The couple at the door
-
espeir wrote:
My wording was correct. Your interpretation of it was not.
Your wording was ambiguous at best. Perhaps you should spend more time crafting your sentences before attacking others for misinterpreting what you said. ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?
Again, there is nothing wrong with or ambiguous about my statement. Any misinterpretation is just the result of your failure to comprehend a very straightforward sentence. It was succinct and correct. Perhaps that's why you find it so unsettling. I do not feel compelled to craft my sentences to a lowest common denominator.
-
espeir wrote:
Part of having a good sense of humor is being able to discern between what is funny and what is not
Pity you don't have that part. ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?
Well...We know that I have an ability to detect a lack of humor. You have yet to test my ability to detect the presence of humor.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Mormons
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
not the Christians
Mormons are Christians
Sort of...
-
My wording was correct. Your interpretation of it was not. Not all atheists blindly place their faith in science, but I have to say that a majority do. You need an extremely detailed understanding of what science has provided us in order to make an educated and faithless jusgement that it provides the answers that most atheists believe it does. Naturally, most atheists do not have the requisite level of knowledge and therefore place faith in science in the same way that the religious place faith in religion.
Apparently my religion requires me to beat dead horses... From a practical standpoint, everyone -- atheist or theist -- who isn't living in a cave eating roots and berries puts a great deal of faith in science, and not a single one of them do it blindly. Look around you, and I'm guessing that in every direction you will see the fruits of applied science. God doesn't make your toaster oven work. Science does. Sure, in many areas people don't understand -- at least don't fully understand -- the science involved; but the practical, material, tangible evidence demands a certain amount of trust. It's faith, but not blind faith. Any result of religion -- sunsets, butterflies, 72 virgins rewarding glorious martyrdom -- is taken absolutely on blind faith. You have absolute faith that your God is responsible for the creation of everything. People of other religions also have absolute faith that their God is responsible for the creation of everything. Who's right? We'll know when we die. Or not. It's a matter of faith. Blind faith. See the difference?
-
Kind of like when I mention...ahem...evolution?
Nahh. Denying 150 years of evidence, extensively peer-reviewed hypotheses, and the resulting theories doesn't make you "the vilest creature on Earth". Given both that "vile" is a subjective quality, and the tremendous and varied number of creatures on the Earth, this would be impossible to support as a scientific hypothesis. It does, however, make you an idiot. I would further assert that there now exists a sufficient body of evidence, in this forum alone -- and exhaustively peer-reviewed, as well -- to support that conclusion to a near certainty. I'll also point out that, unlike ID, this conclusion is falsifiable. But, frankly, I don't see that happening.
-
Apparently my religion requires me to beat dead horses... From a practical standpoint, everyone -- atheist or theist -- who isn't living in a cave eating roots and berries puts a great deal of faith in science, and not a single one of them do it blindly. Look around you, and I'm guessing that in every direction you will see the fruits of applied science. God doesn't make your toaster oven work. Science does. Sure, in many areas people don't understand -- at least don't fully understand -- the science involved; but the practical, material, tangible evidence demands a certain amount of trust. It's faith, but not blind faith. Any result of religion -- sunsets, butterflies, 72 virgins rewarding glorious martyrdom -- is taken absolutely on blind faith. You have absolute faith that your God is responsible for the creation of everything. People of other religions also have absolute faith that their God is responsible for the creation of everything. Who's right? We'll know when we die. Or not. It's a matter of faith. Blind faith. See the difference?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Apparently my religion requires me to beat dead horses
ROTFL --- Faith is the assurance or substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true. (emphasis added) So while we may not see them there is evidence all around us of the unseen things, if we choose to have eyes to see and ears to hear. Does that mean we are blind? No. It just means we have to use our other senses -- the non-physical ones. At the same time, in order for it to be faith it must be grounded in something which is true. Otherwise, it is mere belief. To me this also means that faith is a spiritual thing (the "unseen" things of which there is ample evidence for). Atheists don't believe in what they can't see, which means that atheists are non-spiritual. (This is not a jibe at atheists, so please don't go off the deep end.) So for espeir to say that atheists have faith is a complete oxymoron.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
see the fruits of applied science
Yes, applied by God.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
but the practical, material, tangible evidence demands a certain amount of trust. It's faith, but not blind faith.
It isn't faith at all, it's knowledge, perfect knowledge. Some people's definition of faith is: "to believe in something for which there is no evidence." That's not faith, that's stupidity. Faith requires evidence, often of an intangible sort.
-
Sort of...
espeir wrote:
Sort of...
Explain, please. The very real name of the collquially-named "Mormon Church" is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Jesus is the Head of the Church.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Apparently my religion requires me to beat dead horses
ROTFL --- Faith is the assurance or substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true. (emphasis added) So while we may not see them there is evidence all around us of the unseen things, if we choose to have eyes to see and ears to hear. Does that mean we are blind? No. It just means we have to use our other senses -- the non-physical ones. At the same time, in order for it to be faith it must be grounded in something which is true. Otherwise, it is mere belief. To me this also means that faith is a spiritual thing (the "unseen" things of which there is ample evidence for). Atheists don't believe in what they can't see, which means that atheists are non-spiritual. (This is not a jibe at atheists, so please don't go off the deep end.) So for espeir to say that atheists have faith is a complete oxymoron.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
see the fruits of applied science
Yes, applied by God.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
but the practical, material, tangible evidence demands a certain amount of trust. It's faith, but not blind faith.
It isn't faith at all, it's knowledge, perfect knowledge. Some people's definition of faith is: "to believe in something for which there is no evidence." That's not faith, that's stupidity. Faith requires evidence, often of an intangible sort.
"Faith" is a word with several shades of meaning, and I think we are arguing semantics. (Or we would be if we were arguing :).)
ahz wrote:
Some people's definition of faith is: "to believe in something for which there is no evidence." That's not faith, that's stupidity. Faith requires evidence, often of an intangible sort.
Okay, let's say then that faith is based on internal evidence, not external, observable (by others), rational evidence. This explains how people of different religions can consider their evidence strongest and their conclusions correct. People can share a common faith, but the evidence is always personal, internal.
ahz wrote:
So for espeir to say that atheists have faith is a complete oxymoron.
Allow me to correct that for you: So for espeir to say that atheists have faith is a complete oxymoron. :)
-
"Faith" is a word with several shades of meaning, and I think we are arguing semantics. (Or we would be if we were arguing :).)
ahz wrote:
Some people's definition of faith is: "to believe in something for which there is no evidence." That's not faith, that's stupidity. Faith requires evidence, often of an intangible sort.
Okay, let's say then that faith is based on internal evidence, not external, observable (by others), rational evidence. This explains how people of different religions can consider their evidence strongest and their conclusions correct. People can share a common faith, but the evidence is always personal, internal.
ahz wrote:
So for espeir to say that atheists have faith is a complete oxymoron.
Allow me to correct that for you: So for espeir to say that atheists have faith is a complete oxymoron. :)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Faith" is a word with several shades of meaning
I see what you mean, but I think it important to be precise. But we're not arguing.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
faith is based on internal evidence, not external
Yes, you can say that. It should be noted, however, that *all* things testify that there is a God. But such evidence needs to be accepted internally.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
not external, observable (by others), rational evidence
Faith is not necessarily based on empirical evidence. Right now I have faith that God exists. If he were to appear to me right now, then I would no longer have faith, rather I would have perfect knowledge based on empirical evidence.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Allow me to correct that for you
ROTFL
-
"Faith" is a word with several shades of meaning, and I think we are arguing semantics. (Or we would be if we were arguing :).)
ahz wrote:
Some people's definition of faith is: "to believe in something for which there is no evidence." That's not faith, that's stupidity. Faith requires evidence, often of an intangible sort.
Okay, let's say then that faith is based on internal evidence, not external, observable (by others), rational evidence. This explains how people of different religions can consider their evidence strongest and their conclusions correct. People can share a common faith, but the evidence is always personal, internal.
ahz wrote:
So for espeir to say that atheists have faith is a complete oxymoron.
Allow me to correct that for you: So for espeir to say that atheists have faith is a complete oxymoron. :)
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Faith" is a word with several shades of meaning, and I think we are arguing semantics.
By faith in science I am referring to the fact that many atheists with less than total knowledge of a subject accept it as true having never seen it themselves (or read any details). For example...explain to me in detail the theory of relativity and present supporting evidence that leads you to believe that it is an accurate model of the universe. You can't, and yet I'd bet that you probably accept general relativity. Why? Because you have heard from others that it is accurate. That is a leap of faith as significant as religion's. Now if you actually came to know general relativity in great deal and you could make educated decisions as to whether you accept this or that aspect of it, then it would no longer be based on faith. Your opinion on it would have a true scientific basis. The same goes for all aspects of science. We are not omniscient and can never be certain that our perception of the universe or our beliefs that we hold are true without making leaps of faith of what we hear.
