U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-09-2011, 04:21 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 4,946,209 times
Reputation: 2970

Advertisements

So you can not quote me suggesting you simply believe in scientific data because someone else SAYS it is so then. Didnt think you could.

Keep YOUR words out of MY mouth in future. I have more than enough of my own to go on with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
No, in the scientific world, you accept the results of someone else's research...
False. Peer review is the EXACT opposite of that. Get your facts right.

 
Old 03-09-2011, 04:39 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 39,732,416 times
Reputation: 10897
How many people out there accept scientific research as fact? Too many.

They don't have the proof of personal experience, and that's the only valid proof. There are many things that I don't have proof of, personally, and so will neither confirm nor deny. I'm agnostic, not omniscient.

You do realize that science can back up any argument you'd like to make, don't you? It's all a matter of who's funding the research. Pro-smoking groups find no harm in cigarettes, anti-smoking groups find great harm in cigarettes. Follow the money, and ethics be damned.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 04:51 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 4,946,209 times
Reputation: 2970
So rather than admit you can not quote me saying what you claimed I said…. Mainly because I didn’t say it…. you avoid it and change the subject. Nice.

If you want to admit your error/lie by saying I said something I never did, then I might reply to you, but until then you appear to be just the kind of person who does not deserve a reply.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 05:00 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 39,732,416 times
Reputation: 10897
I haven't changed the subject. The fact remains that people believe in science, without anything more than their say so, when they can get any result they seek.

People and science believed in the Piltdown Man, but it was revealed as a hoax. Good job, Science!

Again, I prefer to rely on PERSONAL experience, which is too stringent, apparently, for science to deal with.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 05:07 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 4,946,209 times
Reputation: 2970
You have changed the subject. I asked you to quote where I told you what you said I told you.

You cant do it because I never said it.

But rather than acknowledge your lie/error you chose to run away from it and change the subject.

Being honest is not a hard thing. Simply saying "You are right, I made a mistake, you never did say that" is not difficult... and it is the difference between making you look like someone worth discussing things with... and someone who is too dishonest to bother with.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 05:24 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 4,946,209 times
Reputation: 2970
For those of you who are interested in science, and this thread, and NOT in lying about what other users say in order to cop out…. Peer review in science is in fact the very opposite of simply accepting peoples word for it.

The whole scientific method is in fact built to ensure we do not accept anyones word for anything.

Peer review is in fact the opposite of accepting peoples word for it. Peer review is the process where you not only take what someone has said…. And not only refuse to take their word for it…. but you try your absolute damndest to prove what the person has said is in fact wrong.

Something being considered “true” or “proven” in science means that not only did no one simply accept their word for it, but in refusing to do so they failed at every attempt to prove that what was claimed was wrong.

Scientists who are actually making the claims, the claims no one takes their word on and tries to show are wrong, are obliged in their papers not just to adumbrate their claims and conclusions, but very specifically document how OTHER PEOPLE can reproduce their results. In other words no scientist should be expecting anyone to take their word for it ever… they instead make sure that anyone who doubts them knows exactly how to check for themselves.

That is the beauty of the scientific method. It does not matter how cocky, arrogant, or moody a scientist is… if he claims something that is not true he will be pulled up on it and corrected. In fact in science you win points for proving YOURSELF wrong at times. Science is a self correcting mechanism and anyone can become involved. No one wants to have you simply “take anyones word for it”. They want instead that you… if you doubt a claim that is made… to know the steps for going to verify that claim yourself.

So when some troll comes on telling you that science is made up of people who you simply have to take their word for it.... especially trolls who outright lie about things you have said on the forum.... then beware and be wise to them.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 39,732,416 times
Reputation: 10897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
You have changed the subject. I asked you to quote where I told you what you said I told you.

You cant do it because I never said it.

But rather than acknowledge your lie/error you chose to run away from it and change the subject.

Being honest is not a hard thing. Simply saying "You are right, I made a mistake, you never did say that" is not difficult... and it is the difference between making you look like someone worth discussing things with... and someone who is too dishonest to bother with.
You said that science has a less stringent requirement than I do...did you not? You said that my requirement was too strict...did you not?

