• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Do Gods Exist?

 
 
 
pood said:
And why couldn’t the same be done with those idiots you’re always on about, namely Jehovah and Christ? This is what you continue to evade.
Click to expand...

You tell me. I did it. I assume you have as well. You mean why doesn't everyone come to the same conclusion, like you have to with science?
 
I'm not interested in wasting more than a few minutes on this thread, but the few parts that I read, reminded me of two things.

1. When I was a child being indoctrinated by well meaning evangelical Christians, I was told to witness to my Catholic friends so they wouldn't go to hell. My Catholic friends were too wrapped up in catechism to be bothered by my witnessing to them. Believe whatever bullshit you want, just don't push it on others or use it for harm. Some of us are good without a god. :angel:

2. Neil DeGrasse Tyson's quote: "The thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not."

Let me add that the thing about science is that it's based on evidence and if and when new evidence is discovered, then a claim made by science is corrected based on the new evidence. This is especially true when it comes to nutrition, as the advice seems to change frequently and I'm reasonably sure that a lot of it isn't really based on science. I tend to think it's likely that our hunter gatherer ancestors had a healthier diet compared to most of us.



I'll check back in with y'all in about 11 pages. :eating_popcorn:
 
TomC said:
I don't care enough about the subject to invest time in the video. So I'll just ask my real question.
What about the video gives it credibility to you? Eating a diet lower in fat than the typical American diet makes perfect sense to me. And, in my experience, people who eat a healthy diet live longer and better lives than people who don't.
Click to expand...

In relation to the discussion a scientist did a bogus study which became the FDA recommended diet. Turns out he was paid by the sugar industry to make fat look like the culprit in the problem of obesity when it was actually grains, sugar, etc. The body burns fat immediately. Anyway, he was paid and became the head of the FDA and their recommendation not only changed the American diet, but made everything much worse.

TomC said:
Referring to the concept of a low fat diet as "fake assed science" , or however you described it, sounds ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. How could science ever possibly be wrong, or corrupted?! BLASPHEMY!!
 
RIS said:
Of course it does. How could science ever possibly be wrong, or corrupted?! BLASPHEMY!!
Click to expand...
Wait. Wut.

I’m going to assume you are not joking and you are nindeed asking for a lesson in science, in addition to the ones already given above which should have been sufficient information/knowledge to never write this thing that you wrote. BUt you clearly are asking for more education, so here goes:

  1. Science has never ever claimed to be infallible, so using the word “blasphemy” is completely out of scope. It’s so far out of scope that it’s not even “wrong”, it’s “wut.”
  2. Science uses methods to minimize bias. The more carefully scientific methods are adhered to, the more thoroughly human biases are removed.
    1. Scientists are fully aware, and reminded constantly by statisticians, that human bias (e.g. wrong conclusions) cannot be completely eliminated, only managed and minimized.
  3. Experimentation provides results in the categories of
    1. Increased likelihood of correct (you can see why “blasphemy” would never ever apply)
    2. Definite proof of incorrect
    3. Cannot draw conclusion - experiment was bad
  4. Science is always provisional, based on current best knowledge. Most scientists make their entire living on trying to prove other scientists wrong. They get prizes for it.
    1. Most scientists who are proven wrong respond with, “wow, that is exciting! It opens up whole new questions!!” And they get right to work trying to add more knowledge.
    2. Hence science is almost always incomplete. Aka “wrong.”
    3. Scientists are very very comfortable with this knowledge - that the conclusions they are working from are provisional.
      1. Religionists are absolutely, deeply, achingly uncomfortable with admitting, even to themselves (especially to themselves), that they don’t have the whole answer. They would prefer to make something up and carry its banner into a fire than admit that they don’t actually know.
  5. Science will continue to advance, fill in the gaps, overturn what was considered conventional wisdom, and advance some more. Unless prevented by religion.
  6. We can see why someone who does not understand the very fundamental first thing about HOW science works would be unable to understand what science uncovers.
    1. We will continue to be absolutely gobsmacked by the deisre of religionists to operate in a state of premeditated ignorance.
    2. But for some reason, they have a very long track record of basking in ignorance, celebrating it, elevating it.
    3. It plumb evades us.
 
Rhea said:
RIS said:
Of course it does. How could science ever possibly be wrong, or corrupted?! BLASPHEMY!!
Click to expand...
Wait. Wut.

