Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[DogmaHunter]

It is pointless discussing etymology of words here.

Then maybe you should lead by example and stop with the semantic nonsense.
You asked a question about the origins of life and our opinion/beliefs concerning potential biochemical causes thereof.

I have no idea why you are now rambling on about Einstein and quantum thingies in response to the answer I gave you.

I thought your point was about "belief" concerning natural (bio-chemical) origins, so I really don't understand where you are trying to go with this quantum woo-woo.

Cadere means "to fall" and indeed many things are conjectured to fall into place for life to emerge. And the very presumption of supposed evolution is the process has many casualties in making genetic jumps, so indeed the word accident in normal usage is justified.

Whatever, call it what you wish, i'm not interested in intellectual masturbation about semantics.

The main point was about "belief" and natural origins of life.
Make your silly point already so that we can move forward.

There is a defacto irreducible complexity,, because none have yet conceived of a precursor that can evolve into the present minimum cell structure.

Wow. Talk about an argument from ignorance, LOL!

And to believe that such exists or existed is pure belief. Those who oppose the viewpoint are entitled to ask: if such a process was possible, why is it not still occuring? or where is the evidence it is? Why is there no continuous chain of chemicals into "lower forms" and those becoming the DNA based cell lines? Why is there no record of the lower forms ever existing?

Maybe you should read up a bit on abiogenesis research.
It seems like you are unaware of its existance.

What I said was spot on. Atheists have a BELIEF that life occured as a sequence of random chance outcomes in chemistry

Atheism pertains to theistic claims. More specifically, disbelief of those claims.
And that's it. It has absolutely nothing to say about anything. Not the origins of life, not the evolution of life, not even concerning claims about the non-existance of gods.

It is JUST disbelief of theistic claims.
The sooner you understand this, the better.

It will prevent you from further strawmanning the position.

Anyway. The conversation has run its course.

Indeed. It's quite clear by now that all you really have are appeals to ignorance and strawmen.

Those with apriori atheist faith

There's not such thing.
Au contraire. Atheism is NOT having faith concerning theistic claims (and only that and nothing else).

Why is it atheists are unable to conduct a conversation without using words such as "ignorant?"

Perhaps it says something about YOU rather then atheists?
Have you ever considered that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know you like to think that.

No. It's what the word means. a-theism. without-theism.
My atheism is defined purely by not answering "yes" to the question "do you believe in god(s)"?

That's it.
You can pretend otherwise all you want though.
But you're just going to miss the fact that you are wrong.

There is a massive amount of baggage of beliefs that atheists share consequent of their core belief.

Sure, we share lots of beliefs. None of which defines atheism.
Lot's of theists share those beliefs also.

One of which is "life is a biochemical accident".

I have just told you that I don't believe that.
Also, you seem completely unaware that plenty of (more sophisticated) theists, consider that quite likely as well. Or did you think that only atheists do research in abiogenesis?

Another is that science is a philosophical crutch for existence. They believe in the shrinking God of the gaps falasy.

Euh.... God(s) factually are becoming smaller as we learn more about the world.
God(s) used to be invoked for pretty much EVERYTHING. Give me an observable phenomena in nature and I'll show you a god that was claimed responsible for it at some point in time by some people.

The tides of the ocean (poseidon), lightning (jupiter, thor, zeus), etc.
To deny this, is to literally deny history.

And yes, even today, believers of various religions factually like to plug their god(s) into pockets of scientific ignorance.

Again, to deny this, is to deny reality.
Does that mean that all god beliefs are based in "god of the gaps" arguments? No. Nore did I ever say that. So it seems that this is yet another instance of you arguing a strawman.

The oddest thing about it, is that they seem to think that admitting they believe in anything is somehow a weakness (like the moon is objectively real without being observed - and the direct consequence for belief in the nature of existence and indeed nature of science)

The problem here, lies in the word "belief" and it's multiple meanings.
The reason people, atheists in particular, are reluctant to play your silly semantics game, is because we've all been there before with other theists.

When a theist says "I believe in god", they are using the word "believe" to mean a very different thing from when I say "I believe the moon is real".

The theist is talking about faith. Religious faith, in particular.
I, am talking about knowledge.

In both cases we are expressing "we accept it as true".
But the foundation of both is very very different.

When I use the word "believe", first of all, I am NOT using it to mean "absolute certainty". Like, ever. About anything. But theists usually do.

So, this is why atheists who have some experience with conversing with theists on this topic will be rather reluctant to allow you to jump ahead and engage in that equivocation fallacy.
So we assume much stricter definitions, to guard ourselves against your expected dishonest semantic traps.

