Where is YOUR EVIDENCE ?

[Theoryofrelativity]

Silly bird, you have another kidney. Remove them both and you'll die.

stop nit picking

we as individuals in comparison to the entire universe are minute, losing one of us is not akin to a human losing both kidneys!

the fact remains that without me, the universe will go on, however if the universe does not go on, neither will I.

 

[superluminal]

In Quantum Mechanics and other fields, some things are based upon speculation. This means there is no hard facts and things are only seen as evidentally true while occurances of things being observed fall into the correct parameters.

Admittedly most of the Atom as science knows it is myth, superstition and speculation however what is learnt with every year that passes are new ways to catalogue evidence from measurements and tests to eventually rule out the falcities.

Alright. Enough of this bollocks.

1) In QM all there are are observations. These observations are so repeatable and predictable that QM, especially QED, is considered the most successful description of a facet of nature ever formulated. QM states hard facts about the observations, not about the ultimate nature of the quantum "objects".

2) "Admittedly most of the Atom as science knows it is myth, superstition and speculation"

Complete bollocks. Tell this to quantum physicists, chemists, and particle physicists who make a living based on the highly known and deterministic nature of atoms.

Bollocks.

 

[Stryder]

Superluminal, if you read the full post you'd realise the statement implies that not everything is known and over time more is learnt. Any scientist concluding that he knows everything about atoms currently would be the one talking bollocks, as there is still alot of postulation.

 

[superluminal]

And re the last few pages about god. What a load of bollocks (my new favorite word). All any of you have to say about it is crap like "so how do you know that god is not the poorly percieved sum of all the parts of the universe... blah, blah?".

Well, we don't. Maybe the ultimate point is really this; Some of us look at the universe and come to informed conclusions about it based on solid observations and experiments, and contribute to our real understanding of it

Others engage in ancient mumbo-jumbo wordplay about god(s) and how we go about inferring "it" and speculating wildly about what god might be or "represent", thus becoming just one more of a billion wasted minds with zero new to say on the subject.

Theists remind me of a bunch of 90 year-olds with senile dementia sitting around playing the same game of canasta every day and never realizing the cards are always the same.

Oh, and you theists? You really are a bunch of egotistical, arrogant, self-righteous gits. You claim there is a god with a level of evidence that you'd laugh at if it came form a salesman at your door. You cling to your various culturally determined or chosen religions with the conviction that your version or god is the absolute truth. How transparently arrogant.

Well, guess what. We atheists have you beat on the humility scale by about a billion to one. We know what we know based on tangible eviodence. We freely admit to what we don't know and never claim absolute truth for anything. We know truth is a work in progress. Unlike the immutable (stagnant) truths of your religions.

I for one am sick of coddling the overwhelming arrogance of theists. Admit what you have. A culturally propagated fantasy that gives you a modicum of comfort.

Is there a god? Who knows? And with the self admitted nature of this "god" idea being what it is (beyond testing, nature, observation, human understanding...) why would anyone with anything more important to do than watch paint drying give a shit?

What new do you have to say about your god of choice that hasn't been said or thought ten thousand years ago? Nothing.

Think about this. If you weren't arrogant, egotistical and self righteous, you'd easily be able to admit that there might not be a god of any kind and that science could easily have the most accurate description of the cosmos to date.

You all argue fervently that you know there's a guiding force behind the universe. The gall of such a position is unbelieveable. Have some humility. You don't know anything of substance about your god idea. Just as we atheists don't know anything of substance about the ultimate nature of the cosmos. We admit it. Give it a try. It's freeing.

Oh, and incase I forgot, no, we don't know for sure there's no god. Now, do your usual trick of jumping from that to the conclusion that there must be one. Trees and pretty flowers and eyeballs are good evidence for a god. Go for it.

 

[superluminal]

Superluminal, if you read the full post you'd realise the statement implies that not everything is known and over time more is learnt. Any scientist concluding that he knows everything about atoms currently would be the one talking bollocks, as there is still alot of postulation.

Jseus H. christ on a stick. I said nothing of the sort. What's your problem? You said:

"Admittedly most of the Atom as science knows it is myth, superstition and speculation"

And I said that's bullshit. I did NOT say our understanding of the atom was complete by any means, just that what we currently know is NOT
"myth, superstition and speculation".

What a stupid thing to say on your part.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

And re the last few pages about god. What a load of bollocks (my new favorite word). All any of you have to say about it is crap like "so how do you know that god is not the poorly percieved sum of all the parts of the universe... blah, blah?".

Well, we don't. Maybe the ultimate point is really this; Some of us look at the universe and come to informed conclusions about it based on solid observations and experiments, and contribute to our real understanding of it

Others engage in ancient mumbo-jumbo wordplay about god(s) and how we go about inferring "it" and speculating wildly about what god might be or "represent", thus becoming just one more of a billion wasted minds with zero new to say on the subject.

Theists remind me of a bunch of 90 year-olds with senile dementia sitting around playing the same game of canasta every day and never realizing the cards are always the same.

Oh, and you theists? You really are a bunch of egotistical, arrogant, self-righteous gits. You claim there is a god with a level of evidence that you'd laugh at if it came form a salesman at your door. You cling to your various culturally determined or chosen religions with the conviction that your version or god is the absolute truth. How transparently arrogant.

Well, guess what. We atheists have you beat on the humility scale by about a billion to one. We know what we know based on tangible eviodence. We freely admit to what we don't know and never claim absolute truth for anything. We know truth is a work in progress. Unlike the immutable (stagnant) truths of your religions.

I for one am sick of coddling the overwhelming arrogance of theists. Admit what you have. A culturally propagated fantasy that gives you a modicum of comfort.

Is there a god? Who knows? And with the self admitted nature of this "god" idea being what it is (beyond testing, nature, observation, human understanding...) why would anyone with anything more important to do than watch paint drying give a shit?

What new do you have to say about your god of choice that hasn't been said or thought ten thousand years ago? Nothing.

Think about this. If you weren't arrogant, egotistical and self righteous, you'd easily be able to admit that there might not be a god of any kind and that science could easily have the most accurate description of the cosmos to date.

You all argue fervently that you know there's a guiding force behind the universe. The gall of such a position is unbelieveable. Have some humility. You don't know anything of substance about your god idea. Just as we atheists don't know anything of substance about the ultimate nature of the cosmos. We admit it. Give it a try. It's freeing.

Oh, and incase I forgot, no, we don't know for sure there's no god. Now, do your usual trick of jumping from that to the conclusion that there must be one. Trees and pretty flowers and eyeballs are good evidence for a god. Go for it.

Well said.

 

[Nickelodeon]

We know truth is a work in progress. Unlike the immutable (stagnant) truths of your religions.

Great line.

 

[perplexity]

What do you mean by the quality of the label, Ron?

Good question. Let us see what I mean before we consider it.

In the instance of gravity or god I am thinking in the first instance about the purpose it serves, not so much in overt linguistic terms but rather in emotional terms.

I often ask people if they have ever sat on a jury in a court of law. The experience teaches the impossibility of divorcing the truth from the person you hope to hear it from. The scientific approach worries me because the assumption of objectivity as a possibility is so flagrantly false, dishonest, unscientific in terms of evidence. When, evidently, there are so many different versions of the truth to choose from the naive hope to rely upon the objectivity of anybody falls at the first hurdle, at face value at least.

For me there is no more proof of gravity than there is of god; it just happens to be a name that people agree to give to identify a perceived effect, valid to the extent but only that the extent that it is perceived.

I have not yet studied this, but I'd be fascinated to review the public reactions to Newton when his version of gravity was first proposed, to see what the non believers had to say because the concept had not yet made sense to them.

--- Ron.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

A court is not science.

Newton believed his laws proved the existance of God.

 

[(Q)]

The scientific approach worries me because the assumption of objectivity as a possibility is so flagrantly false, dishonest, unscientific in terms of evidence. When, evidently, there are so many different versions of the truth to choose from the naive hope to rely upon the objectivity of anybody falls at the first hurdle, at face value at least.

Your argument falls flat before the first hurdle. Science does not introduce versions of truths, it simply tries to explain phenomena, which can be made useful, like your computer and internet connection, which I'm sure, subjectively you could argue doesn't exist, but objectively can't since you use it most every day.

Objectively, you could call gravity, 'God,' but how is that useful to anyone, especially when you've labeled everything else 'God?' Subjectively, you could claim gravity doesn't exist, until you fall down flat along with your argument.

For me there is no more proof of gravity than there is of god; it just happens to be a name that people agree to give to identify a perceived effect, valid to the extent but only that the extent that it is perceived.

Fine, then subjectively and objectively, all effects in the universe, to you, are god. That would leave you and your ideas as useful as tits on a board, so to speak, since you would be unable to explain anything, and would find everything utterly useless.

I have not yet studied this, but I'd be fascinated to review the public reactions to Newton when his version of gravity was first proposed, to see what the non believers had to say because the concept had not yet made sense to them.

--- Ron.

You can see here almost daily those reactions from theists who label everything 'God.'

Perhaps a mirror would give you the best vantage point.

 

[Stryder]

Jseus H. christ on a stick. I said nothing of the sort. What's your problem? You said:

"Admittedly most of the Atom as science knows it is myth, superstition and speculation"

And I said that's bullshit. I did NOT say our understanding of the atom was complete by any means, just that what we currently know is NOT
"myth, superstition and speculation".

What a stupid thing to say on your part.

Notice you also tend to cut the segment of a sentence to the size that you like to comment about, you miss the entire point with your paraphrasing. Okay I shouldn't of used the word "Most", change it the word "Some" and suddenly the entire sentence is different, is that good enough for your peer-review, or would you like to continue acting an Ass?

 

[perplexity]

Your argument falls flat before the first hurdle. Science does not introduce versions of truths,

Of course it does.

it simply tries to explain phenomena,

by introducting versions of truths.

which can be made useful, like your computer and internet connection, which I'm sure, subjectively you could argue doesn't exist, but objectively can't since you use it most every day.

huh?

Objectively, you could call gravity, 'God,' but how is that useful to anyone, especially when you've labeled everything else 'God?' Subjectively, you could claim gravity doesn't exist, until you fall down flat along with your argument.

huh?

Straw man.

Fine, then subjectively and objectively, all effects in the universe, to you, are god.

Why?

Do you deny free will?

That would leave you and your ideas as useful as tits on a board, so to speak, since you would be unable to explain anything, and would find everything utterly useless.

Not my ideas.
I am merely attempting to evaluate other people's ideas.

You can see here almost daily those reactions from theists who label everything 'God.'

Perhaps a mirror would give you the best vantage point.

huh?

--- Ron.

 

[superluminal]

Notice you also tend to cut the segment of a sentence to the size that you like to comment about, you miss the entire point with your paraphrasing. Okay I shouldn't of used the word "Most", change it the word "Some" and suddenly the entire sentence is different, is that good enough for your peer-review, or would you like to continue acting an Ass?

I'll stick with being an ass thank you. Changing one word does nothing to make your post any more rational. Science says what it knows by observation and experiment about the atom. Maybe what you know is superstition and myth. Why would you say such a thing as (full quote):

Admittedly most/some of the Atom as science knows it is myth, superstition and speculation however what is learnt with every year that passes are new ways to catalogue evidence from measurements and tests to eventually rule out the falcities.

 

[(Q)]

Of course it does... by introducting versions of truths.

Then, it isn't science, since science demands falsifiable explanations.

Straw man.

Nope. You made the claim.

Do you deny free will?

If I did, I'd be a theist. What does that have to do with your claims?

Not my ideas.
I am merely attempting to evaluate other people's ideas.

How can you do that when you've labeled everything 'God?'

 

[perplexity]

Then, it isn't science, since science demands falsifiable explanations.

Nope. You made the claim.

If I did, I'd be a theist. What does that have to do with your claims?

How can you do that when you've labeled everything 'God?'

Nobody labelled everything 'God'.

That is the straw man.

Don't be so silly.

--- Ron.

 

[Stryder]

Superluminal,
If you're going to be an Ass, then you'll have to look elsewhere for your carrots.

 

[superluminal]

Superluminal,
If you're going to be an Ass, then you'll have to look elsewhere for your carrots.

Good, solid reply. Thanks.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

If consciousness is an effect of biology and not deliberate is it akin to a shadow being the effect of an object blocking the suns light.

Remove the object or the sun and the shadow does not exist

So if we remove one the criteria required for consciousness then consciousness should cease to exist and be created again (new) when the criteria removed is re-instated.

But that's not what happens is it?

Meanwhile:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/cgi-bin...ed.cgi?Operation=ItemLookup&ItemId=0975991477


"Editorial Review:

Book Description:
The Biology of Belief is a groundbreaking work in the field of New Biology. Author Dr. Bruce Lipton is a former medical school professor and research scientist. His experiments, and those of other leading-edge scientists, have examined in great detail the processes by which cells receive information. The implications of this research radically change our understanding of life. It shows that genes and DNA do not control our biology; that instead DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell, including the energetic messages emanating from our positive and negative thoughts. Dr. Lipton's profoundly hopeful synthesis of the latest and best research in cell biology and quantum physics is being hailed as a major breakthrough showing that our bodies can be changed as we retrain our thinking."

It says here that "DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell"

This is what I was trying to express in this thread and evolution threads (paraphrasing) 'genetic variation being driven by our environment' rather than the genes changing randomly by themselves and happenning to be successful or not.

If the scientists above consider that thoughts can change DNA then my question regarding why an organism 'wants' to live are now valid are they not? The fact that DNA is controlled not by biology but from signals outside the cell demonstrates that afterall genetic variation is about 'progress' and not merely a random process.

 

[(Q)]

Nobody labelled everything 'God'.

That is the straw man.

Don't be so silly.

--- Ron.

You did.

"I was concerned with the quality of the label, not the quantity.

Have as many as you like, it all the same to me."

 

[perplexity]

You did.

"I was concerned with the quality of the label, not the quantity.

Have as many as you like, it all the same to me."

As if that would equate to "labeled everything God?"

I am disappointed....


"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place"

(George Bernard Shaw)

--- Ron.