Comment on Anon ruins christmas
cynar@lemmy.world 11 hours agoAtheism does require belief. Even if it’s only in the axioms of physics.
As per my analogy, bald is not a haircut, but an absence of hair. You would be hard pressed to find a bald person who complained about it being lumped in with haircuts in a form.
Recognising the limits to our own knowledge is an important part of finding the truth.
Oh and the options “on fire” and “not on fire” obviously belong in the same grouping, even if they are different things.
ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
Interestingly, a diet poor in Omega-3 leads to inability to distinguish between belief and fact.
Please go on such a diet.
Now you’re confusing atheism - lack of belief in deities - with general knowledge of science, and then confusing general knowledge of science with belief. You are also confusing empirical evidence with faih.
Go eat fish.
cynar@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
I’m scientifically trained (physics specifically), I’m also an atheist myself. I believe, based on a preponderance of evidence, that no creator being exists. The exception possibly being the simulation hypothesis. However, without specific evidence of that, the chances are extremely slim so I default to the null, aka atheism.
Interestingly, science has very few “facts”. Facts are mostly a thing of mathematics , which can create rigorous proofs. There is a lot of evidence in science, along with predictions and theories, but few facts.
E.g. I don’t know, for a fact, that the sun will rise in 1 year’s time. The evidence says it’s practically a certainty, but it is not a true “fact”. It’s a prediction based on an absurdly large evidence base.
abs_mess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 hours ago
So technically, in math we refer to the core “ideas” from which all mathematics is derived as axioms, which we hold to be true until found to be false/self-contradictory/redundant. We arrive at these by describing the world, so it’s more like - “if you agree to the following statements, then you must also agree to the entirety of mathematics”.
Continuing with the occupational pedantry, I think there is some confusion lies in conflating “fact (repeatable observation)” with “fact (tested causal mechanism)”
So, kinda not really, but kinda? This is more philosophy but i think the idea is that as long as we can ensure that “there exists a statement for which there is a piece of evidence that can prove a statement false, but no evidence exists after significant testing and experiments” IRL we can use this interchangeably with “I have found a causal mechanism that causes this phenomena and can replicate the effect while controlling for confounding variables”. Statements under both are true and correct to the best of our understanding.
ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
And the “trained physicist” confuses that with “belief”.
Literally some neurologists say he can be cured of that by eating more fish.