Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do you need to put morals into science? If there is a "designer" we should be able to detect it. That is just science and you don't have to put your morals into it....so, What's "Sin", what did you fail at, and why were you selfish to start with?
No the OP wrote that the math is not on the side of Atheism and neither is the science.
And it is growing every day. Its well explosive. It is the single greatest disconnect of our time.
In the academic world it is taught as a fact but in the scientific community it is a bit different lol.
You realise that all atheism needs to entail is non acceptance of theistic claims, don't you? There's no justification necessary, just a stance of non-belief of the other person's position.
What is growing every day? What is explosive? What is the disconnect?
What is taught as fact?
I think you're missing some nouns here and there.
What does this paragraph mean?Goodsell goes on to assert that "cells have perfected the sequences of amino acids over many years of evolutionary selection." But if functional protein sequences are rare, then it is likely that natural selection will be unable to take proteins from one functional genetic sequence to another without getting stuck in some maladaptive or non-beneficial intermediate stage.
If atheism was like I used to be then why is it now in your face?
Why would it be necessary to force medical doctors to accept evolution?
Why do we need to have our evangelists go in to the heart of Mormon universities to make them accept something that is not a fact but a matter of faith?
Why would need to go into Amish communities to force them to come face to face with something that is obscene to them?
you think as I did that its just a belief or even better a non-belief but that is not what is happening.
(If I understand what your saying) Because theists insist on attempting to deny reality and teach things that are not only unsupported, but actively contradicted by the evidence on hand. Like Creationism. Or ID.
I'm, not sure any doctor is "forced" to accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. However, understanding the development of human body parts, including their evolutionary history, leads to better medicine.
There's no need - apart from the bit about wilful reality denial. Oh, and the separation of Church and State.
Is it any more obscene than to any other theist cultural grouping?
The scawy atheist boogie man is coming. Qwick hwide!
Nahhh I see the atheist movement coming and I see it clearly. It needs a clear response. An intelligent response.
It's not against the rules for me to say you're mistaken. It's probably more against the rules to continue to assert that I had an intention I did not have. I'm not threatened by wrong beliefs. As the person who actually made the post I know what intentions and purposes are in it, you don't.I believe I am the "other guy" you are refering to. If you persist in your silly claim about my handling of your statement I shall feel it appropriate to report you. Now, hopefully for the last time - and I 'd ask you to pay attention this time - here is a recap.
I remarked that one of your statements constituted an argument. An argument is not a heated debate, it's an assertion with supporting evidence. Your supporting evidence was personal incredulity. I then commented that basing your belief on personal incredulity wasn't especially convincing. You remain free to have that belief.
Your posts give the impression that you are the one who is feeling threatened and insecure because you think I have challenged your belief. I have not. I'm just saying it's not a very sound way of establishing your beliefs. But everyone is entitled to arrive at their personal beliefs in their own way. By all means run with your argument from incredulity, just don't expect most people with knowledge of the subject, to be impressed.
I was not discussing your intentions, I was discussing the form of your statement. I understand you did not intend it to be an argument, but as it had the form of an argument it seems unassailable that it was an argument, regardless of your intent.It's not against the rules for me to say you're mistaken. It's probably more against the rules to continue to assert that I had an intention I did not have. I'm not threatened by wrong beliefs. As the person who actually made the post I know what intentions and purposes are in it, you don't.
Well, you don't have to say anything. The concern that I (and many others) have is that your belief on homosexuality and abortion is demonstrably incorrect and based on religious underpinnings, not on real-world findings.I dont believe that homosexuality is right, neither abortion that was brought up earlier. What would you have me say?
That's not demonstrating it, that's theorising. The Demonstration would confirm the maths or disprove the theory.How would one demonstrate quantum theory before it could be done>?
Math
You should go back and read the whole conversation - @W2L and I were talking about personal experiences. No morals were 'put into science' here. I agree with you on how morals have nothing to do with Science and that a Designer would be detectable if one was involved in reality though...Why do you need to put morals into science? If there is a "designer" we should be able to detect it. That is just science and you don't have to put your morals into it.
Everyone gets that you didn't intend to 'argue' with your statement - but nonetheless, your statement is indeed an Argument. Your statement makes a proposal in the form of assertions and claims about reality which are indeed consistent with the form of an argument. That is to say, someone who fields your statement would be able to agree, disagree or challenge you on it - which of course some of us have. That you don't believe it to be an argument is just incorrect.It's not against the rules for me to say you're mistaken. It's probably more against the rules to continue to assert that I had an intention I did not have. I'm not threatened by wrong beliefs. As the person who actually made the post I know what intentions and purposes are in it, you don't.
You are the other "guy" who I had to explain to that my statement was not an argument. I don't think you felt insecure about it, I think you just perceived it wrong.
Accident is not really a term that finds its place in science. Scientists do not have an agreed position on the origin of the universe. The current lack of sufficient evidence and/or models to state how the universe originated has spawned a wide variety of hypothetical proposals. You are likely familiar with some of them.Ophiolite:
Does science agree to the physical creation as an accident?
Why? Because it works. Mathematics works, the scientific method works. Together they have provided the most effective tool yet found with which to understand the universe and, to a limited extent, control some small aspects of it.Yet in Their search for the answers, they use all mathematics and laws of physics to try and find the answer to their questions. Why should they use mathematics if it came from an unknown source which They do not yet understand?
Science concerns itself more with the How questions rather than the Why. The latter is more in the field of philosophy. I see no reason why the existence of prime numbers should be considered evidence for a creator. Nor do I see it as evidence against a creator.Why are there Prime numbers? How did they come about? Does this show a creator? Why is there a plus (+) and a minus (_). Because there has to be ? Maybe science has been using the wrong mathematics? Oh is it that there is a Creator behind all this?
And the pro LGBT agenda makes decisions that affects people like forcing transgender ideas down 5 year olds and forcing teens to shower together and frankly the rest of us are no longer sympathetic to your issues because of it. So you want to throw a spear that's fine but we are all getting fully aware now of your agenda as well.Well, you don't have to say anything. The concern that I (and many others) have is that your belief on homosexuality and abortion is demonstrably incorrect and based on religious underpinnings, not on real-world findings.
EDIT: I should also add that your beliefs aren't held in a vacuum - you make decisions that affect other people around you that may or may not believe as you do. This is why many of us are concerned about the lack of critical thinking skills, particularly among fundamentalist religious folk. I've said this many times before, but children die because of withheld medical attention or lack of vaccinations based on incorrect beliefs. Administration and Medical staff die because of family planning clinic bombings based on incorrect beliefs. Teenagers suffer higher pregnancy rates and venereal diseases for lack of education because of incorrect beliefs. Planes are flown into skyscrapers killing thousands of people because of incorrect beliefs.
This is a very long list and when you instantly annexed a caveat on your "Love is a Way of Life" - you too became a contributor, even if indirectly, to the problem faced by modern society. and I really don't mean to offend, because I'm sure you think you're doing the right thing - but by treating these people differently based on your demonstrably wrong beliefs about homosexuality and abortion, you are actually being a hypocrite by not living your claimed "way of life" with everyone. Perhaps you shouldn't claim Love as being more than an emotion, but a "way of life" that you claim to embody?
That's not demonstrating it, that's theorising. The Demonstration would confirm the maths or disprove the theory.
You should go back and read the whole conversation - @W2L and I were talking about personal experiences. No morals were 'put into science' here. I agree with you on how morals have nothing to do with Science and that a Designer would be detectable if one was involved in reality though...
Everyone gets that you didn't intend to 'argue' with your statement - but nonetheless, your statement is indeed an Argument. Your statement makes a proposal in the form of assertions and claims about reality which are indeed consistent with the form of an argument. That is to say, someone who fields your statement would be able to agree, disagree or challenge you on it - which of course some of us have. That you don't believe it to be an argument is just incorrect.
In short, you tabled a proposal... <==There's an Argument!
...and we disagreed with it. <== There's an Ongoing Argument!
See: the definition of argument and note how points 3, 4 and 6 match your stand-alone post - then myself and @Ophiolite responding, covers points 1, 2 and 5.
Accident is not really a term that finds its place in science. Scientists do not have an agreed position on the origin of the universe. The current lack of sufficient evidence and/or models to state how the universe originated has spawned a wide variety of hypothetical proposals. You are likely familiar with some of them.
What they do have is reasonably sound picture (in detailed maths) as to how it developed after the first tiny fraction of a second from its initiation.
Why? Because it works. Mathematics works, the scientific method works. Together they have provided the most effective tool yet found with which to understand the universe and, to a limited extent, control some small aspects of it.
Science concerns itself more with the How questions rather than the Why. The latter is more in the field of philosophy. I see no reason why the existence of prime numbers should be considered evidence for a creator. Nor do I see it as evidence against a creator.
If science has been using the wrong mathematics it has, nevertheless, worked out rather well for us. We wouldn't be having this dialogue without the "wrong" mathematics. We couldn't design and fly aircraft without the "wrong" mathematics. The New Horizons probe would never have got anywhere near Pluto without the "wrong" mathematics. It seems as if many "wrongs" do make a "right".
No the OP wrote that the math is not on the side of Atheism and neither is the science. And it is growing every day. Its well explosive. It is the single greatest disconnect of our time.
In the academic world it is taught as a fact but in the scientific community it is a bit different lol.
Well, That's entirely bathed in ignorance - Citation please.And the pro LGBT agenda makes decisions that affects people like forcing transgender ideas down 5 year olds and forcing teens to shower together and frankly the rest of us are no longer sympathetic to your issues because of it. So you want to throw a spear that's fine but we are all getting fully aware now of your agenda as well.
I used to be on your side but not anymore. Now I am fully on the creationist side for there side rests in sanity at least and your side rests in the destruction of our society.
If you took the time to consider those definitions rather than try to force it into them you would realize you are mistaken. Really 6? Is this a joke or do you just not care?W
Everyone gets that you didn't intend to 'argue' with your statement - but nonetheless, your statement is indeed an Argument. Your statement makes a proposal in the form of assertions and claims about reality which are indeed consistent with the form of an argument. That is to say, someone who fields your statement would be able to agree, disagree or challenge you on it - which of course some of us have. That you don't believe it to be an argument is just incorrect.
In short, you tabled a proposal... <==There's an Argument!
...and we disagreed with it. <== There's an Ongoing Argument!
See: the definition of argument and note how points 3, 4 and 6 match your stand-alone post - then myself and @Ophiolite responding, covers points 1, 2 and 5.
I agree, you didn't consider my intentions. That is the whole reason you were mistaken, because the intent of the statement matters per your own definition. The reason why it matters is so that language doesn't become petty so that someones opinion of ice cream doesn't turn into a debate. I assume you are able to handle peoples opinion in the real world correct? I mean you don't go running around yelling "Argument from ignorance" at the ice cream shop right? Surely you don't, that would be socially ignorant. No one would even want to be around you if you were that way.I was not discussing your intentions, I was discussing the form of your statement. I understand you did not intend it to be an argument, but as it had the form of an argument it seems unassailable that it was an argument, regardless of your intent.
If I intend to give you a cup of tea, but inadvertently pour it over you, I cannot deny that I have poured it over you just because that was not my intent.
And, just so I properly understanding your, are you asserting that rejecting something because you personally find it unconvincing is not the logical fallacy, Argument from Incredulity?
Have you been banned yet?Terms like "accident" and "random" were terms that were quite common until science began to see how idiotic it would be. The biggest reason those terms are no longer in vogue is because of "ID" scientists that have shown its ridiculous. Now you have to say there is a "non-directed" yet mysteriously "directed" cause. Its very convenient and yet somewhat fuzzy?!!?
Most of us are looking on with amusement at this point.
This is not an ice cream shop. This is a discussion forum.I agree, you didn't consider my intentions. That is the whole reason you were mistaken, because the intent of the statement matters per your own definition. The reason why it matters is so that language doesn't become petty so that someones opinion of ice cream doesn't turn into a debate. I assume you are able to handle peoples opinion in the real world correct? I mean you don't go running around yelling "Argument from ignorance" at the ice cream shop right? Surely you don't, that would be socially ignorant. No one would even want to be around you if you were that way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?