I’m going to assume you are not joking and you are nindeed asking for a lesson in science, in addition to the ones already given above which should have been sufficient information/knowledge to never write this thing that you wrote. BUt you clearly are asking for more education, so here goes:

  1. Science has never ever claimed to be infallible, so using the word “blasphemy” is completely out of scope. It’s so far out of scope that it’s not even “wrong”, it’s “wut.”
  2. Science uses methods to minimize bias. The more carefully scientific methods are adhered to, the more thoroughly human biases are removed.
    1. Scientists are fully aware, and reminded constantly by statisticians, that human bias (e.g. wrong conclusions) cannot be completely eliminated, only managed and minimized.
  3. Experimentation provides results in the categories of
    1. Increased likelihood of correct (you can see why “blasphemy” would never ever apply)
    2. Definite proof of incorrect
    3. Cannot draw conclusion - experiment was bad
  4. Science is always provisional, based on current best knowledge. Most scientists make their entire living on trying to prove other scientists wrong. They get prizes for it.
    1. Most scientists who are proven wrong respond with, “wow, that is exciting! It opens up whole new questions!!” And they get right to work trying to add more knowledge.
    2. Hence science is almost always incomplete. Aka “wrong.”
    3. Scientists are very very comfortable with this knowledge - that the conclusions they are working from are provisional.
      1. Religionists are absolutely, deeply, achingly uncomfortable with admitting, even to themselves (especially to themselves), that they don’t have the whole answer. They would prefer to make something up and carry its banner into a fire than admit that they don’t actually know.
  5. Science will continue to advance, fill in the gaps, overturn what was considered conventional wisdom, and advance some more. Unless prevented by religion.
  6. We can see why someone who does not understand the very fundamental first thing about HOW science works would be unable to understand what science uncovers.
    1. We will continue to be absolutely gobsmacked by the deisre of religionists to operate in a state of premeditated ignorance.
    2. But for some reason, they have a very long track record of basking in ignorance, celebrating it, elevating it.
    3. It plumb evades us.
Click to expand...
That, plus, if some scientist was paid off by a lobby or an industry, then he/she wasn't adhering to scientific method in the first place. Who doesn't know that medical research on behalf of the tobacco industry was tainted?
As stated above, point for point, any discipline that is subject to rigid peer review advances provisionally. I thought pretty much everyone understood that, but, no. (I love it when preachers write into the newspapers and say, "But evolution is only a theory!!", which marks them as semi-literate.)
The OP writer seems to think that atheists, freethinkers, whatever, take any statement attributed to a scientist as beyond dispute, and that's a straw man fallacy (and, since low-fat diet was the proximate example, that goes especially with health/nutrition science, which undergoes reversals frequently...Want to know if coffee is good for you? Keep reading, the data isn't nearly settled.)
Trusting in the scientific method is not the same as a fetishistic belief in every announcement from scientists. Never has been.
 
RIS said:
TomC said:
I don't care enough about the subject to invest time in the video. So I'll just ask my real question.
What about the video gives it credibility to you? Eating a diet lower in fat than the typical American diet makes perfect sense to me. And, in my experience, people who eat a healthy diet live longer and better lives than people who don't.
Click to expand...

In relation to the discussion a scientist did a bogus study which became the FDA recommended diet. Turns out he was paid by the sugar industry to make fat look like the culprit in the problem of obesity when it was actually grains, sugar, etc. The body burns fat immediately. Anyway, he was paid and became the head of the FDA and their recommendation not only changed the American diet, but made everything much worse.

TomC said:
Referring to the concept of a low fat diet as "fake assed science" , or however you described it, sounds ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. How could science ever possibly be wrong, or corrupted?! BLASPHEMY!!
Click to expand...

But, you see, this is utterly misguided. OF COURSE science can be wrong, and often is wrong, and more, the pessimistic meta-induction counsels that ALL our current theories are likely strictly wrong because all our past theories have been strictly wrong.

What you fail to notice is that these facts constitute the very strength of science. I’ll leave it to you to try to work out why, if you can, which I doubt.

For example, can you say that the pessimistic meta-induction also applies to your bible?
 
I now find that what I just wrote is a shortened version of Rhea’s more comprehensive version a few posts up.
 
Here is RIS, using a computer to write and post stuff to us. Does he not realize that unless we had thorough knowledge of the predictive powers of “dumb” quantum mechanics, there would be no computers or other high tech?