-
Nahh. Denying 150 years of evidence, extensively peer-reviewed hypotheses, and the resulting theories doesn't make you "the vilest creature on Earth". Given both that "vile" is a subjective quality, and the tremendous and varied number of creatures on the Earth, this would be impossible to support as a scientific hypothesis. It does, however, make you an idiot. I would further assert that there now exists a sufficient body of evidence, in this forum alone -- and exhaustively peer-reviewed, as well -- to support that conclusion to a near certainty. I'll also point out that, unlike ID, this conclusion is falsifiable. But, frankly, I don't see that happening.
I never denied evolution, and in fact accept it as true. What I abhor is when people defend it as irrefuatble. It's science and meant to be refutable. To treat it the way you do is a disservice to science. It is my intention to keep religion out of science...That means to discourage people from treating it like a religion.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It does, however, make you an idiot.
It makes me more enlightened than you. You might understand that someday. You keep claiming peer-reviewed, but you have very little personal knowledge of what was peer reviewed. You simply accept what is told to you in a book with out thinking critically about it. You're too scared to ask questions and advance our knowledge about the subject. Sounds a lot like religion.
-
espeir wrote:
Sort of...
Explain, please. The very real name of the collquially-named "Mormon Church" is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Jesus is the Head of the Church.
Because I'm Catholic and any other Christian religions are only "sort of" Christian. :-D
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Faith" is a word with several shades of meaning, and I think we are arguing semantics.
By faith in science I am referring to the fact that many atheists with less than total knowledge of a subject accept it as true having never seen it themselves (or read any details). For example...explain to me in detail the theory of relativity and present supporting evidence that leads you to believe that it is an accurate model of the universe. You can't, and yet I'd bet that you probably accept general relativity. Why? Because you have heard from others that it is accurate. That is a leap of faith as significant as religion's. Now if you actually came to know general relativity in great deal and you could make educated decisions as to whether you accept this or that aspect of it, then it would no longer be based on faith. Your opinion on it would have a true scientific basis. The same goes for all aspects of science. We are not omniscient and can never be certain that our perception of the universe or our beliefs that we hold are true without making leaps of faith of what we hear.
espeir wrote:
That is a leap of faith as significant as religion's.
No, it isn't. Thanks to the scientific method, I can feel relatively secure that the hypothesize-experiment-review-publish process that has led to advance after advance, applied example upon applied example, is sound. Trust in the process leads to at least a level of trust in the results. I don't have to know jack about quantum theory to feel confident that, if it has been subjected to the scientific method and has been accepted by the whole of the scientific community, it is most likely valid. Faith, but not blind faith. Perhaps another way to state it would be that a number of people have a deep knowledge of quantum theory. An even greater number sussed the inner workings of a toaster oven. No one credible even claims to understand the mind of God. One is knowable, and known -- maybe not by me or you, but by someone trusted. The other is not, never has been, and never will be in this life (according to many religions). One is faith, the other is blind faith. If you'd like to see this stated many other ways, I'll refer you to all our previous "conversations" on the matter. If you respond to this message like you have the last...oh, ten or twelve times I've made this argument, please feel free to imagine me sitting at my desk and yawning in lieu of a response.
-
espeir wrote:
That is a leap of faith as significant as religion's.
No, it isn't. Thanks to the scientific method, I can feel relatively secure that the hypothesize-experiment-review-publish process that has led to advance after advance, applied example upon applied example, is sound. Trust in the process leads to at least a level of trust in the results. I don't have to know jack about quantum theory to feel confident that, if it has been subjected to the scientific method and has been accepted by the whole of the scientific community, it is most likely valid. Faith, but not blind faith. Perhaps another way to state it would be that a number of people have a deep knowledge of quantum theory. An even greater number sussed the inner workings of a toaster oven. No one credible even claims to understand the mind of God. One is knowable, and known -- maybe not by me or you, but by someone trusted. The other is not, never has been, and never will be in this life (according to many religions). One is faith, the other is blind faith. If you'd like to see this stated many other ways, I'll refer you to all our previous "conversations" on the matter. If you respond to this message like you have the last...oh, ten or twelve times I've made this argument, please feel free to imagine me sitting at my desk and yawning in lieu of a response.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No, it isn't. Thanks to the scientific method, I can feel relatively secure that the hypothesize-experiment-review-publish process that has led to advance after advance, applied example upon applied example, is sound. Trust in the process leads to at least a level of trust in the results. I don't have to know jack about quantum theory to feel confident that, if it has been subjected to the scientific method and has been accepted by the whole of the scientific community, it is most likely valid. Faith, but not blind faith.
