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

[Rhea]

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

Laughter is good for you...

I don't think I have ever heard anyone here in the UK use the snarky term ...did you consider for that, detective? I have seen it used on the forum (wasn't fully focused in mind at that time posting response) - 'snide or snidey' sounds closer to how snarky is expressed to me.

Paul Mc Fedries a Canadian? Perhaps there lies the answer,

You misunderstand me:

I assumed you meant "snarky" and just typed it wrong. That made sense in the context and was completely logical. So I naswered as if you had meant "snarky" which is very close in this use to "sarcastically written" and so I think I understood your intent properly.

I was not giving you a hard time because I thought you made sense.

It's funny to have you argue that I gave you too much credit, though.

 

[Rhea]

At least they're passionate to defend this theoretical idea quite strongly by 'all means wordy' ..."you don't understand words so there for reality..."

Perhaps this is more snark? Not sure. I'll answer it as if you're flat out serious.

Learner. We are defending the understanding of theoretical and empirical - and trying to explain to you that the idea of an expanding universe is NOT purely theoretical, there are many diverse physical observations that converge on the same answer.

Like looking at a debris field after a blast, the forensic scientist can observe what happened even when she was not there for the blast. There is evidence that is left. Pressure lines in the soil, damage to plants and people, walls torn apart into certain sized rubble. All of that evidence after the fact is an empirical look into what happened before.


So, since we care about this discussion, and it has some interest, making sure we have agreement on what words mean is a valid and valuable part of the discussion.

That you appear to dismiss it with a joke is perplexing. Don't you care that when we discuss we actually understand the intent of the meaning of the other?

I mean, don't you?

Or is it all a joke where you throw out a word with several meanings, switch up which meaning you intend and use the misunderstanding to claim victory? Is that deliberate? Or is it an accident that you'd like to correct?


Here are FACTS:
"Theory" does not mean to the scientists what you are claiming it means. Therefore, you are not understanding their message.
It sounds like you and lion are fine with, cheerful about, even! arguing something that did not exist in the original.

I'm confused by your intent here.

A reminder of previous vid, it's normal to disagree with theoretical theories.

Experimental Physicists vs. Theoretical Physicists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IET9VX_Ufrc&feature=youtu.be

Can't watch videos, still. Not enough internet here. You'll have to say what's in it for people to comment on it.
It is good ettiquette in any online forum to post links only with your explanation. Say enough to make the click a known entity.

 

[Rhea]

If I had rephrased my quote: "Are you telling me you both DO have faith?" I'd say something like: "Do you really believe this to be true?" or something like asking "why do you believe this is a real thing?" etc..& etc..

In answer to your question, do we have "faith" in and expanding universe like you have faith in your god, do we "believe" it like you believe in your god?

Answer:

No.

 

[skepticalbip]

If I had rephrased my quote: "Are you telling me you both DO have faith?" I'd say something like: "Do you really believe this to be true?" or something like asking "why do you believe this is a real thing?" etc..& etc..

In answer to your question, do we have "faith" in and expanding universe like you have faith in your god, do we "believe" it like you believe in your god?

Answer:

No.

Indeed...

There are obvious differences in what religion and science mean by 'faith'.

For the religious, faith means belief without evidence or even in spite of contrary evidence. e.g. because they have been told, they retain their faith that prayer (or sacrifice, spell, incantation, voodoo ritual, etc.) will heal the dying even though such practices yield no better results than for those dying that do not get the ritual.

For science, faith is belief based on something having been demonstrated to be accurate. Science has 'faith' that a lead ball will fall toward the Earth when released, following Newton's theory of gravity.... because it has been tested and demonstrated to be true. If it didn't then that theory would be scrapped (science would have no faith in the theory) and a new one developed.

 

[Learner]

An atheist can rightly claim something is REALITY when they are talking about the theory that not only best describes it, but has been through many levels of cross checking. Technically, it is the "theory" but it is so strongly supported that you can act as if it is reality. The uncertainty is minuscule. May I introduce you to the "Theory of Gravity"?


Be careful that you actually understand what "empirically tested" means before you use it.
"Empirical testing is a research method that employs direct and indirect observation and experience."

I see, so if there are several theories which have theoretical differences or possibilites of the same subject matter then...

Logically, ALL theories are REALITY! OK.


(that was sort of where I was going about atheists claims... not the scientists)

Nope. Not what that means.

, the free encyclopedia. Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

And what about what I was meaning to say?

BTW Quote-mining IS taking from someone-else ...regardless of useage which was not the dispute.

Nice try!

You wanted to know if we agreed that the expanding universe is in dispute. IT. Is. Not.

I wanted to know IF you agreed with the experimental scientists take.

you wrote previously...

"earlier in thread]Multi-universes...expanding universes well... its still sci-fi"

and you doubled down later,...

"Are you both saying you believe we have had all those eons and eons of time to "observe" ALL of the above expanding universe? Empirical tests?"

Experimentallly impossible obviously. Theoretically, mathematically ALL is possible, so to speak, as best-explanation (of today) which then has the potential to be updated with NEW best-explanations in the future.


Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).

We tried to explain it, and you're still failing to address that explanation. None of the scientists disputes the expanding universe. None. The "dispute" is whether it's going speed (A) or speed (A+5%). So your question, do we agree with the dispute about the fact of an expanding universe is - THERE IS NO DISPUTE about whether the universe is expanding by anyone who knows anything about Hubble's Constant.

In as much as "we don't know for sure if the universe is ACTUALLY expanding". It looks like it does, according to some of the theoretical proposals at best, we are not really that sure if this is the REALITY!

Okay - again, pull up a chair. This is fabulous stuff.

You can observe directly or indirectly, and it is still an observation. it is still empirical science. You can observe effects, and after-effects. You can observe explosions, and you can observe debris.

Well sure, there are various observation tecniques on various scales. I'm not disputing that, and understand that ALL the data and summing-up by experiments can differentiate between tried-and-tested and what's still YET to be concluded. Explosions and debris, I am assuming you mean observing more locally.

This is fascinating, so stay with me. I just recently finished an experiment where we didn't have time or money to run an experiment, so we had to go back through old manufacturing data to try to find the story. (Really, the "experiment" had already been "run" on it's own without anyone doing it on purpose. Our job was to find out what caused it.)

The problem being, there is no record of the bad events we're looking for. Hmmm. What to do, what to do. Well, it turns out, whenever the event happened, someone reacted to it. They turned up the volume. A-HA! we can go back through the record, find out every time someone turned up the volume and look at the manufacturing conditions at that time. We used this PROXY for the event to determine what was causing the event, even though no one ever wrote down that the event happened. By comparing the proxy to the operating conditions, we could conclude that whenever the speed of two drivers became mismatched more than a certain amount - our bad event would happen. So we added controllers and an interlock to make sure the two drivers never got out of sync.

We used an indirect observation to fix the driver problems that were causing the event.

That was all empirical. We were not there when the event happened. No one wrote down the times when it happened. But we empirically "observed" something that we could then fix.

The previous above I'll place here also. ALL scientists contribute to the knowledge regardless.Thumbs up on that.

Isn't that great? Is fun stuff for scientists and engineers.

Yes it's great!

Learner - do you accept yet that you are the ONLY ONE who does not accept the expansion theory? And that you don't understand empirical science, or indirect observations, or scientific disputes, or the red shift?

I don't know, if the expansion theory demonstrates "real" (if we agree on the same definition) or not. Not yet it seems.

 

[funinspace]

projecting with tea leaves?

Heard his name for the first time. Who cares!

With an exclamation mark? WOW.
Angry?

I care so little, I can't even put in the effort to place a period at the end of this sentence

 

[atrib]

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.

Or just despise passive-aggressive bullshit.

Saying something hugely offensive or mind-bogglingly stupid 'nicely' doesn't (and shouldn't) shield it from criticism.

No matter how polite you are, your claims are still only as good as the evidence you bring to support them.

Learner comes across as a nice guy, and I don't think he means to be deliberately offensive. But he is also unwilling to acknowledge and address the arguments people actually make (deliberately or through lack of comprehension), and unwilling to learn about the subjects he so casually renders his (often nonsensical) opinions about. Sometimes he makes comments that make me believe that he doesn't even understand the topic of discussion, and he gets passive-aggressive when you point it out.

It is an exercise in patience to try to talk to him, and I can understand why some people might get pissed off with his behavior.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Learner comes across as a nice guy, and I don't think he means to be deliberately offensive.

He's been here six years. If he doesn't yet grasp the use of theory as a means to describe reality, that reflects a choice he has made. A choice to NOT Learn.
It's not necessarily 'anger' to then hold him accountable for his correctable misutterances, and spouting ignorance as if equivalent to expert opinion.

 

[hyzer]

And what about what I was meaning to say?

BTW Quote-mining IS taking from someone-else ...regardless of useage which was not the dispute.

Nice try!

I have never met a creationist that understood or acknowledged why quote mining is wrong. They either just don't have the capacity to understand the concept, or they are willfully ignoring the issue.

 

[Rhea]

And what about what I was meaning to say?

BTW Quote-mining IS taking from someone-else ...regardless of useage which was not the dispute.

Nice try!

I have never met a creationist that understood or acknowledged why quote mining is wrong. They either just don't have the capacity to understand the concept, or they are willfully ignoring the issue.

