Where is your evidence creationists?

[CabVet]

No, we're talking about the definition of 'delusion'.

And now that I've brought your sacred whitecoats into the picture, you suddenly want to get back on topic.

Then don't give your logon out in study hall or wherever.

Haha, no, by all means, let's continue off topic. So how does stepping into a spaceship surrounded by huge amounts of rocket fuel makes one delusional again? Every single one of those astronauts (and people that built the ship) knew there were risks. Where is the delusion in this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Haha, no, by all means, let's continue off topic. So how does stepping into a spaceship surrounded by huge amounts of rocket fuel makes one delusional again? Every single one of those astronauts (and people that built the ship) knew there were risks. Where is the delusion in this?

276

 

[Phred]

AV, you aren't tearing down science. You're tearing down a specific implementation of technology. Science, as you've been told many times, is a METHOD. It's a method for examining the universe around us. What we find with that method is the data we then use to create things. In the case of the space program, technology. So a couple of the ships went wrong. What are you harping about?

I realize you're trying to make a connection between something going wrong there and since "we" the collective intelligent community could be wrong about something we could be wrong about evolution. But that's not how it works.

The fact that life evolves is not something we got wrong. It's a fact. It's been observed. It happens. It's happening all around us right now. It's happened for about a billion years. Every piece of data that we've found so far has confirmed the theory. Life evolves.

Yes, engineers who use scientific principles can use them incorrectly. That in no way means the science was wrong. Challenger was a complete machine. It just shouldn't have flown when it was that cold. That's called a "mistake". Now... I know you're desperate to find mistakes in scientific endeavors. And lord knows there have been a lot of them. But we find them and iron them out and move on. That's how the method works.

Why don't you concentrate on finding evidence for your claims instead of this constant display of obvious ignorance?

 

[Phred]

They held the false belief that the Challenger was safe with absolute conviction.

No, you're putting words in their mouths. They said that Challenger was within operational parameters to fly that morning over the objections of several engineers. Politics won out over rational thought and people died. I don't know of anyone who held the belief that the shuttle was "safe" and thought so with "absolute conviction".

Drop this AV... you look like an ass.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, you're putting words in their mouths. They said that Challenger was within operational parameters to fly that morning over the objections of several engineers. Politics won out over rational thought and people died. I don't know of anyone who held the belief that the shuttle was "safe" and thought so with "absolute conviction".

Drop this AV... you look like an ass.

Hear, hear.

 

[CabVet]

276

Since everyone involved in the project knew there were risks, how can you say there was a false belief (or delusion) in safety?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you're putting words in their mouths. They said that Challenger was within operational parameters to fly that morning over the objections of several engineers. Politics won out over rational thought and people died. I don't know of anyone who held the belief that the shuttle was "safe" and thought so with "absolute conviction".

There's that No True Scotsman Principle rearing its ugly head -- and I'm not buying it.

Do you agree with CabVet's definition of 'delusional'?

If so, do you agree with me that you guys think it doesn't apply to scientists?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now... I know you're desperate to find mistakes in scientific endeavors. And lord knows there have been a lot of them. But we find them and iron them out and move on. That's how the method works.

Interesting way you worded this.

You left something out of the equation, didn't you?

A mistake was 'observed' -- not 'found'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since everyone involved in the project knew there were risks, how can you say there was a false belief (or delusion) in safety?

Knowing there are risks does not place a [method] within the parameters of the No True Scotsman Principle.

 

[CabVet]

Knowing there are risks does not place a [method] within the parameters of the No True Scotsman Principle.

Changing the subject again? I will simplify:

Delusion: An astronaut that believes that the space shuttle will never fail.

Not a delusion: An astronaut that knows that 95% of take offs with a space shuttle are successful and thinks the 5% risk is acceptable.

Again, everyone in that mission (even the politicians that authorized the take off) had no delusions (or false beliefs) about the risks involved. They knew the risks and accepted them. The true Scotsman principle does not apply here.

