Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: pop morality
March 23, 2016 at 4:21 pm
(March 23, 2016 at 12:24 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: (March 23, 2016 at 10:56 am)Drich Wrote: So you are doubling down.. Bold when you know your right, very very foolish when you thing the other person is just bluffing.
So lets see who is bluffing. Please use the link I provided that transcribes professor hawking's new black hole theory, or take the posted paper from the denmark team and show me where what I have said is not consistent with their findings (which again contradict or creates a conflict with your understanding of these two subjects.)
Do you not understand that research questioning CERN's findings is a GOOD thing? This is how science works. If a theory is disproved, it's great, because new knowledge has been added. It's unlikely that the Higgs will be disproved, because it showed up as ≈125 GeV, which was in expected parameters. Science was delighted to find it. IF it is proven to be something else, scientists will also be delighted. It's just more data. The same with black holes. They've been identified and mapped through gravitational effects and radiation (and - - what else - - physicists help, I'm forgetting something). If they turn out to be something else entirely, cool!! More data.
Here the thing oh, great mover of goal posts.. I'm not saying it is a good or bad thing. I'm saying it takes faith to believe in a particle that can not be verified. You or DBP made the statement that 'science only deals with what is tangible/real' (the dig being God is not tangble or real, and it takes faith to believe in God.) I made the comment that 'science infact does not always operate on those principles, then I listed two common examples where faith in science fiction has bled over into science fact and blurred the lines in such away to make douche bags like yourselves believe things like black holes are indeed solid fact when in fact their is as much faith being expended in the belief of how a black hole works, as a religious person would expend in the existence of God.
Now that you can not argue that point you are trying to change the subject to something you feel you can argue. nice try, but if you want me to follow you down your rabbit hole, first concede the point I was making. Otherwise accept belief in 'science' still requires an expenditure of faith on the believers part and as such requires almost a religious devotion to fill the voids between what is observable and has solidified into theory.
Posts: 35389
Threads: 1439
Joined: March 15, 2013
Reputation:
152
RE: pop morality
March 23, 2016 at 4:25 pm
(March 23, 2016 at 4:21 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm saying it takes faith to believe in a particle that can not be verified.
Oh, we understand that it takes faith.
We also understand that people resort to faith because of the comfort it provides in contrast to the harshness of the truth in relation to logic and reason.
Faith is nothing noble. Rather, it is the epitome of giving up on life and living that life to its fullest potential.
"What a little moonlight can do." ~ Billie Holiday
Posts: 342
Threads: 14
Joined: February 5, 2016
Reputation:
9
RE: pop morality
March 23, 2016 at 4:28 pm
(This post was last modified: March 23, 2016 at 4:40 pm by FebruaryOfReason.)
I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty.
Posts: 2791
Threads: 107
Joined: July 4, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: pop morality
March 23, 2016 at 4:40 pm
(March 23, 2016 at 4:21 pm)Drich Wrote: (March 23, 2016 at 12:24 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Do you not understand that research questioning CERN's findings is a GOOD thing? This is how science works. If a theory is disproved, it's great, because new knowledge has been added. It's unlikely that the Higgs will be disproved, because it showed up as ≈125 GeV, which was in expected parameters. Science was delighted to find it. IF it is proven to be something else, scientists will also be delighted. It's just more data. The same with black holes. They've been identified and mapped through gravitational effects and radiation (and - - what else - - physicists help, I'm forgetting something). If they turn out to be something else entirely, cool!! More data.
Here the thing oh, great mover of goal posts.. I'm not saying it is a good or bad thing. I'm saying it takes faith to believe in a particle that can not be verified. You or DBP made the statement that 'science only deals with what is tangible/real' (the dig being God is not tangble or real, and it takes faith to believe in God.) I made the comment that 'science infact does not always operate on those principles, then I listed two common examples where faith in science fiction has bled over into science fact and blurred the lines in such away to make douche bags like yourselves believe things like black holes are indeed solid fact when in fact their is as much faith being expended in the belief of how a black hole works, as a religious person would expend in the existence of God.
Now that you can not argue that point you are trying to change the subject to something you feel you can argue. nice try, but if you want me to follow you down your rabbit hole, first concede the point I was making. Otherwise accept belief in 'science' still requires an expenditure of faith on the believers part and as such requires almost a religious devotion to fill the voids between what is observable and has solidified into theory.
You clearly do not understand that the existence of a particle and the measuring of its attributes has already been accomplished. It fits the criteria for the Higgs and more research is being completed. There is no "faith" needed, we have data. No goalposts were moved, you clearly don't understand how science works. Pick up a magazine. Even Discover is good. Or even better, "Particle Fever" is on Netflix. It's a fabulous documentary.
How xtian of you to resort to insults and name-calling. That's the kind of behavior I expect from a preechur.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
Posts: 3101
Threads: 10
Joined: September 7, 2015
Reputation:
49
RE: pop morality
March 24, 2016 at 3:10 am
(This post was last modified: March 24, 2016 at 3:10 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
Posts: 29101
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
154
RE: pop morality
March 24, 2016 at 3:14 am
(This post was last modified: March 24, 2016 at 3:17 am by robvalue.)
I never understand the point of this kind of tu quoque.
Are they saying that it's a good thing we believe in [some scientific thing] based on [no evidence, according to them]? People should just believe whatever they want, without evidence? That's a sensible, respectable way to behave?
They're either saying this, or they are saying our methods are just as stupid as theirs. Which is it? Or is there some profound third option I am missing?
This is pretending, of course, that their claims about there being no evidence are justified for the sake of argument. I doubt they've thought it through this far. It's just deflecting.
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: pop morality
March 24, 2016 at 10:53 am
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: pop morality
March 24, 2016 at 10:55 am
(March 23, 2016 at 4:25 pm)Kitan Wrote: (March 23, 2016 at 4:21 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm saying it takes faith to believe in a particle that can not be verified.
Oh, we understand that it takes faith.
We also understand that people resort to faith because of the comfort it provides in contrast to the harshness of the truth in relation to logic and reason.
Faith is nothing noble. Rather, it is the epitome of giving up on life and living that life to its fullest potential. Faith is also a double edged sword. What's true (negative) for religion is also true for the faith used in science.
Faith in science does not get a pass just because it is 'science' you have faith in.
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: pop morality
March 24, 2016 at 10:57 am
Posts: 29101
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
154
RE: pop morality
March 24, 2016 at 11:03 am
(March 24, 2016 at 3:14 am)robvalue Wrote: I never understand the point of this kind of tu quoque.
Are they saying that it's a good thing we believe in [some scientific thing] based on [no evidence, according to them]? People should just believe whatever they want, without evidence? That's a sensible, respectable way to behave?
They're either saying this, or they are saying our methods are just as stupid as theirs. Which is it? Or is there some profound third option I am missing?
This is pretending, of course, that their claims about there being no evidence are justified for the sake of argument. I doubt they've thought it through this far. It's just deflecting.
Yeah well, you deflect too!
|
