maddogdelta: On the other hand, I probably won't put you on ignore because creationist falsehoods must be countered, at every turn, simply so that people reading these threads don't get the wrong impression that creationists are somehow "right" if science doesn't reply.

You keep at it, because I know I'm tired of inane babble from idiot creationist trolls.

btw are you getting any of my jokes?

/is anyone getting them?
//i'm gunna be bummed if they are all missed

meat0918: You keep at it, because I know I'm tired of inane babble from idiot creationist trolls.

0/10

I drunk what: happycatsigma: On the other hand, I probably won't put you on ignore because creationevolutionist falsehoods must be countered, at every turn, simply so that people reading these threads don't get the wrong impression that creationevolutionists are somehow "right" if science doesn't reply.

I see we have similar goals...

I'm sure you are ready to elucidate "evolutionist falsehoods". I have already pointed you to videos elucidating 15 foundational falsehoods of creationism, in which every statement can be checked against current scientific research to determine whether the speaker is telling the truth or talking out of his butt.

Do you have a similar set of videos for creationism? Or at least videos which are not thoroughly debunked in series such as "Why do people laugh at creationists"? ^{(^)} (30 videos and counting)

maddogdelta: I'm sure you are ready to elucidate "evolutionist falsehoods". I have already pointed you to videos elucidating 15 foundational falsehoods of creationism, in which every statement can be checked against current scientific research to determine whether the speaker is telling the truth or talking out of his butt.

Do you have a similar set of videos for creationism? Or at least videos which are not thoroughly debunked in series such as "Why do people laugh at creationists"? (^) (30 videos and counting)

I only recently saw the banana as proof of god video... It was hard to watch, given the current yellowy goodness is the direct result of man's domestication and hybridization of the wild banana.

maddogdelta: I have already pointed you to videos

it is appreciated, and you know why

I will have a look at them

maddogdelta: Do you have a similar set of videos for creationism?

rather slim pickens, I concur

I wish you'd quit reminding how much this "side" drags their feet...

I also wish that whenever one does present some half-way intelligent stuff that they wouldn't also include all of their wharrgble with it

I think we got too many people trying to be Jack-of-all-trades?

meat0918: I only recently saw the banana as proof of god vide

You need to see the version done by theDarwinFinches. ^{(^)}..

maddogdelta: Since I don't have every one of these threads bookmarked, I can't instantaneously point you to threads where you promised, cross your heart and hope to die, to look at evidence which was presented. I just don't have the link to them.

Here's a sampling. I have him muted so I can't see the garble, but a quick scan of three or four clicks showed numerous examples of people such as myself going through the efforts

He's simply a very dumb person, and he's proud of that fact. Not much more to say really.

maddogdelta: Allow me to, again, present a couple of videos.

very informative, logical and reasonable

/i watched all of them
//and skimmed over your page of text

yes the banana bit is solid evidence that we are way behind in the argument department

/ditto for crocoducks

I'm formulating a new theory that I know neither side is going to like, but I'll share it anyway... soon

maybe next thread, maybe this one (if still open)

ninjakirby: maddogdelta: Since I don't have every one of these threads bookmarked, I can't instantaneously point you to threads where you promised, cross your heart and hope to die, to look at evidence which was presented. I just don't have the link to them.

Here's a sampling.

google has a Fark search? neato

ok, so maybe you guys to point me out an example

of where stuff (preferably video) was offered to me, I said I'd look into, then in the next thread I clearly did not review the material OR just dismissively "watched" it but ignored every good point made and then continued to repeat the mistakes I should have learned by watching said video...

btw is it possible that after watching some material I heard some good points and some not-so good and felt like it really didn't even address an exact point that you thought you were making?

or even worse just that I perhaps just don't agree with everything that is given to me as "conclusive arguments"

here's an example (fairly recent):

I stated that I'm still undecided as to Kent Hovind's view of young earth and Hugh Ross's old earth view. I think each made some good points here and there, but the issue still seems a bit fuzzy as far as "conclusive" details.

So I just honestly state that I could go either way at this point.

