Yikes - so many grammatical errors. My apologies to everyone. Long day.

ninjakirby: Things which are not acted upon do not change.

except for infinite pendulums, they can swing forever (and always have)

or self correcting math equations, because they correct themselves...

vacuum fluctuations,etc..

underpants gnomes

the list is endless

kerpal32: irrationally religious atheist pals

Holy oxymoron, Batman!

kerpal32: Practice science? assuming you mean, why do I as a scientist adhere to scientific method

Same thing

kerpal32: because it's a methodology that develops new views of nature

New views that we all can agree upon, very good.

So- your believes and your personal truths are just that, they are yours, and dont mean anything to me. Just as mine dont mean anything to you. Science is what we use to learn about limitless applications that we BOTH can use.

kerpal32: Why do you have faith that any existence of "God" must somehow be empirically evident

I dont, but it is a possibility that god could be found through scientific means.

kerpal32: or that you haven't already identified it under scientific method without realizing it

Maybe I have? So what? What difference does it make if I did and didnt realize it?

Again, because you look at something and see god, doesnt mean I do, unless you can put something together that we both can agree on.

THAT is why I value science so highly, when used right we both can agree on what is being said.

kerpal32: Why do you have faith believe that everything will eventually be testable (which is also not a scientific belief)?

Just the simple fact that we can think about something is the beginning of testing it.

kerpal32: Why do you believe everyone must share your belief?

Nice try, for the 1,000,000 time: I dont care what you believe and you have every right to believe it.

Its just that I think its more valuable to have a method that we both can agree on, which happens to be science, when done correctly.

I drunk what:

Mayhem_2006: "To allow some people to obtain power over others"?

feel free to pick on mine

what power do i have over others?

Did I say that *you* had power over others?

Presumably, your religion has certain rules, yes? If you follow those rules, then whoever most recently interpreted those rules has power over you, and the rest of the congregation.

Perhaps my presumption is incorrect - but even if your religion is astonishingly blasé about what its followers get up to, it is still an undeniable fact that religion is used to exert power over a huge number of people everyday.

Or are you planning to deny that?

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: Just for you- I have repeatedly said that everyone should believe what they want. I have never had any problem with this.

good for you.

[...]

Why do you believe everyone must share your belief?

Really?

guyinjeep16: He makes no effort to understand evolution, and may simply be incapable of learning.

Yeah, I don't think he's coming back to that particular discussion.

Except maybe to say that I need to be patient and wait for him to dispense wisdom (or until the thread closes, whichever comes first). At least he's stopped calling people "grasshopper".

guyinjeep16: So- your believes and your personal truths are just that, they are yours, and dont mean anything to me. Just as mine dont mean anything to you. Science is what we use to learn about limitless applications that we BOTH can use.

so you're saying under science there are no conflicting views or disagreements?

wait, what?

guyinjeep16: I dont, but it is a possibility that god could be found through scientific means.

ok, so exactly how is your disbelief in "God" based on lack of empirical evidence under scientific method?

guyinjeep16: THAT is why I value science so highly, when used right we both can agree on what is being said.

always? about what exactly?

You mean you're absolutely certain that science isn't a never ending contradicting self-correcting labyrinth of positive claims and unconceived alternatives?

Gauss called to ask why you believe that scientists have never failed even to conceive of alternatives to their own theories and lines of theoretical investigation, alternatives that were both well-confirmed by the evidence available at the time and sufficiently serious as to be ultimately accepted by later scientific communities.

Or how you can believe that there have never been cases in scientific history where entirely new non-empirical views of reality have completely redefined views of reality, science, scientific method, and superseded existing beliefs to create entirely new fields of the sciences based on unconceived alternatives.

You have faith that when science is "used right" we both everyone in the sciences can agree on what is being said?

hmmmmm. interesting.

guyinjeep16: Just the simple fact that we can think about something is the beginning of testing it.

You're shiatting me right?


guyinjeep16: Nice try, for the 1,000,000 time: I dont care what you believe and you have every right to believe it.

About that.... Then why do you object when I point this out to your less tolerant pals?

Seriously Brick, kill the bug up your ass. This isn't about you. Your pal zamby is a clueless, indoctrinated, bigoted, atheist fundamentalist with a big ass bag o' irrational hate, and his buddy ninjakrabby isn't far behind with the rest of the Fark Idiot Brigade^TM.

/I wonder if you, fuller or zamby are actually capable of posting a coherent response without breaking down someone's post into tiny little discrete pieces.

Bevets: Where has this been disputed?

It hasn't, which is why your continuation with the question confuses me. I've stated my position, you've agreed to it, and then you keep asking about it.

I don't believe in an actor. Therefore I do not believe things can be acted upon.

There isn't another level to this syllogism. Cornflakes to cheerios man. Simple stuff.

hawkrock1123: I actually looked up the dictionary definition of "religion", and it was much closer to what your definition.

*chuckles* i see

and what happens when you lookup "Nature" in the dictionary?

/take a peek at my profile and you'll see that sometimes our understanding exceeds that of our predecessors
//hopefully this is a frequent occurrence

hawkrock1123: You choose to be with God (Heaven),

this would be classified as a "reward" in my book

but i totally agree that it IS a choice

hawkrock1123: It's about the relationship, not the ritual (or what I call "religion").

and what happens when the relationship requires a ritual or two?

as with all philosophy, you must be careful about dichotomies when dealing with Religion

hawkrock1123: You're right; I'm sure I worded this poorly

no problem, i believe we located and fixed it

hawkrock1123: I believe that good works/words/actions/whatever are a result of free willGod's Grace

and these Good works enable us to accept the Gift of His Grace, Our Salvation

the reason that so many have trouble with this, is because of their perception of "works" and also misunderstand that this is a Gift from God, not a payment rendered for our services

i'm afraid that the dictionary won't help you out here either... :(

hawkrock1123: perhaps call it spiritual maturity?

rightly so

this is one reason why We do not try to force Meat upon the infants, and become greatly annoyed when We see adults drinking only Milk

hawkrock1123: What we view as good or wise is affected by our emotional/spiritual/whatever proximity to God (How could it not be?).

Attitude is critical here, and our willingness to Listen

Where is God, how may we get closer to Him?

hawkrock1123: I suppose the point here is to converse, not to win an argument.

*a tear forms in my eye*

finally I have won

/and so have you

welcome to the auto-green club! i will answer ANY question you have and i will read any walls of text you give me

hawkrock1123: I hope you'll at least concede that it's unlikely I could explain God and His ways perfectly.

no worries it has already been done, the only steps left is to interpret them and follow Him

hawkrock1123: I am definitely an imperfect messenger

you're on the Right Path, lad

hawkrock1123: less educated Christian than many

we shall see

hawkrock1123: I'm happy to continue the conversation nonetheless

that's the Spirit

Infinite Monkey: Yeah, I don't think he's coming back to that particular discussion.

patience young cricket

Religion always comes first

/priorities

Guyinjeep16,

Thanks for confirming btw that you still don't have a farking clue about science, scientific method, the philosophy of science, or what you're talking about.

/even funnier, you actually sound like skinnyartist. sound-check..... mutter "tested, tested, tested" for me. lol.

I drunk what: i^2: Of course it is, and of course it does. So what? Becoming an engineer does not automatically grant you deep expert knowledge in every field or subfield of science, mathematics or even physics.

i^2: Sociolinguistics is a branch of Science. So is Psychopharmacology. So is Paleontology. Do you think it would it be useful to solicit opinions about those fields from engineers as well?

more useful than from a layman? of course

/only incredibly stupid-dishonest people would struggle with this...

You should consider the possibility that you haven't made yourself understood in quite the way you intend.

