Ceteloguing the Tricks Theists Play

[FatAndFaithless]

There is no degree of a model that is more 'upgraded' than a theory, Drippy, because science isn't in the business of making flat, absolute assertions.

well, except where scientific absolutes, and laws are concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Youre slipping FF

Ahem.

From the very article you linked.

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation.

Now if you'll just look at the definition of scientific theory from the same site...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Defi...anizations

It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

Seriously Drich, saying "well it's not a LAW" is fifth grade shit. You must be able to understand the difference between the observation (or law) and the explanation or mechanism (theory).

For example, one 'law' could be..."Objects tend to fall towards the center of the earth, and this has a general acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 after repeated observation". There's your 'law' of gravity. The thoery of gravity explains why and how that works.

You're drippin' Drich.

[Drich]

But one can look around and instantly see proof of atheists, teenagers, and people named Phillip. However, no god has ever been proven to exist,

That's not true at all is it.. Maybe you should say the 'proof' the there is a God is no longer accepted and what proof enough for thousands if not millions to be martyred for their beliefs is no longer accepted.

so we're going to need a lot more evidence than anecdotal experience. If I claimed to be a leprachaun working out of Atlantis, that might be where a rational person might demand proof, because none of those have ever been proven to exist.

All anyone would need do or say to you making such a claim is 'show me.' If you could indeed show us then whatever you show us would be deemed as 'anecdotal evidence' (No matter what you decided to show us or involve us in) by those who did not want to believe you...

Then the question would become; would you want to have to 'prove yourself' to someone who hates you and your claims? What motivation would you have to 'prove yourself' to those who you could very well know will always hate and resent you?

[FatAndFaithless]

Hell, add that one to the list if it's not already on there.

# - Intentionally or otherwise conflating the colloquial and scientific meanings of the words 'law' and 'theory' to serve their own ends.

[Drich]

the problem here is, if one seeks god and doesn't find him, you'll just say they aren't seeking properly. so if the claim isn't executed successfully, you just assert it hasn't been done properly, thus dismissing he failure. that's dishonest.

The Instructions are clearly outlined in Luke 11. We must Ask, Seek, and Knock for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is indeed God. If we Receive a Measure of the Holy Spirit we receive 'proof' of God. Jesus said that if we who are evil know how to give good gifts when our children A/S/K of us, How much more will God give the Gift of the Spirit to those who A/S/K of Him?

The thing is out of everyone who has ever claimed to do this on this website willing admits to just A/S they all stop Knocking when their wishes are not granted.

are you really saying that the notion of god is not a philosophical question?

What I am saying is if the 'notion of God IS a Philosophical question' then it is one what will always remain a mystery to you. God or rather the knowledge of God is a gift given to all who A/S/K for Him. Rather to all who can follow His simple directions.

There are many things in this world that we must experience for ourselves before we have 'proof' they exist.

name them

Love, is the one I was thinking of. It is intangible and unquantifiable. Yes we can measure chemical reactions in the brain but when duplicated in monkies it did not produce the same form or feelings of attachment. Those who know love, know how powerful an emotion it is. How it can motivate to build up and or destroy. how it can lead one to give his life for another, but at the same time if one never understands or experience love, it becomes a point of embitterment or resentment. a reason to hate others who do share or experience love.

Again All 'Directions/instructions' fall into this category. One has to experience the end result in order to know if the directions were indeed good. or to have proof of validity.

Here again God/the bible is not a philosophical question, but a set of instructions to a personal one on one relationship. How could Christianity sell a one on one relationship with God himself for 2000 years, and not one of the followers ever get to that point?

if, as the bible claims, god created humans and is omnipotent, he is fully responsible for all crimes committed by them... also allegedly against him. not to mention the divine plan, which means god meant all of those atrocities to happen in the first place.

So?

I guess that would mean (If I follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion) that God must then offer some sort of atoning sacrifice for all the sins of the world... Hmmm. I think I might have come across something like that in the bible somewhere or another...

---

You are aware that a THEROY is not PROOF, right?

you are aware that theory as a scientific term does not mean 'a guess', but 'a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation', right?

[KUSA]

Why is Drippy back here dumbing us down again?

[Drich]

well, except where scientific absolutes, and laws are concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Youre slipping FF

Ahem.

From the very article you linked.

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation.

Now if you'll just look at the definition of scientific theory from the same site...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Defi...anizations

It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

Seriously Drich, saying "well it's not a LAW" is fifth grade shit.  You must be able to understand the difference between the observation (or law) and the explanation or mechanism (theory).

For example, one 'law' could be..."Objects tend to fall towards the center of the earth, and this has a general acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 after repeated observation".  There's your 'law' of gravity.  The thoery of gravity explains why and how that works.  

You're drippin' Drich.

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1]
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.
Many laws take mathematical forms, and thus can be stated as an equation; for example, the Law of Conservation of Energy can be written as , where E is the total amount of energy in the universe. Similarly, the First Law of Thermodynamics can be written as .
The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain laws.[2] An example of a scientific law in social sciences is Zipf's law.
Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data.

So I guess what you posted somhow cancels out what the article opens with... Or maybe somehow both can be true.. That scientific Law Speaks in Absolutes, but in so far as they have been observed under given parameters...

Really FF if you going to step up to bat you need to at least take a couple practice swings first.

---

Why is Drippy back here dumbing us down again?

Do you have a website (A few actually) that censors all non atheist thought? isn't that enough?

[Crossless2.0]

Why is Drippy back here dumbing us down again?

He seems to have some strange compulsion to repeatedly, spectacularly fail to persuade anyone of anything -- followed inevitably by the ROFL smilie to confirm that he not only reasons like an ass but brays like one too. 

[FatAndFaithless]

*shakes his head sadly* Poor...poor Drippy..

[PhilliptheTeenageAtheist]

Ok, I am back and will give this another shot. Drich, if I show you proof of something no one has ever seen before and was previously thought unfathomable, even though I show you evidence, there is plenty enough reasonable doubt to go around for everyone else, and their disbelief would be justified.

[vorlon13]

Here's another annoying trick,

one might think sin is sin, but it turns out, it depends on who is doing it. I realize it is damn hard to get today's active Christian to get very worked up about Mark 10:11 in regards to anyone, but you might think Rush Limbaugh might get at least a little static for being on wifey #4, but no sirree, nary a peep. Slick Willy on the other hand, cheating on Hillary, OMG!! He's an apostate of SATAN!! Curiously, adultery is adultery, or so it should be, but it just depends on who's dick we are talking about being in the wrong woman. Funny thing there.

We hear from time to time, Old Testament stuff is definitely passe, of course, excepting all the gay stuff. But when we have New Testament Paul out of the blue endorsing something VERY Old Testament, like women shutting the fuck up in church, some of us are very, very confused when there isn't a peep of dissent from any quarter about Joyce Meyer or Tammy Faye Baker spouting off about salvation in their ministries.

Also amazing to me, is how fast everyone in the Christian sphere back in the 80s realized they better keep fucking quiet about Nancy Reagan consorting with a witch/court astrologer. Seems like somebody might have spoken up, they sure aren't bashful about deriding Wiccans Satanists, and Atheists are they ? But somebody perceived as being one of their own is suddenly exposed as letting a 'familiar spirit' guide the presidents schedule (over unsecured phone lines, BTW) and suddenly the very folks that should be witnessing the Word to Nancy to get her back on the right side of God are suddenly mute.

So, the intermittent nature of these Godly values, and it being super important to determine who can be rebuked and who cannot be, all add another layer to that 'mystery of faith' don't it ??