In fact, you claimed it was a "ridiculous" standard, when it is the only standard that truly matters.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 05:43 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 4,946,209 times
Reputation: 2970
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
You said that science has a less stringent requirement than I do...did you not? You said that my requirement was too strict...did you not?
I know what I DID say. My issue is with you saying I said something I did NOT say. Just because I said YOUR standard of evidence is ridiculous and excessive, does not mean you can invent ANY OTHER standard and claim that is the one I recommended or espoused!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
When you suggested that I simply believe in scientific data because someone else SAYS it is so.
Again I never said this. I never made any such suggestion. I never uttered any words even similar to it. In fact the words I did say were the EXACT opposite of what you claimed I said. I simply said YOUR standard was ridiculous so you invented... and put in my mouth.... another standard that I never once espoused, nor are you able to quote me suggesting.

So you are either going to acknowledge your error/lie, or you are not. Changing the subject is just a cop out and the reason I keep highlighting your dishonesty rather than letting it go is because it is there glaring for all to see in black and white and the more you refuse to admit it, the more it serves my ends.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,181 posts, read 1,853,109 times
Reputation: 1555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
I'm not sure that there isn't some sort of Intelligent Designer, but I am reasonably certain that the Bible is not the word of God, and that the sort of God portrayed in the Bible is a fairy-tale creation. The amount of just plain irrational stuff contradicting science in the Bible is so great that I don't really have the energy to list them here (for the millionth time). But even if we grant miracles, etc., this doesn't help address the fact that the Biblical God is a petty, vengeful, incompetent divinity. Why should a loving, intelligent God tell his chosen people to go slay all of the people in a pagan village - even specifying that they should take their swords and kill infants suckling at their mother's breasts? Even if this made some sort of logical sense, it is not the sort of God I would want to worship.

As for the more general concept of an Intelligent Designer, I am less certain. I don't say with confidence that an ID does not exist; I just say that I don't believe there is such a thing. My reasons for this are spelled out in detail in other threads (such as the "Science has better answers than God did it" thread, for example) but the basic idea is simply that all of our empirical evidence suggests that consciousness and intelligence emerge from unconscious processes that are not intelligent in themselves. Also, the human body does not seem like the perfect product of a perfect plan; it seems far more like the result of a messy, exploratory process - like organic evolution, for example.
For whatever it may be worth, I suggest ignoring TKramer for the purposes of this thread. These kinds of arguments are philosophical "black holes" that can suck the life out of any topic, and never shine any light on anything. Anyone really wanting to debate his brand of skepticism would be better off starting a new thread devoted specifically to the epistemological issues he raises.

I've quoted my own post from many pages back because no theists responded to it, but I think it goes to the heart of the OP. Why should we believe that the world was created by an intelligent divinity with some plan or purpose already in mind? All evidence suggests that intelligence emerges from non-intelligent systems. We never see intelligence systems that "just exist" or simply pop out of nowhere. Take human development, for example. We are not intelligent at the point of conception. Intelligence develops as we physically develop. The default position seems to be that intelligence is not something that the world starts with; it is something that the world achieves. The same can be said for meaning and purpose, which go hand-in-hand with developing intelligence. Based on evidence, atheism ought to be the default position. Theism requires us to go beyond the evidence and believe that prior to all physical manifestation of intelligent beings, there was an intelligence that did not develop out of anything, but was always already "just there." Certainly this is possible, but why should we believe it?

The best question is not "Why are some people atheists?" - atheism is just the default rational position based on what we actually see happen in our world. The better question is: "Why do some people see a need to imagine that, in addition to the sorts of intelligence we see arising every day via physical development, there is some mysterious prior intelligence that somehow makes physical intelligence develop?" Why do we need to posit this extra entity?

The absence of a God would not make our lives completely meaningless or without purpose. Instead, we would be forced to find meaning, and our own purpose, in the experiences of our actual embodied lives. This would not be a tragedy; it would be an important from of emotional growth. Religion is like an addiction - hard to let go of, but worth the effort.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 39,732,416 times
Reputation: 10897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post

Again I never said this. I never made any such suggestion. I never uttered any words even similar to it. In fact the words I did say were the EXACT opposite of what you claimed I said. I simply said YOUR standard was ridiculous so you invented... and put in my mouth.... another standard that I never once espoused, nor are you able to quote me suggesting.

.
The alternative to the standard I have set, is just the one I described. Either you have PERSONAL experience and proof, or you take someone at their word--which are YOU going to accept? I already know what I do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top