 

[ianb321red]

If it is not a belief, it is not a delusion, which was your point. Delusion: a false belief held with absolute conviction.

Don't just rely on wikipedia for your definitions

A delusion is also a false opinion.
Atheism is the opinion that there is no theistic god.

Atheism is irrational, based on nothing other than opinion
Prove to me otherwise. Give me a factual, evidence based reason for atheism?

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Don't just rely on wikipedia for your definitions

A delusion is also a false opinion.
Atheism is the opinion that there is no theistic god.

Atheism is irrational, based on nothing other than opinion
Prove to me otherwise. Give me a factual, evidence based reason for atheism?

False. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. To have it be a positive assertion that there is no god, you'd have to use the modifier strong or positive to make it strong atheism or positive atheism. Most atheists are what are called "weak" atheists--we simply do not believe a deity exists. We make no claim one way or the other.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Don't just rely on wikipedia for your definitions

A delusion is also a false opinion.
Atheism is the opinion that there is no theistic god.

Atheism is irrational, based on nothing other than opinion
Prove to me otherwise. Give me a factual, evidence based reason for atheism?

Your premise is flawed: atheism is the stance whereby one is not a theist. A theist is one who affirms the existence of deities, and, thus, an atheist is one who doesn't affirm the existence of deities. The atheist can be someone who actively affirms that deities don't exist, or someone who affirms neither the existence nor the non-existence of deities - in both cases, the person is not a theist, and therefore qualifiers for the moniker of 'atheist'.

What you are arguing against is what's called Strong Atheism - the position that deities do not, in fact, exist. You can accuse them of having faith and of having no evidence for their claims (the irony of such an accusation notwithstanding), but don't fall into the equivocation trap: not everyone who's an atheist affirms that deities don't exist.

And even if you hold some minority definition of atheism, it still remains that the vast majority of those who call themselves atheists use the above vocabulary, and moreover would specify themselves as Weak Atheists (that is, those who neither assert God exists, nor that he doesn't) - therefore, demanding proof for the non-existence of God from a self-professed atheist is only going to bemuse the atheist: odds are, they don't, in fact, assert God doesn't exist.

 

[CabVet]

Don't just rely on wikipedia for your definitions

A delusion is also a false opinion.
Atheism is the opinion that there is no theistic god.

Atheism is irrational, based on nothing other than opinion
Prove to me otherwise. Give me a factual, evidence based reason for atheism?

Theism is irrational, based on nothing other than opinion.
Prove to me otherwise. Give me a factual, evidence based reason for the existence of God.

P.S.: Religious scripture is the opinion of religious people, therefore not evidence.

 

[Greg1234]

False. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.

Some form of reality is prioritized and exalted and therefore a god.

 

[CabVet]

Some form of reality is prioritized and exalted and therefore a god.

False again, why is it so hard for the religious folk to conceive the idea that some people do not have a need to worship a deity?

 

[ianb321red]

Theism is irrational, based on nothing other than opinion.
Prove to me otherwise. Give me a factual, evidence based reason for the existence of God.

P.S.: Religious scripture is the opinion of religious people, therefore not evidence.

This is not an evidence based argument - it's just your opinion.

Disprove the historical evidence I have previously alluded to for Christianity, then you have an argument.

Discredit Christianity from a historical perspective, and support your argument with factual evidence.

 

[CabVet]

This is not an evidence based argument - it's just your opinion.

Disprove the historical evidence I have previously alluded to for Christianity, then you have an argument.

Discredit Christianity from a historical perspective, and support your argument with factual evidence.

I didn't say the Bible had no historical basis (other religious books do too, by the way). What I said, and repeat is that there is no evidence for the existence of deities.

 

[ianb321red]

False. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. To have it be a positive assertion that there is no god, you'd have to use the modifier strong or positive to make it strong atheism or positive atheism. Most atheists are what are called "weak" atheists--we simply do not believe a deity exists. We make no claim one way or the other.

Actually I think atheism is the rejection of the belief in god, not a lack of belief in god.

It deals with & rejects the position of holding belief in god, not the god itself (because you don't believe there is a god in the first place anyway)

But all of this merely boils down to an opinion which is only relevant to individuals. It doesn't carry any weight or challenge any serious arguments or discussion.

Of course you can hold any position of disbelief about anything you choose - but that doesn't have any bearing or consequence outside of the individual that holds that position of disbelief.

Which leads me to ask, since it's such an ineffectual claim to make, and one that you cannot support (you simply play the "cannot prove a negative" card) then why hold on to a position that doesn't actually mean anything in the first place?

Why even bother disbelieving something you don't even believe exists in the first place?
You know that you can't actually remove a belief in god - all you can do is make the choice not to hold a belief in god yourself.
So what is actually the point of being an atheist in the first place?
And why are you even on a Christian forum???

 

[mdancin4theLord]

AV, you aren't tearing down science. You're tearing down a specific implementation of technology. Science, as you've been told many times, is a METHOD. It's a method for examining the universe around us. What we find with that method is the data we then use to create things. In the case of the space program, technology. So a couple of the ships went wrong. What are you harping about?

I realize you're trying to make a connection between something going wrong there and since "we" the collective intelligent community could be wrong about something we could be wrong about evolution. But that's not how it works.

The fact that life evolves is not something we got wrong. It's a fact. It's been observed. It happens. It's happening all around us right now. It's happened for about a billion years. Every piece of data that we've found so far has confirmed the theory. Life evolves.

Yes, engineers who use scientific principles can use them incorrectly. That in no way means the science was wrong. Challenger was a complete machine. It just shouldn't have flown when it was that cold. That's called a "mistake". Now... I know you're desperate to find mistakes in scientific endeavors. And lord knows there have been a lot of them. But we find them and iron them out and move on. That's how the method works.

Why don't you concentrate on finding evidence for your claims instead of this constant display of obvious ignorance?

First of all the theory of evolution and the Bible are diametrically opposed to one another. If one is true the other must be false. The bible says that every animal brings forth after its own kind, while evolution says the opposite. The bible says there is one kind of flesh of beasts and another kind of flesh of man. To put it another way...man is NOT just another animal in the evolutionary chain.

Scientists are no more able to speak to the veracity of evolution and the first cause than those they accuse of not knowing either. It is a belief born of faith...no proof. Where are the scientific answers to these questions.



Science is a search for causes (based on observation).....so what was the very first cause? What did they observe?

What created the matter and energy necessary to create the universe?

For every cause there is an effect. If the effect is evolution what caused it? And why?

If you believe that people are nothing but evolved animals then why don't we still live like animals? Isn't the rise in violence just survival of the fittest? If we are animals and survival is the evolutionary answer...then why is killing or stealing food for our families wrong? Animals do it don't they?

Aren't the STD diseases including AIDS the logical result of man just living as an animal with no basis for morals? And are morals scientific?

How did life arise from nonliving matter?

So millions of years ago.....there was this soup that consisted of all sorts of stuff.....ammonia, nitrogen etc...just bubblin away and all of a sudden out of this soup came the first cell. Aren't there cells in soup? How did that soup form? Or was it a bang.......then where did the energy come from to create a bang? Wasn't spontaneous generation... I think Pasteur proved that wrong.

I think it is a scientific fact that life only arises from life. How when no life existed did substances come into being which are absolutely essential for life but which only can be produced by life?

DNA is essential for life to exist......so when no life existed how did DNA come into existence?

There is something scientific that clearly demonstrates that life from nonliving matter is impossible.....I think its called the law of probability.

Do animals have morals? If we came from animals then...do lions feel remorse when they kill their prey? Do animals have a moral code? If we came from these animals......how did we get a moral code?