Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheists or Creationists - who's got more faith?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    You don't seem to realize (or accept) that I (Jorge) am highly versed in these matters. I've been involved in this area in one way or another (philosophy, sciences, maths) for nearly 45 years. So when you say "most people here other than Jorge recognize ..." you are displaying rank ignorance or blind prejudice. You don't even use the terms entirely properly. There's Methodological Materialism (MN) and Ontological (or Philosophical) Materialism. The fact is that the former is the operational version of the latter. But it doesn't have to be that way. Proper science is "accepted by people of nearly every faith" because proper science is factual whereas "science" derived from MN has ideological/religious elements embedded into it.
    What makes you think your experience is any more significant than mine?

    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    As for "Jorge gloating that his argument made it to the Supreme Court" --- again, you'd do best to remain silent as you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Read the 115-page law review document by John Calvert that I had recommended -- that will get you up to speed.
    Calvert was one of the parties in the case. Have an unbiased source?

    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Finally, your last statement is shallow. Just as there are many 'versions' of Christianity, there are also many versions of Atheism. That is why your statement does not disprove the fact that Atheism (in general) is a religion, as I have been stating.
    I don't doubt that some versions of atheism could be constructed as religions (i mentioned humanism specifically). But i'm arguing that they don't all necessarily need to, and you've not addressed the reasons I've given for that. Again, "as i've been stating" is not a reason.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      Yeah, right, so you keep saying.
      I've called you, O-Mudd and others out on that claim numerous times.
      I've pointed to the countless posts where I provided hard evidence and argued my position.
      You just ignore everything and continue parroting your mantras.
      That is the antithesis of intellectual discourse and honesty.

      There is nothing that I nor anyone can do about such attitudes.

      Jorge
      On the rare occasions you offer an attempt at corroborating evidence, it typically is shown not to be valid. Most of the time because the source itself is just plain wrong. What happens then is you just refuse to accept the counter to your 'evidence' is valid. On a forum you can get away with that (that is, it results in no noticeable effect on you or your livelihood). But as science your claims thus refuted will simply remain refuted.

      Jim
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        On the rare occasions you offer an attempt at corroborating evidence, it typically is shown not to be valid. Most of the time because the source itself is just plain wrong. What happens then is you just refuse to accept the counter to your 'evidence' is valid.
        On at least 2 occasions, he's pointed to an "analysis" by someone who doesn't understand the difference between a mutation rate and the frequency of mutations becoming fixed in a population. (One is the frequency at which mutations occur in individuals; the second is the rate at which, through drift or selection, a mutation becomes the only variant present in a population.) I pointed this out the first time this happened, and Jorge's response was "take it up with the guy who wrote the thing" - and then he turned around and used the same guy as a source the second time.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          What makes you think your experience is any more significant than mine?
          Your posts indicating ignorance and/or superficial knowledge at best.
          I provided one example of this in my last post.


          Calvert was one of the parties in the case. Have an unbiased source?
          The final rulings were by judges scattered all over the country.
          Calvert is merely the messenger - just read the cases.
          Yes, he has his opinion but you can read the cases and skip his views.


          I don't doubt that some versions of atheism could be constructed as religions (i mentioned humanism specifically). But i'm arguing that they don't all necessarily need to, and you've not addressed the reasons I've given for that. Again, "as i've been stating" is not a reason.
          I provided a few reasons in my posts (Remember? Had to do with fundamental questions ...). I cannot help it if you do not read what I write and - NO! - I am not going to waste my time rewriting what you failed to read the first time.

          In addition, you say that "they don't all necessarily need to". That's muddying the waters. My point all along has been and continues that EVERYONE HAS AT ALL TIMES A RELIGIOUS POSITION ---- the only question is WHICH religious position. I've upper-cased and bolded my position - please try not to miss it again. The principal reason for that is obvious (to me) : everyone lives his/her life according to a set of beliefs (beliefs because they cannot be empirically nor analytically proven). Those beliefs form a religious foundation - what is commonly called the person's "religion". It needs no supernatural being, no 'holy book' or anything else. Humanism, for example, in essence makes "god" of mortal men as they are the highest and ultimately the only authority that there is.

          'Nuff said ...

          Jorge

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            On the rare occasions you offer an attempt at corroborating evidence, it typically is shown not to be valid. Most of the time because the source itself is just plain wrong. What happens then is you just refuse to accept the counter to your 'evidence' is valid. On a forum you can get away with that (that is, it results in no noticeable effect on you or your livelihood). But as science your claims thus refuted will simply remain refuted.

            Jim
            That's a load of cow patties and you know it.

            I've called you out multiple times (as well as others here on TWeb) due to your dishonest tactics of misrepresenting and/or ignoring hard evidences that refute - or at the very least put into question - your position. You practice that often and unashamedly. Even when called out you just carry on as if nothing. Evidence of this has been on your sig for years (regarding the impact craters). THAT is why I've essentially stopped "offering corroborating evidence" - I mean, why continue throwing pearls to swine after seeing so many pearls trampled under their hoofs?

            Of course, I fully expect you to deny all of this and you will do what the FAKE NEWS corporate media does - rely on the fact that time erases all memories. But I remember well the umpteen-hundred times when, exasperated, I threw my hands into the air and simply gave up trying.

            Those are the facts, O-Mudd. You may now proceed to do as you always do: rewrite history.

