[Moderated] Why I have a tough time talking to believers. - Page 9

tsig · 28th January 2013, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

So the only way to come to the opinion that a god may exist is to believe in that god? The human mind cannot get there through reason alone?

It's never been done. In fact, you seem to be advocating abandoning reason because we petty humans don't know enough.

truethat · 28th January 2013, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Nope. Science is always proving things. I have A level qualifications in biology, physics and chemistry. What do you have?

Science doesn't prove things. It disprove things. Science has theories and facts but never 100 percent "proof" of things.

You can call it whatever you want but you know I am correct. Sigh

Quote:

Technically, what science deals with are hypotheses. A theory is a hypothesis which has been well supported by experiments. However, hypotheses, and even theories, are most always considered to be tentative. That is, it is always allowed that some valid experiment could show that the hypotheses is incorrect, either wholly or in part (referred to as falsifiability), so that it must be rejected or modified. So in science, absolute proof is usually impossible. Essentially it would require proving a universal negative: this hypothesis does not fail under any circumstance. And as they say, to prove a universal negative requires universal knowledge. A hypothesis which is not "falsifiable" is not generally considered to be scientific. That's not the same as being untrue; there might be any number of truths which are all the same beyond the reach of science.

Read more: Can science prove a theory, or can it only disprove a theory? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/36328#ixzz2JHcZ7AoO

Quote:

WHAT ARE 'A-LEVELS'?
In the UK, after completing compulsory education at the age of 16, students may legally leave school and start work. Most, however, study for A-levels or equivalent qualifications which means they will specialise in three to five subjects.
Where the expression 'A-level' is found it may be compared to results of year six in secondary school in Belgium (zesde middelbaar/6ième humanité).
Within the British system of A-levels, pass grades are from A (the highest) to E (the lowest). Grade F is a fail.
It is important to keep in mind that there is no official equivalence between the Belgian and the British system. In the end institutions decide themselves how they compare the foreign grades to the British ones.

What exactly is the equivalent of A levels in Belgium, because it sure as heck sounds like a basic college degree and not graduate studies?

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 07:10 AM

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

You can call it whatever you want but you know I am correct. Sigh

You're wrong there and the site you linked to is just a forum, just like this one.

tsig · 28th January 2013, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I have but I don't think you were about to hear it at the time.

My evidence is that an intelligent being (humanity)has emerged quite naturally in nature and will soon create an artificial intelligent being(AI), which will in turn create other artificial or biological beings, which will in turn create others etc etc.

Intelligent creation at work!

After a while this may result in the technology to manipulate spacetime and as if by magic a god is created. What could be simpler?

That's quite a flight of fancy but I wouldn't sell plane tickets just yet.

tsig · 28th January 2013, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

It is evidence of creators. All you have to do is scale up from there. You sound like one of the old testament prophets.

IOW god is a human with a bigger tool box.

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

That's quite a flight of fancy but I wouldn't sell plane tickets just yet.

Patience grasshopper. Our distant descendants will be creating universes right left and centre. ''Junior, I told you to tidy up your universe before supper!'' ''Leave the boy alone Martha, he's a god!''

truethat · 28th January 2013, 07:16 AM

So what it says is untrue? Yes or no? It is definitely true. If you are going to argue this then I won't engage because that is not how science works.

I'm curious what A levels mean, excuse my ignorance? Is it the equivalent of an Associates degree? I'm not sure the way the system compares to the US.

Ask one of your professors and they will tell you I am correct.

Here's another article.

http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

You are wrong.

Quote:

Scientific law: a generalized description, usually expressed in mathematical terms, which describes the empirical behavior of matter.

Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them.

Example: drop a pencil, drop a book, drop a ball, drop a ruler, in fact drop anything that is heavier than air, and it will fall. The generalized description is the law of gravity ("objects that are heavier than air fall when released"). Notice that this doesn't tell us what gravity is, but it does describe its behavior. Of course, if we were to really do this "scientifically", we'd make measurements about the speed of the fall, and then we'd probably state the law as Isaac Newton did mathematically.

Remember this very important idea: Isaac Newton knew what gravity did (he could describe its behavior), but he could not explain why gravity did it. Even today the topic of what gravity really is, is an active topic for scientific discussion.

More more more just google "scientific proof" this is SO BASIC that I'm shocked you got through your classes and got "A levels" and seem to be unaware of this.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ientific-proof

Btw could you please post where Punshh made a positive statement about God? You are the only one in the thread who made a positive statement about Big Bang. And it's false and scientifically unprovable.

Paulhoff · 28th January 2013, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Love this! Is this your own words?

If I know something is someone else's, I put it in quotes.

Paul

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

So what it says is untrue? Yes or no? It is definitely true. If you are going to argue this then I won't engage because that is not how science works.

I don't follow. What are you talking about?

Quote:

I'm curious what A levels mean, excuse my ignorance? Is the equivalent of an Associates degree? I'm not sure the way the system compares to the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCE_Advanced_Level

tsig · 28th January 2013, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Why people think that others are interested in their justification for treating people like garbage and being an arrogant jerk is beyond me.

The reading comprehension issues in this thread are staggering to say the least.

There was no positive claim about God, there was the statement made that until you can prove that everything in the world just came into existence on it's own in a natural way, the poster is going to keep the possibility of a supernatural or intelligent creator of it all open.

What is very bizarre about this statement is that it is a LOGICAL STATEMENT because it is based on disbelief of those who say they "know" how the world came to be.

When someone says existence started with the BIG BANG I'm pretty shocked. What's the difference between believing in the "Big Bang" and "Believing in God."

Yes we may have evolved in knowledge enough to be able to track information and data that as we currently interpret it, looks like the big bang theory is correct. But you don't KNOW that anymore than a person who says they KNOW there is a God.

When people say things just as stupid and narrow minded as the worst Christian fundy out there, and then try to pretend this way of thinking is "sophisticated" just because it sneers at God belief I'm truly shocked.

I can't believe that people could be so clueless.

I can't either but it'd help if one read the thread.

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 07:22 AM

''Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them''

That does not gel with your earlier statement

''Science doesn't prove things, it disproves things.''

truethat · 28th January 2013, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I don't follow. What are you talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCE_Advanced_Level

Have you graduated from college or not? Are you an undergrad or in Graduate School. The way the article reads it seems like the equivalent of a test for college, that's hardly making you an expert in your field. It's almost bizarre to me that you would even offer them as somehow proof, especially when you obviously don't understand the fundamental way that science works???

If I'm wrong I do apologize, It seems to me that your education is several years higher than a high school students here? Is that right?

tsig · 28th January 2013, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

You don't. But to say that you believe in Big Bang as the answer to "how did this all get here" is such a ridiculous leap of faith statement to make when you are nailing someone to the wall for believing in something "without proof."

Big Bang is a theory that seems possible based on the HUMAN interpretation of the information and data. All science changes as we go along. To make that giant leap of faith to "This is the answer" instead of "This MIGHT be the answer" is so very typical of believer bashers.

What I find interesting about it, is most believer bashers grew up in religious homes that would bash atheists or believers of other faiths for not believing in the "real answer."

It seems to me these kinds of people then take that disgusting habit and just flip it around back on the believers once they change over to Atheist.

It wasn't cool when they were doing it as a believer and it isn't cool when they do it as an atheist.

It's childish, illogical and very ignorant. They are the kinds of people who walk around saying "I believe in Evolution" and treat beliefs like contests to see who can come up with the "better answer."

How did we get here? What caused the universe to come to be? The truth is none of us will EVER know in our lifetime. The answer is, we don't know.

Eta as I await the inevitable pile on of accusations of being a closet Christian (YET AGAIN) for those who are still struggling with reading comprehension.

A. Evolution is NOT a belief system. It's a scientific theory and fact, you don't "believe" in evolution any more than you "believe" in biology.

B. I am an aggressive atheist. I am certain that there is no god as we have as humans described god.

An aggressive atheist who leaves the back door open?

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 07:26 AM

As for believing in the Big Bang and believing in god, there is plenty of evidence that the Big Bang occurred but not a shred for the existence of any god.

truethat · 28th January 2013, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

''Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them''

That does not gel with your earlier statement

''Science doesn't prove things, it disproves things.''

Yes it does. Keep reading the links I've posted, I don't feel like having to explain something so basic.

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Have you graduated from college or not? Are you an undergrad or in Graduate School. The way the article reads it seems like the equivalent of a test for college, that's hardly making you an expert in your field. It's almost bizarre to me that you would even offer them as somehow proof, especially when you obviously don't understand the fundamental way that science works???

If I'm wrong I do apologize, It seems to me that your education is several years higher than a high school students here? Is that right?

I am not claiming to be an expert, I am just interested in how much you know about science.

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Yes it does. Keep reading the links I've posted, I don't feel like having to explain something so basic.

I get your extremely basic point. I don't agree with it.

truethat · 28th January 2013, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

As for believing in the Big Bang and believing in god, there is plenty of evidence that the Big Bang occurred but not a shred for the existence of any god.

You can accept the theory, but to state it's TRUE is ridiculous and no scientist worth his salt would ever say that it is.

Also your logic is messed up. Big Bang is not the opposite of God belief. Evolution is not the opposite of creation.

Juxtaposing these two issues like this is a poor way of rationalizing an argument. As I've pointed out earlier. I loathe when people do this.

Just because one theory has more proof than the other and seems more realistic DOESN'T mean that it is the truth. Not at all. It boggles my mind when I see people make this argument.

It comes across as a very simplistic way of thinking.

truethat · 28th January 2013, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I get your extremely basic point. I don't agree with it.

It's not my POINT, omg. LOL It's the definition of science. You are completely wrong. I didn't write those articles, you know that right? Scientists wrote those articles.

truethat · 28th January 2013, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I am not claiming to be an expert, I am just interested in how much you know about science.

Yes you were, you mentioned your A levels for a reason right? When you did I thought you must have a graduate degree in a science field because I can't believe that you would actually try to offer up "passing three really hard tests" as some sort of proof of your superiority in this?

You are wrong in your interpretation of what science means. Please ask your teachers what it means and maybe they will be able to explain what I'm saying here because it's simple.

From the article

Quote:

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

tsig · 28th January 2013, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

The opposite of Big Bang is not "God."

You don't get to leap over "proof" just because your theory is "not God." Prove it, if you can't prove it then you basically have an "irrational belief" in "something you can't prove."

You know, like fairies?

You think there's as much proof for faeries as there is for the big bang?

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Yes you were, you mentioned your A levels for a reason right? When you did I thought you must have a graduate degree in a science field because I can't believe that you would actually try to offer up "passing three really hard tests" as some sort of proof of your superiority in this?

You are wrong in your interpretation of what science means. Please ask your teachers what it means and maybe they will be able to explain what I'm saying here because it's simple.

From the article

The only thing that interests me about this thread is that certain claims were made about the existence of evidence that proves the existence of a god but the claimant refuses to disclose the evidence.

tsig · 28th January 2013, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

A. I don't believe in God. I have stated that several times. So what "your god" are you referring to?

B. AGAIN.... reading comprehension. Please link to the post in this thread that made a positive statement about God?

C. Please prove that Big Bang is responsible for the origins of the universe.

If you can't then you are believing something without proof. This is illogical.

Hope you and Arthur Conan Doyle enjoy your membership to the same club of irrational believers.

Here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

truethat · 28th January 2013, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

The only thing that interests me about this thread is that certain claims were made about the existence of evidence that proves the existence of a god but the claimant refuses to disclose the evidence.

What claims were made about proving the existence of God. No positive claim was made about God in this thread.

Once again. The first poster stated that until you could prove the way the world was created without a god, they would still consider the possibility of a creator.

THIS IS NOT A POSITIVE STATEMENT

This is a statement about keeping an open mind about the possibility.

The next poster stated that it seemed possible (SEE THAT POSSIBLE) that there could be a grand creator because humans themselves naturally evolved as creative creatures. IOW We are here, and we create things. What is the difference between us programming a computer and another creature out there in the universe that evolved long before us and was able to program a code to create the universe?

THIS IS NOT A POSITIVE STATEMENT ABOUT GOD

This is a statement about a possibility. The evidence was given and it's a logical conclusion.

These are not stupid statements. They are rational logical statements. I still think they are wrong but I can see they are intelligent easy to understand statements that are NOT POSITIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT GOD

So why do you and Gawdzilla keep insisting they are?

tsig · 28th January 2013, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

A. I don't believe in God. I have stated that several times. So what "your god" are you referring to?

B. AGAIN.... reading comprehension. Please link to the post in this thread that made a positive statement about God?

C. Please prove that Big Bang is responsible for the origins of the universe.

If you can't then you are believing something without proof. This is illogical.

Hope you and Arthur Conan Doyle enjoy your membership to the same club of irrational believers.

Originally Posted by truethat

This is what I find very amusing. If the universe on it's own could pop into existence with Big Bang, why couldn't a God come into existence on it's own with a Big Bang god making energy thing.

There's no way to argue this statement. I can see why for many people they definitely feel there is a God and not just based on "stories in a book" or "ideas" but personal experiences in their lives that feel transcendent and a form of Hierophany.

Do I think it's God? Nope, but I can definitely understand why they would believe it. The same way I don't sneer at Arthur Conan Doyle for believing in pixies that someone showed him "proof of" in photographs.

Really?

truethat · 28th January 2013, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Really?

THAT is what you chose to comment on? Oh pahleeeeze, even you can come up with something better than that.

Saying someone has an irrational belief is NOT the same as sneering at them for it and mocking them.

Which is why I don't have a tough time talking to believers.

tsig · 28th January 2013, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Not it isn't. Making up answers to questions you can't answer with your "best guess" is not science. It's someone who can't handle the fact that we don't know the answer and for some reason needs to fill in that blank so they force an answer to be the answer even if they can't prove that it's true.

Some people do that with God.

Some people do that with Big Bang. It's the same damn thing.

We can find evidence that gives up glimpses into the way the universe unfolded but you cannot make statements about what "caused" the universe to come into existence.

It's the same circular argument. If Big Bang happened where did the matter that needed to explode come from? Where did the space for it to explode INTO come from? What caused it to set off when it did?

The answer is WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE AND WE NEVER WILL.

Why not?

Paulhoff · 28th January 2013, 07:58 AM

A god brings nothing to the table of understanding, and in fact for many stops all future investigation that could lead to any understanding at all.

God is another dead-end to any real understanding.

Paul

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

What claims were made about proving the existence of God. No positive claim was made about God in this thread.

