Author Topic: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions  (Read 2994 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WakingDeath

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2013, 08:15:10 PM »
First off, spirituality is different for every individual who experiences it.  Spirituality is the belief in ones own spiritual experience, religion is the belief the experience of someone else.

I find it helps if you define a word without using the word in the definition.  If you could try again without using the words "spiritual" or "spirit", I would find it more useful. 

Secondly, the afterlife is impossible to prove and I believe in that as well.  Some of you also believe in multiple universes, which is also impossible to prove.

Let's not make generalities. This is you and me.  If multiple universes are things which by definition cannot have evidence, then I don't believe in them.   What "some atheists" believe is irrelevant.

Also, please don't try to make this one of those conversations where I point out some incredibly stupid aspect of religion and you try to equivocate and say I believe something similar.  This is not tit for tat, and whether I believe something equally stupid is not the issue.  There is no quid pro quo on stupid ideas.  My stupidity does not make your stupidity any more acceptable.

I'll say up front that I believe some stupid things.  But there are a lot fewer of them than there were 5 or 10 years ago.  When I find I believe an idea that cannot be supported, I jettison the idea. 

You, on the other hand, have already said proudly that you keep at least two completely unsupportable ideas.  So you are already behind the eightball. 


And finally.... I WILL ignore the more zealous atheist types. I don't care whose "back yard" it is.  And if you can't forgive that, then all I have to say is too bad.  Deal with it.  It's my choice. not yours.  Are we clear?

No, we are not clear.  At least, you are not clear.  You see, we have rules here.  There is a link to them in my sig, if you've not read them.  When you signed up, you agreed to follow them.  Just ignoring other people whenever you feel like it is not just rude, but also against the rules.  That's not to say you have to respond to each and every post.  It just means you need to engage with others. 

And while I cannot make you do anything, I can limit your choices.  I'd rather not have a pissing match though. 

Are we clear now?

I have thoroughly read the rules of this forum and there is NO rule that says I must reply to EVERYONE who chooses to engage me in discussion.  Like everywhere where humans are involved in a group,   there will be people I like and people I don't like. There will also be people who may or may not like me as well.    That is a certainty.   I will not engage in conversation with people who are out to insult me and that's that.  I will not be intentionally rude or insulting to anybody here and I expect to be treated the same. If you are saying that this is unacceptable then too bad. I will not comply.   You may watch me ignore those types at your discretion.  That is my choice to make and that is final.   However, you are not being so rude. You are just bluntly being straight up.  I can appreciate that.  I actually like it.   I will not attempt to engage in any "pissing matches".    Also, I am not just going to ignore someone because they got the upper hand on me in a discussion.  However I WILL ignore spiteful behavior.  There is enough negativity in this world and in my life, and I WILL NOT add to it.

Peace Screwtape.  I hope I get the chance to enjoy a lot of the discussions here. 


Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #30 on: June 16, 2013, 03:02:09 AM »
If you are saying that this is unacceptable then too bad. I will not comply.   You may watch me ignore those types at your discretion.  That is my choice to make and that is final. 

As may be your short tenure on this forum.  You are here by invitation, in our "house".  Making statements of what you will and will not do is hardly going to start you off on the right foot, no matter how reasonable your position may be.  What you originally said was:

And finally.... I WILL ignore the more zealous atheist types. I don't care whose "back yard" it is.  And if you can't forgive that, then all I have to say is too bad.  Deal with it.  It's my choice. not yours.  Are we clear?

Nothing about rudeness.  Just a flat out assertion that you didn't care where you were, or what the rules may have been, just that you would ignore some people.  That is not acceptable.

If you feel that someone is being rude to you, then use the report to moderator button, and it will be investigated.  Mods are identified in the list at the top of each page - and you can tell who they are as when speaking as a mod they will use green text, as here.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12584
  • Darwins +704/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #31 on: June 16, 2013, 08:58:09 AM »

I have thoroughly read the rules of this forum and there is NO rule that says I must reply to EVERYONE who chooses to engage me in discussion.  Like everywhere where humans are involved in a group,   there will be people I like and people I don't like. There will also be people who may or may not like me as well.    That is a certainty.   I will not engage in conversation with people who are out to insult me and that's that.  I will not be intentionally rude or insulting to anybody here and I expect to be treated the same.

