Atheistic Scientists Pushing Their Religion

[Gracchus]

If you've never seen an elephant it doesn't mean they don't exist. But if you do see an elephant, that is a pretty convincing sign that they exist.

The problem is in convincing someone else who has never seen one, if you have no way to record it or show it to them.

[SIZE=+2] The Blind Men and the Elephant[/SIZE]
John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a SPEAR!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a SNAKE!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he:
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a TREE!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a FAN!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a ROPE!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

You may have experienced the elephant but you didn't see it.

"'But,' he said, 'you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.'" -- Exodus 33:20

Having the same experience, but perceiving from different backgrounds, the Christian discovers Christ, the Jew finds YHWH, the Hindu finds Brahma, the Ojibwa finds Gitchee Manitou, and the Buddhist becomes enlightened, often finding no god at all! (Or perhaps the Buddha actually opens his eyes and perceives not just his individual experience but all the limited perceptions of the blind.)

This is something that happens in the mind and can be tracked by MRI in the brain. In short, your god is in your head, which is why he always agrees with you or forgives you, even when you drop bombs on children or otherwise molest them. You forgive yourself, and say it was "God".

 

[Michael]

Are you on hallucinogens?

No, but apparently you were on hallucinogens when you thought that Alfven's 1986 double layer paper was about the topic deuterium production and proton flux ratios, and that it was referenced in a 1976 paper on deuterium production.

 

[Elendur]

It's both.

...

I wouldn't say that. Opinions are subjective, "I think that healthcare should be provided by the individual", beliefs are objective, "I believe (/think, though it puts a different tone to it) that the earth is flat".

Sure, opinions might be misinformed, "Since I believe the earth is flat, I think we shouldn't fund a space program", but that doesn't make them beliefs.

People can have wildly different opinions while still having close to identical beliefs simply due to including other things in their forming of opinion, such as personal interest to name one.

 

[Michael]

[SIZE=+2] The Blind Men and the Elephant[/SIZE]
John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a SPEAR!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a SNAKE!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he:
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a TREE!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a FAN!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a ROPE!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

You may have experienced the elephant but you didn't see it.

That's actually a pretty good analogy.

"'But,' he said, 'you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.'" -- Exodus 33:20

Having the same experience, but perceiving from different backgrounds, the Christian discovers Christ, the Jew finds YHWH, the Hindu finds Brahma, the Ojibwa finds Gitchee Manitou, and the Buddhist becomes enlightened, often finding no god at all! (Or perhaps the Buddha actually opens his eyes and perceives not just his individual experience but all the limited perceptions of the blind.)

This is something that happens in the mind and can be tracked by MRI in the brain. In short, your god is in your head,

I hope you at least realize that everything you've just said could be (and probably is) entirely true, even based on concepts of consciousness and soul like Orch-OR theory would suggest. I'm afraid your argument ends right there with respect to the actual existence of God and or an intelligent creator of all that we observe.

The elephant is gigantic, it's very real, and we all experience it differently.

 

[Michael]

I wouldn't say that. Opinions are subjective, "I think that healthcare should be provided by the individual", beliefs are objective, "I believe (/think, though it puts a different tone to it) that the earth is flat".

Sure, opinions might be misinformed, "Since I believe the earth is flat, I think we shouldn't fund a space program", but that doesn't make them beliefs.

People can have wildly different opinions while still having close to identical beliefs simply due to including other things in their forming of opinion, such as personal interest to name one.

Oh man!

If you're on his side, I'm probably SOL.

So explain to me how his claim about space expansion having some tangible effect on a photon is an example of one and not the other? Ditto for the claim about the existence of exotic forms of matter.

 

[BL2KTN]

No, but apparently you were on hallucinogens when you thought that Alfven's 1986 double layer paper was about the topic deuterium production and proton flux ratios, and that it was referenced in a 1976 paper on deuterium production.

I presented you with information from 1976 that properly observes the correct levels of gamma waves in the universe, as opposed to Alven's 1986 contribution which errors in the levels due to an incorrect measuring of proton flux. This has been repeatedly stated, it has been responded to by others, you originally tried to respond though missing the topic entirely, then you claimed the information did not exist, then you realized it did but said it is not about gamma rays at all.

I'm done with the topic. You don't understand the material at all, and you know you're a pretender.

 

[NannaNae]

Since you couldn't be bothered reading this article I wont bother either. I'll just respond to you.

First of all science is not a religion.

Secondly, I don't think omitting god(s) from school subjects is any more anti-theist than omitting fairies from school subjects is anti-fairy lovers.

School is not a place to teach kids that god(s) exist, any teachers doing that would be pushing their religion indeed.

wrong it is a religion, it sets it time and tables by it's own philosophy and unproven assumptions.

I just left the DNA site where they were arguing for a 700000 year old
'eve' . if they don't know the math or even the reason for mutations.. can presume and assume so much and argue a 600000 thousand year EVE and change it by 10000 and 200000 years at a jump .
why not 6000? because originally the mutation rate only proved a 6 thousand year old Eve... they had the time it takes for dna to mutate.. before they even know the why dna mutates.. now that is some arrogant and profoundly ignorant stuff right there..
. they wouldn't argue a 6000 year which is the only time that is truly provable by the actual mutation rates ..
but they would never allow that.. because their belief systems have to first and foremost disprove God somehow and create time where there is none. that takes all kind of faith .. it is faith and they refuse to see anything that would prove a 6000 year old world. they refuse to look into it even..
disproving God's laws and his timing .. is their real ambition an their only ambition of their religion .

it only exists as an ANTI- god and anti eyewitness entity.
it has assumed it self above all things and above all laws and above all moralities !
it writes it own time tables and it own laws.
it is all man's insanities and rebellions that masquerades as logic.

 

[Michael]

I presented you with information from 1976

That information did not reference Alfven however according to the reference list. You ignored that completely. You also ignored the fact that Alfven's double layer paper came a *decade* later, and had nothing to do with the topics of deuterium production or proton flux rates.

that properly observes the correct levels of gamma waves in the universe, as opposed to Alven's 1986 contribution which errors in the levels due to an incorrect measuring of proton flux.

Name the actually page number where Alfven mentions proton flux rates or deuterium production rates in that double layer paper you cited. (Use the link I provided so we're both on the same page numbers).

This has been repeatedly stated,

It's been repeatedly shown to be wrong too as evidence by the fact that Alfven's double layer paper from 1986 was not related to proton flux rates or deuterium prediction in any way shape or form.

I'm done with the topic. You don't understand the material at all, and you know you're a pretender.

You're clearly projecting again which is why you're "pretending" Alfven's double layer paper from 1986 is somehow related to predictions about deuterium production and proton flux rates. Neither term is even mentioned in the paper, which is why you *will not* quote him from the double layer paper, and you will consistently run from that request.

 

[BL2KTN]

wrong it is a religion, it sets it time and tables by it's own philosophy and unproven assumptions.

I just left the DNA site where they were arguing for a 700000 year old
'eve' . if they don't know the math or even the reason for mutations.. can presume and assume so much and argue a 600000 thousand year EVE and change it by 10000 and 200000 years at a jump .
why not 6000? because originally the mutation rate only proved a 6 thousand year old Eve... they had the time it takes for dna to mutate.. before they even know the why dna mutates.. now that is some arrogant and profoundly ignorant stuff right there..

Why would they be arguing over a fictitious character? There has never been one female homo sapien.

. they wouldn't argue a 6000 year which is the only time that is truly provable by the actual mutation rates ..
but they would never allow that.. because their belief systems have to first and foremost disprove God somehow and create time where there is none. that takes all kind of faith .. it is faith and they refuse to see anything that would prove a 6000 year old world. they refuse to look into it even..
disproving God's laws and his timing .. is their real ambition an their only ambition of their religion .

We have archaeological proof of humans living 10,000 years ago. Why would we be so stupid as to think there was a single female human 6,000 years ago? Were all the civilizations made up of men?

it only exists as an ANTI- god and anti eyewitness entity.
it has assumed it self above all things and above all laws and above all moralities !
it writes it own time tables and it own laws.
it is all man's insanities and rebellions that masquerades as logic.

How old is the Earth?

 

[Elendur]

Oh man!

If you're on his side, I'm probably SOL.

thanks, glad to hear something positive for a change.
(Been working on my bachelors and I've been revising my report time and time again, deadline on friday next week, I'll post it here on the forum if I pass this summer )

So explain to me how his claim about space expansion having some tangible effect on a photon is an example of one and not the other? Ditto for the claim about the existence of exotic forms of matter.

A claim is a claim, not necessarily an opinion or a belief as well. But if it's a claim that's representative of the person making it, it can also be a belief or a conclusion.

So it can be [claim], [claim, belief] or [claim, conclusion].

Of course, it can be hard to differentiate between those three cases, especially since the individual in question can lie (first case) or not know whether it's a belief or a conclusion. (Or worse, not realize that there is a difference. EDIT: I just saw that with "or worse", it could be interpreted negatively. I was referring to the point where I realized there was a difference, which marked a turning point in my introspective).

I'll also add that to actually discern whether something is a belief or a conclusion will just get harder and harder the more cases one investigates.

 

[Michael]

thanks, glad to hear something positive for a change.
(Been working on my bachelors and I've been revising my report time and time again, deadline on friday next week, I'll post it here on the forum if I pass this summer )

Well good luck and know that I have faith in you.

A claim is a claim, not necessarily an opinion or a belief as well. But if it's a claim that's representative of the person making it, it can also be a belief or a conclusion.

So it can be [claim], [claim, belief] or [claim, conclusion].

Of course, it can be hard to differentiate between those three cases, especially since the individual in question can lie (first case) or not know whether it's a belief or a conclusion (or worse, not realize that there is a difference).

I'll also add that to actually discern whether something is a belief or a conclusion will just get harder and harder the more cases one investigates.

Hmmm. I think maybe I'm asking the wrong person. I think I need Daniel to explain the difference to me in his own words using space expansion or CDM as an example. That might help me to understand what he thinks the difference is. I'm afraid that too many cooks might make this even more complicated.

 

[Elendur]

Well good luck and know that I have faith in you.

Thanks

Hmmm. I think maybe I'm asking the wrong person. I think I need Daniel to explain the difference to me in his own words using space expansion or CDM as an example. That might help me to understand what he thinks the difference is. I'm afraid that too many cooks might make this even more complicated.

I agree, it might become a tad mixed up with too many threads.

By the way, I realized my post could have been negatively interpreted so I added:
"EDIT: I just saw that with "or worse", it could be interpreted negatively. I was referring to the point where I realized there was a difference, which marked a turning point in my introspective"
But you were too fast with your response just wanted you to read that.

Have fun discussing

 

[Michael]

Thanks


I agree, it might become a tad mixed up with too many threads.

By the way, I realized my post could have been negatively interpreted so I added:
"EDIT: I just saw that with "or worse", it could be interpreted negatively. I was referring to the point where I realized there was a difference, which marked a turning point in my introspective"
But you were too fast with your response just wanted you to read that.

Have fun discussing

Don't worry about it. I know you too well to ever read any actual malice into your posts.

 

[BL2KTN]

Atheists in general basically wouldn't have a clue what type of God I believe in. They typically don't understand enough physics to even make it an interesting conversation.

Here is an equation in which I have changed just a few of the numerals and letters so that you can't Google it. What is it related to? It is immediately obvious to anyone familiar with physics.

m3=n2/R3+w2 R2/b'2+2/b' (M+M~-2) N~-
M=nw

Still waiting for your physics answer, Michael.

 

[dcarrera]

...

How are they so different in your opinion?

If you cannot read the English definitions and see that they are not the same, I can't help you.

That's (exactly) like asking how large is the universe. He could be infinitely "tall" AFAIK.

But you said you could see her.

Start with a test that will falsify your imaginary (unseen in the lab) claim that space expansion is a *cause* of photon redshift.

The notion that space expansion causes photon redshift is ultimately based on the fact that if the second crest of a wave has to cover a greater distance it will arrive later. Any test that showed that the speed of light can in fact be infinite, could potentially call into question that space expansion can cause redshift.

 

[Michael]

If you cannot read the English definitions and see that they are not the same, I can't help you.

That was a complete cop out, just like when you ran from Peratt's paper on galaxy mass layouts.

But you said you could see her.

And I do. I see *part* of the elephant.

The notion that space expansion causes photon redshift is ultimately based on the fact

Wow. The 'fact' is you can't demonstrate your claim in the lab nor can you explain why it's *necessary* in the first place.

that if the second crest of a wave has to cover a greater distance it will arrive later.

Pure smoke and mirrors. None of that necessitates 'space' do any magic expansion tricks since nothing of sort occurs *anywhere* humans have ever been, and gravity has been everywhere we've been.

Any test that showed that the speed of light can in fact be infinite, could potentially call into question that space expansion can cause redshift.

That's not a legitimate falsification mechanism of *your* claim however. The speed of light is already known to be finite, and both inelastic scattering and Doppler shift are known causes of photon redshift.

You've still provided no falsification mechanism, nor can you eliminate Doppler shift and time dilation as the actual culprit based on the fact that you simply dodged the GR paper entirely.

You're "gods" are both invisible and unfalsifiable, and your faith in the unseen (in the lab) is *way* stronger than mine.

 

[BL2KTN]

Still waiting for your physics answer, Michael.

 

[Davian]

I tend to agree. In fact it's that very "lack of" experience that many atheists cite as a primary "reason" that they gave up on their previous religion. That lack of experience also tends to be what they hold up as the "standard" by which they compare everyone else to. Generally the attitude is that if *they* didn't have the experiences personally, such experiences are 'abnormal' or not real.

I do not think such experiences are not real, or abnormal. They just are not evidence for anything other than how our brains have evolved to work.

Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World - Scientific American

Whereas atheists tend to try to convince themselves by going to Christian websites to evangelize atheism.

And why do you come here to evangelize pantheistic cosmology in virtually every thread in this forum?

 

[Michael]

I do not think such experiences are not real, or abnormal. They just are not evidence for anything other than how our brains have evolved to work.

I actually agree with you that it's how our brains evolved to work, just like they evolved to be able to "see", 'hear' and "taste", 'feel', etc. Consider the implications of your argument for a moment:

Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World - Scientific American

That same 'pattern recognition' combined with observation is what makes 'science' even possible. Without it, there would be nothing like science at all. Our eyes evolved to observe *real* light. Our ears, to hear *real* sound, and our feelings to provide *useful* information about the *real* world around us. You're asking me to believe that something inside the brain evolved in a way to provide 'experiences' of something that people associate with God, but God is *not* real. Why would you assume that when every other structure inside that brain that evolved to provide input to awareness is designed to detect *real* things (like photons)?

And why do you come here to evangelize pantheistic cosmology in virtually every thread in this forum?

Gee, I don't know. Probably because it's a "Christian' forum devoted to "science" and atheists that come here are always demanding that I provide them with some physical evidence of God?

 

[Davian]

I actually agree with you that it's how our brains evolved to work, just like they evolved to be able to "see", 'hear' and "taste", 'feel', etc. Consider the implications of your argument for a moment:
That same 'pattern recognition' combined with observation is what makes 'science' even possible. Without it, there would be nothing like science at all. Our eyes evolved to observe *real* light. Our ears, to hear *real* sound, and our feelings to provide *useful* information about the *real* world around us. You're asking me to believe that something inside the brain that evolved in a way to provide 'experiences' of something people associate with God, but God is *not* real. Why would you assume that when every other structure inside that brain that evolved to provide input to awareness is designed to detect *real* things (like photons)?

To date, every "God" has been a dud in the lab.

Gee, I don't know. Probably because it's a "Christian' forum devoted to "science" and atheists that come here are always demanding that I provide them with some physical evidence of God?

It is a Christian forum, and you are evangelizing pantheism. I do not see the connection between the two.