Try reading the thread.

''Incorrect, there is much evidence.''

''The evidence suggests that if there is a god, ''

''This is a common fallacy on this forum, that God is a fictional creation.'

''There is evidence of intelligent creators arising naturally in the environment we find ourselves in.''

''This is proof that intelligent creators emerge in existence quite naturally. ''

Ron_Tomkins · 28th January 2013, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

THAT is what you chose to comment on? Oh pahleeeeze, even you can come up with something better than that.

Saying someone has an irrational belief is NOT the same as sneering at them for it and mocking them.

Which is why I don't have a tough time talking to believers.

Indeed, my dear Truethat
In fact, as you can see you and I, both atheists, can have a hard time talking to some theists, but also some fellow atheists. In the end, it isn't about whether the person one is arguing with is an atheist or a theist, it's about how obtuse they are, and how unwilling they are to engage in a dialogue, and hold their arguments to scrutiny. To some atheists, anything that doesn't resonate with their binary view of a situation, translates as an Alarm for "Intruder Theist Undercover!!"

Let this thread be the best proof of that.

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Really?

Lol. Gottim!

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Indeed, my dear Truethat
In fact, as you can see you and I, both atheists, can have a hard time talking to some theists, but also some fellow atheists. In the end, it isn't about whether the person one is arguing with is an atheist or a theist, it's about how obtuse they are, and how unwilling they are to engage in a dialogue, and hold their arguments to scrutiny. To some atheists, anything that doesn't resonate with their binary view of a situation, translates as an Alarm for "Intruder Theist Undercover!!"

Let this thread be the best proof of that.

Not really. All I wanted was for punsssh to provide the evidence that he talked about. Is that too much to ask?

truethat · 28th January 2013, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Not really. All I wanted was for punsssh to provide the evidence that he talked about. Is that too much to ask?

THEY DID they did it several times. It's quite simple they did.

If a human being can evolve to become a creature that can now create AI and computers and do all sorts of very intelligent things, why is it so hard to believe that another creature could have evolved with same capability and have "created" human life?

You asked for evidence of a creature evolving to be a creator. They gave you one. HUMANS. Then you dragged in this crap about it not being immortal when they NEVER SAID THAT.

YOU said it.

You and Gawdzilla are the ones making positive statements and then pretending the believer is the one that did it.

It's really mindblowing to see this.

tsig · 28th January 2013, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

THAT is what you chose to comment on? Oh pahleeeeze, even you can come up with something better than that.

Saying someone has an irrational belief is NOT the same as sneering at them for it and mocking them.

Which is why I don't have a tough time talking to believers.

You didn't mean to sneer at Sir Arther, that's why you put him and dafydd in the same category?

Since you claim that militant atheists are believers and you are definitely having a hard time talking to them your very posts in this thread give lie to your statement.

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

THEY DID they did it several times. It's quite simple they did.

Wrong. Punsssh is not a ''they'' and please quote a post where he provided the evidence. Please read the thread before you make any more comments.

truethat · 28th January 2013, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Try reading the thread.

''Incorrect, there is much evidence.''

''The evidence suggests that if there is a god, ''

''This is a common fallacy on this forum, that God is a fictional creation.'

''There is evidence of intelligent creators arising naturally in the environment we find ourselves in.''

''This is proof that intelligent creators emerge in existence quite naturally. ''

Link to the quotes please. Cherry picking sentences out of context because you are too lazy to read the entire post and don't feel the need to because are so SURE you already know what the poster is saying is one of the worst bad habits on this site.

It drives me crazy.

Links please.

Beelzebuddy · 28th January 2013, 08:10 AM

You're both wrong here, although not equally wrong.

Science does not prove ideas, only disprove them. It does, however, require proof of the things used to disprove the ideas. Otherwise those things are just anecdotes. "I had an elevated experience where Baby Jesus spoke to me" cannot disprove squat, because you can't prove it happened.

This means that, yes, we don't know FOR SURE whether the Big Bang theory is correct. In fact it's almost certainly wrong in some of the particulars. What we can say is that it is the least wrong thing we've found so far, having gone through a fairly large battery of proven things that failed to disprove it.

Likewise, "goddidit" is also almost certainly wrong, although not disproven. What has been disproven, with the aid of proven things, is the involvement of every specific god that has been put forth as the one that did it. This leaves the theory as a sort of vague and unfalsifiable shrug, requiring nothing, explaining nothing, good for nothing.

Both of these theories are wrong. But as Asimov said, if you think they're just as wrong, you're wronger than both of them together. It speaks to a fundamental dissonance in your scientific understanding. Even if you can go through the motions of science, you have clearly lost sight of why you're doing it.

[ETA] I should add I'm largely replying to this post, which starts off the "what is science?" debate with the implication that god and the big bang are equally (in)correct ideas.

truethat · 28th January 2013, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Wrong. Punsssh is not a ''they'' and please quote a post where he provided the evidence. Please read the thread before you make any more comments.

I do not know Punssh's gender, so I generally use THEY as a sign of respect until I know the gender. Do you know the gender? You said I was a GUY and I'm a woman. It's rude IMO.

I have read the thread. YOU HAVE NOT or if you have then you really don't understand what is being said.

dafydd · 28th January 2013, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

You didn't mean to sneer at Sir Arther, that's why you put him and dafydd in the same category?

Evidence to the contrary:

I don't believe in fairies and I didn't write the Sherlock Holmes, Brigadier Gerard or The White Company stories.

28th January 2013, 07:10 AM	#322
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by dafydd Nope. Science is always proving things. I have A level qualifications in biology, physics and chemistry. What do you have? Science doesn't prove things. It disprove things. Science has theories and facts but never 100 percent "proof" of things. You can call it whatever you want but you know I am correct. Sigh Quote: Technically, what science deals with are hypotheses. A theory is a hypothesis which has been well supported by experiments. However, hypotheses, and even theories, are most always considered to be tentative. That is, it is always allowed that some valid experiment could show that the hypotheses is incorrect, either wholly or in part (referred to as falsifiability), so that it must be rejected or modified. So in science, absolute proof is usually impossible. Essentially it would require proving a universal negative: this hypothesis does not fail under any circumstance. And as they say, to prove a universal negative requires universal knowledge. A hypothesis which is not "falsifiable" is not generally considered to be scientific. That's not the same as being untrue; there might be any number of truths which are all the same beyond the reach of science. Read more: Can science prove a theory, or can it only disprove a theory? \| Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/36328#ixzz2JHcZ7AoO Quote: WHAT ARE 'A-LEVELS'? In the UK, after completing compulsory education at the age of 16, students may legally leave school and start work. Most, however, study for A-levels or equivalent qualifications which means they will specialise in three to five subjects. Where the expression 'A-level' is found it may be compared to results of year six in secondary school in Belgium (zesde middelbaar/6ième humanité). Within the British system of A-levels, pass grades are from A (the highest) to E (the lowest). Grade F is a fail. It is important to keep in mind that there is no official equivalence between the Belgian and the British system. In the end institutions decide themselves how they compare the foreign grades to the British ones. What exactly is the equivalent of A levels in Belgium, because it sure as heck sounds like a basic college degree and not graduate studies?
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain Last edited by truethat; 28th January 2013 at 07:13 AM.

28th January 2013, 07:10 AM	#323
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th January 2013, 07:11 AM	#324
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	Originally Posted by truethat You can call it whatever you want but you know I am correct. Sigh You're wrong there and the site you linked to is just a forum, just like this one.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 28th January 2013 at 07:13 AM.

28th January 2013, 07:15 AM	#327
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	Originally Posted by tsig That's quite a flight of fancy but I wouldn't sell plane tickets just yet. Patience grasshopper. Our distant descendants will be creating universes right left and centre. ''Junior, I told you to tidy up your universe before supper!'' ''Leave the boy alone Martha, he's a god!''
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 28th January 2013 at 07:17 AM.

28th January 2013, 07:16 AM	#328
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	So what it says is untrue? Yes or no? It is definitely true. If you are going to argue this then I won't engage because that is not how science works. I'm curious what A levels mean, excuse my ignorance? Is it the equivalent of an Associates degree? I'm not sure the way the system compares to the US. Ask one of your professors and they will tell you I am correct. Here's another article. http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm You are wrong. Quote: Scientific law: a generalized description, usually expressed in mathematical terms, which describes the empirical behavior of matter. Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them. Example: drop a pencil, drop a book, drop a ball, drop a ruler, in fact drop anything that is heavier than air, and it will fall. The generalized description is the law of gravity ("objects that are heavier than air fall when released"). Notice that this doesn't tell us what gravity is, but it does describe its behavior. Of course, if we were to really do this "scientifically", we'd make measurements about the speed of the fall, and then we'd probably state the law as Isaac Newton did mathematically. Remember this very important idea: Isaac Newton knew what gravity did (he could describe its behavior), but he could not explain why gravity did it. Even today the topic of what gravity really is, is an active topic for scientific discussion. More more more just google "scientific proof" this is SO BASIC that I'm shocked you got through your classes and got "A levels" and seem to be unaware of this. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ientific-proof Btw could you please post where Punshh made a positive statement about God? You are the only one in the thread who made a positive statement about Big Bang. And it's false and scientifically unprovable.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain Last edited by truethat; 28th January 2013 at 07:22 AM.

28th January 2013, 07:10 AM	#321
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,776	Originally Posted by punshhh So the only way to come to the opinion that a god may exist is to believe in that god? The human mind cannot get there through reason alone? It's never been done. In fact, you seem to be advocating abandoning reason because we petty humans don't know enough.