Why else would you so insist on having us use the word "belief", if not for that dishonest reason?

So i wont get you to admit, you believe a lot of things, without proof, or contrary to science.

See? There you go..... No, when I say that "i believe the moon is real", I most definatly am not expressing a view that is not based in evidence/proof.

You show me something that I "believe" that is contrary to science or without evidence and you know what I'll do? I'll stop believing it!

And I'll also thank you for pointing out that I accepted something as accurate for no good reason. See, I like to believe as many accurate things as possible and as little invalid things as possible. I actually care about being accurate and justified in my beliefs.

Which, incidently, is why I am an atheist (and thus do not believe the claims of theism - which is all that atheism is, just to refresh your memory once more).

Or indeed in "life as a random accident" without even any evidence!
It will be our secret you believe in them all.

I have JUST told you that I do NOT "believe" that.
I said that I considered it likely. And I explained why as well.

Learn to read and remember what you read.

Not only is there FAR more (criminal proof grade forensic) evidence for life occuring with theistic overtones

Such as?

, than there is for your pure belief of life as a random accident - not only that but also the evidence there is triggers the clause in Darwins theory that DARWIN says debunks his theory.

And that is?

A subject for a differnt thread perhaps.
Enough of this one.

Till now, all I have seen you do is rant using strawmen and misrepresentation of other peoples opinions and responses.

 

[Mountainmike]

It might surprise you to know, I know what the word "atheist" means.

The problem comes on forums like this where atheists try to justify that standpoint or belief, by claiming they only accept what they call "facts" that somehow "science" supports their view. And then the stream of ( more or less the same) subsidiary beliefs appear as night follows day.

God(s) factually are becoming smaller as we learn more about the world.

And there we are - the proof you do believe in a heap of things -- that is one specific one I named.
So it is neither misrepresentation nor a straw man. It is what you believe

That has been debated so often, I will not waste more time on it here.

I have little doubt you carry all the same baggage on consequent beliefs that most atheists do
Including that of "life occurring as a biochemical accident" The reason for our differing choice of words is knowledged of quantum chemistry, in which my assertion is based on the fall of a quantum dice, you prefer to use "biochemical reaction" with all the (false) implication of a deterministic process. But either way you have not a shred of evidence it occurred by any means. Yours, or my rather more technically precise view of it.

And by "learn" I presume you mean the knowledge you think have gained from "science" - which as pointed out is not what you think. You learn how to model the world better, in our narrow observation projection, not what the world really is. That philosophical distinction is chalk and cheese. The model says the moon is not there unless someone looks at it. Do you really think that? Or do you disagree with science? Or do you accept science is not telling you what the word really is - so what have you really learned? - highlighted by paradoxes in quantum models? You cannot have it all ways. Indeed. Most atheists lean on science as somehow supporting them. If they only knew how fragile the illusion of support was , they would not lean on it, for fear of having an accident (just a pun that time)!

You are welcome to your belief of "no God" (or if you must pretend it is such) an absence of belief.
My contest is not whether you should hold the belief, but whether you can claim science supports it.
Most atheists do, as part of their baggage!

Anyway someone else can give opinions.

I am done.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It might surprise you to know, I know what the word "atheist" means.

The problem comes on forums like this where atheists try to justify that standpoint or belief, by claiming they only accept what they call "facts" that somehow "science" supports their view.

Maybe you should make a thread about that, especially if you can dig up some good examples of such on forums like this.

But this thread was about attacking well-accepted scientific theories (by scientists of all kinds) such as evolution and the Big Bang.

 

[VirOptimus]

How many last posts will we get?

I bet at least 4 more!

 

[Strathos]

So still no dogmas?

I already told you one.

We certainly agree that your statement about dogma is in error. I don't think that counts as dogma, though.

*People hold the same view that your comment about dogma is flat out incorrect*
Yourself: "Ha! See! All you atheists are the same!"

That sort of thinking really worries me.

You can't deny that you have dogmas by appealing to theoretical atheists who might believe differently, when none of them are here and all of you who are arguing on this thread and in these forums are obviously on the same ideological page.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I already told you one.

I already told you it wasn't.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You can't deny that you have dogmas by appealing to theoretical atheists who might believe differently, when none of them are here and all of you who are arguing on this thread and in these forums are obviously on the same ideological page.

All you a-unicornists are just the same.

 

[Mountainmike]

To be fair to me, I kept to the thread.

What is fact, and what is opinion and what is Accepted scientific opinion.

Indeed what does it mean for science to state something as Law? Does it mean the universe is constructed that way, or does it only mean the predictions of observed behaviour match the scientific model?

So To challenge people's perception I introduced some well established scientific principles in quantum theory that challenge the very perception of existence, determinism and causality.

Copenhagen / bell states that clearly that things do not exist till observed.( which Einstein hated) Which is not most people's belief of the world, even ardent science fanatics. I wondered if atheists who use science as a weapon of rationality against theists knew this?

It hits at the heart of what you think you know. Even if science states it!

Anyway, it's all been said. I let others give their view.

Maybe you should make a thread about that, especially if you can dig up some good examples of such on forums like this.

But this thread was about attacking well-accepted scientific theories (by scientists of all kinds) such as evolution and the Big Bang.

 

[VirOptimus]

3 to go!

 

[DogmaHunter]

It might surprise you to know, I know what the word "atheist" means.

You say this, but the stuff you write, shows otherwise.

The problem comes on forums like this where atheists try to justify that standpoint or belief,

See? There you go again, calling it a belief.
It's not a belief.
It is the exact opposite.

by claiming they only accept what they call "facts" that somehow "science" supports their view.

No. My atheism only refers to my position on theistic claims and nothing else.

And then the stream of ( more or less the same) subsidiary beliefs appear as night follows day.

I'm sure atheists believe a lot of stuff about lots of things.
None of which is relevant to their atheism.

And there we are - the proof you do believe in a heap of things -- that is one specific one I named.

And there we are, quote mining and totally ignoring what came after that:

Does that mean that all god beliefs are based in "god of the gaps" arguments? No. Nore did I ever say that. So it seems that this is yet another instance of you arguing a strawman.

Isn't it funny that eventhough I even said in the exact post you are replying to that I acknowledge that not all religious beliefs are founded in "god of the gaps" arguments, and that doesn't stop you from actually repeating the strawman?

How hilariously dishonest of you.

So it is neither misrepresentation nor a straw man. It is what you believe

Yes it is a strawman because you are pretending that that is what I believe about ALL god beliefs, while in the very post you are replying to I am saying the exact opposite, explicitly.

That has been debated so often, I will not waste more time on it here.

Good. Wasting time on arguing strawmen, is indeed not worth it.

I have little doubt you carry all the same baggage on consequent beliefs that most atheists do

And I have little doubt that many theists believe all that "baggage", as you like to call scientific theories apparantly, also.
Futher demonstrating once more that atheism is not at all a pre-requisite for that.

Including that of "life occurring as a biochemical accident"

Just like many theistic scientists and many more theistic non-scientists have no problem with considering natural origins the most likely answer for the origins of life either.

For some reason, you seem completely desperate to give us atheists some kind of exclusive rights to rational scientific thinking. While I am flattered that you think so highly of us, I must correct you and tell you that no, many theists are capable of that as well. ;-)

The reason for our differing choice of words is knowledged of quantum chemistry, in which my assertion is based on the fall of a quantum dice, you prefer to use "biochemical reaction" with all the (false) implication of a deterministic process.

Well, actually, I prefer to not use any terminology at all and just stick to a rather vauge "natural origins", because I don't know. When pushed, I'ld say "chemical in nature" and that's about as far as I'm willing to go.

Because you see, I'm not afraid of acknowledging ignorance when I'm ignorant.

But either way you have not a shred of evidence it occurred by any means.

No, that's not true.
There's no conclusive evidence. That doesn't mean that there is no evidence hinting towards natural origins. There is LOTS of such evidence.

I'll just list a few from the top of my head (and I'm sure an actual bio-chemist, or better yet, an abiogenesis scientist could list many many more):

- life, at bottom, works through bio-chemistry. As Neil deGrasse Tyson once said "life is just the expression of extreme chemistry"
- life is made up from the most common elements in the universe. It matches the top 5 one by one, except for helium which chemically inert. Hydrogen, oxygen, etc. Were it based on some rare exotic isotope, or even worse: a not naturally occuring element, that would be a different story
- we actually know of chemistry that produces biochemical compounds, the very building blocks of life. we even find such compounds in space rocks.

That's just 3. All those hint towards natural chemical origins.
We know life exists and that it once didn't - so it originated somehow.
We know chemistry exists and that it can produce the biochemical compounds that life is actually made off.

We, however, do NOT know of any entities capable of producing life that pre-existed life on this planet - let alone unfalsifiable supernatural deities.

A simple application of Occam's Razor suggests that your best bet, is a natural origin. It requires the least assumptions.

And by "learn" I presume you mean the knowledge you think have gained from "science" - which as pointed out is not what you think. You learn how to model the world better, in our narrow observation projection, not what the world really is.

Are you saying that we might be wrong about what causes the tides and that it might be Poseidon doing it after all?

That philosophical distinction is chalk and cheese. The model says the moon is not there unless someone looks at it. Do you really think that? Or do you disagree with science?

lol
I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer.

[qutoe]Most atheists lean on science as somehow supporting them. If they only knew how fragile the illusion of support was , they would not lean on it, for fear of having an accident (just a pun that time)![/quote]

Right, right, ... we don't know anything.
This pc here that I use to post messages at lightspeed to a server I-don't-know-where, doesn't actually work, because "quantum woo woo". It's just an "illusion" that it works.

You are welcome to your belief of "no God"

Ow look, that same strawman again that I actually just explicitly corrected.
Awesome.

Let's refresh your memory. Here's what I said no more then two posts before the one you are replying to (post 141):

Atheism pertains to theistic claims. More specifically, disbelief of those claims.
And that's it. It has absolutely nothing to say about anything. Not the origins of life, not the evolution of life, not even concerning claims about the non-existance of gods.

(or if you must pretend it is such) an absence of belief.

I am not pretending. It is such. I just told you. Multiple times.
It seems though, that I'm going to have to repeat it a few more times still...

My contest is not whether you should hold the belief, but whether you can claim science supports it.

My atheism doesn't require any support.
The theistic position requires support.
I am only an atheist, because the support for the theistic position isn't forthcoming.
So I don't accept theistic claims as accurate.
That defaults me to atheism.

There are no claims inherent to atheism.
Theism is the claim.
Atheist is what you are, if you don't buy into the theistic claim.

I don't know how to explain it any more clearer.

I am done.

You're done allright.
Especially if you can't bring yourself to move on from your strawmen and insist on telling US what we believe and don't believe, instead of accepting what WE say we believe and don't believe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To be fair to me, I kept to the thread.

What is fact, and what is opinion and what is Accepted scientific opinion.

Indeed what does it mean for science to state something as Law? Does it mean the universe is constructed that way, or does it only mean the predictions of observed behaviour match the scientific model?

So To challenge people's perception I introduced some well established scientific principles in quantum theory that challenge the very perception of existence, determinism and causality.

Copenhagen / bell states that clearly that things do not exist till observed.( which Einstein hated) Which is not most people's belief of the world, even ardent science fanatics. I wondered if atheists who use science as a weapon of rationality against theists knew this?

It hits at the heart of what you think you know. Even if science states it!

Anyway, it's all been said. I let others give their view.

For someone who claims superior knowledge because of "heavy study" of quantum woo woo, it's kind of strange that you seem to not be aware that quantum effects don't manifest at the macroscopic level. Or what a law is, for that matter.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Copenhagen / bell states that clearly that things do not exist till observed.

No, it doesn't.

( which Einstein hated)

Einstein certainly objected to certain results of QM. But he was wrong, as Bell/Aspect demonstrated, for instance.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Actually, they are not unusual at all. It's the same kind of stories you can find in just about any mythology... resurections, miracle healings, gods bearing sons with humans etc... It's all been done before. It was already cliché common story telling when the bible was being written.

There is a film claiming that there have been many messiahs, with 12 disciples, and resurrections etc but this is obviously made up junk.

Jesus has never been done before Him or after Him. Why? Because the bodily resurrection 3 days after death is like impossible, and unless it actually happened, no one would actually try this story, because the people of the time would just say, you are lying.

Stories of births and deaths are not unique. Resurrections are very different.

And it is this point that I find amazing that atheists want to lie and exaggerate about. It suggests to me this idea is just too powerful for them. It is easier to just say these few hundred people were deluded.
That is always possible.

But if this level of discussions is too much, all I can say is God bless you, I hope you find peace in whatever path you choose to follow.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is a film claiming that there have been many messiahs, with 12 disciples, and resurrections etc but this is obviously made up junk.

That's neat.
I don't really know which film you are talking about.
I'm talking about actual religions, telling the same type of stories (note: the same type, not just the same)

Jesus has never been done before Him or after Him.

The same goes for Thor. And Odin. And Dionysus. And Osiris. And Baal.
And Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Krshna, Visjnoe, Shiva, Zeus, Jupiter, Mars, Hercules .......... and on and on.

Why?

Because they are all unique characters in different, yet the same type, of stories.

Because the bodily resurrection 3 days after death is like impossible, and unless it actually happened, no one would actually try this story, because the people of the time would just say, you are lying.

And risking being accusedof lying, has ever stopped anyone from saying what they believed?
What are you smoking?

Stories of births and deaths are not unique. Resurrections are very different.

No, they aren't.

And it is this point that I find amazing that atheists want to lie and exaggerate about.

I didn't even mention it, yet you accuse me of lying about it?

It suggests to me this idea is just too powerful for them. It is easier to just say these few hundred people were deluded.

Yes, yes, we are just "afraid" of fantastical religious stories.

There are thousands of people alive right now who will till you in much detail, and pass lie detector tests, how they were kidnapped and anally probed by aliens.

There are also a great many who will tell you that they saw Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley.
They've been dead for over a decade.

That is always possible.

It's also possible that you're wrong.
It seems incredibly more likely even.

But if this level of discussions is too much

Actually, it's far far far to little.

, all I can say is God bless you, I hope you find peace in whatever path you choose to follow.

I'll think about you too.

(well, to be honest: not really... but it's nice to be nice)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You can't deny that you have dogmas by appealing to theoretical atheists who might believe differently, when none of them are here and all of you who are arguing on this thread and in these forums are obviously on the same ideological page.

All I see here is an insipid claim that, ironically, is coming from a place of dogmatism.

 

[LightLoveHope]

That's neat.
I don't really know which film you are talking about.
I'm talking about actual religions, telling the same type of stories (note: the same type, not just the same)

The same goes for Thor. And Odin. And Dionysus. And Osiris. And Baal.
And Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Krshna, Visjnoe, Shiva, Zeus, Jupiter, Mars, Hercules .......... and on and on.

Because they are all unique characters in different, yet the same type, of stories.

And risking being accusedof lying, has ever stopped anyone from saying what they believed?
What are you smoking?

No, they aren't.

I didn't even mention it, yet you accuse me of lying about it?

Yes, yes, we are just "afraid" of fantastical religious stories.

There are thousands of people alive right now who will till you in much detail, and pass lie detector tests, how they were kidnapped and anally probed by aliens.

There are also a great many who will tell you that they saw Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley.
They've been dead for over a decade.

It's also possible that you're wrong.
It seems incredibly more likely even.

Actually, it's far far far to little.

I'll think about you too.
(well, to be honest: not really... but it's nice to be nice)

The same argument is rather lame.
I know "I am" is unique and so is Jesus.
I have spent a lifetime listening to Him and sharing His word.

The more I learn the more alive it comes to be.
I would describe His word as emotional truth, that is only truly seen and understood when it take root in your heart.

Most of religion is myths, about impossible figures on adventures and conversations.
Adam and Eve are close to this, and possibly Noah.
Israel out of Egypt is difficult because it is a whole nation written about in detail.
And the law of Moses is so detailed and involved about human behaviour and the
definition of sinful and acceptable behaviour there is nothing like it.

What was not acceptable to God then is still as bad today.
With wealth, prisons and a fully working justice system we can be more lenient and
caring, but for its time, there is nothing from 1,000 AD that compares where the
nations were happy to sacrifice their children to bring in food at harvest time.

The influence of this book has founded ideas of individuality, the rights of all, justice
truth and honesty, let your yes be yes and your no be no.

So powerful were these basic moral principles, all other social systems have conformed
to the model as the message has spread. It is why we have 3 main faiths in the world
Christianity, Islam and Buddihism/Hinduism.

I would rank the western civilisation is based around humanism which roots are from
Christianity, and the propogation of truth and knowledge and the assent of the individual
over the dictated edicts of feudal Lords.

I would love to see a different picture if true, but this is the one I see.

 

[Strathos]

I already told you it wasn't.

And you were wrong.

All you a-unicornists are just the same.

Now see, if I had that title listed under my avatar and routinely engaged in the same kinds of debates as many others against people arguing for unicorns, using pretty much identical rhetoric as everyone else on my side, then you might have a point.

All I see here is an insipid claim that, ironically, is coming from a place of dogmatism.

Rather it comes from direct observation.

 

[USincognito]

This thread is about the difference between a fact, a theory and a guess. Why are you all talking about atheism and apologetics?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Rather it comes from direct observation.

So you claim, but having the idea that atheists are part of a wold-wide hivemind just because two people give you the same answer they arrived at from direct observation, is dogmatism 101.