Yes it is. As an example...Quantum theory is definately not universally accepted. It is expected to eventually be replaced by a grand unification theory that explains the differences between it and general relativity. So, in fact, you've just placed faith in a theory that is not even entirely accepted. Further, you are placing faith in the method and the people who perform it, without having any first hand knowledge of experiments in quantum mechanics and what their outcomes actually mean. Same thing as religion. Ask any TRUE scientist what they think about quantum mechanics and, unless they specialize in the field, they will approach it questionably.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Perhaps another way to state it would be that a number of people have a deep knowledge of quantum theory. An even greater number sussed the inner workings of a toaster oven. No one credible even claims to understand the mind of God. One is knowable, and known -- maybe not by me or you, but by someone trusted. The other is not, never has been, and never will be in this life (according to many religions). One is faith, the other is blind faith.
You have first hand experience with a toaster oven. You do not have first hand experience with a partical accelerator. you may not know how a toaster works, but with first hand knowledge, you can state that it will toast bread. That is the limitation of your knowledge and any further assumptions are based on the faith of others' words. You have no such knowledge of partical accelerators and you therefore have to rely on the experiments of others.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If you respond to this message like you have the last...oh, ten or twelve times I've made this argument, please feel free to imagine me sitting at my desk and yawning in lieu of a response.
I keep demonstating how yo
-
I never denied evolution, and in fact accept it as true. What I abhor is when people defend it as irrefuatble. It's science and meant to be refutable. To treat it the way you do is a disservice to science. It is my intention to keep religion out of science...That means to discourage people from treating it like a religion.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It does, however, make you an idiot.
It makes me more enlightened than you. You might understand that someday. You keep claiming peer-reviewed, but you have very little personal knowledge of what was peer reviewed. You simply accept what is told to you in a book with out thinking critically about it. You're too scared to ask questions and advance our knowledge about the subject. Sounds a lot like religion.
espeir wrote:
I never denied evolution, and in fact accept it as true. What I abhor is when people defend it as irrefuatble. It's science and meant to be refutable. To treat it the way you do is a disservice to science. It is my intention to keep religion out of science...That means to discourage people from treating it like a religion.
Of course it's refutable, you idiot. No one has argued that is isn't refutable. Everyone beating their heads against that brick wall you have in place of a mind has asserted that everything in science is refutable, and nothing in religion is, while you've been saying that evolution is no less refutable than ID. That's insane, and that's been the argument. I suggest you revisit your past yammerings and verify this.
espeir wrote:
It makes me more enlightened than you. You might understand that someday. You keep claiming peer-reviewed, but you have very little personal knowledge of what was peer reviewed. You simply accept what is told to you in a book with out thinking critically about it. You're too scared to ask questions and advance our knowledge about the subject. Sounds a lot like religion.
You're right, those scientific journals can't be trusted. You've stumbled upon the secret conspiracy of peers, from all over the world, in all different disciplines, on all different subjects, purely for the purpose of advancing the religion of science and misleading the unwashed masses into sending them on research trips to the Carribean. Gee, now I'm not sure what to think of the latest cosmological hypothesis -- does espeir's head contain a black hole as was previously conjectured, or could it instead contain a dark energy star? One would definitely explain the density and the inability of light to escape, but the argument for it containing nothing but an energetic vacuum is equally compelling. I guess we wait for further evidence...
-
Because I'm Catholic and any other Christian religions are only "sort of" Christian. :-D
espeir wrote:
Because I'm Catholic
Fair enough.
-
Nahh. Denying 150 years of evidence, extensively peer-reviewed hypotheses, and the resulting theories doesn't make you "the vilest creature on Earth". Given both that "vile" is a subjective quality, and the tremendous and varied number of creatures on the Earth, this would be impossible to support as a scientific hypothesis. It does, however, make you an idiot. I would further assert that there now exists a sufficient body of evidence, in this forum alone -- and exhaustively peer-reviewed, as well -- to support that conclusion to a near certainty. I'll also point out that, unlike ID, this conclusion is falsifiable. But, frankly, I don't see that happening.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
conclusion is falsifiable
What does it mean to have a "falsifiable" conclusion, theory, etc? I don't understand.
-
espeir wrote:
I never denied evolution, and in fact accept it as true. What I abhor is when people defend it as irrefuatble. It's science and meant to be refutable. To treat it the way you do is a disservice to science. It is my intention to keep religion out of science...That means to discourage people from treating it like a religion.
Of course it's refutable, you idiot. No one has argued that is isn't refutable. Everyone beating their heads against that brick wall you have in place of a mind has asserted that everything in science is refutable, and nothing in religion is, while you've been saying that evolution is no less refutable than ID. That's insane, and that's been the argument. I suggest you revisit your past yammerings and verify this.
espeir wrote:
It makes me more enlightened than you. You might understand that someday. You keep claiming peer-reviewed, but you have very little personal knowledge of what was peer reviewed. You simply accept what is told to you in a book with out thinking critically about it. You're too scared to ask questions and advance our knowledge about the subject. Sounds a lot like religion.
You're right, those scientific journals can't be trusted. You've stumbled upon the secret conspiracy of peers, from all over the world, in all different disciplines, on all different subjects, purely for the purpose of advancing the religion of science and misleading the unwashed masses into sending them on research trips to the Carribean. Gee, now I'm not sure what to think of the latest cosmological hypothesis -- does espeir's head contain a black hole as was previously conjectured, or could it instead contain a dark energy star? One would definitely explain the density and the inability of light to escape, but the argument for it containing nothing but an energetic vacuum is equally compelling. I guess we wait for further evidence...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Of course it's refutable, you idiot. No one has argued that is isn't refutable.
Because that issue has never been discussed.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Everyone beating their heads against that brick wall you have in place of a mind has asserted that everything in science is refutable, and nothing in religion is, while you've been saying that evolution is no less refutable than ID.
Wrong. Everyone gas defended evolution and refused to allow it to be challenged. You have, as a leap of faith, accepted evolution as irrefutable.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
That's insane, and that's been the argument. I suggest you revisit your past yammerings and verify this.
I suggest the same to you. Every argument thus far (especially your own) is that evolution is irrefutable. Whenever I say that it is a theory and subject to change, your reponse (see above) is always "150 years of evidence...". There was more evidence than that of Newtownian physics and look how that turned out. You, like all the others who treat science as a religion, stonewall advancement by preventing any challenge to a theory via political means.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You're right, those scientific journals can't be trusted. You've stumbled upon the secret conspiracy of peers, from all over the world, in all different disciplines, on all different subjects, purely for the purpose of advancing the religion of science and misleading the unwashed masses into sending them on research trips to the Carribean.
Actually, if you've ever been involved in science (and go ahead and ask any professor) you'll be shocked to learn that their whole goal is to publish interesting science so that they can receive more grants. That's basically how science as a profession works. That said, journals can be trusted for what they are...individual experiments. But pick up a 10 year old medical journal and see how much of that is "true" today. Broad theory (those things you place your faith in) have nothing to do with quarterly journals.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Gee, now I'm not sure what to think of the latest cosmological hypothesis -- does espeir's head contain a black hole as was previously conjectured, or could it instead contain a dark energy star? One would d
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
conclusion is falsifiable
What does it mean to have a "falsifiable" conclusion, theory, etc? I don't understand.
A theory is just a model that fits the current body of empirical data. If new data comes along that contradicts the model, then the model is discarded, and a new one is constructed that better fits the new data. Any scientific theory is subject to being refuted by new evidence. A theory is not considered scientific unless it (among other criteria) could be shown to be false by new evidence. Intelligent Design, for example, cannot be falsified. It asserts a designer, the existence of which must be taken on faith.
-
A theory is just a model that fits the current body of empirical data. If new data comes along that contradicts the model, then the model is discarded, and a new one is constructed that better fits the new data. Any scientific theory is subject to being refuted by new evidence. A theory is not considered scientific unless it (among other criteria) could be shown to be false by new evidence. Intelligent Design, for example, cannot be falsified. It asserts a designer, the existence of which must be taken on faith.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A theory is just a model that fits the current body of empirical data.
I'm proud of you! You're making progress! Slowly...but surely.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Intelligent Design, for example, cannot be falsified. It asserts a designer, the existence of which must be taken on faith.
Actually, while not science per se, I think your statement is false (at least based on what I know about what ID is). I think it asserts that the creation of life is too complex a process to be created naturally, which therefore means that there was external assistance for formation. That appears to me to be a challenge to evolutionists to demonstrate that life is not too complicated to have formed naturally, rather than a non-falsifiable theory. The appropriate response to such a theory would be to either demonstrate that life did indeed evolve per the theory of evolution or accept that ID is a possible opposing theory that needs evidence to back it up.