Does RIS own a cellphone or drive a car with GPS? Does he realize those wouldn’t work at all without a thorough knowledge of “dumb” special and general relativity?
 
ideologyhunter said:
The OP writer seems to think that atheists, freethinkers, whatever, take any statement attributed to a scientist as beyond dispute
Click to expand...
Of course he does - because that's how his worldview works: Find a source you believe (in the case of the OP, The Bible), and accept what it says.

If you are unsure about anything, consult your chosen authority for a definitive and unquestionable answer.

And if that's how your epistemology operates, the simplest assumption is that that's how everyone's epistemology operates. And until very recently (the last two or three centuries), that was in fact the case.

Atheists reject The Bible as an authority (just like Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, etc. do). Muslims instead use the Koran, Sikhs the Guru Granth Sahib, Jews the Tanakh... So in order to determine how Atheists see the world, clearly all you need to do is to identify what book(s) Atheists choose as their ultimate authority.

And clearly, that ultimate authority is science.

And obviously, science is adherence to the definitive and unquestionable answers written in science books.

Obviously.

This analysis is completely understandable, even reasonable. It's hopelessly wrong, but given the way education itself is structured, the error is far from obvious to most people, for whom science is something they never thought about once they finished school, (and tried their best to avoid thinking about when they were in school, for that matter).

Shit, English doesn't even have different words for science (the methodology for understanding reality), and science (the body of work assembled using the scientific method). It's no wonder that people mistake reliance on the former for faith in the latter.

It's a very easy mistake to make.
 
pood said:
Learner said:
In brief:

Jesus validates the prophets and the God of the OT.

Which simply means: your (plural) view of the scriptures is nothing but erroneous distortions of wishful understanding.

For the layman, ordinary church goer ... all that's needed to know is : Jesus is the verifier. He doesn't refute any scriptures of the OT.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

So Jesus validates the vengeful, genocidal god monster of the OT who supposedly drowned the whole world because he was displeased with his own handiwork? Just checking.
Click to expand...
Jesus's validation simply implies you are reading it wrong! It's rather... your 'preferable' interpretation for debatings sake.

pood said:
Also, how do you know what you wrote above is true? What supporting evidence do you have, keeping in mind that the bible cannot logically provide evidence of its own veracity?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
No worries.

Yeah so, quite simply in easy terms, like for example indications are demonstrated when: warmongers, dictators, and evilists (if such a word exists) ALL hate what Jesus is all about. I mean like' love your neighbour & love your enemies etc and etc. Who says and preaches such things? It would be quite counter-productive - a futile effort to dictate deceitfully to the masses "hate your neighbour and war with them" while we gather the spoils worth so much gold etc.& etc..

Science doesn't understand the language of compassion. Hence Jesus's validation of the OT implies you (plural) get it wrong.
 
The energy industry spent a lot of money buying a few scientists to deny Climate Change, but Right Wingers wanted to discredit it anyhow. That denial has failed to stand up to events, but Right Wingers stick to their guns in denying it.
 
Learner said:
pood said:
Learner said:
In brief:

Jesus validates the prophets and the God of the OT.

Which simply means: your (plural) view of the scriptures is nothing but erroneous distortions of wishful understanding.

For the layman, ordinary church goer ... all that's needed to know is : Jesus is the verifier. He doesn't refute any scriptures of the OT.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

So Jesus validates the vengeful, genocidal god monster of the OT who supposedly drowned the whole world because he was displeased with his own handiwork? Just checking.
Click to expand...
Jesus's validation simply implies you are reading it wrong! It's rather... your 'preferable' interpretation for debatings sake.
Click to expand...

I’m reading WHAT wrong? The part in the bible where god orders genocide and later drowns the whole world in a huge fit of pique? How am I reading it wrong? You said Jesus VALIDATES these things!
Learner said:
pood said:
Also, how do you know what you wrote above is true? What supporting evidence do you have, keeping in mind that the bible cannot logically provide evidence of its own veracity?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
No worries.

Yeah so, quite simply in easy terms, like for example indications are demonstrated when: warmongers, dictators, and evilists (if such a word exists) ALL hate what Jesus is all about. I mean like' love your neighbour & love your enemies etc and etc. Who says and preaches such things?
Click to expand...

Lots of people said it and preached before and after Jesus.
Learner said:
Science doesn't understand the language of compassion.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Your Jesus fantasy has nothing to do with science, and science deals with studying the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.
Learner said:
Hence Jesus's validation of the OT implies you (plural) get it wrong.
Click to expand...

Get what wrong?
 
