God and Certainty

[Pebble]

My replies in bold:

Contradictions are not limited to the bible! This may be a christian inspired site, but the contradictions idenitified should stand up to scrutiny.


http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

[ajrmoore]

I've gone from saying that to declaring myself Pastafarian (depends who is asking and whether they might have a sense of humour about these topics).

You guys are always skeptics no matter what.

Therefore, no evidence would be valid for you.

Somebody in this forum advised me that I was in the wrong place.

I bet you guys even suspect your own birth certificates.

Having said that, I do admire you all.

I think you are sharper than Atheists.

Most Atheists are no better than fanatical religious nutters.

Both are brainwashed and braindead.

But you guys seems to have a bit of rationality in you.

You think for yourself on EVERYTHING.

This shows intellect.

I'm unsure whether this is a genuine attempt at empathising with a skeptical point of view or a poor effort in sarcasm, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

There seems to be a rabid tint to the general responses aimed at you Rayback. It's important for you to understand that the underlying frustration that some of the UK Skeptic's have towards you is a direct result of some poor reasoning on your part. Bear with me, this isn't an insult, merely an attempt at imparting some advice about how to approach this forum (and dicussions in general) correctly.

As has been explained, being skeptical doesn't involve disregarding new ideas offhand, nor does it involve diregarding evidence that "doesn't suit us". By and large skeptics try and maintain a balanced and objective point of view. In our day to day lives this mentality prompts us to ask for ideas and opinions to be validated by reliable sources and evidence.

Here are some handy guidelines, and I suggest you take them to heart:

Originally Posted by rayback
You guys are always skeptics no matter what.

Therefore, no evidence would be valid for you

When you make a statement like this remember that it's hard for us to respond when we don't know what evidence you're referring to. By itself this is a horribly general comment. Bear in mind that we will happily and objectively consider any evidence you provide.

Next, skepticism, but more specifically science, operates according to a very specific model. Confusion arises when people attacked science without really understanding what relevant scientific terms mean and what relevance they have in arguments and discussions.

Originally Posted by rayback
Science works on objective, testable evidence.

No. It works of theories that are yet to be proven.

Some scientific "truths" get overturned by new discoveries, and these too get get overturned by even newer ones.

Funnily enough, you are right, but only in the sense that you prove the original comment correct. Science does work to formulate theories about how things work, react, exist, etc. Science then forms methodologies and methods to test these theories. They do this by using the objective, testable evidence mentioned. If the results are good this means there exists a good probability that the theory is correct. Please note however! This doesn't mean that the theory is immune to criticism. In fact it means that the theory, experiment and evidence will be subjected to much critical scrutiny. This scrutiny comes directly from the scientific community. And if they experiement or study fails to comply with the rigorous standards of the scientific community the evidence might be overturned or subjected to further study.

I mention all this because it is important that you realise that it is often skeptics, scientists and researchers that are their own harshest critics. Remember this when you post comments and statements and try to use it as a guideline for yourself. Ask yourself "Have I properly investigated the terms and definitions of what I'm discussing?" "Have I considered whether my statement is anecdotal or evidence based?" (There is a distinct difference) "Am I thinking about this all objectively?"

I'll stop there since I've already deviated horrible from the original topic. This is sincere advice, and I hope you might make use of it in future.

[rayback]

I'm unsure whether this is a genuine attempt at empathising with a skeptical point of view or a poor effort in sarcasm, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

There seems to be a rabid tint to the general responses aimed at you Rayback. It's important for you to understand that the underlying frustration that some of the UK Skeptic's have towards you is a direct result of some poor reasoning on your part. Bear with me, this isn't an insult, merely an attempt at imparting some advice about how to approach this forum (and dicussions in general) correctly.

As has been explained, being skeptical doesn't involve disregarding new ideas offhand, nor does it involve diregarding evidence that "doesn't suit us". By and large skeptics try and maintain a balanced and objective point of view. In our day to day lives this mentality prompts us to ask for ideas and opinions to be validated by reliable sources and evidence.

Here are some handy guidelines, and I suggest you take them to heart:

Originally Posted by rayback
You guys are always skeptics no matter what.

Therefore, no evidence would be valid for you

When you make a statement like this remember that it's hard for us to respond when we don't know what evidence you're referring to. By itself this is a horribly general comment. Bear in mind that we will happily and objectively consider any evidence you provide.

Next, skepticism, but more specifically science, operates according to a very specific model. Confusion arises when people attacked science without really understanding what relevant scientific terms mean and what relevance they have in arguments and discussions.

Originally Posted by rayback

"Science works on objective, testable evidence".

No. It works of theories that are yet to be proven.

Some scientific "truths" get overturned by new discoveries, and these too get get overturned by even newer ones.

Funnily enough, you are right, but only in the sense that you prove the original comment correct. Science does work to formulate theories about how things work, react, exist, etc. Science then forms methodologies and methods to test these theories. They do this by using the objective, testable evidence mentioned. If the results are good this means there exists a good probability that the theory is correct. Please note however! This doesn't mean that the theory is immune to criticism. In fact it means that the theory, experiment and evidence will be subjected to much critical scrutiny. This scrutiny comes directly from the scientific community. And if they experiement or study fails to comply with the rigorous standards of the scientific community the evidence might be overturned or subjected to further study.

I mention all this because it is important that you realise that it is often skeptics, scientists and researchers that are their own harshest critics. Remember this when you post comments and statements and try to use it as a guideline for yourself. Ask yourself "Have I properly investigated the terms and definitions of what I'm discussing?" "Have I considered whether my statement is anecdotal or evidence based?" (There is a distinct difference) "Am I thinking about this all objectively?"

I'll stop there since I've already deviated horrible from the original topic. This is sincere advice, and I hope you might make use of it in future.

Wow.

I love you ajrmoore.

Oh boy !! You have a good head screwed so correctly on your shoulders.

You are one of the reasons why I admire skeptics.

I think you should be crowned King of the Skeptics.

I am not trying to be funny here. I am serious.

You have impressed me.