Okay.  It looks like we are on the same page.  There is a difference between rude people and "zealous atheist types".  Your original phrasing made it sound like you were writing off a whole lot of members for no good reason.


Also, I am not just going to ignore someone because they got the upper hand on me in a discussion.  However I WILL ignore spiteful behavior.

You'd be amazed how often the former is interpreted as the latter by xians around here.


Peace Screwtape.  I hope I get the chance to enjoy a lot of the discussions here.

Me too.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline WakingDeath

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #32 on: June 16, 2013, 10:42:28 AM »
If you are saying that this is unacceptable then too bad. I will not comply.   You may watch me ignore those types at your discretion.  That is my choice to make and that is final. 

As may be your short tenure on this forum.  You are here by invitation, in our "house".  Making statements of what you will and will not do is hardly going to start you off on the right foot, no matter how reasonable your position may be.  What you originally said was:

And finally.... I WILL ignore the more zealous atheist types. I don't care whose "back yard" it is.  And if you can't forgive that, then all I have to say is too bad.  Deal with it.  It's my choice. not yours.  Are we clear?

Nothing about rudeness.  Just a flat out assertion that you didn't care where you were, or what the rules may have been, just that you would ignore some people.  That is not acceptable.

If you feel that someone is being rude to you, then use the report to moderator button, and it will be investigated.  Mods are identified in the list at the top of each page - and you can tell who they are as when speaking as a mod they will use green text, as here.


In my opinion, zealotry and rudeness are one in the same.  I will treat it as such. Also, I was NOT invited here. I saw a video on Youtube and felt compelled to check this website out. Advertisement, not matter what form it takes, is not a formal invitation.  The video was "selling" atheism, and I came to see what it is all about.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12584
  • Darwins +704/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #33 on: June 16, 2013, 11:07:40 AM »
In my opinion, zealotry and rudeness are one in the same...

Since you've read the rules I am sure you are aware that you should not be discussing moderation in thread.  If you have commentary on moderation, it should be taken up by PM.  Thanks.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline WakingDeath

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #34 on: June 16, 2013, 11:16:20 AM »
In my opinion, zealotry and rudeness are one in the same...

Since you've read the rules I am sure you are aware that you should not be discussing moderation in thread.  If you have commentary on moderation, it should be taken up by PM.  Thanks.

Indeed.  This discussion is off topic and I did notice it. I was going to apologize for that and attempt to continue to comment on the topic at hand. Thank you for reminding me to do so.  My apologies. 
« Last Edit: June 16, 2013, 11:17:56 AM by WakingDeath »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5095
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #35 on: June 16, 2013, 12:18:12 PM »
It is reasonable to assume the scientific principal of entropy requires a cause for every effect.
No, it isn't.  First off, entropy is simply an expression of the principle that things only change in one direction.  That does not mean that everything has to be caused by something.

Quote from: SkyWriting
The law also states that energy dissipates over time and becomes useless.
Sort of.  Energy in its own right will eventually decay.  But, to paraphrase something you wrote in another post, humanity will be dust long before that happens.

Quote from: SkyWriting
Yet energy has been stored into tiny capsules of power and stays intact.
Actually, batteries naturally discharge their stored energy.  It doesn't remain intact indefinitely, or even for very long.

Quote from: SkyWriting
A force outside of nature is logical and required because all this ordered energy must have come from a greater force.  God is logical.
Argument from ignorance.  You're making claims based on false assumptions and mistaken ideas.

Quote from: SkyWriting
Getting rid of God requires that we suspend logic and the physical laws of the Universe.
You must prove that your god actually exists in the first place, and not with flimsy logical constructs, before you can claim that people must suspend logic and the physical laws of the universe to "get rid of God".

Energy dissipates until no longer useful. By law.
I don't think you understand how physical laws work.  They're nothing more than our current understanding of how things work - they are not laws which cannot be broken.

Quote from: SkyWriting
So...what force brought the energy of an Atomic Bomb explosion into any easy to handle mass, the weight of one dime?
The scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project.

Or did you mean what causes fissile material to become fissile?  Probably the weak nuclear force, given that it affects the rate of radioactive decay.