Which is an interesting irony because they can INSTANTLY detect when they think you have quote-mined the bible ("used a verse out of context") while simultaneously unable to detect when they do.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Which is an interesting irony because they can INSTANTLY detect when they think you have quote-mined the bible

is 'detect' quite the right word, though?
They announce that i'm taking verses 'out of context' to come to heretical conclusions (god deceives;, bibleEarth is a flat Earth; life starts at first breath, not conception), but never seem to provide the 'actual' context.
They just reiterate the approved conclusion, or maybe quote different verses that may support different conclusions. But not a whole lot of diagramming the context.

This may be why they cannot grasp quote-mining. 'Context' is just a code word, it's the conclusion that matters....

 

[abaddon]

This may be why they cannot grasp quote-mining. 'Context' is just a code word, it's the conclusion that matters....

Yes. Sometimes their "context" is the verses around the quote in question. But often it's another verse in another book written many centuries before or after. So "context" seems to mean their interpretation. What they "detect" is you're not following the narrative they've got inside their heads.


I notice they free-associate to the label of logical fallacies and won't bother to google it and study the concept. Special pleading becomes "ardently making the case". Argument by verbosity becomes "long post". Ad hom becomes "using the other's position against them" (the theist has trouble sorting arguing about ideas and telling people he thinks they're hypocrites).

Any method their propaganda relies on cannot be wrong because the conclusion can't be wrong. It's easier, and a lot safer for one's beliefs, to justify the illogic with the only mental tools they've got: 'intuiting' quick-and-easy opinions, and mimicry of propaganda.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes. Sometimes their "context" is the verses around the quote in question.

Only seen that one time in a biblical discussion. In regards the verse about 'happy is he dashing baby skulls on rocks,' a thumper defended attacking enemies of God as a good thing. An atheist used context to show the verse is sarcasm.

 

[Learner]

And what about what I was meaning to say?

BTW Quote-mining IS taking from someone-else ...regardless of useage which was not the dispute.

Nice try!

I have never met a creationist that understood or acknowledged why quote mining is wrong. They either just don't have the capacity to understand the concept, or they are willfully ignoring the issue.

I think the fault or whatever the issue is, stems from wanting to maintain a particular line of "argument" ...AS IF the focus was more about dimishing someones rationalitly (not that I profess to be so wise). Quote-mining was introduced falsely in the discussion when I used a quote from Tesla. The reason I used it (Tesla's Quote) was because I was responding to a post in a similar sacastic-lite manner.

I could have phrased the quote below much better but oddly ... more posts steered towards "quote-mining" got elevated to become a main argument. What seems to me is... the aim has sort of "succeeded." You have been mislead.

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)?

The question I asked: "And what about what I was meaning to say?" IS from above quote to mean ... "what if I use a quote from someone-else?"

 

[Lion IRC]

Not all selective quotes are quote mining. Quote mining is using a persons own words against them.

The most effective defense against having your words taken out of context is to restate those words IN the actual intended context.

The most effective defense against having your words used against you is to admit that you misspoke or weren't sufficiently clear as to what you meant to say, or concede that you're a hypocrite who says one thing today and the opposite tomorrow.

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ”

― Nikola Tesla (Not a quote mine.)

 

[Learner]

Well there you go. 1 rep.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think the fault or whatever the issue is, stems from wanting to maintain a particular line of "argument" ...AS IF the focus was more about dimishing someones rationalitly (not that I profess to be so wise). Quote-mining was introduced falsely in the discussion when I used a quote from Tesla. The reason I used it (Tesla's Quote) was because I was responding to a post in a similar sacastic-lite manner.

who accused you of quote-mining Tesla?

IIRC, we just poked holes in the quote, and it's appicability, not an accusation that Tesla did not mean what you were trying to claim he said...
Where was Quote-mine applied, Learner?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think the fault or whatever the issue is, stems from wanting to maintain a particular line of "argument" ...AS IF the focus was more about dimishing someones rationalitly (not that I profess to be so wise). Quote-mining was introduced falsely in the discussion when I used a quote from Tesla. The reason I used it (Tesla's Quote) was because I was responding to a post in a similar sacastic-lite manner.

who accused you of quote-mining Tesla?

IIRC, we just poked holes in the quote, and it's appicability, not an accusation that Tesla did not mean what you were trying to claim he said...
Where was Quote-mine applied, Learner?

Ah. Found it. My bad.

But, see, it wasn't the first use of the Tesla quote that was accused of quote-mining. It was when you started re-interpreting what Tesla was talking about, skewing his claims in the quote.

And not understanding the math he WAS talking about has had real-world impacts since.