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.
That is a NEUTRAL convention, NOT scientific evidence. It is designed to AVOID accepting a God default or any OTHER default about WHAT science is investigating. Your use of it to pretend your lack of belief is somehow established by science is bogus and disingenuous, period! I just told you and have done so many times, the purpose of the neutral position of science is to AVOID a God default or any other default NOT to establish that your lack of belief is true! Your repetitious straw man that I am claiming science establishes my views is as bogus as your pretense that science establishes your views. NEITHER of us can scientifically establish our views because we use the SAME scientific evidence of whatever the hell our Reality IS or IS NOT. Your ignorance of science is why you call my and Arach's references to the science terms jargonauts. You keep asking me to educate you about it knowing it is not allowed here and would serve no purpose in the science forum. But you are free to examine my extensive explanations in the philosophy forum where they were moved to accommodate the new rules in the R&S forum.
the other thing is we know what will be said in those forums. We aren't saying anything new to them. The one thing we know they will not say ... "you science is wrong". In fact, we are so dead nuts on and started to make sense it had to be stopped ... by any means necessary.
Another thing I learned ... If it was based in reason they would listen ... Boy was I wrong.
That is a NEUTRAL convention, NOT scientific evidence. It is designed to AVOID accepting a God default or any OTHER default about WHAT science is investigating. Your use of it to pretend your lack of belief is somehow established by science is bogus and disingenuous, period!
No, it is the default until evidence for the supernatural explains things better than naturalism. Yes, we know you do not accept the supernatural, you also accept naturalism (with additions), which then raises the question why you fight the logical conclusion of your own position, that science must come to natural conclusions until we have evidence for something better. Consistency is not your strong point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I just told you and have done so many times, the purpose of the neutral position of science is to AVOID a God default or any other default NOT to establish that your lack of belief is true!
Yes, we know you assert over and over. And I am not talking about the purpose of science, I am talking about it's conclusions, it is always natural forces. Naturalism is the conclusion. And nowhere have I claimed science tries to establish atheism is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your repetitious straw man that I am claiming science establishes my views is as bogus as your pretense that science establishes your views. NEITHER of us can scientifically establish our views because we use the SAME scientific evidence of whatever the hell our Reality IS or IS NOT.
Again with the inconsistency. Which, we use the science or we do not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your ignorance of science is why you call my and Arach's references to the science terms jargonauts. You keep asking me to educate you about it knowing it is not allowed here and would serve no purpose in the science forum.
No, your ignorance of science is why I call you Jargonauts. And your evasion is once again noted. The only reason you avoid the science forum is your views will be exposed for what they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
But you are free to examine my extensive explanations in the philosophy forum where they were moved to accommodate the new rules in the R&S forum.
Yes, I have seen your rewording of current science, but not once did I see you explain how it backs your claims. It is like all jargon and no substance.
But you seem so keen to constantly lecture us on how stupid we are, yet refuse to use that time to explain the evidence for your beliefs, or link to the science papers behind it. You even have a thread for your own special beliefs.
the other thing is we know what will be said in those forums. We aren't saying anything new to them. The one thing we know they will not say ... "you science is wrong". In fact, we are so dead nuts on and started to make sense it had to be stopped ... by any means necessary.
Another thing I learned ... If it was based in reason they would listen ... Boy was I wrong.
That is a NEUTRAL convention, NOT scientific evidence. It is designed to AVOID accepting a God default or any OTHER default about WHAT science is investigating. Your use of it to pretend your lack of belief is somehow established by science is bogus and disingenuous, period! I just told you and have done so many times, the purpose of the neutral position of science is to AVOID a God default or any other default NOT to establish that your lack of belief is true! Your repetitious straw man that I am claiming science establishes my views is as bogus as your pretense that science establishes your views. NEITHER of us can scientifically establish our views because we use the SAME scientific evidence of whatever the hell our Reality IS or IS NOT. Your ignorance of science is why you call my and Arach's references to the science terms jargonauts. You keep asking me to educate you about it knowing it is not allowed here and would serve no purpose in the science forum. But you are free to examine my extensive explanations in the philosophy forum where they were moved to accommodate the new rules in the R&S forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
No, it is the default until evidence for the supernatural explains things better than naturalism. Yes, we know you do not accept the supernatural, you also accept naturalism (with additions), which then raises the question why you fight the logical conclusion of your own position, that science must come to natural conclusions until we have evidence for something better. Consistency is not your strong point.
Yes, we know you assert over and over. And I am not talking about the purpose of science, I am talking about it's conclusions, it is always natural forces. Naturalism is the conclusion. And nowhere have I claimed science tries to establish atheism is true.
YOU are the one insisting on violating the scientific neutrality by drawing a conclusion about the existing evidence. You insist that the conclusion be that the EXISTING evidence is NOT of God. That is your BELIEF. Mine is the opposite using the EXACT same evidence.
Quote:
Again with the inconsistency. Which, we use the science or we do not?
No, your ignorance of science is why I call you Jargonauts. And your evasion is once again noted. The only reason you avoid the science forum is your views will be exposed for what they are.
There is no point in taking it to the science forum. They can NOT refute the science. All they can reject is my extrapolations and conclusions from the science, and they would not be allowed in that forum anyway.
Quote:
Yes, I have seen your rewording of current science, but not once did I see you explain how it backs your claims. It is like all jargon and no substance
But you seem so keen to constantly lecture us on how stupid we are, yet refuse to use that time to explain the evidence for your beliefs, or link to the science papers behind it. You even have a thread for your own special beliefs.
You know as well as I do that science refuses to draw conclusions about God (Pro or Con) so there will never be any scientific papers addressing a clearly NOT NEUTRAL position on the issue of God. I sympathize with your inability to see the connections and implications of the science. You have amply demonstrated your problem drawing inferences.
YOU are the one insisting on violating the scientific neutrality by drawing a conclusion about the existing evidence. You insist that the conclusion be that the EXISTING evidence is NOT of God. That is your BELIEF. Mine is the opposite using the EXACT same evidence. There is no point in taking it to the science forum. They can NOT refute the science. All they can reject is my extrapolations and conclusions from the science, and they would not be allowed in that forum anyway. You know as well as I do that science refuses to draw conclusions about God (Pro or Con) so there will never be any scientific papers addressing a clearly NOT NEUTRAL position on the issue of God. I sympathize with your inability to see the connections and implications of the science. You have amply demonstrated your problem drawing inferences.
Evasion and usual excuses noted. As you obviously can not support your claims, back to the OP.
YOU are the one insisting on violating the scientific neutrality by drawing a conclusion about the existing evidence. You insist that the conclusion be that the EXISTING evidence is NOT of God. That is your BELIEF. Mine is the opposite using the EXACT same evidence. There is no point in taking it to the science forum. They can NOT refute the science. All they can reject is my extrapolations and conclusions from the science, and they would not be allowed in that forum anyway. You know as well as I do that science refuses to draw conclusions about God (Pro or Con) so there will never be any scientific papers addressing a clearly NOT NEUTRAL position on the issue of God. I sympathize with your inability to see the connections and implications of the science. You have amply demonstrated your problem drawing inferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Evasion and usual excuses noted. As you obviously can not support your claims, back to the OP.
Clearly, your atheism has not evolved and shows no sign of evolving ever given the rigidity of your perspective and lack of philosophical thinking. I suspect much of the problem involves language differences, but I am beginning to think that atheists in general, eschew drawing inferences from implications as well.
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.
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.
