A discussion on life (Scientific, not philosophical)
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
belief without good evidence is irrational.
Belief: I believe that Salma Hayek would make tonight a spectacular one for me. Good evidence: I can't gather it since the judge signed the restraining order. Question: Does this mean that my belief in the wonder of Salma Hayek is irrational?
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
This post highlights a comparatively recurrent problem for me: you've marked it as a joke. Does this mean that I can respond seriously, or should my reply also be a joke, or should I not reply at all? :confused: Please help me . . . :( ;P
-
I agree - it's quite hypocritical for 'skeptics' to hold others to standards they cannot adhere to. But, it's just human nature, I guess. Like I said, the guy who runs the magazine of the skeptics association ( and I'm not claiming that skeptics are an organised body ), is very fair and reasonable, I've been reading his books and enjoying them, even when I disagree. But a lot of people just seem to take the most basic position, and a basic understanding of Occam's Razor, and they wield it to support their own views, often irrationally.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
it's quite hypocritical for 'skeptics' to hold others to standards they cannot adhere to
What standards? :confused:
-
This post highlights a comparatively recurrent problem for me: you've marked it as a joke. Does this mean that I can respond seriously, or should my reply also be a joke, or should I not reply at all? :confused: Please help me . . . :( ;P
Take your pick. I really don't care whether or not your reply is humorous. We've strayed into religion into the Lounge, and that's something that should normally be avoided.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
And I've said there is evidence, and the conversation stopped there.
Hey, I've already said that your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
Yes, and you can feel good that people vote you a 5 for saying it - rejection of God based on refusing to investigate is, after all, what most people do. But, don't tell me you're open to being proven wrong and I am not, that's just plainly not true. I read books on evolution, and have changed some of my views. When did you last read the Bible ? You're welcome to your beliefs, and I respect your right to hold them. Just don't make the mistake of trying to take the high moral ground on this.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, it is, in the sense that some sort of single cells protozoa is presumed to have evolved into all life around us.
But where did the protozoan come from? That's what I took as your meaning.
Christian Graus wrote:
And yet, presenting you with personal proof is also not enough, you'd rather reject as illogical what you refuse to test for yourself. Is that scientific ?
Yes. The scientific method tries its utmost to remove the observer from the observation. Saying that an experiment will only work if the observer wants it to work hard enough is cringe-worthy.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But where did the protozoan come from? That's what I took as your meaning.
You are correct, I'm just saying, the two ideas are generally presented together, and it's assumed that rejecting or accepting one means accepting or rejecting the other.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The scientific method tries its utmost to remove the observer from the observation. Saying that an experiment will only work if the observer wants it to work hard enough is cringe-worthy.
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes. If He did, would He still be God ? It would surely be more cringeworthy if I suggested you observe the experience of others in my church, but not try to experience it for yourself ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But where did the protozoan come from? That's what I took as your meaning.
You are correct, I'm just saying, the two ideas are generally presented together, and it's assumed that rejecting or accepting one means accepting or rejecting the other.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The scientific method tries its utmost to remove the observer from the observation. Saying that an experiment will only work if the observer wants it to work hard enough is cringe-worthy.
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes. If He did, would He still be God ? It would surely be more cringeworthy if I suggested you observe the experience of others in my church, but not try to experience it for yourself ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
the two ideas are generally presented together
By creationists.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes.
Where did you get this from? :omg:
-
I upvoted you. Not because I agree, but because I respect your right to have a contrary opinion to me. That others downvoted rather than argue seem a little unfair, so have a bonus upvote! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
What exactly is this personal proof that you keep promising but have so far failed to deliver?
ROTFL - I've not failed at all. I've pointed out many times what the Bible says, and those who choose to mock me, have refused to remotely consider or investigate my claims. But, Pete is right, I've tried to answer on this thread without getting too close to the soapbox, and my answer is definitely soap box material. Ask me there ( soapbox 2.0, I guess ), and I'll happily answer.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the two ideas are generally presented together
By creationists.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes.
Where did you get this from? :omg:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Where did you get this from?
God doesn't give you the sort of evidence you demand, therefore there is no God.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
it's quite hypocritical for 'skeptics' to hold others to standards they cannot adhere to
What standards? :confused:
Standards of integrity, honesty, openness, scientific reasoning. That sort of stuff.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Where did you get this from?
God doesn't give you the sort of evidence you demand, therefore there is no God.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
God doesn't give you the sort of evidence you demand, therefore there is no God.
I'm saying that I need evidence that he exists before I'll believe that he exists. How is this in any way saying that god doesn't exist?
-
ROTFL - I've not failed at all. I've pointed out many times what the Bible says, and those who choose to mock me, have refused to remotely consider or investigate my claims. But, Pete is right, I've tried to answer on this thread without getting too close to the soapbox, and my answer is definitely soap box material. Ask me there ( soapbox 2.0, I guess ), and I'll happily answer.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Standards of integrity, honesty, openness, scientific reasoning. That sort of stuff.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Standards of integrity, honesty, openness, scientific reasoning. That sort of stuff.
Uh, so someone who questions another's beliefs has no integrity, honesty, openness or scientific reasoning? :confused:
-
Take your pick. I really don't care whether or not your reply is humorous. We've strayed into religion into the Lounge, and that's something that should normally be avoided.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My original title was for a scientific not philosophial discussion, I bet we talk about Nazi's soon ! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Take your pick. I really don't care whether or not your reply is humorous. We've strayed into religion into the Lounge, and that's something that should normally be avoided.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
The problem is, your post highlights a common criticism of secular arguments, i.e. implying that the evidence required for an all-powerful supernatural being is comparably similar to something as mundane as the evidence required for sexual attraction. There - I've taken the humourless approach. ;P
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I've pointed out many times what the Bible says
Not in this thread, or at least I don't see it, and I'll be posting in the soapbox I guess.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them.
With infinite number of planets it's guaranteed that there is a planet with intelligent life which has another Christian Graus, but unlike Earth's CG, alien one is capable of using computers.
oooh, bitchy! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
My original title was for a scientific not philosophial discussion, I bet we talk about Nazi's soon ! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
Nazi's
We could talk about your Hitleresque misuse of the possessive case.
-
My original title was for a scientific not philosophial discussion, I bet we talk about Nazi's soon ! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Well, you don't believe in God, so you're obviously a Nazi. Does that do it ? ( Actually, Hitler thought he was doing God's work, but, that would kill the joke )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
God doesn't give you the sort of evidence you demand, therefore there is no God.
I'm saying that I need evidence that he exists before I'll believe that he exists. How is this in any way saying that god doesn't exist?
Because you're not saying that, at all. you're saying you want to DEFINE the nature of the evidence you want.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.