However one day some dude, (who is a crazy Hovind fan) shows me a video that he feels is the final proof that Hovind is 110% right! and shares the video with me, then I watch it and recognize a few good points made but still don't see any final conclusive evidence like that dude does, and so I say, I'm still not seeing it definitely one way or the other

so then the dude freaks out and says obviously you didn't watch it OR ELSE you'd agree with me!!!

and then some TOOL stops by and says, SEE?! I told you he won't listen, even after we try and try to explain things to him, but he's obviously just to dumb willfully ignorant, what more is there to say?

so the moral of the story

if you have A particular point that you wish to discuss, then clearly state it, and I'll try my best to be open-minded and respond

otherwise you can toss around your broad sweeping accusations concerning extremely ambiguous topics that can get into all kinds of strange tangents, and justify whatever you want to believe

of course if you are an overly biased hate-filled tool then it won't really matter anyway, since your mind is already made up, not much more to say really.

kerpal32: And personally, I believe in evolution and science. But I understand that science doesn't disprove theism. And I accept that the concept of a transcendental "God" or "Diety" capable existing outside of physical reality and spacetime isn't a "threat" to rationality since we consistently show through science that we really don't have a complete understanding of "physical existence" much less reality.

To me your explanation simply means "we dont have the tools to understand yet".

To you it means ... god?

Sounds like god of the gaps to me.

You should add this to your link collection.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

maddogdelta: And here is aaronra again, with his 10th foundational falsehood of creationism,

ok this one had a bunch of, huh wuuut? stuff in it

so don't yell at me later for not being able to teach a class on the material covered...

guyinjeep16: To me your explanation simply means "we dont have the tools to understand yet".

To you it means ... god?

Sounds like god of the gaps to me.

Sorry, but no it "God of the Gaps" But you do love to quote Dawkins like some evangelical witness.

Seems like you have issues anyway given the past 8 months of educating you on all the things you were wrong about with regard to science (much like zamboro and skinnyartist, you both get your lame rhetoric from the same place), the philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics, the limits of logical positivism, what science is, and the fact that you just different philosophical view and a boatload of intolerance and hate.

You're so indoctrinated it's expected you'd come back with some weak ass rhetoric like that. Shall we cover all the crap you didn't know before you started acting like an intolerant asshole on Fark?

So for your continued enlightenment, let's recap what you don't know or won't admit to once again.
- what is science (you initially said it had to be empirically testable and provide value in a physical / naturalistic sense -- wrong)
- philosophy of science (you run to science as a shield for your atheist views and turn to scientism and in doing so turn atheism into a religion)
- you don't understand or won't accept the demarcation of science and religion
- the limits of logical positivism
- key points under the philosophy of science including falsification, trying to disprove non-falsifiable arguments, creating dogmas of empiricism, and creating self-refuting arguments under foundationalism, scientism and physicalism.
- much much more

and
- science (including pure mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics) doesn't invalidate theism
- atheism is a philosophical position
- if you extend it to the belief it has authority over other philosophies based on logical positivism, strict reductionism and materialism, you create the same self-refuting arguments as any religion and you violate the tenets of the philosophy of science
- science and religion are not mutually exclusive or in direct opposition
- there is a process for demarcation
- not everything supernatural = theism (seems odd you don't get that one), and making inane references to unicorns as a framework for your argument just makes you look like an arrogant atheist asshole to 95% of the world's population.
- some atheists on Fark are just dicks full of anti-theistic hatred
- you seem shocked when people are dicks back at you for being a thuggy dick on the internet about your philosophical views
- there are an equal number of fark atheists who are complete farking hypocrites about this
- there has been a lot of advancement in the philosophy of science since Occam, Hume and Kant, but most Fark atheists (including you) haven't got a farking clue about it
- Most Fark atheist trolls don't seem to understand the limits of logical positivism (like you) and they're really just "pretty little hate machines" (like you) or have been indoctrinated themselves (like you).

- the philosophical concept of a God existing outside of empirical method is a matter of faith, not "rationalization", but neither atheism nor science provides any insight as to "why" the universe goes to the bother of existing. It only insists we don't ask why.
- stamping your feet and demanding empirical proof of the existence of "God", "Gods" or "Deities" is as batshiat irrational as any religious fundamentalist. And being a anti-theistic ickhead on Fark doesn't make your argument for atheism.

and
- being optimistic about advancements in science has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone believing it to be God. I plead not for the suppression of reason, but for a due recognition of that in us which sanctifies reason."
~Ghandi

I don't think you understand that atheism ≠ science, no matter how much you claim to understand this.

/basically you sound like a narrow-minded indoctrinated tool. You remind me of that study Zamboro loves to cite about atheists IQ's. But you and he are both too ignorant to understand what the study's co-author says about the data....

I get a laugh that he loves to quote it, but hasn't a clue what Helmuth Nyborg (the study's co-author) said about the study, or what the data really says. The 5 points difference on average is one thing. Indicating yes, people of lower intelligence do tend to have religious or spiritual beliefs. Not surprising.

However he ignores that Wordsum scores for atheists are relatively clustered at 0-1 correct answers and 9-10 correct answers. The standard deviation value is widest for them. While 12.2% of all respondents who answered the question on the certainty of God's existence scored either 9 or 10 on the Wordsum test, 21.2% of atheists did. Conversely, while only 2.5% of all respondents scored 0 or 1 on the Wordsum test, 10.3% of atheists did. So atheists, more than others, seem to come in two distinct varieties--the hyperintelligent empiricist, and the dumb, vicious social outcast.

Survey says: you're not a scientist, but you do have a predisposition for being an intolerant thug on the internet.

kerpal32: the hyperintelligent empiricist

there are some "clever" ones, I concur

/spiteful hate-filled tools
//but clever

they tend to refer to engineers as dumb...

/their cauliflowers are so mighty

I drunk what: kerpal32: the hyperintelligent empiricist

there are some "clever" ones, I concur

/spiteful hate-filled tools
//but clever

they tend to refer to engineers as dumb...

/their cauliflowers are so mighty

you missed the point..... it's the dumb, vicious social outcast looking for a sense of elitism and a self-rationalized moral imperative who are as easily indoctrinated as any "religious fundamentalist" that are just as much a concern as any "religious fundamentalist" (or fanatic).

kerpal32, just a quick question. What do you do to unwind?

//I was also going to ask what you believe, but I re-skimmed the thread and found my answer.

meat0918: kerpal32, just a quick question. What do you do to unwind?

//I was also going to ask what you believe, but I re-skimmed the thread and found my answer.


Spending time with my wife going to the symphony, concerts (various - blues, jazz, classic rock, etc. though I stopped liking music that just "screams at you" some time back), gardening (orchids), playing with my telescope, getting home occasionally to park my ass for a week doing nothing, or doing nothing, or watching the surfers while doing nothing, or going to my favorite restaurants when home (if you ever get the opportunity, try Pacific's Edge (pops)), skiing though it's getting harder, dinners with friends, ball games, hitting the occasional bucket or short course, other stuff.

you?

Spending time with my wife and kids, gardening(veggies), reading(both non-fiction and fiction), fishing (although I'm outfit for bass and I'm in fly fishing for trout country now), trying new sushi, fooling around on the guitar, the occasional video game, and soon to attempt wine and beer making

I forgot cooking, I can believe I forgot cooking. I love cooking.

meat0918: I forgot cooking, I can can't believe I forgot cooking. I love cooking.

That's it, bedtime.

kerpal32: - philosophy of science (you run to science as a shield for your atheist views and turn to scientism and in doing so turn atheism into a religion)

I never said this, again you are lying. Not everything is testable, why would you even have a conversation with someone who said that "everything has to be testable"??? The more and more you talk, the more I realize that you are here simply to name call and make things up simply because you are so angry at atheism.


kerpal32: - philosophy of science (you run to science as a shield for your atheist views and turn to scientism and in doing so turn atheism into a religion)

My view is from a logical perspective. This is what my beliefs follow.
I dont care about atheism, I care about the truth.

You are here to bash people whom say that god doesnt have to exsist.

You are the liar here, making things up at every turn.

Everything you say about me is misquoted, an outright lie, or simply made up, or shows udder and complete lack of understanding who you are talking too.

I answered you some 18, eighteen times, that right 18 times!!! On my views about mathematics and regards to being a science. Congrats for finally reading and understanding that one, you finally didnt bring it up with this response. So I figure in about 1500 posts or so you might actually understand where I am coming from.

Is it with this rigor that you practice science?

If so you are a complete failure.

Is it the goal of mosts thiests who practice science to warp philosophical views until god can be inserted?

You are a master of confusion , and you dont know yourself what side is up. Nothing you say has any credibility here.

Do yourself a favor and ask me what I believe someday.

You dont act like a christian, but hopefully you are working on that.

I dare you to come with just one response witout name calling, playing the victim or being a complete dickhead.

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: To me your explanation simply means "we dont have the tools to understand yet".

To you it means ... god?

Sounds like god of the gaps to me.

Sorry, but no it "God of the Gaps" But you do love to quote Dawkins like some evangelical witness.

Seems like you have issues anyway given the past 8 months of educating you on all the things you were wrong about with regard to science (much like zamboro and skinnyartist, you both get your lame rhetoric from the same place), the philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics, the limits of logical positivism, what science is, and the fact that you just different philosophical view and a boatload of intolerance and hate.

You're so indoctrinated it's expected you'd come back with some weak ass rhetoric like that. Shall we cover all the crap you didn't know before you started acting like an intolerant asshole on Fark?

So for your continued enlightenment, let's recap what you don't know or won't admit to once again.
- what is science (you initially said it had to be empirically testable and provide value in a physical / naturalistic sense -- wrong)
- philosophy of science (you run to science as a shield for your atheist views and turn to scientism and in doing so turn atheism into a religion)
- you don't understand or won't accept the demarcation of science and religion
- the limits of logical positivism
- key points under the philosophy of science including falsification, trying to disprove non-falsifiable arguments, creating dogmas of empiricism, and creating self-refuting arguments under foundationalism, scientism and physicalism.
- much much more

and
- science (including pure mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics) doesn't invalidate theism
- atheism is a philosophical position
- if you extend it to the belief it has authority over other philosophies based on logical positivism, strict reductionism and materialism, you create the same self-refuting arguments as any religion and you violate the tenets of the philosophy of science
- science and religion are not mutually exclusive or in direct opposition
- there is a process for demarcation
- not everything supernatural = theism (seems odd you don't get that one), and making inane references to unicorns as a framework for your argument just makes you look like an arrogant atheist asshole to 95% of the world's population.
- some atheists on Fark are just dicks full of anti-theistic hatred
- you seem shocked when people are dicks back at you for being a thuggy dick on the internet about your philosophical views
- there are an equal number of fark atheists who are complete farking hypocrites about this
- there has been a lot of advancement in the philosophy of science since Occam, Hume and Kant, but most Fark atheists (including you) haven't got a farking clue about it
- Most Fark atheist trolls don't seem to understand the limits of logical positivism (like you) and they're really just "pretty little hate machines" (like you) or have been indoctrinated themselves (like you).

- the philosophical concept of a God existing outside of empirical method is a matter of faith, not "rationalization", but neither atheism nor science provides any insight as to "why" the universe goes to the bother of existing. It only insists we don't ask why.
- stamping your feet and demanding empirical proof of the existence of "God", "Gods" or "Deities" is as batshiat irrational as any religious fundamentalist. And being a anti-theistic ickhead on Fark doesn't make your argument for atheism.

and
- being optimistic about advancements in science has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone believing it to be God. I plead not for the suppression of reason, but for a due recognition of that in us which sanctifies reason."
~Ghandi

I don't think you understand that atheism ≠ scie ...

kerpal32: Survey says: you're not a scientist, but you do have a predisposition for being an intolerant thug on the internet.

You: "I will prey upong the miss-understandings of man to insert theism"

Me: "I dont presume to know if there is a god or not. But inserting one doesnt make any sense so I am not going to do it. That is for every inividual to find ot for themselves and has no place in science."

You are right about one thing: Athiesm has nothing to do with science, and it has alot less to do with what we are talking about than you understand.

You are the one stuck on atheism.
You claim that science has no say either way on theism, yet you continuously point out areas in science where theism is a possibility.

You are doing it wrong, and at the most basic level.

Its easy to see who the real scientist is here.

guyinjeep16: I never said this, again you are lying. Not everything is testable, why would you even have a conversation with someone who said that "everything has to be testable"???

Actually you did multiple times for months until it was pointed out to you that much of science isn't empirically testable, is actually based on non-logical axioms, and doesn't have to provide some "value" as you kept insisting. Just like skinnyartist.

We even had a long thread with abb3w where he corrected you also. You've simply chosen to ignore it and deny it ever happened. But it took several months of repeatedly enlightening you on your fallacies and complete ignorance on all those points outlined above to get you to where you are today.

Along with the insistence that every time I pointed out the limits of science and demarcation of science and religion and other aspects noted above you screamed I was interjecting "theism" into science.

As to WHY you insisted this, it was most likely out of ignorance on your part and some indoctrinated bigotries or some deep seated hatred and resentment for religion and/or theism.

Which could explain why you're in all the threads even remotely touching on religion.

Regardless of how much you insist otherwise, I don't think you understand that atheism ≠ science. Even if you are "super-duper optimistic about it".

And pointing that out, or that there are demarcations isn't an attack on atheism or science.



On sad note - I just found out Donald Coyne passed away in October. Sad news. Wonderful man. Great Physicist. Certain fanatic Farker's would have hated him, because he regularly asked "why" reality is the way it is before looking at how it behaves the way it does.

http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/messages/text.asp?pid=2532 (pops)

http://scipp.ucsc.edu/personnel/profiles/coyne.html (pops)

guyinjeep16: I dont care about atheism, I care about the truth.

sure you do.... as well as imposing your "non-beliefs" on others. Why else are you in this thread?

I drunk what: I heard some good points and some not-so good

When you say "not so good", do you mean "issues which I personally disagree with', or do you mean "issues which have been demonstrated being untrue due to observation/experiment". Because if it is the latter, you have a Nobel Prize waiting, just publish the experiment.

If it is the former, well, the universe doesn't really care if you agree with it or not. You can throw yourself off a tall building and yell loudly how much you don't believe in gravity, but that won't stop you from going splat.

And your theory, here is a hint. It first has to work as well in prediction and explanation as anything it is replacing. For example, quantum mechanics superseded Newtonian mechanics because 1) it described the microscopic world better than Newtonian mechanics 2) when applied to larger scale environments it predicted everything Newtonian mechanics did, just with scarier math. So we still teach Newtonian mechanics, even though it has been superseded, because the math is easier to work, and you don't get any more accuracy using QM to track a rocket.

After your theory works just as good at explanation/prediction as evolution, then it needs to go a step further, and explain/predict things which cannot be predicted using current ideas in evolution.
BTW, this has already happened at least twice that I know of (I'm not a professional biologist). Darwin proposed natural selection. Mendel figured out genetics, which was a much more precise way to make predictions regarding evolution than what Darwin proposed. Afterwards, other biologists determined that there were more factors involved in changing populations than natural selection, and they developed the model for genetic drift ^{(^)}.

So, your theory needs to take into account the predictions/explanations made by Darwin, Mendel, Wright, Fisher, Hardy, and Weinberg (and others, again, I'm not a pro at this). Then go further.

If you can do all that, you will get the Nobel prize.

Good luck.

kerpal32: Why else are you in this thread?

I'm mainly here for the religion discussions, I wish somebody would tell maddogdelta...

/i think he's under the impression that I'm debating "evolution"?
//or competing for a noble prize??

I'd rather figure out which is the one true religion

any takers?

I'll just leave this here

(a) Catholic
(b) Mormon
(c) Jehovah's witness
(d) Protestant
(e) Branch Davidian
..
..

OR if you prefer

(1) Christian
(2) Muslim
(3) Jew
(4) Hindu
(5) Buddhist
..
..
..

maddogdelta: So, your theory needs to take into account the predictions/explanations made by Darwin, Mendel, Wright, Fisher, Hardy, and Weinberg (and others, again, I'm not a pro at this).

I guess freethoughtpedia doesn't like spiteful hate-filled bias?

ninjakirby: maddogdelta: So, your theory needs to take into account the predictions/explanations made by Darwin, Mendel, Wright, Fisher, Hardy, and Weinberg (and others, again, I'm not a pro at this).


lmao. "freethoughtpedia". awesome. No, there's no theme with you guys in these threads at all huh.....? lol.

I'm looking forward to the day when the word "belief" will be outlawed and the only things that people can think about without being emotionally abused or physically attacked are that things Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris say are the ultimate "truth" (quoting guyinjeep16), and cannot be questioned. Ever. This is called "Free Thought." It'll probably happen about the time I'm ready to check out anyway, based on the behaviour and average age of the members of the "clique".

/laughing my ass off imagining someone like guyinjeep16 ranting like he does at David Bohm. Or imagining David Bohm looking at guyinjeep16 right now and laughing his ass off. Either way, it's a treat. You'd have to look at it from a different philosophical and scientific perspective to appreciate it.

I drunk what: kerpal32: Why else are you in this thread?

I'm mainly here for the religion discussions, I wish somebody would tell maddogdelta...

/i think he's under the impression that I'm debating "evolution"?
//or competing for a noble prize??

I'd rather figure out which is the one true religion

any takers?

I'll just leave this here

(a) Catholic
(b) Mormon
(c) Jehovah's witness
(d) Protestant
(e) Branch Davidian
..
..

OR if you prefer

(1) Christian
(2) Muslim
(3) Jew
(4) Hindu
(5) Buddhist
..
..
..

I know I'm not supposed to feed you, but I must ask, because I'm curious. How do you manage to rule out only Catholicism, but everything else is still in the running?

And then of course, the real question, why do you assume there is one true religion to be found?

I drunk what: I guess freethoughtpedia doesn't like spiteful hate-filled bias?

no, they only like to reserve usage _TM / ® for themselves.

Honestly though, if it keeps these clowns the hell off of Fark with their trolling and hate, I think it's great that they have forums over there....

nunoyo: I know I'm not supposed to feed you

-.- we can come back to this

/-.-

nunoyo: How do you manage to rule out only Catholicism

i'm very glad you asked, I HATE when people assume and then yell at me because of their assumptions (usually heavily biased)

1. the list is my latest "schtick" to scientifically determine the one true religion throught the process of elimination.

2. I really wanted to cross that one off because as many have mentioned before, I really do beat up on the Cats too often. :( not on purpose

3. I didn't strike it off until I gave ample consideration for or against the argument. But it is possible that I did this too quickly, I'd be happy to unstrike it if you wish to defend it?

4. Perhaps I should keep the lists titled to avoid confusion?

how about this:

The One True Religion
1. 2. 3. 4. etc...

OR

The One True Christian Church
a. b. c. d. etc...

nunoyo: but everything else is still in the running?

because I'm still IN the process of eliminating, AND I have not yet addressed the other choices (aka found someone willing to defend a particular item)

(though nk almost participated in a decent Vs. Mormon match)

/he's such a tease

what I'd REALLY like to do is find a person who actually believes each stance so I can argue with them, not someone who is just filling the empty spot, though I did appreciate nk's effort

nunoyo: why do you assume there is one true religion to be found?

because i'm one of those nutjobs that believes that Truth is absolute, and furthermore that it is possible to find it (if we look hard enough)

I also assume there is one true science, etc...

(which is WAY easier to find)

/so I guess I enjoy the challenge

I drunk what: i'm very glad you asked, I HATE when people assume and then yell at me because of their assumptions (usually heavily biased)

1. the list is my latest "schtick" to scientifically determine the one true religion throught the process of elimination.

2. I really wanted to cross that one off because as many have mentioned before, I really do beat up on the Cats too often. :( not on purpose

3. I didn't strike it off until I gave ample consideration for or against the argument. But it is possible that I did this too quickly, I'd be happy to unstrike it if you wish to defend it?

I was more just curious as to your specific reasons for striking of Catholicism. Not looking to defend it, just curious.

I drunk what: because i'm one of those nutjobs that believes that Truth is absolute, and furthermore that it is possible to find it (if we look hard enough)

Why do you assume that the absolute truth is fully packaged in some religion? Why not just try to figure out what you think is true, and fark the labels?

nunoyo: just curious.

before we proceed, do you care to defend or retract this implication-accusation?:

nunoyo: I know I'm not supposed to feed you

kerpal32: Honestly though

word

/to yo mammy

so you live in the bay area?

I drunk what: before we proceed, do you care to defend or retract this implication-accusation?:

Nope. Just curious. For real. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's Catholicism specifically, I just want to know what sort of factors got one ruled out.

nunoyo: Nope.

perhaps a small communication problem has occurred, nunoyo: I know I'm not supposed to feed you

sounds like you're calling me a troll, maybe I misunderstood? I was simply asking if you wished to defend it? bygones...let's skip it

nunoyo: Not looking to defend it, just curious.

I'll see your curiousity and and raise you...do you think any religion is correct or that they are all wrong?

nunoyo: Why do you assume that the absolute truth is fully packaged in some religion?

do I? I think absolute truth manifests itself in many forms. such as religion, science, etc... I'm merely focusing on the religious perspective, I think there are plenty of others that focus on the alternates.

nunoyo: Why not just try to figure out what you think is true, and fark the labels?

not sure what you mean here, ??

nunoyo: I just want to know what sort of factors got one ruled out.

the main factor (I suppose) would be whether or not the proposed belief 'holds water'

i was also attempting to remove some of the strawmen that pop up time and again in these threads (or in life)

for example:

someone would say Christians are a hypocritical bunch of liars and here is why.......

then I'd come along and suddenly have to defend this accusation

meanwhile in the original statement the person was actually referring to Catholics and incorrectly substituted the word with "Christians"

so if people are going to accuse Christians of something I was trying to clarify who should be using that title

here's a simple illustration:

I am a Japanese jet-pilot! [not true]

Does saying this make it true? should all errors I commit be attributed to Japanese jet-pilots?

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: I never said this, again you are lying. Not everything is testable, why would you even have a conversation with someone who said that "everything has to be testable"???

Actually you did multiple times for months until it was pointed out to you that much of science isn't empirically testable, is actually based on non-logical axioms, and doesn't have to provide some "value" as you kept insisting. Just like skinnyartist.

We even had a long thread with abb3w where he corrected you also. You've simply chosen to ignore it and deny it ever happened. But it took several months of repeatedly enlightening you on your fallacies and complete ignorance on all those points outlined above to get you to where you are today.

Along with the insistence that every time I pointed out the limits of science and demarcation of science and religion and other aspects noted above you screamed I was interjecting "theism" into science.

As to WHY you insisted this, it was most likely out of ignorance on your part and some indoctrinated bigotries or some deep seated hatred and resentment for religion and/or theism.

Which could explain why you're in all the threads even remotely touching on religion.

Regardless of how much you insist otherwise, I don't think you understand that atheism ≠ science. Even if you are "super-duper optimistic about it".

And pointing that out, or that there are demarcations isn't an attack on atheism or science.



On sad note - I just found out Donald Coyne passed away in October. Sad news. Wonderful man. Great Physicist. Certain fanatic Farker's would have hated him, because he regularly asked "why" reality is the way it is before looking at how it behaves the way it does.

http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/messages/text.asp?pid=2532 (pops)

http://scipp.ucsc.edu/personnel/profiles/coyne.html (pops)



How would I test that a sundog is created by ice crystals in cirrus clouds? How could I test that? I cant. But by everything else we have learned we know how this phenomenom works and have a pretty good idead without testing it.


You dont understand what you read, and you are a liar.

Show me where I said everything had to be emperically testable- you clown.

nunoyo: Nope. Just curious. For real. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's Catholicism specifically, I just want to know what sort of factors got one ruled out.

Near as I can tell, he takes each religions claims, compares it to his religions claims, and then uses the results as his rubric.

ninjakirby: Near as I can tell, he takes each religions claims, compares it to his religions claims the Bible which all "christians" claim to use as their history-constitution-rulebook, and then uses the results as his rubric to decide which claims are valid.

FTFH

you'll have to excuse him, he suffers from severe bias and spite-filled hatred

/and has a nasty habit of speaking FOR others...

furthermore I attempt to fish out (not troll) each person from religion X or Y and see if they even know what they claim to believe...and then defend it

in a few exercises I noticed I was actually informing them (of their beliefs) for the first time

0.0

the previous post is only referring to "christian" vs "christian" debates,

the religion X vs religion Y discussion gets a little more complicated, since both sides don't agree on a single source

luckily many religions don't specifically claim anything and are presented in self-conflicting styles that often speed up the process. but i like i said, a bit more complicated

I drunk what: ninjakirby: Near as I can tell, he takes each religions claims, compares it to his religions claims the Bible which all "christians" claim to use as their history-constitution-rulebook and which IDW interprets however he feels like, and then uses the results as his rubric to decide which claims are valid conflict with his personal interpretation and are therefore "invalid."

To be fair, he might share similar interpretations with other people.

Still has no objective method of comparison, of course.

cthellis: To be fair

would you care to provide an example according to the corrections you made?

/to be fair

cthellis: I cthellis what: ..which IDW interprets however he feels like using all the standard rules of logic, reason and language, and then uses the results to decide which claims conflict with his personal interpretation those standards and are therefore "invalid"..

so much work, just to speak for myself...

guyinjeep16: How would I test that a sundog is created by ice crystals in cirrus clouds? How could I test that? I cant. But by everything else we have learned we know how this phenomenom works and have a pretty good idead without testing it.

Yes, I could picture you screaming at David Bohm that he's "interjecting theism in science!!!". Are you even familiar with his philosophical implications and interpretations of quantum "phenomenon"?

Obviously not. But you're super duper optimistic, aren't you.

/FYI --- even Einstein considered it "spooky".

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: How would I test that a sundog is created by ice crystals in cirrus clouds? How could I test that? I cant. But by everything else we have learned we know how this phenomenom works and have a pretty good idead without testing it.

Yes, I could picture you screaming at David Bohm that he's "interjecting theism in science!!!". Are you even familiar with his philosophical implications and interpretations of quantum "phenomenon"?

Obviously not. But you're super duper optimistic, aren't you.

/FYI --- even Einstein considered it "spooky".

You are all about the supernatural arent ya?

Many things are outside our comprehension, and many things that are well understood now, once were.

Is that all you got?

guyinjeep16: kerpal32: guyinjeep16: How would I test that a sundog is created by ice crystals in cirrus clouds? How could I test that? I cant. But by everything else we have learned we know how this phenomenom works and have a pretty good idead without testing it.

Yes, I could picture you screaming at David Bohm that he's "interjecting theism in science!!!". Are you even familiar with his philosophical implications and interpretations of quantum "phenomenon"?

Obviously not. But you're super duper optimistic, aren't you.

/FYI --- even Einstein considered it "spooky".

You are all about the supernatural arent ya?

Many things are outside our comprehension, and many things that are well understood now, once were.

Is that all you got?

Is that all you think there is? Not like you have any clue what I'm actually talking about at all. Much like you have no clue what science is. All you have is you ramblings about being able to "predict" phenomenon, tools and optimism.

/admit it, you have no clue what I'm really discussing here.

BTw - you're obviously well versed in rhetoric and able to quote Dawkins, but have you read anything about science and the philosophy of science that wasn't from some atheist ideological perspective?

I'm betting not. You don't seem capable.

/$5 says you never read anything of Bohm's (probably never heard of him), or if you did, nothing beyond the the rote formulation of mathematical theory.

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: kerpal32: guyinjeep16: How would I test that a sundog is created by ice crystals in cirrus clouds? How could I test that? I cant. But by everything else we have learned we know how this phenomenom works and have a pretty good idead without testing it.

Yes, I could picture you screaming at David Bohm that he's "interjecting theism in science!!!". Are you even familiar with his philosophical implications and interpretations of quantum "phenomenon"?

Obviously not. But you're super duper optimistic, aren't you.

/FYI --- even Einstein considered it "spooky".

You are all about the supernatural arent ya?

Many things are outside our comprehension, and many things that are well understood now, once were.

Is that all you got?

Is that all you think there is? Not like you have any clue what I'm actually talking about at all. Much like you have no clue what science is. All you have is you ramblings about being able to "predict" phenomenon, tools and optimism.

/admit it, you have no clue what I'm really discussing here.

Wave function, doesnt matter the distance, entanglement between the two determines the others fate, something to that effect...