Perhaps what we have here is a simple miscalibration of our relative expectations, in that you appear to have either a more cynical view of the knowledgebase of the "average layperson" than I expressed with my original comment, or a more optimistic view than I'm willing to grant when it comes to the knowledgebase of medical doctors and engineers.

So. Would you mind answering the following?

Any given Professional Engineer should be expected to have a [greater/lesser/equivalent] level of knowledge about a given field of science when compared to:

A. An average layperson
B. An average informed layperson
C. A layperson who has a specific interest in that field
D. An average college graduate
E. An average college graduate from a mathematics or science discipline
F. An average college graduate from the specific field in question
G. An average post-graduate degree holder
H. An average post-graduate degree holder in a mathematics or science discipline
I. An average post-graduate degree holder from the specific field in question
J. A Medical Doctor

hawkrock1123: I actually looked up the dictionary definition of "religion", and it was much closer to what your definition. I'm more referring to the practice of rituals, etc (even in Christianity).

Dictionaries can be treacherous places, as they only contain lexical (ie common usage) definitions. They will rarely offer the more robust professional usages or larger contexts. Your ritual focus is actually more spot on than simple "a set of beliefs" - ritual is often the most prominent feature of anthropological inquiry into religions (versus cults, ideologies, teams, groups and all the other ways humans group ourselves).

I made a graphic on this point ages ago, back when "But the dictionary says!" was a prominent Fark theme.



It's a better definition than most, but serious anthropology nerds will have plenty of bones to pick with it. Complicated subject.

Mayhem_2006: Did I say that *you* had power over others?

it was implied (or at least that someone in my organization engages in such things)

Mayhem_2006: Presumably, your religion has certain rules, yes?

of course

Mayhem_2006: If you follow those rules, then whoever most recently interpreted those rules has power over you, and the rest of the congregation.

we all interpret them, so then we all have power over each other? are you trying to make me a communist?

however while interpreting them we all came to the same conclusion that only God has power over us, now what?

/well we do submit to the law of the land, etc..
//but that's probably not what you meant

Mayhem_2006: Perhaps my presumption is incorrect

yep

Mayhem_2006: but even if your religion is astonishingly blasé about what its followers get up to

oh we definitely chastise and edify each other, make no mistake there, but no one is the Head but Christ

Mayhem_2006: Or are you planning to deny that

i deny false things, and cling to the Truth

impaler: I drunk what: ninjakirby: Things which are not acted upon do not change.

except for infinite pendulums, they can swing forever (and always have)

So what you're saying is they don't change.

um I'm not saying anything there chief, i subscribe to the wound up clock universe, you'll have to inquire within the IB to figure out who believes that other stuff :)

/clearly designed by the clock maker

impaler: "Engineers don't necessarily have any more expertise on the subject than the average layperson"

Is NOT the same as

"Engineers have no greater understanding of math and science than that of a layman."

wow dude those are some awesome blinders you got on there I was REALLY hoping you weren't going to have to go there, but you did

i'll respond in a minute after i quit facepalming

kerpal32: so you're saying under science there are no conflicting views or disagreements?

Of course not, but this is what makes science so great.
These ideas keep getting tested, reviewed, viewed by tomorrows scientists, ect, ect

kerpal32: ok, so exactly how is your disbelief in "God" based on lack of empirical evidence under scientific method?

Show me the empirical evidence.

kerpal32: You mean you're absolutely certain that science isn't a never ending contradicting self-correcting labyrinth of positive claims and unconceived alternatives?

You sure you are a scientist?
What about all that it has done for us already?
You pretend like science hasnt accomplished anything.

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: Just the simple fact that we can think about something is the beginning of testing it.

You're shiatting me right?

Not at all, Im sorry you are so narrow sighted.

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: Nice try, for the 1,000,000 time: I dont care what you believe and you have every right to believe it.

About that.... Then why do you object when I point this out to your less tolerant pals?

Please show where I have said that others cant believe what they want.

kerpal32: /I wonder if you, fuller or zamby are actually capable of posting a coherent response without breaking down someone's post into tiny little discrete pieces.

Yea it sucks when what you are really trying to say doesnt make any sense, I wouldnt like that either.

kerpal32: Guyinjeep16,

Thanks for confirming btw that you still don't have a farking clue about science, scientific method, the philosophy of science, or what you're talking about.

/even funnier, you actually sound like skinnyartist. sound-check..... mutter "tested, tested, tested" for me. lol.

Isnt it easy to just sit back and throw a huge blanket over something?

"You dont understand science"

Wow, that sure is some great work you did there Kerpy.

Funny how you never back it up with an argument.

The scientific method is very simple. Applying it correctly is where people have troubles.

Understanding why science has value seems to be your sticking point.

Youll get it someday.

guyinjeep16: Show me the empirical evidence.

That wasn't the question.... let me play back for you what you said, and what my question was.....

guyinjeep16: I dont believe in god because I find no scientific evidence for it.

kerpal32: Why do you have faith that any existence of "God" must somehow be empirically evident, or that you haven't already identified it under scientific method without realizing it?

guyinjeep16: I dont, but it is a possibility that god could be found through scientific means.

kerpal32: ok, so exactly how is your disbelief in "God" based on lack of empirical evidence under scientific method?

OK, so again, are you saying you believe nothing exists or is true unless there is empirical evidence for it? Or just "God". And why do you believe that.

It's a straight forward question. Unless you're unwilling to admit your disbelief is something outside of science.

/keep tap dancing and farting Brick. It's always fun when you step in as a 2nd act for zamby.

guyinjeep16: Funny how you never back it up with an argument.

Oh I did, you tapped danced, farted and trolled around it. like you always do Brick.


guyinjeep16: THAT is why I value science so highly, when used right we both can agree on what is being said.

kerpal32: always? about what exactly?

You mean you're absolutely certain that science isn't a never ending contradicting self-correcting labyrinth of positive claims and unconceived alternatives?

Gauss called to ask why you believe that scientists have never failed even to conceive of alternatives to their own theories and lines of theoretical investigation, alternatives that were both well-confirmed by the evidence available at the time and sufficiently serious as to be ultimately accepted by later scientific communities?

Or how you can believe that there have never been cases in scientific history where entirely new non-empirical views of reality have completely redefined views of reality, science, scientific method, and superseded existing beliefs to create entirely new fields of the sciences based on unconceived alternatives?



what's funny is how you still toss out strawmen about "what it's done for us already", which ignored the questions above.... BTW - who said science is exclusionary to any or all other views?

move your goalposts much? Always fun to watch you tap dance and fart Brick. While you're up, scream "where's the value?!!" for me like you used to.

/lmao - dance for me Brick, then go make me a sandwich or fix my AC or go grade high school exams or whatever the fark you've been trained to do. Because science and the philosophy of science sure the fark isn't anywhere near it. Be honest, you barely passed your GED didn't you? You've got some NTE cert and a wheel barrow of butt hurt everytime someone points out your pal is a tool, don't you.

Bevets: Universal laws are consistent with a Universal Law Giver. I am still waiting to discover how they are consistent with atheism.

The following two statements are enough.

Atheists don't believe there exists a being capable of changing fundamental physical laws.

We observe physical laws are universal, they do not vary on their own.

kerpal32: OK, so again, are you saying you believe nothing exists or is true unless there is empirical evidence for it? Or just "God". And why do you believe that.

What purpose does it give me to start interjecting things?

Some things I believe may be true yet there is no way to prove it, because they seem to fit certain parameters on the way other things work.

The idea of a god overseeing our personal lives isnt one of them.

Infinite Monkey: kerpal32: guyinjeep16: Just for you- I have repeatedly said that everyone should believe what they want. I have never had any problem with this.

good for you.

[...]

Why do you believe everyone must share your belief?

Really?

You're kidding right?

Bevets: Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets: Surly U. Jest:

What does a new pencil and arguing with NinjaKirby have in common?

Theres no point?

lol.

ninjakirby: Bevets: Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets:

Bevets: Surly U. Jest:

What does a new pencil and arguing with NinjaKirby have in common?

Theres no point?

lol.

What if the pencil were, Intelligently Designed?

kerpal32: what's funny is how you still toss out strawmen about "what it's done for us already"

So you dont realize the things science has done for us?

Im trying to show you that science has value, for each of us. While personal truth only applies to the individual.

i^2: So. Would you mind answering the following?

wait and see if my step by step hand holding version for impaler helps and then see if there is any remaining confusion

guyinjeep16: So you dont realize the things science has done for us?

Wouldn't you like to accept it as your lord and savior?

guyinjeep16: So you dont realize the things science has done for us?

What does that have to do with the questions you ignore.


guyinjeep16: Im trying to show you that science has value, for each of us. While personal truth only applies to the individual.

Which doesn't answer the questions and instead equivocate around it while you move your goalposts. I'm trying to show you that you're doing that intentionally.

Why do you evade the questions posed to you?

Why do you assume one form of value is all people need?

Why do you confuse science (a methodology and tool focusing on aspects of natural phenomena) with atheism (a metaphysical belief or disbelief) about reality?

Why do you imply that science is somehow exclusive to other philosophical beliefs outside of science (including atheism)? Theists and Deists know the material world exists as well as any atheist and are just as capable of performing within science and scientific method as any atheist.

Why do you assume empirical verification is the sole component of science and scientific method or justification of beliefs?

Why do you assume that scientific theories in any way represent objective truth about reality.

Why do you tap dance, move your goalposts and equivocate so much?

/we'll get to all the other questions you ignore after you answer those.
meantime, I'm trying to get you to realize that you're evading the questions, and that atheism like theism, is a belief outside of science, unless science is your religion.

GilRuiz1: guyinjeep16: So you dont realize the things science has done for us?

Wouldn't you like to accept it as your lord and savior?

lmao. that's act 3.

first i'd like to say that i'm beginning to seriously doubt that we are even using the same term "engineer"

by "engineer" i'm referring to the standard def. within the professional community which recognizes an individual who has typically completed at least a four year university level education at an ABET college

impaler:

1st. no one said that someone with a general level of knowledge would somehow be MORE qualified than a person with a specialized education, but it was fun to hear you guys keep pretending like that was actually some part of the argument

2nd. what WAS said, was that when the problem arises of doubt in either the methodology and/or conclusions by said "experts" comes into question, who then would be a worthy commentator? this is probably where you both got lost and went full herpty derp on #1

now since i've shed some light of reading comprehension on that stuff from before, do I STILL need to explain to you both why someone who has 3 levels of understanding, about a particular subject, (though they obviously don't have 4+ levels of an expert) is still way more qualified than someone that has 0-1??

or would you both like to spin around in circles for another day or two and try to figure out if doctors have a better understanding of biology than laymen and engineers have a better understanding of physics than laymen

or perhaps you're still stuck on the fact that 3>1?

because for some neat reason you think that if you are not a 4 you must be a 0

/can't wait until people start saying that 4 means you're smarter than 3 :D
//already knows what they are thinking...

now i'm tired and can't brain so much

so i guess i'm ready to continue the evolution-creation debate!

who will win? P VS. Q???

impaler: That isn't blinders. That is objective fact.

Dude, I doubt he even recognizes the fact that it's an analogy. Go watch Glee, better waste of your time.

impaler: Do you even know what is meant when people talk about "flaws of perception"?

i am well aware of the Idiot Brigade and frequently make examples out of them (over the years), so i'd say that by now i have a black belt in recognizing-understanding such things...

which "flaws of perception" did you have in mind?

impaler: You still haven't given any examples of how religion corrects cognitive biases and flaws of perception.

so Religion has undergone no kind of revision whatsoever over the past 10,000 years?

my first example was catholicism, did you not like that one or would you just prefer another? (i also gave the mormon example)

/that's 2 already

if you'd like i suppose we can discuss the general philosophy of religion and try to answer your question from a broader sense? after coffee tomorrow...

kerpal32: GilRuiz1: guyinjeep16: So you dont realize the things science has done for us?

Wouldn't you like to accept it as your lord and savior?

lmao. that's act 3.

As opposed to making things up about a deity that watches your every move?

Absolutely

ninjakirby: Dude, I doubt he even recognizes the fact that it's an analogy

ZOMG it's an analogy?!

ninjakirby: Go watch Glee

so then expecting intelligent conversation from you is like talking to Glee (through your TV set)?

/it makes so much sense now
//mind blown

GilRuiz1: guyinjeep16: So you dont realize the things science has done for us?

Wouldn't you like to accept it as your lord and savior?


Perhaps you are one of the idiots who doesnt recognize the importance of science and wants to inject creationism into science without going through all of the rigors?

I drunk what: Dimensio:

You have disproved no statement that I have issued. You have also, thus far, not provided reference to any calculation of "odds" that the universe has an "Intelligent Designer".

guyinjeep16: kerpal32: GilRuiz1: guyinjeep16: So you dont realize the things science has done for us?

Wouldn't you like to accept it as your lord and savior?

lmao. that's act 3.

As opposed to making things up about a deity that watches your every move?

Absolutely

But the deity can't see through your clothing. If he could, why would he be mad when you are nekid?

Bevets: Creationists are disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as "innocence." ~ Phillip Johnson

Mr. Johnson is not a credible authority with respect to the subject of scientific methodology and thus his claims regarding that subject are not credible. You have relied upon demonstrable lies as a means of advocating your position and thus claims that you issue regarding any subject are not credible.

guyinjeep16: GilRuiz1: guyinjeep16: So you dont realize the things science has done for us?

Wouldn't you like to accept it as your lord and savior?


Perhaps you are one of the idiots who doesnt recognize the importance of science and wants to inject creationism into science without going through all of the rigors?

If I may suggest a thing or two. Insults gain no creditability and they do not refer to it as creationism any more.

The "Theory of Creationism" has no way to support the claim that it is a theory, by the way. What is repeatable and provable? So that is an argument that holds water. They really should use the term hypothesis or W.A.G..

/wild ass guess
//the god made me this way, for a reason
///think about it

Dimensio: Bevets: Creationists are disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as "innocence." ~ Phillip Johnson

Mr. Johnson is not a credible authority with respect to the subject of scientific methodology and thus his claims regarding that subject are not credible. You have relied upon demonstrable lies as a means of advocating your position and thus claims that you issue regarding any subject are not credible.

May I suggest, not a scholarly source?

Deh deh deeeehhhhhhhh!

HE'S ON SKIS!

StoPPeRmobile: The "Theory of Creationism" has no way to support the claim that it is a theory, by the way. What is repeatable and provable? So that is an argument that holds water. They really should use the term hypothesis or W.A.G..

WAT?

guyinjeep16: As opposed to making things up about a deity that watches your every move?


so ummm, this belief you have....

....you have some empirical evidence supporting your belief that this is "made up" somewhere? Or that the truth is in no way something or anything "like that"?

/still waiting for you to get done tap dancing and farting.... or just stfu and go back to fixing peoples' AC.

guyinjeep16: Perhaps you are one of the idiots who doesnt recognize the importance of science and wants to inject creationism into science without going through all of the rigors?

Gil? lol.... highly unlikely.

Possibly as unlikely as you wanting to open close churches, build a religion and religious icons around science, open a museum of scientific atheism, and just kill anyone who disagrees with you while you call it "free thought" and "progress" because well, it has "value".



/rumor has it you ride a unicycle in Act 4.