Quote from: SkyWriting
That would be some bigger force, again by law.  And what brought that?
Irrelevant.  First off, you're simply repeating your misapprehension of how physical laws work.  Second, this is nothing more than "turtles all the way down", at least until you introduce your god into the equation to provide the "first cause".

Quote from: SkyWriting
Ultimately there is a "first cause" or non material origin.  By law. 
The law of nature requires a super-natural origin.
As I expected.  This is nothing more than your ignorance talking.

Yes, over time it squashes the hill, and over time the hill and bolder both turn to dust, then energy and dissipate until diffused and of no use at a temp of absolute zero. The end.
Do you even have the first idea of how long this will actually take?  Also, I'm guessing you haven't heard that there are multiple competing ideas for what will actually happen.  I suggest you read the Wiki page on the ultimate fate of the universeWiki before you continue to comment on this.  I personally find the idea of a false vacuum intriguing, since it would wipe the slate clean.

Also, as screwtape says, entropy requires the expenditure of energy.  If energy were not expended, entropy could not happen.

Both are energy being released which dissipates until no longer usable.
Actually, they're both energy performing work, not simply being released.  Though in a sense, there isn't much of a difference - what you call the release of energy is simply work being performed by energy.

Anyway, to get back to the point, we don't really know what will happen when entropy reaches its maximum value.  There won't be any humans around to observe it, most likely.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #36 on: June 17, 2013, 08:27:10 AM »
Yes, over time it squashes the hill, and over time the hill and bolder both turn to dust, then energy and dissipate until diffused and of no use at a temp of absolute zero. The end.
Do you even have the first idea of how long this will actually take? <snip> Anyway, to get back to the point, we don't really know what will happen when entropy reaches its maximum value.  There won't be any humans around to observe it, most likely.

The point is not how LONG it will take.  The point is
that it IS the direction that Creation is headed.
And maximum entropy all points to a minimum entropy.

If we assume you are thinking in an orderly manner,
then maximum thinking all came at the start.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5095
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2013, 10:48:27 AM »
The point is not how LONG it will take.  The point is
that it IS the direction that Creation is headed.
And maximum entropy all points to a minimum entropy.
Minimum entropy does not mean anything special.

Quote from: SkyWriting
If we assume you are thinking in an orderly manner,
then maximum thinking all came at the start.
Completely, fundamentally wrong.  Everything we've ever observed about intelligence and knowledge shows that it starts out basically non-existent and builds itself up over time as it locally reverses entropy.  By your logic, an infant should be the smartest a person ever gets, and civilization should have started out perfect.  Yet both are evidently not true.

----

So, going to respond to the rest of my post?

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2013, 12:36:11 PM »
The point is not how LONG it will take.  The point is
that it IS the direction that Creation is headed.
And maximum entropy all points to a minimum entropy.
Minimum entropy does not mean anything special.

That's when no particles exist and only pure unusable energy is the last to go.
It's the direction that is important.

Quote from: SkyWriting
If we assume you are thinking in an orderly manner,
then maximum thinking all came at the start.

Completely, fundamentally wrong.  Everything we've ever observed about intelligence and knowledge shows that it starts out basically non-existent and builds itself up over time as it locally reverses entropy.  By your logic, an infant should be the smartest a person ever gets, and civilization should have started out perfect.  Yet both are evidently not true.
So, going to respond to the rest of my post?

Not correct.  Analysis of toddlers has revealed that they process information
better that the greatest geniuses known in history.  Our abilities to adapt,
process and conform to changes in our environment decreases every moment
from conception on. 

Civilization?   I think you lost that without my rebuttal.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2013, 01:29:54 PM by SkyWriting »

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2013, 12:40:15 PM »
Welcome, Waking Death. If you plan on hanging around for any length of time, let me be the first to warn you that new Christians to the site (generically referred to as theists) are usually bombarded with questions and challenges, sometimes politely, sometimes not quite as politely.

I find them pretty harmless. None have covered any new ground,
and some are interested in testing one's tolerance to insults.
No new ground is needed. Christianity has been effectively falsified. You represent the last fighting remnants like the Southern soldiers in the Civil War that didn't realize the war was over and kept fighting.

But here's a thing to think about. Why do yours, WakingDeath, zeke's, and junebug's gods all differ?

Science only survives by the continuous testing of established theories.
People draw different hats on their picture of God.
It doesn't change God one bit.  just your view.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1256
  • Darwins +132/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2013, 01:20:15 PM »


Science only survives by the continuous testing of established theories.
People draw different hats on their picture of God.
It doesn't change God one bit.  just your view.

I got this one...
When science tests theories they are proven or disproven by the abilty to replicate results.
When people draw different hats on their picture of god that is called SPAG.  Self Projection As God.  I do that.  Today god is wearing a pink beret.
You're right about it not changing god. 
If god is real our gods don't differ at all.  He/she/it is hopefully understanding our projections of it.
If god is not real we are using up a lot of energy projecting nothing.  We are our own god.
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2013, 01:23:55 PM »


Science only survives by the continuous testing of established theories.
People draw different hats on their picture of God.
It doesn't change God one bit.  just your view.

I got this one...
When science tests theories they are proven or disproven by the abilty to replicate results.
When people draw different hats on their picture of god that is called SPAG.  Self Projection As God.  I do that.  Today god is wearing a pink beret.
You're right about it not changing god. 
If god is real our gods don't differ at all.  He/she/it is hopefully understanding our projections of it.
If god is not real we are using up a lot of energy projecting nothing.  We are our own god.

No, they are not proven or disproven.  That's the fact.  Experiments do not prove anything. 
They only influence the direction of further discovery.

The rest of your post is correct.

Offline Don_Quixote

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Darwins +3/-0
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2013, 01:28:26 PM »
According to scientific method and my understanding, experiments exist to prove the hypothersis in question. Science is the best tool we have so far.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #43 on: June 18, 2013, 08:09:52 AM »
According to scientific method and my understanding, experiments exist to prove the hypothersis in question. Science is the best tool we have so far.

Math has proofs.  Science does not.  The scientific method is used to rule out or discredit false theories, steering further research along the most likely path. At no point does it prove any theory correct.

http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

 Obama is the best president we have so far this term.  The democratic process produces the finest candidates and the most effective representatives of any system in the world.  All our politicians are perfected by the majority process and are admired and respected because each one has the majority approval.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2278
  • Darwins +415/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #44 on: June 18, 2013, 10:09:03 AM »
Math has proofs.  Science does not.  The scientific method is used to rule out or discredit false theories, steering further research along the most likely path. At no point does it prove any theory correct.

http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

 Obama is the best president we have so far this term.  The democratic process produces the finest candidates and the most effective representatives of any system in the world.  All our politicians are perfected by the majority process and are admired and respected because each one has the majority approval.
Are you suggesting that we vote on objective reality?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12584
  • Darwins +704/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #45 on: June 18, 2013, 10:22:44 AM »
yeah.  He's implying that science is a popularity contest no different than politics.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5095
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #46 on: June 18, 2013, 10:27:14 AM »
Minimum entropy does not mean anything special.
That's when no particles exist and only pure unusable energy is the last to go.
It's the direction that is important.
Do you really understand the subject at hand?  Minimum entropy is the state the universe was in at its beginning; what you described just now is basically maximum entropy.

Quote from: SkyWriting
Not correct.  Analysis of toddlers has revealed that they process information
better that the greatest geniuses known in history.  Our abilities to adapt,
process and conform to changes in our environment decreases every moment
from conception on.
Which, I'm sure, is why we've never once seen a toddler produce anything of value, information-wise, whereas we've seen plenty of middle-aged adults do so.  Yes, it's true that toddlers have more mental flexibility than adults (for example, that's how universal grammarWiki works) - but that is not the same as their level of intelligence or their ability to use that intelligence.  It is also not the same as their ability to process information, and to be blunt, I find your statement (that toddlers have superior information-processing facilities) very hard to believe or accept, especially since you provided no source to support it.  You're going to have to show where you got this little tidbit from.

The actual point I made is that intelligence is basically entropy-reversal on a local scale.  Just as life itself is also entropy-reversal on a local scale.  Care to answer that?

Quote from: SkyWriting
Civilization?   I think you lost that without my rebuttal.
Given the quality of your responses, perhaps I'm not the one you should be worrying about.

For example, you blew right past my question of whether you were going to respond to the rest of my first post in this thread.  I'll repeat it again just to be sure you didn't miss it:

So, going to respond to the rest of my post?
You responded to exactly one point I made in that post.  And you responded to it in such an ignorant and facile way that I cannot help but question whether you even understand the subject matter or are simply playing the Christian game of cherry-picking things to support what you already believe.  Your subsequent reply has simply reinforced my original suspicion.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5095
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #47 on: June 18, 2013, 10:54:17 AM »
Math has proofs.  Science does not.  The scientific method is used to rule out or discredit false theories, steering further research along the most likely path. At no point does it prove any theory correct.
I think it's pretty evident by now that you're just parroting things you read on other sites, rather than making any real effort to understand how they actually work.

Quote from: SkyWriting
Obama is the best president we have so far this term.  The democratic process produces the finest candidates and the most effective representatives of any system in the world.  All our politicians are perfected by the majority process and are admired and respected because each one has the majority approval.
Thus demonstrating that you really don't understand how scientific methodology is actually used.  All you clearly care about is twisting it around to a 'theory' that would never be proposed in the first place by anyone who actually understood it, creating a strawman which you can then use to 'discredit' the use of scientific methodology.

First off, scientific methodology starts with an observation about something.  Then a person comes up with a way to explain the observation, and does tests to see if their explanation holds up.  If it does, then other people take a crack at it.  Assuming nobody finds any flaws, it becomes a theory (though it's still tested as we refine our knowledge).

Compare this to your 'theory'.  I can spot two fatal flaws in it without even trying.  First off, you did not base it on an actual observation of reality, which is obvious to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to the U.S. political system.  Second, you did not test it to see how well it conformed to reality.  And so, unsurprisingly, it has about as much resilience as wet tissue paper when subjected to analysis.

By contrast, a good scientific theory is extremely resilient.  While it isn't ever 'proven', beyond any doubt, the more tests that are done on it, the more likely it is to be true. And that's what we mean when we say a scientific theory is proven - it's been tested and never found wanting, therefore its validity is demonstrated.  It is effectively proven true, certainly well enough to work with.

It's like the value of pi.  People have calculated it to trillions of digits, yet there's always more to discover.  Nonetheless, we can use what we've already discovered with an extremely high confidence that it'll be correct enough for everyday purposes (even though it won't ever be perfectly correct).  The same goes for scientific theories - they've been sufficiently tested that we can use them confidently, but there's always room to learn more about them, even to (possibly) falsify them.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1256
  • Darwins +132/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #48 on: June 18, 2013, 11:54:14 AM »

Obama is the best president we have so far this term.

Obama is the only president we have so far this term.
Quote

 The democratic process produces the finest candidates and the most effective representatives of any system in the world.

Effective representatives of special interest groups, political action committies and lobbyists.

Quote
All our politicians are perfected by the majority process and are admired and respected because each one has the majority approval.
The majority of eligible Americans aren't even registered to vote.  The majority of registered voters do not vote regularly.  The Presidential election is not determined by the popular vote but by the Electoral Votes which don't always match the popular vote.
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11142
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #49 on: June 18, 2013, 11:56:56 AM »
Obama is the best president we have so far this term.

Obama is the only president we have so far this term.

I think that was the point.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #50 on: June 20, 2013, 01:50:09 PM »
Obama is the best president we have so far this term.

Obama is the only president we have so far this term.

I think that was the point.

"Science is the best thing we have."
The point was that "the best" solution we have to a problem is not considered to be universally adequate by all.   

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #51 on: June 20, 2013, 02:02:44 PM »
Math has proofs.  Science does not.  The scientific method is used to rule out or discredit false theories, steering further research along the most likely path. At no point does it prove any theory correct.
I think it's pretty evident by now that you're just parroting things you read on other sites, rather than making any real effort to understand how they actually work.

Quote from: SkyWriting
Obama is the best president we have so far this term.  The democratic process produces the finest candidates and the most effective representatives of any system in the world.  All our politicians are perfected by the majority process and are admired and respected because each one has the majority approval.
Thus demonstrating that you really don't understand how scientific methodology is actually used.  All you clearly care about is twisting it around to a 'theory' that would never be proposed in the first place by anyone who actually understood it, creating a strawman which you can then use to 'discredit' the use of scientific methodology.

First off, scientific methodology starts with an observation about something.  Then a person comes up with a way to explain the observation, and does tests to see if their explanation holds up.  If it does, then other people take a crack at it.  Assuming nobody finds any flaws, it becomes a theory (though it's still tested as we refine our knowledge).

Compare this to your 'theory'.  I can spot two fatal flaws in it without even trying.  First off, you did not base it on an actual observation of reality, which is obvious to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to the U.S. political system.  Second, you did not test it to see how well it conformed to reality.  And so, unsurprisingly, it has about as much resilience as wet tissue paper when subjected to analysis.

By contrast, a good scientific theory is extremely resilient.  While it isn't ever 'proven', beyond any doubt, the more tests that are done on it, the more likely it is to be true. And that's what we mean when we say a scientific theory is proven - it's been tested and never found wanting, therefore its validity is demonstrated.  It is effectively proven true, certainly well enough to work with.

It's like the value of pi.  People have calculated it to trillions of digits, yet there's always more to discover.  Nonetheless, we can use what we've already discovered with an extremely high confidence that it'll be correct enough for everyday purposes (even though it won't ever be perfectly correct).  The same goes for scientific theories - they've been sufficiently tested that we can use them confidently, but there's always room to learn more about them, even to (possibly) falsify them.

A good sermon on your belief system.  I was in (physical properties) R&D for 20 years in product development and QC.

I am fully aware that the process of science is unable to confirm any instance of supernatural intervention. The scriptures document this using scientists in the example.

Jesus turns water into wine.  A scientist on the scene examines the fluid and declares it the best wine he has tasted. As a work of fiction, I don't see the point to the story. As a work of nonfiction, it doesn't have to have one, because it is simply documenting what happened.

But, if one is assuming non-fiction, then it tells us science is unable to accurately determine historical events if there is supernatural intervention.   The "scientist" on the scene is not in error in his analysis, and should be relieved of his job as the food scientist of the day.   Just as scientists today are not wrong about the age of the earth.   As this story shows us, science is not likely to be fully correct if there is any supernatural intervention.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 02:06:10 PM by SkyWriting »

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1879
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2013, 02:31:32 PM »
"Science is the best thing we have."
The point was that "the best" solution we have to a problem is not considered to be universally adequate by all.

And you apparently still think "right" is determined by a popularity contest. Some smart person here (I honestly don't remember who) has a line in their sig - the truth doesn't give a shit about your feelings - that you should really consider. Along the same lines, science doesn't need to be deemed adequate by you or anyone else to be science, and the best tool we have. You're desire for something "better" is just that - an idle wish for magic to be real.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #53 on: June 20, 2013, 02:34:10 PM »
Minimum entropy does not mean anything special.
That's when no particles exist and only pure unusable energy is the last to go.
It's the direction that is important.
Do you really understand the subject at hand?  Minimum entropy is the state the universe was in at its beginning; what you described just now is basically maximum entropy.

Point being that it goes in one direction, start to finish.  So you believe that all the order and intelligence you see is a tiny fraction of it's perfect beginning of minimum order.  That pure order and perfection is found when the cosmos was a singularity.   I don't buy into that view.
I think a newborn baby is more complex and smarter than a singularity any day.



Quote from: SkyWriting
Not correct.  Analysis of toddlers has revealed that they process information better that the greatest geniuses known in history.  Our abilities to adapt,
process and conform to changes in our environment decreases every moment
from conception on.
Which, I'm sure, is why we've never once seen a toddler produce anything of value, information-wise, whereas we've seen plenty of middle-aged adults do so.
Quote

That's correct.  The fault lies with you because you are much closer to death and unable to comprehend well.

Yes, it's true that toddlers have more mental flexibility than adults (for example, that's how universal grammarWiki works) - but that is not the same as their level of intelligence or their ability to use that intelligence.  It is also not the same as their ability to process information, and to be blunt, I find your statement (that toddlers have superior information-processing facilities) very hard to believe or accept, especially since you provided no source to support it.  You're going to have to show where you got this little tidbit from.[/quote]

That exact story I haven't tracked down.  This one covers some of the same ground.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Are-Babies-Born-Good-183837741.html


Quote

The actual point I made is that intelligence is basically entropy-reversal on a local scale.  Just as life itself is also entropy-reversal on a local scale.  Care to answer that?

That sounds pretty basic.   I'll examine your provided sources first. 
Not TalkOrigins.Rag.


Quote from: SkyWriting
Civilization?   I think you lost that without my rebuttal.

For example, you blew right past my question of whether you were going to respond to the rest of my first post in this thread.

I usually pick points out of posts where I see an intriguing point that I've not recently addressed in this forum or others.  This follows my "Why" in that I'm not here to convert anyone or change their minds on any topic.    Then I would follow formal debate rules and cover each point with a response.  I see no evidence that this is a formal debate forum. So the rules of a chat room apply.   
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 02:44:21 PM by SkyWriting »

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11142
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2013, 02:34:45 PM »
Quote from: Gregory House
You know, I get it if people are just looking for a way to fill the holes. But they want the holes. They wanna live in the holes. And they go nuts when somebody else pours dirt in their holes. CLIMB OUT OF YOUR HOLES, PEOPLE!
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 03:59:09 PM by One Above All »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5095
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2013, 03:53:54 PM »
A good sermon on your belief system.  I was in (physical properties) R&D for 20 years in product development and QC.
And this is supposed to reassure me as to your competence?  Describing my statement as a 'sermon' and scientific methodology as a "belief system" most assuredly does not.  Frankly, it simply makes you sound like you are incapable of even understanding the concept of science, let alone being able to discuss it from a position of knowledge.  And it certainly doesn't sound like the position of someone who actually worked in an R&D department for 20 years.

Quote from: SkyWriting
I am fully aware that the process of science is unable to confirm any instance of supernatural intervention. The scriptures document this using scientists in the example.

Jesus turns water into wine.  A scientist on the scene examines the fluid and declares it the best wine he has tasted. As a work of fiction, I don't see the point to the story. As a work of nonfiction, it doesn't have to have one, because it is simply documenting what happened.

But, if one is assuming non-fiction, then it tells us science is unable to accurately determine historical events if there is supernatural intervention.   The "scientist" on the scene is not in error in his analysis, and should be relieved of his job as the food scientist of the day.   Just as scientists today are not wrong about the age of the earth.   As this story shows us, science is not likely to be fully correct if there is any supernatural intervention.
The only thing you accomplished with this little story is to show how credulous you've made yourself when it comes to your religious beliefs.

First off, I'm pretty sure that Christian scriptures don't even mention scientists or science.  At least, no version of them that I've ever read does.  Second, just because you are unable to see the point to a fictional story does not mean there would not have been one.  Third, your 'point' that "science is not likely to be fully correct if there is any supernatural intervention" is disingenuous sophistry, to say the least.

Honestly, your story reminds me of a fictional series I read a while back about beings who could make purely arbitrary changes in reality, which then caused everything else to shift to match the 'new' reality, and nobody else remembered it.  When I finished the story, all I could think of was, "what the hell was the point of having a four-book series when the author was just going to deus ex machina things at the end, effectively undoing everything that had happened"?

That's the problem with your position here.  You seem to think you've come up with an unassailable retort - after all, if God can make things the way he wants them to, then it doesn't matter what science discovers, because God could invalidate it whenever he wanted.  The thing is, it's also a completely worthless position to hold.  It's nothing more than an attempt to handwave away things that contradict what you believe without even attempting to address them, let alone think about them.  After all, if "God" can arbitrarily undo something at his leisure, then why should anyone waste their time with it?

Well, first off, even if that were the case, it's still worth making the effort to understand and discover things.  And second, you can't possibly present any evidence that it actually is the case (aside from totally worthless suppositions like the one you just gave).  Indeed, you've ensured that you couldn't even if you tried.  Arguments like this are actually more harmful to you than they are to the people you address them to.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5095
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #56 on: June 20, 2013, 04:48:20 PM »
Point being that it goes in one direction, start to finish.  So you believe that all the order and intelligence you see is a tiny fraction of it's perfect beginning of minimum order.  That pure order and perfection is found when the cosmos was a singularity.   I don't buy into that view.
This is a strawman.  I never even once suggested that the universe was 'perfect' when it started, or that pure order and perfection was found when the cosmos was a singularity.

Quote from: SkyWriting
I think a newborn baby is more complex and smarter than a singularity any day.
As do I.  Singularities are pretty straightforward, after all, and they have no intelligence to speak of.  But that's also beside the point; organisms are part of a localized entropy-reversal process, whereas singularities are not.

Quote from: SkyWriting
That's correct.  The fault lies with you because you are much closer to death and unable to comprehend well.
You're older than I am (since I'm 34).  Therefore, being closer to death, you are less able to comprehend things than I am.  At least, according to your 'logic'.

Of course, since I don't accept this particular insipid creationist belief, it's not of any particular relevance here.

Quote from: SkyWriting
That exact story I haven't tracked down.  This one covers some of the same ground.
The thing is, that article isn't actually suggesting that babies are mentally superior to adults.  It's suggesting that they come with built-in abilities that allow them to adapt to changing circumstances, which is absolutely true.  For example, universal grammar allows a child to come to understand a spoken language without ever consciously trying to do so.  But it's at a level below consciousness; children never actually consider the language that they're instinctively learning, or how to count, or whatever you want to point to.

So, I would agree that children are more flexible, but that is not the same as saying that they're more intelligent than they are when they're adults.  Indeed, the fact that children need those instincts suggests the opposite - that a person gets more intelligent as they age (at least to a certain point), as they outgrow the need for such instinctive "training wheels".

Quote from: SkyWriting
That sounds pretty basic.   I'll examine your provided sources first.
Fair enough.  First, I'll start out with a simple example of how intelligence reverses entropy on a local scale.  When I tie my shoes, entropy dictates that the knot will become disorderly over time (for example, becoming loose, or becoming tangled as opposed to the orderly knot that I originally tied it in).  Because of this, I have to expend extra effort to retie the shoelaces, or else to undo the tangle so I can then retie the shoelaces.  Thus, intelligence reversing entropy on a local scale (even though entropy increased overall due to the wasted energy, I was able to undo its consequences as they affected me).

http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm

Maxwell's Demon is an imaginary creature made by the mathematician James Maxwell in order to contradict entropy (the second law of thermodynamics).  He basically posited a box full of gas particles which was partitioned into two halves, and had a tiny creature near a 'door' between the two halves which would ensure that molecules that moved faster than average would end up on one side, and vice versa.  In essence, he was reversing entropy locally (within the box), although the total entropy was still increasing (since the demon had to spend energy to open the door, and created entropy in the process).

Quote from: SkyWriting
I usually pick points out of posts where I see an intriguing point that I've not recently addressed in this forum or others.  This follows my "Why" in that I'm not here to convert anyone or change their minds on any topic.    Then I would follow formal debate rules and cover each point with a response.  I see no evidence that this is a formal debate forum. So the rules of a chat room apply.
It tends to leave others with a very poor opinion of you.  Not to mention that there are forum rules here regarding this sort of thing.  Did you read them?

Offline Schizoid

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I think theists want to believe in their own delusions
« Reply #57 on: June 20, 2013, 06:14:34 PM »
I had thought about posting my own thread that had a similar bent as this, but I'll post here instead.

I work for the Salvation Army and my immediate coworker and supervisor is really the only one there who knows I am an atheist.  He is a very devout evangelical Christian, but he respects me and will not try and change my beliefs.

The other week after having watched the first America's Got Talent I commented to him about a guy on it who seemed to be some kind of meditating guru and it was hard to figure out what his talent was.  He shuffled onstage and sat on the floor making weird noises and the crowd was booing and hooting.  Judge Howard Stern buzzed him.  Then out of nowhere the guy just levitated in a sitting position with one hand still on the staff at his side (he obviously could not support himself like that with one hand).  The crowd then went nuts and Stern took back his X and the judges sent him on to the next round in Vegas.

I commented on telling about it to my coworker that it had to be magic and there was a trick, but that most people just enjoyed being fooled after which I added without even thinking about it--just like religion.  Religious people want to be fooled by their faith and it's the spoilsport evil atheists who insist on exposing and explaining how the trick was done.  Theists unquestionably accept the illusion/delusion of their religion and live their lives accordingly.

It's like people who believe professional wrassling is real, only more dangerous and annoying, and not in the least entertaining.