Ravi Zacharias - no deathbed conversion to atheism. R.I.P.

[atrib]

I'm just saying that it may be difficult task for theists to defend their faith on this forum for a number of reasons.

This is true.

I don't find it difficult.

Then why do you run away when asked difficult questions, and when your claims are refuted as hollow? You do it all the fucking time. Then you have the nerve to repeat falsehoods like this.

I think it's the atheists who struggle defending theirs.

Another fundamental (and deliberate) mischaracterization by someone who has spent years on these forums and should know better. Atheists don't rely on faith, they rely on reason. They rely on observations, and testing, and peer review and the use of reason to explain the natural world. There are no absolute authorities or dogmas which cannot be questioned; everything is up for debate and every scientific theory has to be falsifiable. Where is the faith?

 

[atrib]

The math could very well be mathematically sound in that respect, but it doesn't mean it's reality! Just as there are mathematical models for multi-universes and dimensions.

What you know about scientific models and how mathematics is used to model physical systems could fit on the head of a pin. You have got to stop spouting nonsense about things you don't know anything about. Seriously.

 

[Learner]

The math could very well be mathematically sound in that respect, but it doesn't mean it's reality! Just as there are mathematical models for multi-universes and dimensions.

What you know about scientific models and how mathematics is used to model physical systems could fit on the head of a pin. You have got to stop spouting nonsense about things you don't know anything about. Seriously.

What are we disputing here? Seriously - Have you confused yourself and compared empirically tested mathematics that HAS/ CAN produce things like your little example above to the theories that still remain untested?

 

[Learner]

Even as you say keith ...repeatable observations. It's still not enough, with all the time that we've had ... to ever notice any differences at all - to actually see any movement progression of distant star galaxies, between each of the observation sessions - not like we CAN, observing the movement of more local stars within our own star system.

So, you think they're making shit up, when they say we have observed such motion? Really? No possibility that there's no deception on their part, just a lack of understanding the science on your part?

That's a little arrogant, innit? Especially for someone out to learn science?

You didn't notice my comment then: "Are you both telling me, you DO have faith?" (It was just a bit of sarky humour btw)

That's not an indication of me saying anything about any deception.

Or are you, as you often say ...pretending?

 

[Rhea]

You didn't notice my comment then: "Are you both telling me, you DO have faith?" (It was just a bit of sarky humour btw)

That's interesting that you meant it as snarky humor.
Let me ponder what that means in this discussion.

Does it mean that you KNOW that, no, we don't "believe" or "have faith" in the reliability, predictive ability and repeatability of claims made from scientific evidence?
You KNEW that wasn't true when you asked it and you were just going for a laugh?

Well, okay. Ha Ha. Hahahaha!

My chuckle above there is genuine and not meant to be snarky. Indeed if an atheist had written what you wrote there, it would indeed be a laugh line.
I was confused because so many religionists say that but the completely mean it literally, and when they do, it shows that they have no understanding at all about what the process of examining evidence and making conclusions even looks like.

I assumed that was you at that moment.

But now that I know that you KNOW it was a stupid throwaway comment meant only for a laugh because of its utter absurdity, then, thanks for the clarification, and, Ha Ha. Hahahaha!

 

[Rhea]

Angry? How do you know you have no cancer?

Not at all. Never really. Just surprised. People in the US talk of people who are not at all known or relevant in India. Zacharias was such, and so was Yodananda.

Yes, as I said in the Op, I probably never would have heard of Ravi Zacharias
if it weren't for New Atheism - which triggered a massive resurgence of Christian apologetics.

Getting atheists to stop talking about non-stamp collecting and start talking about God is something Richard Dawkins and Ravi Zacharias can both be proud of.

There's some confusion in this statement that needs help.

Atheists don't talk about god because we believe it is true, or that it even might be, or that we worry about it. We don't. It's not true and that is unequivocal.

We talk about it because we inhabit the neighborhood, the country, the planet, with others who DO think the god is true and are willing to be assholes and murderers to make the world act like everyone else thinks it's true, as well.


We don't give a shit about your myths - until you start punishing and harming people for not sharing your fantasy.

In other words, the things that you say matter very much to our safety and must be addressed. Like an oil spill must be talked about, or dioxins in the river. You think when the Cuyahoga River was so polluted that it caught on fire that all the people should have just said, "eh, no need to talk about that. Not my fire."

That is crazy.

The fact that atheists discuss your weird rituals and contradictory beliefs does NOT indicate that we find them convincing or admirable. It's just another river on fire.

Although, I admit, some discussions don't stem solely from fear of what the nutjobs will do. Sometimes it's a curiosity like a zoo exhibit or a "shoppers of Walmart" instagram. You just look and see, wait, they believe what? How do they even function with that kind of nonsense in their heads?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Even as you say keith ...repeatable observations. It's still not enough, with all the time that we've had ... to ever notice any differences at all - to actually see any movement progression of distant star galaxies, between each of the observation sessions - not like we CAN, observing the movement of more local stars within our own star system.

So, you think they're making shit up, when they say we have observed such motion? Really? No possibility that there's no deception on their part, just a lack of understanding the science on your part?

That's a little arrogant, innit? Especially for someone out to learn science?

You didn't notice my comment then: "Are you both telling me, you DO have faith?" (It was just a bit of sarky humour btw)

noticed it. Didn't think it worth acknowledging.
And what the hell is 'sarky?'

That's not an indication of me saying anything about any deception.

no, i was referring to how you dislike THEORIES presented as FACTS when you cannot really show you understand what scientists mean by either term.
And further, you continue to misuse 'observations,' but don't point out any examples.
I think you overvalue your objections without realizing how empty they really are.

 

[Learner]

You didn't notice my comment then: "Are you both telling me, you DO have faith?" (It was just a bit of sarky humour btw)

That's interesting that you meant it as snarky humor.
Let me ponder what that means in this discussion.

Does it mean that you KNOW that, no, we don't "believe" or "have faith" in the reliability, predictive ability and repeatability of claims made from scientific evidence?
You KNEW that wasn't true when you asked it and you were just going for a laugh?

Well, okay. Ha Ha. Hahahaha!

My chuckle above there is genuine and not meant to be snarky. Indeed if an atheist had written what you wrote there, it would indeed be a laugh line.
I was confused because so many religionists say that but the completely mean it literally, and when they do, it shows that they have no understanding at all about what the process of examining evidence and making conclusions even looks like.

I assumed that was you at that moment.

But now that I know that you KNOW it was a stupid throwaway comment meant only for a laugh because of its utter absurdity, then, thanks for the clarification, and, Ha Ha. Hahahaha!

I also meant it as well. I would have rephrased it a little. I thought to mention it just in case someone took offence. No harm done!

 

[Keith&Co.]

The fact that atheists discuss your weird rituals and contradictory beliefs does NOT indicate that we find them convincing or admirable. It's just another river on fire.

Similarly, i have gone for quite long stretches of my adult life where i was not thinking or talking about adult diapers. Trump can be proud of making me talk about them a lot more this year.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I also meant it as well. I would have rephrased it a little. I thought to mention it just in case someone took offence. No harm done!

sooooooo, you MEANT IT. But if anyone's offended, it was JUST KIDDING.

 

[Rhea]

The fact that atheists discuss your weird rituals and contradictory beliefs does NOT indicate that we find them convincing or admirable. It's just another river on fire.

Although, I admit, some discussions don't stem solely from fear of what the nutjobs will do. Sometimes it's a curiosity like a zoo exhibit or a "shoppers of Walmart" instagram. You just look and see, wait, they believe what? How do they even function with that kind of nonsense in their heads?

The above is not to be confused with the ability to like and love people who are religionists because their human behavior is beautiful and loving and the idea of religion does not come up.

Nor does it exclude the tolerance for people who are similarly nice, even though they sometimes spout religion that is kinda mean and insulting, but they can't detect that and they get all bent out of shape when you point out that saying, "I'd never let my child marry an atheist," is just as hateful as saying "I'd never let my child marry someone who is black." We tolerate their bad religious behavior, but it will indeed cause us to talk about religion at those points. (religionists usually freak out at that, though.)

 

[Rhea]

You didn't notice my comment then: "Are you both telling me, you DO have faith?" (It was just a bit of sarky humour btw)

That's interesting that you meant it as snarky humor.
Let me ponder what that means in this discussion.

Does it mean that you KNOW that, no, we don't "believe" or "have faith" in the reliability, predictive ability and repeatability of claims made from scientific evidence?
You KNEW that wasn't true when you asked it and you were just going for a laugh?

Well, okay. Ha Ha. Hahahaha!

My chuckle above there is genuine and not meant to be snarky. Indeed if an atheist had written what you wrote there, it would indeed be a laugh line.
I was confused because so many religionists say that but the completely mean it literally, and when they do, it shows that they have no understanding at all about what the process of examining evidence and making conclusions even looks like.

I assumed that was you at that moment.

But now that I know that you KNOW it was a stupid throwaway comment meant only for a laugh because of its utter absurdity, then, thanks for the clarification, and, Ha Ha. Hahahaha!

I also meant it as well. I would have rephrased it a little. I thought to mention it just in case someone took offence. No harm done!

What?

You just completely contradicted yourself.

(Also, I don't take offense when someone else says something really uninformed. Your absurdity was on you, not me.)

So now you're saying it was NOT snark, it was serious?
Well, then, please address the serious answer - that you are misusing the terms "faith" and "belief" to make a discussion more muddy instead of more clear.

You can see from my original reply why those words show a very poor understanding of both atheists and science. Can you comment on that please?




Gah. This is why we think religionists are not out to actually learn anything, they just want to wave around the smoke and move around the mirrors so no one can pin down the absolute barrenness of their ideas. They act exactly like someone who is not discussing in good faith. Ha ha. It's just a game of words, not a pursuit of knowledge.

 

[Learner]

noticed it. Didn't think it worth acknowledging.
And what the hell is 'sarky?'

Sorry I thought that was American slang for sarcastic or irony. Have no idea where I got that from.

no, i was referring to how you dislike THEORIES presented as FACTS when you cannot really show you understand what scientists mean by either term.

Hold on ...dislike theories presented as facts? Thats false for a start. You mentioned me quote mining, so if I quoted say for example some quantumn physicists who do have issues with the expansion theory, are you saying that posting this up has no revelance because I can't show what the term means (total ignorance)? - I understand what they mean, when they say there are issues, even I get the gist and... I DO have a little rationality believe it or not. People quote scientists, scholars and historians all the time on this forum just to make some point.

And further, you continue to misuse 'observations,' but don't point out any examples.
I think you overvalue your objections without realizing how empty they really are.

Ok, Help me to be on the same page you're on. What definition of observation do you mean, what example should I use?

 

[Learner]

I also meant it as well. I would have rephrased it a little. I thought to mention it just in case someone took offence. No harm done!

What?

You just completely contradicted yourself.

(Also, I don't take offense when someone else says something really uninformed. Your absurdity was on you, not me.)

So now you're saying it was NOT snark, it was serious?
Well, then, please address the serious answer - that you are misusing the terms "faith" and "belief" to make a discussion more muddy instead of more clear.

You can see from my original reply why those words show a very poor understanding of both atheists and science. Can you comment on that please?




Gah. This is why we think religionists are not out to actually learn anything, they just want to wave around the smoke and move around the mirrors so no one can pin down the absolute barrenness of their ideas. They act exactly like someone who is not discussing in good faith. Ha ha. It's just a game of words, not a pursuit of knowledge.

Good luck with that ... for a "serious" discussion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sorry I thought that was American slang for sarcastic or irony. Have no idea where I got that from.

my dad built a model of the Cutty Sark...?

Hold on ...dislike theories presented as facts? Thats false for a start.

dislike, object to, pretend there is a substantial distinction betwee, whatever.

You mentioned me quote mining, so if I quoted say for example some quantumn physicists who do have issues with the expansion theory, are you saying that posting this up has no revelance because I can't show what the term means (total ignorance)?

no, if you post something ON TOPIC then it's not QUOTE MINING. It's just, you know, Quoting. So, no, i would not say that.

However, if you're quoting a quibble about degrees, and presenting it as a rejection oof the entire theory, that would be quote mining.

Do you not grasp the meaning of that term, either?

- I understand what they mean, when they say there are issues, even I get the gist and... I DO have a little rationality believe it or not. People quote scientists, scholars and historians all the time on this forum just to make some point.

so, no. You do not grok the distinction.

And further, you continue to misuse 'observations,' but don't point out any examples.
I think you overvalue your objections without realizing how empty they really are.

Ok, Help me to be on the same page you're on. What definition of observation do you mean, what example should I use?

Why should i do your homework?
Look into textbooks on any subject. Every chapter that introduces a fact, such as 'the Milky Way travels at the speed of 8 zillion twinkies per quarantine diet' will at least mention How We Know This To Be True. As measured by red shift, blue shift, space-dust, wrappers per beach at low tide, whatever.
If you look, you will find charts, and texts, and experts whose job it is to talk about anything.
YOU read a fact, decided 'there's no way they can know that'....and stopped. Decided it's not a True Observation. You're bloody wrong, and it's on you to correct the decision you made to stop learning in tge first place.

But if you want to know how we align nuclear missiles using Earth's rotation, that IS literally my job to explain. Or the Leap Second. Submarine avoidance flyout maneuver. Those are mine.

 

[Learner]

my dad built a model of the Cutty Sark...?

I vaguely remember someone said to another or me that they were being sarky if I'm not mistaken - that's where it could of stemmed from.

dislike, object to, pretend there is a substantial distinction betwee, whatever.

I see, well that would be suited to those who would try to do the above when making certain claims.

no, if you post something ON TOPIC then it's not QUOTE MINING. It's just, you know, Quoting. So, no, i would not say that.

However, if you're quoting a quibble about degrees, and presenting it as a rejection oof the entire theory, that would be quote mining.

Do you not grasp the meaning of that term, either?

I would assume you are intelligent enough to understand the point I was making. Quote-mining, lifting, copying, pasting, repeating, whatever.

so, no. You do not grok the distinction.

Ok... but are you then refuting the suggested claims I posted about - those who challenge the expansion theory, I mean the empirical scientists or is it all about me?

Why should i do your homework?

I didn't ask you about doing any homework ...just the definition of observation use thats correctly preferable for continuing further.

Look into textbooks on any subject. Every chapter that introduces a fact, such as 'the Milky Way travels at the speed of 8 zillion twinkies per quarantine diet' will at least mention How We Know This To Be True. As measured by red shift, blue shift, space-dust, wrappers per beach at low tide, whatever.


If you look, you will find charts, and texts, and experts whose job it is to talk about anything.
YOU read a fact, decided 'there's no way they can know that'....and stopped. Decided it's not a True Observation. You're bloody wrong, and it's on you to correct the decision you made to stop learning in tge first place.

It is interesting ... but even I, as limited as I am, know and understand there are more than one Iinterpretations of the redshift. Or for example know there are implications with examples of connecting clusters that HAVE oddly enough different brighness/ dimness in redshift which is at odds with the theory.

But even then...

If there are refutations anyway in the science community, then just by there being doubts ...the expansion theory is not reliable.

But if you want to know how we align nuclear missiles using Earth's rotation, that IS literally my job to explain. Or the Leap Second. Submarine avoidance flyout maneuver. Those are mine.

Good to know. If any topic in your field comes up I'll know who to ask.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I vaguely remember someone said to another or me that they were being sarky if I'm not mistaken - that's where it could of stemmed from.

still doesn't explain how you use it to mean sincere and sarcastic at the same time.

I see, well that would be suited to those who would try to do the above when making certain claims.

no one who knows what a theory is tries to ckaim it's a fact. Theories are used to explain the collected facts. I fear you did not follow tge discussion when someone explained why a theory was the best explanation, or maybe said something like 'evolution is a theory AND a fact.' Which is talking about two different things, not claiming one = the other.

I would assume you are intelligent enough to understand the point I was making. Quote-mining, lifting, copying, pasting, repeating, whatever.

but your point is incoherent. Quoting is a tool.
Quote mining is a fraud.
They are not equivalent acts.

so, no. You do not grok the distinction.

Ok... but are you then refuting the suggested claims I posted about - those who challenge the expansion theory, I mean the empirical scientists or is it all about me?

it was pointed out to you that they did not challenge tge theory, just details OF the theory.
Presenting these quibbles as rejection is either a fraudulent use of the quote, or straight up ignorance.

Why should i do your homework?

I didn't ask you about doing any homework ...just the definition of observation use thats correctly preferable for continuing further.

But you have already formed your conclusion and stated it. You're flat out wrong. You should have looked into it the first time tou did not understand the claim.

If there are refutations in the science community then just by that...the expansion theory is not fully accepted as true.

you did not offer or refer to a refutation. You just said it was not a True Observation, because of a bullshit justification. NOW you want to pretend that quibbles about theory details, that a lack of unanimity in the community, justifies flat out ignoring the observations.

Does that work anywhere else in your life? If the loan officer says you owe $86,000 on your house, but your bank statement says $85,000, does the argument mean there is no debt and your house is paid off?


And, yes! I'm working from home, so the kids are tired of pop quizes on the Leap Second.

 

[Lion IRC]

I also meant it as well. I would have rephrased it a little. I thought to mention it just in case someone took offence. No harm done!

Learner, anyone who takes offence at someone as polite, charitable and well-meaning as you must have anger management issues.

 

[Rhea]

I vaguely remember someone said to another or me that they were being sarky if I'm not mistaken - that's where it could of stemmed from.

Well this is funny. I thought it was a simple typo and you meant “snarky” and that worked and I went with it.

LOL

I had no idea you were using a word you didn’t know.

snark noun
\ ˈsnärk \
Definition of snark
informal
: an attitude or expression of mocking irreverence and sarcasm
… no human endeavor is beyond snark these days, so lots of people enjoy hijacking a corporation's marketing hashtag to mock the company …
— Paul McFedries

 

[Rhea]

Ok... but are you then refuting the suggested claims I posted about - those who challenge the expansion theory, I mean the empirical scientists or is it all about me?

I think it’s just you. Those who quibbe about Hubble’s Constant aren’t in disagreement about expansion theory. At all. They are in disagreement about HOW FAST it is expanding, and whether that means there is a new type of material that was present in the early big bang that they haven’t yet described or included in the calculation.

No one thinks Hubble was wrong, they think he was off by a bit.

It is interesting ... but even I, as limited as I am, know and understand there are more than one Iinterpretations of the redshift. Or for example know there are implications with examples of connecting clusters that HAVE oddly enough different brighness/ dimness in redshift which is at odds with the theory.

But even then...

If there are refutations anyway in the science community, then just by there being doubts ...the expansion theory is not reliable.

Can you take this whole bit to the science forum for discussion? Because it looks a lot like you are quoting some stuff that just ain’t true. Assuming you care whether what you post is true, you should engage in a discussion of this. It’s not passing the sniff test so far. Maybe you’re one of those who doesn’t care if what they say is false witness, and so you don’t want to check and you’ll just keep saying it.

But if you care about bearing false witness... copy your claim to the science forum and let’s see where it goes, shall we?