28th January 2013, 07:12 AM	#325
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,776	Originally Posted by punshhh I have but I don't think you were about to hear it at the time. My evidence is that an intelligent being (humanity)has emerged quite naturally in nature and will soon create an artificial intelligent being(AI), which will in turn create other artificial or biological beings, which will in turn create others etc etc. Intelligent creation at work! After a while this may result in the technology to manipulate spacetime and as if by magic a god is created. What could be simpler? That's quite a flight of fancy but I wouldn't sell plane tickets just yet.

28th January 2013, 07:14 AM	#326
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,776	Originally Posted by punshhh It is evidence of creators. All you have to do is scale up from there. You sound like one of the old testament prophets. IOW god is a human with a bigger tool box.

28th January 2013, 07:19 AM	#329
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 12,570	Originally Posted by truethat Love this! Is this your own words? If I know something is someone else's, I put it in quotes. Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

28th January 2013, 07:20 AM	#330
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	Originally Posted by truethat So what it says is untrue? Yes or no? It is definitely true. If you are going to argue this then I won't engage because that is not how science works. I don't follow. What are you talking about? Quote: I'm curious what A levels mean, excuse my ignorance? Is the equivalent of an Associates degree? I'm not sure the way the system compares to the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCE_Advanced_Level
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th January 2013, 07:22 AM	#331
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,776	Originally Posted by truethat Why people think that others are interested in their justification for treating people like garbage and being an arrogant jerk is beyond me. The reading comprehension issues in this thread are staggering to say the least. There was no positive claim about God, there was the statement made that until you can prove that everything in the world just came into existence on it's own in a natural way, the poster is going to keep the possibility of a supernatural or intelligent creator of it all open. What is very bizarre about this statement is that it is a LOGICAL STATEMENT because it is based on disbelief of those who say they "know" how the world came to be. When someone says existence started with the BIG BANG I'm pretty shocked. What's the difference between believing in the "Big Bang" and "Believing in God." Yes we may have evolved in knowledge enough to be able to track information and data that as we currently interpret it, looks like the big bang theory is correct. But you don't KNOW that anymore than a person who says they KNOW there is a God. When people say things just as stupid and narrow minded as the worst Christian fundy out there, and then try to pretend this way of thinking is "sophisticated" just because it sneers at God belief I'm truly shocked. I can't believe that people could be so clueless. I can't either but it'd help if one read the thread.

28th January 2013, 07:22 AM	#332
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	''Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them'' That does not gel with your earlier statement ''Science doesn't prove things, it disproves things.''
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th January 2013, 07:25 AM	#333
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by dafydd I don't follow. What are you talking about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCE_Advanced_Level Have you graduated from college or not? Are you an undergrad or in Graduate School. The way the article reads it seems like the equivalent of a test for college, that's hardly making you an expert in your field. It's almost bizarre to me that you would even offer them as somehow proof, especially when you obviously don't understand the fundamental way that science works??? If I'm wrong I do apologize, It seems to me that your education is several years higher than a high school students here? Is that right?
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

28th January 2013, 07:25 AM	#334
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,776	Originally Posted by truethat You don't. But to say that you believe in Big Bang as the answer to "how did this all get here" is such a ridiculous leap of faith statement to make when you are nailing someone to the wall for believing in something "without proof." Big Bang is a theory that seems possible based on the HUMAN interpretation of the information and data. All science changes as we go along. To make that giant leap of faith to "This is the answer" instead of "This MIGHT be the answer" is so very typical of believer bashers. What I find interesting about it, is most believer bashers grew up in religious homes that would bash atheists or believers of other faiths for not believing in the "real answer." It seems to me these kinds of people then take that disgusting habit and just flip it around back on the believers once they change over to Atheist. It wasn't cool when they were doing it as a believer and it isn't cool when they do it as an atheist. It's childish, illogical and very ignorant. They are the kinds of people who walk around saying "I believe in Evolution" and treat beliefs like contests to see who can come up with the "better answer." How did we get here? What caused the universe to come to be? The truth is none of us will EVER know in our lifetime. The answer is, we don't know. Eta as I await the inevitable pile on of accusations of being a closet Christian (YET AGAIN) for those who are still struggling with reading comprehension. A. Evolution is NOT a belief system. It's a scientific theory and fact, you don't "believe" in evolution any more than you "believe" in biology. B. I am an aggressive atheist. I am certain that there is no god as we have as humans described god. An aggressive atheist who leaves the back door open?

28th January 2013, 07:26 AM	#335
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	As for believing in the Big Bang and believing in god, there is plenty of evidence that the Big Bang occurred but not a shred for the existence of any god.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th January 2013, 07:26 AM	#336
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by dafydd ''Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them'' That does not gel with your earlier statement ''Science doesn't prove things, it disproves things.'' Yes it does. Keep reading the links I've posted, I don't feel like having to explain something so basic.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

28th January 2013, 07:27 AM	#337
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	Originally Posted by truethat Have you graduated from college or not? Are you an undergrad or in Graduate School. The way the article reads it seems like the equivalent of a test for college, that's hardly making you an expert in your field. It's almost bizarre to me that you would even offer them as somehow proof, especially when you obviously don't understand the fundamental way that science works??? If I'm wrong I do apologize, It seems to me that your education is several years higher than a high school students here? Is that right? I am not claiming to be an expert, I am just interested in how much you know about science.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th January 2013, 07:28 AM	#338
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	Originally Posted by truethat Yes it does. Keep reading the links I've posted, I don't feel like having to explain something so basic. I get your extremely basic point. I don't agree with it.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th January 2013, 07:29 AM	#339
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by dafydd As for believing in the Big Bang and believing in god, there is plenty of evidence that the Big Bang occurred but not a shred for the existence of any god. You can accept the theory, but to state it's TRUE is ridiculous and no scientist worth his salt would ever say that it is. Also your logic is messed up. Big Bang is not the opposite of God belief. Evolution is not the opposite of creation. Juxtaposing these two issues like this is a poor way of rationalizing an argument. As I've pointed out earlier. I loathe when people do this. Just because one theory has more proof than the other and seems more realistic DOESN'T mean that it is the truth. Not at all. It boggles my mind when I see people make this argument. It comes across as a very simplistic way of thinking.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

28th January 2013, 07:30 AM	#340
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by dafydd I get your extremely basic point. I don't agree with it. It's not my POINT, omg. LOL It's the definition of science. You are completely wrong. I didn't write those articles, you know that right? Scientists wrote those articles.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

28th January 2013, 07:32 AM	#341
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by dafydd I am not claiming to be an expert, I am just interested in how much you know about science. Yes you were, you mentioned your A levels for a reason right? When you did I thought you must have a graduate degree in a science field because I can't believe that you would actually try to offer up "passing three really hard tests" as some sort of proof of your superiority in this? You are wrong in your interpretation of what science means. Please ask your teachers what it means and maybe they will be able to explain what I'm saying here because it's simple. From the article Quote: In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives. The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain Last edited by truethat; 28th January 2013 at 07:35 AM.

28th January 2013, 07:37 AM	#342
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,776	Originally Posted by truethat The opposite of Big Bang is not "God." You don't get to leap over "proof" just because your theory is "not God." Prove it, if you can't prove it then you basically have an "irrational belief" in "something you can't prove." You know, like fairies? You think there's as much proof for faeries as there is for the big bang?

28th January 2013, 07:38 AM	#343
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	Originally Posted by truethat Yes you were, you mentioned your A levels for a reason right? When you did I thought you must have a graduate degree in a science field because I can't believe that you would actually try to offer up "passing three really hard tests" as some sort of proof of your superiority in this? You are wrong in your interpretation of what science means. Please ask your teachers what it means and maybe they will be able to explain what I'm saying here because it's simple. From the article The only thing that interests me about this thread is that certain claims were made about the existence of evidence that proves the existence of a god but the claimant refuses to disclose the evidence.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th January 2013, 07:41 AM	#344
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,776	Originally Posted by truethat A. I don't believe in God. I have stated that several times. So what "your god" are you referring to? B. AGAIN.... reading comprehension. Please link to the post in this thread that made a positive statement about God? C. Please prove that Big Bang is responsible for the origins of the universe. If you can't then you are believing something without proof. This is illogical. Hope you and Arthur Conan Doyle enjoy your membership to the same club of irrational believers. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

28th January 2013, 07:44 AM	#345
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by dafydd The only thing that interests me about this thread is that certain claims were made about the existence of evidence that proves the existence of a god but the claimant refuses to disclose the evidence. What claims were made about proving the existence of God. No positive claim was made about God in this thread. Once again. The first poster stated that until you could prove the way the world was created without a god, they would still consider the possibility of a creator. THIS IS NOT A POSITIVE STATEMENT This is a statement about keeping an open mind about the possibility. The next poster stated that it seemed possible (SEE THAT POSSIBLE) that there could be a grand creator because humans themselves naturally evolved as creative creatures. IOW We are here, and we create things. What is the difference between us programming a computer and another creature out there in the universe that evolved long before us and was able to program a code to create the universe? THIS IS NOT A POSITIVE STATEMENT ABOUT GOD This is a statement about a possibility. The evidence was given and it's a logical conclusion. These are not stupid statements. They are rational logical statements. I still think they are wrong but I can see they are intelligent easy to understand statements that are NOT POSITIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT GOD So why do you and Gawdzilla keep insisting they are?
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

28th January 2013, 07:52 AM	#346
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,776	Originally Posted by truethat A. I don't believe in God. I have stated that several times. So what "your god" are you referring to? B. AGAIN.... reading comprehension. Please link to the post in this thread that made a positive statement about God? C. Please prove that Big Bang is responsible for the origins of the universe. If you can't then you are believing something without proof. This is illogical. Hope you and Arthur Conan Doyle enjoy your membership to the same club of irrational believers. Originally Posted by truethat This is what I find very amusing. If the universe on it's own could pop into existence with Big Bang, why couldn't a God come into existence on it's own with a Big Bang god making energy thing. There's no way to argue this statement. I can see why for many people they definitely feel there is a God and not just based on "stories in a book" or "ideas" but personal experiences in their lives that feel transcendent and a form of Hierophany. Do I think it's God? Nope, but I can definitely understand why they would believe it. The same way I don't sneer at Arthur Conan Doyle for believing in pixies that someone showed him "proof of" in photographs. Really?

28th January 2013, 07:56 AM	#347
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by tsig Really? THAT is what you chose to comment on? Oh pahleeeeze, even you can come up with something better than that. Saying someone has an irrational belief is NOT the same as sneering at them for it and mocking them. Which is why I don't have a tough time talking to believers.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

28th January 2013, 07:57 AM	#348
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,776	Originally Posted by truethat Not it isn't. Making up answers to questions you can't answer with your "best guess" is not science. It's someone who can't handle the fact that we don't know the answer and for some reason needs to fill in that blank so they force an answer to be the answer even if they can't prove that it's true. Some people do that with God. Some people do that with Big Bang. It's the same damn thing. We can find evidence that gives up glimpses into the way the universe unfolded but you cannot make statements about what "caused" the universe to come into existence. It's the same circular argument. If Big Bang happened where did the matter that needed to explode come from? Where did the space for it to explode INTO come from? What caused it to set off when it did? The answer is WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE AND WE NEVER WILL. Why not?

28th January 2013, 07:58 AM	#349
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 12,570	A god brings nothing to the table of understanding, and in fact for many stops all future investigation that could lead to any understanding at all. God is another dead-end to any real understanding. Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

28th January 2013, 08:00 AM	#350
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	Originally Posted by truethat What claims were made about proving the existence of God. No positive claim was made about God in this thread. Try reading the thread. ''Incorrect, there is much evidence.'' ''The evidence suggests that if there is a god, '' ''This is a common fallacy on this forum, that God is a fictional creation.' ''There is evidence of intelligent creators arising naturally in the environment we find ourselves in.'' ''This is proof that intelligent creators emerge in existence quite naturally. ''
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th January 2013, 08:01 AM	#351
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,028	Originally Posted by truethat THAT is what you chose to comment on? Oh pahleeeeze, even you can come up with something better than that. Saying someone has an irrational belief is NOT the same as sneering at them for it and mocking them. Which is why I don't have a tough time talking to believers. Indeed, my dear Truethat In fact, as you can see you and I, both atheists, can have a hard time talking to some theists, but also some fellow atheists. In the end, it isn't about whether the person one is arguing with is an atheist or a theist, it's about how obtuse they are, and how unwilling they are to engage in a dialogue, and hold their arguments to scrutiny. To some atheists, anything that doesn't resonate with their binary view of a situation, translates as an Alarm for "Intruder Theist Undercover!!" Let this thread be the best proof of that.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

28th January 2013, 08:01 AM	#352
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	Originally Posted by tsig Really? Lol. Gottim!
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th January 2013, 08:03 AM	#353
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins Indeed, my dear Truethat In fact, as you can see you and I, both atheists, can have a hard time talking to some theists, but also some fellow atheists. In the end, it isn't about whether the person one is arguing with is an atheist or a theist, it's about how obtuse they are, and how unwilling they are to engage in a dialogue, and hold their arguments to scrutiny. To some atheists, anything that doesn't resonate with their binary view of a situation, translates as an Alarm for "Intruder Theist Undercover!!" Let this thread be the best proof of that. Not really. All I wanted was for punsssh to provide the evidence that he talked about. Is that too much to ask?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th January 2013, 08:06 AM	#354
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by dafydd Not really. All I wanted was for punsssh to provide the evidence that he talked about. Is that too much to ask? THEY DID they did it several times. It's quite simple they did. If a human being can evolve to become a creature that can now create AI and computers and do all sorts of very intelligent things, why is it so hard to believe that another creature could have evolved with same capability and have "created" human life? You asked for evidence of a creature evolving to be a creator. They gave you one. HUMANS. Then you dragged in this crap about it not being immortal when they NEVER SAID THAT. YOU said it. You and Gawdzilla are the ones making positive statements and then pretending the believer is the one that did it. It's really mindblowing to see this.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

28th January 2013, 08:06 AM	#355
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,776	Originally Posted by truethat THAT is what you chose to comment on? Oh pahleeeeze, even you can come up with something better than that. Saying someone has an irrational belief is NOT the same as sneering at them for it and mocking them. Which is why I don't have a tough time talking to believers. You didn't mean to sneer at Sir Arther, that's why you put him and dafydd in the same category? Since you claim that militant atheists are believers and you are definitely having a hard time talking to them your very posts in this thread give lie to your statement.
	Last edited by tsig; 28th January 2013 at 08:08 AM.