RIS said:
pood said:
And why couldn’t the same be done with those idiots you’re always on about, namely Jehovah and Christ? This is what you continue to evade.
Click to expand...

You tell me. I did it. I assume you have as well. You mean why doesn't everyone come to the same conclusion, like you have to with science?
Click to expand...

Tell you what? You, and I and others here, have a different metaphysical theory of truth. I suggest you look at my post on the subject here.
 
pood said:
Learner said:
pood said:
Learner said:
In brief:

Jesus validates the prophets and the God of the OT.

Which simply means: your (plural) view of the scriptures is nothing but erroneous distortions of wishful understanding.

For the layman, ordinary church goer ... all that's needed to know is : Jesus is the verifier. He doesn't refute any scriptures of the OT.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

So Jesus validates the vengeful, genocidal god monster of the OT who supposedly drowned the whole world because he was displeased with his own handiwork? Just checking.
Click to expand...
Jesus's validation simply implies you are reading it wrong! It's rather... your 'preferable' interpretation for debatings sake.
Click to expand...

I’m reading WHAT wrong? The part in the bible where god orders genocide and later drowns the whole world in a huge fit of pique? How am I reading it wrong? You said Jesus VALIDATES these things!
Click to expand...
The Characterization of God. You portray a preferable image. A false image in your own mind.

Validation of the OT? Yes, one of many examples ...he says if you believe in Moses you would believe in me ;for he wrote about me ( If you can entertain the idea that Jesus existed of course).
pood said:
Learner said:
pood said:
Also, how do you know what you wrote above is true? What supporting evidence do you have, keeping in mind that the bible cannot logically provide evidence of its own veracity?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
No worries.

Yeah so, quite simply in easy terms, like for example indications are demonstrated when: warmongers, dictators, and evilists (if such a word exists) ALL hate what Jesus is all about. I mean like' love your neighbour & love your enemies etc and etc. Who says and preaches such things?
Click to expand...

Lots of people said it and preached before and after Jesus.
Click to expand...
Who said what?

Interestingly... I would wonder then: Are there as many haters/enemies as there was and is for Jesus? Are they mocked as much as he is, without repercussions?

pood said:
Learner said:
Science doesn't understand the language of compassion.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Your Jesus fantasy has nothing to do with science, and science deals with studying the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.
Click to expand...
Science doesn't understand psychological or read emotions as humans read and understand. That's how Jesus communicates to us with! Your conscience! Truth is understood through emotions. Children and ordinary folk 'understand' truth through love.

Jesus is not a fantasy.. by these terms!

Irony would have it: Atheists were right. They have made arguments that say: many become believers 'all because of their feely emotions'. How little did they know or understand in what capacity they were actually right.

pood said:
Learner said:
Hence Jesus's validation of the OT implies you (plural) get it wrong.
Click to expand...

Get what wrong?
Click to expand...
Characterizations of God!
 
Last edited:
RIS said:
pood said:
And why couldn’t the same be done with those idiots you’re always on about, namely Jehovah and Christ? This is what you continue to evade.
Click to expand...

You tell me. I did it. I assume you have as well. You mean why doesn't everyone come to the same conclusion, like you have to with science?
Click to expand...
Pssst:


All science's conclusions are provisional.

 
Elixir said:
RIS said:
pood said:
And why couldn’t the same be done with those idiots you’re always on about, namely Jehovah and Christ? This is what you continue to evade.
Click to expand...

You tell me. I did it. I assume you have as well. You mean why doesn't everyone come to the same conclusion, like you have to with science?
Click to expand...
Pssst:


All science's conclusions are provisional.

Click to expand...

And all of religion’s conclusions are absolute. And since they all come up with different absolute conclusions, lol, they are constantly at war with one another and with those of us who want nothing to do with any of their nonsense. :rolleyes:
 
pood said:
Elixir said:
RIS said:
pood said:
And why couldn’t the same be done with those idiots you’re always on about, namely Jehovah and Christ? This is what you continue to evade.
Click to expand...

You tell me. I did it. I assume you have as well. You mean why doesn't everyone come to the same conclusion, like you have to with science?
Click to expand...
Pssst:


All science's conclusions are provisional.

Click to expand...

And all of religion’s conclusions are absolute. And since they all come up with different absolute conclusions, lol, they are constantly at war with one another and with those of us who want nothing to do with any of their nonsense. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
There's a reason for that. Certainty sells. Once someone has it, they will typically "fight like hell" to preserve it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom