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.
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.
276Haha, 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?
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".AV said:They held the false belief that the Challenger was safe with absolute conviction.
Hear, hear.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.
There's that No True Scotsman Principle rearing its ugly head -- and I'm not buying it.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".
Interesting way you worded this.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.
Knowing there are risks does not place a [method] within the parameters of the No True Scotsman Principle.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.
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?
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'.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?
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?
Some form of reality is prioritized and exalted and therefore a god.
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.
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.
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?
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?