That Boat Don't Float!!

[Hespera]

So that's 1 out of 300 that admit that they falsify data.
I wonder what the real number is for all the figures.
I'll be cold hearted and say 10 times that.

The there is the influence on results that people don't even admit
to themselves, much less to a written poll.

And we can't know the figures for the people who choose not to respond.
And we can't know why they choose not to respond.

Ok! so your opinion plus a poll you agree is inaccurate equals proof that researchers always fudge their data.

This is way past the point of being merely worthless.

 

[SkyWriting]

You can say whatever you like just as long as you start with, 'in my opinion' because you are at least telling the reader that you think your opinion carries no more weight than theirs.

Actually, people can say whatever they like as long as the forum moderators don't object.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So that's 1 out of 300 that admit that they falsify data.
I wonder what the real number is for all the figures.
I'll be cold hearted and say 10 times that.

The there is the influence on results that people don't even admit
to themselves, much less to a written poll.

And we can't know the figures for the people who choose not to respond.
And we can't know why they choose not to respond.


I've been in R&D for 30 years myself. When people are working on projects that are
for their own gain and advancement, I put the number at 100% for "significant influence"
on the results of a research project. Meaning, they don't let the facts get in the way
of moving the project forward if they can possibly help it.

What you are essentially saying is that because you and your coworkers fudge your data everyone else must be doing it.

Now consider that the Christian geologists who first determined that the earth's geological record could not be the result of a global flood had set out to prove that it was the result of a global flood. If they fudged their data the way you and the people you work with do they would not have been forced by the data to conclude that the earth's geology was not the result of a global flood.

And BTW I have lost significant potential income in some cases because the data I collected did not verify the hypothesis we set out to test so not everyone is as unethical as our coworkers seem to be. It fact I would say that most are not.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm sorry, when did I ever claim to accept any evidence thrown out there for my position? If I see something I consider to be untruthful, whether it be for or against my position, I will speak out against it.
You see, atheism ideally is built upon critical thinking, and in critical thinking, you don't blindly accept a piece of proof just because it purports to support your position, you kinda critically assess the proof first. I critically assessed the premise 'wooden structures over 300ft cannot be water-tight', and found it lacking. I only wish the creationists and fundamentalists would do the same to their own proof.

Some do research (few) and some just accept what an authority figure says it true. Not every person who accepts the Creation story as fact has the interest or motivation to do research into the physical aspect involved.

For example, I can't scientifically defend Jonah being in the belly of a big fish. I'm sure it's correct and possible, but I've not looked into it.

98% of scriptures ( rough guess) don't break any Scientific laws or principals. So of all the people who have found the 98% to be True, only a percentage of those have a scientific interest in evaluating the 2% that causes a problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

98% of scriptures ( rough guess) don't break any Scientific laws or principals. So of all the people who have found the 98% to be True, only a percentage of those have a scientific interest in evaluating the 2% that causes a problem.

I never realized until just recently how myopic science is.

It's not only myopic, but it spreads its myopia to those who adhere to it so substantially.

In many cases it even causes blindness.

 

[SkyWriting]

I never realized until just recently how myopic science is.
It's not only myopic, but it spreads its myopia to those who adhere to it so substantially.
In many cases it even causes blindness.

The process of evaluating my "rough guess" would be a doosey but I suppose for someone to dispute it, they'd have to read the bible. Seems like a worthy project. Add up all the scriptures people complain about and compare the percentage to the entire text. I think I have to drop my pre-guess to .5% though. OK. "Under 1%"

Including bats being birds of course.

 

[SkyWriting]

Now consider that the Christian geologists who first determined that the earth's geological record could not be the result of a global flood had set out to prove that it was the result of a global flood. If they fudged their data the way you and the people you work with do they would not have been forced by the data to conclude that the earth's geology was not the result of a global flood.

WE don't know what their motivation was unless you have additional info.

 

[SkyWriting]

Ok! so your opinion plus a poll you agree is inaccurate equals proof that researchers always fudge their data.
This is way past the point of being merely worthless.

You are welcome to look up the other data that covers this topic
and draw your own conclusions:
researchers cheating
Science cheating
Science fraud

 

[SkyWriting]

Now, of course we all know that we like polls that agree and dislike ones that dont agree with what we want.

So I posted this for you to pick out your own favorites:
researchers cheating
Science cheating
Science fraud

 

[Hespera]

So I posted this for you to pick out your own favorites:
researchers cheating
Science cheating

Science fraud

And the point of all this is that people are just people, like molestor "christian" priests and crooked preachers, or that you computer doesnt actually work at all?

or is more likely that you dont like the "religion" of your choice being shown
to have no merit in matters of reality, so with nothing left but the ad hom, you try to discredit all that science has done by finding that.... shudder gasp... some people in every field are... believe it or not... not doing a good job.

Funny how religion with god, angels, bible, and all of reality on its side puts on such a poor show.

maybe that is why the more education people have the less likely they are go be religious, let alone fundies.

 

[Hespera]

Perhaps you don't know what their true motivation was and they did come to a conclusion they wanted to find. Hard for us to evaluate, as your link didn't show up on the post.

Psychic alert!

 

[AV1611VET]

if you believe in this story of Noah and the great flood to be 100% true.. i have to ask.. [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]?

I don't think soap came with the Flood.

 

[BananaSlug]

Who said anything about complex? You can believe in something complex, or you can believe in something simple. That really makes no difference. The point is, without belief in something we could not survive.

Why? You have yet to explain why you think we need beliefs to survive. Beliefs help us survive, but we don't need to believe in something to survive.

Of course they are. Anything which people worship becomes their god.

Atheists don't worship anything. I am an environmentalist, but I don't worship the environment.

In which case, you do not yet understand anthropology.

You have yet to answer why you think a belief in something is required for survival.

 

[AV1611VET]

SOAP? what are you talking about.. the site edited what i really said

If you say so.

 

[Catherineanne]

You would willingly die for a god you have never seen, only to deprive your family and loved ones? Really?

Willingly, no. As Sir Thomas More said, martyrdom is not something to be sought, but something to be avoided if at all possible; he did not feel himself to be the stuff of which martyrs are made, and neither am I. However, if not possible, then I would hope for the grace to remain faithful to the end, yes.

However, dying is easy; millions of people do it every day. Staying alive for the Lord is far more of a challenge.

 

[Catherineanne]

Atheism is never ever thinking about a god, (unless you're on a religious forum)
Atheism is a belief just as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Agnosticism is just another word for sitting on the fence, a 'don't know'.
If there were no religions it would not effect Atheists one jot.
The only time I think about Atheism is when someone asks 'do I believe there is a god' and I say no.
Atheism means never needing to pray or say 'grace'.
Atheism for me means my god does not exist.
Atheism means I do not have a god in my head.
Atheism means I know I'm going to die when I die.
Everyone has a god except an Atheist.
An Atheist is a person who believes in one less god than you.
Atheism is a non prophet organisation.
Like cats Atheists walk alone.

I am impressed; you even have a Creed.

 

[Wirraway]

ding is obsessed with christians. we control him and his every thought, even though he doesn't know this about himself.

 

[Catherineanne]

Do you still think Atheism is a belief?

Why does it matter what I think?

If I think the moon is made of green cheese, does it become green cheese?

You appear to be ascribing an inordinate amount of power to my personal beliefs, dd. Fortunately for me, I am not returning the compliment.

And fwiw, atheism is indeed a belief. Not because I think it is, but because it is so. Definitions are not decided by those who shout loudest, or make the longest lists. They are what they are.

Personally, if I lacked belief in God, or denied God, I would not use the descriptor 'atheist' of myself, because I would not want to be defined by who I am not, but by who I am. But each to his own.

 

[Catherineanne]

CA:
Chimpanzees are conscious. They survive. What do they believe in?

Without being able to communicate with chimpanzees I am not sure, but I imagine that were they to be able to vocalise any beliefs they have, it would be along the lines of life, and one another. However, I think you will find that I was referencing human society and human life, rather than other primates. Extend the discussion if you like, but without chimp input it might be rather too hypothetical to get very far.

I think it would be better to say that everyone needs something worth living for, however banal. It certainly doesn't have to be anything to do with religion.

I love the way people try to rewrite my opinions for me. I have said what I have said, ta muchly.

Meanwhile, you might care to look again. I spoke only of belief. I did not say that belief had to be religious belief.

I think a lot of people are reading what they think is written, rather than what is actually written. Christians do this a lot as well.

All of which goes to show that people are pretty much the same, wherever you go. Christians may think themselves to be the elite, and atheists may think the same of themselves, but really we are all the same.

 

[Catherineanne]

98% of scriptures ( rough guess) don't break any Scientific laws or principals. So of all the people who have found the 98% to be True, only a percentage of those have a scientific interest in evaluating the 2% that causes a problem.

I'm not sure what Bible you are reading, but I would put the figure for God's direct intervention in the world as attested in Scripture at a much higher rate. And these direct interventions do, indeed break scientific 'laws', whatever that might mean.

The whole point of Scripture is to identify God's hand working in the world, and therefore I would say that as much as 33% or more attests to just such working, from the creation to Moses to Joseph to David etc etc.

I am not sure what the point is in trying to say that the Bible accords with science. Clearly it doesn't, but clearly also, I would have thought, it is not intended to. The Bible does not belong on the same shelf in any library as scientific books, and scientific books do not belong on the same shelf as the Bible.

It is like comparing icing sugar with soap powder. What is the point? Icing sugar is no use whatsoever for washing clothes, and soap powder makes terrible icing. Quite simply, they have different purposes, and when used appropriately are very useful indeed, but they are not interchangeable.

Which is why it is pointless discussing the dimensions of the ark, or how many animals could really have got inside. The story of Noah is not a treatise on how to build a lifeboat in the event of an impending flood. It is the story of how people who had suffered and survived a terrible flood came to terms with this, probably while very traumatised and suffering survivor guilt, and decided that those who died must have died because God wanted them to, and if God wanted them to, they must have been evil. In effect, they concluded that their God had lost his temper with mankind, and then comforted themselves by saying that he had then decided not to do it again. Whether this is actually what happened then, any more than in the recent tsunami, is open to discussion.

Alternative interpretations of the story of Noah exist, of course, but that is as good as any, imo.