An exceedingly simple question

Author: Discipulus_Didicit

Posts

Total: 156
#121
KingArthur
KingArthur's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 29
0
0
4
KingArthur's avatar
KingArthur
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
No atheism is belief that there is no god. Lack of belief is simply that... Lack of belief. No conviction. If you don't know or care if something exists, do you spend time bringing it up? No.

For example. Say there is a man in the high Asian stepped who claims he is decended from Ghengis Khan and is the one true God and the world's savior. If I told you that and you said "nah I don't believe that" would you spend another second thinking about it? No. You hear things daily that you don't believe or care for and don't spend another thought on it.

Atheism is different. It is a deep convicted belief that there is no god just as strong as belief in a god.
#122
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@KingArthur
No atheism is belief that there is no god. Lack of belief is simply that... Lack of belief. No conviction. 
A-theism just means without theism and theism is just belief in some god(s). Any person that does not believe in any god(s) is by definition an atheist. Some atheists may make possitive claims about the nonexistence of god(s) but many simply cannot maintain faith in the absence of sufficient evidence.
If you don't know or care if something exists, do you spend time bringing it up? No.

For example. Say there is a man in the high Asian stepped who claims he is decended from Ghengis Khan and is the one true God and the world's savior. If I told you that and you said "nah I don't believe that" would you spend another second thinking about it? No. You hear things daily that you don't believe or care for and don't spend another thought on it.
That depends greatly on how much this man's claims effect me personally. If he insisted tgat corriculum was changed in public schools to reflect his unfounded claims or if 99% of the nations lawmakers supported his claims and passed legislation that reflected this I might spend a lot of time dis cussing it. Even if he had little effect on my life personally I might try my best to understand why he believes this. He sounds delightfully mad.
Atheism is different. It is a deep convicted belief that there is no god just as strong as belief in a god.
I do not speak for other atheists but in my case this is untrue. If presented with incontrovertible evidence of some god(s) I would be forced to believe. Does that seem unreasonable to you?
#123
KingArthur
KingArthur's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 29
0
0
4
KingArthur's avatar
KingArthur
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Anyone who truly doesn't care about religion or doesn't believe in god in a passive way doesn't hang around religious forums.

Even if you don't believe in god, the fact that you are here means that you hold a conviction about it.

To me real a-theists, as you put it, are simply people who don't believe in a way that is so convicted that they must be here.

There are millions of atheists who truly don't believe and furthermore don't care, they are not here.

Then there are those who are here.

See the difference I'm trying to point out?
#124
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@KingArthur
I am here in part because I find all mythology fascinating. Even more fascinating is mythology people still believe in. It is a rare opportunity to explore why people hold beliefs they cannot verify. My point is that the reasons you give are far from the only reasons an atheist might frequent this forum. 
#125
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@KingArthur
You do understand the difference between atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism don't you?
Topic's author
#126
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Outplayz
Edit: One thing i'll add that i think you feel i'm leaving out... yes, i do favor the "supernatural" (whatever that means) explanations more at this point. 

You aren't leaving that out. As I just mentioned you already said back in post 58 that you think your supernatural explanation is more plausible.

If it is a random number generator, i would say they are equally just as likely.
Yes, both of those numbers are equally likely to appear if the digits are generated completely at random.

Because your justification is based on "This strong experience seems to me like a statistically significant occurrence" I would like to talk a bit more about statistics. Hopefully we can see if there is something to be learned that may help examine the situation.

Imagine as above an RNG machine that produces 20 random digits when a button is pressed. Allow me to outline two hypothetical scenarios which involve this machine.

In scenario one the button is pressed two times. The first time the machine produces the sequence "50165390173904751803". What is the chance of this precise number being produced? It is exactly 0.000000000000000001%.

That is a low percent chance but is this a statistically significant occurrence? No, it is not. The machine produced a random number just like it was supposed to, a number that does not match with any outside event. The button pusher just sees a random string of numbers

This occurrence is not statistically significant and the button pusher is not likely to think that it is.

The second time the machine produces the sequence "44444444444444444444". What is the chance of this precise number being produced? It is exactly 0.000000000000000001%.

That is a low percent chance but is this a statistically significant occurrence? No, it is not. The machine produced a random number just like it was supposed to, a number that does not match with any outside event.

However, the person pushing the button is a human and human brains are particularly adept at seeking out patterns. The person may easily see this and think to themselves "That is quite a coincidence. I have only pushed this button twice and it has already given me a sequence where all the digits are the same". This is quite misleading, however. The second number would not be statistically significant in this example. It only seems that way because the person is post hoc recognizing a pattern.

In scenario two a person that claims to be a psychic predicts that when the button is pressed all the digits will be even numbers. What is the likelihood of this prediction being accurate? It is approximately* 0.000000000000095% (100 divided by 5^20). The button is pressed and the machine produces the sequence "62280648864440284662".

The prediction was correct. Is this a statistically significant occurrence? Yes. The machine produced an unlikely result that matched with an outside event that was directly related to the button being pushed. The chance of this prediction coming true is approximately* one million times more likely than the number sequence "44444444444444444444" appearing. In fact this prediction was one hundred thousand times more likely than any sequence where all the digits are all the same appearing.

At first glance scenario two was approximately* one million times more likely to occur but was in reality much more statistically significant because of one simple difference: in scenario one the coincidence was noticed because of post hoc pattern recognition where in scenario two the coincidence was noticed because The result matched with an outside event that was directly related to the button being pushed (This outside event being the proclaimed psychic's prediction)

Do you understand why this is important? The occurrence in scenario one seems one million times less likely but is in fact not statistically significant at all but the seemingly more likely scenario two is in fact much more statistically significant. Do you understand why this is the case? If not please say so. If you do then I can give you an example of how this same exact concept might apply in daily life to give the illusion of a statistically significant occurrence where no significance actually exists.

*The word 'approximately' in this post translates as "Rounded to within a less than 5% margin of error".


#127
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@KingArthur
Yeap
#128
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Complete and utter fucking lie. 
#129
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
@Polytheist-Witch
Welcome back poly. The board lacked a certain something while you were gone. Any claim that this quality was good or bad would be completely subjective on my part but I noticed your absence and by that measure it could be said that I missed you.
#130
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin

Fuck you
#131
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
@Polytheist-Witch
Fuck you
Yes this captures the essence of what was describing. Thank you for the illustration.

#132
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I understand what you are saying in regards to scenario two, and the psychic analogy to the level i need to in order to pose a question. But please expand and tell me why exactly if i am wrong in what i'm seeing. Like i said, i'm bad at math... particularly statistics.

In your psychic example, i see a weak experience. It's just one coincidence that she (she bc females love being psychics) got it right. I understand how one coincidence is likely. For instance, if i play the lottery... i can guess all the numbers will be even... but then, can i guess what those even numbers are? Well, statistically likely not... or else i'd be rich. 

To me, when it comes to experiences, i look for patterns that should be statistically unlikely. For instance the experiences that i don't share and say they are suppose to continue to happen, they've been happening. And, i am continuing to monitor if they happen again bc certain events should trigger them. Although they are weak to medium experiences, when they correlate with a life event and continue to happen before that event... it truly makes you think, "what's going on?" I see these as statistically unlikely since there is a pattern that shouldn't be consistent. And in regards to confirmation bias... you have to understand my mind. I truly don't seek these things. I don't know when they will happen. I just know they should happen when they should. Most of the time my mind is either blank (seriously) or i am thinking of present things. I rarely think into the future, maybe a little more past but also rare. And truly, i can't guess when these events happen since the events themselves are random and rare. 

But lets get to the experiences i shared. Let's talk about the one with the least amount of coincidences, the spinning necklace. Three coincidence had to happen for it to do the right, stop, left violent spin. If it only spun violently to the right on command, i would say your psychic scenario applies. However, there was two more coincidences of it stopping and then going left violently on command. I think this is unlike your psychic scenario since now there is two more coincidences that needed to happen for the event to occur. I don't see how that wouldn't be rare... then add into that the two other experience with multiple coincidences... that makes it even more rare. Factor in that these events themselves are random... i don't see how that is not statistically unlikely. 

I understand your pattern seeking in humans factor however. I'm human, so it would be remiss of me to say i don't seek patterns. But, i truly don't think about these events. I just think if they've happened, they should continue to happen... and i wait and not think about it unless i'm having a conversation about them of course. Therefore, every time they do happen, they blindside me and i'm shocked they happened. 

So, i don't know exactly how you factor patterns of events that need to happen if they've happened. And random experiences in specific scenarios with multiple coincidences. To me, you example sounds like a one coincidence, maybe two coincidence scenario. Sorta like playing roulette. I think it does't factor all the feelings i had before the event, the randomness of it having to happen in that specific scenario, then the spiritual experience itself with multiple coincidences.

My lack of statistical knowledge may be a problem, but in these experiences i shared and is why i share, i'm of the opinion that they are rare bc i purposely (exact the Vegas event sorta since i did go being curious about the dreams) tested them beyond what i thought should be statistically improbable. Maybe i should of asked for more spins and waited for more knocking sounds. But, in that moment, what i was seeing and feeling... i thought i was pushing it enough to be statistically improbable. Plus, you got to factor it was freaking me out it was happening in general. It was hard keeping it going while being freaked out it's happening. 

Anyways, i don't understand your example clearly yet, but i do to a point. I hope i posed a good enough question for you to incorporate into your examples/analogies.   
#133
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I suppose because it is not a belief. 
#134
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@KingArthur
And why do these things frighten you so?
Topic's author
#135
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Outplayz

But please expand and tell me why exactly if i am wrong in what i'm seeing. Like i said, i'm bad at math... particularly statistics.

In your psychic example, i see a weak experience. It's just one coincidence that she (she bc females love being psychics) got it right.

The chance that all 20 digits will be any combination at all of just even numbers with a particular button push is 0.000000000000095%. In other words the odds are about 1 to 10.5 trillion against any evens-only number sequence coming up.

The math used to arrive at this figure for the percentage is (100 ÷ 5^20). If you wish I will gladly explain why this is the correct formula to calculate this particular probability but that isn't really relevant to my point.

If someone correctly predicts that this incredibly unlikely occurance will happen on a particular button push before the button is pushed then that is a very statistically signifigant occurrence even if it occurs only once. (I am not saying that proves they are a psychic, that isn't the point anyway. All I am saying is that this prediction coming true is incredibly unlikely and if it did then that would be very significant).

The key words here are before the button is pushed. That is the most important part here. Any connections made purely post hoc are subject to personal bias in the very best of cases and completely useless in most others. The reason for this is because of the concept I mentioned before that I think you understand well about the unconscious mind being very good at seeing patterns but not necessarily that great at knowing whether a particular pattern is actually important or not.

So with that said hopefully I answered your question sufficiently. If you want me to go more into detail about any particular point or you have any other questions please do so. If you feel I did not answer your question sufficiently, misunderstood your question, or did not understand the answer please let me know that too.
#136
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3

The math used to arrive at this figure for the percentage is (100 ÷ 5^20). If you wish I will gladly explain why this is the correct formula to calculate this particular probability but that isn't really relevant to my point.
I make the probability of 20 even digits as

0.0000953674316%, based on 0.5^20.

That's 9 fewer zeros than your figure  0.000000000000095%!




#137
KingArthur
KingArthur's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 29
0
0
4
KingArthur's avatar
KingArthur
0
0
4
-->
@disgusted
It doesn't frighten me. I find it funny that they spend so much time knocking religion when they're part of they're own. It's delicious irony.

#138
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@KingArthur
Were my posts somehow unclear to you?  Do we have different deffinition if the word religion? Does that mean an atheist buhdist has two religions?
#139
KingArthur
KingArthur's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 29
0
0
4
KingArthur's avatar
KingArthur
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Technically yes. The way I see it. 

#140
KingArthur
KingArthur's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 29
0
0
4
KingArthur's avatar
KingArthur
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
But again, my clumping certain atheists in the religious category has to do with the strength and conviction in their denial of God(s).
#141
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@KingArthur
So you are now softening your claim to only include 'certain' atheists?
#142
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The math used to arrive at this figure for the percentage is (100 ÷ 5^20). If you wish I will gladly explain why this is the correct formula to calculate this particular probability but that isn't really relevant to my point.
I make the probability of 20 even digits to be

0.0000953674316%, based on 0.5^20.

That's 9 fewer zeros than your figure  0.000000000000095%!




#143
KingArthur
KingArthur's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 29
0
0
4
KingArthur's avatar
KingArthur
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
No, if you go back and re-read my previous posts I think I was pretty clear. But don't strain yourself. 

#144
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@KingArthur
But again, my clumping *>certain<* atheists 

I am referring to this post in which you specifically say certain atheists. Also being an atheist does not necessitate denying any god(s) just not believing in them is sufficient.
#145
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@KingArthur
 Also being an atheist does not necessitate denying any god(s) just not believing in them is sufficient.

Mind that pile of shit. Think someone would clean it up.

Topic's author
#146
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@keithprosser
I make the probability of 20 even digits as

0.0000953674316%, based on 0.5^20.

That's 9 fewer zeros than your figure  0.000000000000095%!

Okay I figured out the source of my error(s). It's complicated and would take several max character posts to explain in full detail (which I could do but choose not to) but here is the short version:

It involves the fact that in post 126 I rounded .9536 to 1 when making that "million times more likely" statement and the fact that at the time that I made post 126 the site was being really retarded and not allowing me to edit posts, which I tried to do quite heavily and ended up actually just having to delete a few posts and make new ones instead which made me a bit frusterated. The fact that my original posting of the formula itself during the arduous process of creating post 126 was more of an afterthought in the first place also factored in.

Then when I made post 135 two days later I used 126 for reference without double checking the numbers or facts at all.

It seems I actually had it correct somewhere in the making of post 126 as evidenced by the "million times more likely" statement (not 10 trillion... goddamnit I am retarded) but a combination of site malfunctions, frusteration, and taking my own word as gospel resulted in what little I was correct on being vastly overshadowed by the glaring incorrectness you noticed and pointed out (thanks for doing so by the way).

Like I said that is the short version. When I noticed my numbers were off by such a large margin I investigated for nearly an hour to figure out exactly where I went wrong and I now am pretty sure I know exactly step by step what happened but posting the entire process would be way too tedious to be worth it.

The important points are:

1) Your number is correct Keith, mine is incorrect.

2) The original point behind post 135 is still valid because a 1 in 1,000,000 prediction is still statistically significant because the reason it was significant in the first place was due to the fact that it was not a connection made post hoc, not because it was generally unlikely.
Topic's author
#147
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Outplayz
Please see posts 142 and 146.
#148
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
@Polytheist-Witch

Do you fail to recognize the difference between denial and lack of belief ?
#149
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Imagine how sad my life must be to have checked.



#150
KingArthur
KingArthur's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 29
0
0
4
KingArthur's avatar
KingArthur
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
You're missing my point but yes, if we want to boil this down to trite semantics yes. That is the dictionary definition. *Yawn*