(November 9, 2012 at 11:38 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I'll use his head for the ball.

I suggest using his testicles. Hopefully before he breeds...

(November 9, 2012 at 1:30 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(November 9, 2012 at 1:20 am)Truth Matters Wrote: Wrong. Of course it requires belief. Do you not believe it?

Unlike your silly bible there are museums full of evidence to back it up. The evidence is sufficient. We do not have to believe in it. We can evaluate the overlapping lines of evidence and see that it is the real thing.

Let me know when you get any evidence backing up your bible bullshit stories. I'll enjoy ripping you to shreds.

Hey Spanky,
What claims are you making about evolution?
Explain exactly what meaning you pour into that term evolution as it relates supposed conflict with belief in God?

Then we can get into a rational analysis of the evidence for your belief.

---

(November 9, 2012 at 5:08 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(November 7, 2012 at 10:06 am)Hitch96 Wrote: Hello freethinkers,

I'm 16 and my parents are fundamental christians. They do not believe in evolution.
I haven't even told them I believe in evolution!
(They'd flip out and send me to talk to one of our pastors)
...they don't even know I'm atheist

The beauty of science is that it doesn't require belief.

1) You BELIEVE that science doesn't requires belief? Prove that Belief of yours by science?

2) Rubbish, science rests on all sorts of beliefs that can't be proven by science.

Do you believe in gravity, Truth? Because I'd like you to test it by attempting to fly off a cliff.

Trust me, the gravity exists whether you believe in it or not.

But go ahead, tell us what sort of beliefs can't be "proven" by science.

Belief in the existence of the god of the Bible can't be proven by science. It requires faith. Belief in evolution, specifically belief that humans share a common ancestor with the other great apes, requires no faith. It is a belief that can be and in many instances is based on evidence.

Belief is something you have in something if you have insufficient evidence but still think it is so.

i.e.

I believe my wife is upstairs

(goes and has a look)

Yep she's upstairs, now I know my wife is upstairs.

(November 9, 2012 at 1:32 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Do you believe in gravity, Truth? Because I'd like you to test it by attempting to fly off a cliff.

Trust me, the gravity exists whether you believe in it or not.

But go ahead, tell us what sort of beliefs can't be "proven" by science.

Gravity isn't science. Gravity is a Law imposed on our Universe.
Science presumes gravity exists, but cannot cause gravity. We believe gravity exists based on experiences of it, but cannot prove it without arguing in circles.

What sorts of other beliefs cant be proven by science?

Well let's see...
1) Mathematics cannot be proven by science. Science rests on certain mathematical assumptions we all reasonably hold to be true, but cannot be proven scientifically without arguing in circles.

2) Same as above for Logic

3) Historical Truths - you cannot prove most of the past by science. Prove Napoleon rode a horse on April 6... using science?

4) You cannot prove epistemological truths by science. You cannot prove the external world is real or that other minds objectively exist as something other than deliverance of our own chemical delusion - using science.

5) You cannot prove Beethoven was a talented composer by science.

6) You cannot prove moral knowledge by science. Try proving that raping children is wrong by scientific testing. Do you not believe raping children is wrong?

7) You cannot prove your life has intrinsic value by science. Do you believe your life has no intrinsic value? Do you believe your life only has extrinsic make-believe value?

8) You cannot prove science is valid by science. You would be arguing in a circle.

9) You cannot prove universal negatives by science. That alone, would be most truths.

Do I need to continue?

This modern notion that science is omnipotent is terribly misguided.
Most truth cannot be accessed by science. Science is a useful enterprise, but it is very limited. It's extremely misguided to believe that only scientifically validated truths are worthy of belief.

---

(November 9, 2012 at 1:58 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Belief is something you have in something if you have insufficient evidence but still think it is so.

Do you believe that statement of yours? Prove it with sufficient evidence to KNOW it is true?

If you can't, why do you make statements based on insufficient evidence? Do you not believe your statement is true? Then why did you make it?

Your BELIEF is logically incoherent and self-defeating.

---

(November 9, 2012 at 1:58 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Belief is something you have in something if you have insufficient evidence but still think it is so.

Do you believe that statement of yours? Prove it with sufficient evidence to KNOW it is true?

If you can't, why do you make statements based on insufficient evidence? Do you not believe your statement is true? Then why did you make it?

Your BELIEF is logically incoherent and self-defeating.

There's also a difference between belief and reasonable expectation. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the Sun to rise in the morning, for which we don't even need to rely on past experience which isn't always reliable anyway (that's how lottery scams tend to work). A basic grounding in orbital mechanics and the rotation of the Earth will help cement this expectation as well as explaining the mechanism behind it. That we tend to describe such expectations as belief is an unfortunate consequence of language, which shouldn't be taken as a vindication of belief as in faith in things for which there is no reasonable expectation, such as in gods. Until a god attains the same observational evidence as the principles that cause the Sun to appear to rise in the morning, any belief in it is going to be irrational almost by definition. Attempts to fabricate evidence hurt the claim rather than help.

Let me put it another way I know people who believe that intelligent aliens exist.

They have no real evidence for this only the fact that intelligence evolved once so is likely to have evolved again.

I don't "believe" in intelligent aliens but think that it is quite likely that they exist.

If evidence sufficient evidence appeared in to support the intelligent alien hypothosis then belief would not be required because we would "know" that they exist.

be·lief (b-lf)
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

You are talking I think about the third definition, (my bold) "belief is something accepted as true" it does not say, "proved to be true" a subtle but important difference. Muslims accept as true that Islam is the one true faith.

Sounds like someone doesn't understand what the fuck science is.

---

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Gravity isn't science. Gravity is a Law imposed on our Universe.
Science presumes gravity exists, but cannot cause gravity. We believe gravity exists based on experiences of it, but cannot prove it without arguing in circles.

No one said science caused gravity. Gravity is understood THROUGH science. Science is both a process and a tool kit.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 2) Same as above for Logic

I'll let the people who enjoy the mental masturbation take that one on.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 3) Historical Truths - you cannot prove most of the past by science. Prove Napoleon rode a horse on April 6... using science?

The scientific method and related tests developed through science allow us to confirm data or not. Most of the past has to be confirmed by science, either by carbon dating or paleo-botany, paleontology, etc.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 4) You cannot prove epistemological truths by science. You cannot prove the external world is real or that other minds objectively exist as something other than deliverance of our own chemical delusion - using science.

Science is a method used to help remove our personal, chemical-derived biases from observation.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 5) You cannot prove Beethoven was a talented composer by science.

Subjective, as all art is - science has nothing to do with that at all.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 6) You cannot prove moral knowledge by science. Try proving that raping children is wrong by scientific testing. Do you not believe raping children is wrong?

Science can be used to test whether or not something causes pain and suffering, which is the measure most of us use for making our subsequent moral beliefs. Again, it's a process, not a set of beliefs.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 7) You cannot prove your life has intrinsic value by science. Do you believe your life has no intrinsic value? Do you believe your life only has extrinsic make-believe value?

I'm quite willing to bet "God" is your ultimate answer to this one.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 8) You cannot prove science is valid by science. You would be arguing in a circle.

9) You cannot prove universal negatives by science. That alone, would be most truths.

Do I need to continue?

This modern notion that science is omnipotent is terribly misguided.
Most truth cannot be accessed by science. Science is a useful enterprise, but it is very limited. It's extremely misguided to believe that only scientifically validated truths are worthy of belief.

Yup, sounds like god was the answer to all this too - which is hilarious since God is the circular argument that's supposed to replace science.

(November 9, 2012 at 1:43 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Belief in the existence of the god of the Bible can't be proven by science. It requires faith. Belief in evolution, specifically belief that humans share a common ancestor with the other great apes, requires no faith. It is a belief that can be and in many instances is based on evidence.

Yes, it does. It requires faith in the words of Materialist speculators peddling their logically incoherent philosophical Naturalist speculations as "science". I don't believe their speculations based on my rational faculties. None of them can explain the evidence sufficiently.

I don't place much faith in Materialist speculators. I trust the actual evidence - and my rational faculties to recognize DESIGN.

---

(November 9, 2012 at 3:01 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Sounds like someone doesn't understand what the fuck science is.

---

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Gravity isn't science. Gravity is a Law imposed on our Universe.
Science presumes gravity exists, but cannot cause gravity. We believe gravity exists based on experiences of it, but cannot prove it without arguing in circles.

No one said science caused gravity. Gravity is understood THROUGH science. Science is both a process and a tool kit.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 2) Same as above for Logic

I'll let the people who enjoy the mental masturbation take that one on.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 3) Historical Truths - you cannot prove most of the past by science. Prove Napoleon rode a horse on April 6... using science?

The scientific method and related tests developed through science allow us to confirm data or not. Most of the past has to be confirmed by science, either by carbon dating or paleo-botany, paleontology, etc.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 4) You cannot prove epistemological truths by science. You cannot prove the external world is real or that other minds objectively exist as something other than deliverance of our own chemical delusion - using science.

Science is a method used to help remove our personal, chemical-derived biases from observation.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 5) You cannot prove Beethoven was a talented composer by science.

Subjective, as all art is - science has nothing to do with that at all.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 6) You cannot prove moral knowledge by science. Try proving that raping children is wrong by scientific testing. Do you not believe raping children is wrong?

Science can be used to test whether or not something causes pain and suffering, which is the measure most of us use for making our subsequent moral beliefs. Again, it's a process, not a set of beliefs.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 7) You cannot prove your life has intrinsic value by science. Do you believe your life has no intrinsic value? Do you believe your life only has extrinsic make-believe value?

I'm quite willing to bet "God" is your ultimate answer to this one.

(November 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: 8) You cannot prove science is valid by science. You would be arguing in a circle.

9) You cannot prove universal negatives by science. That alone, would be most truths.

Do I need to continue?

This modern notion that science is omnipotent is terribly misguided.
Most truth cannot be accessed by science. Science is a useful enterprise, but it is very limited. It's extremely misguided to believe that only scientifically validated truths are worthy of belief.

Yup, sounds like god was the answer to all this too - which is hilarious since God is the circular argument that's supposed to replace science.

I see you have nothing substantive to add. You can't make any case that I am wrong. Your Scientism was exposed for it's foolish naivety. You should be embarrassed - but that requires intellectual honesty.

Thanks for playing Atheist.

---

(November 9, 2012 at 2:09 pm)Stimbo Wrote: There's also a difference between belief and reasonable expectation. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the Sun to rise in the morning, for which we don't even need to rely on past experience which isn't always reliable anyway (that's how lottery scams tend to work). A basic grounding in orbital mechanics and the rotation of the Earth will help cement this expectation as well as explaining the mechanism behind it. That we tend to describe such expectations as belief is an unfortunate consequence of language, which shouldn't be taken as a vindication of belief as in faith in things for which there is no reasonable expectation, such as in gods. Until a god attains the same observational evidence as the principles that cause the Sun to appear to rise in the morning, any belief in it is going to be irrational almost by definition. Attempts to fabricate evidence hurt the claim rather than help.

That's silly. You expect observational evidence of a non-physical mind?

The fact is we know about all kinds of things we cannot directly observe, but we know must exist due to inference. Atomic and sub-atomic particles for example.

In reality, there is massive evidence for God. That's why it enjoys the dominant belief position. Atheists have a weird psychological bias, but no evidence to justify their belief.