My First Debate with a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2017, 06:14 AM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(28-01-2017 03:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  Well played Smile At 16 I wouldn't have been able to debate one of these clowns. I salute you Smile
They wanted to ban me from coming to church when I was 16 because I asked to many questions.
It always ended with "have faith & God will give you the answer" since they obviously couldn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 06:27 AM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(28-01-2017 06:14 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(28-01-2017 03:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  Well played Smile At 16 I wouldn't have been able to debate one of these clowns. I salute you Smile
They wanted to ban me from coming to church when I was 16 because I asked to many questions.
It always ended with "have faith & God will give you the answer" since they obviously couldn't.
I've never really gone to church, haha. I never found it entertaining.

It's alright to laugh at me, I've been laughing at myself for years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 07:19 AM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(28-01-2017 05:04 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I didn't yet call or think of myself as an atheist-- really more of a "justdontgiveafuckist"-- but the guy clearly assumed that's what I meant, because he started several of the preprogrammed responses we've all come to recognize here on this board: "Well you may not believe in God but God believes in you", et cetera.

I think it just struck me how much of an equivocation is going on in that line. The person saying it obviously knows you exist so "god believes in you" is not meant to say that god believes you exist but that he believes you have value. I wonder how many of them think the "you may not believe in god" part also means that you hate god rather than you not believing he exists... Sometimes I get the distinct impression that they simply can't conceive of not believing that the god exists at all.

I guess I'll have to start being careful to say "I don't believe any god exists" rather than "I don't believe in god" like I have to be careful never to say I have faith in anything because they so often conflate the various meanings of that word.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
28-01-2017, 11:28 AM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(27-01-2017 08:55 PM)ScarletStormBreaker Wrote:  Of course, things such as Lord's name in vain I had done, and I answered so with a smile on my face, which seemed to confuse the man. So, you can bet that he told me my soul was destined for Hell. This is when our debate started.

Such as when I having taken the name of God in vain, many people do that when they are frustrated, or in a lot of pain. It is natural for people to swear or cuss at these times, it helps people calm down.
Swearing is hardly the reference of the "Do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Swearing, such as God Damn that ass hole that cut me off in traffic." is prayer appealing for action by the deity. A minor breach but declaring oneself the Voice of God and pronouncing God's wrath as the man had you read the Corinthians' passage clearly shows HE was taking on the role of God, the true expression of taking the Lords name in vain. He is NOT the lord, but he will waffle and claim he is pointing out the lord's will which he happens to agree with. Sure, right. He is. in fact passing judgment on you, on his own authority trying to name drop God that is but a human construction to give himself an exceptional role as speaker for the deity. Challenged, he'll be quick to say he is not the deity. He fools no one. Especially not you, I see. congratulations.

So what does he get out of his religion? He gets comfort and self-assurance in his his innate superiority, but science 9when properly understood) can only make one uncomfortable and doubtful about knowing anything for certain. He demands certainty. The Incredulity of St. Thomas is likely not on his wall as it is mine. If any is to be believed it is Doubting Thomas, because he relies not on faith but on testing and experience yet his is the example derided by the faithful. Go figure. By Caravaggio:
[Image: incredulity-of-saint-thomas-1602.jpg]

Destroyer of Worlds
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like minorwork's post
28-01-2017, 12:41 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(28-01-2017 11:28 AM)minorwork Wrote:  
(27-01-2017 08:55 PM)ScarletStormBreaker Wrote:  Of course, things such as Lord's name in vain I had done, and I answered so with a smile on my face, which seemed to confuse the man. So, you can bet that he told me my soul was destined for Hell. This is when our debate started.

Such as when I having taken the name of God in vain, many people do that when they are frustrated, or in a lot of pain. It is natural for people to swear or cuss at these times, it helps people calm down.
Swearing is hardly the reference of the "Do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Swearing, such as God Damn that ass hole that cut me off in traffic." is prayer appealing for action by the deity. A minor breach but declaring oneself the Voice of God and pronouncing God's wrath as the man had you read the Corinthians' passage clearly shows HE was taking on the role of God, the true expression of taking the Lords name in vain. He is NOT the lord, but he will waffle and claim he is pointing out the lord's will which he happens to agree with. Sure, right. He is. in fact passing judgment on you, on his own authority trying to name drop God that is but a human construction to give himself an exceptional role as speaker for the deity. Challenged, he'll be quick to say he is not the deity. He fools no one. Especially not you, I see. congratulations.

