larpers crawling all over this board.
no christian has ever logged onto 4chan. drop the faggotry and get a job.

You now remember faces of r/atheism. This involved those who base their personality around not believing in God heroically doxing themselves by posting their picture along with a quote (self-attributed of course) declaring their intellectual superiority. You'll notice the same old arguments are still being parroted in threads like this and, yes, a large amount of them were overweight, had neckbeards, and wore fedoras.

>>24464187 (OP)
An enemy that numbers time in millennia with a cultural basis that goes back to preliterate man and symbolism rooted in primordial hominids appears!
>[(You)--Choose your fighter]!
a) Richard Dawkins: rat-faced evolutionary biologist who popularized the word meme (secret weapon: Scientism; weakness: Kafka)
b) Sam Harris: midwit who solved the problem of induction (secret weapon: meditation; weakness: complex thought)
c) Christopher Hitchens: reformed commie/former fag with great talent for rhetoric (secret weapon: alcoholic snark (aka Hitchslap); weakness: Neoconservatism)
d) Daniel Dennett: Saturday morning philosopher (secret weapon: midwit empowerment (aka Reddit); weakness: phenomenology)
>(You): WEAPONIZED CONDESCENTION! ALL FOUR HORSEMEN, I CHOOSE (You)s!
*****[Fight!]*****
>(You) choose: YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS, DO YOU?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy isn't 4 and is unimpressed you don't believe in Santa. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: WHY DON'T YOU WORSHIP ZEUS?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Even myth is meaningful in a way not reducible to materialism. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: SCIENCE THOUGH!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy brings up the history of science and its complex relationship and continuing interplay with religion. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: FEDORA TIP!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>(You) choose: NO YOU!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>[(You) have fainted.]

>>24464214
/thread

>>24464211
alright, ill bite. what the fuck is scientism? do you just mean science. i strongly believe your post is bait but if youre serious... im sorry man.

>>24464242
>tfw lying in a bloody heap with multiple broken bones, mumbling "attack is ineffective"

>>24464253
>Scientism is the same thing as science
NGMI.

>>24464256
>t.

>>24464253
Scientism is the belief that science establishes absolutes. People often forget that science doesn't seek truth, it seeks repeatability. There is nothing holy, sacred, or absolute in science, and there are no value judgments. You cannot live your life solely based on a scientific method, which is where philosophy comes in.

>>24464214
>crypto-materialist atheist "philosopher"
LOL

>>24464755
>science doesn't seek truth
that probably sounded better in your head

>>24464755
Good post.
>>24465141
Retarded post.

>>24464187 (OP)
Atheists are fools and as such aren't worth responding to seriously. Read the proverbs- no, I won't give the chapter and verse for this lesson.

>>24464225
kys freemason.

>>24464229
No one has ever logged onto 4chan because there aren't accounts, you stupid fucking atheist.

>>24465149
>No one has ever logged onto 4chan because there aren't accounts, you stupid fucking atheist
Lol

>>24464253
"I trust in science"
People who say stuff like pic rel.

retarded post
>>24465144

everything in that book is correct btw.

>>24465179
>t.
Lol

>>24465188
>t. retarded post maker

>>24465173
>written in the bible it says...
>gods will is that...
>our lord and savior jesus christ wouldnt want you to...
dont all people use variations of your post based on what they do or do not believe in?

>>24465190
>t. seething fedora tipper

>>24465200
retarded post

See:
>>24464242
>(You) choose: NO YOU!
>>24465188
>pic related

Then:
>>24465144
to
>>24465199
>NO YOU!
And
>>24465173
to
>>24465179
>NO YOU!

Lol, the memes are true. Fedoras are retards.

See:
>>24464242
>(You) choose: NO YOU!
>>24465188
>pic related

Then:
>>24465144
to
>>24465179
>NO YOU!
And
>>24465173
to
>>24465199
>NO YOU!

Lol, the memes are true. Fedoras are retards.

>>24465211
>prised
ironic

>>24465211
the irony kek

>>24465211
kys

>>24464211
>>24464187 (OP)
It seems your problem is not people with a a lack in a belief in a god, but modern western atheists; as in secular humanists.
See:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lz6qUG-3UBc
Especially 16:02 forward for informal creeds of secular humanism.
From the comments:
>1. "But most atheists don't belong to one of these organizations". True, but keep in mind that many Christians don't go to church either. The parallel is not perfect but like I said at the beginning, this video is a bit tongue and cheek. Also, thinkers associated with these atheist organizations have had a tremendous impact on atheist "culture". The average atheist often relies on certain phrases and arguments that can in fact be traced back to individuals associated with one or more of these organizations.

E-christlarps have been more cringe than anything atheists have done in over a decade.
>I am le chad face and you are le basedboy ragecomic
>repeat for a decade

>>24465527
I don't have a problem with atheists like Nick Land, that kind of epic creepypasta forbidden knowledge atheism.

>>24465141
It literally doesn't. The scientific method begins with observing a phenomenon, making an arbitrary hypothesis, and testing that hypothesis. If the given model replicates reality "close enough", it becomes a theory. Nothing about science is an attempt to represent reality, it only predicts it. Science is a tool used to create prediction models for phenomena, but is in no way an absolute. How fucking retarded do you have to be to not know this?

>>24465602
Pop-sci taught him that scientists are superheroes eeking their way toward the ultimate truths of the universe. For example, if he's heard it he believes that 'and everybody clapped' story Richard Dawkins tells about a scientist standing up after a lecture to say "Sir, you have disproven my theory. THANK YOU!", lol.

Fedoras usually have no clue about how the scientific enterprise actually operates and the most they'll know about philosophy of science is secondhand Popper (who popularizers still obsess over because he glorified scientists and made them out to be the epitome of reason). Fuck, most of them hype science as if they're part of it and don't even know basic calculus, lol.

The existence of OP disproves the existence of deities.

>>24464211
I don't think about you at all.

>>24465798
Thanks for taking the time to let me know! Lol.

>>24464187 (OP)
imagine if dawkins read Guenon (PBUH)

>>24464187 (OP)
here's his effete limp-dicked mea culpa.
remember folks: it's easier to lose your soul than it is to get it back.

>>24465846
Who is actually losing their souls today, apart from occultists, mystics, and various other schizophrenics? It cannot be argued that these secular humanists are any less right in adhering to the standards of monotheism, as your image suggests.

>>24465851
remember that moldbug essay that explained dawkins is basically a christian in denial

>>24465851
Loss of faith.
Don't be surprised when you start seeing former atheist parents take their kids to church despite still not believing (they know it's good for their kids to have faith, but they themselves are depleted). They can still perceive the afterglow of holiness. Still got some metaphysical sense in them.
It's very hard to jump from worldviews after yours has been shattered. It's understandable.

>>24465863
moldbug's a kike.
he should talk about talmudism instead and its influence.
now that de Jouvenelean & Burnhamean/Carlylein if he wants to talk about Elite Theory and Power.

>>24465863
moldbug's a kike.
he should talk about talmudism instead and its influence.
now that's both de Jouvenelean & Burnhamean/Carlylein if he wants to talk about Elite Theory and Power.
but he can't talk about that because he has privately implicit metaphysic he keeps to himself and his kin.
if you're wise, you can see through his intellectual deepfake takes

>>24465863
How Dawkins Got Pwned.

Why's he such a brainlet?

>>24464187 (OP)

>Sky daddy believer mad

God never existed and never will. You can seethe about your unfounded retarded beliefs in fairy tales all you want though. All religiocucks should be placed in delulu asylums

>>24465949
>Sky daddy
That's what your sister calls me.

>>24465882
>It's very hard to jump from worldviews after yours has been shattered

This is true. Explains why for the majority of NPCs it is impossible to forego religion. And those who do become atheists still cling to old thought patterns. The mind is not as plastic as one may believe

>>24465957
>t.
Lol

>>24465962
He is wrong but still capable of more profound reasoning than any magic man believer. Religion didn't keep anyone sane since it's collective insanity in and of itself. Also shedding the belief in supernatural nonsense is the easy part, the inner struggle comes later(some retards can't even get there)

>>24465969
>t.
Lol

>take photo of random internet dork
>make up caption depicting him as an ideological enemy
>THIS IS YOU
Profoundly jewish

>>24465991
>seething faggot who doesn't know
See >>24464230.

>>24465991
Never mind that the actual reality is that if you're a christian, you're brown.

>jewish mythology is real or else you're cringe
No

Imagine having a belief so utterly ridiculous and so thoroughly debunked that your only "retort" is posting cherry picked pictures of other people calling out it's retardation or alluding to their completely tangential beliefs. As if either of those serve them.

No. You are not a gullible retarded smooth brain because you look ugly (which you probably do) or that your other beliefs are retarded (which they probably are). You are a gullible retarded smooth brain PRECISELY BECAUSE you believe in a magic sky monkey

Is there anything wrong with subscribing to the humanist point of view? As I see it it is quite close to Christianity just without the worship, and love of Jewish scripture…

>>24466046
Better to just hold on to your ancestral faith even if it sends you on the road to hell.

>>24466051
Sorry bucko, but hell just doesn’t exist, is all.

>>24466042
How euphoric are you right now? Lol

>>24466072
>In this moment I am euphoric. Not because of any phony God's blessing. But because I have been enlightened by my own intelligence.

>>24466062
No reason to not worship Odin then.

>>24465602
How is what you just described not seeking truth?

2025
religious people still only can do ad hominem

>>24464187 (OP)
Back to the book. It didn't even do a good job of making Atheist arguments. It's based on a poorly stuffed straw-man version of religion that's attacked in an emotional polemic. It wasn't worth finishing.

>>24466175
It's still a good intro for anyone (especially the young) who've just started to break out of their childhood religious programming and entertained for the first time a worldview which lacks supernatural dieties. Especially those with Christian backgrounds living in the west. It's been a while since I read it but I don't know the strawman you are referring to

>>24466175
Still considered so dangerous it was banned in Iran.

>>24466190
He portrays religion as extreme fundamentalist Christianity. I can't remember if he added something in the front matter admitting this.

>>24466072
to this day I still have no idea if this post was satire or not

>>24466196
Low bar.

>>24466246
>Banned in Iran
Decent name for a band though.

>>24464755
People who use "scientism" are just butt hurt that science continually BTFOs religious assertions about reality.

>>24465948
That's a based take though, Kafka has no clothes. Hell, even Kafka himself, with his dying wish wanted all his work destroyed.

>>24466338
>DON'T ATTACK MY RELIGION
Lol

reddit atheists are unironically correct.

>>24464187 (OP)
It's retarded that we need entire books to explain why believing in jewish fairy tales is bad.

>>24466217
>He portrays religion as extreme fundamentalist Christianity.
That's the primary form it takes in the US.

>>24466385
>fairy tales
>posts captcha

>>24466380
I agree but they're going to keep making these stupid "fedora" accusations because Christians are too retarded to distinguish the difference between social conformity and truth.

>>24466295
lol
Industrial Gospel

>some atheists are cringe so I will base my entire personality on a religion I don't believe in
christcucks and anti-science are the same as old atheists, they only want to be contrarian to appear cool

>>24466380
The thing is Jesus himself would agree they are the righteous ones and heir to His love for the truth. While the atavistic Christian larpers would earn His scorn.

>>24466190
>It's been a while since I read it but I don't know the strawman you are referring to
his chapters on thomas' proofs is one giant one. he doesn't even quote a single line, iirc, and just attacks what he thinks they mean, rather then contextually digging into them. the main point of the book is that logically God should have a creator as well. it's drivel from a midwit and the ending about Christianity being benign and a bulwark against something far worse is a nice way for this retard to finish driving his point in. most people who point to dawkins haven't read his work nor do they know just how much of a fool he is.

>>24466387
Not really. They just get more press.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/

>>24466446
>God should have a creator as well
Not a single Thomist has been able to refute this.

>and the ending about Christianity being benign and a bulwark against something far worse is a nice way for this retard to finish driving his point in
He's an Anglo. So milquetoast Anglo opinions make sense contextualy. The funny thing is Christianity does not even protect against islam.

>>24465846
It's amazing how ineffective Atheism has been are constructing a proper replacement for religion. They really thought you could just secularize their way to a utopia, who knew facts and logic wasn't all there was to life

>>24466460
>First, whatever a thing has besides its essence must be caused either by the constituent principles of that essence (like a property that necessarily accompanies the species–as the faculty of laughing is proper to a man–and is caused by the constituent principles of the species), or by some exterior agent–as heat is caused in water by fire. Therefore, if the existence of a thing differs from its essence, this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its essential principles. Now it is impossible for a thing’s existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence, if its existence is caused. Therefore that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence.

>>24466460
>Secondly, existence is that which makes every form or nature actual; for goodness and humanity are spoken of as actual, only because they are spoken of as existing. Therefore existence must be compared to essence, if the latter is a distinct reality, as actuality to potentiality. Therefore, since in God there is no potentiality, as shown above (Article 1), it follows that in Him essence does not differ from existence. Therefore His essence is His existence.

>Thirdly, because, just as that which has fire, but is not itself fire, is on fire by participation; so that which has existence but is not existence, is a being by participation. But God is His own essence, as shown above (Article 3) if, therefore, He is not His own existence He will be not essential, but participated being. He will not therefore be the first being–which is absurd. Therefore God is His own existence, and not merely His own essence.

>ST. 1. Q3. A4.

>>24466471
Atheism is just not believing in God. It's not an organized movement.

>>24466471
>who knew facts and logic wasn't all there was to life
Who knew you were so worthless.

>>24466471
it's the logical conclusion of protestantism
even god isn't holy enough for them kek

>>24466460
>Not a single Thomist has been able to refute this
NTA. It's not a valid retort to the prime mover argument as it fails to demonstrate said argument is logically inconsistent nor does it provide a rationale as to why one or more of the axioms can be rejected. What Dawkins writes presents a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument and it's pretty shocking it made it to print (i.e. either Dawkins and his editor are retards or they figured the readers would be and didn't care what was published).

Remember when Dawkins wrote the afterword to a pop-sci book (pic-related) written by a fellow Nu Atheist and said it was this generations "The Voyage of the Beagle"?

Lol, people throw around the term "grifter" a lot but somehow the Nu Atheists escape that obvious label.

>>24466489
Atheists or secularists, then. Atheists absolutely have created organized movements (dawkins was a part of them) and there are belief systems that have atheism as a basis (secular humanism) that were an attempt at replacing religion more broadly.
They've all failed because rationalism alone fails to explain the totality of human experience
>>24466492
Source?

>>24466483
>because we call God the first efficient cause.
So we are just assuming things

>>24466543
>Atheists absolutely have created organized movements
Fedoras are scared to admit they believe in anything (except for a cartoon version of science they can cheer at like a baseball game) and they also want to deflect from having to defend their beliefs. It's very cultlike but when it comes to an ideology most things are.
>Source?
His projection, lol.

>>24466504
> it provide a rationale as to why one or more of the axioms can be rejected.
There's no rationale for why it should be accepted either. But that's unnecessary since Aquinas never set out to prove the existence of God to begin with. It's other people who treat it as such and get btfoe'd by writers like Dawkins

>>24464253
scientism, jut describes people that whatever "science" tells them? It must be that way. Its not a bad thing, until "the science" is bullshit.

>>24466548
All arguments have axioms, retard.

It's quite funny that after getting buckbroken by the sheer lack of justification for their nonsensical beliefs, the only weapon left to theists was aping atheist accusation but just switching the terms. (Basically hardcore projection of their own ignorance, lack of critical thinking or reasoning ability, a penchant for flights of fancy and an ostrich head in sand approach to reality). "No u" is their best strategy lol with zero awareness for how out of place it sounds when someone who worships a dead Jew on a stick calls your beliefs an "ideology"

>>24466561
>But if your argument is baked into your ax-
You know what? You do you anon. I'll stand by my earlier statement and rather not engage in this. I don't even remember that he covered this part since back when I read it I didn't even know the thing he was refuting.

>>24466569
>projection
>"No u" is their best strategy
>>24465211
Lol, the patented "no you 'no you'". Never change, fedoras. Never change.

>>24466581
I'm not the same anon. It's obvious you're retarded and out of your depth just like Dawkins (only at least he's the grifter whereas you're just a mark).

>Thomas Aquinas spends his whole life studying theology
>is known as the greatest at it
>after his big moment of discovery he just shuts up
>650 years later
>guy who spends his lifetime studying evolving mammals somehow can't stop talking about theology

>>24466596
>https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
Dawkins was BTFO'd by an article that starts off with an "Imagine..." shit post, lol.

>>24464187 (OP)
I know you guys specifically center on nu-atheism because they are a relatively easy target. But due to the fact they haven't been relevant for a decade it just looks like an unhealthy fixation. Like you have unresolved Trauma when from when the big bad Fedorafags owned the internet and called you all retards in 2005.

>>24466613
>t.

>>24466618
Now that I think about it you yourself are stuck in 2015.

>>24466622
>>24466618

>be a theist
>Get accused of being a retard for believing in retarded shit
>Adopts "no u" as a general strategy with zero self awareness because actual logic and evidence works against them
>Gets called retarded again for being a retard
>Noooooo you are "no u"ing my no u

Holy shit. Never change and keep worshipping 2000 year old grifters no different from today's L Ron Hubbards

>>24465211
Add this one:
>>24466588
to
>>24466638

Fedoras are reaching levels of projection never thought possible (pic-related).

>>24466565
>>24466651
chaste and breadpilled

>>24464187 (OP)
>lazy, pig-ignorant drivel
But enough about the Bible/Koran/Torah/etc.

>>24466662
>no you

>>24466638
I'm not even an atheist but every time I enter a debate with Abrahamics they'll begin punching that strawman anyway.
>lmfao yes I believe in an infallible omnipotent omniscient omnipresent benevolent god who constantly gets it wrong
>and who wraps his religion up in so much abstract drivel that it's led to three major religions and innumerable divisions within those religions
>therefore leading to untold millions of deaths among the people he created in his own image and claims to care about
>but here's the thing, you believe nothing banged into everything lolololol
It's like talking to retards, I mean they're probably Middle Eastern or Mexican so it's likely I am talking to retards. I just want to understand why they jump through hoops to excuse their god's perpetually stupid decision making.

>>24466489
No it's not you glib sophistic dipshit.
It's Monism around Absolute Oblivion.
It's a Theology of Nihilism and you'd do well to admit it rather than self-deceive.

>>24466592
>only at least he's the grifter
I say he'd take offense to be compared to someone like Jesus and his books be considered gospels. Though you might be half right since the same human need for validation might be the fundamental driver for both public figures.

>whereas you're just a mark
I saw the falsity of religion before I read this book. As I said, it's only a good intro and does the job well for its targeted audience (which in fact wasn't me for multiple reasons). I guess those who had to deal with Christian fundamentalists could relate more

>>24466684
>I'm not even an atheist
>[tips fedora]
Lol

>>24466638
>grifter
here he is, the little nigger that believes in nothing at all.

>>24466548
i'll spoon feed you, retard. it's obvious you haven't read either and this >>24466592 anon is spot on. through his articles, which dawkins must have only read as succinct bullet points based on his "refutation" in the book, thomas claims that even if these causal chains or contingent realities existed eternally into the past there must still be a final or ultimate cause that explains not just the past existence of those things, but even their current existence, which is something a big bang cannot do. this is further elaborated on in distinguishing between two types of causal series. thomas refers to this ultimate cause as God, where science refers to them as quantum fluctuations.

>>24465549
>Simone Weil
Possibly the most overrated person of the 20th century btw

>>24466690
>I saw the falsity of religion before I read this book
Wow, anon. You must be so smart and have the best taste when it comes to hats.

>>24466691
So the fedora meme is just shorthand for demonstrating your errors now and has no actual correlation to atheism?

>>24466434
>being righteous is when you're an anglo jingoist that rejects all spirituality in favor of crass materialism
Holy shit lol.

>>24465948
Even suggesting it's SF is incredibly fatuous

>>24466701
>no you

>>24466691
>I am lucky
Cope.

>>24466695
As I said to the other guy, you do you. Experience on this board has taught me that engaging in this drivel of a proof is not going to stop imaginery sky big ban dick suckers from sucking sky big man imaginary dick and slurping out his juices. They are simply going to humph and thumph and declare victory. So I'll just save them the trouble. You can have your win, not like reason would've changed your mind.

>>24466737
>t.
Lol

>>24466745
I kneel

>>24466684
>they jump through hoops to excuse their god's perpetually stupid decision making

They don't. Nowadays they simply give up after being completely buck broken by reality. Instead they engage in a perpetual steam of memes, no u's and extreme projection that'll put BENQ W5850 to shame

>>24466708
>anglo jingoist
kek called it

>>24466737
it's important to reflect, anon. what brought the discussion to this point was someone, probably not having read either dawkins' work or the articles of thomas, responding to strawmans pointed out with a non sequitur. the justification is posted, once again probably by someone who hasn't read either work, to write something so fucking stupid as "thomas is assuming god now?", to which i responded with what he is referring to in the context of his work. the problem isn't you engaging with drivel, it's not being adequately equipped to do so. pseud to the highest degree and you would benefit from some humility.

>>24466763
If you think the new atheist movement is a matter of truth, rather than principally engaged in polemics, you might be dumber than your typical televangelist granny down in the suburbs.

>fedoras are so ass-mad they're crying about faces of r/atheism
>fedoras are mindbroken they're no youing "no you"
LOL!

>>24466684
Explain how a newborn baby is a nihilist.

>>24466694
>>24466747
>>24464225
>>24466716
Showering in a pot of doodoo according to his kin's law book brw.

>>24466776
>the problem isn't you engaging with drivel, it's not being adequately equipped to do so
Yeah just take that victory I'm not complaining. Since neither of you can ever seriously engage with what you called "fucking stupid".

I mean you will believe what you are going to believe because it makes you feel good. You've explicitly stated for years now that this word drivel is convincing enough reason for all of us to assume that a humanlike creator of the world exists and we should reconfigur our lives to worship him. Don't expect us to take you seriously if this is all you have to show for it.

What is really happening here is that your psyche and your entire worldview (not the general religious and theistic one midn you, just yours) is so heavily hinged on this one thing that its validity must become a religion in and of itself seperate from the religion it emanates from. And your method of perpetually validating your sense of self is engaging in endless debates on this without ever properly addressing how Aquinas assumes God because he literally intended to do so in the first place. So have your victory and be self vindicated. Not my concern really.

>>24466815
your entire post is a strawman. i engaged and explained why what you said was so fucking stupid; and i think it hit a nerve because you likely haven't read any of the works being discussed. the rest of your post is some dog shit projection as i didn't dip my toe into theology or my belief system, just pointed out how dawkins strawmans a few things in the book("are just different ways of saying the same thing"), ending up arguing against things not even presented in the proofs and ultimately ends with admitting Christianity is benign and a protection against something far worse.

>>24466815
>Since neither of you can ever seriously engage
It seems to me like you're projecting your own ignorance, anon. I pointed out Dawkins failed because he didn't demonstrate the prime mover argument is logically inconsistent and/or that any of it's axioms are invalid. This is because it's obvious, even to someone with a basic familiarity of the prime mover argument, that Dawkins fundamentally misunderstood his target. This means that he and his editors were too ideologically blind to exercise due diligence, were too stupid to understand the subject matter that was being addressed, or assumed his readership would be ignorant. Given that it's enough reason to write off the entire book: Dawkins is either stupid and intellectually lazy or intentionally disingenuous toward what he assumes will be an audience that doesn't know any better.

No amount of contrarianism in an autistic culture war on the internet is ever going to make me pretend to believe in Jewish mythology, and everything the right-wing believes in from the biological reality of sexual dimorphism to immigration being disastrous for white peoples can be explicitly argued with secular, materialist rationality. This entire LARP has been a lobotomy for 4chan.

>>24466853
>and i think it hit a nerve because you likely haven't read any of the works being discussed

If you were not what you accuse Dawkins of being this wouldn't have been the point to support your accusation. As if reading the text would change the course of the discussion. Or your obsession with this single thing.
>as i didn't dip my toe into theology or my belief system,
Yeah this is another one of your plausible deniability tidbits. Everything I said in my post was right lol. I don't even know how many times you've had this same discussion with so many anons and end up repeating the same pitfalls like a robot. It really is an exercise in self vindication. Like that anti-natalist Benatar chap.
>ending up arguing against things not even presented in the proofs
He did though. Atleast from what I've gathered from your posts since I read it 12 years ago.

You are just such a bad faith actor that it's insane it hasn't been called out yet. Your whole "I haven't revealed my secret religion card" schtick is just an excuse against the fact that you assume God and prime cause are the same thing without addressing all the other connotations that come with the word "God"

Absolutely nobody thinks that God is just a synonym for a universal prime cause. Almost everyone assumes we are talking about a human like intellect capable of intention.

So yeah, even though I disagree with half the thinks Dawkins stands for , he is still an actual scientist who contributed with ground level research work instead of a sophist propagandist for the catholic church. I think I've got my midwit picked for me.

>>24466917
>he is still an actual scientist who contributed with ground level research work instead of a sophist propagandist
kek. remember junk dna and his pivot after? lmao even

>>24466879
Alright, since I'm not going to waste my time re-reading Dawkins over this let's go over the thread again assuming your claims are true

You claimed that Dawkins argument comes down to "God himself needs a creator" (which is absolutely true and as I've said no one has ever refuted it)
To this you posted the original arguments made by Aquinas. I pointed out that he assumes God and since then we've been doing nothing but witnessing non stop qvetching. (Except I had decided to peace out since I knew from the get go this is a waste of time and all I'm doing is feeding egoists with their "I'm right and God exists, all arguments against my worldview I can refute" daily doze of cope)

Ok. I'll keep an open mind if you can explain to me exactly how Dawkins is wrong

>>24466932
>You claimed that Dawkins argument comes down to "God himself needs a creator"

God is not a created creator.

>>24466853
Fedoras get really mad when they can't stereotype you into a cartoon version of a religious person. What they want most is to feel superior to you in some way so they'll end up arguing with a phantom that only exists inside their head. For a recent example just look at all the meltdown threads caused by Jordan Peterson (uhoh, I said his name) explaining why he doesn't label himself "Christian" on that ADD mad minute debate series.

>>24466917
>God is just a synonym for a universal prime cause
Holy shit you're filtered, lol.

>>24466932
See above. It's pretty obvious you don't understand the prime mover argument, anon. For a baby version you can think about how it deals with the problem of an infinite regress but, then again, you'll probably end up deluding yourself into thinking you've mastered it like a Dunning Kruger retard (i.e. it's not just "infinite regress therefore God").

>>24466378
Religions are based in delusion. Science operates in reality. Cope and seethe.

>>24466516
kek, the major grifters are the ones who pass around collection plates, are exempt from taxes, and then buy themselves ostentatious displays of wealth.

>>24466952
>More qvethcing

As expected. Why did I think I would get anything better from adults with imaginary friends. Pointing out that he assumes God really gets on your nerves and brings out all the ad hominem lol.

It's fine though. While holding beliefs so ridiculous and stupid one must be armed with vitriol at the very mention of simple arguments that make it fall apart.

No physical evidence for God?
>You are a fedora
Catholic sophists assuming God to prove God?
>You're filtered.

Lmao, I won't try to take away your imagine friend lmao. I'm sure he enters your room every night when you're alone to tongue your anus

>>24466684
The whole premise of Christianity is retarded. "God wants a personal relationship with you, but he's hidden himself in such a shroud of mystery it takes a leap of faith to even believe he exists". Bro, if one of my friends went to this extent to avoid appearing before me, I'd take the hint, he doesn't want to hang out with me.

>>24466960
>t. her penis enjoyer
You can talk to us about science when you know basic calculus, anon.
>>24466965
>no you

these reddit atheists posts are so nostalgic I can't stop laughing

>Cope and seethe

Plenty of that going on in this thread already.

>>24466978
Yes, anon, let the rage flow through you. What's hilarious is you think a cult of gender ideologues are at all representative of science. You can't help but instantly gravitate towards cult tribalism lol

>>24466971
The part that gets me is that in Christianity, God sacrificed himself to himself in order to rescue humanity from the eternal damnation that God invented.

>>24466969
It's obvious to everyone you're out of your depth, anon. I know Dickey Dawkins mislead you into thinking bloviating will fool people into thinking you're smart, even yourself, but your nonsense failed the sniff test faster than your mother.

>>24466988
>What's hilarious is you think a cult of gender ideologues are at all representative of science

Their mind cannot parse the world in any other terms. Non-ideological pursuit towards truth is something their religiocuck brains can't comprehend

>>24466992
>Lowest tier refutation
>You dumb me smart
>Your mother
The Christians are not sending their best

>>24466971
You didn't get the message.

>>24466990
>reddit argument
Do you guys ever get bored of pretending to think by parroting one another or is it like when a 5 year-old watches the same movie 100 times?

>>24467000
Did an infallible supreme being fail in the simple task of sending a message?

>>24466992

>Even more qvuetching

So this is the standard response nowadays huh?. Anyone points out that the prime mover argument assumes God? Just deflect and cope.

People who are falling for a imaginary sky man grift literally 2000 years after the grifters death have no business telling anyone about their "depth"

>>24467002
You can't refute it. You can only point out that it's "reddit" (whatever that means) or maybe that it lacks originality (which doesn't make them criticism wrong).

>>24467004
you failed to receive it by your own free choice

>>24466988
>not real science
It's almost like the idealized version of science you picked up from pop-sci retards doesn't actually exist in the real world and pretending that science is infallible is defeats the purpose of, you know, conducting science.
>>24466999
Not my fault your mom stinks. Tell her to trust the science and use soap.
>>24466995
>t. science enjoyer (who can't do calculus)
Lol.

>>24467010
>tl;dr
Let me guess, something about "sky daddies"? Lol. If so you need some new material, champ.

>>24467012
>You can't refute it.
See >>24464267. Lol

>>24464187 (OP)
I hope Richard Dawkins is preparing himself for hell, for his entry into it is certain without doubt, and his torture will be the worst in all hell, worse tha Judas and Caiaphas combined and multiplied by a trillion. Words cannot describe what will happen every second for the rest of eternity. But the pain will be so intense that even being stung by ten thousand stonefish would be nothing compared. And that is the pain every second this evil sinner will experience. He can try all he likes for some death bed conversion. What he has done is so wicked that his punishment will happen and when it begins, it will be a glorious day.

>>24467022
Christians will never not be more concerned about decorum than reality. I dont give a fuck if you pretend that I'm wearing a fedora.

>>24467019
>you need some new material, champ

Nah it'll never not be funny. Because its literally true

>>24467034
>Christians get made fun of for worshipping "sky daddy"
>Christians defend themself by stating: "it's not a sky daddy!"
>Christians continue to worship a god that any reasonable person would consider fits the bill of a "sky daddy"

>>24467038
Whoever made this wasn't kidding about the "daddy" thing. They literally call it "Father"

>>24467042
Indeed, the Christians call him "Father in heaven" but get angry when you call him "Sky Daddy." It's further demonstration that what Christians care about is decorum and not reality.

>>24467034
I was right, lol. Too bad it doesn't hit as hard as fedora.

>>24467050
>Too bad it doesn't hit as hard as fedora

It really doesn't when you know it comes from a God believer. That alone nullifies everything else. I always chuckle a little when someone like that calls me a "midwit"

>>24467015
You are desperately hoping that, aren't you? Because as soon as honest, good faith people open themselves up and get radio silence, your entire worldview collapses. Pretty scary for you, huh?

>>24467016
Science is a set of principles, if someone is violating those principles, of course they don't represent science. I'm not surprised this goes over your head though.

>>24467069
you are the desperate one here, we are trying to guide you to the better path

>>24467072
I'm doing pretty well actually, and if I need religious wisdom in my life, I can cherry pick the good parts of a dozen religions and be better off than those who shackle themselves to one; rotten bits and all. Nice dodge though, didn't want to engage with the implications of what I said, huh?

How do christcels cope with this?

>>24467077
Cool bruh

>>24467062
>a God believer
Good thing you're not a professional quote maker.
>>24467071
>listen to me, a retard who doesn't know calculus, when I tell you that science is--
You first clue should be that holding science up as an infallible method is inherently nonsensical, retard. >>24467077
>I'm doing pretty well actually
Lol, no. No sweatie.

>>24467078
Lol

>>24467087
Science makes no claim to absolutes, it is a set of principles which allow us to gain higher degrees of confidence in our understanding of the universe. Again, not surprised you're struggling so much with this considering the level of your posts so far.

>>24467094
lmao

>>24467094
Nice shirt, I can now officially say nigger

>>24467100
You don't know calculus, haven't studied a scientific discipline, and don't know the first thing about the history/philosophy of science, anon.

>>24467087
Wrong

>>24464253
Just read thomas kuhn and thank me later

>>24465896
You have to be a genuine knuckle dragger to believe in an organized, global, jewish conspiracy theory. Actual vermin behavior.

>>24467123
you are vermin yourself

>>24467115
>Wrong

There is one thing that Dawkins gets wrong (or rather half-right). He thinks there are more atheists now than before because science has shone a light on the functioning of physical reality, which made religion obsolete as a way of explaining physical reality.

But he doesn't seem to understand that all ideologies emanate from the mode of production which forms the species-being of humanity. This includes both religion/atheism.

So the rise of atheism or general non-religiousity is less owed to science or people being better aware. But to the fact that we live in an industrial society and must reconfigure our consciousness to engage in that paradigm. Cull 90% of the human population and force everyone else into feudal peasentry and watch them bend their knees to deities of all flavours.

Even scientific knowledge is not independent of the material reality of production. Most cutting edge work in physics is accomplished in high tech experiments creating extreme conditions. Do these experiments tell us some truth about fundamental reality? Maybe. But that knowledge is still contingent on the paradigm of that technology.

tldr; read Karl Marx

>>24467136
Cont....

Which means that any self aware atheist would know that his claim on "truth" is not independent of his surrounding reality. 4000 years ago he would've be en bending his ass to the God of rain. And 300 years ago he would've been doing it for the dead Jew on a stick

>>24467136
>>24467144
Cont....3.

This also implies that when the religious complain about people worshipping money instead of God, they are not kidding. Money is not God in the sense that it is a conscious deity. But in the sense that it is the fiction we must keep telling ourselves to self-organise in a Capitalist society.

Money is the new God

>>24467136
>>24467144
>>24467159
Holy shit, shut up.

>>24467170
No

>>24467123
Tell that to the Iranians.
Tell them they are conspiracy theorists.
Everyone hates you btw.

>>24467136
>>24467144
>>24467159
God has always been a simulacrum, but we live in a sea of simulacra now that the primacy of that simulacrum is lost

>>24467119
I'm guessing you mean "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? Seems to be his most influencial work. Ordering now.

>>24468126
satanic ai image

the fact that you are still seething about him long after he has passed from relevance shows that he has won.

>>24468205
I’ll forever curse him for tarnishing the reputation of atheism. Before him, figures like Nietzsche and Bataille were the pioneers leading the way.

>>24468177
your mom is satanic

>>24464755
>science doesn't seek truth
You mouth-breathing retard.

>>24468205
Dawkins is a pedophile who was molested as a kid by a male teacher and refuses to condemn pedophilia but calls it child abuse to teach kids the Bible.

That's your hero, tranny.

>>24464187 (OP)
How did atheists become associated with fedoras? I thought fedoras, being old school and traditional, would be more associated with Christians.

>>24466000
So they exclusion of God creates a totally self-absorbed victim?

IF ATHEISTS ARE SO GOOD WHY ARE THEIR DAUGHTERS RAPED BY BROWN THEISTS? DAMN YOU, MALADJUSTED MIDWITS AND YOUR HOMOSEXUAL SECULARISM. FOR YOU I CANNOT START A HOLY WAR.

>>24466156
>my limited understanding of the world, butchered by nth hand regurgitations of incorrect models, as distorted by my imperfect sensory experiences and implicit biases, constitutes truth
Spoken like a true moron. There is no such thing as absolute truth. All knowledge is relative.

>>24468120
Order Against Method by Feyerabend as well and read that one after.

Aren't Christians supposed to be kind and understanding or whatever? Maybe try to be more Jesus-like next time if you want to convince anyone.

>>24468495
>t.

>>24468520
Yeah, so? I also don't hate religion. Its fine to be religious but why even bother if you're not gonna do the things you say you believe

>>24468339
It's not the fedora itself, it's the strain of dork fed on H2G2, Futurama, and dadrock who liked to wear them. The sarcastic smartypants in a trenchcoat and a Pink Floyd t-shirt, for whom Professor Farnsworth was the pinnacle of humour. In the 00s every highshool must've had one of these. There was more the stereotype, but after fifteen years of meme erosion what stuck is the combo fedora+atheism.

>>24468339
>How did atheists become associated with fedoras?
Because they wore/wear fedoras. They also frequently had neckbeards. Look at the faces of r/atheism pictures ITT.
>>24468544
>Yeah, so?
The meme is about people like you lacking self-awareness and projecting your own hypocrisy, retard. "Nooooo, you can't make fun of us because you're supposed to always be nice because, uh, my reductive view of the beliefs I'm attributing to you!!" Lol, fuck off.

>>24464211
110% correct

>>24468550
No, they love fedoras and faces of r/atheism is hard historical evidence of their fedora track record. Distinguished gentlemen, lol.

>>24468520
>t.

>>24468685
>take a picture of a guy literally wearing a cross
>write autistic fanfiction that he's an atheist

>>24467571
That's one way of looking at it. The sea of simulacrum could coincide with the sheer interconnectedness of modern production and human activity in general. Which then disperses into a big bang of variety.

It's no wonder that the pockets of atheism are concentrated in the high academic intelligentsia, finance, technocrat classes.

Tradlarps have been more cancerous online for a longer time than fedoras even were. It's literally been 11 years of this shit. Fedoras don't even exist on the internet anymore.

>>24468743
Faces of r/atheism.

>>24468685
>you cant make fun of us
Did I say that?
>reductive view
Then what exactly do you believe? What difference would it make if you were an atheist instead of Christian?

>>24468798
>Did I say that?
You cried about people being making fun of fedora tippers, lol.
>Then what exactly do you believe?
That you're a fag.

>>24468797
>actually, hatred and war is good. christian hypocrisy don't real because look at this nerd
What exactly am I supposed to be mad at here?

>>24468827
>supposed to be mad
You're supposed to laugh at the unfounded simplistic worldview that's compounded by unearned arrogance, anon. But, being a fedora yourself and thereby lacking self-awareness, you're part of the joke--I guess you can get mad at that if you want, lol.

>>24468838
>You're supposed to laugh at the unfounded simplistic worldview that's compounded by unearned arrogance, anon.
None of this is evident in the image.

>>24468817
>You cried about people being making fun of fedora tippers, lol.
I didn't say that, and don't understand your obsession with it. Sure they're fat and ugly but what exactly is the point in spamming them? To make people mad? You said that the purpose was to make fun of atheists, but why do you expect them to just let you? That it's somehow hypocritical for atheists to tell you to be kinder?

>>24468838
>christfaggot talking about simplistic worldviews

>>24468842
What part of not having self-awareness do you not understand. Oh wait, my bad. Lol.

>>24468850
>I didn't
Yeah you did. You directed your rage toward people making fun of fedoras and let the fedoras off the hook. It's because you're an ideologically blinded faggot. No worries.

>>24468851
>no you

>>24468870
Tell us more about the magic apple that make people do le bad things

>>24468873
Would it make more sense to you if the forbidden fruit were dino nuggies? Maybe you'd be better able to relate to it if that were so: instead of a snake it's your mom and instead of being ejected from a garden you remain in your parents basement. Lol.

>>24468858
Where is the arrogance? All you're doing is posting completely milquetoast, reasonable statements against religion and saying that's not allowed if you're not 11/10 gigachad.

>>24468883
>mommy makes me tendies
>punishes me for eating them
>forces me to get a job (btw getting a job won’t earn mommy’s affection no material things matter to her)
You do realize that your holy book is just incel rage from a jew 4000 years ago who grew up with a neurotic and controlling jewish mother?

>>24468896
>Where is the arrogance?
Take a guess. Let's see what you can do, anon.
>saying that's not allowed
Oh, no. It's entirely allowed and I want them to keep doing it. It's hilarious.
>not 11/10 gigachad
The fact they frequently wear fedoras, have neckbeards, and are overweight is funny but it's not the only part of the joke, anon. Pic-related.
>milquetoast
Poor word choice. Want to try again?
>reasonable statements
Lol.

>>24468865
>directed your rage
My first post was rather dismissive but it's a bit of a stretch to say I'm enraged. And what is there to "let off the hook" for the "fedoras?" They're just images of neckbeards you're spamming. You haven't engaged with their arguments at all and I really haven't brought it up either besides the fact that they are fat and ugly.

>>24468900
>n-no you!
Lol, enjoy your nuggies. Did mommy bring down the Frank's for her spicy big boy?

>>24468444
But we weren't debating the definition of truth, just whether or not science seeks it. How is science depending on replicable models mean that it is not seeking truth?

>>24468921
I dont know what mommy is up to because I don’t believe in jewish garbage. According to christfags god doesn’t talk to us anymore because we are LE BAD or something even though god talked all time to ancient jews (and only jews) because they were le good

>>24468918
>it's a bit of a stretch to say I'm enraged.
Yeah, I should have went with "seethe". 'Rage' is too manly a word for the likes of a pissant like (You).
>still crying on behalf of his fedora brethren
Hypocrite, lol.
>engaged with their arguments
See >>24464267.

Keep crying.

A magic sky man believer posting with sarcasm is peak irony

>>24468933
>I dont know what mommy is up to because I don’t believe in jewish garbage
Huh? Are you trying to tell me your mom is up to some jewish garbage? Lol!

>>24468938
I'll have you know I'm a chaos magician. I woke up this morning at dawn, my morning wood an obelisk directed straight toward the sun, and prayed to Wotan. The reason I'm effortlessly powning fedoras is that I'm in the first phase comedown of peak level semen retention, sex magick in full force, and the full moon has just turned wane.

I AM A CHAOS MAGICIAN AND I HAVE NOT JERKED OFF IN 5 WEEKS! DO YOU REALLY WANT TO FUCK WITH ME?!

>>24468949
Oh, based. Carry on then.

>>24468940
No I’m calling you a kike and your mother a kike whore, like the kike jesus you worship and his whore mother mary

Gtg for now, fedoras. Gf is here and she made a picnic for us to eat in the park.

It's beautiful outside and if it's the same wherever you are I suggest you go outside, get some exercise, and take in the weather.

>>24468955
My powers may be at a lower ebb come evening. Try me then but be forewarned. Adieu.

It speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of the internet theistic movement that the best they could muster is ape fedora atheist snark to become the fedora themselves. Without earning it of course since any ironic snark coming from an adult with actual imaginary friends is, at the very least, laughable.

>>24466613
I actually do, but for another reason.
>Be me
>Decided to meditate because Tibetan monks seemed cool
>Atheist classmates shout THERE IS NO GOD and verbally bullies me and physically assaults me
>Became an anti science, anti rationalist type of guy and betrayed my passion for physics, chemistry, medicine, biology, geology, astronomy for the sake of owning some inbred half-Russian half Estonian who was probably fucked daily by his gopno father
>Now I'm at peace and see no conflict between science and religion/spirituality
>Still wish the guy could get skewered by pozzed nigger dick and crushed by shit crusted fat elephantine ass, preferably male, preferably of a real elephant
Part and parcel of going to a Russian school in Estonia.
Although now I understand there's a fundamental difference in IQ between people who rationally concluded that the dogmas of a chosen religion may be inconsistent, incorrect, and contributing to suffering and between people who defend atheism with the low impulsivity, high emotionality of a nigger.

Every discourse I've ever watched Dawkins have boils down to him going "so you're saying snakes literally talk, science built a rocket ship, I like rocket ships more than parables and protocols for behavior, talking snakes have nothing to do with rocket ships i am very smart" I have no clue why anyone gives him the time of day.

>>24468923
Simple. Prediction-based modeling vs reality-based modeling. Science is the former.

>>24469012
The difference is no one ever put someone to death for insisting Little Red Ridinghood isnt literally true just because it's a valuable parable. Stop trying to cope that the average christian is some le greenpilled esoteric.

>>24469026
You need to read more.

>>24464211

What atheists don't believe in is the God invented by media atheists like the South Park and Family Guy writers. They don't mean a necessary Being. There's probably no such thing as a true philosopher that believes there is no God, insofar as a philosopher is someone that loves wisdom. Nietzsche claimed God was dead, that's not necessarily atheism. Spinoza (according to wikipedia) mostly criticized religion as a system. The reality is, language access makes an immediate indication in belief in an ideal. The Ideal being God, as we knew, before the atheists generated their cartoon strawmen.

Tl;dr Dawkins is very likely to die with tears in his eyes, wanting to join Clapton, Waters, and Morrisey, but being unable to.

>>24468989
>people who rationally concluded that the dogmas of a chosen religion may be inconsistent, incorrect, and contributing to suffering and between people who defend atheism with the low impulsivity, high emotionality of a nigger.

NTA. Even back when internet atheist discourse was at its peak I had guessed where the latter kind of impulse came from. Religion is simply the low hanging fruit. It allows people with an ego to declare easy victory without having to go through the required intellectual struggle. It's kind of like unironically bashing flat earthers. This kind of discourse attracts the low IQ kind who can, for once, have an intellectual upper ground. Atheists know that from their epistemology (which denies blind faith in traditions) they are completely right on this issue.

But this trend became redundant when non-religiousity simply went mainstream.

>>24469019
>reality-based modeling
Can you give an example of that?

>>24466618
>Immediately proves him right
KEK

the duality of /his/

>>24469132
NTA but you can look up theory-ladenness. Other people have mentioned Kuhn and from him you should be able to derive thought experiments, grounded in the historical record, that blow apart the simplistic view of scientific activity that internet atheists regurgitate from popularizers that only got as far as barebones Popper.

For example, you wouldn't say Newton's beliefs weren't scientific or denigrate him based on the fact we have a different understanding of the world now. Same as those that came before him. Say someone discovers some new particle or interaction that explains dark matter in a new way and this leads to the mathematical frameworks, and the theory underlying them, to be rendered entirely different than they are now (same as Newtonianism being overturned by relativity). Does that mean there are no real scientists validly conducting themselves and all of the beliefs they hold are false? Of course not. It also blows apart the idea of scientific activity as an accumulation toward a higher understanding (i.e. Kuhn's idea of incommensuratbility) and as far as that's concerned you can see what Kuhn says about what came to be known as "Kuhn-loss."

Aside from all that you have the fact that most day to day activity in science doesn't involve hypothesis testing and even when it does its usually toward expanding a hypothesis and not falsifying it. There's also all the various inputs that go into the scientific enterprise (e.g. funding be it by way of political or corporate interest) making it quite clear that the idea of a heroic scientist testing the limits of human knowledge by disconfirming his prior beliefs is just a naive fairytale.

>>24468963
Ok, but you said you "didn't know what your mother was up to" because you "don't believe in jewish garbage". You need to learn to express yourself better, lil guy.

>>24469300
>NTA but you can look up theory-ladenness. Other people have mentioned Kuhn and from him you should be able to derive thought experiments
Can't you just give a specific example?
>Does that mean there are no real scientists validly conducting themselves and all of the beliefs they hold are false?
Not sure I follow. So science does not seek truth because it is not infallible?
>most day to day activity in science doesn't involve hypothesis testing
This seems to contradict what you said previously.

>>24469351
>Can't you just give a specific example?
I gave one in the next paragraph.
>So science does not seek truth because it is not infallible?
Attributing the idea of "truth" to science is naive.
>This seems to contradict what you said previously
Not at all. The vast majority of scientific activity isn't about hypothesis testing in service of falsifying an underlying theory. Even if you ignore things that are concerned solely with practical outcomes it's mostly about expanding the purview of an existing theory. This is why Lakatos tried to reform Popper into a hardcore of a theory surrounded by satellite hypotheses that are tested instead of questioning said hardcore.

Internet atheists generally have a really basic understanding of Popper because he made scientists seem heroic and popularizers like him. He's also really easy to understand and his work concerns good intro concepts to the philosophy of science (i.e. demarcation of science/pseudoscience via falsifiability).

>>24469402
>I gave one in the next paragraph.
An example of reality-based modeling? Where?
>Attributing the idea of "truth" to science is naive.
I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. We were just talking about whether or not science seeks truth.
>Not at all. The vast majority of scientific activity isn't about hypothesis testing in service of falsifying an underlying theory.
Is that due to ideological reasons, you think? In my opinion, people would love to prove things like relativity wrong because it would make them famous.
>Lakatos tried to reform Popper
Sorry, I don't know what that means.

>you really believe in jew magic that supposedly splits an atom and destroys an entire city?
>no i will not engage in your jew magic in good faith because it sounds ridiculous
>i will make an entire career out of it, in fact

>>24469412
>An example of reality-based modeling?
I told you I wasn't the same anon and suggested you look into theory-laddeness. What that guy meant is that science seeks repeatable patterns and isn't going after a higher form of truth beyond that. I think the relevant concept here is "underdetermination" (which is related to theory-laddeness) whereby a given theory is always just part of a picture and is subject to dramatic changes.
>I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say.
I gave you multiple examples of why it's a naive view in this post: >>24469300. It doesn't stand up when examining the historical record concerning theory change (e.g. Newtonianism and relativity), accepting it leads you to a place where you make arbitrary distinction about what constitutes science (incommensuratbility), the accumulation model is obviously simplistic give the above, day-to-day activity doesn't involve falsification, and the multiple inputs by which the scientific enterprise operates defies the idea of some pure activity.
>Is that due to ideological reasons, you think?
Not really. There is an argument that the old guard of a given theory has to die off before it can be supplanted by a new one (the example here is Einstein getting his Nobel for the photo-electric effect instead of relativity which was pretty controversial) but for the most part it just makes sense if you think about it. If you were always testing your core beliefs about something you wouldn't have time to build anything up.
>people would love to prove things like relativity wrong because it would make them famous
That's why crackpots are always coming up with TOEs when actual scientists are expanding theory. Instead of solving a problem that exists they try to reinvent the wheel. It's evidence of an overly romantic view of science.
>Sorry, I don't know what that means
It should have been explained better. Basically, Popper got BTFO by Kuhn and Feyerabend (his work is almost 100 years old now so it's pretty outdated). A guy named Imre Lakatos didn't like the direction things were going so he tried to rehabilitate aspects of Popper by saying falsifiability still happens but instead of what he labelled as the "hardcore" theory being tested scientists test "satellite" hypotheses in its orbit. He died while he was still articulating this but there's a book from a conference that has it and he was in correspondence with another philosopher named Paul Feyerabend so it still got out there. He was right about the things going off the rails, in my opinion, because something called "the strong programme" wherein everything is "socially constructed" came about. Pomo influence.

>>24469452
>suggested you look into theory-laddeness
You have to make things simple for me cause I don't follow any of your points so far. I don't know what you mean by this either.
> It doesn't stand up when examining the historical record concerning theory change (e.g. Newtonianism and relativity)
Again, I don't follow what you're trying to say.
> doesn't involve falsification
So science doesn't follow the scientific method? Is that what you're saying?
>Basically, Popper got BTFO by Kuhn and Feyerabend (his work is almost 100 years old now so it's pretty outdated).
I don't know who those people are. Why are they relevant to this conversation?

>>24469471
>make things simple
I gave a pretty bad explanation of "underdetermination" too because I'm distracted by Goodfellas playing on AMC, lol. It's basically what it sounds like: a given theory is always underdetermined by available data because you don't have all the data available (e.g. all swans are white--but you haven't seen all swans). Theory-laddeness is about how an articulation of a theory demands attention is being directed to specific outcomes and must therefore dictate aspects of reality instead of observing them without bias. Also, I think underdetermination also implies that competing theories can all be equally valid to explain a given dataset BUT one view is given priority in a way that can seem arbitrary unless you inject pragmatism in order to justify it (which again underscores the fact scientists aren't necessarily moving at some higher truth but just practical outcomes); I could be getting terminology confused though because I'm going off of memory and haven't refreshed this knowledge in a while.
>Again, I don't follow what you're trying to say
What part don't you get?
>So science doesn't follow the scientific method?
No. If you want to make a better helmet from you test the helmets you make. However, the "scientific method" that you learn doing labs in high school is just a really basic description that doesn't encapsulate the scientific enterprise overall. Going back to helmets it's like reducing everything that went into making them to hitting the final with a hammer--but how did the material you're making them out of come about, do you need to test all aspect of the underlying the materials science in order to engineer the helmet, etc.
>Why are they relevant to this conversation?
Because the naive view of scientific activity you see expressed ITT and others like it generally comes from people who aren't trained in a scientific disciple and, even if they are, don't know much about the history and philosophy of science. If you're truly interested in this stuff those names are a roadmap of how to learn about science. Basically, you had Karl Popper going up against the Positivists (like Rudolf Carnal) in the 20s/30s, Popper coming into conflict with what is now known as "the historical turn" initiated by Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend working on and advocating "scientific anarchism" and Imre Lakatos trying to rehabilitate Popper in light of where things were going, and then you have the emergence of 'the strong programme" which is full pomo social constructivism stuff (this is Barry Barnes and David Bloor...also Bruno Latour and his anthropology of a science lab book I forget the name of).

Anyway, learning more about the history and philosophy of science will generally shake people out of their atheistic beliefs if they're sincere about it. It's also a lot better than going around like a dimwit who thinks he's informed because he read a few IFL Science articles, lol.

>>24469535
>Rudolf Carnal
Carnap. Autocorrect.

>>24469535
>What part don't you get?
Desu I don't actually know what you're stance is or what you're trying to argue. The other anon was saying that science doesn't seek truth and he also said only "reality-based modeling" can, which apparently science doesn't do.
I dunno if you agree with the guy or not or what you're even saying most of the time.

>>24469572
>science doesn't seek truth
I explained why this is so by giving examples and talking about key figures in the philosophy of science.
>"reality-based modeling"
Underdetermination and theory-laddeness.

>>24469597
Then I guess we'll agree to disagree. I have a really hard time reading your posts and I can't tell what you're saying 90% of the time.

>>24469626
>agree to disagree
See, you're problem is turning this into a debate instead of learning from the information with which you've been provided. Let's see what a basic Google Search does for the idea of underdetermination:

>Underdetermination, in the philosophy of science, refers to the idea that the evidence available at a given time may not be sufficient to uniquely determine what beliefs or theories we should hold. Essentially, multiple, possibly conflicting, theories can be equally well supported by the same evidence. This concept has significant implications for how we understand scientific progress and the nature of knowledge.
Ok, let's keep scrolling and see what this has to do with how science plays out...
>Equivalence of Theories:
>Underdetermination highlights the possibility that different theories can be empirically equivalent, meaning they make the same predictions about observable phenomena, even though they might differ in their underlying assumptions or explanations.
Ok, so this means that multiple views of reality can exist at the same time using the same data. Not looking very good for "truth." Let's see..
>Challenge to Scientific Realism:
>Underdetermination challenges the idea that scientific theories aim to accurately represent the real, underlying structure of the world, as it suggests that multiple, equally valid representations might be possible.
So this must be what that other anon meant about "testing the real" or whatever. Anything else?
>Importance of Auxiliary Hypotheses:
The concept often involves considering auxiliary hypotheses or background assumptions that, when combined with the core theory, can explain the observed evidence.
Oh, there's Lakatos (not in name but that's his terminology). What else?
>Examples of Underdetermination:
Theories of Light:
>Early debates about the nature of light involved wave and particle theories, both of which could explain some phenomena but not others. The evidence available at the time did not definitively favor one theory over the other.
There's Kuhn and his historical turn.

Starting to understand now?

>>24469626
Sorry, I kept reading and there's more info that might help you out:

>Underdetermination raises important questions about:
>The role of non-empirical factors:
>If evidence doesn't fully determine theory choice, other factors like simplicity, elegance, explanatory power, or even social or historical context might play a role in scientific progress.
So not "truth".
>The nature of scientific progress:
>It suggests that scientific progress might not always involve converging on a single, true theory, but rather exploring multiple, equally valid perspectives.
Oh, so definitely not truth and I can see the influence of Feyerabend in that.
>The limits of scientific knowledge:
>It reminds us that our knowledge of the world is always provisional and subject to revision as new evidence emerges or as our understanding of the evidence evolves.
So it's important not to subscribe to something like Scientism. Got it.

Hope that helped.

>>24469650
>Hope that helped.
It didn't. I still don't know what you're on about.

>Underdetermination, in the philosophy of science, refers to the idea that the evidence available at a given time may not be sufficient to uniquely determine what beliefs or theories we should hold. Essentially, multiple, possibly conflicting, theories can be equally well supported by the same evidence.
Ok, so? You do more research and experiments until one theory beats the others. It's ok to say you don't know the truth in the moment because there isn't enough evidence to determine it, but that has nothing to do with whether or not you seek it.
>Ok, so this means that multiple views of reality can exist at the same time using the same data. Not looking very good for "truth."
As opposed to what method of truth seeking that can only lead you to one conclusion?

>>24469658
>Ok, so? You do more research and experiments until one theory beats the others.
No, anon. The point is that equally valid theories exist and can describe the exact same data at any given time. Multiple factors come into play in deciding which theory gets priority and they have nothing to do with the idea of "truth." What's more, we can go back to our prior discussion of Kuhn and making declarations about what constitutes "science" at a given time.
>As opposed to what method of truth seeking that can only lead you to one conclusion?
Read the part about "scientific realism", anon.

>>24469681
>Multiple factors come into play in deciding which theory gets priority and they have nothing to do with the idea of "truth."
Can you give an example of two equally valid theories replacing one another?
>Read the part about "scientific realism", anon.
I did, but I have a really hard time trying to understand what you're saying. Sorry, I don't know how to respond to that.

>>24469698
>Can you give an example of two equally valid theories replacing one another?
"Replacing one another" doesn't really make sense. But as far as generalized descriptions of reality go quantum theory and relativity don't mesh. I wouldn't say either is wrong or one is truer than the other. As that AI said other factors come into consideration when deciding which theory to use and they don't have anything to do with "truth."
>I did, but I have a really hard time trying to understand what you're saying
The other anon say science doesn't test reality (or whatever it was) which can be taken as a statement about "scientific realism". He's right because of underdetermination. On top of that you also have theory-laddeness (which I didn't Google/post) wherein a given theory prejudices your observation. For example, you say "wood is brown" and you look at a wooden table. You see the table as a shade of brown when someone else could say "wood is yellow" and see the table that way. How you describe the table is based on your perimeters for observing wood (and you could also say the colour of the wood is underdetermined). It's a pretty crass example but it works.

>>24469733
>But as far as generalized descriptions of reality go quantum theory and relativity don't mesh.
Ok but the laws of relativity and quantum effects are demonstrably true. So how is this supporting your point?

>>24469738
>Ok but the laws of relativity and quantum effects are demonstrably true
You could easily subtract "are" from that sentence and substitute the word "true" with "work", anon. Is classical mechanics less true than quantum mechanics or relativity? Newton wasn't doing science?

Again, it's important to point out the difference between conceptual assumptions which underpin a theory and things like its practical applications or the mathematics used to represent it. You don't need quantum mechanics or relativity to design a bridge. For that we still use Newton.

>>24469754
"classical mechanics" do not contradict quantum mechanics or relativity. Relativity added to classical mechanics since the math there didn't work out in a few cases, but as far as I know they are not opposites.
>You don't need quantum mechanics or relativity to design a bridge.
What on earth do you mean....

>>24469767
>classical mechanics" do not contradict quantum mechanics or relativity
They're incommensurable when it comes to how they describe reality, anon.
>Relativity added to classical mechanics since the math there didn't work out in a few cases
How Kuhnian of you. Kuhn's theory of revolutions is that "anomalies" (for Newtonianism being replaced with Relativity I think the main one was the perihelion of Mercury) accumulate and this eventually leads to a "crisis" and a "paradigm shift" (FYI the term paradigm shift was popularized by Kuhn so if you've ever heard it that's how influential his work was). The problem is that the conceptual underpinnings of a given theory are "incommensurable" with those of the other so neither is exactly "true" or untrue.
>What on earth do you mean
Well, you used the word "true" in a way where it could be substituted with "work". If you're going to overgeneralize the idea of "true", and not even realize you're so doing, it's a red flag.

When it comes to deciding the applicable theory the idea of "true" doesn't mean as much as "works". You use classical mechanics if you want to engineer a bridge and leave relativity and quantum mechanics out of it.

>>24469803
>They're incommensurable when it comes to how they describe reality, anon.
When it comes to designing a bridge, or why do you keep bringing that up?

>>24469815
>When it comes to designing a bridge
No. Again, the conceptual underpinnings theories can conflict with one another to the point Kuhn described them as "incommensurable" worldviews. Incommensuratbility is a concept Kuhn took from mathematics and it basically means they conflict with one other in such a way that you can't hold both simultaneously.
>why do you keep bringing that up
I just explained that to you. You generalized the idea of "true" to the extent it could be substituted with the word "works". As previously discussed, "truth" doesn't really play a part when it comes to selecting a theory. Among other considerations that were listed above (the AI post summarized a few and I myself gave examples) a key consideration is that which you're trying to accomplish. Classical mechanics no longer holds theoretical primacy over quantum mechanics/relativity (aside, themselves being incommensurable) but it's what we used when we design a bridge. Would you use something that wasn't "true" to build a bridge? Well, those other theories exist so is classical mechanics "untrue"? Are those other theories better? Not when it comes to building a bridge.

>>24469833
>Classical mechanics no longer holds theoretical primacy over quantum mechanics/relativity (aside, themselves being incommensurable) but it's what we used when we design a bridge. Would you use something that wasn't "true" to build a bridge? Well, those other theories exist so is classical mechanics "untrue"? Are those other theories better? Not when it comes to building a bridge.

I don't think that has any bearing on anything. Caveman Grug could believe the Gods brought flint to earth to allow him to make a fire. Modern geology can describe how flint came to be secularly, but that doesn't change the function of flint itself. In the same sense, just because Newton didn't understand that gravity was bent space and not a force in a classical sense, doesn't his all of his math is wrong.
I don't think you have to completely reject one or the other and obviously I don't think modern science does that at all.

>>24469842
You're just not getting it, anon. I've tried to help you but you're too far out of your depth. Overgeneralizing what you mean by "truth" is a giant red flag.

>>24469850
Sorry, bro. Here's a basic definition of truth I found on google:
>Truth, in its most basic sense, is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.
It seems to me that creating falsifiable tests and experiments to decide what is and isn't closer to reality is seeking truth. Ergo, I think science fits the bill.
If you believe there is a non-scientific way that has a higher chance of describing reality more accurately then feel free to apply it in your daily life.

>>24469857
>It seems to me that creating falsifiable tests and experiments
Most of what scientists do doesn't involve trying to falsify theories, anon. We went over this.
>to decide what is and isn't closer to reality
Again, theory-laddeness and underdetermination. The perimeters set by the theory predetermine your observations and multiple theories can be validated based on the same data.
>seeking truth
"Truth" isn't how you select a theory. Again, your use of "truth" is synonymous with "works" (as far as that goes remember the bridge).

Also, we didn't get into it but since this thread is about religion you should probably read up on the "conflict thesis" and see why it's regarded as nonsense now.
>If you believe there is a non-scientific way that has a higher chance of describing reality more accurately then feel free to apply it in your daily life.
When was the last time you factored in relativity while walking to the store? Lol.

>>24469867
>When was the last time you factored in relativity while walking to the store? Lol.
I factored in relativity the last time I turned the GPS on my phone, since it couldn't exist without it.

>>24469026
More people have been put to death for secular materialist reasons in human canon. Is that really the centerpiece of you objection to religion?

>>24469873
I didn't think you'd be clever enough to use that example so well played. However, you yourself didn't factor in relativity and the fact remains the vast majority of theory has nothing to do with practical considerations you take in your day to day life. What's more, if you find examples I'd remind you of your inability to differentiate "true" and "works".

>>24469904
I don't think that's relevant. Ancient people didn't know about the nuclear fusion inside the sun, yet that had no impact on them receiving the heat from it.
Just because a theory or a fact has no immediate impact on you, doesn't mean it's no longer true.

>>24469907
>I don't think that's relevant
Its certainly relevant in a discussion of science. You're the one who brought up adhering to scientific truth in your "daily life". Sounds to me like you're treating science as if it were a religion.
>Ancient people didn't know about the nuclear fusion inside the sun
I would have used Romans building great bridges without classical mechanics.
>Just because a theory or a fact has no immediate impact on you, doesn't mean it's no longer true
Again, you don't differentiate between "true" and works.

>>24469920
No, I just think that scientific theories that have more provable evidence behind them are more likely to be true. That's all. I don't define things as true based only on whether they affect me in the moment, otherwise I'd think that the universe ends at the horizon.

>>24469940
>have more provable evidence behind them are more likely to be true
Underdetermination. Theory-laddeness. Incommensuratbility.
>I don't define things as true based only on whether they affect me in the moment
You also don't differentiate between "true" and works.

>>24469948
>Underdetermination. Theory-laddeness. Incommensuratbility.
Sorry, that stuff is beyond me and I already forgot what they mean.
>You also don't differentiate between "true" and works.
Well, truthful things have a higher chance of being turned into something that works. But you can give a false explanation to something true, like how Columbus tricked some natives by predicting an eclipse and telling them God was mad.

>>24469955
>that stuff is beyond me
Basically, you can't say theories are chosen based on "truth" and if you can't understand why it's probably best not to be strongly opinionated about it. Pretty much comes down to that.
>truthful things have a higher chance of being turned into something that works
That still doesn't differentiate between something that is true and something that merely works, anon.
>you can give a false explanation to something true
Now you're getting into epistemology and "justified true beliefs" (JTBs).

>>24469989
>you can't say theories are chosen based on "truth"
I think I can. Feel free to provide any theory that hasn't been "chosen" based on facts or evidence in modern science.
>That still doesn't differentiate between something that is true and something that merely works, anon.
Works in what way? I don't think everything that is true has a practical application. Like I don't think some in-depth analysis of another galaxy affects us directly, but I also don't think that because they don't affect us directly then that must mean they are unknowable
>Now you're getting into epistemology and "justified true beliefs" (JTBs).
I wouldn't know and frankly I don't really care.

>>24470007
>I think I can
Do so in light of underdetermination, theory-laddeness, and incommensuratbility. Claiming ignorance of these terms and avoiding their relevance after they've been explained to you multiple times in various ways doesn't pass muster. If this is a debate you've already lost, appealing to your own ignorance is an admission, so you might as well accept it as a conversation and learn from it.
>Feel free to provide any theory that hasn't been "chosen" based on facts or evidence in modern science
I never claimed "facts or evidence" plays no role in science, anon.
>Works in what way?
You're the one using the terms interchangeably and avoiding conversation relating to it even though it's been brought up multiple times now. Why is it important to define science as seeking truth when you use the term "truth" interchangeably with something that merely works? It seems to me like you want the connotations that come with Truth but can't admit why--its seems like you want to elevate science to the status of a glorified idol.
>I wouldn't know and frankly I don't really care
They you shouldn't be so opinionated.

>>24470026
>Do so in light of underdetermination, theory-laddeness, and incommensuratbility.
Nah, it's alright.
>I never claimed "facts or evidence" plays no role in science, anon.
But the definition of truth I provided was: >Truth, in its most basic sense, is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.
So if truth is the property of being in accordance with facts and science seeks facts, then why are you saying science does not seek truth?
>something that merely works?
Works in what way? You're the one saying I'm defining truth that way but I don't even know what you mean.
>They you shouldn't be so opinionated.
I don't think I am.

>>24470041
>Nah, it's alright
Then your opinion on the matter is of no value and I suggest you start matching your knowledge or lack thereof to the strength with which you endorse it.
>truth
I told you I have a problem with you overgeneralizing the idea of truth and called upon you to give that term priority over something that merely works in light of how you used the term. Why do you have to say "science seeks truth" and not "science seeks what works"? Once you admit science is only seeking what works how is that still truth?
>being in accordance with facts
Multiple theories can be supported by the same set of data/facts. The theoretical parameters you set out with determine your observations so your "facts" don't exist in a vacuum. Currently accepted theories are incommensurable to one another (e.g. relativity and quantum mechanics) so how do you qualify which is more true?
>why are you saying science does not seek truth?
Differentiate the idea of truth from that which merely works at a given time.

>>24470108
>Multiple theories can be supported by the same set of data/facts.
But not to the same degree and not throughout time. This is why some theories become dominant over time, because more facts are revealed. You brought up relativity, but that wasn't accepted as fact until we were able to prove that space was bent when we could see stars behind the sun during a solar eclipse. It was not simply a personal preference or bias that people had for Einstein or his theories, it was the fact that they were provable.
>Differentiate the idea of truth from that which merely works at a given time.
If it works then it corresponds to reality to some degree. Over time our understanding of certain things can improve by gaining a deeper knowledge of reality. Ergo seeking the truth.

>>24470147
>But not to the same degree
Yes to the same degree.
>throughout time
Incommensuratbility. How do you account for Kuhn-loss (i.e. when a new paradigm is unable to explain certain things as well as the old)? Also, when did astrology become a pseudoscience? What characteristics make it unscientific? What do you have to say about alchemy and how it reflects on the development of chemistry? The basics of chemistry haven't changed in over a century so if you're talking about progress alone is the periodic table more true than classical mechanics?
>more facts are revealed
Revealed or explained? We knew the perihelion of Mercury was an anomaly and classical mechanics wasn't falsified by it? Why is that? If science is about truth and we knew that the theory couldn't explain the data so was it untrue?
>You brought up relativity, but that wasn't accepted as fact until we were able to prove that space was bent when we could see stars behind the sun during a solar eclipse
Are you sure about that? That was only one part of the theory and as I mentioned before Einstein didn't get his Nobel for it--that supposed confirmation came years before he got it. How did the Michelson-Morley experiment contribute to Einstein's theory of special relativity and how was that experiment flawed?
>to some degree
So science doesn't see what is Truth but rather something that has a certain degree of truth to it? Ok.
>Over time our understanding of certain things can improve by gaining a deeper knowledge of reality
How does this process take place given what you've been taught above regarding the history and philosophy of science?
>Ergo seeking the truth
There's that bastardization of the idea of truth again. Why do you need to differentiate between "truth" and what works?

>>24470180
>when a new paradigm is unable to explain certain things as well as the old)
Like?
>when did astrology become a pseudoscience?
When it kept making unfalsifiable claims and when we realized that the planets weren't actually Gods moving through the sky.
>What do you have to say about alchemy
Too steeped in magical thinking and unfalsifiable claims, same as astrology.
>Are you sure about that?
Yes.
>So science doesn't see what is Truth but rather something that has a certain degree of truth to it? Ok.
Truth is being in accord with reality, the more knowledge you gain about reality the closer to truth you get. So you are always seeking truth through science.

>>24470188
>Like?
A specific example isn't important to how the question has been posed, you won't have the requisite knowledge of a given field of study, and it will only distract you. How can you account for occurences in the history of science wherein the predictive power of a previous paradigm was greater than that which replaced it in certain domains of a given data set?
>When it kept making unfalsifiable claims
Astrology still makes plenty of falsifiable claims, anon.
>the planets weren't actually Gods
What are you talking about? Astrology was a key part of the Aristotelian Medieval Worldview and it's study contributed to the development of medical science. Why isn't it a scientific theory?
>skips a bunch of questions
What do you have to say about alchemy and how it reflects on the development of chemistry? The basics of chemistry haven't changed in over a century so if you're talking about progress alone is the periodic table more true than classical mechanics?
>Yes.
Then you need to read more including the very next sentence where I told you that experiment only proved one aspect of relativity. I then pointed out a flawed experiment, that didn't actually falsify the aether, influenced Einstein's development of special relativity and reminded you that the theory of relativity still wasn't widely accepted (i.e. why didn't Einstein get the Nobel for relativity?).
>Truth is being in accord with reality
Classical mechanics wasn't in accord with the perihelion of Mercury. Does that mean the theory was untrue? Again, you're still talking about degrees of explanation (not even degrees of truth).
>the more knowledge you gain
How does this process take place given what you've been taught above regarding the history and philosophy of science?

>>24470256
>A specific example isn't important
So it doesn't exist then.
>Astrology still makes plenty of falsifiable claims, anon.
The part of astrology that made falsifiable claims has become astronomy. Same as alchemy and chemistry. The magic parts were discarded.

>>24470262
>So it doesn't exist then
Kuhn-loss exists but if I give you an example you'll be sure to miss the point and start talking about how much we've progressed since then without actually accounting for Kuhn-loss as if it isn't relevant to a discussion of scientific development. The key point you need to understand is that scientific progress isn't necessarily linear.
>The part of astrology that made falsifiable claims has become astronomy
Lol, no. The claim that I'll receive a promotion at work this week has nothing to do with astronomy and is in fact falsifiable. Therefore falsifiability doesn't clearly demarcate scientific claims from non-scientific claims unless you want to call astrology a science (however poor it may be). When did it stop being a science, anon?
>Same as alchemy and chemistry
That wasn't the question, anon. What does the development of chemistry from alchemy say about chemistry? Was alchemy a science? It's not just about magic but also about the transmutation of substances which is still very much a part of chemistry. Can you be specific? No?
>drops conversation about relativity not being confirmed and can't address why it wasn't accepted in the mainstream let alone how a flawed experiment influenced Einstein
Ok.
>still hasn't explained how the process he asserts takes place in light of the information which which he has been provided
Ok.
>didn't address why the perihelion of Mercury didn't falsify classical mechanics and what that says about "truth"
Hmmm.

>>24470291
>but if I give you an example
Go for it.
>The claim that I'll receive a promotion at work this week has nothing to do with astronomy and is in fact falsifiable.
The claim that whether or not you receive a promotion has to do with the movements of the planets and the month of the year you were born in is unfalsifiable.

>>24470300
>Go for it
Why are you avoiding the question?
>The claim that whether or not you receive a promotion has to do with the movements of the planets and the month of the year you were born in is unfalsifiable
No it's not. If I don't get a promotion the claim is falsified.

Speaking of falsificationism, go ahead and tell me why classical mechanics wasn't falsified by the perihelion of Mercury. You still have no comment on whether or not alchemy was a science? Still can't say why relativity wasn't widely accepted after that singular experiment you mentioned or what it says about special relativity that its development was influenced by a flawed experiment that didn't actually disconfirm the theory of luminiferous aether? Still can't give me a clear explication of your theory of scientific development that takes into account the information I've so generously provided you?

>>24470332
>Why are you avoiding the question?
Which question? I've been ignoring at least half of your posts for a while now.
>If I don't get a promotion the claim is falsified.
The causation has to be established first. Is there a way to prove a common behavioral pattern for Leos? Is there a way to predict the outcome of the next month will be like on average for Scorpions? If not, then all predictions are nothing more than guesswork.

>>24470339
>Which question?
How do you account for Kuhn-loss (i.e. when a new paradigm is unable to explain certain things as well as the old)?
>I've been ignoring at least half of your posts for a while now.
Is that supposed to hurt my feelings? Lol.
>The causation has to be established first
Well, Newton famously said "hypotheses non fingo" with regard to gravity so that claim you just made doesn't hold up. So, you're going to have to do better than that. Oh, regarding Newton you still haven't explained by the perihelion of Mercury didn't falsify classical mechanics.
>Is there a way to prove a common behavioral pattern for Leos?
Of course. You make a hypothesis based on your observations of what you define as Leos and test that by examining other people born in that same time period.

Aside, did you know people born during winter months are more likely to be schizophrenic? You can certainly derive common personality traits among schizophrenics and seeing as they're likely to be born in the winter months you could easily confirm a theory about being a Sagittarius and a schizophrenic.

Were you born in the winter? Lol.

>>24470361
>when a new paradigm is unable to explain certain things as well as the old
I am not aware of any such example, so I don't see how I can account for it.
>Is that supposed to hurt my feelings? Lol.
No, it's just the truth.
>Well, Newton famously said "hypotheses non fingo" with regard to gravity
You don't have to explain why being a Leo makes you have a good month, but you need to establish that it does. Otherwise it's guesswork.

>>24470368
>I don't see how I can account for it.
So you need to retool your idea about what makes a given theory dominant while questioning the progressive linear model of scientific development in which you believed.
>No, it's just the truth
Cool.
>You don't have to explain why being a Leo makes you have a good month, but you need to establish that it does.
Newton didn't establish why his laws of gravity worked, anon. One of the most powerful scientific theories of all time was just guess work?

Why didn't the perihelion of Mercury falsify classical mechanics?

>>24470387
>So you need to retool your idea
Why would I?
>Newton didn't establish why his laws of gravity worked, anon. One of the most powerful scientific theories of all time was just guess work?
No, you misunderstand. You don't have to uncover the innerworkings of a physical law in order to establish that the physical law exists.
All I said is that you need to establish that your birthsign determines your life outcomes, not necessarily WHY it does that.

>>24464755
>what the fuck is scientism?

A pointless neologism to obscure the fact that science and the scientific method, for the most part have been damning for religion. People who say science and religion operate on non-overlapping domains are correct because their system of knowledge is built on contradictory paradigms. And one of them has been far more succesful than the other in dealing with tangible reality.

It's just a series of philosophical word-babble to convince oneself of the idea that the concept of God shall not render itself to scientific inquiry or any kind of empirical inquiry for that matter. So we can just pretend that its a seperate class of knowledge.

Now there is nothing wrong with having distinct domains of knowledge but as far God is regarded as something that has any tangible consequence in physical reality, even when dealing with far off events like creation itself, there's no reason to think that the apologist's hand waving away responsibility should be regarded with any seriousness.

It's kind of like feminism in its art of hypocrisy, skepticism for thee but not for me. They'll tell you why any empirical method can never lead to any conception of truth, but never tell you why you're supposed to regard their 2000 year old man mad scriptures as anything but man made.

>>24470417
>Why would I?
Because it's obvious there's existing data that doesn't fit your theory.
>No, you misunderstand.
I very much do understand, anon. You claimed astrology doesn't make falsifiable predictions and I demonstrated it does. You then changed your argument to "you have to explain why being a Leo makes you have a good month" so I pointed out Newton famously "feigning not hypotheses" in regard to gravity.
>You don't have to uncover the innerworkings of a physical law in order to establish that the physical law exists.
You don't get to have it both ways, anon. Why do you have to establish the inner workings of astrological predictions and not classical mechanics?

Why didn't the perihelion of Mercury falsify Newtonianism? You still haven't answered.
>All I said is that you need to establish that your birthsign determines your life outcomes, not necessarily WHY it does that
You can establish whether your birth sign controls your life via the experiment I gave you. I even gave you a clear way as to how being a Sagittarius would lead to a high amount of people reflecting certain personality traits (more schizophrenics are born in winter).

Astrology is falsifiable and it can make valid predictions so is it a science?

>>24471272
>it's obvious there's existing data
Provide it then.
>You claimed astrology doesn't make falsifiable predictions
No, I never claimed that. I said it makes unfalsifiable ones. The actually scientific parts of astrology morphed into astronomy.