            Jorge

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              That's a load of cow patties and you know it.
              No - it's common knowledge. I don't know of anyone that is scientifically literate that thinks your 'support' for your points is valid. The fact you accept not feedback from anyone that does not already agree with you is why you can't recognize the problem.

              I've called you out multiple times (as well as others here on TWeb) due to your dishonest tactics of misrepresenting and/or ignoring hard evidences that refute - or at the very least put into question - your position. You practice that often and unashamedly. Even when called out you just carry on as if nothing. Evidence of this has been on your sig for years (regarding the impact craters). THAT is why I've essentially stopped "offering corroborating evidence" - I mean, why continue throwing pearls to swine after seeing so many pearls trampled under their hoofs?
              I am always honest with you Jorge. Sometimes brutally I'll admit, but always honest. But like "The Donald", that which does not agree with you is "Fake".


              Of course, I fully expect you to deny all of this and you will do what the FAKE NEWS corporate media does - rely on the fact that time erases all memories. But I remember well the umpteen-hundred times when, exasperated, I threw my hands into the air and simply gave up trying.
              - I typed the line above before reading this one. Birds of a feather and all. You and the big "D" are just peas in a pod. Except maybe for women in the closet.


              Those are the facts, O-Mudd. You may now proceed to do as you always do: rewrite history.

              Jorge
              I'd be interested to know if there are people out there that think Jorge actually supports his points with viable science*? Any takers?

              Jim

              *this is not a poll to try to prove anything about Jorge's posts. I am actually just curious who in the audience of this forum thinks Jorge supports his points with valid science.
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-16-2018, 08:24 AM.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                No - it's common knowledge. I don't know of anyone that is scientifically literate that thinks your 'support' for your points is valid. The fact you accept not feedback from anyone that does not already agree with you is why you can't recognize the problem.

                I am always honest with you Jorge. Sometimes brutally I'll admit, but always honest. But like "The Donald", that which does not agree with you is "Fake".

                - I typed the line above before reading this one. Birds of a feather and all. You and the big "D" are just peas in a pod. Except maybe for women in the closet.

                I'd be interested to know if there are people out there that think Jorge actually supports his points with viable science*? Any takers?

                Jim

                *this is not a poll to try to prove anything about Jorge's posts. I am actually just curious who in the audience of this forum thinks Jorge supports his points with valid science.
                I don't think his claims are generally backed up by valid science, but I also see no means of having that conversation with Jorge, which is why I generally don't engage. I don't find a great deal of mutuality in the discussions.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  No - it's common knowledge. I don't know of anyone that is scientifically literate that thinks your 'support' for your points is valid. The fact you accept not feedback from anyone that does not already agree with you is why you can't recognize the problem.



                  I am always honest with you Jorge. Sometimes brutally I'll admit, but always honest. But like "The Donald", that which does not agree with you is "Fake".




                  - I typed the line above before reading this one. Birds of a feather and all. You and the big "D" are just peas in a pod. Except maybe for women in the closet.




                  I'd be interested to know if there are people out there that think Jorge actually supports his points with viable science*? Any takers?

                  Jim

                  *this is not a poll to try to prove anything about Jorge's posts. I am actually just curious who in the audience of this forum thinks Jorge supports his points with valid science.
                  WOW - the epitome of delusional!

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    WOW - the epitome of delusional!

                    Jorge
                    Is that yet another bit if evidence to support your position Jorge?
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Your posts indicating ignorance and/or superficial knowledge at best.
                      I provided one example of this in my last post.
                      You said i didn't use the technical terminology. But you didn't indicate i had any of the concepts wrong.

                      And i'm curious as to what puts you in a position to judge. Have you taken philosophy of science courses at the college level or above? History of science?

                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      The final rulings were by judges scattered all over the country.
                      Calvert is merely the messenger - just read the cases.
                      Yes, he has his opinion but you can read the cases and skip his views.
                      That doesn't help if he's selectively presenting only cases that support his views, or misrepresenting the implications of the cases he does cite. Which is why i'm asking for an unbiased source.

                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      The principal reason for that is obvious (to me) : everyone lives his/her life according to a set of beliefs (beliefs because they cannot be empirically nor analytically proven). Those beliefs form a religious foundation - what is commonly called the person's "religion".
                      What about "i don't know" or "i've never thought about it much"? Do those constitute beliefs?
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        I don't know of anyone that is scientifically literate that thinks your 'support' for your points is valid.
                        For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                        But if they disagree with Jorge, doesn't that mean they can't be scientifically literate?

                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          Yeah, right, so you keep saying.
                          I've called you, O-Mudd and others out on that claim numerous times.
                          I've pointed to the countless posts where I provided hard evidence and argued my position.
                          You just ignore everything and continue parroting your mantras.
                          That is the antithesis of intellectual discourse and honesty.

                          There is nothing that I nor anyone can do about such attitudes.

                          Jorge
                          And once again you do nothing aside from repeating your assertion as if it in and by itself is corroboration.

                          You never link to any of these supposed posts of yours, but rather just insist that they exist. Even back before the crash you always managed to neglect that little detail. In fact, you even declared you would not provide that sort of support unless someone first paid you!

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                          48 responses
                          135 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Sparko
                          by Sparko
                           
                          Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                          16 responses
                          74 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post shunyadragon  
                          Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                          6 responses
                          48 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post shunyadragon  
                          Working...
                          X