So what does he get out of his religion? He gets comfort and self-assurance in his his innate superiority, but science 9when properly understood) can only make one uncomfortable and doubtful about knowing anything for certain. He demands certainty. The Incredulity of St. Thomas is likely not on his wall as it is mine. If any is to be believed it is Doubting Thomas, because he relies not on faith but on testing and experience yet his is the example derided by the faithful. Go figure. By Caravaggio:
[Image: incredulity-of-saint-thomas-1602.jpg]
Can you give us an example of how science makes us uncomfortable & uncertain?
I for one never say I'm 100 % certain about anything. But some things are just a lot more believable than others.
Science aims to seek truth behind the nature of things by the natural process of applied logic.
Logic is a natural part of human thinking, which is why science is a comfortable thing for most Atheists to relate to. Atheist's tend to use human logic as the basis for their disbelief/beliefs.
Only those that are opposed to the simplistic nature of rational thinking & logic would feel uncomfortable & uncertain when applying science to their own beliefs.
If you belong to a religion that opposes rational thinking & logic when it comes to God, etc then it is understandable you will feel uncomfortable with science.
I believe putting your trust in anything outside of the logical is a dangerous way to live your life. What do you think?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 04:11 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(28-01-2017 12:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...I believe putting your trust in anything outside of the logical is a dangerous way to live your life. What do you think?
Science is a crude invention. Go out and DO science. You'll find out.
Does it help determine in a half hour phone call whether or not to bail a daughter from jail? Or how many days to let her stay there? 3 nights but not by science.
Economists, and geologists in the mine, are scientists in their respective fields. Both are good at telling why there was a fall but not so good at preventing it.
Does science help decide whether and when a son is to accelerate his fathers dying process?
What has the scientific method determined is the best way or even if to tell a friend his daughter is not his?
And can a person apply science's methods on whether to advise, or not, another friend making his will as to which is his blood grandchildren?

Science is crude because it has no jurisdiction in areas of life. Hell, how many are able to live without knowing what constitutes the scientific method?

Why is there something rather than nothing? Didn't have that in physics or chemistry.

Consciousness then. I forget what class covered its formation, structure, and classifications.

Can science tell me what in the hell my brother’s wife was thinking when she blew up an engine after continuing to drive, and faster at that, with no oil pressure? Please science, help.

What is the correct scientifically engineered method to nullify religious fanaticism?

Here's the most practical justification for calling it crude.
I had pursued science and engineering in school and used, of necessity its methods for arriving at truth with practical problems on the job at the coal mine. I've found it my LAST, my LEAST preferable choice to use in troubleshooting. Many other methods are superior by reason of time involved in their application compared to the scientific method. The scientific method is slow and crude in application when there are faster and more precise troubleshooting techniques available. Face boss runs up and tells me to get my tools the miner is down. What would the scientific method have me do? Question. Why doesn't the miner come on when I press the start button? Educate. Consider the electrical schematic. Hypothesize. Wire has burnt in two, switch not closing, faulty hold in coil, bunch of other stuff. Test. Walk 4 crosscuts to the power center and lock and tag out the miner cable. Return to the miner and open up explosion proof panels (15 bolts each) on both sides of the miner, gain access to test points and start metering circuits. 30 minutes of testing fails several times to find a fault and finally a test reveals the stop button is open. The current must flow thru it to hold in the run circuit. Open it and the hold-in coil is de-energized thus cutting power to the pump motor. SUCCESS. Fix the stop button and close up the miner. Check the explosion proof covers with a .004 inch feeler gauge all around and it slides in. Take all the bolts back off and find a piece of dirt in the flamepath. Clean it and install door and recheck. Do the other panel door. Go back to the powerbox, unlock the plug of the miner cable, screw it back to the power receptacle. Pull the breaker on. It goes off with a bang and sparks. Son of a biscuit eater. Do it again and it stays set. I'm the man. Get a paid lunch.

2 hours shot in the ass with the scientific method when one of the non-scientific methods would of got the problem fixed in less than 5 minutes at the most and still get a paid lunch. Science might get you the answer, but it is slow. Crude.

I have to admit that the scientific method will get the miner going eventually if the quicker methods fail or do not apply given that the problem is amenable to the constraints of the scientific method in the first place. I made my own conditions at the mine on my understanding of the scientific method but I didn't like to use it and was always my last choice.

The everyday questions that haunt me in relationship issues with family is where science sings like a pig. Another reason that I call it crude. Science considers and is concerned with things that are placed within its reach by being measurable. But there are more things not capable of being measured than those that are. Lots of stuff in the world that can't be measured. How long did I fantasize about Jessica Alba's or her double's performances in Sin City in 2006? How am I supposed to get that info today? Carbon dating?

In a narrow aspect from Newtonian mechanics, to spooky quantum entanglements and teleportations, the accomplishments of science would be magic of the highest sort if viewed from the perspective of 2000 years ago. But improving life span to 77 years or so is not doing much considering what was done without science in the 3.5 billion years leading up to one of its breakthroughs with Galileo's outlandish technique of "contrived" tests (in a time where truth was determined by the best debater),. Science has not been necessary to evolutionary development.

And then there are applied sciences.
What does applied science even mean when psychology cannot squeeze itself thru the narrow door of real science without widening it with the sledgehammer of pharmacology?

How convincing is science when only 32% of the public "Think that humans, other living things have evolved due to natural processes." Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press <http://people-press.org/report/528/>

Well, I've had a buttfull of this for now. Fun though. Science is crude due to its slow, paced, application in getting to knowledge. It is the best method to determine truth if you can't use anything else and you can find an area in which it applies. Scientific theories are only "theoretically" 100% correct all the time. Science’s limits are described in the engineers mantra "Cheaper, better, faster. Pick two." Like the engineers mantra science has its limits and its applications are in a rather narrow field of endeavor in the human experience. The coal miner has no respect for the engineers mantra and is able to provide all three parameters in a solution. He is not bound by the scientific method alone. It is not only possible but preferable at times to avoid the scientific method. A crude invention.

Destroyer of Worlds
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 04:13 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
When an action is a necessity but without complete knowledge upon which to base a logical course of action, what IS the logical method of choosing an action?

Destroyer of Worlds
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 05:54 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  
(28-01-2017 12:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...I believe putting your trust in anything outside of the logical is a dangerous way to live your life. What do you think?
Science is a crude invention. Go out and DO science. You'll find out.
Does it help determine in a half hour phone call whether or not to bail a daughter from jail? Or how many days to let her stay there? 3 nights but not by science.
Economists, and geologists in the mine, are scientists in their respective fields. Both are good at telling why there was a fall but not so good at preventing it.
Does science help decide whether and when a son is to accelerate his fathers dying process?
What has the scientific method determined is the best way or even if to tell a friend his daughter is not his?
And can a person apply science's methods on whether to advise, or not, another friend making his will as to which is his blood grandchildren?

Science is crude because it has no jurisdiction in areas of life. Hell, how many are able to live without knowing what constitutes the scientific method?

Why is there something rather than nothing? Didn't have that in physics or chemistry.

Consciousness then. I forget what class covered its formation, structure, and classifications.

Can science tell me what in the hell my brother’s wife was thinking when she blew up an engine after continuing to drive, and faster at that, with no oil pressure? Please science, help.

What is the correct scientifically engineered method to nullify religious fanaticism?

Here's the most practical justification for calling it crude.
I had pursued science and engineering in school and used, of necessity its methods for arriving at truth with practical problems on the job at the coal mine. I've found it my LAST, my LEAST preferable choice to use in troubleshooting. Many other methods are superior by reason of time involved in their application compared to the scientific method. The scientific method is slow and crude in application when there are faster and more precise troubleshooting techniques available. Face boss runs up and tells me to get my tools the miner is down. What would the scientific method have me do? Question. Why doesn't the miner come on when I press the start button? Educate. Consider the electrical schematic. Hypothesize. Wire has burnt in two, switch not closing, faulty hold in coil, bunch of other stuff. Test. Walk 4 crosscuts to the power center and lock and tag out the miner cable. Return to the miner and open up explosion proof panels (15 bolts each) on both sides of the miner, gain access to test points and start metering circuits. 30 minutes of testing fails several times to find a fault and finally a test reveals the stop button is open. The current must flow thru it to hold in the run circuit. Open it and the hold-in coil is de-energized thus cutting power to the pump motor. SUCCESS. Fix the stop button and close up the miner. Check the explosion proof covers with a .004 inch feeler gauge all around and it slides in. Take all the bolts back off and find a piece of dirt in the flamepath. Clean it and install door and recheck. Do the other panel door. Go back to the powerbox, unlock the plug of the miner cable, screw it back to the power receptacle. Pull the breaker on. It goes off with a bang and sparks. Son of a biscuit eater. Do it again and it stays set. I'm the man. Get a paid lunch.

2 hours shot in the ass with the scientific method when one of the non-scientific methods would of got the problem fixed in less than 5 minutes at the most and still get a paid lunch. Science might get you the answer, but it is slow. Crude.

I have to admit that the scientific method will get the miner going eventually if the quicker methods fail or do not apply given that the problem is amenable to the constraints of the scientific method in the first place. I made my own conditions at the mine on my understanding of the scientific method but I didn't like to use it and was always my last choice.

The everyday questions that haunt me in relationship issues with family is where science sings like a pig. Another reason that I call it crude. Science considers and is concerned with things that are placed within its reach by being measurable. But there are more things not capable of being measured than those that are. Lots of stuff in the world that can't be measured. How long did I fantasize about Jessica Alba's or her double's performances in Sin City in 2006? How am I supposed to get that info today? Carbon dating?

In a narrow aspect from Newtonian mechanics, to spooky quantum entanglements and teleportations, the accomplishments of science would be magic of the highest sort if viewed from the perspective of 2000 years ago. But improving life span to 77 years or so is not doing much considering what was done without science in the 3.5 billion years leading up to one of its breakthroughs with Galileo's outlandish technique of "contrived" tests (in a time where truth was determined by the best debater),. Science has not been necessary to evolutionary development.

And then there are applied sciences.
What does applied science even mean when psychology cannot squeeze itself thru the narrow door of real science without widening it with the sledgehammer of pharmacology?

How convincing is science when only 32% of the public "Think that humans, other living things have evolved due to natural processes." Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press <http://people-press.org/report/528/>

Well, I've had a buttfull of this for now. Fun though. Science is crude due to its slow, paced, application in getting to knowledge. It is the best method to determine truth if you can't use anything else and you can find an area in which it applies. Scientific theories are only "theoretically" 100% correct all the time. Science’s limits are described in the engineers mantra "Cheaper, better, faster. Pick two." Like the engineers mantra science has its limits and its applications are in a rather narrow field of endeavor in the human experience. The coal miner has no respect for the engineers mantra and is able to provide all three parameters in a solution. He is not bound by the scientific method alone. It is not only possible but preferable at times to avoid the scientific method. A crude invention.
Wasted wall of text.Facepalm
We use logic to make rational decisions. You even quoted the word "logic" before your essay, yet somehow never once acknowledged it the entire time.
No one here is arguing or disagreeing with you about when to use scientific information.
Science is just one of the many tools at our disposal to help when making a rational decision. Pattern recognition & instinct are powerful decision makers as well.

In all of your examples where they made bad choices they did not use rational thinking to make their decision.
In every single case (where a decision is required) there was an opportunity for them to make a rational decision.

Keep searching for a reason to put Blind Faith over Logic. I wish you luck with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 05:58 PM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2017 06:33 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  
(28-01-2017 12:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...I believe putting your trust in anything outside of the logical is a dangerous way to live your life. What do you think?
Science is a crude invention. Go out and DO science. You'll find out.

I have. Many of us on this board are or were scientists. "Crude invention", eh? I'm not even sure what that means, but let's explore your ideas on this subject, shall we?

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  Does it help determine in a half hour phone call whether or not to bail a daughter from jail? Or how many days to let her stay there? 3 nights but not by science.

Oooooooooooooh, okay, I see. You simply have no fucking clue what science is, and appear to think that science is (or should be) a decision making process of some sort. Fascinating.

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  Economists, and geologists in the mine, are scientists in their respective fields. Both are good at telling why there was a fall but not so good at preventing it.

Still no clue what science is, I see. But you're quite wrong about prediction. Scientific methodology, and peer-reviewed examinations of data, are quite good at producing a predictive model of many things, which continues to be refined. That's what a theory is, in effect: a predictive model based on testing the data, gathered from previous events, to see if the model can effectively predict outcomes. Once you have established that it does, then you can use that theory to inform later decision processes.

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  Does science help decide whether and when a son is to accelerate his fathers dying process?
What has the scientific method determined is the best way or even if to tell a friend his daughter is not his?
And can a person apply science's methods on whether to advise, or not, another friend making his will as to which is his blood grandchildren?

Science is still not, and has never been, a decision-making apparatus.

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  Science is crude because it has no jurisdiction in areas of life. Hell, how many are able to live without knowing what constitutes the scientific method?

Well, I can name at least one person.

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  Why is there something rather than nothing? Didn't have that in physics or chemistry.

You do realize you just literally stated the title of a book by a prominent physicist on that subject, right?

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  Consciousness then. I forget what class covered its formation, structure, and classifications.

That'd be neurology/neuroscience, I suspect. Finally, you mention a scientific question/area. Congratulations!

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  Can science tell me what in the hell my brother’s wife was thinking when she blew up an engine after continuing to drive, and faster at that, with no oil pressure? Please science, help.

I would imagine she wasn't thinking much, at all, or was ignorant of what the flashing lights/symbols in her car meant. Now can you tell me why you think this is a scientific question?

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  What is the correct scientifically engineered method to nullify religious fanaticism?

Though I do not work in sociology or anthropology, I believe the answer they have discovered is that the less poverty and more education you find in a people, the less fanatical-- and even less religious, overall, that people tend to be.

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  Here's the most practical justification for calling it crude.
I had pursued science and engineering in school and used, of necessity its methods for arriving at truth with practical problems on the job at the coal mine. I've found it my LAST, my LEAST preferable choice to use in troubleshooting. Many other methods are superior by reason of time involved in their application compared to the scientific method. The scientific method is slow and crude in application when there are faster and more precise troubleshooting techniques available. Face boss runs up and tells me to get my tools the miner is down. What would the scientific method have me do? Question. Why doesn't the miner come on when I press the start button? Educate. Consider the electrical schematic. Hypothesize. Wire has burnt in two, switch not closing, faulty hold in coil, bunch of other stuff. Test. Walk 4 crosscuts to the power center and lock and tag out the miner cable. Return to the miner and open up explosion proof panels (15 bolts each) on both sides of the miner, gain access to test points and start metering circuits. 30 minutes of testing fails several times to find a fault and finally a test reveals the stop button is open. The current must flow thru it to hold in the run circuit. Open it and the hold-in coil is de-energized thus cutting power to the pump motor. SUCCESS. Fix the stop button and close up the miner. Check the explosion proof covers with a .004 inch feeler gauge all around and it slides in. Take all the bolts back off and find a piece of dirt in the flamepath. Clean it and install door and recheck. Do the other panel door. Go back to the powerbox, unlock the plug of the miner cable, screw it back to the power receptacle. Pull the breaker on. It goes off with a bang and sparks. Son of a biscuit eater. Do it again and it stays set. I'm the man. Get a paid lunch.

Again, science is not and has never been meant as a decision-making process. Its discoveries can be used to inform decision-making, of course, but that's not the same thing. Science is a method of producing explanatory/predictive models that explain the world around us. You can then use those models to inform your decision making process-- as you should be doing, if you're an engineer.

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  2 hours shot in the ass with the scientific method when one of the non-scientific methods would of got the problem fixed in less than 5 minutes at the most and still get a paid lunch. Science might get you the answer, but it is slow. Crude.

I have to admit that the scientific method will get the miner going eventually if the quicker methods fail or do not apply given that the problem is amenable to the constraints of the scientific method in the first place. I made my own conditions at the mine on my understanding of the scientific method but I didn't like to use it and was always my last choice.

Oh, so you do understand the difference. Wow... that means you've been disingenuously misrepresenting what science is all this time, for the purpose of an argument! What an asshole!

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  The everyday questions that haunt me in relationship issues with family is where science sings like a pig. Another reason that I call it crude. Science considers and is concerned with things that are placed within its reach by being measurable. But there are more things not capable of being measured than those that are. Lots of stuff in the world that can't be measured. How long did I fantasize about Jessica Alba's or her double's performances in Sin City in 2006? How am I supposed to get that info today? Carbon dating?

Science is a method of discovering whether or not our knowledge about something is demonstrably true, through making predictive models and then testing them for identical results, and having others attempt to replicate our work and criticize our methods. Why you think it should be something else is honestly baffling to me.

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  In a narrow aspect from Newtonian mechanics, to spooky quantum entanglements and teleportations, the accomplishments of science would be magic of the highest sort if viewed from the perspective of 2000 years ago. But improving life span to 77 years or so is not doing much considering what was done without science in the 3.5 billion years leading up to one of its breakthroughs with Galileo's outlandish technique of "contrived" tests (in a time where truth was determined by the best debater),. Science has not been necessary to evolutionary development.

Um, no, science has not been necessary to evolutionary development. What does a human method of testing ideas for reproducibility have to do with evolutionary development... and why would it even possibly be "necessary" to it? Your statement doesn't even make sense. I hope you realize just how fucked up your perspective on this really is.

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  And then there are applied sciences.
What does applied science even mean when psychology cannot squeeze itself thru the narrow door of real science without widening it with the sledgehammer of pharmacology?

Well other than the fact that your statement here about pharmacology is more or less total bullshit, I happen to agree that psychology has a long way to go toward shaking off its philosophical problems and becoming a "real" science.

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  How convincing is science when only 32% of the public "Think that humans, other living things have evolved due to natural processes." Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press <http://people-press.org/report/528/>

The United States is, among first world nations, one of the most poverty-stricken and ignorant (and thus religious, as I pointed out, above) populations. We have a unique degree of utterly ignorant evangelical fanaticism that wages an ongoing war for the minds of children, to indoctrinate and isolate them from knowledge we have gained through the scientific method... even taught that scientists are on the side of Satan Himself™, and that science teachers and college professors will try to take their faith away. Outside of the USA, where there aren't so many members of this brand of religious fanatics with an agenda, waging a massive misinformation-propaganda war against science, evolution is widely understood and accepted.

It's one of the reason I turn into a bit of a dick when I see dickheads like you talking about science in such an ignorant fashion.

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  Well, I've had a buttfull of this for now. Fun though. Science is crude due to its slow, paced, application in getting to knowledge.

That doesn't make it crude. That makes you impatient, that's all.

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  It is the best method to determine truth if you can't use anything else and you can find an area in which it applies.

Actually, what it is is an ongoing method of weeding out all the bullshit generated by those other methods you're lauding, here, generated by what Kurt Vonnegut called "guessers".

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  Scientific theories are only "theoretically" 100% correct all the time.

Um, no. Scientific theories are predictive models that are held to be correct only to the degree they have been demonstrated, by repeated testing and widespread review, to produce identical results when tested. That's it.

(28-01-2017 04:11 PM)minorwork Wrote:  Science’s limits are described in the engineers mantra "Cheaper, better, faster. Pick two." Like the engineers mantra science has its limits and its applications are in a rather narrow field of endeavor in the human experience. The coal miner has no respect for the engineers mantra and is able to provide all three parameters in a solution. He is not bound by the scientific method alone. It is not only possible but preferable at times to avoid the scientific method. A crude invention.

I come from a long line of engineers-- the first male in my father's line to NOT become an engineer in five generations (he may be the only father ever to be disappointed to learn his son was leaving an engineering major to study biochemistry).

Do you know why engineers say "cheaper, better, faster, pick two"? Because they apply methods developed by that slow science you seem to decry. They use tables and charts and materials data gathered by rigorous scientific testing-- because when an engineer says it has to hold 2000 psi, or withstand 220 Newtons of shearing force, or that the chemical product produced at 500 Kelvin will be free of all but 0.01% impurities, they are employing knowledge gained by the scientific method. Science informs their decision-making process, and it must, or else our buildings collapse and our medicines are unreliable.

After years of experience at being an engineer, he can apply his knowledge (informed by the scientific method of discovery, coupled with years of experience at applying it) of what works and what doesn't work among the things developed via that scientific knowledge to effect to more rapid solutions, but if he's not operating on a basis of science, then he has no business being an engineer. Period.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-01-2017, 05:59 PM
RE: My First Debate with a Theist
(28-01-2017 04:13 PM)minorwork Wrote:  When an action is a necessity but without complete knowledge upon which to base a logical course of action, what IS the logical method of choosing an action?
You make the most logical decision based on whatever limited knowledge you currently have.
Instinct normally kicks in by then.
Besides if this was an argument for God I would just say you still have to use a logical method to decide what God wants you to do in this case.
So I really don't see where you are going with this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: