Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Why atheists fail to persuade theists

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 06:45 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:08 PM
Gaza assault
Yesterday at 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Why atheists fail to persuade theists

 (Read 36374 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 ... 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #90 - December 23, 2013, 12:28 AM
    Quote
    Most atheists argue with theists by asking for evidence of their god claim. But of course there is no evidence since their god claim is not a scientific theory, which means that it doesn't make any testable predictions. (here I'm talking about the harder god claim, the one that doesn't make any testable predictions). So it's a bad question.

    And then the theist argues by asking the atheist for evidence of his claim that there is no god. But there is no evidence again.


    A theist is easier to refute than a deist. A theist believes in a personal god. The vast majority of theists will identify as christians, muslims, etc. I can prove these don't exist by seeing if reality counters their holy books. If the claim that this god you believe in created humans outside of nature, or spontaneously, or whatever, then that's proven wrong with evolution. If you follow a religion which sais god created light, then the earth, then the sun, and it took him a few days, and then instantly created all the stars (portrayed in a way thar suggests they don't know what stars are) then again it's easy to refute/

    I can't prove there is no god, but I can give good arguments for why there's no allah

    I have yet to see a creation myth that stands the test of time. The catholics got out of it by saying it was all metaphorical.

    If you're talking to a deist, that's a different story.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #91 - December 23, 2013, 12:29 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on December 23, 2013, 12:27 AM
    Of course it makes sense. Life literally evolving over time in front of your eyes is evidence that life evolves over time. You can dispute the minutiae, fineprint and peripheral issues about evolution overall, but you literally have life evolving in front of you.

    That isn't ONE theory. It's MANY theories. Are you missing this point?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #92 - December 23, 2013, 12:36 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:25 AM
    I watched up to 1:40 and I'm bored. What's the point?

    Oh come on, you typed 10 pages of stuff which must have taken 2hrs., but can not watch 3mt tube??  Watch it I assure you you will understand why I posted that tube..

    Quote
    Did you give me that video as an example that is in agreement with me, or in disagreement?

    yes I did., nothing to do with agreement or disagreement   and that is for this
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:12 AM
    Most atheists argue with theists by asking for evidence of their god claim. But of course there is no evidence since their god claim is not a scientific theory, which means that it doesn't make any testable predictions. (here I'm talking about the harder god claim, the one that doesn't make any testable predictions). So it's a bad question.

     Are you going in to that william LAME CRANE theory??


    why would you say that "their god claim is not a scientific theory"?? and give me the examples of theists  who claim  that there is god?  what is their  basis for their god theory??
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Re: Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #93 - December 23, 2013, 12:42 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:27 AM
    What are you talking about? You said that you would critically question the rival opinions of your doctors. So your example is in agreement with my essay. If you disagree, then explain.

    I disagree with you reducing down everything I said to "criticising a theory" so that you can then skip back to your earlier argument that any criticism is good enough to put a theory on refuted status. I find your argument simple-minded all round. Simplifying a complex problem and then offering your simple solution. It might seem satisfying to you and your simplified way of things, but some of us here like a bit more nuance to our views.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #94 - December 23, 2013, 12:44 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:29 AM
    That isn't ONE theory. It's MANY theories. Are you missing this point?

    No, I'm not missing that point, since I was the one who made it.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #95 - December 23, 2013, 12:49 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on December 23, 2013, 12:42 AM
    I disagree with you reducing down everything I said to "criticising a theory" so that you can then skip back to your earlier argument that any criticism is good enough to put a theory on refuted status. I find your argument simple-minded all round. Simplifying a complex problem and then offering your simple solution. It might seem satisfying to you and your simplified way of things, but some of us here like a bit more nuance to our views.

    So what is your argument? Do you have one?

    Or are you just believing I'm wrong because your feelings told you?

    Btw, that's why theists believe in god. Because they feel it.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #96 - December 23, 2013, 12:52 AM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 23, 2013, 12:36 AM
    Oh come on, you typed 10 pages of stuff which must have taken 2hrs., but can not watch 3mt tube??  Watch it I assure you you will understand why I posted that tube..
    yes I did., nothing to do with agreement or disagreement   and that is for this  Are you going in to that william LAME CRANE theory??

    You want me to watch a video that you're claiming neither agrees nor disagrees with my essay?

    I don't see the point of that. Why don't you just make the point yourself?
  • Re: Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #97 - December 23, 2013, 12:53 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:49 AM
    So what is your argument? Do you have one?

    Or are you just believing I'm wrong because your feelings told you?

    Btw, that's why theists believe in god. Because they feel it.

    No, I believe you are wrong for the reasons I've explained at length in previous posts addressed to you.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #98 - December 23, 2013, 12:53 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on December 23, 2013, 12:23 AM
    Generations of bacteria a short-lived and so are subject to a lot of random mutation in a relatively short space of time. If one random mutation happens to make a new bacteria more resistant to attack from antibiotics, it will survive and reproduce, whereas those without the mutation will likely die out. The population will then be dominated by the bacteria with the resistance.

    Really?  that is interesting., They do these unnecessary random mutation for survival ? or they just doing  these  random mutations  all the time without any pressure  so those that survive antibiotic go on reproducing?

    I am trying to understand the  species  morphing in to a different species.  Is it a random process or survival of the fittest process?
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #99 - December 23, 2013, 12:58 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:52 AM
    You want me to watch a video that you're claiming neither agrees nor disagrees with my essay?

    I don't see the point of that. Why don't you just make the point yourself?

    that is all right please continue to read and debate RamiRustom.,

    The point was about your claim of that  "theist  god claim is not a scientific theory"??"

    My point is they do have a theory behind their existence of god claims., They may hide it from you but it is open book if you question them,  they will spill it.

    but don't worry about it .. and I am glad to read your posts..
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Re: Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #100 - December 23, 2013, 01:03 AM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 23, 2013, 12:53 AM
    Really?  that is interesting., They do these unnecessary random mutation for survival ? or they just doing  these  random mutations  all the time without any pressure  so those that survive antibiotic go on reproducing?

    Mutation can happen for a number of reasons. I think the most regular reason is incomplete replication. When an organism reproduces, it is not an exact replication. Compounded when organisms reproduce by recombined information of two parent organisms. Another reason might be damage to the genomes while the organism is alive (prior to reproduction), or by deletion/addition to the DNA sequence. I think I read somewhere that the human acquires at least 100 mutations within an average lifespan.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #101 - December 23, 2013, 01:24 AM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 23, 2013, 12:53 AM
    I am trying to understand the  species  morphing in to a different species.  Is it a random process or survival of the fittest process?

    In brief, the general idea is that it is kind of random. New characteristics arise accidentally, randomly, chaotically, without reason or purpose, some good, some bad, some useful, some detrimental, some neutral and benign. Mutation is indifferent, thrown out blindly (or reactively to other processes in the system). A genetic lottery complicated further by the fact that they are mixed when a species breeds.

    However, the process overall is not random per se. If it was random, species would be evolving backwards as well as forwards, uselessly and chaotically, unable to function within the system. But when you figure in the environmental factors, the useless or detrimental mutations do not fare well and the useful mutations flourish, allowing organisms with beneficial mutations an advantage within the system and more potential to reproduce. Thus, evolution by natural process.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #102 - December 23, 2013, 01:27 AM
    No reply to my posts?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #103 - December 23, 2013, 03:48 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:03 AM
    Show me how evidence can support a theory. Also explain to me what you mean by "support". Do you mean that a piece of evidence works by selecting 1 theory from many possible theories?


    For example in the case of the Israelite origin theories. Pottery, settlement plans, housing plans, etc. If one creates a hypothesis that a site is of Israeli origin one must find evidence at this site which can be linked to these people. In the case of pottery does the site contain pottery created using a method foreign to the area, is it Egyptian or Greek for example. Is the pottery similar to a subculture like the Philistines or Moabites? Does the style resemble one of the neighboring cultures? Does the method of production or style resemble that of a later culture namely the established Israelites during the Monarch period? Does the Late Bronze Age pottery bare an resemblance to the Iron I Age pottery?

    There is a lot more than just pottery alone. There is textual analyse from the bible and surrounding cultures. For example during Saul's reign iron was scarce, it was not a material available to those in the hill country. Does this reflect the different sites associated with the Israelites? If these sites were Philistine iron would be present in a greater amount as Philistine sites used iron for tools and weapons in greater amounts than the Israelites. So evidence from a site can be used to support an Israelite origin theory while also refuting theories/hypothesis' suggesting Philistine for example.

    Support as in validate, confirm, establish an idea or assertion or in this case a theory or hypothesis which becomes a theory due to the evidence supporting it. Not all theories can be resolved via a process of elimination so one needs to link findings with a theory which works. If the case in which no present theory works one must develop a new theory. In certain fields a wide range of theories can be assumed at a given site. One claim a dig is Byzantium, Roman, Greek, Babylonian, Arab, etc, while never suggesting the correct culture. When this happens one must abandon the previous method of deduction based theory switching to inductive methods. The evidence itself must form the theory rather than validating a hypothesis already held.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #104 - December 23, 2013, 08:05 AM
    Also prosp for introducing me to Popper. I will have to read more of his work/
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #105 - December 23, 2013, 08:46 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:05 AM
    No. Evidence works by refuting theories. And that evidence doesn't refute the evolution theory.


    You evidently don't understand the nature of the scientific method. Which, by extension, means that you don't have a grasp on science at all. Don't preach to people about something that you know nothing about.
    "Work without hope draws nectar in a sieve, and hope without an object cannot live." -Coleridge

    http://sinofgreed.wordpress.com/
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #106 - December 23, 2013, 12:22 PM
    Quote
    One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.


    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

    So there are three ways to test if something is a scientific theory?
    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #107 - December 23, 2013, 01:47 PM
    Quote from: movingfeet on December 23, 2013, 08:46 AM
    You evidently don't understand the nature of the scientific method. Which, by extension, means that you don't have a grasp on science at all. Don't preach to people about something that you know nothing about.

    Movvvvviiiingggfeeeet....

    you are such a soft spoken person but you are using harsh words.  Huh? I ask you why?

    Not only RamiRustom,  many people don't know that.  Many folks with  Ph. Ds and with  huge number of publications  don't understand the "nature of the scientific method".  RamiRustom may be bit adamant  and he seem to have his own position on theories &  scientific theories and  what is a scientific theory &  what is not. That is O.K.,   His observations or assumptions such as  these from him
    Quote
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:12 AM
    Most atheists argue with theists by asking for evidence of their god claim. But of course there is no evidence since their god claim is not a scientific theory, which means that it doesn't make any testable predictions. (here I'm talking about the harder god claim, the one that doesn't make any testable predictions). So it's a bad question.

    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 22, 2013, 10:40 PM
    Facts don't get proven. You're thinking that evidence works by supporting theories. But you're wrong. Evidence works by refuting theories.

     

     are interesting.    It means if someone predicts something that was not known before by his/her "theory" and someone else proves that  "theory is correct"  by direct or indirect experiments then they are not doing "proper" experiments".  They are useless experiments

     He thinks "Experiments(evidence)  works  by refuting theories Not supporting the theories."

    Any ways., Some of us may disagree with that but I think RamiRustom is a great addition to the forum and appears to have a lot of depth in Philosophy & in that so-called metaphysics ...... whatever that may be....

    with best wishes
    yeezeveee
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #108 - December 23, 2013, 02:10 PM
    Quote
    Quote from: Ishina on December 23, 2013, 01:24 AM
    In brief, the general idea is that it is kind of random. New characteristics arise accidentally, randomly, chaotically, without reason or purpose, some good, some bad, some useful, some detrimental, some neutral and benign. Mutation is indifferent, thrown out blindly (or reactively to other processes in the system). A genetic lottery complicated further by the fact that they are mixed when a species breeds.

    However, the process overall is not random per se. If it was random, species would be evolving backwards as well as forwards, uselessly and chaotically, unable to function within the system. But when you figure in the environmental factors, the useless or detrimental mutations do not fare well and the useful mutations flourish, allowing organisms with beneficial mutations an advantage within the system and more potential to reproduce. Thus, evolution by natural process.

    Quote from: Ishina on December 23, 2013, 01:03 AM
    Mutation can happen for a number of reasons. I think the most regular reason is incomplete replication. When an organism reproduces, it is not an exact replication. Compounded when organisms reproduce by recombined information of two parent organisms. Another reason might be damage to the genomes while the organism is alive (prior to reproduction), or by deletion/addition to the DNA sequence. I think I read somewhere that the human acquires at least 100 mutations within an average lifespan.


    My goodness .. Ishina .. You have terrific background  and exceptional  talent( don't blush ..lol.).


     I don't to want make this thread in to some   Evolutionary Bio-logic,  but.. On your point of random mutations with in the species,   it is true in a given life time of a species there are random mutations but  these random mutations appear to be harmless.  I mean such mutations does't really do anything  to protein/enzyme function( with the exception of the "Ageing  biological machinery") .

    What I am looking  for is Mutations that are responsible  for the transition of one species to other.  In other words essentially I am looking for the Whole genome sequence  of a "Transitional species" in that Evolutionary tree .

    Well In science each answer leads to new questions..  That is life..
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #109 - December 23, 2013, 02:10 PM
    Keep in mind Rami my use of induction and deduction is not necessarily the same as inductive/deductive reasoning in the philosophical or scientific sense you are holding. Archaeology itself has fallen decades behind the scientific community for a number of reasons. Religion was the major influence which hindered the development of a unified method, one which is still lacking to this day. Inductive explanations are still required in some cases as well as inductive thinking itself. A times a finding in a dig will not fall under any theory or hypothesis currently held for a particular site. Inductive thinking is required to interpret a finding in order to formulate a hypothesis. One can then use a variation of the hypothetico-deductive method if the data can support such a method. However at time the data does not allow rigorous testing so another method is required, analytical inductive approach comes into play. This combines the practicality of the inductive approach with some of the rigor of the deductive approach. Statistical methodologies and probability analysis can also be used. These last 3 methods demonstrate the likelihood of the relationship seen in the sample data having occurred by chance or by sampling error, and thus its significance in interpreting real-world relationships. Of course the results of such methods do not prove a theory correct, just that it is plausible. Often archaeology has to make these assumptions and present these as theories. To those outside the field, as usual, jump to conclusions based on the language and words used in such a "theory". They rarely understand the process behind the differences between a proven theory and one as I have detailed.

    It is a flaw in the lack of a unified methodology which needs to be resolved. There are advocates for the use of Lakatos method of conjecture and refutation. Although now that I have read some of Popper's work it should be perhaps be called Popper\Lakatos. However such a movement is still hindered by the dying conflict between textual minimalist and maximist view points. For example view points of the Bible. Some of rabid Christian students of Ablright are still kicking up dirt in America due to the religious conflict in the nation. The Zionist movement and it's influence in Israeli also needs to die out. Also archaeology itself is slave to some many other fields of science and borrows so much to formulate a framework that can be debilitating at times. Be it anthropology or sociology. Archaeology at the moment is between science and history. It is a combination of both including the flaws in both which in turn create flaws in archaeology itself when used in combination to formulate a theory.

  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #110 - December 23, 2013, 02:29 PM
    Quote from: movingfeet on December 22, 2013, 09:12 PM
    Also, this post should be given consideration when debating the views of an agnostic atheist.


    This was not necessarily the point I was trying to make. I just draw a clear distinction between a theistic God and a deistic God. Also to a lesser extent the philosophical concept of God based on attribute alone. One put his/her/it's hands into reality repeatedly, the other does not. There should be a halt in history and natural laws which are detectable especially due the theist position that these interactions are proof of God. If these "proofs" can be question and proven false it undermines the claim that their God is the same one developed in either of the two other concepts.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #111 - December 23, 2013, 02:30 PM
    the problem i have in persuading theists of anything is that they don't understand a single point I make.
    They can always find a way of misinterpreting me.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #112 - December 23, 2013, 10:33 PM
    I hope this doesn't degenerate into in to a philosophy vs science thread. This kind of conflict happens much to often these days. Especially in the ever changing concept of what science is. Science is not philosophy free. Philosophy does not have a veto power to be the end all be all of science nor does science have such a veto power over philosophy. Both need to work together especially when science can be so blunt and ignorant of the ethical implications of it's work. I guess this would be a failure of many modern educational institutions in which philosophy is never required, or even suggested, as a fundamental part of science.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #113 - December 23, 2013, 11:34 PM
    Quote from: bogart on December 23, 2013, 02:29 PM
    This was not necessarily the point I was trying to make. I just draw a clear distinction between a theistic God and a deistic God. Also to a lesser extent the philosophical concept of God based on attribute alone. One put his/her/it's hands into reality repeatedly, the other does not. There should be a halt in history and natural laws which are detectable especially due the theist position that these interactions are proof of God. If these "proofs" can be question and proven false it undermines the claim that their God is the same one developed in either of the two other concepts.


    I know that. Still doesn't change that it fits nicely into the agnostic atheists viewpoint.
    "Work without hope draws nectar in a sieve, and hope without an object cannot live." -Coleridge

    http://sinofgreed.wordpress.com/
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #114 - December 23, 2013, 11:40 PM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 23, 2013, 01:47 PM
    Movvvvviiiingggfeeeet....

    you are such a soft spoken person but you are using harsh words.  Huh? I ask you why?

    Not only RamiRustom,  many people don't know that.  Many folks with  Ph. Ds and with  huge number of publications  don't understand the "nature of the scientific method".  RamiRustom may be bit adamant  and he seem to have his own position on theories &  scientific theories and  what is a scientific theory &  what is not. That is O.K.,   His observations or assumptions such as  these from him   are interesting.    It means if someone predicts something that was not known before by his/her "theory" and someone else proves that  "theory is correct"  by direct or indirect experiments then they are not doing "proper" experiments".  They are useless experiments

     He thinks "Experiments(evidence)  works  by refuting theories Not supporting the theories."

    Any ways., Some of us may disagree with that but I think RamiRustom is a great addition to the forum and appears to have a lot of depth in Philosophy & in that so-called metaphysics ...... whatever that may be....

    with best wishes
    yeezeveee



    One doesn't need a phD to logically see the correlation between evidence and proving theories. Even most high school students have that concept downpact. He his good for debating philosophy, which he seems to be good at, but not science. If one doesn't understand the core basics of a subject then they have no leg to stand on. And sure, philosophy was the science of the past and a lot of theories that have been proven started from philosophical concepts. The fact remains that they have to proven over and over again, be subject to extreme scrutiny, to be ever considered a scientific theory. That's my point.
    "Work without hope draws nectar in a sieve, and hope without an object cannot live." -Coleridge

    http://sinofgreed.wordpress.com/
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #115 - December 24, 2013, 01:41 AM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 23, 2013, 02:10 PM
    On your point of random mutations with in the species,   it is true in a given life time of a species there are random mutations but  these random mutations appear to be harmless.  I mean such mutations does't really do anything  to protein/enzyme function( with the exception of the "Ageing  biological machinery") .

    This isn't exactly true. While it's fair to say most mutations are imperceptible and harmless, they are cumulative. Lots of imperceptible changes mount up to greater change in the grander scheme of things. And even in the short term, cumulative mutation in cells can result in things like cancers (look up Somatic Evolution).

    Quote from: yeezevee on December 23, 2013, 02:10 PM
    What I am looking  for is Mutations that are responsible  for the transition of one species to other.  In other words essentially I am looking for the Whole genome sequence  of a "Transitional species" in that Evolutionary tree .

    I'm not sure what you're asking. As I understand it, all species are transitional species. Everything alive right now is transitioning into future forms. You might find this website interesting. It certainly has more in-depth answers than I could give: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #116 - December 24, 2013, 01:45 AM
    Quote
    As I understand it, all species are transitional species. Everything alive right now is transitioning into future forms.

     Afro

    Think of all the time it took for humans to get here. Think about how if the dinosaurs were never wiped out we might never have been here. Now consider how short a time humans in our current form have been here. Now imagine 5 billions years from now. Five billion. Does anyone think our descendants will be looking at the world with the same eyes as 21st century man?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #117 - December 24, 2013, 02:11 AM
    I imagine change will be even more rapid from now. When you consider that we are on the cusp of artificially altering our own make-up and are already altering the make-up of the flora and fauna we harvest. It's ethics and morality holding us back now, rather than technological limitations.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #118 - December 24, 2013, 02:13 PM
    Quote from: bogart on December 22, 2013, 10:47 PM
    It work both ways. Evidence can support and refute theories. No hypothesis can become a theory without evidence validating the hypothesis.


    False. Evidence cannot validate a hypothesis.

    When we do experiments, what we're doing is trying to rule out the theory that we're experimenting on. And if the experimental result doesn't rule out the theory, we say that the evidence is consistent with the theory. Which means that the evidence does not rule out the theory.

    But that's not the same as *the evidence supports/validates the hypothesis*. Do you see what I mean?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #119 - December 24, 2013, 02:17 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on December 23, 2013, 12:10 AM
    Well, let's take evolution. Evidence that supports the claims. Fossils. DNA. The tree of life found in the human genome. Recessive traits. Atavism.

    For something easier to see, how about the fox domestication experiment? http://toughlittlebirds.com/2013/09/17/the-amazing-fox-domestication-experiment-or-how-your-puppy-got-floppy-ears-and-a-waggly-tail/

    You may also have heard of the Italian wall lizards.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

    http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

    You're missing a point I'm saying. Ever since Darwin created his theory of evolution, we have created many many variations of that theory. That means that every single variation is itself a theory. So if you have a piece of evidence, and that piece of evidence rules out 3 of the 1000 theories of evolution, leaving 997 of the theories untouched, then how can you say that evidence supports a theory? It doesn't support *A* theory. What it did was refute 3 theories. Do you see what I mean?
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 ... 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »