New To Forum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2015, 07:52 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2015 09:34 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 07:20 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 07:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You don't know anything about science or religion. That's been clearly demonstrated. Don't bother with Kalam. It's an argument for a "proximate" (nearest) cause, not an ultimate cause. An omnippotent god could have created a race of robot universe makers, and those robits fit just as well into Kalam as a god. The notion of a god "creating" is meaningless unless space-time is already in place (or Special Plead out). A god who creates has to decide and act. They require time, AND they invalidate that god's infinite nature. An act puts a time-stamp between an infinite past and an infinite future. Your god is "infinite" right ? A god that exists is embedded of necessity in Reality. It doesn't *not* exist. A god that MUST participate by necessity for it's very existence in Reality, cannot be the creator of Reality. Reality is therefore LARGER than any god. Where did Reality come from ? ..... all gods that "exist" are meaningless. Des your god "exist" ? Rolleyes

Augustine and Aquinas stuff...

I believe in a creator who is Eternal yet interacts with the universe with Attributes. Different to Christian theology.

It's "different FROM Christian theology". Augustin and Aquinas never said anything remotely similar.
"Interacts" requires time, and decision making AND Special Pleading. A god who "acts" is neither eternal nor infinite. The "act" refutes "eternal". Obviously you've never examined the priors. Eternal is "timeless". A god who "acts" needs time and therefore is not timeless. Can't have it both ways, (unless you use the Special Pleading falacy).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-05-2015, 07:58 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2015 08:08 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 07:26 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  My original question remains: is verification of scientific 'facts' based upon a blind allegiance to authority? Not every lay man can verify science so his rejection of faith based on evolution is in fact akin to faiths that believe blind following a clergy.

And you were given the answer. No. The reason : evidence. There are MOUNTAINS of peer-reviewed falsifiable evidence that support scientific facts, (which you would know if you ever studied any science). Your "lay man" special case is irrelevant and apparently an argument from (and FOR) ignorance. As I said above it's YOUR JOB to get an education. No one is going to hand you anything. Apparently your entire thread here is about arguing a case for intellectual laziness. Are you lazy Mr. Not-all-that "objective" theist ? You seem like a whiny little bitch arguing that you have too much homework to do, and it's too hard.

And BTW, you're not going to "prove" god by logic. Logic is insufficient. This universe and Reality have been proven to be "non-intuitive" to human brains. Relativity, Uncertainty and the math of Dirac are not "logical", yet proven to be true. You need "evidence", not just logic.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2015, 08:08 PM
RE: New To Forum
It took seven pages for you to get around to saying science is atheist's religion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
17-05-2015, 08:58 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 07:20 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 07:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You don't know anything about science or religion. That's been clearly demonstrated. Don't bother with Kalam. It's an argument for a "proximate" (nearest) cause, not an ultimate cause. An omnippotent god could have created a race of robot universe makers, and those robits fit just as well into Kalam as a god. The notion of a god "creating" is meaningless unless space-time is already in place (or Special Plead out). A god who creates has to decide and act. They require time, AND they invalidate that god's infinite nature. An act puts a time-stamp between an infinite past and an infinite future. Your god is "infinite" right ? A god that exists is embedded of necessity in Reality. It doesn't *not* exist. A god that MUST participate by necessity for it's very existence in Reality, cannot be the creator of Reality. Reality is therefore LARGER than any god. Where did Reality come from ? ..... all gods that "exist" are meaningless. Des your god "exist" ? Rolleyes

Augustine and Aquinas stuff...

I believe in a creator who is Eternal yet interacts with the universe with Attributes. Different to Christian theology.

Nobody cares what unique and unproven beliefs you hold. The Kalam has been destroyed over and over, so if you want to pander that shit then you won't get anywhere here. Show us your creator without using presuppositions, appeals to emotion, or pseudo-logic.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2015, 09:56 PM
RE: New To Forum
Hello again! Big Grin

I get my computer back from the shop and see I've missed the kick off of the conversation.

(17-05-2015 04:38 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  I see evolution as the one main point upon which atheists are adamant. What I find intriguing is that atheists and others claim there is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution. If there is an academic consensus does this make it a reality? What I mean by this is how do we view structures of scientific theories? What are the limitations of evolution?

I also see both groups fighting tooth and claw on this particular issue.
Is it a scientific 'fact' that is in reality an appeal to authority? Or an appeal to ad populum?

Though it has been addressed by others after your post, I feel like adding my own thoughts.

Atheists do not necessarily need or use science to not believe in deity's. It is kind of as simple as that.

Science deals with what is testable, what is knowable (And what is falsifiable) etc. Hence, essentially what is natural.

Religion would seem to be dealing with things that are not natural or 'Supernatural by default.

Atheists simply do not see the need for believing in anything supernatural. Of course... people are also free to not believe in the natural world either... Things would indicate that doing so does not end well...

(17-05-2015 07:26 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  My original question remains: is verification of scientific 'facts' based upon a blind allegiance to authority? Not every lay man can verify science so his rejection of faith based on evolution is in fact akin to faiths that believe blind following a clergy.

I have a counter question to yourself. Do you need to verify the facts of gravity? Of plate tectonics? Of astronomy? So as to be able to have an underpinning of how accurate such sciences are?

Also, to say that "Not every lay man can verify science.." is to show poorly the common man. I, personally, think quite highly of plumbers, mechanics, engineers, glaziers just to name a few who have skills and knowledge with out which we all would be quite derth of things in our lives.

So... to indicate that only 'Science' is some how of some inestimable measure as opposed to other fields is wrong.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2015, 10:06 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 07:26 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  My original question remains: is verification of scientific 'facts' based upon a blind allegiance to authority? Not every lay man can verify science so his rejection of faith based on evolution is in fact akin to faiths that believe blind following a clergy.

By putting the word facts in quote marks in the manner you have, you are showing your religious bias (betraying your moniker) and it wreaks of sarcasm.

When you dip your hand in water and it becomes wet, are you blindly allegiant to Noah Webster for giving you a succinct word to describe how your hand feels? Or is your hand wet? It's a fact that the water makes your hand wet and you're not blindly believing it because the evidence is your wet hand. You verified your hand was wet by feeling it, by drying it off with a towel and seeing the transference of the water molecules from your hand to the towel. Others see you do it and tell you your hand is wet because they, too, experienced what it was like to dip their hands into water. Time after time when we see water, recognize it as such and dip our hands in it, we know for a fact it will become wet. If someone would come by and say water isn't wet, we would require proof and it would have to be tested and reviewed by peers and proved to in fact not be wet.

When Darwin and Wallace arrived at the same conclusions pertaining to evolution, it was so significant because two separate, unfamiliar people studied evidence and arrived at the same conclusion. And this conclusion has been tested and retested, refined and improved millions of times. It's what is known as the scientific method. If they were full of shit, someone would be able to prove the theory wrong. After a couple of centuries, surely one bone or one fossil would be found in the wrong layer of the geological column, right? Nope. Nada. Zilch. And why? Because it's fact. Not "fact."

You are more than welcome to get a shovel and dig your way to the Earth's core to try to find one for yourself. Are we blindly following these scientists? No, we trust the scientific method because it works (bitches). Actual scientists are watchdogs, making sure there is no pseudoscience being passed off as true science. They aren't secret handshake frat boys looking to pull the wool over the eyes of the world. Their evidence is transparent for the world to double check, and any one of your clergy or religious leaders are also more than welcome to try to refute ANY piece of evidence in this theory.

But guess what, none of you will, because it's much easier for you to stick your head in the sand than a shovel.

Evolution is fact. And your earlier remark about it shattering the bible would seem to be true on the outside, but any real religious scholar would know the Catholics have accepted evolution for decades, they just have a whole other level of bullshit they use to get around it so they can sleep at night.

No, the bible doesn't need evolution to defeat it; common sense does that quite nicely.

Now, about that "objective" part of your moniker ... Oops, did I just use quote marks?

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
17-05-2015, 10:28 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2015 10:39 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 07:26 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  My original question remains: is verification of scientific 'facts' based upon a blind allegiance to authority? Not every lay man can verify science so his rejection of faith based on evolution is in fact akin to faiths that believe blind following a clergy.


A fact is objectively verifiable, your rambling bullshit is not. Drinking Beverage


A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).


Let me clear this up for you.

"...is verification of scientific 'facts' based upon a blind allegiance to authority?"

No, it's based upon being objectively verifiable. It's based upon evidence. Facts also don't need 'scare quotes'.


"...so his rejection of faith based on evolution is in fact akin to..."

This is not actually a fact, so you are misapplying the word here.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-05-2015, 10:54 PM
RE: New To Forum
Evolution is the way that the creator creates. Every human group has its creation myth and hopefully one day the biblical creation story will be relegated to where it belongs, mythology.

But to go back to my first point, everything in our human created world of cars, buildings, iPads, etc has behind them thinkers and doers. We don't see a house and wonder how it came into existence. We know an architect designed it and a construction crew built it. We don't assume that no thought or action went into it. The universe is the same way. Just because we don't have the tools to see something does not imply that it doesn't exist! Were microscopic organisms there before the microscope?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 01:39 AM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 01:43 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 10:54 PM)Tubcar Wrote:  Evolution is the way that the creator creates. Every human group has its creation myth and hopefully one day the biblical creation story will be relegated to where it belongs, mythology.

But to go back to my first point, everything in our human created world of cars, buildings, iPads, etc has behind them thinkers and doers. We don't see a house and wonder how it came into existence. We know an architect designed it and a construction crew built it. We don't assume that no thought or action went into it. The universe is the same way. Just because we don't have the tools to see something does not imply that it doesn't exist! Were microscopic organisms there before the microscope?

We have seen people build houses, why know how they are built and by whom, we are intimately familiar with the fact that they exist and that they are made by us. The reason why we don't assume intelligence is that there is no need to, we have evidence that our intelligence was used. Man-made objects are just that, man-made. You cannot apply this to the universe for obvious reasons.

We have never seen a universe being created, so not only is assuming it was created an unwarranted assumption, assuming that there was an intelligence responsible for it is also an entirely unwarranted assumption. The universe is not a man-made object. We have no reason to assume an intelligence or a creator.

And saying 'you can't prove me wrong' is not evidence for jack shit. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
18-05-2015, 01:40 AM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 07:26 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  My original question remains: is verification of scientific 'facts' based upon a blind allegiance to authority? Not every lay man can verify science so his rejection of faith based on evolution is in fact akin to faiths that believe blind following a clergy.

Yes, it is. You've got us - atheism is religion and scientists are clergy.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: