Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2016, 01:54 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 02:27 AM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(19-11-2016 09:16 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Saturday, November 19, 2016

Dear Celestial_Wonder,

This is why we get pissed off when you start playing those kinds of word games. Just so you know.

Wait another six to eight days, we'll have another one wander on in. I've been waiting to show you.

Oh, it varies a bit, but they're all based on the same essential premise of equivocation-- the same sort you've been using.

It's difficult to remain civil in the face of an endless barrage of this drivel.

Hope you stick around long enough to join us in our derision for such types.

Cheers,

-Rocket

You posted this in a thread that I didn't post in for another two hours.





Also I like to consider it analytical philosophy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 03:01 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 01:54 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You posted this in a thread that I didn't post in for another two hours.

It's okay; I knew you'd get around to it.

Just wanted you to see the crap with which we're endlessly barraged. I have been waiting for the next one to pop up so I could show you.

Other, more reasonable people who have not seen this phenomenon sometimes come here and ask, "Why are you atheists so uncivil?"

They ignore that we try to be civil, but wind up becoming weary of this shit, and as a result grow somewhat testy when presented with it for the 200th time.

Being an overt atheist essentially means subjecting yourself to an endless parade of bullshit, asserted aggressively, and being blamed for not tiptoeing around the feelings of the bullshitters.

"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
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
20-11-2016, 03:23 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 03:01 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Being an overt atheist essentially means subjecting yourself to an endless parade of bullshit, asserted aggressively, and being blamed for not tiptoeing around the feelings of the bullshitters.

Add to that living in a country where even the act of self-identifying as one of the godless is considered to be uncouth and belligerent? It gets old pretty fast.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-11-2016, 03:37 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 03:01 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 01:54 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You posted this in a thread that I didn't post in for another two hours.

It's okay; I knew you'd get around to it.

Just wanted you to see the crap with which we're endlessly barraged. I have been waiting for the next one to pop up so I could show you.

Other, more reasonable people who have not seen this phenomenon sometimes come here and ask, "Why are you atheists so uncivil?"

They ignore that we try to be civil, but wind up becoming weary of this shit, and as a result grow somewhat testy when presented with it for the 200th time.

Being an overt atheist essentially means subjecting yourself to an endless parade of bullshit, asserted aggressively, and being blamed for not tiptoeing around the feelings of the bullshitters.

If you think that is bad, you should try being a conspiracy theorist. I don't think I've been assaulted verbally more so than when I am trying to convince someone of a conspiracy. Its like trying to disprove religion, you're threatening to take away someone's deep seated beliefs.

I've been down this road, and I've to my shame have even engaged in the same behavior.

As a wise man once said "Raise your words, not your voice, it is rain which grows flowers, not thunder."

That is the philosophy I try to live by now.

So forgive me if I play with my words, I'm just trying to raise them properly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 03:45 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 03:37 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If you think that is bad, you should try being a conspiracy theorist. I don't think I've been assaulted verbally more so than when I am trying to convince someone of a conspiracy. Its like trying to disprove religion, you're threatening to take away someone's deep seated beliefs.

There's probably a reason for that...

[Image: tysonism-on-conspiracy-theories.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-11-2016, 04:44 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 03:45 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 03:37 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If you think that is bad, you should try being a conspiracy theorist. I don't think I've been assaulted verbally more so than when I am trying to convince someone of a conspiracy. Its like trying to disprove religion, you're threatening to take away someone's deep seated beliefs.

There's probably a reason for that...

[Image: tysonism-on-conspiracy-theories.jpg]

You know... conspiracy theories would probably fall into the realm of political science, making conspiracy theories a scientific endeavor. Which wouldn't that then by extension make conspiracy theories... scientific theories?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 04:59 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 05:03 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 04:44 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 03:45 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  There's probably a reason for that...

[Image: tysonism-on-conspiracy-theories.jpg]

You know... conspiracy theories would probably fall into the realm of political science, making conspiracy theories a scientific endeavor. Which wouldn't that then by extension make conspiracy theories... scientific theories?

Change it's label it all you want, but it still doesn't fix the problem of there being a lack of evidence. When good scientists have a lack of evidence for something, then they make sure to be honest about it; they label conclusions as provisional, and are clear in labeling untested or unevidenced ideas as hypotheses and not theories. A conspiracy theory is, much like the info-graphic describes, a theory that tacitly admits it has insufficient data to support it's conclusion. It is therefor a bad theory. That's not to say that it cannot be correct, only that nobody should take it seriously given the current state of evidence. So proponents of conspiracy theories as not just possible, but rather the most probably explanation? Those people are bad at evaluating evidence, and thus, are terrible scientists.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-11-2016, 05:13 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 04:59 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 04:44 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You know... conspiracy theories would probably fall into the realm of political science, making conspiracy theories a scientific endeavor. Which wouldn't that then by extension make conspiracy theories... scientific theories?

Change it's label it all you want, but it still doesn't fix the problem of there being a lack of evidence. When good scientists have a lack of evidence for something, then they make sure to be honest about it; they label conclusions as provisional, and are clear in labeling untested or unevidenced ideas as hypotheses and not theories. A conspiracy theory is, much like the info-graphic describes, a theory that tacitly admits it has insufficient data to support it's conclusion. It is therefor a bad theory. That's not to say that it cannot be correct, only that nobody should take it seriously given the current state of evidence. So proponents of conspiracy theories as not just possible, but rather the most probably explanation? Those people are bad at evaluating evidence, and thus, are terrible scientists.

How much evidence a conspiracy theory has depends entirely on the theory, saying that all conspiracy theories have the equal amount of evidence is like saying that all scientific theories have the same amount of evidence.

Sometimes its not for lack of evidence that people do not believe, but for lack of reason. As you should know with creationists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 05:25 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 05:13 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  How much evidence a conspiracy theory has depends entirely on the theory, saying that all conspiracy theories have the equal amount of evidence is like saying that all scientific theories have the same amount of evidence.

Sometimes its not for lack of evidence that people do not believe, but for lack of reason. As you should know with creationists.

If it didn't lack the evidence, it wouldn't need a 'conspiracy' to explain it.

Chem-trails is a good example. A globe spanning conspiracy involving millions, from heads of state and international regulatory bodies, down to airport baggage handlers, needs to be 'in on' the conspiracy to explain the complete lack of concrete evidence for it. The 'conspiracy' part is the part meant to hand wave away the lack of evidence.

Creationism is another one, where the 98% of scientists that believe in it are also part of a globe spanning conspiracy to hide all of the evidence in support of creationism. How come creationist papers don't get past mainstream peer review? Well, it's a conspiracy of course.

Now there are genuine conspiracies out there, like Watergate. But you don't need a conspiracy to explain away the lack of evidence in that case. We have evidence that it occurred, thus it is not a 'conspiracy theory', but rather 'evidence of a conspiracy'.


So yes, a 'conspiracy theory' is and does remain the klaxon call for those lacking sufficient evidence for their preferred conclusion.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-11-2016, 06:53 AM
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(20-11-2016 05:25 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 05:13 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  How much evidence a conspiracy theory has depends entirely on the theory, saying that all conspiracy theories have the equal amount of evidence is like saying that all scientific theories have the same amount of evidence.

Sometimes its not for lack of evidence that people do not believe, but for lack of reason. As you should know with creationists.

If it didn't lack the evidence, it wouldn't need a 'conspiracy' to explain it.

Chem-trails is a good example. A globe spanning conspiracy involving millions, from heads of state and international regulatory bodies, down to airport baggage handlers, needs to be 'in on' the conspiracy to explain the complete lack of concrete evidence for it. The 'conspiracy' part is the part meant to hand wave away the lack of evidence.

Creationism is another one, where the 98% of scientists that believe in it are also part of a globe spanning conspiracy to hide all of the evidence in support of creationism. How come creationist papers don't get past mainstream peer review? Well, it's a conspiracy of course.

Now there are genuine conspiracies out there, like Watergate. But you don't need a conspiracy to explain away the lack of evidence in that case. We have evidence that it occurred, thus it is not a 'conspiracy theory', but rather 'evidence of a conspiracy'.


So yes, a 'conspiracy theory' is and does remain the klaxon call for those lacking sufficient evidence for their preferred conclusion.

My dear evolutionkills, I was using creationism as an example, that there may be people in the realm regarding conspiracy who lack reason.

As for the chemtrails theory it is extraordinary claim yes, but even it has its roots based in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: